Winchester Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 [quote name='BG45' timestamp='1346900397' post='2479248'] You know I tried to argue once that you and Soc have methods behind the trolling, only to be assured that wasn't the case, and now you just have to go and explain the method and reasoning behind the madness this time. [/quote] Rule #1: Winchester lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 [quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1346896708' post='2479214'] I think I've been the only one to quote passages from Bishops and other Church documents on this, whether you think they were applicable or not. How this is leading myself I am not sure. [font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]I think you misunderstood the sources I cited-they were not talking about the one-time situation of Bush and the other candidates, they were a prototype for voting Catholics of the moral choice in a typical American situation. I really think you need to stop representing the third party vote as the only choice for faithful Catholics: A) because it goes against what the Church has said through her American bishops and through then-Cardinal Ratzinger, B) because, if President Obama were on PM (just go with it), he would be propping all your posts. C) If Catholics voted like you, Ron Paul would still not be elected, since our vote alone would not propel someone into office. President Obama would be elected. Hopefully, we can both agree that Obama is not the right choice.[/font] [font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]D) It does not, as your last post said, demand a better candidate. A third party vote just votes for the third party that (usually) does not win. I said before that you are allowed (by the Church not by me) to vote for a third party candidate. From the Bishop's Guide to Voting: [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3] [b] WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE[/b] In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral 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: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at [i]limiting the harm[/i] done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality"(EV 73; also CPL 4). Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect 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. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, [b]but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. [/b] [/size][/font] [font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I still hold that while voting for a third party may directly line up more with Catholic morals (and, in the case of Ron Paul, he is pro-homosexual/group marriages, which is a non-negotiable, according to the Voting Guide.), it does not actually limit evil done by politicians. This is something addressed in the Guide to Voting. As Adrestia said, in certain states the third party vote won't change anything because they swing too far to the right or left anyway. Not every third party voter is in one of those few states, obviously.[/font] [font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I am not going to change your mind, and I am not trying to, but if you are going to blame Catholics for something the Church has allowed-even endorsed in Church documents-read the Guide to Voting. I am assuming you have not read it, perhaps you have, but I don't see how you could and still accuse all Romney-voting Catholics that they are voting wrongly not just on a personal level, but according to Catholicism. [/font] [font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]*You are judging the Bush situation with 20/20 hindsight. What is important is to look at the fact that Bush and Romney claim many of the same things on the non-negotiables. In the current situation, even if Romney is far less moral than Bush, we have to remember that Obama is far less moral than Kerry on the non-negotiables. [/font] [font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I am bowing out. I don't want to give you a chance to post more and convince Catholics not to have a direct vote for our next President. All I can say is that if Obama gets elected again, I am glad I will be living in voluntary poverty already, before he strips our country of its wealth and good name.[/font][/font] [/quote] A) I think you need to stop pretending the "lesser evil" applies infinitely down the line. The voting guide takes very little into account and offers a general principle which can work in certain situations. The Voting Guide just recognizes this as a possible option that may exist. However for this election, I argue this principle is very unwise. You and other Catholics can cling to it as long as you want to, however that does not grant you immunity from critique. I merely point out the long odds you chase along with the ill idea of selling the Catholic vote for such a low price. B) I work and support for real opponents that actually stand for real principles that are the opposite side of Obama. If Obama wants to prop that, it's sort of a free country. C) Where did you think I support Obama?????????? If all Catholics voted for Ron Paul, Romney would not be nominee. If all Catholics went for Ron Paul before the election, Romney would be begging for the Catholic Vote and would take us seriously. But he doesn't. Because he and the GOP party bosses know that most Catholics will just settle. In a way, the pro-life movement needs to demand that the GOP actually do stuff instead of just selling out to them each election like the black vote as blindly sells out to the Democrats. D) Actually your wrong. If the Catholic Vote abstained from Romney this election, the GOP would actually work that much harder to get the Catholic Vote as they can't win without it. But when we just sell out all the time, the GOP takes us for granted and doesn't do much for us because they don't need too. America is a two party system, precisely because it is a winner-take all scenario. Therefore, when a party fails to win, they get nothing. When they go to win in the future, they have to take outsider groups more serious and appeal to them to win. So in a way, third parties can directly influence one of the major parties. I am aware of the voting guide. I believe I have said what can be said. As for Ron Paul, he would put issues like marriage and abortion to the states (making his views on it sort of irrelevant) and prohibit the courts from ruling on them. [b] This would make this country pro-life a LOT faster than the current rate the GOP is doing it[/b] and it would [b]protect marriage[/b] a lot better too. Ironically after I mention this is where people counter that we have to stop abortion everywhere at the same time. :rollseyes: But live by the federal government, die by the federal government. I will blame Catholics for taking a principle that is ok in general and applying it to any old situation without thinking through the ramifications of what kind of person their integrity and character their vote is going too. I'm calling you on that claim Kerry was that much better than Obama. Also, I have said this before, but Romney claims much more than he can back up. Bush had a better record than Romney. Skip the speeches. Read the facts and voting records. That will tell you who has any reasonable hope. The joke is on you. America is already falling big time.....and it may be too late. The party bosses call the shots. The Supreme Court does whatever its little heart desires. And our fiscal policy is a joke.The Supreme Court does whatever its little heart desires. Have you read some of the opinions that come out of there??? This country is already broke and our good name is gone. If anything seems okay, it is because it is a temporary illusion that is winding down. This is why it is time to [b]Restore America Now [/b]and cease taking the scraps from the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) [quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1346898982' post='2479232'] I think I'm getting the hang of this.... So you're like the PM Mascot troll? [/quote] A substantive, Kierkegaardian troll. But watch out for me. I'm pretty much bad news. Once it's all said and done, I'll just break your heart. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47p0PRqa_YA[/media] Edited September 6, 2012 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Normile Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Eagle eye, so your a Ron Paul fan and think he is more straight forward and pro-life than Romney? Ron Paul takes the easy road on all issues, he says it should be up to individual states, that takes all responsibility off him and his views are really non existent at that point. Bu the way he says he is " Strongly pro-life " yet he has voted for funding embryonic stem cell research, does that trouble your idealistic view of him ? I also worry about a candidtae that believes we should disband our military as " we can defend our country with 2 nuclear submarines " does this mean he would just nuke a country like afghanistan for being the staging ground for the terrorists involved in 9/11 . Heck patty that would make him even more of an assassin than Obama with his drone use. I just threw that out there for your thought, I think Ron Paul has many great ideas and is a good man. He is not electable, he has said many odd things that would kill his candidacy if he ever became a serious contender, the remark that women who were victims of sexual harassment should just quit their jobs unless they were actually forced to have sex would be a killer for the woman vote. My point, there is no messiah candidate. Anyone would be less evil in policies and practises than Obama. ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 [quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346904713' post='2479271'] Ron Paul takes the easy road on all issues, [/quote] hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 [quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346904713' post='2479271'] . Bu the way he says he is " Strongly pro-life " yet he has voted for funding embryonic stem cell research, ed [/quote] http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/Stem_Cell_Research/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I think the political voting system is highly flawed. Some countries have found ways to allow people to vote third party and not waste their vote. For instance, you can vote for [i]two [/i]candidates. So that means in America you could vote for Gary Johnson (Who isn't 100% pro-life, by the way) and put a secondary vote on Romney, so if Gary Johnson loses by a landslide your vote will go to Romney, or vice-versa. Then again, the two major parties would never allow such a thing to happen as this would take away their beloved power which they both claim is not theirs, but the peoples'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheUbiquitous Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 [quote name='BG45' timestamp='1346805311' post='2478475'] I think everyone forgets "Third" parties have won before. [/quote] Nonsense. [quote name='BG45' timestamp='1346805311' post='2478475']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.[/quote] Washington was not in a party, as you say; therefore, he was definitely not in a third party. Besides, the first election in any democracy is going to be something of an anomaly. Democratic-Republicans were against the Whigs, and the Federalists against the Anti-Federalists. Each of these parties represented half of the prevailing two-party system of the day. Besides a brief respite after the fall of the Federalists and the rise of the Whigs when America had only one major party, and the Civil War when the Democrats of the South seceded from the Union leaving only the Republicans and loyalist Democrats to form the "Union" Party, America has been dominated by exactly two political parties throughout her long history. For more than a century-and-a-half, it has been the [i][b]same[/b][/i] two parties. In fact, the only true winner from a third party was Lincoln, when the Democrats split the vote. Lincoln, for those of you playing at home, was a Republican. (This Presidential Election, by the way, only arguably marks the debut of the Republican party as a major party, because four years earlier John C. Fremont won many electoral votes and a third of the popular vote.) If all the electoral votes won by all the true third parties were combined and given to one person in 2012, the resulting chimera candidate would win the election, but not with enough to spare for a re-election. Who, after all, would want to vote for a Progressive Bull Moose Know-Nothing Dixiecrat affiliated with the American Independent Party? [center]----[/center] Now, if you want to vote for a third party, keep in mind that the best use of a third party is to reform one of the major parties by causing its rival to win a presidential election. Therefore, the right candidate would be something like a "blue-dog" Democrat, sucking the votes from what pro-family, pro-life partisans are not yet swilling the Kool Aid and adoring Mammon. It would have to be rather Democratic-flavored, though, so as to prevent too many folks from fleeing the Republicans more than than they would the Democrats. (Paging Sargent Shriver!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmaberry Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I'll come back to this thread in November.. Nah, at that point this place will be overflowing with new threads about our Beloved Mr President. See you at the polls [i]s[/i]uckers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 [quote name='TheUbiquitous' timestamp='1346905410' post='2479282'] Nonsense. Washington was not in a party, as you say; therefore, he was definitely not in a third party. Besides, the first election in any democracy is going to be something of an anomaly. Democratic-Republicans were against the Whigs, and the Federalists against the Anti-Federalists. Each of these parties represented half of the prevailing two-party system of the day. Besides a brief respite after the fall of the Federalists and the rise of the Whigs when America had only one major party, and the Civil War when the Democrats of the South seceded from the Union leaving only the Republicans and loyalist Democrats to form the "Union" Party, America has been dominated by exactly two political parties throughout her long history. For more than a century-and-a-half, it has been the [i][b]same[/b][/i] two parties. In fact, the only true winner from a third party was Lincoln, when the Democrats split the vote. Lincoln, for those of you playing at home, was a Republican. (This Presidential Election, by the way, only arguably marks the debut of the Republican party as a major party, because four years earlier John C. Fremont won many electoral votes and a third of the popular vote.) If all the electoral votes won by all the true third parties were combined and given to one person in 2012, the resulting chimera candidate would win the election, but not with enough to spare for a re-election. Who, after all, would want to vote for a Progressive Bull Moose Know-Nothing Dixiecrat affiliated with the American Independent Party? [center]----[/center] Now, if you want to vote for a third party, keep in mind that the best use of a third party is to reform one of the major parties by causing its rival to win a presidential election. Therefore, the right candidate would be something like a "blue-dog" Democrat, sucking the votes from what pro-family, pro-life partisans are not yet swilling the Kool Aid and adoring Mammon. It would have to be rather Democratic-flavored, though, so as to prevent too many folks from fleeing the Republicans more than than they would the Democrats. (Paging Sargent Shriver!) [/quote] Not sure I agree with you entirely about the first election in a democracy being something of an anomalous nature. Plus there's an argument to be made that it wasn't the first election in the former American Colonies for a new national government; we like to ignore the Articles of Confederation and their failed government prior to writing the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention itself was a meeting to revamp the Articles that became something more (and boy have times changed, the new government insisted we honor and pay off the debts of the Confederation government). Not really arguing with the rest, because I agree, but it is still possible for a shift in how things go as to who the two major parties would be. Right now the GOP itself is becoming weakened and split by constant factional infighting and that, more than anything, is why Obama is going to win in November. While Sargent Shriver was an amesome guy overall, I don't think necromancy is the answer to summoning a good third party candidate. [quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1346908353' post='2479308'] I'll come back to this thread in November.. Nah, at that point this place will be overflowing with new threads about our Beloved Mr President. See you at the polls [i]s[/i]uckers! [/quote] Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but are you essentially saying "people don't agree with me, so I'm going to leave this alone until I'm proven right and I know you all secretly <3 Obama"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 [quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1346882430' post='2479049'] Restore America Now! And not pretend to in 40 years. [/quote] Now who is this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missionseeker Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) There actually about 30 or so independent/third party platforms who have candidates running. You can google it. I'd link but I'm on phone. It includes everyone from Ron Paul to Rosanne Barr (who apparently thinks macadamia nuts are going to save the world). Edited September 6, 2012 by missionseeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I dunno, macadamia nuts sound pretty good to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marie-Therese Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 [img]http://i.imgur.com/03jz0.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 [quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1346948836' post='2479407'] [img]http://i.imgur.com/03jz0.jpg[/img] [/quote]Yeah. But the repeated idiocy is not supporting a third party candidate earlier, not supporting third party candidates in local elections, not doing anything and then complaining about the poor choices on the Presidential Election. Like them or not, the Tea Party, though not a yet a very powerful or fully developed party, identified certain ideals that are held by a group of people and are a voting block that is appealed by politicians wanting for them to vote for them. You can't have much effect on a long term process if you only wait until the end. Catholics and all Citizens should pay attention and vote accordingly in local and State elections to have an impact on who the Politicians will pander to for their votes when it comes to the national election for President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now