For those who say abstaining from the presidential vote is a vote for Clinton and thus on demand abortion… I’m not an American, but does the president have the power to unilaterally push through on demand abortion across the country? If both candidates are immoral options (and I strongly believe that it is NOT an option to vote for Trump or Hilary if you hold to a Catholic worldview), why not abstain from the presidential election and focus on pro-life, decent candidates for other offices: state governors, congressmen, senators, etc.
The thing about this American election is the following:
- The Supreme Court. Whoever wins may pick 5-6 new justices Many of them are old. The Supreme Court legalized so-called gay “marriage”. If Hillary Clinton gets in, that won’t change. In fact, things could get much worse for orthodox Catholics.
In fact, liberals and mainstream Democrats should take note because this could negate what GOP governors and legislatures do in blue states. Those property taxes and union insurance plans they don’t like? Don’t think for a second that a new liberal court wouldn’t make them pay through the nose! It may even, ironically, undermine Clinton’s own pragmatism.
I can say the GOP would’ve thought twice before confirming John Roberts if they knew he’d save Obamacare twice. The late Scalia even scoffed that it should be called “Supreme Court Care”.
- Voting third party normally means that all one does is help the person one really doesn’t want to win get elected.
Frankly, I heard the “not good enough” argument last year with the “not-Romney” crowd, and I haven’t exactly seen them since the election. Perhaps they are too busy trying to work to pay for all the bills Barack Obama is racking up or they busy looking for full-time work.
I also have to wonder sometimes what some American social conservatives are thinking and if the left isn’t right that some of them really still think the electorate is the same as it was in 1950.
Normally it would not be an option but a third candidate may be viable in this election given the current negatives of both frontrunners, but I’m in a position now where I have to see what the GOP elite is planning. A big name like Bush or Romney might be able to draw 1/3 of the vote or so, and the election would depend on what happens in each state. In this scenario, Clinton probably wins because the split would be mostly in republican states. But, I’ll have to see.
However, someone like a libertarian candidate or a Virgil Goode isn’t going to do that. In fact, in the corrupt state of Illinois, for instance,I’ve heard the Democratic Party goes out of its way to keep its nearest competitor, the Green Party, off the ballot, while they are okay with libertarian candidates whom they evidently think votes away from the GOP.
Voting on moral exactness in this era comes with a high price. Folks will have to excuse me that I’m not convinced all of them understand that.
The golden rule about American elections that I haven’t seen a lot of talk about lately is the electorate college. The popular vote is for all intensive purposes meaningless when it comes to this, other than the fact that if a candidate wins a majority by 1 vote in most states, they get all the electoral votes. 270 means that person is president.
