TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:

Ameer wrote:That's backwards. Any vote not for Obama is a vote against Obama. If you want to count it as a vote for Romulans you can do what you want but the simple truth is a vote against Obama is a vote against Obama no matter how much LSD is involved. (Lies. Spin. Deception.)

It is only a vote against Obama IF OBAMA DOES NOT GET REELECTED.

Remember H. Ross Perot??

Go ahead and vote third, fourth, whatever party. Feel good about yourself when the obamatrons have their way.

There's something missing from this equation though. I hear you concern, and I think none of us want to see that, um, person, get re-elected. The reality, however, is that a 3rd party candidate is FAR more likely to take votes away from the independent voters that threw their hat in the ring with Obama in '08. It's far more likely to look like this IF a strong 3rd party contender comes up (2 party vs 3 party election):
| --- Far Left --- | ---------------------- Left ------------------------ | ---------------------- Moderates ---------------------- | ---------------------- Right ---------------------- | --- Far Right --- |
| ------------------------------------------------------Obama --------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- Romney ------------------------------------------------------ |
| ----------- Obama ----------- | -------------------- 3rd Party Guy ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- Romney -------------------------------------------------- |

Either way, Romney wins. This race is definitely NOT at all like the one with Perot. This presumes that the GOP and Romney don't take a turn into the far right ditch and do something that polarizes the Democrat base.

Either way, I am predicting that Obama gets killed in an electoral landslide almost as badly as the '72 election, unless the Dems find a way to buy votes this year (people are already figuring out that "free" healthcare isn't going to be so free). They don't even have a true platform to run on right now, aside from "Hate The Rich." I also predict that Romney is going to make Obama have a Mr. Cool meltdown during the presidential debates. I, for one, am REALLY looking forward to this election cycle

The Annoyed Man wrote: Politically speaking, you and I evidently do not share the same beliefs. I can neither judge you, nor hold you accountable. I can however reject your assessment of the truth, and I can argue in favor of mine. If you perceive that as "judgement," then I can't help that.

However, in the interest of preserving your harmony, I will keep my opinions to myself from now on and bow out of this useless and unproductive discussion. Enjoy the rapids. I'm getting off upstream from them.

Actually, I think we DO share the same beliefs, I just think we assess our political choices from _slightly_ different perspectives. I really like reading your comments on here, TAM, and I've never meant any disrespect to what you've said.

I also agree that this thread has pretty much run its own course

The Annoyed Man wrote:But I simply won't back down from expressing my belief that this is misguided, because it will eventually lead to the very things that we ALL rail against as conservatives, whether we are republicans or not.

My uncle, still a practicing pastor up in Amarillo, told me that Jesus wanted us to preach the gospel of love, rather than tell people they were cursed to eternal damnation if they didn't bring Jesus into their hearts. It would seem to me that the strength of your argument should be based on the merits of the candidate you support, not on telling them how "obviously" misguided they are I think that's the core of my argument.

The Annoyed Man wrote: When someone decides to vote 3rd party, they are accepting (whether or not they want to) a hardcore reality: that their guy will never win. Not ever.

This can go on and on, but there's two fundamentally disturbing things going on here, from my perspective:
1) The world is not static. Political parties change over time, some go away, another takes its place. We are currently dominated by a two-party system, but the reality is that we are not mandated to have a two-party-only system. This type of us-or-them thinking has put us in a difficult position, because our decision making could very well be paralyzed by simply choosing the lesser of two evils, which only results in more "evil." For instance, I'm disinclined to think that the GOP is genuinely committed to putting a rein on the budget in a meaningful way, because the only way to do that (genuinely) is that it will hurt _all_ voters financially (probably not literally, but pain would be felt broadly). The notion that the Libertarian party, for instance, suddenly launching to prosperity as the GOP craters in delusional gerrymandering is just as possible as the Democratic party self-destructing from too many group hugs and being replaced by the "Social Justice Party" (or whatever palatable-to-American-tastes name you can find for "socialists").
2) I think that we debase ourselves by railing against the character of people that would choose to not to vote for the Romney ticket. The reality is that people on the OTHER side are saying the same thing to people that say, "I'm considering voting for somebody else." (probably moreso, in fact) I've made no secret about the fact that I like Gary Johnson _more_ than Romney. He's certainly a LOT more friendly to 2A rights than Romney (very true story). Does that mean I'm going to vote Libertarian in the general election? I dunno, Libertarian's seem to have difficulty with concepts like "borders" or "foreign policy", and those are important issues to me as well. But IF I did vote for him, I know if I did I would _never_ think I was throwing my vote away, nor would I take pleasure in somebody accusing me of the same. Like any voter, I can and will vote my informed conscience, and shame on the people that don't. It may very well be, in the course of the next 7 months, that I am content with what Romney does. I don't know, but I'm keeping an open mind. 7 months is a VERY long time in election politics, however.

I'm not trying to play Rodney "Cant We All Just Get Along?" King here, this is politics, and we all have passions about who we want as a leader (or more accurately: Who we DON'T want as a leader ). I think we make ourselves better people by speaking passionately about what convinces us to choose a certain person, rather than investing words and emotions into why we think somebody else is making a "foolish" choice.

psijac wrote:Can Obama put a recess appointment to the supreme court?

No. Unless he wants to learn what it's like to be impeached.

fulano wrote: If a guy like Romney is in office he will do what ever he wants. He is not a conservative. Period. Just listen to his own words; he backed the stimulus, the bailouts, the unfunded social programs, the unfunded wars; just listen to his own words. He has to lie to get elected; to get past the base of his party.

If Obama is president and the Senate and House is run by the Republicans. Nothing will get done; they will stop him from spending money, the economy will run its cycle, and we will be done with the Democrats for many terms. JMO

While attractive, the ONLY reason I'd punch the ticker for Romney is because of Supreme Court Nominees. Otherwise, I don't see much difference between him and the guy in the Oval Office right now, and that's pretty sad.

I continue to get the nagging feeling that the MSM is picking our GOP candidate. I'm not trying to be all "tinfoil hat" here, but I keep thinking, "Is this honestly the best the GOP has to offer?"

You might want to grab some syrup while watching this, because a lot of waffles pop up. Romney does NOT understand the 2nd amendment, no matter what his spin doctors say. Watch his actions, not his words (jeez, didn't we say the same thing about Obama? )

[youtube][/youtube]