BHO Legacy - The Supremes

[Oh Shoot]

All you folks who claim you're not going to vote for Newt or Mitt if they're the nominee, but for some write-in, you no more "lesser of two evils" guys:

Consider this:

Four Supreme Court justices are over 70 and 3 will be over 80 by the end of O's next term. One of the conservative ones, forget which, already said he has postponed his retirement till after the election, obviously hoping that O is defeated. So point is, O will get to name one or more likely two or more justices during his next devil may care tenure, just due to odds of age causing death, incapacitation, or retirement. Ginsburg has recently had both colon and pancreatic cancer, and even though she's a liberal, she's probably radical right wing compared to who O will try to replace her with. Etc.

Also remember that both the Heller and the McDonald decisions went our way by just ONE VOTE, just as example of the tenuous conservative balance of the present court.

Yeah, TN might go red enough that all your non-GOP votes won't matter. Then again, it might be close enough that Ron Paul, as write in or god forbid as third party candidate, siphons enough off to swing it for O.

So sure, vote your conscience in the primary, but you've just got to see the long term repercussions of 4 more years of Barack Hussein Obama with nothing to lose.

[/soapbox]

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks OhShoot

Those are worthy thoughts fer sure. The question is-- Depending on who gets the republican nomination-- Do they make heavy-duty enough vice-grips so I can hold my nose and vote republican?

[Mike.357]

Valid thought provoking ideas

[styx]

Thanks OhShoot

Those are worthy thoughts fer sure. The question is-- Depending on who gets the republican nomination-- Do they make heavy-duty enough vice-grips so I can hold my nose and vote republican?

I believe that OS's post should be "heavy enough vice grips" for ya1

[peejman]

And understand that SCOTUS Justices are appointed for life. We could have to deal with the consequences for 20-30 years.

[Guest mikedwood]

It would depend on the canidate. I'm not voting for a canidate like McCain, couldn't and still won't. I did a write in vote in 2008 I'll do it again for this one if given like McCain. It appeared to me as if the GOP wanted to lose. Sarah Palin gave a little hope but

In 2008 I could have pulled the trigger for Paul or Huckabee wouldn't have been a terrible choice.

Casting my vote for Newt or Mitt in the General would be casting a vote for to many things I don't believe in. Every vote for them will end up saying "Yes I support you and your ideas" and I DON'T. It just says the status quo that got us this far is okiee dokie with me. It's not Ok with me.

I don't see nearly as many differences between Newt, Mitt and Obama as many of you see.

This recent vote on S1867 has shown that the GOP cares nothing at all about getting rid of the 4th and 6th amendments. Yeah it's for "terrorists" but we have even heard the Tea Party labeled by some as terrorists and John McCain helped draft the bill!!! So please don't tell me that their worst is worse than the GOPs worst. It's not an aisle anymore, it's not even a couch it's a freaking love seat!

It's damned if you do and damned if you don't. My conscience will not allow me to vote more of the same against the Bill of Rights.

UPDATED: Second Chance to Prevent Indefinite Detention of Americans | Campaign for Liberty look at all the ®'s next to the Nays on the amendments not allowing indefinate detention and murder of American citizens on American soil. We have two parties and I think any of us would have to admit that neither speak for us.

Obama is expected to veto the bill anyway, but not because he is standing up for the 4th and 6th but because he believes he already has that power.

[Guest ThePunisher]

And they have eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear nor perceive. Their minds have been blinded to all rational understanding.

It appears we are inevitably doomed.

[oldogy]

A very timely reminder, OS. As an old guy who has voted every year since I first voted against Kennedy, I can tell you quite a few times I've voted against the lesser evil. And one year I voted my belief and threw a vote away on Ross Perot. See what that election did for us. There have been few candidates that I've voted for but several I've voted against. Get used to the fact that you're not going to "fall in love with a candidate" unless you're a flaming liberal and vote for the blue state leader like so many did in '08.

The future of America rides on this election. Can America survive free or will we further our directions along the dismal path to socialism where the misery is shared by all.

oldogy

Edited December 2, 2011 by oldogy

[Oh Shoot]

It would depend on the canidate. I'm not voting for a canidate like McCain, couldn't and still won't....

Please try to see the bigger picture, that's what this post was about.

Barack has already given us Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both who have clearly thumbed their nose at the Constitution both before and after confirmation

Just one more appointment tips the balance to radical progressive activism from the bench, and likely there will be more than one. If the Senate stays Dem and BHO is reelected, this almost certainly becomes a done deal.

Over time the Supreme Court is perhaps as important a driver for America's direction as any other gummit process.

- OS

[1gewehr]

While that is true, it is also true that while the President makes the nomination, the Senate has to confirm it. Notice that not all of Reagan's or Bush's nominations are now serving on the Supreme Court. Replacing RINOs in the Senate is just as important, if not more important that who is President.

As an aside, I'm done voting for 'the lesser of two evils'. To me that IS throwing away your vote. If you cannot honestly support a person for the office, vote for someone you can. Doing otherwise is allowing the establishment Republicans to play you like a piano. That is exactly how we ended up with McCain as a useless candidate last time.

[Defender]

If I were to wait for a candidate that I loved 100%, Id be waiting forever. Voting for one of the ones that has NO chance of winning, just to prove a point, is ill conceived, and will only help BHO win. This election is way too important to play that way. If you are truly against BHO winning again, the ONLY play is vote the winner of the GOP ticket. Like it or not, its still the truth!

[kieefer]

Excellent points.

BHO must be defeated. Anyone in the current batch will be better than 4 more years of this idiot.

[Guest mikedwood]

Please try to see the bigger picture, that's what this post was about.

Barack has already given us Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both who have clearly thumbed their nose at the Constitution both before and after confirmation

Just one more appointment tips the balance to radical progressive activism from the bench, and likely there will be more than one. If the Senate stays Dem and BHO is reelected, this almost certainly becomes a done deal.

Over time the Supreme Court is perhaps as important a driver for America's direction as any other gummit process.

- OS

I value all you guys opinions on so many things. I do I really do, but not on this.

Are you are saying the "Master Plan" is to keep electing (or trying to elect) politicians who will vote for and pass measures that are unconstitutional and when caught then hope that the judges they appoint will null those laws if and when they make it to court?

On a long enough time line that plan seems doomed to failure. Is that the best reason you can come up with for voting a GOP Newt or Mitt in the general? I certainly hope it doesn't come to that.

Not Newt will .........

Or Mitt will ........

Or the GOP will hold them to principles of ..........

So if Obama is elected again we will face a nasty supreme court? And Newt or Mitt will do about everything else to us but not that?

So if one is elected we either get 4 more years of them (cause the incumbent is unopposed by the party) or we get to pick a Democrat in 4 more years to oppose them and that will probably be Hillary.....

So either way I see it we can look forward to 8 more years of big government, socialist centered, Homeland security minded rule.

Sorry I'm such a downer about it all. To help cheer everyone up here is a video of a kitten stuck in a hamster ball.

[Oh Shoot]

While that is true, it is also true that while the President makes the nomination, the Senate has to confirm it....

The Senate is controlled by the Dems. Decent chance it still will be after 2012.

Only takes majority vote to confirm a justice. For life.

- OS

[peejman]

I can easily see both sides of this and while I know which way I'll go, I can't say I'm real happy with that.

On the one hand, I can certainly see it idealism of voting for whoever you think is best, establishment be da__ed.

On the other hand... given the size and power of "the establishment", does voting outside that (write-in vote) really accomplish anything? You may think that sends a message, but that only works if anyone is actually listening. How much must be sacrificed in the name of idealism until said idealism prevails? And how long will it take to undo all that has been done?

As has been stated, it's been quite a while since I actually voted for a candidate I truly liked. Lately, I've simply been voting for the candidate I thought had the best chance of beating the one whom I least wanted to win. That's a pretty sorry state of affairs.

I don't really consider myself "a Republican" but I frequently find myself wondering... Out of all the card carrying members of the Republican party, these idiots are the best they can bring to the table? Really?

[styx]

Don't forget that there is one more kink to this. Beside the Supreme Court issue, BHO and Hillary are working on the UN small arms treaty which would eliminate the 2nd Amendment from our Constitution if it somehow gets passed in the form they want.

[G27]

I would think the OP's argument would be impetus enough for the lifelong repubs - who always vote for the lesser of two evils - to start working to get someone better nominated instead of sitting back and waiting to see what the masses decide for them.

But when they repeat the 'RP is unelectable' mantra instead of actually trying to do something about it, I guess we know all we need to know.

If you want to save this country from the path we've been on for far too long now, get involved.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Excellent points.

BHO must be defeated. Anyone in the current batch will be better than 4 more years of this idiot.

Ditto.

If you want to surrender the 2nd and US sovernty to UN, and continue Obamacare and to totally destroy capitalism in exchange for Marxism/socialism/communism, then vote for the dictator again.

You cannot cure stupid, and definitely those that voted for this Marxist in 2008 are suffering from the malady of stupidity. This is probably the last opportunity for the republicans to retake the WH because of the Hispanic population growing to majority levels and their affinity to the Libtards.

For those that are hesitant to support the Republican nominee this time around, they have been more than likely pulling the Democrat ticket for along time.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

OS just gave one example of what could happen.

There are plenty others if you choose to look at

what he has already accomplished(destroying)

and project forward the lame duck Obama in action.

It's worth pondering. Don't throw away a vote saying

it's based on your principles. Your principles should

be telling you otherwise in a billion dollar campaign.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mav]

I am not really worried about the UN small arms treaty. It will take 2/3 of the senate to ratify it, and I don't see that happening.

In regards to some of the other posts, yes Ron Paul is unelectable only because those who state such have chosen to accept it. Folks, we haven't even come to the first primary, and yet there are some who talk like everything has already been decided. The purpose of the primary is to vote for who you think is the best candidate not who is the most electable. If you keep accepting the later and compromising your principles, then we will never have a candidate worth a damn running in the general election.

I have made it quite clear in numerous posts that I will be voting for Paul in the primary. Now, if Paul does not get the nomination, I will disregard my principles and hold my nose while voting for whoever the p.o.s. Republican candidate is. However, until Paul either wins the nomination or drops his candidacy, I will continue to support him and advocate his positions to my friends, family, and co-workers.

I have a question to those of you who really like Paul but do not think he can win the nomination. If you think it has already been decided that either Mitt or Newt will win the nomination, how would it hurt if you voted for Paul in the primary, assuming you like his positions best? Answer. It wouldn't, so why not vote for him?

If we are to ever regain control of this country and turn it in the right direction, we have to basically tell the media and the political class to drink a nice tall glass of STFU. They are no longer going to decide who our candidates should be.

[Guest mikedwood]

Ditto.

If you want to surrender the 2nd and US sovernty to UN, and continue Obamacare and to totally destroy capitalism in exchange for Marxism/socialism/communism, then vote for the dictator again.

You cannot cure stupid, and definitely those that voted for this Marxist in 2008 are suffering from the malady of stupidity. This is probably the last opportunity for the republicans to retake the WH because of the Hispanic population growing to majority levels and their affinity to the Libtards.

For those that are hesitant to support the Republican nominee this time around, they have been more than likely pulling the Democrat ticket for along time.

Check into National Defense Authorization Act 2012 and see how many ® voted for it. Are you even aware of the implications?

Better yet don't, because if you do you will find most of your ®'s voted Yay. If this passes all of us will be the one being punished.

One man stood up to the sponsor, that would be Ron Paul's son Rand Paul.

The best way to put it is the upper ranks of the GOP are a Trojan horse.

Things are not as they seem, not as you have been told and there is no Santa Claus.

Edited December 3, 2011 by mikedwood

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think what Mike just said was it might be too late.

I hadn't thought about it like that and that may be the

case.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest lostpass]

If Obama vetoes the NAtional Defense Authorization Act there is a good chance I'll vote for him. Cause hey, I can trust him more than the republicans. Who started the TSA, Homeland Security, the Patriot act?

Would I worry about appointees? Sure, but I worry about conservative appointees as well. Corporations are people? They can't get drafted or vote....

If it comes down to Mitt or Newt well they are just fine with Obamacare. Mitt enacted it in Mass and Newt backed it when he was in congress. They called it the personal mandate back then but it was the same thing.

I'm constantly trying to balance my rights on the conservative side against my rights on the lib side. Sure, the R's will go crazy over guns but when it comes to police powers and so forth they fail miserably. The D's tend to be good about torture and indefinite detention and drugs and opposing wars but utterly fail in other areas.

I realize that everyone thinks they should be president and everyone wants to vote for the person that best reflects their personal belief system (even though most people don't actually do that, they vote for the D or the R cause that is how they were raised) but finding a option that exactly reflects your personal platform is impossible. If candidates just had to appeal to you they would, but they have to appeal to the greatest number of people possible so the candidates are necessarily a compromise.

For those arguing they won't compromise, they can't, they have to stick to the constitution recall this, the constitution was a compromise.

I would imagine that in the perfect world everyone would carefully analyze the issues, inevitably agree with me, and vote likewise. It doesn't happen that way. The things that drive you crazy make perfect sense to another voter. What you see as illogical is perfectly defensible to someone else. The people who disagree with you aren't necessarily wrong, this isn't math, they just have different priorities.

If you are worried about Obama's supreme court nominations, that is a valid concern. If you're worried that a vote for Mitt or Newt sends the wrong message, that you'd be netter served by a write in for Ron Paul that is also a valid position. If you're worried about a single president destroying America you're better off not voting. Every single election has resulted in some group of people thinking that the country was destroyed. So far, they've all been wrong. Crap, after the last election you'd think we'd all be paying one hundred percent taxes, surrendered our guns to the brownshirts, bow to Mecca three times a day, and be overrun by a new caliphate. Oh, and sharia law. Can't forget that.

Besides, the Supremes have some good songs:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Wait until you see his second term.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't refute those who believe that defeating Obama is paramount. Whatever floats yer boat. I don't pretend any privileged frame of reference.

A lot of voters simply vote who they personally like. "Deep Thinkers" criticize that as shallow and illogical. On the other hand if you are shopping for a car or house, and find what logically seems a good deal, but you have "a bad feeling" about the salesman or the deal-- People make decisions in complex ways which do not always follow conscious linear reasoning. Most of our brain power operates below the conscious level. If the unconscious part has a bad feeling about a deal, then it isn't necessarily wise to let the "minority" of conscious logical brain cells over-ride the "majority of the brain" which does its work without offering easily explainable reasons. It is not uncommon for folks to get the right answer while unable to explain the homework of how the answer was derived.

It may be flawed to make a blanket statement that any of the R candidates would do a better job than Obama. Obama truly sucks at the job, but that does not refute the fact that millions of people could suck even worse than Obama.

Over several elections I managed to avoid voting the lesser evil for president, though have often voted the lesser evil for lower offices.

I did not like Bush enough to vote for him. He wasn't all bad of a fellow, but he wasn't that great either. However in 2004 Kerry appeared to suck so bad that I contributed money and time to re-elect Bush. Didn't like Bush, but compared to Kerry he seemed the lesser evil.

In retrospect that was a mistake. I would never have voted for Kerry, but it was a mistake to back the lesser of evils. If Kerry had won in 2004 then we would have a republican president right now. And most likely also have a republican house and senate. Kerry would have screwed the pooch so bad 2004 to 2008 that republicans would have been assured at least another 8 years starting 2008. Ergo, no Prez Obama except possibly much later in history.

Bush had not yet succeeded in completely demolishing the republican party and squandering republican good will by 2004. He managed to finish the job in spades 2004 to 2008.

If "anybody but Obama" wins 2012 and screws the pooch, we might have president Van Jones in 2116.

So the WRONG republican candidate in 2012 is not necessarily a long term lesser evil. If an R wins, he will have to be wise enough to make approximately zero mistakes for four years, to survive to a second term. Otherwise he will be replaced in 2016 by somebody even worse than Obama.

Ain't sayin I'll definitely vote third-party this time around, but if I have a "bad feeling" about the R candidate, ain't gonna vote for him just because he ain't Obama. On the other hand, I'll NEVER vote for Obama.