Replies

I have seen plenty of posts saying, and hoping, that the R candidate loses to a dem.

This new thread for example is about wanting Graham to lose to the dem.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3166312/posts

Ask Norm.

Norm, who would you rather see lose:

McConnell or his dem opponent?

Graham or his dem opponent?

I would rather see a rino lost to a conservative first and foremost. If a conservative does not win, I see no difference in a RINO or a Dem winning.

At that point, I would rather the GOP was burnt to the ground , the earth salted, and all the RINOs lined up and mocked eternally.

Is that clear enough for you?

Because an enemy in ones own camp id a greater danger than an enemy in ones face. And if you think you are wiser than Alexander Hamilton, the Founders and 3000 years of military history on that subject, please, by all means, show your arrogance.

But since none of the 50/57 states is without a conservative in it to write in, we should never have to resort to helping an open enemy defeat a backstabber to begin with.

I haven't seen anyone say the SCF should have endorsed the Dem over McConnell. And I don't agree that endorsing a third-party candidate, or no candidate, is the same as "backing the Dem" (not that you said it was).

I have seen plenty of posts saying, and hoping, that the R candidate loses to a dem.

That's neither an endorsement nor a Dem vote.

I’m not Norm, but I’d rather have the D. Better the D than an R who votes with the other side.

With the R, the D’s get both the vote AND the ability to call their scuttling of the Constitution bipartisan.

No sale. Give me the D if it is to be.

...who would you rather see lose: McConnell or his dem opponent? Graham or his dem opponent?

I can't speak for Norm, but BECAUSE I want to see the Republican party turn right and move this country right, I would rather see McConnell and Graham lose. There is only ONE WAY to make the Republican party turn right, and that is to vote such that leftist/collectivist/"liberal" people in the Republican party are prevented from achieving positions of power. They must be stopped.

Ifinnegan and any other reader, you are in mathematical and functional ERROR if you think the above translates into "vote for the Democrat." Devoid of emotional intent, my purpose is to deprive the Republican party of leftists. It is why I am more inclined than ever to advocate THIRD PARTY, because that vote does TWO things:

1. Announces loud and clear that here is a potential Republican vote that dumped the candidate and went for one announcing LESS GOVERNMENT as the driving common denominator.

2. Works toward reducing the mandate percentage of whichever liberal/leftist/collectivist (that is, subscribes to more and bigger government) wins. Winning on a plurality, or less than half of the votes cast, makes the liberal victor that much weaker. ONLY a third-party vote contributes to a plurality.

Americans truly need a Second Party, and we need to be seriously SEEING THAT COMING FOR 2016 right now. If the choice is another Democrat vs Democrat Lite for the 2016 Presidential -- which is about 98 percent certain it will -- then you had better be prepared for even more rejection of "Republican" than before.