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

[AnotherVoice]

As someone who voted for President Obama in 2008, I will not make that mistake again. He has been the most divisive President I have ever seen in office.

Our government has passed massive health care legislation before; Medicare in the mid-sixties. This was hotly debated legislation, but LBJ made sure he had votes from both sides of the aisle. He was very good at collaboration and in gaining support for his programs; including support from the people.

President Obama is a community organizer; he needs a target – something or someone to be against. He is not a builder or a collaborator. We need a leader who is all about building and collaboration; someone who will lead both sides of the aisle.

As a country we are in debt up to our ears, compare the annual interest payment on the national debt to the Medicare budget and draw your own conclusions. We cannot permit mismanagement by the current administration to sink our country.

Of course as a Catholic I can no longer vote for President Obama. His promises of protecting conscience and not funding abortion have evaporated. Therefore my support must also leave him.

 

[CMatt25]

It’s very simple. Here is this document:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.htm

See the footnote. Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) deliberately leaves open what he means by “proportionate reasons”, obviously because he does not want to constrict voters’ conscience too much. For me such reasons would be
a) that I have no rational reason to seriously believe that voting for Mitt Romney will actually cause a lesser number of abortions to occur in this country because of legislation
combined with b) that I do believe that voting for Obama will actually cause a lesser number of abortions to occur in this country compared to Romney.
Why the latter? For economic reasons.

Apart from that, I am not a one-issue voter, for obvious rational reasons. And hope for an overturn of Roe v. Wade is far too remote and rationally questionable as to be a sufficient reason to allow me to vote in my conscience for a candidate and a party that puts the country further on a path to go down the drain – look at the Bush years, Romney’s policies are essentially Bush 2.0.

---

I even do not trust the Republicans that they are willing to tackle Roe v. Wade. I consider the Republican Party to be deeply cynical in many ways, and therefore I have reasons to believe that, at least for a large part, their pro-life stance is deeply cynical as well – they need to keep their “socially conservative” base in order to stay in power. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, that base would have one less reason to stay with the party, and they would lose power. No, the Republican Party is best served with the status quo, and I do believe they really would want to keep it that way when push comes to shove – certainly on the national level. Of course, there are honest individual pro-life politicians in the Republican Party, but as a whole I do not think the party would want to risk power by rattling too much on the convenient status quo.

Al, thank you. Very helpful to me in understanding your proportionate reasons.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

I am not voting for the Mormon church. I am voting to get the most pro-abortion president in my lifetime out of office.

Remember Jack Kennedy? They were saying back then (and I am old enough to remember) that the Pope was going to run the country.

The Mormon church will not run this country if Romney is elected and I think we all really know that.

It’s an excuse and a poor one at that.

What John Kennedy was to Catholicism is nowhere near what Mitt Romney is to Mormonism.

Just sayin’ that is a poor comparison. John F. Kennedy was essentially a Cafeteria Catholic. I’m sure there were some Bishops even back then who would have denied him communion.

Where does Mitt Romney disagree with the Mormon Church? Because it was pretty clear that John F. Kennedy had disagreements with Church doctrine. Or somehow viewed his being a public official as a way to support things which the Church defines as sin, because his constituents did…

No, I’m not saying the Mormon Church will be running America. But, I would say that the election of 2 consecutive non-Christians to the White House would be a huge blow to Christianity in this country.

First the Democrats nominate an anti-Christian secularist in Obama. And then the GOP nominates a Mormon.

2 non-Christians in a row. I think everyone here can agree that that is not good for Christianity in this country.

But, it’s not my fault, I voted for Rick Santorum in the primary.

 

[RACJ]

Now that seems rather questionable, given his 47 % comment.

Now Al, discerning people know EXACTLY the type of sponge Mitt was talking about in that comment. And YOU know who it is too. There are millions out there who are professional welfare recipients. They bear children, don’t care for them, and vote for the highest bidders, the Democrat Party. Society is crumbling thanks to Democrats determined to steal every last crumb from wealth-producers. Rob

 

[RACJ]

As someone who voted for President Obama in 2008, I will not make that mistake again. He has been the most divisive President I have ever seen in office.

Our government has passed massive health care legislation before; Medicare in the mid-sixties. This was hotly debated legislation, but LBJ made sure he had votes from both sides of the aisle. He was very good at collaboration and in gaining support for his programs; including support from the people.

President Obama is a community organizer; he needs a target – something or someone to be against. He is not a builder or a collaborator. We need a leader who is all about building and collaboration; someone who will lead both sides of the aisle.

As a country we are in debt up to our ears, compare the annual interest payment on the national debt to the Medicare budget and draw your own conclusions. We cannot permit mismanagement by the current administration to sink our country.

Of course as a Catholic I can no longer vote for President Obama. His promises of protecting conscience and not funding abortion have evaporated. Therefore my support must also leave him.

Well said, and welcome home! Rob

 

[Elizabeth502]

I made my statement (on p. 36 of the thread) with respect to her reaction about my assertions regarding broader economic statistics, which had nothing to do with her private life or her private attitudes toward others, but had to do with her political ideology.

No. You wouldn’t know whether she lives “in a right-wing bubble” unless you know her personally. You were not discussing her “political ideology” but where you assumed, and assume, she lives – not to mention whether she does (if she lives in such a "bubble’) subscribes to that “bubble.”

It was a personal remark, filled with assumptions, that has no business in a political discussion.

 

[rlg94086]

And she would go against the teachings of your faith.

And?

Exactly. So, please drop the pretense that you are a Democrat for Life, and therefore won’t vote for Obama. Hillary Clinton is not pro-life, so obviously that isn’t an important factor in your voting.

 

[rlg94086]

Now that seems rather questionable, given his 47 % comment.

Not at all questionable. Romney is a very giving person. Obama, on the other hand, would force someone else to give and then take the credit for their “compassion.”

 

[Al_Moritz]

Now Al, discerning people know EXACTLY the type of sponge Mitt was talking about in that comment. And YOU know who it is too. There are millions out there who are professional welfare recipients. They bear children, don’t care for them, and vote for the highest bidders, the Democrat Party.

I would love that your interpretation were what Romney really meant. Alas, given Romney’s actual words I feel forced to a much less charitable interpretation of his stance.

One major problem with your interpretation: Those sponges of “professional welfare recipients” that you mention do not amount to 47 % of the population.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al, thank you. Very helpful to me in understanding your proportionate reasons.

You’re welcome.

What I really think about the GOP is close to what a former GOP operative describes. The article has confirmed my worst suspicions:

truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult

About the author:
Mike Lofgren retired on June 17 after 28 years as a Congressional staffer. He served 16 years as a professional staff member on the Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees.

 

[_Abyssinia]

It’s very simple. Here is this document:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.htm

See the footnote. Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) deliberately leaves open what he means by “proportionate reasons”, obviously because he does not want to constrict voters’ conscience too much. For me such reasons would be
a) that I have no rational reason to seriously believe that voting for Mitt Romney will actually cause a lesser number of abortions to occur in this country because of legislation
combined with b) that I do believe that voting for Obama will actually cause a lesser number of abortions to occur in this country compared to Romney.
Why the latter? For economic reasons.

Apart from that, I am not a one-issue voter, for obvious rational reasons. And hope for an overturn of Roe v. Wade is far too remote and rationally questionable as to be a sufficient reason to allow me to vote in my conscience for a candidate and a party that puts the country further on a path to go down the drain – look at the Bush years, Romney’s policies are essentially Bush 2.0.

---

I even do not trust the Republicans that they are willing to tackle Roe v. Wade. I consider the Republican Party to be deeply cynical in many ways, and therefore I have reasons to believe that, at least for a large part, their pro-life stance is deeply cynical as well – they need to keep their “socially conservative” base in order to stay in power. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, that base would have one less reason to stay with the party, and they would lose power. No, the Republican Party is best served with the status quo, and I do believe they really would want to keep it that way when push comes to shove – certainly on the national level. Of course, there are honest individual pro-life politicians in the Republican Party, but as a whole I do not think the party would want to risk power by rattling too much on the convenient status quo.

Is similar to what Catholic Obama supporter Stepehen Schneck described, that he believes more abortions will occur under Romney/Ryan because of economy. Debunked here, here, here, here

Belief that Romney will not tackle roe v wade is not a proportionate reason. Himself and Paul Ryan have delcared themselves pro life and have a pro life record so by all intention they will tackle roe v wade. Obama will nominate more pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage justices that will stop the reveral for roe v wade for decades

Obama has increased poverty during his presidency. 15 million more are on food stamps; 1 in 6 are in poverty. If it is true that poverty increases the abortion rate then Obama’s polices must be responsible for an increase in abortion rate

Answers to what are not and what are proportionate reasons

 

[Seeker1961]

You’re welcome.

What I really think about the GOP is close to what a former GOP operative describes. The article has confirmed my worst suspicions:

truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult

About the author:
Mike Lofgren retired on June 17 after 28 years as a Congressional staffer. He served 16 years as a professional staff member on the Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees.

Thanks for posting this, it’s a very good description of what I saw happening to the Republican party that I spent most of my life supporting. It seems that most folks here are completely supportive of that change, so I doubt you’ll find much agreement.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Obama has increased poverty during his presidency. 15 million more are on food stamps; 1 in 6 are in poverty. If it is true that poverty increases the abortion rate then Obama’s polices must be responsible for an increase in abortion rate

This is ridiculous. Obama inherited the Bush economic collase and prevented a second Great Depression. Yeah, blame it all on Obama and call him a ‘food stamp president’! Not an argument of any merit in my view.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Thanks for posting this, it’s a very good description of what I saw happening to the Republican party that I spent most of my life supporting.

You’re welcome. I am glad you see things that way too.

It seems that most folks here are completely supportive of that change, so I doubt you’ll find much agreement.

No, no agreement, just ridicule instead of taking a step back and analyzing what’s actually going on in the GOP. I am just waiting for all the posts ‘debunking’ the article without even having read it carefully and with an unbiased mind. It usually begins with ‘discrediting’ the source and the website that the article is posted on.

 

[johnnyjones]

Obama should not even be a consideration for a Catholic, nor should any pro abortion candidate. It’s appalling that on this forum, a forum that itself says “vote your faith”, some Catholics are advocating the election of a no restriction on abortion , pro partial birth abortion candidate. Some even going as far as shrugging their shoulders about it.

Catholics wake up. Abortion is a horror to the church. My church this election season even has gone as far as handing out pamphlets and mini-books that take you through the proper voting process as a catholic specifically aimed at abortion and same sex marriage issues.

Read Pope John Paul II Evangelium (Gospel of Life) . As well neither your feelings or opinions take the place of your conscience. A pro abortion candidate supports a moral evil in society. To vote for a such a candidate is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. Then, the voter sins mortally. ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

 

[Seeker1961]

Obama should not even be a consideration for a Catholic, nor should any pro abortion candidate. It’s appalling that on this forum, a forum that itself says “vote your faith”, some Catholics are advocating the election of a no restriction on abortion , pro partial birth abortion candidate. Some even going as far as shrugging their shoulders about it.

Catholics wake up. Abortion is a horror to the church. My church this election season even has gone as far as handing out pamphlets and mini-books that take you through the proper voting process as a catholic specifically aimed at abortion and same sex marriage issues.

Read Pope John Paul II Evangelium (Gospel of Life) . As well neither your feelings or opinions take the place of your conscience. A pro abortion candidate supports a moral evil in society. To vote for a such a candidate is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. Then, the voter sins mortally. ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

If you believe that Romney will do something about abortion, then by all means you should vote for him. Since I don’t believe either of them will do anything to change the status quo, I took that issue out of my analysis.

 

[_Abyssinia]

This is ridiculous. Obama inherited the Bush economic collase and prevented a second Great Depression. Yeah, blame it all on Obama and call him a ‘food stamp president’! Not an argument of any merit in my view.

Reagan inherited a recession from Carter and in 2 years turned the economy around to become prosperous. Bush inherited a recession too. If other presidents turned around a recession they inherited there is no excuse for Obama. It is his policies that are inhibiting a recovery. You can not blame the congress, Obama had 2 years of a majority demcorat house and senate and got everything he wanted passed

Did not call Obama a food stamp president but the fact is that under his presidency 15 million more people have gone on food stamps

Obama has been president for nearly 4 years - when will you allow him to take responsibility?

 

[johnnyjones]

If you believe that Romney will do something about abortion, then by all means you should vote for him. Since I don’t believe either of them will do anything to change the status quo, I took that issue out of my analysis.

Promoting a culture of life is the concern, even verbally. You have a duty and a moral obligation to vote for the candidate that will do the least harm to the unborn…

Being locked in a stubborn view does nothing. Read the catholic voters guide link I posted above. This is a serious issue, not one to get thick about. The catechism tells us to vote CCC 2240)

 

[_Abyssinia]

If you believe that Romney will do something about abortion, then by all means you should vote for him. Since I don’t believe either of them will do anything to change the status quo, I took that issue out of my analysis.

So you do not believe Romney is being honest when he says he will pass pro life restrictions?

You do not believe Ryan when he said he guarantees the HHS mandate will be rescinded?

Even if you take abortion out of the equation, Obama supports intrinsic evils such as embryonic stem cell research and homosexual marriage, so even if you believe neither Romney or Obama will restrict abortion or change the legality that does not give you a way out as Catholic to vote for Obama - Romney is the lesser of 2 evils with out the issue of abortion in the equation

ObamaTax could give the abortion industry nearly $1 billion annually through the abortion premium. Think of the abortion clinics they could build with that money

 

[BroomWagon]

If you believe that Romney will do something about abortion, then by all means you should vote for him. Since I don’t believe either of them will do anything to change the status quo, I took that issue out of my analysis.

I’m not going to take out of the equation the DNC’s full support of the Nation’s biggest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood and in reality a support they wish to expand. . That does not seem realistic at all.

A provider who has 83% of their clinics in minority neighborhoods. A provider that has been shut down in individual states. A provider who the Democrats favored over paying the military in the Budget debate a few years ago.