I could lie about who I am voting for...

[Beretta92FSLady]

Yeah, I did that once for Ross Perot. I helped give us Bill Clinton (who compared to Obama is an arch conservative). Never again.

Uber-dramatic often?

My prediction--IS EVERYBODY READING!--Romney loses by at least five million votes.

Mark my words: Republicans have overplayed their political hand, and are too confident; I see some sour-faced Republicans post November election.

Republicans ought to have picked Paul. Republicans had a terrible line-up this election cycle.

 

[ccwinstructor]

Obama may well win by five million votes, but because the MSM totally support him

Uber-dramatic often?

My prediction--IS EVERYBODY READING!--Romney loses by at least five million votes.

Mark my words: Republicans have overplayed their political hand, and are too confident; I see some sour-faced Republicans post November election.

Republicans ought to have picked Paul. Republicans had a terrible line-up this election cycle.

If Romney is the nominee, which seems likely, and as the Democrats wanted, Obama may well win, because many see Romney as Obama lite.

Just as in 2008, when the MSM made McCain the "heads we win, tails you lose" candidate for statists there is no enthusiasm for Romney among Republicans. The only thing that will elect Romney is being pulled along by tea party candidates for the House and the Senate.

 

[DocWalker]

If Romney is the nominee, which seems likely, and as the Democrats wanted, Obama may well win, because many see Romney as Obama lite.

Just as in 2008, when the MSM made McCain the "heads we win, tails you lose" candidate for statists there is no enthusiasm for Romney among Republicans. The only thing that will elect Romney is being pulled along by tea party candidates for the House and the Senate.

I don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him. He was anti 2A and anti gun until he decided to run for Pres, now he is a card carrying memeber of the NRA.

He is the typical lier that will say anything to get elected. Just like Obama.

I didn't vote for Obama and I won't be voting for any imcumbant... They all must go every last one of them on both sides of the isle.

We need NEW people that will stop spending money we don't have and honor the US Contitusion...PERIOD

 

[ManInBlack]

If Romney is the nominee, which seems likely, and as the Democrats wanted, Obama may well win, because many see Romney as Obama lite.

Just as in 2008, when the MSM made McCain the "heads we win, tails you lose" candidate for statists there is no enthusiasm for Romney among Republicans. The only thing that will elect Romney is being pulled along by tea party candidates for the House and the Senate.

John McCain was every bit as milquetoast as Romney is and, in my opinion, was the weakest presidential candidate since Michael Dukakis. However, Romney also is notably similar to John "I voted for the bill before I voted against it" Kerry in 2004.

 

[223to45]

You may consider it throwing a vote away but I like to think of it as being true to myself and what I believe in and not being a sheep being led to slaughter.

I vote my who I believe in and not for who others tell me to vote for, if more people did that then we wouldn't have this two party system that brings in two crooks.

Sometimes voting is not about for who you want in office, it is sometimes about who you DON'T want in office:shocker:

 

[Tawnos]

Sometimes voting is not about for who you want in office, it is sometimes about who you DON'T want in office:shocker:

I don't want Romney in office. Sooo, who should I vote for?

 

[DocWalker]

I don't want Romney in office. Sooo, who should I vote for?

I vote with my brain, heart and conscience. A vote for someone I believe will hurt the USA or not voting is saying it is ok to crap on the US Constitusion.

I vote for who I believe will be the best for the USA even if they don't have much of a chance to win. This way I can sleep at night knowing I didn't follow like sheeple or follow someones idea that if you don't vote for a criminal lier your wasting your vote.

Can you imagine if everyone that was pressured to vote for Romney actually voted for who they thought would stop spending money we don't have, and stop crapping on the USA.

We would have President Paul in office.

 

[Redbaron007]

Sometimes voting is not about for who you want in office, it is sometimes about who you DON'T want in office:shocker:

My thoughts too.

My candidate isn't going to make it. I don't want KO back in for 4 more years, with the possibility of appointing SC judges; not a good combination. :shocker:

 

[Redbaron007]

I vote with my brain, heart and conscience. A vote for someone I believe will hurt the USA or not voting is saying it is ok to crap on the US Constitusion.

I vote for who I believe will be the best for the USA even if they don't have much of a chance to win. This way I can sleep at night knowing I didn't follow like sheeple or follow someones idea that if you don't vote for a criminal lier your wasting your vote.

Can you imagine if everyone that was pressured to vote for Romney actually voted for who they thought would stop spending money we don't have, and stop crapping on the USA.

We would have President Paul in office.

So....in order for you to sleep at night, you will re-elect the incumbent who could pose more harm? Doesn't seem logical.

 

[Sig229]

If your to lazy to vote then don't but that is saying that you don't care in my book.

Its not about being lazy.

Its like having to choose between cancer or heart disease. I dont want either because neither are any good for me.

Doesnt it bother you that the media and RNC and DNC heads choose who you are going to vote for?

Im not a big fan of British Government, but hell. At least when the British public go to vote that have an array of choices.

Here its either the selected "R" or the Selected"D".
The game is rigged, and I refuse to play.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I Dare A Republican To Be Honest

(Conservative, tea party type, etc.): I dare someone to be completely honest here, and express their opinion that the Republicans really screwed up this election with Romney, and that President Obama will likely win.

I get that most people on here likely feel pressure to hold the line, and not fess-up that this election is probably a wash with Romney on the ticket. I hope that someone here will come forward, and break the ice on what seems to be a dire position the Republicans have found themselves in this election with Romney.

I don't know, maybe I am just wishfully thinking there is someone here that has the nerve to come forward and be frank about this Romney issue.

 

[Sig229]

I don't know, maybe I am just wishfully thinking there is someone here that has the nerve to come forward and be frank about this Romney issue.

I guess you didnt read my posts.

 

[Sig229]

I have been in 3 wars for the USA and been to many countries where people don't get to vote; we are lucky we get a voice and the VOTE is the BIGGEST VOICE any of us has.

I commend and thank you for your service. I have never served,. but have military training. However, I too have visited and lived in nations where voting is not a right. China and Cuba are the first two that I have been to that reenforced my love for America.

Look, I know your part of the nation well and compared to what a lot of us who value the constitution deal with on the east and west coasts, your state (ID) is like Disneyland compared to where a lot of us live.
In your state, for the most part you dont have out of control Police, Politicians and a non-stop assault on our 2nd Amendment and other personal liberties.

Some (not all) of people in my neck of the country are sick and tired of being lied to by politicians on both sides of the isle. Not only on the Federal level, but state as well.

I watched Romney's speech tonight and was actually impressed with his content and delivery. Would I rather have him than Obama? Sure.
But that doesnt mean he is going to be the messiah of personal Liberty and it doesnt mean he is going to represent me any more or less than Obama.

When I hear people complain and I ask them who they voted for, if they say Obama or they didn't vote I just walk away because all they are is complaining they did NOTHING to TRY and change things. They are along for the ride and didn't pay for the ticket by voting.

Thats ridiculous.
Voting for local officials and Senate candidates probably effect the nation far more than voting for president.

 

[Citizen]

+1

I would add those that didn't vote are just as to blame for the distructive candidate that wins.

It is a great idea at first view, but runs into problems with conscience and consent.

For example, let me invent two candidates for prez: Senator Pander, Republican from Bankerhaven, New York; and, Governor Demagogue, Democrat from Youpay, California.

The first is an insider, guaranteed to increase the national debt, while signing off on things like additions to the unPatriot Act, working with rent-seeking* industry lobbyists, etc, etc.

The second is a professional politician who wants to be more of an insider while increasing taxes, giving favors to unions in return for contributions, figuring out how to sell the latest accounting gimmick for social security, etc., etc.

Now, along comes our hapless voter who we're going to blame if he doesn't for one or the other.

But, what if he knows enough about politicians and the parties to honestly believe that both candidates are really bad for freedom, the economy, and the constitution? Meaning, he can't possibly vote for either as a matter of conscience?

And, what if he does not consent to subjecting himself to the numerous unconstitutional and entirely predictable behaviors of either of them?

And, what if he is sufficiently concerned about his fellows that he refuses to afflict his fellow Americans with either one?

Can we really blame him for not voting?


*A rent-seeker is someone who seeks privilege or advantage from government. For example, an agri-business giant lobbys congress for an amendment to patent laws making it illegal for farmer Jones to save seed if his crop was cross-pollinated from a patented crop in the adjacent field of another farmer. Or, the cop union goes to the state legislature seeking a cap on damages against a police department. Or,...etc., etc. Somebody seeking advantage from government is a rent-seeker.

 

[DangerClose]

(Conservative, tea party type, etc.): I dare someone to be completely honest here, and express their opinion that the Republicans really screwed up this election with Romney, and that President Obama will likely win.

Such a statement would shock you or something? Of course they won't win with Romney. The thing is, I don't think they even care. With four more years of Obama, the Reps can put a lot of blame on him (and rightly so). Both Obama and Romney are basically the same on the important things, like The Federal Reserve, Keynesian economics, war, Patriot Act, NDAA... the fake conservatives can have all that stuff while wasting time fighting about "important" things like contraception and whether they want to add six trillion dollars to the debt or only five trillion.

What are Obama and Romney going to argue about at a debate? Whose mandated health care program is better? Who is a better gun grabber? Who wants to invade another country first? Who likes Goldman Sachs more?

Romney can't beat Obama. Only Ron Paul can beat Obama.

And if Romney somehow does beat Obama, whoopty-do. Instead of big-government Obama we'll have big-government Romney.

All the fake conservatives deserve four more years of Obama.

 

[DocWalker]

It is a great idea at first view, but runs into problems with conscience and consent.

For example, let me invent two candidates for prez: Senator Pander, Republican from Bankerhaven, New York; and, Governor Demagogue, Democrat from Youpay, California.

The first is an insider, guaranteed to increase the national debt, while signing off on things like additions to the unPatriot Act, working with rent-seeking* industry lobbyists, etc, etc.

The second is a professional politician who wants to be more of an insider while increasing taxes, giving favors to unions in return for contributions, figuring out how to sell the latest accounting gimmick for social security, etc., etc.

Now, along comes our hapless voter who we're going to blame if he doesn't for one or the other.

But, what if he knows enough about politicians and the parties to honestly believe that both candidates are really bad for freedom, the economy, and the constitution? Meaning, he can't possibly vote for either as a matter of conscience?

And, what if he does not consent to subjecting himself to the numerous unconstitutional and entirely predictable behaviors of either of them?

And, what if he is sufficiently concerned about his fellows that he refuses to afflict his fellow Americans with either one?

Can we really blame him for not voting?


*A rent-seeker is someone who seeks privilege or advantage from government. For example, an agri-business giant lobbys congress for an amendment to patent laws making it illegal for farmer Jones to save seed if his crop was cross-pollinated from a patented crop in the adjacent field of another farmer. Or, the cop union goes to the state legislature seeking a cap on damages against a police department. Or,...etc., etc. Somebody seeking advantage from government is a rent-seeker.

I agree about not voting for either candidates, I do however believe there are other options. The third canidate though not perfect to everyone believes in the constitution and not spending money we don't have. I in good conscience can vote for him even though others might say he doesn't have a chance to win and just not vote. If everyone that said my third candidate can't win why even vote ; voted then he might win.

So yes I can blame people for not standing up for their freedom and voting even if they don't think it will help, THEY AT LEAST TRIED and not just complained.

 

[DocWalker]

Look, I know your part of the nation well and compared to what a lot of us who value the constitution deal with on the east and west coasts, your state (ID) is like Disneyland compared to where a lot of us live.
In your state, for the most part you dont have out of control Police, Politicians and a non-stop assault on our 2nd Amendment and other personal liberties.

That is one of the reasons I live in Idaho, we don't let our elected officials and police run amuck.

In a town north of Boise they not only threw a elected official out of office for doing shady things they charged him criminaly and the city sued him in a civil action to get money he stole.

In my small town we had a state senator that owns a trucking company. One of his first bills he put forward was to raise the speed limit for trucks on the freeway from 65mph to 75mph. This was all so he could profit from his position, he was called on it and shown the door.

Power corrupts and unless the people take a stand and say NO it will continue, complaining won't solve it but voting can if everyone would do it. Statitics show only 20-40 percent of people vote on a regular basis.

Thats ridiculous. Voting for local officials and Senate candidates probably effect the nation far more than voting for president.

Agreed, but the president sets the tone for the nation and other's in office.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

So yes I can blame people for not standing up for their freedom and voting even if they don't think it will help, THEY AT LEAST TRIED and not just complained.

Have you ever thought that maybe not voting is a vote and a stand for freedom itself?

 

[DocWalker]

Have you ever thought that maybe not voting is a vote and a stand for freedom itself?

To me staying quiet is giving the crooks both local and federal a green light to continue to lie and steal from everyone.

I guess it would be like England and the rest of the world staying quiet about the 1930's Germany thing and not wanting to rock the boat. It worked out great for the entire world expecially the jews.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

To me staying quiet is giving the crooks both local and federal a green light to continue to lie and steal from everyone.

I guess it would be like England and the rest of the world staying quiet about the 1930's Germany thing and not wanting to rock the boat. It worked out great for the entire world expecially the jews.

I understand your thinking but just don't agree with it fully, because not voting isn't necessarily being quiet and be a statement in itself of not wanting to participate in the corrupt system and give it an appearance of legitimacy and the politicians feel they are ruling by applied consent, because they were duly elected .

I have decided myself after years of not participating because of political apathy and not liking either candidate to vote Ron Paul or possibly Gary Johnson on the libertarian ticket. Many feel I am throwing my vote away.