My war with Paul supporters is over

[TheGreatGatsby]

I am a Paul supporter and I will be voting for Romney. I simply do not believe that we can afford 4 more years of Obama.

Yeah! We need 8 more years of Obama(Romney). Four just wouldn't be enough!

Sorry dude, but Obama's nonsense is unprecedented and frankly it'd be unfair to assume anyone would be so terrible. And don't act like we're not paying attention. There are glaring differences between Obama and Romney. GLARING DIFFERENCES.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He can't force you to vote for him, of course. But he can choose not to RUN under the present circumstances.

But I don't expect that massive ego of his to permit him to behave like a statesman in this time of dire urgency.

Like I already said, Ron Paul is not going to run third party.

I said this months ago when the primary season was getting into swing...Whether Paul runs third party or not, most of us still aren't going to vote for Romney anyway.

When Romney loses to Obama, and I really don't think he's going win, it's not going to be Paul's fault.

This is where I stand as well. There's nothing that could compel me to vote for Mitt Romney, and it doesn't matter whether Ron Paul runs or not. But like I told Liability, you can't hold Ron Paul responsible for my vote or lack thereof.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Think about it, he has nothing to gain by waiting to announce that he's going to run third party. The sooner he were to announce the sooner his fundraising can kick back up, and the sooner he can work on getting ballot access. If he were going to run third party he'd have announced it by now.

He can't run third party anyway because of sore loser laws. It's too late.

Actually, I stand corrected, I don't think those laws apply to presidential candidates.

I think it depends on the state. I know Gary Johnson was having trouble in one of the states because of sore loser laws. I'm thinking Michigan, but I'm not completely sure.

 

[dblack]

I am a Paul supporter and I will be voting for Romney. I simply do not believe that we can afford 4 more years of Obama.

Yeah! We need 8 more years of Obama(Romney). Four just wouldn't be enough!

Sorry dude, but Obama's nonsense is unprecedented and frankly it'd be unfair to assume anyone would be so terrible. And don't act like we're not paying attention. There are glaring differences between Obama and Romney. GLARING DIFFERENCES.

There are trivial differences at best. And on at least of few of those differences, I'd lead toward Obama (defense spending, for example). There might be some minor ways Romney would be better, but in balance, it's a wash. Definitely not worth wasting a vote over.

It's especially ridiculous to hold up Romney as the remedy to ACA, something he basically initiated.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am a Paul supporter and I will be voting for Romney. I simply do not believe that we can afford 4 more years of Obama.

Yeah! We need 8 more years of Obama(Romney). Four just wouldn't be enough!

Sorry dude, but Obama's nonsense is unprecedented and frankly it'd be unfair to assume anyone would be so terrible. And don't act like we're not paying attention. There are glaring differences between Obama and Romney. GLARING DIFFERENCES.

Well with text that bold I have to assume the glare is so bright that I just can't see them.

 

[Toro]

This last couple of days has opened me up to things.....While I disagree staunchly with many things Paul does and I do not see him in rose colored glasses it is time I put the country first and politics last. We all know he isn't going to be the nominee and I doubt he will run third party but truthfully right now he doesn't matter.

Yesterday saw us as a nation become far less free then we use to be. Yesterday was a tremendous blow to liberty for all of us whether you believe it or not. Yesterday showed a need for a congress that wishes to preserve a republic and deny a democracy. Yesterday after the anger subsided some I started thinking clearly.

So today I put my hand out to those libertarians and Paul libertarians in a act of peace.....The liberal progressives believe we should compromise.....They are completely right. We need to compromise. The libertarians and conservatives need to compromise and move forward together on the things we have in common....Like smaller government....Less taxes....Fewer regulations...Most of all preserving this great nation as a Republic.

It is time we put away childish things. I am putting this many places to show as many as I can my conviction to saving our nation for our children.....


God bless the USA

Who are you?

 

[JWBooth]

This last couple of days has opened me up to things.....While I disagree staunchly with many things Paul does and I do not see him in rose colored glasses it is time I put the country first and politics last. We all know he isn't going to be the nominee and I doubt he will run third party but truthfully right now he doesn't matter.

Yesterday saw us as a nation become far less free then we use to be. Yesterday was a tremendous blow to liberty for all of us whether you believe it or not. Yesterday showed a need for a congress that wishes to preserve a republic and deny a democracy. Yesterday after the anger subsided some I started thinking clearly.

So today I put my hand out to those libertarians and Paul libertarians in a act of peace.....The liberal progressives believe we should compromise.....They are completely right. We need to compromise. The libertarians and conservatives need to compromise and move forward together on the things we have in common....Like smaller government....Less taxes....Fewer regulations...Most of all preserving this great nation as a Republic.

It is time we put away childish things. I am putting this many places to show as many as I can my conviction to saving our nation for our children.....


God bless the USA

Who are you?

Nevermind, cause you really dont want to know.

 

[Liability]

Yeah! We need 8 more years of Obama(Romney). Four just wouldn't be enough!

Sorry dude, but Obama's nonsense is unprecedented and frankly it'd be unfair to assume anyone would be so terrible. And don't act like we're not paying attention. There are glaring differences between Obama and Romney. GLARING DIFFERENCES.

Well with text that bold I have to assume the glare is so bright that I just can't see them.

Nobody can ever see the very thing they refuse to acknowledge.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sorry dude, but Obama's nonsense is unprecedented and frankly it'd be unfair to assume anyone would be so terrible. And don't act like we're not paying attention. There are glaring differences between Obama and Romney. GLARING DIFFERENCES.

Well with text that bold I have to assume the glare is so bright that I just can't see them.

Nobody can ever see the very thing they refuse to acknowledge.

Perhaps, but it could just be that you're the one refusing to acknowledge that our position of refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, even if we accept that Romney were the lesser of two evils (which I don't), is at least as logical and principled as your own "anybody but Obama" position.

 

[Liability]

Well with text that bold I have to assume the glare is so bright that I just can't see them.

Nobody can ever see the very thing they refuse to acknowledge.

Perhaps, but it could just be that you're the one refusing to acknowledge that our position of refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, even if we accept that Romney were the lesser of two evils (which I don't), is at least as logical and principled as your own "anybody but Obama" position.

It could be in theory. But it isn't in reality.

There's the rub, bub.

Voting for the lesser of two evil which is another way of saying "voting for the better of two alternatives" is a way of seeking to avoid getting saddled with the worse of two evils.

You can pretend otherwise all you want, but the facts don't go away.

If your "strategy" has ANY chance of permitting the Obamination to continue as President in a Second Term, then your strategy is horrendous and detrimental to the very things you claim to hold dear.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nobody can ever see the very thing they refuse to acknowledge.

Perhaps, but it could just be that you're the one refusing to acknowledge that our position of refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, even if we accept that Romney were the lesser of two evils (which I don't), is at least as logical and principled as your own "anybody but Obama" position.

It could be in theory. But it isn't in reality.

There's the rub, bub.

Voting for the lesser of two evil which is another way of saying "voting for the better of two alternatives" is a way of seeking to avoid getting saddled with the worse of two evils.

You can pretend otherwise all you want, but the facts don't go away.

If your "strategy" has ANY chance of permitting the Obamination to continue as President in a Second Term, then your strategy is horrendous and detrimental to the very things you claim to hold dear.

The problem is that voting for Romney is also horrendous and detrimental to the very things that I hold dear, even if he were slightly better than Obama (which, again, I don't believe whatsoever). For example, Romney might be better than Obama on health care, big maybe on that one, but he might be worse on civil liberties and war. So how do I weigh that? Does it even out? Is one issue more important than the other? There's really no objective measure. But here's what I do know: both Obama and Romney are statists, and I reject statism, so I reject both of them.

 

[Liability]

Perhaps, but it could just be that you're the one refusing to acknowledge that our position of refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, even if we accept that Romney were the lesser of two evils (which I don't), is at least as logical and principled as your own "anybody but Obama" position.

It could be in theory. But it isn't in reality.

There's the rub, bub.

Voting for the lesser of two evil which is another way of saying "voting for the better of two alternatives" is a way of seeking to avoid getting saddled with the worse of two evils.

You can pretend otherwise all you want, but the facts don't go away.

If your "strategy" has ANY chance of permitting the Obamination to continue as President in a Second Term, then your strategy is horrendous and detrimental to the very things you claim to hold dear.

The problem is that voting for Romney is also horrendous and detrimental to the very things that I hold dear, even if he were slightly better than Obama (which, again, I don't believe whatsoever). For example, Romney might be better than Obama on health care, big maybe on that one, but he might be worse on civil liberties and war. So how do I weigh that? Does it even out? Is one issue more important than the other? There's really no objective measure. But here's what I do know: both Obama and Romney are statists, and I reject statism, so I reject both of them.

You have mis-identified "the problem."

Voting for Romney might help us GET Romney which, by definition, means we get RID of the Obamination.

First things first.

With President Obama at the helm, we can't undo any of the obvious damage he has already caued. And with him at the helm for a second term, we get HIS ******* SCOTUS nominations to make the bench even more ******* liberal instead of trying to steer it back to the right.

We already (just) saw how a liberal infested bench can undermine the Constitutional basis of our Republic.

Do we REALLY want to enable The ONE to push the Court even further to the ******* left?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It could be in theory. But it isn't in reality.

There's the rub, bub.

Voting for the lesser of two evil which is another way of saying "voting for the better of two alternatives" is a way of seeking to avoid getting saddled with the worse of two evils.

You can pretend otherwise all you want, but the facts don't go away.

If your "strategy" has ANY chance of permitting the Obamination to continue as President in a Second Term, then your strategy is horrendous and detrimental to the very things you claim to hold dear.

The problem is that voting for Romney is also horrendous and detrimental to the very things that I hold dear, even if he were slightly better than Obama (which, again, I don't believe whatsoever). For example, Romney might be better than Obama on health care, big maybe on that one, but he might be worse on civil liberties and war. So how do I weigh that? Does it even out? Is one issue more important than the other? There's really no objective measure. But here's what I do know: both Obama and Romney are statists, and I reject statism, so I reject both of them.

You have mis-identified "the problem."

Voting for Romney might help us GET Romney which, by definition, means we get RID of the Obamination.

First things first.

With President Obama at the helm, we can't undo any of the obvious damage he has already caued. And with him at the helm for a second term, we get HIS ******* SCOTUS nominations to make the bench even more ******* liberal instead of trying to steer it back to the right.

We already (just) saw how a liberal infested bench can undermine the Constitutional basis of our Republic.

Do we REALLY want to enable The ONE to push the Court even further to the ******* left?

Yeah, but I don't want Romney any more or any less than I want Obama, which is what you apparently can't comprehend. No, we won't be able to do away with the damage Obama has done with him as President, but we won't be able to do away with the damage that Romney will do with him as President.

As for the SCOTUS, how did that great conservative Chief Justice work out?

"As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito... The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written."

Courts & The Constitution

Personally, I don't want anymore Chief Justice Roberts, or Justices Scalia, Thomas, or Alito on the Court. I don't want to enable Obama to push the Court further to the left, but neither am I interested in Romney pushing the Court further to the right.

As I already said, I reject statism, and that goes for left and right.

 

[Liability]

The problem is that voting for Romney is also horrendous and detrimental to the very things that I hold dear, even if he were slightly better than Obama (which, again, I don't believe whatsoever). For example, Romney might be better than Obama on health care, big maybe on that one, but he might be worse on civil liberties and war. So how do I weigh that? Does it even out? Is one issue more important than the other? There's really no objective measure. But here's what I do know: both Obama and Romney are statists, and I reject statism, so I reject both of them.

You have mis-identified "the problem."

Voting for Romney might help us GET Romney which, by definition, means we get RID of the Obamination.

First things first.

With President Obama at the helm, we can't undo any of the obvious damage he has already caued. And with him at the helm for a second term, we get HIS ******* SCOTUS nominations to make the bench even more ******* liberal instead of trying to steer it back to the right.

We already (just) saw how a liberal infested bench can undermine the Constitutional basis of our Republic.

Do we REALLY want to enable The ONE to push the Court even further to the ******* left?

Yeah, but I don't want Romney any more or any less than I want Obama, which is what you apparently can't comprehend. No, we won't be able to do away with the damage Obama has done with him as President, but we won't be able to do away with the damage that Romney will do with him as President.

As for the SCOTUS, how did that great conservative Chief Justice work out?

"As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito... The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written."

Courts & The Constitution

Personally, I don't want anymore Chief Justice Roberts, or Justices Scalia, Thomas, or Alito on the Court. I don't want to enable Obama to push the Court further to the left, but neither am I interested in Romney pushing the Court further to the right.

As I already said, I reject statism, and that goes for left and right.

THAT is a different matter. THAT is just your stupidity at work.

You can think that Romney sucks. You might even have a point.

But to even PRETEND that he is no different than the incumbent is intellectually baseless and dishonest.

You don't reject Statism. You embrace it if you aren't willing to hold your nose and vote for the BETTER of two candidates and the better of the two candidates is the one most likely to start undoing some of the incumbent's efforts to massively increase the STATIST hold on our society.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You have mis-identified "the problem."

Voting for Romney might help us GET Romney which, by definition, means we get RID of the Obamination.

First things first.

With President Obama at the helm, we can't undo any of the obvious damage he has already caued. And with him at the helm for a second term, we get HIS ******* SCOTUS nominations to make the bench even more ******* liberal instead of trying to steer it back to the right.

We already (just) saw how a liberal infested bench can undermine the Constitutional basis of our Republic.

Do we REALLY want to enable The ONE to push the Court even further to the ******* left?

Yeah, but I don't want Romney any more or any less than I want Obama, which is what you apparently can't comprehend. No, we won't be able to do away with the damage Obama has done with him as President, but we won't be able to do away with the damage that Romney will do with him as President.

As for the SCOTUS, how did that great conservative Chief Justice work out?

"As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito... The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written."

Courts & The Constitution

Personally, I don't want anymore Chief Justice Roberts, or Justices Scalia, Thomas, or Alito on the Court. I don't want to enable Obama to push the Court further to the left, but neither am I interested in Romney pushing the Court further to the right.

As I already said, I reject statism, and that goes for left and right.

THAT is a different matter. THAT is just your stupidity at work.

You can think that Romney sucks. You might even have a point.

But to even PRETEND that he is no different than the incumbent is intellectually baseless and dishonest.

You don't reject Statism. You embrace it if you aren't willing to hold your nose and vote for the BETTER of two candidates and the better of the two candidates is the one most likely to start undoing some of the incumbent's efforts to massively increase the STATIST hold on our society.

Having a different opinion from you is not "intellectually baseless" or "dishonest." It's simply a disagreement, and no name calling or gnashing of teeth is going to change that fact.

 

[Liability]

Yeah, but I don't want Romney any more or any less than I want Obama, which is what you apparently can't comprehend. No, we won't be able to do away with the damage Obama has done with him as President, but we won't be able to do away with the damage that Romney will do with him as President.

As for the SCOTUS, how did that great conservative Chief Justice work out?

"As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito... The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written."

Courts & The Constitution

Personally, I don't want anymore Chief Justice Roberts, or Justices Scalia, Thomas, or Alito on the Court. I don't want to enable Obama to push the Court further to the left, but neither am I interested in Romney pushing the Court further to the right.

As I already said, I reject statism, and that goes for left and right.

THAT is a different matter. THAT is just your stupidity at work.

You can think that Romney sucks. You might even have a point.

But to even PRETEND that he is no different than the incumbent is intellectually baseless and dishonest.

You don't reject Statism. You embrace it if you aren't willing to hold your nose and vote for the BETTER of two candidates and the better of the two candidates is the one most likely to start undoing some of the incumbent's efforts to massively increase the STATIST hold on our society.

Having a different opinion from you is not "intellectually baseless" or "dishonest." It's simply a disagreement, and no name calling or gnashing of teeth is going to change that fact.

It's not that you disagree with me, per se, K.

Sometimes having a completely indefensible "opinion" which is contradictory of one's original premises IS intellectually baseless and dishonest.

This is the case with you.

 

[GoneBezerk]

We Conservatives haven't gone anywhere, it's the paulbots that are the ones making threats of not voting or voting for some 3rd party person which is support for Obamination.

Romney is what we have, deal with it.

If you don't support Romney, you are supporting the idiot sitting in the White House. He would love for you to stay home on voting day or pick some random person that can't even win a county.

 

[dblack]

THAT is a different matter. THAT is just your stupidity at work.

You can think that Romney sucks. You might even have a point.

But to even PRETEND that he is no different than the incumbent is intellectually baseless and dishonest.

You don't reject Statism. You embrace it if you aren't willing to hold your nose and vote for the BETTER of two candidates and the better of the two candidates is the one most likely to start undoing some of the incumbent's efforts to massively increase the STATIST hold on our society.

Having a different opinion from you is not "intellectually baseless" or "dishonest." It's simply a disagreement, and no name calling or gnashing of teeth is going to change that fact.

It's not that you disagree with me, per se, K.

Sometimes having a completely indefensible "opinion" which is contradictory of one's original premises IS intellectually baseless and dishonest.

This is the case with you.

No, the case is that we don't think Romney would any better and would be unlikely to undo any of Obama's damage. He could even be worse. This is what you are failing to come terms with. Replacing a bad leader with an equally bad leader is pointless.

I understand that you think Romney would be a significant improvement over Obama and it is on this that we disagree. In our view, their differences are trivial and we aren't willing to give up our opportunity to push for something better for a negligible change in leadership.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

THAT is a different matter. THAT is just your stupidity at work.

You can think that Romney sucks. You might even have a point.

But to even PRETEND that he is no different than the incumbent is intellectually baseless and dishonest.

You don't reject Statism. You embrace it if you aren't willing to hold your nose and vote for the BETTER of two candidates and the better of the two candidates is the one most likely to start undoing some of the incumbent's efforts to massively increase the STATIST hold on our society.

Having a different opinion from you is not "intellectually baseless" or "dishonest." It's simply a disagreement, and no name calling or gnashing of teeth is going to change that fact.

It's not that you disagree with me, per se, K.

Sometimes having a completely indefensible "opinion" which is contradictory of one's original premises IS intellectually baseless and dishonest.

This is the case with you.

It takes quite a twist of logic to say that refusing to vote for a statist is somehow supporting statism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We Conservatives haven't gone anywhere, it's the paulbots that are the ones making threats of not voting or voting for some 3rd party person which is support for Obamination.

Romney is what we have, deal with it.

If you don't support Romney, you are supporting the idiot sitting in the White House. He would love for you to stay home on voting day or pick some random person that can't even win a county.

Well Romney's not good enough, deal with it.