Which Candidate Best Represents You and do You Intend to Support?

[edporch]

In normal times, I would vote for Johnson.

But Obama is so bad and governing like a dictator that we MUST get him out.

Though I said I'd never do it, I am going to hold my nose and vote for Romney.
At least Romney's goal isn't to intentionally destroy this country.

Then STILL watch my back knowing a business friendly, but left winger on social issues is in charge.

 

[Yup!]

Yes, but that does not make the killing right, just because it is conditionally acceptable.

Taken further, murder is wrong, but can be forgiven with pennance (jail, money, etc. depending on your culture).

Is that gray? Of course, but the fact of the matter is that murder is still wrong. To say that murder is right doesn't get you closer to a truth, but rather, further from it.

Conditionally acceptable = grey area

Depending on the conditions, I can apply different logic different ways.

Back to the thread at hand, for me it is conditionally acceptable to vote for Romney, as I work towards my ultimate objective of voting out Pres. Obama.

Voting for Romeny isn't the Right thing to do, but given the current set of circumstances, it's the best I can do.

 

[hornadylnl]

In normal times, I would vote for Johnson.

But Obama is so bad and governing like a dictator that we MUST get him out.

Though I said I'd never do it, I am going to hold my nose and vote for Romney.
At least Romney's goal isn't to intentionally destroy this country.

Then STILL watch my back knowing a business friendly, but left winger on social issues is in charge.

If Romney is such a business man, he knows that this country cannot survive following the status quo on spending. Did he cut spending as governor and make good financial decisions? Will he do that as president? If not, then he's intentionally destroying this country because he knows better.

 

[ATOMonkey]

If Romney is such a business man, he knows that this country cannot survive following the status quo on spending. Did he cut spending as governor and make good financial decisions? Will he do that as president? If not, then he's intentionally destroying this country because he knows better.

Romney said that a reduction in government spending would send us deeper into recession.

We're screwed.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Conditionally acceptable = grey area

Depending on the conditions, I can apply different logic different ways.

Back to the thread at hand, for me it is conditionally acceptable to vote for Romney, as I work towards my ultimate objective of voting out Pres. Obama.

Voting for Romeny isn't the Right thing to do, but given the current set of circumstances, it's the best I can do.

Exactly, you take absolute truth, apply your logic and opinion to it, and come out with a relative truth that takes you further away from what is actually right.

How is that a victory again?

Also, what has Obama done that Bush didn't do and Romney won't do?

He increased DOD spending, continued the War in A-stan, continued operations in GITMO, extended the Pat Act and took it a step forward, increased Medicare and took it a step forward... You're telling me that a progressive Republican wouldn't have done the exact same thing?

He out-bushed Bush in every way. He's a Republican's wet dream, just labeled improperly.

 

[Yup!]

Exactly, you take absolute truth, apply your logic and opinion to it, and come out with a relative truth that takes you further away from what is actually right.

How is that a victory again?

Also, what has Obama done that Bush didn't do and Romney won't do?

He increased DOD spending, continued the War in A-stan, continued operations in GITMO, extended the Pat Act and took it a step forward, increased Medicare and took it a step forward... You're telling me that a progressive Republican wouldn't have done the exact same thing?

He out-bushed Bush in every way. He's a Republican's wet dream, just labeled improperly.

My stance continues to be: I do not feel any person other than a republican candidate has a chance of unseating Pres. Obama for this election.

In this instance, what is the Absolute truth? I'd like to know from where you think I've deviated.

 

[edporch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by edporch
In normal times, I would vote for Johnson.

But Obama is so bad and governing like a dictator that we MUST get him out.

Though I said I'd never do it, I am going to hold my nose and vote for Romney.
At least Romney's goal isn't to intentionally destroy this country.

Then STILL watch my back knowing a business friendly, but left winger on social issues is in charge.

If Romney is such a business man, he knows that this country cannot survive following the status quo on spending. Did he cut spending as governor and make good financial decisions? Will he do that as president? If not, then he's intentionally destroying this country because he knows better.

On a sliding scale, I have no doubt Romney can do better than Obama when it comes to being business friendly.
Which is what we need now.

But make NO mistake, I'm not a fan of Romney.

 

[Roscoe38]

I don't care what other people do. I need to be able to look myself in the mirror and know that *I* did the right thing. I'm not compromising my beliefs anymore. I compromised my beliefs for almost 30 years, and voted Republican, and look where we are as a result. I can't and won't take part in that charade anymore.

But you guys all do what you want.

Since when have Politics become reasonable?

 

[jamil]

C.S. Lewis does a great job of tackling this issue. I encourage everyone to read Mere Christianity, even if they have no intention of becoming Christian, as he breaks down very complicated thoughts socratically, and does a fantastic job using metaphors to illustrate his points.

There are many places that have different cultural norms that are considered either right or wrong, depending on where you are both geographically and historically.

Most of these do not involve interaction with other people. If you think that eating bacon is wrong, then you should not eat bacon. You should not compromise your principle and only eat canadian bacon, and furthermore, no one should FORCE you to eat bacon. Similarly, it is of no consequence to you if someone else chooses to eat bacon.

However, there are basic truths that transcend all of humanity. Murder for instance. In every culture, it is considered wrong to murder your fellow man. It may be forgivable in certain instances, but in order to forgive something, it must have been wrong in the first place. Other things such as rape, can be forgiven, by forcing the rapist to marry his victim, but the idea of rape is still wrong.

The graying of what is clearly wrong has not lead to better society, but rather worse. It leads to oppression and immorality rather than an increase in morality and greater freedom.

You can not have gray without first having white. To say that gray can exist without the white ignores a simply basic fact that white and black must both exist in order for there to be gray. In order for something to be forgivable, or conditionally acceptable, it must first be wrong at its core.

Can't have grey without white? You assume that pure white and pure black even exist (metaphorically). But we're digressing into a multicultural discussion and my point was not cultural diversity, but about different ideas and opinions.

What political party represents ALL my beliefs and ideals? Only the party of me. In the party of me, all ideas and opinions are indeed either black or white. As soon as another joins, even if the union of our ideas and opinions covers most of the set, there's still going to be a symmetric difference. A grey area where what is the right idea or right opinion is not agreeable.

If the gray area is whether you should eat bacon or not, that's a gray area that's applicable to individual preference. Not everyone must be bound to one or the other. If it's a matter where ideas collide, where both ideas can't coexist, well, that's the rub. Not everyone can choose which person will be president. You can only choose who you want. We must all live with the person who wins.

Is it wrong to choose someone who doesn't fully represent my ideas and opinions, but better represents them than the other guy? I say no. You say yes. This is one of those gray areas where our disagreement is applicable to individual preference.

 

[Ted]

Yes, but that does not make the killing right, just because it is conditionally acceptable.

Taken further, murder is wrong, but can be forgiven with pennance (jail, money, etc. depending on your culture).

Is that gray? Of course, but the fact of the matter is that murder is still wrong. To say that murder is right doesn't get you closer to a truth, but rather, further from it.

There is nothing wrong with killing, per se. Kill is a generic term, and the context may be acceptable or not.

Killing occurs everyday to feed and clothe ourselves, develop medications to promote human life, materials for goods, execution of criminal sentencing, etc.

 

[Zachoff]

It blows my mind that many of you fine gun owners and members of this web blog are willing to take the chance at voting for a third party or BHO, which will certainly jeopardize your 2nd amendment rights or at minimum seriously restrict your 2nd amendment rights. It bothers the crap out of me when at the shooting range, I know that the guy or gal next to me might be support a political party that is out to destroy our 2nd amendment freedom that we both enjoy. I guess I just love my guns and my 2nd amendment right a hell of a lot more than you! InGunOwners! Get it? News flash, BHO and his administration have already demonstrated that they plan on and will destroy your ability to own, buy and shoot your beloved guns!! He will tax us to death, which has already been affirmed by SCOTUS as constitutional. If they can tax you on your health care they will certainly tax the stuffin out of you if you own a gun, want to shoot a gun, etc!! To me without the 2nd amendment, what good are the rest of your rights, because they are taking them away as well. I have no love fest for the republicans, but at this super critical time, we all need to pull together and support someone that can stop King Obama.

 

[findingZzero]

To the 10 O'bama supporters (he's Irish) besides me (so far), I'm thinking of a get together serving Brie, white wine, arugula and sushi. It's formal, so Mao suits required. There will be a minute of silence for the woman Romney gave cancer to. RSVP please.

 

[mrjarrell]

It blows my mind that many of you fine gun owners and members of this web blog are willing to take the chance at voting for a third party or BHO, which will certainly jeopardize your 2nd amendment rights or at minimum seriously restrict your 2nd amendment rights. It bothers the crap out of me when at the shooting range, I know that the guy or gal next to me might be support a political party that is out to destroy our 2nd amendment freedom that we both enjoy. I guess I just love my guns and my 2nd amendment right a hell of a lot more than you! InGunOwners! Get it? News flash, BHO and his administration have already demonstrated that they plan on and will destroy your ability to own, buy and shoot your beloved guns!! He will tax us to death, which has already been affirmed by SCOTUS as constitutional. If they can tax you on your health care they will certainly tax the stuffin out of you if you own a gun, want to shoot a gun, etc!! To me without the 2nd amendment, what good are the rest of your rights, because they are taking them away as well. I have no love fest for the republicans, but at this super critical time, we all need to pull together and support someone that can stop King Obama.

I've never heard anything like this before.

 

[hornadylnl]

I've never heard anything like this before.

It's original.

 

[sepe]

It blows my mind that many of you fine gun owners and members of this web blog are willing to take the chance at voting for a third party or BHO, which will certainly jeopardize your 2nd amendment rights or at minimum seriously restrict your 2nd amendment rights. It bothers the crap out of me when at the shooting range, I know that the guy or gal next to me might be support a political party that is out to destroy our 2nd amendment freedom that we both enjoy. I guess I just love my guns and my 2nd amendment right a hell of a lot more than you! InGunOwners! Get it? News flash, BHO and his administration have already demonstrated that they plan on and will destroy your ability to own, buy and shoot your beloved guns!! He will tax us to death, which has already been affirmed by SCOTUS as constitutional. If they can tax you on your health care they will certainly tax the stuffin out of you if you own a gun, want to shoot a gun, etc!! To me without the 2nd amendment, what good are the rest of your rights, because they are taking them away as well. I have no love fest for the republicans, but at this super critical time, we all need to pull together and support someone that can stop King Obama.

I suggest you take a look at the republican candidate before trying to talk down to people about being willing to "take a chance" with a 3rd party vote.

 

[hornadylnl]

I suggest you take a look at the republican candidate before trying to talk down to people about being willing to "take a chance" with a 3rd party vote.

Romney's not Obama. That's all you need to know.

 

[terrehautian]

All I know is that I don't like any candidate. I am voting for Romney because I don't think he can be any worse then Obama. I am afraid what Obama will do with a term limit and no reason to have to get after votes for another term.

 

[Ted]

It blows my mind that many of you fine gun owners and members of this web blog are willing to take the chance at voting for a third party or BHO, which will certainly jeopardize your 2nd amendment rights or at minimum seriously restrict your 2nd amendment rights........(snip)

I certainly understand your concerns, and entirely sympathize with you on this matter. Allow me to explain one such thought regarding this matter.

When the Republican party begins to stop putting forth the likes of the Romney and McCain for its party Standard Bearer, and instead places such individuals as Paul and Johnson in their place, the faithful will return to the party.

In one respect, I admire such individuals who think and act this way. It demonstrates that they aren't mindless fools who vote merely for the political party.

 

[hornadylnl]

I certainly understand your concerns, and entirely sympathize with you on this matter. Allow me to explain one such thought regarding this matter.

When the Republican party begins to stop putting forth the likes of the Romney and McCain for its party Standard Bearer, and instead places such individuals as Paul and Johnson in their place, the faithful will return to the party.

In one respect, I admire such individuals who think and act this way. It demonstrates that they aren't mindless fools who vote merely for the political party.

Reagan switching from the democrats to the republicans made him a genius. Switching from the republicans to libertarian makes you a liberal, traitor, fool, etc.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Reagan switching from the democrats to the republicans made him a genius. Switching from the republicans to libertarian makes you a liberal, traitor, fool, etc.

Not switching to libertarian party makes you much the same to libertarians