These Candidates Will Not Represent You

[Accountable]

I received an email from Jim DeMint. Here is part of it:

The Senate Conservatives Fund has endorsed eight conservative candidates who will help strip Harry Reid of control of the Senate and fight the liberal policies that are bankrupting our country.

These eight candidates are unique in that they have conservative records, have earned support from the grassroots in their states, and have the courage to stand up for our values -- even if it means going against their own party's leadership.
These candidates support all of SCF's policy goals, including:

• Cutting spending to balance the budget
• Repealing Obamacare entirely
• Securing the borders and oppose amnesty
• Stopping corporate bailouts
• Banning earmarks
• Establishing term limits
• Defending the 2nd Amendment
• Protecting human life

I urge anyone who lives in a state that these people are campaigning to represent to think long and hard before giving them your vote. They are not going there to represent you and your state. They are going for the express purpose of strengthening their party's hold on the federal gov't.

The only way to get Washington out of Republocrat control and back to serving the people is to stop voting Republocrat. When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil.

 

[Minor Axis]

When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil.

I'll counter that, you want to live in an idealized world, but you don't. I understand the saying "lesser of evils" is a saying that means a choice is not idea, but it does not have to mean real "evil" is involved. It does mean that compromises have to be made and you as a participating member of society will frequently be faced with the imperfect choice that in your opinion is better than another. Or you can take your ball and go home and whine about it. Or maybe commit your life to finding and promoting your perfect choice to be elected to a leadership position with no guarantee it will make any difference in the end.

 

[Accountable]

I'll counter that, you want to live in an idealized world, but you don't. I understand the saying "lesser of evils" is a saying that means a choice is not idea, but it does not have to mean real "evil" is involved. It does mean that compromises have to be made and you as a participating member of society will frequently be faced with the imperfect choice that in your opinion is better than another. Or you can take your ball and go home and whine about it. Or maybe commit your life to finding and promoting your perfect choice to be elected to a leadership position with no guarantee it will make any difference in the end.

It doesn't have to mean that, but evil is involved in this instance, though you refuse to acknowledge it. The Republocrats have proven themselves time and again to be the enemies of liberty and freedom. Speaking long-term, there is no greater evil. A gilded cage is still a prison. The idealized world is in your imagination, not mine.

 

[Minor Axis]

It doesn't have to mean that, but evil is involved in this instance, though you refuse to acknowledge it. The Republocrats have proven themselves time and again to be the enemies of liberty and freedom. Speaking long-term, there is no greater evil. A gilded cage is still a prison. The idealized world is in your imagination, not mine.

My view of an idealized world has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm not the one whining about not having the perfect candidate to vote for. I'm a realist dealing with my two choices in this Presidential race. It's make a choice, then go home and pout or just stay home and pout. Based on the traction of the Libertarian Party, you have many years of frustration ahead of you. Not rubbing it in, just an observation.

We need a combination of fiscal responsibility, social safety nets, and an appropriate tax base to support it. 90% won't be able to afford medical in retirement, in fact it's doubtful they can retire. We used to be the preeminent country on the planet. Part of that was citizens looking forward to their retirement. That is what we should be striving for. We should not be entertaining ideas from people who claim that the poor rich need tax cuts equivalent to 4 trillion dollars. Absolute BS.

Option C is revolution. Things will have to continue to degrade for that, but most people don't want that.

 

[Accountable]

My view of an idealized world has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm not the one whining about not having the perfect candidate to vote for.

Neither am I. That's your imagination once again.

I'm a realist dealing with my two choices in this Presidential race. It's make a choice, then go home and pout or just stay home and pout. Based on the traction of the Libertarian Party, you have many years of frustration ahead of you. Not rubbing it in, just an observation.

We need a combination of fiscal responsibility, social safety nets, and an appropriate tax base to support it. 90% won't be able to afford medical in retirement, in fact it's doubtful they can retire. We used to be the preeminent country on the planet. Part of that was citizens looking forward to their retirement. That is what we should be striving for. We should not be entertaining ideas from people who claim that the poor rich need tax cuts equivalent to 4 trillion dollars. Absolute BS.

Your in-the-box defeatist rationalization doesn't give you that.

Come to think of it, I don't recall reading your praises of Obama, only whining about repubs.

 

[Minor Axis]

Neither am I. That's your imagination once again.

You do frequently, practically in every political thread you participate in.

Your in-the-box defeatist rationalization doesn't give you that.

Come to think of it, I don't recall reading your praises of Obama, only whining about repubs.

I'm sending out clear warnings about the GOP. I'm voting for Obama, not because I think he's wonderful, not perfect, but because he is more aligned with my view of where the country needs to head. I'm DISGUSTED with what the GOP is trying to pull off. Look that the participants in the GOP primary. These are the scariest group of wanna-be leaders I've ever seen represented by a political party. And last time we had SARA PALIN?? Lol. And it's not just a matter of fiscal responsibility. We were in a very good place when Clinton was in office. It's a matter of GOP priorities. They do not represent the people, but the privileged few and most of the support they get from the bottom half are too blind to see it, too wrapped up in their guns, their religion, or their prejudice. That's my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

 

[Accountable]

I'm sending out clear warnings about the GOP. I'm voting for Obama, not because I think he's wonderful, not perfect, but because he is more aligned with my view of where the country needs to head.

Toward bankruptcy? :24:
Even your beloved dems admit that their plans are the same plans the repubs brought up years ago. Look up Robert Gibbs' recent Sunday interviews. So if your view is aligned with the dems, it's aligned with the repubs.

I'm DISGUSTED with what the GOP is trying to pull off. Look that the participants in the GOP primary. These are the scariest group of wanna-be leaders I've ever seen represented by a political party.

You wrote lots of words saying nothing. What are they trying to pull off?

And last time we had SARA PALIN?? Lol.

Sarah Palin wasn't invited to the convention. Neither was Ron Paul. the Republocrat establishment have closed their ranks.

And it's not just a matter of fiscal responsibility. We were in a very good place when Clinton was in office.

You mean when the repubs were in control of Congress? The president isn't king, remember?

It's a matter of GOP priorities. They do not represent the people, but the privileged few and most of the support they get from the bottom half are too blind to see it, too wrapped up in their guns, their religion, or their prejudice. That's my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

They represent the privileged few such as GE, GM, GMAC, Freddy & Fannie?
I don't understand how you can be so willfully blind. The party in control in Washington perpetrate a fraud of pretending to be two rival parties. They put on a show of disagreeing ,that you are happy to lap up like milk - then cooperate in steadily taking our liberty and concentrating power in Washington, which you ignore as if you're paid to.

 

[Minor Axis]

Toward bankruptcy? :24:

This is the kind of blatant lie that the GOP is pushing, Mr. They-Are-All-Alike, lol.

 

[Accountable]

This is the kind of blatant lie that the GOP is pushing, Mr. They-Are-All-Alike, lol.

I understand you can't read more than a line at a time without recharging your ADD, but there's more to my post.

 

[Alien Allen]

I understand the saying "lesser of evils" is a saying that means a choice is not idea, but it does not have to mean real "evil" is involved.

oh come on Minor.. You know the reps are evil.. Every comment you make drips of stating that.

If you accept the lesser of two options it still is caving in to the status quo

 

[Minor Axis]

oh come on Minor.. You know the reps are evil.. Every comment you make drips of stating that.

If you accept the lesser of two options it still is caving in to the status quo

This election, state your alternative. I'll wait...

 

[Tim]

This election, state your alternative. I'll wait...

He'll vote for Romney

he's always been a trickle down kinda guy :24: