Would you vote for Romney in 2016?

[RKMBrown]

Would you vote for Romney in 2016?

In the Primary? You betcha!

LOL, nice try at humor. But you failed. We all know that you will vote for your fellow lesbian Hillary no matter who runs from either party. Maybe you can get Rosie O'Donnel to run for VP----------an all bull dyke ticket.

The point was they will vote for Romney to make sure there are two socialists on the ticket. This way the democrats can't loose.

Who is your candidate? We know who you are against, who are you for?

I voted libertarian last time. I would vote republican if the candidate were a Reagan like republican vs a Bush/Romney/Perry republican. For example, I would vote for Rubio. I'm very impressed with Mr. Rubio.

So in 2012 you helped obama win. are you happy about that?

No, I helped the libertarian win. If you don't like how the voting system works fix it. If it makes you feel better I would have voted for Romney over Obama, not my fault our voting system is ludicrously archaic. I'm not gonna throw out my principles and vote for a homophobic, moderate socialist to vote against a full out socialist. If you want my conservative vote your gonna have to have a conservative for me to vote for or some sort of run off election system. If Romney and Obama were the only two on the ticket, I would vote Romney.

The way I look at it you republican all voted for a socialist when a perfectly good conservative was on the ticket.

Hmmmm, I don't recall a libertarian winning the presidency in 2012. I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that that kind of thinking will insure that we continue to be ruled by raving liberals, and you will be helping them retain power. We may not like it, but thats the trueh.

Nah, it's your kind of thinking that you have to vote for the 2nd worst candidate to ensure that the worst candidate won't win that is screwing up our elections. If you folks would have actually voted for the most conservative candidate you would have voted for the libertarian, who by the way was a lauded REPUBLICAN prior to the start of the election season. Why do you republicans insist on voting neo-con party line? What have the neo-con pnac war hawk homophobe socialist pubs done for you?

You are refusing to get my point. Conservatives elected obama by not voting for the less liberal republican. Your voting pattern will keep liberals in power because you will always split the republican vote. The poll in this thread proves what I am saying.

No. I get your point. I understand your point better than you do. You are refusing to listen. You have been trained to vote party line no matter what, and you will clearly continue to do so no matter what. You are not conservative, you are partisan. Your voting pattern will keep this two headed socialist snake in power because you refuse to vote for the best candidate on the ticket. This poll proves what I am saying.

 

[Super_Lantern]

What I want to know from every conservative adamantly against Romney in this thread: Who do you put up instead of him? And explain how that person will fare better than Romney and has a better resume than Romney for representing the party in a general election

Something conservatives champion is that we aren't a party as singular in thought as Democrats are. With that comes the reality that a party leader for the GOP can't match up with all of the varying ideals and beliefs the conservative party encompasses



For years the party has been crying for no more moderates and no more establishment candidates. Nearing the end of Obama's 8 years, with the frightening realization of Hillary lying in wait to bring another 8 years of a liberal presidency, the GOPers crying loudest about who the party runs STILL do not have many (and no strong) alternatives to the establishment candidates


In the last 20 years, outside of Hillary Clinton, when has a failed nominee (especially a failed GENERAL ELECTION nominee) gathered so much attention and support for trying again? When has a failed nominee been vindicated on so many things he/she was mocked for saying? Romney is in DEMAND all over the country to help the party out in the midterm elections. REPs running for house want his support more than DEMs want Obama or Hillary's at the moment

What are Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Jeb etc doing for the party right now?


Romney is out there campaigning on behalf of the party. He was the fall guy who ran against Obama's 2nd term. Not a single one of the other favored establishment candidates were brave or principled enough to fight that impossible battle. Jeb didn't try, Rubio didn't try. And again, what are either of them doing for the party compared to what Romney has been doing?


I think it speaks volumes that Romney manned up and put up a strong fight to an incumbent president. The first Black president who had the adoration and support of liberal America behind him. I think it speaks volumes that Romney has manned up to being a general election loser and is still spending the year fighting for and campaigning for the party.

I have no issue with running someone else. I know Romney isn't a fiery conservative, he is right of center though, and he's a principled leader. I don't need him to run again yet as I look at the 2016 field I don't think anyone in the GOP has anything on him.

 

[RKMBrown]

What I want to know from every conservative adamantly against Romney in this thread: Who do you put up instead of him? And explain how that person will fare better than Romney and has a better resume than Romney for representing the party in a general election

If the following folks were on the ticket here is my voting order:

Rubio>Rand>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary

Rubio's the best candidate in this list. He speaks from the heart, he's not lying about his stated positions, the guy makes Reagan look like a neocon. Rubio has the ability to move people. More importantly he wants to move the country in a constructive direction, to prosperity.

 

[RKMBrown]

Look at the poll. add the "not conservative enough" to the romney votes and he wins----------I rest my case.

Where was the conservative choice in that poll? I rest my case.

A one dimensional poll with uneducated voters does not work.

A better poll would be to first discuss actual positions and history of position changes, trust factor, etc for the candidates. Then have republicans pick choose their order of selection. In the last election Romney would have been my last pick of the 10 republicans running. The reason Romney comes out on top over the other 9 candidates is because he's the only socialist in that bunch, thus the conservatives split the conservative vote and the moderate socialist republicans (30% of the pubs) out vote the majority who split their vote.

 

[House]

What I want to know from every conservative adamantly against Romney in this thread: Who do you put up instead of him? And explain how that person will fare better than Romney and has a better resume than Romney for representing the party in a general election

If the following folks were on the ticket here is my voting order:

Rubio>Rand>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary

Rubio's the best candidate in this list. He speaks from the heart, he's not lying about his stated positions, the guy makes Reagan look like a neocon. Rubio has the ability to move people. More importantly he wants to move the country in a constructive direction, to prosperity.

Paul (Rand or pops)>Ryan>Rubio>Bush>Perry>Hillary

 

[The Rabbi]

Statistheilhitler is not the biggest drone hack Obama-fluffing ignoramus on this board only because competition is so keen.
The whole thread is moot. Romney is not going to run. Neither is Hillary. Let's move on.

 

[Super_Lantern]

If the following folks were on the ticket here is my voting order:

Rubio>Rand>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary

Rubio's the best candidate in this list. He speaks from the heart, he's not lying about his stated positions, the guy makes Reagan look like a neocon. Rubio has the ability to move people. More importantly he wants to move the country in a constructive direction, to prosperity.

I appreciate you giving a name. I'm going to disagree about Rubio being an effective presidential candidate though. In the wake of Romney's loss Rubio had a lot of favor in the party, even being chosen to give the party's SOU rebuttal to President Obama's SOU address in 2012. Quickly after this though, the tea-party lost interest in Rubio and his appeal across the nation hasn't been noteworthy in the past few years

 

[House]

After all the "spend now, pay later" Presidents we've had, we're sorely in need of a Paul Ryan type to clean up the mess they've made.

I'll never vote a Romney/Ryan ticket, but I would happily consider a Ryan/Romney campaign just to get Ryan. Romney can still kiss my ass, but I'd take the bad with the good.

 

[Katzndogz]

I would vote for Romney, but I don't think Ryan is the best choice for a running mate. He proved to be too weak.

 

[RKMBrown]

What I want to know from every conservative adamantly against Romney in this thread: Who do you put up instead of him? And explain how that person will fare better than Romney and has a better resume than Romney for representing the party in a general election

If the following folks were on the ticket here is my voting order:

Rubio>Rand>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary

Rubio's the best candidate in this list. He speaks from the heart, he's not lying about his stated positions, the guy makes Reagan look like a neocon. Rubio has the ability to move people. More importantly he wants to move the country in a constructive direction, to prosperity.

Paul (Rand or pops)>Ryan>Rubio>Bush>Perry>Hillary

Rubio>Ron>Rand>Ryan>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary>communist party candidate

How did you get strike through text to show up here?

 

[House]

I would vote for Romney, but I don't think Ryan is the best choice for a running mate. He proved to be too weak.

You got that backwards, chief. Ryan is pretty damned solid. Romney was the hindrance to their ticket just like Palin was the hindrance to the McCain ticket (nobody wanted Palin for President if McCain keeled over).

 

[House]

How did you get strike through text to show up here?

Icon to the right of the film strip.

 

[House]

What I want to know from every conservative adamantly against Romney in this thread: Who do you put up instead of him? And explain how that person will fare better than Romney and has a better resume than Romney for representing the party in a general election

If the following folks were on the ticket here is my voting order:

Rubio>Rand>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary

Rubio's the best candidate in this list. He speaks from the heart, he's not lying about his stated positions, the guy makes Reagan look like a neocon. Rubio has the ability to move people. More importantly he wants to move the country in a constructive direction, to prosperity.

Paul (Rand or pops)>Ryan>Rubio>Bush>Perry>Hillary

Rubio>Ron>Rand>Ryan>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary>communist party candidate

How did you get strike through text to show up here?

Kudos for adding Ryan to the list, at least.

 

[RKMBrown]

If the following folks were on the ticket here is my voting order:

Rubio>Rand>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary

Rubio's the best candidate in this list. He speaks from the heart, he's not lying about his stated positions, the guy makes Reagan look like a neocon. Rubio has the ability to move people. More importantly he wants to move the country in a constructive direction, to prosperity.

I appreciate you giving a name. I'm going to disagree about Rubio being an effective presidential candidate though. In the wake of Romney's loss Rubio had a lot of favor in the party, even being chosen to give the party's SOU rebuttal to President Obama's SOU address in 2012. Quickly after this though, the tea-party lost interest in Rubio and his appeal across the nation hasn't been noteworthy in the past few years

Which is another reason I like him. Rubio's stance on immigration gave the pubs a chance to fix immigration, instead the homophobic brown hating portion of the republican party started stabbing Rubio in in back and the politically adept pubs used this hate of illegal immigrants that is blaming them for job shortages, against Rubio to step on top of him in the eyes of the media. IOW the republicans voted for staus quo, don't do anything about the 20million illegals here, instead wave your hand around and say we can't give them defacto amnesty, which is not what Rubio was proposing. Rubio's answer was TEN TIMES BETTER than Reagan's answer. It only gave them a road to citizenship if they prove themselves worthy.

 

[RKMBrown]

What I want to know from every conservative adamantly against Romney in this thread: Who do you put up instead of him? And explain how that person will fare better than Romney and has a better resume than Romney for representing the party in a general election

If the following folks were on the ticket here is my voting order:

Rubio>Rand>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary

Rubio's the best candidate in this list. He speaks from the heart, he's not lying about his stated positions, the guy makes Reagan look like a neocon. Rubio has the ability to move people. More importantly he wants to move the country in a constructive direction, to prosperity.

Paul (Rand or pops)>Ryan>Rubio>Bush>Perry>Hillary

Rubio>Ron>Rand>Ryan>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary>communist party candidate

How did you get strike through text to show up here?

Kudos for adding Ryan to the list, at least.

Ryan's ... ok. I agree with about 70% of his stances. I'm about 100% with Rubio. I've been against him on a few issues, but Rubio was able to change my mind on those. I see Rubio as a constitutional conservative, the guy really lives it. I see Ryan as a geek who wants to be a constitutional conservative, but he's more like Batman's Robin, than presidential material. Rubio's only negative is, he appeared to have some sort of dry mouth problem on a few speeches. Maybe it's nerves... must be tough when your political party "friends" are stabbing you in the back to make a name for themselves.

 

[House]

I see Ryan as a geek who wants to be a constitutional conservative, but he's more like Batman's Robin, than presidential material.

Sounds like an opinion formed on the scenario that he first appeared in the harsh glow of the spotlight under Romney's shadow instead of any failing on Ryan's part.

I've been rather encouraged by everything I've read about Paul Ryan. He's up there with the Pauls, I'd put him on about the same level as Rand, and a notch below Ron.

 

[RKMBrown]

I see Ryan as a geek who wants to be a constitutional conservative, but he's more like Batman's Robin, than presidential material.

Sounds like an opinion formed on the scenario that he first appeared in the harsh glow of the spotlight under Romney's shadow instead of any failing on Ryan's part.

I've been rather encouraged by everything I've read about Paul Ryan. He's up there with the Pauls, I'd put him on about the same level as Rand, and a notch below Ron.

I spent the time to read, in gory detail, the proposals he wrote up for tax reform and a few others. I was not impressed. I spent the time to listen to him, his speeches. Sorry but it felt like I was being pitched a sales job and he did not win me over. I did not come back with the impression he was what I would call a constitutional conservative. More a Main/New England type Neo-Con. Don't get me wrong, I do like him. Just not as much as others. I do trust him though, and that is a big plus. Ted Cruz, says the right things, but I don't trust him one bit, to much backstabbing, to much play for camera, to much lawyer speak. Though I do like Cruz better than Perry.

Rubio>Ron>Rand>Ryan>Cruz>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary>communist party candidate

 

[House]

I see Ryan as a geek who wants to be a constitutional conservative, but he's more like Batman's Robin, than presidential material.

Sounds like an opinion formed on the scenario that he first appeared in the harsh glow of the spotlight under Romney's shadow instead of any failing on Ryan's part.

I've been rather encouraged by everything I've read about Paul Ryan. He's up there with the Pauls, I'd put him on about the same level as Rand, and a notch below Ron.

I spent the time to read, in gory detail, the proposals he wrote up for tax reform and a few others. I was not impressed. I spent the time to listen to him, his speeches. Sorry but it felt like I was being pitched a sales job and he did not win me over. I did not come back with the impression he was what I would call a constitutional conservative. More a Main/New England type Neo-Con. Don't get me wrong, I do like him. Just not as much as others. I do trust him though, and that is a big plus. Ted Cruz, says the right things, but I don't trust him one bit, to much backstabbing, to much play for camera, to much lawyer speak. Though I do like Cruz better than Perry.

Rubio>Ron>Rand>Ryan>Cruz>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary>communist party candidate

While I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of Ryan, I do appreciate you taking the time to provide sound reasoning behind your earlier remark.

Much easier to respect than some posters who go the "HE SUX CUZ I SED SO!" route.

 

[House]

I see Ryan as a geek who wants to be a constitutional conservative, but he's more like Batman's Robin, than presidential material.

Sounds like an opinion formed on the scenario that he first appeared in the harsh glow of the spotlight under Romney's shadow instead of any failing on Ryan's part.

I've been rather encouraged by everything I've read about Paul Ryan. He's up there with the Pauls, I'd put him on about the same level as Rand, and a notch below Ron.

I spent the time to read, in gory detail, the proposals he wrote up for tax reform and a few others. I was not impressed. I spent the time to listen to him, his speeches. Sorry but it felt like I was being pitched a sales job and he did not win me over. I did not come back with the impression he was what I would call a constitutional conservative. More a Main/New England type Neo-Con. Don't get me wrong, I do like him. Just not as much as others. I do trust him though, and that is a big plus. Ted Cruz, says the right things, but I don't trust him one bit, to much backstabbing, to much play for camera, to much lawyer speak. Though I do like Cruz better than Perry.

Rubio>Ron>Rand>Ryan>Cruz>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary>communist party candidate

Here's a crazy thought... what about a Paul/Ryan ticket?

(On another note, I don't want Christie within a million miles of the red button)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Some on the right might argue that it's 'unfair' to judge a GOP president candidate in 2016 by the GWB administration, where Bush is perceived by many on the right to be an aberration, a 'RINO,' and not a 'true conservative.'


Perhaps.


But that still doesn't mitigate the fact that today republican lawmakers, officials, and other public office holders currently pursue agendas hostile to citizens' civil liberties.


There are republican lawmakers and official in many states and jurisdictions seeking to deny women their privacy rights, same-sex couples their equal protection rights, minorities their voting rights, and immigrants their due process rights.


And republican lawmakers and officials continue to seek to deny citizens their civil liberties knowing full-well that their efforts are in absolute violation of the Constitution.


For example: over 20 state and Federal courts have invalidated state measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law. In Oklahoma recently that state's Supreme Court invalidated a measure designed to violate a woman's right to privacy, although current Constitutional jurisprudence strictly prohibits the states from doing so. And in Pennsylvania a state court invalidated a 'voter ID' law.


It is perfectly reasonable to assume, therefore, that a GOP candidate for president will indeed exhibit a similar ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the civil liberties of the American people for whom he wishes to be president.