Libertarians should support Romney

Thank you, Roy. From my last political compass (http://www.debate.org...;), I don't know if I can be considered a "leftist." The resolution to this debate is that Libertarians should support Mitt Romney for President. By the terms of this debate, the resolution is negated if supporting Gary Johnson or another third party candidate is more likely to lead to libertarian beliefs prevailing. For my rebuttals, I will start with what I could not have responded to in my first round.1. THIS MAY BE A TIPPING POINT IN THE ELECTIONMy opponent argues that: "We cannot be sure if this is the last chance for free enterprise to make a comeback, but it isn't worth taking the risk. In President Obama's first term he learned that he can nullify laws that he doesn't like and that the bureaucracy can expand government without any new legislation. To preserve hope, libertarians should not plan on waiting for future elections."My opponent argues that supporting Gary Johnson could be more likely leading to a reelection of Obama. However, this may not be true in all states. First, the accusation is based upon the idea that obstruction of voters, and possible "election theft" by a major party are less dangerous to our free enterprrize system than the right of an alternative party to participate in fair and square. I am less concerned about the Obama-Romney contest than with the fact that neither have adaquet jobs programs and the fact both are "big government politics" which is a direct contradiction to the libertarian beliefs.Second, the Romney-Obama campaign is too close to call either way. Gallup has long been tracking the Obama-Romney campaign and has found that the trends are very close. http://www.gallup.com...It is too close to call to should that "Johnson will guarantee an Obama victory." Finally, history shows that unemployment is too high to guarantee Obama any victory. Today, the unemployment rate is 8.0 per cent (http://www.gallup.com...;) which makes it very unlikely that President Obama can secure a victory. The New York Times writes, "Barack Obama is much more personally popular than Romney, but his problem is that no incumbent president has ever won re-election with unemployment rates as high as they are likely to be in November. The modest decline in the unemployment rate in the Labor Department’s March report – to 8.2 percent — adds to the challenge he faces. In recent times, only Ronald Reagan struggled with a comparably high unemployment rate (8 percent) at the start of his re-election year. However, it declined steadily over the course of 1984 and it stood at 7.2 percent by Election Day.""Even if Obama succeeds in making further progress on unemployment, he is not likely to mirror Reagan’s experience. He will remain vulnerable on the economy more generally." (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com...;) 2. SUPPORTING MITT ROMNEY IS NOT APOSTASYMy opponent is correct to the extend that Libertarian idealogy does not adhear to a strict ridigt rule as some religious organizations do. My opponent has cited Rand Paul as an example. However, what he fails to tell you is that Rand Paul was fried by the Libertarian National Convention on his decision to endorse Mitt Romney (http://www.lp.org...;). Marco Rubio also got fried on his endorsment of Mitt Romney (http://www.lp.org...;)So, in conclusion; the LP is very much against both Obama and Mitt Romney. 4. IT'S ABOUT THE ECONOMY, AND WE'RE NOT STUPIDIn this argument, my opponent attempted to show that social issues are not as important as the economy. Although I concede that the economy is the most important issue to this election, it misses the entire point of the debate. One more reminder about what this debate is about:"The resolution to this debate is that Libertarians should support Mitt Romney for President. By the terms of this debate, the resolution is negated if supporting Gary Johnson or another third party candidate is more likely to lead to libertarian beliefs prevailing."Hence, if I show that supporting Gary Johnson is likely to lead to libertarian beliefs prevailing, it will negate the resolution. I have shown that Mitt Romney is by no means libertarian in regards to social aspects. The terms clearly show that all beliefs -- including the economy and social issues, are important to negate or affirm this resolution.I am out of time. I will respond to whatever I did not get to respond to in the next round.