Short of the GOP running Satan against Obama, I will choose that nominee.
Your stance against abortion and those who support and encourage it is commendable.
The problems facing this country and a possible second term for the current administration transcends any 1 issue.
Be well and cast your vote to the wind. I cannot.
The problems facing this country go beyond the economic ones; I'm sure we would both agree on that.
But most FREEPERs I've had discussions with severely downplay the...
...moral crises,
...the moral decline,
...the moral spiral,
...the sin-that-makes-any-country-ripe-for-divine-judgment (or at least the withholding of blessings and the removal of divine protections)
...etc.
...in favor of elevating the wallet, the bank account, the paycheck, etc.
Therefore, first of all, abortions -- plural -- (like STDs, like promiscuity, like porn, like etc.) are simply symptoms of severely deeper root problems...a country largely out of relationship with God and with Jesus Christ and moving further away...
I say that to those who think I'm elevating any one group of people out of proportion.
But secondly, and more importantly, your very language reveals that your attitude is more of a part of the problem than any solution in this area.
What do I mean?
Please note how you defined the pre-born: To you they are not your personal neighbors -- the most vulnerable in need of the highest levels of protection.
No, to you, they are an impersonal, abstract singular "issue."
In that sense, actually, I favor a move for us conservatives to move away from the singular word "abortion." It neither defines the mass plurality victimized in this holocaust; nor recognizes that the threat starts over for each pre-born the moment our God creates them.
You join enemies of the pre-born when you join them in reducing them to "single-issue" status.
Instead, may I suggest you treat them as your neighbors?
May I suggest you recognize that Jesus was once in those very stages of development we reduce to an "issue"?
May I suggest we call "abortion" for what it is -- and what the Bible calls it -- (unabated) infanticide?
Big John, right now Romney has the polls vote...and with the economics being what they are, that could stay the same into the Fall.
But what if the MSM and Democratic vetting of Romney is "successful" from their eyes? (They won't even need to make up things on Romney and on Mormonism; their problem is getting the word out...half of the people surprisingly still don't know that Romney's a Mormon and 90% of voters don't know what's most problematic about Mormonism from a POTUS perspective).
So the real question will be -- as of late-October polling data -- who is the person tossing their vote "to the wind?"
If Romney, poll-wise, looks like a loser...then I would maintain that people voting for a second-place also-ran has absolutely NO LESS of an outcome than a third-place also-ran casted vote!
You see...
...the MSM will ensure that the most saturated candidate "vet" in history will occur this Summer and into the Fall...
...(including all about Mormonism's racism, Mormonism's necro-dunking, how Romney was spirit-born on another planet (Kolob) -- technically making him an "alien," how Romney as a temple Mormon is a "god-in-embryo" on his way to full grown-up "godhood" of his own planet, and how his voters are endorsing/elevating idolatry by ramping up a competitor to THE god, etc)...
IOW...what if the Fall polls clearly show Romney below 40%...Obama above 40%...and more importantly, Romney badly losing in states once thought to be key vital "swing states"????
My Q THEN -- back to you would be: Why would any conservative vote for an obvious "cast vote to the wind" cause @ that point?
You've just told me not to "wind-waste" my vote on a runner-up.
So you would swallow your own advice then?
If the polls solidly indicate that Romney won't win -- as of late October -- that Q boomerangs back your way: Why wind-waste your vote on a runner-up? (It's not 'horseracing' ya know...where they pay out for the runner-up)
Other Reasons for certain FREEPERs to vote third-party and not Romney:
No matter how many FREEPERS & how many conservatives vote for Romney in CA, Obama is still going to carry that state! That's a fact!
That state is just too liberal. Orange Co., San Diego Co., the Central Valley (home of JimRob) ain't enough to overcome LA, the Bay Area, liberal NorCal, etc.
A Freeper's vote on the Left Coast (CA, WA, OR) really "won't count" in any of those states! And you can say the same thing for states like NY, NJ, IL, and some of those 16 states that aren't as bad off economically.
See, that's what gets me. We have so many FREEPERs-turned-relativists via this utilitarian political pragmatic ethic of beating Obama. Yet when I turn that same utilitarian political pragmatic ethic back on FR voters who live in liberal states, all of a sudden that ethic doesn't apply. Why?
There is ZERO reason to vote for Romney in a liberal state! Obama will pragmatically win in those states, anyway; ya might as well both...
...save searing of your conscience & setting a precedent of voting for a liberal POTUS...
...+ send a message to the GoP-establishment.
The October polls will also disclose which states Romney would have easily "locked up." Once those states are established, FREEPERs can also be "released" to vote for neither Obama or Romney. Why? Because if we added up ALL of the FREEPERs in those states...and if they 100% voted third-party, guess what? Romney will readily win those states, anyway. [There wouldn't be enough FREEPERs in those states to undercut Romney]
Do you see how this enlarged utilitarian political pragmatic ethic cuts both ways?
The only true FREEPERs who have a "voting dilemma" before them are the true "swing" state voters...and even those states are not simply the ones the MSM has designated now -- but those states that will be "too close to call" polling-wise come late Oct/early Nov.
Every other FREEPER -- per the same utilitarian political pragmatic ethic preached @ us third-party people - has ZERO excuse for voting for a pro-abort, big-govt, socialistic healthcare pioneer.