Didn’t even that wackadoo pastor Jeffress say he would reluctantly vote for Romney if he unfortunately wins the nomination?
How come he wasn’t accused of relativistic drivel at the time? I mean back then the sides were reversed, with all the LDS critics on FR supporting him for saying Christians shouldn’t vote for LDS! I thought it was reasonable for a Baptist pastor to be critical of an LDS canidate at the time, especially when there were other choices. But if there weren’t other choices, even pastor Jeffress said he would hold his nose which I also thought was reasonable.
Freegards
Good question...
Actually, Jeffress lives in Texas. Believe me, if Jeffress voted third party, Romney wouldn't miss his vote.
Or if ALL of Jeffress' church members voted third party, Romney still wouldn't miss tthose votes (he'd still win Texas).
Or, if ALL of Jeffress' residents in which he lives voted third party, Romney still wouldn't miss those votes (He'd still win Texas).
You get my drift?
IF pragmatic utilitarian political relativism works well enough to vote for Romney, then in every NON-SWING state, it works well enough to vote Third-Party!!!
If you subtract 100% of FREEPER votes in conservative states -- and don't give those votes to Obama, either (they vote third party) -- Romney STILL wins all those conservative states!
In an electoral state-by-state system, there is NO principled reason for FREEPERs to vote for Romney beyond swing states -- using pragmatic utilitarian political relativism with a conservative twist, that is!
Romney will still win the conservative states minus any given FREEPER's help; and Obama will still win the liberal states minus all the conservative and independent votes you can possibly round up!
If FREEPERS were true consistent conservatives, they would ONLY vie for Romney to win votes in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and similar swing states.
The fact that they don't consistently practice the pragmatic utilitarian political relativist ethic they build their public ethics upon shows they are indeed at their core relativists -- vs. principled conservatives with a political relativist tinge.