And how low will the Democrat go?

Let me pose two follow ups: Did you vote for Bush or Kerry in 2004?

If Mitt wins this year, and then fails as I suggest he might, are you on record as announcing you will vote for the democrat running against him in 2016?

 

Dear pre-teen GOP fan club vice president: keep up with the fu@king conversation or don't bother getting into it. mmmmkay? If you had followed the conversation between dan40 and myself, which my post that you quoted was part of, then you wouldn't have to ask such IGNORANT questions. Got it?

thanks... now run along and plan your club's next Go Mitt! bake sale and sock hop. moron.

 

1. I voted for Bush because Kerry was even more pitiful. Bush was the lessor of 2 evils.

2. That would depend entirely on WHO the the Democrat was. And how bad the failure was, IF ANY. Against obama, I would vote for anyone but him. He is a complete failure that actually knows NOTHING of the USA, Democracy, or the principles of Freedom. Whoever was running against him would get the vote because b.o.'s failure is absolute. Did you not read that I vote FOR the USA, not a party. Fl. has a closed primary, which means that I could not vote for Romney in the primary as I am NOT a Republican. If Romney did not perform well, not fail on the colossal scale obama has, then it would depend on how I felt about the possible replacement. Romney gives me no wood. But compared to b.o., Romney has ALL the right attributes. b.o. got nothing but smooth bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

just so I understand.... you were totally disappointed in Bush in 2004, but you nonetheless voted for him AGAIN because you happened to believe that the other candidate might not do any better.

and, even if Romney were to win in 2012, and even if he failed miserably in your opinion, you would still vote for him AGAIN in 2016 if, in your opinion, you felt that the alternative was not a better choice.

that's about all I need to hear.

 

Why would ANYONE agree to such a stipulation without knowing who else would be running?

 

AHHH, why the "pre"teen? It was, and still is the Teenage Republican Club. High School political club affiliated with the party.

Dodge noted, as I said my political involvement goes way back including debating such matters online before the internet. If my questions posed to you are too much....oh well. Here try again if you believe you can engage in a civil adult debate.

You>> Originally Posted by expatriate View Post
If the democrats are obstructionist and refuse to compromise with Mitt about anything, it WILL be ALL MITT'S FAULT... that is your position. Correct?

What will be Romney's "fault"? What is the premise of your question? You mean if they act like they are acting now in the Senate and refusing to pass any legislation including the statutorily required budgets why would it be Romney's fault. You have a very simpleton view of how Washington works and seem to want more to just blame people for things rather than take the deep intellectual look as to why things have or have not happened.

 

so...let me get this straight... if Mitt were to win in November, and even if you were profoundly disappointed in the his performance come 2016, you would still possibly vote for him AGAIN in 2016 because you didn't like the opponent the democrats put up?

 

AHHH, why the "pre"teen? It was, and still is the Teenage Republican Club. High School political club affiliated with the party.

Dodge noted, as I said my political involvement goes way back including debating such matters online before the internet. If my questions posed to you are too much....oh well. Here try again if you believe you can engage in a civil adult debate.

You>> Originally Posted by expatriate View Post
If the democrats are obstructionist and refuse to compromise with Mitt about anything, it WILL be ALL MITT'S FAULT... that is your position. Correct?

What will be Romney's "fault"? What is the premise of your question? You mean if they act like they are acting now in the Senate and refusing to pass any legislation including the statutorily required budgets why would it be Romney's fault. You have a very simpleton view of how Washington works and seem to want more to just blame people for things rather than take the deep intellectual look as to why things have or have not happened.

 

did you follow the conversation thread? who does the "your" refer to? Here's a clue: not bluesguy. If you wish to step into the middle of an ongoing conversation, have the common decency to get yourself up to speed and not expect those who have been carrying it on to stop and spoon feed you.

 

It would depend on the opponentS and what they were proposing versus what the incumbent was proposing and their record. There are far too many factors that would come into play to respond to such a broad question. I am an independent I don't blindly vote party.

 

and you debated online before the internet. wow. you really are something, aren't you?

 

Ok dodge noted again......................oh well.

 

have you ever voted for a third party candidate?

have you ever voted for a democrat for president?

 

Yes my gravitas is unquestionable and dodge noted again.

 

Yes

Yes, and governor and supreme court justice.

Grasping at straws now I see.

 

it's not a dodge... you just are being rude... and I called you on it. You take one sentence from an ongoing conversation out of context and run off in your own direction expecting me to answer your line of questioning about the out of context quote. it's just rude.

 

name them

 

you voted for a democrat for the supreme court? really.

 

could you explain to me how you debated ONLINE before the internet existed? What LINE were you using?

and no doubt, your gravitas is unquestionable TO YOU.... others, mmmm not so much.

 

No, that's all you WANT to hear so you can fashion another excuse for your total failure.

b.o. is adept at beginnings.. He has no follow up to any of his beginnings.

He became a lawyer, that's a start. He accomplished NOTHING as a lawyer. Never ran a successful practice [BUSINESS]

He became a state legislator. Another start. He accomplished nothing in the state Congress.

He became a US Senator, another start. He accomplished nothing as a Senator.

He became president, Another start. He accomplished nothing as the president.

He smooches his way into positions with his speaking gift. But the is the absolute END of his ability. Once THERE, he is useless and MUST keep moving.

But as president, he has reached the peak of the ziggurat of the "Peter Principle." Again he has accomplished nothing, but now there is no longer an "UP." He can only go down.

And as I said, you ONLY hear what you want to hear. I never said I was "TOTALLY DISAPPOINTED" in Bush in 2004. I was not pleased with him, but Kerry was even WORSE. In 2008 I was disgusted with Bush, AND the Republicans. But the Democrats put forth an empty husk. Ilistened to b.o. and KNEW, not worried, not suspected, KNEW from experience that this dude was pure unadulterated bull(*)(*)(*)(*). His resume STUNK. He had never DONE anything in his life. Compared to an ACTUAL American Hero, I voted for McCain. I held little hope for McCain being an outstanding president. But WAS CERTAIN that b.o. was NOTHING BUT BAD NEWS. b.o. has turned out WORSE than I feared.

b.o., failed lawyer, failed, state Senator, failed US Senator, but now he is a failed president due to Republican obstruction. WRONG. He is a failure because there is nowhere else for him to aspire to. He had to stay and do the work of the president, and he simply had no idea of how to do that.

I was wrong about b.o. He is even worse than I thought. IF Romney doesn't perform, I will admit I was equally wrong about Romney. But b.o. FOLLOWED his resume, NOTHING to NOTHING. If Romney follows his resume, it will be SUCCESS to SUCCESS.

YOU SAID:

"you would still vote for him AGAIN in 2016 if, in your opinion, you felt that the alternative was not a better choice."

That is the perfect example of you only seeing or hearing what you WANT to.

If You felt the alternative was not a better choice, would YOU illogically vote for him/her because of their political party? EVIDENTLY you would. I would vote for whoever I felt was better. And I'm not hamstrung by loony liberal thinking. Voting for someone because I think they are the better CHOICE, does not mean I think that person is GOOD. Just they are better than the other choice.

 

So... as bad as you thought George Bush's performance in office had been during his first term, you STILL believed that he was a better choice than John Kerry? You abandoned your supposed philosophy of not caring what party the executive was from... if he was, in your eyes, a failure, you said you would vote to replace him, but in Bush's case, you did not... you did not give John Kerry a chance to show you how good a president he might become. You simply voted AGAIN for a man who you are on record as saying did a terrible job... but wait... you said you wouldn't DO that - you castigated me soundly for suggesting that I would do that, but then you up and did it yourself. You seem to be a man of principle, except, of course, when it comes to actually acting on those principles... and then... mmmm... not so much with the principle stuff. YOu told me that I ought to vote against Obama because he was a terrible president... but clearly, if Obama had been a white republican, you would give HIM a second chance just like you did Dubya. But somehow, as a democrat, I cannot look at Mitt Romney and see a man who I definitely do NOT want to be the president for a whole host of reasons and not vote for him... MY decision is nonsensical to you, whereas your decision in 2004 makes all sorts of sense. I am tossing up the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) flag.

You try to act all "non-partisan", but in the final analysis, you're just a hack who would vote for a blow up doll if he had an R after his name.

 

You are the partisan hack since you are unable to read the words on your screen. That Democrats have put up a series of horrible losers does NOT make me partisan. That you mindlessly defend a bunch of total losers is what makes YOU a partisan hack.

That you cannot see that obama is a complete fool and failure, that rides on a seas of excuses supplied bt robotic idiots that see only ideology and not people, is sad beyond measure. I state that b.o. is the worst president in history simply because he is. Not because I'm a Republican, which I'm NOT. I'm a victim of b.o.'s incompetence, same as the rest of the nation. The difference is that I recognize the obvious, you have your head,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'hidden.'

 

the fact remains... you SAID that when an administration failed, it was the executive's fault and it was the duty of the electorate to remove him... ooops... except when you can think of another reason not to... then your hard and fast rules go out the window. The fact that you would call John Kerry, a war hero and a long serving US senator a "horrible loser" sort of does reveal your partisan preferences. You would rather have a coke snorting draft dodging buffoon who you admitted was a miserable FAILURE serve another four years as our president rather than give a war hero and long serving senator a chance to do better. Pathetic.

Me? I'll do what little I can to make sure that the spineless flip flopping mormon will not have a chance to mess around with the SCOTUS.

 

YES I said if he failed he should be removed. And it DEPENDS on the degree of failure and the potential of the replacement. THAT IS LOGIC. You are drooling partisan nonsense.

With a failure of the magnitude of b.o.'s failure. There IS NO worry about anyone being WORSE. No one EVER has neen worse than obama.

You asked a maybe, what if question and then want to argue the answer to an open ended question. Here's an answer with specifics. If Romney failed on a scale 25% of b.o.'s failure, that would be a massive FAIL. And if he was running against Bill Clinton, then I'd vote for Clinton.

However, Romney has the experience, wisdom, and record of success to NOT FAIL. b.o. has a record GUARANTEED to fail. He had NO qualification for the job. He had no experience for the job. He had no wisdom for the job. And his utter lack of attributes, has revealed itself more clearly than ever thought possible.

You are trying to ride a horse that was dead before the Democrats lost the House. b.o. had irreversibly failed then.

 

it's clear you have one set of rules for republicans and another for democrats. See... I look at the foreign policy failings of Bush, not to mention his terrible mishandling of the economy, and I sincerely believe that HE was the worst president ever. And and I knew several long time republicans back in the states at that time who shared my disgust with Bush... and THEY voted for Kerry. But not you. I mistrust your judgment accordingly. From my perspective, Obama is nowhere near as bad a president as Bush, and Romney is a totally untrustworthy flipflopper who will tell anyone anything to get their vote.... and he won't get mine.