Dear "Conservatives"....

[USMCSergeant]

While I like most things Dr Paul has to say, there are a few issues where him and I disagree, but the point is moot as he will not be the nominee. If he would have received the nomination I would have voted for him over Obama, the same with Newt. But somehow Mitt Romney has received the nod, I can't get my head around it, but that's what has happened. I will vote for Romney only because he is in my opinion, the lesser of two evils. I think another 4 years of Obama would be devastating for our country, if only in Supreme Court nominations. That can do damage for the next 20 years. So while my moral compass and political feelings wholeheartedly dislike Mitt, I have to vote for him to attempt to keep Obama from a second term.

The GOP continues to shit the bed, year after year. When will a true conservative patriot step up?

 

[Foxfyre]

While I like most things Dr Paul has to say, there are a few issues where him and I disagree, but the point is moot as he will not be the nominee. If he would have received the nomination I would have voted for him over Obama, the same with Newt. But somehow Mitt Romney has received the nod, I can't get my head around it, but that's what has happened. I will vote for Romney only because he is in my opinion, the lesser of two evils. I think another 4 years of Obama would be devastating for our country, if only in Supreme Court nominations. That can do damage for the next 20 years. So while my moral compass and political feelings wholeheartedly dislike Mitt, I have to vote for him to attempt to keep Obama from a second term.

The GOP continues to shit the bed, year after year. When will a true conservative patriot step up?

Personally I think Romney is a lot more than the lesser of two evils. He was certainly not first among the GOP hopefuls for me nor first among those I think should have been GOP hopefuls, but he wasn't last either. I think he has a proven track record of competency and I think he has too much ego not to do a competent job as President. Maybe he won't be the most likable or inspirational Presiident we've ever had, but I think he will do his damndest to do no harm and he will be competent.

That alone will be a huge improvement.

(Though I adore him as a person, Ron Paul was at the bottom of all my lists. And I still would not hesitate to vote for him over Obama.)

 

[geauxtohell]

<tip of he hat to Missourian>

Romney, in his own words:

Q: As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country.



A: Let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I’ve been governor in a pretty tough state. You’ve heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.

Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

Mitt Romney on Gun Control
​

 

[dblack]

NoBama, NoRomney, No thanks.

 

[geauxtohell]

NoBama, NoRomney, No thanks.

Of course, the "conservatives" have twisted the issue in their own minds such that they claim you are the problem.

Their capacity for self deception is truly amazing.

 

[dblack]

NoBama, NoRomney, No thanks.

Of course, the "conservatives" have twisted the issue in their own minds such that they claim you are the problem.

Their capacity for self deception is truly amazing.

Being a problem works for me.

 

[Foxfyre]

<tip of he hat to Missourian>

Romney, in his own words:

Q: As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country.



A: Let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I’ve been governor in a pretty tough state. You’ve heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.

Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

Mitt Romney on Gun Control
​

However, it is noteworthy that this was a limited ban on certain, not all assault weapons, and received the endorsement of almost all gun rights groups in Massachusetts who participated in the writing of and wording of the legislation.

When you're governor of a heavily leftwing state, you have to be creative in working in conservative principles. The governor is not a dictator. He is a leader, an administrator, and a facilitator. Whether the second amendment means unrestricted access to any weapons we want and can obtain, or whether there is room for regulation within that, is an honest debate. And all Republicans and all conservatives won't be in lockstep on that. For most of us, it doesn't mean that no line can be drawn. The debate is in where the line is drawn and there will be differences of opinion as to where that should be.

I might not agree on the location of the line Governor Romney drew, but I don't see him as a liberal or evil because he drew one.

 

[Liability]

NoBama, NoRomney, No thanks.

Of course, the "conservatives" have twisted the issue in their own minds such that they claim you are the problem.

Their capacity for self deception is truly amazing.

The claim that it's self deception is neither factually accurate nor logical.

It's just funny.

No matter how you try to spin it, though Go2Heck, the facts and the logic still come up like this:

It will be either President Obama getting re-elected or Mitt Romney GETTING elected.

If you can't stand President Obama's politics and behavior (etc) and deem him a danger to the health of our Republic, then you will vote for the other guy.

You don't have to profess love for the guy. It suffices that you deem him superior to the incumbent.

I maintain that a box of nail clippings would be a vast improvement over the incumbent.

This choice is not a difficult one, accordingly.

 

[geauxtohell]

NoBama, NoRomney, No thanks.

Of course, the "conservatives" have twisted the issue in their own minds such that they claim you are the problem.

Their capacity for self deception is truly amazing.

The claim that it's self deception is neither factually accurate nor logical.

It's just funny.

No matter how you try to spin it, though Go2Heck, the facts and the logic still come up like this:

It will be either President Obama getting re-elected or Mitt Romney GETTING elected.

If you can't stand President Obama's politics and behavior (etc) and deem him a danger to the health of our Republic, then you will vote for the other guy.

You don't have to profess love for the guy. It suffices that you deem him superior to the incumbent.

I maintain that a box of nail clippings would be a vast improvement over the incumbent.

This choice is not a difficult one, accordingly.

Yeah... I get the "lesser of two evils" argument. I am here to point out that A.). There is a difference in what self professed conservatives do and then say a d B.). Some people aren't afraid to lose to preserve their principles.

So.... McCain on '08. Romney in '12. Whose next? Olympia Snowe?

In Snowe did run, I'd lay money that the same people would be on here making the same "lesser of two evils arguement".

 

[geauxtohell]

<tip of he hat to Missourian>

Romney, in his own words:

Q: As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country.



A: Let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I’ve been governor in a pretty tough state. You’ve heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.

Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

Mitt Romney on Gun Control
​

However, it is noteworthy that this was a limited ban on certain, not all assault weapons, and received the endorsement of almost all gun rights groups in Massachusetts who participated in the writing of and wording of the legislation.

When you're governor of a heavily leftwing state, you have to be creative in working in conservative principles. The governor is not a dictator. He is a leader, an administrator, and a facilitator. Whether the second amendment means unrestricted access to any weapons we want and can obtain, or whether there is room for regulation within that, is an honest debate. And all Republicans and all conservatives won't be in lockstep on that. For most of us, it doesn't mean that no line can be drawn. The debate is in where the line is drawn and there will be differences of opinion as to where that should be.

I might not agree on the location of the line Governor Romney drew, but I don't see him as a liberal or evil because he drew one.

Or maybe Romney is what he was when he was in office: pro choice, anti gun, pro gay rights, and pro government healthcare...

I dig it. I mean, that's basically where I am.

Though, he won't get my vote. Why vote for Obama lite when I can have the real thing?

 

[Oddsfish]

NoBama, NoRomney, No thanks.

Of course, the "conservatives" have twisted the issue in their own minds such that they claim you are the problem.

Their capacity for self deception is truly amazing.

The claim that it's self deception is neither factually accurate nor logical.

It's just funny.

No matter how you try to spin it, though Go2Heck, the facts and the logic still come up like this:

It will be either President Obama getting re-elected or Mitt Romney GETTING elected.

If you can't stand President Obama's politics and behavior (etc) and deem him a danger to the health of our Republic, then you will vote for the other guy.

You don't have to profess love for the guy. It suffices that you deem him superior to the incumbent.

I maintain that a box of nail clippings would be a vast improvement over the incumbent.

This choice is not a difficult one, accordingly.

If you vote for Romney over Obama, that doesn't necessarily make you a non-conservative. But if you are part of the collective that chose Romney to be the presumptive nominee, you're not even close to a conservative. You're a liberal or a "moderate" (as Romney has called himself.)

 

[Liability]

Of course, the "conservatives" have twisted the issue in their own minds such that they claim you are the problem.

Their capacity for self deception is truly amazing.

The claim that it's self deception is neither factually accurate nor logical.

It's just funny.

No matter how you try to spin it, though Go2Heck, the facts and the logic still come up like this:

It will be either President Obama getting re-elected or Mitt Romney GETTING elected.

If you can't stand President Obama's politics and behavior (etc) and deem him a danger to the health of our Republic, then you will vote for the other guy.

You don't have to profess love for the guy. It suffices that you deem him superior to the incumbent.

I maintain that a box of nail clippings would be a vast improvement over the incumbent.

This choice is not a difficult one, accordingly.

If you vote for Romney over Obama, that doesn't necessarily make you a non-conservative. But if you are part of the collective that chose Romney to be the presumptive nominee, you're not even close to a conservative. You're a liberal or a "moderate" (as Romney has called himself.)

I am close to being in agreement.

The whole point of the GOP primary system is to pick the party's nominee. I deem that a golden opportunity to pick NOT just the guy that can beat the other party's nominee, but the guy who most closely approximates the ideals of my political preference. For me, Mitt was not that guy.

The counter-thinking is not my preference, but at least there's some logic behind it. It holds that we cannot insist on the perfect at the cost of the good. That is, we have to focus on getting a candidate who CAN beat the other guy as the main order of business especially when the other guy is such a maddeningly horrid flop. The advocates of that position within the GOP saw Mitt as the guy most likely to be able to defeat President Obama. Considering that it is pretty ******* urgent to defeat President Obama's bid for re-election, I don't agree that the Mitt supporters are to be vilified as liberals or moderates.

Their kind of pragmatism is part of the problem, in my estimation. But even so, if you are inclined towards conservatism, you can't argue with the proposition that it is absolutely NECESSARY to boot the incumbent out of office this time around.

 

[Oddsfish]

The claim that it's self deception is neither factually accurate nor logical.

It's just funny.

No matter how you try to spin it, though Go2Heck, the facts and the logic still come up like this:

It will be either President Obama getting re-elected or Mitt Romney GETTING elected.

If you can't stand President Obama's politics and behavior (etc) and deem him a danger to the health of our Republic, then you will vote for the other guy.

You don't have to profess love for the guy. It suffices that you deem him superior to the incumbent.

I maintain that a box of nail clippings would be a vast improvement over the incumbent.

This choice is not a difficult one, accordingly.

If you vote for Romney over Obama, that doesn't necessarily make you a non-conservative. But if you are part of the collective that chose Romney to be the presumptive nominee, you're not even close to a conservative. You're a liberal or a "moderate" (as Romney has called himself.)

I am close to being in agreement.

The whole point of the GOP primary system is to pick the party's nominee. I deem that a golden opportunity to pick NOT just the guy that can beat the other party's nominee, but the guy who most closely approximates the ideals of my political preference. For me, Mitt was not that guy.

The counter-thinking is not my preference, but at least there's some logic behind it. It holds that we cannot insist on the perfect at the cost of the good. That is, we have to focus on getting a candidate who CAN beat the other guy as the main order of business especially when the other guy is such a maddeningly horrid flop. The advocates of that position within the GOP saw Mitt as the guy most likely to be able to defeat President Obama. Considering that it is pretty ******* urgent to defeat President Obama's bid for re-election, I don't agree that the Mitt supporters are to be vilified as liberals or moderates.

Their kind of pragmatism is part of the problem, in my estimation. But even so, ir you are inclined towards conservatism, you can't argue with the proposition that it is absolutely NECESARY to boot the incumbent out of office this time around.

Absolutely. Getting Obama out is crucial; if that means replacing him with Romney, that's still a better situation. I could vote for Romney if he's the nominee, but I'm not dumb enough to believe he's an actual conservative. I'd be voting for a liberal, or "moderate"... a lot of republicans will not be able to stomach this obvious truth, because they know they have to vote for the guy with the "R"... so they'll convince themselves of their own lie: that Mitt Romney is a conservative.


And the only way true Romney espousers are not justifiably labeled as liberals or moderates, is if they are "conservatives" who are astoundingly ignorant as to who Mitt Romney really is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why vote for Obama lite when I can have the real thing?

Perhaps not.

A vote for Romney is a vote for all the usual conservative suspects, and a return of the same failed policies.

Romney’s not going to be all alone in the WH making all the decisions, he’s going to bring in a good number of hard-core rightists. And given the fact that Romney is weak and indecisive, it will be the hard-core rightists running things, not Romney.

In that context with that understanding of how things really work, a conservative can indeed vote for Romney in good faith, as a ‘true conservative.’

 

[dblack]

Absolutely. Getting Obama out is crucial; if that means replacing him with Romney, that's still a better situation. I could vote for Romney if he's the nominee, but I'm not dumb enough to believe he's an actual conservative. I'd be voting for a liberal, or "moderate"... a lot of republicans will not be able to stomach this obvious truth, because they know they have to vote for the guy with the "R"... so they'll convince themselves of their own lie: that Mitt Romney is a conservative.

Not from what I'm hearing. Most of them are leaning on the same lie you are: that it doesn't matter that Romney is a phony conservative, he'd still be better than Obama. I'd also dispute the Romney is 'liberal'. He's no more liberal than Obama is. They're both purebred corporatists. A phony conservative is no better than a phony liberal.

 

[elvis]

Who the hell are you ?

I'll support who I want, where I want, when I want.

In this case, he's less a BOS than the current BOS-In-Chief we have now.

Eat crap and die.

So you are a Repblican, not a conservative. The two aren' mutually inclusive.

When you vote for a liberal for his nations highest office in November, you will demonstrate that you aren't a conservative.

Who am I supposed to support? Bishop Santorum?

 

[mikecushman]

How can you call yourself a conservative and still vote for a liberal, because they are "more" conservative that sounds like your cutting hairs and don't want to admit that youre voting for a liberal. And at least if you vote for Paul (like I will) at least you will stick to your values and beliefs, and in this world we live in what else do you have in the end other than what you believe in. Maybe it's time to move past conservatism altogether, as a political ideology it has existed for less than 250 years with it rising to prominence following the fall of Napoleon at the Congress of Vienna. And socialism Is a viable alternative, Im not talking about Leninist communism which differs greatly from socialist principles in the idea of a vanguard party that leads the revolution and ends up becoming the ruling elite that they replaced as has been the case throughout the 20th century. Im not talking about radical change but gradual change to a more socialist standing, remember both Theodore Roosevelt (a republican) and Woodrow Wilson (a democrat) both held A Lot of socialist views. I mean C'mon we're AMERICA home to the revolution maybe its time for a change to move past our political stigmas maybe it's time for america to move past conservatism and liberalism and try to help the people that the government is supposed to protect. What's the worst that happens we elect somebody else in four years.
If you don't buy a ticket you will never win the raffle.
At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth……Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Liability]

How can you call yourself a conservative and still vote for a liberal, because they are "more" conservative that sounds like your cutting hairs and don't want to admit that youre voting for a liberal. And at least if you vote for Paul (like I will) at least you will stick to your values and beliefs, and in this world we live in what else do you have in the end other than what you believe in. Maybe it's time to move past conservatism altogether, as a political ideology it has existed for less than 250 years with it rising to prominence following the fall of Napoleon at the Congress of Vienna. And socialism Is a viable alternative, Im not talking about Leninist communism which differs greatly from socialist principles in the idea of a vanguard party that leads the revolution and ends up becoming the ruling elite that they replaced as has been the case throughout the 20th century. Im not talking about radical change but gradual change to a more socialist standing, remember both Theodore Roosevelt (a republican) and Woodrow Wilson (a democrat) both held A Lot of socialist views. I mean C'mon we're AMERICA home to the revolution maybe its time for a change to move past our political stigmas maybe it's time for america to move past conservatism and liberalism and try to help the people that the government is supposed to protect. What's the worst that happens we elect somebody else in four years.
If you don't buy a ticket you will never win the raffle.
At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth……Theodore Roosevelt

Again, your would be "argument" is quite senseless. Let's just say that Mitt is a lib. It's arguable that he really isn't. But, for the sake of the discussion, let's just say he is.

Yes; in that case voting for Mitt is voting for a liberal.

But it's still a vote to remove from office the massively inept and dangerous uber lib whom he would replace.

It's a much needed tradeoff, especially where (as we are now confronted with) the only two choices are Mitt and the President.

There simply is no longer any other actual choice.

If you want to vote for some guaranteed loser like Ron Paul, that's one less vote to replace the incumbent. I am not content to sit passively by and allow that to happen when I could vote for Mitt, instead.

 

[dblack]

There simply is no longer any other actual choice.

You're operating under the assumption that a vote is a 'choice' - that by voting we are 'choosing' our leaders. But that's not how it works. When we vote we express our opinions. The actual choice is made by the election process, by an aggregate of all our opinions combined.

When voters fail to express their opinions honestly, that system is undermined. When they attempt to game the system, by making assumptions about who is mostly likely to win and then casting a vote to counter that outcome (essentially lying about their actual preference), it cripples the system's ability to produce an optimal result. Plurality, winner-take-all elections are dysfunctional enough as it is - but when the fearmongering media, and opportunistic leaders, sell us the 'lessers-of-two-evils' nonsense, it's a disaster. It guarantees us 'evil'. If we don't figure out a way to reject it (either by growing a pair and voting our consciences, or by changing the system that supports it) we are truly and permanently screwed.

 

[Liability]

There simply is no longer any other actual choice.

You're operating under the assumption that a vote is a 'choice' - that by voting we are 'choosing' our leaders. But that's not how it works. When we vote we express our opinions. The actual choice is made by the election process, by an aggregate of all our opinions combined.

When voters fail to express their opinions honestly, that system is undermined. When they attempt to game the system, by making assumptions about who is mostly likely to win and then casting a vote to counter that outcome (essentially lying about their actual preference), it cripples the system's ability to produce an optimal result. Plurality, winner-take-all elections are dysfunctional enough as it is - but when the fearmongering media, and opportunistic leaders, sell us the 'lessers-of-two-evils' nonsense, it's a disaster. It guarantees us 'evil'. If we don't figure out a way to reject it (either by growing a pair and voting our consciences, or by changing the system that supports it) we are truly and permanently screwed.

Oh. So close, and yet, still you fall short.

When you vote, you vote for the Electors; the electors who are assigned to the particular presidential candidate you favor.

That's how it works.

So, you are doing more than expressing a preference, you are putting in the vote to have the slate of electors for the candidate you prefer BE the official Electors from your state.

The difference between a direct election and voting for electors does exist, but the distinction is quite minor in the discussion. Either way, you are voting for President (directly or one step removed).

And your present quibble does not address the actual point. The point I made still stands utterly un-refuted by your quibble.

Go back to the drawing board.