"Romney is not a Marxist/Fascist (implying Obama is)." Debunked for many, many reasons in this forum.
"A vote for Romney is good for the Tea Party [presumably better than Gary Johnson]." Debunked as well. Romney does not know the political affiliation of his voters and will see the win as a full-on endorsement of his policies, which certainly aren't libertarian policies. If a Johnson turnout causes a Romney loss, the GOP will realize there is a significant libertarian movement that they must either work with, disregard or actively suppress. And if Johnson get 5%, the libertarian movement will have a very real chance at winning in 2016.
"Romney has a better record of bipartisanship and working with Congress." Debunked. Romney in fact is known in Massachusetts for having vetoed an insane percentage of regulation and having a just as insane amount overturned. He wants what he wants and nothing more.
"Romney has a better set of policy positions than Obama." We haven't seen five differences in policy positions posted on this forum (being a fascist, even if true, isn't a policy position). Therefore, until five significant policy position differences are presented and in those five differences we see that Romney's positions are better to you than Obama's, this is debunked too.
"Romney is not Obama, and is the only one who can win now (in other words, waiting for a very real 2016 presidential chance from the Libertarian Party is not worth it." Really? How long have you been fighting for Ron Paul to win the presidency? Four years and a legitimate chance at a third party is too much? This is debunked as well, since "Romney isn't Obama" hasn't been proven true in terms of policy.
i added to it not give it away enough?
