Why do it?
Why would one want to do it on a Conservative Forum indeed? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
"Good idea! Post a vanity and draw out the stupid Freepers! Make them argue about choosing between Bush and Romney - I like it!"
Posted on 01/10/2015 7:43:45 AM PST by inchworm
I'd take Romney. He seems more like he is learning, understanding, and trying to be more conservative as the years go on. Bush on the other hand is floating ideas that seem far less conservative to me as the years go on.
However, CRUZ IS MY TOP CHOICE!!! Go CRUZ!
Oh come on!
You must be attempting to start a flame war -> I’m not playing the name game. I must have touch a nerve ...
This isnt a bit complicated.
I don’t like Romney. I held my nose when I voited for him. The question was Jeb or Mitt. No third choices allowed. How or why is that complicated? Given an either/or choice I picked one who didn’t further a dynastic trend which I consider anathema to the American Republic.
My attitude toward people who can’t follow a simple either/or choice and insist on blustering about how both are no good is based on my intolerance for spoiled children.
Libertarians are the most dishonest of all, they lie like cultists and every conversation is geared to fit whichever audience they are trying to persuade, they push one half of their agenda and deny the other half, depending on which half they think appeals to you.
For instance this is their immigration policy, but do you ever hear them say it around you, no, to a conservative of course not.
COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
IMMIGRATION:
“”THE ISSUE: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
THE PRINCIPLE: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
SOLUTIONS: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
TRANSITIONAL ACTION: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.””
I have only been addressing Mitt, no one else, you have reacted like a spoiled child a romneybot.
You went after me in your pro-Romney efforts, but you were lying, so far you refuse to discuss him and what we on this thread have told you about him, in other words, you want to imply we are lying, while not actually wanting us to prove we aren’t.
Just another slippery, dishonest Romney fan.
To: muir_redwoods
Mitt has proven himself incompetent, every time he leaves the sanctuary of his religion and his building the family wealth.
He has won a single election in his quarter century of elective politics, and he didn’t reach 50% in that race, he then governed so badly that he had to give up running for reelection, and crept out of that 4 year stint, with 34% approval, being so incompetent that he lost the seat to the democrats, after being the 4th republican governor in a row.
Romney followed that up with hitting the 2008 primary as the 800 pound money gorilla, and losing to Huckabee and McCain, and then spending his way through the 2012 primary to lose a presidential race to Jimmy Carter’s second term when we were on the verge of a depression.
Aside from being a pathological liar “I marched with MLK”, “lifetime hunter” “gun owner”, “I have become pro-life”, “I was not running a sanctuary mansion for 11 years and 2 national scandals” “I longed to serve in Vietnam”, and on and on, the man is an incompetent boob.
137 posted on 1/10/2015, 9:11:04 AM by ansel12
To: ansel12
He saved the Olympics and beat every other republican candidate in 2012. Your facts are in question. Hate him if you want but misrepresentation ought to be left with the progressives.
Walker is my choice.
165 posted on 1/10/2015, 9:46:11 AM by muir_redwoods
I notice that you didn’t do that, instead you went to the Winter Olympics (calling them “the Olympics”, and you might want to know that his “saving” was banning the Boy Scouts for their gay position, and hustling up 100s of million dollars of federal money.
Which of these facts do you think is false?
“”He has won a single election in his quarter century of elective politics, and he didn’t reach 50% in that race, he then governed so badly that he had to give up running for reelection, and crept out of that 4 year stint, with 34% approval, being so incompetent that he lost the seat to the democrats, after being the 4th republican governor in a row.
Romney followed that up with hitting the 2008 primary as the 800 pound money gorilla, and losing to Huckabee and McCain, and then spending his way through the 2012 primary to lose a presidential race to Jimmy Carter’s second term when we were on the verge of a depression.
Aside from being a pathological liar “I marched with MLK”, “lifetime hunter” “gun owner”, “I have become pro-life”, “I was not running a sanctuary mansion for 11 years and 2 national scandals” “I longed to serve in Vietnam”, and on and on, the man is an incompetent boob.”
173 posted on 1/10/2015, 9:55:16 AM by ansel12
You are correct. It’s JEB! or Mitt. But who on earth comes to a conservative site to ask which of two socialists would a conservative choose? And to conveniently do so after one of those two conservatives, who had sworn he wasn’t running, decides to go etch a sketch again and change his mind. Curious isn’t it? Reconnaissance work, perhaps?
Conservatives don’t vote for liberals. Liberals vote for liberals. If someone wants to know which of those two libs someone will vote for, they need to ask the question over on DU.
PIF (Post #264):"Another vote for Hillary ... congratulations!!"
PIF (Post #301):"You must be attempting to start a flame war -> I’m not playing the name game."
You started it with post 264 but like a typical lib, you can't finish. By the way, since you haven't figured it out yet, this entire thread is flame bait.
If I had to choose between Romney and Bush, it would be Romney. Some of the reason, major an trivial, are:
*Terri Schiavo. *Romney does not prefer Mexico over U.S. and is not as obsessed with illegal aliens. I believe he can be pressured not to grant amnesty. Bush does not even speak English at home.
*I like Romney's wife - she is classy. I cannot imagine Jeb's wife as the First Lady.
*Bush is a supporter of Common Core.
*Romney has a better grasp on creating jobs and the economy.
Some trivial points: Romney looks presidential, and he is not part of dynasty building. I do not want the Clintons and the Bushes to emerge as "royal families".
When I said Romney had more experience than Walker—it was in running for office.
Oh my goodness ...
That doesn’t make sense, Romney has been running for office for 20 years, but has a single victory, a less than 50% victory that he left with 34% approval and no chance at reelection.
Walker has run in 10 elections during the last 25 years, and has won the last 9 of them, two of those for Governor, he is a successful politician, while Mitt Romney is a proven lifelong loser at politics.
Romney’s political experience, is in being a perennial loser, incompetent at politics.
The I will stay home diatribe is getting really old and is dangerous.
If you vote for Romney, you will accomplish one thing: provide your endorsement for moving the Republican party hard left.
Own it, please. Be responsible and accountable for what you are willing to vote FOR.
If Romney or Bush or any other functional-Democrat Republican gets the GOP nomination [again] in 2016, I will vote FOR weakening whichever leftist, the R or the D, gets the White House. I will be voting third party FOR a plurality.
SIX WORDS that say it all!!! {^) That is eloquence refined! You must have been a good signman to be so efficient with language.
"Defer" is exactly the action.
Likewise, many here do not understand the simple fact that a vote for the likes of Romney is a vote for having the Republican party embrace the Democrat agenda.
My vote will endorse rejection of that agenda. Your vote, if you're willing to vote for Romney, Bush, or any other pro-government Republican, will endorse the Democrat agenda.
Voting "against" is a mathematical sophistry, another simple fact of political power that many don't understand.
I forgot to count Scott Walker’s recount election as an election, so he has won 10 of his 11 races, having only lost his first one in 1990.
Explain the math, please? WITHOUT confusing intent with action? WITHOUT indulging in claiming ENTITLEMENT to registered Republican votes? How does a vote in column three benefit either column one or two, again? How does my declining to chose between either coke or pepsi, affect which one comes out ahead among people willing to voice a preference?
And explain what you will act to vote FOR, please. Don't tell me about what you intend to vote against. Tell me what you will ACT to bring to power.
They call it the "stupid party" because of mindsets like yours, pinesavage.
The very question is faggoty. Are you pushing for fag mitt or fag jeb? inchworm, Which faggot you want to cuddle and spoon with the most?
Thanks, Finny.
Determining who is the "most conservative" between Romney, Bush, and a Democrat opponent such as Hillary or Warren, should be easy: the Republican. You vote for the Republican INTENDING and TRUSTING that he is more conservative. But in real ACTION, in actual on-the-ground material terms, the only thing accomplished is to voice your approval of seeing the Republican party embrace the Democrat agenda. You may INTEND a different outcome, but you will surely and certainly ACT to endorse leftist Republicans.
There's a great saying: "Risk is the price you pay for opportunity."
There is very little risk with a Romney or a Bush, if they win, especially if they win with a majority. We know absolutely what would happen with a leftist Republican in the White House: the Republican party would move hard left and conservatives in the Republican party would be made weaker. It presents a safe bet, very little risk. And very little opportunity.
Third party presents many risks -- and many opportunities. I have a duty and a responsibility to vote -- staying home, for me, would be dereliction of duty. So I will USE my vote to WEAKEN the mandate of whichever leftist wins, the R or the D.
Risk is the price you pay for opportunity.
Why do it?
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.