Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gilliam said:
It doesn’t work that way. You are simply allowing others to chose for you.
Click to expand...
If it’s a choice between Hitler and Stalin, there is no choice.

Yes, others will make the choice, but they’ll live with the consequences of their choice.

I won’t have it on my conscience.

Jim
 
Not voting equals to helping the current evil to continue. There is simply no perfect candidate. If you wait for perfect candidate to come up, you will never vote.
 
InLight247 said:
Not voting equals to helping the current evil to continue. There is simply no perfect candidate. If you wait for perfect candidate to come up, you will never vote.
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between not voting, and not choosing between the two candidates.

One of the two are going to be elected regardless of my non-vote.

I plan to vote, because we also have a congressional seat to vote on, and I’m convinced of who I’m choosing there.

I’ll write in something as a show of none of the above for president.

No way am I voting for Obama, and no way am I voting for Romney/Ryan.

Jim
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
No! The lesser of two evils supposes that one man’s policies are more evil or less evil than the other’s. The phrase doesn’t make sense if the policies are equal in evil.
Click to expand...
That describes every election. 😃 There has never been a perfect politician.
 
InLight247 said:
Not voting equals to helping the current evil to continue.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that follows. They had and have voting in communist countries. Are people living under such a terrible form of government obliged to vote because if not it allows evil to continue? In my opinion Republican vs. Democrat is no better than communist A vs communist B.

Obama has mostly continued the terrible things Bush II did and betrayed his election promises. Other than the terrible new health care plan nothing has changed since Bush. So I’m not sure why I should vote for either a proven extension of Bush or a guy from the same party as Bush who merely wants to roll back to the terribleness of Bush especially when the very thing he wants to get rid of he instituted as governor. Since the Republican party has never once actually gotten rid of a government department or assumed power, or significantly shrunk government I’m not sure why I’d think they would suddenly actually do what they promise.
 
InLight247 said:
Not voting equals to helping the current evil to continue.
Click to expand...
No, by this time, voting equals helping the current evil to continue.

A little personal history if I may…

In 1980, I voted for Reagan because he told us that by voting for him, we’d be voting to end legal abortion.

In 1984, I voted for Reagan because he told us that by voting for him, we’d be voting to end legal abortion.

In 1988, I voted for Bush 41 because he told us that by voting for him, we’d be voting to end legal abortion.

In 1992, I voted for Bush 41 because he told us that by voting for him, we’d be voting to end legal abortion.

In 1996, I voted for Bob Dole because he told us that by voting for him, we’d be voting to end legal abortion

In 2000, I voted for Bush 43 because he told us that by voting for him, we’d be voting to end legal abortion.

In 2004, I voted for Bush 43 reluctantly, ONLY because he told us that by voting for him, we’d be voting to end legal abortion

In 2008, I voted 3rd party

I consider my life up to now a testimony to the effectiveness of “voting pro-life”.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Who says there are only 2 options? That is lie. Sure, you’ll get the “you’re throwing away your vote” crowd getting mad at you. But voting for either of the “two parties” ensures that we perpetuate the failed system that we’ve had that gave birth to disastrous presidencies, and the invasive gestapo, anti-Catholic government we have today. The problem with U.S. government is not the D or R occupant per se. It is systemic. We embolden collusion among the “two parties” by accepting the idea that it has to be either one or the other guy. The D & R false dichotomy should be destroyed. Assuming that our votes actually count…
Click to expand...
👍

Thank you for expressing how I feel…
 
gnjsdad said:
In 1980, I voted for Reagan because he told us that by voting for him, we’d be voting to end legal abortion…
Click to expand...
You are like me but with a few more years of voting. I think of the saying: ‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me’. The Republican voter is the most optimistic ever since the evidence is overwhelmingly against what he hopes for. He also seems to ignore that the Supreme Court under Bush had 7 of 9 justices who were Republican. That is well beyond a majority and is still a majority Republican court right now. Despite this abortion is still very legal and now so is Obamacare and its imposition upon the Catholic church and others who rightly refuse to provide abortifacients to employees. I’m really baffled that people think electing Republicans will end abortion or get rid of Obamacare when we have actual evidence to the contrary. There are plenty of more fruitful things to do to cause change than to vote and these activities have actual success stories.
 
Those who are anti-life and anti-family manifest this darkening of conscience, a darkening which makes their other political decisions inherently untrustworthy. No Catholic can reasonable say “this candidate is anti-life and anti-family, but his social policies are in keeping with Catholic principles.” Catholics should look carefully to discover what in his policy views manifests the same will to power over others manifested by his anti-life principles. More than one tyrant in history has used panem et circenses (bread and circuses) to mollify the masses. The mere appearance of social justice is not the same as social justice, which can only occur when everything in society is properly ordered, beginning with the most basic realities - life and the family.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm
 
To overturn Roe v. Wade is not in the hands of the President. While abortion is not ended under Republican Presidents, no one can deny Obama is the number one president of promoting abortion.

Not only abortion, Obama is also for gay marriage and socialist medicine of rationing seniors – deny seniors’ treatment due to limited medical resources. The evils under Obama are multiple and numerous.

In this sense, if we don’t vote for Romney, it is helping the extreme evil to continue. Paul Ryan is very against senior ration, he has 100% pro-life record, he has a plan of balancing the budget. Though Ryan’s budget plan is not perfect, you have to admire him spending the time and efforts to come up with a plan. Who else has a plan of balancing budget? And do you know how hard that work is? Obama has zero plan of budget balance. Paul Ryan spent unimaginable time, energy, thoughts and wisdom to come up a plan no one else can or even be willing to try.

If you weigh all the above on a scale, the choice is obvious.
 
InLight247 said:
Paul Ryan is very against senior ration, he has 100% pro-life record, he has a plan of balancing the budget.~~~ Paul Ryan spent unimaginable time, energy, thoughts and wisdom to come up a plan no one else can or even be willing to try.
Click to expand...
Ryan isn’t the presidential candidate. It hardly matters what he proposes. Romney is holding his leash, and will give Ryan only the slack Romney wants him to have.
 
Romney is not for senior ration either. He is going to re-appeal Obamacare.
 
exnihilo said:
You are like me but with a few more years of voting. I think of the saying: ‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me’. The Republican voter is the most optimistic ever since the evidence is overwhelmingly against what he hopes for. He also seems to ignore that the Supreme Court under Bush had 7 of 9 justices who were Republican. That is well beyond a majority and is still a majority Republican court right now. Despite this abortion is still very legal and now so is Obamacare and its imposition upon the Catholic church and others who rightly refuse to provide abortifacients to employees. I’m really baffled that people think electing Republicans will end abortion or get rid of Obamacare when we have actual evidence to the contrary. There are plenty of more fruitful things to do to cause change than to vote and these activities have actual success stories.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. As long as they can keep it in play as a campaign topic and gain politically, neither party will end abortions altogether in the U.S.
 
ProVobis said:
Absolutely. As long as they can keep it in play as a campaign topic and gain politically, neither party will end abortions altogether in the U.S.
Click to expand...
I think that is somewhat unfair. We have seen many states making encouraging strides towards curtailing Abortion to the point that they are allowed legally. Mississippi is down to one abortion provider in the state due to increased requirements which they cannot meet and many states have introduced and passed ultrasound laws which seem to be having a positive affect. We have to recognize that there is a limited amount that people can do in the face of a supreme court ruling. Until we can attack it from that angle, a constitutional amendment, or another means, there isn’t going to be as much that can be done.
 
jwinch2 said:
I think that is somewhat unfair. We have seen many states making encouraging strides towards curtailing Abortion to the point that they are allowed legally. Mississippi is down to one abortion provider in the state due to increased requirements which they cannot meet and many states have introduced and passed ultrasound laws which seem to be having a positive affect. We have to recognize that there is a limited amount that people can do in the face of a supreme court ruling. Until we can attack it from that angle, a constitutional amendment, or another means, there isn’t going to be as much that can be done.
Click to expand...
The matter should be resolved by each state, I would agree. But the U.S. Supreme Court has seemed to love its own power since 1973. I can’t picture them just letting the states decide on anything any more, including how to count their own votes.
 
ProVobis said:
But the U.S. Supreme Court has seemed to love its own power since 1973.
Click to expand...
There is plenty of stuff to assign blame to them over, and the Democrats certainly deserve much for their constant push to increase abortions in America, but there is a limited amount of pushing a pro-life politician can do in the face of a supreme court ruling. At best, they are limited to nibbling around the edges at worst, they are limited to next to nothing.
 
jwinch2 said:
There is plenty of stuff to assign blame to them over, and the Democrats certainly deserve much for their constant push to increase abortions in America, but there is a limited amount of pushing a pro-life politician can do in the face of a supreme court ruling. At best, they are limited to nibbling around the edges at worst, they are limited to next to nothing.
Click to expand...
Intuitively that would seem to be a solution but it’s like everything else in politics. One side comes up winning on anything and it only energizes the other side. Our government was actually designed to run on checks and balances, but who could have stopped the Supreme Court from ruling on Roe vs Wade when clearly they stepped on the 10th Amendment? Congress never passed the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top