Having lived in a Mormon community, I’ve known a number of steady, dependable Mormons who were anything but sociopaths, but hey, there were some bad ones. I’ve met some bad Presbyterians too. ...But seriously, If I wish to remain franchised this election, I have to accept a limited choice, Obama or Romney, or convince myself any other choice I make won’t help Obama.
Talk about a crazy, sociopathic fueling religion, liberation theology is it. I’ve seen no evidence that Obama isn’t completely dedicated to his religion, and Obama’s Marxist styled spiritualism is as anti-American as it gets. ...It’s an easy decision. I take Mitt.
I’ve read most everything Walter Martin wrote, and a number of other Christian apologists as well. There is no doubt in my mind that Mormonism is anything other than a non-Christian cult. Same goes for liberation theology, and I find the latter far more dangerous, and relevant to the political dynamics of the day. I might also add that I’ve met a number of Mormons who really don’t understand that they are not Christians, according to their theology, even if they live good lives. Where Mitt stands in this scheme of things is beyond what I know of him. But it gets back to my choice. I can’t change what this reality is. I vote Mitt, without hesitation.
Technically speaking -- due to the electoral system -- people living in certain states are ALREADY "disenfranchised."
For example, if you live in WA, OR, CA, Nevada, Illinois, NY, NJ, Maryland, D.C. or some New England states, a vote for Romney won't help beat Obama in those states.
And frankly, if you live in most Western states; most Midwestern states; all Southern states (except FL)...your vote against Obama won't mean anything more...Obama stands 0% chance to win in those states.
So...if the argument would be consistent...you'd have to admit that "franchisement" ONLY exists in genuine swing states.
Do you confess that?