Who To Vote For?

[Paladin]

It seems to me the bipartisan system is failing. On the one side, you have the Republicans (a.k.a, Stupid and Evil Party) who support torture and war. On the other, you have Democrats (a.k.a., Evil and Stupid Party) who hate babies and religion. [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2297.htm"]Torture[/url] and [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2271.htm"]abortion[/url] are both grave and irreconcilable sins. So the Republicans deserve to lose, but the Democrats don't deserve to win.

So what's a voter to do? Vote for one sin that cries out to heaven for vengence and ignore the other? Go third party and face certain electoral doom? Find candidates that don't support agenda gravely contrary to human dignity? Abandon the politics and spend an hour on voting day in front of the Blessed Sacrament?

Personally, I'm going Constitution Party. They're anti-war, anti-torture, anti-gay marriage, womb-to-tomb pro-life. I disagree with some of their stuff, but none of it is intrinsically evil. And though we're sure to lose, I'd rather be faithful than effective. And I'll probably go pray before Our Lord, too. After all, no matter's who's in charge of the government, Christ is still King.

[Resurrexi]

I think our govt. is evil beyond repair and that no matter who is elected it will still smell of elderberries... so I wouldn't vote... but I'm to young to vote anyway.

[heavenseeker]

I dont vote by party, I vote by who i agree with the most as an indevidual.

[Veritas]

+

Pro-Life and Pro-Family. Thus, usually Republican.

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1087175' date='Oct 9 2006, 12:43 AM']
+

Pro-Life and Pro-Family. Thus, usually Republican.
[/quote]
usualy but not always

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]We are on a downhill spiral and it wont stop untill the world explodes.
So we should just sit back and tan!
[/size]

[Veritas]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1087192' date='Oct 8 2006, 10:57 PM']
usualy but not always
[/quote]

True --hence the "usually" not the "always"!

[goldenchild17]

I voted Bush last election, my first time voting. I voted for what I believed would be the lesser evil. I'm not sure such a strategy really works that well. So I'm not sure that I will be voting at all. If I do, it'll probably be for one of the unknown parties, but I doubt I will find someone I can support even there.

[kdewolf2]

It's hard to say who you should vote for anymore.

If you adopt the conventional "lesser of two evils" approach, what is really less evil?

The Republicans unashamedly endorse endless war, bloodshed, political violence, torture, and poverty, while the Democrats only endorse such things to a lesser degree, and perhaps more tactfully.

The purist third party voter has to face the fact that his candidate will not be elected.

I can only say that in a liberal democracy like the U.S. one's political activity does not have to be limited to voting.

Although it may seem ineffective, you can still protest, you can still speak your mind, you can still petition.

You could write the candidates and make it clear why you will not vote for them, if you choose not to vote.

So there's maybe more you can do than just vote.

I'd also suggest you can also pray.

This may seem the most ineffective of all, but we do believe in an Almighty God who hears our prayers, don't we?

[kamiller42]

While the dems will say the number of fallen in Iraq justify the removal of republicans, it still pales in comparison to the number of fallen because of abortion and euthanasia, which their party supports.

Republicans support interrogation techniques the media labels as torture. However, if you examine the list of techniques, it's really not torture as you think it is. Uncomfortable? Sure. But there's no permanent damage, and everyone does get to go home with their heads still attached.

There are other parties out there to vote for, but they are not viable choices if they can't pull in the numbers.

Edited October 9, 2006 by kamiller42

[Socrates]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1086975' date='Oct 8 2006, 09:32 PM']
It seems to me the bipartisan system is failing. On the one side, you have the Republicans (a.k.a, Stupid and Evil Party) who support torture and war. On the other, you have Democrats (a.k.a., Evil and Stupid Party) who hate babies and religion. [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2297.htm"]Torture[/url] and [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2271.htm"]abortion[/url] are both grave and irreconcilable sins. So the Republicans deserve to lose, but the Democrats don't deserve to win.

So what's a voter to do? Vote for one sin that cries out to heaven for vengence and ignore the other? Go third party and face certain electoral doom? Find candidates that don't support agenda gravely contrary to human dignity? Abandon the politics and spend an hour on voting day in front of the Blessed Sacrament?

Personally, I'm going Constitution Party. They're anti-war, anti-torture, anti-gay marriage, womb-to-tomb pro-life. I disagree with some of their stuff, but none of it is intrinsically evil. And though we're sure to lose, I'd rather be faithful than effective. And I'll probably go pray before Our Lord, too. After all, no matter's who's in charge of the government, Christ is still King.
[/quote]
First of all, I think the whole "abortion vs. torture" dilemna is bogus.

We're talking about the wholesale slaughter of billions of innocent babies (often by means which would certainly qualify as torture, such as being ripped limb-from-limb, or being chemically burned to death) vs. the rough treatment of a few brutal and ruthless terrorists, whose actions threaten many innocent people.

One can certainly be opposed to torture of prisoners, but to compare these two as being equivalent evils is simply ridiculous. I'm seeing a general pattern on here, in which many seem to lack any sense of proportion or justice.
It seems many on here see things such as the treatment of convicted murderers or terrorists as being as bad or worse than the slaughter of innocents.
Something is terribly wrong with people's thinking.

Bush and the Republicans have rejected signing certain international "anti-torture" decrees, because the language is vague enough that it could easily be used by America's enemies against her. (While at the same time, most of these anti-American countries would be performing much more serious atrocities). America has a lot of serious enemies, who have no interest in truth or "playing fair," so it would be foolish to place them as judges over America's activities.

Don't get me wrong; I'm against excessive torture, and things done for the sake of pure sadism, and there should be limits placed on how interrogation is conducted and treatment of prisoners.
But sweeping outlawing of "torture" creates loopholes big enough for America's enemies to drive a truck full of explosives through. Especially when such things as (gasp, horrors!) making prisoners listen to Metallica are defined as torture.
And there is really nothing new here. Much more brutal things were done by the U.S. against the Japs and Germans during WWII, but there was not the media to cry about it.
Excessive torture should not be used, and those guilty should be punished, but sometimes rough methods are needed to get vital information from the enemy -especially when not having that information could cost the lives of many!

And I have my problems with Bush and the Republicans, but for me the "torture" nonsense is a non-issue. It is simply a political football being played by the Left, and will probably be forgotten after the next election. There are many much more important issues at stake.

How I vote will depend on who the Republicans run and what his positions are. If they run a pro-abort "moderate," I may actually vote Constitution.
However, voters should not do that lightly, and keep in mind the consequences of having a Party of Death godless liberal Dem in office. For all Bush's problems, I am still glad Kerry was not in office, choosing the Supreme Court justices.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1086981' date='Oct 8 2006, 09:41 PM']
I think our govt. is evil beyond repair and that no matter who is elected it will still smell of elderberries... so I wouldn't vote...
[/quote]
When good people take this attitude, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy!

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1087813' date='Oct 9 2006, 08:10 PM']
First of all, I think the whole "abortion vs. torture" dilemna is bogus.
[/quote]
I think so too. However we need to remember that it isn't necessarily one OR the other. In the case of the current administration we have the issue in Iraq AND what real progress has been made against abortion? I understand it's a legal process and there are many hoops to jump through. But many people elected Mr. Bush in order to cut down the abortions. Has that actually happened? I'm not so sure it has. And then we have the extra deaths in this very poorly conducted war added on top of that.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087838' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:50 PM']
I think so too. However we need to remember that it isn't necessarily one OR the other. In the case of the current administration we have the issue in Iraq AND what real progress has been made against abortion? I understand it's a legal process and there are many hoops to jump through. But many people elected Mr. Bush in order to cut down the abortions. Has that actually happened? I'm not so sure it has. And then we have the extra deaths in this very poorly conducted war added on top of that.
[/quote]
Partial-birth abortion is now banned and the majority on the Supreme Court has been cut down to one. The legal hoops you mentioned have really impeded any further progress. The Court needs to be taken over, Roe vs. Wade overturned, then we can fight for some legislation.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087838' date='Oct 9 2006, 08:50 PM']
I think so too. However we need to remember that it isn't necessarily one OR the other. In the case of the current administration we have the issue in Iraq AND what real progress has been made against abortion? I understand it's a legal process and there are many hoops to jump through. [b]But many people elected Mr. Bush in order to cut down the abortions. Has that actually happened? I'm not so sure it has.[/b] And then we have the extra deaths in this very poorly conducted war added on top of that.
[/quote]
The facts say "Yes, it has."

From LifeSite news: [url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05053101.html"]Planned Parenthood Founded Institute Admits Abortion Rates Down Under Bush Administration[/url]

Bush has also worked hard to pass policies which make obtaining abortions inconvenient, which is the limit of a president's powers. He supports banning partial birth abortion, parental notification, no federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and nominated pro-life friendly Supreme Court nominees. This and more was done in cooperation with a republican congress. No way could this have been done with a democrat congress. The bills would have never made it to the floor.

The only mistake I see he has made is his most recent FDA nominee who supported over the counter morning after pills. :-(

[goldenchild17]

True, but then again it's only a matter of time before power swings in a different direction again and things will head back in the other direction. It's just the way it goes with democracy it seems. No real long-term stability with one agenda in place.

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1087867' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:11 PM']The only mistake I see he has made is his most recent FDA nominee who supported over the counter morning after pills. :-(
[/quote]

Which is no small mistake considering the millions this decision puts to death.

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087838' date='Oct 9 2006, 07:50 PM']
I think so too. However we need to remember that it isn't necessarily one OR the other. In the case of the current administration we have the issue in Iraq AND what real progress has been made against abortion? I understand it's a legal process and there are many hoops to jump through. But many people elected Mr. Bush in order to cut down the abortions. Has that actually happened? I'm not so sure it has. And then we have the extra deaths in this very poorly conducted war added on top of that.
[/quote]
With the issue of abortions, the main thing issue is the election of Supreme Court justices. No, that will not suddenly end abortion, but as SC justices are elected for life, this becomes an important issue long term.
Challenges to Roe v. Wade will be brought first by individual states (as the South Dakota case). These cases will ultimately be decided by the U.S. supreme court.

How will the Bush nominees vote? That remains to be seen; let's pray for the best.
However, there is no question what kind of justices a Gore or Kerry would have elected.

Bush has also made some restrictions on the funding of abortions, which would have been supported by a Democrat president.

I'm not saying Bush is perfect on abortion, or is doing all he can do, but the election of SC justices is very important in the long-run future of the pro-life movement politically/legally.
Electing liberal Democrat presidents will ensure that abortion-on-demand with no restrictions will be enforced by our government into the indeterminate future.

There is absolutely no moral justification for a Catholic to vote for a Democratic Presidential nominee such as the last several nominees. They are truly the Party of Death.

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087871' date='Oct 9 2006, 08:13 PM']
True, but then again it's only a matter of time before power swings in a different direction again and things will head back in the other direction. It's just the way it goes with democracy it seems. No real long-term stability with one agenda in place.
Which is no small mistake considering the millions this decision puts to death.
[/quote]
True.
However, it would be foolish naivety to assume that an official under Kerry would have voted any different.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1087887' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:23 PM']True.
However, it would be foolish naivety to assume that an official under Kerry would have voted any different.
[/quote]

Sure but then again, is there any evidence that a Kerry-led administration would have taken us into this mess of a war? For me there's just too much guesswork. Politicians just say whatever their party-lines want them too so they can get into office. If we could ever have someone that actually did everything he said he would do then "maybe" we'd have a different situation. But as it is, I don't think I can vote for someone not knowing what they will support. My vote for Bush in the last election is my example of this. I voted for him because all the talk was that he was pro-life etc. But then we have this craziness overseas, resulting in many many deaths. Yes, I think if given enough time, his plans for implementing pro-life policies would work. But as it is, presidents only have 4-8 years to work their magic. That's just not enough time for these slow-moving issues. Even if he does all he can as far as putting the right people on the Supreme Court and such, he doesn't have the time to do all of it. Eventually the other party will get back into power and promptly work to undo everything that was being prepared previously. So it goes in a nation where the people are so narrowly divided on their loyalties.

[XIX]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087838' date='Oct 9 2006, 07:50 PM']
I think so too. However we need to remember that it isn't necessarily one OR the other. In the case of the current administration we have the issue in Iraq AND what real progress has been made against abortion? I understand it's a legal process and there are many hoops to jump through. But many people elected Mr. Bush in order to cut down the abortions. Has that actually happened? I'm not so sure it has. And then we have the extra deaths in this very poorly conducted war added on top of that.
[/quote]
Valid point, but Bush has appointed two judges who might want to overturn Roe v. Wade. So there is progress.

But he really shot himself in the pro-life foot with the whole plan-B fiasco (allowing OTC access to anyone 18 or older).

If Kerry was in office things would be worse--the gov't would be funding stem cell research all over the place, killing millions more. The Mexico City Act would be repealed, allowing the US to fund abortions overseas. The situation in Iraq would still be bad, maybe we'd give more aid to Africa (but it would all be tied to contraception, I bet). Social Security would still be a shambles because families refuse to have more than 2.1 children. Our President would still be throwing us curveballs left and right. The partial birth abortion ban would be on its way out. Planned Parenthood and NARAL would still be endorsing liberal democrats.

And of course, we'd still have OTC Plan B pills. Only this time they'd be available to minors.

at least we might get lower gas prices.

The President is doing a really sketchy job in office, but people need to quit fooling themselves into thinking that a change would have made things better. "Had enough? Vote Democrat." Then you'll [b]really[/b] be having enough.

I'll either vote Republican or Constitution. If the R's lose my vote I at least want to make a statement as to what values they'll have to adopt to get my support back. If the Constitution Party get 1.3% and some R loses by 0.8%, you don't think that'll have an effect on future compaigns?

I'm sick of the political game. I'm not playing anymore. I'd rather just play it straight. I'd like to vote R on election day and I'd like to see them win, but I don't know if I'll do that because they usually support intrinsic evils. "Lesser of two evils" reeks of "ends justifying the means."

I'm thinking "no thanks"

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087897' date='Oct 9 2006, 08:31 PM']
Sure but then again, is there any evidence that a Kerry-led administration would have taken us into this mess of a war? For me there's just too much guesswork. Politicians just say whatever their party-lines want them too so they can get into office. If we could ever have someone that actually did everything he said he would do then "maybe" we'd have a different situation. But as it is, I don't think I can vote for someone not knowing what they will support. My vote for Bush in the last election is my example of this. I voted for him because all the talk was that he was pro-life etc. But then we have this craziness overseas, resulting in many many deaths. Yes, I think if given enough time, his plans for implementing pro-life policies would work. But as it is, presidents only have 4-8 years to work their magic. That's just not enough time for these slow-moving issues. Even if he does all he can as far as putting the right people on the Supreme Court and such, he doesn't have the time to do all of it. Eventually the other party will get back into power and promptly work to undo everything that was being prepared previously. So it goes in a nation where the people are so narrowly divided on their loyalties.
[/quote]
Kerry (who intitially supported the war) has shown no clear evidence of a plan to get us out. (And even if we pulled out, the killing would continue overseas.)

And you really can't equivicate the Iraq war with abortion.

Of course, with the Supreme Court, that is all the more reason not to allow a liberal Dem (or a "pro-choice" Republican for that matter) into office.
Yes, it's a slow, frustrating process, but simply giving up and handing over all government to godless pro-death liberals is hardly a solution to anything.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1087903' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:39 PM']
Kerry (who intitially supported the war) has shown no clear evidence of a plan to get us out. (And even if we pulled out, the killing would continue overseas.) [/quote]
Yes, but who knows. Maybe he wouldn't have gone to war at all. There are indications both ways. Again comes in the guessing game.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1087903' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:39 PM'] And you really can't equivicate the Iraq war with abortion. [/quote]
Of course, and I'm not (as I indicated already). I'm equating many abortions AND the war vs. many abortions vs. NO war.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1087903' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:39 PM']Of course, with the Supreme Court, that is all the more reason not to allow a liberal Dem (or a "pro-choice" Republican for that matter) into office.
Yes, it's a slow, frustrating process, but simply giving up and handing over all government to godless pro-death liberals is hardly a solution to anything. [/quote]

Until Roe V. Wade is overturned there is no real hope for abortions to decrease (even then I don't think they will, but at least they will be illegal). Note that I'm not saying that I think Roe V. Wade will never be overturned. I think there is a good chance that it will be. Plessy vs. Ferguson was in effect longer than Roe V. Wade has been. So I don't see any reason to assume that Roe will always exist as law. And no people who have the energy to do this should fight if they see it worthwhile. Maybe someday this will be turned around. But even if it is, it will only be a temporary thing. If abortions was outlawed before, and legal now, chances are it'll be outlawed again in the future and then again made legal again. It's just the nature of circulation within the government. No long-term stability.