Why I'm Voting for Romney in the General Election and Not Gary Johnson

[Zatch]

An article for those who think a Republican loss this time around will result in a better presidential nominee in 2016:

http://www.theamericanconservative....-will-trump-all-other-considerations-in-2016/

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Pro-tip: calling people morons isn't a good way to convert them to your cause

So you're not already "converted?" What are you doing here?

 

[devil21]

The SCOTUS nonsense is starting to heat up since once again there's no difference between the R and the D. It's the first sign of a blind R follower when they start pulling out the SCOTUS stuff, since they can't defend the R's record. Maybe Im crazy but so far I haven't had any beef with Sotomayor or Kagan so this argument wears pretty thin on me. Ive seen "conservative" judges vote with "liberal" judges and the other way around and the rulings usually end up in some 5-4 decision that gives the establishment what it wants. SCOTUS is played out. Let's stick to what the candidates stand for.

Good to see some of the older shills exposing themselves the closer we get to the nomination though.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

How so? The latest travesty, the gutting of habeas corpus, wasn't even heard by the court. Since it would only have required 4 justices to put it on the docket, it's pretty clear that they're not really interested in civil rights either.

Kelo wasn't split on party lines, either.

And in Citizen's United, all 9 justices declared that corporate speech was protected by the constitution. But the liberals on the court voted that the government should have the power to restrict it anyway.

If we stop electing legislators who pass horrible laws, SCOTUS is irrelevant. Until then, it's just another branch of government that doesn't really like people all that much.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. If we elect good legislators, then we have done a lot of good for the federal government, but the current reading of the Constitution already dictates that the SC's jurisdiction applies to ALL levels of government, and that is the danger here, not "conservative" or "liberal" judges. I also agree this same line is going to be used next election with the same mocking "any questions?" comment as if it was just common sense.

 

[AuH20]

The SCOTUS nonsense is starting to heat up since once again there's no difference between the R and the D. It's the first sign of a blind R follower when they start pulling out the SCOTUS stuff, since they can't defend the R's record. Maybe Im crazy but so far I haven't had any beef with Sotomayor or Kagan so this argument wears pretty thin on me. Ive seen "conservative" judges vote with "liberal" judges and the other way around and the rulings usually end up in some 5-4 decision that gives the establishment what it wants. SCOTUS is played out. Let's stick to what the candidates stand for.

Good to see some of the older shills exposing themselves the closer we get to the nomination though.

Really? Sotomayor believes the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states. And Kagan revealed to Coburn that she doesn't care about the government dictating nutritional requirements to American citizens.

 

[row333au]

Seriously .... where and how right now does it says that Romney is officially the only sole main US presidential nominee???

This is a bad case of a George Costanza episode of Seinfeld series....

Does anyone remember the episode where George Costanza pretended he was hired already and he was introducing himself around (even went to the payment accounts to create himself an employee payment for wage account).

His aim was to convince the people that if was acting like he was part of staff and pretended to be working while dodging key people who could expose him, and if he can get away long enough with it, by then the people would just blindly accept that.... the psyche here is if George keeps it up people will just automatically or naturally give him what he wants....

 

[Zatch]

So you're not already "converted?" What are you doing here?

I'm not converted to the idea third party campaigns and protest votes are worthwhile.

I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 and 2012 primaries and convinced my whole fundamentalist/Baptist family and two other folks who were Huckabee supporters to vote for him as well.

 

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

Invisibility Is A Manager--Not An Idealist

[Republicans had a choice—they chose liberally,
They are not conservatives—and never will be,
Mr. Romney appears to be a decent man and that matters;
For we must end Mr. Obama’s presidential disaster!

Like the GOP, Mr. Romney, has no identity,
They say he will be--whatever you want him to be;
Consider: Invisibility is not an idealist--he is a manager,
Thus, he can manage--if Ls can get close--have ideas!

T Kosciuszko

Liberty, Imagination and Reason,
Are the foundation;
For the Father of Imagination’s
Romantic ideal—ennobling Humanity.

Ideas to fulfill Humanity,
Free Imagination to be,
Eternally unfulfilled;
Limitlessly—imagining...

 

[devil21]

Really? Sotomayor believes the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states. And Kagan revealed to Coburn that she doesn't care about the government dictating nutritional requirements to American citizens.

Scare tactics and there's been nothing that I've seen as far as being a JUSTICE (you know, the job) that has made either of them any more dangerous than any other previous appointee. I heard this same justification in 2008 for voting for McCain. At the end of the day, all the Justices are in the pockets of their corporate owners, not the political parties or their idealogy. No different than the politicians that appoint them. They are told how to vote too.

 

[georgiaboy]

it's good to see that the consensus of the forum is still in the non-Romney camp. The GOP only deserves to win the presidency when they actually nominate a Republican.

They didn't figure it out in 2008; it seems they haven't learned the lesson for 2012, either. Give me someone to vote for who can actually be trusted to reduce the size of gov't, give us sound money, etc., and I'll vote for them. Give me a big gov't RINO dem-lite, and I'll use my voting voice in protest elsewhere.

Protesting by voting for the Democrat should be just horrifying for any conservative. Log your protest with the constitutional party, libertarian party, etc. The GOP won't see increased Democrat votes as votes they could've captured with a conservative as their nominee. They'll only see more D's than R's, and think they need to move further to the left, not the right. Logging a protest via the constitution or libertarian party will help the GOP see where their votes went more clearly.

 

[PaulStandsTall]

OP, I wish you'd please reconsider candidate Ron Paul for your vote.

When is the next time you will get the chance to vote for the leader of the freedom movement who has dedicated his life to the cause?
Do you really want the blood of Obama/Johnson/Romney's aggressive wars on your conscience?

Please reconsider.

 

[Brett85]

The SCOTUS nonsense is starting to heat up since once again there's no difference between the R and the D. It's the first sign of a blind R follower when they start pulling out the SCOTUS stuff, since they can't defend the R's record. Maybe Im crazy but so far I haven't had any beef with Sotomayor or Kagan so this argument wears pretty thin on me. Ive seen "conservative" judges vote with "liberal" judges and the other way around and the rulings usually end up in some 5-4 decision that gives the establishment what it wants. SCOTUS is played out. Let's stick to what the candidates stand for.

Good to see some of the older shills exposing themselves the closer we get to the nomination though.

Lol. You certainly exposed yourself as being a liberal. Kagan and Sotomayer believe that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to force you to buy health insurance. They also believe that the 2nd amendment doesn't really exist. And you think that they're decent judges? Get real.

 

[Brett85]

OP, I wish you'd please reconsider candidate Ron Paul for your vote.

Ron Paul isn't going to be on the ballot in November, and most states don't count write in votes. Personally, I'm voting for the Constitution Party candidate in November. However, I don't see why any Ron Paul supporter would criticize another Ron Paul supporter for voting for Romney, when Ron won't even be on the ballot in November.

 

[Brett85]

I'm not converted to the idea third party campaigns and protest votes are worthwhile.

I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 and 2012 primariesand convinced my whole fundamentalist/Baptist family and two other folks who were Huckabee supporters to vote for him as well.

That's all that matters. You're just as much of a Ron Paul supporter as anyone else here, and don't let anyone else tell you any differently.

 

[devil21]

Lol. You certainly exposed yourself as being a liberal. Kagan and Sotomayer believe that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to force you to buy health insurance. They also believe that the 2nd amendment doesn't really exist. And you think that they're decent judges? Get real.

How about we talk about actual SCOTUS rulings instead of scripted confirmation hearings? You know, the job they actually do? Kagan actually showed some integrity by recusing herself from one case that she was loosely connected to. Has Sotomayor voted to open the flood gates for illegal immigrants like was predicted upon her confirmation? Did she cause Heller to fail?

I don't care what is said in confirmation hearings. That's more bread and circus for the political junkies, not substance. I guess understanding that SCOTUS justices are bought and paid for makes me a liberal and I'll not bash a justice until they actually do something worthy of bashing, particularly if someone is using the "party line" as the reason to vote for or against a Pres candidate.

Im personally waiting until the Obamacare ruling to judge them. Otherwise neither have shown me anything on the bench yet that makes me concerned. eta: Or at least makes me more concerned than any of the other justices already do.

 

[Eisenhower]

i'd much rather be tortured than vote for romney

 

[Nathan Hale]

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson.

 

[PaulStandsTall]

Ron Paul isn't going to be on the ballot in November, and most states don't count write in votes. Personally, I'm voting for the Constitution Party candidate in November. However, I don't see why any Ron Paul supporter would criticize another Ron Paul supporter for voting for Romney, when Ron won't even be on the ballot in November.

It's not likely Paul will be on the ballot, but it is still possible. I know 42 allow write-in, so they just let you write in and then don't count your vote? Why even allow write-in if that's the case?

It's a light criticism not for voting Romney (although a case can be made), but rather for not voting Paul.

 

[Brett85]

It's not likely Paul will be on the ballot, but it is still possible. I know 42 allow write-in, so they just let you write in and then don't count your vote? Why even allow write-in if that's the case?

It's a light criticism not for voting Romney (although a case can be made), but rather for not voting Paul.

So shouldn't you be criticizing everyone who's voting for Gary Johnson as well?

 

[PaulStandsTall]

So shouldn't you be criticizing everyone who's voting for Gary Johnson as well?

You got it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?379904-Gary-Johnson-Statist&p=4477646#post4477646

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?379904-Gary-Johnson-Statist&p=4484393#post4484393