Replies

Count me in, too: if it's Obama vs Romney, my vote will be NEUTRAL in determining which socialist wins, but because it will go to an official, on-the-ballot "third" party (not a write-in that could potentially invalidate my entire ballot) presidential candidate. Stupid knee-jerk emotional foot-stomps of anger say, "Well, that's the same as voting for Obama," but they're being silly and lying to themselves. It's the same as BEING NEUTRAL but using the vote to try to make it so whichever socialist wins, is weak and vulnerable because so many voted against him.

"The sky is falling!" ABOers will shriek that Obama the Omnipotent won't be touched or affected by the fact that (ideally) 66% of Americans voted against him but he won on a plurality, but again ... it would be solely a kneejerk emotional reaction. In reality, Obama WOULD be made weak, his enemies in his own party would become that much more powerful, and Republican in Congress will know they'd better fight for limited government because "moderate" and "statist" lost in BOTH PARTIES.

Romney is a ruthless control freak -- look at his record and look at his MO. He's not going to roll over to conservatives if he gets in the White House, but "conservatives" already elected will roll over for him because he plays political hardball. It would be stupid to elect him.

If you vote for Romey OR if you vote for Obama, you will be voting FOR more and bigger government. PERIOD. In the presidential race, if it's O v R, there is only one way you can effectively vote against more and bigger government: vote third party and leave it to the wind which one wins, as your vote will have zero affect on that outcome, but your vote WILL have the effect of weakening the statist winner and empowering his opposition, which would be a GOOD thing whether it was Obama or Romney.