1) “Analogy: If you endorsed a pro-abort candidate because they were semi-conservative on a lot of issues, and the other major candidate was even worse abortion wise, if you endorsed that candidate without acknowledging at least some problems with their abortion stance, aren’t you embracing/elevating/endorsing pro-abortionism to some extent? “
That’s a complete strawman: There are times where you don’t have a choice for a candidate who is “born conservative” or “born pro-choice” however, there’s also a portion which is the duty of the general populace in voting for him. If a better candidate shows up GOP or otherwise, and if Romney doesn’t do as promised on all issues, we don’t have to vote for his re-election. Making no attempt to push a cause or issue via popular referendum, voting more local candidates, not voting for re-election of a candidate, voting for pro-life congressional candidates, and so on, are other options, not just voting for president. So your analogy is a false one, as well as a vast oversimplification of the process a person works with when voting. Plenty of people, myself included, have no problem with also paying attention to Senate and House candidates as well. So your reasoning is circular, ignoring many variables that really are in play.
Likewise, voting for GW Bush wasn’t an endorsement of Born Again Christians, or voting for Bush Sr. an endorsement for Episcopalians, or a vote for Thomas Jefferson an endorsement of his form of deism (a.k.a. a denial of the miracles of Jesus) so frankly, your idea has no precedent to lean on regarding the president of the United States, nor does your false analogy of a theocratic king, which I already knew full well a counterexample to so, frankly, that’s more redundancy there.
And, just as Saul failed to provide spiritual leadership, so will Romney, whose beliefs are closer to polytheistic paganism than to Christianity.
Again, you compare apples to oranges. Saul professed monotheism, but became a total hypocrite due to a variety of factors, including disobedience to Samuel, and hatred of David to the point where he sought after witchcraft. Again, as my point about Cyrus shows, even nonchristians like the Zoroastrian Persians make a better leader than a hypocrite who merely acts like he believes in God.
Additionally, you fail on the fact that it’s known that Romney is Mormon, so what’s your point? Saul was supposedly known to be an Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin, but threw God out the window, does that mean that I shouldn’t already distrust plenty of professed Christians who are hypocrites about their faith?
Again, it happens that Obama is a hypocrite who proclaims to be Christian, so I would rather prefer someone who is or is not, yet leaves me alone.
Again, you also have always failed to make sense on Mormonism being made public being a bad thing. Again, a vast oversimplification, but since you oversimplify and refuse to really answer anything I ask you, I shouldn’t be surprised.
Again, what I find odd is your refusal to acknowledge Obama’s open self-worship on national television of how he is to receive credit for things that other people do, sort of like our military risked their necks to get bin Laden, or got killed trying to save our ambassador in Benghazi. If someone thinks they can be God in the afterlife, so be it, I could care less in a flat-earth believer, so long as he/she has some manners, and I don’t have to believe one word of it, I could care less.
(As if the GoP would allow a contender to take on a sitting GoP Prez; or as if you -- or any other FREEPERS -- would vote either Third Party or for the Dem in the next election...you can't be that politically naive...or think that I am to believe you)