Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins; All
Just weeks ago, Romney came out in favor of Gay Couples, and believe it or not said that at the state level Gays should be allowed to adopt children.

Which is a euphemism for "The state should be allowed to force adoption agencies to accommodate homosexual couples who want to adopt kids." That's what happened in Massachusetts, and after 109 years, Catholic adoption charities closed their doors rather than relinquish the precious, innocent children entrusted to them to oblige this depraved social engineering.

Voting for that is a bad idea, and that's what a vote "against" Obama is a vote FOR because that is Romney's philosophy in principle and practice.

I'm voting to make sure that if this bastard wins, he will be denied a mandate, because if Romney wins in a landslide, the consequences would be horrific; he and the GOPe and Moderate Republicans and progressives and the MSM would GUARANTEED define it as a popular mandate for Romney's "progressive style of governing." It's all about Obama now, but in 2013 and 2014, it would be all about Romney. ABOers, you would not be voting "against" Obama, you would be voting FOR Romney. Who and what you voted FOR is all that would count in the years ahead.

Stand and fight. Vote to deny either winner, Obama or Romney, a mandate. Your vote for a third party candidate will serve to weaken the mandate of EITHER ONE that wins. If you decline to vote at the top of the ticket, your lack of vote will increase the relative proportion of votes for the winner in terms of percentage of the vote split.

Is voting for a plurality split to deny a mandate to the winner risky? Yep, but consider this: Obama is in trouble with his supporters, he is polling low, many who voted for him last time are disillusioned, and it's likely he would be denied even 50% of the vote. Of ALL YEARS to forfeit your voice in influencing whether the Dem or Rep wins and exchanging it for the ability to force whichever guy wins into a plurality so he lacks a popular mandate, this is the year. Obama is as weak as Romney in terms of support. LET'S TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT and DENY a mandate to either one of these depraved and dangerous assclowns.

Pray for a plurality, vote for a plurality. Vote third party at the top of the ticket.

75 posted on 07/12/2012 8:55:13 AM PDT by Finny (A deal with the devil is ALWAYS a losing proposition. Voting for Romney to avoid Obama is just that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Finny; xzins; G Larry; Jim Robinson; svcw

Romney is positioning himself to vie for the independent voters and disaffected Liberals. If he wins the election he will have to convince these squishy independents and disheartend liberals to vote FOR him. Everytime he opens his mouth he convinces me that I cannot vote for him. Let the liberals elect him. He is one of THEM.


88 posted on 07/12/2012 10:02:17 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson