“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.
- 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2nd amendment, but I'm unaware of the Republican party ever having anyone big/important/not-a-kook advocating they be repealed.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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.