PDA

View Full Version : It's OK to vote for Romney as long as you don't praise him.




Madison320
10-18-2012, 03:27 PM
I understand the lesser of two evils argument for voting for Romney. It's a valid argument (although I'm still voting for Gary Johnson). What bothers me is that most of the conservative commentors are PRAISING Romney while at the same time BASHING libertarians like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. That shows me they simply do not believe in capitalism and free markets. If you say something like "Hey, I'd much rather have a libertarian minded candidate but I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Romney to keep Obama out of office." that's fine. I get that. But if you actually think Romney is a BETTER candidate then Gary Johnson or Ron Paul you're an idiot. How can you call yourself a believer in freedom?

nobody's_hero
10-18-2012, 03:31 PM
I haven't made up my mind whether I want 4 years of Obama destroying our economy or 4 years of re-molding the entire middle east. Of course, nation building costs money so the economy is probably screwed anyway. Then again, Obama does have the distinction of being the first president to assassinate a U.S. citizen with a drone strike.

There should be a scale that weighs evil so we can visually tell who is worse.

(of course I'm not seriously considering voting for either of them, I just wonder by what measurement people are arguing that one could possibly be any better than the other)

acptulsa
10-18-2012, 03:38 PM
I haven't made up my mind whether I want 4 years ofdestroying our economy or 4 years of re-molding the entire middle east.

Congratulations! You get both! No matter which clown-in-a-suit wins!

VoluntaryAmerican
10-18-2012, 03:40 PM
It would be a lot tougher for me if I didn't live in NJ - it's going to Obama no matter what I do.

But I already donated money to RP and voted for him in June, so what else can I do at this point?

I will probably sit out of voting this turn, or if I have time that day (doubtful) I would vote for Johnson, but I understand people supporting (lessor of 2 evils) Romney in a swing state.

bolil
10-18-2012, 03:44 PM
Despite Ron Paul's allusion to his likely vote (GJ) Ill be writing in RON PAUL on my ballot.

DeMintConservative
10-18-2012, 03:45 PM
It would be a lot tougher for me if I didn't live in NJ - it's going to Obama no matter what I do.

But I already donated money to RP and voted for him in June, so what else can I do at this point?

I will probably sit out of voting this turn, or if I have time that day (doubtful) I would vote for Johnson, but I understand people supporting (lessor of 2 evils) Romney in a swing state.

Check if there's a Republican running down-ballot you really like and try to give a hand to that campaign.

Rudeman
10-18-2012, 03:59 PM
If it wasn't for local elections (mainly the mayoral race even though neither candidate is great but the Dem is basically a socialist) I probably would have sat this one out. I'll probably just end up tossing GJ a vote. It's really a damned if you damned if you don't situation.

The best case scenario might be Obama winning the election and a Republican controlled congress, then hope that there's gridlock.

cajuncocoa
10-18-2012, 04:02 PM
I understand the lesser of two evils argument for voting for Romney. It's a valid argument (although I'm still voting for Gary Johnson). What bothers me is that most of the conservative commentors are PRAISING Romney while at the same time BASHING libertarians like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. That shows me they simply do not believe in capitalism and free markets. If you say something like "Hey, I'd much rather have a libertarian minded candidate but I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Romney to keep Obama out of office." that's fine. I get that. But if you actually think Romney is a BETTER candidate then Gary Johnson or Ron Paul you're an idiot. How can you call yourself a believer in freedom?Who are these "conservative" commentators you speak of?

Just curious, because if we're talking about Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, they are not really conservative.

sailingaway
10-18-2012, 04:04 PM
I'm writing in Ron Paul.

with the 'top two voting' in CA there are only Dems running in my area, otherwise, and awful ones at that. There are a lot of propositions, though.

DamianTV
10-18-2012, 04:14 PM
It's OK to vote for Romney as long as you don't praise him.

Uh, no its not.

What you do when you vote for either one of them is to support the idea that your vote somehow counts. Obama vs Romney is Keynesianism vs Keynesianism. After the election, someone is going to ask you who you voted for. You'll probably get sick of answering "I used to support Ron Paul, but voted for so and so..." which will just turn into "I voted for so and so..." They will see that you did not stick to your guns. If those people are Ron Paul supporters, they will see you as a Non Ron Paul Supporter. Non Ron Paul Supporters will see you as a person that buys into their ideas, and because you do, they will be much more inclined to stay asleep and not call out the Status Quo for what they are.

I do not think it is okay to say you voted for Romney for any reason because to do so says that we lack the courage of our convictions and the belief will be maintained that maintaining the Status Quo is just fine with many of the Ron Paul people.

Madison320
10-18-2012, 04:55 PM
Who are these "conservative" commentators you speak of?

Just curious, because if we're talking about Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, they are not really conservative.

Yeah, I should have said "supposedly" conservative commentators. That's really the point of my post. I didn't want to get into the "voting for the lesser of two evils" vs "principle" argument. Mostly I'm just pissed off at guys like Rush Limbaugh who claim to be in favor of limited government. I need to quit listening to those shows. I aways tune in just out of curiosity and after a minute ot two I turn off the radio cussing to myself.

bolil
10-20-2012, 09:30 AM
It is important to realize our strongest statement will be made by voting writing in Paul. Demonstrating our resolve in this way so it is , perhaps,
nt tested In another way. I retract my earlier statement and apologize for ignorantly speaking for th
E doctor

thoughtomator
10-20-2012, 10:03 AM
Voting for the lesser of two evils puts your hand of authorship on the evil to come. Personally.... I could not bear that moral burden.

Dick Chaney
10-20-2012, 10:49 AM
No

- Dick Chaney

LibertyPA
10-20-2012, 07:15 PM
I understand the lesser of two evils argument for voting for Romney. It's a valid argument (although I'm still voting for Gary Johnson).


I am torn about this myself. I would rather Gary Johnson be elected, but this country may not be around in 4 years of Obama gets a second term. It is clearly the lesser of two evils since the options, other than Johnson, are Ultra Left Wing Big Goverment Democrat and a Semi Left Wing Semi Large Goverment Republican. But if Obama gets another term, that would be far worse than anything Romney does. By voting for Johnson, don't you risk of handing Obama the election? I can't imagine many Obama supporters are debating between him and Johnson -- I would guess most people who like Johnson are torn between him or Romney. Is a vote for Gary Johnson worth the risk of making Obama a more likely winner?

And if it wasn't clear in what I wrote above -- Romney isn't a good candidate!

Anti Federalist
10-20-2012, 07:56 PM
But if Obama gets another term, that would be far worse than anything Romney does

I fail to see this.

What is this based on?

What Romney says?

LOL - He says anything.

Thankfully, I live in a battleground state that counts write ins - NH.

I'll be writing in Ron Paul, happily, cheerfully, proudly.

Sola_Fide
10-20-2012, 08:15 PM
What a baffoon.

Carehn
10-20-2012, 08:19 PM
They are not praising him because they actually feel he represents some kind of philosophical belief they hold to be true. They are simply playing hard for the home teem in hopes of a keeping a job the next 4 years. except Hanity he is just an evil fucking retard.

qh4dotcom
10-20-2012, 08:29 PM
I understand the lesser of two evils argument for voting for Romney. It's a valid argument (although I'm still voting for Gary Johnson). What bothers me is that most of the conservative commentors are PRAISING Romney while at the same time BASHING libertarians like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. That shows me they simply do not believe in capitalism and free markets. If you say something like "Hey, I'd much rather have a libertarian minded candidate but I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Romney to keep Obama out of office." that's fine. I get that. But if you actually think Romney is a BETTER candidate then Gary Johnson or Ron Paul you're an idiot. How can you call yourself a believer in freedom?

If you want to go vote for the lesser evil, it's better that you keep it to yourself instead of embarrasing yourself by publicly admitting it. No one has to know how badly you screwed up.

qh4dotcom
10-20-2012, 08:31 PM
I am torn about this myself. I would rather Gary Johnson be elected, but this country may not be around in 4 years of Obama gets a second term.

It may not be around in 4 years if Romney is elected....and you only have 1 vote and it's too insignificant by itself to deny Obama a 2nd term...it will not be a tiebreaker swing vote that by itself causes Obama to lose the election.

cindy25
10-20-2012, 09:16 PM
it depends on the state you are in; it is ok to vote the lesser evil if your vote counts (Ohio, Florida, Iowa) but it is not ok if you are voting in CA, NY, MA, TX, KY

then you must vote for Gary Johnson or write in Ron Paul

LibertyPA
10-21-2012, 08:05 PM
It may not be around in 4 years if Romney is elected....and you only have 1 vote and it's too insignificant by itself to deny Obama a 2nd term...it will not be a tiebreaker swing vote that by itself causes Obama to lose the election.


by this logic, you shouldn't vote at all.

LibertyPA
10-21-2012, 08:06 PM
it depends on the state you are in; it is ok to vote the lesser evil if your vote counts (Ohio, Florida, Iowa) but it is not ok if you are voting in CA, NY, MA, TX, KY

then you must vote for Gary Johnson or write in Ron Paul


A great point -- where would you rank PA....vote for Gary/Ron or Mitt?

LibertyPA
10-21-2012, 08:10 PM
I fail to see this.

What is this based on?

What Romney says?

LOL - He says anything.

Thankfully, I live in a battleground state that counts write ins - NH.

I'll be writing in Ron Paul, happily, cheerfully, proudly.



Obama Care for one -- even if you include the portion of this bill that takes over student loans....this bill will cause huge debt for the country and let future administrations avoid the Constitution in future years. There are more points, but I think this alone is scary enough to work hard in him not being elected -- is this an issue you don't care about?

Madison320
10-22-2012, 09:08 AM
it depends on the state you are in; it is ok to vote the lesser evil if your vote counts (Ohio, Florida, Iowa) but it is not ok if you are voting in CA, NY, MA, TX, KY

then you must vote for Gary Johnson or write in Ron Paul

Luckily I'm in Alabama which is solidly for Romney so I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

jbauer
10-22-2012, 10:23 AM
I haven't made up my mind whether I want 4 years of Obama destroying our economy or 4 years of re-molding the entire middle east. Of course, nation building costs money so the economy is probably screwed anyway. Then again, Obama does have the distinction of being the first president to assassinate a U.S. citizen with a drone strike.

There should be a scale that weighs evil so we can visually tell who is worse.

(of course I'm not seriously considering voting for either of them, I just wonder by what measurement people are arguing that one could possibly be any better than the other)
If you have to take on more spending I'm much more infavor of taking on more welfare instead of warfare. Atleast the welfare stays here. Bombs don't do a damn thing for the economy.

jbauer
10-22-2012, 10:28 AM
I am torn about this myself. I would rather Gary Johnson be elected, but this country may not be around in 4 years of Obama gets a second term. It is clearly the lesser of two evils since the options, other than Johnson, are Ultra Left Wing Big Goverment Democrat and a Semi Left Wing Semi Large Goverment Republican. But if Obama gets another term, that would be far worse than anything Romney does. By voting for Johnson, don't you risk of handing Obama the election? I can't imagine many Obama supporters are debating between him and Johnson -- I would guess most people who like Johnson are torn between him or Romney. Is a vote for Gary Johnson worth the risk of making Obama a more likely winner?

And if it wasn't clear in what I wrote above -- Romney isn't a good candidate!

No, if Romeny wins and the country goes down the crapper on his watch he will set back the idea of conservatisim for 50 years. Where as if we can pin it on the Democrats then conservatisim has a chance. I'm voting Gary Johnson but only because I want my down ticket votes to not get thrown out here. TN will go Rmoney even if he gets on TV and eats live babys.

LibertyPA
10-22-2012, 04:12 PM
No, if Romeny wins and the country goes down the crapper on his watch he will set back the idea of conservatisim for 50 years. Where as if we can pin it on the Democrats then conservatisim has a chance. I'm voting Gary Johnson but only because I want my down ticket votes to not get thrown out here. TN will go Rmoney even if he gets on TV and eats live babys.


that was the debate 4 years ago: The country is going down hill because of the Over Spending by Bush (R) and if Obama (D) is elected, then after 4 years, when the country goes down hill even more and they will vote for a Republican to turn things around. As it turns out, country went down the crapper faster than anyone could have expected in the past 4 years. Are you suggesting it has to go down even more to pin this on a Democrat?

Why did you say TN....is that which state you vote in?

BudhaStalin
10-22-2012, 04:15 PM
I think a good case can be made that voting for Obama is a vote for the lesser of two evils. Luckily for me I live in California and Obama is going to win anyway so I'll be voting for Gary Johnson.

P3ter_Griffin
10-22-2012, 06:42 PM
IMO, if you live in a swing state it is more important to vote 3rd party/write in because those are states that determine elections, and therefore are more likely to sway the direction of our country.

LibertyPA
10-22-2012, 08:12 PM
I think a good case can be made that voting for Obama is a vote for the lesser of two evils. Luckily for me I live in California and Obama is going to win anyway so I'll be voting for Gary Johnson.

That is the situation where I would vote for Johnson too, not in swing states or states which may be swing states.

LibertyPA
10-22-2012, 08:13 PM
IMO, if you live in a swing state it is more important to vote 3rd party/write in because those are states that determine elections, and therefore are more likely to sway the direction of our country.

Why do you say this?
I am a bit confused Peter -- are you saying its best to hand this election to Pres. Obama by having swing states split the Anti-Obama vote between two people (Romney and Johnson). Is that the direction you want for the country....4 more years?

NIU Students for Liberty
10-23-2012, 10:43 AM
Why do you say this?
I am a bit confused Peter -- are you saying its best to hand this election to Pres. Obama by having swing states split the Anti-Obama vote between two people (Romney and Johnson). Is that the direction you want for the country....4 more years?

Take your pick, either have 4 years or 8 years. Even better, don't vote for Romney/Obama. Problem solved.

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 12:46 PM
Presidents are elected for a 4 years term.

The pick is between throwing out Obama or vindicating his agenda and letting him stay. If Romney wins, I'll worry about throwing him out in 4 years if it comes to that.

heavenlyboy34
10-23-2012, 12:57 PM
I understand the lesser of two evils argument for voting for Romney. It's a valid argument (although I'm still voting for Gary Johnson). What bothers me is that most of the conservative commentors are PRAISING Romney while at the same time BASHING libertarians like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. That shows me they simply do not believe in capitalism and free markets. If you say something like "Hey, I'd much rather have a libertarian minded candidate but I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Romney to keep Obama out of office." that's fine. I get that. But if you actually think Romney is a BETTER candidate then Gary Johnson or Ron Paul you're an idiot. How can you call yourself a believer in freedom?
Vermin Supreme 2012!!!!11!! ;) :D

NIU Students for Liberty
10-23-2012, 08:53 PM
Presidents are elected for a 4 years term.

The pick is between throwing out Obama or vindicating his agenda and letting him stay. If Romney wins, I'll worry about throwing him out in 4 years if it comes to that.

Considering you've been cheerleading for Romney, I think it's safe to assume that you're not worried about "throwing him out" if he were to win in 2012.

CPUd
10-23-2012, 09:56 PM
Take your pick, either have 4 years or 8 years. Even better, don't vote for Romney/Obama. Problem solved.

^^ This is true for all 50 states!

WesSeid
10-23-2012, 10:45 PM
Obama is actually better on foreign policy than Romney is. Scary and weird, I know!
Romney wants to add $200 billion dollars a year to military spending and is a big warhawk being advised by Bush's foreign policy advisors. God help us.

I don't know how anyone here could vote for Romney after watching the Republican convention videos such as RNC Sham 2012. Despicable. It will be a cold day in hell before I vote for the candidate the toolbags at the RNC pushed on me with their cheating.

Look at what Rush Limbaugh and other fake-conservative commentators have said: If Romney loses to Obama's terrible record, shut down the party because it and the people who run it are useless.

And since I don't know how anyone here could vote for Obama after his previous four years, the Romney/Obama debate is moot.

awigo50
10-24-2012, 01:47 AM
Part of being a conservative is realizing that there is theory, and there is reality. Some things sound nice; lots of people think that welfare sounds nice. Sadly, much of nice theory does not work in the real world. If everyone could have free healthcare at the stroke of a pen with no cost or infringements, then we would all support it. But it cost money. And privacy. And that sucks.

Gary Johnson is not going to win. Neither is Ron Paul. This, is lamentable, true. I was a delegate for Paul at our county convention, and I donated a lot of time and money to see Ron Paul's dream of liberty come to pass this election cycle. And that didn't happen. Which, also sucks.

The reality is that come January 2013, one of two men will become president. It will be either Obama or Romney. I recognize that Romney is not Ron Paul by a long shot. But to insist that Obama and Romney are the same is to deliberately ignore them.

During the primary, none of you would go alone into a sound-proof room and shout 'Vote Ron Paul' for hours on end. Why not? Because it wouldn't have helped the causes of liberty. No one would hear, nor care. We posted signs where they would be noted. We discussed issues to bring people to the cause.

I can't speak for all states, but if you vote write-in in my state (WA), the write-in votes do not even get read unless the total number of write-ins exceeds the highest named candidate. And it won't. A write-in for Ron Paul will be stuck in with the mickey mouse vote. I am not sure how this advances any principles.

What does push foward the principles, is pushing for liberty where it matters, where it counts, where it can take hold. Not every battle is a total victory. But, between the two men; one of whom will be president, there are real differences. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.


Thirteen days, gentlemen. Good luck.

DeMintConservative
10-24-2012, 06:54 AM
Considering you've been cheerleading for Romney, I think it's safe to assume that you're not worried about "throwing him out" if he were to win in 2012.

You're wrong. I'd readily support a primary challenge to Romney if he doesn't behave.

And I'm cheerleading for Romney? Maybe I should adopt the tactic of the many "libertarians" here who think they're both the same... except if you're voting for Obama, in that case it's okay. I'm not cheerleading: I reckon Romney is the lesser evil and refusing to vote for the lesser evil is having a deeply Marxist understanding of politics.

DeMintConservative
10-24-2012, 06:57 AM
Part of being a conservative is realizing that there is theory, and there is reality. Some things sound nice; lots of people think that welfare sounds nice. Sadly, much of nice theory does not work in the real world. If everyone could have free healthcare at the stroke of a pen with no cost or infringements, then we would all support it. But it cost money. And privacy. And that sucks.

Gary Johnson is not going to win. Neither is Ron Paul. This, is lamentable, true. I was a delegate for Paul at our county convention, and I donated a lot of time and money to see Ron Paul's dream of liberty come to pass this election cycle. And that didn't happen. Which, also sucks.

The reality is that come January 2013, one of two men will become president. It will be either Obama or Romney. I recognize that Romney is not Ron Paul by a long shot. But to insist that Obama and Romney are the same is to deliberately ignore them.

During the primary, none of you would go alone into a sound-proof room and shout 'Vote Ron Paul' for hours on end. Why not? Because it wouldn't have helped the causes of liberty. No one would hear, nor care. We posted signs where they would be noted. We discussed issues to bring people to the cause.

I can't speak for all states, but if you vote write-in in my state (WA), the write-in votes do not even get read unless the total number of write-ins exceeds the highest named candidate. And it won't. A write-in for Ron Paul will be stuck in with the mickey mouse vote. I am not sure how this advances any principles.

What does push foward the principles, is pushing for liberty where it matters, where it counts, where it can take hold. Not every battle is a total victory. But, between the two men; one of whom will be president, there are real differences. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.


Thirteen days, gentlemen. Good luck.

Yeps. It's scary the amount of people who call themselves conservative and yet see politics as a mean to immanentize the eschaton.

NIU Students for Liberty
10-24-2012, 12:00 PM
You're wrong. I'd readily support a primary challenge to Romney if he doesn't behave.

And I'm cheerleading for Romney? Maybe I should adopt the tactic of the many "libertarians" here who think they're both the same... except if you're voting for Obama, in that case it's okay. I'm not cheerleading: I reckon Romney is the lesser evil and refusing to vote for the lesser evil is having a deeply Marxist understanding of politics.

And what exactly would Romney have to "misbehave" on in order for you to support a primary challenge? Would he have to go against his only consistent platform regarding endless warfare? Would he have to flip flop on his distaste for civil liberties? Take a principled and consistent stance against the Federal Reserve? What would it take?

The fact that you have defended Romney's policies more than you actually agreed with or defended Ron Paul over the past year pretty much seals it for me.

DeMintConservative
10-24-2012, 12:16 PM
And what exactly would Romney have to "misbehave" on in order for you to support a primary challenge? Would he have to go against his only consistent platform regarding endless warfare? Would he have to flip flop on his distaste for civil liberties? Take a principled and consistent stance against the Federal Reserve? What would it take?

The fact that you have defended Romney's policies more than you actually agreed with or defended Ron Paul over the past year pretty much seals it for me.

If he doesn't engage in a serious attempt to reform welfare and entitlement programs (namely Medicare) in the terms outlined on his platform, that's a good enough reason to primary him.

No idea what you mean with the civil liberties thing, so I don't know. I hate the concept of civil liberties anyway. Leftist hogwash. Liberties are liberties. Civil, uncivil... I have no use for the qualifiers.

If he fails to appoint hawkish governors to the Fed board - guys consistently against inflationary governance, like QE programs - or, worse, if he reappoints Bernanke, that's a good enough reason to primary him. No idea what is taking a stance against the Federal Reserve, but I don't want to end the Fed. If he comes up with that, it's not a good reason to primary him because it'd be so inconsequential, but it'd get me wondering.

Basically I want Romney to do a few things: appoint judges in the Alito mould (Ron Paul wouldn't do better because Alito is pretty much the threshold for confirmation), push for budgets that replicate Ryan's budget from last year (no point in dreaming about anything more radical because Dems would block it anyway), implement Ryan's plan on Medicare reform, don't let the congress mess up with internet freedom, replace Bernanke with an inflation hawk, defund and repeal Obamacare and push for the tax code reform he's promising. Also, try to get the CCB passed if the GOP manages to get a decent Senate majority in 2014. Asking for more isn't realistic and I just prefer to say reality based when it comes to policies. So, if he folds in any of these 7 things, I'll support whoever decides to primary him in 2016.

And nah, you only say that because I spend time answering to the Obama supporters posing as libertarians who attack Romney in 90% of their posts. I'm not a Paulite by any means anyway, as I've said before I disagree with Ron Paul on a couple of important issues. I disagree with Romney even more and with Obama much more.