Republican voters??

[scottm]

The Democrats offer an alternative of pure evil on all things related to life issues.

Heh heh heh! So, um, how do you really feel?
Aside: don’t forget the right to self-defense as 'life issue." It’s more than abortion. You can’t be pro-life without also supporting the right to self-defense. Often that gets forgotten amidst the abortion discussion.

So what is the alternative other than to work with the GOP and fight those members of that party that are contrary to its platform.

How about work with another political Party that wants to actually do the things they say? Query, why squash the guys who actually want to do the right thing, who actually want to do the good things that they say? You’re advocating squashing them. I’m advocating supporting them up. Very strange this is.

 

[SoCalRC]

I do not see that we can be expected to be held accountable for the political actions of another nation, that our nation has some political ties to.

Do you mean Saipan? Saipan is part of the United States Commonwealth of the Northern Marianna Islands.

Those garment workers who live in armed camps, are considered slaves by the USCCB, and are subjected to forced abortions make goods stamped “Made in the USA”.

The issue is that although they are officially part of the USA, we exempt them from labor and immigration laws. The complicity of the GOP leadership is two fold. First, attempts at reform were blocked from votes. Second, exemption expansions were added 11th hour into unrelated bills.

Through Abromof about $7M flowed, but when you trace all the paths (including resort vacations and free underage female companionship) human rights groups place the overall number closer to about $30M.

Take a good look at Tom Delay. He still pops up on TV as the face of GOP conservatives. That is what he stands for. USCCB joins human rights groups all over the world to condemn Saipan as a horrible example of human trafficking and sexual abuse. He (along with most of the current leadership) protected the system, distributed money from it throughout the GOP, took lots of perks for himself and his family, and then used some of the money to tell everyone how pro life he is…

 

[SoCalRC]

The Democrats offer an alternative of pure evil on all things related to life issues.

Wow, you must have some pretty bad things in mind. I get pretty disgusted by politicians who sell national security in exchange for money, boats, and prostitutes. Likewise, I take a pretty dim view of profiteering from slave labor and forced abortion in a population supposedly under our protection (without representation).

I also got disgusted with covering up fro a predatory pedophile (or two) and baseless hate speech directed at a brain damaged 12 year old. Paying out hush money when rented Pinochet thugs got drunk and had a little fun shooting children on streets we are spending hundreds of billions and US blood to secure made me downright ill.

But I never reached the point were I would decry the weak, selfish people doing them as pure evil. I always tried to keep in mind that they were also loved children of an infinitately compassionate God…

So what is the alternative other than to work with the GOP and fight those members of that party that are contrary to its platform.

Stand with God. Trust in God. Embrace your faith and live it.

 

[melensdad]

How about work with another political Party that wants to actually do the things they say? Query, why squash the guys who actually want to do the right thing, who actually want to do the good things that they say? You’re advocating squashing them. I’m advocating supporting them up. Very strange this is.

No I absolutely do not say to squash any party, what I say is that in most areas there are no VIABLE alternative parties. There are a few areas in the US where the Libertarian Party has some local or regional strength and some of the Libertarians are Pro-Life, but I don’t know what the Party’s stand is on Pro-Life issues. In Vermont there is a Socialist/Independent party, they are not Pro-Life.

I’d advocate that if you want to exert the energy to grow a party that is totally fine with me, however until such time as you can field a VIABLE candidate for each office, then for those offices where you have a void you should be considering the best choice of one of the viable parties that is running a candidate for those particular offices.

SoCalRC:

Do you mean . . .

No.

I mean what I wrote.

Still, I see no offer of any constructive solutions from you, only complaints about some specific problems. I don’t deny the problems. I still don’t hear any viable solutions, suggestions or for that many any that are not viable. All you have done is complain without offering any alternatives.

 

[rlg94086]

All the complaints I hear are valid, none however solve the problems. The Democrats offer an alternative of pure evil on all things related to life issues. So what is the alternative other than to work with the GOP and fight those members of that party that are contrary to its platform.

This is my quandry, as well. I’m not happy with everything the Republican Party as a group have done, and Congress blew it under their majority - they did no better (or worse) than the current Congress is doing. However, all-in-all when I weigh the two real choices, I come up Republican every time. I don’t see anyone proposing a real alternative - just grumbling.

I am working to help elect one of the pro-life candidates in the presidential primary, but it is an uphill battle. Hopefully, the grumbling about going third party will help the cause.

 

[melensdad]

Wow, you must have some pretty bad things in mind.

For starters the Democrats are supportive of each of the following in their party platform, and each of these is a major issue that our Church opposes, each is evil:
ABORTION
HUMAN CLONING
EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH
HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
EUTHANASIA

 

[estesbob]

For starters the Democrats are supportive of each of the following in their party platform, and each of these is a major issue that our Church opposes, each is evil:
ABORTION
HUMAN CLONING
EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH
HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
EUTHANASIA

Preety much sums it up doesnt it

 

[SoCalRC]

For starters the Democrats are supportive of each of the following in their party platform, and each of these is a major issue that our Church opposes, each is evil:
ABORTION
HUMAN CLONING
EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH
HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
EUTHANASIA

Bush allows embryonic stem cell research, just not research that has a high likelihood of success.

Similiarly, he permits i-v fertilization, which is where the hundreds of thousands of fertilized zygotes come from. They currently get incinerated as biological waste.

The vice president’s daughter is openly gay and is having a child in a gay partner relationship.

The VP’s wife wrote a book in the 80’s promoting the joys of lesbian sex and a lifestyle free of the oppression of men.

Perhaps this helps explain why civil unions and gay marriage have expanded tremendously under Bush’s watch.

We’ve already seen that the GOP also harbors homosexual predators in their ranks.

As far as euthanasia, the GOP passed and the president signed, two bills that make it easier for hospitals to stop hydration and nutriants (which the Church deems direct euthanasia) on the basis of ability to pay. The Schiavo stunt was specifically worded to avoid any impact to these laws (constained to one person alone).

As far as abortion, look at Saipan and look at the GOP presidential hopefuls. Of course, we also have two new Supreme Court judges reaffirming Roe and Casey as well.

I’d have to agree, the GOP’s record says it all.

Regarding your terse “no”. It’s OK. Saipan is the only example I used and everyone knows that is what you were responding to (otherwise you would have elaborated on my missunderstanding). Don’t get angry, just make your flappers work harder.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Bush allows embryonic stem cell research, just not research that has a high likelihood of success.

Similiarly, he permits i-v fertilization, which is where the hundreds of thousands of fertilized zygotes come from. They currently get incinerated as biological waste.

The vice president’s daughter is openly gay and is having a child in a gay partner relationship.

The VP’s wife wrote a book in the 80’s promoting the joys of lesbian sex and a lifestyle free of the oppression of men.

Perhaps this helps explain why civil unions and gay marriage have expanded tremendously under Bush’s watch.

We’ve already seen that the GOP also harbors homosexual predators in their ranks.

As far as euthanasia, the GOP passed and the president signed, two bills that make it easier for hospitals to stop hydration and nutriants (which the Church deems direct euthanasia) on the basis of ability to pay. The Schiavo stunt was specifically worded to avoid any impact to these laws (constained to one person alone).

As far as abortion, look at Saipan and look at the GOP presidential hopefuls. Of course, we also have two new Supreme Court judges reaffirming Roe and Casey as well.

I’d have to agree, the GOP’s record says it all.

Regarding your terse “no”. It’s OK. Saipan is the only example I used and everyone knows that is what you were responding to (otherwise you would have elaborated on my missunderstanding). Don’t get angry, just make your flappers work harder.

Now, now, don’t confuse them with the facts. The Republican Party says they’re against the things the Church says are non-negotiables. Isn’t that enough?

Oh, they actually have to DO them? Whodathunkit?

 

[melensdad]

Bush allows embryonic stem cell research, just not research that has a high likelihood of success.

Similiarly, he permits i-v fertilization, which is where the hundreds of thousands of fertilized zygotes come from. They currently get incinerated as biological waste.

The vice president’s daughter is openly gay and is having a child in a gay partner relationship.

The VP’s wife wrote a book in the 80’s promoting the joys of lesbian sex and a lifestyle free of the oppression of men.

Perhaps this helps explain why civil unions and gay marriage have expanded tremendously under Bush’s watch.

We’ve already seen that the GOP also harbors homosexual predators in their ranks.

As far as euthanasia, the GOP passed and the president signed, two bills that make it easier for hospitals to stop hydration and nutriants (which the Church deems direct euthanasia) on the basis of ability to pay. The Schiavo stunt was specifically worded to avoid any impact to these laws (constained to one person alone).

As far as abortion, look at Saipan and look at the GOP presidential hopefuls. Of course, we also have two new Supreme Court judges reaffirming Roe and Casey as well.

I’d have to agree, the GOP’s record says it all.

Regarding your terse “no”. It’s OK. Saipan is the only example I used and everyone knows that is what you were responding to (otherwise you would have elaborated on my missunderstanding). Don’t get angry, just make your flappers work harder.

First off I’m not sure why you’d think I’d get angry. A little internet debate is not worth that.

Secondly while there are examples of GOP problems, and I have admitted dissatisfaction with those problems so there is no need to continue to recant them, the overall comparison of the two parties cannot show anything other than pure evil in the intent of the Democrats with regards to life issues. While I may not compromise on life issues, some of those we elect will. We don’t have to like it. I’ve never been a supporter of either Bush and feel they both betrayed us. But as bad as this Bush is he is far better for life issues than Kerry, Gore, etc, would have been.

Still, you fail to offer up anything in the form of an alternative that is better. You fail to even offer up a suggestion at all. You simply dump on the GOP for specific problems without admitting that Democrats would have likely caused far more harm, without suggesting answers, and without even offering hope for a future.

So yes, Bush allows for embryonic stem cell research in private labs with only the remaining limited supply of pre-existing embryo supplies that are in labs. And yes I find that detestable. But Gore, Kerry, etc would have allowed for public funding and would have allowed for the creation of more embryos for testing.

And yes, Cheney’s daughter is an avowed lesbian, but are you suggesting that she represents the entire GOP? If so, they why has the GOP consistently voted against allowing homosexual unions? Your logic is clearly faulty. But to further illustrate it, there are some priests in our church that minister to openly homosexual people, do you suggest that because a few priests do that our entire Church supports it? It is simply a parallel argument.

 

[marci]

Bush allows embryonic stem cell research, just not research that has a high likelihood of success.

He allowed use of existing lines, but did not allow for creation of new lines by diliberately destroying new embryos for the purpose. The only research which shows real promise at this time is that which is being done on adult stems cells. So I don’t get your meaning.

Similiarly, he permits i-v fertilization, which is where the hundreds of thousands of fertilized zygotes come from. They currently get incinerated as biological waste.

 

[scottm]

No I absolutely do not say to squash any party, what I say is that in most areas there are no VIABLE alternative parties. There are a few areas in the US where the Libertarian Party has some local or regional strength and some of the Libertarians are Pro-Life, but I don’t know what the Party’s stand is on Pro-Life issues. In Vermont there is a Socialist/Independent party, they are not Pro-Life.

I’m confused. What does viability have to do with right action? I was not aware that I was supposed to inquire into some popularity poll to find out what the mass of people want me to do.

 

[melensdad]

If you intentionally waste a vote on someone who absolutely can’t win then you are allowing harm to be done by opening the door for evil if an avowed anti-life politician wins.

 

[rlg94086]

If you intentionally waste a vote on someone who absolutely can’t win then you are allowing harm to be done by opening the door for evil if an avowed anti-life politician wins.

Exactly. I could write in Pope Benedict XVI, and then I would be assured of voting for someone who matches my pro-life views. However, if that vote helped elect a pro-choice Democrat who will appoint liberal judges, it wouldn’t be the best for the the pro-life cause.

 

[Melo]

Exactly. I could write in Pope Benedict XVI, and then I would be assured of voting for someone who matches my pro-life views. However, if that vote helped elect a pro-choice Democrat who will appoint liberal judges, it wouldn’t be the best for the the pro-life cause.

I agree completely. If it makes you feel better to vote third party or write in someone that’s great. But you should know that by doing so, you will really be voting in the Dem.

 

[mozart-250]

So you would choose to vote for someone who cannot win because the reality of a 2 party system dictates that you vote for either party A or party B and any vote for any other party is realistically a vote against the party that is more closely aligned to your ideal, and realistically favors the party that is less closely aligned to your ideal.

Just one comment:

Up here in Vermont anybody who votes ‘R’ in the Presidential race is voting for “someone who cannot win”. I would say that is true in about 2/3 of the states. Remember that in the Presidential race you are indirectly voting for President by voting for electors from your state.

Given that reality, I see no difference between voting for a Republican who can not win and a third party candidate who can not win. Or for that matter voting for a Republican you know will lose but that you much prefer against the Democrat that you know will win.

Also, in about 3/4 of the legistlative races, a vote against the incumbent is voting for a candidate who can not win. Up here in the Senate and House races I have many times voted for a pro-life independent who can not win as opposed to a pro-abortion Republican who can-not win (or in the case of Jeffords who is assured to win).

 

[estesbob]

I agree completely. If it makes you feel better to vote third party or write in someone that’s great. But you should know that by doing so, you will really be voting in the Dem.

Then it is incumbent on the Republican party to not nominate a pro-abortion canidate and force many of us to sit this one out. The truth is that Republicans who votes for a pro-abortion canidate in the primaries might as well be casting a vote for a denocrat.

 

[melensdad]

Then it is incumbent on the Republican party to not nominate a pro-abortion canidate and force many of us to sit this one out. The truth is that Republicans who votes for a pro-choice canidate in the primaries might as well be casting a vote for a denocrat.

I think that this thread has really showed that many people are only focused on the actual election, but not on the entire process of getting to that point. Not only is it important to be heard DURING THE PRIMARY elections, and to vote in the primary, it is often important to get involved BEFORE the PRIMARY election.

I don’t care if you are a Republican, Democrat, or whatever, if you want to make your voice heard, you need to start attending your local meetings and regional meetings and make sure that your voice is being heard by your party. Want to really make your voice heard? Then bring in a few other like-minded people to those meetings with you.

We all know that when there are prayer vigils in front of an abortion clinic the number of customers plummet. Well you can do a similar thing inside your political party by starting early. You literally have to start NOW for elections that are 2 or 4 years away. If you think you can alter a national election that is only a few months away then you are sadly mistaken. But there is no reason you can’t alter an election for the NEXT cycle after this one. And yes, in some areas you face overwhelming odds.

In my district we have a very pro-abortion state representative by the name of Peter Visclosky. He represents Gary, IN and the surrounding area and has a very strong base. He walks away with 70-to-80% of the vote each election and he sits in Washington thumbing his nose at the Pro-Life community.

No Democrat will oppose him in a primary. No Republican can stand up against him in an election because the district is overwhelmingly Democratic. So what am I to do? I vote against him, but I bide my time. Eventually he will step down. But I have organized focused attacks on many of his votes with letter writing campaigns. He is solidly anti-gun and one election we mobilized the hunting community against him and it made an impact, but not enough. Every candidate has MANY issues they oppose or support. That means you can work with MANY different groups that have different agendas. Want to get rid of a Pro-Abortion candidate, you may need to hit him on his TAX & SPEND policies? Or maybe on his GUN RIGHTS policies? Or maybe on his ABORTION beliefs? Or maybe because he wants to tax smokers!?!

Yes, you may find yourself working with groups that you do not personally support, but you must understand that sometimes in politics*** “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”*** is often a practical way to look at politicians.

 

[SoCalRC]

Just one comment:

Up here in Vermont anybody who votes ‘R’ in the Presidential race is voting for “someone who cannot win”. I would say that is true in about 2/3 of the states. Remember that in the Presidential race you are indirectly voting for President by voting for electors from your state.

Given that reality, I see no difference between voting for a Republican who can not win and a third party candidate who can not win. Or for that matter voting for a Republican you know will lose but that you much prefer against the Democrat that you know will win.

Also, in about 3/4 of the legistlative races, a vote against the incumbent is voting for a candidate who can not win. Up here in the Senate and House races I have many times voted for a pro-life independent who can not win as opposed to a pro-abortion Republican who can-not win (or in the case of Jeffords who is assured to win).

You are on the real point. Where in our faith does it say anything about winning?

Thank God that early Christians weren’t such cowards! Can you imagine a discussion where someone says, ‘Of course I want to follow Christ, but look at the empire! You’d expect me to be put to death!?’

Imagine standing with Christ against those odds, then compare it to the hand wringing we hear about ‘letting dems win’. There is no discernable difference between the two parties in anything but rhetoric. And there won’t be a difference in the country until people have the courage to do what is right, not what they think is expedient.

 

[rlg94086]

Just one comment:

Up here in Vermont anybody who votes ‘R’ in the Presidential race is voting for “someone who cannot win”. I would say that is true in about 2/3 of the states. Remember that in the Presidential race you are indirectly voting for President by voting for electors from your state.

Given that reality, I see no difference between voting for a Republican who can not win and a third party candidate who can not win. Or for that matter voting for a Republican you know will lose but that you much prefer against the Democrat that you know will win.

Also, in about 3/4 of the legistlative races, a vote against the incumbent is voting for a candidate who can not win. Up here in the Senate and House races I have many times voted for a pro-life independent who can not win as opposed to a pro-abortion Republican who can-not win (or in the case of Jeffords who is assured to win).

I see your point. I was in that position often when I lived in California with my local races. It is an easier choice to vote third party in those instances, as you know there will be no effect.

The other states I have lived in (Oregon, Colorado) as well as my current state (Washington) are a little more competitive. In fact, Colorado has turned much more blue than it used to be.