Catholic Does Not Equal Gop

[To Jesus Through Mary]

As much as I don't like it, it is a reality that a 3rd party would never win in this election. We all know it. So to vote that way, is it a "wasted" vote, I don't think so. But I do think it substantially raises the chance of reelecting a man who is detrimental to our freedom. If he is elected again, maybe persecution would be good for American Catholics to finally take a stand and stop being so PC and soft. After all, it was the Catholic vote who got us Obama the 1st time around.

[Nihil Obstat]

Just a hypothetical here. What do you guys think it would imply if every single Catholic refused to vote in the next election? Would the government be legitimate? Or what if half the population of the US refused to vote? Three quarters?
What would it mean for the legitimacy of the government if such a significant portion of people refused to participate in the 'democratic process'?

Just wondering about opinions here.

[missionseeker]

Politics are not passive. People should vote. Even if they vote for third party. Imagine if all the people who dislike either candidate actually did vote third party. It's doubtful that that candidate would get elected, but it would show that people are willing to deflect from these parties and some folks have been loyal democrats or yellow dog republicans for DECADES. To lose votes is to lose money and more importantly power. There's nothing that Republicans or Democrats like worse than money, except for losing power.

[BG45]

I think everyone forgets "Third" parties have won before. Washington had no party and he warned against them. The next President was a Federalist. Jefferson through Adams were Democratic-Republicans (the forerunners of the Democrats and Republicans). Jackson and Van Buren were Democrats. Harrison and Tyler were Whigs. Polk was a Democrat, then we had two more Whigs. We had two more Democrats, then Abe Lincoln was the first Republican President; his VP who became President upon assassination was technically a Democrat, but acted as an Independent. Ever since we've been in our vicious two party cycle; though the Socialists around WW1 were serious enough contenders that we passed laws just to throw them into jail.

As for the what if's on people not voting in large numbers. 2008 was a record turnout for recent years at[url="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/01/2008-voter-turnout/"] 61% of elligible voters actually doing so.[/url] Before that, at 60.7%, [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10492-2005Jan14.html"]2004 had the largest turnout since 1968.[/url] And 1996 didn't [url="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php"]even have 50% of elligible voters actually cast a vote.[/url]

Edit:

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1346791493' post='2478397']
to be fair, she's not saying its a "wasted" vote, I don't see those words at all in her post... she's just sharing her opinion that a third-party vote will benefit obama in this next election ...
[/quote]

Isn't that essentially saying the exact same thing?

Edited September 5, 2012 by BG45

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1346804933' post='2478472']
Politics are not passive. People should vote. Even if they vote for third party. Imagine if all the people who dislike either candidate actually did vote third party. It's doubtful that that candidate would get elected, but it would show that people are willing to deflect from these parties and some folks have been loyal democrats or yellow dog republicans for DECADES. To lose votes is to lose money and more importantly power. There's nothing that Republicans or Democrats like worse than money, except for losing power.
[/quote]

I believe that a refusal to vote can be, in a moral sense, 'active'.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1346783774' post='2478341']
Which is why I'm probably voting third party this year.
[/quote]

razzle dazzle, Obama will appreciate your vote !

ed

[Winchester]

[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1346790105' post='2478380']
If you vote for a third party, you are giving a vote to the President running for a second term, IMO.
[/quote]
Sounds like Romney was a stupid choice, then.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='To Jesus Through Mary' timestamp='1346802995' post='2478464']
As much as I don't like it, it is a reality that a 3rd party would never win in this election. We all know it. So to vote that way, is it a "wasted" vote, I don't think so. But I do think it substantially raises the chance of reelecting a man who is detrimental to our freedom. If he is elected again,[i][b] maybe persecution would be good for American Catholics to finally take a stand and stop being so PC and soft.[/b][/i] After all, it was the Catholic vote who got us Obama the 1st time around.
[/quote]

I have thought about this quite a lot lately. I think about how devout the early christians who were forced to practise their faith in teh catacombs for fear of death and the equivalent when the catholics had to hide from fear of hitlers persecution and what went on with the Chinese catholics not too forget the current issues in Africa. This type of fear of persecution and death does seem to breed a more profound sense of the worth of religious freedoms and faith. That said, are we as a nation ready for that? Would we be able to go to jail rather then pay taxes to Obama care to fund abortion by catholic institutions ? Are we ready to be tested in fire, or are we cowards who would just pay those taxes and hold our nose and accept the limits of religious freedoms and the increases in the murder of the yet born human lives. Will we be happy with same sex marriages and the consequences of preferential rights to homosexuals, how will this meld with our catholic values?

ed

Edited September 5, 2012 by Ed Normile

[missionseeker]

If we are the kind of ppl who submit to vote for presidential candidates we cannot morally agree with, then yes. We as a nation are the kind of cowards who would pay taxes and go on with the inconveniences of having to pay taxes and fines to top out of policies.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1346807434' post='2478509']
If we are the kind of ppl who submit to vote for presidential candidates we cannot morally agree with, then yes. We as a nation are the kind of cowards who would pay taxes and go on with the inconveniences of having to pay taxes and fines to top out of policies.
[/quote]

So, does this mean you morally agree with Obama or Romney ? These are your only two viable choices this election.

Obama stands for unlimited abortion even late term and killing a child who survives a botched abortion I.E. killed after live birth, the homosexual agenda, and the limiting of religious freedom.

Romney has promised to repeal Obama care, he stated that it would not work on a national level due to the costs of coverage needed to be covered by increased taxes, he promises to reduce government intrusions on our lives in the form of less government agencies and restrictions, he is against the homosexual agenda of same sex marriage and being a Mormon, a faith that has seen severe persecution by the government in its short history he is against limiting religious freedom.

ed

ed

[emmaberry]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346806712' post='2478494']
Would we be able to go to jail rather then pay taxes to Obama care to fund abortion by catholic institutions ?[/quote]

This isn't a real response to the questions in your post, but I thought Catholic institutions would only have to pay a fine if they did not offer ObamaCare to their employees? I do agree that this could escalate to jail eventually, but I didn't now if that was the the present consequence of not complying.

[Maximilianus]

you all can solve these issues by voting me for el general mayor del junta nacional de los estados unidos y paises insulares. No politcal parties, just policy based on my opinions. I agree with myself most of the time. Don't worry, me and my junta will treat our friends well.

[missionseeker]

I'm voting for Max.


Definitely not Romney or Obama. Viable option bs and wasting votes that's all bs.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346808031' post='2478516']


So, does this mean you morally agree with Obama or Romney ? These are your only two viable choices this election.

Obama stands for unlimited abortion even late term and killing a child who survives a botched abortion I.E. killed after live birth, the homosexual agenda, and the limiting of religious freedom.

Romney has promised to repeal Obama care, he stated that it would not work on a national level due to the costs of coverage needed to be covered by increased taxes, he promises to reduce government intrusions on our lives in the form of less government agencies and restrictions, he is against the homosexual agenda of same sex marriage and being a Mormon, a faith that has seen severe persecution by the government in its short history he is against limiting religious freedom.

ed

ed
[/quote]


I cannot in good conscience vote for either of these candidates.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1346808116' post='2478517']
This isn't a real response to the questions in your post, but I thought Catholic institutions would only have to pay a fine if they did not offer ObamaCare to their employees? I do agree that this could escalate to jail eventually, but I didn't now if that was the the present consequence of not complying.
[/quote]

Emmaberry, the " fines " are to be used to cover the " tax " you would not be paying. If you refuse to pay both the tax and the fine, the only way to effectively opt out of paying for abortion and abortifacients, then you go to jail.

ed

Edited September 5, 2012 by Ed Normile