Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So you will cast a vote to ensure the re-election of somebody with strong Marxist/socialist beliefs, who says we can spend the country into prosperity, and has already brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. You can point to no Republican, however liberal, who condones that. You would help hasten the destruction of the America that we know, but at least you would be principled.
At some point, Americans have to consider the consequences of what we do however well intentioned we are.
What about the consequences of continually voting 'lesser of two evils'? Doesn't that maintain the status quo, leaving us with only two legitimate possibilities for most major federal offices?
If we had more choices than just D or R, lesser of two evils wouldn't even be an argument....but as long as people continue to vote that way, we won't have more choices. Is that not a consequence Americans should consider?
I look at the lesser of two evils like whether you will allow the doctor to take off your leg or would rather die of the gangrene that necessitates its removal. Will you take the medication that might kill you or take your chances with the disease that almost certainly will?
We can SEE the consequences of the past 3+ years, and we can reasonably assume that the consequences will be far more severe with a Barack Obama who is not worried about re-election. As incompetent as President George W. Bush was on several different fronts, does anybody with any intellectual honesty think we would be in as bad a shape as we are if he or John McCain had been president the past 3+ years? (John McCain was absolutely at the bottom of my list of preferred candidates on the GOP side in 2008 too.) Or even if a Hillary Clinton had been elected President?
We gain nothing by re-electing a bad President even if we have to hold our nose to vote for a marginally better one. Throwing the country under the bus just to make a statemenjt is neither wise nor patriotic.
... that is really REALLY scary and reinforces the opinion of a lot of us that passionate Ron Paul supporters are at best naive, at worst really strange.So we're naïve, unwise and unpatriotic.Throwing the country under the bus just to make a statemenjt is neither wise nor patriotic.
Yeah, keep insulting us until we realize how dumb we are and switch our vote to your candidate. Brilliant strategy!
Wead and Dr. Paul also know that they're not going to peel off any votes from the east coast establishment shoe salesman squish jobs, so what would be the point of going after Romney?It's about time someone recognized that we're needed.
The things we have in common aren't going to get implemented. All 3 of the others have records of growing government.
I can't support them.
As far as the question in the OP. I would only vote for Romney if he gave us some liberty minded people placements in the cabinet. I need Ron as Treasury Sec, I need Andrew Napolitano as AG, I need Peter Schiff as the next Fed Chairman, And Michael Sheurer as Sec, of Defense.
Give me those and you got my vote. You can have whatever else you want.
I think I could be persuaded with that lineup, but how to get it in BLOOD before the election? Any reneges and God only knows how I'd react.
Yeah that's the conundrum. How can we be sure we'd get it?
The Paul campaign has some kind of plan on this, they know they're not going to win. They're getting these delegates to cut some deals, and Romney's camp seems to be playing along. You can't ignore how off limits they both are to each other during this campaign.
Paul's people are smart. I know Doug Wead isn't going to let this get away.
Ron Paul has been running for president since 1992.
Do we want a president that is so dense he cannot get the message in 20 years of failure?
The USA does not want Ron Paul as president.
Negged for inaccuracy...
My mistake he has been running since 82 as you said.
That makes him even denser.
I voted for Ross btw.
So you will cast a vote to ensure the re-election of somebody with strong Marxist/socialist beliefs, who says we can spend the country into prosperity, and has already brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. You can point to no Republican, however liberal, who condones that. You would help hasten the destruction of the America that we know, but at least you would be principled.
At some point, Americans have to consider the consequences of what we do however well intentioned we are.
What about the consequences of continually voting 'lesser of two evils'? Doesn't that maintain the status quo, leaving us with only two legitimate possibilities for most major federal offices?
If we had more choices than just D or R, lesser of two evils wouldn't even be an argument....but as long as people continue to vote that way, we won't have more choices. Is that not a consequence Americans should consider?
I look at the lesser of two evils like whether you will allow the doctor to take off your leg or would rather die of the gangrene that necessitates its removal. Will you take the medication that might kill you or take your chances with the disease that almost certainly will?
We can SEE the consequences of the past 3+ years, and we can reasonably assume that the consequences will be far more severe with a Barack Obama who is not worried about re-election. As incompetent as President George W. Bush was on several different fronts, does anybody with any intellectual honesty think we would be in as bad a shape as we are if he or John McCain had been president the past 3+ years? (John McCain was absolutely at the bottom of my list of preferred candidates on the GOP side in 2008 too.) Or even if a Hillary Clinton had been elected President?
We gain nothing by re-electing a bad President even if we have to hold our nose to vote for a marginally better one. Throwing the country under the bus just to make a statemenjt is neither wise nor patriotic.
That's been the story for a long time.
"If we insult them enough, they might get peer pressured into smoking the crack."
Wead and Dr. Paul also know that they're not going to peel off any votes from the east coast establishment shoe salesman squish jobs, so what would be the point of going after Romney?I think I could be persuaded with that lineup, but how to get it in BLOOD before the election? Any reneges and God only knows how I'd react.
Yeah that's the conundrum. How can we be sure we'd get it?
The Paul campaign has some kind of plan on this, they know they're not going to win. They're getting these delegates to cut some deals, and Romney's camp seems to be playing along. You can't ignore how off limits they both are to each other during this campaign.
Paul's people are smart. I know Doug Wead isn't going to let this get away.
... that is really REALLY scary and reinforces the opinion of a lot of us that passionate Ron Paul supporters are at best naive, at worst really strange.So we're naïve, unwise and unpatriotic.Throwing the country under the bus just to make a statemenjt is neither wise nor patriotic.
Yeah, keep insulting us until we realize how dumb we are and switch our vote to your candidate. Brilliant strategy!
I am surprised and a little disappointed at Foxy.
I still end up with evil, so what do I have to lose?Because you end up with fucking evil anyways.I respect you standing up for what you principally believe in, but you know Obama is going to spend ten time more....so why not vote for the lesser of the two evils?
Yeah but by not voting you may get the worst of the two, and you still don't accomplish anything.
... that is really REALLY scary and reinforces the opinion of a lot of us that passionate Ron Paul supporters are at best naive, at worst really strange.So we're naïve, unwise and unpatriotic.Throwing the country under the bus just to make a statemenjt is neither wise nor patriotic.
Yeah, keep insulting us until we realize how dumb we are and switch our vote to your candidate. Brilliant strategy!
Yep except that I don't have a candidate. And you can neg rep me until the cows come home and accuse me of all sorts of things but I won't change my mind that the welfare of country comes ahead of anybody's ideology, partisanship, or candidate.
Could be...It's entirely probalble Romney still has some animus toward the party insiders over getting sandbagged by Huckabee the last round.Wead and Dr. Paul also know that they're not going to peel off any votes from the east coast establishment shoe salesman squish jobs, so what would be the point of going after Romney?Yeah that's the conundrum. How can we be sure we'd get it?
The Paul campaign has some kind of plan on this, they know they're not going to win. They're getting these delegates to cut some deals, and Romney's camp seems to be playing along. You can't ignore how off limits they both are to each other during this campaign.
Paul's people are smart. I know Doug Wead isn't going to let this get away.
I think most people at this point already know Romney's negatives, and aren't under any illusion that he's a conservative, so I suppose there's no reason to really go after him. But it's the fact that Romney hasn't gone after Paul that interests me the most.
You don't think they have something going on behind the scenes?
I still end up with evil, so what do I have to lose?Because you end up with fucking evil anyways.
Yeah but by not voting you may get the worst of the two, and you still don't accomplish anything.
... that is really REALLY scary and reinforces the opinion of a lot of us that passionate Ron Paul supporters are at best naive, at worst really strange.So we're naïve, unwise and unpatriotic.Throwing the country under the bus just to make a statemenjt is neither wise nor patriotic.
Yeah, keep insulting us until we realize how dumb we are and switch our vote to your candidate. Brilliant strategy!
Yep except that I don't have a candidate. And you can neg rep me until the cows come home and accuse me of all sorts of things but I won't change my mind that the welfare of country comes ahead of anybody's ideology, partisanship, or candidate.
Ron Paul has been running for president since 1992.
Do we want a president that is so dense he cannot get the message in 20 years of failure?
The USA does not want Ron Paul as president.
Negged for inaccuracy...
My mistake he has been running since 82 as you said.
That makes him even denser.
I voted for Ross btw.
So we're naïve, unwise and unpatriotic.
Yeah, keep insulting us until we realize how dumb we are and switch our vote to your candidate. Brilliant strategy!
I am surprised and a little disappointed at Foxy.
Sorry that you're disappointed with me, but neg repping me, insulting me, and/or accusing me is not likely to persuade me either that the best interests of the country should not come ahead of anybody's ideology, partisanship, or candidate. And I'm sorry, I do see it as unpatriotic, naive, and unwise to intentionally throw the election to Barack Obama just because the majority of us prefer somebody other than Ron Paul.
So we're naïve, unwise and unpatriotic.
Yeah, keep insulting us until we realize how dumb we are and switch our vote to your candidate. Brilliant strategy!
I am surprised and a little disappointed at Foxy.
Sorry that you're disappointed with me, but neg repping me, insulting me, and/or accusing me is not likely to persuade me either that the best interests of the country should not come ahead of anybody's ideology, partisanship, or candidate. And I'm sorry, I do see it as unpatriotic, naive, and unwise to intentionally throw the election to Barack Obama just because the majority of us prefer somebody other than Ron Paul.
So we're naïve, unwise and unpatriotic.
Yeah, keep insulting us until we realize how dumb we are and switch our vote to your candidate. Brilliant strategy!
Yep except that I don't have a candidate. And you can neg rep me until the cows come home and accuse me of all sorts of things but I won't change my mind that the welfare of country comes ahead of anybody's ideology, partisanship, or candidate.
So, I'll do the asking again; what is the differences you see between the GOP candidates and Obama? Is this just an "anyone but Obama" plea?
Can you make the case for any of the others that could sway a RP supporter to vote for a GOP candidate?
I am sorry but that's a load of crap. all three Santorum Newt and Romney at one time supported exactly what obama is doing.Yep except that I don't have a candidate. And you can neg rep me until the cows come home and accuse me of all sorts of things but I won't change my mind that the welfare of country comes ahead of anybody's ideology, partisanship, or candidate.
So, I'll do the asking again; what is the differences you see between the GOP candidates and Obama? Is this just an "anyone but Obama" plea?
Can you make the case for any of the others that could sway a RP supporter to vote for a GOP candidate?
The GOP candidates would be less likely to break so many pledges they are making during the campaign.
The GOP candidates would be far less likely to promise to not approve any earmarks and then go against that pledge the very first appropriations bill signed into law.
The GOP candidates would never have passed anything as unconstitutional as Obamacare.
The GOP candidates would never have passed that stimulus package.
The GOP candidates would not have seized major auto manufacturers and turned them over to union ownership.
The GOP candidates would not be clamoring for still more government spending in the face of trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see
The GOP candidates would not go three years without submitting a budget for Congress to consider.
That includes ALL the GOP candidates.
Shall I go on? I could. . . .but I think you get my drift.
Do any of them have the balls or ability to really rachet back the size and scope of government ? I don't know. But even if they don't, they will not do the damage that a Barack Obama has done and is almost certain to do even more of if he is re-elecvted.
Yep except that I don't have a candidate. And you can neg rep me until the cows come home and accuse me of all sorts of things but I won't change my mind that the welfare of country comes ahead of anybody's ideology, partisanship, or candidate.
So, I'll do the asking again; what is the differences you see between the GOP candidates and Obama? Is this just an "anyone but Obama" plea?
Can you make the case for any of the others that could sway a RP supporter to vote for a GOP candidate?
The GOP candidates would be less likely to break so many pledges they are making during the campaign.
The GOP candidates would be far less likely to promise to not approve any earmarks and then go against that pledge the very first appropriations bill signed into law.
The GOP candidates would never have passed anything as unconstitutional as Obamacare.
The GOP candidates would never have passed that stimulus package.
The GOP candidates would not have seized major auto manufacturers and turned them over to union ownership.
The GOP candidates would not be clamoring for still more government spending in the face of trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see
The GOP candidates would not go three years without submitting a budget for Congress to consider.
That includes ALL the GOP candidates.
Shall I go on? I could. . . .but I think you get my drift.
Do any of them have the balls or ability to really rachet back the size and scope of government ? I don't know. But even if they don't, they will not do the damage that a Barack Obama has done and is almost certain to do even more of if he is re-elecvted.
