I've noticed a huge trend among Republicans, and that is the repetition of the mantra: "Anybody but Obama."
Now, I'm fully willing to admit that in 2008, after Ron Paul dropped out of the race, I begrudgingly supported Obama, so I could have something to gloat about when McCain lost. Something nice about the feeling of having backed the winning horse, I suppose. And, like many, I am also dissatisfied with the performance of our latest President. Gone was the Hope for Change when we saw the expansion of the wars and the intrusion into sovereign nations so we could assassinate our political enemies; some our own citizens.
So now, like many others, I also want to see Obama unseated as president. My own personal choice is Ron Paul for obvious reasons, but there's so much talk of his "electability", as though this were a horse race. I'm sure Ron is the fastest of the GOP candidates in any case.. It seems the most common factor under consideration, however, is which candidate possesses the mighty political kryptonite needed to defeat Obama come election time.
In fact this seems to be such an important attribute that people have even (seriously) considered voting for an independent Donald Trump in the spirit of "Anybody but Obama".
Let me tell you, from the perspective of someone who, last time around, voted for "Anybody but Bush 2.0(McCain)" and ended up with Obama(superbush), this is a major fallacy, and a trap set by the PTB as part of their Hegelian dialectic game.

Let me finish this by posing a question that may have far deeper implications than it may seem at first.. At the risk of having Godwin's law invoked, if election day came up and it was Obama vs Hitler... Is it still "Anybody but Obama"?

I want to add this post to clarify. I posted this thread to highlight that "electability" or "Obama defeatability" isn't the most important factor, but what should be the most important factor should be the principles a candidate stands for.
People get so caught up in not voting for a loser, that they can't see that if we all voted for what we believe in, we might end up winning as a society by finding out we agree on more things than we're being allowed to see.

Originally posted by DISINFORMANT
I've noticed a huge trend among Republicans, and that is the repetition of the mantra: "Anybody but Obama."
Now, I'm fully willing to admit that in 2008, after Ron Paul dropped out of the race, I begrudgingly supported Obama, so I could have something to gloat about when McCain lost. Something nice about the feeling of having backed the winning horse,

Wow there's a political philosophy: "my guy won!" Right up there with yes we cann!"
double facepalm!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by DISINFORMANT I suppose. And, like many, I am also dissatisfied with the performance of our latest President. Gone was the Hope for Change when we saw the expansion of the wars and the intrusion into sovereign nations so we could assassinate our political enemies; some our own citizens.
So now, like many others, I also want to see Obama unseated as president. My own personal choice is Ron Paul for obvious reasons, but there's so much talk of his "electability", as though this were a horse race. I'm sure Ron is the fastest of the GOP candidates in any case.. It seems the most common factor under consideration, however, is which candidate possesses the mighty political kryptonite needed to defeat Obama come election time.
In fact this seems to be such an important attribute that people have even (seriously) considered voting for an independent Donald Trump in the spirit of "Anybody but Obama".
Let me tell you, from the perspective of someone who, last time around, voted for "Anybody but Bush 2.0(McCain)" and ended up with Obama(superbush), this is a major fallacy, and a trap set by the PTB as part of their Hegelian dialectic game.

Let me finish this by posing a question that may have far deeper implications than it may seem at first.. At the risk of having Godwin's law invoked, if election day came up and it was Obama vs Hitler... Is it still "Anybody but Obama"?

edit on 1/6/2012 by DISINFORMANT because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/6/2012 by DISINFORMANT because: (no reason given)

Well what does he stand for? What could we expect? With Hitler you know what you're getting.
Is he"for" America? (No). Reducing the size and power of the security state? (NO).
Is he anti-lobbyist? (No..) A small govt "constitutionalist"?(No). Prosecuted any bankers?(no..) consistent(predictable);open; transparent?(NO)."believable/trustworthy" (No)..
Friend/boss of Eric Holder? (yes)
accepted campaign funds from John(
"Money?How many zeros is that? What money?" Corzine(Yes)

Therefore:"anybody but Obama...