Hypothetical election please vote

[BamaRider]

None Of The Above.

Really? What makes the right guy for you?

Mine was definately in the mix.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I understand secular leftists hating this administration, and I myself, despite being a Catholic conservative, have a lot of issues with Bush et. al.

But still, what has Bush done that would make a faithful Catholic hate him so much as to vote for candidates that uniformaly support the culture of death?

Even if you think the Iraq war was a bad idea, do 20-30,000 deaths in Iraq out-weigh millions of abortion deaths EACH YEAR?

God Bles

You’re preaching to the choir bilop. I vote ‘A’ whether Dem, Rep or Indy. I don’t care about any party line of than Christs!

 

[iamrefreshed]

How dare you imply my feelings. It’s not hatred, it’s disgust.

Further, unnecessary wars and police state laws don’t foster a culture that places life at the head of cultural values.

Now, now did I say LMCS believes this or that?

But if the shoe fits…

 

[Teakafrog]

Well, since there’s only one pro-life candidate, that’s who will get my vote. Simple. I AM a one-issue voter. Those millions of babies that are torn apart each year need all the help they can get, and if that means putting other issues secondary, then that’s not a problem for me. Innocent babies first, all else secondary.

 

[BamaRider]

Does ‘Pro-life’ mean that they’re actually going to pass a law against abortion, or just that they oppose abortion, but can’t really do anything about restricting it?

Element of truth to this. Changing the hearts and minds of half the country, to the point you could pass a constitonal ammendment is a very long way off.

In the meantime, supporting pro life prez candidates gives us a chance to stack the Supreme Court with conservative judges. You never know when one of those seats will come open, so good to have OUR guy (our lady) in the White House if it does. Now surround him with enough like thinking congress people, that will vote, support, and push that nominee through and we’re in business.

Then perhaps we can over turn Roe V Wade, or at least get the issue consistently kicked back to the states, where in the Southern States and Flyover country we can pass tough anti abortion laws making no apologies for it.

Picking off states one by one, isoloating the liberal states on each coast is a good thing, it is not realistic right now to think California or NY will pass tough abortion laws, heck they’re giving out condoms in classrooms! How ya reckon they’d even think about tough abortion laws?

If folks in Georgia pass a law “if a minor wants a abortion gonna have to have parental consent” we don’t want the Supreme Court overturning it.

It will be up to us Catholics to carry the water on this. Evangelicals, so demagouged, and hated by the left, are doing all they can, but they don’t have the numbers or the clout nationwide that we have. But heck, we can’t get even get our folks to agree who to vote for. A few of us shoot a guy down who is pro life because he supports the Patriot Act? I’ll let that stance speak for itself.

I ask myself this when I go in that booth, “if a seat comes open to tomorrow, am I confident enough he puts a pro life guy on the court?”. The top tier Democratic candidates have already said they were pro choice, I’m gonna take them at their word if they get the oppurtunity to nominate a lifetime judge.

And that is why you always vote your convictions in *every *election. Even if my guy is not in the White House I’m gonna vote for reps that will fight, and block ANY nominee he puts forth to push the liberal agenda, and hope there is enough like thinking folks like me scattered through out the country to make a difference.

 

[goofyjim]

OK. That makes more sense.

But at what point does the clear moral issue over-ride the disagreement on the prudential issue?

If Candidates B and C were advocating enslaving a particular ethnic group, would you still do a write-in vote b/c you disagree about Iraq?

God Bless

Yes. I still wouldn’t vote for B or C but I could not in good conscience bring myself to vote for A.

 

[bilop]

Yes. I still wouldn’t vote for B or C but I could not in good conscience bring myself to vote for A.

Really!? If candidate B supported enslaving a portion of the U.S., real slavery, and he had a chance to win, and the best chance to beat him was Candidate A described above, you don’t vote for A b/c he supports the Iraq War and the Patriot Act?

Or if candidate C wants to impose Sharia law in the U.S., you don’t vote for A?

Wow!

May God Bless you and open your mind.

 

[goofyjim]

Really!? If candidate B supported enslaving a portion of the U.S., real slavery, and he had a chance to win, and the best chance to beat him was Candidate A described above, you don’t vote for A b/c he supports the Iraq War and the Patriot Act?

Or if candidate C wants to impose Sharia law in the U.S., you don’t vote for A?

Wow!

May God Bless you and open your mind.

I haven’t supported the other two. I haven’t supported any of them. I have followed my conscience and voted in myself if necessary. To require me to vote for A just to defeat B and C is not my idea of voting. I need to vote “for” someone not just “against” someone else.

 

[surfinpure]

I haven’t supported the other two. I haven’t supported any of them. I have followed my conscience and voted in myself if necessary. To require me to vote for A just to defeat B and C is not my idea of voting. I need to vote “for” someone not just “against” someone else.

I just wonder about this … and I’m not saying I have the answer … but if one votes for a candidate one knows has no chance of being elected, then isn’t one practically voting not at all? And if so, then what would be the point of voting?

 

[goofyjim]

I just wonder about this … and I’m not saying I have the answer … but if one votes for a candidate one knows has no chance of being elected, then isn’t one practically voting not at all? And if so, then what would be the point of voting?

If the only point of voting is to go along with the herd then I don’t want to vote. Voting is a way to let your individual voice be heard not just pick and choose from preselected choices.

 

[surfinpure]

If the only point of voting is to go along with the herd then I don’t want to vote. Voting is a way to let your individual voice be heard not just pick and choose from preselected choices.

I disagree. Voting is a process whereby a number of people may elect a single candidate to office.

If you write in “Joe Blow” as a candidate, and Joe Blow doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell at winning, then who exactly is hearing your voice? The small group of people who tally the votes? And what will that voice mean to them? That one more person has not helped to elect a leader? We must ask ourselves: how can we make our voices count? The only answer I know of is join together and project them loudly. And this is what campaining is all about.

And if you help to select the candidates by voting in the Primaries and participating in the campains, then the choice for your party has not been preselected for you.

 

[goofyjim]

I disagree. Voting is a process whereby a number of people may elect a single candidate to office.

If you write in “Joe Blow” as a candidate, and Joe Blow doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell at winning, then who exactly is hearing your voice? The small group of people who tally the votes? And what will that voice mean to them? That one more person has not helped to elect a leader? We must ask ourselves: how can we make our voices count? The only answer I know of is join together and project them loudly. And this is what campaining is all about.

And if you help to select the candidates by voting in the Primaries and participating in the campains, then the choice for your party has not been preselected for you.

That’s why I know who I am voting for in the primaries, we can’t mention names here.

 

[goofyjim]

I disagree. Voting is a process whereby a number of people may elect a single candidate to office.

If you write in “Joe Blow” as a candidate, and Joe Blow doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell at winning, then who exactly is hearing your voice? The small group of people who tally the votes? And what will that voice mean to them? That one more person has not helped to elect a leader? We must ask ourselves: how can we make our voices count? The only answer I know of is join together and project them loudly. And this is what campaining is all about.

And if you help to select the candidates by voting in the Primaries and participating in the campains, then the choice for your party has not been preselected for you.

But how do we get the selection we want to be in the primaries to begin with. The political big whigs have a monopoly on who gets their support and they don’t match my needs. So again I must opt for the lesser of two evils, even though I would rather vote for something good.

 

[surfinpure]

That’s why I know who I am voting for in the primaries, we can’t mention names here.

Excellent! I’m very happy to have another Conservative voting in the primaries, even if it isn’t for the same candidate (if, by chance, it is not).

 

[surfinpure]

But how do we get the selection we want to be in the primaries to begin with. The political big whigs have a monopoly on who gets their support and they don’t match my needs. So again I must opt for the lesser of two evils, even though I would rather vote for something good.

Well, I suppose some would say, if you want something done right … do it yourself. Or nominate someone who represents your values and put your life into helping his campaign.

Since this is not an option for most of us, and since voting for a nobody is virtually the same as voting for nobody at all, we have to look at the practical side and work with what we’ve got. And if we don’t like what we’ve got, then we have the option of, again, getting out there and doing something about it. If you think the electoral process needs a change (and it may!), then start a grassroots movement. Petition congress, write letters, send faxes, hold rallies, start an organization.

Again, since this isn’t a reasonable option for most of the population, we work with the system we’ve got. And don’t forget, there is plenty that can be done to further our causes regardless of who is elected.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

A was the closest. The only difference is on stem cells.

When it come to embryonic stem cells, I am completely anti. I am pro-adult stem cells and with the recent advances have made embryonic stem cells obsolete.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

If we have a president that supports and wants to expand the “Patriot Act” what is known as “Patriot Act II” then abortion will be a relatively minor issue. A major moral issue, but it will be dwarfed by what could happen under Patriot Act II.

Or you could take the stance that abortion is the major issue, and if we get that one wrong, then we will lose in all other areas.

As it is, when a mainstream candidate claims to be pro-life, unless they have a consistent voting record to back them up, it is pretty much meaningless. There will always be a “pro-life” candidate to balance the dualism of our one party system.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

I just wonder about this … and I’m not saying I have the answer … but if one votes for a candidate one knows has no chance of being elected, then isn’t one practically voting not at all? And if so, then what would be the point of voting?

Boy, it’s amazing how often I hear this question.

Essentially, the claim that “they can’t win” comes down to the circle of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If it is declared that a candidate “can’t win”, then people run away in fright from supporting that candidate. The resulting lack of support makes the claim that “they can’t win” appear more likely, which causes even more people to abandon the so-called “unelectable” candidate, which again, feeds the “can’t win” fortune telling attempts.

If we buy into the “so-and-so CAN’T win” argument, & then vote for someone else, then we are personally making sure that the person “can’t win”, and are contributing to the continued parade of candidates that we are expected to “hold our noses & vote” for.

It really boils down to “I want to vote for whoever will win.” If voting for the winner is all that matters, then we should all just give up & vote for whoever the media says “will win”.

As it is, when a mainstream candidate claims to be pro-life, unless they have a consistent voting record to back them up, it is pretty much meaningless. There will always be a “pro-life” candidate to balance the dualism of our one party system.

I agree - “Deeds, not words” is certainly key.

Chris

 

[goofyjim]

Boy, it’s amazing how often I hear this question.

Essentially, the claim that “they can’t win” comes down to the circle of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If it is declared that a candidate “can’t win”, then people run away in fright from supporting that candidate. The resulting lack of support makes the claim that “they can’t win” appear more likely, which causes even more people to abandon the so-called “unelectable” candidate, which again, feeds the “can’t win” fortune telling attempts.

If we buy into the “so-and-so CAN’T win” argument, & then vote for someone else, then we are personally making sure that the person “can’t win”, and are contributing to the continued parade of candidates that we are expected to “hold our noses & vote” for.

It really boils down to “I want to vote for whoever will win.” If voting for the winner is all that matters, then we should all just give up & vote for whoever the media says “will win”.

I agree - “Deeds, not words” is certainly key.

Chris

I’m glad somebody said this. I was just unable to put it into words.