>> RE: No, I’ve addressed that MULTIPLE times. You refuse to hear: the compromise between good and evil only works to evil’s favor: you do no-one any good by endorsing a “lesser of two evils” philosophy.
>
> And again you seem to ignore the fact that PRACTICALLY, we do not have a third choice.
So I should give aid and comfort to those that are assisting in raping my country in the hopes that my influence will touch their heart and cause them to have a conversion?
> The main practical choice is to either stop Obama with an imperfect candidate who can reverse many of his policies or let him romp.
> THOSE are the two practical choices in 2012.
And there’s no evidence that Romney would actually reverse any policies... I think the best we could have realistically hoped (under Romney) for would be a slight lessening of the pressure/overt statist-nature of our governing body.
> RE: Or, let me put it another way: point out a spot were electing a “moderate” left us in a better position than trying for a “conservative”?
> The Bush tax cut that lasted for 10 years and got us out of the DOT COM bust recession and the terrorism attack that almost destroyed our economy.
The Bush tax-cut was a lie: ie wasn’t a cut so much as a “we’ll waive the charges” (a real cut would have involved touching the actual rates permanantly and without qualification).
> Bush was a moderate, he was not a conservative by any means, but he was the better choice compared to Al Gore.
Because of Bush we have the Patriot Act, the TSA, and many other things that have matured under Obama’s term were started in Bush’s term (bailouts started, IIRC, with the Airlines post 9/11). I’m not saying he was utterly bad, but I no-longer think he was a *good* president — “we had to abandon the principles of the free market in order to save it” did it for me.
To not realize that some of what is objectionable in government now was planted then is to ignore reality. (The War on Drugs came from Nixon, and I maintain that no other single policy has been as destructive to the Bill of Rights as that.)
> Because you brought up abortion and want a change in policy pronto. I brought Reagan up to show you that even as conservative a president as he is, he couldn’t do anything to reverse abortion.
>
> So, to castigate Romney or the Republicans for not reversing the trend ASAP is to demand the impossible.
No, I castigate the republicans on Romney because they added “no exceptions not even rape or incest” to the official party platform regarding abortion and then actively pushed Romney. (Remember the RNC debacles w/ the bus, or the teleprompter-incident, or the retroactive rule switching of at least one state so that Romney won that primary?)
>> RE: Name *THREE* issues from their platform that the GOP [AS A PARTY] has stood firm on
>
> 1) Gun control has not passed.
> 2) Even background checks did not pass
These two cannot count, I said pushing back not keeping things the same.
> 3) They held firm on the sequester.
I’ll actually count that one, even though it’s arguably keeping things as they are.
> 4) Congress voted to repeal Obamacare
Ok, I’ll count that... though that’s not really pushing back so much as trying to get back to status quo.
> 5) Congress voted for the balanced budget amendment.
BAHAHAHAHA! — I’m of the opinion that it’ll take a Constitutional amendment (likely one involving setting the Dollar explicitly to gold and tying the maximum debt-obligation to the amount of gold in the Treasury’s possession) would be the only way to balance the budget at this point... remember that the Congress was required to pass a budget for all of Obama’s first term and didn’t.
> 6) Other than Rob Portman ( whose son is gay ) and Susan Collins, I don’t see any Republican switching to vote for gay marriage.
Rejecting gay marriage is keeping things status quo.
> My personal conclusion is this — you want change? stick with those Republicans who held firm and continue to hold firm on conservative issues.
My personal position is that when the Republican party selects a liberal socalist/statist there is no way to “hold firm on conservative issues” and try to elect him.
> And if are dealt a bad hand (e.g. a Romney ), vote for the lesser evil.
>
> And if they are REALLY just as bad as each other, then vote third party.
And that’s what I’ve been saying all along: that I believe Romney really was as bad as Obama.
> But clearly Romney is BETTER than Obama. That’s why I won’t go third party.
And I disagree there — the best we could have hoped for w/ Romney is that he’d keep things where they were rather than charging “forward” — again, he’s a Fabian Socialist who thinks we ought to ease into it: that would be perfectly i-character. Oh, I firmly believe he’d make a big show about doing very little/mostly-symbolic acts. But I don’t believe that Congress or the people would “hold his feet to the fire” on the issues. — after all, did we hold Bush’s feet to the fire over the initial bailouts? Or his “abandon the free market principals to save it?” and he’s WAY more conservative than Romney.
> One caveat: If Gary Johnson were the GOP candidate (as he originally planned to be), I’d vote for him.
I would have voted Republican if he’d run as Republican... but then the Romney selection just proved to me that the Republican party was utterly unserious about pursuing its party-planks.
RE: So I should give aid and comfort to those that are assisting in raping my country in the hopes that my influence will touch their heart and cause them to have a conversion?
That’s my point — your analogy of raping the country is not an apt one and an extreme description. I don’t call the goal of repealing Obamacare and cutting taxes raping the country.
If any, it’s fighting the raping of the country.
RE: And there’s no evidence that Romney would actually reverse any policies... I think the best we could have realistically hoped (under Romney) for would be a slight lessening of the pressure/overt statist-nature of our governing body.
And there’s no evidence that we WON’T REVERSE POLICIES EITHER. He chose Paul Ryan as his VP, which is positive evidence that he is serious about the budget crisis.
How do you know if you don’t give him a chance?
All you’re doing is speculating ( and I concede that I am too ). But you’ll never know unless you try.
Wasting your vote on someone who CAN’T win is not the way to go.
RE: The Bush tax-cut was a lie: ie wasn’t a cut so much as a “we’ll waive the charges” (a real cut would have involved touching the actual rates permanently and without qualification).
Excuse me? RATES WERE LOWERED ACROSS THE BOARD. It might not be the tax cut that you want, but it IS a cut. Also, he wanted to make it permanent but had to compromise under threat of opposition and filibuster. He got a 10 year deal. Long enough to at least eliminate short term uncertainty.
RE: No, I castigate the republicans on Romney because they added “no exceptions not even rape or incest” to the official party platform regarding abortion and then actively pushed Romney. (Remember the RNC debacles w/ the bus, or the teleprompter-incident, or the retroactive rule switching of at least one state so that Romney won that primary?)
Again you have to remember that I never said I was a fan of Romney, and I did say he was the lesser of the two evils.
I voted for him NOT with the expectation that abortion will be totally outlawed, but for him to slowly REVERSE what Obama did fiscally.
So, it was always Obama vs Romney ( and I don’t think Gay Johnson can do anything about abortion anyway ).
RE: These two cannot count, I said pushing back not keeping things the same.
Disagree... THEY MUST COUNT. You’re going against the President who has the bully pulpit AND a majority Democrat Senate WITH the media behind them.
To not support Republicans on this is to give the game up to the Democrats.
RE: BAHAHAHAHA! — I’m of the opinion that it’ll take a Constitutional amendment
Well, easier said than done. AT LEAST CONGRESS DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Imagine what could have been accomplished with the GOP in control of Senate AND a Romney/Ryan administration...
RE: Rejecting gay marriage is keeping things status quo.
But that’s the point — WE WANT THE STATUS QUO. We don’t want marriage redefined. Now that we have Obama in power for a second term, he’s going to push his agenda on America and the media will give him the bully pulpit for it.
RE: And I disagree there — the best we could have hoped for w/ Romney is that he’d keep things where they were rather than charging “forward” — again, he’s a Fabian Socialist who thinks we ought to ease into it: that would be perfectly i-character
Well let’s agree to disagree here.
I don’t consider repealing Obamacare or cutting corporate taxes or eliminating the estate tax “keeping things where they are”.
That would be a HUGE STEP AWAY from the train going towards the cliff.
RE: I would have voted Republican if he’d run as Republican... but then the Romney selection just proved to me that the Republican party was utterly unserious about pursuing its party-planks.
Gay Johnson DID attempt to run under the GOP umbrella. Unfortunately, he was not nominated ( not that I expected anything to come out of his campaign ).
So we both agree then, If Johnson were the GOP nominee, we’d vote for him.
Our disagreement always has been this — you believe there is no difference between Romney and Obama. I believe there is and Romney would have been the “better” President.