It’s pretty elementary. If the GOP nominates a RINO its base will stay home. I know I won’t vote for Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, or Chris Christie if they are the nominee.
Proudly did NOT vote for Romney in 2012.
Voted downticket only.
Ditto.
I didn’t like Romney, but I supported him, and argued here that we couldn’t let purity prevent us from stopping Obama. After what has happened over the last six years, I can tell you, I won’t support a rino again. These things move slowly, but surely.
Nope. Not this time. I am already preparing for at least 4 years of Hillary....it seems to be what the 'powers that be' want.
If they are so determined to bring about the destruction of this country let's get on with it so we can start over.
Same.
Is this a change of heart for you? I was under the impression that you believed that any Republican is better than a Democrat ... was I in error? Thanks! I am with you, by the way, in your above statement. I refuse to vote to embrace the Democrat agenda, which is what a vote for Romney, Christie, Jeb, and even Santorum endorses whether or not the voter intends to vote "against" the Democrat.
Yes, even Santorum -- a strong supporter of minimum wage (voted to raise it every time it came up), unions, and more and bigger government. Santorum apparently defines "conservative" as "using government to promote Christian values."
For example, in 2012, Santorum said: One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world....There is no such societey, that I am aware of, where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
He also said: I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’ My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission."
First of all, to spend government dollars on the poor is to USURP the moral duty of charity from the individual and assign it to the state. It REMOVES factors of sacrifice and moral compassion from the givers of such charity, and REMOVES the sense of gratefulness and obligation that the receiver of such charity SHOULD embrace; charity begets charity in a moral sense.
But when government USURPS this moral duty of charity, it becomes AMORAL -- that is, without reference to morality. "Givers" forced to give via taxes become slaves; receivers become entitled burdens. Government is a force that has zero business in charity. Government is supposed to be a servant; liberal use of it turns it into a tyrant.
As a believer in the conservative use of government, and as a CONSERVATIVE, I believe that "the proper role of government in this mission" is to STAND ASIDE, uphold basic law so individuals and businesses can thrive in a free market, and allow people to do their own charity in caring for those who are less fortunate. Santorum thinks government has to force them to be charitable. He thinks his role is to use government a lot -- liberally applied -- to oversee the personal, moral, Christian duty of charity.
Even "in the bedroom" -- prime example. Remove all of the Federal and state government oversight of how citizens peacefully, lawfully deal with open homosexuals in their own workplaces, communities, schools, etc. Allow businesses to discriminate against them or FOR them! Hands off! And watch the entire homosexual agenda become withered and silly, because left to their own, most good, righteous Americans would reject civilly and peacefully, "normalization" of an abnormality by definition! People have horse sense and they have morality. Government force is the only thing coercing them into accepting the homosexual agenda, in the form of civil rights and anti-discrimination law. Conservatism says, "get rid of that branch of government tyranny. Let free people deal civilly among themselves with the question of dealing with openly homosexual folks. Laws against fraud, murder, theft, personal assault, etc. are all that are needed."
A person can be a Christian, he can have all the right Christian values, hate abortion as I do, hate the homosexual agenda as I do, but if his "solution" involves more and bigger government to force people into behaving in a Christian manner ... then my vote will go elsewhere. The less government, the MORE MORAL the populace. Too many Republican office holders and potential candidates don't believe in Americans enough to trust them to do the right thing. Reagan DID, and I DO.
I’m done holding my nose to vote-— I will stay home.
Ditto you.
I'd rot in the gutters of hell before I'd do such a thing.
GOP be damned.
Of course, all should know, the GOP would rot in the gutters of hell before they would allow a Conservative nominee.
That's what we call irreconcilable differences. And that's why I plot endlessly on how to defeat the "Republican" in the race.
And it doesn't matter which race it is.
You say that now, but those GOPe guys would pick a conservative for VP. Then all is good. See 2008 and 2012.
A third party or a independent candidate will rise, if a rino is nominated, and people who vote for him or her would get the largest third candidate vote in history. But they wouldn’t win, unless they peel off Jeb/Romney/Rino voters and maybe even Libertarians who would vote for the Libertarian Party.