Texas Gov. Rick Perry Entering 2012 Race

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott_Lafrance said:
Hurray. Another “cut from the cloth” Good Old Boy Republican entering the race to take the place of the one that dropped out.

:juggle:
Click to expand...
Here’s hoping one of those “good ol’ boy Republicans” wins and nominates a justice who’ll overturn Roe V Wade. It would be nice to actually accomplish that, rather than vote for the feel good, “perfect” true-believer candidate who has no chance of winning.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Here’s hoping one of those “good ol’ boy Republicans” wins and nominates a justice who’ll overturn Roe V Wade. It would be nice to actually accomplish that, rather than vote for the feel good, “perfect” true-believer candidate who has no chance of winning.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Why would one be obligated to vote against his, or her, conscience for the nominee? If Catholics are allowed to use other reasons over uniting all Catholics to the ‘no chance’ candidate, then surely other Catholics could vote their conscience for other reasons in the general election, even if it were writing in the ‘no chance’ candidate.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Why would one be obligated to vote against his, or her, conscience for the nominee? If Catholics are allowed to use other reasons over uniting all Catholics to the ‘no chance’ candidate, then surely other Catholics could vote their conscience for other reasons in the general election, even if it were writing in the ‘no chance’ candidate.
Click to expand...
I am not saying that a Catholic can’t or is morally forbidden from voting for the candidate of their choice, but rather I am trying to point out the political ramifications of various choices. Such as, a vote for candidate A would likely bring us more pro-abortion justices, and a vote for candidate B or C would give us anti-RvW justices. A vote for candidate D might be fine, but would help usher in the 2nd term for the candidate A. I have my views as to the morality of voting for the “no chance” candidate in the general, but for now I am concerned with the political ramifications.

Ishii
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Why would one be obligated to vote against his, or her, conscience for the nominee? If Catholics are allowed to use other reasons over uniting all Catholics to the ‘no chance’ candidate, then surely other Catholics could vote their conscience for other reasons in the general election, even if it were writing in the ‘no chance’ candidate.
Click to expand...
Exactly so. The GOP partisans here may want all Catholics to vote Republican, but it is just as valid for a Catholic to vote for Paul as for Perry.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Exactly so. The GOP partisans here may want all Catholics to vote Republican, but it is just as valid for a Catholic to vote for Paul as for Perry.
Click to expand...
I was just reading how Liberals are all over the net trying to get people to vote Ron Paul…
They figure it helps them with Obama if we have a divided party.

Obama has nothing to run on so… the only chance they have is if Republicans are in fighting.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Exactly so. The GOP partisans here may want all Catholics to vote Republican, but it is just as valid for a Catholic to vote for Paul as for Perry.
Click to expand...
Yep. And, Democrats can write-in a pro-life candidate rather than vote for Obama and continue to support abortion.
 
ishii said:
I am not saying that a Catholic can’t or is morally forbidden from voting for the candidate of their choice, but rather I am trying to point out the political ramifications of various choices. Such as, a vote for candidate A would likely bring us more pro-abortion justices, and a vote for candidate B or C would give us anti-RvW justices. A vote for candidate D might be fine, but would help usher in the 2nd term for the candidate A. I have my views as to the morality of voting for the “no chance” candidate in the general, but for now I am concerned with the political ramifications.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Then why not push other issues aside and see if we can nominate the pro-life candidate that will draw the anti-war crowd, some to a lot on board with the democrats last presidential election, in the general election?
 
rlg94086 said:
Yep. And, Democrats can write-in a pro-life candidate rather than vote for Obama and continue to support abortion.
Click to expand...
Then take the opportunity to draw the anti-war group to a pro-life candidate that is also anti-war, drawing away those anti-war votes Obama received? If it’s not tried, then could it also be considered support for abortion? :rolleyes:
 
Stjudeprayforus said:
I was just reading how Liberals are all over the net trying to get people to vote Ron Paul…
They figure it helps them with Obama if we have a divided party.
Click to expand...
I suspect that Scott_Lafrance would have different reasons for wanting folks to vote for Ron Paul.
 
rlg94086 said:
Yep. And, Democrats can write-in a pro-life candidate rather than vote for Obama and continue to support abortion.
Click to expand...
For us to write in a pro-life candidate is not, by definition, supporting abortion.
 
Stjudeprayforus said:
I was just reading how Liberals are all over the net trying to get people to vote Ron Paul…
They figure it helps them with Obama if we have a divided party.

Obama has nothing to run on so… the only chance they have is if Republicans are in fighting.
Click to expand...
Actually no, it would draw the anti-war, pro-life, group away from Obama and for Ron Paul. I fail to see how a Catholic could turn down an opportunity to unify Catholics this election, unless some place other issues above the abortion issue, as they accuse others of. Ron is a pro-life republican.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Then take the opportunity to draw the anti-war group to a pro-life candidate that is also anti-war, drawing away those anti-war votes Obama received? If it’s not tried, then could it also be considered support for abortion? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
There isn’t an anti-war policy. It’s one of the fallacies that many Catholics fell for, when they voted for Obama. I did my best to explain that neither party is anti-war, but apparently I had little influence last election. 😛

Don’t worry though…I’m just finishing up my mind control classes, so I should be able to make it happen this time! 😃
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Actually no, it would draw the anti-war, pro-life, group away from Obama and for Ron Paul. I fail to see how a Catholic could turn down an opportunity to unify Catholics this election, unless some place other issues above the abortion issue, as they accuse others of. Ron is a pro-life republican.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul has ZERO chance of winning the primary.
 
rlg94086 said:
There isn’t an anti-war policy. It’s one of the fallacies that many Catholics fell for, when they voted for Obama. I did my best to explain that neither party is anti-war, but apparently I had little influence last election. 😛

Don’t worry though…I’m just finishing up my mind control classes, so I should be able to make it happen this time! 😃
Click to expand...
IMO, no-one should be anti-war, they should be pro-peace. There is a significant difference.
 
Stjudeprayforus said:
I dont think Scott is a big Obama supporter… unlike some posters here who are now advocating Ron Paul.
Click to expand...
Of course he isn’t. He totally opposes Obama. My point is that he is a Paul supporter for reasons other than to convince voters on this thread to support Obama.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Actually no, it would draw the anti-war, pro-life, group away from Obama and for Ron Paul. I fail to see how a Catholic could turn down an opportunity to unify Catholics this election, unless some place other issues above the abortion issue, as they accuse others of. Ron is a pro-life republican.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with voting for Ron Paul in the primaries. That is what primaries are for. There is also nothing wrong with considering viability of a candidate when voting. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, but he won’t be our next president.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top