Election Results for 2012

Another post that is posted right on time.. If it would have been posted 5 months earlier.  This has been sitting in my drafts for a while.. And while I would have liked to add more to it and it is rather short, I think I'll just post it now so it won't still be in my drafts in 2016..

Election 2012
A couple of random thoughts..  It was disappointing watching the crowd of Mitt Romney supporters waving American flags..  But it was even more disappointing watching the crowd of Barrack Obama supporters..  I find it kind of curious that two hurricanes happened to take some steam out of the Republican's sails each time they were getting some momentum during the presidential campaigns. I can't really take a lot from it, but it just seems a bit weird..  Anyways though, it doesn't really matter since the country would be in effectively just as bad a shape if Romney had been elected instead of Obama.  

Misses ø and hits √  

Overall my predictions went poorly.  President Obama's black support only dropped by 2% to 93% voting for his second term ø.  The election was decided a little more than two hours earlier at about 12:40, mostly a ø.  I was off by around four seats in the House √.  Somehow the Republicans lost ground in the Senate, so I was also off by four seats in the Senate ø.  I was somehow off by 2% in terms of presidential support for Obama ø.  332-206 as opposed to 281-257, so I was off by 51 points in the Electoral College, major ø.  Really though, I was 'only' off on three states, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado ≠.  So it did actually turn out that Romney and Obama were running to be president of more than just Ohio.

I'll end with three statements as to why Romney lost.

Never send a RINO to do a patriot's job.  While 'patriot' is a bit of a vague term, I would say that Mr. Romney is not exactly a patriot and he certainly fits the qualifications of being a RINO. 

This one is self explanatory.  When Americans are forced to choose between liberal & liberal-lite, the liberal wins every time.  

Quick, name three things Romney planned to accomplish once he took office..  Nothing?  When there are no defining advantages to voting for a specific candidate, then most of the populace will simply vote for a candidate based on emotion.

Presidential Race 2012, part 2

Well, my NFL favorites prediction was actually extremely accurate, only the Buffalo Bills lost straight-up (and they only lost by a single point on a late touchdown) and favorites were 8-5 against the spread.  Though I'm not trying to toot my horn or something silly like that, especially since I had my worst week of the season last week. And I apologize for not getting this out before, I was running into some technical difficulties.

Presidential Race

Unemployment 'below' 8%  
You can color me unsurprised that jobs were 'below' 8% for the first time in 40 months.  I've thought for a couple of months that jobs would be below 8% starting around August or September, so while I was off a little, I was still pretty close.  The reasons for thinking such was because 1. More people would give up hope of finding a job. And 2. Because I thought that the last stimulus package had some little 'presents' that wouldn't be opened until a few months from the election.

Debates 
I thought the debates were extremely predictable.  The first debate was about the $, the second was about being competitive, and the third was about a second term.

Is it a sin to vote for Obama?  
It has been said that it is a sin to vote for Barack Obama, because of all the evil he has helped to facilitate..  But if I were to grant their point, then isn't voting for Romney a sin too, if Romney's track-record is just as bad as Obama's?

Saying that it is a sin to vote for someone is interesting..  I guess I would tend to agree with them that voting for a candidate who supports evil is a sin.  But at the same time, I hope they realize that every candidate (and person) is evil, so in a vague and literal sense they are voting for evil no matter the candidate.  (So in a sense you could actually truthfully say that every presidential choice is a choice between the 'lesser' of two [or more] evils)

Trying to infer political verses in the Bible 
(And I'll say up front that it's a vaguely dangerous thing to try and infer political things into the Bible, but I wanted to incorporate some Bible verses in my discussion.) 
I think it could be said that Christians in the Republican party like to follow the verse, Luke 6:29, "If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also." In my opinion, Luke 6:29a is largely referring to religious persecution.  If a person suffers religious persecution, then they should be willing to suffer more. (Mainly spiritual abuse, not necessarily literal physical abuse [at least in this part of the world]) And Luke 6:29B, is largely saying that we should not want revenge on an enemy, but instead offer our enemies love and give them even more than for what they asked.  I think that Luke 6:29 can generally be applied on an individual level, but not really on a political or national level.  
        In the OT when Israel would be invaded, would God tell Isreal,  "You Israelites constantly sin, I'm not even sure why I set you up as a nation..  When the Philistines (or whoever) come to attack Jerusalem, let them take it.  Don't put up a fight.  Give them anything and everything that they want."  Is that what God would do?  No.  He would have the Israelites face insanely tough odds, and yet beat the pulp out of their enemy.  (And I'm not trying to say that God is endorsing creating some sort of righteous third party, or that God blesses America more than any other country, I'm just saying that just because evil has the apparent upper-hand doesn't have to insinuate a compromise by the righteous.)

We will never create a heaven on earth, but that doesn't mean we can just lay down to evil.  Instead of trying to apply Luke 6:29 to their political thoughts, I would like Christians to try and apply the following verses: "Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults." 1st Corinthians 14:20, "Make sure that nobody pays back evil for evil, but always strive to do what is good for each other and for everyone else."  1st Thessalonians 5 and then also verses 21b-22 "Hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil."

While these verses don't apply perfectly, I think they apply fairly well to a Christian's political life.  We should hold on to what is good and reject every kind of evil.  A political party should be striving for good not accepting evil.  We should not think like children in politics, but as adults.  We don't need to somehow twist our political lives into something different than the rest of our life.  

Perspective 
130 years from now, barring some various things, the political issues of the day won't matter at all to us (though politics will probably still matter to our great-grandchildren), and we'll discern that only our' belief in Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and God's grace were the reasons for our salvation.  And while hopefully the political things which we participated in during our lifetimes were 'good works', they did not matter to the final result of our eternal salvation.

Current Alternatives To These Two Guys...

We have done our compromising to evil and look where it has gotten us,
atrocious and open depravity along with thousands of deaths every single day.

In this election I basically think the main candidates whom a Christian can vote for are: some small 3rd party candidate or write in Ron Paul.  I kind of want to discuss some of the main disagreements I have/had with Congressman Paul, and the main disagreements are foreign policy and Abortion/'Gay Marriage'.

Foreign policy
Foreign policy is a very interesting little conundrum.  As a Christian, if there is a dictator who is butchering hundreds of his citizens each day, then I would have a very hard time not intervening.  But, as a non-interventionist/Mayberriate, by stopping said-brutality I will likely be endangering American men and women.  So I am not really convinced as to which choice is right.

Abortion/'Gay Marriage'  
In a way this is the same problem as before, only this time the policy is only affecting those in America, so I am sure Congressman Paul is in the wrong.  It appears that Ron Paul believes that humans are basically good, or, at the very least, the government shouldn't interfere and Americans should be able to make their own decisions.  While the second belief isn't entirely wrong, it is misguided.

What is the government's role?  
Effectively speaking, the government's role is to persecute evil and uphold righteousness.  Paul's position on Abortion/'Gay Marriage' is to downgrade the choice from a national issue to a state issue.  This punting of important issues is a serious FAIL.  In my humble opinion, 'downgrading' the choice is (at best) a Pontius Pilate washing of the hands on the issues.  Simply regulating evil to a state-level doesn't solve anything.  If a child is allowed to be murdered by the state instead of the national government, then he or she is not any less dead.
       Question here..  Why should the regulation stop at the state level?  Why not district?  Why not county?  Why not town?  Heck, why not person?  Oh, that's right, there's no good answer for that..  Because, (according to Doctor Paul) all of this simply boils down to each individual having a 'right' to do evil lawfully.

       While foreign policy is rarely a huge deal-breaker in voting (for me), Abortion most definitely is.  Abortion and God's definition of marriage are (effectively) both non-negotiables for me.  So... on the bright side I won't actually be forced to vote for Paul, since I'm (technically speaking) not eligible to vote. However on the downside, A. I'm not able to vote, and B.  It would be a somewhat hard pill to swallow, but I think I would be willing to compromise slightly on my principles and vote for Ron Paul.  Why?  Because, in his Congressional voting history he has been extremely pro-life.  And if the Congress went crazy and voted for a pro-life bill, then I'm (obviously) all-but positive that he would vote for it.

An aside, that kind of deals with that..

Would you vote to regulate murder?  
If I was a Congressman, and my vote would be the deciding vote in a bill that would regulate abortion to only in the cases of rape and incest, I would have an insanely, insanely hard time not voting in favor of the bill.  In regulating abortion.  Regulating murder.

       I would be responsible for saving millions of children, sure, but I would also be responsible for killing thousands of children.  But, they were just going to die anyways, right?  Well....  Yes.  But, my vote still doesn't match-up to the Bible. To God.  And you do not argue with God.  And yet..  I honestly don't know what should be done in that situation.

Now that I have said most of our differences, I'll move on to some things I really like about Ron Paul.  One of the best compliments I can give him:  He and his supporters aren't here to get a seat at the political table...  They're here to smash the table.  He doesn't buy into the zombified partyline lie: Republicans good, Democrats bad, or vice versa.  Along the same lines, another good thing about him is that he is kind of a ctrl-alt-delete candidate who isn't afraid to upset anyone.  And lastly, his economic and monetary policies are some of the (if not the) best out there.

Both the abused and the Christian constituency are dealing with an insanity complex. 
(And I'm not trying to be too blunt or rude to either 'person', but sometimes the truth hurts.) 
The abused often goes back to the abuser, because they think they are unable to make it without them and they think that someday the abuser will change.  And applying that to the Republican Party..  How often does that 'someday' actually come for the abuser or the Republican Party?  Almost never.  
       The Christian constituency of the Republican party thinks that a third party would have absolutely no legitimacy and so they simply toss their vote to the lukewarm 'conservative'.  What's the definition of insanity?  Why do 'we' keep nominating lukewarm Republicrats and then expect them to be conservative if they get into office?  We think that creating a new party would be too hard.  We lose before we even try.  While we are mired in our complacency and stupidity, evil reigns, men and women commit atrocities, and babies are murdered.  We have fought the war of compromises and WE HAVE LOST.  And even though we have lost, we refuse to change our tactics.  We try our compromising, we try our incrementalism, and we get the taste of defeat over and over again. 

Fingerprints 
I know for sure that, one way or another, my fingerprints won't be on either candidate for the presidency, at least directly.  If you feel that voting for the 'lesser' of two evils is the way to go, then have fun with your affirmation of that candidate and their policies. If you like the way a sheep looks more than  a wolf, then feel free to vote for the wolf in sheep's clothing, rather than the wolf.  Only know this--compromising with evil does NOT work.  Why do Christians think that we need to compromise with evil?  (to repeat) We will never create a heaven on earth, but that doesn't mean we just lay down to evil.  Evil is evil.  It doesn't matter what realm evil is in, or how much lipstick is applied to it.  It is still evil. It doesn't matter whether evil is perpetuated by an individual or by the policies of a political party.  Say it with me now, evil is evil.

Separation of politics and Christianity.  The Invisible Separating Wall.
Some Christians think that politics is somehow a 4 letter word that must be avoided.  They think that there is some sort of invisible line between politics and being a Christian.  Some Christians are afraid of politics.  They think that politics is better left to the world, and it doesn't really matter who wins, since God is in control anyways.  And I will say that while nothing happens in the world that God doesn't allow, that doesn't actually mean that God makes things go His way.  

       The spiritual is most-definitely more important than the political, but that doesn't mean you can't try to have both.  Really quick analogy here..  Let's say you have two children, and you have brought them up to be God-fearing Bible-believing Christians.  And then let's say that you don't care what kind of friends they have, whether or not they'll be able to find someone to marry, when they will die, and what kind of neighborhood they will live in, etc.  Don't you find that somewhat asinine?  

Future Alternatives

Here are the Republican nominees for President in the last 60 years:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. 

That's quite a list.  Not exactly bastions of conservatism.  Who stands out?  I would say Ronald Reagan (his first term).  With the possible exception of parts of Reagan's first term, they all largely implemented liberal policies. (Though admittedly I know basically nothing about what Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole supported)  (So with that possible exception also taken out..)  If you would have any of those Republican candidates run with a 'D' instead of an 'R', would anyone really know the difference?

Maybe it's just a rumor, but I think there's this thing called a primary.  While it wouldn't be easy, I think that the best looking possibility right now is to forget this facade called the Republican Party and start a new political party.

A good baseline on deciding whether or not to vote for any candidate
If a candidate or political party won't defend those who are innocent..  the indefensible.., then what in the world will he or she defend?  It's easy to tell that America is in a sad state when a person can't defend the innocent without being viewed as the antagonist, while the murderer is viewed as the victim.  

Predictions

Best case scenario

Each House and Senate seat goes to the Republicans, marriage wins in each of the four states, Obama and Romney each get 269 electoral delegates, and (I forget if this can actually happen or not) the Congress ends up picking Ron Paul to be the President, and if not, then they can pick Santorum-Biden...  Okay, okay, that wasn't very realistic.

Very optimistic best case scenario

Obama or Romney wins the presidency (it's kind of irrelevant who is actually in the White House), but the 'R's' tie the Democrats in the Senate, 50 seats to '49', the 'R's' get a larger lead in the House 250-185, all 4 'gay marriage' initiatives are passed in favor of marriage, the 'R's win a good majority of state wide seats.  Then the House Republicans get a spine, eliminate the funding to ObamneyCare, terminate the past, present, and future 'executive orders', invalidate judicial activism, which in turn leads to the annihilation of Roe vs Wade and various other 'legislative' decisions by judges, so the 'law' defaults to something called the Constitution, and abortion is thus outlawed.  Yeah, maybe my glasses still had just a tinge too much of rose in them.., especially considering that sticking up for good would require Republicans to actually show leadership and principles, which is something that very few of them actually have.

Likely best case scenario

The beginning of the previous scenario, but ending at 'Republicans get a spine'.  In this scenario the Republicans in the House simply shut down the funding to the government.  Take a principled stand, Republicans.  It's not exactly very complicated.  Simply, shut it down.  I think this actually has a chance of happening, around a 20% possibility, so this is the first scenario that could actually possibly happen.

What I think will happen

Romney 49.8%, Obama 48.5%, Others 1.7%. Marriage wins in Minnesota, Maryland, and Maine, but, thanks to being outspent 120-1, loses 52% to 48% in Washington.  Unlike 2008, when African Americans voted for Obama over 95% of the time, Obama doesn't even garner 90% of the black vote in 2012.  The election isn't 'decided' until 3 a.m. on November 7th.  The Republicans make small gains in the House 240-195, and Senate 48-'51'.  As for the Electoral college, Obama wins 281-257.  Effectively speaking, Obama and Romney are likely running to be president of Ohio, because the presidency will likely hinge on Ohio.  If Ohio goes to Obama, he probably wins, if it goes to Romney, then it's quite possible that he will win.

Predictions for the next four years

I'm going to randomly guess that the fear-mongers who think that America will collapse with another term of Obama and that Americans will have trouble simply surviving, much less prospering, will be wrong.  And I'll also guess that those who think we can simply put evil+incompetence together and it will somehow = economic prosperity, will be extremely wrong as well.

       No matter who is elected I would tend to guess that over the next 4 years the DOW J will dip to 12,250, 'real' unemployment goes to around 19% (it's at 14.6% right not),  inflation will be viewed as a large problem in the US (which admittedly could/would curtail or eliminate my DOW J prediction), the world suffers general economic difficulty, another 5 million babies are murdered, and an Iranian conflict nearly escalates into a 'minor' nuclear war.

       Eventually the kicking-down-the-road of problems will snowball into a problem that will basically envelop America.  And while America will quite possibly suffer some of my above predictions, I don't think that the majority of America's problems will catch up to America in the next 4 years. But, please remember that no matter the economy, the politics, or the regime president over the next 4 years, the True King is still alive and always shall be.

Psalm 27:1 “The Lord is my light and my salvation—whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life—of whom shall I be afraid?” 

John 15:18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me first.” 

Hebrews 4:16 “Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”

Presidential Race 2012, part 1

Preface

I'll be diverging from talking about "Sports" for both this and (most likely) my next blog, so I should possibly change the name, but I can't really think of any good names...  So it stays as "Sports" for now.  This blog is pretty much only about political things, until near the end when I talk about Christians.

(Editing change) One quick sports note: Last week I thought there would be around 9 straight-up upsets in the NFL and it didn't work out too badly, but this week I have a grand-total of zero straight-up upsets..  And not only just zero straight-up upsets, but also zero against the spread.  Considering the odds of just beating the spread  in every game happen to be worse than 1 in 8192, I don't exactly consider it likely to happen. And random stat: Approximately once every 600 years there should be a week where every single NFL team beats the spread.  
Another new thing that I've done in this blog is linking some youtube videos to various topics.  The videos aren't exactly must-watch videos, but if you have the time to watch them, then they add some variety.

In writing this, I was trying to have a somewhat light tone (hence some of the videos).  I was definitely not trying to be disrespectful to either person, so please feel free to add 'President' before Obama, and 'Governor' before Romney.  I mostly avoided doing that, because it's a little tedious to say President Obama and Governor Romney every time, plus it's a little longer, and I'm only (basically) talking about America's destruction anyways, so hey, no biggie.

The size of my post on the Presidential Race all in one piece, I'm guessing, would have been a tough read, so I split my blog on the Presidential Race into two pieces so hopefully the parts can be read a little more leisurely.  Part two should most likely be out before November.

Differences between Romney and Obama.

Abortion

Romney  Romney's old opinion on Abortion  Romney currently, kind of sort of, claims that there should only be abortions in cases of 'rape and incest'; But in those cases abortion should still remain 'legal'.

Obama    Obama on Abortion  While he may not be able to say a definition on what a 'life' really is..  He knows that a women should still have the 'right' to 'dispose' of 'it'. So Obama can't bring himself to force a woman not to choose an abortion, since it is her 'right' to choose.  So abortion should still stay 'legal'.

'ObamneyCare'

Obama      The editor and distributor of ObamneyCare.

Romney    The architect/author of ObamneyCare.

'Gay marriage'

Obama   While I don't think he hasn't made too much of an effort to support redefinition legislatively, he has spoken publicly in favor of 'gay marriage'.

Romney   He was the first governor to approve of the man-made redefinition of marriage, but now claims to be in favor of marriage.  (Though he might still support civil unions.)

Taxes

Romney  Speaks of supporting lesser government, but still grows it legislatively.

Obama  In favor of a further growth of government to support the 'needy', and thinks of taxes as a form of tithing to the government.

Religion

Obama    President Obama is a good modern American.  He basically says he is spiritually a Christian, (though not religiously), and he worships at the altar of the government.

Romney  He is basically as good a modern American as President Obama in that he supports a re-distinction of Christianity.  Romney's religion at least does have some guidelines, which I'm guessing he generally tries to follow.

Two fail videos, and one of the fails I wish was true.

Obama    Obama's Fails

Romney  Romney's slip of the tounge

VP Choices

Paul Ryan  He's not a bad politician, but he is a politician, and as the top of the ticket goes so goes the bottom.

Joe Biden Various reasons why Biden is the Vice Presidential nominee again, these however, are, technically speaking, not some of those reasons.  Run, Joe. Run  Excuse me for repeating myself, but Biden gaffe.    The 15 second mark is pracitally priceless.

One true statement and one false statement

I don't know if Romney has said this or not, but it's just a saying I don't like.  "This is the most important election of our lifetime.." And when everyone's super, no one will be.  And if every election is the most important.. then none of them are very important. And while my refutation isn't entirely true, it has quite a bit of truth to it.  When the American populace keeps electing liberal A and liberal B in the primaries, there really isn't a big point to the election.

Obama   America is no longer a Christian nation 

Conviction

Romney     Romney can't even stick with a position on taking a position  He can't take a stand on taking a stand..  You can't trust a perpetual liar; and over the years Romney has proven to be  just that: a perpetual liar.  I think Romney mostly goes with the crowd, so one of the very few things that you can probably trust Romney on is that he will not vote for something that is extremely unpopular.

Obama    I do agree with Obama's above statement, that we are (most definitely) no longer a Christian nation.  (Although a nation obviously isn't actually a living person.) President Obama likes to follow that saying and not govern as a Christian.

The 'differences' between Romney and Obama are largely semantics.

The 'choice' between the candidates is simply the way you wish to have a probable death.  Person A walks up to you and stabs you in the heart, Person B walks up behind you and stabs you in the back.  (Disclaimer: In no way am I insinuating that either candidate would actually do this..  It's called an analogy.)  So which would you prefer?  A death in which you can see the person coming at you and so you have a slight chance to defend against it (though if you are stabbed it is certain death)?  Or a vaguely subtle stab in the back that you cannot defend against (though instead of a quick death, you will live for a while and likely bleed to death)?

Campaign Slogans

Both campaigns put a lot of time and money into their campaign slogans, I'm sure...  And what did they come up with?  "Forward" and "Keep America American."

Wow.  Those are stunning, absolutely amazingggg....               ly dumb.

What do the candidates probably think about the slogans?

Obama's slogan, Forward.  I want to keep us moving forward and redistribute some more wealth.

Romney's slogan, Keep America American. I'll slow down the rate at which America changes so it won't be as noticeable to everyone.

Thoughts about the slogans

Obama's slogan, Forward.  Yeah, I agree with his slogan.  I would agree he wants to help us move forward.  Currently we're on a train steaming ahead towards a cliff that leads to Gomorrah and he's like, "I added a bit of speed in my first term and I changed the tracks a little more towards due south.  Guess what, dudes..  I think I can even get more MPH out of this train!  Give me another four years!"

I've got to admit that I kind of like Obama's slogan.  It's blatant, sweet, and to the point.  He pretty much got his money's worth out of his consultants.

Romney's slogan, Keep America American.  Not to go all President Obama on you, but....  Uhhhhh. Uhhh. Uhhh.  What the heck does that mean??  Keep America American?  I can understand someone saying, keep the Muslim things Muslim, keep the Christian things Christian.  Because those are (relatively speaking) fixed terms.  But, 'Keep America American'?  America isn't a fixed entity or standard.  America is American.  To 'Keep America American' doesn't mean we have a good America, or a bad America, but yeah, it is America alright.

And to go with the train analogy with Romney...  Romney puts his hands on the brakes and asks the passengers on the train if they want him to hit the brakes on the train.  He thinks he hears slightly more "No's" then he hears "Yes's", so he takes his hands away from the brake and walks over to near the engine.  He picks up a tongs, and with them he takes one piece of coal off the burner, then walks back and tells everyone to move back two seats.  (So at least they'll have an extra two seconds to live, before going off the cliff.)  He does technically slow down the train's speed, but he does so ever so slightly.

Changes to slogans

Obama doesn't really need a change to his slogan.

Romney needs some help.  My first two suggestions for his slogan are to either change it to,"At Least I'm Not A Communist" or "I Am Not Obama"  Joking, joking.  Seriously though, I would have Romney change his slogan to either "$1.84 in 2009, $3.78 three years later" or a lot shorter and sweeter, "$1.84" which was the national price of gas in 2009.  And while those numbers are a bit out of context, either version of the slogan would still have been insanely powerful.  Besides, it's not like the American populace is a very imformed population, so they  would probably just accept $1.84 gas in 2009 as truth.  And even if they would research it, it's still a heck of a lot better than, "Keep American American."

Reasons to vote for Obama

There are not very many good reasons
 to vote for four more years of President 
Obama...  But, here are a couple of my attempts.

At least he's not Romney..  No wait, wrong person.  That phrase is supposed to be said for the other guy.  Sorry.  

Here are some 'real' reasons to vote for Obama.  It's possible he could step up America's run towards Gomorrah to another level and jolt awake some people. Having a 'D' in the Presidency, instead of an 'R' would likely make the Republicans less likely to vote for the policies that were supported by the oval office.  (Though that didn't stop ObamneyCare..)

Also, in a second term of President Obama I would expect America to have more economic difficulty, which would quite possibly lead more people to religion.  Because when a nation or person enjoys prosperity, complacency usually follows.  But, if you take that prosperity away, then life suddenly becomes difficult and possibly pointless.  Which would likely lead to, either more fulfillment in self, or a turn towards religion.  

So you're saying that if I vote for Obama, then it is likely that there will be more Christians in America, then with a President Romney?  So that means we should just vote for Obama, right?  How could you not want to advance God's kingdom??

First of all, just because something is more probable doesn't actually cause causation.  So just because it's more likely that there will be more Christians under a Obama presidency doesn't mean a reaction of voting for him.  Secondly, while a human environment can impact a person, it doesn't actually give that person true faith.  Only the Holy Spirit gives true faith.  And thirdly, a vaguely connected point...

       I find it a little bit dangerous to say things like, "If it is 'God's will' that so and so happens, then so be it." While it is not always wrong to say that, in most situations I find it a bit trite and occasionally even a bit heretical.  God doesn't ask us to just stand by while evil happens.  He doesn't ask us to stop evil in any possible way (doing evil to stop evil).  And He doesn't ask us to stop the evil, because we are in some sort of slavery to Him.  He tells us to stop evil (without compromising to evil), out of love for Him.  

There are times when we will suffer for the sake of Christ, but, even in those times, we should not fall into the temptation of doing evil to stop the evil.  "For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil."  1 Peter 3:17.  I will also say that I do not think we are called to be passive Christians (a Christian who prays for 'so and so' to happen, but does nothing about it.).  We are called to be active Christians (a Christian who prays for 'so and so' [and also hopefully prays for God's will to be done] and then actually puts actions behind the words).  Also we are not supposed to be 'active Christians' in the sense of being active for the sake of being showy.  And again, I'll quickly point out that we aren't doing this out of some sort of slavery servitude towards Him so that we might earn heaven, we're doing it as a natural response of faith and love.

I'm a little bit of a liberal-Christian in this point.  I think that Christians should be more liberal and active in the worldly-realm in spreading their beliefs, in spreading The Faith.  Instead of a Christian conserving The Truth to themselves (no absolute Truth) and being a conservative-Christian.  And yes, all of these words are a lot easier to say than to put into action.  I also think a Christian should have a ready defense for the faith and a Christian should be putting 'good works' into action.  Though to us silly little humans a 'good work' can be a bit malleable. Sometimes we may be thinking we are doing nothing worthwhile, while we are actually doing a good work.  And at other times we may think we are doing a 'good work' while we are actually promoting evil.  One of the downsides of being a human is that God gets to define the terms and not us.  

What this small piece of elucidation on 'God's Will' and 'good works' had to do with reasons to vote for Obama, I'm not completely sure, but anyways, on to Romney.

Reasons to vote for Romney

It looks like he has helped to raise a good family, and at least he's not a Communist.  Yeah, that's about all I have.  A sub-plot I want to quickly touch on...  While this isn't really a reason to vote for Romney;  A Romney presidency would provide the biggest platform a Mormon has ever had and the resulting news and insight about Mormonism could cause Mormonism to explode in growth even further than recent years, or it could cause Mormonism's debasement.
Thanks for reading, God bless.