Replies

And just who are us “deniers” supposed to vote for to keep Obama out of office.... Obama?

You are looking through such a narrowed field of vision -- narrowed by pure fear and panic -- that you are only thinking of this election in terms of Obama, nothing else. As would be true in any field, restricting your perception to such a tiny context makes you vulnterable to BIG miscalculations.

We’re not in denial so much as we are realists... Elections have always been about selecting the lesser of two evils...I’ll take my chances on the new guy.

And those of us who have done our due diligence in checking Romney's documented record are also realists in that we recognize that he is fully as evil, intentional or not, as Obama on EVERY MAJOR ISSUE: Global warming, nationalized health care, abortion, activist judges, and the homosexual agenda. You pretend that there is a "lesser evil" in the equation; we TRUE realists understand the fallacy of such thinking in the case of Romney.

And those of you that “see the light” and decide that Romney is just not your guy, can vote for whom?

If it is O vs R in the general, I will be remembering, as should you, what happened to Clinton when he won with a wimpy plurality of 43% -- a full 57% of Americans had voted against him, and it weakened him politically so much that in the mid terms, he got his ass whooped by the Republican Revolution. I am mindful -- and you should be, too -- that when the final tally reveals that the majority of Americans voted against the victor, it hurts the victor politically, makes him weak, and empowers his opposition both in his own party and in the other party.

THEREFORE, I will vote third party for the express purpose of using my vote to make sure whichever disgusting socialist statist wins, Obama or Romney, has the slimmest, most devastating plurality possible. At this point, the thing that would give us the BEST chance of salvaging American freedom would be for Obama to win on a 34% plurality, with 66% of American voters on record as voting against him; it would mean that conservatives won a major battle in recovering the Republican party, it would mean Congress would go hard right in the mid-terms, and it would mean Obama's agenda would be very nearly dead in the water.

You've restricted your thinking to worst-case Obama scenarios. Fine -- now switch gears and start thinking AS A REALIST about what would really happen if, God forbid, Romney won. First, however, you have to acknowledge his documented record.

Romney would be MUCH more damaging to conservatism, and therefore to America, than Obama. I'm voting third party to influence the plurality, but I'll be praying Romney loses. Romney is BAD NEWS for everybody.

>>Romney would be MUCH more damaging to conservatism, and therefore to America, than Obama<<

Oh bull.

Without an American System of Government, there ARE NO conservatives.

Unless your idea of Conservatism is Sharia. Because that’s where we are headed under Obama.

>>And those of us who have done our due diligence in checking Romney’s documented record are also realists in that we recognize that he is fully as evil, intentional or not, as Obama on EVERY MAJOR ISSUE: <<

Can you please point out which communists Mitt appointed to his cabinet? How many radical Islamics he put into positions of advising law enforcement?
Any Van Jones or Mohamed Elibiary types in the government of MA?

THEREFORE, I will vote third party for the express purpose of using my vote to make sure whichever disgusting socialist statist wins, Obama or Romney, has the slimmest, most devastating plurality possible. At this point, the thing that would give us the BEST chance of salvaging American freedom would be for Obama to win on a 34% plurality, with 66% of American voters on record as voting against him; it would mean that conservatives won a major battle in recovering the Republican party, it would mean Congress would go hard right in the mid-terms, and it would mean Obama's agenda would be very nearly dead in the water.

That would be a Pyrrhic victory:

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such a devastating cost to the victor that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately cause defeat. At a purely technical level someone who wins a "Pyrrhic victory" has been victorious in some way. However, the heavy cost involved in winning and/or the unpleasant consequences which follow completely destroy any sense of achievement or profit. There is therefore no reason for celebration.

So half of the Republicans vote for 24 little splinter groups, or write in Porky Pig or Minnie Mouse. Obama wins, but you get to say "Ha ha ha, Obama, most people didn't vote for you, neener neener." Meanwhile, the Obama administration emerges intact, with Eric Holder still lying about Operation Fast and Furious, Janet Napolitano still declaring that our border with Mexico is safer than ever, and Obama's policies like catch and release for illegal aliens still in effect. Celebrate your big Pyrrhic victory as Obama adds several more trillions to our debt and writes his own legislation through Executive Orders and departmental decrees. Boy, you sure defeated Obama, didn't you?

Excellent post! Unfortunately, most of the MittWits have convinced themselves that they MUST vote for a lying, backstabbing, abortionist gun-grabber, because he’s “the lesser of two evils”. Our country falls into further decline when good people continue to sacrifice conservative principles for the illusion that they’re doing something good. It’s like the alcoholic who convinces himself that “I’m only going to do this ONE MORE TIME, and after that everything will be OK.”

And the paid RomneyBots are in full force here on FreeRepublic, trying to frighten conservatives into voting for their boy, because they know he’s a loser.