Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

[catholicanne]

I guess I’m part of that small percentage, as are many of my Catholic, church going friends. I voted for him last time and am considering voting for him this time again. It think your guess is a little off, based on my anecdotal experience.

Why would you vote for someone who stands for gay marriage and abortion? Why would any Catholic? You say you attend Mass weekly, does any of it actually register with you?

 

[catholicanne]

Put me down as going for the O-man.

Romney seems an intelligent capable and decent person, but he’s already been captured by the more extreme wings of his party. Note his many change of views to accommodate that wing, including his repudiation of the health care ideas that he himself pioneered. That’s just not credible leadership.

If the real Romney had had the courage to run, the moderate sensible guy hiding under the current political pose, I might have been interested.

This is laughable.

What about Obama’s “evolution” and his endorsement of gay marriage?

 

[catholicanne]

what is your reasoning for voting for obama?

how could you vote for someone who is so pro choice.

They are not pro-choice, they are pro-abortion. Let’s just call it what it is.

 

[Typist]

What about Obama’s “evolution” and his endorsement of gay marriage?

Well, I evolved years before our fine President did, and am all for gay marriage. If I fault him, it’s for being kinda slow on the draw.

My main concern about him is the huge deficits. I do have some concern that he may not have the skill to pull us out of that.

 

[pnewton]

My main concern about him is the huge deficits. I do have some concern that he may not have the skill to pull us out of that.

Since he didn’t pull it off, I would say your concern is well-founded. His economic record is not very good. I see nothing but disaster for the economy now.

 

[estesbob]

Jesus did not say this, nor is this what the Catholic Church teaches.

"No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,”

Cardinal raymond Burke.

 

[pnewton]

"No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,”

Cardinal raymond Burke.

This is not a response to the statement, “Christ would care about one issue in this election.” Do I need to quote Faithful Citizenship again, or has that been done enough that we all know by now?

I agree with the statement above, but I have to note that it was something the Cardinal said in an live interview.

 

[LisaA]

Put me down as going for the O-man.

Romney seems an intelligent capable and decent person, but he’s already been captured by the more extreme wings of his party. Note his many change of views to accommodate that wing, including his repudiation of the health care ideas that he himself pioneered. That’s just not credible leadership.

If the real Romney had had the courage to run, the moderate sensible guy hiding under the current political pose, I might have been interested.

You know Typist I often wonder about people who come on CAF who just like to throw bombs and hope they can get a rise out of people.

Obama has been dishonest, corrupt, incompetent and stomps all over the Constitution with amazing frequency. He has increased the deficit more in three years than all the previous presidents combined. He hasn’t kept any of his campaign promises. So I suspect your belief he won’t pull us out of the deficit is quite well founded.

But if you still think he’s the right choice it says a lot more about you than about Obama.

Lisa

 

[lerapt78]

I’m an avid Ron Paul supporter…that being said, I don’t know yet for whom I will cast my vote, but it won’t be for either Obama or Romney.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m an avid Ron Paul supporter…that being said, I don’t know yet for whom I will cast my vote, but it won’t be for either Obama or Romney.

Well, at least you can be confident in the result of your vote.

 

[LisaA]

I’m an avid Ron Paul supporter…that being said, I don’t know yet for whom I will cast my vote, but it won’t be for either Obama or Romney.

In effect it will be for Obama since you have the opportunity to vote AGAINST him by voting for Romney who unlike your candidate whomever he might be, actually can win. Of course the more people like you who are happy to have another four years of Obama the more likely he could win despite his incredible incompetence.

Lisa

 

[rlg94086]

In effect it will be for Obama since you have the opportunity to vote AGAINST him by voting for Romney who unlike your candidate whomever he might be, actually can win. Of course the more people like you who are happy to have another four years of Obama the more likely he could win despite his incredible incompetence.

Lisa

At a minimum, he will be voting for someone who won’t be occupying the White House in 2013. It’s always a good idea to advocate an action with 100% likelihood of failure.

 

[stinkcat_14]

At a minimum, he will be voting for someone who won’t be occupying the White House in 2013. It’s always a good idea to advocate an action with 100% likelihood of failure.

Of course it depends on whether you are thinking short run or long run. In the short run, it would probably harm the republicans. On the other hand, the republicans probably need to be harmed so that they get their act together. If voting for a third party makes the process better in the long run then it is worth enduring short term failure.

 

[pnewton]

In effect it will be for Obama since you have the opportunity to vote AGAINST him by voting for Romney who unlike your candidate whomever he might be, actually can win. Of course the more people like you who are happy to have another four years of Obama the more likely he could win despite his incredible incompetence.

Lisa

You give a valid reason why Catholics are *allowed *to vote for a Republican candidate even if they believe is less in line with Church teaching than another less electable candidate. However, there is no moral compulsion to do so. A person can vote their conscience for the best candidate and leave the results to God.

 

[pnewton]

Of course it depends on whether you are thinking short run or long run. In the short run, it would probably harm the republicans. On the other hand, the republicans probably need to be harmed so that they get their act together. If voting for a third party makes the process better in the long run then it is worth enduring short term failure.

Well, we already had one voter pitching that this is the last free election for America.

 

[rlg94086]

Of course it depends on whether you are thinking short run or long run. In the short run, it would probably harm the republicans. On the other hand, the republicans probably need to be harmed so that they get their act together. If voting for a third party makes the process better in the long run then it is worth enduring short term failure.

That’s a pretty big “if”

I’ve voted 3rd party before…Reform Party. As a known Bush fan, are you saying that was effective in “harming the Republicans” (well, there I agree) so they would “get their act together?”

 

[Jeffrey]

I too get the feeling that there are quite a few trolls. Most seem liberal… but hey… whatever.

Anyone who votes for obama had committed a mortal sin for his stance on killing babies… and homos. Period.

If you vote for obama or third party ( effectivly helping obama stay in the WH ) the unborns blood is on your hands… may God have mercy on your soul.

You know Typist I often wonder about people who come on CAF who just like to throw bombs and hope they can get a rise out of people.

Obama has been dishonest, corrupt, incompetent and stomps all over the Constitution with amazing frequency. He has increased the deficit more in three years than all the previous presidents combined. He hasn’t kept any of his campaign promises. So I suspect your belief he won’t pull us out of the deficit is quite well founded.

But if you still think he’s the right choice it says a lot more about you than about Obama.

Lisa

 

[stinkcat_14]

That’s a pretty big “if”

I agree that it is a pretty big “if”, but of course that is something for the voter him or herself to decide and it is pretty much subjective.

I’ve voted 3rd party before…Reform Party. As a known Bush fan, are you saying that was effective in “harming the Republicans” (well, there I agree) so they would “get their act together?”

When the republicans controlled the white house and congress, they spent money like drunken sailors, didn’t reign in fannie and freddie and didn’t learn any lesson when they lost the house in 2006. Did they learn somewhat after 08, yes, but they still have a lot to learn.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You give a valid reason why Catholics are *allowed *to vote for a Republican candidate even if they believe is less in line with Church teaching than another less electable candidate. However, there is no moral compulsion to do so. A person can vote their conscience for the best candidate and leave the results to God.

this is true. However, I think the point being made (by someone! – perhaps not that poster) was that not to decide, is to decide. Not to act, is (often) to act. (That includes elections.)

 

[rlg94086]

I agree that it is a pretty big “if”, but of course that is something for the voter him or herself to decide and it is pretty much subjective.

When the republicans controlled the white house and congress, they spent money like drunken sailors, didn’t reign in fannie and freddie and didn’t learn any lesson when they lost the house in 2006. Did they learn somewhat after 08, yes, but they still have a lot to learn.

And, you are willing to secede complete control to the Democrats to teach the Republicans a lesson? This makes no logical sense, whatsoever. Especially, since you have no control of the results. It’s a very poorly devised gambling strategy.

I recommend you take everything you own and place it on 00 at the roullette table this weekend. It’s a great way to teach people a lesson.