Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deb1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some say they could vote for a pro-abortion candidate or Party because that one has a better economic and medical program planned which would benefit the most people in the nation on the whole.

By that standard,
it wouldn’t even be a sin to vote for Hitler.
He advocated legalized murder of Jews,
but so what??? He had a great economic program
for most Germans, most Germans were able to afford
the new “Volkswagen,” health care programs were expanded
and everybody had a job.

People get livid when you compare pro-abortion to
pro-genocide, but that’s only because you can SEE
a living, born Jewish person, but you can’t SEE
a baby while its still in the womb. Plus, these
people stubbornly refuse to face reality.
 
dmelosi said:
The translation is to NOT vote for the party that clearly states in its party platform that there will be no restrictions on abortion.
Click to expand...
Um…HELLO!? :mad:

I’ve been saying all along that I am NOT voting FOR Democrats or pro-choice-on-abortion candidates. Get it?

Stop with the PROTESTANT either/or thinking!
 
SoCalRC said:
Well, I must confess that I am in the top 2% of earners. I certainly have no hate for myself, nor my peers. But weath building, un-restrained by governance for the common good does, most assuredly rob others of a piece of the pie.

In many big ways, like having virtual personhood for corporations, but paying much lower tax rates (a competitive advantage), or tax incentives for outsourcing jobs oversees. But also in many systemic ways we don’t think about.

The Federal Reserve principally serves broader business interests. When it raises interest rates to ‘cool’ the economy, it artifically keeps unemployment higher. That is, some people are denied jobs for the greater common good. Similiarly, now that an unregulated lending industry has sucked the capitol market dry of real liquidity, the fed is forced to cut interest rates to try to heat up the economy. But, we already have inflation. Cutting rates will artificially increase inflation. This means that people will have less money to invest in their children’s education, generational assets, or just simple savings. Again, some people take it on the chin for the greater good.

One of the neatest tricks that the GOP has pulled in the 20th century is to get large chunks of people to vote against their own financial self interest. This is principally by virtue of tapping strong emotions. LBJ underestimated when he said that passing the Civil Rights Act would make the south Republican for a generation. Racism is viseral, and even Reagan’s speech writer Pat Buchanan has conceded that they specifically pandered to it (Reagan announced his candidacy for president by going to the south and giving a speech on ‘states rights’).

Similiarly, issues like homosexuality and abortion are very emotionally intense for many people. So, even if Bush’s $270B were distributed so that $90B when to folks in my income bracket, $90B went to the 90th to 98th percentile, and the last $90B distributed to everyone else (say 99%+ of the total population) many voters express views like yourself, self interest, even seemingly common national interest, can all take a back seat to a particular issue.

The big question is, how to deal with success? Once you have control of the WH, congress, and a majority of judical appointments, it is hard to continue to blame the other side for a lack of progress on everyone’s specific priorities. Real priorities get action, lip service priorities really don’t. That puts it back on the ‘believers’ - are they committed to their principles, or the party.
Click to expand...
You said it, brother.

Abortion is still legal nationwide, but the top 10% have received 60% of tax cuts. Based on results and rhetoric, what’s the real priority for the Republicans?

Outside of here and a few token references, abortion is not a high-priority item for the Republican party this election cycle.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
Um…HELLO!? :mad:

I’ve been saying all along that I am NOT voting FOR Democrats or pro-choice-on-abortion candidates. Get it?

Stop with the PROTESTANT either/or thinking!
Click to expand...
You are reading a lot into my correction of your translation.
 
dmelosi said:
You are reading a lot into my correction of your translation.
Click to expand...
I said that humphrey says that one MUST vote Republican or they are a ghoulish baby killing monster. His insisence that voting “none of the above” is useless is intimidation into voting Republican. I’m not about to be intimidated by the likes of him, period.

You say that it’s that we must not vote FOR the party that is not pro-choice-on-abortion. You are indeed more correct, but refusal to vote Republican is NOT a vote for the pro-choice-on-abortion. It is a vote that says, I don’t like either of these fools.

I bet that if we had a choice of “none of the above” on our ballots, it would win in most cases.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
I said that humphrey says that one MUST vote Republican or they are a ghoulish baby killing monster. His insisence that voting “none of the above” is useless is intimidation into voting Republican. I’m not about to be intimidated by the likes of him, period.

You say that it’s that we must not vote FOR the party that is not pro-choice-on-abortion. You are indeed more correct, but refusal to vote Republican is NOT a vote for the pro-choice-on-abortion. It is a vote that says, I don’t like either of these fools.

I bet that if we had a choice of “none of the above” on our ballots, it would win in most cases.
Click to expand...
Humphrey has logically and without intimidation stated his reasons. You are the one that appears to be getting upset and trying to intimidate with your name calling.
 
dmelosi said:
Humphrey has logically and without intimidation stated his reasons. You are the one that appears to be getting upset and trying to intimidate with your name calling.
Click to expand...
Of course you would say that…you agree with him. It’s common practics.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
Of course you would say that…you agree with him. It’s common practics.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken in the reason for my comment.
Your response in post #199, then when I questioned you about that, post #202, you changed direction.

No logic in your comments, but for some reason you changed the questioning, telling me I have an either/or mentality when if you look through my posts, I have never done that.

That is why I said that about you getting upset and intimidating and name calling.
 
dmelosi said:
You are mistaken in the reason for my comment.
Your response in post #199, then when I questioned you about that, post #202, you changed direction.
Click to expand...
First, post numbers are meaningless because they always change for me. Right now, the post I’m responding to is post 1.

Okay, I was wrong. You’ll never hear that from anyone else, I’ll tell you. Too much pride running around these here parts.
No logic in your comments, but for some reason you changed the questioning, telling me I have an either/or mentality when if you look through my posts, I have never done that.
Click to expand...
You got me. It’s humphrey who has the protestant either/or mentality, not you. I apologize.
That is why I said that about you getting upset and intimidating and name calling.
Click to expand...
I admit I get upset. Calumny, such as humphrey’s, tends to upset me. Name calling is when one calls a person a name. Talking about mentalities is not.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
First, post numbers are meaningless because they always change for me. Right now, the post I’m responding to is post 1.

Okay, I was wrong. You’ll never hear that from anyone else, I’ll tell you. Too much pride running around these here parts.

You got me. It’s humphrey who has the protestant either/or mentality, not you. I apologize.

I admit I get upset. Calumny, such as humphrey’s, tends to upset me. Name calling is when one calls a person a name. Talking about mentalities is not.
Click to expand...
I think we all get upset about the issue, the disagreement is how we go about to best change.

And for the record, I do agree with most of what Humphrey says.
 
Sometimes if both candidates for a political office are pro-choice, it benefits Christians to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of staying home.

Do folks remember the beating that Judge Robert Bork took in his 1987 confirmation hearings for the U.S. Supreme Court. He was demolished, giving rise to the new word “borked”.

Well, the reason for this major defeat for pro-life decisions at the Supreme Court, was simple: Christian voters in California abstained from voting in the 1986 elections.

There were two candidates running. The pro-choice Democrat was Alan Cranston who carried a burden of extreme left positions. The Republicans put up Edwin Zschau. The pro-life voters stayed home and the Democrat Cranston won by only 104,000 votes.

Democrat Senator Cranston fought against Bork. Bork and the pro-life cause lost.

Since Bork had been nominated by a Republican President (Ronald Reagan) and since Zschau was a Republican, the thinking is that allowing a “moderate” Republican into the Senate in place of the far left “liberal” Democrat Cranston would have allowed Bork to gain the Supreme Court.

History would have been different.

Pro-life voters have to consider that they don’t live in a hot house isolated from the world, that they need to be shrewd … and above all that politics isn’t beanball.
 
SoCalRC said:
No, I will not be voting for a pro-choice candidate. However, I do not constrain myself to the idolatry of putting more faith in earthly political constructs than God.
Click to expand...
So just how did you get to be so much holier than the rest of us?😛
 
LCMS_No_More said:
Translation: Vote Republican ONLY or you are a ghoulish baby killing monster.
Click to expand...
Once more, you are fighting the monsters of your imagination – pretending other people believe things they do not believe, and trying to put words into their mouths.

It does not become you nor redound to your credit – in fact, you might stop to consider that your words and actions bring discredit to the group you claim to support.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
I said that humphrey says that one MUST vote Republican or they are a ghoulish baby killing monster.
Click to expand...
Yep, you said it – not me.
LCMS_No_More said:
His insisence that voting “none of the above” is useless is intimidation into voting Republican.
Click to expand...
Nope – it’s a statement of the realities of politics. In fact, I have urged those who consider themselves Democrats to work within their party to get pro-life candidates.
LCMS_No_More said:
I’m not about to be intimidated by the likes of him, period.
Click to expand...
Double it back at you, with knobs on it.😛
 
vern_humphrey said:
Once more, you are fighting the monsters of your imagination – pretending other people believe things they do not believe, and trying to put words into their mouths.
Click to expand...
Oh? Then what does it mean when I say that I vote “none of the above” and you say, “to do nothing is neither heroic or meritorious?”

Seems to me that you are attempting to intimidate people who are disgusted by Republicanism and cannot vote for Democratic pro-choice-on-abortion candidates into voting Republican.
It does not become you nor redound to your credit – in fact, you might stop to consider that your words and actions bring discredit to the group you claim to support.
Click to expand...
Oh? And what group is that, pray tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top