Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

[catholictiger]

I have some of the same concerns with Romney … but I don’t think I’ll dwell on them now.
Besides his “at least being pro-life” < (NOT a small deal) I recall that at masses throughout the country we pray specifically for the President all the time.

In Bill Clinton’s case the Holy Spirit and all those prayers couldn’t get him to sign the partial birth abortion ban on his desk. In Obama’s - perhaps the prayers are restraining him from being worse, but he appears to be attacking the Church.

Maybe prayers for Romney will help if he gets elected. “Couldn’t hurt!”

Not sure about your pro-war comment. Although Paul was donning the “peace” candidate mantle a bit more (at least insisting that Congress be involved in declaring it if memory serves).

War is a sticky thing. When I hear the word “pro-war” I think of someone who’s looking to start one (for some sort of evil gain). Sometimes nations find themselves “at war” when they are attacked - self defense is a different principle there, and “turning the other cheek” to a vicious enemy has the side effect of NOT assisting one’s threatened neighbors per justice.

Anyway - it is good to be thoughtful about the weightiest matters when choosing our national (and state and local) leaders.

May God bless you greatly in your Seminary studies catholictiger!

let me rephrase my statement, pro conflict in middle east

 

[gnjsdad]

Since neither of the two main candidates remotely has the interests of Catholics at heart, I think your poll should have a “none of the above” choice.

Voting for president in this election is a waste of time and effort. Instead of engaging in a gigantic exercise in wishful thinking, Romney supporters would do better to pray for the conversion of both candidates.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

That article is not true Romney is not pro abortion.

I don’t know, that article quotes what are generally considered “respectable” conservative sources, like National Review, The American Spectator, the Republican National Coalition For Life. Thoughtful Republicans SHOULD be troubled by this.

 

[Hello_All]

i am not voting for any one of them.obama because of his pro death stance and romney because of his religious affiliation.it is not personally about romney,but i am pretty sure that once he is elected,mormon missionaries will use this as their no.1 tactic/ploy/weapon to proselytize more aggressively and claim that their religion is not pseudo christian,as the no1 powerful man in the world, belongs to their faith.they will brag about this, from all corners of the world.remember they only do their mission works, mainly on catholic countries.one thing i noticed when i travell overseas is that they erect their churches ,very close to centuries old catholic churches and make sure that they’re gargantuan and should tower over our churches,even ,if they have just a dozen of members.its a psychological warfare for them.just to reiterate,im not against romney,but im concerened about what their church leaders will do ,once he is elected.they are striving very hard to get him elected,even now embracing the gay marriage ,just to get more votes.this is just dangerous for our catholic faith.let not just dont think about the USA ,but think what his religion will do. to catholic countries globally.

 

[catholictiger]

I don’t know, that article quotes what are generally considered “respectable” conservative sources, like National Review, The American Spectator, the Republican National Coalition For Life. Thoughtful Republicans SHOULD be troubled by this.

what kinda of things do they say that make him seem like he is pro choice?

BTW I don’t think we have ever had a more pro abortion candidate for president than we have had and do have in Obama, and I think there will only be a handful of candidates who will be as pro choice as him. I would vote for a pro choicer who just isn’t as aggressive as obama if those were the two choices. Remember we must vote for lesser of two evils. (at-least I think you should)

 

[Mickey]

Voting for president in this election is a waste of time and effort.

Vote pro-life. Vote Romney.

 

[Mickey]

i am not voting for any one of them.

We need to vote for the man who does not support the genocide of abortion.

 

[catholictiger]

Vote pro-life. Vote Romney.

I’m going to vote romeny but I know many conservatives out there hold to the opinion of one or the other. Personally I don’t mind people voting third party, it sends a message to the people in Washington I don’t like what options you are giving me so I’m voting for someone who I think should win, even though he has little to no chance. If enough people did something like this Washington would take note. But too many people say you must vote dem or GOP never vote third party.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

what kinda of things do they say that make him seem like he is pro choice?

spectator.org/blog/2007/12/16/thompson-pounces Are you saying that this DOESN’T?

 

[austenbosten]

My prediction Ohio will go BHO We will pick this conversation up in Nov and see whos right…LOL

Dont forget!

You’re dreaming…Ohioans are NOT happy with Obama and 2010 proved it. Ohioans also voted to ban the health insurance mandate in 2011. Ohioans clearly are not going to Obama this November.

 

[onmyknees]

i am not voting for any one of them.obama because of his pro death stance and romney because of his religious affiliation.it is not personally about romney,but i am pretty sure that once he is elected,mormon missionaries will use this as their no.1 tactic/ploy/weapon to proselytize more aggressively and claim that their religion is not pseudo christian,as the no1 powerful man in the world, belongs to their faith.they will brag about this, from all corners of the world.remember they only do their mission works, mainly on catholic countries.one thing i noticed when i travell overseas is that they erect their churches ,very close to centuries old catholic churches and make sure that they’re gargantuan and should tower over our churches,even ,if they have just a dozen of members.its a psychological warfare for them.just to reiterate,im not against romney,but im concerened about what their church leaders will do ,once he is elected.they are striving very hard to get him elected,even now embracing the gay marriage ,just to get more votes.this is just dangerous for our catholic faith.let not just dont think about the USA ,but think what his religion will do. to catholic countries globally.

Hello All, I would worry more about how Obama is slowly taking our country into socialism not unlike Europe. If you are strong in your Catholic faith you won’t be easily swayed from it. And since you are Catholic how can you not vote for Romney who is pro-life?

 

[Seamus_L]

How many people here were actually excited about Romney when the GOP still had a full slate of candidates ? Did he even make your top 4 or 5. Remember when there was Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, etc. Now he’s supposedly our best hope, or is it really just another case of picking the lesser of two evils, even if in this case it appears to be the much lesser of two evils. Barack Obama has been disaster for America, and if Mitt Romney is the next president, I really don’t see too much change. The bus will still be going over the cliff, because both are globalist, Wall St, New World Order puppets.

 

[Zosimus41]

You’re dreaming…Ohioans are NOT happy with Obama and 2010 proved it. Ohioans also voted to ban the health insurance mandate in 2011. Ohioans clearly are not going to Obama this November.

You do know I hope and pray your right.

 

[austenbosten]

You do know I hope and pray your right.

I do too.

 

[rlg94086]

spectator.org/blog/2007/12/16/thompson-pounces Are you saying that this DOESN’T?

Are you saying you swallow any misrepresentation that comes your way?

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/19/newt-gingrich/gingrich-ad-says-mitt-romney-enacted-taxpayer-fund/

A 1981 Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts said that the cost of abortions had to be included in publicly subsidized plans.

Most private insurance plans in the U.S. include abortion coverage, and the state-subsidized plans in Massachusetts do, too. So when the Health Connector began, abortion coverage was automatically included.

In some of the low-cost plans, abortions are covered with a $50 co-pay.

So Gingrich’s ad is right that some abortions in Massachusetts are “taxpayer-funded.” But that requirement long predated the law Romney signed.

“That was already a given,” Fox said. “Anything that’s paid for with tax money, like Medicaid, covered abortions.”

Her group was part of an effort to overturn that requirement with a constitutional amendment, but it failed.

“The combination of the court order and state-controlled health care means Romney really wasn’t involved in funding these abortions. It was automatic, and there would be no way to stop it,” Fox said. “We tried. It would have to be a constitutional amendment. It would not be something somebody could just veto.”

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/newt-gingrich/Gingrich-ad-says-Mitt-Romney-appointed-Planned-Par/

The governor of Massachusetts gets to appoint two of the 14 board members. When Romney was governor, he appointed Deborah Enos, president of Neighborhood Health Plan, a Medicaid managed care organization, and Bob Moran, an expert in payment methodologies at the University of Massachusetts. (Both are named in this implementation report from 2006.) [Neither of them from Planned Parenthood - rlg]
…
the board the ad refers to was created as part of Massachusetts’ health care overhaul, which the Legislature passed and which Romney signed, and its function is to review Medicaid reimbursement rates. The law also specifies where 12 of the board’s 14 members must come from, including one member appointed by Planned Parenthood. It’s true that Romney didn’t appoint any abortion foes to the board – but the board doesn’t deal with abortion or have any say in what abortion services are covered by state-subsidized insurance policies. So that claim is correct but leaves out an important detail.

factcheck.org/2012/02/fact-mauling-in-mesa/

Romney vetoed the law requiring the morning-after pill to be dispensed to rape victims at hospitals. His veto was later overridden by the Legislature. Romney then backed a state ruling that private hospitals, including religious hospitals, didn’t have to follow the requirement if they had moral objections. But he later flip-flopped on that position, saying that his legal counsel concluded that all hospitals would have to follow the new law. The Boston Globe also quoted Romney as saying: “My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information.”

Romney’s imperfect, but there is no reason to lie about his record.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t know, that article quotes what are generally considered “respectable” conservative sources, like National Review, The American Spectator, the Republican National Coalition For Life. Thoughtful Republicans SHOULD be troubled by this.

Those quotes are from when Romney used to be pro abortion. Then Romney converted to a pro life position and always supported life when a pro abortion bill came to his desk as Governor

 

[irishpatrick]

Since neither of the two main candidates remotely has the interests of Catholics at heart, I think your poll should have a “none of the above” choice.

Voting for president in this election is a waste of time and effort. Instead of engaging in a gigantic exercise in wishful thinking, Romney supporters would do better to pray for the conversion of both candidates.

Nonsense.

We live in the world, but are not of this world. However, we are to do everything we can to improve this world in whatever way we can, and to make it more friendly for people of God. We should pray for both people (Romney and Obama), yet we MUST also make a wise choice from the two–because whether we totally agree with them, or not, one of them will be elected President for the next four year term.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Nonsense.

We live in the world, but are not of this world. However, we are to do everything we can to improve this world in whatever way we can, and to make it more friendly for people of God. We should pray for both people (Romney and Obama), yet we MUST also make a wise choice from the two–because whether we totally agree with them, or not, one of them will be elected President for the next four year term.

The last sentence isn’t nonsense though.

 

[irishpatrick]

How many people here were actually excited about Romney when the GOP still had a full slate of candidates ? Did he even make your top 4 or 5. Remember when there was Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, etc. Now he’s supposedly our best hope, or is it really just another case of picking the lesser of two evils, even if in this case it appears to be the much lesser of two evils. Barack Obama has been disaster for America, and if Mitt Romney is the next president, I really don’t see too much change. The bus will still be going over the cliff, because both are globalist, Wall St, New World Order puppets.

Don’t you understand? It is literally always the choice between two imperfect people…some are more imperfect than others, yet they are always sinners and they always come with some sort of baggage.

The thought that conservatives have about picking “the perfect” candidate is just a fantasy, no such person exists. They will have strengths and weaknesses–the task is to choose the best of the two, no matter how weak they are overall.

We are not living in a theoretical world, or a theorectical nation–we have real life problems to solve and only two people to choose from, like it or not those are facts. So, we make the best choice we can and leave the rest in the Lord’s hands.

 

[irishpatrick]

The last sentence isn’t nonsense though.

???