Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[Rich_Olszewski]

There are all kinds of American accents, and a lot of snobbery about which one are
acceptable. One reason why Barbour could never gain traction was his thick Southern accept. Palin talks like a lot of people in northwestern United States.

Well, my accent is New York City and I can put on a “Hey, youse guys, didja see my brudda and sista sitting dere on da stoop?” when necessarily. Not cultured, but definitely acceptable, and one that immediately tags you as where you’re from!

 

[agnes_therese]

I think there should be an option to vote “it’s too soon to tell.” A LOT can happen between now and November 2012.

 

[jediliz]

mr obama supports destruction of human embryos for research. HUMAN EMBRYOS…you know,what all of us were once?

And he also supports forcing our tax dollars to go to THAT research!

Democrats may claim to care for the poor, but when the poor are pregnant women, they only care about one THING: KILLING THE BABY of the poor woman! They don’t like Crisis Pregnancy Centers, etc.

No way will I vote democrat in 2012

 

[bellasbane]

Democrats may claim to care for the poor, but when the poor are pregnant women, they only care about one THING: KILLING THE BABY of the poor woman! They don’t like Crisis Pregnancy Centers, etc.

That is not true.

The 2008 Democratic Party platform states:

Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

The 2008 Republican Party platform states:

Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

feministsforlife.org/news/inspire-party-platforms.htm

So, while the Democratic Party does enable women to get abortions, they also make a commitment to provide resources and support to women who have babies. Apart from adoption reform, the Republican party makes no such commitment to poor mothers.

Peace

 

[jediliz]

then why do democrats fight any bill to defund planned parenthood? Why do they support bills to force pregnancy centers to post signs that say birth control and abortions are not provided there? They want the poor to RELY on the government and never become self sufficient.

 

[estesbob]

That is not true.

The 2008 Democratic Party platform states:

Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

The 2008 Republican Party platform states:

Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

feministsforlife.org/news/inspire-party-platforms.htm

So, while the Democratic Party does enable women to get abortions, they also make a commitment to provide resources and support to women who have babies. Apart from adoption reform, the Republican party makes no such commitment to poor mothers.

Peace

Oh my so you can support killing children as long as you profess to want to care for those lucky enough to escape the womb. ?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Ron Paul is the best person on the GOP ticket. If the rest of the party woke up to that fact, it would be a very good day.

YOu mean Ron Paul has crossover appeal?

 

[Personanongrata]

Whomever can guarantee the stopping of my homes value which is in freefall, actually creates REAL jobs and in the interim extends unemployment, doesnt mess with peoples pensions, medicare and socialy security will get my vote

 

[bellasbane]

YOu mean Ron Paul has crossover appeal?

I can only speak for myself, and I like him

I wonder what his numbers in this poll would look like the POTUS weren’t an option? Not to disrespect Obama, but to better gauge the general cross-over appeal of the various GOP candidates among CAF members.

Hopefully, the Obama supporters wouldn’t just pick Sarah Palin, because they think she’s sure to loose in the general election.

 

[Red_Wolf]

That is not true.

The 2008 Democratic Party platform states:

Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

The 2008 Republican Party platform states:

Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

feministsforlife.org/news/inspire-party-platforms.htm

So, while the Democratic Party does enable women to get abortions, they also make a commitment to provide resources and support to women who have babies. Apart from adoption reform, the Republican party makes no such commitment to poor mothers.

Peace

So says their platforms. In PRACTICE, the Democrats defund everything that is not abortion driven. The GOP actually proposes, and votes for, simple, general programs for all the poor, regardless of race, gender or political affiliations. Look how the health care exemptions seem taylored for Democratic supporters. In a few months a GOP program that simply provides for all the poor, regardless of pidgeon holes, is up for renewal. Lets see how the voting shakes out on that.

 

[Red_Wolf]

Electability.
Reagan and Bush, Jr. were elected by the conservative wing of the GOP. Bush, Sr. ran unopposed. (That really hurts, Ron Paul would have been great.)
The conservative wing of the GOP, which would properly be classified as the Constitution Party (largest third party in the US, because their state names are so confusing that most members think that they registered as independents; I really question a party that can’t get their grammar right; if only they had a semblence of organization) is fed up with “democrat lite” running as Republican. Effectively, there is no significant difference between a media approved Republican and Obama.
Various posts have lamented certain groups that the Democratic Party takes for granted, and ignores; and how those groups continue to vote Democratic. The Conservative wing of the GOP is NOT GOING TO SUPPORT A DEMOCRAT IN GOP clothing in 2012. Well, how much will, and how much won’t; but effectively: If the GOP doesn’t nominate a real conservative, they can kiss conservative support goodbye. And maybe, the Constitution Party will get some organization (from outside).
I am depressed at the number who support people with next to no track record; they made a good speach, took a stand last week, etc. If we want someone to effectively govern (look at how little Obama has accomplished with overwhelming majorities in both house and senate for an example of ineffective) we need someone who knows how our government works. The only solid conservative on this poll, with experience and a track record, is Ron Paul.
I don’t mean to imply that the GOP is good; it is a mix, mostly not good; but all the good there is in either of our two main parties is in the GOP. The GOP will not become good until enough good people get involved in it, mostly because the alternatives are too hopelessly disorganized, to shift the balance.

 

[ishii]

I agree with some of what you’ve said, but I’m not so sure about some other things. I understand the historical split within the Republican Party as represented by the Rockefeller wing and the wing as represented by Goldwater, but it is a sign of the times that the split widened so far over the years to the point that before he died Goldwater, once considered extreme right, criticized the ideologs of the party as represented by the Moral Majority and the evangelicals as being intolerant and not representative of the majority of the party. The Party had moved so far to the right that Goldwater was considered as middle of the road. That is a significant split. I think the split is even greater now. I think that even Ronald Reagan, in this day and age, would have trouble uniting the party behind him. John McCain was not so different from Ronald Reagan and yet he was constantly ridiculed by the Republican right wing. I don’t think it is fair to blame the media on the defeat of the Republicans in the last election. Sure, Obama represented a novelty as an electable Black man, but that is not the sole reason people voted for him. The voters deserve more credit than that. One reason Obama won the election is because the Republicans lost it. They wouldn’t unite behind McCain when he stood in the middle. When he selected Palin as a bone for the right wing, he lost the middle and the crossover vote who owe no allegiance to a party. It may be going too far to say that the Republicans defeated McCain more than Obama did, but crucial support from Republicans was certainly lacking and this hurt McCain. I think the same thing is about to happen in the next election. I’m not basing my opinion that there is a split within the Republican Party on the present list of candidates hoping to win the nomination, but on what I saw happen during the last election. I may be proved wrong, and I will gladly admit my error if so, but right now, the Republicans strike me as a party very much unsure of itself.

As is sometimes the case, tsuwano, we disagree on this. 2008 was for many reasons, a bad year for the GOP. Bush was president for eight years. The economy was in a recession. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars had been going on for years. There was the excitement of the first black president, etc. I think it would have been difficult for any GOP nominee to overcome those odds.

Furthermore, I think we have to be careful in comparing the conservativism of Goldwater and even Reagan with the conservatism of today. Was abortion even an issue in the 1964 election when Goldwater was the candidate? Was gay marriage an issue when Reagan was the candidate? Did our entitlement programs face the imminent insolvency then that they do today? Goldwater certainly “mellowed out” in his later years. But I think his moderation in his later years says more about Goldwater than about some big “rightward shift” in the GOP that is preventing the GOP from being competitive. On the other hand, while in the 90’s Clinton seemed to redifine the Democrat party, its obvious that the Democrat party has returned to its left/liberal ideas that kept it out of the whitehouse in the 80’s. If they continue to promote the ultra liberal ideas that they’ve been promoting - they will continue to be the minority party.

Ishii

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Only about 20% of the voters favor leftist ideas, so the only way that the Democrats can win elections is by running as rightwingers while governing from the far left. They also align themselves with unions to which they can steer vast amounts of money in the form of union dues, some of which gets funneled back to the Democrat Party.

In challenging elections, they often find they have to run a third candidate who runs on the far right, to try to siphon votes away from the center-right voters/candidates/Republicans.

IF, big if, the conservatives finally get their act together … a rare event, since they are so independent they fight amongst themselves constantly … they can defeat the leftist coalition. The problem is getting the conservatives to show up and not get ticked off at the Republican candidate because of the way he or she combs his/her hair.

 

[bellasbane]

So says their platforms. In PRACTICE, the Democrats defund everything that is not abortion driven. The GOP actually proposes, and votes for, simple, general programs for all the poor, regardless of race, gender or political affiliations. Look how the health care exemptions seem taylored for Democratic supporters. In a few months a GOP program that simply provides for all the poor, regardless of pidgeon holes, is up for renewal. Lets see how the voting shakes out on that.

Lots of assertions, but not a single link

How about some evidence to back up your claims?

 

[RobbyS]

When the last 30 years of American history are looked at objectively, it seems quite obvious to me that regardless of which of the two major political parties you vote for makes very little difference. What you get is today’s global economy that benefits no-one except the multinational corps whose only goal is ever increasing profits at the lowest labor costs they can possibly find in the world.

The irony in this situation is that every war America has ever fought now means nothing in that our most vulnerable low paid laborers must now compete with what amounts to slave labor in every hell hole in China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, etc.

Multinational corps now run this country, and the only thing they worship is money and power.

I did not vote for Bill Clinton, Reagan, either of the Bushes or Obama, because everyone of them are globalists first, and the untenable mess we’re in today is the objective proof that what I believe is true.

My last two votes were cast for Ron Paul because he’s the only conservative candidate who speaks the unsavory truth that we are unwitting slaves to the federal reserve banking system and munitions manufacturers, that manufacture wars, then sell arms to either side regardless of the morals or ethics involved.

America is no longer a sovereign nation. Every veteran of every war we’ve ever fought has been dishonored in a manner I would have never believed possible in this country only 30 years ago, but seeing objectively is believing.

jomoco

Some people have been complaining about the banks etc. since 1790. And before that about the Bank of England and the terms of trade between Britain and North America. The United States was a debtor nation 100 years ago, when the British Empire was near the top of its historical curve. Populists even then were complaining about the international bankers. Fact is in a capitalist economy this is what you have to deal with. I will agree with Dr.Paul’s critique of the Fed, which has gradually become far too central to our national economy, and financial capitalism always is a kind of **** game in which they play with out people’s money.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Well, I’d say you were wrong about the president. He has been an accomplished individual for at least the last 20 years. Further, he was asked **to write an autobiography by an editor who thought it would sell. I bought his first book in 1998 or so. The followup was certainly to cash in on his celebrity.

I think we need to keep the president.

Accomplished individual? So what were his accomplishments PRIOR to his seeking the Democratic nomination?

Like I said he is narcissistic.

 

[JMJSHJ]

He became the President of the United States, no mean feat, for one. I know that doesn’t impress you, so I suggest that you not vote for him in the '12 election. I’d give the same advice to the conservative posters on this Forum: don’t like him? don’t like his policies? don’t vote for him! Can’t be any simpler than that.

He wasn’t the President at the time of his writing of his books. That needs to be kept in mind as your reply to Mary Bobo was in response to what Beau wrote about my post which was what my post was all about. What did Obama accomplish that was so great at the time of his writing his books.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Some people have been complaining about the banks etc. since 1790. And before that about the Bank of England and the terms of trade between Britain and North America. The United States was a debtor nation 100 years ago, when the British Empire was near the top of its historical curve. Populists even then were complaining about the international bankers. Fact is in a capitalist economy this is what you have to deal with. I will agree with Dr.Paul’s critique of the Fed, which has gradually become far too central to our national economy, and financial capitalism always is a kind of **** game in which they play with out people’s money.

And even before 1790 if you include the European experiences … the Medici family and all that.

And even earlier.

Some people just have a knack for managing OPM … other peoples’ money.

Shakespeare wrote about it.

And even in the New Testament … that guy up in the tree … a tax collector … these fellows got paid commissions and became quite wealthy …

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

He wasn’t the President at the time of his writing of his books. That needs to be kept in mind as your reply to Mary Bobo was in response to what Beau wrote about my post which was what my post was all about. What did Obama accomplish that was so great at the time of his writing his books.

That’s immaterial NOW. What matters is that if folks are displeased with him, they ought not vote for him. That’s very simple. Just vote for someone else in '12. That’s how you will rid yourselves of the man you think hasn’t accomplished anything.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Is Obama the candidate most in line with CATHOLIC/CHRISTIAN thinking to move this country where we need to go the next four years?

War is a wrap 400-Billion cuts over the next 10-years. And we don’t need to worry here.

Its back to business here and the economy is directly affected by the Morals of our country. Can we continue to take our present stance on Abortion, Immoral Sex, Gay Marriage, Wanton Violence, growing issue of Substance Abuse and illicit drug smuggling and indifference to those in Need etc,?

Thats what we need to turn around now. We are living on Gods Mercy by the Moment. To believe this way of life we have come to knwo in the US is acceptable? Its a Grave Error that will in the end be the downfall of a great country. As it has Historically of every other Great Empire in History.

Christianity/Morals is what we need to get back to, not another term of indifference in the area.

I’m Sorry Obama just doesn’t cut it in this aspect. Don’t take seperation of church and state to literal it wasn’t meant to be in ligjht of its history. Take literal that we will reap what we sow in this country.

Billy Graham explained it clearly “If God allows the US to continue on this path. He will have to make amends to Sodom and Gomorrah” And that won’t be happening.

We don’t someone who’s maybe a Christian, who is kinda of Christian. We need a President who is completely in line with Christianity. Sorry but there it is! The Constitution needs to be strickly enforced. Not viewed as the legal document it is to be manipulated by the President, This also has to be clear.

God Bless, Gary