This is a nihilist perspective. Don't vote for the most conservative candidate who can win, which is the philosophy most of us subscribe to. Instead, reject anyone who doesn't toe the line of conservative purity as you define it, and instead go for the full-throated liberal, in the hopes that things get so bad that a rebellion will rise and finally install the ideologue you crave.
So you prefer eight years of Obama to eight years of McCain/Romney? Don't lie and deny that's what you said. But didja notice that Obama's eight years of damage are proving irreversible? Once an entitlement program, always an entitlement program. Once a time-honored cultural tradition is labeled "racist", so it will always be. This "strategy" of making things worse to make them better is the errand of a fool.
Now finally I engage someone, even an avowed socialist liberal, who is actually interested in a dialogue instead of reading into my comments something I never said or did.
As I have already stated I would never vote for Obama, who, as you said, is a full-throated liberal. Does that acknowledge to you that I never 'lied' about it?
Yes, I did in fact vote for McCain and Romney. At the general election time, we had no other bonafide choices. Prior to that time, we sure as hell did, and I voted for, as you say it 'a full-throated' conservative in Ted Cruz.
We have choices in life and I aspire to make strategic ones, like following Jesus Christ to look toward the long-term rather than the immediate. I am an unabashed enthusiast in that regard.
Supporting whole-heartedly a person like McCain or Romney, people who would have seriously denigrated the Republican party in open borders and appeasement if elected president, is not a good strategy. It is why we have the current problems in the GOP such as support of the government takeover of healthcare, etc.
I disdain McCain and Romney, although I voted for them in the general. Most people did not do so, hence we have an Obama.
My career was in strategy, long term. There are sometime imminent things before us which cause short term successes to be weighed against long-term successes. Which do you choose?
Let's take a case in point WW2. Did Roosevelt align himself with Stalin because he supported Communism? No, he chose the immediate threat of Nazism and sought assistance from Russia to overcome it.
Did Roosevelt choose wisely? Most say he did, as the Nazis were destroyed. But did Roosevelt help Communism succeed? Absolutely. After the war, Russia took over most of Eastern Europe and imposed their will for decades. We fought a 'Cold War' over that.
Was Roosevelt right when he chose Communism over the Nazis? Likely, but it could be argued otherwise. Who knows if the Reich would have lasted, and we all know that the murderous Communists spread their contamination far beyond Russia and were responsible for far more deaths to non-combatants than the Reich ever did. We even have Communism/Socialism proliferating in this country.
One other thing: you say with certainty that Obama's 8 years of damage is 'irreversible'. How do you know? When I saw Jimmy Carter emerge as President in the 70s, I thought the same thing about its 'irreversibility'. We then had Ronald Reagan emerge as a true champion to return this country to its conservative roots. I was wrong about Carter being an end-all to keeping this country firmly founded.
W and his father did not advance the conservative cause. They watered it down. I believe both McCain and Romney would have done the same, at this nations' detriment. When one of then like Romney post comments like this thread was originally intended to discuss, it solidifies that belief.
