Replies

It was easy, I pulled the lever for Mitt.

Okay. What were you voting FOR? Please be specific. Since a vote is by definition literally and materially only ever for something, please state what you were voting FOR.

What lever did you pull?

I'll not only answer your question, I'll do you one better and tell you want I was voting for. I can do this because it finally got through my head that voting "against" is materially and mathematically an oxymoron. See, steelwheels, I used to think like you -- that I could vote "against" opponents. I know better now, and I am joined by tens of thousands of fellow Americans in this.

I pulled the lever for Tom Hoefling, an official third party (America's Party) candidate. He wasn't a perfect candidate, but he certainly rated 80 percent, easily, so met Reagan's requirements. It would be a lovely pipe dream to see him win the office, had I indulged. I would love it!

What was I voting "for"? Ostensibly, I was voting for him to win the White House. PUH LEEEEZE, as if that was going to happen! I was in action and function voting for something entirely different. I knew EXACTLY what I was voting for. It was a long shot, but not nearly as long as Tom's shot at the White House!

I was voting FOR a plurality. I was voting FOR making sure that whichever damned leftist government tyrant got the White House, Romney or Obama, got in with as little and weak a show of support as possible. Perot forced a plurality that so weakened Clinton that he was plowed by the Republican Revolution his first term, and impeached the second term. The first time, 57 percent of Americans voted "against" Bill Clinton. The second time, 51 percent of Americans voted "against" Bill Clinton. It weakened him and made him vulnerable.

Had HW won, conservatism would have made less gain.

So steelwheels, please specify what you were voting FOR when you voted for Romney.