Obama vs Romney, who are you voting for and why?

[sistermouse]

I am voting for Romney because I believe in biblical marriage and also the “Thou Shall Not Kill” part of the Ten Commandments!!

 

[johnnyjones]

This is crux of the issue.Obama and his policies are so antithetical to what America is about ,it is critical that every vote count.To vote for anyone other than Romney,will ensure Obama another four years.

You are correct. In addition, I can not understand the mental gymnastics that those professing Catholicism undergo to come to the conclusion that Obama is a suitable candidate for president or any high office.

 

[johnnyjones]

Where does the Church demand that we do that?

Let me take out some words of that sentence: “Church… for… evils”
Do you think the Church supports any politicians in China or Russia? If all the politicians are evil, the Church isn’t going to tell you to vote for either one of them.

Now, it’s arguable that Mitt Romney is evil or not. It’s just kind of funny how quickly Romney supporters will throw their own candidate under the bus and call him evil. Wow.

P.S.
Do you really live in Outer Mongolia? I seriously pray for the Catholic Church in Mongolia all the time (and all Christians there). Mongolia allows freedom of religion. So, I think the Church needs to take advantage of that so close to China… where obviously the Church is persecuted.

Formal versus Material Cooperation in Evil

Voters are rightly concerned about the degree to which their vote represents cooperation in the evil which a candidate embraces. Obviously, voting for a candidate whose principles exactly coincide with Catholic teaching would eliminate that worry. However, that is a rare, if not non-existent, situation. Even those who embrace Catholic principles may not always apply them correctly. The fact is that most candidates will imperfectly embrace Catholic principles and voting for ANY candidate contains many unknowns about what that candidate believes and will do.

The moral distinction between formal and material cooperation allows Catholics to choose imperfect candidates as the means of limiting evil or preventing the election of a worse candidate. The justification of doing that is described above. Formal cooperation is that degree of cooperation in which my will embraces the evil object of another 's will. Thus, to vote for a candidate because he favors abortion is formal cooperation in his evil political acts. However, to vote for someone in order to limit a greater evil, that is, to restrict in so far as possible the evil that another candidate might do if elected, is to have a good purpose in voting. The voter’s will has as its object this limitation of evil and not the evil which the imperfect politician might do in his less than perfect adherence to Catholic moral principles. Such cooperation is called material, and is permitted for a serious reason, such as preventing the election of a worse candidate. [cf. Gospel of Life 74]

 

[stevegravy]

I will be voting for President Obama. In my view, President Obama’s policy on social justice and the poor just simply resonate. He’s worked in the trenches with the poor and vulnerable while in Chicago which decisively speaks in his favor. You can’t take experience away. He seems to be balanced in the manner he governs. I recently spoke to two religious sisters that I know and they confided in me that President Obama offers the greatest hope for the poor than they have seen in a president in a many years. He’s been a good president in light of what he inherited, not to mention a congress that won’t work with him on anything. Strictly speaking, the economy is slowly starting to improve, and the stock market has nearly doubled compared to when he took over. The President’s foreign policy has been fairly effective too. With that said, I do wish he would move the date up on brining all of our military troops home. It’s fair to say that when he was elected he inherited a nightmare. So for this Catholic, it’s Obama and Biden 2012!

He loves the poor so much welfare rolls are ballooning. Way to go for America’s A#1 film critic.

The economy isn’t doing better. We are now the end result of 6 trillion spent by the government , that it didn’t take in,(it is called a deficit) while the clown at the Federal Reserve has put us through QE1, QE2 and has promised us unending QE3. The Stock market is up and housing sales slightly up because of almost free money.

IT IS CALLED A BUBBLE. AND believe it or not it is the very same thing that got us in trouble to start with.

As far as new jobs, this film critic in chief, (RE: recent flatulence at the UN) has put more people on disability then the economy has put to work. If not for all the folks who stopped looking for jobs the unemployment rate would be better then 15%.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=715241

So, while the Ambassador to Libya body is being drug through Benghazi, our film critic is partying in Vegas. It is clear to me, we get to choose between dumb and dumber.

But, “Ain’t that America, ….Little pink houses for you and me. “

This is living proof of academic brain washing if this is from a prof. in some U. or college.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

How sure are you that Obama is a Christian? Because he says he is?

Yes. Exactly so. Forum rules are that we may not question anyone about their stated religious faith.

How do you know that I’m a Catholic? Must I produce my baptismal certificate and make my pastor and my bishop swear under oath that they know me to be a Catholic? And what about others on the Forum - you, Scott, Christine, etc. How am I to be sure that any of you are Christians or Catholics absent bona fides?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You are correct. In addition, I can not understand the mental gymnastics that those professing Catholicism undergo to come to the conclusion that Obama is a suitable candidate for president or any high office.

Gymnastics no less complex than those necessary to come out for Romney. Neither Obama or Romney is worth my vote (or anyone’s vote IMO), so it’s third party or no vote on my part this time 'round.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I will be voting for President Obama. In my view, President Obama’s policy on social justice and the poor just simply resonate. He’s worked in the trenches with the poor and vulnerable while in Chicago which decisively speaks in his favor. You can’t take experience away. He seems to be balanced in the manner he governs. I recently spoke to two religious sisters that I know and they confided in me that President Obama offers the greatest hope for the poor than they have seen in a president in a many years. He’s been a good president in light of what he inherited, not to mention a congress that won’t work with him on anything. Strictly speaking, the economy is slowly starting to improve, and the stock market has nearly doubled compared to when he took over. The President’s foreign policy has been fairly effective too. With that said, I do wish he would move the date up on brining all of our military troops home. It’s fair to say that when he was elected he inherited a nightmare. So for this Catholic, it’s Obama and Biden 2012!

It would be interesting to know more about those two religious sisters. Nuns off the bus, perhaps? Two actually did ride that rock star, gas hog bus, so the numbers, at least, match. Undoubtedly not those who are dropping their own health coverage rather than comply with the HHS mandate, as some are.

One wonders just what they think they have seen Obama do, as president, for the poor other than make contraceptives and abortifacients free for them. For two years he could have done absolutely anything he wanted to benefit the truly poor. But what did he do for them? Absolutely nothing. The way things are going, they can hope all they want, but at a point, hope has to give way to reality.

But Obama certainly helped the rich. Never mind giving our money away to political friends like Solyndra and the millionaire union bosses. His piece de resistance was “cash for clunkers”…a subsidy to people wealthy enough to buy new cars. And they destroyed the “clunkers” the poor rely on for transportation and made the cost of used cars increase for them.

Well, and then he put 17 million more people on Medicaid, crowding out the poorest of all. Possibly those sisters don’t know about that. And, of course, he increased the reimbursement for "well care"at the cost of “chronic care”. Among the poor, those with chronic conditions are the worst off of all. So now they’re being dumped by providers.

And he has promised (and acted) to make utility costs “skyrocket”. Never mind that the poor would like to have heat, light, AC, refrigeration. Let them freeze in the dark! Obama cares, he says, and that should be enough for them.

And the sisters are into economics, are they? They think the economy is improving just because Bernanke is pumping money into the “carry trade”? Do they know about that?

And the chief actuary for Medicare says that soon Medicare will pay less than Medicaid that providers are already limiting because it doesn’t cover their costs. Some of the elderly and the disabled who rely on Medicare are poor. But Warren Buffet doesn’t need to worry about whether his Medicare is adequate, so never mind. He’s a liberal, so it’s ok.

And when the jobs created don’t come anywhere near the new entrants into the labor force so the actual at-work labor force is declining and has declined for four years? Obama loves the poor so much, it appears, that he wants to increase their numbers.

But why worry about that? After all, the wealthy and the fund managers are doing very nicely in the “carry trade”. They’ll jump out of the market when that’s no longer there to do, of course, and tank working peoples’ 401Ks. But what’s money, after all? Only rich liberals deserve to have it, because they’ll donate to liberal politicians’ campaigns. No problem, then.

I do know this much. When I die I will have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do. A lot. And no excuse will suffice before Him who knows me better than I know myself. But I do know one thing. The God of all creation will not be asking me why I supported abortion and profaners of marriage by promoting homosexual “marriage”, by supporting the active promoters of those things, because I don’t and I won’t.

Others can be thinking about how they are going to explain why they did. Now would be a very good time for that, because there’s still time to change course.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes. Exactly so. Forum rules are that we may not question anyone about their stated religious faith.

How do you know that I’m a Catholic? Must I produce my baptismal certificate and make my pastor and my bishop swear under oath that they know me to be a Catholic? And what about others on the Forum - you, Scott, Christine, etc. How am I to be sure that any of you are Christians or Catholics absent bona fides?

How does that go…“By their fruits you shall know them…” Not talking about you here, Rich, or anybody in particular. But the poster seemed awfully sure of himself in attacking Romney’s religion, and it seemed to me that a thinking person ought not to assume his opponent’s Christianity based solely on his statement about it.

Don’t worry about looking for your baptismal certificate or giving me the story of your life. That was not my purpose or my point.

 

[sedonaman]

Against all Democrats because the Democrat Party’s fascination and obsession with death and communism are the prime movers of its dementia.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Gymnastics no less complex than those necessary to come out for Romney. Neither Obama or Romney is worth my vote (or anyone’s vote IMO), so it’s third party or no vote on my part this time 'round.

Probably better that you don’t vote. You don’t think you should vote against the abortion promoter by voting for his only viable opponent, and I’m confident no one will change your mind about that.

But as for me, my vote and support for his opponent are the only means I have of opposing the promoter of abortion, persecution of the Church and profaner of marriage. I don’t want to have to explain to my grandchildren why I didn’t.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Formal versus Material Cooperation in Evil

However, to vote for someone in order to limit a greater evil, that is, to restrict in so far as possible the evil that another candidate might do if elected, is to have a good purpose in voting

. The voter’s will has as its object this limitation of evil and not the evil which the imperfect politician might do in his less than perfect adherence to Catholic moral principles. Such cooperation is called material, and is permitted for a serious reason, such as preventing the election of a worse candidate. [cf. Gospel of Life 74]

There is a long way between “church demands” and Church “permits”.

 

[travelann13]

I’d like to vote for the green party but that’s a vote for Obama. So it’s Romney. Obama has to go. Unless you can tell me there’s no truth in the movie, “2016”.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Probably better that you don’t vote.

As I’m been saying. Jwinch, however, was adamant that I must vote, per the Catechism. I can satisfy the Catechism and my own opposition to the two major candidates by voting third party, then.

You don’t think you should vote against the abortion promoter by voting for his only viable opponent, and I’m confident no one will change your mind about that.

Correct. I have no use for either Obama or Romney.

But as for me, my vote and support for his opponent are the only means I have of opposing the promoter of abortion, persecution of the Church and profaner of marriage. I don’t want to have to explain to my grandchildren why I didn’t.

I doubt that you’ll have to give an apologia to your grandkids for every election you’ve participated in. But, then, I don’t know how your family operates.

 

[BroomWagon]

Romney will spur on job growth, helping the miners in states like West Virginia, helping the drilling of oil.

Christian Charity is what works to help the poor, like what St. Vincent De Paul did.

1 out of 5 patients in US hospitals is in a Catholic hospital.

But Obama acts against eligious liberty.

Chicago as has been said, suffers from very high crime rates, Obama’s own back yard, he does little to help the poor.

Government is not charity, all of those programs has a lot of wasteful spending.

Romney is a big giver to charity, Christian Charity and stimulating job growth is the best way to help the poor.

And besides this, government debt could potentially see us becoming like Spain or Greece.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I understand what you are saying. Truth be told a lot of people are frustrated with the status quo. We are held hostage to a certain degree by the two major parties:shrug:

So lets vote “outside the box” so to speak.

To go along with those holding us hostage is to cooperate with them.

The truth is that if more people had the courage to vote beyond the two dominant parties we would have better options.

 

[qui_est_ce]

How sure are you that Obama is a Christian? Because he says he is? He was a member of the Church of Christ in Chicago but said he never heard Rev Wright’s inflammatory sermons. Was he lying or was he simply never there? He now goes to another denomination, but rarely do he and his family actually go. Is he anything? I am not saying I know, but neither do you.

While we’re on that subject, do you also mean no Jew should ever be president of the U.S?

I remember “cash for clunkers”, which was a gift to people wealthy enough to buy new cars. They destroyed the “clunkers” on which the poor depend for transportation. No cruelty in that?

Obama is adding 17 million more people to the Medicaid rolls. It’s already hard for the poor who rely on Medicaid to get treatment because the reimbursement is so poor that providers limit those patients. No cruelty in that?

The chief actuary for Medicare says that in a few years, due to Obama’s looting of Medicare to support Obamacare, Medicare reimbursement will be less than that for Medicaid. A lot of Medicare patients (including those on SS Disability) are poor. No cruelty in that?

Obama has changed the reimbursement rules for Medicaid to increase it for “well care” at the expense of “chronic care”. People on Medicaid with chronic health conditions are the poorest people on Medicaid. No cruelty in that?

And if you hope America does not turn her back on Israel, you had better not vote for Obama. You do know, don’t you, that he aided the Muslim Brotherhood gain power in Egypt and that Morsi has said he will not abide by the terms of their peace treaty unless Israel goes back to its 1967 borders? And will he even do it then? Have you listened to any of Morsi’s inflammatory anti-Israel statements?

 

[qui_est_ce]

No, but Bush certainly curtailed funding for it, and his two appointments to the Supreme Court voted, along with three other Republican appointees at least upheld the ban on partial birth abortion. Obama, of course, not only supports partial birth abortion, but twice voted not to save infants born alive as the result of a botched abortion. Takes a very cold man to do that. Even NARAL wouldn’t go that far, and didn’t.

:yawn: Getting old isn’t it?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I’d like to vote for the green party but that’s a vote for Obama. So it’s Romney. Obama has to go. Unless you can tell me there’s no truth in the movie, “2016”.

A vote for a 3rd party could just as easily be seen as a vote for Romney.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Not if it means the difference between a pro abortion president vs. an actually electable pro life one.

It is the voters who determined who is electable.

Of course most voters prefer to act like sheep and limit their choice to the offerings of the two dominant parties.

I see no obligation to do so.
In no way do I buy the distorted logic that a vote for third party is a vote for Obama.

 

[kookieduck]

How sure are you that Obama is a Christian? Because he says he is? He was a member of the Church of Christ in Chicago but said he never heard Rev Wright’s inflammatory sermons. Was he lying or was he simply never there? He now goes to another denomination, but rarely do he and his family actually go. Is he anything? I am not saying I know, but neither do you.

While we’re on that subject, do you also mean no Jew should ever be president of the U.S?

I remember “cash for clunkers”, which was a gift to people wealthy enough to buy new cars. They destroyed the “clunkers” on which the poor depend for transportation. No cruelty in that?

Obama is adding 17 million more people to the Medicaid rolls. It’s already hard for the poor who rely on Medicaid to get treatment because the reimbursement is so poor that providers limit those patients. No cruelty in that?

The chief actuary for Medicare says that in a few years, due to Obama’s looting of Medicare to support Obamacare, Medicare reimbursement will be less than that for Medicaid. A lot of Medicare patients (including those on SS Disability) are poor. No cruelty in that?

Obama has changed the reimbursement rules for Medicaid to increase it for “well care” at the expense of “chronic care”. People on Medicaid with chronic health conditions are the poorest people on Medicaid. No cruelty in that?

And if you hope America does not turn her back on Israel, you had better not vote for Obama. You do know, don’t you, that he aided the Muslim Brotherhood gain power in Egypt and that Morsi has said he will not abide by the terms of their peace treaty unless Israel goes back to its 1967 borders? And will he even do it then? Have you listened to any of Morsi’s inflammatory anti-Israel statements?