Vote a split ticket?

[Andruschak]

As an RCIA Candidate, the upcoming elections will be my first in which I am required to take in the question of Pro-life candidates. But that means voting Republican, the party where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and we can see how “the LOVE of money is the root of all evil”.

How about this…vote Republican for those who actually legislate and vote on laws, and Democrat on all other administrative positions that do not directly write and vote on laws?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

As an RCIA Candidate, the upcoming elections will be my first in which I am required to take in the question of Pro-life candidates. But that means voting Republican, the party where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and we can see how “the LOVE of money is the root of all evil”.

How about this…vote Republican for those who actually legislate and vote on laws, and Democrat on all other administrative positions that do not directly write and vote on laws?

No, you must vote REPUBLICAN! Always REPUBLICAN! Democrats are satan and evil!

(That’s what you’ll get here).

Myself, I would say that you should look at what the person’s job will actually be and whether or not they actually will have authority over the issue. In California, the Governor can do little on the abortion issue because of the way California’s Constitution is written (unlike the Federal Constitution where the right to privacy is implicit (not plainly written out), it is not so in California’s Constitution where it is actually explicit (plainly written out)). The only way to ban abortion in California is through an amendment to the Calffornia Constitution. On the other hand, State funding of abortions is an issue that the Governor has a voice in (he can veto it as a line item). Schwarzenegger is pro-choice as is Angelides and believes that abortion is a right. Schwarzenegger is also moving to fund embryonic stem cell research in California and vigorously supported an initiative that funded same. On the other hand, on other issues, Schwarzenegger is contrary to almost every facet of Catholic moral and social doctrine. He is for gay “marriage” and is against all laws that protect working people.

Some people here would tell you that Schwarzenegger is a “liberal” Republican, but he’s not. He’s pretty extremely Right-wing on the issues that really matter to the Republican party…money and the elimination of all government services while expanding the power of the State over individuals. Remember last year’s funky four initiatives? That’s the real Schwarzenegger and as he said in the movies, he’ll be back.

 

[Andruschak]

No, you must vote REPUBLICAN! Always REPUBLICAN! Democrats are satan and evil!

(That’s what you’ll get here).
.

Sigh…you guys are NOT making it easy for us wet-behind-the-ears RCIA Candidates.

Your other comments remind me of a phone conversation I had with my former land-lady. She had been a lapsed catholic, marrried a Jehovah Witness, and became a witnesss herself.

When I mentioned that I had put on the Green Scapular and was reciting the suggested prayer daily, she blew her stack, denounced me for joining the armies of satan, and declared the Pope to be the Anti-Christ. All that in response to my wearing a small piece of square cloth. I didn’t have the heart to tell her about my brown scapular.:nope:

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Sigh…you guys are NOT making it easy for us wet-behind-the-ears RCIA Candidates.

Your other comments remind me of a phone conversation I had with my former land-lady. She had been a lapsed catholic, marrried a Jehovah Witness, and became a witnesss herself.

When I mentioned that I had put on the Green Scapular and was reciting the suggested prayer daily, she blew her stack, denounced me for joining the armies of satan, and declared the Pope to be the Anti-Christ. All that in response to my wearing a small piece of square cloth. I didn’t have the heart to tell her about my brown scapular.:nope:

Sorry, that was meant to be a joke. Jokes aren’t well-taken around here. Read the rest of my post…you might find it enlightening.

 

[rlg94086]

For what it’s worth, your idea seems prudent to me. There are elected position which have no chance of actually affecting pro-life issues. Just make sure you do your research.

No comment on the “rich get richer” stuff. You need to research that yourself, and come to your own conclusions.

As an RCIA Candidate, the upcoming elections will be my first in which I am required to take in the question of Pro-life candidates. But that means voting Republican, the party where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and we can see how “the LOVE of money is the root of all evil”.

How about this…vote Republican for those who actually legislate and vote on laws, and Democrat on all other administrative positions that do not directly write and vote on laws?

 

[estesbob]

As an RCIA Candidate, the upcoming elections will be my first in which I am required to take in the question of Pro-life candidates. But that means voting Republican, the party where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and we can see how “the LOVE of money is the root of all evil”.

How about this…vote Republican for those who actually legislate and vote on laws, and Democrat on all other administrative positions that do not directly write and vote on laws?

The Party of the canidate you are considerng is irelevant. The Church says first and foremost we are to look at a canidates stand on aborition and euthanasia. We should always go with the pro-life canidate-again regardless of political affiliation.

The Church says we can vote for a pro-abortion canidate only if they are running against another pro-abortion canidate. In that case we must look to see which canidate is closest to Church teaching. for instance if one canidate was for all abortions but partial borth abortion and the other supported even partial Birth abortion we could vote for the former but not the latter, we also have the choice of not voting at all.

The Church says that no issue or combination of issues trumps abortion, thus we can not vote for a pro-abortion canidate over a pro-life candiate even if we agree with the pro-abortion canidate on all the other issues.

hope this helps.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The Church says that no issue or combination of issues trumps abortion, thus we can not vote for a pro-abortion canidate over a pro-life candiate even if we agree with the pro-abortion canidate on all the other issues.

I have a question on the “no other issue trumps abortion.” Two presidential candidates, one pro-choice and otherwise non-offensive, we’ll call him Derick the Dem, the other anti-abortion (I don’t say pro-life for the following reason) but also believes strongly in strong first-strike nuclear policy (in other words, he’d fire our nukes first, destroying millions of people in an instant) who we’ll call Dr. Strangelove the Republican. Now, let’s further assume that we, as good Catholics, ignore Dr. Strangelove’s first-strike policy and only look at his anti-abortion, nee pro-life, stance and he wins the election. About 2 months into Dr. Strangelove’s term, some world leader honks him off and he fires our nukes at this country, killing 100,000,000 people. This country retaliates, killing 100,000,000 Americans.

Are those who voted for Dr. Strangelove formally materially guilty of those 200,000,000 deaths (after all, this was forseeable considering the first-strike stance of Dr. Strangelove) or are they worthless along side the approximately 39,000,000 killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade became precedent?

 

[estesbob]

I have a question on the “no other issue trumps abortion.” Two presidential candidates, one pro-choice and otherwise non-offensive, we’ll call him Derick the Dem, the other anti-abortion (I don’t say pro-life for the following reason) but also believes strongly in strong first-strike nuclear policy (in other words, he’d fire our nukes first, destroying millions of people in an instant) who we’ll call Dr. Strangelove the Republican. Now, let’s further assume that we, as good Catholics, ignore Dr. Strangelove’s first-strike policy and only look at his anti-abortion, nee pro-life, stance and he wins the election. About 2 months into Dr. Strangelove’s term, some world leader honks him off and he fires our nukes at this country, killing 100,000,000 people. This country retaliates, killing 100,000,000 Americans.

Are those who voted for Dr. Strangelove formally materially guilty of those 200,000,000 deaths (after all, this was forseeable considering the first-strike stance of Dr. Strangelove) or are they worthless along side the approximately 39,000,000 killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade became precedent?

I hope the OP sees the absurd lengths some go to to jusify their support of Killing Children.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I hope the OP sees the absurd lengths some go to to jusify their support of Killing Children.

It’s a valid question. Why do you refuse to answer it?

And kindly stop putting words in my mouth. I don’t vote for pro-choice candidates unless I have no other choice and then I hold my nose. I would that abortion were eliminated tomorrow.

I just point out Republican hypocrisy on the issue because I’d like people to stop voting for their own enemies and a new pro-life party that was faithful to Catholic teaching would emerge. The Republican party is an enemy of the Church and the Democrats aren’t much better.

 

[Jerome42]

As an RCIA Candidate, the upcoming elections will be my first in which I am required to take in the question of Pro-life candidates. But that means voting Republican, the party where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and we can see how “the LOVE of money is the root of all evil”.

How about this…vote Republican for those who actually legislate and vote on laws, and Democrat on all other administrative positions that do not directly write and vote on laws?

At this particular time in U.S. History you should vote for that politician/party that has done the most to support the sanctity of life/marriage/etc.

There is only one party that meets these high moral standards. It makes absolutely no sense to vote for the other party regardless of perceived good that they have done in the past. The stakes are too high.

All of us dislike the hypocrisy of current elected officials. We may feel that many of them do not even deserve a vote. Unfortunately if we fail to vote in an election it will only be to the benefit of the wrong side.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

At this particular time in U.S. History you should vote for that politician/party that has done the most to support the sanctity of life/marriage/etc.

There is only one party that meets these high moral standards. It makes absolutely no sense to vote for the other party regardless of perceived good that they have done in the past. The stakes are too high.

All of us dislike the hypocrisy of current elected officials. We may feel that many of them do not even deserve a vote. Unfortunately if we fail to vote in an election it will only be to the benefit of the wrong side.

Let’s make this accurate:

“There is only one party that claims to meet these high standards. They don’t have to actually do anything, just make sybmolic moves to placate us from time to time.”

“All of us dislike the hypocrisy of current elected officials, but we’ll ignore it if it keeps the people who pretend to respect life, marriage, etc. in power. Many of us feel that they don’t deserve a vote, but as long as they continue to pretend that they take us seriously, we’ll believe them and keep sending them money and voting for them anyway… Who cares if they destroy what makes this country great? At least they say that they’re pro-life?”

 

[aimee]

I have a question on the “no other issue trumps abortion.” Two presidential candidates, one pro-choice and otherwise non-offensive, we’ll call him Derick the Dem, the other anti-abortion (I don’t say pro-life for the following reason) but also believes strongly in strong first-strike nuclear policy (in other words, he’d fire our nukes first, destroying millions of people in an instant) who we’ll call Dr. Strangelove the Republican. Now, let’s further assume that we, as good Catholics, ignore Dr. Strangelove’s first-strike policy and only look at his anti-abortion, nee pro-life, stance and he wins the election. About 2 months into Dr. Strangelove’s term, some world leader honks him off and he fires our nukes at this country, killing 100,000,000 people. This country retaliates, killing 100,000,000 Americans.

Are those who voted for Dr. Strangelove formally materially guilty of those 200,000,000 deaths (after all, this was forseeable considering the first-strike stance of Dr. Strangelove) or are they worthless along side the approximately 39,000,000 killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade became precedent?

Wow!! Are you insulting Democrats

 

[estesbob]

The OP should, again, keep in mind that the Church dos not endorse ANY political party.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Wow!! Are you insulting Democrats

How would this scenario be insulting to Democrats? Our theoretical Dr. Strangelove is a “pro-life,” first-strike Republican…just like Bush is. Strangelove just pushed the button quicker than Bush would (he can’t find the button, thank God!).

 

[Jerome42]

Let’s make this accurate:

“There is only one party that claims to meet these high standards. They don’t have to actually do anything, just make sybmolic moves to placate us from time to time.”

“All of us dislike the hypocrisy of current elected officials, but we’ll ignore it if it keeps the people who pretend to respect life, marriage, etc. in power. Many of us feel that they don’t deserve a vote, but as long as they continue to pretend that they take us seriously, we’ll believe them and keep sending them money and voting for them anyway… Who cares if they destroy what makes this country great? At least they say that they’re pro-life?”

Are you willing to stand before the Lord on Judgement Day and try and explain why it was that you supported the political party that was responsible for 47 million abortions since 1973, the president who vetoed the late term abortion ban, the party that supports homosexual marriages, etc.

It’s your choice, the stakes are verry high.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Are you willing to stand before the Lord on Judgement Day and try and explain why it was that you supported the political party that was responsible for 47 million abortions since 1973, the president who vetoed the late term abortion ban, the party that supports homosexual marriages, etc.

It’s your choice, the stakes are verry high.

Excuse me. Can you please show me where I supported the “political party that was responsible for 47 million abortions since 1973?” Can you please indicate where I supported “the president who vetoed late term abortion ban?” Oh, and while you’re at it, please show me where I supported “the party that supports homosexual marriages.”

Now, if pointing out that the Republican party is leading us along with their “pro-life” talk and little symbolic “pro-life actions” that do NOTHING to reduce the number of abortions so they can get our vote is pro-Democrat, then I think it speaks more to your being a loyalist Republican partisan than actually being pro-life. The same goes with gay “marriages.”

The Republican party isn’t pro-life, they’re pro-Republican-in-power, period end. If that means tacking on a pretend “pro-life” plank to their platform in order to get the vote of Christians, they’ll do it in a heartbeat. If it means tacking on a “no-gay-‘marriage’” plank to their platform, they’ll do that, too. Whatever gets us to vote for them.

Now, if the Republican party were to decide to jettison the pro-life plank, which they would do right now if it meant getting votes, what would you do, then? If they were to jettison the “no-gay-‘marriage’” plank, which they would also do right now if it meant getting votes, what would you do?

Would you leave the Republican party? Would you stay in it? This is where the important question is. I see through their talking points and lies and see tha the Emperor has no clothes. Decrying that fact doesn’t mean that I am in support of the Democrats, it means that I can no longer stand by and be lied to without decrying the liars for what they are.

 

[Jerome42]

Excuse me. Can you please show me where I supported the “political party that was responsible for 47 million abortions since 1973?” Can you please indicate where I supported “the president who vetoed late term abortion ban?” Oh, and while you’re at it, please show me where I supported “the party that supports homosexual marriages.”
COLOR=“Blue”]The voting records of those politicians you helped put in power speak for you.

Now, if pointing out that the Republican party is leading us along with their “pro-life” talk and little symbolic “pro-life actions” that do NOTHING to reduce the number of abortions so they can get our vote is pro-Democrat, then I think it speaks more to your being a loyalist Republican partisan than actually being pro-life. The same goes with gay "marriages."COLOR=“Blue”]I agree, talk is cheap. The proof is in the voting records.

The Republican party isn’t pro-life, they’re pro-Republican-in-power, period end. If that means tacking on a pretend “pro-life” plank to their platform in order to get the vote of Christians, they’ll do it in a heartbeat. If it means tacking on a “no-gay-‘marriage’” plank to their platform, they’ll do that, too. Whatever gets us to vote for them. COLOR=“Blue”]It is unfortunate that this has become so bi-partisan. In the sixties the Democrats stood up for the downtrodden, stood up for Civil Rights. This, in spite of many Southern Democrats with opposing views. In those days they were on moral high ground. Things change. The Republicans now are on the moral high ground. It is up for us, as moral Christians, to discern whether the candidates represent our moral/ethical views. This is no simple task.

Now, if the Republican party were to decide to jettison the pro-life plank, which they would do right now if it meant getting votes, what would you do, then? If they were to jettison the “no-gay-‘marriage’” plank, which they would also do right now if it meant getting votes, what would you do? COLOR=“Blue”]I would continue to be a free thinking Independent Voter, voting for the best canditate.

Would you leave the Republican party? Would you stay in it? This is where the important question is. I see through their talking points and lies and see tha the Emperor has no clothes. Decrying that fact doesn’t mean that I am in support of the Democrats, it means that I can no longer stand by and be lied to without decrying the liars for what they are
COLOR=“Blue”]The time may be ripe for another political party.

 

[Robert_Bay]

WARNING

Please stay on the topic of the original post. Take personal squabbles to private messaging.

 

[SeekerJen]

Are you willing to stand before the Lord on Judgement Day and try and explain why it was that you supported the political party that was responsible for 47 million abortions since 1973, the president who vetoed the late term abortion ban, the party that supports homosexual marriages, etc.

It’s your choice, the stakes are verry high.

There are pro-life Democrats, just as there are pro-abortion Republicans. If one votes a knee-jerk straight ticket for either party then one has not bothered to do one’s homework. Picking and choosing one’s candidates to vote the most pro-life ballot possible is the moral and Catholic option.

Roe vs. Wade happened during a Republican presidency (Nixon). His presidency was followed by another Republican, Gerald Ford, for three years. Four years later, Republican candidate Reagan took office for eight years, immediately followed by four more years of another Republican, Bush the 1st. Now we are in the second 4-year term of another Republican. So all totaled, we have 22 years (and counting) of Republican presidency out of the 33 years since Roe vs. Wade took effect. And yet, abortion is still very legal in this nation. Something to think about when the temptation strikes to vote straight-ticket Republican without doing one’s homework.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

LCMS_No_More:

Excuse me. Can you please show me where I supported the “political party that was responsible for 47 million abortions since 1973?” Can you please indicate where I supported “the president who vetoed late term abortion ban?” Oh, and while you’re at it, please show me where I supported “the party that supports homosexual marriages.”

The voting records of those politicians you helped put in power speak for you.

You’re assuming that I voted for pro-choice candidates. In a few instances have I done so well before I was a Catholic and it was in spite of, not because of their view on abortion. In the Bush v. Kerry election I voted “none of the above.”

Now, if pointing out that the Republican party is leading us along with their “pro-life” talk and little symbolic “pro-life actions” that do NOTHING to reduce the number of abortions so they can get our vote is pro-Democrat, then I think it speaks more to your being a loyalist Republican partisan than actually being pro-life. The same goes with gay "marriages.

I agree, talk is cheap. The proof is in the voting records.

Cheap, too, are the pretend steps the Republicans are taking to reduce abortions. They are meaningless and only serve to create a ‘pro-life’ record. Meanwhile, the number of abortions does not go down.

The Republican party isn’t pro-life, they’re pro-Republican-in-power, period end. If that means tacking on a pretend “pro-life” plank to their platform in order to get the vote of Christians, they’ll do it in a heartbeat. If it means tacking on a “no-gay-‘marriage’” plank to their platform, they’ll do that, too. Whatever gets us to vote for them.

It is unfortunate that this has become so bi-partisan. In the sixties the Democrats stood up for the downtrodden, stood up for Civil Rights. This, in spite of many Southern Democrats with opposing views. In those days they were on moral high ground. Things change. The Republicans now are on the moral high ground. It is up for us, as moral Christians, to discern whether the candidates represent our moral/ethical views. This is no simple task.

And, I ask, what created this extremely partisan situation? It started back in the 1990’s with the major attacks on the Clinton administration by Republican talk radio.

Now, if the Republican party were to decide to jettison the pro-life plank, which they would do right now if it meant getting votes, what would you do, then? If they were to jettison the “no-gay-‘marriage’” plank, which they would also do right now if it meant getting votes, what would you do?

I would continue to be a free thinking Independent Voter, voting for the best canditate.

You’d be a rarity, that’s for sure.

Would you leave the Republican party? Would you stay in it? This is where the important question is. I see through their talking points and lies and see tha the Emperor has no clothes. Decrying that fact doesn’t mean that I am in support of the Democrats, it means that I can no longer stand by and be lied to without decrying the liars for what they are

The time may be ripe for another political party.

On this we are in agreement. The Republicans are completely amoral and profess our morals to get our votes. The Democrats are also amoral and don’t care.