I won't support Romney but I don't know that he will not still win. And it doesn't matter. The result is irrelevant when I don't want either choice. The only principle I stand on is that I won't support evil and I have not been reticent to voice that and defend it.
You made that statement, so you must have wanted to convey some meaning to the readers.
Your first sentence says "I won't support Romney but I don't know that he will not still win". That is clearly true -- but do you WANT him to not win? If your argument is "I won't support Romney, but he will still win, therefore I am not helping Obama", then you would be claiming to act on principle because it doesn't matter. If you are saying that you don't care if he wins, then your principle about your personal choice, and not about whether Romney is good or bad for the country (because if you are arguing Romney is bad, then you should care whether he wins or loses).
If your statement is simply to claim that you don't know the future, we agree about that, but it is a non-sequitor, since your "not supporting Romney" either has meaning or doesn't, and if your "not support" isn't meant to effect an outcome, it isn't much of a position.
"The result is irrelevant if I don't support either choice" -- If it is irrelevant to you, then in fact you don't "not support" Romney, you are instead "indifferent" to Romney. OK, you don't personally "support" Romney, but you don't actively oppose him either. I shouldn't be so rude -- maybe that's all you really meant, that you could care less whether Romney wins or loses, that you don't really oppose him, you simply don't support him.
But it seems your statement meant more than simply "I don't care who wins". Still, your "indifference" clearly means you don't care if Obama wins. Which isn't really different from not opposing Obama, just as if you don't care if Romney wins suggests you don't actively oppose him.
Your last sentence -- "The only principle I stand on is that I won't support evil" -- sounds sincere, but seems to lack application. Thus my analogy, to see if you could give a practical application. In WW2, the USA supported evil, in the form of Stalin and Russia, in order to fight what the USA thought was the greater evil, Hitler and Germany and the Holocaust.
If your principle is that you won't support evil, then would you have opposed our alliance with Russia? Or would you support an alliance with one evil in order to halt a greater evil? I would note that someone else already used the Hitler/Stalin analogy, so I'm not introducing it, just seeing how you would apply your "principle" about not supporting evil when there are two evils and supporting one can stop another.
It would be principled to say that you wouldn't have supported Stalin. It would also be principled to say you would support Stalin to stop Hitler. Maybe you have a 3rd way that lets you avoid moral dilemnas.
Or, you could just resort to childish name-calling so nobody understands what you really believe. Although why anybody would do that in a forum designed to espouse their opinions is beyond me.
Thanks, Shabazz.