Paul leads GOP NH field 2016, Hillary leads Dems

[ishii]

As I’ve stated before, there isn’t *one *issue that trumps all else – that’s been my point all along. We must use prudential judgment to consider how each candidate will navigate and respond to many intrinsic evils. I haven’t claimed that people shouldn’t vote for a Republican or that they should vote for a Democrat – and Ishii, I don’t recall claiming that I voted for Obama. You asked what I found so disturbing about GW Bush’s presidency and I answered your question. But it is false to claim that abortion or any other singular issue must dictate how Catholics should vote. When that claim was made, it was necessary to identify and refute it. That’s it.

My point, gracepoole, was to ask which issue or issues do you think trumps Obama’s support for abortion. I mean, wouldn’t you agree that it would be wrong for a catholic to say, “I support Obama, in spite of his support for abortion, because he is for increased funding for national parks” ? So, increased funding for national parks wouldn’t outweigh the evil of support for abortion. I am trying to figure out which issues you would hold above support for abortion in terms of urgency, gravity, etc. (which is why I made the point that no party has support for human trafficking in their platform).

Ishii

 

[gracepoole]

My point, gracepoole, was to ask which issue or issues do you think trumps Obama’s support for abortion. I mean, wouldn’t you agree that it would be wrong for a catholic to say, “I support Obama, in spite of his support for abortion, because he is for increased funding for national parks” ? So, increased funding for national parks wouldn’t outweigh the evil of support for abortion. I am trying to figure out which issues you would hold above support for abortion in terms of urgency, gravity, etc. (which is why I made the point that no party has support for human trafficking in their platform).

Ishii

But I can’t answer that question until I have candidates before me – none of us can know what will be on the table in 2015/16. For example, I surely didn’t foresee an unjust war on the horizon in 2000. Yet in 2004, it was a serious moral issue with which Catholics had to grapple. I’m not trying to dodge you here – I’m trying to note that in every election, Catholics must start from scratch, so to speak, by analyzing the candidates and parties afresh with the current issues of the time in mind.

 

[Darryl1958]

I agree, but there are some people who argue for it in the immigration debate. I’ve met both Democrats and Republicans who have told me they believe we should “just round them all up and send them back.” They are the fringe though, of course.

Republicans probably do have the bigger fringe in that regard on that issue. The policy of Republicans on immigration otherwise have varied very, very little than what Democrats have done on that front.
Democrats tend to magnify the fringe of the Republican, and hide ther own from in their identity politics games in order to scare Latin American into voting for a party that otherwise have no real policy on creating a more coherent and effective immigration policy.

To look beyond the partisan posturing of the issue, uncontrolled immigration benefits both the movers and shakers of both parties, for it serves to create a permanent underclass of cheap labour who are not in a position to assert their rights as workers.
It undercuts the position of poor people in America, because the competition for starter jobs is exponentially increased.

It also is ruinous to the financial sustainable of any health care system, since many people who do not pay into the system are being treated by the system in the most expensive emergency wings.

There is no moral high ground to vote on in regards to this issue.

 

[Jeanne_S]

But I can’t answer that question until I have candidates before me – none of us can know what will be on the table in 2015/16. For example, I surely didn’t foresee an unjust war on the horizon in 2000. Yet in 2004, it was a serious moral issue with which Catholics had to grapple. I’m not trying to dodge you here – I’m trying to note that in every election, Catholics must start from scratch, so to speak, by analyzing the candidates and parties afresh with the current issues of the time in mind.

Please read my response to your earlier comment #299

 

[SaintAugustine]

Republicans probably do have the bigger fringe in that regard on that issue. The policy of Republicans on immigration otherwise have varied very, very little than what Democrats have done on that front.
Democrats tend to magnify the fringe of the Republican, and hide ther own from in their identity politics games in order to scare Latin American into voting for a party that otherwise have no real policy on creating a more coherent and effective immigration policy.

To look beyond the partisan posturing of the issue, uncontrolled immigration benefits both the movers and shakers of both parties, for it serves to create a permanent underclass of cheap labour who are not in a position to assert their rights as workers.
It undercuts the position of poor people in America, because the competition for starter jobs is exponentially increased.

It also is ruinous to the financial sustainable of any health care system, since many people who do not pay into the system are being treated by the system in the most expensive emergency wings.

There is no moral high ground to vote on in regards to this issue.

I agree. It is unfortunate that Bush wasn’t able to get reform passed while in office. I’m not sure it’s possible now with the polarization of rhetoric.

 

[SaintAugustine]

But I can’t answer that question until I have candidates before me – none of us can know what will be on the table in 2015/16. For example, I surely didn’t foresee an unjust war on the horizon in 2000. Yet in 2004, it was a serious moral issue with which Catholics had to grapple. I’m not trying to dodge you here – I’m trying to note that in every election, Catholics must start from scratch, so to speak, by analyzing the candidates and parties afresh with the current issues of the time in mind.

Um…did you notice what this thread is all about?

If you really are going to stick to that, I guess we will all expect you to withhold any opinions about any candidates for the next couple of years.

 

[ishii]

But I can’t answer that question until I have candidates before me – none of us can know what will be on the table in 2015/16. For example, I surely didn’t foresee an unjust war on the horizon in 2000. Yet in 2004, it was a serious moral issue with which Catholics had to grapple. I’m not trying to dodge you here – I’m trying to note that in every election, Catholics must start from scratch, so to speak, by analyzing the candidates and parties afresh with the current issues of the time in mind.

Okay. How about 2012? The candidates before you were Obama vs. Romney.

Ishii

 

[Jeanne_S]

Okay. How about 2012? The candidates before you were Obama vs. Romney.

Ishii

I am still waiting for her response to my comments re this issue…

 

[gracepoole]

Please read my response to your earlier comment #299

There’s no circular reasoning here, Jeanne. Unless you’re applying a definition of that fallacy with which I’m unfamiliar, it doesn’t make sense in this context.

Okay. How about 2012? The candidates before you were Obama vs. Romney.

Ishii

Neither.

I am still waiting for her response to my comments re this issue…

I’m glad to see we’re all still interested in being charitable. See my last response to Ishii – I can’t answer your question and indeed, I don’t know how any Catholic can at the moment. Saint Augustine, I’m sorry if that truth is disturbing. Of course we can speculate on candidates – but to firmly state that one is always a Republican and is always in support of the Republican candidate is not possible as I understand it.

 

[ishii]

Republicans probably do have the bigger fringe in that regard on that issue. The policy of Republicans on immigration otherwise have varied very, very little than what Democrats have done on that front.
Democrats tend to magnify the fringe of the Republican, and hide ther own from in their identity politics games in order to scare Latin American into voting for a party that otherwise have no real policy on creating a more coherent and effective immigration policy.

To look beyond the partisan posturing of the issue, uncontrolled immigration benefits both the movers and shakers of both parties, for it serves to create a permanent underclass of cheap labour who are not in a position to assert their rights as workers.
It undercuts the position of poor people in America, because the competition for starter jobs is exponentially increased.

It also is ruinous to the financial sustainable of any health care system, since many people who do not pay into the system are being treated by the system in the most expensive emergency wings.

There is no moral high ground to vote on in regards to this issue.

Generally, Democrats support the status quo on immigration for more votes. Republicans support the status quo because businesses want cheap labor. Democrats are much, much more likely to support amnesty with no strings attached - again because of identity politics - more food stamps, “healthcare” and the votes it will bring the Democrat party. Republicans aren’t quite the party of blanket amnesty, and there are still quite a few who seriously talk about the issue with our borders being so porous and insecure. The right-wing fringe talks about deporting the illegals - as if somehow we could round all them up. I guess my point here is that among the Republicans there is a bit more variety of opinions on the issue. The Democrats/liberals/left, as usual, are in lockstep and focused on their goal - increased political power through identity politics. The left doesn’t care about immigrants - it cares about power.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Neither.

I’m glad to see we’re all still interested in being charitable. See my last response to Ishii – I can’t answer your question and indeed, I don’t know how any Catholic can at the moment. Saint Augustine, I’m sorry if that truth is disturbing. Of course we can speculate on candidates – but to firmly state that one is always a Republican and is always in support of the Republican candidate is not possible as I understand it.

I don’t think its that hard to think of a hypothetical scenario - such as if the election were between Hillary and Christie, for whom would you vote? I see where you’re coming from, but I think you’re being evasive.

Another question that Catholics ought to consider is, at what point, when confronting the evil of a candidate’s position(s) does it become a moral imperative to effectively oppose that candidate even if it means supporting a candidate that you might disagree with philosophically (such as non-morally grave issues). Is it enough to just not vote? Or should we also try to oppose certain policies as effectively as possible?

Ishii

 

[Mark121359]

One thing that really bothers me is the comparing of the two parties with regards to abortion. There is no comparison. One party is all in on abortion. They even promoted it in the Democratic convention with the speech by Nancy Keenan, President of the National Abortion Rights Action League Pro-Choice America (NARAL) Here is a quote from said speech; *** " I am proud to say that the Democratic Party believes that women have the right to choose a safe, legal abortion with dignity and privacy."** * Dignity and privacy? What about the child’s dignity? And also keep in mind that there were huge differences in Obama and Romney. Obama fought hard while in the Illinois Senate to oppose the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. One person who had first hand knowledge of these babies who survived abortion was Jill Stanek. *** “In 1999, I discovered that Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, where I worked as a labor and delivery nurse, was leaving babies who survived induced labor abortions to die in the soiled utility room.I personally held one of these infants 45 minutes until he gasped his last breath.”** * Obama supported this horror! It’s deeply troubling to me when Catholics blur the distinction between these two candidates and parties when it comes to abortion. As I stated earlier…there absolutely is no comparison…period!

Peace, Mark

 

[ProVobis]

Why do I feel this has become a circular argument?I have acknowledged that,yes,there are many biggies as you state.However,My contention from the start has been,abortion is a gravely intrinsic evil that yes it should have more bearing on how one votes,because,if we don’t value life in it’s most nascent and vulnerable state,then all the other biggies become irrelevant.Everything is hinged on protecting the unborn,otherwise,

Jeanne, I agree with you. There is no dispute on that score. The unborn must be protected. But it doesn’t mean life ends at birth. Can’t we have love and compassion for the unborn and born, according to the Second Commandment of Christ? Seems like neither party gets it.

 

[ishii]

Jeanne, I agree with you. There is no dispute on that score. The unborn must be protected. But it doesn’t mean life ends at birth. Can’t we have love and compassion for the unborn and born, according to the Second Commandment of Christ?

That is a straw man. Who is saying life ends at birth or proposes policies that abandon children at birth?

Ishii

 

[gracepoole]

I don’t think its that hard to think of a hypothetical scenario - such as if the election were between Hillary and Christie, for whom would you vote? I see where you’re coming from, but I think you’re being evasive.

Another question that Catholics ought to consider is, at what point, when confronting the evil of a candidate’s position(s) does it become a moral imperative to effectively oppose that candidate even if it means supporting a candidate that you might disagree with philosophically (such as non-morally grave issues). Is it enough to just not vote? Or should we also try to oppose certain policies as effectively as possible?

Ishii

What possible reason would I have for being evasive? I really don’t know enough about Christie – I just haven’t taken time to study his history and platform. Supporting a candidate that I might disagree with regarding non-morally grave issues isn’t problematic as I understand it. But if one considers the 2004 election, there were serious problems – grave problems as the Church understands the term “grave” – with both candidates.

 

[Mulligan2]

Sorry, I browsed the first 3 pages, but don’t have time to go through all twelve, so my apologies if he has been mentioned before, but…

What about Lt. Col. Allen West?

I can’t tell if you’re being serious or are joking. Allen West would lose badly. With all due respect, West would make Bachmann look rational and eloquent by comparison. He is not a legitimate candidate.

Three years is a lifetime in politics. I don’t put much stock in who is the supposed frontrunner at this point in time.

 

[ProVobis]

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Seems like we have straw men on both sides. I’ve removed my post and will leave the thread as this appears to be a divergent problem.

 

[Personanongrata]

I’d be more concerned about the Democratic Party primaries, if you are an HRC fan. She will be trashed and probably won’t be the nominee. Therefore, it won’t matter who the GOP pick is.

Highly doubtful, IMO.

 

[Personanongrata]

Sorry, I browsed the first 3 pages, but don’t have time to go through all twelve, so my apologies if he has been mentioned before, but…

What about Lt. Col. Allen West?

Seriously??? For what?

 

[ishii]

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Seems like we have straw men on both sides. I’ve removed my post and will leave the thread as this appears to be a divergent problem.

Thank you. Not sure why you present the definition of a straw man argument - as I am familiar with what a straw man is, and pointed out the straw man argument in your post. Also don’t understand your defense of “we have straw men on both sides.”

Ishii