I
irishpatrick
Guest
Exactly. Well said.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
You will find the political discourse in CAF becomes a lot more civilized after paul drops out fo the race.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I agree, yet he has seen his mistake, apologized, and has made it clear that he extracted a promise from Specter to support Bush’s SC nominees–so even while he was in the midst of an error in judgment, he still sided with life. I’d say that is a VERY powerful statement of how strongly prolife he is.
I am sick of people on this board (and Republicans in general) looking for the perfect person. That is the one area that the left does waaaay better than the right–the left makes the most of what they have, while people on the right tend to complain nonstop waiting for the perfect person to arrive on the scene.
Here is the thing: every time we vote, it is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Period! It makes no difference how good a person is, we are always choosing the lesser of two evils.
The nation is down to the following choices for President (and like it or not, one of these men will be the President for the next four years):
Obama
Romney
Gingrich
Santorum
Paul
We can throw tantrums amd not vote. We can complain about the weak choices. We can yell and scream that none of those men are good enough…yet in the end, one of those men will be elected President for the next four years. It is our task to determine which man is the best when compared to the others. It is NOT our task to compare those men to the ideal candidate, because that ideal candidate does not exist…we MUST choose between those five.
It is amazing, many people on the right claim that people on the left are constantly seeking a utopian society (which has been proved to be impossible throughout history), yet those same people on the right refuse to accept that there will never be a utopian level candidate. We are all sinners, we all fall short, we all have issues and problems–our job is to choose the best of bunch, it is NOT to sit back and wait for the perfect (or uptopian styled) person.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Not voting can be a reasoned choice. I am faced with that dilemma as some of the Republicans are unacceptable to me, and I’m disillusioned with Obama. The Church bids us to vote, but we are not bound to vote in every contest on whatever level.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
It is not a matter of being bound to vote–you have every right not to vote.
It is a matter of being practical, or pragmatic, in a fallen world. Like it, or not, today we have five choices, and only five choices. No matter whether you like those choices is utterly beside the point, because in the end one of them will be President. So, you either step-up to help the lesser of the evils, or you don’t.
But, make no mistake about this, not voting is a choice and it is a form of voting. By not voting, you are actually voting to let less than 50% of this nation’s populace decide who YOUR next President will be—without you having any say whatsoever.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Even if I were to vote, I’m certain that what you say will still be true.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Maybe his constituents treat this newsletter with the decorum and importance that it deserves. Essentially, none.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
But, you would have a say in who the next President will be. Even if your person did not win, at least you tried. To do nothing is often worse than making a practical choice.
The search that some people engage in for a perfect person, will always fail. We always have a choice between the lesser of evils.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
To do nothing is often better than making an aweful choice.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Doing nothing is a vote, which is something people forget. If you stay home, you are essentially saying that since you did not get someone you really love, that no-one gets your vote. But, what you seem to not get is that your non-vote is a vote. Your non-vote will help elect someone. You are voting even though you think you are not.
The time to fight for the person you really want is during the primary process, yet after that we get down to two real choices. By not voting for either candidate, you are voting even if you think you are not.
As Christians, we are called to try to make the culture better–doing nothing ignores that responsibility. Say you really do not want Obama, and yet you decide not to vote for a GOP canidate because you just do not think that candidate is the right person. Well, in that case you are saying you prefer Obama over the GOP candidate because like it, or not, someone will win.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
To vote for someone is to signify your concurrence with their style and manner of politics and governance. To withhold that vote indicates a rejection of it. Its as simple as that.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
No–wrong. People look at voting in the wrong way. We are not declaring we agree with a given candidate, we are saying he is better than the alternative. We do not have to like the person we vote for, we simply have to think he/she is better than the other. Voting is not like receiving the Lord in the Eucharist, during which we say “Amen,” which essentially declares that we accept the Lord and all He has given to us. Instead, voting is always a choice between the lesser of two evils–ALWAYS. People need to recalibrate their thoughts about voting, it has nothing at all to do with agreeing with everything the candidate stands for, it has everything to do with choosing who is the best of those running. It is that simple…choosing the best of the least.
Further, when one withholds their vote, their own ego may feel better, but absolutely no-one else will care, and one of the candidates will be quite grateful that you did not vote against them.
Voting is typically the action of voting against the greater evil.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Voting for lesser evil is indicating consent of the lesser evil.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
No. That is just wrong. It is a vote agaist the greater evil.
Let me expand:
Say Candidate-A intended on introducing legal slavery into the USA. Then, let us say Canidate-B intended to stop legal slavery from taking place. Now, let us say that regarding all other issues those two candidates held nearly indentical views and intentions (at least from a moral pov). In that scenario, Candidate-A is the greater evil since that candidate wishes to implement legal slavery, while Candidate-B would fight to stop legal slavery. From a moral pov, Canidate-B is better than Canidate-A, at that is true independent of the other issues because on the others issues they are nearly identical. Yet, here is the kicker: one of those candidates would win, no matter their failings, and by not voting, we would be potentially helping legal slavery return to the USA.
Even the Church recognizes gradations of improvement must be considered. Say there is a chance that one candidate reduce some abortions, while the other candidate intends to expand abortion–than there is no real choice there, the person that would work to save lives is the clear moral choice, independent of most of the other issues–since life comes first.
H
Havard
Guest
I for one am uncomfortable describing other people as “evils”.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
It is not that the people are evil, it is that sometimes their intentions lean to the evil.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I am perfectly comfortable in describing the positions and proposed actions of other people as evil.
H
Havard
Guest
The box to check on the ballot is for the man (or woman), not his or her proposed platform. I’m not saying the platform is irrelevant, hardly, but the final decision has to be about the person.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
When I vote, I don’t vote for the person, but rather how he or she has proposed to govern or leglislate. If that person has proposed that they will govern or legislate in a manner that I feel incompatible with my moral beliefs, I do not vote for that person.
Well, at least that is how an informed, values-driven voter votes. When you go into the ballot box and pull the level for or against someone because you think they are personally wonderful, or because they have the same skin color as you, or because they worship in a different church than you, or because they are rich and you hate rich people, THAT form of voting is evil.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
No, wrong. We do not vote for the person, if we did, then no-one would ever be worthy. We vote for what the person promises to do, and in most cases we are voting against a different plan or set of promises.
- Status