Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[bbarrick8383]

btw the current make up of the supreme court if an abortion issue came up. Like a person-hood amendment would overturn it in support of Row v. Wade.

if RVW is ever overturned it should be made illegal across the board, not done by a state by state level.

Also a state shouldn’t pass a law right now to make abortion illegal it will make it more difficult if it reaches the USSC to overturn RVW.

many states have trigger laws meaning when RVW is overturned abortion becomes illegal. Abortion is stuck as it is in all states, untill RVW is overturned.

once it is overturned congress should pass a law to make abortion illegal in all 50 states.

The federal government has a duty to protect all human life. Which is made clear in the Constitution and the deceleration of independence. So if this is their job their duty abortion should be illegal across the board. That cannot be done on a state by state level.

Murder is not a federal crime, and neither should abortion be a federal crime.

It should be turned over to the states, and after that we should pray that all 50 states make it illegal.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are such. Not all American voters are anti-abortion.

That last is wrong. Those who would vote for Chuck Baldwin’s conservative principles vis-a-vis constitutionalism need have no guilt about their not voting for the GOP. Are they petulant except to diehard GOPers?

Point 1: True. But Catholic Americans who obey Church teachings are.

Point 2: I’m not a GOPer of any kind. Still, I say that failing to vote for a prolife candidate against a pro-abortion candidate in the general election just because my favorite candidate didn’t win in the primary or is a third-party or write-in candidate with no chance of winning is, indeed, fundamentally an exercise in petulance and, for that matter, personal vanity.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If I am not mistaken, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade stated explicitly that since they could not make the determination that an unborn human has tpersonhood status, then it is a private decision between a woman and a doctor and that if Congress extended human rights to the unborn and recognized the unborn as equal to the born, then Roe v. Wade would be moot.

A despicable rationalization, akin to saying it’s okay for me to fire a high-powered rifle into a crowded stadium because I don’t know whether I’ll hit anybody or not.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

in this article the Vatican is sited in saying this.

Read more: ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=2012#ixzz1PXxqqR3u

Alcohol “is an intoxicant that dims reason and potentially is damaging to the integrity of one’s body and soul”.

Are you really in favor of legislation Christian morality? Marriage used to be something governed by Church Law, then the government got involved, and now look at what we have! No, I say. Get the government out of the marriage business and bring it back to the Church where it belongs.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

if RVW is ever overturned it should be made illegal across the board, not done by a state by state level.

Won’t happen. Some states will always want abortion to be legal.

once it is overturned congress should pass a law to make abortion illegal in all 50 states.

That’ll NEVER happen. Even the strongest antiabortion state laws make exceptions.

The federal government has a duty to protect all human life. Which is made clear in the Constitution and the deceleration of independence. So if this is their job their duty abortion should be illegal across the board. That cannot be done on a state by state level.

Noted as your opinion. But, IMO, thdere’ll never be a federal prohibition against abortion.

 

[ishii]

Not hatred. I find Republican voters most misguided, that’s all.

As to the Party, I think it disastrous for our nation - and that’s as far as I’ll go on the road of hatred. You might notice that if there is any political party that is HATED, it is the Democratic Party by the GOP supporters on the Forum. Their descriptions of my party go far beyond the simple aversion I have for the GOP and as far as coloring their posts, it does so in almost every case…

Examples? I don’t hate the Democrat party or Democrats. I hate some of what they stand for. For that matter I hate some of what Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe stands for and they are Republicans. You have contructed a nice, tidy (and wrong) caricature of the GOP supporters on this forum. But how about some examples of the hatred? (I realize that asking some forum members to back up what they say with examples is an exercise in futility).

Ishii

 

[ishii]

So, I should consider people who can’t support Ron Paul part of the Country Club Republican crowd. I’ve looked at the issues and the positions and track record of the candidates. Ron Paul is the one I estimate to be most in line with Catholic moral, social, and economic teaching.

Fine. Then support Ron Paul in the primaries, and when he loses the nomination, support the most effective, viable, pro-life candidate.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

Point 2: I’m not a GOPer of any kind. Still, I say that failing to vote for a prolife candidate against a pro-abortion candidate in the general election just because my favorite candidate didn’t win in the primary or is a third-party or write-in candidate with no chance of winning is, indeed, fundamentally an exercise in petulance and, for that matter, personal vanity.

It is been my experience in CAF that just about everybody who promotes voting for nonviable third-party candidates are secretly hoping for the Democrat candidate to win. Scott LaFrance would be one of the exceptions. In fact, one of the primary boosters of this" support the third-party candidate " action actually contributed a thousand dollars to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, leading one to question their motives when they’re advocating those who are pro-life throw their votes the way on nonviable third-party candidates.

 

[ishii]

generally speaking, if you smoke “too much” weed, you get a hankering for fried chicken and a nap.

And listen to the extended version of “In a gadda da vida” by Iron Butterfly.

 

[estesbob]

Fine. Then support Ron Paul in the primaries, and when he loses the nomination, support the most effective, viable, pro-life candidate.

Ishii

I will vote for the most viable pro-life candidate that is available in the presidential election. If that is Ron Paul, I will vote for him. If that is a Democrat, I will vote for him. I will make a difference in 2012-I will not waste my vote out of a false sense of principle. I will not sit out the most important moral issue facing our country today.

 

[bellasbane]

One factor a person needs to consider when voting in the general election is the state in which they live.

For example, I live in Massachusetts, a solidly blue state. In a recent poll of Massachusetts voters, Obama is winning by a landslide.

"In the new Massachusetts survey, Obama leads Romney by a landslide margin of 57%-37% – wider than the 51%-43% margin that Obama has over Pawlenty in Minnesota, and comparable to Obama’s 56%-35% lead over the other likely Minnesotan candidate, Michele Bachmann, in that state.

As it turns out, Romney is actually the strongest Republican candidate in Massachusetts. Obama leads Herman Cain by 60%-27%, leads Newt Gingrich by 63%-27%, leads Sarah Palin by 63%-27%, and leads Pawlenty by 59%-28%."

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/poll-romney-losing-massachusetts-to-obama-by-20-points.php
publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MA_0609.pdf

I believe PPP is a Democratic poll, so it’s probably a bit biased. It also did not ask about Ron Paul, who is officially running, and did ask about Sarah Palin, who is not. I would hazard that Bachman is unlikely to poll any better than Palin (especially in Concord!) so I’ll use Palin’s results as a proxy for Bachman.

If these trends continue, it means that in the “winner takes all” system, Obama will get Massachusetts’ 11 electoral votes. Right now, every GOP candidate is equally “unelectable” in Massachusetts. This means a write-in vote for a candidate like Ron Paul (who is unlikely to get the GOP nomination despite being their best candidate) would actually make a stronger statement that voting for the “chosen one” of either party.

However, the situation would be totally different if I lived in a swing state. Then it would be very important to vote for the least awful of the two main party candidates or not vote at all.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Examples? I don’t hate the Democrat party or Democrats.

Thank you.

But how about some examples of the hatred? (I realize that asking some forum members to back up what they say with examples is an exercise in futility).

How about “party of death” for one? That’s not “what they stand for.” It’s a hateful description. You can parse it any way you like, but, except for you and a few others, who may not hate the Party, there are those who do.

 

[estesbob]

Thank you.

How about “party of death” for one? That’s not “what they stand for.” It’s a hateful description. You can parse it any way you like, but, except for you and a few others, who may not hate the Party, there are those who do.

If you have a problem with the “party of death” description. I suggest you take it up with Cardinal Burke. Perhaps rather than questioning people who use this appellation you should ask yourself why it is that the Democrat Party is increasingly considered to be so.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Fine. Then support Ron Paul in the primaries, and when he loses the nomination, support the most effective, viable, pro-life candidate.

Ishii

As I’ve said I plan to do all along.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

If you have a problem with the “party of death” description. I suggest you take it up with Cardinal Burke.

Don’t need to take it up with him. It’s his personal opinion, to which he is entitled.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

And listen to the extended version of “In a gadda da vida” by Iron Butterfly.

Ironically, Doug Ingle was drunk during the recording of “In the Garden of Eden” (the tracks originally intended name) and slurred the lyrics, forming In A Gadda Davida and it has become a stoners mantra. So much for alcohol not being a drug…

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Perhaps rather than questioning people who use this appellation you should ask yourself why it is that the Democrat Party is increasingly considered to be so.

No. Ishii specifically asked for such an example. I provided it to him. You can take it up with him if you consider responding to Ishii something questionable.

 

[ishii]

Thank you.

How about “party of death” for one? That’s not “what they stand for.” It’s a hateful description. You can parse it any way you like, but, except for you and a few others, who may not hate the Party, there are those who do.

I agree that there are those who hate the Democrat party. And maybe “the party of death” is a bit hyperbolic, but c’mon - so many of them support euthenasia, abortion on demand, embryonic stem cell research, etc. Like I said before though, if there was a pro-life Democrat running who I thought would make a difference then I’d vote for him/her over the other guy. So far that hasn’t happened.

Ishii

 

[Ridgerunner]

One factor a person needs to consider when voting in the general election is the state in which they live.

For example, I live in Massachusetts, a solidly blue state. In a recent poll of Massachusetts voters, Obama is winning by a landslide.

I believe PPP is a Democratic poll, so it’s probably a bit biased. It also did not ask about Ron Paul, who is officially running, and did ask about Sarah Palin, who is not. I would hazard that Bachman is unlikely to poll any better than Palin (especially in Concord!) so I’ll use Palin’s results as a proxy for Bachman.

If these trends continue, it means that in the “winner takes all” system, Obama will get Massachusetts’ 11 electoral votes. Right now, every GOP candidate is equally “unelectable” in Massachusetts. This means a write-in vote for a candidate like Ron Paul (who is unlikely to get the GOP nomination despite being their best candidate) would actually make a stronger statement that voting for the “chosen one” of either party.

However, the situation would be totally different if I lived in a swing state. Then it would be very important to vote for the least awful of the two main party candidates or not vote at all.

I understand your point, and there’s something to it. But one ought to also consider the possibility that Mass will go for Obama precisely because those who might oppose him give up because they don’t think there’s any point in it. I’m not a Romney fan, but Romney did win that state as a Republican, you know. It isn’t as if Mass NEVER bucks the far left.

 

[estesbob]

I agree that there are those who hate the Democrat party. And maybe “the party of death” is a bit hyperbolic, but c’mon - so many of them support euthenasia, abortion on demand, embryonic stem cell research, etc. Like I said before though, if there was a pro-life Democrat running who I thought would make a difference then I’d vote for him/her over the other guy. So far that hasn’t happened.

Ishii

Democrats should ask themselves that when a Cardinal of the Catholic Church is using that term, perhaps he has a point.