Our Next President

[ishii]

The recent exchanges on this thread have convinced me that I had best not give any indication of whom I will vote for, Dem, GOP, or 3rd partyist.

The recent exchanges convince me that some of the die-hard Ron Paul supporters do not like to be reminded of the effects of their decisions in the general election. Apparently they are content to say, if Obama is re-elected : “don’t blame me, I’m one of the .04% who voted for Howard Phillips.”

Ishii I think I understand where you are coming from and my only response is in the general election perhaps the decision will come down to voting for the lesser of the two statist.

Thank you stevegravy. I think it goes beyone lesser of two statists. It will be clear decision between a moderate Republican and a committed secular leftist ideologue who doesn’t believe in the constitution.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Thank you stevegravy. I think it goes beyone lesser of two statists. It will be clear decision between a moderate Republican and a committed secular leftist ideologue who doesn’t believe in the constitution.

Sounds right to me as far as “leftist.”

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The recent exchanges on this thread have convinced me that I had best not give any indication of whom I will vote for, Dem, GOP, or 3rd partyist.

If you don’t vote for even the lamest Republican, you will be cast into the hellfires to burn for eternity.

 

[pnewton]

The recent exchanges on this thread have convinced me that I had best not give any indication of whom I will vote for, Dem, GOP, or 3rd partyist.

I know I will not. there are too many that like to sit in the judgement seat. The challenge is to transcend earthly policial agendas and focus on the moral and spiritual decision that is before us. In this, we listen to the bishops, not the Party whips, Democrat of Republican.

These polls are a form of ambush, drawing in opinions, then attacking people for where opinions differ.

 

[Et_Cetera]

Are some people saying that they would vote for Santorum first, then Obama, then Romney? If so, maybe someone could explain this further? I’m genuinely curious. I personally do not care for Santorum at all.

 

[ishii]

If you don’t vote for even the lamest Republican, you will be cast into the hellfires to burn for eternity.

Of course you know that is not the argument I and others have been making. You are merely reducing what I’m saying to a strawman - but if it makes you feel better, go for it.

Sounds right to me as far as “leftist.”

Not just leftist, but secular left - Obama subsribes to the ideology embodied in secular leftism. Why do you think Bill Mahr - the ultimate secularist- donated a million dollars to his campaign?

I know I will not. there are too many that like to sit in the judgement seat. The challenge is to transcend earthly policial agendas and focus on the moral and spiritual decision that is before us. In this, we listen to the bishops, not the Party whips, Democrat of Republican.

I judge actions, not people, pnewton. And I will definitely judge the wisdom of someone who would say that Romney and Obama are the same or that the GOP and the Democrat party are the same -sorry if that bothers you. I have made the case that a presidency of moderate Republican Romney is way better than a re-elected Obama - unrestrained by any concern of having to be re-elected. You could offer some kind of counter to those points - which I’d respect, or you can continue - putting up strawmen and act like you’re above anyone else who would dare to vote for Romney in an attempt to stop Obama.

These polls are a form of ambush, drawing in opinions, then attacking people for where opinions differ.

I am not trying to ambush, but persuade. This is an important election, and while I figure you’ve made your mind up, I will offer up a counter to your Romney/Obama moral equivalency argument just in case there are any lurkers reading who are undecided.

Ishii

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Of course you know that is not the argument I and others have been making. You are merely reducing what I’m saying to a strawman - but if it makes you feel better, go for it.

Ishii

Its a simple reduction of the arguements.

If you vote Democrat, you are voting to support abortion.

If you vote for a third party, you are diluting the support for the Republican, therefore making it more likely that the Democrat will win. So in essence, you are voting to support abortion.

If you don’t vote, you weaken the support of a guy who could beat the Democrat, thereby making it more likely that the Democrat will win. So, in essence, not voting is voting to support abortion.

Abortion is intrinsically evil (and therefore a mortal sin), so doing anything that furthers the cause of abortion is a mortal sin, the penalty of which is buring in the eternal hellfire.

So…either voting Democrat, voting third party, or not voting is supporting abortion, which is a mortal sin, which results in burning in the fires of hell. The only recourse is to vote Republican regardless of how repulsive the idea is.

 

[pnewton]

“These themes from Catholic social teaching provide a moral framework that does not easily fit ideologies of “right” or “left,” “liberal” or “conservative,” or the platform of any political party. They are not partisan or sectarian, but reflect fundamental ethical principles that are common to all people.”

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

 

[pnewton]

The recent exchanges on this thread have convinced me that I had best not give any indication of whom I will vote for, Dem, GOP, or 3rd partyist.

Good ides. Just don’t be surprised if you also get raked over the coals for not commenting. This is called “persuasion”, though I suspect it is as likely to drive away as to persuade. It is like evangelization by condemnation.

 

[ishii]

Its a simple reduction of the arguements.

If you vote Democrat, you are voting to support abortion.

If you vote for a third party, you are diluting the support for the Republican, therefore making it more likely that the Democrat will win. So in essence, you are voting to support abortion.

If you don’t vote, you weaken the support of a guy who could beat the Democrat, thereby making it more likely that the Democrat will win. So, in essence, not voting is voting to support abortion.

Abortion is intrinsically evil (and therefore a mortal sin), so doing anything that furthers the cause of abortion is a mortal sin, the penalty of which is buring in the eternal hellfire.

So…either voting Democrat, voting third party, or not voting is supporting abortion, which is a mortal sin, which results in burning in the fires of hell. The only recourse is to vote Republican regardless of how repulsive the idea is.

No, what you’re doing is reducing the argument to a strawman. How clever!

If you don’t vote for even the lamest Republican, you will be cast into the hellfires to burn for eternity.

When did I ever say that not voting for the Republican will cast you into hell? You may think its all a joke, but some of us take the election pretty seriously - a lot is at stake.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

“These themes from Catholic social teaching provide a moral framework that does not easily fit ideologies of “right” or “left,” “liberal” or “conservative,” or the platform of any political party. They are not partisan or sectarian, but reflect fundamental ethical principles that are common to all people.”

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

But one can certainly use that moral framework which comes from Catholic social teaching to help decide to support one candidate over another - even if (horrors!) that means voting for the moderate Republican. You don’t have to take Catholic moral teachingn and use it as an excuse to bash people who vote Republican.

Ishii

 

[pnewton]

You don’t have to take Catholic moral teachingn and use it as an excuse to bash people who vote Republican.

Ishii

I would never do such a thing. I do not believe in bashing and judging others. We should always treat others as we would wish to be treated.

 

[ishii]

I would never do such a thing. I do not believe in bashing and judging others. We should always treat others as we would wish to be treated.

Then we agree. Holier than though comment duly retracted - sorry.

Ishii

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

No, what you’re doing is reducing the argument to a strawman. How clever!

When did I ever say that not voting for the Republican will cast you into hell? You may think its all a joke, but some of us take the election pretty seriously - a lot is at stake.

Ishii

I am quite sure that you do, and I am quite as sure that the RNC is more than willling to exploit your seriousness to press its own agenda. How many people here complained about the 2008 elections and the lack of an effective leader on the ticket? Yet, here we are 4 years later and what is the RNC offering up for public consumption? Same old middle of the road, squishing, flip-floppy centrist appease the voters cr**y candidate…again.

 

[ishii]

I am quite sure that you do, and I am quite as sure that the RNC is more than willling to exploit your seriousness to press its own agenda. How many people here complained about the 2008 elections and the lack of an effective leader on the ticket? Yet, here we are 4 years later and what is the RNC offering up for public consumption? Same old middle of the road, squishing, flip-floppy centrist appease the voters cr**y candidate…again.

An agenda that doesn’t include the HHS mandate, doesn’t include nominating justices like Elena Kagan or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, includes repealing Obamacare, includes passing the Ryan budget to restore some fiscal sanity. Its not merely about keeping Obama from getting re-elected (but I admit that’s a large part of it) - its also issue driven. The squishy, flip-floppy, middle of the road Romney would be on the right side of the issues I listed.

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

Hobbyhorse: a topic to which one constantly reverts. No belittling anti-abortion.

Defending innocent human beings is not a bad ‘‘hobbyhorse’’ to have.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

I am wondering if I can present to this discussion the concept of the “war party” and whether it is moral to vote for the war party. Since the end of the Vietnam War, which was a bipartisan immoral disaster of epic proportions, we have had one party that has pushed for war and one that didn’t do the pushing (but sometimes went along). Just the mere fact of the invasion of Iraq, based on obviously false premises, which was a massive war crime that has spread unimaginable death, misery and discord throughout the region, is enough to rule out letting the Republicans back into office in the foreseeable future.

From US support of death squads in El Salvador in the 1980s which killed Archbishop Romero, to the pointless invasion of Grenada, from the invasion of Panama to two separate wars in Iraq, there is a strong moral argument to keep the Republican war party out of the White House. They look for and find any excuse to start a war that they can, regardless of the consequences. The human suffering by these things is incalculable. The only real intervention instigated by a Democrat, into the former Yugoslavia by Clinton, was done extremely reluctantly after a year of hesitation, and was done in response to “ethnic cleansing” (death camps) operating on a large scale; it was minimal and relatively brief in nature.

If we had McCain-Palin running US foreign policy now, there is a good chance we would have started a war in Iran and we would still be full scale in Iraq. There is a very good to be made that voting for the war party is immoral.

 

[exoflare]

I know plenty of sincere Catholics who love Obama. It’s their logic that fails me.

I find it hard to believe so many “sincere” Catholics are honestly that ignorant. I know there are a lot of people who label themselves Catholic yet don’t even so much as go to Mass or learn anything else about their faith - and for them to support Obama doesn’t surprise me at all, but this is completely different.

 

[KateKimmer]

Hoping for R & R !

 

[Jerry_Miah]

I find it hard to believe so many “sincere” Catholics are honestly that ignorant. I know there are a lot of people who label themselves Catholic yet don’t even so much as go to Mass or learn anything else about their faith - and for them to support Obama doesn’t surprise me at all, but this is completely different.

To call everybody who votes for Obama “ignorant” is a bit harsh. As I have mentioned above, what about sincere Catholics who vote for the War Party? Republicans have been eagerly starting immoral wars for about thirty years now.