Is It A Sin To Vote For Mitt Romney?

Free Republic | Today | ME

[Waywardson]

You are right. Ignore the foolish and the damned.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Dear FRiend MHGinTN...

Thanks for taking a moment to share your thoughts. You asked some questions and I will attempt to answer them because you are a friend.

“Do you believe this Republic will survive another four years of the little barry bastard commie and his gaggle of thuggish goons?”
“Do you think Romney and Obama would appoint the same judges to the SCOTUS?”

I believe America, like Gulliver, has reached a point where it is tied down with millions of threads. It is an empire in decline. Liberty has declined steadily during the past 30 years - after electing both Republican and Democrat Presidents. People are no longer free in their persons, their property, their liberties, their privacy or in the promise America once held so strongly. The center of the world of financial capital has shifted overseas. There are now more IPOs in Hong Kong than in America and London combined. Capital follows freedom.

Please do not miss that every POTUS is to blame - and more importantly, Congress is to blame, regardless of party. They are ALL guilty.

If Republicans were conservatives with balls, we could easily survive Obama or RINOmney. Unfortunately, republicans are neutered and can only sing soprano now. They happily sing in harmony with Democrats to gut conservatism. Unless they can grow a pair or we can replace the Republican Eunuchs with vigorous, virile and potent conservatives, not a thing will change.

Frankly, FRiend, I do not believe conservatives understand the full impact of what has happened to the country. They seem to believe that if we just lower taxes, the financial woes of the USA will disappear. They seem to believe, if we just win the Presidency and appoint some good judges, all will resume as it was during the years we grew up. I no longer believe EITHER of the current candidates can change the direction of the ship.

So to answer your question in a word, sure, the country will survive temporarily. Can we survive RINOmney? Sure, we can survive him temporarily. Neither will make the changes that will last and keep us from furthering the decline. Neither has the courage or conviction.

“BTW, the analogy presented by presidio is valid if you were comparing the purchases of Coke with other soft drinks of similar nature, with a given background purchasing populace who will choose either coke or any other soft drink. “

I don’t think the analogy was logically valid at all. I answered the post according to its folly. If by taking away a vote from the total makes it require one fewer vote for Zero to be elected, then taking away a vote also makes it require one fewer vote to elect RINOmney.

I suggest this is more realistic:

Three scenarios may occur:

1. Zero landslide - my vote doesn’t matter, and frankly, yours doesn’t either.
2. RINOmney landslide - my vote doesn’t matter, and frankly, yours doesn’t either.
3. EXTREMELY close election - my vote won’t change the outcome, unless my vote be located in a state that provides the required Electoral College votes needed to win. Unlikely, and I’m in a blue state anyway. If you are in a very close state, then maybe yours will be the “vote that counts”. It is, however extremely unlikely that your individual vote will be the vote that turns your state. My state had over 6 million voters in 2008.

My voting and efforts in giving can, however, impact some down-ticket races and money can impact far away conservative races.

In the end, I am going to follow my own conscience with my own vote, seeking to elect conservatives. I don’t intend to tell anyone else to how to vote and I smile when they try to tell me how to vote.

blessings,
ampu

[CommerceComet]

And once again the alinsky ridicule tactics surface from another direction. What you so asshattingly call a chicken little routine is in fact the imminent death of the AMERICAN REPUBLIC some of us see coming if little barry bastard commie is allowed to rule for four more years. It has yet to sink into your smarmy brain that there will be no ‘conservative movement’ if Barry succeeds in his plans to terminate the Republic. So go suck an egg, brainiac. The rational adults will try to save the Republic by incremental steps, beginning with getting rid of little barry bastard commie come January 2013. Dragging Milt Rominy (rhymes with hominy, the tasteless corn product) to the right is to follow shortly after ridding the nation of the commie infestation and Eric 'the raddish' Holder.

Rational adult? Yeah, that's really on display. (/sarcasm)

[af_vet_rr]

We're talking about voting for someone we dislike and disagree with - who we have a chance of influencing

We may disagree, but I thank you for giving me a good chuckle, since I know you didn't type that out with a straight face.

PPS: Haven't been able to vote yet?

I still have over two weeks to go before being able to vote in a primary.

[Belteshazzar]

CommerceComet wrote:
“However, there is a difference between someone who isn’t a friend of the cross and someone who is an enemy of the cross.”

I see. Jesus notwithstanding? “He who isn’t with Me is against Me.” Your categories are just that, your categories.

As far as the hostility of the Mormons go, yes, I’m quite convinced of it. I have read a great deal of Mormon literature, that is, what their leaders have written in the last hundred and a half years or so, spent quite a lot of time in Utah, and know quite a few of them. Hence my characterization of Mormonism as neo-pagan and post-Christian.

However, voting for president is not about who is a Christian and who is not. It is about who will govern according to the Constitution, follow the law, and not go against natural law/conscience. Jimmy Carter claimed to be a Christian. He even taught “Sunday School” regularly. Yet he was a disaster as president. If we get both a Christian and one who governs by the Constitution, then, yes of course, that would be the best.

Mitt Romney was my last choice (except for Ron Paul). Nevertheless he is not as bad as Obama. That is my analysis. It is far from a hearty endorsement. But that, for me, is the bottom line.

Two things are true: First, a vote for some other third party candidate at this point in history or a non-vote is a half-vote for Obama. I will not give Obama a half-vote. He acts contrary to the Constitution and the principles on which this nation was founded. Obama must go. Second, a Republican president, however lacking in conservative principles, can be pressured by conservatives into doing the right thing. Obama cannot be. Obama must go.

[Revel]

“This is covered in like the first class of Statistics 101.”

Must be that new math the kids are learning. No wonder they can’t get anything right.

You don’t get it. You can reverse and apply your whole argument to Romney. It would be just as valid or invalid. Therefore, according to your argument then Romney would come out the winner. Your whole argument is therefore, nonsense.

Now I don’t want either of them. So if I vote for neither of them then it is a vote for Ron Paul even if I don’t pull the lever for Ron Paul. Not that Ron Paul is so great either. And I am not saying I am voting for him, But if I pull the lever for him then something really incredible happens. I get to cast two votes for Ron Paul. The one I cast by not voting for Romney or Obama. And the one I cast by pulling Ron Paul’s lever.

Now that is pretty cool. Maybe your math is useful after all.

[CommerceComet]

I see. Jesus notwithstanding? “He who isn’t with Me is against Me.” Your categories are just that, your categories.

Maybe you don't see. Jesus also said "he who is not against us is for us." (Mark 9:40) Which principle to use obviously depends on the context. You seem to agree that Mormonism is opposed to true Christianity and since Mitt is a true believer, he would fit in the "he who isn't with me" rather than "he who is not against us". Maybe they are my categories but I believe they have Biblical support - sometimes neutrality is an issue, sometimes it's not. I'm still waiting for the compelling Biblical argument that it is okay to vote for an enemy of the Cross to such a high position of power and influence.

However, voting for president is not about who is a Christian and who is not.

I think that you're arguing in circles. I have already stated that I don't require theological purity in the candidates. That's what started the whole "enemies of the cross" discussion.

First, a vote for some other third party candidate at this point in history or a non-vote is a half-vote for Obama.

A non-vote for Romney is not a vote for Obama. As Revel points out, if that argument is true, I'm also giving Romney half a vote by withholding my vote from Obama, so they cancel out.

Second, a Republican president, however lacking in conservative principles, can be pressured by conservatives into doing the right thing.

You mean just like George W. Bush? Dubya was far more conservative than Romney. If the Republicans in Congress won't fight the unpopular President from the other party, what makes you think that they'll stand up to a President of their own party? The GOP-e is going to be pressuring the Republicans in Congress to go along with the President because "we can't afford to have a failed Republican Presidency." I'm very skeptical that Mitt Romney can be pulled right when his every instinct is liberal.

[norton]

Did I misspell influence?

A Romney, with a likely more conservative (by necessity) VP and more conservatives in congress can be moved toward the center/right...maybe not too very much, but way, way, more than the current Bozo-in-charge.

OK, the tongue in cheek part is "conservatives" as used above...so I'll modify that to "not-so-much-RINOs"

You/we, aren't going to change the world this year. We are certainly not going to change the world for the better if we sit home in a snit because our guy (or our former governor) didn't get the call.

What you/we need to do is (are)
a. Drop the one-cause-fits-all demands.
b. Actually work for any and all likely (or more similar to) conservative candidates - at any level.
c. And make it clear to the candidates and office holders that "tea party" isn't limited to a bus tour of the USA.

[norton]

Sorry; the primaries are moving in such a scripted manner that I forget that neither you nor I have had a chance to be ignored yet.

[presidio9]

You don’t get it. You can reverse and apply your whole argument to Romney. It would be just as valid or invalid. Therefore, according to your argument then Romney would come out the winner. Your whole argument is therefore, nonsense.

I'm not sure what it is about this fairly straightforward concept that is not getting through to you, but no, you can't reverse it. You have one vote. Either you use it to vote for the candidate with the best chance to defeat Obama, or Obama needs one less vote to win. If you choose not to vote, or to vote for a candidate with no realistic chance of winning, then you have aided Obama.

[presidio9]

Because of your insight, I now realize that [statistically speaking] every time I choose a 7-up, instead of a Pepsi, I am voting for Coke!

This analogy only applies if we assume a final election, where one soft drink would be chosen, after wich point no other soft drink would be available. In that case, say you preferred Sprite, were not particularly fond of Pepsi, but you flat-out HATED Coke. In that case, you'd better have the Pepsi, like it or not. Otherwise, the point you are trying to make does not apply.

[presidio9]

Dan, the problem with basing one's faith on scripture alone, is that unlike with Islam, our scripture was written by men, not God. It was never intended as an eyewitness account, and is, in fact, often contradictory.

Case and point, 15 John:

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

So, no, we are not "saved" when we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Instead, we have the opportunity to be saved. What we do with that opportunity is up to us. Faith without works is dead.

[presidio9]

Valid? I believe that the example violates both the category fallacy and the proportions fallacy. Besides, as AMPU points out, it is irrelevant because it is the electoral votes, not the popular vote, which determine the outcome. In my state, my refusal to vote for Romney would have to be multiplied by 500,000 times to possibly make any difference.

By that logic, there is no point in EVER voting, is there? I used to think like that. Then I found myself living in Palm Beach County in November 2000...

[kevao]

Is it really your contention that your not voting for Romney gives no advantage to Obama? Consider this. You, me, and the rest of the world have to vote for Prez.

If you and I both vote for Romney, Obama needs *three* other votes to win.

If I vote for Romney, and you abstain (or vote for a third party), Obama needs only *two* other votes to win.

Like it or not, if you don't vote for Romney, you do indeed help Obama win.

[Manic_Episode]

Perhaps I shouldn’t have put this out for the Friday night crowd. Some of the responses seem incoherent.

[MHGinTN]

The alinskyesque tactic of ridicule of your excellent analogy shows that merely dodging the reality wqas not enough to soothe the sour minds of some who read your post.

It is looking more and more like Milt Rominy is the ONLY credible challenge to little barry bastard commie. In order to remove the thuggish puppet an alternate must be selected. Any vote not for that most credible opponent is exactly one less vote little barry bastard has to overcome to be re-elected (and to top it off, little barry will be depositing millions of illicit votes which the credible challenger must overcome with legitimately placed votes, which the category of 'other' will be sucking out of the counting to remove the soros klown)

[MHGinTN]

The alinskyesque tactic of ridicule of your excellent analogy shows that merely dodging the reality was not enough to soothe the sour minds of some who read your post.

It is looking more and more like Milt Rominy is the ONLY credible challenge to little barry bastard commie. In order to remove the thuggish puppet an alternate must be selected. Any vote not for that most credible opponent is exactly one less vote little barry bastard has to overcome to be reelected (and to top it off, little barry will be depositing millions of illicit votes which the credible challenger must overcome with legitimately placed votes, which the category of 'other' will be sucking out of the counting to remove the soros klown).

[af_vet_rr]

A Romney, with a likely more conservative (by necessity) VP and more conservatives in congress can be moved toward the center/right...maybe not too very much, but way, way, more than the current Bozo-in-charge.

The folks being floated as potential VP candidates are Romney fans. The GOP-e is not going to allow somebody on the ticket who is not approved of by them.

The fact that Romney is easily sailing to victory shows that the GOP-e doesn't even pretend to care about Conservatives anymore.

We are certainly not going to change the world for the better if we sit home in a snit because our guy (or our former governor) didn't get the call.

Nobody said anything about staying home - don't assume that just because I won't vote for somebody like Romney, that I won't show up and vote. I'll show up and I'll vote for the most conservative candidate in each race. Sometimes it means a Republican, sometimes a third party.

What you/we need to do is (are)
a. Drop the one-cause-fits-all demands.

There are some things I won't compromise on anymore, because I've been compromising for decades, and all of that compromise has done nothing but lead us to Romney.

b. Actually work for any and all likely (or more similar to) conservative candidates - at any level.

That's exactly what I'm going to do. Of course it means that I will have to look at third party candidates in a lot of races, since there are too many liberals with an (R) next to their name.

c. And make it clear to the candidates and office holders that "tea party" isn't limited to a bus tour of the USA.

If the GOP-e actually gave a damn about Conservatives, Romney wouldn't have the nomination.

Since 1988, we have gotten progressively more and more liberal Republicans because most of us ultimately bend over and do what the GOP-e tells us to do - namely support the candidates who win the primaries.

You know what supporting Romney really does? It tells the GOP that your will can be bent, that you will sacrifice your morals and your principles because the GOP tells you to or because the GOP scares you by using Obama as the bogeyman.

George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney - each progressively more liberal than the last. The two Bushes, Dole, and McCain - what did they do? They either lost to scumbag liberals or they gave us bigger and more expensive government, and then turned that government over to scumbag liberals. Romney is even more liberal than that bunch, and supporting Romney tells the GOP you are just fine with how they've been doing things since 1988.

At some point you will wake up and realize you've been used and abused for decades by the liberals running the GOP. For me, it was the realization that the GOP-e was going to do all that they could to get Romney the nomination, and that if Romney is the candidate in 2012, then we'll see an even more liberal Republican in 2016 or 2020.

[Belteshazzar]

OK, this is pointless and tiresome. Daniel could loyally serve the unbelieving and even anti-believer kings of Babylon for decades, but a Christian cannot in good conscience choose the lesser of two evils between Romney and Obama. Paul could admonish Christians to “honor the king” when the king (emperor) was as pagan and anti-Christian as Romney, and probably more so, but a Christian cannot in good conscience choose between two men, one of whom openly identifies with the Constitution - imperfectly, to be sure! - and the other openly tries to subvert it.

Stay home. Don’t soil your pure hand in the voting booth.

Believe what you will about the valueless nature of your non-vote. The nation will no doubt benefit from the wisdom of your choice ... somehow ...

[gitmo]

Some folk respond to the headlines, assuming they won’t get more information from the article or the vanity post.