His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

[Heartland Patriot]

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.

Especially with the last sentence.

[canvasbck]

I find all this talk about how your vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama to be hillarious. Texas will be a red state.........period. Your vote for POTUS is completely useless in the state of Texas. The only individual vote that matters are the votes cast in battleground states thanks to our electoral process. The only impact that you, as a Texan, can have on the election at a federal level is through campaign contributions. The $$$ that you give to a campaign can be used to sway votes in those battlegound states.

The idea that casting a vote for a non-viable candidate is a circular arguement because if people would vote for him, then he would be viable is equally absurd. The candidate (Gary Johnson) is non-viable because he is seriously under funded. He's not going to get votes because 80% of voters couldn't pick him out of a lineup if he was the only caucasion in the lineup. Why does the general public not know who he is???? Because he doesn't have the funds to get his name out there!!!!!! If you yearn for a "defender of the constitution" to be a viable candidate then send money to the party that you think represents you, or volunteer to help with the campaign and recruit others to do the same.

At this point I don't know who I'm casting a vote for POTUS in November, other than the fact that I know it won't be BHO. The fact is IT DOESN'T MATTER! The down ticket races are a different issue, I will vote for viable candidates that closely match my views. (Or at least don't oppose most of my desires). I have sent a modest donation to the Romney campaign to do what I can to evict the current occupier. Some day, maybe the Libertarian party will adopt a reasonable foriegn policy and they too will get some of my hard earned scratch.

[clarionite]

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.

Bill,

You're arguing the same point I am. <G>

Marty

[clarionite]

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

I've typed 4 responses and then reworded them in an attempt to respond to this in a manner in which it deserves but still give an active member of this forum some respect. But I don't believe it's possible.

If you're not going to participate in a debate with reason, the please don't participate with snide remarks.

[WildBill]

I find all this talk about how your vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama to be hillarious. Texas will be a red state.........period. Your vote for POTUS is completely useless in the state of Texas.

So do you think that if Romney wins 51% percent of the popular vote in Texas, vs 98%, a person's vote is useless? I may not affect the final result, but I think it would say a lot to voters throughout the country.

[anygunanywhere]

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

Pig wrasslin'.

The winners and losers will be declared on election day.

Anygunanywhere

[canvasbck]

I find all this talk about how your vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama to be hillarious. Texas will be a red state.........period. Your vote for POTUS is completely useless in the state of Texas.

So do you think that if Romney wins 51% percent of the popular vote in Texas, vs 98%, a person's vote is useless? I may not affect the final result, but I think it would say a lot to voters throughout the country.

Nice of you to leave out the rest of my post where I argue that your money/time means more than your actual vote if you live in a non-battlegound state.

This is a red herring........Texas will not be 51% nor will it be 98%.

If polling data showed that Tx had even a chance of being a close race, then I would be on the "A vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote for Obama" bandwagon. No recent polls have been completed for our state, but I'm pretty sure that Tx will move into the "solidly Romney" category before Nov. If Tx winds up breaking 60% for Romney instead of 61% for Romney, no one will care.

BTW, 60 vs 61 would be a more reasonable scenario for the effect that "protest voters" could potentially have than your 98% vs 51%.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm not pointing to any particular Member, but if the snide personal remarks don't stop now, this thread will be locked.

Chas.

[Jim Beaux]

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

I've typed 4 responses and then reworded them in an attempt to respond to this in a manner in which it deserves but still give an active member of this forum some respect. But I don't believe it's possible.

If you're not going to participate in a debate with reason, the please don't participate with snide remarks.

1. You have the option to ignore any here you wish.

2. You are confusing being snide with being indifferent and btw, it is clearly an exercise in futility to "participate" in accordance to your definition of "reason". Sorry to disappoint ya, but I will dance to my choice of music.

3. Today's referendum is to remove obama and try to repair our country. We can not afford the luxury of the self indulgence you "3rd party guys" advocate.

4. I think most here agree that Texas electoral votes will go to Romney. But that is not what you have argued:

clarionite wrote:
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?

[clarionite]

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

I've typed 4 responses and then reworded them in an attempt to respond to this in a manner in which it deserves but still give an active member of this forum some respect. But I don't believe it's possible.

If you're not going to participate in a debate with reason, the please don't participate with snide remarks.

1. You have the option to ignore any here you wish.

2. You are confusing being snide with being indifferent and btw, it is clearly an exercise in futility to "participate" in accordance to your definition of "reason". Sorry to disappoint ya, but I will dance to my choice of music.

3. Today's referendum is to remove obama and try to repair our country. We can not afford the luxury of the self indulgence you "3rd party guys" advocate.

4. I think most here agree that Texas electoral votes will go to Romney. But that is not what you have argued:

clarionite wrote:
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?

I'm not arguing for 3rd party guys. Quite the contrary. I've asked how voting for a 3rd party guy in the election amounts to anything other than a vote for Obama.
At this point, I see the election as you do in #3 above. If 3rd party candidates are going to have any effect, it's going to have to be at the local level first.

as far as your #2, I didn't confuse anything. You started with a comment to me about my lack of logic (a personal attack that I ignored). I earnestly asked you to attempt to educate me. You made a snide remark about pushing a rope. That's not indifference. I'm more than willing to listen to another's viewpoint. I've learned more than I'd care to admit from listening to others argue their case. It pains me to admit that until the 2000 Election, I voted ... It's embarrassing... Democrat. When I looked at Al Gore, something didn't add up. His beliefs were so polar opposite to mine that I started talking to more and more people about their beliefs.

[RoyGBiv]

This pretty well sums up my feelings...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/ ... -unite-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Worth a few minutes of your time, IMO...

Instead of a guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, our culture would be reshaped by a growing collectivist power, vested in the state, that would command ever more resources and control. The claim of “leveling the playing field” is, in reality, a plan to control the outcome.

I believe this to be the true goal of the Democratic Party and I fear that they are but a hair's breadth from success.
I can swallow almost any pill to vote for the only person with a snowballs chance in Hades of beating Obama.
This is not a time for posturing and steadfast idealism. Over the next 4 to 8 years we (you, me, Tea Party, Libertarians, etc) can fix what the GOP might do if we don't like their actions. What Obama will do to us if reelected sure feels like something we might never recover from.

IMO, YMMV.

[canvasbck]

I think I missed the mark earlier. The ultimate goal here is to get BHO out of the white house. Instead of emploring people to vote for Romney in a state that Romney is going to carry anyway, emplore people to help the Romney campaign. Or if someone wants Obama out of office but can't bring themselves to support Romney, help out one of the many super PACs that are committed to help with Obama's ouster.

Unfortunately, we live in a sound bite society. As a whole, voters are too lazy to do some research to find out which candidate reflects their own beliefs, opting to instead vote for the guy they would most like to have a beer with. The MSM has done a fabulous job of painting Obama as the kind of guy you would like to have a beer with. Without counter arguments being made in 30 second soud bites, directly to a voter's recliner, swing states will fade to blue and the country slides into preverbial toilet. I am loathe to send my hard earned money to a politician, but if I can spend $200 a month on shooting, I can sure send $100 one time to a candidate who opposes the one who would take away my ability to continue shooting if I so choose.

I was on a hunting trip in Mexico some years ago and I was having a conversation with the ranch owner about the corrupt Mexican government. He made the following statement that I can still remember verbatum; "Every country gets the government that they deserve. We never fought for anything so we have the corrupt government that we now have. Americans fought for freedom and a representative government and that is what you now have." I am afraid that we are now on the path that his country took. Fighting to retain the country we want requires a commitment beyond simply casting a vote. The casting of a vote, makes you part of the collective that only represents Texas and her 38 elctoral votes. Supporting a campaign before election day spreads your desire to the handfull of states that will actually pick our president.

[emcee rib]

Anyone voting for anyone other than Romney are just closet Obama supporters looking for cover.

Burning bridges is a bold strategy but if your guy doesn't win, you can find the reason in the mirror.

[philip964]

So is it racist to use all three of his names?

It does seem odd that some guy in Ohio is going to decide who is president, depending on whether he bothers to vote or votes for Romney.

[lbuehler325]

I find all this talk about how your vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama to be hillarious. Texas will be a red state.........period. Your vote for POTUS is completely useless in the state of Texas. The only individual vote that matters are the votes cast in battleground states thanks to our electoral process. The only impact that you, as a Texan, can have on the election at a federal level is through campaign contributions. The $$$ that you give to a campaign can be used to sway votes in those battlegound states.
quite
The idea that casting a vote for a non-viable candidate is a circular arguement because if people would vote for him, then he would be viable is equally absurd. The candidate (Gary Johnson) is non-viable because he is seriously under funded. He's not going to get votes because 80% of voters couldn't pick him out of a lineup if he was the only caucasion in the lineup. Why does the general public not know who he is???? Because he doesn't have the funds to get his name out there!!!!!! If you yearn for a "defender of the constitution" to be a viable candidate then send money to the party that you think represents you, or volunteer to help with the campaign and recruit others to do the same.

At this point I don't know who I'm casting a vote for POTUS in November, other than the fact that I know it won't be BHO. The fact is IT DOESN'T MATTER! The down ticket races are a different issue, I will vote for viable candidates that closely match my views. (Or at least don't oppose most of my desires). I have sent a modest donation to the Romney campaign to do what I can to evict the current occupier. Some day, maybe the Libertarian party will adopt a reasonable foriegn policy and they too will get some of my hard earned scratch.

I have to agree with canvasbck's explination about $$ and time being the most valuable things we can contribute. I would also add advocacy. That said, Obama is evil (in terms of my world view). Romney is slightly less evil. Johnson is not terribly evil, but doesn't quite get the whole liberty thing (in my opinion). I will vote, but Romney will carry TX with or without my vote. But I will protest my Party by withholding a vote from their colossally flawed nominee. I will not campaign for Romney, I will not donate money to his campaign, and I will take every opportunity to tell others about his flip flopping views, and his anti-liberty record. I'll do this not to reelect Obama, but rather educate others in the hopes of our party embracing liberty and the Constitution at some point (hopefully sooner than later).