A suggestion for Republicans

[Pressing-On]

Well, this article is speaking my heart. I want to post one last article before the election. This article made my day - it is a PERFECT assessment.

If anyone comments before reading, just don't. Read the entire article. I could highlight the whole article, but chose these two points.

A suggestion for Republicans: Consider Gary Johnson

Many people are worried about Obama and his continued attempts to seize undue power through the use of Executive Privilege. If you feel like Romney is any better on that, look to how he treated Ron Paul and the libertarians at the Republican National Convention, and rammed through permanent platform changes to protect his position from the grass roots and the Tea Party crowd. That should give you an indication of what Romney will be like as President of our country.

Many Republicans are supporting Romney for no other reason than the fear of Obama's Supreme Court Justice appointments. That's a fair point. However, the Supreme Court conservative judges haven't stepped down in the last 4 years, and probably won't in the next 4 years under Obama, so I don't see this as much of a concern. Certainly doesn't outweigh the damage either administration will cause on their own without the Supreme Court.

http://communities.washingtontimes.c...-gary-johnson/

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, this article is speaking my heart. I want to post one last article before the election. This article made my day - it is a PERFECT assessment.

If anyone comments before reading, just don't. Read the entire article. I could highlight the whole article, but chose these two points.

Gary's just whining over spilled milk, the convention was like always, everyone vivifying for their candidate, its politics, get over it. He should work in the grassroots and get enough votes to be a power player, or just stop the whining.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Gary's just whining over spilled milk, the convention was like always, everyone vivifying for their candidate, its politics, get over it. He should work in the grassroots and get enough votes to be a power player, or just stop the whining.

My states’ electors will inevitably line up behind ORomney, so why not just vote for the guy I like most? For the approximately 80 percent of American voters in states that are out of play, there is nothing irrational about voting outside the two-party framework.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Gary's just whining over spilled milk, the convention was like always, everyone vivifying for their candidate, its politics, get over it. He should work in the grassroots and get enough votes to be a power player, or just stop the whining.

...and rammed through permanent platform changes to protect his position from the grass roots and the Tea Party crowd. That should give you an indication of what Romney will be like as President of our country.

BIG RED FLAG - I wonder that you don't care about it.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

...and rammed through permanent platform changes to protect his position from the grass roots and the Tea Party crowd. That should give you an indication of what Romney will be like as President of our country.

BIG RED FLAG - I wonder that you don't care about it.

I didn't think anyone wanted to touch this. How do you like your freedom now?

[Esther]

PO I feel you are pushing everyone towards BO with your negative GOP post.

Never thought GOP is perfect but I promise you BO would be a worst nightmare than he is.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I didn't think anyone wanted to touch this. How do you like your freedom now?

Intra-party politics aren't a guarantee how running the nation will be. At the federal level checks and balances keep an executive from overextending his power. GOP legislators will not allow a President Romney to be a an unaccountable executive. The third party people were trying to do all they could to make Romney look bad at the convention, his nomination was inevitable, so the only motive was to tarnish the Convention. It's funny that the MSM didn't make a big deal about it. Only MSNBC tried to play it up, which is pretty telling. The Convention needed to be about the nomination of Mitt Romney which THE VOTERS in the primaries had chosen---not rogue delegates from the states. Paul, especially, and others, knew they couldn't win on the merits of the voters, somthey try to game the system by sending delegates tomthe Convention that will vote against the will of THE VOTERS in their own states---where's the integrity in that??? Ask any garden variety voter---"Do you want your representatives to vote against the will of the people?" and HANDS DOWN they will say emphatically NO!

I understand your hope to set the stage for 2014 and 2016 and I respect that. You're in a state that is comfortably settled for Romney, so it doesn't matter like you said one way or the other with the two party system now. And I'm inclined to look third party if a Romney/Ryan admin does not do what it has promised, and does not stop the bleeding in Washington. If they don't turn then economy around in 4 years---my vote will go elsewhere (in theory).

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Intra-party politics aren't a guarantee how running the nation will be. At the federal level checks and balances keep an executive from overextending his power.

Oh, really? And you are afraid of Obama's EO's. The Republicans had time to fight against them and they didn't fight all that hard. I didn't see the Republicans really try to stop anything Obama has done.

GOP legislators will not allow a President Romney to be a an unaccountable executive. The third party people were trying to do all they could to make Romney look bad at the convention, his nomination was inevitable, so the only motive was to tarnish the Convention. It's funny that the MSM didn't make a big deal about it. Only MSNBC tried to play it up, which is pretty telling.

Why is that so telling when Fox, Breitbart and Drudge are shills for Romney? Why would they focus on that? They didn't want to draw attention to their golden boy. It looks to me that Rachel Maddow was the only person really reporting a lot of what was going on this election cycle.

The Convention needed to be about the nomination of Mitt Romney which THE VOTERS in the primaries had chosen---not rogue delegates from the states. Paul, especially, and others, knew they couldn't win on the merits of the voters, somthey try to game the system by sending delegates tomthe Convention that will vote against the will of THE VOTERS in their own states---where's the integrity in that??? Ask any garden variety voter---"Do you want your representatives to vote against the will of the people?" and HANDS DOWN they will say emphatically NO!

Abraham Lincoln was chosen through a Brokered Convention. Don't make excuses for "permanently" changing party platform and stepping on our political voting rights, DB. Every person on that floor should have cried foul!

Because of our political process, there were people on the floor prepared to offer up Newt or Paul. Would they have won? Maybe not, probably not - who really knows?

The POINT is that our freedom in the process was taken away. That shouldn't have happened. You say and it has been said that Ron Paul would have never won. Well, if that is the case - let the process work. Don't cheat and steam roll it. Let the American people see and experience the fairness of the system.

Those that wanted Romney won't focus on what actually happened, and that is a huge shame and travesty.

If I distrusted Romney at any time, that distrust certainly escalated after Convention. Actually, I saw more dishonesty in the GOP than I have ever seen it.

I understand your hope to set the stage for 2014 and 2016 and I respect that. You're in a state that is comfortably settled for Romney, so it doesn't matter like you said one way or the other with the two party system now. And I'm inclined to look third party if a Romney/Ryan admin does not do what it has promised, and does not stop the bleeding in Washington. If they don't turn then economy around in 4 years---my vote will go elsewhere (in theory).

For the record - I don't care if Romney gives every homeless person a job. What he allowed at Convention is UnAmerican. There is no excuse for it. If he wins, I still won't vote for him in a second term.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esther

PO I feel you are pushing everyone towards BO with your negative GOP post.

Never thought GOP is perfect but I promise you BO would be a worst nightmare than he is.

Esther,
I am not standing for what has happened to thwart our voting process in the GOP out of fear of Obama. It is more fearful for the Republicans to permanently change our freedoms in an election cycle. How does that help us, Esther?

How does Romney standing with Obama and the NDAA help us, Esther?

You believe that Obama is a Muslim plant, but all of the GOP leaders have defended him and said otherwise. So, where does that leave us? You are afraid of him, but apparently they are not.

We all should have stood up and walked away from BOTH of them. Where is our courage?

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Oh, really? And you are afraid of Obama's EO's. The Republicans had time to fight against them and they didn't fight all that hard. I didn't see the Republicans really try to stop anything Obama has done.

I've never made a comment on Obama's EOs. Can a Congress stop Executive Orders?

Why is that so telling when Fox, Breitbart and Drudge are shills for Romney? Why would they focus on that? They didn't want to draw attention to their golden boy. It looks to me that Rachel Maddow was the only person really reporting a lot of what was going on this election cycle.

I'm talking CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, NYTimes, Washington Post, etc. Nobody in that ilk of journalism made a big deal about it. And Rachel Maddow? She didn't report anything about Obama's issues. Only the GOP. Hardly a balanced journalist.

Abraham Lincoln was chosen through a Brokered Convention. Don't make excuses for "permanently" changing party platform and stepping on our political voting rights, DB. Every person on that floor should have cried foul!

That was 150 years ago. The media coverage greatly affects the political process. A "brokered convention" would've been perceived s chaos and the MSM would play the footage over and over and make the party look incompetent. Why didn't they cry foul? Political voting rights? WE THE PEOPLE voted in the PRIMARIES!!!! We spoke. Why should rogue delegates have the opportunity to change that?

The POINT is that our freedom in the process was taken away. That shouldn't have happened. You say and it has been said that Ron Paul would have never won. Well, if that is the case - let the process work. Don't cheat and steam roll it. Let the American people see and experience the fairness of the system.

Our freedom wasn't taken away. The result reflected EXACTLY how the people voted. What was taken away was the Paul, Newt and others people the chance to get back at Romney for beating them in the primaries. And that's all this was about. You kept predicting that something remarkable was going to happen at the convention. We kept asking "why?" There was no reason for any result to be different than the way the people voted. I voted for Santorum, almost for Newt. I would've have loved to have seen Santorum or Newt run against Obama. But the majority of Repubs made another choice. I accepted it and supported Romney because Obama was too far to the left. Any other result would've been unfair---a forced Paul VP nominationor a forced Newt VP nomination or anything along tho lines would've been unfair. They lost in the primaries. Why should they get an extra chance to thrust themselves into the equation when they were losers in the primaries?

Those that wanted Romney won't focus on what actually happened, and that is a huge shame and travesty.

What is a travesty is what actually happened is the other candidates LOST. Do you understand the meaning if the word? Why should they get what is essentially a "do over"?