Political Hell

[Socrates]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1495255' date='Apr 8 2008, 09:01 PM']I gave support of a 100% pro-choice candidate OVER another 100% pro-choice candidate. Your pro-choice candidate had absolutely no bearing, nor any legitimate pro-life candidate in the given bracket. Given a contest that is between two candidates of equal pro-choice leanings, I was given an opportunity to push for the vulnerable one. How is this difficult to understand?[/quote]
You're wasting your time.

hot stuff is much like the Black Knight in Monty Python. No matter how thoroughly he is defeated, he'll never admit it.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1495278' date='Apr 8 2008, 10:42 PM']You're wasting your time.

hot stuff is much like the Black Knight in Monty Python. No matter how thoroughly he is defeated, he'll never admit it.[/quote]

A: you've never defeated me

2. Feel free to demonstrate how voting for hilary is in any way shape or form, is in line with Church teaching.

Both of you should be bright enough to know better

[Jaime]

yep that's what I thought.

I've shown how this is not in line with Church teaching and Dismas's poor interpretation of Evangelium Vitae is just an embarrassment to him.

[Dismas]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1495453' date='Apr 9 2008, 10:15 AM']yep that's what I thought.

I've shown how this is not in line with Church teaching and Dismas's poor interpretation of Evangelium Vitae is just an embarrassment to him.[/quote]
I've been embarrassed before. This isn't one of those times. Just saying that my interpretation is poor is one thing, actually presenting an argument more than "sinner!" over and over is another.

P.S. I still won't vote for McCain the embryo butcher in the General Election.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Dismas

[Dismas]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1495286' date='Apr 8 2008, 10:53 PM']A: you've never defeated me

2. Feel free to demonstrate how voting for hilary is in any way shape or form, is in line with Church teaching.

Both of you should be bright enough to know better[/quote]
I don't need to defeat you.

Voting for Hillary IN A [b]PARTY[/b] PRIMARY, which eliminates all other PARTY candidates within that PARTY.

A party primary is NOT a vote for office, merely a selection for the candidate that will represent that party in an upcoming election at a latter time for that office.

I do not share Hillary's intention on succeeding to the presidency, nor do I share her intention to legislate even a single bill should she be elected in the general, nor have I given Hillary any aid against any candidate still running who is more pro-life than she - whatsoever.

As such, I have not defied Church teaching, unless you can find Church teaching that states that I am not allowed to legally sabotage the political ambitions of an anti-life political party, this discussion is over.

That is all, I shall not be reading anymore of this thread, thank you.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1495999' date='Apr 9 2008, 09:54 PM']I've been embarrassed before. This isn't one of those times. Just saying that my interpretation is poor is one thing, actually presenting an argument more than "sinner!" over and over is another.

P.S. I still won't vote for McCain the embryo butcher in the General Election.[/quote]

See this goes to my point. You go and vote for hillary in hopes to support a "weaker" candidate in the general election. but then you state AGAIN that you will not vote republican.

So let's say it all works out. Hillary gets the democratic nomination. You don't vote for McCain. Hillary wins the general election

And you are stating you did not help Hillary Clinton become president?


dumbest strategy ever

[Aloysius]

hot stuff, by your simple math I'm sure you can see that all that means is that Dismas helped Hillary rather than Obama become president. your real beef is that Dismas isn't voting for McCain in the general election, but dismas's position is quite clear

1) rather have Hillary than Obama
2) would not like to have McCain no matter what
3) would not like to have Hillary no matter what
4) would not like to have Obama no matter what

the vote merely aids Hillary to be the one under consideration in the general election rather than Obama. so no matter what, the only effect of that particular vote is that it helps Hillary to defeat Obama. That vote does NOT help Hillary to defeat McCain.

voting in a primary is not voting for an office, it's voting for who ought to be considered for an office; and there were two pro-choice options contending for that honor in the primary Dismas voted in... so neither one's pro-choice status precludes voting for them over the other one.

again, your real beef is with voting for a third party in the general election. THAT is the only thing that theoretically helps Hillary get into office over McCain. the primary vote might help Hillary get into office over Obama, but not over McCain. it is very simple math.

if one voted for Hillary in the primary, then McCain in the general election; one would have been first voting against Obama and then voting against Hillary. Dismas is merely first voting against Obama, then voting against both Hillary and McCain (which as we all know, according to some principals, is considered to be aiding Hillary since the third party has no chance and can only be a spoiler, but again that's another debate entirely)

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1496320' date='Apr 10 2008, 11:25 AM']hot stuff, by your simple math I'm sure you can see that all that means is that Dismas helped Hillary rather than Obama become president. your real beef is that Dismas isn't voting for McCain in the general election, but dismas's position is quite clear

1) rather have Hillary than Obama
2) would not like to have McCain no matter what
3) would not like to have Hillary no matter what
4) would not like to have Obama no matter what

the vote merely aids Hillary to be the one under consideration in the general election rather than Obama. so no matter what, the only effect of that particular vote is that it helps Hillary to defeat Obama. That vote does NOT help Hillary to defeat McCain.

voting in a primary is not voting for an office, it's voting for who ought to be considered for an office; and there were two pro-choice options contending for that honor in the primary Dismas voted in... so neither one's pro-choice status precludes voting for them over the other one
again, your real beef is with voting for a third party in the general election. THAT is the only thing that theoretically helps Hillary get into office over McCain. the primary vote might help Hillary get into office over Obama, but not over McCain. it is very simple math.

if one voted for Hillary in the primary, then McCain in the general election; one would have been first voting against Obama and then voting against Hillary. Dismas is merely first voting against Obama, then voting against both Hillary and McCain (which as we all know, according to some principals, is considered to be aiding Hillary since the third party has no chance and can only be a spoiler, but again that's another debate entirely)[/quote]


First of all please show me where the USCCB or any representative of the Church that has stated that we cannot vote for a total prochoice candidate when there are others availed to us MADE THE CAVEAT for primaries.

Good luck with that one

Secondly my real beef is his and your strategy. You both WANT a democrat to win so that the republican party will finally get a true conservative to run and appease the conservative base.


That is my real beef. That is putting your politics before your faith. That is no different than anyone who claims to be Catholic and voting for Obama or Clinton this election.


you cannot argue against or rationalize your way through that. There are people who are voting third party for good intentions and are doing so from faithful standpoint. You are not. You are voting with your conservatism as your first priority and your faith is somewhere after that. That is hypocritical from your stance 4 years ago Al. And it just plain stinks

[Aloysius]

It's not hypocritical if i CHANGED MY MIND. how many times do I have to say that? I likely would not support George W. Bush in this election were he up for it either, I would support a third party.

I don't really want the democrat to win, I want to vote for someone I feel I can support in good conscience regardless of how futile it is. I see the practical effects of myself and so many others not supporting McCain being that likely the dem will win (which I believe will happen regardless as I do not believe McCain is strong enough to overcome the general consensus of the country that the repubs need to go)... I will feel more at ease if I lend my support to someone whose positions I actually support. in the same way a good ends do not justify a bad means, a bad end does not condemn a good means... voting for a good 3rd party candidate is a good means, and even if it has a bad final result according to Catholic principals I have not sinned because I only did an objectively good action. you can try to convince me all you like that I ought to be more strategic to help partially advance the pro-life movement, but you cannot convince me that I am as morally obligated to not vote for a good third party candidate as I am to not vote for a pro-abort candidate because I jumped off that bandwagon probably about a few months ago... though I was leaning off the edge of it for quite some time.

let me repeat though: I CHANGED MY MIND, I am not being hypocritical, I am now rejecting my previous position against third parties; I am saying I was wrong then, I was jumping on a bandwagon that was part of the Catholic Bush Campaign and was truly convinced at the time that the only way a Catholic could vote pro-life was by voting for a pro-life candidate with a chance of winning. I have been convinced that that position was incorrect.

do you call a converted tax collector a hypocrite even if he no longer collects unjust taxes?

but again, your real beef is the not voting for McCain part, not the voting Hillary over Obama part. honestly, it doesn't take too much common sense to realize that is perfectly acceptable... I don't need the USCCB to make a caveat specifying that it's ok to vote strategically in a primary that does not decide who gets into the office but rather decides who gets considered for the office... it makes perfect logical sense and is totally in line with the USCCB's spirit when it says not to vote pro-abort politicians into office; voting for someone you don't think can win or isn't as bad to be the one considered for the office is absolutely fine... actually, I would've even said that one four years ago because that's just common sense... notardillacid made a great analogy for it in the other thread

[Jaime]

[quote]Exactly. Vote against McCain either by abstaining or voting third party so that there is a sliver of a chance that in 2012 we'll have an acceptable candidate. If McCain wins the presidency, we will have to wait until 2016 for an acceptable candidate.

The Grand Old Party needs to be sent a message from its Grand Old Base that when they put up such nominees, their conservative base won't support them and they won't stand a chance. Maybe then they'll nominate a real conservative in 2012.[/quote]

These are your words. This is putting your party before your faith.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1497396' date='Apr 11 2008, 05:04 PM']These are your words. This is putting your party before your faith.[/quote]

Honestly I fail to see where that quote does that at all.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1497478' date='Apr 11 2008, 07:15 PM']Honestly I fail to see where that quote does that at all.[/quote]

Because no matter how you slice it, his intention is to have a 100% prochoice president in office for the next four years

Because he is hoping that an eventual good will come out of an immediate evil.

Nowhere in doctrine does it teach us that this is ever good. We do not root for the bad guy in hopes that it results in an eventual better candidate for conservatism. Not if we are voting Catholic. If you want to vote conservative, vote any way you like.

This line of reasoning is saying "Conservatism is more important than the issue of prolife" and its indefensible for a Catholic. It is exactly the same as a Catholic voting for either Obama or Clinton.

Exactly the same.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not attacking al as he admits he changed his mind...

i fail to see how president bush who is arguably 95% prolife, and mccain who voted 115 out of 120 times prolife, is such that you have to vote for him but don't have to vote for mccain.
i'm not sure mccain is less prolife, but even if he was slightly, what gives? if he's 90%, is that suddenly acceptable now not to vote for him but required for teh first?

also, as to al's reasoning.... hoping to get a better president in 2012 isn't all that great of a line of reasoning. if each president gets one court justice (or at least generally equal access to change).....
so, if you have a fifty fifty chance of mccain winning reelection if he won:
rememerb, not voting mccain is voting prochoice this election...
if i did my math right.
(possibilities: choice, life...... choice, choice.... neutral, neutral.... neutral, choice: so in terms of probibility, there's a 1 in 4 chance mccain will be the worse choice, and a one in four chance obama will be worse.... as the neutrals and cancelling out doesn't count for anything. really though, this is assuming mccain is neutral. i'd say he's more prolife... and if there's any truth in that (he wouldn't be more procohice) than the probablity is best to vote for mccain. also this is assuming a truly prolife person would run in line if and after obama won which insn't very certain)

i'm pretty sure this should be a statistical debate...

so anyway,,,, it's allowing prochoice justices, justified only by something that has a small chance of happening or at least isn't very certain.
given that there's not much difference in mccain and bush... i can see why iron says dismass was defiling hte eucharist by him unwillingness to vote mccain.

Edited April 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1496065' date='Apr 9 2008, 10:09 PM']See this goes to my point. You go and vote for hillary in hopes to support a "weaker" candidate in the general election. but then you state AGAIN that you will not vote republican.

So let's say it all works out. Hillary gets the democratic nomination. You don't vote for McCain. Hillary wins the general election

And you are stating you did not help Hillary Clinton become president?
dumbest strategy ever[/quote]

haha..

how can anyone not agree jaimie just zinged him?

jaimie, you have not lost this debate. you're not arguing as well as you could... you're not doing a bad job either though, but etiher way you have not lost this debate. i think you're stance makes more sense than theirs generally.

Edited April 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's like... voting for obama effectively as they are doing is like all or nothing, shooting for the best option: choice, life.... and risking the worst: choice, choice. reelection... obama is a likable character so he has good chance of winning, but mccain is not that great and might lose so i don't know.

so again it seems that voting against mccain is at best a neutral thing to do, but at worst and most likely the more prochoice thing to do. (funny i have to expand on that reasoning, given that the straightforward answer is that voting effectively for the prochoice person is the most prochoice desision you could make)

i think it comes down to the probabilities i mentioned... but this is just some interesting observations.

i've not seen an argument that voting effectively prohoice the coming election is the best option in terms of probability. (maybe in terms of theoretical chance but it's pushing it cause obama has a real good chance at reelection i'd guess right now if he won.... and why is a theoretical chance which isn't probable the justified thing to do, if that's your position?)

Edited April 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c