Romney Voters

#51
#51
TNGlen said:
Spoken like a true college student....type on my friend.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, when I was in college, I would have likely voted for Romney for the reason you wouldn't consider GJ:
TNGlen said:
unelectable
Click to expand...

It's taken me being out of college and in the 'real world' to decide that I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils simply because nobody else is electable.
 
#52
#52
Carl Pickens said:
You understand this since you're a small business owner but there are a ton of folks out there that hear the media's talking points and fall for them. It's a shame the media had gotten so biased and try to protect the liberals.
Click to expand...

"legitimate" = "Obama admin approved"
 
#54
#54
azVolFan said:
Have you watched 2016? I watched it and about crawled into a hole afterwards.
Click to expand...

No because I'm afraid it will just piss me off even more..... Why did you want to crawl in a hole? Did you vote for him the first time around? You know what they say.....fool me once....
 
#58
#58
Carl Pickens said:
No because I'm afraid it will just piss me off even more..... Why did you want to crawl in a hole? Did you vote for him the first time around? You know what they say.....fool me once....
Click to expand...

No, I voted for McCain.

I encourage you to watch it. It didn't piss me off so much give me a lot of food for thought.

Obama's life story does not equate to what he wants us to think of him.
 
#60
#60
utvolpj said:
false. If it makes a change to the process for the next election then it's well worth it. Can't happen without votes
Click to expand...

And how is that working out for you? Are voting for your incumbent Senator and Congressman?
 
#61
#61
utvolpj said:
false. If it makes a change to the process for the next election then it's well worth it. Can't happen without votes
Click to expand...
This is true to an extent, but only if there are enough votes to change the process. A perfect example was Ross Perot.... Had he chosen a better running mate he may have actually had a shot at the presidency instead of ultimately costing Bush his re-election and putting Clinton in the White House
 
#62
#62
hog88 said:
And how is that working out for you? Are voting for your incumbent Senator and Congressman?
Click to expand...

how what working out? Pretty sure I've said repeatedly this is the first time I'm not buying the "lesser of 2 evils" line and voting this way

I'll figure out who I'm voting for by figuring out their positions. If they don't do anything for me I won't vote for them

Carl Pickens said:
This is true to an extent, but only if there are enough votes to change the process. A perfect example was Ross Perot.... Had he chosen a better running mate he may have actually had a shot at the presidency instead of ultimately costing Bush his re-election and putting Clinton in the White House
Click to expand...

and if I don't vote for the 3rd party how does he get enough votes? People that say they'll only vote for a candidate with a chance of winning never get really one worth the victory IMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#63
#63
utvolpj said:
how what working out? Pretty sure I've said repeatedly this is the first time I'm not buying the "lesser of 2 evils" line and voting this way



and if I don't vote for the 3rd party how does he get enough votes? People that say they'll only vote for a candidate with a chance of winning never get really one worth the victory IMO
Click to expand...
People have been voting for Ralph Nader for years and what has that gotten them?
 
#66
#66
utvolpj said:
how what working out? Pretty sure I've said repeatedly this is the first time I'm not buying the "lesser of 2 evils" line and voting this way

I'll figure out who I'm voting for by figuring out their positions. If they don't do anything for me I won't vote for them



and if I don't vote for the 3rd party how does he get enough votes? People that say they'll only vote for a candidate with a chance of winning never get really one worth the victory IMO
Click to expand...

And if you vote for any incumbent in congress you wasted your vote.
 
#68
#68
utvolpj said:
false. If it makes a change to the process for the next election then it's well worth it. Can't happen without votes
Click to expand...

I get the premise, but i dont know how realistic that really is. Dems didn't change when Nader cost them 2000. Repubs didn't change when Perot cost them 92.
 
#69
#69
Carl Pickens said:
Voting for someone that has no chance in hell is a worthless vote
Click to expand...

So we should relegate our vote for the most qualified candidate for the job to either of the two unqualified and inferior candidates because they are leading in the polls?

That is basically what you are saying.
 
#70
#70
No that sounds like something a skull fried philosophy major would say.....I didnt mention a candidate. The poster I responded to did.... Based on the name he said he would vote for I said it was the same as throwing his vote away since mathematically it would be an insignificant vote....
 
#72
#72
Carl Pickens said:
No that sounds like something a skull fried philosophy major would say.....
Click to expand...

So those that study philosophy are "skull fried"? I guess you would consider them inferior?

Carl Pickens said:
I didnt mention a candidate. The poster I responded to did.... Based on the name he said he would vote for I said it was the same as throwing his vote away since mathematically it would be an insignificant vote....
Click to expand...

I understand what you technically did and did not say in the post I quoted. My retort was show what you are implying (either explicitly or implicitly) by your response to his post.

Again, feel free to explain where I am going wrong.

PKT_VOL said:
So we should relegate our vote for the most qualified candidate for the job to either of the two unqualified and inferior candidates because they are leading in the polls?
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top