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:
I understand why someone running a campaign would want to know poll numbers in order to strategize.

As a voter, doesn’t it make more sense to just wait and see how the election turns out?
Click to expand...
Well if you’re a passive sort of guy, I suppose you wouldn’t be curious. The rest of us are curious. And it’s not like we’ve been sitting around waiting for the hammer to drop either way. Maybe you have. 😛

A lot of people also have an interest in how biased the news media is, and this is a good measure of that parameter. They’re VERY biased toward the LEFT.
 
Abyssinia,
With Gallup down for whatever reason, Rasmussen is my go-to place for this stuff. They’re the most likely to nail this thing of any polling outfit out there.

The Gallup thing is interesting. They have NEVER suspended polling at this point in the race.
 
iloveangels said:
Well if you’re a passive sort of guy, I suppose you wouldn’t be curious. The rest of us are curious. And it’s not like we’ve been sitting around waiting for the hammer to drop either way. Maybe you have. 😛

A lot of people also have an interest in how biased the news media is, and this is a good measure of that parameter. They’re VERY biased toward the LEFT.
Click to expand...
I’m curious. But the speculation seems a waste of time. Each prediction has a bias. The site that info came from is very biased toward Romney. I looked it over, and it is even suggesting that Romney has a prayer of a chance in Nevada, while FOX is essentially reporting that Obama has already taken Nevada.

700,000 out of a projected 800,000 votes in. Obama leading by 48,000. Yet, that same site is suggesting that there will be a surge in republican votes in Nevada.

What is the purpose of spending time on such biased sites? Apparently, not every site is left leaning. Have you looked at FOX? That Rasmussen stuff was quoted from Battlegroundwatch, which is notoriously biased. Sure, huffington is on the left, CNN is in the center (which probably means right to you). But there are many opinions and biases to choose from, if that is your game. CAF is an example of an ultra conservative site.
 
Tampa_Dave said:
Some Catholics are willing to forsake the Magisterium and the Holy See for social justice (and all that phrase encompasses). I don’t understand the rationale myself. We are dutibound to observe the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church without reservation. We, as Catholics, cannot be selective with dogma. Given the relative positions of Romney and Obama on Catholic issues, I simply cannot fathom why a faithful Catholic can opt for Obama. The HHS mandate, abortion, contraception, gay marriage, failure to defend DOMA, issue upon issue Obama falls drastically short from the Catholic perspective. But that’s just me. Like anyone else, I have an opinion. Reject it as you like.🙂
Click to expand...
I would imagine there are some willing, but some is short of millions. As I said, I doubt that people do not think they are not observing the teachings, but have a different understanding of what was said.

When the Bishops decided to address the voter’s guide for 2012, it was specifically discussed that there was an apparent vagueness to the wording, according to some. When they approved the 2012 guide, the wording did not change, and here we are again.

So, I’m not so sure it’s a case of ‘rejecting it as you like.’ Why would the Church not clarify something to see what’s really rejection and what’s misunderstanding?
 
epan said:
I’m curious. But the speculation seems a waste of time. Each prediction has a bias. The site that info came from is very biased toward Romney. I looked it over, and it is even suggesting that Romney has a prayer of a chance in Nevada, while FOX is essentially reporting that Obama has already taken Nevada.

700,000 out of a projected 800,000 votes in. Obama leading by 48,000. Yet, that same site is suggesting that there will be a surge in republican votes in Nevada.

What is the purpose of spending time on such biased sites?
Click to expand...
They give people, both conservatives and liberals, hope that their candidate will win. Hope, optimism, and self-esteem are all correlated with happiness.
 
estesbob said:
I am loathe to pray for a specific outcome for this election as i know the outcome, regardless, will be Gods will. What I pray for is the grace to accept a Romeny victory without gloating and an Obama victory without rancor.
Click to expand...
Amen bob! Hope you’re having a good time on your trip.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I would imagine there are some willing, but some is short of millions. As I said, I doubt that people do not think they are not observing the teachings, but have a different understanding of what was said.

When the Bishops decided to address the voter’s guide for 2012, it was specifically discussed that there was an apparent vagueness to the wording, according to some. When they approved the 2012 guide, the wording did not change, and here we are again.

So, I’m not so sure it’s a case of ‘rejecting it as you like.’ Why would the Church not clarify something to see what’s really rejection and what’s misunderstanding?
Click to expand...
Do you think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a mere Rorschach ink blot for your entertainment? Do you think that’s a kindergartner’s drawing?

The teaching about abortion is VERY CLEAR in the CCC. Go read it for yourself:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2271

The references to the section on abortion are from the BIBLE, the Didache, the Church Fathers and other official teaching documents. I know not many Catholics read the Bible, but I didn’t think that they considered it FLUFF.
 
iloveangels said:
Do you think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a mere Rorschach ink blot for your entertainment? Do you think that’s a kindergartner’s drawing?

The teaching about abortion is VERY CLEAR in the CCC. Go read it for yourself:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2271

The references to the section on abortion are from the BIBLE, the Didache, the Church Fathers and other official teaching documents. I know not many Catholics read the Bible, but I didn’t think that they considered it FLUFF.
Click to expand...
I do read the Catechism, the scriptures, and the many other writings from the men of the Church throughout history. I would not consider any of them ‘fluff’. If the good shepherd goes after one lost sheep, leaving the ninety nine that are not lost, then I can’t see why a shepherd would not give clarification to go after millions of lost sheep, if those sheep were indeed lost?

The disagreement doesn’t seem to be over abortion. The disagreement is over how one votes. There were many who said the voter’s guide from the last election had vague language, so the Bishops revisited the guide prior to releasing it for this election. The language did not change. Why?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I do read the Catechism, the scriptures, and the many other writings from the men of the Church throughout history. I would not consider any of them ‘fluff’. If the good shepherd goes after one lost sheep, leaving the ninety nine that are not lost, then I can’t see why a shepherd would not give clarification to go after millions of lost sheep?

The disagreement doesn’t seem to be over abortion. The disagreement is over how one votes. There were many who said the voter’s guide from the last election had vague language, so the Bishops revisited the guide prior to releasing it for this election. The language did not change. Why?
Click to expand...
The discussion is about voting and the premium issue for Catholics is exactly the HHS mandate which tries to force abortion on the Church. Let’s not be coy. This HHS mandate is what the bishops, archbishops and cardinals of this country have been talking about non-stop for a YEAR. I can post articles if you wish.

PS maybe you should read the part about ABORTION again.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
Code: 
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
 
guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/04/florida-republicans-vote-democrats

Florida Republicans impinging on right to vote, say Democrats

State’s Democrats file lawsuit to keep polling places open as voter anger grows
Florida Democrats have accused the swing state’s Republican leadership of impinging on the fundamental rights of Americans amid growing voter anger at lengthy queues to vote, the shutting down of early voting and chaos in Miami over absentee ballots.

The state’s Democratic party filed a lawsuit on Sunday to keep polling places open until election day as the Republicans stood accused of attempting to disenfranchise its opponents with new limits on early voting that contributed to waits of more than seven hours to cast ballots in Democratic strongholds such as Miami.

Tea Party Activists are sending poll watchers in democratic only precincts in Ohio.

monitors?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/24/texas-attorney-general-arrest-election-
Texas attorney general threatens to arrest monitors observing US election. State attorney general calls international group’s plan to watch for fairness at the polls 'legally irrelevant in the United States’

The Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, has threatened to arrest international election monitors invited by liberal groups to observe the conduct of next month’s presidential vote in states accused of attempting to disenfranchise minorities.

Despite Allowing Tea Party activists within the polling places to challenge Black voters.
 
iloveangels said:
The discussion is about voting and the premium issue for Catholics is exactly the HHS mandate which tries to force abortion on the Church. Let’s not be coy. This HHS mandate is what the bishops, archbishops and cardinals of this country have been talking about non-stop for a YEAR. I can post articles if you wish.

PS maybe you should read the part about ABORTION again.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
Code: 
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to be coy, I promise.

I agree with the Catechism 100%.

All the issues were current when the Bishops revisited the voter’s guide, for possible changes. That seems like it would have been an opportune time to make changes to clear up any misunderstandings, if changes were found to be necessary. I can’t explain why no changes were made, or not made.

I apologize if I’m not being clear about any of these points, and really don’t want to argue. I pray God’s will be done in the election tomorrow, and will pray for whoever is elected and people everywhere.

I’d like to thank bob for the hiding place. 😉
 
_Abyssinia said:
predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/pic-of-day-too-close-to-call.html

http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/523036_10151059931831384_1840194042_n.jpg
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Mr Romney will win 489 electoral votes? Here are the states expected to be solidly Obama. And, it appears that he has taken NV. So, Obama has 203 electoral votes just for opening the polling booths. A landslide like President Reagan’s is unlikely. Reagan had charm and charisma. Carter was not popular with anyone. People did not yet fully understand the social justice issues with the conservative agenda. Reagan came in stealthily, in that sense. I doubt that anyone will be able to do that again.

WA 12
OR 7
CA 55
NM 5
MN 10
IL 20
ME 4
VT 3
NY 29
MA 11
CT 7
NJ 14
DE 4
RI 3
DC 3
MD 10
TTL 197
 
Ecoclimber said:
guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/04/florida-republicans-vote-democrats

Despite Allowing Tea Party activists within the polling places to challenge Black voters.
Click to expand...
Every voting precinct of which I am aware always has a number of inside poll workers, an equal number selected by each party. Some of them might be Tea Partiers. If they’re Tea Party Repubs, they are allowed to be there. If they’re “occupy” people who are Dems, they’re allowed to be there.

These foreign people are just like electioneering people who tout their candidate outside the polling place. They can’t come within some distance of the polls. Tea Party people who are not poll workers would have to stand just as far away. So would the candidates themselves.

And there really isn’t a reason to accuse Tea Party people of having an animus toward black voters, particularly because some Tea Partiers are black. Are you, then, saying black voters are more likely to be fraudulent? An awful thing to say, if that’s your meaning.
 
Ecoclimber said:
Attorney general, Greg Abbott, has threatened to arrest international election monitors invited by liberal groups to observe the conduct of next month’s presidential vote in states accused of attempting to disenfranchise minorities.

Despite Allowing Tea Party activists within the polling places to challenge Black voters.
Click to expand...
Did anyone expect otherwise? :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top