Is Voting for a pro-Choice politician ok if you don't vote for them because of the pro choice stance they have?

[4588686]

Please discuss

[Nihil Obstat]

If there is a reasonably pro-life and reasonably sane alternative, I would say it is not justifiable. And even with no reasonable alternative, I think a spoiled or withheld vote may, in some circumstances, be preferable.

So no, I do not think any serious Catholic can justify voting for Bernie Sanders. Because we all know that is the real question here.

[PhuturePriest]

5 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

If there is a reasonably pro-life and reasonably sane alternative, I would say it is not justifiable. And even with no reasonable alternative, I think a spoiled or withheld vote may, in some circumstances, be preferable.

So no, I do not think any serious Catholic can justify voting for Bernie Sanders. Because we all know that is the real question here.

What about in 2004 when Ratzinger said you can vote for a pro-choice candidate so long as their stance on abortion is not the reason you're voting for them?

[MarysLittleFlower]

No I do not think its justifiable 

[Nihil Obstat]

18 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

What about in 2004 when Ratzinger said you can vote for a pro-choice candidate so long as their stance on abortion is not the reason you're voting for them?

I seem to remember that being extensively qualified, and we all concluded at the time, as we did in 08, that voting for Obama was absolutely unjustifiable.

[Peace]

I would probably vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump (although in reality if that were my only choice I would probably just stay home on election day). Electing Hillary Clinton is not likely to result in Roe v. Wade or Gay Marriage since we already have those on the books. Trump might take the entire planet earth into a nuclear war.

I think I may have posed the hypothetical elsewhere in this forum but I will post it again:

Candidate A: Opposes all legal forms of abortion. But his policies otherwise would result in a greater number of abortions.

Candidate B: Staunchly pro-choice. But his policies otherwise would result in a lower number of abortions, or even no abortions at all.

Do you vote for Candidate A on principle or do you vote for Candidate B for practical reasons?

And please, spare me with the lame "That hypothetical is impossible" type of responses.

[Anomaly]

You can vote for a pro-abortion candidate if they do not hold hands during the Our Father at Mass. 

[Socrates]

On 1/22/2016, 2:56:14, Peace said:

I would probably vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump (although in reality if that were my only choice I would probably just stay home on election day). Electing Hillary Clinton is not likely to result in Roe v. Wade or Gay Marriage since we already have those on the books. Trump might take the entire planet earth into a nuclear war.

Oh please.  Give. Me. A. Flooping. Break.

The Left's been using that silly scare tactic since at least the 1960s.  Back in the '80s we were supposed to all be petrified of how Reagan would instigate nuclear armageddon.

(And I'm not a big Trump fan; I'm a Cruz guy.  But that's just ridiculous.  And let's not forget, it was your Dear Leader and his administration that made a deal in essence awarding "death to America" Iran many billions of dollars to develop nuclear weapons.)

I honestly don't see how any serious Catholic (or decent human being, for that matter) can justify voting for Hillary Clinton.  That disgusting woman belongs behind bars, not in the Oval Office.

But I guess that's part of how the Party of Death stays in power, because it can rely on people like you to vote for them, no matter how vile their candidates, on the threat that if you don't, the GOP will blow up the earth and send us all back to the Planet of the Apes.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Socrates

[PhuturePriest]

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

Oh please.  Give. Me. A. Flooping. Break.

The Left's been using that silly scare tactic since at least the 1960s.  Back in the '80s we were supposed to all be petrified of how Reagan would instigate nuclear armageddon.

(And I'm not a big Trump fan; I'm a Cruz guy.  But that's just ridiculous.  And let's not forget, it was your Dear Leader and his administration that made a deal in essence awarding "death to America" Iran many billions of dollars to develop nuclear weapons.)

I honestly don't see how any serious Catholic (or decent human being, for that matter) can justify voting for Hillary Clinton.  That disgusting woman belongs behind bars, not in the Oval Office.

But I guess that's part of how the Party of Death stays in power, because it can rely on people like you to vote for them, no matter how vile their candidates, on the threat that if you don't, the GOP will blow up the earth and send us all back to the Planet of the Apes.

Here's how I feel: Hillary Clinton is a huge social progressive, will fight for abortion to the death, and clearly has no spine concerning the sanctity of marriage. The claim of "rights" to assisted suicide coming to the Supreme Court is just around the corner, not to mention euthanasia, and she will clearly just side with whatever the Democrats think. Her foreign policy smells of elderberries and she'll gladly join all other candidates except Rand in shooting down Russian planes and throwing us into open war with Putin. Her economic policies come second to me, and admittedly I don't know a whole lot about them. Like all people, I'm sure she has a few good ideas I could get behind, but she's probably mostly flawed. This is all not even considering the Benghazi issue, of course.

In all, not an ideal candidate in any sense. 

However, Trump is quite honestly the only candidate I've ever seen who, from what I've observed, has not thrown around one good idea. In fact, aside from making a wall on the border which he will magically get Mexico to pay for, cutting off all Muslims from moving here, and putting the ones here already in a database, I have no clue what his plans are. He has no substance, no real plans, and no experience in this type of thing whatsoever. I cannot vote for him in good conscience, and if this election comes down to Hillary and Trump, I have to do a write-in. 

I will, however, keenly look forward to the presidential debates. 

[PhuturePriest]

Not that you asked me how I feel on the issue, of course. I'm just really, really bored. I get opinionated when I get bored. Let's hope I get something to do pretty soon, eh?

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Socrates said:

Oh please.  Give. Me. A. Flooping. Break.

The Left's been using that silly scare tactic since at least the 1960s.  Back in the '80s we were supposed to all be petrified of how Reagan would instigate nuclear armageddon.

(And I'm not a big Trump fan; I'm a Cruz guy.  But that's just ridiculous.  And let's not forget, it was your Dear Leader and his administration that made a deal in essence awarding "death to America" Iran many billions of dollars to develop nuclear weapons.)

Hey Socrates. Thanks for your note. Please allow me introduce you to a word that is seemingly not within your vocabulary:

Exaggeration: A statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.

The point was that Trump is such a terrible candidate that he makes Hillary seem viable in comparison, notwithstanding her many flaws.

It is intersting that you have so much disdain for Hillary but are a strong supporter of Cruz. To me they seem to be two heads of the same coin. They both strike me as extreme self-promoting narcissists. I wouldn't want to see either of them leading our country.

Quote

I honestly don't see how any serious Catholic (or decent human being, for that matter) can justify voting for Hillary Clinton.  That disgusting woman belongs behind bars, not in the Oval Office.

Much the same can be said for Donald Trump.

Quote

But I guess that's part of how the Party of Death stays in power, because it can rely on people like you to vote for them, no matter how vile their candidates, on the threat that if you don't, the GOP will blow up the earth and send us all back to the Planet of the Apes.

Thank you for the laugh Socrates.

For the record, there are many Republican candidates that I would choose over Hillary Clinton. And once the smarter people in the GOP prevail over the senseless ideologues who support Cruz, perhaps I will have a chance to vote for him or her.

If the Democrats win you can place the blame on the not-so-bright people in your party who go around making people like Cliven Bundy the cause du jour and shutting down the government without a snowball's chance in hell of winning. The Democrats need do nothing other than remain silent and let the members of your party continue to make fools of themselves.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Peace

[Peace]

And besides, if there is any party that is guilty of fear-mongering it is certainly the GOP. How else did we end up in Iraq except for you guys trying to manufacture evidence and scare the entire world into believing that they were a nuclear threat?

[Socrates]

22 hours ago, Peace said:

Hey Socrates. Thanks for your note. Please allow me introduce you to a word that is seemingly not within your vocabulary:

Exaggeration: A statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.

The point was that Trump is such a terrible candidate that he makes Hillary seem viable in comparison, notwithstanding her many flaws.

It is intersting that you have so much disdain for Hillary but are a strong supporter of Cruz. To me they seem to be two heads of the same coin. They both strike me as extreme self-promoting narcissists. I wouldn't want to see either of them leading our country.

Much the same can be said for Donald Trump.

Thank you for the laugh Socrates.

For the record, there are many Republican candidates that I would choose over Hillary Clinton. And once the smarter people in the GOP prevail over the senseless ideologues who support Cruz, perhaps I will have a chance to vote for him or her.

If the Democrats win you can place the blame on the not-so-bright people in your party who go around making people like Cliven Bundy the cause du jour and shutting down the government without a snowball's chance in hell of winning. The Democrats need do nothing other than remain silent and let the members of your party continue to make fools of themselves.

Oh thanks.  "Exaggeration"; I'll try to remember that one.

Sorry for being so stupid as to take your own words at face value.

(Recall that I don't know you beyond what you post on here, and aren't able to see any winks, nods, etc. beyond the computer screen.  I've seen people say dumber stuff with a straight face - nothing particularly shocks me anymore.  But if you were in fact just joking around about voting for Hillary, that's nice to know.)

And calling Hillary's many crimes, blatant lies, and cover-ups "flaws" is quite an understatement, but that's enough material for whole other thread.  Whatever else you might say about them, neither Trump nor Cruz has a comparable rap sheet.

I also fail to see how Ted Cruz is any more narcissistic or self-serving than any other politician running for high office.  He's certainly no more so than either Obama or Hillary.

He has one of the most strong and consistent constitutional conservative records of anyone in the Senate, which is why I support him over the other major candidates in the race.

If there are particular policy issues you take issue with Cruz on, perhaps you can start a thread to debate them.  So far, most of the liberals as well as GOP members busy vomiting bile on Cruz have remarkably little substantial to say about the actual issues or arguments.  Any idiot can call Cruz (or anyone else) an idiot.  Maybe try formulating an actual argument.  Yeah, I know, takes effort and all.

You call Cruz and his supporters "extreme self-promoting narcissists" and "senseless ideologues."  I say the same about Obama, Clinton, Sanders, and the rest of the leftist Dems.  And most of the GOP is doing little substantial to oppose them.  

Maybe you'd like to discuss constitutional government, whether you support it, and if so, how "your guys" have done a better job than Cruz.  So far, I've seen no substance on your part.

 

11 hours ago, Peace said:

And besides, if there is any party that is guilty of fear-mongering it is certainly the GOP. How else did we end up in Iraq except for you guys trying to manufacture evidence and scare the entire world into believing that they were a nuclear threat?

Well, most of the Dems at the time felt the same way (though they opportunistically changed their stance later).

But I'm not interested here in defending G.W. Bush (though it's you who's voiced support for his bro Jeb) nor the bulk of the GOP. 

Stay on target, Porkins.

[Peace]

11 hours ago, Socrates said:

Oh thanks.  "Exaggeration"; I'll try to remember that one.

Sorry for being so stupid as to take your own words at face value.

(Recall that I don't know you beyond what you post on here, and aren't able to see any winks, nods, etc. beyond the computer screen.  I've seen people say dumber stuff with a straight face - nothing particularly shocks me anymore.  But if you were in fact just joking around about voting for Hillary, that's nice to know.)

I recall having written something about not voting for either if that were the choice I were left with.

11 hours ago, Socrates said:

And calling Hillary's many crimes, blatant lies, and cover-ups "flaws" is quite an understatement, but that's enough material for whole other thread.  Whatever else you might say about them, neither Trump nor Cruz has a comparable rap sheet.

Well. If Cruz wins you can call up the new administration and have her prosecuted. Good luck with that.

11 hours ago, Socrates said:

I also fail to see how Ted Cruz is any more narcissistic or self-serving than any other politician running for high office.  He's certainly no more so than either Obama or Hillary.

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/29/stop_calling_ted_cruz_a_conservative_this_self_promoting_narcissist_is_a_fraud_and_a_nihilist/

In my opinion Cruz will do anything for self-promotion, no matter how little it will accomplish or how much harm it will cause. His shutting down the government a few years ago was the perfect example of that. It accomplished nothing other than promoting the Cruz brand and bringing attention to himself.

11 hours ago, Socrates said:

He has one of the most strong and consistent constitutional conservative records of anyone in the Senate, which is why I support him over the other major candidates in the race.

If there are particular policy issues you take issue with Cruz on, perhaps you can start a thread to debate them.  So far, most of the liberals as well as GOP members busy vomiting bile on Cruz have remarkably little substantial to say about the actual issues or arguments.  Any idiot can call Cruz (or anyone else) an idiot.  Maybe try formulating an actual argument.  Yeah, I know, takes effort and all.

What link did you post to again? Is it that "conservative scorecard" link you love going to so much when deciding who to vote for?

Regardless of whatever policy Cruz may espouse, he does not have character. Isn't that the guy who contributed a measly 1% of his income to charity? Plus, either 1) he was not bright enough to realize that shutting the government would accomplish nothing, or 2) he did realize it and decided to do it anyway just to promote his own brand. Either way he is not the type of person I would want to see as president.

11 hours ago, Socrates said:

You call Cruz and his supporters "extreme self-promoting narcissists" and "senseless ideologues."  I say the same about Obama, Clinton, Sanders, and the rest of the leftist Dems.  And most of the GOP is doing little substantial to oppose them.

I do not plan on voting for any of those people in the upcoming election either.

11 hours ago, Socrates said:

 Maybe you'd like to discuss constitutional government, whether you support it, and if so, how "your guys" have done a better job than Cruz.  So far, I've seen no substance on your part.

Stay on target, Porkins.

11 hours ago, Socrates said:

Well, most of the Dems at the time felt the same way (though they opportunistically changed their stance later).

But I'm not interested here in defending G.W. Bush (though it's you who's voiced support for his bro Jeb) nor the bulk of the GOP. 

George and Jeb are in fact two different people.

[KnightofChrist]

@peace and anyone else who may read Salon or use them as a source. Forgetting it is a leftist news-outlet, here are two reasons why we should avoid them all together.

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/im_a_pedophile_youre_the_monsters_my_week_inside_the_vile_right_wing_hate_machine/