Replies

“If you want to influence the outcome, you choose D or R”

“No, if you want to influence the outcome, then you take the game away from the GOP-E and the rest of the politicos who have gamed it to their advantage.”

Letting Obama win another term doesnt do that.
Instead it lets Obama complete his project to turn USA into a Euro-socialist secularist big government cradle-to-grave welfare state.

The place to move the party is in primaries; the presidential primary is over, there is a chance to impact the GOP-E in other primaries (eg replacing Lugar with Mourdock in indiana).

“As it stands now, “choosing D or R” is not exercising influence. It’s exercising no choice at all. “

The choice is Romney v Obama. If you dont see a difference, you are not paying attention.

“Letting Obama win another term doesnt do that.
Instead it lets Obama complete his project to turn USA into a Euro-socialist secularist big government cradle-to-grave welfare state.”

And he has been primed and trained his entire life to accomplish just that, and he has saturated the government with people of like mind. We underestimate his skill and determination to destroy the country at our peril. The full extent of the inroads he’s already made won’t be fully known for years, if ever. Four more years of these termites wrecking the foundation - and institutionalizing their presence in perpetuity via regulations - may present an unrecoverable situation.

The choice is Romney v Obama. If you dont see a difference, you are not paying attention.

Remember that old adage, "A stiff prick has no conscience"? It's the same way here with the moral masturbation of those who claim that since there's no intrinsic difference between Obama and Romney withholding a vote from Romney with the result of Obama winning is a moral thing to do. And just as a boner often leads to a jettisoning of reason, so does the desire to be right above all else lead to doing something, anything, no matter how contrary to reason (such as equating what Obama actually IS as president with what they FEAR Romney will be) and to one's own welfare (the continuance of Obama's actual policies versus the possibility of having a House, Senate, and Presidency that could be pressured to start reversing them), in order to be able to say, "See? I was right but I'm still not to blame."

The choice is Romney v Obama. If you dont see a difference, you are not paying attention.

As I said in this thread:

Why Christians and Patriots CANNOT vote for Mitt Romney (Vanity)

Because we know that the possibilities of a Romney presidency (with perhaps Republican control of the House and Senate) are worse than the actuality of Obama's first four years plus four more finishing what he started?

Gee, omniscience is such a great thing!

"And if asked by the psychotic axe-wielding murderer where the rest of his intended victims are hiding, I'll tell him, because, you know, it's a sin to lie and there's no way I'm going to do that! Eh? What about the butchery of the victims that happens as a result? It's not my fault. I made the moral choice and the murderer made his moral choice but there's no necessary connection between my revealing their location and his slaughtering them."

There are some things that are worse than others. The actuality of Obama as president is worse than the feared awfulness of Romney as president. The former actually has happened. The latter is only feared to happen. Equating the two and choosing to let the former happen because of the latter by not voting for the latter is an exercise in impaired reasoning, muddled morality, and defective judgment.

The place to move the party is in primaries; the presidential primary is over,

Actually, it's not. There are plenty of Californians wondering why they wait so long to vote.

Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky, Texas, California, New Mexico, S Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, and Utah all beg to differ with you.

That's somewhere around 600 delegates, all of which is again proof that the primary system stinks.

I would favor a system wherein each congressional district elected a respected, elector, him or herself presidential caliber, and then all the electors would gather in a "presidential conference" and they would then caucus and vote to determine the party's nominee from their midst or from some stellar nominee not in their midst upon whom they agree.

This is similar to the method the Founders envisioned the presidential election taking place. (It is visible in the Constitution.)