Your reasons to hate Romney are just trivial—trivial compared to what four more years of a Lame Duck Zer0 would do to this nation. That would be a big deal, my FRiend.

Trivial???

REASONS TO VOTE THIRD PARTY IN 2012 ELECTION:

6. ROMNEY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH BOTH CONSERVATIVES AS WELL AS HIMSELF: WHO IS THE 'REAL' ROMNEY?

UPSHOT: Saying Mitt would keep past political promises is like prophesying that Gumby won't bend anymore. Romney is a protean -- one "constantly changing" In fact, we know how bad Romney is by simply reading all the critiques of him by his supporters -- Romney proselytes who criticized him right and left in the past during the primaries! As new Romney devotees, they are singing a different tune! And that tune has absolutely NOTHING to do with Romney himself! We don't cater to politicians who attempt to hoodwink us into getting us to think they are "conservative" when they are authentics RINOs. Romney is a genuine snollygoster (a "fellow who wants office regardless of party, platform or principles..."). To coin an old humorous saying, "Half the lies Romney tells about his track record aren't true!"

Let's look @ just three "manipulative" word-games the Romneys have played during their "pro-life" campaigning (we don't even need to go back to his wide-open "pro-abort" years):

Example A: January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07; yet on another South Carolina campaign stop Romney was claiming "I was ALWAYS for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was ALWAYS for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)

If you think that was simply a "miscue" type of statement politicians occasionally make on the campaign trail, listen to these jumbled words Romney told Chris Wallace of Fox during an August 12, 2007 interview: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."

Ann Romney further tossed in confusing rhetoric about Mitt Romney's supposed "former" pro-abort positioning in her Parade Magazine interview (November, 2011): In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve ALWAYS been pro-life." (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)

This kind of concept manipulation might be difficult to understand for those unaccustomed to how Mormons can switch from 19th century communists to 21st century capitalists like a light switch; or from those condemning polygamy as an "abomination" in the 1830 Book of Mormon -- to practicing it in the first Mormon generations -- to moving to root it out again.

If people want to understand how Mormonism's approach to the socio-political realm, they may want to read these two articles (the first written by a Mormon; the second by an ex-Mormon):

* Mitt Romney mirrors his Mormon church [Lds writer says Romney flip-flops 'cause Lds church has/does]
* Who is Mitt Romney? [Ex-Lds author reveals why Mitt's wishy-washy culture waffles & flip-flops]

In the first linked article above, Mormon Neal Chandler highlights how in the 19th century...
* Mormons forced communism upon its people -- and then not (United Order)
* Adhered to theocracies under its first two "prophets" -- and then slowly drew back
* Said polygamy was a condition of the highest degree of glory -- and then not
* Encourage its Utah Territory voters to be Democrats -- and then told whole groups of people wholesale to "balance it out" as Republicans as statehood approached
* Excluded blacks -- and then late in the 20th century not

From the second article linked above: What makes Mitt the kind of person he is — ruthlessly opportunistic, dishonest, insincere, willing to say anything for advantage, lacking in conscience, preoccupied with appearance, etc., on the one hand, yet squeaky clean, family-oriented, disciplined, boring, and predictable, on the other? My new e-book, A Mormon Story, sheds light on the culture that produced Mitt Romney.

Good question. (It's one I've raised -- and answered numerous times on various FR threads)

The answer, says this ex-Mormon in the book referenced above is: (From the article): The book reveals a value system that ultimately has no absolutes, other than the need to conform to deep-seated, highly-controlling authoritarianism that pervades LDS culture. That culture emphasizes a Mormon tradition known as "eternal progression" — undoctrinal spiritual evolution in which even God is changing. It also emphasizes the notion that the latest words of governing church leaders trump the Word of God found in the scriptures (including LDS scripture).

IOW, EVERYTHING in Mormonism -- from its theology to its social practices -- is up for potential change at the whim of the Mormon god. Bottom-line: There is no bottom-line in Mormonism! There is no bedrock doctrine that cannot be replaced!

There isn't even an Ultimate god in Mormonism...Nobody knows who the gods are that were part of the council which appointed the god of this world -- a former man, say Mormons.

So there's not even any Ultimate Authority in Mormonism!