I hate those philosophies too - at least Romney knew that what could be done at State level, could not be done at Nation level because of that pesky thing that we call the Constitution. I didn't say that a vote for someone else was a vote for Obama, but it really might as well be - all them votes for others helped put Obama back in the WH - your vote did count, but not for anything useful. When your choice has a chance to actually make a difference, then the vote is worthwhile. When all your vote does is send a message to those who do not listen, your vote says that you prefer Obama to anyone who can't walk on water. The Dims are very happy with folks with your mindset because they know that it will keep giving them extra opportunities.
Really? How much does the president control -- or, to put it another way, how much of the government stays in-place when the President changes? That's one strike against a Romney presidency changing things. How much would there be any change even if he wanted to effect it, keeping in mind that politically Romney is Obama [that is there is no difference large enough to matter policy-wise]? That's two strikes against him. How about the vaunted "supreme court appointment" argument? If you look at the appointments Romney made as Gov then you'll see a bunch of statist, socialist law-reinterpreters. That's three strikes against him.
Haven't you been paying attention to all the "czars" and folks like Holder/Napolitano and oh-so-many more? How about a HHS department that was no elected but will have the latitude to decide exactly how much additional pain must be exacted for the "HealthCare" deal? Go ahead and rail at Romney, but he understood that it was unconstitutional. How about the EPA that ignores Judges? If you don't think that Obama is doing much more damage than Romney, I suggest you move to Colorado and take advantage of the legal pot.
You can rail all you want about how flawed Romney was, but it doesn't change that you couldn't vote for a paler shade of Gray so you opted to let Inky Black continue to rule the roost - great strategy and if you keep working hard at it, you can continue to justify it. Of course you come across like Nancy or Harry when you do - everyone knows its just a way to make you sound like you have the upper hand in morality as you aid and abet the evil side. When the other side will stick together to gain millimeters, we will never stop them if we demand someone who is superior to us in every way.
My issue isn't about how flawed he was; my issue is he is a statist and a socialist, and in that regard the same as Obama.
Again, why should I vote for someone who espouses philosophies that I hate?
but it doesn't change that you couldn't vote for a paler shade of Gray so you opted to let Inky Black continue to rule the roost
It wasn't a "paler shade of gray" it was the same shade of gray with a different color undershirt to make it look different.
I hate those philosophies too - at least Romney knew that what could be done at State level, could not be done at Nation level because of that pesky thing that we call the Constitution.
This is untrue: if you hated those the you would at the very least respect the decision of someone not to vote for them.