The Official Lesser of Two Evils List

[Lost Farmboy]

  It will take me at least a decade to figure out if Obama is the white Romney or Romney is the white Obama. A Vote for either is a vote to sink the ship.

[Cuts Crooked]

I find ONE thing troubling, but it has many aspects......that anyone would voluntarily vote for a socialist. Other aspects of this.....we have voted for "the lesser" too many times now and what has it gotten us? It's gotten us where we are now. So what's the point in doing it again? Instead, vote for someone who believes in the constitution and freedom. If we fail, we fail, but we go down as men with principles, instead of men willing to sell their souls to satan in the false hope that he will make any difference.

I now understand that principal means more than outcome to you.
while sitting on the sinking ship you are going to say I did what I thought was best knowing it would result in the sinking of the ship.

Actually, I would say, "See what years of voting for the "lesser of two evils" got y'all?"
 
You see, we have gained NOTHING by doing this for years, while the socialistdemolibs have run the worst possible candidates and WIN.....because they vote for what they believe in, their "prinicples" if you will! The right, on the other hand, kept running "middle of the road" candidates and we kept falling behind, indeed government has done nothing but grow larger and more intrusive under that type of leadership, and now......they have even abandoned the middle for the most socialistic one in the bunch........No, incrementalism is NOT helping the rights cause, it's killing it. Indeed it has probably killed it outright. If Romney does, by some miraculous chance, win the left will just snicker at him and wait for four.....and run the worst possible commie leftist they can find and watch him win!
 
The right has pretty much abandoned it's conservative base, through lack of priniciples, and they will loose their country the same way, through lack of principles.

[Casull]

"Sadly, I'm coming to believe that many here are incapable of such intellectual progression, and I find that deeply "Troubling"."

 
 
Nothing like talking down to the "unwashed masses".        Frankly, I find it deeply troubling that the OP displays such intellectual dishonesty.  I don't really recall any here being pro Romney, but rather, they have explicitly stated that they are pro Republican party or anti obama.  But, spin is spin. 

[Dixie Dude]

I voted for Ron Paul in the primary, but will have to vote for Romney, because I believe we need ANYBODY BUT OBAMA.  Even Hillary Clinton would have been better than Obama.  Romney is probably an old fashioned politician.  He did what he did to satisfy the people from his state.  He is smart enough to know that 65% of Americans do not want Obamacare.  I believe he would actually govern from the middle or slightly right, not as FAR LEFT as Obama. 

[Matt]

"Sadly, I'm coming to believe that many here are incapable of such intellectual progression, and I find that deeply "Troubling"."

 
 
Nothing like talking down to the "unwashed masses".        Frankly, I find it deeply troubling that the OP displays such intellectual dishonesty.  I don't really recall any here being pro Romney, but rather, they have explicitly stated that they are pro Republican party or anti obama.  But, spin is spin.

If you are willing to compromise your principles and vote Romney if he is the chosen one then you are Pro-Romney.  If you have strong enough conviction to turn your nose up at the establishment candidate and look elsewhere to save this country then you are Pro Third Party as stated by many here.  I don't care about the parties AT ALL I want people in office that will HONOR the OATH THEY TAKE TO THE CONSTITUTION and WE THE PEOPLE and to be incorruptible and not sell out to the highest bidder. If that is wrong then as the song goes I DON'T WANT TO BE RIGHT.
I will never vote in a BILLIONAIRE to the highest office in the land. Why would he want to be there other than to make more money or gain more control? Nor will I ever vote for any candidate who is backed by those who have created our problems by design. I feel that we have regressed not progressed when you think that:
We have lost true Free Speech.
We have lost true Private Property Rights.
We have lost our true Right to Bear Arms.
We have lost our true Freedom of Religion.
We have lost our Right to be Protected from Unreasonable Search & Seizure.
We have also lost several other RIGHTS and our Personal Liberty is almost non-existent and yet so many feel that we will be A-OK electing another that will chip away at what little RIGHTS we have left... Sorry folks but to me it is just heart breaking to know that this is where we are at in this once GREAT NATION!


Matt

[Dixie Dude]

Would you Libertarians vote for Romney IF he let Ron Paul get some of what he wants in his platform?  Both Romney and Paul have a lot of gold assets.  Romney has about $500 thousand in gold, while Paul has about $250 thousand.  The other cantidates do not have anything like that in their portfolios.  Romney has stated we should go back to the gold standard.  He has also stated that Romneycare was ok for Mass, but not for America.  It is what Mass wanted. 

[Matt]

Would you Libertarians vote for Romney IF he let Ron Paul get some of what he wants in his platform?  Both Romney and Paul have a lot of gold assets.  Romney has about $500 thousand in gold, while Paul has about $250 thousand.  The other cantidates do not have anything like that in their portfolios.  Romney has stated we should go back to the gold standard.  He has also stated that Romneycare was ok for Mass, but not for America.  It is what Mass wanted.

NO I would not because he would say anything to get my vote but would not have any intentions of following through with it after elected. Same game we have been playing for as long as I can remember. Also Ron Paul would NEVER compromise his principles and join Romney as he has said so many times already.
Matt

[45-70.gov]

can  some one name  just one person besides the democratic or republican candidates
that has more than  ONE IN A THOUSAND  odds of winning?
[no offence matt  but can you]


is there one person that believes the next president will not be a republican  or a democrat ?[size=78%]?[/size]
 
will one person state
''I want the most rather than the lessor of the 2 evils''




will some one state
''my pride is more important than letting the most evil win''


who agrees with  this statement.......[i do]
''there  is one thing i know to be worse than a republican....thats a democrat''





[/i]

[ironglow]

  As so many here have said ..they don't think Romney is the best candidate, but he is many miles ahead of the Kenyan.  We can hope that Romney can at least give the ship of state enough breathing room to recover from the first four Obama years, and perhaps we then can get a regular conservative..If Obama stays in ..the nation will be trashed far beyond recovery.  I don't want to have the final destruction of the US on my conscience, by perhaps throwing that last chance to the vipers.
 
  In the fall we will have to candidates, either of which can win the election..and yes, I will vote strictly for the best candidate of the two.
 
    Now if you mean the best candidate we can possibly think of... I must inform you, Jesus will not be running in this election.
 
  ..But take heart..I read the book...and He will be the boss when it's all over..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  Duk, you used a bit of subterfuge there.  If you really wanted each to find a category..you should have had 4  lists;
 
  1)  Pro Romney
 
 2) Pro Obama
 
  3) pro 3rd party
 
  4) ABO (anybody but Obama)
 
    Something tells me you were trying to "shoehorn" folks into a category they don't believe in.. those 4 would have covered most everyone.  Let's be candid ..there are MANY who are more "anti-Obama" than any other motivating factor.  To ignore this sizeable group is being disingenuous.

[Cuts Crooked]

can  some one name  just one person besides the democratic or republican candidates
that has more than  ONE IN A THOUSAND  odds of winning?
[no offence matt  but can you]
Paul

is there one person that believes the next president will not be a republican  or a democrat ?[size=78%]?[/size]
 
will one person state
''I want the most rather than the lessor of the 2 evils''
 
I want no evils




will some one state
''my pride is more important than letting the most evil win''
 
Wrong question.... The Rights lack of principles has lead us to this situtation


who agrees with  this statement.......[i do]
''there  is one thing i know to be worse than a republican....thats a democrat''
 
The one thing worse than a republican is a socialist gun grabbing republican

[/i]

And there you have it, the Republican party abandoned the cause of smaller government, the constitution, and belief in true freedom.....along with those who really believe in those things. And now they want to blame the ones they abandoned for thier own weakness and argue "it's not our fault if we lose....it's yours"...... Disgusting!

[Matt]

can  some one name  just one person besides the democratic or republican candidates
that has more than  ONE IN A THOUSAND  odds of winning?
[no offence matt  but can you]

None taken.
Yes, any candidate that the AMERICAN PEOPLE get behind and vote for. There is a movement in this country and it does not care about party lines. It is getting stronger every day and may be strong enough to change this country for the better for once.

 

is there one person that believes the next president will not be a republican  or a democrat ?[size=78%]?[/size]

Yes, I believe that if THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WAKE UP we can get rid of the two party system and put AMERICA back on track.

 

will one person state
''I want the most rather than the lessor of the 2 evils''
 

NO I WILL NOT AS I WILL NOT VOTE ANY EVIL! Less or more matters not. You are willing to give up a little more just because you are scared that Obama might get re-elected. Yet you seem to FORGET that THE EXACT SAME PEOPLE THAT BACKED OBAMA ARE BACKING ROMNEY so please tell me how there is a real difference other than one has an R and one has a D by their name. The Policies will be the same:
We will still be in over 150 countries in the name of our Empire.

We will still give away half of our GDP in foreign aide.
They will still continue to erode our Freedom and Liberty.
TSA will continue to molest children and seniors in the name of security.
NDAA will remain law to be used by the next establishment pawn.
The Patriot Act will continue to be law to be used against the American People.
So excuse me if I do not see one ounce of difference between your Republican Candidate (if it is anyone other than Paul) and the Current POTUS.
 

will some one state
''my pride is more important than letting the most evil win''
 

Nope but I will say that MY PRINCIPLES AND VALUES are to true to allow me to vote for evil at all.

who agrees with  this statement.......
''there  is one thing i know to be worse than a republican....thats a democrat''
 

Not me as I SEE NO DIFFERENCE IN EITHER SIDE when it comes to POLICY which is all that matters in the end.

[Cabin4]

Just because you are willing to vote for Romney in the general election does not mean you are "pro Romney".
 
How someone votes in a primary versus general election can very well be a matter of tactic to derail a candidate. We all know this tactic is true. All the talk about "not sacrificing your principals" is strictly a matter of personal interpretation. But one fact of this is absolutely undisputable, and that is the math. If you vote for a 3^rd party candidate in this upcoming general election, you ARE adding a vote tally for Obama by mathematical default.
 
I hate flying coach class and it violates my principals to be so close to perfect strangers. But I also don’t thinks it’s worth spending 4x the cost for a first class ticket either. That violates by principals to be frugal with the money I earn. I have to fly to get there. What do I do?
 
So much for everything being a black & white principal. It would be really nice if everything was so crisp and clean in life.
 

[Casull]

Yes, any candidate that the AMERICAN PEOPLE get behind and vote for. There is a movement in this country and it does not care about party lines. It is getting stronger every day and may be strong enough to change this country for the better for once.

 
 
Well, that's kind of silly.  Of course the candidate that the American people cast the most votes for will win.  As for the movement you describe, it certainly does not seem to be getting stronger through the primaries.  In fact, watching RP's diminishing results, it seems to be getting weaker.

[Matt]

Just because you are willing to vote for Romney in the general election does not mean you are "pro Romney".

I agree with that but it does mean you are "Anti-Constitution" as he does not believe in it nor will he abide by it. So if you vote for him how can you say you hold the Constitution in high regard?
Matt

[Cabin4]

Just because you are willing to vote for Romney in the general election does not mean you are "pro Romney".

I agree with that but it does mean you are "Anti-Constitution" as he does not believe in it nor will he abide by it. So if you vote for him how can you say you hold the Constitution in high regard?
Matt

Yes, and I do. I want meat and potatos every night for dinner too but have to sacrifice for whats on the table when I get home because I aint the only one eating in that house.

[Cuts Crooked]

Cabin, Those thing you mention are not priniciples, they are your likes/dislikes.....not the same thing.
 
If you think they are the same.....I feel sorry for you.

[Matt]

Just because you are willing to vote for Romney in the general election does not mean you are "pro Romney".

I agree with that but it does mean you are "Anti-Constitution" as he does not believe in it nor will he abide by it. So if you vote for him how can you say you hold the Constitution in high regard?
Matt

Yes, and I do. I want meat and potatos every night for dinner too but have to sacrifice for whats on the table when I get home because I aint the only one eating in that house.

OK, I have a question. Does everyone want meat and potatoes? If so then MAKE IT HAPPEN don't settle.

[Cabin4]

Then no need to feel sorry for me Cuts.
 
Yes, I want a lot of things to happen Matt. But it appears as though we are at the end of the race. They just passed turn #4 of the final lap and the guy I want aint no place in sight. So I'm going to try and help the guy who has a chance even know I really don’t like him because the alternative is so far worse.
 
This is really not so much about “settling” as it is about “mitigation”. Two very different things.
 

[ironglow]

can  some one name  just one person besides the democratic or republican candidates
that has more than  ONE IN A THOUSAND  odds of winning?
[no offence matt  but can you]
Paul  ..Sadly, he can't win either..
 
 
is there one person that believes the next president will not be a republican  or a democrat ?[size=78%]?[/size]
 
will one person state
''I want the most rather than the lessor of the 2 evils''  or rather " the better of whom has any chance".
 
I want no evils     .  Sorry Cuts, all the possible candidates are HUMAN; being composed of some good & some evil.
 
 
.will some one state
''my pride is more important than letting the most evil win''  .. or.. " my country is too valuable to let the most evil back in".
 
Wrong question.... The Rights lack of principles has lead us to this situtation.   ..or.. "Some of the Libertarian's lack of pragmatism will cause them to commit national suicide."
 
who agrees with  this statement.......[i do]

  ''there  is one thing i know to be worse than a republican....thats a democrat''
 
The one thing worse than a republican is a socialist gun grabbing republican  "There are many things worse than a Republican, and the far left embodies most of them."/i]
[/i]

[i do]
 
And there you have it, the Republican party abandoned the cause of smaller government, the constitution, and belief in true freedom.....along with those who really believe in those things. And now they want to blame the ones they abandoned for thier own weakness and argue "it's not our fault if we lose....it's yours"...... Disgusting!  " Republicans have not abandoned those things, but some of the more pronounced Libertarians are very close to Nihilists.  Republicans wil not be Libertarians, nor Libertarians, Republicans .  However they are closer to each other than to the Democrats.  No Libertarian is likely to be elected to the oval office in the forseeable future..so the Libertarians could get half a loaf by cooperating with the major party and perhaps influencing same.
Admittedly, Libertarians have some beliefs they share with the far left..but I doubt there are enough that it would be prudent for them to help the far left be elected..
They can do that ..or they can be facilitators for the far left..
[/i]

[Cuts Crooked]

Ironglow All but one of your answers can be set aside with the very simple fact that the republican party has abandoned it's principles and the true freedom loving conservatives that made up it's core.
 
The only one that has a different answer is the first...the question was "who has a one in a thousand chance", not "who can win"......which is just more of the deliberate abandonment tactics that the neocons use to excuse their behaviour. Obviously they are ashamed, but they won't admit it because the thought of true freedom terrifies them.

[Cabin4]

Ironglow All but one of your answers can be set aside with the very simple fact that the republican party has abandoned it's principles and the true freedom loving conservatives that made up it's core.
 
The only one that has a different answer is the first...the question was "who has a one in a thousand chance", not "who can win"......which is just more of the deliberate abandonment tactics that the neocons use to excuse their behaviour. Obviously they are ashamed, but they won't admit it because the thought of true freedom terrifies them.

Don't you think you might just be leaping to many conclusions here?

[Swampman]

The fact is a true conservative will never be the President again.  I'm not sure we've ever had one.  I'm pretty sure we don't want one.  We need someone that represents all Americans, not just upper middle aged white Baptist men.  We are never going back to the 1950s.  Pick your battles or lose.  Those are your choices.

[BUGEYE]

voting your conscience in the primary is the way to do it.  but THE MAJORITY will likely vote for Romney.  if Romney gets the nomination, it's because the majority voted for him and don't give a hoot about your petty arguments.  if you want hardcore communism, write in Ron Paul in november.
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html
Ron Paul is a POLITICIAN, no more, no less. 
from sept 21,2011 to feb 29,2012 he didn't bother to vote 60% of the time.
http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/
my liberal rep. voted every time like he's paid to do.
the vote throwers will accomplish nothing except maybe forcing us into civil war.
is that your secret agenda??  if so, speak up and maybe folks will join you.

[ironglow]

  I think some are confusing Libertarianism with Conservatism.  Let's look at what conservatism is
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
     
  con·serv·a·tive   /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]    adjective  1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.    2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.    3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.    4. ( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.    5. ( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.  ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''     American Conservatives prefer to conserve what h   as been traditionally American.  Both Libertarians and Conservatives value certain items , the constitution, free enterprise, America first and rule of law.  However, there are some traditional values which Conservatives hold which many Libertarians do not.  Just for starters, here are some traditional values and habits of the American culture..    1) Respect for life..    2) High percentage have an enduring faith, while respecting the faith of others.    3) A large percentage of which eschewed addictive drugs    4) Isolationism has not been a continuous feature of American foreign relations efforts     5) Sadly, America has had a habit of disarming in the face of foreign danger, but we had learned better by the advent of WW2.    6) Conservatives recognize that some habits people individually acquire, can be destructive to the citizenry as a whole.    7) A nation is not composed of it's constitution alone    drug induced stupors are frowned upon ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''   So much as one fails to endorse many of these ideals and other's ingrained in the traditional & cultural fiber of our nation, they arte failing to be Conservative and end up being a "partial Conservative'.. .  Libertarian, likely.. but not Conservative.

[Matt]

  I think some are confusing Libertarianism with Conservatism..

Definition of LIBERTARIAN
1
: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2
a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
— libertarian adjective
— lib·er·tar·i·an·ism noun
 See libertarian defined for English-language learners »
See libertarian defined for kids »
First Known Use of LIBERTARIAN
1789
Definition of CONSERVATISM
1
capitalized
a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b : the Conservative party
2
a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
3
: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
 See conservatism defined for English-language learners »
See conservatism defined for kids »
Examples of CONSERVATISM
<the state's well-known conservatism means that progressive legislation always has an uphill battle>
First Known Use of CONSERVATISM
1832


So there is no confusion.

[blind ear]

Looks like all you guys need to start figureing at what level the citizens need to strike back to clean out and take the government back AFTER the next election. You might begin with how you will commmunicate to coordinate. ear

[Cuts Crooked]

Don't you think you might just be leaping to many conclusions here?

Nope!!!!!!!!!

[ironglow]

Looks like all you guys need to start figureing at what level the citizens need to strike back to clean out and take the government back AFTER the next election. You might begin with how you will commmunicate to coordinate. ear

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
  Yes;  Perhaps mitt romney can keep the country aat least in a holdingh pattern until conservatives and Libertarians can get off their collective duffs for the 2016 election cycle... bets letting the enemy take over.
   ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
  Some must still be confusing Libertarianism & conservatism..because some libertarians are claiming the conservative mantle.
  Conservatism includes constitutionalism..since that is a major part of our national heritage.  Not aall Libertarians seem nearly as attached to faith, right-to-life, drug free principles as are full conservatives.  A leading Libertarian has tried to blame ourselves for 9/11.  Since Conservatism is very "America-first" in attitude..this doesn't pass the "sniff-test".

[Cuts Crooked]

You guys seem so fond of analogy, maybe this will help.

40% want to vote for Satan.

40% want to vote for the Golden Calf.

20% want to vote for Moses.

Should the 20% throw their vote to to the Calf because "he's better than Satan"?

Remember, this is an analogy about principles...............

[briarpatch]

What will the ballot look like for 2012? Who will be on it?