Posted on 06/23/2012 3:07:09 PM PDT by rightjb
I will not vote for Marco Rubio as Vice President if Mitt Romney selects him to run on his ticket. He is NOT constitutionally eligible to be President or Vice President, and I would be a damn hypocrite in holding my ire and giving him my vote after working as hard as possible to educate people on Barack Obama’s ineligibility.
Call me a Birther, call me a Tea Party hick, call me an “extremist” or racist, I could give a flying forgery. I just don’t care anymore. I’m not going to be like one of those liberals who complain about the rich not paying more taxes and not voluntarily putting their money where there mouth is. And conservatives have constantly compromised on principle to the point where most Americans don’t think there is much difference in the spending habits of either party.
If you consider yourself a conservative – let me advise you that you can’t buy back your integrity when it’s convenient.
Continued at: I Will Write In Palin If Rubio Is VP
(Excerpt) Read more at politijim.com ...
You are so cowed and terrified of Obama that you will do anything to flee from him (or make him "go away," as you put it), including voting for the Republican party to turn hard left.
Jean S is so desperate that she has to derive comfort by deceiving herself with "go ahead and vote for Obama," when in her heart she knows that no one here is advocating such a vote -- there are only those who are insisting that "if you don't vote for Romney it's the same as voting for Obama," which is, frankly, an emotional reaction entirely void of truth. There's only one way to vote for Obama, and that's to mark his name on your ballot.
Look at what you have to reduce yourself to support ABO. It is a warning flag that ABO is a bad strategy.
>>Your vote for Romney will be a vote FOR making the Republican party turn hard left.<<
Your vote FOR obama is much, much worse.
>> “if you don’t vote for Romney it’s the same as voting for Obama,” which is, frankly, an emotional reaction entirely void of truth. <<
You’re new to these “election” thingies, aren’t you? And arithmetic seems to be a reach for you as well...
My comment was to the original poster, rightjb, who has been silent since he posted this thread.
I’d like to hear from him.
There's only one way to vote for Obama, and that is to mark his name the ballot. It is a stubborn fact. You can say two plus two is five until you are blue in the face, but the fact is that it's four, and the fact is that there's only one way anybody can vote FOR Obama.
Seeing as how Obama's numbers are extremely low, withholding a vote from his primary opponent and giving it instead to one of his lesser third party opponents, hardly guarantees Obama's win. It only risks it, and frankly, there is ZERO risk with Romney -- it is a 100 percent certainty that Romney would make liberals stronger in both parties. So anything I can do to weaken Romney is in the best interest of freedom.
I will be marking a third-party name on the ballot, so you are quite mistaken in how I will be voting, although you are emotionally convinced otherwise. You have been manipulated emotionally into buying into the fallacy that "a vote for a third party is the same as a vote for Obama."
I have figured out the hard way (I finally realized what you have yet to perceive, that being a Republican and voting "Anybody But _____" is fulfilling Einstein's definition of insanity) that there is no such thing as voting "against," only voting for. I will be voting for weakening the mandate of whichever authoritarian statist wins.
You, on the otherhand, will be voting for making liberalism more powerful in both parties.
And you are being manipulated by fear, anger, and desire for vengeance against Obama to vote for making the Republican party turn hard left, all the while pretending that you are only voting "against" Obama. That is about as bad as it gets.
Well, whooptidoo! Tell it to the Marines.
So ... a Democrat and an Independent who last time voted for Obama, but who this time vote third party, are still voting for Obama? Does your artithmetic calculate that Romney should be entitled, because you say so, to any vote of a person who declines Obama? Or is it different -- is the Democrat who votes third party this time, when he is scolded by a fellow Democrat that "that's the same as voting for Romney," which math is right, yours or the Democrat's who is doing the scolding?
You're confused, willfully. You are so angry at anyone who doesn't vote the way you want, that you lash out by saying, "It's the same as voting for Obama!" Just like the Democrat tells his disillusioned pal who votes third party, "It's the same as voting for Romney!"
Which proves that there's only ONE way to vote for a candidate: to mark his name on the ballot. Arithmetic is very clear on that.
Finny, Romney is not “hard left”.... lol
Although I really don’t know what you consider “hard”
Mathematically if you choose to be a “zero” for candidate you are voting against them, in a race of two people. If you refuse to vote for either one - that is the same as voting for both of them.
So you can vote for Obama if you want - but you’d probably be more comfortable posting on DU.
OK, I’ll type slow for you:
Two people are running for an office. There are 4 people in the electorate.
Persons 1-2 vote for Candidate o. Person 3 votes for candidate R. Person 4 writes in “Sarah Palin.”
Who wins the election? What is the result of Person 4’s tantrum vote?
Simple arithmetic.
obama thanks you and yours for the vote for him. You can play word games until the cows come home, but a tantrum “I’ll just eat worms” vote is THE SAME AS a vote for obama (there, I tightened up that little word game you have played on so many responses here).
We have exactly 2 choices: obama or Romney. There is no 3rd option. If you do not vote for Romney, you increase the % of votes going to obama.
Period.
>>Mathematically if you choose to be a “zero” for candidate you are voting against them, in a race of two people. If you refuse to vote for either one - that is the same as voting for both of them.
<<
yes and no — by not adding a potential vote to one candidate, it adds a vote to the other.
It is like basketball. Posessions don’t move in groups of 2 points, they move in groups of 4 — the 2 you should have gotten and the 2 they got.
You’re welcome to your opinion, however I believe your wrong and voting third party is a wasted vote.
Wrong again. We have (unless there's a miracle, and they do happen) exactly 1 of 2 outcomes: Obama or Romney.
We have many choices, including the choice to reject both of them and vote third party -- if one in three Americans do that, the winner will get in on such a putrid plurality that he will go into office and face the nation and the world with it on record that nearly two of every three American voters rejected him.
Your arithmetic is screwy.
Will do. my brother-in-law served two tours in Nam as a Marine. I'll pass it on but I don't think he'd have any respect for a pissant poster who won't even bother to answer pings to HIS OWN THREAD.
1. I consider "hard left" having the government taking complete control of health care with regard to employers, employees, individuals, families, and the medical industry and imposing mandates on free people. What Romney did in Massachusetts, remember?
2. I consider "hard left" forcing every entity, at the risk of heavy punishment, from adoption agencies to the military, from public schools to the Boy Scouts, to accommodate homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle. Pretty much what Romney did in Massachusettes, remember?
3. I consider "hard left" the embrace of the global warming agenda and the idea that "any carbon plan has to be worldwide in stop -- let's have a worldwide solution, not an American one" (Mitt Romney, CPAC speech, 2008).
4. I consider "hard left" the idea that abortion should be available on demand and subsidizied by taxpayers to any woman 18 or older and if a minor girl wants an abortion but her parents object, that she should be able to go to a judge and have him override her parents' wishes. (Mitt Romney, again).
5. I consider "hard left" appointing activist judges (look at Romney's record).
What do you consider "hard"? Or more to the point, what do you consider "conservative" in Romney's RECORD?
Mathematically if you choose to be a “zero” for candidate you are voting against them, in a race of two people. If you refuse to vote for either one - that is the same as voting for both of them.
False, mathematically and logically. Sorry, FRiend. There is only one way that you can vote for a candidate, and that is to mark his name on your ballot, emotional "mathematics" to the contrary. As for voting for "both of them" if you don't vote at all ...
... that's just pathetic.
>>We have many choices, including the choice to reject both of them and vote third party — if one in three Americans do that, the winner will get in on such a putrid plurality that he will go into office and face the nation and the world with it on record that nearly two of every three American voters rejected him.<<
And unicorns will blow rainbows out their butts.
>Your arithmetic is screwy.<<
2 > 1
My arithmetic is dead-on. Your fantasy world is screwy.
Earth is calling. I suggest you drop by.
>>False, mathematically and logically.<<
Even when presented with an exact mathematical proof, you keep repeating your sophistry over and over.
If all you have $1 you can a loaf of bread or a lottery ticket. The former WILL feed you — the latter MAY feed you. That is an option but not a choice.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Finny - listen if you want Obama to win don’t vote for the republican alternative - presumed to be Romney... simple.
Your definition of “hard left” is based on his record in a liberal state working with a liberal legislature - I really don’t care.....
If Obama wins you can always say “I didn’t vote”.... that’ll will give you lots of credibility....
ANYONE BUT OBAMA.
Rubio does not excite my base. Not even a little tingle up my leg. Chris Mathews might have a different opinion.
Romney never received my backing throughout the primaries.
However if he wins the nomination, which seems likely, you bet I will be voting ABO.
Why? Because I can not afford to have my dividend tax raised from 15% to as high as 39.5%. And if I am lucky enough to score some capital gains, I can not afford to have my tax rate go from 15% to 28%. Obama is hell bent on increasing my tax rates. With Romney I have a chance to keep Bush tax rates. I would have preferred either Perry or Newt as the nominee but I have to live with the cards dealt.
My
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.