Political Question For Catholics.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349380459' post='2490006']
Abortion by drone is okay.
[/quote]
Only if they are 'merican drones.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349380659' post='2490007']
Only if they are 'merican drones.
[/quote]

[s]And you're not an American citizen.[/s]

Nevermind...

[Aloysius]

I gave Nihil props, because it's an interesting perspective, but I haven't necessarily gotten to that point yet. I suppose the percent of people that do show up to vote is seen as an approval of the system on some level, and if there were a massive boycott and it was actually reported as such you could begin to establish a lack of credibility for the system; but as it stands refusing to vote is as ineffective as not voting... third party voting or write-in votes that are counted (see this map to see if your write in vote will count; if you are somewhere where it will not count then it sometimes will invalidate your entire ballot: http://imgur.com/EF2bM ... NB, in Maine a write-in for Ron Paul counts because his supporters filed paperwork to make him an official write-in candidate apparently lol; places with sore loser laws will simply not count a write-in vote for someone who ran in the primary, so you would have to vote for someone who did not run in a primary this year for that vote to be counted) I think is the only effective message unless you could organize a massive demonstration on election day that called attention to a voter boycott.

really, I think that would be great, and it's the direction I think the boycott-voting folks should go in. if there were massive Occupy-Wall-Street and Tea-Party size protests organized on election day of people specifically going out to the streets with signs to declare that they were REFUSING to vote in the corrupt system, that would be a powerful message. Basically a voter strike, if there were significant picket-lines and you got the media's attention, it would be quite the event and quite the indictment of the system. without that, simply not going to the polls doesn't actually register as the message Nihil says it registers as.

Of course, if you are in a state where you can write in a candidate and you write in a candidate who does not have a slate of electors in your state set to go to the electoral college if he wins, it is a vote that is actually an indictment against the corruption of the system.

also of note that it is likely that Ron Paul will get about 2 or 3 electoral votes this time around... it may be more, and probably more if Romney's going to lose anyway because some electors said they'll only do it if it doesn't affect the outcome (in '76 there were electors that voted Reagan instead of Ford since Ford lost anyway). these types of things need to happen to send the message that the voting public is growing towards a tipping point where they will no longer stand for this kind of stuff; and it needs to not fizzle out the way the Ross Perot movement did (because of all the people who gave up and accepted the blame and offered up their mea culpas for causing Bush Sr. to lose... Bush Sr. deserved to lose that election and all the Ross Perot voters should have doubled down in the next elections and caused a movement for third parties to grow)

as to the topic at hand... honestly anyone who gets too heated up over really wanting Obama to lose I think should step back and realize that Romney is not all that much different and the actual policies that will be put into place will be extremely similar (and the Supreme Court justices that get appointed will generally be appointed to continue the status quo on abortion issues; anyone who thinks Romney will appoint Supreme Court Justices to the point of getting us a majority on the Supreme Court is living in a dream world)

[Aloysius]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1349380359' post='2490005']
This is a major reason why I'm not supporting Romney. I've had it with lip service on being pro-life. From now on, I demand actual strong efforts. Not stupid legislation like the partial birth abortion act or that thing the House passed several months ago. In both instances, there was or would have been very little effect on actual abortions. Nearly all the good abortion restrictions happen from the state level anyway...



See, I'm not voting for Mitt because I am already holding him accountable for his past. While I fear Obama...I near equally fear Romney. And I fear most people have not taken that into consideration.

I predict Romney will probably win....and he will sell out the pro-life movement. He will weakly attempt to defund Planned Parenthood but will stop as soon as he meets resistance. The judges he appoints will be shaky-pro-life.....but their views will reflect the status-quo on abortion. "[b]But I tried[/b]" he will say when the pro-life movement complains. In 4 years, another democrat will rise........and sadly most of the pro-life movement will not hold Mitt accountable.....but will support him.....because again.....he is the [b]lesser of two evils....and Romney like many before him will again be held unaccountable.[/b]

I hope I am wrong in this prediction. But my gut...and Romney's past says I'm right.
[/quote]
I predict Romney's going to lose. He's got no game in the key swing states, OH and FL are almost lost causes for him, his path to electoral victory is very fragile and improbable; though I hear he "did well" in the professional wrestling match they had the other night (I think they call it a "debate" but it's about as fake as professional wrestling) so I suppose if he continues to "do well" in those charades maybe he'll turn it around.

Personally, I think it's better for Romney to lose to give us a chance at a better candidate in four years. Obviously one should not vote for Obama, but one should also not vote for Romney. A vote for Romney puts Romney in charge of the only party where the pro-life movement even has a voice for the next 8 years, ie it silences the pro life movement for eight years (like you illustrated).

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1349370440' post='2489955']
So what is the moral choice to make?
[/quote]
After reflecting, I thought this was a very good question.

Upon reflecting on it more, it seems more like a cop out....like asking "There's a burning building and you can only save your Dad or a batch of frozen fertilized eggs..what would you do?" ..... a way of asking a question not to know something.. but to KEEP from knowing something...




So, an honest answer to your question what is the moral choice to make, I say this..

I have no idea.

I am not asking my candidate to be moral is all parts of his/her life (I would prefer that, TBH..and would most likely be a condition of my vote)

What I AM asking is that they not ask me to embrace intrinsic evils like abortion, torture, embrionic stem cell, etc etc. One should not embrace it for the sake of the state (democrats), nor for the sake of the party (republicans).

I am not asking for angels...I am just demanding they not be devils. (pardon the hyperbole)

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1349381273' post='2490011']
I gave Nihil props, because it's an interesting perspective, but I haven't necessarily gotten to that point yet. I suppose the percent of people that do show up to vote is seen as an approval of the system on some level, and if there were a massive boycott and it was actually reported as such you could begin to establish a lack of credibility for the system; but as it stands refusing to vote is as ineffective as not voting... third party voting or write-in votes that are counted (see this map to see if your write in vote will count; if you are somewhere where it will not count then it sometimes will invalidate your entire ballot: [url="http://imgur.com/EF2bM"]http://imgur.com/EF2bM[/url] ... NB, in Maine a write-in for Ron Paul counts because his supporters filed paperwork to make him an official write-in candidate apparently lol; places with sore loser laws will simply not count a write-in vote for someone who ran in the primary, so you would have to vote for someone who did not run in a primary this year for that vote to be counted) I think is the only effective message unless you could organize a massive demonstration on election day that called attention to a voter boycott.

really, I think that would be great, and it's the direction I think the boycott-voting folks should go in. if there were massive Occupy-Wall-Street and Tea-Party size protests organized on election day of people specifically going out to the streets with signs to declare that they were REFUSING to vote in the corrupt system, that would be a powerful message. Basically a voter strike, if there were significant picket-lines and you got the media's attention, it would be quite the event and quite the indictment of the system. without that, simply not going to the polls doesn't actually register as the message Nihil says it registers as.

Of course, if you are in a state where you can write in a candidate and you write in a candidate who does not have a slate of electors in your state set to go to the electoral college if he wins, it is a vote that is actually an indictment against the corruption of the system.

also of note that it is likely that Ron Paul will get about 2 or 3 electoral votes this time around... it may be more, and probably more if Romney's going to lose anyway because some electors said they'll only do it if it doesn't affect the outcome (in '76 there were electors that voted Reagan instead of Ford since Ford lost anyway). these types of things need to happen to send the message that the voting public is growing towards a tipping point where they will no longer stand for this kind of stuff; and it needs to not fizzle out the way the Ross Perot movement did (because of all the people who gave up and accepted the blame and offered up their mea culpas for causing Bush Sr. to lose... Bush Sr. deserved to lose that election and all the Ross Perot voters should have doubled down in the next elections and caused a movement for third parties to grow)

as to the topic at hand... honestly anyone who gets too heated up over really wanting Obama to lose I think should step back and realize that Romney is not all that much different and the actual policies that will be put into place will be extremely similar (and the Supreme Court justices that get appointed will generally be appointed to continue the status quo on abortion issues; anyone who thinks Romney will appoint Supreme Court Justices to the point of getting us a majority on the Supreme Court is living in a dream world)
[/quote]
I am not as familiar with the specifics of the American electoral system, so you are going to know a lot more than me on those points. For now, all I can talk about is the very basic level, the concept of withholding consent. If I knew more about the specifics, this is a discussion that I would love to have.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1349381694' post='2490015']

Personally, I think it's better for Romney to lose to give us a chance at a better candidate in four years. Obviously one should not vote for Obama, but one should also not vote for Romney. A vote for Romney puts Romney in charge of the only party where the pro-life movement even has a voice for the next 8 years, ie it silences the pro life movement for eight years (like you illustrated).
[/quote]
Just playing devil's advocate here. Do you think this could be interpreted as a form of consequentialism? I only bring this up because of a lot neo-con Catholics are arguing precisely that- not because I agree with it.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1349381694' post='2490015']
I predict Romney's going to lose. He's got no game in the key swing states, OH and FL are almost lost causes for him, his path to electoral victory is very fragile and improbable; though I hear he "did well" in the professional wrestling match they had the other night (I think they call it a "debate" but it's about as fake as professional wrestling) so I suppose if he continues to "do well" in those charades maybe he'll turn it around.

Personally, I think it's better for Romney to lose to give us a chance at a better candidate in four years. Obviously one should not vote for Obama, but one should also not vote for Romney. A vote for Romney puts Romney in charge of the only party where the pro-life movement even has a voice for the next 8 years, ie it silences the pro life movement for eight years (like you illustrated).
[/quote]

I guess I'm clinging to the fact that the polls are oversampling democrats to the point that Romney is actually winning. However, I am unsure as how much this is so perhaps Romney is legit losing. I don't really know anymore. It's hard to sift through all the trash for valuables.

It can make sense that Romney is losing.......the guy stands for literally nothing! The only reason he has anything going for him is the mere fact he is literally physically not Obama. That is the only reason anyone is rallying around him. Which is an awful reason to support someone....

Yes the debate was a fake...I wonder in general how many people actually change their minds over a one night debate when both candidates have already spent millions (if not billions) spreading their message. I mean....theoretically, their voting records and their views have not changed....so really you should already know.all the good information.

I do agree with your idea of letting Romney lose (and part of me wants him too) so as to get a reasonable worthy candidate in 4 years. Sadly I had the same idea with McCain. While I am sad to say now that I voted for him, I secretly hoped he would lose so that this election would be a slam-dunk with a real conservative republican. However, that didn't happen......we got a shifty moderate.....and the polls say he is losing. So I guess repeat and try again in four. And this time, we'll rally behind Rand Paul!?!

Have to reform the party before you can hope to save the nation.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349382801' post='2490024']
Just playing devil's advocate here. Do you think this could be interpreted as a form of consequentialism? I only bring this up because of a lot neo-con Catholics are arguing precisely that- not because I agree with it.
[/quote]
consequentialism would be justifying a bad course of action by the consequences, a consequentialist taking my position would say "it's better for Romney to lose and therefore you should vote for Obama (because a vote for Obama is the best way to make Romney lose), even though the act of voting for him is bad, because ultimately the consequences of Obama winning and Romney losing are good (in giving us a better chance in four years rather than eight)"

what I said was merely an evaluation of the consequences after the fact. I was not using a consequentialist argument to in any way justify a bad action, I specifically said do not vote for Obama. I am also saying don't vote for Romney. I suggest voting for someone that you believe is right for the job regardless of the consequences, the action itself needs to be good--and a vote for a good candidate like a write-in for Ron Paul or someone else that you believe is a good vote is a good action. So I say "Write in Ron Paul or vote for Gary Johnson (on the basis that his policies would allow for the illegalization of abortion which would therefore make him more pro-life than Obama or Romney even if he's less pro-life than a Ron Paul or a Rick Santorum, Gary Johnson is certainly up for debate but I think he's a valid option for Catholics to consider given the field of candidates on the ballots) or vote for Virgil Goode or write in some other good candidate pro-life guy; ultimately the realistic unintended consequence of this intrinsically good action would be an Obama victory rather than a Romney victory, but if you don't have a preference for either side then that's not too much of a problem for you because you were uninvolved in the actual victory" and then I evaluate what consequences an Obama victory would have, ie a chance for a Rand Paul in 2016 with Justin Amash as his vice president, for example

[Nihil Obstat]

I am going to hold out for a Napolitano Woods ballot.

Lol, I agree though.

[Aloysius]

Justin Amash rocks mostly because he posts every vote he makes in the House with his reasoning on Facebook. Including one where he admitted to having gotten his notes mixed up and voted in a way he didn't intend (on one of the many many votes, so it's an understandable mistake) and he apologized and said it wouldn't happen again (his vote wouldn't have changed the outcome anyway)

Think of how many congressmen don't even read half the bills they vote for or against, and Justin Amash has the ethic to actually have notes on every single thing that comes up on the floor so he knows the details of every vote he's making (so much that others in the house have started to turn to this freshman congressman for advice on how to vote on things) and the integrity to admit to making a mistake on a vote. If it weren't for his lack of experience I'd actually prefer him on the top of a presidential ticket, from what I've seen of him so far, but I suppose we'll probably have to wait... not too many people could step up in the first presidential election they were constitutionally eligible for

[4588686]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1349382811' post='2490025']

I guess I'm clinging to the [s]fact[/s] the essence of cow that somebody on Fox told me that the polls are oversampling democrats to the point that Romney is actually winning.
[/quote]


Fxd.

[Aloysius]

yeah, polls are definitely used one way and the other all over the place, but don't ever trust it when one side claims they're only behind in the polls because the polls are faulty. there are plenty of reasons to have a general distrust of polls, but they're being conducted as they always are and they're just one of the barometers that indicate Romney's candidacy has been failing (until, I have been told but I didn't watch, the debate wherein many people seem to think the nation generally smelled what the Mitt was cooking and Obama got a steel chair to the face)

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349374764' post='2489984']
In my opinion it is also an entirely valid moral choice to refuse to vote. Refuse to participate in this corrupt, evil system. It may not count for anything, but then again neither does your vote. But it is a moral stand.
[/quote]

I agree...though on technical grounds. I believe that voting for a third party or a write-in candidate sends a much stronger message of dissatisfaction with the current system than not voting. Most of the time it seems like people will write off non-voters as lazy or indifferent. At least when you write in a candidate, it shows up as a higher percentage of people voting against the two parties.

Plus it's totally cool to exercise my 19th amendment rights.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1349387948' post='2490056']

I agree...though on technical grounds. I believe that voting for a third party or a write-in candidate sends a much stronger message of dissatisfaction with the current system than not voting. Most of the time it seems like people will write off non-voters as lazy or indifferent. At least when you write in a candidate, it shows up as a higher percentage of people voting against the two parties.

Plus it's totally cool to exercise my 19th amendment rights.
[/quote]


Yeah, I do not necessarily disagree. On a practical level, for the reasons I outlined above, I think that not voting is superior to third party or write in, but I absolutely accept the validity of the latter as well.
It is true that a lot of people write off non-voters as lazy or apathetic or whatever. That isn't really a point for or against anything, but it is the reality. Usually I do not tell people that I do not vote, just because I am not interested in having the discussion. Although I have talked about it in the past, and when I did cover my basic reasons it is often at least grudgingly accepted as reasonable. Depends on who you are talking to, of course.