Replies

Nope, less evil and would have been less destructive. Plus it would have been easier to control Mitt whenever he started to wander down the liberal path. You always have to determine who is the better person to lead the country, even if that person is only slightly better. In most cases the candidate I wanted was unable to win the primaries causing me heartache to say the least. I then had to set aside my heartache and vote what was best for my country.

So are you honestly saying that Obama has been better than Mitt may have been? I disagree. But it is all water under the bridge and a moot point now.

Does that mean I agree with Mitt on this subject, not in the least I will gladly voice my opposition to his opinion regarding amnesty. Matter of fact I voiced my opposition to Reagan's amnesty. Did Reagan's amnesty make him a bad choice for President? In my opinion, no. Was he perfect, no, but then who is. I have never met the perfect man or woman. I have lived long enough now to realize I will never meet anyone who is perfect, but I certainly can spot the better from the less better.

It's not a matter of 'perfect'. That's a strawman set up by liberals that vote republican.

Romney didn't match the republican party platform on abortion, gun-control, socialized medicine, amnesty, or bigger government. That isn't imperfect, that is absolutely what I don't want.

There is no worse or better when it comes to poison. I don't want any of it.

You can shove moral relativism where the sun don't shine.

/johnny

I then had to set aside my heartache and vote what was best for my country.

You didn't save your country. Obama got elected when you threw your vote away on a liberal republican. You are the reason the country is in the shape it is in. If you vote for a liberal, don't be surprised when you get liberal government.

If you run a liberal republican in 2016, you will lose. Count on it.

/johnny