Romney: Obama won with 'gifts' to certain voters

[ringil]

:sad_yes::sad_yes::sad_yes:

And this is one of the reasons the # of Catholics that voted for Obama should NOT have voted for him.

Because a GOP judge might have retired and Romney
Might have appointed another that
Might have ruled on a case that
Might have come before the court that
May have reduced abortions?

Pretty flimsy hopes for someone, like myself, who fundamentally disagrees with nearly every stance taken by the GOP.

 

[ishii]

The voter guide you are talking about didn’t include the Constitution Party candidate, it only compared bad and worse. Romney supports intrinsic evils. This is a fact. No catholic is obligated to vote for any candidate who supports intrinsic evils. You have to defend yourself for voting for Romney, I don’t.

Do you have some special secret knowledge that Romney would have overturned Roe vs. Wade if elected? If Reagan, Bush Sr., and GWB couldn’t get it overturned with 20 years of GOP presidency, I seriously doubt that Romney would have. He was much more likely to get us into another unjust war in the Middle East.

Hello Pork Roll. Since you dodged my questoins, I will repeat them in the hope that you actually answer: ( a simple yes or no will do - I put the questions in bold)

1)Strange that pro-life groups and organizations overwhelmingly supported Romney. **Were they wrong? **2)Did you have some special secret knowlege of Romney that they didn’t?

3)Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life put out a voter’s guide that all but made it a no-brainer to vote for Romney. Was he wrong? Is his pro-life qualifications “non-existent” as a result? Take an honest look at the voter’s guide and explain to me how Romney’s pro-life qualifications were non-existent.

Answer my questions, and then I will answer yours.

 

[ishii]

Because a GOP judge might have retired and Romney
Might have appointed another that
Might have ruled on a case that
Might have come before the court that
May have reduced abortions?

Pretty flimsy hopes for someone, like myself, who fundamentally disagrees with nearly every stance taken by the GOP.

There are a number of problems with your post. First, it is almost a guarantee that if a fifth Republican justice got on the supreme court - making it, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and someone nominated by Romney (advised by Robert Bork) there would have been a challenge to the Roe V Wade decision. Not “might” but almost certain.

Second, overturning Roe V Wade would certainly reduce abortions (i.e. save lives of the unborn) significantly because there are many states that would pass restrictions on abortion rights. Abortion would not be restricted in states that voted overwhelmingly for Obama such as California, Washington, New York, e.g. Those states voted for Obama (like you did) and are not in favor of reducing abortions. In fact, a major Democrat candidate for congress in my state when making a campaign appearance asked “all women who have had an abortion” to stand up. Then she said, “now give them a cheer.” Any party that would have that as a major candidate is not remotely for reducing abortions.

I think that Obama-voting catholics often belittle or otherwise de-emphasize the ability of a GOP president to overturn Roe V Wade (or say its overturning will have no effect) do this because they need to justify somehow voting for a president who supports legal infanticide and is part of the NARAL and Planned Parenthood. I believe this is done, perhaps subconsciously, out of guilt.

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

I think that Obama-voting catholics often belittle or otherwise de-emphasize the ability of a GOP president to overturn Roe V Wade (or say its overturning will have no effect) do this because they need to justify somehow voting for a president who supports legal infanticide and is part of the NARAL and Planned Parenthood. I believe this is done, perhaps subconsciously, out of guilt.

Ishii

Exactly. Fact they belittle republicans ability to pass laws to reduce abortions proves deep down they know that voting for pro abortion candidates is wrong

Judges appointed by republican presidents are far more likely to uphold pro life regulations. Republican legislators are more likely to enact regulations of abortion. Republican executive branch administrators and officials are more likely to regulate rather than subsidise abortion

 

[GaryTaylor]

In fact, a major Democrat candidate for congress in my state when making a campaign appearance asked “all women who have had an abortion” to stand up. Then she said, “now give them a cheer.”

“Woe to those who cause the LORD’s sheep to go astray.”