Obama and Romney Hit Final Stretch Part 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter qui_est_ce
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
epan said:
Would you vote for a truly radical muslim? obviously this question is only hypothetical, since such a person would not get through our primaries.
Click to expand...
You may be surprised at who gets through what in government.

Like him or not, this president was not vetted. In Maine, there is an independent candidate who was governor who is not being vetted and is a lock to win a Senate seat there.

And look at Justice Roberts, the deciding vote on health care. How many blue dog dems and republicans saw that coming?
 
Cliff_Jumper said:
I am struggling with this a little. Obama is for every non-negotiable so he is out way out of the possibility of voting for.
However Romney stood for several non-negotiables when he served in public office and now is conveniently pro-life though not in cases of rape/incest/mother’s health (which call me jaded I frankly think is code for unlimited abortions given previous candidates records with this line) and pro traditional marriage. However, there is no real proof to back his claims up.

It would seem to me that without any real proof to trust Romney’s claims (i.e. sponsored bills, activities taken against Planned Parenthood, protesting abortion, actively pointing out the neglected enforcement of DOMA) that casting a vote for him is a big gamble.

This is why I decided to write in Rick Santorum/Alan Keyes this election. Of course now with so much at stake I feel that not voting for Romney will be sinful even if I write in Santorum/Keyes.

Is it okay to write in Santorum/Keyes? I understand Catholic teaching on voting and the non-negotiables.
Click to expand...
  1. You can write in who you believe best represents your vote, but I would weigh that against the tightness of the election. The Church does not forbid it, however.
  2. Since you reference an eighties cartoon icon in both your screen name and signature, I’d give you pass if I were God anyway.
 
Tampa_Dave said:
**CNN national poll tied at 49%. Romney up 22 with independents. Sample is D+11 (was D+7 in 08, even in 2004/2010). Taken 11/2-4. **

What kind of poll is this?

D+11 in the year 2012? This is not 2008, the year of the Greek pillars and the ascendance of Emperor Obama.

Tied at 49%? This in light of the fact that the poll cites with Romney up 22% with Independents?

Which one of my liberal friends was talking about fuzzy Republican math? 🙂
Click to expand...
Some of the pollsters would use a sample of D+99 if it gave them the tie they want to see. How on earth do they justify D+11? I have yet to hear anyone explain that.
 
meltzerboy said:
The Bradley effect has been discredited by political scientist Dan Hopkins. He has done a rather comprehensive analytic study of many gubernatorial and senatorial races and has found a plethora of counterexamples. It may have once been a potent variable, but for the past 15 years it has become much less important. Even the evidence for it at the start had been largely anecdotal. In the mayoral NYC primary, for example, it worked in reverse since the black candidate, David Dinkins, received a significantly larger percentage of the vote compared to Ed Koch than the polls had predicted.
Click to expand...
Besides, Bill Bradley isn’t even running. He lost to Gore.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
My phone rings every night, sometimes 2 or 3 times. It’s 50-50, recordings vs. surveys. I’ve been telling surveys to remove me from their calling list, and telling the pushy ones ‘I’m not voting for any name I hear on my telephone.’
Click to expand...
Don’t let that frustrate you.
 
He_Man said:
  1. You can write in who you believe best represents your vote, but I would weigh that against the tightness of the election. The Church does not forbid it, however.
  2. Since you reference an eighties cartoon icon in both your screen name and signature, I’d give you pass if I were God anyway.
Click to expand...
Cool. Voting for Romney because of the closeness of the election is something I am considering.

And thank you for recognizing my sig and screen name. I cannot tell you how many times atheists miss the meaning and use it as a threat against me.
 
meltzerboy said:
I think I’ve changed my mind about the legalization of marijuana since it has evidently affected George Will’s judgment.
Click to expand...
I predicted similar numbers and I don’t smoke.

321 seems a fair number.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Here is the answer from the apologist:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=725560

I’m supporting Romney because he’s better on the non-negotiables and this country is basically gone as we know it he loses. If that happens, there’s going to be a lot of hurting families who will have wished very much they had voted for him.
Click to expand...
SuperLuigi, thank you for the apologist reference. So it seems that voting for Romney is permissible or a write in is permissible?
Seeing as how Romney will most likely win my state SC I may just write Santorum in.
 
Cliff_Jumper said:
Cool. Voting for Romney because of the closeness of the election is something I am considering.

And thank you for recognizing my sig and screen name. I cannot tell you how many times atheists miss the meaning and use it as a threat against me.
Click to expand...
We cartoon icon’s have to stick together.
 
Cliff_Jumper said:
SuperLuigi, thank you for the apologist reference. So it seems that voting for Romney is permissible or a write in is permissible?
Seeing as how Romney will most likely win my state SC I may just write Santorum in.
Click to expand...
Saaay! That’s what I did in the California primary. Having said that … I’ve noticed that Rick Santorum himself is now backing Romney.

So am I now.

Keep discerning Cliff Jumper - so far so good! Lol 🍿 😉
 
CaptFun said:
Saaay! That’s what I did in the California primary. Having said that … I’ve noticed that Rick Santorum himself is now backing Romney.

So am I now.

Keep discerning Cliff Jumper - so far so good! Lol 🍿 😉
Click to expand...
Yes he is. Though I do wonder if he is just touting the party line. At any rate, I am pretty certain I will write him in. May the Lord forgive me if it is sinful :gopray:
 
meltzerboy said:
Radical in the sense of wanting to harm Americans and overthrow the government and convert it to a theocracy? No, I wouldn’t vote for such a person no matter what their religion was.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more radical in the sense of fundamentalist, strict interpretation and application of Sharia, and such. This is sort of a pointless tangent though. I probably should not have brought it up. I guess I was just thinking that your comment that a person’s religious views should be irrelevant in an electoral decision, may be true most of the time, but maybe not all of the time.
 
Yes he is. Though I do wonder if he is just touting the party line. At any rate, I am pretty certain I will write him in. May the Lord forgive me if it is sinful
Click to expand...
The Constitution Party had Chuck Baldwin run in 2008. How bad can they be? You know Charles Obadiah “Chuck” Baldwin–an American politician and founder-pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida.
 
Pork_Roll said:
The Constitution Party had Chuck Baldwin run in 2008. How bad can they be? You know Charles Obadiah “Chuck” Baldwin–an American politician and founder-pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida.
Click to expand...
The Constitution has had some goof candidates, no doubting that.
 
What if we all just vote for Optimus Prime. At least when he says change we know what the change is :rotfl:🤓
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top