[citizen]

My certainty is logically and politically correct. Yours is a rambling gobblegook.

There is an axiom that applies here: “Never argue with a fool.” Bye.

[Finny]

{^) Your supposedly "logically correct" position is founded on an emotional kneejerk assumption that "0bomber" would certainly be worse than Romney! Why, the very idea ...!!! backed by zero supporting arguments. In otherwords, gobbledegook.

My position is founded on the pure math of: You get what you vote for. "Against" is a mathematical fallacy. As Bikkuri very logically points out, failing to anticipate the true consequence of voting "against" is how we got to this point.

Logically correct certainty. Politically very incorrect. Quite shocking, indeed.

[SoConPubbie]

My certainty is logically and politically correct. Yours is a rambling gobblegook.

Guess it all depends on your perspective.

Because given Romney's past record of switching positions whenever it suited him and his view of the Political landscape, there are no guarantees with respect to what he would do in office.

In fact, I can speak with certainty that he would have changed his positions just like he did on his supposed Pro-Life statement at CPAC in January 2012 to his August 2012 recanting of that position. In both statements he was emphatic. In January, he state he was always Pro-Life, in August he stated his position had always been one of supporting Abortion in cases of Rape, Incest, Life and HEALTH of the mother.

So while you trust he would somehow keep his word, I can point to the FACTS that he never keeps his word but is constantly changing his policy positions.

Yours is the emotional position.

The position taken by conservatives is the logical, reasonable position:

Romney can't be trusted and probably would have been almost as bad as Zero given his past record of almost a complete Progressive record.

[SoConPubbie]

There is an axiom that applies here: “Never argue with a fool.” Bye.

Another case of someone with a Boatload of projection.