Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SpeakerToAnimals
This is why we cannot get traction. Too many vote party not person. You are the problem, not the solution.

You couldn't be more wrong. I donate my time and money to support conservatives in the primaries. However, I refuse to throw away my vote in the general election. That is how we got Obama. Now who's the problem, the people that voted third party and/or stayed home, which allowed Obama to be elected, or me?

In 1992, I was stupid enough to be part of the 20% who voted for Ross Perot. That got us President Clinton, with about 42% of the vote. Even after he proved to be a lunatic, he got 5% of the vote in 1996, while Clinton failed again to get 50% of the vote. I simply refuse to participate in repeating that history.

26 posted on 01/02/2015 8:20:26 AM PST by Go Gordon (Barack McGreevey Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: Go Gordon

Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner.


36 posted on 01/02/2015 8:43:30 AM PST by ExGeeEye (The enemy's gate is down....and to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Go Gordon

Either of the last two gop presidential candidates would have us on the same vector as we are on today....just not as far along the arrow...and in so doing, they hurt the conservative cause, while Obama is strengthening it.


43 posted on 01/02/2015 8:52:49 AM PST by GilesB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Go Gordon; Maceman
In 1992, I was stupid enough to be part of the 20% who voted for Ross Perot. That got us President Clinton, with about 42% of the vote. Even after he proved to be a lunatic, he got 5% of the vote in 1996, while Clinton failed again to get 50% of the vote. I simply refuse to participate in repeating that history.

In 1992, I was stupid enough to vote for Dole/Bush both times. In retrospect, I'd have voted for Perot and proudly. Thanks to you, Gordon, Clinton only got a plurality and it hurt him. That he went into office with a clear majority opposed to him in how they voted, made him weak.

With Clinton, the Republican revolution had real strength, and Clinton was eventually impeached! Thanks to you, Gordon! :^)

Hey, I voted for a plurality in 2012; I voted third party. Either way, a big government leftist was going to end up in the White House -- Obama or Romney -- like Coke and Pepsi. I'll leave that choice to others; my vote will speak that it went to an opposition. The media myth is that Clinton was a "popular" president. Yet most Americans voted opposed to him both times he was elected. Clinton's standing with the media was different than his standing with real American voters. He was a fraud, as Obama is a fraud.

If a Romney ever wins, God willing it only be with a weak plurality, a clear majority of Americans opposed to amoral tyranny. To make it "Republican" seems an abomination. Personally, I think third party plurality is a great way to go strategically to help conservatives in government. If the conservative third party candidate actually wins, so much the better, best (and most unlikely) if they win with a majority instead of a plurality.

Hey, I can dream, can't I? {^)

77 posted on 01/03/2015 1:13:10 PM PST by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson