Posted on 05/16/2015 7:39:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, and boxing legend Evander Holyfield entered the ring in Salt Lake City on Friday for a bout to raise money for charity. Politics found its way into the charity bout, with one fan playfully shouting: 'Put Hillary in there,' referring to Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
I believe there are many committed Democrats in the GOP, what better way to enact a leftist agenda ? I’d say virtually the entire party establishment is (although from their point of view, they think the GOP should be a big government, open borders farce).
Willard is just part of a bigger problem. With leadership that followed what the base wants and demands (following the Constitution and God’s law), people like Willard, McQueeg, El Jebbe, Marco Foolio, Huckster, Captain Gardasil, My Bitch Mitch, The Crying Boner and all the other RINO parasites would cease to have any pull or position. That’s why they’re so terrified of Cruz and what he might do — sack the whole lot of them and stop their agenda cold. Watch as they covertly aid the media in sabotaging him and his candidacy. Conservatism is their enemy.
Please, Mitt, put on some clothes...nobody wants to see that.
But YOU served. Presumably, so did your male ancestors. This family has categorically and systematically dodged service for generation after generation. This is very curious and strange. As I said, it was deeply and viscerally offensive to equate working for his campaign as equivalent to serving one’s country. That family thinks it’s OK to have the power and privilege of office while the peons get to be suckers serving in uniform.
I remember Romney saying in May 2012 that two people of the same sex "who love each other" should be able to adopt children. Sorry, but any man who holds such a view can't be called good...not by any stretch of the imagination.
LOL
BUMP
Did Mitt perchance, bite his ear ?
yep. seems like a nice guy but liberal and progressive.
Yes, I did vote for Romney as I voted for both Bushes, McCain, Dole, Reagan, Ford, and to re-elect Nixon. This time, however, you are wrong. The only pity I have is for my country and my eyes are wide open this time around. I will vote for the best conservative candidate still standing by the time the Pa. primary comes around. If, as in recent times, the GOPe candidate gets the nomination, I will not participate. I vowed after the Romney fiasco, never again. I will concede that my voting for yet another faux Republican was “dumb” but I believe that at the age of 70 I can still learn from my mistakes.
Mitt evaded the military, and while his non-vet father was running for president during wartime, and none of his five sons would serve either, even though draft evading dad was running for president, during wartime.
The Romneys came here about 1842 to serve Joseph Smith, and no man in Romney’s direct line has ever served America in the military, no war, no draft, no wave of patriotism, no anything has ever gotten one of them to serve.
The Romneys don’t do military service.
That's not what Romney is about. Starstruck, for me to bring to mind even one average American family I've known in my 50-plus years so far, who didn't have some military service somewhere pretty immediate -- a grandfather, a brother, an uncle -- who had served in the Army, the Navy, the Marines somewhere -- to find an American family who's been American for many generations, with ZERO military service ...??????? The only place I'd find that is in a very first-immigration-status family from another country. Romney's conspicuous lack of military service in his family should be noted and used as insight.
Romney is bad news, has always been bad news, and will always be bad news. I'm pretty much of the mind that as long as he is considered "Republican," the Republican party isn't worth the sweat off of Holyfield's chin.
With every day that passes lately, it seems more and more clear to me that the GOP is so screwed up that it just might be a tragedy if it is the party to nominate Cruz. Cruz deserves better, America deserves better, than a Stupid Party that plays charades with fully functional leftists like Romney posing as "Republicans," and offers a primary field nearly THREE TIMES larger and scattered and schizophrenic, than the opposition Democrat party at the same state of their equally important primaries.
The reason the Republicans have something like 15 declared candidates and another ten in the "exploratory" stage, versus a simple, easy, seven declared Democrats with only three more serious exploratory types -- that's ten max for the Democrats to weed through in their primaries, versus the probably neighborhood of TWENTY FIVE in the Stupid Party --
The Republican party doesn't know it's patoot from a hole in the ground. It is not only having an identity crisis, it has zero identity. That's why it has 25 contestants in the Dog and Pony Circus, versus a sane 10 in the Democrat primary.
The Republican party doesn't deserve Cruz. If it's smart enough to nominate him, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
\:^))
If, as in recent times, the GOPe candidate gets the nomination, I will not participate.
As long as I am informed politically, I have a moral duty to vote because people have fought and died for my right to do so. I have a duty to vote FOR what will help my nation; if there's zero way my vote can do that (in California, for example, where there were only two candidates, R and D, for governor, and both were equally leftist), then I have a duty to withhold my vote from both.
On the other hand, if in a presidential race I have a third party option, even one with zip chance of winning, I have a DUTY to use my vote to weaken the big government Republican or the big government Democrat who does win. If an "Independent" candidate can split the winner's margin into a plurality, where a clear majority opposed that candidate in the voting booth, as Perot did to Clinton, then that is MY DUTY to vote for that, to vote for weakening the leftist tyranny.
A plurality status makes a president WEAK. I can only use my vote to vote FOR something; voting "against" is wholly imaginary. So in 2012, I voted FOR a plurality, and if in 2016 we face the same situation, I will again vote FOR a plurality, hopefully in the guise of a true Independent third Second party candidate who might even pull off a win (albeit plurality, as well), so absolutely disgusted are MOST productive, legal, average Americans with both Democrats and Republicans and their Uniparty, not to mention a leftist-biased MSM -- on the ground, in real people, far more Americans distrust the media and the Uniparty, than the MSM projects.
Isn’t this a bit like Pig Wrestling at a county fair?
As well as a deceived (or deceiving) Mormon.
I wish (and pray) that he and his family would get saved by Jesus and not rely on DOING things that SLC tells them are necessary to enter Heaven.
I a longer view; I think he would have given the imprssion that Mormonism is orthodox in some manner, and many would have been led astray by his chosen religion.
Heck; I’d go one-on-one with George Foreman!
He could do the grillin’ and I’d could do the eatin’!
I did NOT vote for the DECEIVED Mormon.
Too bad you got stuck with Obama.
If one did; he (she) would!
To paraphrase what was said to Dan Quayle...
I know Vladimir Putin; and you are no...
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.