Voting For Anyone Other Than Romney Is Pro-obama

[Anomaly]

Getting back to the original topic.

How is voting for someone other than Romney effectively Pro-Abortion?

Some posters have argued that’s not their intent, and got offended. There’s two different aspects of an act. Intent, and outcome. I think we’ve gotten past labeling and ascribing motives of each other. Generally, we all want to be pro-life, and are discussing ways to be effective at it.

We know the only two outcomes will be Obama/Democrat or Romney Republican. Catholics voting 3rd party even united, isn’t going to get a 3rd Presidential candidate elected. Using Pew Research numbers, about 131,000,000 voted in 2008. 27% identified as Catholic, 35,000,000 votes, more than half of which voted for Obama.

Whose minds do you think you’re changing with these calls to NOT vote for Romney? Is it the Catholic 54% who were previously okay with voting for Obama/Democrats? Obama/Democrats have the same message they won their vote with. Nothing changed coming on pro-Life issues coming from the Democrats. Or is the 45% of Catholics who voted McCain/Republican? Those are obviously the ones you are encouraging to NOT vote for Romney/Republican and consider 3rd party. That’s 17,000,000 votes that negated votes for proAbortion Obama/Democrats you want to go elsewhere and will effectively lose their nullifying effect. EFFECTIVELY, it’s a plus in the Obama/Democrat/ProAbortion column, registering as Catholic support AGAIN that helped put him in the White House.

It’s unrealistic voting 3rd party this year sends any kind of message. What message does it send? Ron Paul ran for the Republican nomination and didn’t get it. Which policy didn’t get him the support needed from the majority of voters? Abortion, Foreign Policy, Military, Economic, Banking, Education, Labor, ???? If you vote 3rd party, who the hell is going to know what you’re voting for, what you’re voting against? A 3rd party with a clear message has to make it’s case with the majority of the populace. Just giving them a vote doesn’t send a message of WHY you’re for them, or WHY you’re against another,

This failure of providing a clear pro-life message by Catholics is further muddled when you look at how Catholics ARE voting. If Pro-Life must include Anti Abortion as a non-negotiable moral issue, why do most Catholics support the Democratic Party with their free, legal, abortion policy and commitment to defend against any restriction or limits? It’s not the Republicans weak anti-abortion policy, it’s Catholics electing pro-abortionists with 50% of their votes. That’s why politicians see abortion as a minor issue. What significant Group/Organization is anti-abortion?

It’s obvious it’s not a primary issue with Catholics according to the bulk of their votes. Bishops and Popes are obviously out of touch. A third party would just be another nut-wing fringe group that doesn’t reflect the majority of people’s opinions. A SMALL minority of kooks who don’t believe in dinosaurs because they weren’t in the Bible.

Bottom line, it’s fine to dream of what your vote is going to say politicians, your fellow group of kewl thinking rebels, your friends, maybe to your God. Regardless of what you hope your intent is communicated with your vote, you have to answer eventually, in your own conscience. What did you DO? Did your vote strike a blow for FREEDOM? Did it strike a blow for TRUTH IN POLITICS? Did it strike a blow for the VOICE OF DISSATISFACTION? Did it strike a blow to ELECT PRO-ABORTIONISTS OBAMA/DEMOCRAT, IT‘S A MINOR ISSUE?

Edited November 4, 2012 by Anomaly

[Aloysius]

If you feel represented by Romney, by all means vote for Romney. If you don't feel represented by Romney, look at ALL of your other options. If you feel unrepresented by Romney for the reasons I have given, then I will tell you right now you are also not represented by Obama and shouldn't vote for him.

Only vote for someone if you feel significantly represented by them. When you treat your vote with such respect, it gains more power. It's not about sending a message, it's about having the mentality and respect for your vote that makes your vote effective, because if you're willing to withhold your vote from people you do not feel represented by, you become the coveted "undecided voter" in an election that everyone's fighting over. Sure, you should be willing to give your vote to someone if they convince you that they'll represent you; but you should also be willing to withhold your vote from them if they don't. Respect your vote that way; you won't always be part of the winning team in any election, but you sure as hell will be exercising that right to vote correctly and if more people would do that we would have a better system (so you should try to convince other people to do that too).

But yeah, if you're convinced by the arguments on the other side, go ahead and cast that ballot for Romney. But don't feel that you have to just because you don't like Obama. Only vote for Mitt Romney if you truly want Mitt Romney to be president. That's integrity and honesty and that's the kind of voting mentality we should all have: put quite simply: vote for who you want to be president. It's a very simple concept, but sadly few people in our country actually have it.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1352035523' post='2503834']
But yeah, if you're convinced by the arguments on the other side, go ahead and cast that ballot for Romney. But don't feel that you have to just because you don't like Obama. Only vote for Mitt Romney if you truly want Mitt Romney to be president. That's integrity and honesty and that's the kind of voting mentality we should all have: put quite simply: vote for who you want to be president. It's a very simple concept, but sadly few people in our country actually have it.
[/quote]It's simple and it's bullsh denial of reality.

Know what you believe. Prioritize them. What are the non-negotioble principles?

If you can support the non-negotiables, support with money, time, effort, and your vote.

If you can't vote to support the non-negotiable, can you morally vote and give political support to an organization or person that is taking away power from the enemy of your principle? Vote for them.


When in a battle, and you're fighting a foe, don't give up and abandond the fort and ammo to your enemy because your soldiers won't leave the fort and engage the enemy. Keep the fort and give support to the insurgents that are engaging your enemy. Don't give up what isn't taken away from you. Your allies don't have to be in the fort with you.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1352035523' post='2503834']
Only vote for Mitt Romney if you truly want Mitt Romney to be president.
[/quote]
Romney is not my first choice. He's not even in my top 20 first choices. I don't agree with his stance on abortion. I don't agree with his stance on immigration. I don't like how he seems to be pro-war. I don't like how he says he's going to get rid of Obamacare as I think he would be better off by simply eliminating the immoral aspects of it.

But, he is unquestionably more pro-life than Obama, and he said flat out that he'd eliminate the HHS mandate, which is the biggest threat to religious liberty in modern times.

So, do I like voting for him? No. But, do I "truly want Mitt Romney to be president"? YES! He's one of only two options.

[Freedom]

You can say, "I'm not going to support either candidate because they don't meet my standards." Whether you support the two main presidential candidates or not, one of them will be our president anyway.

If you're against Romney, then you're for Obama. You can justify your actions all you want but it doesn't change reality. Vote Obama out of office! The only way to do that is to vote for Romney.

If it was up to me, Newt would be our next president but the fact is, we can't always get what we want.

[Chiquitunga]

Okay, so please please forgive me if this has already been posted in one of the other threads! There is a good homily about all of this on autiosancto here, [url="http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20121104-The-Problem-of-Voting-in-Revolutionary-Times.html"]http://www.audiosanc...nary-Times.html[/url]

At first, and throughout most of the homily, I thought he was going to be only in favor of 3rd party voting, [u][b]BUT PLEASE LISTEN ALL THE WAY TO THE END[/b].[/u] He presents [b]3 [s]options[/s][/b] [u][b]scenarios[/b][/u] (edit: actually options is the wrong word, scenarios would be better) and in a very well researched way. He does also address not voting at all, but the 3 scenarios he talks about at the end do not include this. Also, not part of the scenarios is voting for Obama.

I am very much in favor of [s]option[/s] scenario # 3 [aka, voting for Romney, which I already did] especially in the swing states, as has been mentioned here probably 784 times already.

The research he gives about this really helps especially with this third scenario. You probably will have to listen to the homily twice to really take it all in, if you care to do that.


p.s. sorry for being so wordy here! I'm not so great with words just listen to the homily and you'll get it

Edited November 4, 2012 by Chiquitunga

[LadyOfSorrows]

If you are concerned about Pro-Life issues and unsure as to whether you are voting for Romney or a Third-Party candidate, here is an interesting quote by Blessed JPII.

"A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects." John Paul II

[Chiquitunga]

Thank you, Lady of Sorrows! That is the argument the priest on audiosancto makes for scenario # 3 (aka, voting for Romney), using many examples of the Church cooperating with governments, [i][b]not in support of them[/b][/i], but to [u][i][b]LIMIT their evil aspects.[/b][/i][/u]