H
- Status
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Please cite where Trump walked back conservative judges. He has added one more to the list, at the request of the senator from Texas, that is quite conservative.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Don’t think people who plan to vote for Trump are not concerned with being on the winning side, but rather concerned with beating a candidate who is pro-abortion at any stage of gestation, and has lied for years about things important and not at all important. I still say, unfortunately we are going to get either Hillary or Trump. All a third party vote does at this time is make one feel good. Is that excuse enough to perhaps elect whichever of the two candidates you like least?
I have said ad nauseum that third party candidates should start at local offices and move up from there. It takes a strong and large party to elect someone to the presidency.
L
LightBound
Guest
Wonder if all the Catholics who either didn’t vote in 2012 or voted for some 3rd party candidate who couldn’t win were pleased with their help in getting BHO re-elected? Go ahead and not vote this time or pick someone who doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning and then see what 4 years of HRC will get you. Glad your conscience is “clear” in doing so while the country speeds towards destruction at light speed because you couldn’t help make a difference
S
Sugabee43
Guest
Here’s an interesting article, Mary: washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/09/24/donald-trumps-expanded-supreme-court-list-changes-nothing/?utm_term=.cbb398977b59
Also, Hoosier, no, marital infidelity isn’t my ONLY issue; although for me it speaks to his overall character. If you repeatedly cheat on your wife, say out loud in public that if your daughter weren’t your daughter, you’d “date” her, falsely accuse people repeatedly of being in on a presidential assassination, and disparage someone because they once had depression issues - that’s a problem for me.
If he’s more than willing to say all of those things for attention/to be elected, then what in the world is he willing to say or do to get what he wants once he has virtually unlimited power?
Also, Hoosier, no, marital infidelity isn’t my ONLY issue; although for me it speaks to his overall character. If you repeatedly cheat on your wife, say out loud in public that if your daughter weren’t your daughter, you’d “date” her, falsely accuse people repeatedly of being in on a presidential assassination, and disparage someone because they once had depression issues - that’s a problem for me.
If he’s more than willing to say all of those things for attention/to be elected, then what in the world is he willing to say or do to get what he wants once he has virtually unlimited power?
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Is your vitriol for trump equal with other candidates? Is your condemnation balanced with the bodies of unborn children Hillary supports?
Are you aware that the son of the man who was accused of the assassination has said he will support trump.
I’m still waiting for the name of this candidate that someone can vote for in good conscience…
All I’m hearing is who people won’t vote for…
Are you abstaining?
D
Della
Guest
While voting 3rd party candidates (for whatever reasons) might make one feel good, it’s of no practical value under our election system. That’s just how it is. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate and the person you least wanted to win the election does so, all you’ve done is help that person get elected. That, again, is simply how it works. No 3rd party candidate is going to win the electoral college’s votes. None of them, good, bad, or indifferent.
Z
Zabdi_Premjit
Guest
No, he is not saying that you should not vote, but he is saying your vote is wasted if the person you vote for has no viable chance of winning.
To show how his logic works out in real life:
- Do you live somewhere where only a Republican or Democrat can win? Well, you must vote Republican or Democrat!
- Do you live somewhere where only a Republican can win? Well, you must vote Republican!
- Do you live somewhere where only a Democrat can win? Well, you must vote Democrat!
- Do you live in Communist Poland where only the atheistic, anti-Catholic Communist Party can win? Well, you must vote Communist!
Okay, I am being mildly facetious, but really…people can vote for whomever, regardless of viable or not. There are different ways to approach the election process. Some are pragmatic. Some want to send a message. Both can make a case for their approach.
S
Sugabee43
Guest
Yes, actually my vitriol is. Clinton is equally unappealing to me; as is Johnson and Stein.Is your vitriol for trump equal with other candidates? Is your condemnation balanced with the bodies of unborn children Hillary supports?
Are you aware that the son of the man who was accused of the assassination has said he will support trump.
I’m still waiting for the name of this candidate that someone can vote for in good conscience…
All I’m hearing is who people won’t vote for…
Are you abstaining?
No, I’m not abstaining. I’m either writing in a candidate who best fits my well-formed conscience (possibly McMullin or Darrell Castle), or voting down-ballot.
Yes, I’m aware that Sen. Cruz has chosen to vote for Trump; that’s on him and between HIS conscience (which he clearly encouraged people to vote with) and God. I held my nose and voted for McCain, Bush (the second time), and Romney. I will not hold my nose again.
S
Sugabee43
Guest
For me, that doesn’t matter. I will NOT succumb to voting for the lesser of two evils - which in this case, really IS two evils. I will vote MY vote and MY conscience and if that is in the minority, so be it.
C
CradleJourney
Guest
I respectfully disagree. A 3rd party candidate will not win this election. However, if one is in a decidedly red or a decidedly blue state and does not like the presumptive winner of their state, then voting for a 3rd party candidate does help shift the system because it can help that party continue to secure a spot on future ballots, a significant (though small) percentage shift can alert the two major parties that a state may be “in play” in future elections and they make start to consider that state and it’s voters in future elections rather than taking for granted that state is going to definitely go one way.
The better a 3rd party candidate does when adding up these votes nationwide from all these states where the person’s vote wouldn’t count anyway because it goes against the vast majority of their state’s choice - the more encouragement there will be towards future 3rd party candidates and/or major party candidates who embrace some elements of the platform of that 3rd party candidate. The more chance funding will be directed towards those candidates in the future.
If you know your state is going to go 75+% one way or the other - why NOT vote for the candidate you deem closest to your views even if they are a 3rd party?
D
Della
Guest
I can’t speak for whoever’s positions you have cited or if you have cited them correctly, but no, one need not vote for the party one thinks will win in one’s state. In fact, it’s just the opposite.No, he is not saying that you should not vote, but he is saying your vote is wasted if the person you vote for has no viable chance of winning.
To show how his logic works out in real life:
Got it? Voting any other way is wasted. Do the right thing. Don’t vote on conscience or opinion or conviction or whatever. No one cares, and it is just a waste of a vote. Who have the masses chosen as viable candidates? Choose one of those candidates!
- Do you live somewhere where only a Republican or Democrat can win? Well, you must vote Republican or Democrat!
- Do you live somewhere where only a Republican can win? Well, you must vote Republican!
- Do you live somewhere where only a Democrat can win? Well, you must vote Democrat!
- Do you live in Communist Poland where only the atheistic, anti-Catholic Communist Party can win? Well, you must vote Communist!
Okay, I am being mildly facetious, but really…people can vote for whomever, regardless of viable or not. There are different ways to approach the election process. Some are pragmatic. Some want to send a message. Both can make a case for their approach.
What we who say, rightly, that voting 3rd party is a wasted vote are saying, is that Catholics should vote for the candidate who most closely matches Church teachings who has a viable chance of winning–if we wish to our vote be effective. That may be a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent, 3rd party or whatever if s/he has a viable chance of winning. It all depends on the candidate’s stance on non-negotiable issues, such as protecting the unborn, etc. But the question is–is voting for a candidate who cannot possibly win really the best way to vote? We say no it isn’t.
We are to vote according to a well-formed conscience as the directives given to us by the USCCB says. One can certainly vote for “whomever, viable or not.” We are all free to do so, and no one is saying they can’t. What we are saying is, under our system of electing candidates, not voting for a viable candidate that comes closest to the Church’s teachings is wasting one’s vote because it either robs a viable candidate that comes closest to Church teachings of a vote; and/or such a vote helps get the candidate least in line with Church teachings elected. That’s it, plain and simple.
P
pensmama87
Guest
Conveniently, even in swing states your vote for president will have very little impact on the outcome of the election. Media hypes it because it applies to every American and so they can do more with less material. But you’re just one person - a drop in the ocean. For me at least, I think that’s freeing - I can vote for whomever I want and not worry about impact. Because I’m not making any.
Really, where your vote matters most is in the local races, and these are people who get voted in despite very few people knowing who they are and what they stand for, who get a lot of say about what happens where you live. In looking at past data, at least where I live, the margins can be razor thin. And these are people who get to decide if an abortion clinic gets built or what gets taught in the schools or howthe law is read (in states that elect judges.)
My :twocents: : know who those people are and make an impact where you can, and don’t despair or worry about what you can’t control.
Really, where your vote matters most is in the local races, and these are people who get voted in despite very few people knowing who they are and what they stand for, who get a lot of say about what happens where you live. In looking at past data, at least where I live, the margins can be razor thin. And these are people who get to decide if an abortion clinic gets built or what gets taught in the schools or howthe law is read (in states that elect judges.)
My :twocents: : know who those people are and make an impact where you can, and don’t despair or worry about what you can’t control.
D
Della
Guest
The shift you want isn’t going to help win the election for the person you most want voted into office. That’s it–it’s that simple. We are voting for the next leader of the free world here, not for some local candidate whose election matters little in the grand scheme of things. Your idea about a shift in direction might work on the local level, but it’s not going to do anything but rob votes from a candidate on the national level. The Electoral College elects the POTUS based on popular votes, but not necessarily on that criteria only.
I live in a blue state, myself. I expect my state will go to the blue candidate, but I’m still voting for the red candidate because that will make more of a difference in this most important election than wasting my vote on a 3rd party candidate.
As another poster stated, and quite wisely IMHO, is that such 3rd party people should join one of the major parties and work from within to help shift that party more towards their positions. That’s how it works–whether we like it or not. We need to be realistic here, not hope for something that is simply not going to happen.
For the simple reason that such a vote is wasted in the reality of how we elect candidates in this country. It’s just that simple.
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
I view certain issues through the lens of history. Things like abortion, fetal stem cell research, and the push to redefine the culture’s view of marriage and morality are akin to exactly what the Nazis did. Abortion is as grave, evil, and impermissible as what was done to homosexuals, Jews, and Catholics in WW2, only one could say abortion is a greater evil in terms of the sheer number of deaths.
For me, the buck stops there. No candidate is perfect, and while I have strong opinions on foreign relations, the tax code, social security, tort reform, healthcare, and a host of other issues, if I can’t get past the social issues mentioned, I can go no further. As such, I will always take my chances with a candidate who gives me a chance at stemming the evil over a candidate who has made her life’s work into promoting it and cheering for it.
I am not a third-party guy myself, but I can see that if one simply sees no chance at hope in either candidate. I can see taking a chance with Trump.
I can’t see justifying voting for a woman who wants actively promotes a modern day holocaust, takes pride in doing so, and has told citizens they’ll need to “change their religious beliefs,” which is ironic to even type on a website devoted to promoting our religious beliefs.
For me, the buck stops there. No candidate is perfect, and while I have strong opinions on foreign relations, the tax code, social security, tort reform, healthcare, and a host of other issues, if I can’t get past the social issues mentioned, I can go no further. As such, I will always take my chances with a candidate who gives me a chance at stemming the evil over a candidate who has made her life’s work into promoting it and cheering for it.
I am not a third-party guy myself, but I can see that if one simply sees no chance at hope in either candidate. I can see taking a chance with Trump.
I can’t see justifying voting for a woman who wants actively promotes a modern day holocaust, takes pride in doing so, and has told citizens they’ll need to “change their religious beliefs,” which is ironic to even type on a website devoted to promoting our religious beliefs.
Z
Zabdi_Premjit
Guest
My point was that in places with strong partisan leanings, there is only one viable candidate, and even voting for the other major party is as non-practical as voting for a third party. Therefore, if you believe it is best to vote for “a viable candidate that comes closest to the Church’s teachings”…and there is only one viable candidate…then logically you should vote for that one candidate. The result would be that, if you live in a very liberal area in which only a rabidly pro-abortion Democrat can win, you’d have to vote for her, as she is the only viable candidate and therefore, by default, she is also the “viable candidate that comes closest to the Church’s teachings.”
My point was that while there is an argument for only voting for viable candidates, there are also arguments for voting without regard for viability. Also, as I think is clear from my first paragraph, there are instances in which a viable-only method would lead a person to simply jump on the morally-repugnant bandwagon.
The viable-only method is only justifiable if two conditions are met:
*]There are at least two candidates with a significant chance of winning your jurisdiction.
*]There is a meaningful difference in the moral implications of each of the viable candidate’s platform, when the totality of each candidate’s positions is taken into account.
For most jurisdictions in the United States, condition one is not met. However, even when condition one is met, as you can see form the posters in this thread, many people have reservations about whether condition two is met as well.
If you want these people with reservations to vote for a specific major party candidate, the way to do it is not to jabber on about viable candidates being the only meaningful choices. Instead, prove that condition two exists; otherwise you argument is little better than an appeal to popular opinion, which is a shaky foundation on which to build.
***My use of “you” above refers to all persons arguing for only voting for viable candidates, and is not personally directed at Della.
D
Della
Guest
No, that’s not what is meant by voting for a “viable” candidate. A vote for the candidate most likely to win is not the same thing as voting for a viable candidate that most closely matches Church teachings. Even if Hillary is bound to win my state, I am not bound to vote for her merely because she has the greater chance of winning here. And it’s not at all like wasting one’s vote on a 3rd party candidate who hasn’t a chance of winning. My state may pleasantly surprise me and go for Trump, but if I vote for a 3rd party candidate I’d rob Trump of my vote, giving Hillary the best chance to win.
Except that I have made it abundantly clear that it’s not an option “to simply jump on the morally-repugnant bandwagon.” Not an option at all for a faithful Catholic voter.
Again, no. It has nothing to do with who has a significant chance of winning my jurisdiction at all–it has to do with choosing one of two viable candidates who have a chance to win. I never stated anything else.
If there weren’t we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
You’re condition, not mine nor what has been proposed by me.
Again, no. And I am not “jabbering” but patiently explaining how elections are decided for those wavering as to whether or not they should vote for a 3rd party candidate based on the moral obligations of faithful Catholics voters.
Z
Zabdi_Premjit
Guest
I am not using viable as “most likely to win.” I am using “viable” to mean “having a reasonable chance of winning.” I feel like we are talking past each other due to using the word “viable” differently.
Tell me: what do believe “viable” means?
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I think Mother Angelica advised that most of our time preparing for an election ought to be spent praying: not just for the wisdom to vote correctly, but so the winners will be guided by the grace of God to lead wisely and in keeping with divine law.
As for the topic of “worthless” votes, it seems to me that in a case where you cannot vote for a candidate in good conscience, you don’t change that based on who they’re running against. At some point, you have to stick to doing no harm and trusting that God can operate without needing you to vote for someone whose acts will be seriously at odds with the Gospel. God sent a Savior, not a Caesar, after all.
In practical terms, candidates these days have this way of making a big deal out their margin of victory, claiming they have a “mandate” if is it large. They could ever vote of them as an endorsement for everything they ran on. You have to be able to answer for the bag of promises you supported.
As for the topic of “worthless” votes, it seems to me that in a case where you cannot vote for a candidate in good conscience, you don’t change that based on who they’re running against. At some point, you have to stick to doing no harm and trusting that God can operate without needing you to vote for someone whose acts will be seriously at odds with the Gospel. God sent a Savior, not a Caesar, after all.
In practical terms, candidates these days have this way of making a big deal out their margin of victory, claiming they have a “mandate” if is it large. They could ever vote of them as an endorsement for everything they ran on. You have to be able to answer for the bag of promises you supported.
D
Della
Guest
Well, the USCCB hasn’t told us that we must answer for anything in our voting. Jesus told us to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. If my vote will put a person in office that comes most closely to non-negotiable Church teachings then that is the person for whom I will vote. As I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, no candidate is without faults, flaws or baggage–certainly not the two candidates running for president. Either one of them is going to win the presidency no matter if I like him or her or not. I want to make my vote count, so that the one of those two who will win comes closest to supporting Church teachings. It’s not Hillary, in case anyone is in doubt, and it’s not any 3rd party candidate, either. That’s the reality of the situation.
Zabdi Premjit: The word viable isn’t the issue. It’s your definition turning it from “practical,” a definition found in the dictionary to that of “must” or “will,” neither of which is a definition for viable in the dictionary.
- Status