Your angry assumption, that voting against little barry bastard is making MIlt Rominy ‘my candidate’, comes across as an arrogant insult. And demanding mathematical proof is another childish insult. Do you undertsand that Obama will get a predictable number of automatic dron democrat votes? Do you understand that to prevent that automatic number from being enough to re-elect him requires that ONE candidate get sufficient votes to total greater than Obama’s total? If you comprehend those two realities then demanding ‘mathematical proof’ is an absurdism used to try and squelch rational thought.
You haven't actually read my posts, have you? Come on now, you're among FRiends, you can be honest. It's obvious anyway. :^) You sound like Emily Latella.
It's pretty obvious you're just knee-jerk responding to something you didn't read. Maybe you've skimmed them, but you haven't read them and certainly haven't done me the courtesy of mulling them -- I am serious in writing them, leaving anger and contempt OUT of them; the least you can do is give them serious consideration.
Instead, all you have are emotional insults, anger and contempt. FRiend, when I respond to a post, I do its author the courtesy of actually READING the post before responding, and if I'm participating in a thread, I generally READ the whole thread so I know the positions of the FReepers participating. Is that too much to expect from you?
If you had actually read, for example, my post #72 on this thread, you'd never even have asked the questions you pose in post #108. Like I said, you sound like Emily Latella!
I challenge the popular fallacy that if one doesn't vote for Romney, that "it's the same as voting for Obama." If a person is going to make such a false statement, he/she should expect to be asked to prove it mathematically (and since it is mathamatically false, such proof will fail to appear). If that request comes across to you as "an arrogant childish insult," then you have some ego problems.
One question: do you think the Republican revolution would have happened if Clinton had won with 53% of the vote?
Yes or no?