A Hypothetical Question on Voting

  • Thread starter Thread starter nsm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, it was ostensibly a general “hypothetical,” which is probably why it has become an odd commentary on how a vote in the 1800s could have put a meglomaniac in power and George Washington’s teeth. 🤷

I’m not clear on how any of that affects today’s voting decisions. 😛 I prefer to vote for real candidates based on their actual stances, rather than play the game of hypotheticals.
I brought up Germany to show that it is not completely out of the realm of possibility that a party could cloak their platform in something innocuous and really have bad motives.

And I brought up the history of the US to show that opportunities for disaster and tyranny existed in our in our balanced form of government in the past and can arise again. That is why we must really think through our voting decisions. That is the only reason I brought those examples up. I do admit the proliferation of rabbit holes but I appreciate everyone’s vigorous debate, it has offered much to think on!! Please keep it coming, this is helping me out…
 
40.png
mary_bobo:
There are 1.3 million children in the United States who live in poverty. There has been an 11% increase since 2000.
As for the erosion of civil rights, take a look at the PATRIOT Act. Yes, both parties are to blame for its passing, both the original and the current version.
I knew better than to get into this, but I was hopeful this could be a thoughtful discussion. Now that is seems we’re descending into jingoism, I’m bailing out.
 
There are 1.3 million children in the United States who live in poverty. There has been an 11% increase since 2000.
As for the erosion of civil rights, take a look at the PATRIOT Act. Yes, both parties are to blame for its passing, both the original and the current version.
I knew better than to get into this, but I was hopeful this could be a thoughtful discussion. Now that is seems we’re descending into jingoism, I’m bailing out.
I’m sorry that the discussion caused you to jump ship. Thanks so much for your contributions and for everyone’s thoughts on the issue.
I’m taking a break from the forums for a while now…
 
With respect, on the reasons you’ve set out many other countries would have just as good if not a better claim to being the greatest and most moral country in the world.

The U.K., for example, banned slavery long before the U.S. and it was rather more effective at beginning to eliminate it entirely because the Empire was still going strong. Similarly Britain has fought in almost every major conflict and peacekeeping mission of the 20th Century, we were in WWII years before the U.S. started to provide real help, not to mention coming close to bankrupting the country funding the war which eventually freed Europe and North Africa from Hitler. More recently it was Britain who wanted to finish off the Gulf War properly first time round, overruled by America and just look how thats turned out. As for welfare sixty years on you still don’t have a jewel in the crown comparable to the NHS, Britain was one of the first to start building a Welfare State which provided from “cradle to grave”. America has also been the Superpower for a comparatively short time compared to those who would have held the title in the past.

Obviously we each have our own bias on patriotism, but turning a thread into a love in for how great America is seems a bit much.

Back on topic. The main concern seems to be a repeat scenario of a party like the Nazis who dress up their real agenda behind enough good policies to form a winning majority. I think for the U.S. it would be just about impossible for such a think to happen, for it to occur the President would have to be able to exert massive control over all branches of government, he’d need a huge majority in both Houses, the support of more than half of the Supreme Court, at least the majority of States and more terms in power than he could currently hold not to mention the backing of the Armed Forces. Part of the problem which allowed Hitler to get in was Hindenberg needing his support, this allowed the Nazis to get into power and claim ‘support’ from the establishment figure of politics at the time. It also came in the wake of a massive defeat, and as we all know America has never lost a war :rolleyes:.

If any President did try to get by such policies through executive order they would be repealed or ruled unconstitutional in fairly short order. The nature of a two term Presidency also means he would seldom if ever nominate a majority of the Supreme Court, and even then under scrutiny before Congress they probably wouldn’t be approved once their politics came to light.
I have a great deal of respect for Britain, though my Irish ancestors did not, and for good reason at the time. Nobody’s pure.

I agree it would be very difficult for a president to pull the country in a terribly wrong direction all by himself. But if one was elected and had a filibuster-proof, fairly radical party majority behind him, and had the ability to name two members to the Supreme Court to get a majority of those who held the same views as did he and the Congress, it would be hard to stop almost anything he wanted to do. That is precisely where we could end up as a consequence of this election cycle. That troubles me a lot. I’m not at all sure Americans realize how much power they might put into the hands of a very determined group this fall.
 
I have a great deal of respect for Britain, though my Irish ancestors did not, and for good reason at the time. Nobody’s pure.

I agree it would be very difficult for a president to pull the country in a terribly wrong direction all by himself. But if one was elected and had a filibuster-proof, fairly radical party majority behind him, and had the ability to name two members to the Supreme Court to get a majority of those who held the same views as did he and the Congress, it would be hard to stop almost anything he wanted to do. That is precisely where we could end up as a consequence of this election cycle. That troubles me a lot. I’m not at all sure Americans realize how much power they might put into the hands of a very determined group this fall.
That was part of the point I was trying to make. I’m sure there are people somewhere who feel the same way about America as the Irish did/do about Britain. The idea that any set of criteria can be used to assert one country as the ‘greatest’ is a bit off kilter given that no country has a perfect record or even anything close.

If your concern is about the current cycle then to a degree I agree with it. If the candidate gets elected he will have a majority in both Houses, possibly a super majority in the Senate, and that could cause real problems. But the members of the Houses still need to worry about their next election campaign, and even assuming that he is able to nominate and get through whoever he wants the retiring Justices are almost all from the Liberal wing of the Court, even assuming he has two terms he probably wouldn’t be appointing enough of them to take the majority. It would however pose serious problems for a more conservative interpretation of certain rights to be passed for a few decades at least.

I really don’t think they’ll get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and remember that their ‘majority’ includes some independent Senators who may at times be more sympathetic to the other party. The nature of recent history has also shown that the Americans seldom allow one party to wield that much power for a sustained period, in short the candidate may hold on to the majority in both Houses for a term, possibly a term and a half, but almost certainly not the full two terms. Many of the ‘policies’ of the candidate in question are also high on rhetoric low on substance, because the President is elected for a whole term the backlash inevitably falls on his colleagues in the House. The nature of the kind of majority they currently have, with sitting reps in traditionally conservative areas, means that a decent number are vulnerable, so even if the other party didn’t take a majority in the first few rounds they would gain a sufficient number of seats to put the fear of God into the other members which would curtail the more radical areas of the candidates agenda.
 
I am in the same boat as you, and I also agree with the former military person who said both parties have had ample time to effect the changes we hoped to see. The present administration had six years with a Congress of the same party in power. Yes, the partial-birth abortion ban was passed, but Roe V Wade is still on the books, the number of children living in poverty is on the rise, our civil rights have been eroded and our moral stature in the world, due to torture, secret jails, etc, is in shreds. Believing, as JP the Great did, that life is a seamless garment, and that all stages of it are sacred, I have come to believe that the so-called “pro-life” party is only as pro-life as it takes to get elected.
To take ourselves out of the electoral process because we don’t like either party works against us, because then we have no voice. So here is what I suggest all serious Catholics do: Go to a neutral source for information about both parties and the candidates. By all means look at their stance on abortion, but look at what other issues they stand for as well. Who has benefited the most when each has been in power? ( “By their fruits you will know them.”) Then compare the results of their job performance with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you still aren’t happy with voting for either of the major parties, look for another one that more closely follows your beliefs. Perhaps it will take large numbers of people voting for a “no chance” party to wake the two major ones up.

Finally, pray, pray, pray.

Mary, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us!
Jennifer
I’ve been voting pro life since Reagan, and personally I’ve gotten very cynical about pro life politicians and politicians in general. They’ll all say whatever will please their particular voting block and then serve the highest bidder once they get in office.

Bottom line, we all go into that booth with nothing but our own conscience. I’m sure that those of us who choose to vote will do the best we can to make a well formed decision.
 
I’ve been voting pro life since Reagan, and personally I’ve gotten very cynical about pro life politicians and politicians in general. They’ll all say whatever will please their particular voting block and then serve the highest bidder once they get in office.

Bottom line, we all go into that booth with nothing but our own conscience. I’m sure that those of us who choose to vote will do the best we can to make a well formed decision.
A conscience formed by the teachings of the Church. We are one judge away from the overturn of Roe V Wade. Lets not blow it by rationalizing voting for those who openly support this abject evil.
 
A conscience formed by the teachings of the Church. We are one judge away from the overturn of Roe V Wade. Lets not blow it by rationalizing voting for those who openly support this abject evil.
Don’t read your own agenda into what I post, please. I will do my best to do you the same courtesy.
 
A conscience formed by the teachings of the Church. We are one judge away from the overturn of Roe V Wade. Lets not blow it by rationalizing voting for those who openly support this abject evil.
I guess I don’t see how this statement is estebob’s own agenda. We are each required as catholics to search out the answers to which candidate is truly Pro-life, is it not the church’s teaching that abortion is intrinsicly evil. How else can we make a well informed decision if not by looking at what the church teaches?
 
I guess I don’t see how this statement is estebob’s own agenda. We are each required as catholics to search out the answers to which candidate is truly Pro-life, is it not the church’s teaching that abortion is intrinsicly evil. How else can we make a well informed decision if not by looking at what the church teaches?
The issue was that he quoted my post and then ascribed “rationalization” to it. Had he left my post out of his statement, I would have had no problem with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top