For those of you STILL considering voting 3rd party....

[conservativesister]

If you still need to come up with a reason NOT to vote 3rd party remember this : Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time' ...

Employers are going to have to adjust to this (downsize the hours for anyone employed over 30 hrs a week) or go out of business, even if they have to use temp agencies to fulfil the hours needed to complete the work.

[kempster]

And let’s not forget:

In Minnesota, Obamacare to Increase Individual Insurance Premiums by 29%
In Nevada, Obamacare to Increase Individual Insurance Premiums by 11-30%
In Ohio, Obamacare to Increase Individual Insurance Premiums by 55-85%

[SpeakLittle_ThinkMuch]

Or you might just want to watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPjBXufufUU&feature=youtu.be

[OneWingedShark]

Ridiculous argument; it was Roberts who was appointed by a Republican who declared the mandate to be perfectly legit. -- Therefore, we cannot be assured that the 'R' next to a name means that we will get good USSC Justices.

Furthermore, being a republican doesn't mean they support the free market: remember TARP?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

being a republican doesn't mean they support the free market

Maybe not, but being a RAT absolutely means they don't.

[Sloth]

Too late. Already did.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Anyone who tells you they can’t vote for Romney because he misspoke and said “health of the mother” when asked about abortion, and who is thereby disuniting the conservative vote so that the guy who voted for partial-birth abortion and to allow born babies to be killed if they survived an abortion attempt can get elected - these people are idiots.

[The Hound Passer]

True, but we are guaranteed that if Obama picks more justices they will be as left wing as his first two picks. Even Reagan picked a dud or two, but they were/are still better than any current sitting justice appointed by a D president.

[nclaurel]

Pride first Sloth?

[nclaurel]

Pride first Sloth?

[nickcarraway]

Romney has refused to say he’s not proud of starting Obamacare.

[conservativesister]

“Ridiculous argument; “
Care to explain, I’ve missed your point, since I’m talking 3rd party votes that will re-elect Obama.

[unique1]

A third party vote by any member here is a vote for Obama.

[VanDeKoik]

You have to realize that these guys don’t see Obama as a threat. They are perfectly ok with him reeking more havoc for 4 years because they have convinced themselves that Romney is really just like Obama in every way to the point where they will vote for some guy that wont get enough votes to win a state-house seat in Kansas.

Well the rest of us will just have to get our hands “dirty” so they can lazily share in not having Obama to screw with them for another 4 years.

[Bubba_Leroy]

If you live in Texas, California, New York or any other state that is an absolute lock for either Romney or Obama (you know you live in one of these states if neither side is spending a cent on ads where you live) then I have no problem if you want to cast a principled vote for a third party candidate.

But if you live in a state that could possibly swing either way then you need to decide whether our nation can survive four more years of Obamanation, hold your nose, and vote for Romney.

[INVAR]

Romney’s not gonna do a DAMNED THING to repeal ObamaCare.

So your argument is all wet and I don’t buy it, nor will I cast a vote for Romney.

All my votes go to Conservatives only.

Pound sand if you don’t like it.

There is no such thing as a political savior.

[WVKayaker]

Romney’s not gonna do a DAMNED THING to repeal ObamaCare.

Well, I am sure you are correct with that statement, but for one tiny fact. CONGRESS MAKES AND/OR REPEALS LAWS! Presidents sign or veto only! (unless your name is Obama and you have Dingy Harry at your six!

Did you ever take a Civics class?

... Under the separation of powers, each branch of government has a specific function. The legislative branch—the Congress—makes the laws. The executive branch—the president—implements the laws. The judiciary—the court system—interprets the laws and decides legal controversies. ...-excerpted from Free Dictionary.com

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

I voted early. Had he not chosen Ryan, he wouldn’t have gotten my vote. Here’s hoping Ryan will be “Cheney” to Romney’s “Bush.”

[Gertie]

This has got to be the definition of a “Brain Fart”.

[OneWingedShark]

“Ridiculous argument; “
Care to explain, I’ve missed your point, since I’m talking 3rd party votes that will re-elect Obama.

Sure.
First though we have to recognize what is legitimate, what is not, and what is dangerous as 'solution' to the problem of Obamacare (the ACA).

The first argument put forward by the Romney/"Romney because he's the Republican" crowd is that he'll repeal Obamacare; this is illegitimate, the Executive cannot legitimately exercise the legislative act of repealing a law.

The Second is like the first, except that it is of questionable legitimacy and much danger: the issuance of "exemption waivers." These waivers acknowledge the States as wholly subservient to the Presidency, dangerous in itself, but with the added danger of enabling them [or more particularly recension of the waiver] to be used as extortion upon the states.

Third, the one I referenced because of the thread, is the assertion: Republican in office -> good judge appointments. Indeed the liberal activist judge appointments of Romney's own history provide both the refutation of that and a stark warning against believing those who claim that he will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court.

Lastly we come to the acts of the Legislature, this is the best, surest, and most legitimate means to repeal/invalidate the ACA. In order to have a clear idea though of the question we must separate the image/idea the Republican-party encourages and what the party actually does; it is my contention that the Republican-party does not do what it says it will do, that it is all talk.

1. The 2nd Amendment -- The Republicans claim a lot of credit for the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) becoming inactive on their watch, but it must be pointed out that the AWB had a sunset clause, meaning they literally had to do nothing to get it to end. Also consider the GCA and NFA, both are considerable impositions on the 2nd amendment, but I'm unaware of the Republican party ever having anyone big/important/not-a-kook advocating they be repealed.
2. The Bill of Rights -- The Republican party has been a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, and of the sets of policies I can think of none that have had a more deleterious effect on the legitimacy/power of the Bill of Rights than the War on Drugs. The fourth amendment is all but destroyed, with no-knock midnight raids being held as reasonable, with the sound of toilets flushing being considered justifying "exigent circumstances" ("destroying evidence"; which means the sound of silence could be you deleting child porn and thus justifying exigent circumstances), and an increase in "oops, wrong-house" incidents. That leads into the degradation of the 5th amendment, it is not the police who are to "kill `em all and let God sort `em out," but that is what happens sometimes [and getting more frequent as the police are further militarized], nor is the government to take your property because it imagines it can get more taxes giving it to someone else (Kelo) or simply arresting it [the property] because it was "involved" in drugs. The sixth amendment is also violated in that many laws are held to be legitimate and binding upon the jury, which can often be instantly tainted by claiming drugs were involved. Lastly, consider the eighth amendment: are the sentences just, or does a ten, fifteen, twenty, life sentence being locked up like an animal degrade and devalue human dignity?
3. Limited government -- When has the Republican party, as a whole, even tried to dissolve any federal-level bureaucracy? EPA? FDA? DOE? The other DOE? Dept. of Agriculture? ATF? FCC? DEA?
4. Fiscal responsibility -- See the above. (Also look at how Ron Paul is treated on forums like here, despite the fact that dismantling the Federal Reserve would likely be one good step towards curbing out of control government spending and despite that auditing [faithfully and honestly] the Federal Reserve cannot be a bad thing.)
5. Government accountability -- Look at the fiasco of Fast & Furious, on its face the operation was state sponsored terrorism, unauthorized acts of war, and quite possibly Treason... but what has come of it? More poignantly, ask yourself if it is a reasonable prediction that nothing will come of it.
6. They respect their constituents -- Remember NY-23? That was where the national party endorsed the Democrat over the Tea Party candidate who won the primary.

So, there is plenty of reason to think that the Republican party is not what most people think it is, to indicate that they are [as a group] incompetent, complacent, or complicit.
If any of those three is true, then a vote for the Republican Party is indeed a wasted vote. (The complacent, being the most transient, might be destroyed if they started losing people... the other two are far more permanent.)

Lastly, it is not an Obama reelection that is dangerous, it is the continuance of a complacent/corrupted congress.
Congress has a lot of power that they don't use, like the regulation of [the value of] currency; letters of marque and reprisal; the removal of federal judges; the barring of Supreme Court jurisdiction; and to a lesser degree, impeachment.

Much of what outrages you about this administration is not so much "the Obama administration" but actually the Obama Administration and the Congress working together. Consider the Czars, these allow the government to impose policies via the Burearchy [which Congress creates and sustains] that would not get passed in/by Congress w/o the people becoming aroused, but they also give a completely believable excuse for the Congress to point to: "it wasn't me, it was the President you gave me!" to paraphrase a well-known Bible story.

[OneWingedShark]

You have to realize that these guys don’t see Obama as a threat.

That's because the biggest, and least talked about, [federal] governmental threat isn't Obama... it's the Congress, more specifically a Congress which does not live up to its responsibilities nor use its powers for good.

To put it another way, the President is not the All Father of American governance.

[roamer_1]

So... Waiving the boogey-man card. What does that have to do with offering up a candidate worthy of voting *for*?

[samtheman]

If you live in Texas, California, New York or any other state that is an absolute lock for either Romney or Obama (you know you live in one of these states if neither side is spending a cent on ads where you live) then I have no problem if you want to cast a principled vote for a third party candidate.

I disagree. The popular vote count really matters in this election.

[conservativesister]

“Waiving the boogey-man card.”
Not hardly, it is as simple as this. All my employees will get cut back to 25 hours and the work load will be handled by a temp agency. Anyone that cannot make it on 25 hours will be be replaced by temps.
It’s not that I want to use temps, but this is business.
I want to keep my employees but I won’t be able to if Obama gets re-elected. BOTTOM LINE!
So if you voted 3rd party and got Obama elected you just cost my employees a pay cut, not the boogey man just FACT!

[conservativesister]

“Waiving the boogey-man card.”
Not hardly, it is as simple as this. All my employees will get cut back to 25 hours and the work load will be handled by a temp agency. Anyone that cannot make it on 25 hours will be be replaced by temps.
It’s not that I want to use temps, but this is business.
I want to keep my employees but I won’t be able to if Obama gets re-elected. BOTTOM LINE!
So if you voted 3rd party and got Obama elected you just cost my employees a pay cut, not the boogey man just FACT!

[TBP]

So Gov. Etch-A-Sketch, the author of the Obamacare model, whose advisors helped write Obamacare, is going to repeal it? Really?

[SubMareener]

We know for CERTAIN that 0bama will continue and “enhance” Obamacare. If Romney doesn’t, we would be no worse off. So however you vote for 0bama, either directly or through a third party, you will know for CERTAIN what you will get.

[roamer_1]

I want to keep my employees but I won’t be able to if Obama gets re-elected. BOTTOM LINE! So if you voted 3rd party and got Obama elected you just cost my employees a pay cut, not the boogey man just FACT!

Unless you sub-contract an employment agency to handle your employees, which I did 10 years ago in my business.

So yeah. Boogeyman. No sale.

Voting for a liberal in order to defeat a liberal is a waste of time. You will get liberalism. Count on it.

[discostu]

I see Obama as a threat. I also see Congress as a threat (the biggest threat really, because they decide if even a good president can get anything done). And Romney as a threat. I also live in AZ so my vote doesn’t matter.

[TBP]

A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for that candidate, NOT for anyone else, i.e., Obama. Period.

[INVAR]

You obviously have no clue what time it is, nor have you been paying attention to what power has been amassed by the Executive.

But apart from that -

When I say Romney’s not going to do a damn thing to repeal ObamaCare - that INCLUDES setting a legislative agenda (which President’s do if you bothered to notice) for Congress to follow that involves repealing ObamaCare. Romney is not going to touch ObamaCare beyond possibly suggesting some minor modifications.

Given what Reid said last week, we have nary a hope or prayer to repeal this thing unless a miracle occurs and the TEA Party takes the Senate as well as the House.

Not gonna happen.

All we have left us, is refusal to comply - and to suffer the consequences for doing so.

That’s fact and reality - you can lie to yourself and pretend otherwise if you want - but I live in real-ville, not fantasyland.

[SubMareener]

When you know that the effect will be to elect 0bama, then you are voting for 0bama.

[OneWingedShark]

So... Waiving the boogey-man card. What does that have to do with offering up a candidate worthy of voting *for*?

Very well said.

[TBP]

Not true. You’re voting for the candidate you’re supporting. You presume those votes would otherwise go Republican. Many of them wouldn’t. They would just be non-voters.

[Sirius Lee]

Pride first Sloth?

Mitt is proud of obamneycare. I'll vote for Mitt, but only because I hate him slightly less than I hate obama.

It's not much of an endorsement, but it's all you'll get from this Conservative.

[WVKayaker]

...but I live in real-ville, not fantasyland.

Keep telling yourself that, and maybe you will believe it! I know better.

The reality is that we have three choices (Romney, Obama, nothing!). Two of them may lead to a Zero win!

Enjoy your freedom to complain about the choices! I'm gonna vote for the future of my grandchildren and Romney, tho not my first choice (see my tagline for reference!), is the only one on the ticket that can defeat Zero! He has my vote, and my children (1/NC, 2-VA, 1-OK) will be checking that box, as well!

[nclaurel]

Likely all any Conservative will give him unless he proves to live up to his promises.

[INVAR]

I keep reminding myself that it is a sin as a Christian to loft a politician to savior status. Too many Americans have done so.

I know better than to empower a defacto-monarchy by the false-belief that trading ‘their’ evil king, for our ‘chosen’ king somehow saves the nation from the abyss.

Anyone who thinks voting for Romney saves the nation is committing idolatry against God first and foremost, secondly they have given themselves over to acquiescing to a defacto monarchy which is anathema to our foundations, and thirdly - I’m not stupid enough to let myself believe that the consequences of the last 2 decades are not going to be visited in full upon us because we voted for the liberal Ruling Class poster boy.

Getting rid of Obama as a solitary impetus to vote for Romney is surrendering to monarchy, and I keep reading example after example of it.

Voting for Romney is an abandonment of Conservative and Christians principles - and I refuse to betray them any longer. Been doing it for decades since Reagan - and we are in this mess in part because of that.

I vote Conservative and Christian, PERIOD. End of sentence. And not a single vote anyone casts for Romney is going to ‘fix’ or stop the consequences this nation has earned for itself. Voting 3rd Party for a solid Conservative when none is available is principle in action, even if a majority says it isn’t. But then I’m not governed by populism, I’m governed by God.

Too many have sold out what little principles they had left out of expedience and out of fear. The consequences of that - are far beyond Obama and I’m stunned to a degree at how many people have bought into the fear, and the lie and have no clue what they are contributing to.

But I guarantee you - it in no manner possible, resorts or returns us to what we once were. It warps us into something far more insidious - even moreso than the Marxism we’re supposedly trying to stop.

Romney is NO SALVATION for this country, and no savior from Obama. Idolatry is something that guarantees our destruction, and I refuse to participate in it.

[INVAR]

I keep reminding myself that it is a sin as a Christian to loft a politician to savior status. Too many Americans have done so.

I know better than to empower a defacto-monarchy by the false-belief that trading ‘their’ evil king, for our ‘chosen’ king somehow saves the nation from the abyss.

Anyone who thinks voting for Romney saves the nation is committing idolatry against God first and foremost, secondly they have given themselves over to acquiescing to a defacto monarchy which is anathema to our foundations, and thirdly - I’m not stupid enough to let myself believe that the consequences of the last 2 decades are not going to be visited in full upon us because we voted for the liberal Ruling Class poster boy.

Getting rid of Obama as a solitary impetus to vote for Romney is surrendering to monarchy, and I keep reading example after example of it.

Voting for Romney is an abandonment of Conservative and Christians principles - and I refuse to betray them any longer. Been doing it for decades since Reagan - and we are in this mess in part because of that.

I vote Conservative and Christian, PERIOD. End of sentence. And not a single vote anyone casts for Romney is going to ‘fix’ or stop the consequences this nation has earned for itself. Voting 3rd Party for a solid Conservative when none is available is principle in action, even if a majority says it isn’t. But then I’m not governed by populism, I’m governed by God.

Too many have sold out what little principles they had left out of expedience and out of fear. The consequences of that - are far beyond Obama and I’m stunned to a degree at how many people have bought into the fear, and the lie and have no clue what they are contributing to.

But I guarantee you - it in no manner possible, resorts or returns us to what we once were. It warps us into something far more insidious - even moreso than the Marxism we’re supposedly trying to stop.

Romney is NO SALVATION for this country, and no savior from Obama. Idolatry is something that guarantees our destruction, and I refuse to participate in it.

[Bubba_Leroy]

The popular vote count really matters in this election.

Why?

As far as the election goes, it makes no difference whether Romney loses California by 10,000 votes or 1,000,000. All that matters is that Romney wins enough states to get him over 270 electoral votes.

Also, as far as the Democrats and the lamestream media go, it doesn't matter if Romney wins with less than 50% of the popular vote or with a landslide, they will never recognize that he has a mandate or even that he legitimately won.

Before Obama, do you know who the last Democrat President was that won more than 50% of the popular vote? Jimmy Carter in 1976 (barely making it over with 50.08% of the popular vote).

Before Carter you have to go back to LBJ in 1964. Before LBJ you have to go back to FDR (Kennedy and Truman each won with less than 50%). Before FDR you have to go all the way back to Martin Van Buren in 1836, and that was before there were any Republicans (or any states west of Missouri).

In 2004, Bush won with 51% of the popular vote, beating EVERY Democrat President EVER elected except LBJ, FDR, Martin Van Buren (1836) and Andrew Jackson (1832). How legitimate did the media consider Bush after 2004? For that matter, Reagan won almost 59% of the popular vote in 1984. How legitimate did the media consider Reagan?

Personally, I hope that Obama loses by a nationwide landslide, but every vote for any candidate other than Obama reduces Obama's percentage of the popular vote.

[WVKayaker]

DUDE, you MAY have such great points (in your mind), except they do not address anything I said. Where did I Idolize Romney? Where have I said he will save anything. I didn't, but that doesn't seem to make it through your blinders. Jesus paid that price for me and all of us.

Why do you think you are speaking for God? What special message do you have that the rest of us Christians don't get?

I know Him, and believe me, you aren't His spokesman. You are just a voice trying to get attention. We call them attention whores...

I'm a Christian. I have actively posted on many anti-Mormon threads, as I believe they are a cult. But I am not voting for a preacher! Nor, am I electing a Pope! I am voting for sensible change to the existing situation, and praying that God will restore our nation.

Vote or don't vote, but get off that "high horse" (or probably hobby horse) and get real. You claim to be a Christian, so I won't question that. But, as a life-long Conservative, I will vote for the lesser evil (as it may be). I will stand with my choice, Sarah Palin, behind Mitt Romney for our next President.

With his business background, and record of making things work,he will stand a better chance for change that that hopey, changey Magic Negro!

Don't bother replying, because I am shaking the dust from my feet!!!

[Darren McCarty]

A worst case Romney scenario is this. Eric Holder fired. Sebelius gone as HHS. No Kagan. That’s good enough for me at this point.

[INVAR]

DUDE, you MAY have such great points (in your mind), except they do not address anything I said

Neither have you addressed what I have said, outside of asserting that I need a civics lesson because I dared to state Romney's not going to do anything (including setting an agenda) that will work to repeal ObamaCare.

Where did I Idolize Romney? Where have I said he will save anything.

"I'm gonna vote for the future of my grandchildren and Romney"

Voting for Romney you apparently assert is 'saving' your grandkids' future/the nation etc. My contention is voting for Romney does no such thing and is on the line of idolatry. We do not have a monarchy. Perhaps I'm not the one in need of a civic's lesson.

Why do you think you are speaking for God?

What's the First Commandment?

Scripture is pretty plain on the issue of putting things before God or making institutions of men or men themselves into saviors. Remember when Israel wanted a king? Remember what God told Samuel? That's right - He told Samuel that the people had rejected God for want of a king. They believed a man would secure their future better than God. That's scripture if you have studied it - not me talking.

I'll say it again, to assert voting for Romney saves the nation or all the consequences of the last 4 decades, or that voting Romney somehow secures the future of our kids and grandkids, is idolatry. No politician is capable of doing any of those things. You would be putting men before God with such thinking. If that statement bothers you - good, it means your conscience is pricked with some truth and you do not like it. But that's fact, whether you want to accept it or not.

I am not voting for a preacher! Nor, am I electing a Pope!

Well, unlike you - I do not compartmentalize my faith. According to the Founders, our faith was supposed to be an active influence on our culture and our choice of representatives was to be a reflection of our faith. If it is so easy to vote the "lesser of evils" then it explains why when someone stands up for righteousness to decry such behavior is obviously something offensive to those who pay lip service to their faith.

Don't bother replying, because I am shaking the dust from my feet!

I guess biblical acumen is not your strong suit - when exactly did Jesus say we were supposed to do that?

Since my words to you are being rejected ( the attention whore you say I am) - I do not believe it is you to whom the admonition applies. But I know what you meant. BTW it's not necessarily you personally I'm making these observations - it's a mindset you have expressed that is in a majority - but it's not a mindset Christians should have - and that's why I'm making an issue out of it.

You do exemplify what II Timothy says about a people having only a form of religion. A people that can put God in a box and compartmentalize their faith. That might anger you - but it is the truth of where Christianity in America has arrived. It explains exactly how and why we have Obama as a ruler in the first place. Lukewarmness.

And in that specific regard, I am speaking on the authority of Jesus Christ because I'm essentially paraphrasing Paul's letter to Timothy for you.

[truth_seeker]

What a crock.

The GOP and GOPers in general, haven’t done everything I want, just as I want, all the time.

So therefore I should accept Obama? What a crock.

Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, desire and try to raise taxes, lower our defenses, weaken our schools, restrict our rights.

GOPers while not perfect, are the better, at keeping taxes lower, our defenses stronger, and our rights and freedoms intact.

[WVKayaker]

Matthew:15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
*****

I will not respond again, since you are an obvious hypocritical attention whore! I know in whom I believe... and it ain’t you, nor Romney. BUT, he has my vote!!

[OneWingedShark]

What a crock.
The GOP and GOPers in general, haven’t done everything I want, just as I want, all the time.
So therefore I should accept Obama? What a crock.

Did I say that? No.

Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, desire and try to raise taxes, lower our defenses, weaken our schools, restrict our rights.
GOPers while not perfect, are the better, at keeping taxes lower, our defenses stronger, and our rights and freedoms intact.

Keeping taxes lower? No, if they wanted to do that they would be severely pushing a flat-rate, no tax-credit, no exemption policy. The "tax cuts" (or rather keeping the Bush Tax-cuts from expiring) are not actual reductions in taxes -- they are to taxes what the Obamacare waivers will be to the states: the assumption of powers subject to arbitrary use/abuse/recension of those in power. (Indeed, has not the mere threat of the tax cuts being allowed to expire been used as political scare tactics?)

Our schools are weak, and are so fundamentally designed to be so: republican and democrat makes no difference. (Much of this weakness is now showing up in other symptoms.)

As to Rights and freedoms, did you even read the portion in my previous post on the War on Drugs?
Those who support the War on Drugs are no friends of the Bill of Rights; the War on Drugs is, after all, total war.

[INVAR]

And your citation of Matthew 15 as it applies to what I said to you that you have declared hypocrisy, is applicable HOW?

I’m eager with anticipation to hear how the verses you cited apply to what I said to you.

Please enlighten me that I may understand someone who says they do not believe me (when I’m referencing the bible), nor do you believe Romney - but you are voting for him because you assert he somehow is the future for your grandkids.

I like the fact you do not believe me, because if you are truly a Christian - you should double check what is said with scripture and do the Berean thing.

How is it then, you are so eager and willing to believe what Romney says rather than examine his record as a good Berean would do? How does that square with applying and living in accord with the faith you claim to have?

Is Romney’s face on our coinage? Are your principles stamped with his image or inscribed with his words?

How then does rendering to Caesar fit in this discussion?

[WVKayaker]

I’ll just post Sarah Palin’s comments!

*****

Sarah Palin: This Tuesday our country’s future is in our hands. (via Facebook)
Facebook ^ | November 5, 2012 | Sarah Palin
Posted on November 5, 2012 12:44:14 AM EST by Bratch

This Tuesday our country’s future is in our hands.

What’s past is prologue. We know what we will get from a second Obama term because we’ve all endured his first term. We know how well he kept his 2008 campaign promises. Do we really believe he’ll keep his 2012 promises?

Do we believe the word of a man who promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class, but then slammed the middle class with a massive tax hike in the form of Obamacare (and don’t forget that his own lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that the individual mandate is a tax)?

Do we really believe he won’t raise taxes even more on every American in order to pay for his wasteful spending and his crony capitalism?

Do we believe that the same president who increased the debt in his first term by more than all the first 41 presidents combined will suddenly decide to cut the deficit in his second term?

Do we believe that the president whose reckless spending led us to the first credit rating downgrade in our nation’s history will suddenly become a responsible fiscal manager if we reelect him?

Do we really believe that a president who promised us that job creation was his number one priority despite month after month of dismal job numbers now has a credible “plan” for the job growth that eluded him for the past four years?

Do we believe that the same president who shut down the Keystone Pipeline and blocks domestic oil and natural gas development at every turn is somehow going to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and lead us to energy independence?

Do we really believe that our country’s national security is safe in the hands of a president whose administration denied security and assistance to our consulate under attack on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on America, and then blamed that consulate attack and the death of our ambassador on a “spontaneous” protest over an obscure YouTube video despite all the real time evidence to the contrary?

Do we believe that a president who was caught on a hot mic telling the Russian president that he would have “more flexibility” after his reelection is being honest about his plans for a second term?

We know what we will get from a second Obama term. We will get the same failed policies. We will get Obamacare locked into law without any chance of undoing this dangerous legislation and any chance to seek real patient-centered health care reform. We will get a debt crisis. We will get more inflation and higher gas prices. We will get tax increases. We will get fewer jobs. We will get more small businesses collapsing under the weight of higher taxes and unfair regulation. We will get more corruption and crony capitalism favoring the Obama administration’s friends. We will get less domestic energy development and increased dependence on terrorist sponsoring foreign regimes for our energy needs. We will get a “blame America first” foreign policy that bows to our enemies and snubs our friends like Israel and leaves America and the world less safe. We will get less opportunity and security for ourselves and for our children.

In 2008, Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform America. And for all his failures and broken promises, that’s the one thing he has delivered on. He’s transformed us from a nation of hope to one of anxiety. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Tuesday is our chance to turn things around.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have offered a credible alternative to Barack Obama’s failed policies. Governor Romney understands how the free market works. His pro-growth economic policies will benefit all Americans. He has promised to move us toward energy independence, deficit reduction, and responsible entitlement reform that honors our commitment to our seniors and keeps faith with future generations. Governor Romney deserves a chance to lead. President Obama had his chance. He’s failed, and we can’t afford to go backwards.

We must also remember the many good Republican candidates who are running for the House and Senate this year. They deserve our support as well. If you are like me, you have watched these campaigns, learned about the candidates, and know where they stand despite the skewed lens of a partisan media bent on keeping liberal leadership in power. We saw the destruction a Democrat controlled White House, House, and Senate brought us after the 2008 election. Our country can’t afford that again. Your vote is the only safeguard against that happening.

On Tuesday, please vote for Governor Mitt Romney and the commonsense conservatives running for office in your states.

Voting is our duty and our right. We must never forget the immense sacrifices generations of Americans, including our brave men and women in uniform today, have made to give us this right. And we must never forget the duty we owe to generations of Americans yet to be born to exercise our right to vote prudently. The White House and control of the Senate is in the balance in this election, and every vote will count.

I firmly believe it is our responsibility to restore this country and secure the blessings of liberty and prosperity for our children, just as it was secured for us. This is our sacred duty to the past and to the future. We will succeed in this so help us God.

God bless you and God bless America.

With an Alaskan heart,

Sarah Palin

[samtheman]

Because a huge popular vote win makes the post-election lawsuits less likely.

Because a huge popular vote win shuts the liberals up completely.

Because a huge popular vote win prevents a replay of 2000, where the liberals all called the Republican President illegitimate.

Because we are not just fighting to unseat the Kenyan, but to de-legitamize the Kenyan News Media.

That’s why. (Off the top of my head, in 30 seconds. I could come up with a 10,000 word essay on the subject but I have to get to work. I’m taking the ferry from Hoboken into NYC this morning.)

[Bubba_Leroy]

Because a huge popular vote win shuts the liberals up completely.

It doesn't ever work that way. Just the opposite in fact. Liberals cannot handle the cognitive dissonance caused by a huge popular vote against them. Derangement immediately sets in.

Look at recent history. Did the liberals shut up after the Republican blow out election in 2010? Did the lamestream media start giving the Tea Party some grudging respect? Not hardly.

In 1994 it was much worse (and really fun to watch). In a nationwide blowout election, Republicans seized control of the Senate, the House, a majority of the governorships and a majority of the state legislatures. Basically, nearly every Democrat running for any office anywhere in the country lost and nearly every Republican running for office anywhere in the country won.

The lamestream media was not expecting it, was not at all prepared for it, and had a collective on-air meltdown as the election results started rolling in. My favorite was watching Peter Jennings proclaim "Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old."

Liberals (including the lamestream media) spent the next four years in a non-stop concerted effort to demonize Newt Gingrich and every other Republican that they could blame for the 1994 "temper tantrum."

In 1984, Reagan had the audacity to win almost 59% of the popular vote and almost 98% of the electoral vote. I don't recall the liberals ever shutting up about Reagan or considering him to be a legitimate president. The palpable liberal hatred and loathing of Reagan was not matched until the liberal hatred and loathing of George W. Bush set in, after Bush won a majority of the popular vote in 2004.

The worst was Nixon. His greatest crime was beating McGovern with over 60% of the popular vote in 1972. None of the liberals in or out of the lamestream media even knew anyone that had voted for Nixon. Nixon could not possibly have actually received 60% of the vote. He must have stolen the election and he had to be punished for it. And punish him they did, managing to force his resignation over stupid campaign tricks of a kind that paled in comparison to anything that LBJ or Kennedy had done. No conservatives came to Nixon's defense, because Nixon was basically a liberal (opening relations with Communist China, imposing wage and price controls, enacting "revenue sharing" with state and local governments, creating the EPA - it is a long list).

I still hope that Obama loses tomorrow in a nationwide landslide. It will give me hope for our nation's future. I have no illusions, however, that it will do anything other than make liberals even more deranged and bent on revenge.

I go back to my original statement. All that really matters is that Romney get more than 270 electoral votes. The more the better. Winning several more states than he needs will eliminate any recount fights in any one state. But running up Romney's vote totals in Texas or in any other state that Romney is sure to carry, or reducing Obama's vote totals in New York, California or any other state that Obama is sure to carry will accomplish nothing.