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

[ringil]

My proportionate reason for supporting Obama has to do with the fact that I vehemently disagree with 99% of what Romney wants- extending into the foundational thrust of his economic and governmental philosophy. He proposes to do the EXACT opposite as what I would desire in a candidate. Add to this that I cant be assured that he will absolutely make any meaningful change in the %1 I agree with him on if he were elected.

So I am supposed to vote for a guy I disagree with on almost EVERY SINGLE issue because he states he will do something about the few issues I agree with him on- and even those issues he doesn’t totally match?

Vote regarding a %1 that he may or may not change and ignore the totality of his political vision? No, not me.

 

[CMatt25]

My proportionate reason for supporting Obama has to do with the fact that I vehemently disagree with 99% of what Romney wants- extending into the foundational thrust of his economic and governmental philosophy. He proposes to do the EXACT opposite as what I would desire in a candidate. Add to this that I cant be assured that he will absolutely make any meaningful change in the %1 I agree with him on if he were elected.

So I am supposed to vote for a guy I disagree with on almost EVERY SINGLE issue because he states he will do something about the few issues I agree with him on- and even those issues he doesn’t totally match?

Vote regarding a %1 that he may or may not change? No, not me.

Your reasons understood Ringil. I mean seriously if you disagree with 99%, that’s more than 47%.

 

[rlg94086]

My proportionate reason for supporting Obama has to do with the fact that I vehemently disagree with 99% of what Romney wants- extending into the foundational thrust of his economic and governmental philosophy. He proposes to do the EXACT opposite as what I would desire in a candidate. Add to this that I cant be assured that he will absolutely make any meaningful change in the %1 I agree with him on if he were elected.

So I am supposed to vote for a guy I disagree with on almost EVERY SINGLE issue because he states he will do something about the few issues I agree with him on- and even those issues he doesn’t totally match?

Vote regarding a %1 that he may or may not change and ignore the totality of his political vision? No, not me.

You can answer CMatt25’s question, if you like. It is a pretty simple question…

Killing of millions of innocent human beings VS an end to all poverty in America?

I mean, seriously, NO POVERTY!! That’s huge, right?

 

[ringil]

You can answer CMatt25’s question, if you like. It is a pretty simple question…

Killing of millions of innocent human beings VS an end to all poverty in America?

I mean, seriously, NO POVERTY!! That’s huge, right?

There is no guarantee that Romney would end Abortion. On a foundational level the President cannot predict the vote of a supreme court judge. We saw this with Stevens and his vote on the health care bill.

Reducing abortion- if he could attain that- would not be proportionate for me as GOP policies do result in the death of the unborn and children- not to mention adults.

I should vote on a roll of a hundred faced die- that all stars will allign and a GOP will end Abortion when I FUNDAMENTALLY agree on nearly every issue you could name.?

 

[rlg94086]

There is no guarantee that Romney would end Abortion. On a foundational level the President cannot predict the vote of a supreme court judge. We saw this with Stevens and his vote on the health care bill.

I should vote on a roll of a hundred faced die- that all stars will allign and a GOP will end Abortion?

That’s what I expected as an answer…no answer. It was a pretty simple question.

 

[CMatt25]

Here’s the thing, CMatt25…see if you can answer this honestly.

If the innocent, defenseless human lives were adults…let’s say, just for argument’s sake, Jewish Americans…would you allow people to choose to kill millions of them and consider the complete ending of poverty in America (that’s right…not even a poorly performing social program…complete end to poverty!) a proportionate reason?

You give as my only choice whether to make it legal to kill Jewish American adults by the millions or a total elimination of every poor person. Honest answer no. I believe there will always be at least one poor person on this earth, rLg. And that’s a silly argument to make anyway in my mind.

 

[RWMorris]

I am voting for Romney simply because I have little choice. I am for an absolute right to Life, Liberty, and Property, for every individual, under the rule of law. It is my firm conviction that such rights shrink as government grows.

Because of my convictions there is no way I could ever vote for Obama. Many of you go into long explanations justifying your support for Obama. It seems rather silly to me because your reasoning doesn’t even pass the simplest test of morality, yet you will blather on with a wordy explanation as if your words create some pretext of morality.

Consider my vote for Romney as a protest against the immorality of Obama.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I am voting for Romney simply because I have little choice. I am for an absolute right to Life, Liberty, and Property, for every individual, under the rule of law. It is my firm conviction that such rights shrink as government grows.

Because of my convictions there is no way I could ever vote for Obama. Many of you go into long explanations justifying your support for Obama. It seems rather silly to me because your reasoning doesn’t even pass the simplest test of morality, yet you will blather on with a wordy explanation as if your words create some pretext of morality.

Consider my vote for Romney as a protest against the immorality of Obama./QUOTE]

I would have said “against the immorality and incompetence of Obama”.

 

[CMatt25]

There is no guarantee that Romney would end Abortion. On a foundational level the President cannot predict the vote of a supreme court judge. We saw this with Stevens and his vote on the health care bill.

Reducing abortion- if he could attain that- would not be proportionate for me as GOP policies do result in the death of the unborn and children- not to mention adults.

I should vote on a roll of a hundred faced die- that all stars will allign and a GOP will end Abortion when I FUNDAMENTALLY agree on nearly every issue you could name.?

Ringil, didn’t you see it the Souter and maybe O’Connor too? Which party’s Presidents nominated them?

 

[CMatt25]

There is no guarantee that Romney would end Abortion. On a foundational level the President cannot predict the vote of a supreme court judge. We saw this with Stevens and his vote on the health care bill.

Reducing abortion- if he could attain that- would not be proportionate for me as GOP policies do result in the death of the unborn and children- not to mention adults.

I should vote on a roll of a hundred faced die- that all stars will allign and a GOP will end Abortion when I FUNDAMENTALLY agree on nearly every issue you could name.?

Ringil, didn’t you see it with Souter and maybe O’Connor too? Which party’s Presidents nominated them?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Here’s the thing, CMatt25…see if you can answer this honestly.

If the innocent, defenseless human lives were adults…let’s say, just for argument’s sake, Jewish Americans…would you allow people to choose to kill millions of them and consider the complete ending of poverty in America (that’s right…not even a poorly performing social program…complete end to poverty!) a proportionate reason?

Your argument would only have any power if you could guarantee with a Republican vote that the killing of innocent babies would stop. But that is not even remotely the case – you would have to have a majority of Supreme Court judges that would actually want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and if that were the case, you would have to get enforcement politically through the system. These are far too big “ifs” for me. On top of that, I have outlined reasons why I honestly think that the GOP really wants the current status quo when push comes to shove, because of power rationales. So given all that, there is far too much doubt for me as to have a justification to vote just on this single important issue in disregard of all the other bad stuff that the GOP would make happen and which would flush our country down the drain – Bush 2.0 on steroids.

 

[rlg94086]

You give as my only choice whether to making it legal to kill Jewish American adults by the millions or a total elimination of every poor person. Honest answer no. I believe there will always be at least one poor person on this earth, rLg. And that’s a silly argument to make anyway in my mind.

Why is it a silly argument?

You have agreed that even something as HUGE as the elimination of poverty in the US is not a proportionate reason for allowing people the choice to kill innocent human beings. I think 100% of the Bishops would agree with you.

Now, what is the proportionate reason that you think exists that would allow someone to vote for a president that believes that people should have the choice to kill innocent human beings? It must be something even great than an end to poverty in the US.

 

[ringil]

Here are ALL of the issues I agree with the GOP on though aspects with my agreement are dependent on other factors which would be dis=tasteful to the GOP.

Ending abortion- but for me the ending of abortion should coincide with historically massive governmental funding in assisting mothers and their unborn children. The GOP would not do this- it’s all about PRIVATE charity and that aint gonna cut it for the thousands of mothers in a new social environment. Ending abortion without massive governmental assistance would be historically disastrous to the social order.

Euthanasia- Yes I agree with ending euthanasia.

Gay Marriage- But for me I believe that the Government should only license civil unions and leave marriage to religious bodies.

Stem Cell Research- I am against embryonic stem-cell research.

School Vouchers- I approve of these- AS LONG AS only governmentally certified schools can receive the money. i.e. I don’t want an explosion of profit-driven odd-ball schools looking to cash in.

So even the issues that I can agree with he GOP- I propose being instituted in a “left leaning” way.

 

[rlg94086]

Your argument would only have any power if you could guarantee with a Republican vote that the killing of innocent babies would stop. But that is not even remotely the case – you would have to have a majority of Supreme Court judges that would actually want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and if that were the case, you would have to get enforcement politically through the system. These are far too big “ifs” for me. On top of that, I have outlined reasons why I honestly think that the GOP really wants the current status quo when push comes to shove, because of power rationales. So given all that, there is far too much doubt for me as to have a justification to vote just on this single important issue in disregard of all the other bad stuff that the GOP would make happen and which would flush our country down the drain – Bush 2.0 on steroids.

No. You are 100% wrong. The Bishops have said that voting for a candidate who supports the choice to kill innocent human beings is illicit without a proportionate reason. You can certainly choose to vote for no one or waste a vote on a third party candidate, if you like. But, supporting the clearly, 100%, pro-choice candidate over the pro-life candidate because you don’t think the latter is sincere, or you doubt his ability to get it done, etc., is not proportionate reason. It is completely ignoring the killing of innocents.

Perhaps, your conscience is okay with that. I, on the other hand, can not participate in the verbal gymnastics necessary to sacrifice the unborn and use the Bishops’ teachings on proportionate reasons to justify it.

 

[CMatt25]

Your argument would only have any power if you could guarantee with a Republican vote that the killing of innocent babies would stop. But that is not even remotely the case – you would have to have a majority of Supreme Court judges that would actually want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and if that were the case, you would have to get enforcement politically through the system. These are far too big “ifs” for me. On top of that, I have outlined reasons why I honestly think that the GOP really wants the current status quo when push comes to shove, because of power rationales. So given all that, there is far too much doubt for me as to have a justification to vote just on this single important issue in disregard of all the other bad stuff that the GOP would make happen and which would flush our country down the drain – Bush 2.0 on steroids.

Oh he asked me about Jewish American adults. But if he meant aborting the unborn, yes exactly, Al. What you said is a reason why the argument falls short.

 

[Al_Moritz]

There is no guarantee that Romney would end Abortion. On a foundational level the President cannot predict the vote of a supreme court judge. We saw this with Stevens and his vote on the health care bill.

Reducing abortion- if he could attain that- would not be proportionate for me as GOP policies do result in the death of the unborn and children- not to mention adults.

I should vote on a roll of a hundred faced die- that all stars will allign and a GOP will end Abortion when I FUNDAMENTALLY agree on nearly every issue you could name.?

That is pretty much in line with my reasoning in my previous post. Our opponents in this discussion are of the misguided opinion that the consciential choice here is simple and straightforward, according to their ideas. It is not, and Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) acknowledges the complexity of moral choice on this voting issue in his document.

 

[rlg94086]

Oh he asked me about Jewish American adults. But if he meant aborting the unborn, yes exactly, Al. What you said is a reason why the argument falls short.

Actually, that is exactly the reason I framed my argument the way I did.

From a Catholic Church standpoint, there is no difference whatsoever between Jewish American adults and the unborn. THAT is the main difference when it comes to liberal, pro-choice-voting (even the supposed pro-life Democrats) liberals. They don’t consider the unborn to be of equal human dignity.

Therefore, your specious argument that the Bishops may agree with liberals on proportionate reasons is tainted by your premise that the unborn are not equivalent to adults in human value and dignity. That is why you fail, when it comes to understanding proportionate reasoning.

 

[nan]

Catholics who would vote for mr. planned parenthood make me angry. Americans who would vote for a prez who basically ignored Chris Stevens’ death at the hands of terrorists make me see red. And that’s a fact.

 

[Al_Moritz]

No. You are 100% wrong. The Bishops have said that voting for a candidate who supports the choice to kill innocent human beings is illicit without a proportionate reason.

I am not at all wrong. I have given proportionate reasons that are valid in my conscience, which I strive to be well-formed.

Here is what the bishops said, from the USCCB voter’s guide:

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

1. Decisions about political life are complex and require the exercise of a well-formed conscience aided by prudence. This exercise of conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection. Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil.

…]

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
2. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental?moral evil.

---

If you read carefully, all this is precisely in line with Cardinal Ratzinger’s (the current Pope’s) document:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.htm

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

 

[RACJ]

Leave it to Rob, for the “subtle” posts. . .

BTW, what kind of “Christian” are you? Evangelical?

I attend a Baptist church usually, but I think that Catholics are correct on some issues, such as the veneration of Mary, and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I also believe that the Holy Shroud is genuine and that Fatima was a miracle. Rob