Posted on 09/26/2012 12:35:05 PM PDT by koinonia
Pinging the Romney supporters for their thoughts.
You just keep on NOT HELPING to remove Obama.
Be proud of that in the future. You “sent a message” and “set the stage”.
Powerful stuff, that.
Sloth, there you have one Mittbot's answer: a blatant evasion of your simple question and a spew of froth at anyone who hasn't drunk the GOPe Kool-Aid.
You can take your “Mittbot” remark and shove it straight up your ass.
Whatever.
You go “send a message” and “set the stage”.
The rest of us will get rid of Obama.
How will those in hard red or hard blue states do that?
Certainly not by voting for My Little Pony or He-Man in order to "send a message".
How will those in hard red or hard blue states do that?
Certainly not by
I didn't ask how they wouldn't do that - I asked how they would. Answer, or continue to tapdance ... your call.
First off, you don't give me orders.
I check the list every day and you ain't on it.
If you can't see how voting for Obama's opposition damages
Obama, then you are beyond any help that I might offer you.
How will those in hard red or hard blue states do that?
Certainly not by
I didn't ask how they wouldn't do that - I asked how they would. Answer, or continue to tapdance ... your call.
If you can't see how voting for Obama's opposition
(Goode is an 0bama opponent.)
damages Obama
I can't see how it matters in a hard red or hard blue state. You can show how it does - or not.
Not knowing the goal, not knowing if the goal is achievable, not taking into consideration the risks of the action if it fails...
These are not the indicators of a well thought-out mission or plan or a reasoned responsible basis for one's actions.
The stakes are way too high in this election.
I remember what happened the last time I went down that particular path.
We wound up with eight years of the Clintons.
Neither you nor anyone else is going to get me to sacrifice the good on the altar of the perfect ever again.
Peddle your snake oil elsewhere, good sir!
As I said, "I do know that every single vote gets him closer."
not taking into consideration the risks of the action if it fails...
As I said, "If my single vote was the difference between re-electing 0bama or not, I'd vote for Mittens. Since it's not [and thus there are no "risks of the action"], I think my vote is better used in setting the stage for 2016, 2020, ..."
Obama you mean? Yes, every vote lost to his opponent, gets Obama closer. Consequences of actions do need to be considered…
"If my single vote was the difference between..
That logic would excuse virtually any and every irresponsible electoral action in this election.
I think my vote is better used in setting the stage for 2016, 2020, ..."
Ah, the plan without knowing the goal, not knowing if the goal is achievable..
I don't see your argument passing even cursory examination.
Obama you mean?
No, Goode - to being a heard message to the GOPe, which unlike winning (which he won't do) is not a binary condition.
"If my single vote was the difference between..
That logic would excuse virtually any and every irresponsible electoral action in this election.
Such as?
Yeah, I knew you meant Goode. I was pointing out that every vote lost to Romney also gets Obama closer. The consequences of your plan and all...
Since it is unlikely that any election is decided by a single vote, if one adopts the logic of “only if my single vote is the difference” the resulting conclusion is that my single vote makes no difference, it doesn’t matter in the outcome of the election which is the primary reason for voting at all.
So one free to do virtually anything: Such as vote for Virgil, stay home, vote for Romney, vote for Obama...
Your argument removes all meaning from your argument - and any argument - for or against an individual voting, or not voting, for anyone.
Wrong - the conclusion is that factors other than who wins the election need to be considered ... particularly factors like message-sending that, unlike who wins, are nonbinary. (That is, a message can have degrees of loudness whereas one either wins or doesn't.)
Yes, of course. I could strike-out on purpose to send the message I don’t like my coach. My one at-bat likely won’t affect the outcome of the game. Better yet, I’ll just quit the team when I step up to the plate.
But then that would require I ignore the reason for playing at all or that I cared more about sending a message than who wins or loses.
Then, in your plan, your logic would still require you to think your one vote “message” will make any difference in the undefined amount to reach your goal which you haven’t a clue if its possible to reach anyway.
Sorry, your position collapses on the slightest examination using reason.
FAIL. There are only two outcomes to an at-bat (get on base or don't) but more than two candidates. You should get better at this "reason" stuff before you presume to lecture others about it.
The point of the analogy was that it requires the batter to:
Assume his at bat doesn’t matter, and/or:
Believe his sending a message is more important than the outcome of the game.
It also assumes message integrity - that the message desired is the message received.
The message I get is that those who consider voting for Virgil either haven’t thought it through or don’t care if Obama wins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.