Republican Primary

  • Thread starter Thread starter rlg94086
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It shouldn’t be available.

It reminds me of another Catholic (JFK) who believed in separation of church and state. Look where that got us. What I mean is Catholics shouldn’t compromise their faith. How can he be for its funding? “I’m personally against it but I don’t want any road blocks to make sure people can receive it” sounds like a pro-choice liberal Democrat argument to me.
 
If this information is true…I would understand my fellow friends who continue to stand for candidates whom I have writing off. Please inform me…I only wish to establish a culture of life.
 
Dawnia said:
Isn’t “I’m personally opposed, but…” and all of it’s variations, code for you can’t trust anything I say?
Click to expand...
I think it is code for, “I am trying to have my cake and eat it too.” Sadly this seems to be the motto for all politicians. But, at least he is not in favor of mandating it like our current leader. He may be the best shot Republicans have currently.
 
DKO said:
I think it is code for, “I am trying to have my cake and eat it too.” Sadly this seems to be the motto for all politicians. But, at least he is not in favor of mandating it like our current leader. He may be the best shot Republicans have currently.
Click to expand...
I dunno, I still think Romney has a better shot. Polls show that there aren’t enough conservatives (or liberals) to elect a president. Whoever wins will have to win over at least 10% of the voters who identify as independents, and “Man and dog” Santorum has alienated himself from a lot of independents with some of his insensitive rhetoric.
 
maplebug55 said:
he won’t be getting mine. just curious how people on this forum are perceiving him lately.
Click to expand...
I voted for him in the Missouri Primary. He’s pro-life, pro-family Catholic, who respects peoples’ right to belive in right and wrong. Some folks tried to trap him on the contraception issue, but he refused to take the bate and sound like he was tring to “force” Catholic values on the rest of America. He wants Catholics to be able to be Catholic, and have that be what the Church says (not the Federal Government).
At this point if he gets the Republican nomination, I will vote for him in November.
,
 
kubark said:
link to article: cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57380833-503544/santorum-labels-romney-a-hypocrite-on-earmarks/

Gee, Rick, I guess it takes one to know one.
Click to expand...
I would like to see an end to this circular firing squad the Republicans are conducting. They are in danger of chasing the great wishy-washy portion of the electorate towards Obama. Obama having a second term is an unthinkable disaster. If you think he disregards freedom of religion now, wait until he needs not worry about facing the voters. This is true for Second Amendment rights, as well. Would that we could enjoy on this forum more uplifting topics than politics but the destructive potential of the extreme secularists who control Obama’s party is a danger we must not ignore. Talk to friends and family, and add the matter to your evening petitions.
 
Havard said:
I dunno, I still think Romney has a better shot. Polls show that there aren’t enough conservatives (or liberals) to elect a president. Whoever wins will have to win over at least 10% of the voters who identify as independents, and “Man and dog” Santorum has alienated himself from a lot of independents with some of his insensitive rhetoric.
Click to expand...
I think that Santorum would do better than Romney in swing states with more Catholics like states in the rust belt such as Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
 
Bill1940 said:
I would like to see an end to this circular firing squad the Republicans are conducting. They are in danger of chasing the great wishy-washy portion of the electorate towards Obama. Obama having a second term is an unthinkable disaster. If you think he disregards freedom of religion now, wait until he needs not worry about facing the voters. This is true for Second Amendment rights, as well. Would that we could enjoy on this forum more uplifting topics than politics but the destructive potential of the extreme secularists who control Obama’s party is a danger we must not ignore. Talk to friends and family, and add the matter to your evening petitions.
Click to expand...
Bill, you are spot on. This election is about stopping the re-election of Barack Obama above all. It is sad to see posters demonize and attempt to tear down other candidates out of a misplaced desire to see their candidate succeed. I think one thing has been proven by the recent actions of Obama against the Catholic church and freedom of religion in general: the two parties are not the same. Romney & Santorum are not similar to Obama where it really counts. I am happy to see some of the Paul supporters admit that they will vote for the GOP nominee against Obama. Hard to imagine supporting a 3rd party this year given how crucial this election is - with so much on the line.

Ishii
 
Swiss_Guy said:
I think that Santorum would do better than Romney in swing states with more Catholics like states in the rust belt such as Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...
Maybe… the latest polls have been favoring him, but only time will tell if this is sustainable or just a surge.
 
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s struggles in Michigan are fueling speculation that Republicans might have to resort to a doomsday scenario and launch a frantic search for a 2012 savior at their nominating convention in late August.
Click to expand...
Rare in the modern age of U.S. politics, a “brokered convention” could result in Republicans ditching their current crop of candidates and turning to someone else who they feel would have a better chance of defeating Democratic President Barack Obama in the November 6 election.
Click to expand...
How did Republicans get to this point? Romney’s failure to get conservatives fully behind him and put down yet another challenger in the party - this time it’s Rick Santorum - is causing angst in the party.
Click to expand...
Many senior Republicans do not think Santorum, a social conservative caught up in the U.S. culture wars over issues like abortion and contraception, has a chance to beat Obama if he wins the party’s presidential nomination.
Click to expand...
newsmax.com/Headline/Romney-Struggles-Fuel-TalkofBrokeredConvention/2012/02/18/id/429853
 
_Abyssinia said:
The fact that some on the left have attacked Santorum saying he wants to ban birth control is even more ridiculous given light to this.
Click to expand...
He hasn’t said he wants to ban birth control, but what’s wrong with that position if he did. It is in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
If he said that, shame on him. I don’t have a problem with contraception being available. I do have a problem with any part of it being funded or subsidized by taxpayer money.
Click to expand...
But how can you be okay with birth control being available if some forms of birth control are abortifacients? I’m no expert on birth control, but others have informed me that oral contraceptives act as abortifacients. Santorum’s personal opposition to, but public acceptance of other’s use of birth control seems like a moral/political compromise to me on the life issue. But I can see that given widespread public acceptance of birth control, his public acceptance of birth control is the only way he will be considered a viable candidate.
 
Thomas_B said:
He hasn’t said he wants to ban birth control, but what’s wrong with that position if he did. It is in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
If he said he wanted to ban birth control then he’d lose by a landslide and therefore lose any opportunity to, for example, help stop the abortion slaughter or the assault on the Catholic church. It is unrealistic to believe that a president could somehow ban birth control, and that merely feeds into Obama’s strategy of painting Santorum as someone who would force his Catholic theology on everyone else - including those who aren’t catholic. I don’t think Santorum will/would be a strong candidate against Obama because he’ll be on the defensive the whole time trying to defend himself against unfair attacks that distort his positions. Not that I think Romney would be that much stronger.

Ishii
 
Thomas_B said:
He hasn’t said he wants to ban birth control, but what’s wrong with that position if he did. It is in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

When anyone jumps to “government action” as the solution to any problem, I have to interject, and ask, “Why?”.

Heart disease is the number one cause of death in America. Many people don’t eat healthfully, or exercise nearly as much as they should (sloth and gluttony, anyone?) That said, I am not okay with the government forcing me to jog, or taking away my burgers.

(Btw, I’m not saying each individual’s heart disease is caused by sloth or gluttony, but across America, there’s no doubt both sins are huge factors.)

Edit: I do believe a good answer to any of these issues is changing our culture through evangelization.
 
ishii said:
If he said he wanted to ban birth control then he’d lose by a landslide and therefore lose any opportunity to, for example, help stop the abortion slaughter or the assault on the Catholic church. It is unrealistic to believe that a president could somehow ban birth control, and that merely feeds into Obama’s strategy of painting Santorum as someone who would force his Catholic theology on everyone else - including those who aren’t catholic. I don’t think Santorum will/would be a strong candidate against Obama because he’ll be on the defensive the whole time trying to defend himself against unfair attacks that distort his positions. Not that I think Romney would be that much stronger.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Regarding your last three comments, that is the position though that any opponent of Obama’s will be in - if they are a good candidate, and this vetting process in the form of Republican primaries is trying to find that candidate - then they should be qualified enough to argue against distortions of their views. and turn it back to Obama’s record. I do not understand why people say incumbent presidents are less likely to be be beat - they have a record as a president that can be targeted, and in Obama’s case, a bad one.
 
Thomas_B said:
He hasn’t said he wants to ban birth control, but what’s wrong with that position if he did. It is in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Are you really advocating that we encode the Catechism of the Catholic Church into the US Code of Federal Regulations? What’s next, mandatory celebration of the Eucharist?
 
Thomas_B said:
But how can you be okay with birth control being available if some forms of birth control are abortifacients? I’m no expert on birth control, but others have informed me that oral contraceptives act as abortifacients. Santorum’s personal opposition to, but public acceptance of other’s use of birth control seems like a moral/political compromise to me on the life issue. But I can see that given widespread public acceptance of birth control, his public acceptance of birth control is the only way he will be considered a viable candidate.
Click to expand...
No one asked me to be specific. Of course I find all abortifacient drugs to be a moral anathema and should be outlawed. The direct and purposeful killing of another person by whatever means must be made illegal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top