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.
gnjsdad said:
The problem is that the culture has been polluted to such an extent, that these intrinsic evils have been accepted as positive goods by large numbers of people who vote. Therefore, our politics is necessarily corrupted by these cultural influences. Those who hope for a remedy - a society with a more pronounced Catholic influence -from politics are bound to have their hopes dashed.
Click to expand...
*Funny, last year I voted for the lesser of two evils and my hopes were not dashed and I did not vote for President Obama. It was not until I read this post that I finally realized why. I do not put my hope in the candidates. I put it in God.Boy I am really begining to see more and more clearly how and why Blessed John Paul II said, “Do not be afraid.” *
 
scipio337 said:
I know MA is pretty solidly in the Obama W column, but I appreciate your stand.
Click to expand...
I think Romney might have won in MA. but it would’ve been close. However, with his choice of
Ryan as his running mate, the atmosphere here is now anti-Romney/Ryan.

Jim
 
simple_soul said:
So who will you be voting for? I am serious about this question…is there another candidate running in this election who is of an even lesser evil?
Click to expand...
I really don’t know. I may write in some one, or just leave it blank.

Jim
 
YKohen said:
Either way, not voting is a vote for the other side. Surely, one side is preferable- even if it isn’t perfect. Right?
Click to expand...
Candidates win elections by “getting,” votes, not by people abstaining from voting for either side.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I really don’t know. I may write in some one, or just leave it blank.
Jim
Click to expand...
*ok, how does one write some one in and how do I know if who I write in is even allowed to be written in? I have heard things that if you do not fill out a ballot correctly it will just not get counted at all and so anyone whom I voted for even though they may have been on the ballot are not counted. Do you know anything about what the proper protocol is for filling a ballot out and who you can or can not write in?

Sorry to pester you with these questions I hope you do not mind me asking you them.*
 
simple_soul said:
*ok, how does one write some one in and how do I know if who I write in is even allowed to be written in? I have heard things that if you do not fill out a ballot correctly it will just not get counted at all and so anyone whom I voted for even though they may have been on the ballot are not counted. Do you know anything about what the proper protocol is for filling a ballot out and who you can or can not write in?

Sorry to pester you with these questions I hope you do not mind me asking you them.*
Click to expand...
Well I can only speak for Massachusetts, for that’s the only place I’ve ever voted.

You can write in anyone’s name, including your own.

Jim
 
JimG said:
Exactly right. Medicare and Social Security already are unsustainable. I simply don’t understand how anyone can say “Don’t change anything!” and just be happy to continue along the road to bankruptcy. It’s insanity, and it leads to chaos.
Click to expand...
The chief actuary for Medicare says Medicare will run out of money in 2026 and that will be the end of it. Nobody will be affected by the Ryan plan until 2022, at which time Medicare will be partially subsidized and partially self-funded; the difference being that the poor will receive subsidies or regular Medicare. The wealthy will have a choice between ordinary Medicare with greater co-pays or a 402K type self-funding. In other words, there will be “means testing” to it. Not cushy for the wealthy, who will be expected to contribute according to their incomes, but at least Medicare will still be there and the poor will not lose it.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Well I can only speak for Massachusetts, for that’s the only place I’ve ever voted.

You can write in anyone’s name, including your own.

Jim
Click to expand...
How would that help the mess we find ourselves in today?
 
jwinch2 said:
Catholic social teaching on a preferential option for the poor and the principle of solidarity must be viewed in light of the principle of subsidiarity which states that things are to be handled at the lowest level possible. Helping the poor is not a suicide pact. If we take the economy off a cliff, like is happening in Europe with the socialist democracy experiment, everyone will suffer, and the poor in America, who would be well off in many countries with their standard of living, will suffer greatly and be much worse off then they are now.

The poor are not being helped by such an economy, and things are not getting better anytime soon unless we dramatically change the way we are doing things.
Click to expand...
Preferential option for the poor assumes that the poor are actually the objects of societal bounty. At present, they aren’t. Obamanomics is strictly about middle class subsidies. Remember “cash for clunkers”? Remember how Nancy Pelosi, Melinda Gates and every rich girl whose parents can afford Harvard are going to get totally free contraceptive and abortifacients? Remember how high earners at GM got their lavish pension plans saved by taxpayers while the non-union workers at Delphi didn’t? All middle class…every bit of it.
That’s not following a preferential option for the poor.

It also needs to be remembered that Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas emphasized the distributive obligations of persons with income and assets. One is most obliged to aid those who have the greatest claims on his/her benevolence. Spouse, children, actual neighbor, parish, community. All of those come before distribution to the wider society. Liberals turn it backwards. The greatest obligation is to the state, according to their formulation, which then distributes it to persons the initial earner doesn’t even know. That’s one of the reasons birth rates in the west are so low. The liberal state does not allow people to retain sufficient resources to benefit those who have the greatest claims.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Preferential option for the poor assumes that the poor are actually the objects of societal bounty. At present, they aren’t. Obamanomics is strictly about middle class subsidies. Remember “cash for clunkers”? Remember how Nancy Pelosi, Melinda Gates and every rich girl whose parents can afford Harvard are going to get totally free contraceptive and abortifacients? Remember how high earners at GM got their lavish pension plans saved by taxpayers while the non-union workers at Delphi didn’t? All middle class…every bit of it.
That’s not following a preferential option for the poor.

It also needs to be remembered that Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas emphasized the distributive obligations of persons with income and assets. One is most obliged to aid those who have the greatest claims on his/her benevolence. Spouse, children, actual neighbor, parish, community. All of those come before distribution to the wider society. Liberals turn it backwards. The greatest obligation is to the state, according to their formulation, which then distributes it to persons the initial earner doesn’t even know. That’s one of the reasons birth rates in the west are so low. The liberal state does not allow people to retain sufficient resources to benefit those who have the greatest claims.
Click to expand...
Exactly right.👍
 
irishpatrick said:
IMO, the topic contains a ridiculous premise.

**We always vote for the lesser of two evils. Always! **
Click to expand...
Very true. I think though that the point is that we do not have to vote for the least of all evils, if more than two people are running. We can chose to vote for the lesser of the two main parties by factoring in their electability. Some here take the opinion that it is in fact an obligation to do so. Of course, another person’s opinion only creates an obligation for himself.

BTW - Hats off to the moderator for allowing this exception to the rules. It seems a very well reasoned move.
 
We used to be a society built on self-reliance, though the Democratic Party seems to have forgotten that. I trust Catholic Charities to aid the poor and downtrodden more than the federal government. Catholic schools, for instance, produce a better product than public schools for much less money per pupil. The same principle surely holds true for social services.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
How will voting for either candidate help?

Jim
Click to expand...
  • Jim,
    I have already explained on a couple of threads how and what I believe in, as far as I can understand it, as to how I believe they are trying to make things better and hope to make things better. Since you are advocating voting for someone else I really thought maybe you had some in-site you might be willing to share with me so that I could become more learned with what I already understand. I asked an honest question if you can not answer it or do not want to answer it that is ok too … I apologize if I was not asking it the right way or something…but I am getting from your response that you are playing with me and I do not want to play.
God bless and I hope and pray God helps you figure out who to vote for…
*
 
the least of all evils,
Click to expand...
I think this goes back to Primum minima de malis (“Of evils choose the least”) - Cicero in his* De Officiis*, (’‘On Duties’) whose moral code influenced some of the early fathers of the Church.
 
ProVobis said:
I think this goes back to Primum minima de malis (“Of evils choose the least”) - Cicero in his* De Officiis*, (’‘On Duties’) whose moral code influenced some of the early fathers of the Church.
Click to expand...
What he said! ;👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top