I didn’t ridicule anything, I just disagree with you. But if that’s what you consider ridicule then yes I am guilty as charged. I happen to believe you’re wrong about Romney, in fact he made several statements during the campaign that he was not for any kind national health care, that he believed in Federalism and that states should be free to find their own solutions to problems. Hmmmmm that sounds to like Romney has a very good understanding of, and support for our Constitutional Republic as founded. Something Obama, whom you helped elect, does not. He also stated that the reason he went along with the Massachusetts state health care was because as Governor he heard from his constituents, i.e., the people of Massachusetts, that that kind of solution is what they wanted. Having said that, Romney was not my choice. My choice would have been any of the Tea Party candidates that were running but none of them survived the primaries. You must understand something, I deal with the world as it is and situations as they present themselves and attempt to take the best possible course of action given the actual circumstances. We must make decisions based upon reality, not how we wish things were. Had Romney been elected, I do not believe any of the doomsday scenarios you presented would have come to fruition, but with obama reelected and not restrained by having to seek reelection as he was in his first term those scenarios might just play out. I only say to you that we must think in strategic terms devoid of the emotional response you displayed in your last post, emotion based strategies will not win us our Republic, but they will certainly lose it in the long run. History shows this to be true, you can either accept what history teaches us or you can stick your head in the sand and keep pretending that a candidates who you don’t agree with 100% are never worth your support. In politics you will never get to vote for a candidate whom supports what you want 100% unless you’re the candidate. The sad fact, and this is the reality of life now intruding upon how you wish reality was, is that politics is always, has always been, and will always be a choice between the lesser of two evils. That is the real world of electoral politics. You can either understand and accept that fact or you can continue you’re strategy of not voting for the best candidate that has a chance to win or you can continue to elect people who continue to tear down our Republic. You sound like the third invention of Invar, reasonable until someone shows just how easy it is to poke holes in your emotion based arguments and then you start calling names. You have no idea what Romney would have done because he did not get elected thus, reality again sets in, and one realizes all you have are guesses and no one has a crystal ball capable of seeing what would have happened. but that shows the childishness of your last argument and yes that is meant as ridicule of your emotion based claims.
You are right about that. You are WRONG about which is the lesser evil.
Romney lost because HE WAS A FUNCTIONAL STATIST DEMOCRAT and enough freedom-loving Americans refused to be bullied by Obama hysteria mongers into voting for a greater evil -- that is, a functional Democrat masquerading as a Republican, further destroying the Republican brand and dissolving any useful cohesiveness conservatives might build in the Republican party, leaving statists in both parties unchallenged.
Christie or another Romney-like candidate in 1016 will very likely lose for the same reason because more and more people are starting to wake up to the truth of Einstein's definition of insanity, a truth you are apparently unable to discern.
You talk about how you "deal with the world as it is" -- well, the "world as it is" is that a Christie/Romney-type candidate is a losing proposition.
Deal with that.
You had me fooled, fatman. I thought you were smart. Instead, you're average, predictable, and headed hard left.
Please ... What "emotion based strategy" are you referring to? Please be specific, don't just tell me it's emotional, show me HOW it is emotional, even to identifying the SPECFIC things that make it "emotional" instead of "strategic." You see, here I'd been thinking that I was rising above emotion and looking at reality and strategy, gauging the mood of Americans by what they say and write, not by what the MSM says "America" thinks, thinking of the smartest ways to use our conservative votes to push things to the right by denying liberal Republicans our votes and thereby denying them access to power -- and here you come along and pop my bubble by informing me that it is "emotional" and "childish."
Also, if you will be so kind, please be specific in what instances I exhibited childishness. Since I don't see them, your pointing them out to me may help me improve myself.
One other thing. How is it not "emotional" to vote for a candidate who is ON RECORD (this is not an emotional nor a childish claim, but a conclusion based on things Romney has said and done, YOU can look them up, I already have) supporting gay adoption (which really means prohibiting adoption agencies from telling prospective gay parents "Go somewhere else if you want to adopt a kid") and for ending DADT in the military, and the entire concept of government overseeing health care and health insurance, and also in favor of activist environmental agendas, and for what you must admit -- non emotionally of course -- that only an amoral man would state, as Romney is on audio saying, that he believes that if a minor girl gets pregnant and her parents refuse her permission to get an abortion, that that minor teenager has the right to go to a judge and have that judge overrule her parents, yes, I'm afraid Romney is on record saying that, I heard the sound clip many times) --
-- presumably (since as you state Romney wasn't your "choice") things you as a conservative stand against in principle as well as in deed, which is my the State vs Federal with regard to government-run health care is wholly irrelevant) ... wasn't it an entirely EMOTIONAL thing, then, to vote for him?
That emotion being FEAR?
“I happen to believe you’re wrong about Romney, in fact he made several statements during the campaign that he was not for any kind national health care, that he believed in Federalism and that states should be free to find their own solutions to problems.”
So you believe what he said during an election cycle over his actual documented record in office and since.
Hint: People who say one thing and do another are not what any intelligent person wants in a world leader.
“... that he believed in Federalism and that states should be free to find their own solutions to problems.” He did indeed say that and it fits with what he did in Massatwosh!ts, where he laid the groundwork for the failing obamacare, euphemistically known as ‘the affordable care act’. And of course it is exactly the opposite of that, in typical lying democrips’ style.
The reason I declined him is because I did my due diligence on his record and political philosophy. You voted FOR liberalism to become stronger in the Republican party and in America. That is what you voted FOR. That is not an "emotional" claim, it is not a "childish" claim, it is a fact. You may not want to admit it, but that changes the fact that you voted for liberalism to become stronger in the Republican party, not one whit. :^)