Republican voters??

[Della]

What I keep in mind is just how much can a president really do to help the pro-life cause? The president can veto legislation that would broaden abortion or he can advocate legislation that will curtail it. So, having a pro-life person in office is vital. And most importantly, in the long run, the president nominates new members to the Supreme Court. And that’s where abortion on demand will be defeated in this country.

The Iraq situation will stabilize, besides such things come and go, but the unabated slaughter of the unborn has gone on in this country long enough, and is threatening to swallow up the whole world via the UN, if a pro-death person gets the presidency. It is up to us to see that it isn’t carried into the next generation by the way we vote. So, I will support any candidate, Catholic, Protestant, or whatever who will do what s/he is able to do to slow down and eventually stop abortion on demand/forced abortion, the greatest evil of our times.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am in a predicament. It may be PRIDE.

I have voted for a Mormon for Governor. I have voted many times for pro-choice candidates using the lesser of evil theory because no one running was pro-life.

Now it appears that I will be forced to do the same. I have been having a real difficult time thinking that I will have to hold my nose and vote either for a Mormon whose faith I don’t agree with or a pro-choice candidate. I thought I was passed this. I thought I’d never again have to have to vote for a pro-abortion person for the presidency.

The Constitution prohibits a test of faith for holding office – and we should follow that.

Vote for the man, not his faith. Remember, many a “Catholic” politician is actually pro-abortion!

 

[melensdad]

So, I will support any candidate, Catholic, Protestant, or whatever who will do what s/he is able to do to slow down and eventually stop abortion on demand/forced abortion, the greatest evil of our times.

And Pro-Life is far more than simply Anti-Abortion. Don’t forget about the issues of fetal stem cell research, fetal tissue cloning, euthanasia, etc.

The actions of the President, in many ways, reflect the actions of the rest of society. While GWB is not the best role model we could ask for, he is a good shade better in his moral judgement than the prior President with his extra-marritial flings while in office. . . that certainly set a poor moral example for our kids!

 

[vern_humphrey]

But his religion does affect who he is and how he perceives the programs in the US.

Does Teddy Kennedy’s professed Catholicism affect who he is and how he perceives the programs in the US?

Does John Kerry’s professed Catholicism affect who he is and how he perceives the programs in the US?

Does Nancy Pelosi’s professed Catholicism affect who she is and how she perceives the programs in the US?

If professed Catholics will vote against their religious beliefs, how can we say a Mormon will vote for his religious beliefs?

Vote for the man. Listen to what he says. Watch what he does.

 

[rlg94086]

Well stated. But I’d also like to point out that it is a LONG WAY AWAY from nominating the current front-running GOP candidate and it should also be pointed out we still have several Democrats running. The primaries are not yet here. So NOW is the time to get involved with your local and state politics.

Exactly the point of the last sentence of my post. The hypotheticals posed are just that - hypotheticals. There are some good candidates on the Republican ticket, and I am giving my support to one who is closest to my views. A lot of primary victories have been come-from-behind, so all of the front-runner talk is premature IMO.

 

[mozart-250]

If Hillary wins maybe we can get a pro-life Republican in 2012. If Guliani wins there will be no pro-life candidate in 2012. That’s not a reason to vote for Hillary, but a reason not to vote for Guliani.

Of course the reason to vote for Giulani (if he is the one) from a pro-life perspective would be if you believe he is more likely to appoint judges open to overthrowing Roe v. Wade than his opponent.

I honestly can see both sides here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What I keep in mind is just how much can a president really do to help the pro-life cause? The president can veto legislation that would broaden abortion or he can advocate legislation that will curtail it. So, having a pro-life person in office is vital. And most importantly, in the long run, the president nominates new members to the Supreme Court. And that’s where abortion on demand will be defeated in this country.

Most importantly, a President can appoint judges. He can appoint judges which will uphold the Constitution, or he can appoint judges who will pretend

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

really means “unborn persons can be deprived of life without due process of law.”

 

[mary_bobo]

Of course the reason to vote for Giulani (if he is the one) from a pro-life perspective would be if you believe he is more likely to appoint judges open to overthrowing Roe v. Wade than his opponent.

I honestly can see both sides here./QUOTE

But a president alone cannot get a law passed. It is up to the Congress which is composed of people from both parties. Point being, the make-up of the Congress as well as of the SC is important.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But a president alone cannot get a law passed. It is up to the Congress which is composed of people from both parties. Point being, the make-up of the Congress as well as of the SC is important.

And one of the most important points to remember is Congress is run by committees. Committee chairmen have extraordinary powers. And the Committee chairmen are the senior members of their party.

So when you vote for Jones for Congress, you are also voting for Smith – a senior member of his party – to be given extraordinary power.

 

[melensdad]

And one of the most important points to remember is Congress is run by committees. Committee chairmen have extraordinary powers. And the Committee chairmen are the senior members of their party.

So when you vote for Jones for Congress, you are also voting for Smith – a senior member of his party – to be given extraordinary power.

Vern this is a very good point. The party in power in either chamber gets to select the committee heads, and they also then determine which issues come up for debate and which issues get set aside.

It should also be noted that the Vice President of the United States is a member of the Senate and he casts all tie-breaking votes. So it is important to consider the position of the President and his whole party platform because it is very likely that the Vice President will vote in line with the position of his boss, the President.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Does Teddy Kennedy’s professed Catholicism affect who he is and how he perceives the programs in the US?

Does John Kerry’s professed Catholicism affect who he is and how he perceives the programs in the US?

Does Nancy Pelosi’s professed Catholicism affect who she is and how she perceives the programs in the US?

If professed Catholics will vote against their religious beliefs, how can we say a Mormon will vote for his religious beliefs?

Vote for the man. Listen to what he says. Watch what he does.

Butdo you want a man who votes against his religious beliefs? Do you want someone who will say or do whatever is necessary to get elected?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*By NOT vote for a “may lean toward evil” is a BIG VOTE for a “certain evil”.

Where is the difficulty in understanding that?*

Just because the main candidates are “may lean toward evil”, and “certain evil” doesn’t mean there aren’t other candidates that are “not evil” that we can vote for, granted with no chance of winning, but a third choice is out there.

These days, at least, you have TWO choices. Dem or Rep.

If you “tend to vote” for a Rep, a non-Rep-vote is a vote FOR a Dem.
If you “tend to vote” for a Dem, a non-Dem-vote is a vote FOR a Rep.

You may certainly vote for a “no-chance-of-winning” candidate, but that qualifies as a non-“opposite Party of yours”-vote.

Thus, if the “less evil” candidate is of “your party”, and you don’t vote for him/her, you are actually voting for the “more evil” candidate.

Voting for no-chance-of-winning candidates is ALWAYS a vote for your least preferable candidate.

Quote:
We aren’t to vote for our PARTY! We are to vote for the group that is more likely to NOT BE EVIL.

I am not a party voter. I vote on principles

Excellent…!

Quote:
Though, if you want to allow a little MORE evil than is necessary this time in hopes of having a somewhat-less-evil-than-the-lesser-evil-this-time candidate,… just weigh the risks of that, as that choice creates more evil than necessary now.

You lost me here.

A vote for MORE EVIL, by way of a vote for a non-winning candidate or not voting at all, to “teach OUR side a lesson” is the gamble of allowing more evil now so as to make “our side” look better (less evil) in the future.

That is a monsterous risk, in my opinion.

Quote:
If you’d rather not vote for the possibility of evil, then it’s probably best never to vote at all, ever, then, because there is no guarantee that ANY politician will be “spotless”.

A candidate doesn’t have to be spotless for me, they just have to believe that abortion is murder and that they will do everything in their power to see that it does not stay legal in the US.

In the present situation, all the Rep candidates believe that, they just can’t SAY that, and they can’t guarantee being able to implement it.

They can’t say it, because it energizes the opposition too much, and they can’t guarantee implementation because that is a legislative function and not an executive one.

Quote:
The time to pressure our politicians to be “good” is when we have them voted in on “our side”, and we use the as yet unused pressure of “getting on their case” WHILE they’re in office. Not WHILE their CAMPAIGNING.

I disagree. The only power you as an individual hold over a politician is your vote.

That was disproved by the results of the now-dead so-called “comprehensive immigration bill”.

We, the people, need to quit limiting ourselves to only paying attention during campaign season.

The 2-party system, which I think vastly superior over other systems, forces a binary choice, and then only at election time. The natural counter-balance of this “all or nothing” election system is that the mass of people need to CONSTANTLY apply “anger and bad-mouthing” pressure to those they’ve elected, as an elected politician hates nothing more than to be yelled at by the populace.

To be yelled at by those who are “on your side” is the ultimate nightmare of any politician.

 

[melensdad]

Butdo you want a man who votes against his religious beliefs? Do you want someone who will say or do whatever is necessary to get elected?

I want a man that I can trust to vote a specific way based on the way he has voted/acted in the past.

Clearly the cited Democrats are NOT true Catholics, but are Catholic’s in name. They are not voting against their religious beliefs they are simply proclaiming to be members of a religion that they do not believe in!

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
Though, if you want to allow a little MORE evil than is necessary this time in hopes of having a somewhat-less-evil-than-the-lesser-evil-this-time candidate,… just weigh the risks of that, as that choice creates more evil than necessary now.

I think it is very rare that society swings back quickly from an induced evil. We tend to see long term swings in one direction before we pull back the other way, and even then when we pull back we rarely pull back as far as we should because the institutions of evil have been established and refuse to give up easily. So it seems very dangerous to me to give in today in hopes of getting something better at a later date.

I could not agree with you more…!

Inertia is THE great force in politics. To accept big-evil today in hopes of stirring up the good forces later is nearly always a strategic error, and should NEVER be voluntarily done unless that is the, singular, only choice available.

 

[chicago]

It should also be noted that the Vice President of the United States is a member of the Senate and he casts all tie-breaking votes. So it is important to consider the position of the President and his whole party platform because it is very likely that the Vice President will vote in line with the position of his boss, the President.

The VP is not a “member” of the Senate, but its President. He only gets to vote when there is a tie in voting, but at no other time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Butdo you want a man who votes against his religious beliefs? Do you want someone who will say or do whatever is necessary to get elected?

We already have men and women who vote against what their religion teaches – and sadly, many of them claim to be Catholics.

So rather than vote for a person who claims to be Catholic, I look at that person’s record – his public utterances and actions. I find I can make informed choices using that method, and therefore apply it to all candidates.

By the way, what is it that a Mormon believes that’s so repugnant?

 

[melensdad]

The VP is not a “member” of the Senate, but its President. He only gets to vote when there is a tie in voting, but at no other time.

I think we said the same thing in different ways, you voiced it with more clarity.

By the way, what is it that a Mormon believes that’s so repugnant?

Here are the LDS reasons for permissible abortion.

• The life of the mother is seriously endangered.
• The good health of the mother is seriously endangered.
• The pregnancy was caused by rape.
• The pregnancy was caused by incest.
• “The fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think we said the same thing in different ways, you voiced it with more clarity.

Here are the LDS reasons for permissible abortion.

• The life of the mother is seriously endangered.
• The good health of the mother is seriously endangered.
• The pregnancy was caused by rape.
• The pregnancy was caused by incest.
• “The fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”

Now give us a list of the Episcopalian, Methodist, etc., justifications for abortion. You’ll see the Mormons are no different in this issue than they are – in fact, Mormons are perhaps more restrictive.

What is it about a Mormon that makes him more unacceptable that a Methodist, Episcopalian, or other sect?

 

[gam197]

originally posted by vern humphrey
What is it about a Mormon that makes him more unacceptable that a Methodist, Episcopalian, or other sect?

How about having a President whose church has a history of multiple marriages with multiple wives? What does that say to every child in America?

Does it validate Mormonism?

 

[vern_humphrey]

How about having a President whose church has a history of multiple marriages with multiple wives? What does that say to every child in America?

Does it validate Mormonism?

Are we talking about the Jews or the Mormons here? Both those religions used to have multiple marriages.
(But they don’t anymore.)