Actually, when one thinks about it, we all, as voters, have to make judgement calls. Think about it...we have to judge a candidate in order to even make a decision in our vote. We say "he does this or this, or he does not do this or this, right?SmallFarm wrote:Calling anyone a "righteous man" is just as much a judgement as calling someone unrighteous. Just wanted to point that out since you're so apt to point out others judgements. :pJuliette wrote:I am voting for a righteous man. Mitt Romney!awake wrote:Better to vote for a righteous man who stands for true principles, even if he doesn't win.
Then to support Romney who is probably just as bad or worse than Obama. For I believe Romney has had more light and knowledge offered to him than Obama probably has, yet Romney appears to have rejected it.
We don't vote to 'win' elections, we vote to 'prove' to heaven that we can't be deceived by smiling wolves in sheep's clothing.
I can't within all reason vote for Obama, his track record is judged by me to be extremely undesirable. Mitt flip-flops, again according to his record...another judgement. I judge that he is not quite up to par when it comes to constitutional requirement; he does, however, have good marks as a Christian, a father, a dedicated family man and clergyman. BUT, unless he can uphold the constitution in its fulness...he isn't my first choice.
Ron Paul has a background of being concerned about our freedom and liberty...though not perfectly. That's what we need in Washington, someone seeking the welfare (not handouts, hee, hee) of the citizens. Having said this, I will support Romney if he becomes the POTUS. He would be a far, far better choice than Obama, because of his christian background, right?