C
Convert_in_99
Guest
Right!
- Status
M
Michael68
Guest
I’m sorry, I’m very angry right now and should stop posting. I just have so much concern for our country!
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
I understand. I get angry too. We all do. It really should be a banned topic here. It’s just too much temptation for us all.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Point taken. I would be the first to raise interest rates, but it’s much more than that. The U.S. dollar is the default and most stable currency of the world and currently it’s strong already. The U.S. dollar credit rating is AAA. And so on. We can’t afford to be isolationist and/or follow Britain’s lead. The world depends on the U.S. for many things, even if Russia and others don’t want to admit it. Why would we want to risk losing our credit rating? This isn’t the microeconomic world of the Trumps and the Icahns and others.
No wonder many of the economists on Bloomberg predict a market crash if it even looks like Trump will win. But when one looks at the six top market crashes going back to the Great Depression, they have all been under Republican administrations* so these economists have some basis for their prediction.
*Hoover, Nixon(2), Reagan, Bush(2)
Y
YADA
Guest
People have said that - its all about the SCOTUS …
Hillary wants to stack the Court with Pro-abortion justices
Hillary wants to revisit the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and override Gonzales V Carhart which upheld it [and do not forget that Bill Clinton vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban twice] - she will be able to if she shapes the Court in addition to getting any pro-Life laws passed in any state
The next justices appointed will be shaping the direction this country will take for the next 30-40 years … Supreme Court Justices serve for life … not to mention the justices appointed to the lower courts … and the many decisions they will make.
The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the mother, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape… And Hillary wants to overturn it - so that tax payer funds can be used to pay for every and any abortion. The Helms Amendment helps to prevent exporting our culture of Abortion overseas … Hillary wants to overturn it too … so we can export Abortion abroad and pay for them too …
Yes … there is a reason to want to stop the murder of babies here in America and Over seas too
M
Michael68
Guest
Look, I know people ridicule us for our stance on life. I can’t understand it, but I sincerely believe that if no one champions the right to life, then any right can be eroded. I can’t get past that it is murder! I shouldn’t have to get past that fact.
IF YOU DON’T HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE, WHAT DO YOU HAVE?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Again, on a Catholic forum how is this NOT an argument that we MUST vote for Trump?
There are countries where only one candidate appears and it is mandated that all vote for him. I would hope the U.S. will never be one of those countries.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
No, I was meaning politics should be a banned topic, not abortion.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
I agree!
K
kat07
Guest
This is an interesting essay by the Catholic philosopher Nathan Schlueter on the Moral Truth and Ethics of Voting.
thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/08/17676/
Schlueter’s argument that abstention and voting for a third party candidate represents a self-serving abdication of one’s responsibility to solve the collective action of problems which will promote the greatest good and prevent the greatest harm.
thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/08/17676/
Schlueter’s argument that abstention and voting for a third party candidate represents a self-serving abdication of one’s responsibility to solve the collective action of problems which will promote the greatest good and prevent the greatest harm.
P
Paganus
Guest
Yes, I would rather vote for SCOTUS than POTUS. SCOTUS has the greater power.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Sounds like what the experts were saying about the British pound before the Brexit vote.
The American dollar is being propped up by those with huge stakes. Very likely the reason the market crashes occurred under Republican administrations is because those were far less likely to enact policies which artificially supported the markets – similar to what is happening today.
You may want to watch this…
youtu.be/ZnG6Sz_B4ds
Start at about 15:26 and again at 22:00 for the parts related to your post.
G
Gertabelle
Guest
It’s tempting to think that finding sources that agree with our opinion means we must be right.
It’s also tempting to think that those who disagree with us just haven’t been as educated as us, or they’d obviously agree with us.
Schlueter has argued his opinion. Great. But it’s his opinion and not the teaching of the Church. It is wrong to try to elevate it to something it is not.
I could post a dozen links to Catholic thinkers who share my opinion about voting third party. But people on this thread who are vehemently against third party voting will find fault with every argument and perhaps even with the faith of the authors – not because they’re wrong, but because the authors don’t agree with THEM.
If finding people who agree with you makes you more confident in your choice, great.
But please don’t think that I’m suddenly going to say, “Oh my goodness, at last I understand! Why didn’t someone tell me sooner? I must immediately change my opinion and start a new thread announcing it to the world!”
Um, no.
But again, if posting links like this make people feel reassured in their conscientious opinions, great.
If, however, you are hoping posting this is going to make me change my mind…sorry, no. I have made my choice based on prayerful consideration and research of candidates, as well as a knowledge of both the electoral college and the powers of the POTUS.
I’m good.
G
Gertabelle
Guest
Reading your posts, seeing your anger towards and judgment of those who disagree with you, just breaks my heart for you.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
:clapping:It’s tempting to think that finding sources that agree with our opinion means we must be right.
It’s also tempting to think that those who disagree with us just haven’t been as educated as us, or they’d obviously agree with us.
Schlueter has argued his opinion. Great. But it’s his opinion and not the teaching of the Church. It is wrong to try to elevate it to something it is not.
I could post a dozen links to Catholic thinkers who share my opinion about voting third party. But people on this thread who are vehemently against third party voting will find fault with every argument and perhaps even with the faith of the authors – not because they’re wrong, but because the authors don’t agree with THEM.
If finding people who agree with you makes you more confident in your choice, great.
But please don’t think that I’m suddenly going to say, “Oh my goodness, at last I understand! Why didn’t someone tell me sooner? I must immediately change my opinion and start a new thread announcing it to the world!”
Um, no.
But again, if posting links like this make people feel reassured in their conscientious opinions, great.
If, however, you are hoping posting this is going to make me change my mind…sorry, no. I have made my choice based on prayerful consideration and research of candidates, as well as a knowledge of both the electoral college and the powers of the POTUS.
I’m good.
G
Gertabelle
Guest
Gee, glad you pointed that out – I finally see the light.
I suppose I would have to agree. My third party vote is a vote against the top two.
'Nuff said.
God bless and keep you! Praying for all who post here!
K
kat07
Guest
The essay posted was in no way posted to indicate that one must be less educated if they vote for a third party or that if Schlueter opinion aligns with others it’s the correct opinion. If that’s how you want to interpret it, then that’s solely on you… Schluter never said one was less educated if someone voted third party. Also, the essay wasn’t posted for some type of “elevation” as you claim.It’s tempting to think that finding sources that agree with our opinion means we must be right.
It’s also tempting to think that those who disagree with us just haven’t been as educated as us, or they’d obviously agree with us.
Schlueter has argued his opinion. Great. But it’s his opinion and not the teaching of the Church. It is wrong to try to elevate it to something it is not.
I could post a dozen links to Catholic thinkers who share my opinion about voting third party. But people on this thread who are vehemently against third party voting will find fault with every argument and perhaps even with the faith of the authors – not because they’re wrong, but because the authors don’t agree with THEM.
If finding people who agree with you makes you more confident in your choice, great.
But please don’t think that I’m suddenly going to say, “Oh my goodness, at last I understand! Why didn’t someone tell me sooner? I must immediately change my opinion and start a new thread announcing it to the world!”
Um, no.
But again, if posting links like this make people feel reassured in their conscientious opinions, great.
If, however, you are hoping posting this is going to make me change my mind…sorry, no. I have made my choice based on prayerful consideration and research of candidates, as well as a knowledge of both the electoral college and the powers of the POTUS.
I’m good.
I also disagree that if you posted other Catholic thinkers opinions, and who share your opinion about voting third party, that posters on this forum would question their faith. I would hope people on here would be able to look beyond that, and I think most posters are intelligent enough do so.
The arguments to be, if you agree or even disagree with Schluter’s opinion, are a lot more rich than the ones you posted above and I would hope people would be able to have a much more substantive conversation on what Schulter said and be able to delve into the concepts raised in his essay. Did you even read the essay? The essay had a lot of examples and references to Church teaching, and what John Paul II stated in his The Gospel of Life, as well Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Thomas Aquinas’s argument in his Summa Theologiae, etc.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
They must think we are dumb as rocks the way they keep “educating” us over and over and over again.
Gee, glad you pointed that out – I finally see the light.
I suppose I would have to agree. My third party vote is a vote against the top two.
'Nuff said.
God bless and keep you! Praying for all who post here!
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Given that voting third party serves for all intents and purposes as a non-vote, what would be the difference really between voting third party and not voting? Besides “sending a message” to the top two candidates – a message that will be far from heard given that it will be drowned out by the vast numbers who are shouting for one of the two leading candidates – what else is really accomplished?
Gee, glad you pointed that out – I finally see the light.
I suppose I would have to agree. My third party vote is a vote against the top two.
'Nuff said.
God bless and keep you! Praying for all who post here!
I suppose you will have the self-satisfaction of not having voted for what is distasteful to you. But is it all about you? Or is it about what is really good for your country?
The problem is that not voting for the least distasteful candidate functions to NOT nullify one vote for the most distasteful, which means your third party vote is not only wasted but leaves the most distasteful (or most evil) candidate with a +1 when you could have acted to nullify the +1 and made it a 0 by your vote for the least evil or least distasteful candidate.
AND, by the way, when I say “distasteful” I am not referring to character flaws, I do mean from the point of view of policy.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You have misstated the purpose of voting for a third party. It is definitely not to send a message to the two major candidates. No one who votes third party expects that. So I call straw man on that argument. The purpose of voting for a third (or fourth or fifth) party is to send a message to the public at large that you support this candidate. This is what lets other voters who might feel similarly inclined know that they are not alone. It is much like voting Republican in a solid blue state. You don’t expect to win that state, but you don’t want everyone to think the Democrats are universally preferred. That will encourage more people to vote Republican in the next election, where they might actually win the state. If that thinking is valid for Republicans, why would it be invalid when applied to other parties? Having only two major parties is not the inevitable result of representative democracy, as many other countries have shown. Even in the US, major parties have come and gone.
- Status