Catholic Santorum winning the South ... our next Prez ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brb3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Semper_Zelare said:
Code: 
They projected the results: Mitt Romney will win Illinois.
Click to expand...
Good news - now we can get busy defeating Obama in the general election.
Semper_Zelare said:
And they said he won among Catholics. That’s just disgusting to me. I’m disgusted. And I’ll stick to words I’ve said in the past: if nominated a Republican nominee, I won’t vote for him. In fact I’ll probably verbally assault him the whole time and encourage people to protest vote against him.
.
Click to expand...
You will be a chorus of …one.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
No one - he’d presumably prefer to have Obama with his HHS mandate and lefty supreme court justice picks than vote for the Mormon Romney.

Ishii
Click to expand...
That would be a sad choice to make. Romney may not be perfect, but he is certainly the better choice IMO.

Our Lady of Ransom, pray for us.
 
PeterPaschasius said:
That would be a sad choice to make. Romney may not be perfect, but he is certainly the better choice IMO.

Our Lady of Ransom, pray for us.
Click to expand...
You speak common sense. Unfortunately common sense is not always in abundance on these forums. Romney would sign the repeal of the HHS mandate, he’d sign the repeal of Obamacare, and he’d nominate solid justices to the supreme court. And he’d also pursue policies which would help turn our economy around. 'nuff said.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Good news - now we can get busy defeating Obama in the general election.

Ishii
Click to expand...
I missed Santorum’s speech after his loss in IL. Is he not continuing on and does he no longer think he could win Louisiana and PA among others and deny Romney the magic number of delegates to clinch before the convention at the end of August?
 
ishii said:
Romney would sign the repeal of the HHS mandate, he’d sign the repeal of Obamacare, and he’d nominate solid justices to the supreme court.
Ishii
Click to expand...
Well I suppose based on how he talks in the primaries but besides Romney getting elected, you also have to have large enough numbers in both the House and in the Senate to repeal. And I wonder if George HW Bush thought Souter was solid at the time he was nominated? Or if Reagan thought Sandra Day O’Connor was a solid vote to overturn Roe?
 
CMatt25 said:
Well I suppose based on how he talks in the primaries but besides Romney getting elected, you also have to have large enough numbers in both the House and in the Senate to repeal. And I wonder if George HW Bush thought Souter was solid at the time he was nominated?
Click to expand...
That is a good point. It seems Bush didn’t really know Souter after all. After the Bork fiasco, George Bush needed a “stealth” nominee, without a paper trail. Souter fit that need very well:

Souter was seen as a “stealth justice” whose professional record in the state courts provoked little real controversy, and provided very little “paper trail”[13] on issues of U.S. Constitutional law. President Bush saw this lack of a paper trail as a positive for Souter, because one of President Reagan’s nominees, Robert Bork, had recently been rejected by the Senate partially because of the availability of his extensive written opinions on controversial issues.[14] Bush nominated Souter on July 25, 1990, claiming that he did not know Souter’s stances on abortion, affirmative action, or other issues.[7][15]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter

(my bold italics). But is it really possible to guarentee a justice won’t change in office or surprise or disappoint those who supported him/her? Of course, if the Senate were in GOP hands during the next nomination, then one would hope that we could get a nominee in the mold of Scalia or Alito. As for the Democrat nominated justices, they never seem to surprise the left or “grow in office” to the point where they would do something like vote to overturn Roe V Wade. Would you agree, Cmatt that there is little mystery with Democrat picks - atleast in the past twenty years?

Ishii
 
CMatt25 said:
I missed Santorum’s speech after his loss in IL. Is he not continuing on and does he no longer think he could win Louisiana and PA among others and deny Romney the magic number of delegates to clinch before the convention at the end of August?
Click to expand...
No, not to my knowlege - I didn’t hear his speech. I think Romney’s win in Illinois pretty much clinches it though. Hopefully the rest of the GOP can rally around Romney.

Ishii
 
PeterPaschasius said:
“Disgusted” is pretty strong. There are a lot of very faithful Catholics who support Romney, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of their pro-life support. In fact, a lot of pro-life organizations have come out to back up Romney’s pro-life stance.

I hope your “verbal assaults” don’t lead to an Obama victory. Whom will you be supporting come November, if not Romney?
Click to expand...
Currently, Mitt Romney is not our nominee, so that is a problem I don’t have to worry about yet. However, I’ve done some brief wikipedia searches, and there are a good number of conservative parties which I agree with to some degree. The four that I could potentially choose are: The Constitution Party, American Independent Party, the Prohibition Party, and then potentially the Libertarians.
40.png
Ishii:
Good news - now we can get busy defeating Obama in the general election.
Click to expand...
PFFT, why because Romney won Chicagonois?

Rick Santorum is most likely going to win: Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, and his home state of Pennsylvania.

That still leaves steep competition for the first Catholic state in the nation: Maryland, as well as Texas, New York, and California. [Remember California is a closed to Republicans contest… just bc the democrats are crazy liberal over there doesn’t mean the Republicans are]
40.png
Ishii:
You will be a chorus of …one.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s what they said about John McCain too. Well, almost all the states Romney has won turnout has been down. Unlike states where Gingrich and Santorum have won. Illinois is no exception. And turnout has been down because enthusiasm has been down.

And enthusiasm has been down because the Republican party is pretty out of touch if they’re going to turn a blind eye to the Tea Party. If they’re going to ignore the fact that Obamacare was the most highly reacted to piece of legislation in at least my lifetime. People normally don’t care at all about pieces of legislation, well Obamacare got that response and we’re going to nominate a Romney responsible for Romneycare?!?!?

I’ll proudly join the hordes of Paul supporters and others who won’t vote establishment moderate out of touch old fashioned GOP “Let’s give it to the next guy in line and ignore the will of the people” politicians.

If Mitt Romney loses it’s not our fault, it’s his fault. It’s the GOP’s fault. They didn’t listen to the base. Well, if they don’t listen to us why should we vote for them? That isn’t democracy. Why can’t we have a Marine le Pen or a Geert Wilders? Neither of these 2 parties represents me (except Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and even Ron Paul)

We shouldn’t be forced to vote for people we don’t agree with. And I have a right to not vote for someone who made the Church pay for contraception. That right applies to BOTH MITT ROMNEY AND BARACK OBAMA.

Mark 9:42. They’re guilty of the sin of scandal. Both of them forced Catholic nurses to sin. The sin is on their hands.

And I’m not going to take name calling. If ANYONE on here calls me a bigot or a radical I’ll go straight to the moderators. You have my word.
 
Semper_Zelare said:
I heard Romney was a Mormon missionary in France as a teenage. And later became a Mormon Bishop. And has given millions of dollars to the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints through tithing.

That’s just what I heard though 🤷
Click to expand...
I noticed this was bolded by another poster (Ishii), and it is an odd post. I don’t think any of it is hearsay. In fact, I’m pretty certain I’ve read it in more than one place. Certainly, there is no problem with a faithful Catholic supporting a faithful Mormon in an election. 🤷
 
PeterPaschasius said:
I noticed this was bolded by another poster (Ishii), and it is an odd post. I don’t think any of it is hearsay. In fact, I’m pretty certain I’ve read it in more than one place. Certainly, there is no problem with a faithful Catholic supporting a faithful Mormon in an election. 🤷
Click to expand...
Yeah I don’t know what that post is all about. I certainly thought my post was interesting to promote some discussion… I guess not. 😦

But seriously Ishii, all I have to say to you are the words of Clint Eastwood: “Make my day”. :onpatrol: :bluelite:
 
ishii said:
As for the Democrat nominated justices, they never seem to surprise the left or “grow in office” to the point where they would do something like vote to overturn Roe V Wade. Would you agree, Cmatt that there is little mystery with Democrat picks - atleast in the past twenty years?

Ishii
Click to expand...
No I wouldn’t agree just yet Ishii. It’s too soon to tell about the picks of Democratic President Barack Obama’s 2 nominations and Senate confirmed justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The jury is still out on them. And in terms of Roe I don’t think we’ve even had a vote to overturn Roe since they’ve been on the court.
 
CMatt25 said:
No I wouldn’t agree just yet Ishii. It’s too soon to tell about the picks of Democratic President Barack Obama’s 2 nominations and Senate confirmed justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The jury is still out on them. And in terms of Roe I don’t think we’ve even had a vote to overturn Roe since they’ve been on the court.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS needs a case to rule on anything…
 
And always remember what Dwight Eisenhower said about Earl Warren…to paraphrase, Worst damned mistake I ever made.

Once appointed, you never know. However, I am fairly certain that Santorum won’t be appointing anyone in the foreseeable future.

John
 
CMatt25 said:
No I wouldn’t agree just yet Ishii. It’s too soon to tell about the picks of Democratic President Barack Obama’s 2 nominations and Senate confirmed justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The jury is still out on them. And in terms of Roe I don’t think we’ve even had a vote to overturn Roe since they’ve been on the court.
Click to expand...
I am not a betting man, but if I was I would bet a lot of money that Kagan and Sotomayer would vote to uphold Roe V Wade. Why wouldn’t they - they are the picks of a committed abortion rights president and are also Democrats faithful to the ideology of liberalism. Obama is a committed believer in the goals and values of the secular left - of course he’d pick justices who share his views.

Ishii
 
Forgive me, I haven’t read all 20 pages of postings, but I have to say that the general disregard of science on the Republican side, maybe especially by Santorum, scares the holy you-know-what out of me!!! We have a right, sometimes useful, to our own opinion. We do not have a right to our own “facts.”
 
Micorhizea said:
Forgive me, I haven’t read all 20 pages of postings, but I have to say that the general disregard of science on the Republican side, maybe especially by Santorum, scares the holy you-know-what out of me!!! We have a right, sometimes useful, to our own opinion. We do not have a right to our own “facts.”
Click to expand...
Do you mean like your own “fact” that Republicans or Santorum have a “general disregard of science”??

🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top