Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[antonivs]

The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

The study’s authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn’t to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and “I’m the decider.” Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative.

Liberals, on the other hand, are “more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information,” says Jost.

source: abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread595311/pg1

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

source: abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread595311/pg1

Right. Conservatives see issues of faith and morals as black and white, as defined by the Church. There is no “gray area”.

 

[antonivs]

Right. Conservatives see issues of faith and morals as black and white, as defined by the Church. There is no “gray area”.

Glad we are in agreement, Scott. I think this thread is a prime example of that. Peace.

 

[He_Man]

I’m not being melodramatic - that’s my thirteen year old daughter’s job.

I might say you were being patronizing.:tsktsk:

Of course I believe the goal of the Pro-Life movement is to save babies lives - I’m part of the Pro-Live Movement! Where the tactics fail is when they undermine the dignity of women. Why do you think the culture wars exist? Where do you think motivates all the fight from the opposition? Women know they are being threatened.

That comes from Satan. Sadly, those fuled by his wrath and loathing of Christ and the Lord don’t even realize it.

 

[RosalieM]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

I see what you’re saying and it’s true in a general sense. I’m thinking about my own integrity here. The choices I’m offered put me in a situation I believe I should avoid.

 

[mary_bobo]

They support Planned Parenthood because they want to protect women’s healthcare that has nothing to do with abortion. Democrats always support the Hyde Amendment. The Republicans have destroyed the pro-life movement by associating their anti-poor, anti-elderly, anti-middle class, anti-immgrant, and anti-union policies with defending the unborn. People are repulsed by the Republicans on most issues and the only thing that gets them votes are abortion and playing off ignorant people’s fears of minorities.

Great generalization “most people”. You must live in a very limited circle of friends. Let’s all make more of an effort to be thoughtful and reasonable in our posts, shall we. Most people I know are more repulsed by the pro-abortion stance of the Dems and the nanny state they want us to live in. We need to teach people to be more self-reliant.

 

[pismopal]

No, my guess is that he has never described himself as pro Israel and anti Palestine or anti Israeli and pro Palestinian. My guess is that your description of him as “pro Israel” is, exactly as you stated, a guess and not based on any solid information. My guess is that the statement is based merely upon your own ideology.

Are you assuming the someone…anyone… is pro-Israel that they must…defacto, be anti-Palestinian? I am not guessing that the Holy Father is pro Israel anymore than I am guessing that he loves Palestinians. He is the vicar of Christ. You jump to conclusions…sorry.

 

[estesbob]

I see what you’re saying and it’s true in a general sense. I’m thinking about my own integrity here. The choices I’m offered put me in a situation I believe I should avoid.

We are faced with the greatest moral issue facing this country since slavery. W e can either sit on the sidelines and cast stones at everyone or make tough decisions to vote for the imperfect to bring this carnage to an end

 

[RosalieM]

We are faced with the greatest moral issue facing this country since slavery. W e can either sit on the sidelines and cast stones at everyone or make tough decisions to vote for the imperfect to bring this carnage to an end

Obama’s going to win with or without my voting for Republicans. I’m watching out for my own integrity as I said. It’s more than “imperfect” to cast aside the poor and vulnerable as does that party’s platform. My vote isn’t going to matter, just as it didn’t last time.

 

[estesbob]

Obama’s going to win with or without my voting for Republicans. I’m watching out for my own integrity as I said. It’s more than “imperfect” to cast aside the poor and vulnerable as does that party’s platform. My vote isn’t going to matter, just as it didn’t last time.

Of coorse the party of death when those wdo oppose it’s sit out election. There is no integrity required to ignore evil

 

[RosalieM]

Of coorse the party of death when those wdo oppose it’s sit out election. There is no integrity required to ignore evil

I totally agree with you; but this time it’s different for me. From all I’ve seen, the party of death is bound to win. There are no opposing candidates strong enough to win. So why should I feel horrible and vote against the poor as the lesser of the two evils?
I won’t be ignoring anything. I’ll be praying.

 

[ishii]

So, let’s just put this thread into perspective.

To be a Catholic, you need to vote Republican (according to yourself and a few others)? That, in essence, is what many here are trying to say.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

No, and that is a flat out, blatant, straw man caricature of this thread. To be a Catholic, one needs to vote in favor of the sanctity of life. The Democrat party, overwhelmingly is in favor of abortion rights. The Republican party is overwhelmingly the party in support of the sanctity of life - as evidenced by their platform on abortion, the views of their candidates, and the actions of their leaders in power. We most vote for the candidate who promotes the sanctity of life - if that candidate is Republican, then so be it. If you have a problem voting for Republicans, perhaps you should ask the Democrats why they support abortion rights.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

I totally agree with you; but this time it’s different for me. From all I’ve seen, the party of death is bound to win. There are no opposing candidates strong enough to win. So why should I feel horrible and vote against the poor as the lesser of the two evils?
I won’t be ignoring anything. I’ll be praying.

Even if your premises were correct as Archbishop Chaput said it’s not a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils, it’s a matter of voting toes en evil. Both your premises are wrong, BTW-Obama in not certain to win and there is nothing evil about the GOP agenda

 

[RosalieM]

Even if your premises were correct as Archbishop Chaput said it’s not a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils, it’s a matter of voting toes en evil. Both your premises are wrong, BTW-Obama in not certain to win and there is nothing evil about the GOP agenda

I’m saying Obama is a sure winner because of what I see every day in the news with polls and with his recent feather-in-the-cap with the Bin Laden elimination. I feel the GOP agenda is not honorable (not quite evil perhaps) in that they are so ready to cut down helping the elderly and disabled, but not increase taxes on the rich or decrease spending on wars.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I totally agree with you; but this time it’s different for me. From all I’ve seen, the party of death is bound to win. There are no opposing candidates strong enough to win. So why should I feel horrible and vote against the poor as the lesser of the two evils?
I won’t be ignoring anything. I’ll be praying.

I realize many think the Democrat party is “for the poor”. But it’s actually living off its patrimony in that regard. This country has done absolutely nothing for the truly poor since the passage of the Earned Income Credit, and that was Reagan’s. Well, George W. Bush removed them from the tax rolls, and I guess that might count. And, I guess Bush’s extension of Medicare to Rx drugs would have been helpful to the elderly poor.

During 2009 and most of 2010, the Democrat party had total political power. They could have passed anything they wanted to pass, and did so. But none of it was for the poor. It was pretty much all either middle class welfare (Obamacare, supporting unions with tax dollars, “cash for clunkers”) or corporate welfare (AIG, Goldman Sachs, GE, George Soros, BP, insurance companies, or example).

But I’ll admit to this. The Democrat party has paid tax money to abortion providers here and abroad, so I guess that’s “helping the poor” in a way, by killing the children who MIGHT have turned out to be poor.

 

[RosalieM]

I realize many think the Democrat party is “for the poor”. But it’s actually living off its patrimony in that regard. This country has done absolutely nothing for the truly poor since the passage of the Earned Income Credit, and that was Reagan’s. Well, George W. Bush removed them from the tax rolls, and I guess that might count. And, I guess Bush’s extension of Medicare to Rx drugs would have been helpful to the elderly poor.

During 2009 and most of 2010, the Democrat party had total political power. They could have passed anything they wanted to pass, and did so. But none of it was for the poor. It was pretty much all either middle class welfare (Obamacare, supporting unions with tax dollars, “cash for clunkers”) or corporate welfare (AIG, Goldman Sachs, GE, George Soros, BP, insurance companies, or example).

But I’ll admit to this. The Democrat party has paid tax money to abortion providers here and abroad, so I guess that’s “helping the poor” in a way, by killing the children who MIGHT have turned out to be poor.

Interesting and substantive take, I must say. So what people are saying here, in support of Republicans, is that it’s imperative to vote against Obama even if he’s a shoe-in and even if it’s against the personal grain, because the abortion issue trumps everything else? It’s true the Dems haven’t done squat for the poor that I can think of; but they haven’t taken away from them as the Repubs are proposing.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I totally agree with you; but this time it’s different for me. From all I’ve seen, the party of death is bound to win. There are no opposing candidates strong enough to win. So why should I feel horrible and vote against the poor as the lesser of the two evils?
I won’t be ignoring anything. I’ll be praying.

I’m late to this----as always-------massive computer problems---------------hard drive down----but i agree with you. What we need right now is to pray. Pray, pray.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I realize many think the Democrat party is “for the poor”. But it’s actually living off its patrimony in that regard. This country has done absolutely nothing for the truly poor since the passage of the Earned Income Credit, and that was Reagan’s. Well, George W. Bush removed them from the tax rolls, and I guess that might count. And, I guess Bush’s extension of Medicare to Rx drugs would have been helpful to the elderly poor.

During 2009 and most of 2010, the Democrat party had total political power. They could have passed anything they wanted to pass, and did so. But none of it was for the poor. It was pretty much all either middle class welfare (Obamacare, supporting unions with tax dollars, “cash for clunkers”) or corporate welfare (AIG, Goldman Sachs, GE, George Soros, BP, insurance companies, or example).

But I’ll admit to this. The Democrat party has paid tax money to abortion providers here and abroad, so I guess that’s “helping the poor” in a way, by killing the children who MIGHT have turned out to be poor.

Good point.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I’m saying Obama is a sure winner because of what I see every day in the news with polls and with his recent feather-in-the-cap with the Bin Laden elimination. I feel the GOP agenda is not honorable (not quite evil perhaps) in that they are so ready to cut down helping the elderly and disabled, but not increase taxes on the rich or decrease spending on wars.

Obama cut $500 billion from medicare benefits but the Republicans are targeting seniors? Obama is no sure win unless the economy and unemployment rate vastly improve. I do not think national security is the top importance, doesn’t it tend to be the economy first, and if the Bin Laden issue is brought up in debates I bet the Republican nominee will give credit to Obama, but also making clear Obama continued George Bush’ policies made that capture possible.

 

[JimG]

The worst thing that the nation could do to the poor and vulnerable is to fail to fix the debt crisis. In a depression or a hyperinflation, it is the poor who will suffer most.