What part about Santorum winning Iowa weeks later after a recount do you find pathetic? They couldn’t “count” the votes correctly on election night??? But they could count correctly a few weeks later, after Romney won a few other states and the shock value of a Santorum win of Iowa was gone? That’s pathetic.
I agree. The media has so much control over public opinion that if the media were to tell people that aliens have landed many would believe it. And, actually, the public was already fooled by such a hoax with The War of the Worlds (radio drama). The media exploits the gullibility of the low information voter.
The war was an incredibly immoral engagement – one for which there was no justification. The use of torture is forbidden by both the UN Declaration of Human Rights (and the U.S. previously agreed to this measure) and the Church, yet the Bush administration saw fit to employ it (fruitlessly, I might add). I hold those Democrats who voted in favor of the war responsible, as well. The Bush administration was, of course, where the buck started and stopped and it bears the lion’s share of responsibility for presenting falsified evidence, relying on fear-laden propaganda to secure our involvement in an unjust war, etc. I’m amazed that anyone could forget or try to mitigate these atrocities.
Candidates align themselves with specific parties because others within those groups share the same general values. I’m guessing there’s no chance you might ever vote for a Democrat, for example, and that’s because the individual and the party are aligned and you reject both. It’s not quite as simplistic as separating individuals from parties.
What does that have to do with the efficacy of polling data?
We get it. You are in the tank for Obama. Hey, he still has 3 more years. In Bush’s first term, he averaged a 62% approval versus Obama’s 49% in his first term. Considering Bush dropped 25% in his second ter! the only question for Obama is “how low can you go? How low can you go?”
If you follow the above conversation, you didn’t challenge the efficacy of polling data.
Republicans should go for the best candidate, not necessarily the most conservative.
Since Republicans haven’t changed their position on welfare, universal healthcare, and immigration, I don’t see how any faithful Catholic can morally justify a vote for them.
Ah, but you see, Keynesianism isn’t CST. So that pretty much eliminates “problems” with their positions on welfare and health care. Immigration reform, while I personally disagree with most Republicans, is not something that the Church requires Catholics to support, while she does require that Catholics oppose politicians supporting intrinsic evils.
Neither party fully supports Catholic teaching. Each falls short in different ways. Both fall short in some areas. Contrary to what is constantly repeated on this forum, the Church does not dictate which political party or which particular politicians Catholics should support. Nor does the Church provide a list of issues that automatically trump other issues. Each Catholic is to search their own conscience and vote their conscience. That is what the Church has consistently taught.
Since when have Republicans been against any of these???
Not so fast with the thumbs up…there are non negotiables within our faith that weigh heavily in ones’ consideration re candidates.abortion trumps everything else.To support someone like Obama who is the MOST pro abortion occupier of theWH,ever,is to cooperate with a gravely intrinsic evil. Period,end of sentence!Oh,here’s a
for ya!I don’t think this is completely accurate. At least in my country, the bishops have in the past issued prohibitions against e.g. joining the social-democratic party. You should vote your conscience, of course, but your conscience should be formed by the moral teachings of Holy Tradition. It seems highly problematic to vote for a party which explicitly and consciously seeks to normalize actions which the Church has deemed intrinsically evil (e.g. abortion) and/or disordered (e.g. homosexual acts). These issues are, in my view, of far greater weight than the state’s economic policy.
I think you are on to something. Once the news departments started to comingle with entertainment and everything depended on ratings, we, as a country, lost. If we could pool our resources and demand unadulterated journalism we would all be so much better off. We could still watch our favorite commentators AND we could form our own opinions. Our news organizations are owned by a few major corporations. We only hear what they want us to hear.
Right. But a conscience not formed from the Catholic faith isn’t a correctly formed or a Catholic conscience. The Church doesn’t give us a list of issues to choose from, but principles from which these issues arise. And this is why the Church and our bishops and Popes have said we can’t vote for those who support intrinsic evils, especially regarding issues related to the family and life, unless it is the best way to prevent a further evil from arising (meaning the other major candidate(s) are even worse).