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

[CCTelander]

There's nothing funny about it.

It's always been like that.

The existence of politics is in itself a necessary evil.

Acting as if politics can be more than a succession of imperfect and often painful choices is immanentizing the eschaton.

Well, you got the "evil" part right anyway.

 

[JohnAshman]

I am not aware of Ron Paul's view on every Section of the Constitution, nor do I claim to be a Constitutional scholar. A little common sense of what the Founding Fathers intended would do the SCOTUS and Congress well. I can say I agree with Ron Paul on everything. (His explanations are superb) Especially after reading Liberty Defined. He put into words, what I was trying to say.

Do you know that immigration is not a delegated federal power?

 

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Really? What does it matter? All of the justices trample on the Constitution anyway.

 

[JohnAshman]

The court has largely been a joke for the last 80 years, it will continue to disappoint.

Why? Because growing a natural plant in your backyard and smoking it reduces interstate commerce that has been declared illegal and therefore the government must regulate your behavior so that they can better reduce the illegal trade that you have been reducing? C'mon, that's crystal clear common sense right there, buddy!

 

[Brett85]

This is why I'm not voting for Romney. This man is an absolute traitor to the Constitution.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...uld-wage-war-on-iran-without-congress/258607/

 

[erowe1]

This is why I'm not voting for Romney. This man is an absolute traitor to the Constitution.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...uld-wage-war-on-iran-without-congress/258607/

Same here.

I could be comfortable voting for the lesser of two evils if I could really clearly see that one of the two evils was by any significant amount less evil than the other. But I don't see Romney as clearly less evil than Obama, and this is a big part of why.

 

[Brett85]

Same here.

I could be comfortable voting for the lesser of two evils if I could really clearly see that one of the two evils was by any significant amount less evil than the other. But I don't see Romney as clearly less evil than Obama, and this is a big part of why.

Me too. I'm usually very pragmatic in how I vote, and I'll generally vote for a candidate who will lead us in the right direction, even if that candidate isn't nearly as much of a small government advocate as I am. However, Romney clearly won't lead us in the right direction if he actually gets us involved in a war with Iran without even getting Congressional approval.

 

[ProIndividual]

Voting for Romney = not in the liberty movement, and likely never really was

Thanks for voting to make sure we don't get a liberty candidate until 2020 or 2024, unstead of 2016. You're voting to setback the liberty movement an unnecessary 4-8 years (8-12 years total), instead of 0 years (4 years total).

I'm voting Obama because of game theory mathematics...if the Republicans lose, we get a liberty candidate in 2016. The Republicans have to keep losing until one of those liberty candidates win...or until the Democrats have a libertarian wing as well.

 

[Weston White]

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

Perhaps a more accurate title would have been: “Why I Decided to Shoot Myself in the Head, as Opposed to Shooting Myself in the Foot”?

NOBP, WIRP, WIRP, WIRP!

 

[skyorbit]

Who cares? That's the same garbage that try to push on us every 4 years. But most of the liberal justices historically have been appointed by Republicans.

 

[Athan]

You assume he will nominate and actually be able to get CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES on the bench.
He will nominate more moderates like Kennedy.

 

[Brett85]

Who cares? That's the same garbage that try to push on us every 4 years. But most of the liberal justices historically have been appointed by Republicans.

Yeah, just look at Stevens and Souter. Harriet Myers also would've been a disaster had the conservative base not stood up to Bush and demanded a different nominee.

 

[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.

Self-quote and BUMP for prescience. Saw that coming.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Yeah, the next conservative who tells me they're voting for Romney because of supreme court appointments is likely to test my non-aggression principle.

 

[torchbearer]

 

[jmdrake]

Self-quote and BUMP for prescience. Saw that coming.

But we need more justices like Roberts because....because.....because......well he's going to someday overturn Roe v. Wade. Yeah! That's it!

 

[brandon]

There's definitely a dig difference between someone like Thomas and someone like Sotomayer. But I feel pretty sure Romney wouldn't appoint anyone like Thomas...probably just more "middle road" morons.

 

[jj-]

Harriet Myers also would've been a disaster had the conservative base not stood up to Bush and demanded a different nominee.

Yeah, and they did not stand up the disastrous John Roberts, despite the warnings from the more careful conservatives.

Why do you think John Roberts is better than Harriet Myers?

 

[jj-]

Romney said he would like to nominate Supreme Court Justices like John Roberts. Expect that kind of change if he is elected.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Do you know that immigration is not a delegated federal power?

The federal government does have the authority/obligation to protect our borders. This would include enacting and enforcing border laws as well, IMO. What exactly do you mean by "immigration is not a delegated federal power?"