Don't Vote For Romney

[Aloysius]

I don't think anyone should vote for Romney. I suggest a third party, a write-in, or leaving the choice for POTUS blank; anything else is a waste of your vote, making yourself as a voter a manipulated pawn in their political machines.

Here's why you shouldn't vote for him:

[b]He's not pro-life[/b]

Romney has always touted himself as pro-choice and defending Roe v. Wade, until it became politically beneficial to act pro-life and be opposed to Roe. Since winning the Republican Primaries he has stated his support for abortion in the case of the "health of the mother"; though the campaign later said he misspoke, it sounds to me like he was just stating his real position--the position he has consistently held for decades. Just like Obama, he will appoint Supreme Court Justices to maintain the SCOTUS status quo. The "health of the mother" exemption allows for abortion in nearly every case, both because pregnancy is always a burden to a mother's health and because it is often stretched to include "mental health".
[quote]“No. My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, [u]and the health[/u] and life of the mother.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/romney-im-in-favor-of-legal-abortion-for-health-and-life-of-mother-rape-inc[/quote]

[b]He's not actually in favor of conscience exemptions on contraceptives in health insurance plans[/b]

When it was politically expedient in the Republican Primaries, he made clear that he would stand up for Religious Liberty in the form of conscience exemptions in the case of contraception being required to be offered through insurance programs of all employers even religious employers. Of course, Romney-care didn't include those conscience exemptions and actually forced Catholic institutions to offer contraceptive insurance. And then in the second debate he made clear: he doesn't think access to contraceptives through an insurance plan should be in any way inhibited because of an employer's personal conscience (and let's be clear: the only way an employer affects access to contraceptives is by including or excluding it on their health insurance, so he's clearly supporting disallowing employers from excluding contraceptives in health insurance)
[quote]
[b]Obama: [/b]“In my health care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is insured. Governor Romney not only opposed it, he suggested that in fact employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception [i]through her insurance coverage.[/i]”
[b]Romney: [/b]“I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not. And [u]I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care [/u][in their insurance plan, he's clearly saying] [u]or not[/u]. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And — and the — and [i]the president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.[/i]”[/quote]


[b]He's not against Obama-care[/b]

Romney designed Romney-care and publicly supported using it as a blueprint for a Federal level healthcare system; he only came out in opposition to it when it became politically beneficial in the Republican Primary season to oppose Obama-care. Since winning the Republican Primaries, he has already said that he would keep much of Obama-care in place, including elements that can only be kept in place within the context of the mandate. He even cites his own mandate-based plan as an example of how he has put in place the types of things he likes in Obama-care.
[quote][b]Romney: "[/b]I'm not getting rid of all of healthcare reform. Of course, there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I'm going to put in place... one is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage [which was only made possible by making everyone have insurance; it literally cannot be done any other way]. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like. I say we're going to replace Obamacare. And I'm replacing it with my own plan. And even [u]in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan [/u]there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people"
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-keep-parts-obamacare/2012/09/09/id/451193[/quote]

[b]He will lead us further towards disastrous wars[/b]

He is just as war-mongering as Obama, if not MORE so. He wants to ramp up the rhetoric on war with Iran (which is, of course, the most disastrous thing we could do), he is less likely to seek peaceful solutions (as Catholic doctrine REQUIRES before war, that we exhaust all peaceful solutions), and he wants to increase an already bloated military budget.

[quote]Former Israeli Intelligence Chief: "Negotiating with Iran is perceived as a sign of beginning to forsake Israel. That is where I think the basic difference is between Romney and Obama. [u][b]What Romney is doing is mortally destroying any chance of a resolution without war.[/b] [/u]Therefore when [he recently] said, he doesn’t think there should be a war with Iran, this does not ring true. It is not consistent with other things he has said."
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/22/1063201/halevy-romney-destroying-iran-resolution/?mobile=nc[/quote]

[b]He will further discredit "conservative" economics while hurting the middle class and wrecking the economy[/b]

His economic plan is both vague and disastrous for the Middle Class. He refuses to give details on what loopholes he will cut in order to pay for decreasing taxes while increasing spending (and spending will increase because he's given no details of any spending he'd like to cut). Most experts agree that the only "loopholes" he can cut are the kind that will affect the middle class (especially middle class families), and even then the math doesn't really quite add up, but based on the only details he's provided, a Romney administration will not be beneficial for middle class tax brackets while wealthy taxes are decreased. I'm all for having all tax burdens decrease, but you have to actually cut spending (both defense and entitlement) to make that happen, and you should NOT have middle class and lower income families forced to pay higher taxes.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-tax-plan-return-rate-rich-cuts-brookings-policy-center-2012-8
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/even-mitt-romney-admits-hell-need-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/

I know some of you will dismiss some of what this says as "liberal" propaganda, especially the criticism of Romney's vague economic plan (he keeps it so vague you can dismiss criticism of it easily, that's probably it's biggest problem); and indeed much of these facts are jumped upon and exploited by Obama's voter-pawns as much as Romney's voter-pawns jump on things about Obama, but it is all so very consistent with Mitt Romney's record that you would be fools to dismiss it. The rule in politics should be to listen both to what a candidate says and to compare it with his record; when the things he says are consonant with his record, you should tend to believe him; when they are not, you should see how consistently he's saying his changed position; and when he clearly isn't being consistent and he's not going to the mat the defend the position (ie "pro-life" Mitt) and he's going in the direction of his old positions every chance he can, there's a good chance the position reflected by his record is the one that's real.

What does this all leave? In what way is Romney better than Obama? I don't see a single thing; certainly not enough of an iota of hope that would make me throw my vote away on the man.

What say you?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1350992650' post='2496266']
What does this all leave? In what way is Romney better than Obama? I don't see a single thing; certainly not enough of an iota of hope that would make me throw my vote away on the man.

What say you?
[/quote]I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said about Romney, which are the knocks against him in the first place. Romney's almost as liberal as Obama on many issues.

I look at it in practical terms, given the choices and the effects of my actions.

The difference between the two are the agendas (platforms) of the two political parties with the most power at this time. They both have to deal with stong public opinion that is for free contraception, unrestricted abortion, same sex marriage, and generous Government entitlements. Both parties must pander to this opinion to get votes in natiional elections.

As you state, one has to look at the bulk of what each political party actually has done. It's clear the Democratic Party is strongly promoting all these agendas. The Republicans seem to try to limit some of these agendas, at the same time attempting to not alienate voters. There are justifiable criticism that they haven't done enough or have been ineffective in restricting abortion. Public discourse in main stream media tends to paint positions in extremes just to grab and maintain attention.

One has to honestly consider which type of Supreme Court Justices, legislation, and policies these parties will tend to promote. They both will be tempered by majority opinion, but will one party or the other push towards limiting abortion, or push towards unrestricted abortion?

Voting for Obama, or not voting against him is showing support or showing 'no problem' with the agendas of the Democratic party. Another 4 years of Obama, along with a Democratic Party in power in both Congressional Houses, removes almost any limits on the power of the Party that brought us Governement Mandated Healthcare, is strongly pro- Same Sex Marriage, has forced Religious Institutions to provide and pay for abortion and contraception through mandated insurance, has done little or nothing to limit wars, and has done little or nothing to improve our economy to the point that jobs are created. This is their track record.

Romney may not be significantly better in many of these areas, but at least there is some hope that "some" of these overreaching Government mandates will be slowed.

It is a long process to change public opinion and effectively re-direct National Government direction. It's not going to happen overnight with one election, one president. You have to look at the fundamental beliefs of the the Party Members. Which party actively supports defending abortion and providing same sex marriage? Are these laws submitted more often by Democrats or Republicans? Which party tends to vote for or against them? These are the real factors in National Elections. Voting 3rd party or obstainingg in the presidential election is wasting votes. By the same basis, one should be carefully looking at your local Congressional races where your voice for another option has more value in supporting another option, with much less negative effect.

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

AMEN Aloysius!

[Annie12]

Obama is worse. Where are our (realistic) options? We need to do the best we can. We can't let Obama get a second term.

[r2Dtoo]

Now that Ron Paul has no chance ever of becoming President, Al's getting vengeful.

[Aloysius]

Why not? Why is Obama worse? I have just illustrated that they both hold the same positions. What makes Obama worse? I sincerely don't see anything significant; certainly not on the life issues.

Anomaly, I would not say to look at what the parties do overall. The Republican Party is certainly our best chance of the two major parties, which is why it would be a severe mistake to elect someone as leader of that party who holds all of these positions the way he does. It would be a disaster for the chance of using the party for good.

Because there is no viable alternative, we should either vote third party, do a write in, or leave POTUS blank on our ballots. A second term for Obama is nothing compared to a potential eight years of Romney.

R2, I am not vengeful. These are Romney's positions that I have laid out. Obama is NOT worse than Romney. Dale Alquist was no Ron Paul supporter but he's stood up to say the same thing--Romney is no good. There is no reason to lend your support to him.

[r2Dtoo]

Romney looks totally amesome on a horse. That's why I'm voting for him. We need more leaders willing to take their horses and bayonets into battle.

[Archaeology cat]

I agree, Al.

[Nihil Obstat]

There are not enough props in the world for this thread.

[fides' Jack]

You wouldn't throw away your vote on Romney, then are you throwing it away on another party (besides the main two)? Or are you throwing it away by not voting at all? Any vote this time around is a vote thrown away.

As you said, Romney seems to be more willing to spend more on the military, which, in my case, means my job will be a little safer. And I'd rather have a conservative tool than a liberal one.

[Winchester]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1351012921' post='2496345']
You wouldn't throw away your vote on Romney, then are you throwing it away on another party (besides the main two)? Or are you throwing it away by not voting at all? Any vote this time around is a vote thrown away.

As you said, Romney seems to be more willing to spend more on the military, which, in my case, means my job will be a little safer. And I'd rather have a conservative tool than a liberal one.
[/quote]
Possibly the most screwed up reason I've heard to vote for Romney.

Hey, maybe we can really secure your job if we kill more people overseas. Great idea.

[MIKolbe]

in his defense, he calls himself a troll.

[Aloysius]

But Romney is NOT a conservative tool. The Republican [i]Party[/i] [u]CAN [/u]be a tool that we can use for good, but if we put Romney at its leadership then we have a Republican Party that's pro-choice in practice, that has no qualms with mandates to violate conscience, and is more likely to egg us on into a war that will be a disaster for this country. Not to mention his economic plans would be a disaster for our country and would probably swing the pendulum of public opinion firmly towards the kind of very radical socialism we always hear fear mongering about.

And honestly, supporting even more military spending than the budget we spend now is absolutely unconscionable from a Catholic point of view. It's already at such a bloated and wasteful level while people are suffering under a bad economy. Not to mention that much of that money is spent on the drone wars Obama touts as "surgical" but are really murderously killing civilians (74% of drone deaths in Pakistan have been civilians, check out these stats: http://truth-out.org/news/item/10907-cover-up-of-civilian-drone-deaths-revealed-by-new-evidence ) with senseless disregard for morality. honestly, I can't imagine Christians being okay with the money we're spending bombing the hell out of people in such indiscriminate ways (which is what both Romney and Obama want to be doing).

Talk about violation of conscience... woe is me, poor Catholic employers are stuck having to pay for insurance programs that cover people's contraceptives... meanwhile every American citizen is being forced to pay taxes to fund the indiscriminate bombing of people around the world. There is NO paradigm of Catholic morality that can justify the means by which we have been carrying out these wars. and anyway Romney has shown his true colors in backpedaling back to the type of rhetoric that would support his actual record of action in regards to mandates like these (ie when he was all for them as a governor, and now has explicitly said he doesn't think employers should be able to exclude them from their insurance plans).

so we're left with two options:
1) the guy who will force religious employers to have insurance plans covering contraceptives and will bomb the hell out of places with drones overseas
or
2) the guy who will force religious employers to have insurance plans covering contraceptives and will bomb the hell out of places with drones overseas

see why a vote for either of them is a wasted vote?

A vote for Romney is a vote thrown away. A vote for a third party, or a write in, or a null vote--those are the votes that count; those are the ONLY votes that are not thrown away, they are the votes of free thinking individuals, not pawns in a political machine. They are votes against the two people who both support things that we as Catholics are not supposed to be supporting; and they support those things on an almost equal level if not an exactly equal level.

How anyone sees Romney as better than Obama in any significant area is beyond me.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351016234' post='2496374']
The Republican [i]Party[/i] [u]CAN [/u]be a tool that we can use for good,
[/quote]


lol

[Nihil Obstat]

[img]http://theatrethoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/e4d46db6_standing-ovation-auditorium-pop_8703.jpeg[/img]