Romney: Obama won with 'gifts' to certain voters

[epan]

Okay, let’s here your explanation. Perhaps we need more analysis of these non-voting Republicans: did they get out and vote for McCain 4 years ago and then decide to stay home in 2012? I am trying to imagine a candidate that could have inspired those 5-6 million GOP voters. Romney ran a campaign of positive ideas, there are serious issues we face, Obama has been a complete disaster, etc. If in spite of all this so many GOP voters were not motivated to vote then I question their committment to conservative principles. One might say, “but Santorum would have motivated them” but then Santorum would have alienated moderates and independents.

I am sticking to my earlier premise: Obama won because of a variety of factors: the role of individuals, luck, the press, decades of leftist dominance of our educations system (for which we can blame so many youth votes for Obama - he is borrowing from China to continue entitlements and they will have to foot the bill yet they still voted for him) and an increasing entitlement society - recall that Obama promised college students “help in paying their student loans”. Rob Peter to pay Paul and you will get Paul’s vote.

Ishii

Maybe we should just split the country into red and blue. A first look at revenues vs spending shows that the blue states would have a balanced federal budget, and still keep the current entitlements. The red states would be in very deep deficits, unless they decimated all entitlement and education. In some cases they are receiving federal money amounting to multiples of their GDP’s. This would not solve any problems for the red states, but the blue would be better off.

Or… maybe there is another approach. Let’s work together to solve these problems.

 

[ProVobis]

Or… maybe there is another approach. Let’s work together to solve these problems.

Unfortunately this only happens when the country gets attacked or when there is a hurricane.

 

[ishii]

Maybe we should just split the country into red and blue. A first look at revenues vs spending shows that the blue states would have a balanced federal budget, and still keep the current entitlements. The red states would be in very deep deficits, unless they decimated all entitlement and education. In some cases they are receiving federal money amounting to multiples of their GDP’s. This would not solve any problems for the red states, but the blue would be better off.

Or… maybe there is another approach. Let’s work together to solve these problems.

What about California? Last I checked this Democrat dominated state (for the past 20 years) is in a fiscal mess. Guess you forgot about that.

Ishii

 

[Pork_Roll]

One group that I am really disappointed in is Catholics. There was no excuse for not voting for Romney - and that goes for liberal Catholics as well as the “true believer” Ron Paul types and 3rd party types. If more had voted for Romney he might have won. We’ll never know.

Sorry to disappoint you. I’m disappointed with Catholics who vote along party lines. So I guess we have a lot in common. Cardinal Burke says we are to vote pro-life. Romney wasn’t pro-life and Ryan sold out.

“You may in some circumstances** where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion**, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country,” he explained

Last time I checked, there were other candidates to vote for: Virgil Goode, who proposed to eliminate all abortion.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Sorry to disappoint you. I’m disappointed with Catholics who vote along party lines. So I guess we have a lot in common. Cardinal Burke says we are to vote pro-life. Romney wasn’t pro-life and Ryan sold out. Last time I checked, there were other candidates to vote for: Virgil Goode, who proposed to eliminate all abortion.

Bishop Gracida says in context of the 2004 election, voting 3rd party would probably help insure the election of the most pro abortion candidate. He also says you can vote for the lesser of 2 evils

 

[ishii]

Sorry to disappoint you. I’m disappointed with Catholics who vote along party lines. So I guess we have a lot in common. Cardinal Burke says we are to vote pro-life. Romney wasn’t pro-life and Ryan sold out. Last time I checked, there were other candidates to vote for: Virgil Goode, who proposed to eliminate all abortion.

You disappoint me, Pork Roll: If you looked harder, you might have found a more perfect candidate even than Virgil Goode. Btw, Fr. Frank Pavone and Priest’s for Life put out a voter’s guide comparing the two candidates that mattered: Obama and Romney. Pork Roll, I trust Fr. Frank Pavone’s judgement on this issue than I trust you.

I am truly saddened that in a small way, by voting for Virgil Goode, you helped Obama get re-elected. You should reflect on that when Obama chooses the next pro-abortion supreme court justice or two supreme court justices.

Ishii

 

[Pork_Roll]

Bishop Gracida says in context of the 2004 election, voting 3rd party would probably help insure the election of the most pro abortion candidate. He also says you can vote for the lesser of 2 evils

The point is, when you vote for a flawed candidate, there must be proportionate reasons. When you vote for a pro-life candidate who doesn’t support intrinsically policies, you may vote for that person. The chance of them winning does not play a role unless you are voting for the flawed candidate.

We need to distance ourselves from the party platform and work on healing our country in these divisive times with our witness to our Catholic faith. Party politics just divide us.

 

[ishii]

The point is, when you vote for a flawed candidate, there must be proportionate reasons. When you vote for a pro-life candidate who doesn’t support intrinsically policies, you may vote for that person. The chance of them winning does not play a role unless you are voting for the flawed candidate.

We need to distance ourselves from the party platform and work on healing our country in these divisive times with our witness to our Catholic faith. Party politics just divide us.

We had a choice between Obama - the NARAL Planned Parenthood, partial birth abortion/infanticide president, and Romney - the candidate who was for overturning Roe V Wade as well as re-instating all the pro-life measures that previous pro-life presidents have put in place. Some voted for Obama, some for Romney. And others made it easier for Obama to win by staying home, or voting 3rd party.

Ishii

 

[Pork_Roll]

We had a choice between Obama - the NARAL Planned Parenthood, partial birth abortion/infanticide president, and Romney - the candidate who was for overturning Roe V Wade as well as re-instating all the pro-life measures that previous pro-life presidents have put in place. Some voted for Obama, some for Romney. And others made it easier for Obama to win by staying home, or voting 3rd party.

Romney was dangerous IMO. I didn’t trust him because of his actions and statements. It was a risk voting for him, I choose to vote for the pro-life candidate as Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Lori advise. Romney would have supported arming the rebels in Syria, something gravely evil according to the Holy Father. He could have gotten us into another unjust war in the middle east based on his statements. He was morally unacceptable, just like Obama. I couldn’t vote for either of them in good conscience. I’m Catholic 1st and foremost.

Saying he didn’t worry/care about 47% of the people in this country only confirmed my suspicions that he was an out of touch Wall Street type who only cares about making money for him and his friends. His economic plan didn’t add up, literally and I see no moral reason to increase defense spending to 4% GDP when we currently spend more than the other top 10 countries combined.

Number 5 on the list is his religion which is a cult IMO.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I think that is unlikely. Do you think that Romney had a vulnerable past? Bain capital, Romneycare, etc. Imagine how popular Gingrich would have been after the Obama media and Obama campaign attack ads. Gingrich had tons of baggage. It would not have mattered how good he did in the debates. Gingrich, great communicator and debater that he is, has always been a polarizing figure in politics. The Obama media complex would have had a field day pummeling him. I agree with you on Obama care though - Romney was not an effective candidate to exploit the issue.

Bottom line: Romney was probably the strongest candidate in a weak field of candidates. The left controls much of the media and all of the education system - its no wonder that large numbers of voters bought in to Obama’s campaign of class envy.

Ishii

I honestly think that Gingrich would have dared Obama to make it personal. He would have taken to Obama on the issues like a pitbull. My opinion.

 

[Mickey]

I honestly think that Gingrich would have dared Obama to make it personal. He would have taken to Obama on the issues like a pitbull. My opinion.

I agree. He would have blasted him on everything from Obamacare to Libya to Fast and Furious to his socialist past. He may even have thrown in a little Soros and Rev Wright action…who knows…but it would have been quite entertaining.

 

[ProVobis]

I honestly think that Gingrich would have dared Obama to make it personal. He would have taken to Obama on the issues like a pitbull. My opinion.

I would have settled for a nice friendly debate re the Fed and the appointment of a new Fed chairman. Sort of like the one Sen Jim Bunning gave Bernanke.

 

[TEPO]

Bishop Gracida says in context of the 2004 election, voting 3rd party would probably help insure the election of the most pro abortion candidate. He also says you can vote for the lesser of 2 evils

That’s one way Catholics can both cast an ‘effective’ vote, and still be able to look themselves in the mirror the next day.

… and i suppose it would feel good to think that you’re doing the Lords work in the voters booth.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=epan;10034924]Maybe we should just split the country into red and blue.

:yup::clapping:

A first look at revenues vs spending shows that the blue states would have a balanced federal budget, and still keep the current entitlements.

California, Minnesota, Maryland, Illinois and New York are in deep trouble.

The red states would be in very deep deficits, unless they decimated all entitlement and education.

Decimated? No. Reformed? Yes!

Thank you Rick Synder, Scott Walker, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Mike Rounds.

In some cases they are receiving federal money amounting to multiples of their GDP’s. This would not solve any problems for the red states, but the blue would be better off.

I have no problem with blue states keeping their own money, and if you think that red states will wither away with help from blue state money (75 cents of every dollar going to DC stays in DC), then that’s your narrow, shallow assessment however inaccurate.

Look at the electoral map. People are flocking to states like Arizona, Texas, Utah, North Dakota, ect.

Or… maybe there is another approach. Let’s work together to solve these problems.

Translation: demonize republicans until their wobbly, weepy establishment caves.

no thanks.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Romney was dangerous IMO. I didn’t trust him because of his actions and statements. It was a risk voting for him, I choose to vote for the pro-life candidate as Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Lori advise. Romney would have supported arming the rebels in Syria, something gravely evil according to the Holy Father. He could have gotten us into another unjust war in the middle east based on his statements. He was morally unacceptable, just like Obama. I couldn’t vote for either of them in good conscience. I’m Catholic 1st and foremost.

Saying he didn’t worry/care about 47% of the people in this country only confirmed my suspicions that he was an out of touch Wall Street type who only cares about making money for him and his friends. His economic plan didn’t add up, literally and I see no moral reason to increase defense spending to 4% GDP when we currently spend more than the other top 10 countries combined.

Number 5 on the list is his religion which is a cult IMO.

I understand the concerns about Romney foreign policy, though I thought he said something along the lines we don’t who is who over there.

Otherwise, your statements sound like a big justification to not vote republican.

I do hope that yourself and other folks can plainly see that God knows all hearts in and out.

 

[SuperLuigi]

We tried Romney’s plan…it didn’t work. The rich have had their temporary tax cuts that were supposed to spur the economy since the Bush Administration instituted them. The tax cuts made them richer, but did nothing for the rest of us. People complained about Obama not turning the economy around in 4 years…how about the Bush tax cuts not spurring the economy since they were instituted. The GOP thought everyone would ignore that, but I guess they didn’t.

The problem with Bush and the donkey congress was the spending, not the tax cuts.

If you tax the rich, they’ll make sure their capital leaves the country where the long reach of DC can’t get it.

Cutting taxes raises revenue for the government because it lets the people decide where to put their money. It worked under Coolidge and worked under Reagen. Even JFK saw the value of tax cuts.

And this demonizing of the “rich” has got to stop. A lot of the so-called “rich” are humble small business owners and may companies and corporations are very environmentally and socially conscience.

I can see how the left would fear that, because it means every time they open their mouths about how they want to pollute all the air and water and make sure that gays and women and ethnic minorities can’t get jobs it falls on deaf ears or exposes them as lies, which most of the time such claims are.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You know Ishii, you are making a very broad assumption for which you have no proof…sounds like the Republicans in Congress.

Watergate was an attempt on the part of Republican operatives to play dirty tricks in order to win an election that they already had won. It became a crime for the President because of Nixon’s well-known paranoia.

And the death thing is just sad…such desperation from the GOP supporters…it makes me happy.

John

Nixon may have been well-known for his paranoia, but this administration is known for not creating jobs.

 

[Pork_Roll]

Otherwise, your statements sound like a big justification to not vote republican.

I do hope that yourself and other folks can plainly see that God knows all hearts in and out.

We are all on the same team here. We want Christ to reign on earth as he does in heaven. We know we are far from that and that the most egregious sin of our society is the demonic abortion industry. We want to stop that as a priority for our nation will be punished by God–he will allow us to follow our own culture of death to our own demise.

Therefore, we all agree that voting for Obama was completely unacceptable for Catholics. Voting for Romney as a means of limiting evil is justified so as long as there is proportionate reason. I don’t believe in light of his weak to non-existent pro-life qualifications and his many faults that there was proportionate reason. In this, reasonable people can disagree.

 

[ishii]

I honestly think that Gingrich would have dared Obama to make it personal. He would have taken to Obama on the issues like a pitbull. My opinion.

Obama owns the media - atleast the media that helps shape the opinions of the voters which the GOP needs to win elections. They would have ridiculed Gingrich mercilously and would have made the election about Gingrich. Don’t you remember when Romney tried to raise the issue of Benghazi and the moderator Candy Crowley stepped in and rescued Obama? I would have liked to see Gingrich put Obama in his place just as much as anyone else, but I don’t think he would have won.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Romney was dangerous IMO. I didn’t trust him because of his actions and statements. It was a risk voting for him, I choose to vote for the pro-life candidate as Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Lori advise. Romney would have supported arming the rebels in Syria, something gravely evil according to the Holy Father. He could have gotten us into another unjust war in the middle east based on his statements. He was morally unacceptable, just like Obama. I couldn’t vote for either of them in good conscience. I’m Catholic 1st and foremost.

Saying he didn’t worry/care about 47% of the people in this country only confirmed my suspicions that he was an out of touch Wall Street type who only cares about making money for him and his friends. His economic plan didn’t add up, literally and I see no moral reason to increase defense spending to 4% GDP when we currently spend more than the other top 10 countries combined.

Number 5 on the list is his religion which is a cult IMO.

Too bad Roe V Wade will now be the law of the land for another 30 years. With Romney there was a decent chance that it might get overturned. Too bad we gave up the opportunity in order to indulge an overly scrupulous attitude toward the election and too not elect a Mormon. The unborn deserved much better than that, Pork Roll.

Ishii