[aruanan]

What if the poster is spot on and you are choosing to miss the point of the fantastical story? What if the point is worthy of being made and the poster is not deluded?

What does that do to your neat dissection that followed?

Nothing at all, because the point of the fantastical story is one of delusion. Mitt is a BAD choice and offers poor prospects. Obama has been one of the worst presidents and is much more likely than Mitt to continue and exacerbate the current situation. Withholding a vote from Mitt is giving a vote to Obama. Pretending that that outcome is none of one's responsibility and withholding a vote from Mitt is an exercise in godly morality is delusion. It's also a pretty good example of moral masturbation.

[Psalm 144]

“Withholding a vote from Mitt is giving a vote to Obama.”

No.

Fantastical as is sounds, voting for Obama would be giving a vote to Obama. That is actually a very different thing than not voting for Romney.

Withholding a formerly solid Republican vote from Romney means the Republican base is depleted by that one vote, and Romney would be down by ONE.

Actually giving a formerly solid Republican vote to Obama means that Romney not only loses one vote but (it gets complicated here) Obama actually GAINS one vote, thus Romney would actually be down by TWO. He will have lost the vote that any other Republican could have relied on, but also Obama would have PICKED ONE UP.

I know word problems are really hard, but I tried to keep it simple for you.