REPOST: Republicans; why should I vote republican?

[Oddball]

And that got them, what?

More political support for the issues we're concerned about.

How you figure? It got a politician opposed to what you support in office, and earned you the hatred of the GOP. It marginalized the narco-libtards even more than they already are.

Problem being that he's not opposed to the one in office.

No one likes a spoiler.

Nobody likes people who campaign one way and govern in an opposite manner, either.

 

[FA_Q2]

They're irrelevant to your conversation. But if the conversation concerns the outcome of the election, they're quite relevant. As the two party supporters are there to remind us, if everyone opposed to Obama had voted for Romney, Romney would have won. But they didn't, and Romney lost.

And that got them, what?

More political support for the issues we're concerned about.

When you view the world in black and white, you fail to see the flows and subtle changes in power and direction. Of course, if you see the world as black and white you also cannot see how to change anything.

 

[FA_Q2]

And that got them, what?

More political support for the issues we're concerned about.

How you figure? It got a politician opposed to what you support in office, and earned you the hatred of the GOP. It marginalized the narco-libtards even more than they already are. No one likes a spoiler.

Except that the question here is how would Romney have supported our views had he been in office. That was what the OP asked and the answer so far is…

He was not Obama.


What I got was a politician that opposes my views. Had I voted for Romney I would have got … a politician that opposes my views.

Does not seem like I would have gained much.

 

[dblack]

And that got them, what?

More political support for the issues we're concerned about.

How you figure? It got a politician opposed to what you support in office, and earned you the hatred of the GOP. It marginalized the narco-libtards even more than they already are.

If we'd voted for Romney, and he'd won based on our phony support, we'd have also had a politician opposed to our values. And our true concerns would be even more marginalized. I think you get that. I think you want that. We don't.

 

[Oddball]

2) Third Party. I dont care if it's the Greens, the Communists, The Libertarians or whatever. Third parties don't win in national elections. Anyone voting 3rd party is irrelevant to the conversation.

They seem relevant enough for you to go out of your way to smear and belittle them.

3) Don't vote. See under Third Party.

My vote is mine...It doesn't belong to you or any candidate in the Demopublicratican Party.

Only I get to determine whether my vote has value or not.

4) GOP. Many in the GOP are nearly indistinguishable from the Democrats. The party as a whole has flubbed many issues. When they had power in Congress they went on a spending spree that made Dems envious. Some members are rank hypocrites. Others are crooks. Many are really clueless morons.
But not all of them. And there are many in the GOP who understand what small gov't and economic freedom mean. Many of them are very decent men with integrity. They are the only party with a chance of beating the Democrats. Not voting for them is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The party hasn't flubbed anything....They are merely a second party of the central planner ruling class.....If anyone is wasting their vote, it's the person who votes GOP under the delusion that they're getting anything significantly different in substance from the Democrat Party

If the first six years of the Bush43 Administration doesn't convince you, what would?

 

[FA_Q2]

In 2008 I voted for the Constitutional Party candidate rather than McCain. However, I am in a dark red state, and there was little doubt that McCain would take the all the electoral votes.

In 2012 I voted for Romney, although I could have justified voting 3rd party the way I did in 2008.

Why vote for Romney (republican)

1. Possible repeal of Obama Care.
2. More friendly to fossil fuels.
3. Romney would be less likely to regulate us to death resulting in better job growth.

There's three reasons. However, we never know what someone will actually do if voted into office.

1. Not a possibility without super majority or the senate AND even then it is HIGHLY unlikely. This was simply NOT going to happen and I would not have gotten this with Romney. Considering he created the underlying concepts (at least the first to implement it in a government afaik) that really does not lend a valid point to voting for Romney.

2. ?
How? I don’t see a lot of difference here other than campaign rhetoric. They both wanted corporate giveaways. Even then, small matter and one that does not address any of the major problems in government today.

3. Again, a lot of conjecture and not a solid position. This list is comprised of vague generalities. IOW campaign smoke and mirrors.

 

[dblack]

No one likes a spoiler.

Sorta depends on what they're spoiling, doesn't it? I'm pretty happy with the the spoiling libertarians are doing.

 

[The Rabbi]

You have 4 choices in voting.
1) Democrat. The Democrats represent all that is wrong with this country. They consistently vote higher taxes, more regulations, more bureaucracy. The Democrats have not passed a budget in Congress in 5 years. They represent corruption, using Federal power to undermine political opposition. No one in good conscience can vote for Democrats.

2) Third Party. I dont care if it's the Greens, the Communists, The Libertarians or whatever. Third parties don't win in national elections. Anyone voting 3rd party is irrelevant to the conversation.

3) Don't vote. See under Third Party.

4) GOP. Many in the GOP are nearly indistinguishable from the Democrats. The party as a whole has flubbed many issues. When they had power in Congress they went on a spending spree that made Dems envious. Some members are rank hypocrites. Others are crooks. Many are really clueless morons.
But not all of them. And there are many in the GOP who understand what small gov't and economic freedom mean. Many of them are very decent men with integrity. They are the only party with a chance of beating the Democrats. Not voting for them is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

2 and 4 are contradictory. Either 3rd parties are irrelevant or they influence elections, you can’t have it both ways.

Again, we have the same excuse over and over. The idea that I MUST vote for the republican because the democrats are worse. That means that all you really have is hate for the other side. That is not a reason to vote republican, it is a reason to not vote democrat.

As for ‘perfect,’ no one is asking for perfect. I have not asked for perfect in any way. All I asked for were simple reasons to vote republican and so far I have not received one single reason. I don’t want perfect but I do want SOMETHING to vote for.

Because you will likely get something you can be moderately happy with if the GOP is in power, vs. being totally unhappy if the Dems are in power.

 

[The Rabbi]

More political support for the issues we're concerned about.

How you figure? It got a politician opposed to what you support in office, and earned you the hatred of the GOP. It marginalized the narco-libtards even more than they already are.

If we'd voted for Romney, and he'd won based on our phony support, we'd have also had a politician opposed to our values. And our true concerns would be even more marginalized. I think you get that. I think you want that. We don't.

If you had voted for Ron Paul and Paul got elected you would still ahve a politician opposed to your values. Look at how the narcos have jumped all over Rand Paul.

 

[Oddball]

You have 4 choices in voting.
1) Democrat. The Democrats represent all that is wrong with this country. They consistently vote higher taxes, more regulations, more bureaucracy. The Democrats have not passed a budget in Congress in 5 years. They represent corruption, using Federal power to undermine political opposition. No one in good conscience can vote for Democrats.

2) Third Party. I dont care if it's the Greens, the Communists, The Libertarians or whatever. Third parties don't win in national elections. Anyone voting 3rd party is irrelevant to the conversation.

3) Don't vote. See under Third Party.

4) GOP. Many in the GOP are nearly indistinguishable from the Democrats. The party as a whole has flubbed many issues. When they had power in Congress they went on a spending spree that made Dems envious. Some members are rank hypocrites. Others are crooks. Many are really clueless morons.
But not all of them. And there are many in the GOP who understand what small gov't and economic freedom mean. Many of them are very decent men with integrity. They are the only party with a chance of beating the Democrats. Not voting for them is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

2 and 4 are contradictory. Either 3rd parties are irrelevant or they influence elections, you can’t have it both ways.

Again, we have the same excuse over and over. The idea that I MUST vote for the republican because the democrats are worse. That means that all you really have is hate for the other side. That is not a reason to vote republican, it is a reason to not vote democrat.

As for ‘perfect,’ no one is asking for perfect. I have not asked for perfect in any way. All I asked for were simple reasons to vote republican and so far I have not received one single reason. I don’t want perfect but I do want SOMETHING to vote for.

Because you will likely get something you can be moderately happy with if the GOP is in power, vs. being totally unhappy if the Dems are in power.

Libertarians aren't even moderately happy with statist republicans....They recognize no difference between your favored brand of statism vs. that practiced by progressive democrats.

 

[speck]

Interesting that no republican can give reasons why one should vote republican.

 

[FA_Q2]

Interesting that no republican can give reasons why one should vote republican.

It’s not interesting, it’s sad. Truth be told, I actually expected far better than this but thought my expectations were low. To get NOTHING tells me how bad the republicans have really become or at least politics in general have become. It seems the democrats are actually right though I loth to even think it is possible. Could the votes Romney and other republicans really been JUST hate for the dems. That cannot be true in the least and yet here we are without any valid points.

 

[dblack]

If you had voted for Ron Paul and Paul got elected you would still have a politician opposed to your values. Look at how the narcos have jumped all over Rand Paul.

Rand Paul and Ron Paul are different people. In any case, this debate has nothing to do with either of them, as they are both Republicans. Your beef is with people who don't vote two-party.

Also, please refrain from referring to libertarians as 'narcos'. It's insulting and only degrades conversation and tempts people to insult you back.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you had voted for Ron Paul and Paul got elected you would still have a politician opposed to your values. Look at how the narcos have jumped all over Rand Paul.

Rand Paul and Ron Paul are different people. In any case, this debate has nothing to do with either of them, as they are both Republicans. Your beef is with people who don't vote two-party.

Also, please refrain from referring to libertarians as 'narcos'. It's insulting and only degrades conversation and tempts people to insult you back.

IT doesn't matter. Anyone becoming president is subject to political pressures and deal making to where he will make decisions that upset the purity of whatever it is he stood for. Look how the progressives are upset with Obama because he didnt do enough.
Obama is analogous to Paul here. It would be the same dynamic. Because it is easy to pontificate in theory about things but governing is actually much harder. Which is why the XXXXXXXXXXX never win elections.

 

[The Rabbi]

Interesting that no republican can give reasons why one should vote republican.

It’s not interesting, it’s sad. Truth be told, I actually expected far better than this but thought my expectations were low. To get NOTHING tells me how bad the republicans have really become or at least politics in general have become. It seems the democrats are actually right though I loth to even think it is possible. Could the votes Romney and other republicans really been JUST hate for the dems. That cannot be true in the least and yet here we are without any valid points.

Because no one votes for "Republicans." This isn't an English parliamentary system where we vote for parties.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which is why the narco-libtardarians never win elections.

Alright. You persist with the insults. It's not my style, but I'll try to remember to refer to you as a "fascist, neo-con, shitbag" any time I respond to your posts; if I bother.

It's not an insult. It's a factual representation of their position. Are you going to tell me the narcolibertarians are against legalizing all drugs?

 

[FA_Q2]

If you had voted for Ron Paul and Paul got elected you would still have a politician opposed to your values. Look at how the narcos have jumped all over Rand Paul.

Rand Paul and Ron Paul are different people. In any case, this debate has nothing to do with either of them, as they are both Republicans. Your beef is with people who don't vote two-party.

Also, please refrain from referring to libertarians as 'narcos'. It's insulting and only degrades conversation and tempts people to insult you back.

IT doesn't matter. Anyone becoming president is subject to political pressures and deal making to where he will make decisions that upset the purity of whatever it is he stood for. Look how the progressives are upset with Obama because he didnt do enough.
Obama is analogous to Paul here. It would be the same dynamic. Because it is easy to pontificate in theory about things but governing is actually much harder. Which is why the narco-XXXX never win elections.

And I will repeat AGAIN, because you keep ignoring it, no one is looking for purity. You revert back to this argument again even though I SPECIFICALLY stated I was not looking for a pure agenda or policy. You are assuming that dblack is also looking for ‘purity’ when he has made no such claim. That is entirely speculation on your part. I understand that not only does one not exist but a politician MUST make concessions. You want me to concede on everything though as you have failed to give any stance that I can vote for. You continue to build that ‘pure’ straw man even though it has been reviled and refuted multiple times. Can you come up with anything solid?

Also, again, stop using insults, you are in the CDZ.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rand Paul and Ron Paul are different people. In any case, this debate has nothing to do with either of them, as they are both Republicans. Your beef is with people who don't vote two-party.

Also, please refrain from referring to libertarians as 'narcos'. It's insulting and only degrades conversation and tempts people to insult you back.

IT doesn't matter. Anyone becoming president is subject to political pressures and deal making to where he will make decisions that upset the purity of whatever it is he stood for. Look how the progressives are upset with Obama because he didnt do enough.
Obama is analogous to Paul here. It would be the same dynamic. Because it is easy to pontificate in theory about things but governing is actually much harder. Which is why the narco-libtardarians never win elections.

And I will repeat AGAIN, because you keep ignoring it, no one is looking for purity. You revert back to this argument again even though I SPECIFICALLY stated I was not looking for a pure agenda or policy. You are assuming that dblack is also looking for ‘purity’ when he has made no such claim. That is entirely speculation on your part. I understand that not only does one not exist but a politician MUST make concessions. You want me to concede on everything though as you have failed to give any stance that I can vote for. You continue to build that ‘pure’ straw man even though it has been reviled and refuted multiple times. Can you come up with anything solid?

Also, again, stop using insults, you are in the CDZ.

Youv'e framed the topic in an impossible way. No one votes for "Republicans." Jeff Flake is not Chris Christie is not Rand Paul. Some of them I would vote for, others I wouldn't.
BUt we have two parties with any chance of getting elected. One of them generally stands for higher taxes, more regulation, and more gov't involvement to solve problems.
The other generally stands for lower taxes, fiscal prudence, and less gov't intervention to solve problems.
That's your choice. Anything else renders your opinion irrelevant.

 

[Oddball]

IT doesn't matter. Anyone becoming president is subject to political pressures and deal making to where he will make decisions that upset the purity of whatever it is he stood for. Look how the progressives are upset with Obama because he didnt do enough.
Obama is analogous to Paul here. It would be the same dynamic. Because it is easy to pontificate in theory about things but governing is actually much harder. Which is why the narco-libtardarians never win elections.

And I will repeat AGAIN, because you keep ignoring it, no one is looking for purity. You revert back to this argument again even though I SPECIFICALLY stated I was not looking for a pure agenda or policy. You are assuming that dblack is also looking for ‘purity’ when he has made no such claim. That is entirely speculation on your part. I understand that not only does one not exist but a politician MUST make concessions. You want me to concede on everything though as you have failed to give any stance that I can vote for. You continue to build that ‘pure’ straw man even though it has been reviled and refuted multiple times. Can you come up with anything solid?

Also, again, stop using insults, you are in the CDZ.

Youv'e framed the topic in an impossible way. No one votes for "Republicans." Jeff Flake is not Chris Christie is not Rand Paul. Some of them I would vote for, others I wouldn't.
BUt we have two parties with any chance of getting elected. One of them generally stands for higher taxes, more regulation, and more gov't involvement to solve problems.
The other generally stands for lower taxes, fiscal prudence, and less gov't intervention to solve problems.
That's your choice. Anything else renders your opinion irrelevant.

There you have it ...The admission that you DO vote the party.

Also, the tacit admission that we really don't have an honest choice.

 

[cereal_killer]

XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

No, it's an insult to call people libTARdians and if it persists I will begin to move into warnings and eventual removal from the CDZ.

Last and final warning. Thank you!