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.