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

[HansTrappist]

What kind of doubletalk is that? The Catholic Church is ANTI ABORTION PERIOD! Are you opposed to Pope John Paul II encyclical as well about what to do when conflicted in the voting booth in regards to abortion?

My question to you is WHY do you want to support a candidate that you know puts no restrictions on abortion and is accepting of “partial birth abortion”. Stop spinning such a serious matter as the killing of the unborn.

I think it was a mistake for the bishops to apply the logic of “proportionate reasons” and “lessening evil” to a dilemna involving an intrinsic evil. In the USCCB voter guide they make it clear that when faced with such a dilemna we may either 1. Not vote or 2. Vote for the candidate that will “lessen” the intrinsic evil. Sadly, such an approach almost gaurantees that there will never be a political SOLUTION bringing about the END of abortion. The Republican establishment will use this “loophole” to offer a continous line of establishment candidates that have exceptions to abortion. IMHO, a person claiming to be pro-life, claiming to understand the “science of life,” yet making exceptions for murder in certain cases, is a liar and a fraud and cannot be taken seriously and also demonstrates a willingness to support direct, intentional abortion. You (I mean this rhetorically) can’t have it both ways.

 

[SuperLuigi]

1. The abortion mills as you call them, have been running legally regardless of election outcomes.

So we should just throw up our hands and quit?

1. Abortion is not the SINGLE issue of faith in the this election.

Actually, it’s because it’s Church teaching.

You’re the one exercising prerogatives here.

Some others, like me, may choose to put BOTH candidates under the faith microscope and take that into account when making a decision.

You mean like looking good in front of your friends?

Either way, the “mills” run. As a Catholic, I am obliged (and happy to) do all in my power to oppose abortion

Even if it means making some who is pro-choice feel bad? Are you sure about that? Jesus’s actions angered the elite of Israel and it’s a big reason why He was put to death, death on a cross.

[/QUOTE]

 

[SuperLuigi]

I think it was a mistake for the bishops to apply the logic of “proportionate reasons” and “lessening evil” to a dilemna involving an intrinsic evil. In the USCCB voter guide they make it clear that when faced with such a dilemna we may either 1. Not vote or 2. Vote for the candidate that will “lessen” the intrinsic evil. Sadly, such an approach almost gaurantees that there will never be a political SOLUTION bringing about the END of abortion.

In the entitlement era, there is not going to be any real political solution without people sacrificing some of their entitlements and all these made-up Constitutional rights.

It is a problem that needs to be addressed soon otherwise nature will happily take its course without us.

The Republican establishment will use this “loophole” to offer a continous line of establishment candidates that have exceptions to abortion. IMHO, a person claiming to be pro-life, claiming to understand the “science of life,” yet making exceptions for murder in certain cases, is a liar and a fraud and cannot be taken seriously and also demonstrates a willingness to support direct, intentional abortion. You (I mean this rhetorically) can’t have it both ways.

 

[CMatt25]

Who is “making certain”

Is that what you think my post was about? “everyone” and “perfect?” (Hint: No.)

Do you maybe have a sense of humor? (That was a rhetorical question. You’ve just answered it, actually.)

Nor is it to me, whether you understand that or accept that. (Others do.)

All I know and only care to know about it is on this thread alone it wasn’t me concerned about whether someone paraphrased or quoted Stephen Colbert with or without quotation marks or said “many” people or not. Or where the tongue is.

No. On 2nd (misspelled purposely to humor you) thought I’m certain you didn’t mean everyone could be perfect.

Actually allow me to answer it. Sure. Depends on the “comedian”.

 

[CMatt25]

Just do what I’ve always been told to do, if you don’t know something look it up ,and for goodness sake, you all have a heck of a lot more resourses than I had when I was your age.
Peace, and love to all, Carlan

Peace and love to you as well, Carlan, and to all as well.

 

[johnnyjones]

I think it was a mistake for the bishops to apply the logic of “proportionate reasons” and “lessening evil” to a dilemna involving an intrinsic evil. In the USCCB voter guide they make it clear that when faced with such a dilemna we may either 1. Not vote or 2. Vote for the candidate that will “lessen” the intrinsic evil. Sadly, such an approach almost gaurantees that there will never be a political SOLUTION bringing about the END of abortion. The Republican establishment will use this “loophole” to offer a continous line of establishment candidates that have exceptions to abortion. IMHO, a person claiming to be pro-life, claiming to understand the “science of life,” yet making exceptions for murder in certain cases, is a liar and a fraud and cannot be taken seriously and also demonstrates a willingness to support direct, intentional abortion. You (I mean this rhetorically) can’t have it both ways.

Forget about Republicans or Democrats. Think about what Pope John Paul II said, he also saw the lesser harm approach. To start the trend that leads to a culture of life we have to have a beginning.

What is a Obama that accepts abortion ON DEMAND & puncturing the babies head before birth, not a liar and a fraud and to be taken seriously? A lesser harm approach is a beginning and where you can at least see the harm of abortion as Romney does, there is hope for further conversion.

That is the aim, to convert, even step by step. Your approach just stomps on any kind of beginning. Don’t love Obama so much your willing to compromise all your principles. If there was a good Democrat pro life candidate running for president I would vote for him because I am a union man.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Absolutely! And, btw, guess who’s given MILLIONS to charity? Obama - no. Biden - no. Romney - YES! Mitt Romney has literally GIVEN millions of his own dollars TO CHARITY. THAT is “not caring about the poor?” :banghead:

Trolls in our midst…Just so you know

 

[Richca]

Many bishops have put out voter guides which state that when faced with two candidates that support the intrinsic evil of abortion (and both Obama and Romney fall under this category), we may either 1. Not vote or 2. Vote for the candidate that will “lessen” the intrinsic evil.

Does Romney support abortion? And if so, does he support it in the same degree as Obama?

 

[Lapey]

Many bishops have put out voter guides which state that when faced with two candidates that support the intrinsic evil of abortion (and both Obama and Romney fall under this category), we may either 1. Not vote or 2. Vote for the candidate that will “lessen” the intrinsic evil. Many bishops and cardinals hold this view (although I am still not certain if the application of “proportionate reasons” and “lessening evil” to a dilemna involving an intrinsic evil is an official teaching of the Church; I not sure that this view is held by ALL the bishops in union with the Holy Father) I certainly understand where they are coming from. Unfortunately, many Catholics (and I am not one of them) will justify voting for Obama based on the logic that his economic policies will do the most to limit the intrinsic evil of abortion overall. If the Bishops are going to inject a concept (“proportionate reasons” “lessening evil”) into the highly convoluted and corrupt American political process, the application of which appears to be highly subjective, then they should have (IMO) made a judgement as to which candidate “lessens” the intrinsic evil of abortion the most.

That would be good if this were in fact the case, that on the issue of abortion and same sex unions, etc. they are equal. These two candidates and their respective party platforms are not in any way equal. You can say and repeat anything you like but the fact is, Romney/Ryan is the pro-life choice. Obama/Biden has a proven documented track record of being pro-abortion. Those catch phrases you use may make one feel better in choosing against Romney, but it doesn’t change fact. The bishops have made their thoughts known, we are just not listening. Sometimes we hear what we want. repeatedly they have made mention of intrinsically evil disqualifying candidates, but them people take other parts of their message to mean, “oh that’s not what I, Mr. Bishop, really meant. I really meant its ok to vote the other way." Quick post got to go teach CCD class. I’ll be teaching about 100 kids about the evils of the democrat party…lol yes that is meant to be tongue AND cheek!

 

[Almagore]

I will be voting for Romney. If you are somewhat familiar with our doctrinal teachings and what we support, along with the current political issues, then you would vote for Romney. Also, his VP will be Paul Ryan, a practicing Catholic!

It is not enough to say that we will pray for the elections, we must also use our right to vote to fight for what is right.
To find out more go to catholicvote.org, you will find all the info you need there!

I Agree. How can a Catholic who considers the killing of a baby still it the mother’s womb, to be murder, vote for Obama who is pro-abortion? To not vote at all is a vote for Obama. If Romney wins and our favorite cause is reduced in Federal funding, we Catholics have the opportunity and option of giving more of our money and our time to support that cause. There is no excuse for voting for Obama. If a person votes for someone pro abortion and they are elected and do not fight against abortion thten that person who voted, shares in the sin of abortion also.

 

[Richca]

HansTrappist: you make a very good point here. The USCCB Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship uses the term “morally grave reasons.” Some bishops have come out with statements that make it very clear what these ''morally grave reasons" might be or might not be such as the statement of Bishops Vann and Farrell in 2008. Here is the link to their statement: prolifedallas.org/pages/Joint_Statement

 

[Jeffrey]

Survey: Doctors choose Romney over Obama

A new survey shows Mitt Romneyhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png with a commanding lead over President Barack Obama among doctors, with Obamacare helping to sway their votes.
If the election were held today, 55 percent of physicians reported they would vote for Romney while just 36 percent support Obama, according to a survey released by Jackson & Coker, a division of Jackson Healthcare, the third largest health carehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png staffing company in the United States

Read more: dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/survey-doctors-choose-romney-over-obama/#ixzz285xMJya4

dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/survey-doctors-choose-romney-over-obama/

 

[Ridgerunner]

Forget about Republicans or Democrats. Think about what Pope John Paul II said, he also saw the lesser harm approach. To start the trend that leads to a culture of life we have to have a beginning.

What is a Obama that accepts abortion ON DEMAND & puncturing the babies head before birth, not a liar and a fraud and to be taken seriously? A lesser harm approach is a beginning and where you can at least see the harm of abortion as Romney does, there is hope for further conversion.

That is the aim, to convert, even step by step. Your approach just stomps on any kind of beginning. Don’t love Obama so much your willing to compromise all your principles. If there was a good Democrat pro life candidate running for president I would vote for him because I am a union man.

There is also a difference between allowing certain limited aspects of the evil to continue (Romney, perhaps, or so it’s said) and actively promoting it (Obama). Obama is even more death-oriented than NARAL. Recall that Obama twice voted for infanticide in opposing the “Infants Born Alive Act”. Even NARAL wouldn’t go that far, and, as bloody as its hands are otherwise, didn’t. Obama didn’t have to support infanticide to please his supporters like NARAL. He did it because it’s the way he thinks.

What was his thought when discussing the possibility of one of his daughters having an “unwanted” child. A normal potential grandparent’s very first thought would be that he would raise the grandchild himself, if it came to that. Not Obama’s. His first thought was that his daughter should kill his very own grandchild if she didn’t want to be (in his words) “burdened” with it. His own grandchild. I never thought I would ever hear a politician say something as cold-hearted as that. But I did.

While it might not seem related, one has to realize that the chief actuary for Medicare predicts that in a few years, Medicare will pay less than Medicaid. Doctors, then, will be even more reluctant to accept Medicare than Medicaid. Seniors will be in a terrible fix then.

And Obama himself said he wouldn’t support the idea of his grandmother receiving a hip replacement if the replacement would outlive her. Well, then, what about a pacemaker or an insulin pump? No difference.

And, of course, he supports “human vivisection”; the utilization of fertilized embryos for research that maims or destroys them. A position worthy of Dracula.

The man is in love with death, or at least when it comes to people whom he does not view as useful.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Brilliant done, sir!

There is no excuse, no reason, no rationale for voting for the President, given his stances against life. Period.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The man is in love with death, or at least when it comes to people whom he does not view as useful.

Disagree with the first clause, tend to agree with the second.

Pro-choice politicians like Pelosi, Biden and the two Clintons, e.g., are not like that; Obama’s extreme position is frighteningly and uniquely his own.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Disagree with the first clause, tend to agree with the second.

Pro-choice poiticians like Pelosi, Biden and the two Clintons, e.g., are not like that; Obama’s extreme position is frighteningly and uniquely his own.

Ergo, a Catholic can not vote for him, Rich.

Will you please do me a favor? Will you ask the Lord to give you guidance on this? Please.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Ergo, a Catholic can not vote for him, Rich.

Will you please do me a favor? Will you ask the Lord to give you guidance on this? Please.

I am not going to vote for Obama under any circumstances, and I simply can’t vote for Romney. I intend to vote for neither man, but may do so for a third party candidate.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I am not going to vote for Obama under any circumstances, and I simply can’t vote for Romney. I intend to vote for neither man, but may do so for a third party candidate.

Good enough for me. Attaboy!

 

[johnnyjones]

There is also a difference between allowing certain limited aspects of the evil to continue (Romney, perhaps, or so it’s said) and actively promoting it (Obama). Obama is even more death-oriented than NARAL. Recall that Obama twice voted for infanticide in opposing the “Infants Born Alive Act”. Even NARAL wouldn’t go that far, and, as bloody as its hands are otherwise, didn’t. Obama didn’t have to support infanticide to please his supporters like NARAL. He did it because it’s the way he thinks.

What was his thought when discussing the possibility of one of his daughters having an “unwanted” child. A normal potential grandparent’s very first thought would be that he would raise the grandchild himself, if it came to that. Not Obama’s. His first thought was that his daughter should kill his very own grandchild if she didn’t want to be (in his words) “burdened” with it. His own grandchild. I never thought I would ever hear a politician say something as cold-hearted as that. But I did.

While it might not seem related, one has to realize that the chief actuary for Medicare predicts that in a few years, Medicare will pay less than Medicaid. Doctors, then, will be even more reluctant to accept Medicare than Medicaid. Seniors will be in a terrible fix then.

And Obama himself said he wouldn’t support the idea of his grandmother receiving a hip replacement if the replacement would outlive her. Well, then, what about a pacemaker or an insulin pump? No difference.

And, of course, he supports “human vivisection”; the utilization of fertilized embryos for research that maims or destroys them. A position worthy of Dracula.

The man is in love with death, or at least when it comes to people whom he does not view as useful.

Are you looking for a perfect candidate? Forget it. Jesus came because we’re not perfect. Stick with the issue of the innocent unborn. Are you that cold your willing to flat out say" I refuse to believe Romney" even if it could project a platform of life, leading to a future changing of minds toward the unborn?

I have to vote life and you know you do too. Don’t vote for the man that utters the words of death to the innocent. As well, Obama care does not benefit Catholics and their teachings.

The real death comes from Obama who will not even make a verbal effort for the unborn who can say nothing.

 

[Carlan]

What is it about my words, or those of anyone else, that shows you that we “republicans”, I quote that because you don’t know what party I am registered in as I have never stated that, are filled with hatred for pres. Obama and use the life issue to wedge people apart from others? I’m trying to understand your perspective and I see you are viewing what is being discussed, so come and help us understand?

I am sorry if I offended you, this was not my intent; merely discussing my opinion of the topic. I even edited a post because I thought I was uncharitable, was I? Please explain.

Well, sir , after hanging out and enjoying all the fun you guys were having it finally occured to me that you all were all actually ignorant of the meaning of dog whistle Politics.
I
I then understood you just didn’t get it and were actually in the dark scatching your head.
over my post,
To help you understand, if like you can read up on the following notes I pulled up.
Sir, you did not offend me, I am used to these political threads on CA. Peace, Carlan
History of dog whistle politics​

The phrase “dog whistle politics” did not surface until 1996 in Australia during the Federal Election campaign, with the Howard Government’s forceful measures used against illegal immigration. Even though the government won in the end, the Australian government was accused of using corrupt methods and political manipulation to win the war – accused of playing to racist segments of the community. The method they used were dog whistle politics, “sending messages of support to voters with racist leanings while avoiding criticism from those opposed to prejudice.” (dog whistle politics, Kosmix)

From Australia, the political method moved to the United Kingdom in 2005 toward the British Conservative Party. It was derived from the Australian Liberal Party Federal Director, Lynton Crosby, for the British elections of 1996, 1998, and 2001. It was not long until the GOP’s George Bush, John McCain and Karl Rove began using the coded “dog whistle” language in their political campaigns and political speeches.

We are passionate and want our guy or gal to win. Great. Every campaign is pulling out all the stops to get an advantage and win the nomination. I expect nothing less.

The trouble comes when a campaign crosses the line into Dog Whistle Politics. This is basic Rove/GOP tactics. It is the politics of division and 50+1 victories. It feeds off racism, sexism and fear. (Daily Kos)

Political purpose of dog whistle politics

When dog whistle politics are placed in action, they are designed to activate concealed prejudices through deliberate covert practices. Another way to phrase it is “subliminal messages” – with select-targeted audience voters always in mind. Because the messages were in code, the politician or political party can legally claim “plausible deniability” when accused of fear-mongering or prejudices against certain segments of society.

Innocent voters can be influenced to move a certain way toward the goal of the political party – which presently is prejudice through fear-mongering tactics and subliminal messages. In other words, dog whistle politics are in complete control of the upcoming election.

.