Catholic Does Not Equal Gop

[4588686]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1347222629' post='2480719']
What Revolutions are for!
[/quote]

Revolutions are breaks from the pas. Ron Paul is basically advocating a reversion to previous legal and financial views and policies. Maybe he's right in terms of policy, but that's by definition regressive, not revolutionary.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347222736' post='2480721']
I hope that somebody picks up his intellectual torch. I think Rand Paul is pretty cool, but he's not his father. If I'm not mistaken he's significantly more hawkish than Ron is.



[img]http://www.libertarianprogressive.com/images/ron-paul-revolution.jpg[/img]


[/quote]





True Rand is not precisely the same as his father. However, he is still loads better than most politicians. I was disappointed in his Romney endorsement. However, I am not ruling out supporting him later. I'll have to wait and see how he develops. Ron Paul did support Reagan at one point. I think Rand is doing his best to ensure his chances later for real change. Just have to wait and see. Even if Rand does not do much, I am sure another will rise. There is a growing force in America that has had it with the status quo and is ready for big changes. And I think enough is happening that the critical 30% of support will happen at the appropriate time.

Just have to live out our lives as best we can under God; and prepare for the worst while hoping for the best!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1347223282' post='2480725']




True Rand is not precisely the same as his father. However, he is still loads better than most politicians. I was disappointed in his Romney endorsement. However, I am not ruling out supporting him later. I'll have to wait and see how he develops. Ron Paul did support Reagan at one point. I think Rand is doing his best to ensure his chances later for real change. Just have to wait and see. Even if Rand does not do much, I am sure another will rise. There is a growing force in America that has had it with the status quo and is ready for big changes. And I think enough is happening that the critical 30% of support will happen at the appropriate time.

Just have to live out our lives as best we can under God; and prepare for the worst while hoping for the best!
[/quote]

He is certainly better than the majority of politicians. Although of course, that is not saying much.

Maybe we should organize a Lew Rockwell - Thomas Woods write-in campaign.
Ooh, or Napolitano - Rockwell!

Edited September 9, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Winchester]

[quote name='vee8' timestamp='1347221035' post='2480699']
if you dont vote, you cant complain
[/quote]
Totally backwards.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1347224036' post='2480731']
Totally backwards.
[/quote]

If you can't complain, don't vote?

[Winchester]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1347224698' post='2480740']
If you can't complain, don't vote?
[/quote]Exactly.

[filius_angelorum]

No, there is no moral imperative for Catholics to join or even support the GOP. They should support whichever party is most in accordance with their consciences and the common good. There is at least an argument that the GOP platform has that as its goal, even if its means of arriving there are a little unclear. There is an equally good argument, one that might at least satisfy the probabilists in our crowd, that the Democratic party, absent their clearly immoral stance on family and life issues, could very well present an alternative means of achieving the goal. I think, however, that their tendency towards deficit spending and increasing the national debt IS at least some type of moral problem with their platform.

The question then follows whether it is the same type of issue if someone chooses to vote or not to vote for the most likely candidate who will, or says he will, pursue a family issues platform. I actually think that this is a moral choice, though four years ago my conclusion was very different about what I actually had to do about it. On the one hand, if one believes that by voting for a third party, one of the dominant parties will wake up and notice that there are a block of voters to whom they have failed to reach out, then certainly I think voting for a third party is a temporary, albeit necessary, decision to make. On the other hand, if one does vote for a candidate that is unable to be elected, and the candidate who is most objectionable IS re-elected, those who voted against the least objectionable candidate share at least some of the responsibility.

See, the problem here is the system. If this were a country where the individuals who won had to obtain a majority of votes, rather than a plurality, then I would say "Hey, let's vote for whomever we want," because the ballot would allow voters to rank candidates, or run-off elections would eliminate impossible candidates. In a plurality system, however, any vote given to someone is also a vote against every other candidate, whether they share one aspect of your political views or not. For this reason, both of the parties attempt to build the "big tent" so that the fewest possible people object to their platforms. This is also why character assasination and showmanship are so important in our political races. Thus, the hypothesis generally holds that in all systems with plurality-based elections, rather than proportional or preferential, parties will tend to be reduced until there are eventually only two parties. If a "third party" were to win, then, as happened with the GOP back in Abe Lincoln's days, they would most likely simply take over as one of the two major political parties and the other would slip quietly into the background, like the Whigs.

Back on task, I would say that since oen is also casting a vote AGAINST the other candidates, one's obligation to vote FOR a particular candidate depends on several factors, including the political realities on the ground. For example, if one lived in a state like Massachusetts, which is almost certainly going to go Democrat by a solid majority, I would say that there is absolutely no reason to yoke your wagon to the Republicans, but with the party that most aligns with your political views and the principles of the moral law. If, on the other hand, re-electing a highly objectionable candidate is possible if you do not cast your vote against him and the other unlikely candidates, such as in a swing state or in a state with a slim majority, I would say it is your responsibility to vote for the candidate who is the least objectionable AND the most likely to win.

You can't beat the system, you can change the components in the system, you can change the system, you can overide the system by intrigue or scandal, or you can come up with a new and better system, but a particular political machine is going to turn out fairly predictable results.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='filius_angelorum' timestamp='1347245046' post='2480854']
... On the other hand, if one does vote for a candidate that is unable to be elected, and the candidate who is most objectionable IS re-elected, those who voted against the least objectionable candidate share at least some of the responsibility.[/quote]

Of course if voting for a claimed "lesser evil" means keeping the nation on certain collision course with certain destruction on various issues, then you are at least as equally responsible for not doing enough to really change course as you are ratifying the status quo.

There is a point where it simply does not matter. Where major compromise is no longer a "correct" option. There does come a point, where you fight for survival....because all major compromises lead to destruction of this once free and debt-manageable nation.


[quote]...
If, on the other hand, re-electing a highly objectionable candidate is possible if you do not cast your vote against him and the other unlikely candidates, such as in a swing state or in a state with a slim majority, I would say it is your responsibility to vote for the candidate who is the least objectionable AND the most likely to win.

You can't beat the system, you can change the components in the system, you can change the system, you can overide the system by intrigue or scandal, or you can come up with a new and better system, but a particular political machine is going to turn out fairly predictable results.
[/quote]

When all major "winnable" options lead to near certain destruction, it's time to stop hoping on long odds, and vote for major reform.

So maybe it's time to rethink the political system of America as it is currently set up for only two major parties as history and prior explanation has shown.

Maybe it is time to design a new system to prevent this two party lock.

See the new thread in debate table on "2 vs. 3+ party system.

[4588686]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1347223201' post='2480723']
Revolutions are breaks from the pas. Ron Paul is basically advocating a reversion to previous legal and financial views and policies. Maybe he's right in terms of policy, but that's by definition regressive, not revolutionary.
[/quote]

I agree with Hasan.

[METALHED]

[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1346787492' post='2478361']
If there's a Constitution Party on the ballot (my friend says there will be, but I haven't found any information on it), then that's where my vote's going. Otherwise, Republican. You're right, though.
[/quote]

Its great 2 c a felow cp suporta in the house!! 2 stay updated, chek out the website:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

[Winchester]

[img]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/549473_10151106565668260_669465562_n.jpg[/img]

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1347673026' post='2482498']
[img]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/549473_10151106565668260_669465562_n.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

I'll give you everything but the socialized health care. He believes States have the rights to do so, but not the entire country as a whole. He also believes abortion is okay but then not, and that guns regulations are good and then not, and... Here, let's just watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS33Hkgnls4

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347223445' post='2480726']
He is certainly better than the majority of politicians. Although of course, that is not saying much.

Maybe we should organize a Lew Rockwell - Thomas Woods write-in campaign.
Ooh, or Napolitano - Rockwell!
[/quote]

How about Norman Rockwell?

Edited September 15, 2012 by Groo the Wanderer

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347677456' post='2482536']
How about Norman Rockwell?
[/quote]

[img]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/423/untitle.JPG[/img]

[Groo the Wanderer]

ok then. how about Norm from Cheers?