His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

[clarionite]

Republicans aren't the answer but neither are Democrats. Elected officials who adhere to the Constitution are the answer.

Exactly correct!

Also to blame are the people who won't vote for friends of the Constitution "because they can't win" in a circular argument that would be very familiar to Captain John Yossarian.

Get one of those friends of the Constitution on the ballot with a chance to win... Then maybe we'll vote for them. Either Obama or Romney will be the next president. Any vote for another candidate in this election has the same effect as a vote for Obama IMO.

[smoothoperator]

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

[glockstero]

Anyone voting for anyone other than Romney are just closet Obama supporters looking for cover. They know a vote for a 3rd party candidate is nothing more than a vote for Obama.

[clarionite]

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

What point? You didn't make one.

Do you care to explain how voting for anyone other than Obama or Romney for this election will cause someone other than Obama or Romney to win?

If someone supported Obama, they'd vote for him. A vote for anyone else (who if you're honest with yourself, you know won't win) is nothing but a vote being taken from the Romney bucket.

I support your right to do so, I'm just not naive enough to think it accomplishes anything.

[RoyGBiv]

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Try not to ignore the fact that your chance to get your candidate in a position to win was during the primaries. Once your candidate loses his primary, he has no chance to win the general election. To dream otherwise is to tilt at windmills.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Also to blame are the people who won't vote for friends of the Constitution "because they can't win" in a circular argument that would be very familiar to Captain John Yossarian.

Please identify these "friends" these candidates?

Chas.

[baldeagle]

Republicans aren't the answer but neither are Democrats. Elected officials who adhere to the Constitution are the answer.

Exactly correct!

Also to blame are the people who won't vote for friends of the Constitution "because they can't win" in a circular argument that would be very familiar to Captain John Yossarian.

In case you haven't noticed, while the Paulites and Libertarians have been tilting at windmills the Tea Party people have been busy getting Constitutionalists elected in the Republican primaries and in the general elections.

If anyone is really serious about a third party, they will start by electing local officials, move to state legislatures and then to Congress and finally the Presidency. Not the other way around. It is beyond foolhardy to vote for a third party candidate in a Presidential election. They have zero chance of being elected and a marginal chance of affecting any but the closest elections. Once in a blue moon they can actually change an election (think Ross Perot and Bill Clinton.) And yes, I voted for Ross Perot. I didn't really care about the Presidency, because Congress was Republican, and I wanted to make a statement (as apparently did a lot of other people.)

But, in THIS election, if you vote for anyone other than Romney, you're a fool on a fool's errand. Obama will complete the destruction of America if he's re-elected. This is not the time for statements. This is the time for saving the Republic.

Edited: Here's Wikipedia's list of all the independent Presidential candidates and their successes. The only independent candidate since 1948 to win a single state is George Wallace.

[The Annoyed Man]

Republicans aren't the answer but neither are Democrats. Elected officials who adhere to the Constitution are the answer.

Exactly correct!

Also to blame are the people who won't vote for friends of the Constitution "because they can't win" in a circular argument that would be very familiar to Captain John Yossarian.

Apples, meet oranges.

Yossarian (the protagonist of "Catch 22") had no choice. He was merely the victim of someone else's immoral scheme. You, on the other hand, have a choice. You can vote any way you like, but the only non-negotiable is that your vote will have consequences. The only way to divorce your choice from that is to divorce yourself from reality. You have a choice to vote for the candidate of your purist ideology, who WILL NOT be elected because there simply are not enough voters who are as ideologically pure as you; or you can vote for Obama; or you can vote for the less than ideologically pure candidate who has a statistical chance of beating Obama....Mitt Romney.

Since you cannot divorce the consequences from your choices, then you are necessarily OK with those consequences. One of those consequences is that the next president will probably nominate 2 or 3 SCOTUS judges to the bench. Your guy is never going to get that chance, so the opportunity to do this will devolve to either Obama or Romney. We are absolutely assured that any Obama nominee will be someone in the Ginsburg/Sotomayor/Kagan mold. We can reasonably believe that a Romney appointee will be someone closer to the Alito/Scalia/Thomas mold. The first will make sure that you lose your gun rights the instant the right case comes before the court. The latter will make sure that at least some if not all of your gun rights will be preserved in any case that comes before the court.

So when Obama wins and appoints 2 or 3 Ginsburg/Sotomayor/Kagan justices to the bench, Diane Feinstein succeeds in getting some version of a permanent AWB passed as she promised at the DNC, and the NRA challenges the law before an overwhelmingly liberal SCOTUS, and we permanently lose the right to our affected firearms, you will be OK with that, because that was the natural and logical consequence of your inability to separate your vaunted ideological purity from the practicality of survival.

OTH, if Romney wins despite libertarian sabotage voting, you will happily claim the liberties you were not willing to vote to protect for yourself by voting for the only possible candidate who can beat Obama.

It's not just selfish, it is self-destructive. In THIS particular election, a libertarian purist is like a man dying of thirst in the desert who, when offered a choice between an ice-cold Coke or a cup of warm toilet water will scream "I HATE Coke! I demand a Pepsi, and I'm not drinking anything until you bring me one!"

Good luck with that.

[lbuehler325]

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

What point? You didn't make one.

Do you care to explain how voting for anyone other than Obama or Romney for this election will cause someone other than Obama or Romney to win?

If someone supported Obama, they'd vote for him. A vote for anyone else (who if you're honest with yourself, you know won't win) is nothing but a vote being taken from the Romney bucket.

I support your right to do so, I'm just not naive enough to think it accomplishes anything.

A vote for a candidate other than Obama or Romney is not in any way, shape, or form a vote for Obama. There will be a Communist candidate on many state ballots. A vote for that schmuck is certainly not a vote for Obama... and guess what? It is neither a vote for Romney. It is simply a vote for that marginal tier candidate.

But, think about it this way. As a Constitution loving, oath swearing defender of liberty, why would I vote for a candidate if I truly believed he/she does not stand for the principles of liberty, freedom, and individual rights? Because they are the lesser of two evil choices? Wouldn't that be an endorsement of evil? I am a Republican, and have voted Republican consistently since my 18th birthday, but I will now only vote for candidates who represent what I support. If I vote for Romney (a guy whom I do not believe understands or respects these principles), aren't I just saying that I endorse his philosophy for my party? Thanks, but no thanks. The lessor of two evils is still evil.

Look, I am not certain who I'll vote for in the general election. TX does not recognize write-ins, so my first choice isn't an option. While, I agree with Gary Johnson (L/R) on many things, there are some major sticking points (particularly how he supports foreign aid and intervention in some instances and not others, as well as his views on the right to life for all humans makes me think he doesn't fully embrace liberty).

The theory I will subscribe to is I will ultimately vote for a candidate who will expand my liberty, as the guy who'll erode it away slowly will still erode it away.

[baldeagle]

A vote for a candidate other than Obama or Romney is not in any way, shape, or form a vote for Obama. There will be a Communist candidate on many state ballots. A vote for that schmuck is certainly not a vote for Obama... and guess what? It is neither a vote for Romney. It is simply a vote for that marginal tier candidate.

Is this really that hard to understand? Any vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote that benefits Obama. Obama doesn't need you to vote for him. He just needs you to NOT vote for Romney.

Let's see if I can simplify this. Let's say there were 5700 people allowed to vote in America - 100 people for every state in the Union.

If, in each state, 48% of them vote for Obama, 47% vote for Romney and 5% vote for some other candidate(s), guess who wins? OTOH, if those 5% vote for Romney, guess who wins?

As for your Constitution loving candidate, there hasn't been a President (and very few Congressmen) who stood on principle for the Constitution and never wavered since the 1800's and possibly the 1700's (depending on how rigid you are on principle.) Abraham Lincoln, for example, suspended habeas corpus so he could arrest his enemies without probably cause or due process. It may or may not have been the right thing to do, but it was certainly unConstitutional.

Besides, as I keep saying and very few seem to listen, the Presidency doesn't matter nearly as much as Congress. If we had a Constitutional Congress, even people like Kagan and Sotomayor would never make it to the Court. Congress simply wouldn't allow it. If we had a Constitutional Congress, Obama would have already been impeached, convicted and thrown out of office.

So stand on principle for your Representative and Senator, but for the love of freedom and liberty, hold your nose and vote for Romney. In this election, it is absolutely critical.

Or, as TAM analogizes, die from dehydration in the desert.

I wonder how proud people will be of their principles if America becomes a communist country, their guns are confiscated and they're thrown in prison? That's what's at stake. Either that or another civil war.

[Jim Beaux]

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

What point? You didn't make one.

Do you care to explain how voting for anyone other than Obama or Romney for this election will cause someone other than Obama or Romney to win?

If someone supported Obama, they'd vote for him. A vote for anyone else (who if you're honest with yourself, you know won't win) is nothing but a vote being taken from the Romney bucket.

I support your right to do so, I'm just not naive enough to think it accomplishes anything.

A vote for a candidate other than Obama or Romney is not in any way, shape, or form a vote for Obama. There will be a Communist candidate on many state ballots. A vote for that schmuck is certainly not a vote for Obama... and guess what? It is neither a vote for Romney. It is simply a vote for that marginal tier candidate.

But, think about it this way. As a Constitution loving, oath swearing defender of liberty, why would I vote for a candidate if I truly believed he/she does not stand for the principles of liberty, freedom, and individual rights? Because they are the lesser of two evil choices? Wouldn't that be an endorsement of evil? I am a Republican, and have voted Republican consistently since my 18th birthday, but I will now only vote for candidates who represent what I support. If I vote for Romney (a guy whom I do not believe understands or respects these principles), aren't I just saying that I endorse his philosophy for my party? Thanks, but no thanks. The lessor of two evils is still evil.

Look, I am not certain who I'll vote for in the general election. TX does not recognize write-ins, so my first choice isn't an option. While, I agree with Gary Johnson (L/R) on many things, there are some major sticking points (particularly how he supports foreign aid and intervention in some instances and not others, as well as his views on the right to life for all humans makes me think he doesn't fully embrace liberty).

The theory I will subscribe to is I will ultimately vote for a candidate who will expand my liberty, as the guy who'll erode it away slowly will still erode it away.

Do you care to explain how voting for anyone other than Obama or Romney for this election will cause someone other than Obama or Romney to win?

One could only explain this concept to someone who has a firmer grasp of logic.


"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Edmund Burke

[clarionite]

Do you care to explain how voting for anyone other than Obama or Romney for this election will cause someone other than Obama or Romney to win?

One could only explain this concept to someone who has a firmer grasp of logic.

Then make an attempt at educating me.
I may not agree with you, but program logic day in and day out. If I can teach a computer, I'm sure I can be taught.
I'm truely interested in how someone believes that a vote for someone other than the two front runners does anything other than helping Obama.
Surely you can't argue that someone other than Obama or Romney will be the next president.

Edited: To fix my quote blocks.

[anygunanywhere]

One must be careful to not label stubbornness as principle. Standing on groundless principle has sent many men to their grave needlessly.

This election is in fact black and white, and please note that this is in no way pertaining to race. We, as peoples who love America, must do everything to unseat this vile infection living in the white house and the congress, as surely as if it is a leech sucking our life blood. If this does not happen because of voters who are standing on false principle, then when the whole thing is flushed down the sewer, don't come crying about how life sucks. You did it, you live with it. Eat your principle.

Anygunanywhere

[WildBill]

Do you care to explain how voting for anyone other than Obama or Romney for this election will cause someone other than Obama or Romney to win?

One could only explain this concept to someone who has a firmer grasp of logic.

Then make an attempt at educating me.
I may not agree with you, but program logic day in and day out. If I can teach a computer, I'm sure I can be taught.
I'm truely interested in how someone believes that a vote for someone other than the two front runners does anything other than helping Obama.
Surely you can't argue that someone other than Obama or Romney will be the next president.

Edited: To fix my quote blocks.

I will try. Let's say a poll shows Obama with 49% of the vote and Romney also at 49%, with 2% undecided. Of course polls have a margin of error.

Let's say that another candidate [Ron Paul for example] is running. Since most of the Ron Paul supporters would be conservative, voting for him would be likely take away votes from Romney. So if the 2% undecided voted for Paul and other 2% moved from Romney to Paul, then Obama would get 49%, Romney 47% and Paul 4%. Therefore Obama would win. Some people claim this is what happened with Clinton and Ross Perot.

[Jim Beaux]

Do you care to explain how voting for anyone other than Obama or Romney for this election will cause someone other than Obama or Romney to win?

One could only explain this concept to someone who has a firmer grasp of logic.

Then make an attempt at educating me.
I may not agree with you, but program logic day in and day out. If I can teach a computer, I'm sure I can be taught.
I'm truely interested in how someone believes that a vote for someone other than the two front runners does anything other than helping Obama.
Surely you can't argue that someone other than Obama or Romney will be the next president.

Edited: To fix my quote blocks.

Logic tells me that my efforts will be better rewarded trying to push a rope then trying to help with your misconceptions.