Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[ishii]

Of course I’m interested in truth, more His truth than any other. Nice way to condescend and bring someone around to your ‘truth’. That happened a lot and much worse last presidential election. That kind of a lack of charity removes any feelings of hearing a ‘Christian’ truth through those type remarks.

You are right Prodigal Son. I should assume that you are interested in the truth. My apologies.

Let’s look at the current list of justices, it’s easy enough.

Republicans gave us 1.) Scalia, 2.) Kennedy, 3.) Thomas, 4.) Roberts, 5.) Alito
Democrats gave us 1.) Ginsburg, 2.) Breyer, 3.) Sotomayer, 4.) Kagan

Sotomayer and Kagan replaced Stevens and O’Connor, both of who were placed by a Republican president. Before Sotomayer and Kagan, there were 7 justices serving that were placed by Republicans and 2 that were placed by a Democrat, and that’s the truth.

That is a fair question: “gee, the Republicans have given us most of the justices on the supreme court. Why is Roe V Wade still the law of the land? That GOP must be really playing us for fools - cynically pandering to us for our votes by false claims of being pro-life.” On the surface, it seems to be a valid criticism of the GOP’s seeming inability to overturn Roe V Wade via supreme court justice appointments. However, if you go a little deeper into the issue and If you look at the politics surrounding the confirmation hearings for those justices nominated I think you might realize that in many ways the GOP’s hands have been tied by the Democrats, who in key instances were in a position to block justices who would have voted to overturn Roe V Wade. I assume you’ve heard of Robert Bork? He was defeated by pro-abortion rights Democrat catholics such as Joe Biden and Teddy Kennedy (among others). He would arguably have been another vote to overturn Roe V Wade and the Democrats knew that - that is why they smeared him and made it their mission to defeat him. Bork would likely have been on the court with Scalia, Renquist, Byron White, and later, Clarence Thomas. The disappointments - Souter, Kennedy, and O’Connor - prove that any nomination is a roll of the dice and that there are no guarantees - as much as we’d like to have a 100% certainty that the judges we appoint are going to vote to overturn decisions like Roe V Wade, there is no guarantee. One thing is for sure - the nominees coming from any Democrat will be 100% in lockstep with the abortion lobby that the Democrat party is owned by. Some say that Sotomayer may be a wild card - she’s catholic. Then again, so is Biden, so was Kennedy, and all of the other Democrats who voted party first and faith second.

If we had a pro-life Democrat run for the office, would you consider voting for them?

If I thought voting for the Democrat president would usher in an end to Roe V Wade, e.g. and moreso than the GOP candidate then I would probably vote for the Democrat. I mean, if there were upcoming supreme court vacancies and the congress was controlled by the GOP - or the senate was - then I can see being justified in voting for the pro-life Democrat presidential candidate. If the Senate was controlled by Democrats then probably not. But your question is a bit nonsensical - what pro-life Democrat has chance of getting the nomination? Its not based on political reality. If only.

One more thing - you mention that most supreme court justices in recent years have been nominated by Republican presidents - that is true, but I think its fair to look at the justices who have been nominated by presidents after the Roe V Wade decision and after abortion rights became a national issue. The supreme court justices that should be in question in this analysis would be the ones nominated by Reagan and afterward. Like I said, there are disappointments such as O’connor, Kennedy, and Souter but presidents nominate justices not robots. The only 100% pro-abortion rights justices we get are the ones nominated by Democrats. That should show that there is a big difference between the two parties.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Almost my entire lifetime I’ve seen republican appointed justices on the bench. How long am I supposed to believe, we only need ‘one’ more? After a while it seems like common sense that someone is getting played, and I don’t like being played, or pandered too as someone put it.

Your beef is with the Democrat catholic senators who vote party first, catholic second. They effectively make it very difficult for Republican presidents to nominate conservatives to the bench. On the other hand, if you have a Republican senate and president you get Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. You’re directing your anger toward the Republicans when it should be directed toward the Democrats - and specifically toward the catholics who vote Democrat - thus enabling the pro-abortion politics of the Democrats.

Actually the topic of discussion is ‘Who will you vote for in 2012?’ I have said I plan on voting for Ron Paul, and that he was the ONLY candidate to attend the right to life rally in Washington, D.C., prior to the last presidential election. It really seems there were other issues that some avoided voting for him to see through.

Ron Paul has little to no chance of winning. We should vote for the most pro-life candidate who has a chance of winning. A congressman who will turn 77 before the election is not going to win the presidency. That is simply political reality.

As for G.W.B., he said he was against abortions, but did nothing to stop the deal with the Chinese who was primarily supplying an abortifacient to the US. Must have been other political motives that outweighed the right to life. I’m sorry, but I’m calling it as I see it. Was I being used, as was a whole bloc of voters?

Really? Do you have any sources to back this up?

God is not partisan.

Who said He was?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Last time I try to clarify this.  The deal was allowed for China to sell abortifacients to the US.

Not denying this, just would like some sources to substantiate it.

To me voting for the same party that had impact on the supreme court the majority of appointments speaks loudly, and as this turned into the ‘GOP is the only party to be trusted’, it is relevant.

Don’t deny the Democrats influence on the Supreme court, especially as they had the majority during key moments in recent political history.

Irrelevant for someone in the mid-fifties to see the majority of justices on the supreme court were appointed by Republicans and then lose trust in Republicans? If you say so, I’m very wary now myself.

Don’t make the Republicans into the straw man of the “perfect party” in which anything short of total 100% pro-life governing success means they are playing us for fools and unworthy of votes and support. Politics is messy business and progress can take a long time. Timing and luck also play a big part. Think about it. We could get a Republican like Huntsman or Pawlenty for president, a GOP senate, then have two vacancies in the supreme court. That scenario is not all that unlikely. If that happens then we have a good chance at once and for all overturning Roe V Wade. The best way for that to not happen is for good Catholics to get discouraged, cynical and decide that their vote doesn’t matter so “why not vote for the perfect candidate who had no chance to win” (e.g. Ron Paul). That helps ensure that Obama gets re-elected, that evil is allowed to continue.

But he was overlooked by a large majority of Republicans last election. Why? What other issues prevented them from supporting him?

Maybe the majority of Republican voters are not as libertarian as Ron Paul, and maybe they thought McCain had a better chance of winning than Ron Paul.

Ishii

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Maybe the majority of Republican voters are not as libertarian as Ron Paul, and maybe they thought McCain had a better chance of winning than Ron Paul.

Ishii

Ron Paul is libertarian, not liberal. There is a big difference. He believes that you should control your own life, not the government control it for you.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I see that Newt is right in there with Gary Johnson.

[sorry … who is gary johnson?]

Buddy Roemer? actor on Beverly Hillbillies?

 

[crazzeto]

Ron Paul is libertarian, not liberal. There is a big difference. He believes that you should control your own life, not the government control it for you.

Problematically though, libertairians have a propensity to be apathedic towards social issues. I’ve found far too many cases where they support gay marriage, and even fail to oppose abortion (‘of course, even though they personally disagree’) for no reason other than what you stated. They want you, not the government controling your life.

I’ve also found many of their ideologies well, frightening. I"m not so sure I could support one.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Problematically though, libertairians have a propensity to be apathedic towards social issues. I’ve found far too many cases where they support gay marriage, and even fail to oppose abortion (‘of course, even though they personally disagree’) for no reason other than what you stated. They want you, not the government controling your life.

I’ve also found many of their ideologies well, frightening. I"m not so sure I could support one.

As someone who supports Ron Paul, you could help me in my decision process if you provide information showing that he supports gay marriage, or fails to oppose abortion. Also, be specific and show us which of his ideologies are ‘frightening’.

It seems to be a problem of politics among voters. We lump all people of political parties together. Seriously, we need to hold individuals accountable for their actions. With two majority parties, we have one side who blames the other for not being able to accomplish goals and nothing gets done, no matter which party is in ‘power’ by numbers.

 

[crazzeto]

As someone who supports Ron Paul, you could help me in my decision process if you provide information showing that he supports gay marriage, or fails to oppose abortion. Also, be specific and show us which of his ideologies are ‘frightening’.

It seems to be a problem of politics among voters. We lump all people of political parties together. Seriously, we need to hold individuals accountable for their actions. With two majority parties, we have one side who blames the other for not being able to accomplish goals and nothing gets done, no matter which party is in ‘power’ by numbers.

Oh sure, I quite agree… But the flaw in your statement is that people join up in political parties explicitly because they share common views on certain matters. Because of a general sense of the libertarian common view I’ve received, I really can’t support any of them for public office.

 

[mary_bobo]

Problematically though, libertairians have a propensity to be apathedic towards social issues. I’ve found far too many cases where they support gay marriage, and even fail to oppose abortion (‘of course, even though they personally disagree’) for no reason other than what you stated. They want you, not the government controling your life.

I’ve also found many of their ideologies well, frightening. I"m not so sure I could support one.

’

Unless Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, which he has said he will not, you will not have a problem. He will not be the GOP standard bearer.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Oh sure, I quite agree… But the flaw in your statement is that people join up in political parties explicitly because they share common views on certain matters. Because of a general sense of the libertarian common view I’ve received, I really can’t support any of them for public office.

So, do we hold a politician accountable on the basis of past party affiliations, or can we safely assume that they share common views with their ‘current’ party affiliation?

Again, we cannot look at parties, or should not. We should look at the job they’ve done and listen to the job they say they will do and hold them accountable.

Another example that makes me see your statement as ‘flawed’ is, I live in the South where ALL local politicians are ‘historically’ Democrat. Because of this, we see not only politicians but voters as well re-register prior to each primary. Yes, it’s a political move, but necessary if they want to serve in this area. Now the contradiction to your view is the fact that once the politicians switch parties to Democrat, so they can be elected and serve, they remain Democrats. The voters then hold them individually accountable. It’s not as bad as it seems, because we never experience the ‘we tried but were blocked by the other party’ excuses.

Once again I ask, do you have any information directly pertaining to Ron Paul that should be considered prior to one making their minds up to support him?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

’

Unless Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, which he has said he will not, you will not have a problem. He will not be the GOP standard bearer.

Why do you think that is Mary? Could it be attributed to other issues? If so, please give us your opinion of which issues those would be.

 

[estesbob]

No, he didn’t. But the US Bishops did give us a list of topics to consider. Thankfully, the majority of voters can read both what was written by the Pope (before he was pope, as quoted above) and the guidelines put out by the Bishops and that will help them to cast their vote.

A list of topics to consider only after it was determined the candidate was pro-life.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A list of topics to consider only after it was determined the candidate was pro-life.

Okay estesbob, while we’re starting up, with us choosing a person to represent the individual parties, share with us those things we should weigh between all the pro-life Republicans to determine which one should represent the party.

 

[gilliam]

Romney is now ahead of Obama amongst registered voters:

washingtonpost.com/politics/bin-laden-boost-for-obama-recedes-romney-rises/2011/06/06/AGVwhfKH_graphic.html

 

[crazzeto]

Prodigal,

That’s all very nobal, but history has shown it is indeed the very rare case where one can actually buck all the norms of the group with which they choose to associate them selves. In other words, prepare to be dissapointed… Not only because Ron Paul is not a legitimate candidate in the sense that he has any real chance of winning, but also in that once he gets elected he will likely prove how much of a libertarian he really is.

Incidnently I have heard him speak, and honestly I can say… He scares me.

 

[estesbob]

Okay estesbob, while we’re starting up, with us choosing a person to represent the individual parties, share with us those things we should weigh between all the pro-life Republicans to determine which one should represent the party.

Once we have determined they respect life we are free to use our prudent judgment to determine who would best represent the country. I think everybody was running on the Republican side would make an excellent president. Right now I’m leaning towards Romney because he has business experience and has a history of function well in a crisis situation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal,

That’s all very nobal, but history has shown it is indeed the very rare case where one can actually buck all the norms of the group with which they choose to associate them selves. In other words, prepare to be dissapointed… Not only because Ron Paul is not a legitimate candidate in the sense that he has any real chance of winning, but also in that once he gets elected he will likely prove how much of a libertarian he really is.

Incidnently I have heard him speak, and honestly I can say… He scares me.

But you can’t expect one to discount a candidate because someone says, ‘I have heard him speak, and honestly I can say, he scares me.’ What issues do you find specifically ‘scary’? We have the majority of Republicans stating they are pro-life, and hopefully they’re not pandering to a bloc of voters. What other issues we should move to weighing whether or not they are in line with Church teachings?

 

[estesbob]

But you can’t expect one to discount a candidate because someone says, ‘I have heard him speak, and honestly I can say, he scares me.’ What issues do you find specifically ‘scary’? We have the majority of Republicans stating they are pro-life, and hopefully they’re not pandering to a bloc of voters. What other issues we should move to weighing whether or not they are in line with Church teachings?

I believe his isolationist foreign-policy as unworkable.

 

[crazzeto]

But you can’t expect one to discount a candidate because someone says, ‘I have heard him speak, and honestly I can say, he scares me.’ What issues do you find specifically ‘scary’? We have the majority of Republicans stating they are pro-life, and hopefully they’re not pandering to a bloc of voters. What other issues we should move to weighing whether or not they are in line with Church teachings?

Lets all just go back to the gold standard shall we?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Once we have determined they respect life we are free to use our prudent judgment to determine who would best represent the country. I think everybody was running on the Republican side would make an excellent president. Right now I’m leaning towards Romney because he has business experience and has a history of function well in a crisis situation.

As I asked crazzeto, what should Catholics consider among a ‘list’ of pro-life candidates?

As for Romney, I am not sure about supporting a candidate whose faith finds the Catholic Church in apostasy.

There is another thread where a poster stated something to the affect of, ‘even if Satan himself was elected, he would have to toe the line within the party’. Yes, it’s an absurd analogy, but scary that one could use an example of the ‘great deceiver’ having to ‘toe the line’ or even being trustworthy to believe he represents Church interests (teachings).