To Conservatives : Would you vote for Romney? [Archive]

coffey7

Oct 21, 2007, 11:25 AM

I'm not conservative, but Romney thinks we are all idiots. From his failed Senate run in 94 to now, he has done a 180 degree turn around on abortion, similarities to Reagan, gay rights, and many other topics.

I know many consider him a RINO (republican in name only) but if you are conservative, will you vote for him?

No,
Since I might be the only conservative on this forum I will speak for them. We conservatives do not like Romney because he goes against party lines. He and Rudy are for gun control and other non republican ideas. I would rather vote for Obama(not Hillary ever) than a Rino.

Stampyhead

Oct 21, 2007, 11:28 AM

I'm conservative and Mormon as well, and I'm not sure yet if I would vote for him. Like you said, I dont know if I trust someone who suddenly and completely changes their ideas on major issues. From what I've seen so far I would probably lean more toward Fred Thompson. Really, though, I just want somebody, anybody, to beat Hillary.

TimJim

Oct 21, 2007, 11:28 AM

Anyone is better than Hilary...:)

Blue Velvet

Oct 21, 2007, 11:30 AM

Really, though, I just want somebody, anybody, to beat Hillary.

So you'd rather someone like the current incumbent, or worse, than Hillary Clinton?

coffey7

Oct 21, 2007, 11:32 AM

So you'd rather someone like the current incumbent, or worse, than Hillary Clinton?

Kind of like the "anyone but Bush campaign" but in reverse.

Stampyhead

Oct 21, 2007, 11:33 AM

So you'd rather someone like the current incumbent, or worse, than Hillary Clinton?

Sorry I meant amongst those currently running the race. If we were going to have a Democrat president I would prefer it to be Obama than Hillary.

Blue Velvet

Oct 21, 2007, 11:34 AM

Kind of like the "anyone but Bush campaign" but in reverse.

Sure, but Bush has a record as the incumbent... I'm not sure exactly what the basis of this hatred of Hillary Clinton is based on; perhaps you'd like to explain?

coffey7

Oct 21, 2007, 11:44 AM

Sure, but Bush has a record as the incumbent... I'm not sure exactly what the basis of this hatred of Hillary Clinton is based on; perhaps you'd like to explain?

When Bush was running the first time people were already saying anyone but Bush and calling him the next Hitler. If I was a new voter and I didn't have a party I would not like Hillary. She voted for the patriot act and the War then changed her mind on those later. Kind of a flip flop. I don't want to hijack this thread but us conservatives just don't want to see Bill and Hillary in the white house again. I think Obama would be a fine choice. He seems like a nice guy and a fine gentlemen.

yg17

Oct 21, 2007, 11:50 AM

When Bush was running the first time people were already saying anyone but Bush and calling him the next Hitler. If I was a new voter and I didn't have a party I would not like Hillary. She voted for the patriot act and the War then changed her mind on those later. Kind of a flip flop. I don't want to hijack this thread but us conservatives just don't want to see Bill and Hillary in the white house again. I think Obama would be a fine choice. He seems like a nice guy and a fine gentlemen.

I don't like Hillary all that much (although it won't be the end of the world if she wins) so I'm not really defending her, but I'd rather have someone who will admit their mistake and say they were wrong, like Hillary has, than someone who, even though they know what they did is wrong, refuses to admit that and won't man up to their mistakes.

coffey7

Oct 21, 2007, 11:51 AM

I don't like Hillary all that much (although it won't be the end of the world if she wins) so I'm not really defending her, but I'd rather have someone who will admit their mistake and say they were wrong, like Hillary has, than someone who, even though they know what they did is wrong, refuses to admit that and won't man up to their mistakes.

I think both parties need some fresh young faces. I would be happy to see 2 new people instead of the same old guard from both sides.

kainjow

Oct 21, 2007, 12:02 PM

Romney is also very much against medical marijuana. That just shows that he is uneducated... or receiving donations from the pharmaceutical companies ;)

nbs2

Oct 21, 2007, 04:22 PM

On a side note, one of the Mormon tenents is that when their version of the End Times are upon us, a Mormon will be elected president.

Not quite. The line/idea/whatever is that the Constitution will be hanging by a thread and that the church (or its members) will be a staff on which it shall lean in helping avoid the total destruction. The idea is not official doctrine, and even then has been phrased in such a way that political or military leadership are not foregone conclusions.

Members of the church have long been encouraged to maintain a year's supply of foodstuffs in the home, and maintain their lives in financial order. The concern is to help keep the home and family stable, no matter the disaster - natural or manmade, spiritual or secular. Even the church as a whole seeks to abide by this concept - it seeks to maintain enough funds in reserve that all operations of the church could continue unabated even if no monies were received, and enough food in the storehouses that it could continues to supply the needy for that same length of time.

So, while some may argue that Romney is the staff, others might say that Harry Reid has been a staff as the Constitution has been neglected under the current administration. Something many forget is that outside of the US where social norms are so varied, many members of the church are liberals (the UKers amongst us can comment on the politics of the SNP).

Anyway, that was more than your comment addressed, so to get back on topic, my response is a simple "not really".

No,
Since I might be the only conservative on this forum I will speak for them. We conservatives do not like Romney because he goes against party lines. He and Rudy are for gun control and other non republican ideas. I would rather vote for Obama(not Hillary ever) than a Rino.

WTF? That line invalidates everything you have said.

Swarmlord

Oct 21, 2007, 05:14 PM

Sure, but Bush has a record as the incumbent... I'm not sure exactly what the basis of this hatred of Hillary Clinton is based on; perhaps you'd like to explain?

Part of it is that we don't want Bill or any of their crony friends anywhere near the Whitehouse again. That includes the Ragin' Cajun, Sandy Burgler and the lot of them.

The other part is her not so secret plan to move us ever closer to socialism while stoking the fires of class warfare (while passing herself and Bill off as over educated trailor trash to 1/2 America and light skinned minorities to the other half.)

Other than that, they'd probably be nice people to watch a game with and tip back a couple beers.

skunk

Oct 21, 2007, 05:24 PM

The other part is her not so secret plan to move us ever closer to socialism while stoking the fires of class warfare (while passing herself and Bill off as over educated trailor trash to 1/2 America and light skinned minorities to the other half.)You must be speaking in some obscure Libertarian-type code, because I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Hillary Clinton a Socialist??? You crack me up.

CorvusCamenarum

Oct 21, 2007, 05:39 PM

Not quite. The line/idea/whatever is that the Constitution will be hanging by a thread and that the church (or its members) will be a staff on which it shall lean in helping avoid the total destruction. The idea is not official doctrine, and even then has been phrased in such a way that political or military leadership are not foregone conclusions.

Members of the church have long been encouraged to maintain a year's supply of foodstuffs in the home, and maintain their lives in financial order. The concern is to help keep the home and family stable, no matter the disaster - natural or manmade, spiritual or secular. Even the church as a whole seeks to abide by this concept - it seeks to maintain enough funds in reserve that all operations of the church could continue unabated even if no monies were received, and enough food in the storehouses that it could continues to supply the needy for that same length of time.

So, while some may argue that Romney is the staff, others might say that Harry Reid has been a staff as the Constitution has been neglected under the current administration. Something many forget is that outside of the US where social norms are so varied, many members of the church are liberals (the UKers amongst us can comment on the politics of the SNP).

Anyway, that was more than your comment addressed, so to get back on topic, my response is a simple "not really".

Sorry, I was just going on what my [ex-]Mormon fiancee had related to me. She hasn't been practicing nor active for a few years though. I'll ask her about it when she gets home from work tonight and see what else she has to say.

yg17

Oct 21, 2007, 05:40 PM

You must be speaking in some obscure Libertarian-type code, because I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Hillary Clinton a Socialist??? You crack me up.

Didn't you hear? There's only republican and Socialist, there's no in between. You must not have gotten the memo. Maybe the evil, government run socialist postal service didn't get it to you.

SMM

Oct 21, 2007, 06:00 PM

Sure, but Bush has a record as the incumbent... I'm not sure exactly what the basis of this hatred of Hillary Clinton is based on; perhaps you'd like to explain?

BV - Back during Clinton's first-term, there was a decent group discussing issues concerning the new President. One item discussed was Hilairy. The panel noted that she was very much disliked by white American males. One commentator noted she is the type of person they fear the most; a strong, intelligent female, who does not backdown from anyone. She has a self-assurance, most recognize, and wish they also possessed.

Personally, I think she would make a very good President. Everyone reading this should know the beating she will take from the right. It will be coming from all side, mostly lies and disinformation, and it will be relentless. Yet, she has the balloons to seek the challenge. That says a lot.

yg17

Oct 21, 2007, 06:07 PM

BV - Back during Clinton's first-term, there was a decent group discussing issues concerning the new President. One item discussed was Hilairy. The panel noted that she was very much disliked by white American males. One commentator noted she is the type of person they fear the most; a strong, intelligent female, who does not backdown from anyone. She has a self-assurance, most recognize, and wish they also possessed.

Sure does say a lot about American males, doesn't it?

I've heard people say they wouldn't vote for Hillary because they think a woman can't be president and it's a mans job, regardless of whether or not they agree politically (although, I think most men who wouldn't vote for someone due to gender wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyways). Women leaders seem to be working well in Chile, New Zealand, Germany, Finland and a few other country. Kinda sad that people think that way.

Frankly, I think my biggest beef with Hillary is we had 4 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of another Bush, and possibly 8 years of another Clinton, possibly 28 years of the same 2 families running the country. I'd like to see some fresh faces in the white house.

solvs

Oct 22, 2007, 05:17 AM

Since I might be the only conservative on this forum
Nowhere close.

I'm not sure exactly what the basis of this hatred of Hillary Clinton is based on
Some of us have valid reasons (see below) but to be honest, most of us don't.

Part of it is that we don't want Bill or any of their crony friends anywhere near the Whitehouse again.
While I don't want that either, you seem to be fine with Bush's incompetent cronies.

The other part is her not so secret plan to move us ever closer to socialism
What? Do you know anything about Hillary? She's far more hawkish that people think, her healthcare plan makes far too many compromises with the insurance and pharma companies, and while she wants to balance the budget, how she wants to do it is a whole nother ball of wax. Among other things. Do we really have to spell this out for you again?

Other than that, they'd probably be nice people to watch a game with and tip back a couple beers.
Who cares about that? I just want them to do a good job, whoever it is. This is why we keep getting the people we do, because we focus on such ridiculous things.

You must be speaking in some obscure Libertarian-type code, because I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Hillary Clinton a Socialist??? You crack me up.
When you're that far to the right, everyone else is left.

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Swarmlord

Oct 22, 2007, 09:29 AM

<snip>
What? Do you know anything about Hillary? She's far more hawkish that people think, her healthcare plan makes far too many compromises with the insurance and pharma companies, and while she wants to balance the budget, how she wants to do it is a whole nother ball of wax. Among other things. Do we really have to spell this out for you again?

<snip>

Hawkishness and socialism are not mutually exclusive.

nbs2

Oct 22, 2007, 10:14 AM

Sorry, I was just going on what my [ex-]Mormon fiancee had related to me. She hasn't been practicing nor active for a few years though. I'll ask her about it when she gets home from work tonight and see what else she has to say.

Meh - it's ok. The discussion has, inevitably, devolved into one about Hillary and the political makeup of America. I don't think anything about Romney is even being noticed.

Swarmlord

Oct 22, 2007, 10:53 AM

Meh - it's ok. The discussion has, inevitably, devolved into one about Hillary and the political makeup of America. I don't think anything about Romney is even being noticed.

He presented himself well in the debate over the weekend though. They all are positioning themselves as the best alternative to Hillary though. I guess it can't be helped.

Stampyhead

Oct 22, 2007, 11:45 AM

it5five

Oct 22, 2007, 12:58 PM

Maybe the evil, government run socialist postal service didn't get it to you.

We're too busy planning a proletariat uprising, comrade. You think we have time to do such petty things as making sure the mail arrives on time/at all?

obeygiant

Oct 22, 2007, 01:03 PM

BV - Back during Clinton's first-term, there was a decent group discussing issues concerning the new President. One item discussed was Hilairy. The panel noted that she was very much disliked by white American males. One commentator noted she is the type of person they fear the most; a strong, intelligent female, who does not backdown from anyone. She has a self-assurance, most recognize, and wish they also possessed.

Sure does say a lot about American males, doesn't it?

Its strange and unfair to assume that people who wouldn't vote for Clinton is because they're afraid of that type of woman. You're just insulting people who don't like her politics and putting them on the defensive.

I'd vote for Giuliani over Romney. Romney seems a little too conservative.

On the other hand I'd vote for Obama over Hillary. But the dems are most certainly going to give Clinton the nomination.

Swarmlord

Oct 22, 2007, 01:57 PM

<snip> But the dems are most certainly going to give Clinton the nomination.

That's good so that no one is either surprised or feels guilt when the campaign bilge pumps get cranked up to full.

hulugu

Oct 22, 2007, 05:27 PM

That's good so that no one is either surprised or feels guilt when the campaign bilge pumps get cranked up to full.

Yay! A bilge pump, well that'll be fun.

Because fun=bilge pump.

stubeeef

Oct 23, 2007, 07:36 PM

Just stopped by to start a thread on internet taxes, but read this one out of morbid curiousity.
The only one in the top 4 I like is McCain. For all his faults I believe him to at least be honest, and ethical.
Speaking of faults, Newt Gingrich has some very progessive and interesting thoughts should someone want to read them.
AOBH
Any One But Hillary.
There are plenty of women that are capable of running the US. She is not one of them. I was actually pulling for Jeane Kirkpatrick when she briefly entered the pres race in the early 90's.
I am still undecided about who I will support. Thompson leaves me wanting a lot more, Rom is fake, Rudy is too far left, McCain is not playing well with the rest of the country and I worry he could not defeat Hillary. Hillary could very well win in 2008, the good news is that shortly after the country will elect a republican House and Senate. Knowing that the only lower rating than Bush right now is the Dem held house and senate and only one half W support level which is abysmal.

solvs

Oct 24, 2007, 11:17 PM

Hawkishness and socialism are not mutually exclusive.
If you still think she's a socialist, I wonder what you think an actual socialist is.

But the dems are most certainly going to give Clinton the nomination.
Most of us don't like her here, even those you'd think of as liberal, but most of us don't vote in primaries either, and I'm thinking those that do probably will vote for her for some reason. And if propped up next to 1 of the current Repubs running, she actually has a good chance of winning. Mostly thanks to the stigma of anyone with an (R) next to their name and what they support, among other things, not necessarily that we like her. I'm sure she has the capabilities of being as somewhat adequate with the day to days that her husband was, but you better believe most of us will not be happy about it.

She pulls the same crap GW has been, I have a feeling most of us will be complaining just as loudly.

Hillary could very well win in 2008, the good news is that shortly after the country will elect a republican House and Senate. Knowing that the only lower rating than Bush right now is the Dem held house and senate and only one half W support level which is abysmal.
If you actually read the polls, the Dem part of it isn't doing quite as bad. Even then, most of the reasons are because they aren't dealing with GW. If they let her get away with this crap too and/or become just as inept and corrupt, we probably will go back to vote against them (though still not for the GOP).

Which knowing how slow Dems actually are at doing anything, will probably take a couple of decades like it did last time. ;)