Posted on 10/04/2011 11:11:37 PM PDT by Lily4Jesus
Quick simple inquiry ...
My wife spends a lot more time here on Freepers than I but we both love you all.
We have an impasse .... she says that if the right tea party candidate (not Romney, Christie, etc) is not the final candidate against Obama, then many people (assuming she is talking about people here on Freepers) will simply NOT vote, i.e. will stay home from voting ...
Is that true? I mean, for example, if we end up with two 'pro-choice' candidates to vote for (Obama and someone with an R next to their name) would I as a pro-life voter simply stay home? Heck no ... I would vote for the 'lessor of two evils', the one with the "R" (God forbid it's a RINO!)
Just curious as to what peoples sentiments are here ... also will help me understand what circles my wife's been talking! ;-)
Hey, RonDog, hope all is well with you!!!
Anybody who stays home is a worm.
Unless they are a libtard, of course. In which case they are a useful idiot.
Juat goes to show you how long its been, as I just posted this thread using my wife’s ID! Sorry about that ...
Agthorn here .... NOT Lily4Jesus ... ;-)
Juat goes to show you how long its been, as I just posted this thread using my wife’s ID! Sorry about that ...
Agthorn here .... NOT Lily4Jesus ... ;-)
There are times to stay home to make your point.
This isn’t one of them.
I’ll be voting for the candidate whose name doesn’t rhyme with “Obama”. I definitely have preferences, and there are a couple of guys running on the GOP side who I actually dislike. But if their names don’t rhyme with “Obama”, they get my vote whatever happens. I’d rather regret seeing them elected for the next four years than regret seeing Obama returned for another four years.
Lesser of two evils because Obama can’t become the next president... or it’s all over.
If disappointing Perry would change his immigration position he would be a clear winner. He could do that by passing such legislation in Texas as a Governor. His current losing Immigration policy will keep him out and he’s got a lot of making up to do.
I’ll say this: Anybody is better than Obama, even if it’s marginally better Mitt but the larger question begs - why is it always about a lesser of the two evils? Why can’t we have someone whom we can vote FOR instead of voting against someone and turn around and vote for some who’s Obama-lite like Mitt?
When do people finally get tired of voting for the lesser of two evils? I’ve been doing it for 30 years. I swore I wouldn’t do it again in 2008, but ended up voting for McCain despite having known him for a backstabbing slime, personally, for 35 years.
I tell ya what... If the GOP nominates Romney or Huntsman or the loon Paul, the system, the nation deserves to fall.
They have been given the perfect, the glaringly obvious lesson in the last 4 years, and if they haven’t learned it, I wash my hands of the whole thing.
every time I watch Chrissy Matthews bash Romney and discuss his chances against Ubama,I want to throw tomato’s at him. When will Chrissy ever discuss Mitt’s chances of beating Obama if Rubio is on the ticket? Hmm,maybe he’s scared of Rubio?
I think the great social commentary of South Park addressed this issue when Stan wouldn't vote and couldn't understand why it was always a giant deuce vs. a turd sandwhich. They came to the conclusion it's always going to be the way because it's those kinds of people that suck up to enough people to be in the position to run for office.
If Romney wins the Republican primary, I will vote for him and will try to convince others to vote for him.
Just like I did for John McCain.
Just like I would do for Pee-wee Herman if he won the primary.
I’ll vote for the lesser of 2 evils. Staying home is basicly voting for the worst of the 2 evils.
Pretty much a no-brainer.
I am firmly in the Anybody But Obama camp, even though that may not be popular. I am a Palin supporter, and I’ll cringe if I have to vote for Romney, but, I will.
Well, I'm not the type to stay home, but in defense of anyone who may, let me respectfully say that your proposition here is not only clumsy, but incoherent since your conclusion is indistinguishable from the the statement that "anybody who doesn't vote is unprincipled," and that would contradict your premise. Unless of course, you mean "worm" in the literal sense, which is quite impossible.
In my experience (watching elections since 1976 and participating since 1984), no Republican candidate (and, tell the truth and shame the devil, not many Democrats) has been “evil”.
I believe it was Reagan who said something like “just because I only agree with someone 3/4 of the time does not make him 1/4 my enemy.”
Someone else said “the perfect is the enemy of the acceptable.”
In 2008 I voted for my first choice, FDT, in my state’s primary (before he quit...all to soon, to my mind). He was imperfect; he was acceptable. Others then running were likewise imperfect but acceptable.
I could not vote in another primary; so, as in about half the presidential elections I have voted in, I then had to vote not for the lesser of evils, but for the least imperfect.
No matter who it was, that one was to be identified by the letter “R”.
In 2008, that turned out to be Palin and the old guy.
I’ve dealt with this same problem in 1996 and 2008. (Been participating since 1984; ‘84, ‘88, ‘92, 2000, and 2004 were all no-brainers to me.)
In each case, my thought was to vote for my principles in the primaries, but against my enemies in the generals.
(I do not use the word "enemies" lightly. I would rather support someone I agree with a third of the time than one I believe intends my country— as I know it— actual harm...one who doesn’t even mean well.)
Results? I did not contribute, by vote or silence, to BJC’s second term, or BHO's first. I expect to continue this policy in 2012.
Your attention is invited to my post #17.
Thank you.
I am done with the lesser of two evils. I would rather have Obama with a GOP congress than Perry or Romney with a GOP congress. It is my firm belief that amnesty will be the end of this country. I won’t vote for anyone I think would support amnesty. That strikes Romney, Perry, and Gingrich.
I will never stay home, but I’ll vote third party or write-in for president. It doesn’t really matter anyway, because no Republican will ever win CA again, due to the vast illegal population. Which brings me back to “Amnesty will destroy the U.S.”
The exception would be if it was Mitt Romney vs Obama. I'll definitely be voting for the Present over Mitt. Obama might celebrate his victory with another 3 month vacation, and the last thing I want or desire is a connected liberal in the White House like Mitt. Especially considering how many Republicans would bend over backwards to work with a RINO.
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.