OK, let me try this last example so you clearly understand my thinking.
Would you want to play Russian Roulette with a loaded revolver? No you wouldn’t.
Romney is a loaded revolver, like a 6 shot revolver loaded with 3 bullets. The odds are very slim that you will survive if you play Russian Roulette with the Romney Revolver with 3 cartridges in the 6-shot cylinder.
Obama is like a Colt .45 automatic with 3 shots in the magazine. Every single shot from it will shoot out a bullet. There is no chance of an empty shot with a pistol like a Colt .45 auto.
You wouldn’t want to play Russian Roulette, but if you were FORCED to do so, and if you had to choose between using a loaded auto pistol or a 1/2 loaded revolver, which would you use?
The auto pistol has a 100% chance to blow your brains out while the half-loaded revolver only has a 50% chance of blowing your brains out.
So my logic tells me to play Russian Roulette with the 1/2 empty Romney revolver than the Obama pistol which is certain death.
Get it?
That is my opinion. I understand your opinion. In your opinion, both pistol and revolver are fully loaded and both have a 100% chance to blow your brains out. This is why it is impossible for us to agree. We don’t agree on the lethality of the Romney revolver and so have no basis to ever agree.
That is where we essentially disagree. You've got it backwards: Obama is the six-shot revolver with three rounds; Romney is the .45 semi-auto..