Obama and Romney hit the final stretch

[St_Francis]

Who cares who Romney surrounds himself with, it’s his policies that are important. He’s not pro-life, he doesn’t want to ban abortion, he supports gay adoption and contraceptives coverage through health insurance. No catholic should in good conscience vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there are pro-life candidates like Virgil Goode. A president can certainly sign legislation making abortion illegal nationally which is the goal of the catholic pro-life movement. Romney is opposed to this.

A president can not sign legislation which has not been passed, and a bill like that would not pass, if only because it would currently be immediately overruled by the Supreme Court.

If Obama wins, he will appoint judges favorable to abortion to the Supreme Court. If Romney wins, he will appoint judges who see that Roe v Wade was a terrible ruling to the SC.

Four, 4!, current justices were born in the 1930s–they are now in their 70s. One will be 80 next year.

So it is quite likely that at least one SC justice will need to be appointed in the coming 4 years.

You can vote for Virgil Goode, and I do not think that is wrong or anything, but understand that those who vote for Goode will be those who might have otherwise voted for Romney. If you want to see Roe v Wade overturned, then it would be better for you to vote for Romney if you live in a state where the race is tight, because if enough hold-their-nose-and-vote-for-Romney people veer off and vote for Goode, then it could remove enough votes from Romney that the people who vote for Goode due to his stance on abortion will end up with Obama as president. Ironic, isn’t it?

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Katie Pavlich at Townhall.com wrote the following piece:

Post-Racial President Obama Not So Post-Racial

When President Obama was elected in 2008, the media painted him as post-racial and as someone who could not just bring races together, but move us past racial tension. The results of the past four years of an Obama presidency have done just the opposite. The Washington Post is out with a new poll showing the racial divide between blacks and whites is back to where it was in 1980. As he did in 2008, Obama gets overwhelming support from non-whites, who made up a record high proportion of the overall electorate four years ago. In that contest, 80 percent of all non-whites supported Obama, including 95 percent of black voters, according to the exit poll. In the Washington Post-ABC News national tracking poll released Wednesday, Obama wins 79 percent of non-whites, and support for his reelection is nearly universal among African Americans. But among whites, Obama is currently doing much worse than he did in 2008. At this stage four years ago, Obama trailed Republican John McCain by eight percentage points among white voters. Even in victory, Obama ended up losing white voters by 12 percentage points. Obama’s current 21-percent-deficit — he trails Romney 59 to 38 percent [among white voters] — would be far harder to overcome, as this year may break a string of increasingly non-white electorates. In 2008, whites made up a record-low 74 percent of all voters; in the latest Post-ABC poll, they made up a similar 75 percent of likely 2012 voters. In 2004, John Kerry lost white voters to George W. Bush by a similarly wide margin, 58 to 41 percent — and he also lost the election.

Statistically speaking, Obama trails among white voters by the same margin that Kerry lost to Bush. That tells me that white racism is fairly non-existent, insofar as whites rejected a white Democratic candidate by the same margin they rejected the black Democratic candidate in 2004 and 2008. The margin is essentially the same in 2012. The article fails to mention the percentage of non-white voters who voted for Kerry compared to those who voted for Obama. Did Kerry receive the roughly the same number and percentage of non-white voters in 2004 as Obama received in 2008 and 2012 (per recent polls)?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Who cares who Romney surrounds himself with, it’s his policies that are important. He’s not pro-life, he doesn’t want to ban abortion, he supports gay adoption and contraceptives coverage through health insurance. No catholic should in good conscience vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there are pro-life candidates like Virgil Goode. A president can certainly sign legislation making abortion illegal nationally which is the goal of the catholic pro-life movement. Romney is opposed to this.

The difference in abortion stances of Obama and Romney is only a matter of degree IMO.

 

[St_Francis]

The difference in abortion stances of Obama and Romney is only a matter of degree IMO.

Hmmm, let’s see, a man who repeatedly worked, spoke, and voted against requiring medical care for babies born alive after an abortion, even a bill which NARAL approved!, who would abort his own grandchildren rather than allow his daughters to be “burdened” with a baby…

He’s gotta be waaaay over 100% pro-abortion.

Versus

A man who is against 99% of abortions.

It may only be a matter of degree, but it’s *lots *of degrees!

 

[kimmielittle]

Hmmm, let’s see, a man who repeatedly worked, spoke, and voted against requiring medical care for babies born alive after an abortion, even a bill which NARAL approved!, who would abort his own grandchildren rather than allow his daughters to be “burdened” with a baby…

He’s gotta be waaaay over 100% pro-abortion.

Versus

A man who is against 99% of abortions.

It may only be a matter of degree, but it’s *lots *of degrees!

 

[St_Francis]

Thanks, and I had to post to say I like your sig-line quote!

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Um let’s see,

Obama, who claims he wants us energy independent yet blocks the keystone pipeline and freezes permits for oil drilling at the same time he gives about 1 trillion dollars to Brazil, Columbia and Venezuela to expand their oil industry with no contract for them to sell the oil to us.

The Keystone pipeline is vastly overrated and perhaps even counterproductive in the bigger picture (except as a club to beat Obama with).

fuelfix.com/blog/2012/10/26/opinion-coming-u-s-oil-gusher-makes-keystone-xl-less-important/

“ ‘U.S. oil production is up 25 percent since we last had a presidential campaign,’ said Daniel Yergin, author of The Prize, an acclaimed history of oil, andThe Quest, a new book about energy. ‘In 2008, everything was really dominated by this notion of scarcity and peak oil.’ "

“The pipeline was planned when America’s oil demand showed no sign of letting up and its production seemed in permanent decline. Now the pipeline’s builder, TransCanada, and the Canadian crude producers who plan to use the pipeline face an economic double-whammy: U.S. demand is declining and U.S.-produced oil is flooding their target market with competing oil.”

 

[SamH]

“The pipeline was planned when America’s oil demand showed no sign of letting up and** its production seemed in permanent decline**. Now the pipeline’s builder, TransCanada, and the Canadian crude producers who plan to use the pipeline face an economic double-whammy: U.S. demand is declining and U.S.-produced oil is flooding their target market with competing oil.”

Oil dropped when the Obama economy became a reality. When Romney becomes president he’ll be stuck dealing with shortages again.

 

[kimmielittle]

The difference in abortion stances of Obama and Romney is only a matter of degree IMO.

Statements such as this not only saddens, but strikes fear in my soul.

IMO It is a statement made from ignorance or purposeful callousness?

I can not believe it is a statement born from ignorance as you have been at CAF quite awhile now.

But in case it is born of ignorance: Let’s examine it.

Would you change your vote party affiliation ] to save 37 babies a day, in the United States?. I am not counting how much this administration provides for world wide abortion ].

Since you used * degree * as a measure of human life, and we can agree that Mr Obama is 100% for abortion No restrictions - even including infanticide ], by his record.

AND we can agree, that by his record, MR Romney would restrict abortions of convenience, let’s place that value at only 1% .

UNITED STATES
"Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700 "]

abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

1% of 3700 equals… ?

So I ask again:

Would you change your vote party affiliation ] to save 37 babies a day, in the United States?

Who should we be loyal to - as Catholics?

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Oil dropped when the Obama economy became a reality. When Romney becomes president he’ll be stuck dealing with shortages again.

Read the article I linked to, Sam. It might be educational.

 

[kimmielittle]

Thanks, and I had to post to say I like your sig-line quote!

Thank you

 

[stinkcat_14]

AND we can agree, that by his record, MR Romney would restrict abortions of convenience, let’s place that value at only 1% .

A couple of issues. First, why 1%, why not 0.1% or 0.001%? Second, who says that Romney is actually going to do anything about abortion. You know that he will say anything to get elected, so he is no different in that regard than most politicians. This of course is not justification to vote for Obama, but neither is it justification to vote for Romney.

 

[qui_est_ce]

A couple of issues. First, why 1%, why not 0.1% or 0.001%? Second, who says that Romney is actually going to do anything about abortion. You know that he will say anything to get elected, so he is no different in that regard than most politicians. This of course is not justification to vote for Obama, but neither is it justification to vote for Romney.

I don’t agree with you. I think Romney has matured on the issues. He knows what the voters want. There’s nothing wrong with determining what voters want and running on that platform. He picked Ryan because Ryan is a solid conservative. IMHO

Obama thinks women want abortion and contraceptives, so he is running on that. He “evolved” on gay marriage. I don’t condemn is reasons for doing that, he thinks that’s what voters want. I do condemn his positions, though.

 

[kimmielittle]

A couple of issues. First, why 1%, why not 0.1% or 0.001%?

Because

Rich Olszewski
The difference in abortion stances of Obama and Romney is only a matter of degree IMO.

my bold;

Mr Olszewski chose **degree **…A whole - not a fraction or percentage of a degree.

Second, who says that Romney is actually going to do anything about abortion.

He does AS a fact - he says it in a number of ways.

BUT lets say he doesn’t.

INDIRECTLY:
What does his economic recovery proposals say?
How will that affect the Mexico City Policy funding of World wide abortion?
How will that affect the Planned Parenthood funding of USA abortion?

You know that he will say anything to get elected, so he is no different in that regard thanmost politicians.

my bold ] So you admit most politicians lie - BUT not ALL. Do you have referenced evidence of Mr Romney saying **anything to get elected **?

This of course is not justification to vote for Obama,

ABSOLUTELY - the reason to vote AGAINST Mr Obama - is MR Obama’s 100% stance ANDACTIONS to support abortion as convenience . His absolute stance to defy my conscientious objections - His absolute stance to defy my Church’s conscientious objections - forcing us to fund his stance.

 

[stinkcat_14]

ABSOLUTELY - the reason to vote AGAINST Mr Obama - is MR Obama’s 100% stance ANDACTIONS to support abortion as convenience . His absolute stance to defy my conscientious objections - His absolute stance to defy my Church’s conscientious objections - forcing us to fund his stance.

Fortunately there is more than two choices on the ballot so there is more than one way to vote against Obama.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I don’t agree with you. I think Romney has matured on the issues. He knows what the voters want. There’s nothing wrong with determining what voters want and running on that platform. He picked Ryan because Ryan is a solid conservative. IMHO

Obama thinks women want abortion and contraceptives, so he is running on that. He “evolved” on gay marriage. I don’t condemn is reasons for doing that, he thinks that’s what voters want. I do condemn his positions, though.

Right. There is nothing wrong with “evolving” based on what your constituents want. You’re not in Congress to please only yourself, and even if you evolve into something your constituents don’t like (seggy becoming pro-civil rights, e.g.) that can be understandable.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Because

my bold;

Mr Olszewski chose **degree **…A whole - not a fraction or percentage of a degree.

He does AS a fact - he says it in a number of ways.

BUT lets say he doesn’t.

INDIRECTLY:
What does his economic recovery proposals say?
How will that affect the Mexico City Policy funding of World wide abortion?
How will that affect the Planned Parenthood funding of USA abortion?

my bold ] So you admit most politicians lie - BUT not ALL. Do you have referenced evidence of Mr Romney saying **anything to get elected **?

ABSOLUTELY - the reason to vote AGAINST Mr Obama - is MR Obama’s 100% stance ANDACTIONS to support abortion as convenience . His absolute stance to defy my conscientious objections - His absolute stance to defy my Church’s conscientious objections - forcing us to fund his stance.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Fortunately there is more than two choices on the ballot so there is more than one way to vote against Obama.

But is it the way that will promote the most good? If the candidate has no chance of
making any changes because there is NO way he will be elected, it is futile, except
MAYBE for your peace of mind. I had someone very close who would always choose
options such as this because of his “conscience” but after knowing him a long time
I found out he had a real problem in deciding one way or another and always defaulting
to the safe or moderate or a no vote. Not saying that’s the problem here, but I do
think the evidence of the facts in this election is very clear.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Fortunately there is more than two choices on the ballot so there is more than one way to vote against Obama.

Which is the most effective to get him OUT OF OFFICE???

We cannot have 4 more years of this man.

 

[kimmielittle]

Fortunately there is more than two choices on the ballot so there is more than one way to vote against Obama.

IMO that is illogical nonsense.

Albeit; true you are not voting FOR Mr Obama - BUT You are not voting AGAINST Mr Obama.