Nope. I explicitly said name the names and then draw your OWN conclusions. YOU tell me if you think John Murtha as SECDEF, for example, is better or worse for the nation than, say, John McCain, Duncan Hunter or whoever.
I will state the obvious and concede Republicans are better then Democrats, but that sure as hell doesn’t mean that Republicans are doing what’s best for the country. It is the lesser of two evils argument. The problem is both choices are “evil”.
The question is not whether one party or the other is doing what is "best" for the country---because, unlike most situations in life, there is no third alternative. One of the major party candidates, and their party, is going to win the presidency and lead the government. That's a given. So the question is which of the two parties is doing what's "better" for the country---and you've answered that. Republicans. Thank you.
Of course you are correct that it is the lesser of two evils argument. Is there something wrong with or illegitimate about that argument? If one of the alternatives WILL most certainly be visited upon the nation, how is it a moral act to do NOTHING to stop the greater evil? Moreover, how is it simply a practical act to do NOTHING to stop the greater evil?
You concede we may face a situation that requires us to choose between the lesser of two evils. Therefore, on what basis do you argue that it is okay to walk away and allow the greater of those two evils to prevail?
The only thing you do when electing a RINO is either empowering the RINO’s or diluting expectations. You slow down the run to socialism or the demise of the country to a walk, but you have only postponed the inevitable.
Even if you are correct, is this chopped liver?
Moreover, we are not talking about you and me rushing to elect a RINO, jumping for joy at the chance to elect a liberal Republican. We are, as you admit with me, possibly facing a question of one of two "evils" gaining power in our government. Since one WILL win, is it wrong, stupid or worthless to, e.g., "slow down" the damage to our country?
If your child were being damaged by disease and you could choose between two treatments, one of which would "slow down" the disease and one which would make it worse, would you consider it worthless---or, worse, morally wrong---to choose the one that "slowed down" the disease?
Also you have proven nothing except that you follow your believe blindly.
Too bad you had to end a thoughtful post with this piece of absurd pompousity.
Do you not see any of the irony in the fact that I have been pleading with you to make your case, and you steadfastly refuse, yet you claim that I follow my beliefs blindly?
Who is it that is refusing to analyze the evidence for his own conclusions?
Who is it that won't name names because he thinks that would make it too easy to demonstrate am irrefutable and valid difference between the worldviews generally held by the major political parties?
Clue: it's not me, friend, who is "blindly following his beliefs."
You don’t get it. YOU do have other choices. Don’t follow the status quo. If an elected representative is not going to fight for the rights you believe in (and have elected them for) then don’t elect them. And don’t give me BS about the fact that not voting (or voting 3rd Party) is going to elect a Democrat. If the Republican choice is not going to stick with the conservative format then he does not deserve to hold the office. Nominate someone else. If a democrat does get elected then maybe people will wake up and start electing conservatives. RINOS, in my opinion, are not an acceptable option.
The problem with people today, and this includes the current administration, is they settle. The settle for an open border, they settle for bills full of pork, they settle for treasonous comments, they settle for no energy policy, they settle for a pc war, they settle when people have their constitutional rights taken away, they settle for activist judges, they settle for a biased/lying media, they settle for a bloated government, they settle for an ever growing trade deficit, they settle for the status quo.
Settling for the lesser evil is still settling for evil. You may not understand it but sometimes you just have to take a stand.