Voting For A 3rd Party Is Voting For Obama.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351091830' post='2496942']
I said it could be a vote for the victor, whoever it may be.
[/quote]
so voting for a guy that loses is effectively a vote for the guy that wins?

and of course the two major parties are exempt from this paradigm because they "have a chance"

what level of support do they have to have before they stop having a chance and voting for them just constitutes voting for the winner? at what level are they considered to "have a chance"? what if the polls were showing Obama beating Romney 60-40, would Romney still qualify as "having a chance"? What if Obama were beating Romney 70-30? Would Romney still qualify as "having a chance"? How bout 80-20, 90-10... at what point does Romney fall out of the magic club that is exempt from your idea that voting for the loser of an election is equivalent to voting for the winner of that election? At what point would Gary Johnson become a member of that club if he were to skyrocket in the polls? Would he have to make it to 10%, 20%, 30%? At what point does a vote for Gary Johnson become a real vote for Gary Johnson and not a vote for whoever actually wins? What is the magic number?

Voting for the loser of an election is just that--voting for the guy that lost. If you vote for Romney and he loses, well your vote was for Romney. If you vote for Gary Johnson and he loses, well, your vote was for Gary Johnson. The winner won because enough people voted for him, but you were not one of those people and therefore your vote, obviously, should not be considered to have been for him.

of course many people come from the premise that our votes belong to Romney in the first place, and therefore voting in any other way is depriving Romney of votes that were otherwise his. That is wrong too--our votes never belonged to Romney; we withhold our votes as much from Romney as we do from Obama. Whoever wins, it's not on our conscience, because we did not support them; we supported someone who was in opposition, even if they were just a Polish man on a horse marching against Nazi tanks, we supported them. The fact that the Nazi tanks won does not devalue our support for the Polish man on the horse... in fact, it makes it all the more significant.

[dUSt]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]You guys amaze me.

Obama has done more to promote abortion than any other president. You guys live in a fantasy world if you think the president has nothing to do with helping to end and reduce abortions. Here's what Bush did:[/font][/size][list]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]Unborn Victims of Violence Act[/b] - signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 1, 2004[/font][/size]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act[/b] - signed into law August 5, 2002 by President Bush[/font][/size]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]The Partial Birth Abortion Ban[/b] - signed into law by President Bush in 2003[/font][/size]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Bush reinstated the [b]Mexico City Policy[/b] which requires countries who receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion. [color=#ff0000][b]Obama rescinded it. Romney said he would reinstate it.[/b][/color][/font][/size]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]June 20, 2007, President Bush veto of legislation (S. 5) that would mandate federal funding of the type of stem cell research that requires the killing of human embryos[/font][/size]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]Pro-life judges[/b] appointed to supreme court by Bush[/font][/size]
[/list]
[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]Here's what Obama has done:[/b][/font][/size][list]
[*][color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On his first day in office, [b]Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy[/b], which bars non-governmental organizations that receive American tax dollars from performing or promoting abortion abroad.[/font][/color]
[*][color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After taking office, [b]Obama immediately restored funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)[/b], which helps implement China’s brutal One-Child Policy. From 2009 to 2011, $145 million has been appropriated for UNFPA, and $47 million was requested in the President’s 2012 budget.[/font][/color]
[*]Obamacare is the largest expansion of abortion on-demand since Roe v. Wade, funded by the taxpayers. Obamacare uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize health care plans that include coverage for elective abortion. [color=#ff0000][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Romney[/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]said he will get rid of Obamacare.[/font][/color]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Under Obamacare, millions of Americans will unknowingly be enrolled in health plans that include abortion coverage. These plans will charge enrollees an “abortion surcharge” – that will go into a national abortion slush fund. [color=#ff0000]Romney said he will get rid of Obamacare.[/color][/font][/size]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Obamacare forces employers – whether religious or secular – to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization, regardless of religious or moral objection.[/font] [/size][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Romney[/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]said he will get rid of Obamacare.[/font]
[*][color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Obama has bullied five states — Indiana, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Texas, and New Jersey – for defunding Planned Parenthood. His administration even yanked Medicaid funding or contracted directly with Planned Parenthood in states that have taken action to defund them.[/font][/color]
[*][b]Pro-abortion judges[/b][color=#282828][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] appointed to supreme court by Obama[/font][/color]
[/list]
[color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]​[/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So go ahead. Vote for someone else, don't vote, whatever. My conscience tells me I need to do whatever I need to do to get this man out of office.[/font][/color]

[Winchester]

"Say" is the problem. His history says otherwise.

And he's been unable to keep his mouth shut about liking "parts" of Obamacare.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Winchester

[Lil Red]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351093985' post='2496964'][list]
[*][b]Pro-abortion judges[/b][color=#282828][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] appointed to supreme court by Obama[/font][/color]
[/list]
[/quote]
from the "Don't Vote for Romney" thread:

Nixon appointed the man who wrote the majority opinion in Roe. Reagan appointed the judges who affirmed Roe in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. And Bush appointed the justice who upheld Obamacare.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351094136' post='2496965']
"Say" is the problem. His history says otherwise.

And he's been unable to keep his mouth shut about liking "parts" of Obamacare.
[/quote]
If inability to trust is your issue, and you lack optimism, then you can't really vote for any candidate now can you?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351046186' post='2496716']


Jesus Christ Himself was a Revolutionary.
[/quote]

The Scribes and Pharisees were Revolutionary. Satan was and is Revolutionary. Chirst was and is counterrevolutionary. He did not come to change but to fulfill.

------

Also a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for that person. I don't except the slave like mentality of the two party only system.

Edited October 24, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[i<3franciscans]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351093985' post='2496964']
[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]You guys amaze me.

Obama has done more to promote abortion than any other president. You guys live in a fantasy world if you think the president has nothing to do with helping to end and reduce abortions. Here's what Bush did:[/font][/size][list]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]Unborn Victims of Violence Act[/b] - signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 1, 2004[/font][/size]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act[/b] - signed into law August 5, 2002 by President Bush[/font][/size]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]The Partial Birth Abortion Ban[/b] - signed into law by President Bush in 2003[/font][/size]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Bush reinstated the [b]Mexico City Policy[/b] which requires countries who receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion. [color=#ff0000][b]Obama rescinded it. Romney said he would reinstate it.[/b][/color][/font][/size]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]June 20, 2007, President Bush veto of legislation (S. 5) that would mandate federal funding of the type of stem cell research that requires the killing of human embryos[/font][/size]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]Pro-life judges[/b] appointed to supreme court by Bush[/font][/size]
[/list]
[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]Here's what Obama has done:[/b][/font][/size][list]
[*][color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On his first day in office, [b]Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy[/b], which bars non-governmental organizations that receive American tax dollars from performing or promoting abortion abroad.[/font][/color]
[*][color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After taking office, [b]Obama immediately restored funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)[/b], which helps implement China’s brutal One-Child Policy. From 2009 to 2011, $145 million has been appropriated for UNFPA, and $47 million was requested in the President’s 2012 budget.[/font][/color]
[*]Obamacare is the largest expansion of abortion on-demand since Roe v. Wade, funded by the taxpayers. Obamacare uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize health care plans that include coverage for elective abortion. [color=#ff0000][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Romney[/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]said he will get rid of Obamacare.[/font][/color]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Under Obamacare, millions of Americans will unknowingly be enrolled in health plans that include abortion coverage. These plans will charge enrollees an “abortion surcharge” – that will go into a national abortion slush fund. [color=#ff0000]Romney said he will get rid of Obamacare.[/color][/font][/size]
[*][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Obamacare forces employers – whether religious or secular – to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization, regardless of religious or moral objection.[/font] [/size][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Romney[/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]said he will get rid of Obamacare.[/font]
[*][color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Obama has bullied five states — Indiana, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Texas, and New Jersey – for defunding Planned Parenthood. His administration even yanked Medicaid funding or contracted directly with Planned Parenthood in states that have taken action to defund them.[/font][/color]
[*][b]Pro-abortion judges[/b][color=#282828][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] appointed to supreme court by Obama[/font][/color]
[/list]
[color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]​[/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So go ahead. Vote for someone else, don't vote, whatever. My conscience tells me I need to do whatever I need to do to get this man out of office.[/font][/color]
[/quote]

props props props!!!

[Winchester]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351094843' post='2496970']
If inability to trust is your issue, and you lack optimism, then you can't really vote for any candidate now can you?
[/quote]
It's not only about the rhetoric I don't trust him to follow through on. That was just a response to your assertion. What I do trust him to do is also evil. I don't want Iran attacked, and I'm not going to cooperate by voting for him.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351093187' post='2496959']
so voting for a guy that loses is effectively a vote for the guy that wins?

and of course the two major parties are exempt from this paradigm because they "have a chance"

what level of support do they have to have before they stop having a chance and voting for them just constitutes voting for the winner? at what level are they considered to "have a chance"? what if the polls were showing Obama beating Romney 60-40, would Romney still qualify as "having a chance"? What if Obama were beating Romney 70-30? Would Romney still qualify as "having a chance"? How bout 80-20, 90-10... at what point does Romney fall out of the magic club that is exempt from your idea that voting for the loser of an election is equivalent to voting for the winner of that election? At what point would Gary Johnson become a member of that club if he were to skyrocket in the polls? Would he have to make it to 10%, 20%, 30%? At what point does a vote for Gary Johnson become a real vote for Gary Johnson and not a vote for whoever actually wins? What is the magic number?

Voting for the loser of an election is just that--voting for the guy that lost. If you vote for Romney and he loses, well your vote was for Romney. If you vote for Gary Johnson and he loses, well, your vote was for Gary Johnson. The winner won because enough people voted for him, but you were not one of those people and therefore your vote, obviously, should not be considered to have been for him.

of course many people come from the premise that our votes belong to Romney in the first place, and therefore voting in any other way is depriving Romney of votes that were otherwise his. That is wrong too--our votes never belonged to Romney; we withhold our votes as much from Romney as we do from Obama. Whoever wins, it's not on our conscience, because we did not support them; we supported someone who was in opposition, even if they were just a Polish man on a horse marching against Nazi tanks, we supported them. The fact that the Nazi tanks won does not devalue our support for the Polish man on the horse... in fact, it makes it all the more significant.
[/quote]The only presumptions I have made are:
1) We must vote our consciences and have well-formed consciences.
2) We are required to protect the common good in the most prudent manner (i.e. we are supposed to follow our consciences and have well-formed consciences)
3) Not all goods are the most important aspects of the common good: something will win out
4) No matter which choice we make we will be participating in evil to some extent; we have to choose to what extent and which evil.
5) Our society currently operates as a two-party system (for presidential elections); we don't have to agree with the two-party system to recognize that that's how things stand right now. You, Winnie, and everyone else want to overcome the current paradigm. But overcoming it also allows it to remain in place for a specific period of time, and perhaps allows it to remain in place to the worst possible way.

I didn't really say that voting for a guy who can't win is voting for the winner, but I did say that voting for someone who can't possibly win is materially allowing the winner to take office. Again, the presumption is that our government works as a two-party system right now. I didn't say that the good you seek is wrong or less important than the good that Romney has to offer. All I said is that you must be aware that working outside the present system is allowing other people to make the decisions for now. The question you (and everyone voting) must earnestly ask is whether the good obtained by third-party voting is better than the good obtained by voting for Romney. (I won't entertain Obama as a better choice for now - limit the discussion.)

Now for your very passionate response. Not all goods are tangible or directly received by the individual performing the action. The reason your response doesn't apply is that in each situation a greater good was sought and a lesser was sacrificed. The Spartans who gave their lives freely saved an entire civilization (for a time at least........) Sometimes the good is the good of witness. A person could fight a battle he knows he won't win, but he won't do it for no reason. The witness provided is very often the reason for doing so. I'm pretty sure that many of your arguments, and many like arguments on Phatmass, have pointed to this same idea.

That means that the question you'll have to ask (and one I cannot answer obviously) is whether or not that good (witness) is more fundamental and important than other goods you could possibly seek. Make no mistake, though, that for a time you will endure another situation.

That leads me to a final point. Anyone who votes for Romney also participates materially in evil in that they allow the current structure (if it is in fact evil) to remain in place. Material cooperation with evil happens in every instance, except when we formally cooperate with it. That's the unfortunate state of our current government.


Let me add in that if all choices are closer together (meaning that a third party candidate was another Roosevelt), or if there is no clear forerunner amongst the opponents to the worst opponent, then the situation is entirely different. We can discuss why and how that changes our participation, but I almost wonder if it's best left out for now.

Edited October 24, 2012 by qfnol31

[Aloysius]

Justices get replaced on the Supreme Court largely on a maintaining-the-status-quo basis, which will continue under Obama and Romney.

My original post in the Don't Vote for Romney Thread details why Romney is not pro life at all, and why he is NOT against Obama-care. He has already said he will keep much of it in place, he has already said employers shouldn't be allowed to have conscience exemptions on health insurance for contraceptives/abortificients/sterilizations. It's not that I just don't trust what Romney says, it's that there is substantial proof that he still holds the same positions he has always held on these issues--he includes a health-of-the-mother exemption which is justification for 99% of abortions (and would reduce abortion banning to roughly the same level as banning gender-selective abortions... ie an empty ineffective gesture)

The Mexico City policy is the only good thing that would come from a Romney win; but I've seen plenty of studies show that abortions are carried out in the same amounts with or without the Mexico City policy because all funds are fungible. the only way to really keep tax dollars from funding abortions is to stop our foreign aid activities; which is something no one is willing to do. Romney will continue with the foreign aid paradigms we have that will fund dictators and abortions around the world, just a difference of it being on or off the books.

Partial Birth Abortion and Born Alive Infant protection acts were good things that George Bush did, and I give him credit for that. If we went in a time warp back to the year 2000 or 2004 and you were trying to convince me to vote for George Bush, you'd have some good points. As it stands, you're trying to convince me to vote for pro-choice Mitt Romney on the basis that George Bush did some good things. Yes, I do believe George Bush believed in pro-life issues and did what he could for them (without going too far because his party doesn't want too much done, it's too good of a campaign issue to let it get resolved). I don't see Romney as having any pro-life convictions like Bush did; and in fact there is evidence that Romney will continue the policies that do nothing for the abortion issue.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

that was in response to dUSt.

Q, that explanation sits a little better with me than your previous explanations.

[dUSt]

So, despite what the church teaches, Winchester makes Iran the #1 issue instead of abortion. I see. I can't argue that.

[Anomaly]

[size=4]Neither Barak or Mitt are the entirety of the Democat or Republican Party.

Either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party will win the power weilded by the Presidency. There are no other possible outcomes in this Presidential election.

[color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]For various convoluted reasoning, extrapolations of impossible what-if's, wild conjecture, Catholics are able to justify giving that power (which will go only to either the R or D Party) to the Democratic Party.[/font][/color]

[color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]Ensuring (by act or ommision) that the Democrtic Party will retain the bulk of that power is the best Catholic moral choice to make.[/font][/color][/size]

Edited October 24, 2012 by Anomaly

[Aloysius]

it's not a vote for which party holds the office, it's a vote for which individual will hold the office AND the leadership of his party. parties are nothing, they are tools that we can use; nothing more. Mitt is a man that should not be in charge of that tool; he has demonstrated the heavy handed way he will control the party throughout the primary season; if Mitt wins, the Republican leadership in congress will fall in line behind Mitt (whereas they would be fighting Obama tooth and nail for the sake of the political show), no matter what Mitt does; when Mitt wants to uphold the major parts of Obama-care (as he has publicly states he would like to do), suddenly we have a bi-partisan compromise agreement and all the worst parts of Obama-care stand, and our voice in opposition is marginalized (whereas when Obama's doing it our voice in opposition is galvanized)

The choice you face in the two party system is the President Obamney that will be President of the USA and leader of the Democratic Party, or the President Obamney that will be President of the USA and leader of the Republican Party; I am perfectly content to support someone more worthy of my vote and leave the Obamney in chage of the Democratic Party so that I can still have a voice in a major opposition party. If Romney wins, all the SAME stuff happens, except the opposition to it dies out.

It's the same thing that happened to the anti-war left when Obama became President. That's what happens to the pro-life right under a President Romney. Yeah we can still stand up and shout, but we'll be marginalized within our own party enamored with power.

No one has yet to refute my original post in Don't Vote for Romney about why Romney is no better than Obama, about why Romney will just be an Obama with an R after his name. And yet everyone still seems to start from that premise, that Romney will be better. He won't be, and you're deluding yourself if you think putting "the Republican Party" into power is a good enough reason to put Mitt into power; because you fail to recognize the neutering effect a Mitt presidency is poised to have on "the Republican Party"

[Winchester]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351098191' post='2496996']
So, despite what the church teaches, Winchester makes Iran the #1 issue instead of abortion. I see. I can't argue that.
[/quote]
Nope. One of many issues. Romney's history, and the conditions created by centralizing power in the Federal government regarding abortion, are the issues that make him an unsuitable (alleged) supporter of the anti-abortion movement.

And since it is beyond the Church's ability to decide which person I should vote for, there wouldn't be an "in spite of" regarding Robama, anyway.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Winchester