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

[dillo]

Obamas votes are terrible, so are GWB's though. The only decent judge right now is Thomas imo.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

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.

How "traditional" are you? And by that I mean, what era are you referring to? The, "traditional, vote GOP, no matter what, conservative?" Or the, "Traditional smaller government, personal liberties, free market, conservative?" There is a very big difference. I will criticize those voting for Romney or Obama. Rightfully so. This country has burned long enough. Do you really think Romney is going to do a damn thing different than Obama? (Serious question) And I might add.. it's a damn shame when you have to clarify it is a serious question.

 

[Brett85]

How "traditional" are you? And by that I mean, what era are you referring to? The "traditional, vote GOP, no matter what, conservative?" Or the "Traditional smaller government, personal liberties, free market, conservative?" There is a very big difference. I will criticize those voting for Romney or Obama. Rightfully so. This country has burned long enough. Do you really think Romney is going to do a damn thing different than Obama? (Serious question) And I might add.. it's a damn shame when you have to clarify it is a serious question.

I've always thought I've myself as an "old-right" conservative. I'm not voting for Romney because of his stance in favor of war with Iran and Syria. I was just defending Zatch for voting the way he feels is right. You must have missed this previous comment from me, which you actually quoted:

"Personally, I'm voting for the Constitution Party candidate in November."

 

[Brett85]

Also, I do think that Romney will do some things better than Obama. He'll be better on issues like taxes, regulations, judges, and energy.

However, all of the improvements that Romney would make on domestic issues are canceled out by the fact that he wants to start a war with Iran that will literally destroy our country.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

 

[AuH20]

Also, I do think that Romney will do some things better than Obama. He'll be better on issues like taxes, regulations, judges, and energy.

However, all of the improvements that Romney would make on domestic issues are canceled out by the fact that he wants to start a war with Iran that will literally destroy our country.

Do you really think Romney would go down that road??? Despite all the bluster, he's not going to knowingly start a war with Iran which could shut down the straits. No way in hell. If anything Romney should get hell for supporting TARP and taking money from Goldman. But he's not going to kickoff WW3 given the fragile state of the US. He's not that dumb.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I've always thought I've myself as an "old-right" conservative. I'm not voting for Romney because of his stance in favor of war with Iran and Syria. I was just defending Zatch for voting the way he feels is right. You must have missed this previous comment from me, which you actually quoted:

"Personally, I'm voting for the Constitution Party candidate in November."

His stances change with the wind. (As well as the majority of politicians) I do apologize for being so quick to type a response. I ought not read through a post so hastily. A few too many, maybe. To reiterate my point though, I will criticize anybody (especially one that has claimed to have found the message of Liberty) who votes for the lesser of two evils. As someone else has mentioned, this is the circus. Wait until they take the bread.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Do you really think Romney would go down that road??? Despite all the bluster, he's not going to knowingly start a war with Iran which could shut down the straits. No way in hell. If anything Romney should get hell for supporting TARP and taking money from Goldman. But he's not going to kickoff WW3 given the fragile state of the US. He's not that dumb.

Obama will do the same damn thing. By that I mean, satisfy his puppeteers.
ETA: In case you can't read through the line; I am convinced we are going to Iran. More so than just blowing up scientists.

 

[Beorn]

His stances change with the wind. (As well as the majority of politicians) I do apologize for being so quick to type a response. I ought not read through a post so hastily. A few too many, maybe. To reiterate my point though, I will criticize anybody (especially one that has claimed to have found the message of liberty) who votes for the lesser of two evils. As someone else has mentioned, this is the circus. Wait until they take the bread.

We're always voting for fallible people. Where is the bright line where voting for the lesser evil is unacceptable and why do you insist on imposing that bright line on other people?

 

[Brett85]

Do you really think Romney would go down that road??? Despite all the bluster, he's not going to knowingly start a war with Iran which could shut down the straits. No way in hell. If anything Romney should get hell for supporting TARP and taking money from Goldman. But he's not going to kickoff WW3 given the fragile state of the US. He's not that dumb.

Then why did Romney make himself sound so hawkish regarding Iran during the GOP debates? I for one am not willing to take the chance that he's simply bluffing. I won't be able to live with myself if I vote for Romney and he ends up starting a war with Iran.

If Romney actually became President and didn't start a war with Iran, brought our troops home from Afghanistan, cut spending, balanced the budget, etc, I would vote to re-elect him. I just don't think it's all that likely that he'll move in our direction and accomplish those things.

 

[musicmax]

Yeah, just one. Do you enjoy spreading your naked butt cheeks for prison guards?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/u...-searches-for-any-offense.html?pagewanted=all

The case decided Monday, Florence v. County of Burlington, No. 10-945, arose from the arrest of Albert W. Florence in New Jersey in 2005. Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper pulled his wife, April, over for speeding. A records search revealed an outstanding warrant for Mr. Florence’s arrest based on an unpaid fine. (The information was wrong; the fine had been paid.)

Mr. Florence was held for a week in jails in Burlington and Essex Counties, and he was strip-searched in each. There is some dispute about the details, but general agreement that he was made to stand naked in front of a guard who required him to move intimate parts of his body. The guards did not touch him.

“Turn around,” Mr. Florence, in an interview last year, recalled being told by jail officials. “Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks.”

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

If the country is going off a cliff I say run it into the ground with a democrat in charge.

 

[AuH20]

Then why did Romney make himself sound so hawkish regarding Iran during the GOP debates? I for one am not willing to take the chance that he's simply bluffing. I won't be able to live with myself if I vote for Romney and he ends up starting a war with Iran.

If Romney actually became President and didn't start a war with Iran, brought our troops home from Afghanistan, cut spending, balanced the budget, etc, I would vote to re-elect him. I just don't think it's all that likely that he'll move in our direction and accomplish those things.

It was the GOP debate. Romney isn't a neocon. He's never been one. He's playing the game. While he's certainly compromised himself and I don't intend on voting for him, he's not John McCain in that he wants to smoke out the Mullahs at the direct expense of this country. McCain is a crazy man. Romney is far more pragmatic.

 

[Brett85]

It's the GOP debate. Romney isn't a hardline neocon. He's never been one. He's playing the game. While he's certainly compromised himself and I don't intend on voting for him, he's not John McCain in that he wants to smoke out the Mullahs at the direct expense of this country. McCain is a crazy man. Romney is far more pragmatic.

I hope you're right about that. I'm still not willing to vote for Romney.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

It's the GOP debate. Romney isn't a hardline neocon. He's never been one. He's playing the game. While he's certainly compromised himself and I don't intend on voting for him, he's not John McCain in that he wants to smoke out the Mullahs at the direct expense of this country. McCain is a crazy man. Romney is far more pragmatic.

Look at Romney's foreign policy team.

One of them is John Bolton.

Who he said he'd make Secretary of State.

Oh, and what's worse, Bolton is publicly opposing Romney's calls to arm the rebels in Syria.

Romney is outhawking John fucking Bolton. After the Republican primary has been decided.

 

[Beorn]

It's the GOP debate. Romney isn't a hardline neocon. He's never been one. He's playing the game. While he's certainly compromised himself and I don't intend on voting for him, he's not John McCain in that he wants to smoke out the Mullahs at the direct expense of this country. McCain is a crazy man. Romney is far more pragmatic.

I tend to think this, too. However, if Rubio is whispering in his ear as VP I would be much more concerned.

Edit:

Look at Romney's foreign policy team.

One of them is John Bolton.

Who he said he'd make Secretary of State.

Oh, yeah. I forgot about that.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

We're always voting for fallible people. Where is the bright line where voting for the lesser evil is unacceptable and why do you insist on imposing that bright line on other people?

First and foremost, who's "we?" I am twenty years old and have yet to vote the lesser of two evils. Or rather, "fallible people." Ron Paul opened my eyes to what is really happening. (Being robbed of wealth through crony capitalism or facism; whatever you wish to call it, personal liberties etc.) Furthermore, my sleep means a little to me. (The lesser of two evils is still evil in my book) And even furthermore, I insist nothing, nor do I feel I impose.

 

[Brett85]

First and foremost, who's "we?" I am twenty years old and have yet to vote the lesser of two evils. Or rather, "fallible people." Ron Paul opened my eyes to what is really happening. (Being robbed of wealth through crony capitalism or facism; whatever you wish to call it, personal liberties etc.) Furthermore, my sleep means a little to me. (The lesser of two evils is still evil in my book) And even furthermore, I insist nothing, nor do I feel I impose.

What does "the lesser of two evils" actually mean? I don't agree with Ron on every single issue, and I still support him.

 

[Brett85]

Look at Romney's foreign policy team.

One of them is John Bolton.

Who he said he'd make Secretary of State.

Oh, and what's worse, Bolton is publicly opposing Romney's calls to arm the rebels in Syria.

Romney is outhawking John fucking Bolton. After the Republican primary has been decided.

Yeah, that's pretty bad. Almost all of Romney's foreign policy advisors are former foreign policy advisors to George W. Bush as well.

 

[AuH20]

Look at Romney's foreign policy team.

One of them is John Bolton.

Who he said he'd make Secretary of State.

Oh, and what's worse, Bolton is publicly opposing Romney's calls to arm the rebels in Syria.

Romney is outhawking John fucking Bolton.

Hence the description compromised. But at the end of the day, he has to make the decision. All the foreign policy experts can advocate until they're blue in the face. I think since the Iraq debacle the neoconservative powers of influence have waned greatly. Secondly, Romney appears to be someone that is keen to the economic repercussions of a full fledged war.