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

[He_Man]

If you look at Romney’s record, when he had power, he was pro-abortion. His record on gay rights is equally spotty. Given the right amount of pressure, Romney always flip flops and does what he is told.

Even if that was true, Obama has flip flopped just as much, so it would be a wash.

Further, Obama has a track record of failure as President. Romney has no such record of failure.

 

[Lapey]

The only good thing about the cash for clunkers program is it took tens of thousands of obama/ biden bumper stickers off the nation’s highways.

I must say, I never thought of it in that light!!! Thanks for that one.

 

[He_Man]

I never said anything about Obama’s evolution. Either you are confusing me with someone else here or you are putting words into my mouth.

I think the record is clear on both Obama and Romney: they are both pro-murder (albeit to varying degrees).

I will not vote for Romney simply because less babies will be murdered under his presidency than under Obama’s. I like to sleep well at night.

You said you weren’t voting for Mittens, but made no such assertion about Obama.

As long as you don’t vote for Obama, that is your prerogative, and the logic computes.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Not to derail the thread, but I cannot let the above go unchallenged. Cardinal Burke is a good and holy man. He upholds the teachings of Holy Mother Church and tried to bring the members of that Catholic community back to the fold. They chose otherwise.

Now, back to the thread.

I have to step in here too to correct the good Cardinal’s record.

Then Archbishop Burke instituted many changes to help prevent child abuse. In addition he set up an office for treating the victims of sex abuse.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The poor have really suffered under this administration.

As they have suffered under the administrations of either party. I have nothing against Pres. Bush II, but it wasn’t a Goldene Medina for the poor with him in power either.

Have you seen the increased numbers going on foodstamps and other welfare payments because they can’t find jobs? It’s a terrible indignity. Our national debt is so high partly due to the decrease in taxes collected. Jobs will increase our tax revenue and help our country get back some financial stability

Certainly, and I agree with you, but can’t agree that Romney/Ryan will be our Saviours. The economy will do what it will do. The Administration, whichever it will be, has only so much influence on the vagaries of the economy. There are many more influences on the health of the economy IMO.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Don’t you understand? There is no trade-off, no embellishment or even basic structure that trumps the foundation of the economy, of the society, and of the government: people. When you destroy people, you destroy the society. And when you destroy future adults, you destroy the future society at the base.

There can be no poor people, no rich people, no unjust people, no oppressed people no healthy people, no people with cancer, no people with genetic defects IF THERE ARE NO PEOPLE.

Just pointing out that jeopardizing an economy is an additional way of “destroying” people, in that it is possible to “destroy” (drastically reduce) the earning power of those not only in the best position to help the poor privately, but in the best position to contribute to a large pool paying taxes for government programs!

(My position is not that the poor are sufficiently helped with private donations. I cannot say that with a straight face. My position --along with many other proposals in the theme of Catholic social justice-- is that the government programs themselves are affected by a weak or even stagnant economy, in that the taxpaying population is thereby reduced.)

My position is additionally (relative to Catholic social doctrine) that the overwhelming number of poor people in the U.S. need not be so in a First World in the 21st century, but that “government programs” should be focused first on rigorous education (especially literacy combined with technology) and training. I.m.o., we are operating on outdated standards for those two areas. That should come before any long-term cash handouts.

“The poor will always be with us,” but those poor should never be at risk of their very lives, unless that is their choice. (Which is true for a very small portion of the population.) IOW, anyone who applies himself or herself should have government support for that in some form. Government should be in the business of matching effort and of providing opportunity for those who are motivated.

I also believe in the concept of “trade labor,” and I don’t mean unions. I mean that free nutrition/food banks should be much more abundant/available to those who are between jobs, unable to pay rent (homelessness is a costly social issue on many levels), etc. Thus, if you are out of work, while you are out of work, you provide free service to food banks & food distribution agencies in order to benefit from them. Same for any agencies or arms of local gov’t providing subsidized rent to you. Same for educational programs: you provide some free hours to staff that training program, that community college vocational course you are attending for free because you can’t pay registration fees, etc.

I do not believe that a Darwinian mindset is compatible with Catholic social doctrine. But I also believe that human power is way underutilized in the relationship between government and individuals.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Further, Obama has a track record of failure as President. Romney has no such record of failure.

Obviously. He’s never been President to be able to succeed or fail.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Another program, well-intentioned but with disastrous results. An experienced person would have fore-seen this.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Does this… Cardinal Burke… represent THE official position of the Church in this regard?

He left St Louis after protecting as many ‘naughty’ priests as he could… he alienated one of the biggest and best “old school” Catholic communities…

He “alienated” a Polish parish that “hired” a priest from another diocese without the bishop’s consent. This priest drives a BMW and lives in a downtown loft, because living in the Rectory was too stressful. This priest also officiated at a Womenpriest “ordination” of women (in a Synagog no less)!!

He did not protect naughty priests. He didn’t “leave” St. Louis. He was elevated to the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura.

Because of him, our seminary is over flowing. Additions had to be made to accommodate these many fine men.

 

[He_Man]

Obviously. He’s never been President to be able to succeed or fail.

Of course not. Obama had one term, and did terribly, in fact historically so.

Logic dictates an honest person WHO ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT THE POOR would choose the candidate with a chance at success over the candidate they know uses failed policies.

With Obama, we know the economy will be garbage.

With Romney, we have the possibility of it working out.

Thus, I see perfectly why someone will justify a vote for Obama because they want to help the poor. Those people simply aren’t being logical.

 

[qui_est_ce]

As they have suffered under the administrations of either party. I have nothing against Pres. Bush II, but it wasn’t a Goldene Medina for the poor with him in power either.

Bush is not running this year.

Certainly, and I agree with you, but can’t agree that Romney/Ryan will be our Saviours. The economy will do what it will do. The Administration, whichever it will be, has only so much influence on the vagaries of the economy. There are many more influences on the health of the economy IMO.

Obama’s policies are ruining our economy. He is the one spending billions of dollars on failed energy companies. He is the one lobbying for an increase in our debt ceiling.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The only good thing about the cash for clunkers program is it took tens of thousands of obama/ biden bumper stickers off the nation’s highways.

 

[littlesoul]

I will not be voting. I’ll be praying instead.

I like this.

 

[Al_Moritz]

There have been nine national elections since Roe v Wade. Five republican and four democrat. Not much has happened on the “abortion” front. Even Chief Justice Roberts said it was “settled law”. Was he serious or saying it with a “wink and a nod”? (I’d like to think there’s hope.)

Thank you very much for that information. Yes, he was serious.

From his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court:

Senator Durbin. Understood. I have been an attorney,
represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did
not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today
what is your position on Roe v. Wade?

Mr. Roberts. I don't--Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the

land. It is not–it’s a little more than settled. It was
reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be
overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled
law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that
would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that
precedent, as well as Casey.

Link:
gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg92548/html/CHRG-108shrg92548.htm

This provides even less of a rational reason to assume the Republicans want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and makes by decision to vote for Obama even easier.

It fully confirms what I had said earlier about this issue and the GOP:

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.

And:

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.

 

[Yerusalyim]

I will not be voting. I’ll be praying instead.

In my humble opinion, that is a cop-out. I believe that even if you do not vote for either of the major party candidates you should vote…write your own name in instead. All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.

 

[rlg94086]

In my humble opinion, that is a cop-out. I believe that even if you do not vote for either of the major party candidates you should vote…write your own name in instead. All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.

I agree. Voting and praying are not either/or propositions. God gave us the ability to do both.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Bush is not running this year.

Oy, Christine. I didn’t say or imply that he was. My point was that the poor didn’t have it so good under Bush and have it worse under Obama.

Obama’s policies are ruining our economy. He is the one spending billions of dollars on failed energy companies. He is the one lobbying for an increase in our debt ceiling.

I can’t blame it all on him. Our economy wasn’t booming under Bush either, and even under Obama, there are factors contributing to the ruin of our economy that can’t be entirely laid at his feet.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

In my humble opinion, that is a cop-out. I believe that even if you do not vote for either of the major party candidates you should vote…write your own name in instead. All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.

Agreed. Action is always better than inaction IMO. At the least, it gets one used to exercising one’s franchise.

 

[SwizzleStick]

He “alienated” a Polish parish that “hired” a priest from another diocese without the bishop’s consent. This priest drives a BMW and lives in a downtown loft, because living in the Rectory was too stressful. This priest also officiated at a Womenpriest “ordination” of women (in a Synagog no less)!!

He did not protect naughty priests. He didn’t “leave” St. Louis. He was elevated to the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura.

Because of him, our seminary is over flowing. Additions had to be made to accommodate these many fine men.

Thank you for sharing this accurate information about Cardinal Burke, a beloved and holy priest!

 

[Carlan]

The plight of the poor does not equal the plight of the unborn. With that statement made,

Romney does not promise inattentiveness to the plight of the poor, he intends to free up the job market and put people where they belong, at work so they can in dignity provide for themselves. This is in line with Catholic social teachings

:hmm:Wow, love the way you spin that one, Guess you must have missed his speech to his friends in Boca,at the fund raiser you know, when he told them he didn’t have time for the 47% non tax payers , the"Victims".
Put faces on those 47%,Sir, the wounded warriors, the old sick and feeble , the struggling t Mothers in the projects scrapping to nurture and care for their babes, the handicapped men, women and children and the list goes on, I didn’t hear the compassion in that man when he was talking to the choir.
Peace, Carlan