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

[Peace]

LOL. I knew that somebody was going to give me flack for that. Yes, I know that it is a liberal magazine, but I agree with the points put forth in the particular article that I linked too.

If you want fairly similar criticisms by a well respected conservative writer, just Google for the several articles that Thomas Sowell has written about Cruz.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/02/20/cruz-control-part-ii-n1797400/page/full

[4588686]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2016‎ ‎7‎:‎52‎:‎49‎, 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.

I look forward to your imprisonment once the Supreme Ayatollah is gifted the United States on Obama's final day in office

[Socrates]

On 1/25/2016, 10:10:00, Peace said:

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

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

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.

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.

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

Stay on target, Porkins.

George and Jeb are in fact two different people.

I'm hoping she'll be indicted before that.  But I know that's incredibly naive wishful thinking.  We all know laws are only for little people, and don't apply to Her Highness and the Washington Ruling Class.   Politics is all; justice is nothing.

 

On 1/25/2016, 10:10:00, Peace said:

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

Oh my flooping gosh!!  Folks at a left-wing website like Salon.com don't like Ted Cruz!  I guess that means I'll have to rethink everything.  I hear Rolling Stone hates his guts too.  I'm utterly confounded.  

 

On 1/25/2016, 10:10:00, Peace said:

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.

Opinions are like you-know-whats.  You're awfully short on facts.

Congress has the power of the purse granted it in the Constitution, and this was not the invention of Ted Cruz.  This was supposed to be a constitutional republic, not an imperial court. And besides, Obama was the one who decided to "shut down the government" (in reality, a temporary cessation of certain non-essential government functions.)  Similar "government shut-downs" occur every single weekend, federal holiday, and evening.  Hardly the apocalypse.  But I've been over all that before in another thread, and see no need to repeat it all here.

On 1/25/2016, 10:10:00, Peace said:

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 . .  blah, blah . . . shutting the government  . . blah, blah . . .

I realize it lacks the resounding authority of a Salon.com opinion piece, but I thought perhaps it could provide a starting point for you to discuss the actual real issues facing our republic, and maybe enlighten us dumb conservative types as to how Ted Cruz is so horribly, disastrously wrong.  But I realize that's probably asking too much.

Instead, like every Washington establishment shill, you've got nothing to provide but name-calling, irrelevant ad-hominems, and babbling over and over about the supposed horrors of the 2013 so-called government shutdown.  (Though I'm a bit surprised you haven't yet brought up the whole "birther"/Canadian citizenship thing.)

 

On 1/25/2016, 10:10:00, Peace said:

Stay on target, Porkins.

For us conservatives, restoration of the constitutional republic is the target, Porkins.  Too bad so many see that as irrelevant in choosing a president.

 

On 1/25/2016, 10:10:00, Peace said:

George and Jeb are in fact two different people.

Are you sure?   They're not identical like Ted and Hillary?

On 1/25/2016, 10:40:58, Peace said:

LOL. I knew that somebody was going to give me flack for that. Yes, I know that it is a liberal magazine, but I agree with the points put forth in the particular article that I linked too.

If you want fairly similar criticisms by a well respected conservative writer, just Google for the several articles that Thomas Sowell has written about Cruz.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/02/20/cruz-control-part-ii-n1797400/page/full

Sowell's criticism of the GOP establishment congressional "leadership" in that piece was actually stronger than that of Cruz.  

Of course, you can find pieces by different conservative writers for and against every candidate.  I'm not really seeing anything conclusively damning.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Socrates

[Nihil Obstat]

Soc, does it mean anything to you that Cruz is Baptist whereas Rubio is Catholic?

[Socrates]

On 1/21/2016, 6:10:48, 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?

Except that's not really what he said.  He said there had to be a proportionately grave reason for voting for that candidate - and if you read Cardinal Ratzinger's writings, you'll realize that would have to be very serious, something that would prevent an even greater evil.

You can't in good conscience just vote for a pro-abortion politician for any reason you like, so long as it's not about their abortion stance.

On 1/25/2016, 11:01:32, Hasan said:

I look forward to your imprisonment once the Supreme Ayatollah is gifted the United States on Obama's final day in office

Before then, I hope to capture Washington and turn it into a Crusader Kingdom.

Your Caliphate can burn in hell.

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Soc, does it mean anything to you that Cruz is Baptist whereas Rubio is Catholic?

Politics trumps faith.

[Winchester]

Utilitarianism and pragmatism are incompatible with Catholic moral theology.

Stay home on voting day. It's not like you get control from participation. Writing letters, or bribing officials (through the various legal methods instituted by politicians for that purpose. I think the proper term is "lobbying"), or getting a whole bunch of people (preferably armed, since unarmed protesters get beaten, tear-gassed, and arrested) to protest are much more effective than stepping into a booth and choosing a new master.

[KnightofChrist]

10 hours ago, Peace said:

Politics trumps faith.

When it actually counted Rubio skipped the vote to fund or defund Planned Parenthood. So yes in that regard Politics trumped faith. I think Rubio does as many other politicians do, he uses his faith to get votes, but when it counts his faith doesn't cause him to act on his words.

 

[bardegaulois]

In many ways, this all depends on which elections you're talking about. In the non-partisan elections of the select board and various other boards in my town, I am wholly unfamiliar with what the candidates' stances on abortion are. However, that is an irrelevant issue in that election, due to the fact that, aside from a part-time visiting nurse, a school nurse shared with other towns, and an ambulance staffed by fire department personnel, there are no medical services whatsoever in a town containing less than 2,000 people.

Secondly, in the last state election, the one Democrat I voted for was the candidate for state auditor. My reason for voting for this candidate was regional; he was the one candidate for a state officer from my part of the state, which is often forgotten in our state government due to the metropolis in the other part of a state. I had no idea his stance on abortion because that is irrelevant to the job for which he was contesting. As he is a Democrat, one could guess, but that has nothing to do with the detailed inspection of the state's account for which this individual was tasked.

Thirdly, in my region both parties are often pro-choice. There have been independent or third-party candidates for the state or federal legislature who profess to be pro-life occasionally, but more often than not they're quite a bit unhinged and difficult to take seriously; I know this from having met several and then walking away scratching my head. To score 5% of the vote is a major accomplishment for them. When there is a contested election (as often the incumbent legislator runs unopposed), the other pragmatic details of government thus rise foremost in consideration. The other "culture war" details are something of an afterthought, though when any of my legislators in either the statehouse or Congress support any sort of legislation that sets me off, their offices get a strongly worded letter (and often with the credibility of "I was pleased to vote for you in the last election..."). More often than not, I tend to get a response from them as well.

So I'd say depending on the type and circumstances of the election, it's often not so cut-and-dry and issue of one guy being the pro-life candidate and the other being the pro-choice candidate campaigning for a position in which their views on abortion are actually relevant. It can be an issue with senators, the governor, and the presidency, but it tends not to be in most of the boxes I tick off in May or November.

[Nihil Obstat]

2 hours ago, Winchester said:

Utilitarianism and pragmatism are incompatible with Catholic moral theology.

Stay home on voting day. It's not like you get control from participation. Writing letters, or bribing officials (through the various legal methods instituted by politicians for that purpose. I think the proper term is "lobbying"), or getting a whole bunch of people (preferably armed, since unarmed protesters get beaten, tear-gassed, and arrested) to protest are much more effective than stepping into a booth and choosing a new master.

It is only utilitarianism if the presence and operation of a governing state is not a positive good, which it is.

[Anomaly]

Jesus acknowledged and okayed Moses' pragmatism about divorce  in Mat 19. Just war theory is pragmatic.   It's not pragmatic principles, but pragmatic application of competing moral principles.  I guess the USCCCB's statement on voting is either not pragmatic guidance or not Properly Catholic.  

[Nihil Obstat]

2 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Jesus acknowledged and okayed Moses' pragmatism about divorce  in Mat 19. Just war theory is pragmatic.   It's not pragmatic principles, but pragmatic application of competing moral principles.  I guess the USCCCB's statement on voting is either not pragmatic guidance or not Properly Catholic.  

Acknowledged and okayed? That is about the opposite of what He did. "In the beginning it was not so." Jesus explicitly rejected the Mosaic tolerance for divorce and asserted the original, stricter moral law.

[Freedom]

Knowingly voting for someone who is pro choice is a mortal sin. Due to the fact that death is a serious matter. Just saying.

[Benedictus]

12 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Knowingly voting for someone who is pro choice is a mortal sin. Due to the fact that death is a serious matter. Just saying.

It's a bit more complicated than that. But if that works for you, OK. But by that token though the Church would be at fault for not telling people who to vote for. They don't for obvious reasons.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Benedictus

[Freedom]

4 minutes ago, Benedictus said:

It's a bit more complicated than that. But if that works for you, OK. But by that token though the Church would be at fault for not telling people who to vote for. They don't for obvious reasons.

It works for all practicing Catholics. Feel free to bring this up to the Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis. It is stated right here in my examination of conscience leaflet.