Ask yourselves if you would rather have a Mormon or a Muslim as President of the United States. The rubber meets the road here.
You've got some bad assumptions here...
First of all...Obama had some Muslim primers as a kid...now prove (don't assume) that Obama is a Muslim.
I also have absolutely no doubt that Obama caters to Muslims. (Quite prove-able)...But do us a favor: Please prove Obama IS a Muslim. C'mon. Prove it. Don't just cast out gossip and make us conservatives look bad to the rest of the world -- that we don't ever back up what we say with documentation. Prove it. Stop being a gossip-monger. Prove it.
Second bad assumption: You think this is a two-person race...
Are most POTUS races two-person races? (Yup)
Are a lot of sports two-team contests? (Yup)
Is that the way 2012 POTUS race is sizing up to be? (Nope...it's sizing up to be a ONE-man race)
WHY do I say that? I explain this in a LOT more detail below...but if you want to know in a nutshell, here it is: (Write it down; or commit it to memory)...
The fact is...IF Romney is nominated...that means we'll have TWO liberal candidates running for POTUS.
Sorry...but we DON'T have enough LIBERAL voters in this country to support TWO liberal candidates!!!! Comprende????
If you think this is going to be one of those 40-something% to 40-something percent races...think again!!! Because, in order for that to happen, it would mean that we would need about 85-90% of all voters to vote liberal & vote socialist in this election!!!!!!
What? You think that's going to happen??? BAD ASSUMPTION!!!
(Keep readin' if you're interested in the 'details'):
If I was a forecaster -- and if I told you now that...
...one candidate would get 46% of the vote;
...another candidate would get 32%-33% of the vote;
...a protest candidate of some sort would get 13% of the vote;
...and the minority party candidates (green party, etc.) would get 8-9% of the vote...
...does that sound like a two-person race to you?
Sports Analogies to explain this:
Some sports fans who didn't have a dog in the hunt were pullin' for both Louisville & then Kansas to upset Kentucky in the NCAA basketball tourney...But neither of those teams had the offense to pull past Kentucky. Still, those fans wanted to "root" for the underdog. Their rooting didn't change a thing. It didn't make the games any closer. The underdogs still lost by significant margins.
Even those who weren't "botfans" of either Louisville or Kansas could have urged as many people as possible to "root on" these underdogs...No matter...
The analogy is simple: If Romney + a "protest" candidate still get less than Obama, it really won't matter who you voted for [romney or the protest candidate]. Why? Because they are BOTH statistical losers!!!
Not only is romney an atrocious candidate, but his racist background with the Mormon church is THE worst choice to match up vs. Obama...and don't assume that by the time the MSM & Obama dems get done with Romney expose' after expose' that Romney will be a viable candidate by the end of October.
(I firmly believe the polls then will bear that out)
It's really not that Obama is like some unbeatable Olympic competitor...I don't think he can capture more than 46% of the vote...But if you reviewed a lot of Olympic events...say speed skating...or some track events...there's times when the coaches put a competitor in there that's really not so competitive vs. the front-runner.
That's what we have in a non-viable candidate like Romney.
You -- or a few other FREEPERs "rooting" for Romney with your singular votes won't get Romney into even capturing 1/3rd of the popular vote. If I had to guess right now...
...Romney would get 'round 32%...perhaps some tenths over that...
...a third-party "protest" candidate (not sure who) may draw 13%...[Let's face it, do you REALLY expect 90%+ of the country would vote for A liberal???]
...Obama -- 46%
...Minority-party candidates (green party, etc.) would split the other 8-9%
If Romney won't even be able to capture 1/3rd of the nation's vote, how can you or others blame some conservatives who won't vote for him???
What do I base some of these figures on?
(a) Ya gotta understand that RIGHT NOW, the GoP ONLY has 29% of all registered voters...
...& almost half of them are NOT Romney supporters...
...another probable 25-30% of them won't vote for Romney no matter what...[And most of these won't vote for Obama, either]
That means that only about 1 in 5 registered voters will vote for Romney -- as Republicans.
(b) Most Dems aren't going to vote for Romney...
(c) Six to Nine % of all registered voters (who aren't Republicans) would rather support a green party or constitutional party candidate or some small party...
(d) What segment of the registered-voter pie does that leave? Independents, who are about 1/3rd of all registered voters...All Obama would need to do is to capture about 42% of Independent voters, and he has that 46% of the vote I mentioned above.
So you think that Romney -- after the MSM & Dems get done with him -- will be able to grab more than a quarter of registered Independents? (I don't think so)
And even if he could, getting 1/3rd of the Independents would probably only give him 35-36% of the overall vote; getting 1/2 of the Independents would probably only give him 41-42% of the vote...
He won't win.
So why waste your vote
and your reputation
and your FREEPER credibility
being his personal apologist????
“Ask yourselves if you would rather have a Mormon or a Muslim as President of the United States.”
What’s the difference? Substantially they’re the same religion, only one is import while the other is domestic. But where the rubber meets the road, Joseph Smith Jr. called himself a modern day Mohamed, America’s first large-scale act of domestic terrorism was perpetuated by Mormons (google “Mountain Meadow Massacre” and note the date), and the two religions even hold conferences together:
http://www.uvu.edu/religiousstudies/mormonismandislam/