Rudy has not gained the nomination yet and likely will not do so. Isn’t it a bit early to be condemning those who have retained their honor, integrity and principle and refuse to vote for an immoral, pro-abortion, flip-flopping media creation?
If one does not vote for Rudy, one does not vote for Rudy. For it to be truly said that one elected Hillary, one would have to cast a vote for Hillary. These separation by degree arguments and least smelly turd comparatives are contemptible and dishonest. I for one, am sick of them.
To all those capitulating camp followers who dare suggest principled conservatives somehow want Hillary because they refuse to vote contrary to their beliefs; I invite you to participate in the osculation of my posterior and those of whom you have insulted.
I know there are some who don’t care that the last vestiges of conservatism seem to be circling the drain, but I do. So, take your “Hillary as bogeyman” fear-mongering and best ordure comparatives to someone who gives a damn.
I am not impractical, but firm in my beliefs and my resolve as are many others on this forum. I realize, and it looks likely, the GOP will again be represented by a posturing and pandering creation of the media. As long as candidates “promise” some seem content to believe them. That is always worked so well before, why not, right? Everyone knows a candidate has never lied or broken a promise. They do it every time and do you know why they do it? They do it because we vote for them and are complicit in their dishonesty, because we were ignorant enough to trust them. Did you ever wonder why the candidates with impeccable credentials and a history of doing things to move conservatism forward and that have consistently been socially conservative never seem to be “electable”? I am far more interested in the answer to that question because I already know why a conservative wouldn’t cast a vote for Rudy.
BRAVO!
Well said.