[Poser]

A vote for plurality is half a vote for Obama, Holder, Clinton and three more liberal Supreme Court justices.

How did that plurality thing work out with Bill Clinton? It worked great, didn’t it? (/extreme sarcasm)

Voting third party is just plain ineffective in every way.

Remember Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Or, to paraphrase the current crop of Direct TV ads:

Don’t end up with seven liberal Supreme Court justices. Hold your nose and vote for the Republican.

[maryz]

Don’t end up with seven liberal Supreme Court justices. Hold your nose and vote for the Republican.

And you can end up with a Supreme Court that looks like the Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, all liberal! MA had GOP governors from 1991 to 2006, including of course Mitt Romney (2002-2006).

[Elsie]

Don’t end up with seven liberal Supreme Court justices.

 

If you have cable TV, there won’t be much on to watch.

 

 

 

 

If there isn’t much on to watch, you will answer your door whenever someone rings.

 

 

 

 

If you open your door, you will see mormons.

 

 

 

 

If you talk to mormons, they will trick you into “praying about whether something is true”.

 

 

 

 

If you rely on your feelings, you may become a mormon.

 

 

 

 

If you become a mormon, you will have to wear magic underwear!

 

 

 

 

If you wear magic underwear, people will immediately label you as a cultist.

DON’T be a cultist!
Get DirectTV.

[Finny]

A vote for plurality is half a vote for Obama ,,, etc.

Materially and mathematically false. A third party vote is 100% neutral with regard to favoring either Obama or Romney. Pure, plain, mathematical fact.

The way it worked out with Clinton, was to give us the Republican Revolution. Or do you think it would have happened if Clinton had won with a majority or HW had been re-elected?

As for the Supreme Court Justices, look at Romney's record.