Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: IbJensen
See sig line. If Romney somehow squeeks in, it won't all "get better." He's a liberal, and he'll act like a liberal. When his fiscal policies fail, the Democrats will point to that as a failure of "conservatism", just like they did with Bush, and sweep another openly liberal Dem into the White House on promises of hope and change.

And so The Stupid Party perpetuates the cyle of decline and ruin. Not that our largely godless country doesn't deserve it, of course.

50 posted on 08/08/2012 6:58:00 AM PDT by mikeus_maximus (I won't vote for Romney, period. Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: mikeus_maximus; All
If Romney somehow squeaks in, it won't all "get better." He's a liberal, and he'll act like a liberal. When his fiscal policies fail, the Democrats will point to that as a failure of "conservatism", just like they did with Bush, and sweep another openly liberal Dem into the White House on promises of hope and change.

I am sad to say that you speak the truth.

I'm voting for a plurality, and the only way to do that is to vote third party. I hope you will join me. Every third party vote (it doesn't much matter who for) will count toward reducing the total popular vote percentage of whichever statist liberal wins, and God willing, whether it's Obama or Romney, he will enter office ONLY on a plurality, where the majority of the popular vote went to someone else. As it has done in the past, it would favor conservatives in Congress in opposing the liberal policies of the next statist in the White House. be it Obama or Romney.

Furthermore, providence and the Almighty have blessed us with the unique circumstance where Obama has become so loathed and deserted by former supporters, that he is WEAK and has little chance of netting a majority; many who voted for him last time will desert him at the ballot box this time. So rejecting Romney for a third party candidate presents very little risk of seeing Obama win a majority, and has double value in that it WILL count toward denying a popular mandate to either one.

It's all pretend to "vote against" Obama -- 100 percent imaginary, cannot be done, no more than I can vote "against" Romney. There's no such thing -- any ballot anywhere EVER only gives you the choice of voting FOR, never "against." Even when you vote "against" a proposition, you're actually voting FOR nixing it. VOTING "AGAINST" OBAMA IS ALL IMAGINARY.

ABOers tell themselves they're voting "against" Obama, but that is only feel-good talk. In practice and in fact, they'd be voting FOR an extreme statist liberal, albeit one registered in the Republican party, to become the most powerful Republican in America. That is ONLY and ALL that they would be voting for, as voting "against" is entirely imaginary.

I will be voting FOR a plurality, because I know no matter how I vote or which major candidate wins, an extreme liberal statist will get the White House, so the best I can do is vote specifically to weaken his victory and put him on the defensive. The last two times a liberal won the presidency on a plurality, he was bulldozed to the right by the Republican Revolution and then impeached.

You can vote to empower statism, or you can vote to weaken it. Those, ABOers, are your two choices.

89 posted on 08/08/2012 10:55:04 AM PDT by Finny (A deal with the devil is ALWAYS a losing proposition. Voting for Romney to avoid Obama is just that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson