[bert]

———It’s just moral relativism writ very large.-——

No, that is a delusional rationalization.You have forgotten where you are.

You overlook one preeminent point. We or at least most of us, are Americans.

We have a political system in America wherein we have two political parties that encompass all the various coalitions. For the presidential slot, the various coalitions put forward candidates and the number is winnowed down to one per party. The various coalitions have their day. If they have strength, they win. If they lack strength they lose.

Some losers have decided that it is more important to exercise their own conservative vanity than it is to join American’s in having a presidential election

[muawiyah]

The general rule in coalition politics is that the candidates put forward for consideration would, in any case, be technically acceptable to the other coalition members ~ else why would they be coalition partners

In this situation we had a minority insurgency (that entity we call the GOP-e) who put forward yet another one of their groomed candidates who is not technically acceptable to SEVERAL of the larger coalition members ~ actually, the majority of the voting base of the Republican party.

Now that doesn't mean he can't win ~ almost anyone could beat Obama this year ~ but he will never have a settled time in office. The other coalition partners will make sure he has a quite miserable time ~ opposition to his every proposal will be automatic. I doubt you will ever see him at any large gatherings outside of the inaugural day festivities ~ which will see a record low turnout.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have some serious structural problems that will require serious reaffirmation of party label and the ejection of troublesome minorities.

[mkjessup]

We or at least most of us, are Americans.

We have a political system in America wherein we have two political parties that encompass all the various coalitions. For the presidential slot, the various coalitions put forward candidates and the number is winnowed down to one per party. The various coalitions have their day. If they have strength, they win. If they lack strength they lose. [emphasis mine, mkj]

Some losers have decided that it is more important to exercise their own conservative vanity than it is to join Americans in having a presidential election.

Bert? Your wise words demand a major
*** BUMP ***

The two party system is what we have. Unless and until a true and viable party can be organized, FINANCED, and offer a legitimate 50-State alternative, we have no other option than to work with what we've got. If others, with their perceived superior principles and moral values than the rest of us poor slobs want to take their ball (vote) and go home, the incumbents at any moment could not be happier about it, because incumbency provides an automatic advantage in being re-elected.

This election IS an election for national survival, make no mistake about it. If 0bama achieves the 'Rat goal of another term in office, we may very well NOT be having this discussion (or ANY discussion) when 2016 rolls around. For those who are foolish enough to believe that 'we can survive 0bama', they need to ask themselves one simple question:

"Is there ANY subversive and traitorous act that 0bama is NOT capable of, especially in a second term where there will never be another election to stop him?"

Think about it, and when you reach the only possible conclusion, you can either choose to be a patriot and pull that lever for Romney & Ryan, or you can take your vote, waste it (or not even cast it), and go home.

[reasonisfaith]

“Some have decided that it is more important to exercise their own conservative vanity than it is to join American’s in having a presidential election”

Truly spoken.