Presidential Election Poll 10-2-2012

[rlg94086]

I’ve never voted for a pro-war candidate, so I never would have voted for Romney anyway. I can’t vote for someone who is pro-war. Does pro-life outweigh pro-war? That’s a tough call to make.

So instead I should compromise my values and vote for a little less death? Sorry, but I don’t vote for death, whether it’s war or infanticide. Maybe you’re fine with voting for Romney because at least he says he doesn’t support infanticide. That’s great. Just don’t expect my to show my support for a guy who has no problem killing untold numbers of civilians in the Middle East.

No. By all means, you should never vote. And, since you will never have an ideal candidate, you probably never will. The world is safe.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

No. By all means, you should never vote. And, since you will never have an ideal candidate, you probably never will. The world is safe.

Why do you keep getting snarky with me when I provide an argument as to why I don’t want to vote for the guy? Is there no room for disagreement on this issue?

 

[rlg94086]

Why do you keep getting snarky with me when I provide an argument as to why I don’t want to vote for the guy? Is there no room for disagreement on this issue?

I don’t believe you are making well-reasoned decisions. I know you do, and you are free to do so. You won’t be voting, so it really doesn’t matter what you think, quite frankly. However, I hope to keep you from dragging others into the abyss.

 

[ishii]

I’m getting a handgun for my 21st birthday.

So, Roll Tide if there’s a one party system. “I want to kill me some redcoats… or Communists… or w/e” :knight1:
.

Seriously… I highly doubt that the millions of Republican voters in this country are going to let that happen.

Yes, and apparently with no help from you!

The conservatives have way more guns in this country than liberals. The army is made up of far more conservatives than liberals. I think a one party system is less likely than America having a democratic system with more than 2 parties in government… which is a reality in the majority of democracies across the world.

You think the Libertarian party or Constitution party is going to rise and be a factor? What was their combined percentage last election? They combined to get a whopping 0.5% of the vote! I don’t think we’ll have a one party system if Obama is re-elected either. However, I fear the continued gradual encroachment on our freedoms (including religious) with a 2nd Obama term. I also fear the consolidation of the basic statist, socialist basis for Obama’s policies such as Obamacare in a 2nd Obama term. Most of all, I fear a supreme court shaped by a president who voted in favor of partial birth abortion. Do you fear that Semper Zelare? If you do, what do you propose to prevent that from happening in 2012, vote for a party that will get 0.2% of the vote? Or vote for the candidate who will help overturn Roe V Wade?

Ishii

 

[Vincent_N]

Semper Zelare:

The link in post 199 is completely irrelevent, because it only says the Department of Public Health in Massachusetts is going to write regulations.

The link in post 200 is actually refuted in most of the links I offered you.
The article that you posted was the Boston Globe article that made Mitt Romney cave in. That article was lambasted in almost every link I gave you. Almost every one.

So… clearly you didn’t read one of my 13 links, which you dismiss as “hearsay and opinion”… because you wouldn’t have posted the Boston Globe article that each one of them viciously attacks. I mean, I guess you could… I don’t know why anyone would.

All of my articles. Which are taken from across the political spectrum were all fact-checking the debate. This Boston Globe article was a blatant political attack of Mitt Romney when he was Governor. It was the only one that broke this story… and Mitt Romney didn’t want that story to be picked up, so he acted in 1 day. He overturned the actions of his state department in 1 day.

I bolded what Mitt Romney said, because why would he give his opinion on the matter if he were being legally forced to not listen to his own Dept. of Public Health? He wasn’t being legally forced. He personally disagreed with the Catholic Church, and personally thought that “In my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.”

And that view trumped an entire Department of the Massachusetts government which tried to fight for the religious freedom of Catholic hospitals. Mitt Romney didn’t want any part of that. He threw the Catholic hospitals under the bus when no one was looking. They wrote 1 news article about it, and he decided that 1 was too many… now was his chance to attack the Church when no one was watching. He forced it to provide contraception because he wanted it to. He said so himself.

In all charity, I will answer your links.

Here it comes:

Link #2 is a blog. The narrative completely ignores what transpired between July 25 and Dec 7 and the your entire house of cards is based on a statement made to a liberal paper, post 199 notwithstanding. Yet post 199 was not addressed by this blog.

Link #3 is yet another blog. Even more shallow, this one ignores the post 199 just as you did.

Link #4 is yet another blog that summarizes link #1 blog.

Link #5 is Rush Limbaugh, sorry I instantly blocked it out Though I’m inclined to believe Rush is singing praises of Romney now…maybe, maybe not.

link #6 Doesn’t really say much unless you rely on the opinion of one CJ Doyle and the Lorst he can say is “Romney has a mixed record” at the same time I would be remiss to point out the article asserts "Other Catholic leaderS don’t the same issue with Romney. Althogether unconvincing.

Link #7 Is another blog that quotes Rick Santorum. I really like Rick. But, he’s done a terrible service in his remarks. Actually, I have refuted his comments and link #7 in post 198.

Link #8 is an editorial, same point and issue as link #2. It avoids post 199 and paints a dishonest narrative.

Link #9 returns a 404 error. Outdated TP memo?

Link #10 is LOL what? see above

Link #11 another blog same as #3 - based on #2 - a blog talking about a blog.

Link #12 is focused on one issue what many of the previous links had in common. Which is Romney’s denial of MA requiring Catholics to provide contraception. The denial is in itself irrelevant. But it did create fodder for all the other attacks unfortunately.

Link #13 same as link #3 except it quotes all of link #2 and editorializes - another blog of a blog.

Link #14 same as link #12. If I want to be pedantic, yes. As a Catholic, I can’t presume to read his mind and know why he made the gaffe at the debates.

I feel kind of used. To call these links fact checks is untruthful.

 

[ishii]

Question: do you believe that Romney is conceivably going to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Thanks for asking. Romney won’t overturn Roe V Wade - our government is set up with 3 branches - Executive, Legislative, and judicial. The Executive branch nominates justices to serve on the courts and in this way, Romney (as the executive and with Robert Bork to advise him) will be able to influence the supreme court by nominating justices who are constructionist and would vote to overturn Roe V Wade. Which president do you think will be more likely to shape the court in an anti-Roe V Wade point of view, Obama (who supports partial birth abortion) or Romney?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Why do you keep getting snarky with me when I provide an argument as to why I don’t want to vote for the guy? Is there no room for disagreement on this issue?

I can’t answer for anyone else, but my frustration is that you don’t seem to comprehend the extent of the evil of Obama’s policies and seem unable to contrast Obama’s policies with that of Romney’s. Also, you unfairly equate Romney with those evil policies when he is proposing nothing like what Obama is proposing or represents. Do you think Paul Ryan is a fraud Catholic dupe who is along for the ride with Romney who is morally equivalent to Obama? Is Robert Bork a dupe for signing on to Romney’s judicial team? Is Rick Santorum a dupe and a sellout for endorsing Romney? Because that is what you have to believe to justify not voting effectively to oppose Obama - i.e. voting for Romney.

Ishii

 

[Vincent_N]

rlg94086:

Thanks, Vincent N! I had read these pieces before and alluded to them earlier in the thread, but I didn’t have the links available. I’m glad you are able to refute these posters who are trying to mislead others into wasting their vote on a third party candidate.

Thanks Robert. I suspected others have seen these articles from discussions at the time.

I have no reservations about supporting Mitt Romney. The effort to suppress the conservative vote comes from so many directions. Don’t expect the union turnout to be so good this time around. Obama tax is real. And your average worker with any conscience won’t forget this is being imposed on the pay grade 1 cleaning lady as well. This is the reality that goes unreported.

 

[BroomWagon]

I can’t answer for anyone else, but my frustration is that you don’t seem to comprehend the extent of the evil of Obama’s policies and seem unable to contrast Obama’s policies with that of Romney’s. Also, you unfairly equate Romney with those evil policies when he is proposing nothing like what Obama is proposing or represents. Do you think Paul Ryan is a fraud Catholic dupe who is along for the ride with Romney who is morally equivalent to Obama? Is Robert Bork a dupe for signing on to Romney’s judicial team? Is Rick Santorum a dupe and a sellout for endorsing Romney? Because that is what you have to believe to justify not voting effectively to oppose Obama - i.e. voting for Romney.

Ishii

Right, sort of the ABO vote, Anybody but Obama.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I don’t believe you are making well-reasoned decisions. I know you do, and you are free to do so. You won’t be voting, so it really doesn’t matter what you think, quite frankly. However, I hope to keep you from dragging others into the abyss.

See this is what I object to. You don’t just disagree with me, you just call me position “the abyss”. There is no point to discussing this with you when you’ve already decided that you’re not going to be open to any disagreement or criticism of your position. I’ve already accepted that Romney is better on abortion. That’s great, however, there is no requirement for me to vote for a guy because, as you say, he’s the only realistic alternative. The only reason this false two-party dichotomy exists is because of people like you. Remember, Ross Perot had 19% of the popular vote. The polls during the primaries showed Ron Paul ahead of Obama. Just because you say other options are not viable does not make it so. We don’t have to vote for the slightly better but still wrong. We can vote our conscience and not feel guilty about it.

Since you seem to be a Republican, remember that they were a 3rd party at one point too. There is nothing wrong with voting for the person you support, or just not voting because there is no one that you support. Don’t act like I’m “helping Obama” because the logic is JUST WRONG. If Romney loses it’s not because people like me didn’t vote, because I wouldn’t vote for him anyway. It’s because Romney is a bad candidate. Don’t blame people who don’t like him for his loss.

 

[rlg94086]

See this is what I object to. You don’t just disagree with me, you just call me position “the abyss”. There is no point to discussing this with you when you’ve already decided that you’re not going to be open to any disagreement or criticism of your position. I’ve already accepted that Romney is better on abortion. That’s great, however, there is no requirement for me to vote for a guy because, as you say, he’s the only realistic alternative. The only reason this false two-party dichotomy exists is because of people like you. Remember, Ross Perot had 19% of the popular vote. The polls during the primaries showed Ron Paul ahead of Obama. Just because you say other options are not viable does not make it so. We don’t have to vote for the slightly better but still wrong. We can vote our conscience and not feel guilty about it.

I do remember Ross Perot. I voted for him. Because of Ross Perot, we got Bill Clinton. Thank you for making my point.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I do remember Ross Perot. I voted for him. Because of Ross Perot, we got Bill Clinton. Thank you for making my point.

Because of Ross Perot millions were finally awakened to the debt problem. There is no either-or dichotomy with elections unless the people allow it to exist. By framing the discussion as either-or, you are perpetuating this myth.

 

[rlg94086]

Because of Ross Perot millions were finally awakened to the debt problem. There is no either-or dichotomy with elections unless the people allow it to exist. By framing the discussion as either-or, you are perpetuating this myth.

Now, that is funny. We were awakened to the debt problem. I guess we immediately hit the snooze button.

That’s okay though, I’m sure your candidate willmdomsomething about it, when he gets in office. …oh, wait…

 

[_Abyssinia]

Surge: Romney gains 4 in rasmussen track

Prior to Wednesday’s first presidential debate, Obama held a consistent 2-3 point lead in Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll

. Today’s tracking poll, however, shows that the race has flipped, with Romney now holding a 2 point lead over Obama, 49-47. This represents a significant 4 point swing in just two days.

It is important note, though, that only 2/3rds of the interviews in the tracking poll occurred after the debate, so the full extent of Romney’s debate bounce isn’t clear yet. Tomorrow’s tracking poll will be the first with all interviews post debate. The next few days will show if Romney’s bounce in the polls is temporary or represents a real change in the race’s direction.

 

[ishii]

Right, sort of the ABO vote, Anybody but Obama.

Not anybody but Obama - Romney isn’t just the “lesser of two evils”, he is a good candidate with good ideas on how to fix things. And he has a good Vice President.

Ishii

 

[RACJ]

Interesting how any person still supports Obama after seeing him bumbling for 90 minutes without his teleprompter. Mitt took him off message, and Obama was totally flummoxed. Obama stutters b/c when one can’t reveal what one really believes, and instead tries to think of something that people might WANT one to say, the result is often fumbling and stammering. Rob

 

[RACJ]

Not anybody but Obama - Romney isn’t just the “lesser of two evils”, he is a good candidate with good ideas on how to fix things. And he has a good Vice President.

Ishii

Yes, IMO, Romney has become an excellent candidate. His generosity proves that he is a very good man. I don’t know any Democrat pol who can approach Romney’s giving, percentage-wise. Gore and Biden are remembered for $300 “charity” years. Rob

 

[RACJ]

Surge: Romney gains 4 in rasmussen track

Keep up your prayers, Abyssinia! Freedom may yet win out.

 

[BroomWagon]

Not anybody but Obama - Romney isn’t just the “lesser of two evils”, he is a good candidate with good ideas on how to fix things. And he has a good Vice President.

Ishii

I agree, I didn’t think Romney was too bad in '08 in fact but it was over before it got to our state. In this case, I was responding to a certain post and not so much on my own convictions.

However, I think that while Virgil Goode and the Constitution Party platform is noble, for me, it’s more important to stop the Democrat/Obama train.

 

[BroomWagon]

Interesting how any person still supports Obama after seeing him bumbling for 90 minutes without his teleprompter. Mitt took him off message, and Obama was totally flummoxed. Obama stutters b/c when one can’t reveal what one really believes, and instead tries to think of something that people might WANT one to say, the result is often fumbling and stammering. Rob

That’s the risk in our society, when some interests say the Unions for example are in general going to vote for Obama and fund his candidacy heavily. Special Interests.