Voting For A 3rd Party Is Voting For Obama.

[Adrestia]

Voting 3rd party is the only way to stop the Republicrats from increasing the size of the government, increasing war and militarism, and destroying civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.

[Aloysius]

Ampaxx, Look up Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson (Gary is states-rights on abortion like Romney claims to be but unlike Romney he would actually pursue constitutionalist justices that would be likely to overturn Roe; he's bad on Gay Marriage though).
I personally believe Gary Johnson is a step in the right direction from Romney/Obama, but there are too many problems with him so I won't recommend voting for him.
Virgil Goode is an even stronger step in the right direction from Romney/Obama on the social/moral issues, I have some problems with him as well of course, but his only problem on the moral front is torture, but seeing as he's also critical of the wars he would even be a mitigation of that evil since he would want to scale back the wars thereby scaling back instances of torture that are associated with the wars.

But voting for someone who is pragmatically a step in the right direction is a perfectly acceptable argument. You won't ever find a perfect candidate, not even Ron Paul is perfect. I say if you don't come up with sound reasons to support Mitt, Gary, or Virgil, then one should do a write in or a none-of-the-above vote. I have strongly suggested that there are no good reasons to support Mitt, but that there may be some sound reasons to support Gary or Virgil.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351082896' post='2496895']
I'll get to your inline response later today...gotta run to class.

The 5% candidate comes from the last time I posted that. It was erroneously left in the most recent paragraph. I used must because one premise follows from another, since we are morally obligated to follow the path we find most prudential. To put it in other terms, we are morally obligated to follow our conscience, and our conscience dictates to us what is most prudential. The post was only about thinking through the various teachings on modern politics applied to the various points of view espoused here.

I'll also get back to the perceived ends that will arise from an action, but as great as that post was to read, I don't think it applies that well to what I have posted here.
[/quote]
I look forward to your response. I'm glad you liked my post

I know I sort of mixed in arguments on two separate fronts in my inline response, so it would be helpful to separate those fronts into, on the one hand, the discussion of the theoretical issue, and on the other hand the practical application to Mitt and Barack; when I snipe in a couple times about how Mitt's no better than Barack, that should not detract from the point that even if Mitt were better than Barack, we are never morally obliged to abandon a losing battle in favor of a more winnable one just because the winnable one is winnable; if we're fighting for a good principal, a good cause, or a good candidate; then whether or not he wins or loses or has a chance of winning or losing has no consequence to the morality of our action. the action in and of itself is good.

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

It's a shame that those of us who are unwilling to violate our consciences by voting for evil are condemned to hell.

[MIKolbe]

A 3rd party vote is a vote for Obama?

Why is it not a vote for Romney?

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351046823' post='2496722']
[b]Q. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?[/b]

As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.

[b]Q. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?[/b]

In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in the previous question.

[b]Q. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do?[/b]

Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. However, you should not place a candidate who is pro-capital punishment (and anti-abortion) in the same moral category as a candidate who is pro-abortion. Faced with such a set of candidates, there would be no moral dilemma, and the clear moral obligation would be to vote for the candidate who is pro-capital punishment, not necessarily because he is pro-capital punishment, but because he is anti-abortion.

[b]- Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD[/b]
[/quote]


+10,000 props.

[sixpence]

freedom, I think you have definitely convinced me to abstain from the pres vote.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1351089919' post='2496923']
freedom, I think you have definitely convinced me to abstain from the pres vote.
[/quote]

[Winchester]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1351089906' post='2496922']


+10,000 props.
[/quote]
And now let's deal with the situation at hand, instead of these theoretical ones.

[i<3franciscans]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1351087648' post='2496912']
A 3rd party vote is a vote for Obama?

Why is it not a vote for Romney?
[/quote]
Because Obama apparently has more support than Romney...

I don't see how that is possible after having him around for four years.

[Winchester]

[quote name='i<3franciscans' timestamp='1351091460' post='2496937']
Because Obama apparently has more support than Romney...

I don't see how that is possible after having him around for four years.
[/quote]
For the same reason it's possible that people supported authoritarians like Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich over Ron Paul.

Ignorance.

Edit: I'm oversimplifying. There are also those who think it's their business if their neighbor engages in sins. Well, certain sins. And of course, there are those who think we should bomb peace into foreign nations, and that this is our calling as a Christian nation (yeah, these same people think the United States are a single nation. I guess that's often ignorance). And people who think we need a central bank. It's not always ignorance; there are plenty of omnipotent moral busybodies amongst Catholics.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Winchester

[qfnol31]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1351087648' post='2496912']
A 3rd party vote is a vote for Obama?

Why is it not a vote for Romney?
[/quote]
I said it could be a vote for the victor, whoever it may be.

[i<3franciscans]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351091590' post='2496939']
For the same reason it's possible that people supported authoritarians like Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich over Ron Paul.

Ignorance.
[/quote]
So.... you don't like anybody???

[Winchester]

[quote name='i<3franciscans' timestamp='1351092014' post='2496943']
So.... you don't like anybody???
[/quote]
I don't like the GOP or Democrat candidate. I'll just use the singular, since in practice, they're so little different.

Oh, but the rhetoric is different!

Yeah, and Ronnie Reagan, in spite of his [s]rhetoric[/s] outright, filthy lies, increased the size and scope of the Federal government.

[i<3franciscans]

oh.