Who Will You Vote For And Why

[Ash Wednesday]

I'll probably vote for Bush. But it irritates me that my vote is swallowed away by Seattle liberals and the electoral college. :angry:

[track2004]

Why do we believe that we should only vote for electible people, not third party? I don't get why the Church says that.

[qfnol31]

If you vote for a third party, you could be giving Kerry the edge he needs to win. The reason we all say to vote for Bush is because a third party vote is in some ways as though you haven't voted at all. We know that there are really only two electable candidates. Our mission therefore becomes to stop Kerry by voting for Bush, because having Bush in office is so much better than Kerry!

[qfnol31]

I will quote dUSt on this:

If we were supposed to vote for the best candidate, we would all vote for the Pope.

[track2004]

[quote]If you vote for a third party, you could be giving Kerry the edge he needs to win. The reason we all say to vote for Bush is because a third party vote is in some ways as though you haven't voted at all. We know that there are really only two electable candidates. Our mission therefore becomes to stop Kerry by voting for Bush, because having Bush in office is so much better than Kerry! [/quote]

The problem I have with that is the electoral college. I live in a Republican state (Indiana) and if the state ever voted Democrat for a presidental election the world would stop rotating. So it's not a popular vote. If, living in Indiana, I decide some other party complies more fully with what I stand for, I can vote for them and the Republican will still win.

Also, if, by popular vote, a third party canidate (see Ross Perot) gets a good fraction of the vote (not anywhere near winning though) it sends a message to both parties that they aren't representing the people. The major paarties will then take stances on issues they had been trying to ignore and the third party will dissolve because it will be assumed by one party.

So I want to vote for someone who I believe in, not just against the other guy. If I don't believe in either major canidate I want to tell them that, I don't want to tell one guy I like his opponent less because he will read it as I like him. I want my voice heard, and not just heard, but communicating what I want to communicate to my government.

[qfnol31]

In your case, this is all different.

[track2004]

The pope wouldn't work because he isn't from the States and I don't think he (any pope, not just JPII) would be good at running the US.

[qfnol31]

However, we can all write him in!

[Norseman82]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 5 2004, 10:33 PM'] The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. [/quote]
Uh-oh, Ironmonk is turning Vulcan on us!!

[Andrew Bobola]

I'm voting for Peroutka.
1. the man is 100% pro-life, hands down, no questions, Bush is not.
2. as Catholics we must vote for a pro-life candidate.
3. I took some politcal-sciences classes in school. One of our lechturers brought up a very interesting point. When Clinton was in office, there was an enemy to fight. Now that Bush is in office, the Republican majority is following his orders, I know that's over-simplifying it, but it's basically the truth. So, I believe it boils down to this. If I vote for Bush, yes I am voting for the more conservative candidate, with a shot to win. But, if I vote for Peroutka, I vote for the person I believe is best for the country, in my oinion, but am not simply throwing my vote to the guy who is most likely to win. If Kerry wins, then yes, we have an enemy, and the Senate will not simply roll over to his wishes.
Also, America was not built on a 2 party system. We have the ability to elect anyone we want.
Finally, let us not forget that the Republicans were the party that raped and pillaged the South during the Civil War.

[iwantacoke]

I am voteing for Mickey Mouse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't like either of them and I really don't want to see Bush or Kerry in office!

I hate to say I am leaning twords Bush, I can't stand him but I think I have no other choice

[William Putnam]

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 5 2004, 03:08 PM']Okay Phatmassers, where do you stand and why- defend your political stance with a substantiated defense.[/quote]
1. Geoege Bush, a Methodist, is Pro-Life, John Terry, a Catholic, is pro-choice.

2. George Bush is far more likely to win the war against terrorism.

3. His economic policies are far more likely to bring us further out of the recent Bill Clinton recession then John Terry ever thought he could do!

4. I am a "Yellah dog" Republican!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



[i]Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church.[/i] (1 Tim 3:15)

[Socrates]

[quote]If Kerry wins, then yes, we have an enemy, and the Senate will not simply roll over to his wishes.[/quote]

But then again, if Kerry wins, any Supreme Court nominees will be activist liberal pro-aborts. Any curbs on abortion that may make it through Congress will be vetoed, and anti-life laws will be signed into law. Conservatives will be even more portrayed as "extremists" far outside the American mainstream and liberalism will be further entrenched in the system.

I do not see a Kerry presidency as doing much good for our cause.

[quote]Finally, let us not forget that the Republicans were the party that raped and pillaged the South during the Civil War.[/quote]

I realize that was probably intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the pol. parties today have almost nothing do do with their precursers in the 1860's. Modern Dems (at least on the national level) certainly do not stand for states-rights "Southern" values of the old Confederacy!

[JP2Iloveyou]

A couple of points:

First of all, I'll be voting for Bush. Obviously, the first and really only issue I look at in making my decision is a candidate's stance on abortion and otehr intrinsic evils. Though not perfect, President Bush clearly takes a stronger stance in this area than does Senator Kerry.

Second, I agree with President Bush on every other major issue of the campaign. I think President Bush has done an OUTSTANDING job with the war on terror. The tax cuts he initiated clearly have helped the economy. I would like to see him take some more conservative stances on some things, like Campaign Finance Reform and immigration. Overall though, I agree with and support the President.

To the person living in Washington, early polling shows that Washington will be in play this year. Sen. Patty Murray who masquerades herself as a Catholic is also up for reelection. I think she is vulnerable. Many people only focus on the Presidential race, but, even if, God willing, President Bush is re-elected, he still will need a Congress that he can work with. To be quite frank, this means he needs Republicans in Congress. They will confirm his judicial nominees and support his legislation. George Nethercutt will give Murray a run for her money. My prediction is that the Reps. will pick up a net of four seats. They should pick up Georgia, Louisianna, South Carolina, North Carolina and one more from North Dakota, South Dakota, California, Washington, Indiana, Arkansas, Wisconsin, or Nevada. The democrats will probably win Illinois, which was a Republican held seat. (However, pray for that election. Alan Keyes is as solid a Catholic you will ever find.) The dems also have a good chance in Alaska and Ohio to flip republican held seats. The senator up for reelection in Ohio is George Voinovich, a pro-life Catholic Republican who goes to daily Mass quite frequently.

Now, the debate about the third parties. My personal opinion is that if a third party does well, depending on where that party sits politicly, it could have major ramifications on the major parties. For example, Ralph Nader did extremely well for himself in 2000. The democrats realized that they had not appealed to their liberal base very well, so they moved even farther left of center to appeal to their base. I'm from Iowa, so I'll be voting and campaigning for Bush. Iowa is a major battleground state this year, as it usually is.

One more little thing. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of the people who are trying to silence the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. One issue where I STRONGLY disagree with President Bush, Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, and the other cowards in Congress is campaign finance reform. For the first time in U.S. history, there has been a law passed by Congress and signed by the President and uphelp by SCOTUS which takes away a person's free speech. I cannot believe the arrogance of trying to tell these veterans that they should not be able to voice their opinions. By trying to "get the money out of politics" by clamping down on soft money, these cowards have ensured that money will maintain its strangle hold on politics by ensuring that only wealthy people and incumbents will be able to win an election.

Ironmonk, I couldn't agree with you more.

[White Knight]

George W. Bush, I'm voting for him because he is a Godly President, and hes the lesser of the two evils, Hes got a strong plan for Homeland Security, Economy Mangement, War of Terror, and Healthcare, his plan is by far superior and in the long term best for this country, and it blows Kerry's plan out of the sky.

[JP2Iloveyou]

Why then do you refer to him as the "lesser of two evils?" I'm not really directing this at you, but at everyone who uses that phrase? What exactly is evil abuot George W. Bush? It really disheartens me to hear people refer to politicians as "evil." God legitimately calls people to serve in politics and those that answer that call deserve to be treated with a little more respect than calling them "evil." Misguided, like Sen. Kerry, yes, but I would not go so far as to call him an "evil" man.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]Sola Gratia ~ Sola Fide ~ Solus Christus ~ Sola Scriptura ~ Soli Deo Gloria

Ryan [/quote]

Non-Catholics know Latin?

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Aug 28 2004, 11:57 AM'] Why then do you refer to him as the "lesser of two evils?"  I'm not really directing this at you, but at everyone who uses that phrase?  What exactly is evil abuot George W. Bush?  It really disheartens me to hear people refer to politicians as "evil."  God legitimately calls people to serve in politics and those that answer that call deserve to be treated with a little more respect than calling them "evil."  Misguided, like Sen. Kerry, yes, but I would not go so far as to call him an "evil" man. [/quote]
1) [Edited by IcePrincess: "It is true that the foundation on which they are built is of a heretical split, but those who have been brought up in those groups to do not have the formal knowledge of the Catholic Faith. Therefore they cannot reject the fullness of the faith if they have never been taught it."]


2) he is for a secular government (condemned by Pope Leo XIII)

3) he is pro-contraception

I could go on and on, but one is enough to constitute EVIL

Evil is the opposite of holiness; the infallible Catechism of the Council of Trent says holiness is found ONLY in the Catholic Church. We become God's adopted children by Baptism. We can reject that by heresy. If we aren't children of God, what are we? Children of the devil...

Edited August 28, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[JP2Iloveyou]

You should be more careful when labeling someone a heretic. First of all, you should make the distinction between formal and a material heretic. Secondly, it is a VERY, VERY serious charge to label someone a heretic. President Bush may not have accepted the fullness of truth yet, but that is no reason a) not support him and b) criticize him. It really angers me when Catholics look down on non-Catholics simply because they have not accepted the fullness of truth. That is not acting in Christian charity. The only way people will be converted to the faith is through charity and taking the time to explain the faith to them, not by making blanket statements labeling them all heretics without so much as defining what a heretic is and differentiating between formal and material heretics. President Bush has been validly baptized, I assume, and he therefore is our brother in Christ.

Second, if we do not have a secular government in this country, what do you suggest? Total anarchy?

As for being pro-contraception, contraception may be evil and supporting it may be evil, but I don't think that makes the President de facto evil himself. I suppose it could. I'm not really sure. I'll have to think about that one some more. In any event, he still is better than Sen. Kerry.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Excellent post JP2ILY.