P
ProVobis
Guest
Perhaps to keep it in line with the 14th Amendment but it doesn’t make sense to run on a protection of life platform while giving approval to kill fetuses. None whatsoever.
- Status
H
Hatikvah
Guest
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Therefore…the libertarians are not really running on a “protection of life platform”, are they?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
In reality, no one is.
The GOP platform just like the Domocratic Platform, is meaningless rhetoric to garner votes for their nominee.
Once in office, they never look back at the platform promises.
Jim
D
dshix
Guest
Ok. I can go along with that. But I can’t go along with this concept of actually spending your **vote **on a third party candidate.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
I can’t go against my conscience by voting for either of the two morally corrupt candidates of the two major parties.
Jim
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
So you believe nothing much will change on the issue of abortion no matter who is elected? Is that correct? Then why are Planned Parenthood Action Fund, EMILY’s List etc. getting so actively involved in politics and spending money to support, I think it’s fair to say, mostly Democratic candidates, if nothing is going to change on the issue of abortion no matter who is elected? Why aren’t they staying politically neutral and saving money? Why is Planned Parenthood Action Fund spending money to help try and elect Hillary Clinton? I don’t think abortion rights organisations believe nothing will change on the issue of abortion no matter who is elected either as president, in Congress or in the states and I think their advocating and their campaigning etc. reveal that.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I suppose it is impossible that these groups had something else on their mind besides abortion? Just because some people are single-issue voters does not mean these groups are single-issue donors and campaigners.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
_Abyssinia;
They could never write a law that would make it through congress, especially a ban on abortions before viability. Just isn’t going to happen, especially after the SCOTUS just made a ruling which sent a message to politicians, that Roe V Wade is established law which can not be overturned.
They also don’t want laws banning late term abortions, but they’ve lost on partial birth abortion, because after viability, most politicians want restrictions on abortions.
Late term abortions where a baby can survive outside the womb, most people and politicians oppose them, except where the life of the mother is in danger. But this is rare, if ever happens in modern medicine.
Jim
Not believe but know, no politician will make all abortions illegal.
They could never write a law that would make it through congress, especially a ban on abortions before viability. Just isn’t going to happen, especially after the SCOTUS just made a ruling which sent a message to politicians, that Roe V Wade is established law which can not be overturned.
Of course they support politicians who promise to vote for funding of such organizations, and funding is important for them.
See above.
See above.
They know nothing will change with first trimester abortions. They’re looking for funding, first and foremost.
They also don’t want laws banning late term abortions, but they’ve lost on partial birth abortion, because after viability, most politicians want restrictions on abortions.
Late term abortions where a baby can survive outside the womb, most people and politicians oppose them, except where the life of the mother is in danger. But this is rare, if ever happens in modern medicine.
Jim
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
It’s probably not their only issue of concern, but it’s probably their predominant concern and issue, especially considering all the money Planned Parenthood makes from abortion… if more restrictions comes into effect, that could hurt them financially, so obviously they want politicians in place who will work to protect what makes Planned Parenthood money. Also, I suspect if you check out Planned Parenthood Action Fund etc. material that they are using for campaigns, I bet the issue of abortion will be the most featured issue, although the word “abortion” probably won’t be heard or seen.
H
Hatikvah
Guest
No, no, you mean “a woman’s right to choose (whether or not to kill someone)”.
C
CarolNoel
Guest
No Thanks. Met him when he was running for Gov. of New Mexico. Had a long one on one conversation with him along with my hubby. Not impressed then and still not now.
A
AnastasiaRomano
Guest
THIS. Whoever is elected in November, I will live with that candidate as my president for a maximum of 8 years. I must live with my conscience for far longer.
I do not totally agree with Gary Johnson, but I think he’s the only candidate acting like an adult and has some reasonable positions. My conscience won’t allow me to vote for either Hillary (lies upon lies upon lies) or Trump (insults upon lies upon insults).
blog.acton.org/archives/88308-rethinking-wasted-votes-and-third-party-candidates.html (“When it comes to something as important as a presidential election, most Americans don’t want to vote for a candidate who will very likely lose. But pragmatic considerations have no place in the voting booth, for two reasons. First, one person’s vote almost certainly won’t impact a presidential election. Second, voting for someone we consider the “lesser of two evils” loses sight of the value of the voting process. We should, instead, vote for whomever we think is best for the office, regardless of his or her likelihood of winning.”)
A major showing by the Libertarian Party, even though Johnson almost certainly won’t win the election, would be good in several ways. 1) It would be a major step toward proving that third-party candidates could be viable. This is good for all sorts of minor parties and I think it would be very good for our political system. 2) I read that the Libertarian Party would be eligible for public funding (like the GOP and Democrats) if it receives above a certain percentage in November. This would strengthen the LP and, again, encourage all kinds of minor parties, and I think it would be a big step toward ending the two-party monopoly in American national politics.
Finally, from a constitutional perspective all that needs to happen for Johnson to win the election is for no one to receive at least 270 electoral college votes. If no one gets an electoral college majority, the election goes to the House of Representatives… Not that I think that will happen, but constitutionally it’s possible.
D
dshix
Guest
This is the issue. One of those two “morally corrupt candidates” is going to be president of the United States. Barring an assassination.
You have the opportunity to influence the balance. So the question is: Do you really believe that the moral problems which Trump and Hillary are on such even ground that they are essentially identical candidates? If you do believe this, then this is where we must disagree, especially since there is so much evidence which shows Hillary’s behavior, and relatively less that shows Trump’s.
As Dinesh D’Sousa said: “I fear Trump because I do not know what he will do; I fear Hillary because I know exactly what she will do.”
I’m not advocating for the lesser of two evils here. I have seen Trump hold certain positions which I do find favorable, and I certainly trust him over Hillary to nominate Supreme Court justices who will not completely support the liberal progressive agenda.
Yes, there are problems with Trump. But in a time like this, we have no time to pay attention to his problems. The more voters decide not to vote for him because their conscience doesn’t allow them, the more likely we’ll come to see the utter destruction of the American Way.
One more observation regarding conscience: I can say conclusively that it is not immoral to vote for a candidate who has moral issues, provided the circumstances are such that there is good reason for voting for that candidate. So you, by voting third party to vindicate your conscience, are not actually doing so for a moral reason, but in order to “make a point”.
I pray that few people in this nation feel the need to “make a point” with their vote.
D
dshix
Guest
What is the conscience?
The conscience is the spiritual function which we humans have which enables us to feel guilt or joy at the morality or immorality of our own actions.
The effects of the conscience often manifest as emotions, but those emotions themselves are not the conscience. The conscience, on a high level, is really a function of the intellect, which uses the information which that person has to make judgements whether an action is good or evil.
So, your post gives me the impression that it would be evil (that is, a sin) to vote for either Trump or Hillary.
I can agree that it would be a sin to vote for Hillary, considering that she is clearly on the wrong side of many Catholic “non-negotiables”.
But I fail to understand your reasoning for how it is sinful to vote for Trump. Yes, he often says things that are offensive, but a vote for him doesn’t say “I love and support everything this person says.” A vote only says “I want this person to be president.”
I absolutely understand your reservations, but those reservations are not serious enough to make it actually sinful to vote for Trump.
As I mentioned in my previous post: I sense in great part that people want to make a point or statement with their vote. I don’t think this is prudent.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This is an example of circular reasoning. At first you posted:
So you believe nothing much will change on the issue of abortion no matter who is elected? Is that correct? Then why are Planned Parenthood Action Fund, EMILY’s List etc. getting so actively involved in politics and spending money to support, I think it’s fair to say, mostly Democratic candidates, if nothing is going to change on the issue of abortion no matter who is elected?..
So you were using the fact that PP, etc. donate to Clinton to prove that Clinton is likely to affect abortion policy in their favor. Of course that assumes that abortion policy is the only possible driver for such donations, and that they couldn’t be donating to, …I don’t know…, keep Trump out of that office? When challenged on that assumption, you now say:
…if more restrictions comes into effect, that could hurt them financially, so obviously they want politicians in place who will work to protect what makes Planned Parenthood money.
So, you are using the fact that Clinton will affect abortion policy in their favor to prove that abortion policy is a main driver for their donations.
So let’s recap: Abortion policy being the main driver for PP donations proves that Clinton will affect abortion policy in their favor, and Clinton affecting abortion policy in their favor proves that abortion policy is their main driver. In other words, A proves B, and B proves A. That is circular reasoning.
D
dshix
Guest
It looks to me like the way you restated Abyssinia’s posts actually changed their meaning, making it look like they were circular reasoning when, in fact, they were not. The two posts you quoted were really just saying the same thing, from different angles; they didn’t attempt to “prove” each other.
Here’s what I think is an accurate summary to represent Abyssinia’s point:
Premise 1: Planned Parenthood is a major provider of abortions and makes a great deal of money selling them.
Premise 2: Planned Parenthood predominantly donates to Democratic candidates, and especially Hillary Clinton.
Premise 3: When organizations donate to a candidate, it means they hope or know that that candidate will support increased legislation to favor said organizations.
Conclusion: Hillary Clinton is likely to support legal changes which will increase/favor abortion.
__
The same argument works in the inverse for Trump. Has PP donated any money to him during this election? And if they have, is it at all comparable to Hillary?
If not, it means that PP has less or no hope/knowledge that Trump will support legal changes which will increase/favor abortion.
G
gracepoole
Guest
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
None of the candidates are the answer for pro-lifers, who seek to end all abortions.
None of the candidates will have the ability and political power do to that.
Johnson on the other hand, as being personally pro-life, has a good understanding of the political reality when it comes to abortion and he knows, it can not be banned 100%.
So, you go where you can, i.e. ban on BBA, not use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, etc.
Lastly, his position on war, is that he would never have gotten us into the war in Iraq and certainly won’t be sending more troops over there to die for a thankless cause.
Jim
D
dshix
Guest
Do you have an answer to my posts?
- Status