Our Next President

[ishii]

To call everybody who votes for Obama “ignorant” is a bit harsh. As I have mentioned above, what about sincere Catholics who vote for the War Party? ** Republicans have been eagerly starting immoral wars for about thirty years now**.

Republicans started the Gulf War? I thought Iraq did when it invaded Kuwait.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I find it hard to believe so many “sincere” Catholics are honestly that ignorant. I know there are a lot of people who label themselves Catholic yet don’t even so much as go to Mass or learn anything else about their faith - and for them to support Obama doesn’t surprise me at all, but this is completely different.

They might know about their faith - but you have to understand the depth of their hatred for all things Republican. That has a huge effect on their inability to not vote for Obama. To them, the most immoral thing that could happen is for a Republican to be elected president - because they’d cut crucial programs for the poor - and Jesus said in the gospel that we have to help the poor by confiscating others’ money to fund federal programs like housing and healthcare. Obama, on the other hand, can be forgiven for his pro-abortion policies because he is for funding more programs to help the poor.

Ishii

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

An agenda that doesn’t include the HHS mandate, doesn’t include nominating justices like Elena Kagan or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, includes repealing Obamacare, includes passing the Ryan budget to restore some fiscal sanity. Its not merely about keeping Obama from getting re-elected (but I admit that’s a large part of it) - its also issue driven. The squishy, flip-floppy, middle of the road Romney would be on the right side of the issues I listed.

Ishii

I’m tired of hoping for it. The GOP had the House, Senate, and White House for 6 years and never got anything done about Roe v. Wade. I don’t put stock in hope anymore. I want to see a plan, a concrete one. At least Gingrich made his Contract with America and made it the legislative agenda when he became Speaker. I want to see what the Republicans are going to do in clear, unambiguous, concrete terms before I consider supporting them this go-around. I sure as heck won’t be voting for the other guy. I’d rather shave my head with a cheese-grater than vote for that totalitarian statist amateur.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

To call everybody who votes for Obama “ignorant” is a bit harsh. As I have mentioned above, what about sincere Catholics who vote for the War Party? Republicans have been eagerly starting immoral wars for about thirty years now.

Obama pressed for intervention in Libya and loves the “death by predator drone” program. He is as much the war monger as any Republican. The Democrats talk a great game about peace, but in the last 100 years, most of our major conflicts have been started by Democrats.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

I’m tired of hoping for it. The GOP had the House, Senate, and White House for 6 years and never got anything done about Roe v. Wade. I don’t put stock in hope anymore.

That’s my point too. It’s painfully obvious the Republicans will never to anything about abortion and only use the issue for politics. So in effect abortion is a constant on the political landscape and voting decisions must be made on other points. So I choose not to vote for the War Party, for example.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

That’s my point too. It’s painfully obvious the Republicans will never to anything about abortion and only use the issue for politics. So in effect abortion is a constant on the political landscape and voting decisions must be made on other points. So I choose not to vote for the War Party, for example.

They do nibble around the edges and their Supreme Court picks a far better than the junk that the Democrats put up for consumption. I mean, Ginsberg, Sotomeyor and Kagan? Please.

 

[_Abyssinia]

That’s my point too. It’s painfully obvious the Republicans will never to anything about abortion and only use the issue for politics. So in effect abortion is a constant on the political landscape and voting decisions must be made on other points. So I choose not to vote for the War Party, for example.

That is false.



dailykos.com/story/2011/06/24/988070/-Louisiana-adds-to-this-years-huge-spike-in-anti-abortion-legislation

Republicans passed over 80 pro life laws at the state level in 2011.

The Republican party is no more a ‘war party’ than the Democrat party is, the senate Democrats recently voted in support of billions for continuation of the Afghanistan war, majority of senate Democrats supported the Iraq war.

 

[ishii]

I’m tired of hoping for it. The GOP had the House, Senate, and White House for 6 years and never got anything done about Roe v. Wade. I don’t put stock in hope anymore. I want to see a plan, a concrete one. At least Gingrich made his Contract with America and made it the legislative agenda when he became Speaker. I want to see what the Republicans are going to do in clear, unambiguous, concrete terms before I consider supporting them this go-around. I sure as heck won’t be voting for the other guy. I’d rather shave my head with a cheese-grater than vote for that totalitarian statist amateur.

The GOP never had a 60 seat majority in the senate like Obama did during his first two years. I agree with you about wanting a plan - but regarding Roe V Wade, as long as the supreme court stays the same, there won’t be anything done about Roe V Wade, contrary to what some have said about a legislative means of overturning it. I don’t believe that is a viable option, nor do any of the serious pro-life organizations. That talk is just a way for people to say " see, the GOP isn’t serious about abortion because if they were, they’d just vote in the congress to overturn it." But we’ve been through that before and didn’t agree. I understand your frustration, but I can’t bear to see Obama with another four years to nominate possibly two more justices in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You yourself said that the GOP supreme court justices are far better than the Democrat ones. The last thing I want you to do is shave your head with a cheese grater.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

That’s my point too. It’s painfully obvious the Republicans will never to anything about abortion and only use the issue for politics. So in effect abortion is a constant on the political landscape and voting decisions must be made on other points. So I choose not to vote for the War Party, for example.

That is just a simplistic rationalization and its wrong. GOP efforts to do something about abortion are always thwarted and fought tooth and nail by the Democrat party which is in the pocket of the abortion lobby. The Roe V Wade decision makes it almost impossible to do anything other than marginal reforms of abortion law. Until we get a majority in the supreme court that will always be the case.

Ishii

 

[ringil]

So Obama is beating Romney on this poll? I’m pretty surprised at this.

Conservatives really don’t seem so thrilled with the eventual nominee.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So Obama is beating Romney on this poll? I’m pretty surprised at this.

Conservatives really don’t seem so thrilled with the eventual nominee.

I hink once the one on one begins with Obama, you’ll see that conservatives are even less thrilled with the prospect of Obama for another 4 years.

 

[ishii]

So Obama is beating Romney on this poll? I’m pretty surprised at this.

Conservatives really don’t seem so thrilled with the eventual nominee.

You need to combine the non-Obama votes to get an idea of where Romney stands compared to Obama. Conservatives don’t want to see Obama re-elected, and Catholics on this forum don’t want Obama to win - unless they like the HHS mandate and his other policies.

Ishii

 

[ringil]

You need to combine the non-Obama votes to get an idea of where Romney stands compared to Obama. Conservatives don’t want to see Obama re-elected, and Catholics on this forum don’t want Obama to win - unless they like the HHS mandate and his other policies.

Ishii

Only reading the poll as it stands, not how you feel I “need to read it”.

Just because you want Conservatives to be excited about the candidate doesn’t make it reality.

I don’t believe that “he’s not Obama” is going to be enough to win it for the GOP.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Defending innocent human beings is not a bad ‘‘hobbyhorse’’ to have.

Of course. But, some here took it to be a pejorative slam against Ishii on my part. He can support the GOP in the election as forcefully as he can IMO.

My real difficulty with Ishii’s thinking is his notion that a vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote for Obama. That’s too partisan for me to accept. Sometimes, a vote for a third party candidate is just that - a principled vote for another candidate.

It is to that sort of pro-life candidate that I am leaning.

 

[ringil]

Of course. But, some here took it to be a pejorative slam against Ishii on my part. He can support the GOP in the election as forcefully as he can IMO.

My real difficulty with Ishii’s thinking is his notion that a vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote for Obama. That’s too partisan for me to accept. Sometimes, a vote for a third party candidate is just that - a principled vote for another candidate.

It is to that sort of pro-life candidate that I am leaning.

I would love to see a Pro-life Liberal Democrat but alas. . . . .

Heck, I believe that Obama’s decisions show him as more of a centrist than a liberal, despite the “secular-leftist, socialist” canard. I am certainly more liberal than he regarding the role of Government and taxation.

 

[gamewell45]

As a life-long Independent, I’m so tempted to write my name in for President. I don’t know the first thing about running this country, but I’m honest and that’s 50% right off the bat.

 

[ishii]

Of course. But, some here took it to be a pejorative slam against Ishii on my part. He can support the GOP in the election as forcefully as he can IMO.

My real difficulty with Ishii’s thinking is his notion that a vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote for Obama. That’s too partisan for me to accept. Sometimes, a vote for a third party candidate is just that - a principled vote for another candidate.

It is to that sort of pro-life candidate that I am leaning.

I*** would love to see a Pro-life Liberal Democrat but alas***. . . . .

Heck, I believe that Obama’s decisions show him as more of a centrist than a liberal, despite the “secular-leftist, socialist” canard. I am certainly more liberal than he regarding the role of Government and taxation.

That is the dilemma for the Democrat catholic isn’t it. But in the end, federal govt. programs, ever increasing confiscatory tax policies to redistribute the wealth - “spread it around” trumps the unborn doesn’t it? It rurns out that when push comes to shove, liberal catholics will support Obama because of his statist policies, while ignoring his pro-abortion policies. The priorities of the Democrat catholics are there for all to see. Or am I wrong? I would like a Democrat catholic who supports Obama to explain.

(sorry to keep riding the pro-life hobby horse - I can’t bring myself to ignore a million babies killed each year).

Ishii

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Obama pressed for intervention in Libya and loves the “death by predator drone” program. He is as much the war monger as any Republican. The Democrats talk a great game about peace, but in the last 100 years, most of our major conflicts have been started by Democrats.

For purpose of meaningful discussion, let’s stick to the modern era, from Reagan onward, post-Vietnam. Obama’s intervention in Libya was of the minimal type, even smaller than Clinton’s in Bosnia. The drone program, which he inherited and embraced, is likewise. C’mon, I think you know what I am talking about – none of these things remotely compares to the invasion of Iraq, and as I said, McCain-Palin would probably have been carpet-bombing Iran by now. All I’m saying is that it’s pretty hypocritical to think voting for the Republican war party is voting “pro-life”.

 

[ishii]

For purpose of meaningful discussion, let’s stick to the modern era, from Reagan onward, post-Vietnam. Obama’s intervention in Libya was of the minimal type, even smaller than Clinton’s in Bosnia. The drone program, which he inherited and embraced, is likewise. C’mon, I think you know what I am talking about – none of these things remotely compares to the invasion of Iraq, and as I said, McCain-Palin would probably have been carpet-bombing Iran by now. All I’m saying is that it’s pretty hypocritical to think voting for the Republican war party is voting “pro-life”.

So I’ll try again - You said the Republicans started all the wars. Who started the Gulf war?

Ishii

 

[Jerry_Miah]

So I’ll try again - You said the Republicans started all the wars. Who started the Gulf war?

Ishii

You’re splitting hairs. Would you be happier to phrase it that Bush1 decided to enter the Iraq-Iran war?

My point remains – It’s pretty strange to think it’s a “pro-life” vote to support the war party. There are hundreds of thousand of dead Iraqis who would argue that definition of pro-life, and a dead archbishop in El Salvador too.