Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

[didymus]

Why vote at all?
In one sense, voting is an endorsement of the current two-in-one party system like the up-or-down votes in the old USSR. Due to gerrymandering it is almost impossible to throw out incumbent Congressfolk, third parties are effectively shut out. Why bother?

Most disturbing to me is the sense that their are wizards behind the curtain pulling stings – how else does one explain Romney? Long before the primaries even started he was “inevitable”, “the only chance to beat Obama”.
Yeah, this sounds like conspiracy theory, but the money and the media started toeing the line log before a single vote was cast.

How relevant is the President anyway? The economy basically does what it does. Presidents can make things worse,but not better.

Sorry to be a downer.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Why vote at all?
In one sense, voting is an endorsement of the current two-in-one party system like the up-or-down votes in the old USSR. Due to gerrymandering it is almost impossible to throw out incumbent Congressfolk, third parties are effectively shut out. Why bother?

Most disturbing to me is the sense that their are wizards behind the curtain pulling stings – how else does one explain Romney? Long before the primaries even started he was “inevitable”, “the only chance to beat Obama”.
Yeah, this sounds like conspiracy theory, but the money and the media started toeing the line log before a single vote was cast.

How relevant is the President anyway? The economy basically does what it does. Presidents can make things worse,but not better.

Sorry to be a downer.

Downer…realist…reminds me of this scene…

youtube.com/watch?v=f_95eB4V2Jg&feature=related

 

[Mickey]

Why vote at all?

Because one candidate speaks out for the defense of the helpless child in the womb. And the other candidate supports murderous abortion-on-demand…at any stage of the pregnancy.

It’s a no-brainer.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Because one candidate speaks out for the defense of the helpless child in the womb. And the other candidates supports
murderous abortion-on-demand…at any stage of the pregnancy.

It’s a no-brainer.

You didn’t answer the question. You answered why one might choose to vote for one of the candidates in the coming election, not why one needs to vote at all. I myself intend to vote neither for Obama or Romney.

 

[rlg94086]

Most disturbing to me is the sense that their are wizards behind the curtain pulling stings – how else does one explain Romney? Long before the primaries even started he was “inevitable”, “the only chance to beat Obama”.
Yeah, this sounds like conspiracy theory, but the money and the media started toeing the line log before a single vote was cast.

You’re right…it sounds like a conspiracy theory.

The reason people said things like “inevitable” and “the only chance to beat Obama” is because they looked at the other candidates and assessed their viability/odds of getting elected. It didn’t stop people from voting, but I’m sure it influenced some of the non-thinking voters. It also energized those who disagreed with the assessment, but obviously not enough to get their guy enough votes.

There is no one pulling the strings who selected Romney. My former boss is the founder and in the leadership of an influential PAC. He supported Romney last time, and he supports Romney this time (started out liking Huntsman). Other PACs supported Romney’s opponents in the primaries. Part of winning is garnering enough supporters. Last primary election, Romney failed. This election, he succeeded.

 

[rlg94086]

You didn’t answer the question. You answered why one might choose to vote for one of the candidates in the coming election, not why one needs to vote at all. I myself intend to vote neither for Obama or Romney.

FYI…your candidate won’t be in the White House in January, then.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Most disturbing to me is the sense that their are wizards behind the curtain pulling stings – how else does one explain Romney? Long before the primaries even started he was “inevitable”, “the only chance to beat Obama”

That’s the media talking. The U.S. media is insane in its obsession with political “horse races.” When there is no seasonal election on the near horizon, the pundits psychologically disintegerate. They experience withdrawal on national TV. In order to maintain a semblance of sanity & function professionally they must continue to feed their personal obsessions by “looking forward” to the next election (and making inappropriate predictions), even if it’s 3 years from now.

(Try to translate what you see & hear, didymus. It will benefit your own sanity. )

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

FYI…your candidate won’t be in the White House in January, then.

Indeed. Candidate Nemo Nessuno will lose to either Obama or Romney.

 

[St_Francis]

Why vote at all?
In one sense, voting is an endorsement of the current two-in-one party system like the up-or-down votes in the old USSR. Due to gerrymandering it is almost impossible to throw out incumbent Congressfolk, third parties are effectively shut out. Why bother?

Most disturbing to me is the sense that their are wizards behind the curtain pulling stings – how else does one explain Romney? Long before the primaries even started he was “inevitable”, “the only chance to beat Obama”.
Yeah, this sounds like conspiracy theory, but the money and the media started toeing the line log before a single vote was cast.

How relevant is the President anyway? The economy basically does what it does. Presidents can make things worse,but not better.

Sorry to be a downer.

I agree with you about the two-party system, and if abstaining from voting would affect that, I would do so. However, abstaining from voting does *absolutely nothing. *It does *not *“send a message,” as some I have spoken with think.

Voting is not an endorsement of the two-party system, it is merely an acceptance of it. We have two options, neither of which is perfect, but one of which is generally worse than the other. It could be that we would have an election when both are terrible.

We have a system; the system currently offers two options. It will be a while before we have another option, but in the meantime we can at least work towards that other option.

Voting is our one shot at affecting which of the two directions offered we chose. If the life and other social issues were off the table, I would still see the Republicans as the way to go, because they would at least not make it more difficult to institute what I personally see as the way to go economically, which is distributist.

 

[rlg94086]

Downer…realist…reminds me of this scene…

youtube.com/watch?v=f_95eB4V2Jg&feature=related

I’ll see your Mel Brooks and raise you some Bill Murray…

youtube.com/watch?v=Pkrad2_ciCA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[estesbob]

Well, after finding the time for multiple posts and multiple personal attacks, I think this is what you do with your time.

The only problem is, you never actually disputed anything I said with a factual counter-argument. You didn’t even try to dispute a single sentence regarding my take on Romney.

I’ll take that as a an admission of defeat.

Oh, well.

Mitt Romney is Not Soft on Pro-Life, Abortion Issues
lifenews.com/2012/03/23/mitt-romney-is-not-soft-on-pro-life-abortion-issues/
**
Pro-family advocates defend Romney’s record on life, marriage**

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-family-advocates-defend-romneys-record-on-life-marriage/

’Evangelicals for Mitt’ Defends Romney Against Allegations of ‘Spotty’ Abortion Record

christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-for-mitt-defend-gop-candidate-against-allegations-of-spotty-abortion-record-75370/
**
Planned Parenthood highlights Romney’s record on women in new ad
By Rose Gordon Sala - Wed May 30, 2012 11:17 AM EDT**

leanforward.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11956160-planned-parenthood-highlights-romneys-record-on-women-in-new-ad?lite

Romney Gains Support From Florida Pro-Life Advocates

lifenews.com/2012/01/30/romney-gains-support-from-florida-pro-life-advocates/

NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE ENDORSES GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY **
nrlpac.org/
**
Deja Vu: The Latest Attacks from Santorum
Posted on April 3, 2012

Is Mitt Romney really pro-life? Of course he is! Duh.

dailykos.com/story/2012/04/13/1083127/-Is-Mitt-Romney-really-pro-life-Of-course-he-is-Duh

Former Vatican ambassador defends Romney’s change on abortion

catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-vatican-ambassador-defends-romneys-change-of-heart-on-abortion/

Mitt Romney is Pro-Life.
“I am firmly pro-life.”(1)
For more explanation:
Prolife Principles: Why Critics are Wrong about Mitt Romney
“Setting the Record Straight” section:
Abortion Copays
“Morning After” Pills
Info found on other sites:
Mitt Romney Central: Abortion and Stem Cell Research

whyromney.com/ontheissues.php

 

[irishpatrick]

You mean pro-death…correct?

Yes, my bad…I posted a typo. I meant “if he picks a pro-choice running mate…”

 

[estesbob]

*Many false charges are circulating against Mitt Romney on the abortion issue. The following is one example. Read our special feature, Prolife Principles, for thorough information explaining why critcs are wrong.

A common charge is that Mitt Romney allowed for inexpensive abortion co-pays in his healthcare plan. In truth, the co-pays were forced not by the bill but by court decisions which Romney disagrees with(1). The bill itself calls for privatized insurance(2). The court rulings require state programs to cover abortion.

Some have claimed that the court decisions were not legally binding on Romney, since the decisions were not codified into law. However, this attempted criticism could be applied as easily to Roe v Wade itself, as many states have not codified it into law, yet adhere to it, understanding that even though it could be called a “declaratory opinion” it sets precedent under Stare Decisis. In other words, the actual “judgment” of Roe v Wade was technically only about one plaintiff and one defendant, but the “opinion” is understood to have sweeping ramifications in all similar cases. The argument against Romney, therefore, is mistaken.

Another claim often made is that the term “medically necessary abortions” used in the court decisions only applies to abortions where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Again, this is incorrect. “Medically necessary” is widely interpreted to mean treatment provided for any non-cosmetic, non-recreational reason. It applies to pain, and therefore applies to any pregnant woman seeking an abortion, since women are naturally pained or expected to become pained physically or psychologically as a result of a pregnancy.

“Morning After” Pills
-Critics claim Romney forced private hospitals to provide rape victims “morning after” pills. The truth is, Romney vetoed the legislation(3). The legislature overrode Romney’s veto(3), after which Romney tried to make an exemption for private hospitals by citing a conscience clause in state law which protects private hospitals.(4)

There was one clear obstacle to Romney’s preferred exemption: the legislature has authority to supersede previous laws with new laws, and the clear intent of the legislature was for this bill to supersede any contradictory statutes or provisions rather than to work in harmony with the older statute. Thus, if Romney were to challenge the intended effect of the law, he would have had to argue disingenuously in court that the older provision and the new provision could be reconciled when that was likely not true. It is perhaps not surprising that Romney felt bound by the new law and it was in this context that Romney told the Department of Public Health they had to enforce the intent of the law even though he disagreed with it.*

whyromney.com/index.php#abortioncopays

 

[Mickey]

Yes, my bad…I posted a typo. I meant “if he picks a pro-choice running mate…”

Ah yes…but that is still a typo…because there is no such thing as “pro-choice”. The baby in the womb does not have a choice.

 

[rlg94086]

Ah yes…but that is still a typo…because there is no such thing as “pro-choice”. The baby in the womb does not have a choice.

The baby shouldn’t have put himself in that situation and left himself vulnerable…baby should have known better than to leave his life up to his “loving” mother.

 

[rlg94086]

*Many false charges are circulating against Mitt Romney on the abortion issue. The following is one example. Read our special feature, Prolife Principles, for thorough information explaining why critcs are wrong.

A common charge is that Mitt Romney allowed for inexpensive abortion co-pays in his healthcare plan. In truth, the co-pays were forced not by the bill but by court decisions which Romney disagrees with(1). The bill itself calls for privatized insurance(2). The court rulings require state programs to cover abortion.

Some have claimed that the court decisions were not legally binding on Romney, since the decisions were not codified into law. However, this attempted criticism could be applied as easily to Roe v Wade itself, as many states have not codified it into law, yet adhere to it, understanding that even though it could be called a “declaratory opinion” it sets precedent under Stare Decisis. In other words, the actual “judgment” of Roe v Wade was technically only about one plaintiff and one defendant, but the “opinion” is understood to have sweeping ramifications in all similar cases. The argument against Romney, therefore, is mistaken.

Another claim often made is that the term “medically necessary abortions” used in the court decisions only applies to abortions where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Again, this is incorrect. “Medically necessary” is widely interpreted to mean treatment provided for any non-cosmetic, non-recreational reason. It applies to pain, and therefore applies to any pregnant woman seeking an abortion, since women are naturally pained or expected to become pained physically or psychologically as a result of a pregnancy.

“Morning After” Pills
-Critics claim Romney forced private hospitals to provide rape victims “morning after” pills. The truth is, Romney vetoed the legislation(3). The legislature overrode Romney’s veto(3), after which Romney tried to make an exemption for private hospitals by citing a conscience clause in state law which protects private hospitals.(4)

There was one clear obstacle to Romney’s preferred exemption: the legislature has authority to supersede previous laws with new laws, and the clear intent of the legislature was for this bill to supersede any contradictory statutes or provisions rather than to work in harmony with the older statute. Thus, if Romney were to challenge the intended effect of the law, he would have had to argue disingenuously in court that the older provision and the new provision could be reconciled when that was likely not true. It is perhaps not surprising that Romney felt bound by the new law and it was in this context that Romney told the Department of Public Health they had to enforce the intent of the law even though he disagreed with it.*

whyromney.com/index.php#abortioncopays

Bob,

You are a gentleman and a scholar, and you balance out my knavery.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Ah yes…but that is still a typo…because there is no such thing as “pro-choice”. The baby in the womb does not have a choice.

As has been explained, the choice mentioned is the choice of the mother. A wanted, pre-born child of good parents, under the best of circumstances, has no choice in anything.

 

[Mickey]

As has been explained, the choice mentioned is the choice of the mother.

As has been explained…Esquire… the term "pro-choice " is a joke. It depicts the option that the mother has for killing the baby. That is called pro-death or perhaps pro-abortion. The voiceless martyr in the womb has no say, no voice and no choice as to whether the mother chooses to kill him/her.

 

[Mickey]

The baby shouldn’t have put himself in that situation and left himself vulnerable…baby should have known better than to leave his life up to his “loving” mother.

It breaks my heart.

 

[LisaA]

Why vote at all?
In one sense, voting is an endorsement of the current two-in-one party system like the up-or-down votes in the old USSR. Due to gerrymandering it is almost impossible to throw out incumbent Congressfolk, third parties are effectively shut out. Why bother?

Most disturbing to me is the sense that their are wizards behind the curtain pulling stings – how else does one explain Romney? Long before the primaries even started he was “inevitable”, “the only chance to beat Obama”.
Yeah, this sounds like conspiracy theory, but the money and the media started toeing the line log before a single vote was cast.

How relevant is the President anyway? The economy basically does what it does. Presidents can make things worse,but not better.

Sorry to be a downer.

I’m just fascinated by the theory that “the establishment” picked Romney or that all of us who voted for him were obviously brainwashed by someone pulling strings behind the curtain.

Could you give us a bit of credit for having done research and concluded that Romney was well qualified, executive experience in the public and private sector, squeaky clean in his personal life…no bimbo eruptions, a problem solver, temperamentally suitable and a sucess in everything he’s done? I supported him last time and was devastated when he dropped out leaving us with McCain who is a wonderful American hero but a particularly terrible candidate. I’m really getting tired of hearing that I was somehow bamboozled into supporting the man I thought was by far the best candidate.

As to the idea he was a shoo in, you must not have been watching the primaries. There was a large group of very viable candidates at at a given time, Romney was running second or even third. All of the people who voted in the primaries are the ones who chose Romney. I don’t think they are all stupid do you?

I DO have a bone to pick with the primary system where small states such as Iowa and New Hampshire seem to have inordinate influence. I would prefer a rolling primary system so that all states have the opportunity to provide (name removed by moderator)ut. My state’s primary is so late that it’s hardly worth the bother as the candidates have been picked by all the other states…

And you are right that it seems to take a lot of money to run for office and getting out entrenched incumbents is difficult. But it’s not always the big money candidate who wins and had money been the sole influence in 08, Romney would have easily been the nominee. He had far more than any other candidate and ended up behind Huckabee, who had no money in comparison and McCain who was carrying his own bags and flying coach early in the 08 campaign.

As to the influence of the President on the economy…sorry but are you kidding? Don’t you think Obama’s far Left, statist, environmentalist views have been the reason our economy is floundering? I do. Had McCain been elected, despite his many flaws we would not have Obamacare, Dodd Frank, the Stimulus, the GM Bail Oout etc etc etc. Obama has been a force of destruction on this economy and this country.

As to the thread, any Catholic who votes for Obama is complicit in expanding the slaughter of innocent unborn life. He is and was and has always been radical in his support of abortion. I knew that in 08 and was sick at the sight of Obama stickers on cars in our Parish lot. I just hope these misguided souls have learned something since then.

Lisa