Can Catholics Vote For Obama?

[Cherie]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351943008' post='2503407']

unless everyone started rejecting that mentality. then we could change who is viable.

the only reason our votes are unable to change who is viable is because of the self-fulfilling prophecy of everyone saying that their votes cannot change who is viable.

realistically, we know it's not going to happen this time around. but if we respond to that by stepping back into the paradigm of saying your votes can't change who is viable, then nothing will ever change. you fight the losing battle hoping that someday more will join you and you will win; if you give up the losing battle because you're going to lose this time, you're just part of the crowd that perpetuates the inability to win, the unviability.
[/quote]

Like Slappo said, the time to change who is viable isn't the weeks or even months before the election. It's November 7th, 2012 for the 2016 election. Actually, it's right now. For all those Catholics who are voting for a third party candidate, if you are not ACTIVELY working to change the system, then your third party vote is helping keep pro-abortion politicians in office, and it really starts to look more like a haughty statement of pride in your own moral superiority than a response to a real, heartfelt moral quandary you felt yourself faced with. (Note: I am not saying it IS, I'm saying it starts to look that way to others).

We can work toward making a third party candidate viable. It's possible, sure, and I hope we do someday. But things being as they are at THIS MOMENT, I think it's imprudent and foolish to take a vote away from a candidate who can beat our nation's most extremely pro-abortion president just because we're trying to make a statement.

I think, at this moment when a third party candidate is NOT viable, that it's a thousand times better to take what good we can get. Mitt Romney wants to de-fund Planned Parenthood, repeal the pro-abortion Obamacare and stop the HHS Mandate, and would appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices. Those are some pretty major steps in the right direction. I'll take them ANY day over Obama's policies.

[Aloysius]

the moment you become unwilling to vote for a candidate on the basis of their "viability", it is at that point that you become a non-factor. It's all just words unless you're ready to back them up at the polls. if you wait until November 7th, you're most likely going to be part of the crowd that waits until after the next election too, and until after the next election, and until after the next election. so long as the viability argument is accepted at any stage in the game, a week before the election or a month before it or four years before it, then the strangelehold of the two parties has already won.

I am actively working within the system. I am a card-carying Republican, I was a delegate to the Republican National Convention, and I am on my local Republican Committee, so I am actively involved in working within the system. I personally don't have much hope for third parties, though I think in theory there should be more parties with viability from the start. That's only going to happen if people start rejecting the arguments being made here.

I didn't take a vote away from Mitt Romney by the way. That vote never belonged to him in the first place, he failed to earn it from me. I paid attention to him, he absolutely could have earned it from me if he had played out this campaign differently... I look not just at what he says, but how he says it, where he says it, and to what extent he will go to the mat to defend it, especially on issues where his record contradicts his current positions. I would never have voted for him on the basis of the viability argument; I reject that argument absolutely and completely, and the only way we're ever going to accomplish anything in this country is if everyone stands up and starts rejecting that argument. But if you wait until November 7 to reject that argument, well, you haven't really rejected the argument. Not at all. The two parties will smile at you and say awe, isn't that cute, they're all gung-ho for a third party... good thing we can always count on them not to actually vote for that third party.

I think all those Catholics who voted for Obama should vote for a third party candidate this time around, you're right Anomaly!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351946905' post='2503423']


I think all those Catholics who voted for Obama should vote for a third party candidate this time around, you're right Anomaly!
[/quote]If you had let me buy you a couple if beers when you were in Tampa, you would have a greater appreciation if my opinions sooner.

Got Al to endorse NOT voting for continued Democrat majority of political power. Winning!

[Aloysius]

I never endorsed voting Democrat. I told people not to vote for Romney, to instead either vote third party or do a write in. Perhaps I didn't emphasize it enough because it has come up much less, but I would also tell people not to vote for Obama if they might otherwise do so, to instead vote third party or do a write in.

incidentally, Gary Johnson (who i absolutely do not endorse but I like him to some degree) is causing Romney problems in New Mexico and simultaneously causing Obama problems in Colorado.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Aloysius

[Cherie]

It doesn't make sense to vote for a third party candidate once the nominations are made [i]if you care about getting pro-abortion politicians out of office.[/i] That's it. Because obviously a third party candidate isn't going to get elected. If your ideals on how you "don't want to be put in a box of the two-party system" come first, then by all means, vote third party. Talk about ideals and how things should be and how the system needs to change, sure, and I'll agree with you. But when it comes to [i]reality,[/i] this very moment, there are only two possibilities. Do I wish we had a different Republican candidate? Yeah, I do. But your candidate didn't get the nomination; count your losses and choose the one who can accomplish the greater amount of good--either Obama (nope) or Romney, because it's only either one of them. I want to--and personally think we all should--do what I can NOW to get President Abortion Rights out of office. And a third party candidate ain't it. That's not bending to the "Almighty GOP", that's being realistic about what my options are: 1. More Obama, 2. No Obama, 3. Not doing what I have at my disposal to make sure we get #2.

[Aloysius]

no matter what your reasoning might be, the GOP thanks you for your support and for buying their line that they'll actually be any better than Obama.

the goal of breaking out of the system is intimately tied into the goal of getting pro-life positions in power. we aren't going to get anything substantial done for the pro-life cause under the current system unless we radically change our approach IMO.

I have no preference between Romney and Obama, they are both pretty pro-choice in my estimation. like I said, Romney could've won my vote if he had convinced me, especially on the life issue, that he'd be substantially better than Obama. he did not convince me, he didn't even come close, not when you analyze his statements critically (as you should do with all politicians, taking them at their face value word is incredibly naive)

"Always [i]vote[/i] for [i]principle[/i], though you may [i]vote[/i] alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your [i]vote[/i] is never lost." -John Quincy Adams

Edited November 3, 2012 by Aloysius

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351955617' post='2503461']
no matter what your reasoning might be, the GOP thanks you for your support and for buying their line that they'll actually be any better than Obama.



"Always [i]vote[/i] for [i]principle[/i], though you may [i]vote[/i] alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your [i]vote[/i] is never lost." -John Quincy Adams
[/quote]Your continued obstinacy denigration if the Republican Party seems to be founded in your disappointment regarding the loss of the candidate you supported who ran as a Republican. You supported his politically strategic pro life stance to seek an incremental victory by turning it over to the States. Or was he just washing his hands?

Great quote about voting for principles. I'm sure it's the Catholic pro-life principle that keeps voting In the Democratic Party who's pro life ideology is to fight against any Government interference with their pro life accomplishment of giving American society tax paid, and easily accessible legal abortion on demand. With their pro life accomplishments that were aided by Catholic voters in America completed on their To Do List, they are counting on Catholic votes to support them, as well as Catholic apathy, confusion, and misguided intent that will enable them to effect their pro life principle of US subsidized abortion internationally. They salute direct Catholic support, and appreciate the in effectiveness of others who may disagree but will not oppose or choose an action that effectively enables pro life abortion.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Anomaly

[Freedom]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351931740' post='2503397']

But the electoral college is based on the popular vote, and works differently in various states. Some states give all of their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state. Others divide up their votes proportionally.

So depending on where you live, your vote can definitely change who is relevant, even with the electoral college.
[/quote]

3rd party candidate receive NO Electoral College votes during the presidential election.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351971661' post='2503535']
3rd party candidate receive NO Electoral College votes during the presidential election.
[/quote]
Ah... But they can...

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/ElectoralCollege1948.svg/450px-ElectoralCollege1948.svg.png[/img]

[Freedom]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1351971938' post='2503536']
Ah... But they can...

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/ElectoralCollege1948.svg/450px-ElectoralCollege1948.svg.png[/img]
[/quote]

3rd party candidate during [b]presidential election[/b] receives [b]Zero[/b] Electoral College votes.
http://youtu.be/4S4W1B4U0gA

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351972832' post='2503544']
3rd party candidate during [b]presidential election[/b] receives [b]Zero[/b] Electoral College votes.
[media]http://youtu.be/4S4W1B4U0gA[/media]
[/quote]
Sorry. I'm not going to watch your video. Are you saying that a 3rd party can't *ever* receive electoral college votes, or just not in this election. Because if it's the former, you're wrong. If it's the latter, you're saying it wrong.

[homeschoolmom]

[url="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/ElectoralCollege1968.svg"][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/ElectoralCollege1968.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1968.svg.png[/img][/url]

[homeschoolmom]

[url="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/ElectoralCollege1924.svg"][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/ElectoralCollege1924.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1924.svg.png[/img][/url]

[ardillacid]

Weird to see MN voting for a different candidate than NY or California...

[homeschoolmom]

[url="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/ElectoralCollege1912.svg"][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/ElectoralCollege1912.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1912.svg.png[/img][/url]


Oh.... Looky... the 3rd party candidate did better than one of the other candidates!