Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

[Elizabeth502]

eightandsand,

I think most people who weren’t born yesterday do see the deeply flawed presidential nomination process, which favors those already in power (economically, politically). They also see (hopefully, or at least some do) the unholy alliance between established wealth and political influence in the area of campaign contributions. It’s something that Dylan Ratigan has brought up time and again, and something some righteous members of Congress have tried to legislate out of the system. Ironically, however, his own broadcast station is an aggressive influencer of elections (pro-Obama). Media influence & manipulation has become an enormous factor in shaping election outcomes – from opinion polls conducted several times a week and broadcast more often than that, to “news” programs which are end-to-end campaign efforts. (Same for Fox)

In the meantime, however, specific candidates will be on the ballot. The question on the thread asks which of the two indicated candidates will you vote for, and why. Certainly there is another option, which is to engage in election “rebellion” by massive write-in campaigns (including by those disenchanted with Obama, but inclined to vote Democratic). It’s been tried unsuccessfully in earlier decades, but I encourage anyone with passion to organize such a national effort.

On another thread in another subforum a poster brought up the idea of a Catholic Centrist party. Anyone can start such a party (or, in the current climate, call it something else).

I don’t see civil disobedience being successful in the short-term, because of insufficient numbers. I do see the possibility of groundswell movements to include many faiths holding a combination of similar social justice values and family values to combine, but that would take time. Not enough time to organize before 3.5 months from now.

 

[Jeanne_S]

What about this in the Didache?

The Didache, a second-century catechism for young converts, states, “Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant” (Didache 2.2). Clement of Alexandria maintained that “those who use abortifacient medicines to hide their fornication cause not only the outright murder of the fetus, but of the whole human race as well” (Paedogus 2:10.96.1).

Defending Christians before Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 177, Athenagoras argued, “What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God? …The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God’s care” (A Plea for the Christians, 35.6).

Tertullian said, “It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, destruction is murder” (Apology, 9.4). Basil the Great affirmed, “Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons” (Canons, 188.2). Jerome called abortion “the murder of an unborn child” (Letter to Eustochium, 22.13). Augustine warned against the terrible crime of “the murder of an unborn child” (On Marriage, 1.17.15). Origen, Cyprian, and Chrysotom were among the many other prominent theologians and church leaders who condemned abortion as the killing of children. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger comments, “It is really remarkable how uniform and how pronounced was the early Christian opposition to abortion.” [10]

That’s it,couldn’t be stated any clearer:thumbsup:

 

[Jeanne_S]

“What a fool believes, he sees, and no wise man has the power to reason it away.” - Michael McDonald.

So now we are reading quotes from the Doobie Bro’s?

 

[Jeanne_S]

The point is that, if you equate, under the law, abortion to murder in every single way (as in your earlier statement), to maintain consistency, you must be advocating that women who procure abortions have at least a possibility of receiving the death penalty for it—at least to the same extent that convicted murderers in the same state do.

This is an issue states WILL have to confront if and when they ban abortion, assuming Roe v Wade is overturned. And no, this is not a backdoor argument for keeping abortion legal. It’s just a reality that will have to be faced.

Many posters in these forums who want to see abortion banned recoil at this notion, I’ve noticed. There’s far more uniformity on the notion of banning it than there is on how to penalize it under the law.

You are putting the cart before the horse. In my opinion,taking measures like providing ultasound pictures(this is already available,courtesy of the Kof C’s in many states) in addition to better pre abortion counseling,really making open adoption the better,more loving choice,also,testimonies from post abortive women and men re the repecussions of abortion,are all steps in the right direction. In increments abortion can become less frequent.Instead of looking at it from a strictly leagalistic point of view,it needs to be addressed as a moral issue.

 

[eightandsand]

eightandsand,

…Certainly there is another option, which is to engage in election “rebellion” by massive write-in campaigns (including by those disenchanted with Obama, but inclined to vote Democratic). It’s been tried unsuccessfully in earlier decades, but I encourage anyone with passion to organize such a national effort.

I wonder what would happen if everyone wrote-in their own name?

 

[eightandsand]

eightandsand,

I don’t see civil disobedience being successful in the short-term, because of insufficient numbers. I do see the possibility of groundswell movements to include many faiths holding a combination of similar social justice values and family values to combine, but that would take time. Not enough time to organize before 3.5 months from now.

Yeah, but I still fail to see how voting for “the lesser of two evils” is BETTER than not voting for either of the two evils. Some people put so much faith and stock into the political process (and one as corrupt and rigged as ours). No, I think the better option would be to exercise civil disobedience (especially against abortion, pornography, and all the unjust military adventures) and engage in a coordinated public campaign (in union with the Bishops) of prayer and fasting.

 

[LisaA]

You are putting the cart before the horse. In my opinion,taking measures like providing ultasound pictures(this is already available,courtesy of the Kof C’s in many states) in addition to better pre abortion counseling,really making open adoption the better,more loving choice,also,testimonies from post abortive women and men re the repecussions of abortion,are all steps in the right direction. In increments abortion can become less frequent.Instead of looking at it from a strictly leagalistic point of view,it needs to be addressed as a moral issue.

Exactly my sentiments on the subject. If we are hanging our entire pro life hat on the repeal of Roe, not only is this a VERY long term proposal but will simply return the abortion to the states some of which will return to being the abortion meccas they were in the past. This will reduce the numbers but have little impact on our collective conscious.

Social pressure, conscious and awareness are the key IMO and having seen social pressure greatly reduce previously acceptable activities I feel the KofC ultrasound project and more education about life in the womb is going to be far more effective in reducing and hopefully someday eliminating this slaughter of the innocents.

OTOH specious arguments like "if abortion is illegal then women will face the death penalty are just a waste of time. Let’s be positive, let’s be productive.

Lisa

 

[St_Francis]

Yeah, but I still fail to see how voting for “the lesser of two evils” is BETTER than not voting for either of the two evils. Some people put so much faith and stock into the political process (and one as corrupt and rigged as ours). No, I think the better option would be to exercise civil disobedience (especially against abortion, pornography, and all the unjust military adventures) and engage in a coordinated public campaign (in union with the Bishops) of prayer and fasting.

At the beginning of the 08 primaries, when it was assumed that Hillary Clinton would win, I decided to vote 3rd party (even tho I was not really happy with them, either). I don’t like her, I know she is supports abortion’s being legal, etc, but I was thoroughly fed up with the Republicans as well.

Two things changed my mind: one was the open, even aggressive, oppositition to pro-life on the part of Obama, and the other was the number of USSC justices who were well past retirement age–it seemed that Obama could easily end up choosing 4 new justices.

In answer to your question, I think it depends on the width of the gap between the two evils. If one is extremely evil, and the other only slightly evil, I would vote for the lesser of the two. If, however, both were quite evil and one only slightly less so than the other, I myself would have a problem voting for the lesser.

One point that many miss–and I know this because I missed it for a really long time–voting is an individual act on the part of a person. Thus it is like any other act and can be sinful, *even if the consequent bad alternative occurs as a result. *We cannot do evil even to avert a worse evil. Thus, I believe that voting for Obama is in and of itself an evil because there is no proportionate reason balancing his extreme support of legalized abortion. But if a voter thinks that his opponent is *himself *evil, the voter may find himself unable to vote for either person, and decide against committing what he sees as an evil act by voting for one or the other.

(OK, the reason I seem to be contradicting myself here is that in the first case of using the word evil, I meant it more metaphorically, and in the second, more literally.)

 

[LisaA]

It is not insulting considering the two choices we have this November: the lawless one/neomarxist community organizer (Barry) and the flip-flopping (on, you know, insignificant issues like abortion and contraception and mandates) follower (Romney) of a fantasy cult invented by a lunatic in New York…

This yoke on Romney is not only inaccurate but your last statement makes you sound like someone with a truly hateful bias against Mormons. I don’t agree with some of their beliefs but having lived in SLC for three years and having several relatives who converted to Mormonism, I have a close up and personal experience that leaves me feeling very positive about a Mormon in the White House. I don’t care a whit about Romeny’s underwear. I do care that Mormons are loving, caring, hardworking and devoted to their family and community. I do not have to share a belief system with someone to appreciate the “fruits” of their lives. Mormons are GREAT! Love them.

Further the old canard “flip flop” is uncharitable and dishonest. I was raised by secular atheists. I grew up pro abortion, anti child, anti religion. I am now a Mass going, practicing Catholic. So I am to be described as a flip flopper? How about someone who grew up and LEARNED rather than maintaining a stubborn loyalty to invalid philosophies about life? Romney is about my age and the incredible upheaval of the 60s with the sexual revolution, women’s rights, civil rights and civil disobedience was very influential. If he were truly pro choice at one time, I can accept that he has truly and thoroughly changed his mind about abortion.

As to issues like contraception, IVF and other procedures against Catholic teachings, well he’s not running for Pope and while I disagree with his acceptance of these medical practices, it doesn’t make him evil.

It is insulting to a person of average intelligence to believe that Romney and Obama were NOT chosen outside the democratic process by a powerful group of special interests. Anyone who spent even a small amount of time watching this process unfold in the media knows what I am talking about. I never implied “stupid sheep” (let’s keep this charitable) or “smoke-filled rooms.” Those are reflections of your own notions…

Oh you have been a great example of charity, calling LDS the spawn of a lunatic. Perhaps you might think about your own statements. Further you ignore the tens of thousands of INDIVIDUAL people with INDIVIDUAL minds who voted for Romney and Obama for that matter. If you believe we were all brainwashed by corporate interests then you are insulting the American people with that assumption. IOW are we all stupid sheep? You think so even if you claim otherwise.

I think the record is clear on Obama (just remember, there would never have been an Obama had the Republicans not foolishly nominated a losing candidate like John Mcain.)

As to Romney, I find him to be an uninteresting opportunist who says one thing and then, when he is in power, caves to pressure and does things differently. His record demonstrates that he is a calculating opportunist. His rhetoric conveniently changes whenever he is up for election or reelection. I am concerned with the record one has while in office, while in power. I care very little about campaign promises or campaing rhetoric. I am concerned with how the product performs, not with the fancy packaging.

I do not think ANYONE could have beat Obama in 2008. It was a perfect storm coming off 8 years of President Bush who was incredibly unpopular. He promised the moon, he was a fresh exciting and WOW a black guy! We could have it all right? Many were fooled by the man (not me and I assume not you) but to say everyone who voted for Obama was stupid or mindless is truly arrogant.

Your comments on Romney are completely erroneous. He has not asked for people to base everything on soaring rhetoric and fancy speeches but to look at his record. Romney has succeeded at everything he has ever done, from being a wonderful husband and father, to being a leader in his community, to being a self made man, to saving the Olympics (I was privy to some of the back stage issues and it could have been a disaster) and he was a successful governor of a very blue state.

I bet you are a Ron Paul supporter. Am I right?

Lisa

 

[irishpatrick]

The topic of abortion is simple for Catholics, imo, or at least it should be.

As Catholics, we are bound to accept and obey all formal teachings of the Church, yet not only that, we are to believe that the Church Herself, along with the Popes, are protected from making errors when teaching formally on matters of the faith, and morals. Abortion touches upon both faith and upon morals. **The Church formally states that every procurred abortion is an evil, and can NEVER be supported. **

If a Catholic truly accepts the fullness of the faith, they really have no choice–they must stand against legal abortion, because Jesus’ Church and His Popes (whenever they have spoken on the subject) have formally taught that abortion is an evil.

Catholics who remain in a pro-choice position are really taking a stance that goes against the Church, which means in a very real way they are going against Jesus, because Jesus Himself said: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The Popes, and the Magisterium, have bound the faithful to the teaching that abortion is always evil and can never be supported! If we trust Jesus, we know that those teachings have been ratified in Heaven. Period, done, over. It makes no difference what fancy arguments people pose–for well formed Catholics there simply is no CHOICE–every Catholic must all stand firmly against legal abortion.

Anyone who is not certain exactly what the Church teaches about life can go to the following link for official documents from the Vatican:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The topic of abortion is simple for Catholics, imo, or at least it should be.

As Catholics, we are bound to accept and obey all formal teachings of the Church, yet not only that, we are to believe that the Church Herself, along with the Popes, are protected from making errors when teaching formally on matters of the faith, and morals. Abortion touches upon both faith and upon morals. **The Church formally states that every procurred abortion is an evil, and can NEVER be supported. **

If a Catholic truly accepts the fullness of the faith, they really have no choice–they must stand against legal abortion, because Jesus’ Church and His Popes (whenever they have spoken on the subject) have formally taught that abortion is an evil.

Catholics who remain in a pro-choice position are really taking a stance that goes against the Church, which means in a very real way they are going against Jesus, because Jesus Himself said: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The Popes, and the Magisterium, have bound the faithful to the teaching that abortion is always evil and can never be supported! If we trust Jesus, we know that those teachings have been ratified in Heaven. Period, done, over. It makes no difference what fancy arguments people pose–for well formed Catholics there simply is no CHOICE–every Catholic must all stand firmly against legal abortion.

Ancient Catholics considered women who aborted their child to be murderers. Why have we softened our stance? People need to understand the dire repercussions of their actions.

 

[irishpatrick]

Ancient Catholics considered women who aborted their child to be murderers. Why have we softened our stance? People need to understand the dire repercussions of their actions.

I agree. I just don’t understand how Catholics, of all people, can possibly hide from these realities. The Church makes incredibly strong statements about life, and about the genuine evil of every intentional abortion.

Catholics either believe that the Church was the one Church Jesus started, or they do not.

It should not take science, or politicians, or even people on CA–all it takes is a 5-10 minute reading of Vatican statements and documents regarding life.

100% of all voting Catholics should refuse to vote for any and all pro-legal-abortion people. They have the right to not vote if they feel the other people running are also not viable, yet not even one Catholic should be casting a vote for a pro-legal-abortion candidate for any office. Period. This should be an utter no-brainer.

 

[eightandsand]

This yoke on Romney is not only inaccurate but your last statement makes you sound like someone with a truly hateful bias against Mormons.

It is accurate, as Romney’s record testifies.

And I don’t come anywhere close to having a hatefuel bias against Mormons.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[irishpatrick]

It is accurate, as Romney’s record testifies.

And I don’t come anywhere close to having a hatefuel bias against Mormons.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Romney is NOT a flip flopper on abortion. He used to be pro-choice, than he gained some wisdom and became prolife. He has remained prolife ever since…that is not fli flopping, that is called growing in wisdom.

 

[eightandsand]

Further the old canard “flip flop” is uncharitable and dishonest.

There is nothing uncharitable about telling the truth. I am sorry if it makes you so uncomfortable, Lisa.

And your anecdotal stories about Mormons are really quite irrelevant as to the question of Romney’s records WHILE IN POWER, IN OFFICE.

 

[eightandsand]

Oh you have been a great example of charity, calling LDS the spawn of a lunatic. Perhaps you might think about your own statements. Further you ignore the tens of thousands of INDIVIDUAL people with INDIVIDUAL minds who voted for Romney and Obama for that matter. If you believe we were all brainwashed by corporate interests then you are insulting the American people with that assumption. IOW are we all stupid sheep? You think so even if you claim otherwise.

This is getting tiring, Lisa.

Calling Joseph Smith a lunatic, based on his words and actions, is not uncharitable (every time I say somthing you don’t like you call it “uncharitable”). You obviously know very little about Mr. Smith or the original tenets of Mormonism.

 

[eightandsand]

Your comments on Romney are completely erroneous. He has not asked for people to base everything on soaring rhetoric and fancy speeches but to look at his record. Romney has succeeded at everything he has ever done, from being a wonderful husband and father, to being a leader in his community, to being a self made man, to saving the Olympics (I was privy to some of the back stage issues and it could have been a disaster) and he was a successful governor of a very blue state.

I bet you are a Ron Paul supporter. Am I right?

My comments on Romney are competely factual. I am sorry that it makes you uncomfortable. I am not afraid to call his record out. I care very little about his campaign rhetoric. I will not “take it easy” on Romney just because the alternative is Obama. I am not playing that game.

“wonderful husband”…“self-made man”…“saving the Olympics”…“very successful governor of a very blue state”…I feel like I just watched one of those shiny advertisements for the Romney campaign.

What does Ron Paul have to do with Romney’s record? You keep injecting diversions into the discussion. Isn’t Ron Paul a banned topic here?

 

[rlg94086]

It is insulting to a person of average intelligence to believe that Romney and Obama were NOT chosen outside the democratic process by a powerful group of special interests. Anyone who spent even a small amount of time watching this process unfold in the media knows what I am talking about.

Nonsense. The primary process is alive and well. You might as well start wearing a tin-foil cap. Yes, there are special interests who help fund campaigns. That is all part of free speech…something that frightens many conspiracy theorists.

 

[rlg94086]

And your anecdotal stories about Mormons are really quite irrelevant as to the question of Romney’s records WHILE IN POWER, IN OFFICE.

He has a pro-life record as Governor, which is why Massachusetts pro-life groups have backed him and had very complimentary things to say about his governorship.

 

[eightandsand]

Romney is NOT a flip flopper on abortion. He used to be pro-choice, than he gained some wisdom and became prolife. He has remained prolife ever since…that is not fli flopping, that is called growing in wisdom.

Well, your own euphemistic statement demonstrates that Romney “flip-flopped” on abortion.

Romney may claim that he is now, after a “conversion” personally opposed to abortion, but we all know what personally opposed to abortion means. You see, there is a bit of a problem. Romney apparently “converted” to pro-life in 2004 (when he finally became “aware of the science” as it related to the taking of embyronic life. But February 28, 2005 (well after his “conversion”) Romney went on the record saying,

“I am personally pro-life. However, as governor I would not change the laws of the commonwealth relating to abortion.” (washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022000813.html)

So, you see, I am a bit confused.

Maybe y’all could educate me.