Willard's opponent is busy helping bring on the Caliphate in the middle east who will challenge us one day to our great cost, and is knowingly breaking the country financially to hasten its collapse and resurrection as a purely socialist state. Not even to mention the dramatic and immediate changes to out society he's implementing by fiat.
There is no one in the republican party who comes close to being that destructive.
It heartbreaking to know that voting for Willard is the only response to Obama we have now, but it is the only reasonable response. The threat Obama presents is imminent.
Supporting what you say you hate doesn't coincide with reason. It is actually totally based in fear, and nothing else.
It heartbreaking to know that voting for Willard is the only response to Obama we have now, but it is the only reasonable response. The threat Obama presents is imminent.
There is another reasonable response. Remember when Clinton won on a plurality of 43%, and two years later got creamed with the Republican Revolution? That Revolution probably would never have happened at all if Clinton had been elected by a majority, or if Bush had been re-elected. That plurality weakened Clinton.
Our third response is to vote for a plurality by voting for any official on-the-ballot third party at the top of the ticket, while fortifying Congress by voting conservative down-ticket. When the dust settles, the next liberal government-advancing statist amoral authoritarian president, Obama or Romney, will face a nation and a world where it is ON RECORD that the majority of Americans voted against him.
Obama's present weakness in the polls gives us a rare opportunity to pull this off for the best results, as there is virtually no chance Obama could win with anything but a slim plurality.
If one in three Americans who vote in 2012 say "To hell with both of them, and I want the world to know I said so" and split the vote by going third party, then whichever guy gets in -- and we are guaranteed an anti-conservative authoritarian government statist regardless, which we cannot vote "against" -- will enter office weak and vulnerable, enemies empowered both in his own party and the opposition party, because it will be ON RECORD that two in three Americans voted against him. He will be humiliated, defensive and exposed. If it was Obama, he would be an absolute mockery and his true scarecrow status would become apparent.
On the other hand, there is a very serious danger to all of us if Romney, God forbid, wins with a landslide. Most of those votes would be from people voting "against" Obama, not "for" Romney -- but that would be quickly forgotten as Romney, the GOP-E, Democrats, and the MSM hail it as a popular mandate for Romney's "progressive style of governing." Those who meant to vote "against" Obama would learn the hard way that there is no such thing as voting "against," but only FOR a candidate. ABO would be irrelevant.
Romney, the defacto head of the GOP, with moderates, the GOP Establishment, and Democrats, would outnumber conservatives and consign them to minority status. When Romney crawfishes on his word to conservatives and starts to enact the same liberal agenda he has always advanced, conservatives would be weak. That is what ABOers would have voted FOR, whether they meant to or not. That danger of a landslide alone is enough to vote for a plurality by voting third party.
People assume the threat Obama presents is unstoppable, but it is a wrong assumption -- Obama will try to keep advancing his agenda, but odds are extremely high that Congress is going to move even more to the right than it did in 2010, and that newly-empowered Congress, where moderate Republicans who just saw Romney rejected, would move right to save their own skins and Congress would have a genuine of-the-people mandate. This Congress would be much more powerful in dominating Obama whom nearly two in three voters rejected.
So -- indeed we have another reasonable response: to vote for a plurality and leave it up to God and those Americans willing to condone Obama or Romney to decide who wins; either one is a bad choice and a mistake, so the best way we can USE our vote is to vote to make the winner as weak as possible.