Elections have consequences - we were warned

June 26, 2015 | Self

[HonorInPa]

This is exactly why, when conservatives sit on the sideline awaiting the 100% pure candidate, we damage ourselves. Election have consequences and this is one - the ability to select Supreme Court Justices who will sit for life. Look at the ages of Obama's picks - 55 and 61. They are not going anywhere for years.

Abortion, gay marriage, assaults upon Christianity... and we dare to sing God Bless America. Why would he bless us when we spit in his eye.

[tumblindice]

“when conservatives sit on the sideline awaiting the 100% pure candidate”

So we should support more fake conservatives? Absolute horse****! Go peddle your papers.

[Ingtar]

I keep hearing about this mystical group that stayed home. When I look at the election statistics, all I see is a group who voted for the Democrat with a D after their name, beginning with the Catholics. McCain had slightly fewer of Conservative’s votes than did Bush, but Romney got more. They were not the difference.

[Girlene]

Have you read this thread?

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

And the leftists got the courts and government they wanted by demanding 100% lock-step ideological purity. The polar opposite of the Rovian-moderate platform of incremental surrender.

If ever a thread completely missed the lesson of what just happened, it’s this one. But it does serve as a useful reminder of why and how the republic was lost.

[Yosemitest]

To HELL with sitting on the sidelines.
Vote AGAINST their CRAP !

[Hostage]

Romney was and is a liar.

Romney was and is for the following:

Universal healthcare
Homosexual ‘marriage’
Homosexual normalization
Amnesty
Abortion
Gun Control

Although he will say the above is not true in one place, he will reverse and advocate in another place.

His words are meaningless.

His track record tells his story.

I stick by my statement that nothing would be different had Romney won and arguably could be worse.

[Yosemitest]

Let me REMIND THEM WHO TAUGHT US WHAT TO DO.

I WILL VOTE AGAINST ... AND TO DESTROY ANY "Establishment Republican" !
Compromisers ALWAYS LOSE !

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
Someone once said [We're] 'Not victims of "the Establishment." '
I disagree.
I ask you again:

Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2016 OR NOT?

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.



The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !

[Norm Lenhart]

WOULD have been. Because then WE would allALL been tarred by the stink of his surrender forever.

[Crystal Palace East]

You have it exactly correct.

In addition, we suffer under his cabinet officers, who are all Black, Stupid, and Far-Left Radical Liberals, or have at least two of those three traits.

We would have had no Radical Black empowerment, Israel would be seen as having at least one friend in the world, Bergdhal would be already serving a life sentence or still with the Taliban, Guantanamo Bay will sill hold the Radical Islamist leadership, and ISIS would never have been formed, let alone hugely successful, the doctor who helped us get OBL would not be in a Pakistani prison, school lunches would be edible, and more and more and more.

[CatherineofAragon]

" I voted for the weak RINOs ...at least I Tried to stop the madness!"

Your error is assuming the weak RINOS would have tried.

[Norm Lenhart]

Cool story bro.

[dragnet2]

RINO’s ?

Why would a political party rename itself? Why different factions within the same party? So far we have GOPe, we have the RINO’s, the Tea Party etc. Which is it?

The party of “Something for everyone”?

Is this some slick rope a dope strategy to hang on to what few conservatives/supporters they have left?

I think it is.

[Vic S]

In a perfect world, elections have consequences. Voter Fraud exists and someone needs to stand for something, the Constitution.

[Solson]

Utter BS! We have a MAJORITY in the Congress - yes, both the House and Senate and NOT A G*D DAMN THING HAS BEEN DONE TO STOP LIBERALS FROM DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY!!!! Nothing.

The GOP and its representation of Conservatives is officially DEAD.

[CatherineofAragon]

Mitt Romney said that two people of the same sex who “love each other” should be allowed to adopt children.

How would he have been different, again?

[Yosemitest]

"... Voter Fraud... "

Just a reminder... :

Someone once wrote:
"Stolen?
Then you should get right on this and prove it."
First watch 8 minutes 16 seconds of video titled Romney defeated Obama - if not for voter fraud.

Then ... read and think about this. Someone wrote:

"I believe there was voting fraud,
but that it was not the reason Romney lost.
Even without fraud he would still have lost. "
I don't completely agree.

Someone said, "We’re not victims or battered wives as someone else suggested"
Playing the victim? Really?

Yes we had a weak field.
Only about 38 percent of the Republicans supported Romney in the Primary.
So 62 percent voted AGAINST "Establishment Republican" Romney.
Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

Victim? Do you really believe that Romney got ZERO votes in 68 Precincts?
Odd? Romney Got ZERO Votes In 59 Precincts in Philly, and 9 Precincts in Ohio
Do you really believe it was an accident that when some people voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney, the machine appeared to change it to the Democrat candidate Barack Obama?

I believe there WAS ENOUGH Voter Fraud to throw the 80 Electoral College Votes from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida.
I also believe that had Romney SAVAGED Obama, like he SAVAGED the Conservatives that ran against him in the Primary,
Romney would have gotten more votes in the General election.
So yes, it's Romney's fault, but there WAS ENOUGH VOTER FRAUD to steal the election for Obama.

Why Are N.C. Early Voting Machines Changing Romney Votes to Obama?

More Electronic Voting Machines Changing Romney Votes to Obama: We Looked Into It and Here’s What a Vendor Told Us
Do you really believe that Democrats didn't intentionally vote more than once for Obama?
Read more: Voter watchdog says it's uncovered absentee ballot fraud in Florida, New York

Denying being a victim of voter fraud doesn't help.
But getting the criminal enterprise of the Obama Judicial System to prosecute the guilty who stole this election, is a lost cause.
Remember, it doesn't matter who has the votes, it matters who COUNTS the votes.
Obama ordered ACORN Steals Votes For him during presidential run.



"It's not the people who vote that count.
It's the people who COUNT the votes."


(Josef Stalin)
URGENT: ELECTION FRAUD VOLUNTEERS NEEDED IN WI, OH, PA, VA, FL

Maker of Unskewed Polls Creates ‘Obama Voter Fraud’ Map — See Which States He Thinks Should’ve Been Romney’s

Why There Won’t Be a Presidential Recount

None Dare Call it Stolen Ohio, the election, and America’s servile press

www.unskewedpolls.com

Black States = States Obama won by Voter Fraud. Click the state for more information.

Voter Turnout figures for 2012 indicate possible voter suppression and fraud

Vote Scamming in Philadelphia

Vote Scamming in Cleveland

Was Virginia won by vote fraud?

Vote Scamming in Florida

Question: Should President Romney Pardon Treasonist Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro ?


BREAKING NEW VIDEO: Battleground Texas Illegally Copying Voter Data ( 7:11 ) Feb 19, 2014


Romney might have won, but with Obama's Criminals running the "Justice Department", they'll never admit Romney won.

Black States = States Obama won by Voter Fraud. Click the state for more information.




Photo Credit: Barackofraudo.com

[dragnet2]

What happened to that big historic Republican win last year?

[tumblindice]

#Deadnoobquacking We need to put this 'debate' to rest once and for all: 1. This is either a conservative site or it is not, and 2. We won't get conservative leadership by sending guys like Boehner, McCain, Graham, McConnell & Co. (their minions, including my rep, Luke Messer) to Congress .... What you get is--today.

[Rum Tum Tugger]

In November, 2016, when Jeb! is running against Hitlary for the presidency, we’re going to hear the same BS again. “A vote for Jeb! is the only way to stop the progressives and to repeal Obozocare.”

If you don’t know by now that a vote for the GOPee candidate won’t stop anything, you’re just plain stupid.

[Crystal Palace East]

Here is the problem, and all adults see it. It’s really very simple.

Presidential elections in the US are binary affairs. Either the nominated Republican or nominated Democrat will win. 3d party candidates simply split the vote, i.e Ross Perot getting Clinton elected in ‘92.

The time to work for the Conservative candidate is in the Primary. If we can’t get a true conservative nominated, it’s our fault.

But once the candidate is decided, to cry that he is not “conservative enough” is simply to be a cry baby who gives up and takes his ball home because he can’t win the big game, the one that counts.

The one thing the crybaby conservatives who sat home and refused to vote for Romney won’t accept is their shame for giving Obama 2.