Obama and Romney hit the final stretch

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tampa_Dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HansTrappist said:
I think you missed the point.

Abolishing the Electoral College and going to a direct vote does not mean we turn into a Democracy of mob rule. There will still be a Representative Government and a Supreme Court (although it would be smart to put some sane term limits on both those bodies) but it just means that the people will directly vote into office the President rather than having an “Elector” think they know better than We the People.
Click to expand...
They are all part of the same picture. Getting rid of the electoral college system diminishes the form of federalism, nationally, based on the concept of the sharing of powers between the state and federal governments.

Abolishing the electoral college (via Constitutional Amendment) would be harder than being elected President, at any rate. You don’t need 2/3rd of the House and 3/4s of the states to become President.
 
scipio337 said:
The electoral college is part of the Federalist view that protects the rights of smaller states. A Republic is vastly superior to a democracy. Democracy is mob rule.
Click to expand...
Thanks for answering that. I think the EC is brilliant.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Just look at the mob rule in Great Britain and France and Germany and Italy and Scandinavia. Mobs roaming the streets showing how inferior democracy is to republicanism. 🤷
Click to expand...
Those are direct democracies? I though GB, Italy and France have representative parliaments (aren’t all bicameral?).

You don’t need those in a “democracy”.
 
Mar044 said:
am I the only person who knows current military, everyone please look up the cost of 1 battleship, or 1 aircraft carrier or destroyer, then tell me how much it will cost to add 200 plus ships…let me know when you get into the billions if not trillions. and thats no counting the arms on board…1 cruise missile costing 1,410,000…

and the whole thing about fleet size, is wrong, bush had a smaller fleet size under his rule, but thats not the point, the point being a battle group can do more today then it ever could then, in fact 3 ships could do more then a fleet then.

and romney is no saint, not that obama is.
Click to expand...
All of that is miniscule when compared to the cost of Obamacare. How are we going to pay for that?
 
scipio337 said:
Abolishing the electoral college (via Constitutional Amendment) would be harder than being elected President, at any rate. You don’t need 2/3rd of the House and 3/4s of the states to become President.
Click to expand...
You are right on that point. It would take a major shift in the public will. If this election is as close as they say it will be and we get one of the nightmare scenarios that I citied earlier here “Zombie Election: 5 Ways the 2012 Race Could Stagger On for Months” (theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/zombie-election-5-ways-the-2012-race-could-stagger-on-for-months/263955/) well then you might just see the public will shift in that direction.
 
HansTrappist said:
You are right on that point. It would take a major shift in the public will. If this election is as close as they say it will be and we get one of the nightmare scenarios that I citied earlier here “Zombie Election: 5 Ways the 2012 Race Could Stagger On for Months” (theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/zombie-election-5-ways-the-2012-race-could-stagger-on-for-months/263955/) well then you might just see the public will shift in that direction.
Click to expand...
Highly doubtful. The system has defaulted twice in 200+ years. The House elected Jefferson and Madison.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
What other countries use an Electoral College?
Click to expand...
What other government is a collection of independent commonwealths? The Parliament constituencies in the UK, Italy, etc, etc, etc, don’t have their own acting governments. There is no power to share with the states because there are no states.
 
HansTrappist said:
Now, as to the duty of Catholics to vote it is true that we are encouraged to exercise this duty but in the situation we find ourselves this election where we have two candidates who support an intrinsic evil (albeit one to a “lesser” extent that the other) numerous Bishops have stated that we have two equally legitimate options: 1. We don’t have to vote or 2. We vote for the candidate that we think will “lessen” the intrinsic evil. Of course, the second option is exercised on a purely subjective basis and the Church does not tell us which of the two candidates “lessens” the intrinsic evil. It is up to us to decide. But I believe the Bishops should have made this explicit. They wouldn’t have to endorse a candidate but they could make an objective judgement as to who “lessens” the intrinsic evil. Why leave it up to the subjective judgement of the individual, especially when an intrinsic evil is at stake?
Click to expand...
Any Catholic who opts to not vote in the presidential election is choosing to not effectively oppose Obama’s HHS mandate and assault on the conscience of the Catholic Church as well as not effectively opposing Obama’s continued shaping of the supreme court into a rock solid pro-abortion rights supreme court. And Hanstrappist - when you say both Romney and Obama support an intrinsic evil - you are being disengenuous. The president of the United States does not have the power to ban all abortions. The president has the power to help shape the supreme court so that it overturns Roe V Wade and that is the bottom line. So go ahead and stay home, Hanstrappist, or vote for a fringe candidate with no chance of winning. *** But know this: you are helping to make it easier to allow Obama to shape the supreme court and keep abortion on demand the law of the land in all 50 states. ***

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Any Catholic who opts to not vote in the presidential election is choosing to not effectively oppose Obama’s HHS mandate and assault on the conscience of the Catholic Church as well as not effectively opposing Obama’s continued shaping of the supreme court into a rock solid pro-abortion rights supreme court. And Hanstrappist - when you say both Romney and Obama support an intrinsic evil - you are being disengenuous. The president of the United States does not have the power to ban all abortions. The president has the power to help shape the supreme court so that it overturns Roe V Wade and that is the bottom line. So go ahead and stay home, Hanstrappist, or vote for a fringe candidate with no chance of winning. *** But know this: you are helping to make it easier to allow Obama to shape the supreme court and keep abortion on demand the law of the land in all 50 states. ***

Ishii
Click to expand...
That’s your opinion Ishii.

The USCCB voter guide makes it clear that in the case of two candidates that support an intrinsic evil, that we Catholics do not have to vote:
  1. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.
 
HansTrappist said:
That’s your opinion Ishii.

The USCCB voter guide makes it clear that in the case of two candidates that support an intrinsic evil, that we Catholics do not have to vote:
  1. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the **extraordinary step **of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.
Click to expand...
I suggest looking up the meaning of the word “extraordinary”.
 
HansTrappist said:
That’s your opinion Ishii.

The USCCB voter guide makes it clear that in the case of two candidates that support an intrinsic evil, that we Catholics do not have to vote:
  1. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.
Click to expand...
Nice quote, Hanstrappist. So how does you sitting out the election not help Obama shape the supreme court into a permanent pro-abortion rights majority? Or do you care about that? Why don’t you speak to my points, Hanstrappist? Do you not care that you are helping Obama shape the supreme court? Do you not want states to be able to pass laws against abortion? Do you care? I sure hope so - millions are aborted every year and those unborn deserve better than Catholics who let themselves off the hook based on technicalities.

Ishii
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top