This is more reflective, than a debate. I have spent lots of time as of late wondering why each of us as Chrisitans draw the political line at different points. Let me explain what I mean. From my observation, it seems there is more arguement amongst conservatives when they decide they have had enough of the liberal Republican Party and move on to another choice, despite the fact that those who move know they will not win an election. It is a tragedy in a sense, because all of us are basically in political agreement. We believe in Christian standards of morality, limited government, self reliance, accountability, and leaders who want to serve instead of steal. Reading back over the threads, there is more back and forth amongst us than with those who support Obama. In fact, I have seen many posts that accuse a different opinion of helping Obama. It is a catch 22, if one believes that a vote for a third party helps Obama, do you vote for a candidate that is offensive to the soul to keep Obama out of office, or does one vote for a decent candidate and in theory help Obama. Some history may help. Those who think that a third party is damaging probably ignore the 2000 election, when Ralph Nader without a doubt stopped Al Gore from being President due to the electoral votes in Florida. I doubt anyone on this board was arguing about the merits of voting for third party then, as more votes for Nader could do nothing but help Bush, and for that I am grateful. However, one cannot switch positions as your side wins or loses. You cannot use one set of reasoning this year, and be glad a third party was there in 2000. Why do we set different points where we have had enough? I first noticed the slip in the Republican Party in 1988 with the election of George Bush. He lost in 1992 because of not following a conservative agenda. Again, there was third party influence that year, but it is debatable if Bush would have won without Perot. In 1996, we had a weak candidate and lost. Bush just barely won in 2000, and did not fare much better in 2004. Bush was not a bad President, and actually think he was better than the first Bush. Bush made some good appointments to the Supreme Court. However, he and his Congress ran up record deficits at the time. The 2008 election is when the Republicans went off the deep end. The only reason I voted for McCain was one, Obama, and two, I was so thankful McCain had beaten Romney. McCain as a candidate in himself was terrible. He had a record of flip flops, and at one time, had even been considered as a Democratic candidate for VP. Lousy as he was, I voted for him. That was my line. The difference of Romney and McCain was my line. This is the first Republican candidate we have ever had that is a known non Christian, and the first candidate to have actively supported pro abortion and pro gay rights causes and laws. This election is no pleasure for me. I have spent lots of time as I said trying to justify a vote for Romney. I have talked to peers at work and church. I live in a very conservative community, and there is no support for Romney as there is on this board. I do not understand the disconnect. I really wish we were on the same side, as the goal is common, to make this a better nation. No one wants Obama reelected, but the difference is why put in someone with the same outcome if not worse. I guess the question is, how bad would a Republican candidate have to get for you to consider a third party or not vote?