The Official Lesser of Two Evils List

[Cabin4]

Well, all of this really means nothing. What we know for sure is come November, about 100 million people will go to the poles. If obama is reelected, we'll know who to thank for it.

Kerry....Romney has already lost by virtue of being a candidate. This tired plastic lawnchair of a politician couldn't beat McCain last go around what makes you think he can beat the guy McCain lost to.

Keep living the dream fellas and telling yourselves Romney has a chance.

Regan lost in the 1976 challenge to Ford and before that he lost to Nixon. Ford a moron and Nixon a criminal. He lost to both and later ran against another opponants in the 1980 primaries and won and he won the general election. Romney has so far taken the same route. He has one more victory to prove you 100% wrong. At this point the lawn chair has proven you wrong about 80%.....
 
So I guess what this means is, this is politics. Keep your eyes wide open.

[Cuts Crooked]

So I guess what this means is, this is politics. Keep your eyes wide open.

......and keep your guns oiled, and one hand on yer wallet.

[Casull]

Kerry....Romney has already lost by virtue of being a candidate. This tired plastic lawnchair of a politician couldn't beat McCain last go around what makes you think he can beat the guy McCain lost to.

 
 
LOL.  And RP lost to both of them.

[R.W.Dale]

Well, all of this really means nothing. What we know for sure is come November, about 100 million people will go to the poles. If obama is reelected, we'll know who to thank for it.

Kerry....Romney has already lost by virtue of being a candidate. This tired plastic lawnchair of a politician couldn't beat McCain last go around what makes you think he can beat the guy McCain lost to.

Keep living the dream fellas and telling yourselves Romney has a chance.

Regan lost in the 1976 challenge to Ford and before that he lost to Nixon. Ford a moron and Nixon a criminal. He lost to both and later ran against another opponants in the 1980 primaries and won and he won the general election. Romney has so far taken the same route. He has one more victory to prove you 100% wrong. At this point the lawn chair has proven you wrong about 80%.....
 
So I guess what this means is, this is politics. Keep your eyes wide open.

Favorable polling average as of TODAY
Obama 49.8%
Romney 36.6%

Unfavorable
Obama 44.8%
Romney 41.4%

In other words they both have an equal number of folks who WON'T vote for em. But Obama has a significant advantage in folks who will vote for him.

LOL Romney is no Ronald Regan. Also remember he won against JIMMY CARTER, Obama my govern with Carter's ineptitude but he does not share his too nice a guy persona in the electoral realm. The Chicago machine will eat the Romney campaign for breakfast much like it did the much more appealing McCain 4years ago. Only this time without the decisiveness of a Hillary split and with the athourity being the incumbent brings.

Oh did I mention Obama  has TEN TIMES the money too?

Keep living the dream fellas. My consence is clear I had no part in nominating this looser.

This famous quip comes to mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7gpgXNWYI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[R.W.Dale]

Kerry....Romney has already lost by virtue of being a candidate. This tired plastic lawnchair of a politician couldn't beat McCain last go around what makes you think he can beat the guy McCain lost to.

 
 
LOL.  And RP lost to both of them.

As I recall this sentence is the first time I've mentioned Ron Paul in this entire forum. For my own reasons I wouldn't vote ron Paul if he was the last candidate on earth.

Go stuff your strawman and send him off to see the wizard.

[Casull]

As I recall this sentence is the first time I've mentioned Ron Paul in this entire forum. For my own reasons I wouldn't vote ron Paul if he was the last candidate on earth.

Go stuff your strawman and send him off to see the wizard.

 
 
So, you really don't have a dog in this fight.  You're not for RP, not for obama, not for Romney.  So, what's the point.
 

[R.W.Dale]

As I recall this sentence is the first time I've mentioned Ron Paul in this entire forum. For my own reasons I wouldn't vote ron Paul if he was the last candidate on earth.

Go stuff your strawman and send him off to see the wizard.

 
 
So, you really don't have a dog in this fight.  You're not for RP, not for obama, not for Romney.  So, what's the point.

In case you didn't notice there were and are several other candidates on out primary ballot come the 25'th of may

My dog is to try to educate "yellow dog" voters like you that just because the guy has an R next to his name that you don't have to vote for him and as a result enable mediocrity.

If you have a drunkard family member you don't help em by giving them more booze. Same goes by supplying votes to a platform you cannot tolerate.

[mcwoodduck]

As I recall this sentence is the first time I've mentioned Ron Paul in this entire forum. For my own reasons I wouldn't vote ron Paul if he was the last candidate on earth.

Go stuff your strawman and send him off to see the wizard.

 
 
So, you really don't have a dog in this fight.  You're not for RP, not for obama, not for Romney.  So, what's the point.

In case you didn't notice there were and are several other candidates on out primary ballot come the 25'th of may

My dog is to try to educate "yellow dog" voters like you that just because the guy has an R next to his name that you don't have to vote for him and as a result enable mediocrity.

If you have a drunkard family member you don't help em by giving them more booze. Same goes by supplying votes to a platform you cannot tolerate.

But at some point you need to see what is worse and you, like this post says have to pick the lesser of the evils. 
We also have only seen the Republicans picking on each other.  I hate when they go negitive and only give you reasons not to vote for someone else but no reason to vote for them.  Only weakens the field in the general ellection.
 

[Casull]

In case you didn't notice there were and are several other candidates on out primary ballot come the 25'th of may

My dog is to try to educate "yellow dog" voters like you that just because the guy has an R next to his name that you don't have to vote for him and as a result enable mediocrity.

If you have a drunkard family member you don't help em by giving them more booze. Same goes by supplying votes to a platform you cannot tolerate.

 
 
Nice of you to be so insulting, but I can do without your brand of education.  If you can't see at this point that Romney will be the Republican nominee, you really shouldn't be speaking of educating anyone.  But, the youngsters seem to believe that if they can't have everything they want right now, they would just as soon pout and stay home.

[R.W.Dale]

As I recall this sentence is the first time I've mentioned Ron Paul in this entire forum. For my own reasons I wouldn't vote ron Paul if he was the last candidate on earth.

Go stuff your strawman and send him off to see the wizard.

 
 
So, you really don't have a dog in this fight.  You're not for RP, not for obama, not for Romney.  So, what's the point.

In case you didn't notice there were and are several other candidates on out primary ballot come the 25'th of may

My dog is to try to educate "yellow dog" voters like you that just because the guy has an R next to his name that you don't have to vote for him and as a result enable mediocrity.

If you have a drunkard family member you don't help em by giving them more booze. Same goes by supplying votes to a platform you cannot tolerate.

But at some point you need to see what is worse and you, like this post says have to pick the lesser of the evils. 
We also have only seen the Republicans picking on each other.  I hate when they go negitive and only give you reasons not to vote for someone else but no reason to vote for them.  Only weakens the field in the general ellection.

Im not a rabid idealist. I understand all politicians have their policy black marks I may not agree with.

However at some point a candidate crosses that line with me where they simply represent too much that is too contrary to what I want in a platform for me to make that compromise and vote for em. Romney crossed that line years ago as governor of MA

Apparently just not being Obama is satisfactory to many voters. I personally don't even think about the opponents when evaluating what a caindate stands for and if I can support them.

[R.W.Dale]

In case you didn't notice there were and are several other candidates on out primary ballot come the 25'th of may

My dog is to try to educate "yellow dog" voters like you that just because the guy has an R next to his name that you don't have to vote for him and as a result enable mediocrity.

If you have a drunkard family member you don't help em by giving them more booze. Same goes by supplying votes to a platform you cannot tolerate.

 
 
Nice of you to be so insulting, but I can do without your brand of education.  If you can't see at this point that Romney will be the Republican nominee, you really shouldn't be speaking of educating anyone.  But, the youngsters seem to believe that if they can't have everything they want right now, they would just as soon pout and stay home.

If you set the precident that an OPENLY anti gun president can get elected on the Republican ticket how long to you think it'd be before we saw another pro2a candidate? You want to preach about only two party choices from one side of your mouth and at the other side you preach how we MUST elect candidates who could just as easily be in the other party. In essence giving us a one party system

Just admit it the ONLY standard you have for a candidate is that they're not Obama.  For you nothing else matters. Hypothetically is there any policy that could possibly cause you to not vote for Romney?

You tell us what it would take for you to say "I'm not putting my name on this"

[mcwoodduck]

As I recall this sentence is the first time I've mentioned Ron Paul in this entire forum. For my own reasons I wouldn't vote ron Paul if he was the last candidate on earth.

Go stuff your strawman and send him off to see the wizard.

 
 
So, you really don't have a dog in this fight.  You're not for RP, not for obama, not for Romney.  So, what's the point.

In case you didn't notice there were and are several other candidates on out primary ballot come the 25'th of may

My dog is to try to educate "yellow dog" voters like you that just because the guy has an R next to his name that you don't have to vote for him and as a result enable mediocrity.

If you have a drunkard family member you don't help em by giving them more booze. Same goes by supplying votes to a platform you cannot tolerate.

But at some point you need to see what is worse and you, like this post says have to pick the lesser of the evils. 
We also have only seen the Republicans picking on each other.  I hate when they go negitive and only give you reasons not to vote for someone else but no reason to vote for them.  Only weakens the field in the general ellection.

Im not a rabid idealist. I understand all politicians have their policy black marks I may not agree with.

However at some point a candidate crosses that line with me where they simply represent too much that is too contrary to what I want in a platform for me to make that compromise and vote for em. Romney crossed that line years ago as governor of MA

Apparently just not being Obama is satisfactory to many voters. I personally don't even think about the opponents when evaluating what a caindate stands for and if I can support them.

I understand and agree.
What has me baffeled is if Obama is worse than Romney why some would not vote romney to get rid of Obama.  One leftist at a time.  Get rid of the worse ones first and move on to the next one.

[R.W.Dale]

As I recall this sentence is the first time I've mentioned Ron Paul in this entire forum. For my own reasons I wouldn't vote ron Paul if he was the last candidate on earth.

Go stuff your strawman and send him off to see the wizard.

 
 
So, you really don't have a dog in this fight.  You're not for RP, not for obama, not for Romney.  So, what's the point.

In case you didn't notice there were and are several other candidates on out primary ballot come the 25'th of may

My dog is to try to educate "yellow dog" voters like you that just because the guy has an R next to his name that you don't have to vote for him and as a result enable mediocrity.

If you have a drunkard family member you don't help em by giving them more booze. Same goes by supplying votes to a platform you cannot tolerate.

But at some point you need to see what is worse and you, like this post says have to pick the lesser of the evils. 
We also have only seen the Republicans picking on each other.  I hate when they go negitive and only give you reasons not to vote for someone else but no reason to vote for them.  Only weakens the field in the general ellection.

Im not a rabid idealist. I understand all politicians have their policy black marks I may not agree with.

However at some point a candidate crosses that line with me where they simply represent too much that is too contrary to what I want in a platform for me to make that compromise and vote for em. Romney crossed that line years ago as governor of MA

Apparently just not being Obama is satisfactory to many voters. I personally don't even think about the opponents when evaluating what a caindate stands for and if I can support them.

I understand and agree.
What has me baffeled is if Obama is worse than Romney why some would not vote romney to get rid of Obama.  One leftist at a time.  Get rid of the worse ones first and move on to the next one.

YOU CERTAINLY DONT GET FEWER LEFTISTS BY STARTING TO ELECT THEM IN THE OTHER PARTY TOO!!!!

Is 4 more years of 100% Obama better for us than 8 years of 84% Obama by volume (Romney). Either way I support no more than 65% Obama in a canidate

Despite all the chicken little speak we will be back here in four years discussing all the same things.

[Casull]

Just admit it the ONLY standard you have for a candidate is that they're not Obama.  For you nothing else matters. Hypothetically is there any policy that could possibly cause you to not vote for Romney?

You tell us what it would take for you to say "I'm not putting my name on this"

 
 
Seeing as how you've never met or talked to me, you sure seem to know everything about me.       If that is the case, I need not answer anything from you (you can just answer it for me like you've already done).   

[R.W.Dale]

Just admit it the ONLY standard you have for a candidate is that they're not Obama.  For you nothing else matters. Hypothetically is there any policy that could possibly cause you to not vote for Romney?

You tell us what it would take for you to say "I'm not putting my name on this"

 
 
Seeing as how you've never met or talked to me, you sure seem to know everything about me.       If that is the case, I need not answer anything from you (you can just answer it for me like you've already done).   

O OK I see. Its just fine for you to lump me in with the Ron Paul supporters with no reason. But its not OK for me to make the observation that you vote "R" above all issues.

I asked you to reply and your refusal speaks for itself

So in other words there's absolutely nothing Romney could stand for that would preclude your voting for him.

[nw_hunter]

In case you didn't notice there were and are several other candidates on out primary ballot come the 25'th of may

My dog is to try to educate "yellow dog" voters like you that just because the guy has an R next to his name that you don't have to vote for him and as a result enable mediocrity.

If you have a drunkard family member you don't help em by giving them more booze. Same goes by supplying votes to a platform you cannot tolerate.

 
 
Nice of you to be so insulting, but I can do without your brand of education.  If you can't see at this point that Romney will be the Republican nominee, you really shouldn't be speaking of educating anyone.  But, the youngsters seem to believe that if they can't have everything they want right now, they would just as soon pout and stay home.

Actually'Your both insulting, but one a little more tongue in cheek and Personal insulting is a no no on GB, so lets remember that folks! That "said" I do like the analogy of enabling an alcoholic to supplying votes to a platform you cannot stand. [size=78%] [/size]

[Cuts Crooked]

I'm reminded of a situation in this nation when it was new. After getting shed of a King who's actions our forefathers couldn't stand, they actually considered appointing Geoge Washington as King of the new nation. Many thought he would be a better king than the one they just got shed of. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed, George himself included, and the office of president was created.
 
Today we are in the same boat in a manner of speaking. Many want rid of one socialist gun grabber, and are willing to have new socialist gun grabber in his place. Saddly, it appears that that is excatly what they are going to get.....IF they win.

[mcwoodduck]

I'm reminded of a situation in this nation when it was new. After getting shed of a King who's actions our forefathers couldn't stand, they actually considered appointing Geoge Washington as King of the new nation. Many thought he would be a better king than the one they just got shed of. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed, George himself included, and the office of president was created.
 
Today we are in the same boat in a manner of speaking. Many want rid of one socialist gun grabber, and are willing to have new socialist gun grabber in his place. Saddly, it appears that that is excatly what they are going to get.....IF they win.

Ah but there is the rub, we have one socialist that wants to be king/ Dictator  and one that just wants to be President.  One we will be able to get rid of the other we will not.
And the 100% Obama vs. 84% Romney I'll take hte 84% as it will be less work to fix than 100% Obama.
 

[Casull]

So in other words there's absolutely nothing Romney could stand for that would preclude your voting for him.

 
 
Wrong.  If Romney stood for abortion on demand, stood for the outlawing of all firearms, stood for the "spreading of wealth", stood for the favoring of one race over another, stood for making the US submissive to the UN, stood for the elimination of the oil industry, stood for increased taxation, stood for the welfare state or stood for most of the other things that obama stands for (most of which Romney does not stand for), THEN that would certainly preclude me from voting for him.  HOWEVER, unlike some here that are so self-absorbed that they think that the 1 or 2 issues that are important to THEM are the ONLY issues, I tend to look at the bigger picture.  I am also patient (unlike some) and think that one thing we need to take from the democraps is the importance of incrementalism.  We are NOT going to get the whole pie in one fell swoop.  We need to take our small victories on the way to battling for the bigger ones.  Is Romney my first choice?  Hell no.  Is he "exactly the same" as obama?  Again, hell no.  Will I help to re-elect obama?  Now, what do YOU think?   

[Cuts Crooked]

 
 
Wrong.  If Romney stood for abortion on demand, stood for the outlawing of all firearms, stood for the "spreading of wealth", stood for the favoring of one race over another, stood for making the US submissive to the UN, stood for the elimination of the oil industry, stood for increased taxation, stood for the welfare state or stood for most of the other things that obama stands for (most of which Romney does not stand for), THEN that would certainly preclude me from voting for him.  HOWEVER, unlike some here that are so self-absorbed that they think that the 1 or 2 issues that are important to THEM are the ONLY issues, I tend to look at the bigger picture.  I am also patient (unlike some) and think that one thing we need to take from the democraps is the importance of incrementalism.  We are NOT going to get the whole pie in one fell swoop.  We need to take our small victories on the way to battling for the bigger ones.  Is Romney my first choice?  Hell no.  Is he "exactly the same" as obama?  Again, hell no.  Will I help to re-elect obama?  Now, what do YOU think?   

The problem with your lline of thought is that you are completely ignoring one very importantr thing.......HE IS A SOCIALIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He wants All those things you mention just by virtue of what he is. He would have you believe otherwise, but his past actions have proved it.
 
Exactly like Obbumer......he is the Man Who Would be KING!

[mcwoodduck]

 
 
Wrong.  If Romney stood for abortion on demand, stood for the outlawing of all firearms, stood for the "spreading of wealth", stood for the favoring of one race over another, stood for making the US submissive to the UN, stood for the elimination of the oil industry, stood for increased taxation, stood for the welfare state or stood for most of the other things that obama stands for (most of which Romney does not stand for), THEN that would certainly preclude me from voting for him.  HOWEVER, unlike some here that are so self-absorbed that they think that the 1 or 2 issues that are important to THEM are the ONLY issues, I tend to look at the bigger picture.  I am also patient (unlike some) and think that one thing we need to take from the democraps is the importance of incrementalism.  We are NOT going to get the whole pie in one fell swoop.  We need to take our small victories on the way to battling for the bigger ones.  Is Romney my first choice?  Hell no.  Is he "exactly the same" as obama?  Again, hell no.  Will I help to re-elect obama?  Now, what do YOU think?   

The problem with your lline of thought is that you are completely ignoring one very importantr thing.......HE IS A SOCIALIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He wants All those things you mention just by virtue of what he is. He would have you believe otherwise, but his past actions have proved it.
 
Exactly like Obbumer......he is the Man Who Would be KING!

So you are more anti Romney than anti Obama?
 

[Dixie Dude]

Romney said he wanted a flat tax or flater tax.  That is not being a socialist. 

[45-70.gov]

back to the topic


lesser of two evils......TW EVILS  not to nominate another person or  party


WILL ANY ONE SAY  I AM  WRONG BY SAYING
 OBUMER   IS TEH  MOST EVIL
and romnee  is the lesser   of the two evils


am  i wrong in saying 
the republican is the lesser of the TWO evils


this  is just lesser of  two  evils....not whether or not to vote for the lasser of  2 evils


when  is the last time the presedency was won by someone outside the demo-repub coalition?

[45-70.gov]

when was the last president  not a  dem  or rep
i am  SURE this election will follow the trend


[copy and paste below]



The Whigs were an American political party that took its name from an older English party. The first Whigs were opposed to the British monarchy. Similarly, the American Whigs were united against the kingly actions of President Andrew Jackson.
The Whigs elected a few presidents in their time. First was Zachary Taylor, who died in office. His vice president, John Tyler, took over. Tyler started as a Whig, but once he got the top job, he turned Democrat. Next, the Whigs elected William Harrison, who also died in office (not a great reflection on the party, huh?). That's how Millard Fillmore became president in 1850. Even though he'd been a Whig all his political life, he didn't receive his party's nod for reelection in 1852.
The Whigs didn't win another election, and the party fell apart before the Civil War. Many Whigs joined the new Republican party, which soon elected its first U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln. Americans have had elephants and donkeys as president ever sin

[Cuts Crooked]

So you are more anti Romney than anti Obama?

Nope! I despise them both equally.
 
I see no "lesser" here. Never have. Excuses for Romney are just that, no different than the leftists excuses for Obbummer.

[Casull]

  

[Casull]

The problem with your lline of thought is that you are completely ignoring one very importantr thing.......HE IS A SOCIALIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
Nothing wrong with my line of thought.  I just happen to think that you are wrong.  Setting up a state run health care system in a state that wanted that system does NOT make someone a socialist.  BTW, putting it all in caps does not make it true.

[Lost Farmboy]

  Obama is the carbon copy of Romney, so why have the copy when you can have the original?

[Cuts Crooked]

  BTW, putting it all in caps does not make it true.

Doesn't make any less true either. He is a socialist, a gun grabber, and a baby killer.
 
and as Bug says: Abortion =  Holocaust (but don't expect him to stand behind it, when it doesn't suit his agenda, he changes sig lines)

[mcwoodduck]

  BTW, putting it all in caps does not make it true.

Doesn't make any less true either. He is a socialist, a gun grabber, and a baby killer.
 
and as Bug says: Abortion =  Holocaust (but don't expect him to stand behind it, when it doesn't suit his agenda, he changes sig lines)

OK so Romney is a gun grabber and went after assault rifle.  May be he doesn't understand that there are none in Mass maybe as a governer he unders tood states rights and went for his state.  Either way he went after a certain group of guns, not all gun as group, like Clinton did. 
Obama want to take all guns, not a small group, not a certain type, ALL.
So I understand you do not want ot give up any but of the two choices I would rather burry my AR for a few years and still be able to hunt and target shoot than have loose all of my guns to Obama's melters.
And i know you are going to state your mantra, and talk about Ron Paul ect.
But the reality is either Romney will win or you will help to re ellect Obama.
You want to loose one gun or all?