Catholic.com presidential poll

[Ridgerunner]

Good point. One that I believe, by the way. I did this once, actually. It’s just that at that time, there WAS a third part candidate that I could favor. I DON’T believe in blocking or negative voting. If someone arises who I feel is a true moral choice, I am still open to voting the office of President. Otherwise, I could also write in a good moral choice. Thanks for reminding me of the fact that if we always do what we always did, we’ll always get what we always got. No real third party can arise if nobody goes out on a limb for a few elections to MAKE one viable and accountable. As the GOP rose from the ashes of the Whigs, perhaps something else will rise from the ashes of the GOP.

It sometimes amazes me that people whose principles are against virtually everything the Dem party stands for, buy into the Dem encouragement not to vote at all if they can’t vote for the “just like me without exception” party that doesn’t exist and never will.

For myself, I often find myself voting against, rather than for. If Hillary Clinton is elected, the only things that will arise “from the ashes” are a Repub party much like the one we have now, taxpayer funded abortion on demand without limitation for the remainder of my lifetime, even worse political corruption and a lot of foreign adventurism.

If we don’t oppose the promoters of abortion on demand, we’re supporting it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It sometimes amazes me that people whose principles are against virtually everything the Dem party stands for, buy into the Dem encouragement not to vote at all if they can’t vote for the “just like me without exception” party that doesn’t exist and never will.

For myself, I often find myself voting against, rather than for. If Hillary Clinton is elected, the only things that will arise “from the ashes” are a Repub party much like the one we have now, taxpayer funded abortion on demand without limitation for the remainder of my lifetime, even worse political corruption and a lot of foreign adventurism.

If we don’t oppose the promoters of abortion on demand, we’re supporting it.

But voting for a moral 3rd party candidate** is **opposing abortion on demand - if not for the immediate election, then for some future election.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But voting for a moral 3rd party candidate** is **opposing abortion on demand - if not for the immediate election, then for some future election.

No it isn’t. It’s the same as not voting at all. When one votes for some candidate that has no chance, it’s no different in opposing the candidate one wants to oppose than writing in the “tooth fairy” or something. It’s a total waste of time and worse, a waste of an opportunity to oppose evil when one could have.

The history of creation of third parties in the U.S. is so dismal that it’s fantasy akin to expecting a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow to believe one’s support today of some obscure candidate, will somehow lead to “the party just like me” someday or other. It will never happen.

But then, some people believe in leprechauns and banshees too.

 

[Crossbones]

No it isn’t. It’s the same as not voting at all. When one votes for some candidate that has no chance, it’s no different in opposing the candidate one wants to oppose than writing in the “tooth fairy” or something. It’s a total waste of time and worse, a waste of an opportunity to oppose evil when one could have.

The history of creation of third parties in the U.S. is so dismal that it’s fantasy akin to expecting a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow to believe one’s support today of some obscure candidate, will somehow lead to “the party just like me” someday or other. It will never happen.

But then, some people believe in leprechauns and banshees too.

I would totally disagree with this. Despite the fact that no 3rd party has taken off, it doesn’t change the fact that a large portion of the people voting for Ross Perot caused fundamental changes to the policy of deficit spending where both the Democratic White House and Republican Congress worked together to balance the budget.

A large 3rd party vote can encourage shifts in the positions of both parties at once to address an issue that they are not currently addressing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No it isn’t. It’s the same as not voting at all. When one votes for some candidate that has no chance, it’s no different in opposing the candidate one wants to oppose than writing in the “tooth fairy” or something.

Your analysis is based on considering only the present election, as if there would never be another. This is a flaw. There will be other elections. And in each and every election, they will always claim that this is the most critical election ever in the history of man - until the next election, where that election will be the most critical election in the history of man.

As I explained a few posts back, voting for a 3rd party candidate does more than just affect the current election.

The history of creation of third parties in the U.S. is so dismal that it’s fantasy akin to expecting a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow…

Oh, come now! Third parties exist and are doing quite well in many other countries. It is not so fanciful to think that they could exist here.

This year, with such a terrible pair of major party candidates for President, this is the best time to vote for a moral 3rd party candidate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would totally disagree with this. Despite the fact that no 3rd party has taken off, it doesn’t change the fact that a large portion of the people voting for Ross Perot caused fundamental changes to the policy of deficit spending where both the Democratic White House and Republican Congress worked together to balance the budget.

A large 3rd party vote can encourage shifts in the positions of both parties at once to address an issue that they are not currently addressing.

I think Newt Gingrich, who actually did achieve changes, would mightily dispute the assertion that Ross Perot did anything except help elect Bill Clinton.

 

[JimG]

The Democratic Party has so thoroughly and officially embraced so many positions opposed to Catholic teachings that I had to quit voting for its candidates some time ago. Abortion, check, Same sex marriage, check. Late term abortion, check, attack Catholic institutions like Little Sisters of the Poor, check. Educate children in sexual pervesity, check. It never ends.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Your analysis is based on considering only the present election, as if there would never be another. This is a flaw. There will be other elections. And in each and every election, they will always claim that this is the most critical election ever in the history of man - until the next election, where that election will be the most critical election in the history of man.

As I explained a few posts back, voting for a 3rd party candidate does more than just affect the current election.

Oh, come now! Third parties exist and are doing quite well in many other countries. It is not so fanciful to think that they could exist here.

This year, with such a terrible pair of major party candidates for President, this is the best time to vote for a moral 3rd party candidate.

Not for Catholics, it isn’t. Some systems are designed for multiple parties. Ours is not. The history of third parties in the U.S. is essentially one of failure and futility. And even, historically, when a third party gained power, one of the other two disappeared and we went right back to two parties.

Voting third party is just an exercise in petulance and, in this election, a moral failure.

But I do understand the Democrats’ pushing it in order to help Hillary Clinton get elected and her immoral policies affirmed. Democrats, however, won’t vote third party themselves, because the Dem party guarantees abortion on demand and throwing their vote at some unknown quantity won’t do that.

It worked for Obama. But for those who stayed home in a huff, Obama wouldn’t have been re-elected.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not for Catholics, it isn’t. Some systems are designed for multiple parties. Ours is not.

“Designed for” implies intention. Where in the Constitution is the intentional establishment of a two-party system? No, I think the most you can say is that our system happens to have gravitated to a two-party system by historical accident. It has nothing to do with design.

The history of third parties in the U.S. is essentially one of failure and futility. And even, historically, when a third party gained power, one of the other two disappeared and we went right back to two parties.

That would be OK if the party that replace the defunct one was a better party. We can have two parties - but with two better parties.

Voting third party is just an exercise in petulance and, in this election, a moral failure.

“Moral Failure” would require a violation of Church teaching. You are going to have a hard time proving that voting for a 100% pro-life candidate is in violation of Church teaching!

Democrats, however, won’t vote third party themselves, because the Dem party guarantees abortion on demand and throwing their vote at some unknown quantity won’t do that.

The logic for voting for a 3rd party for the Dems (let’s say Bernie went independent) is just as valid for them as voting for a 3rd party is for Repubs. Perhaps neither side will do it for the reasons you mentioned, and I think they would be wrong in doing so, but that is just my opinion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“Designed for” implies intention. Where in the Constitution is the intentional establishment of a two-party system? No, I think the most you can say is that our system happens to have gravitated to a two-party system by historical accident. It has nothing to do with design.

That would be OK if the party that replace the defunct one was a better party. We can have two parties - but with two better parties.

“Moral Failure” would require a violation of Church teaching. You are going to have a hard time proving that voting for a 100% pro-life candidate is in violation of Church teaching!

The logic for voting for a 3rd party for the Dems (let’s say Bernie went independent) is just as valid for them as voting for a 3rd party is for Repubs. Perhaps neither side will do it for the reasons you mentioned, and I think they would be wrong in doing so, but that is just my opinion.

I do not pretend to be a political science scholar, but American history makes it abundantly obvious that third parties do not thrive in this structure. I can’t say why, for sure, but the way heads of state in parliamentary democracies can be deposed mid-term by coalitions could tend to make coalitions, and thus splinter parties, more effective than in our own system where no combination of parties can oust a president during his term.
The latter makes political “dealing” essentially impossible for splinter parties because they have nothing to contribute in a “winner take all and stay” arrangement like our own.

Whether the writers of the Constitution intended that, I can’t say, but they knew how parliamentary systems worked; their ability to form coalitions that could control the executive branch by threat of removal, and didn’t adopt that system.

 

[Ridgerunner]

"
“Moral Failure” would require a violation of Church teaching. You are going to have a hard time proving that voting for a 100% pro-life candidate is in violation of Church teaching!

If we have a moral obligation to exercise our civic duty to vote, and the Church says we do, then knowingly doing it to no purpose when we know it’s to no purpose, is failing in that duty. It’s like a moral masturbation; feels good but accomplishes nothing of the purpose for which it exists.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Democratic Party has so thoroughly and officially embraced so many positions opposed to Catholic teachings that I had to quit voting for its candidates some time ago. Abortion, check, Same sex marriage, check. Late term abortion, check, attack Catholic institutions like Little Sisters of the Poor, check. Educate children in sexual pervesity, check. It never ends.

It is impossible to simultaneously support today’s Dem party and remain faithful to the teachings of the Church.

That became obvious to me some time ago, which is why I resigned my office in the party and never supported it again.

 

[sallybutler]

If we have a moral obligation to exercise our civic duty to vote, and the Church says we do, then knowingly doing it to no purpose when we know it’s to no purpose, is failing in that duty. It’s like a moral masturbation; feels good but accomplishes nothing of the purpose for which it exists.

A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If we have a moral obligation to exercise our civic duty to vote, and the Church says we do, then knowingly doing it to no purpose when we know it’s to no purpose, is failing in that duty. It’s like a moral masturbation; feels good but accomplishes nothing of the purpose for which it exists.

You stretch the meaning of “knowingly doing it to no purpose”. It is well within the bounds of prudential judgement for me to decide that my vote for a 3rd party candidate has purpose. Any practical student of sociology in the first century would have said that 12 fishermen with no status or higher education could not possibly form a world-wide religion, and anyone who pledges their support to this fledgling group is doing it to no purpose. It is a good thing you were not advising the early converts that their efforts would be wasted.

 

[Crossbones]

It is impossible to simultaneously support today’s Dem party and remain faithful to the teachings of the Church.

That became obvious to me some time ago, which is why I resigned my office in the party and never supported it again.

That is your personal interpretation of Church teaching. I would encourage lurkers and newcomers to read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and the various comments of the bishops instead in determining how to vote.

 

[JimG]

That is your personal interpretation of Church teaching. I would encourage lurkers and newcomers to read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and the various comments of the bishops instead in determining how to vote.

I would say rather that it is an obvious statement of Democratic party positions which are incompatible with Catholic teachings. No Church document is needed for explication.

 

[Crossbones]

I would say rather that it is an obvious statement of Democratic party positions which are incompatible with Catholic teachings. No Church document is needed for explication.

Thank you for your personal interpretation of Church teachings of which you feel you don’t need any Church document to justify. I encourage lurkers and newcomers to read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship as well as reviewing the comments of various bishops when determining how to vote.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You stretch the meaning of “knowingly doing it to no purpose”. It is well within the bounds of prudential judgement for me to decide that my vote for a 3rd party candidate has purpose. Any practical student of sociology in the first century would have said that 12 fishermen with no status or higher education could not possibly form a world-wide religion, and anyone who pledges their support to this fledgling group is doing it to no purpose. It is a good thing you were not advising the early converts that their efforts would be wasted.

Accepting the testimony of Apostles who were guided by the Holy Spirit and performed miracles besides, is in no way comparable to aiding abortion on demand by refusing to vote against it and making a mockery of one’s civic duty by whimsical actions that show disdain for one’s duty.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Thank you for your personal interpretation of Church teachings of which you feel you don’t need any Church document to justify. I encourage lurkers and newcomers to read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship as well as reviewing the comments of various bishops when determining how to vote.

My goodness! Quotes from bishops, and including the “forming consciences” document make it entirely plain that it is not his “personal interpretation”, but the actual teaching of the Church.

What is “personal interpretation”, and more than that, is encouraging Catholics to reject those very teachings and adopt a relativistic view of morality just to get people to vote for Hillary Clinton and abortion on demand.

We have seen a lot of that and will undoubtedly see a lot more of it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Accepting the testimony of Apostles who were guided by the Holy Spirit and performed miracles besides, is in no way comparable to aiding abortion on demand by refusing to vote against it and making a mockery of one’s civic duty by whimsical actions that show disdain for one’s duty.

It is just your pessimistic prudential judgement that says 3rd party votes are whimsical. Please don’t try to elevate them to the level of Catholic doctrine.