Clinton/obama V. Giuliani/mccain

[kujo]

Just curious...

If faced with a Clinton/Obama v. Giuliani/McCain ticket, would we be justified in voting for Giuliani/McCain as a preventative measure against Clinton/Obama? Basically, could we cast a vote for G/M (not [b]AFFIRMING[/b] G/M), but [b]AGAINST[/b] C/O?

[Paladin]

It's just robbing Pilate to pay Herod. In the end, you'll get the same basic result: more dead babies.

[aalpha1989]

i believe that in this situation we are obliged to choose the lesser of two evils....so yes guiliani/mccain....mccain is better than rg, but we'll see....

[kujo]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1227552' date='Apr 2 2007, 08:29 PM']It's just robbing Pilate to pay Herod. In the end, you'll get the same basic result: more dead babies.[/quote]

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but could you back this claim up with some Church teaching? I want to make an educated vote and morality is obviously important here.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1227552' date='Apr 2 2007, 07:29 PM']It's just robbing Pilate to pay Herod. In the end, you'll get the same basic result: more dead babies.[/quote]

abortion isn't the only facto in an election like this either. you have to look at gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and euthenasia too. mccain is the winner when you look at all of that....it'd be amazing to have brownback, but i dont see him winning a national election. which is too bad, he's my senator and i love him! hes a member of opus dei too! which is amazing cause i'd love to be a member someday...anyway thats the skivvy.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

It's a long way away yet. Newt Gingrich may yet announce his candidacy. I don't think we can say for certain yet who the nominees will be.

Personally, I will vote for Brownback in the Republican primary.

[KnightofChrist]

Giuliani kills babies, Billary kills babies, I would never vote for either.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='thedude' post='1227567' date='Apr 2 2007, 07:38 PM']It's a long way away yet. Newt Gingrich may yet announce his candidacy. I don't think we can say for certain yet who the nominees will be.

Personally, I will vote for Brownback in the Republican primary.[/quote]


me too!!! which is so weird to say. i will actually be old enough to vote....SWEET!!!!

[Paladin]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1227557' date='Apr 2 2007, 08:33 PM']abortion isn't the only facto in an election like this either. you have to look at gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and euthenasia too. mccain is the winner when you look at all of that....it'd be amazing to have brownback, but i dont see him winning a national election. which is too bad, he's my senator and i love him! hes a member of opus dei too! which is amazing cause i'd love to be a member someday...anyway thats the skivvy.[/quote]
Any way you slice it, you're voting for a pro-abort candidate. Your answer is the exact same one Dems used to excuse voting for Kerry as a "vote against" Bush's violating [i]jus ad bello[/i] doctrine. There's no "moral scale" where we can weigh abortion v. gay marriage, just war v. euthanasia. They're all grave sins.

I'm trying to find a nice quixotic 3rd party to vote for, someone who aligns with [i]all[/i] the political doctrines of the Church. If I can't, you'll find me in the adoration chapel on election day. If my option is to vote for a pro-abort or not at all, I'd much rather ask the King of the Universe to handle the situation than a politician.

[Aloysius]

two words: Law. Order.

Fred Thompson '08. Don't settle for anything less. He's the type of guy who could turn out to be the next Reagan.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1227601' date='Apr 2 2007, 08:57 PM']Any way you slice it, you're voting for a pro-abort candidate. Your answer is the exact same one Dems used to excuse voting for Kerry as a "vote against" Bush's violating [i]jus ad bello[/i] doctrine. There's no "moral scale" where we can weigh abortion v. gay marriage, just war v. euthanasia. They're all grave sins.

I'm trying to find a nice quixotic 3rd party to vote for, someone who aligns with [i]all[/i] the political doctrines of the Church. If I can't, you'll find me in the adoration chapel on election day. If my option is to vote for a pro-abort or not at all, I'd much rather ask the King of the Universe to handle the situation than a politician.[/quote]
you must vote, even if you just vote for yourself. the Catechism calls it a moral obligation on those who have the ability. why? because if you are given the power of democracy you are, in a very tiny fractionalized way, a ruler of this country. a king would mortally sin if he refused to undertake his duties and attempt to affect his kingdom for the better. so too would you mortally sin if you refused to undertake your duties.

though the Catechism extends this to all who have the capability to vote, I personally believe only those who are well enough educated in Western Civilization and modern events should be permitted to vote. However, as it stands, all are permitted to vote and therefore all are morally obligated to excercise this power to attempt to stop moral evils.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1227601' date='Apr 2 2007, 07:57 PM']Any way you slice it, you're voting for a pro-abort candidate. Your answer is the exact same one Dems used to excuse voting for Kerry as a "vote against" Bush's violating [i]jus ad bello[/i] doctrine. There's no "moral scale" where we can weigh abortion v. gay marriage, just war v. euthanasia. They're all grave sins.

I'm trying to find a nice quixotic 3rd party to vote for, someone who aligns with [i]all[/i] the political doctrines of the Church. If I can't, you'll find me in the adoration chapel on election day. If my option is to vote for a pro-abort or not at all, I'd much rather ask the King of the Universe to handle the situation than a politician.[/quote]

yes you are voting for a pro abortion candidate but you are obligated to vote, and seriously voting for a third party candidate is wasting your vote. unless they get a huge spur and actulaly have a chance of winning, which i doubt.

"When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies citizens must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done."

"For each office, first determine how each candidate WITH A REAL- even if unlikely (third party candidates HAVE no real chance)- chance of winning stands on each issue that will come before him and involves non-negotiable moral principles."

"Where every candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other, lesser issues."

[b]"In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable principles. In such a case, you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one. A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: Rather it is an action aimed at limiting the evil, and an action that limits evil is good." [/b]

"When an ideal candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil."

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1227614' date='Apr 2 2007, 08:14 PM']you must vote, even if you just vote for yourself. the Catechism calls it a moral obligation on those who have the ability. why? because if you are given the power of democracy you are, in a very tiny fractionalized way, a ruler of this country. a king would mortally sin if he refused to undertake his duties and attempt to affect his kingdom for the better. so too would you mortally sin if you refused to undertake your duties.

though the Catechism extends this to all who have the capability to vote, I personally believe only those who are well enough educated in Western Civilization and modern events should be permitted to vote. However, as it stands, all are permitted to vote and therefore all are morally obligated to excercise this power to attempt to stop moral evils.[/quote]

it's not a mortal sin to not vote. you may refrain from voting if there is no acceptable candidate....but you should try to limit the evil

oh by the way all those quotes were from the voter's guide for serious catholics...oops forgot to say where from.

[Aloysius]

If you can vote and do not do so, it is at least a venial sin. The Catechism calls voting (for those who have the capability) a moral obligation. Therefore, you would sin by not following your moral obligation.

Now, it is clear to me that it is grave matter, with all the widespread implications of your voting. Your minimal role in it makes it arguable about whether it's grave matter though; either way: it is sinful not to vote if you have the ability to do so. In the same way a king would be sinning mortally if he refused to excercise any of his powers for the good of his country (unless... of course... everything was absolutely perfect in his country and he had no need to do so).

if you are not registered to vote, you are not morally obligated to vote. But when you register, you take on a fractionalized portion of the rulership of this nation. Your inaction in excercising your powers to affect the rulers would therefore be sinful.

as regards whether it is grave matter... I wonder, if you were one of 100 people who aided a woman to get an abortion, would that make it any less grave matter? 1 of a million? no, your minimal involvement does not make it any less grave matter in my estimation. It is mortally sinful not to vote if you are registered and able.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1227642' date='Apr 2 2007, 08:36 PM']If you can vote and do not do so, it is at least a venial sin. The Catechism calls voting (for those who have the capability) a moral obligation. Therefore, you would sin by not following your moral obligation.

Now, it is clear to me that it is grave matter, with all the widespread implications of your voting. Your minimal role in it makes it arguable about whether it's grave matter though; either way: it is sinful not to vote if you have the ability to do so. In the same way a king would be sinning mortally if he refused to excercise any of his powers for the good of his country (unless... of course... everything was absolutely perfect in his country and he had no need to do so).

if you are not registered to vote, you are not morally obligated to vote. But when you register, you take on a fractionalized portion of the rulership of this nation. Your inaction in excercising your powers to affect the rulers would therefore be sinful.

as regards whether it is grave matter... I wonder, if you were one of 100 people who aided a woman to get an abortion, would that make it any less grave matter? 1 of a million? no, your minimal involvement does not make it any less grave matter in my estimation. It is mortally sinful not to vote if you are registered and able.[/quote]

yeah, but we're talking about '08. if we have all pro abortion candidates, then all the candidates will be against at LEAST one of the five non-negotiable issues. i think when they are against multiple of these issues it is your choice whether to vote or not. according to your analogy, either way you are aiding in abortions...that isn't how we think of it though. i still like the quotes i had from the voter's guide....if you vote for someone who is pro abortion, but it is to limit the evil done (because the other candidates who may win are also pro abortion), that isnt the same as condoning abortion.

[Aloysius]

then you either vote for the lesser of two evils (permissable) or you vote for some third candidate or yourself. you must excercize your power to affect the governance of this country in some positive way, even if it will not be effected.

in the midst of a coup d'etat when the king no longer has faithful subjects he can trust, he is morally obligated to continue to excercize his power to help his people; even if it will do nothing; even if it is quixotic, you must be devoted to doing good even if that good will not succeed.

[Socrates]

Here's my take on this.
I definitely see voting for either Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama as being unconsciable. (And Edwards and other liberal Dem candidates are no better). Guilliani, in my opinion, would be a lesser evil than either of them, and would be a better leader, but given his pro-abortion and socially liberal record, he is not a candidate worthy of Catholic support. (He has said he would nominated conservative justices, but given his socially liberal record, can we really trust him)? McCain is not perfect, but I'd say he is definitely the best man of these four. He does have a fairly solid senate voting record, but his "moderate" 2000 campaign makes me somewhat distrustful of his current conservative rhetoric.

I would probably vote McCain against Clinton or Obama, but if the GOP nominee was Guiliani, I would probably vote third party (probably Constitution).
The reason for this is that voting for a blatantly pro-abortion, candidate who supports the liberal social agenda would send the message to the GOP that life and moral issues do not matter, and that the "religious moral vote" is a shoe-in for the Republicans, no matter what they do. If a block of conservative voters refuses to vote for a pro-abortion, socially liberal GOP candidate, and this costs them the election, it sends a clear message for future candidates that they must be pro-life to be a winner.
Voting for a conservative third-party candidate in this case would not be simply "throwing away the vote," but would send a message to the Republicans that being pro-abortion, etc. is unacceptable to us.
Not voting for anybody, on the other hand, sends no message at all, other than one of apathy and indifference.

This issue is not really carved-in-stone though. How bad does the "lesser evil" need to be in order to make voting for him unacceptable, and the 3rd party option preferrable? Or is the greater evil so evil that everthing possible should be done to avoid him/her becoming president? This is up to the individual voter's conscience, which nonetheless should be well informed. Part of me wants to keep Hillary or Obama out of the White House at any cost, but on the other hand, voting for pro-death Republicans sets a dangerous political precedent.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1227817' date='Apr 2 2007, 10:50 PM']Here's my take on this.
I definitely see voting for either Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama as being unconsciable. (And Edwards and other liberal Dem candidates are no better). Guilliani, in my opinion, would be a lesser evil than either of them, and would be a better leader, but given his pro-abortion and socially liberal record, he is not a candidate worthy of Catholic support. (He has said he would nominated conservative justices, but given his socially liberal record, can we really trust him)? McCain is not perfect, but I'd say he is definitely the best man of these four. He does have a fairly solid senate voting record, but his "moderate" 2000 campaign makes me somewhat distrustful of his current conservative rhetoric.

I would probably vote McCain against Clinton or Obama, but if the GOP nominee was Guiliani, I would probably vote third party (probably Constitution).
The reason for this is that voting for a blatantly pro-abortion, candidate who supports the liberal social agenda would send the message to the GOP that life and moral issues do not matter, and that the "religious moral vote" is a shoe-in for the Republicans, no matter what they do. If a block of conservative voters refuses to vote for a pro-abortion, socially liberal GOP candidate, and this costs them the election, it sends a clear message for future candidates that they must be pro-life to be a winner.
Voting for a conservative third-party candidate in this case would not be simply "throwing away the vote," but would send a message to the Republicans that being pro-abortion, etc. is unacceptable to us.
Not voting for anybody, on the other hand, sends no message at all, other than one of apathy and indifference.

This issue is not really carved-in-stone though. How bad does the "lesser evil" need to be in order to make voting for him unacceptable, and the 3rd party option preferrable? Or is the greater evil so evil that everthing possible should be done to avoid him/her becoming president? This is up to the individual voter's conscience, which nonetheless should be well informed. Part of me wants to keep Hillary or Obama out of the White House at any cost, but on the other hand, voting for pro-death Republicans sets a dangerous political precedent.[/quote]

I respect and understand this mindset. I just don't know if it is the correct course of action. Quite simply, Giuliani and McCain, though not [i]ideal[/i] Republicans, are more likely to protect the unborn than liberal-lefties Obama and Clinton. I'm still wrestling with this issue...it's a good thing I've got more than a year to figure it out.

Bottomline: all Catholics should vote for Senator Brownback in the primaries.

[Megz]

I'm going to vote against hiliary so she'll loose no matter what. I hate hiliary and her co-horts becuase some of them are personally responsible for making my life miserable. And I do mean personal...she was in cahoots to people who unjustly jailed someone close to me.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1227610' date='Apr 2 2007, 08:10 PM']two words: Law. Order.

Fred Thompson '08. Don't settle for anything less. He's the type of guy who could turn out to be the next Reagan.[/quote]

True that. I'm also lookin at Duncan Phillips, although right now I havent checked his pro-life stance, only assumed. But he claims to be grassroots, and also cites Reagan constantly.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Didymus