Sure, they’re dead, but that means they have the exact same chance to become President on Jan 20 that Johnson, Goode and Hoelfling do. No chance.
So, if the goal is to avoid “playing a game” by withholding your vote from the Mittster and giving it to a better candidate who can’t possibly become President, then why not the best President ever, John Adams?
Write him or Coolidge in. If you don’t, you’re just stroking your own ego.
Irrelevant; the actual differentiating factor is that those that are dead cannot perform the duties required by the office.
So, if the goal is to avoid “playing a game” by withholding your vote from the Mittster and giving it to a better candidate who can’t possibly become President, then why not the best President ever, John Adams?
See the above.
Write him or Coolidge in. If you don’t, you’re just stroking your own ego
You sir, have shown yourself to be quite disrespectful; the sort of spoiled child who mocks when others don't accede to their every whim. I've given you reasons why it is not morally acceptable to vote for Romney and you have replied, not by addressing the issues raised, but by the same discredited "the other guy's worse" argument again-and-again.
You might have an argument if the Republican party could be counted on to hold to its stared values; however, the post that got all this debate started was my indictment of the Republican party: how it does nothing to further its stated goals. How in Chaos am I supposed to be confident in voting for a man in whom I have no confidence in to be held in-check by a party I have no confidence in?