Third Party Vote

[Peace]

24 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

No, Abortion and Slavery are non-negotiable. Or at least they use to be... I guess Catholics can sell out on that now.

You are voting for someone who has advocated for torture and killing innocent people. Are those not on your list of non-negotiables?

If someone voting for Johnson is a sellout then so are you.

23 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

if it's a mortal sin to vote for a prochoice democrat, it's a mortal sin to vote for a prochoice libertarian, like gary johnson.

No. The Church does not teach this.

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by Peace

[Seven77]

13 minutes ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Wheeee http://www.solidarity-party.org/

It's a shame that we as Catholics in this country are not all rallying around this party. instead, many prefer to support worship? the 2 headed beast.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i know it's not officially a mortal sin to the church to vote for someone like clinton. but a lot of catholics still insist it is anyway. it's always amusing to watch people elevate their own opinions to the level of doctrine, and cast people to hell for disagreeing with them. well, it'd be amusing if it wasnt so disturbing, anyway.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Seven77 said:

It's a shame that we as Catholics in this country are not all rallying around this party. instead, many prefer to support worship? the 2 headed beast.

They are fresh off the boat. But I like their platform. I was thinking about voting for McMullin, but ASP got on the ballot in VA about a week ago. Maybe I will vote for the ASP candidate.

[Gabriela]

6 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

If Gary Johnson was ok with the legal extermination or enslavement of blacks that would be one issue that would eliminate him from being even considered.  But since it's just children that's one issue of many and not a hill worth dying on. That's a shame.

Wrong, and a shameful strawman. If Gary Johnson were the ONLY candidate ok with the legal extermination or enslavement of blacks, then that WOULD eliminate him from consideration. But if Gary Johnson, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump were ALL ok with the legal extermination or enslavement of blacks, then that would be one issue that would cancel out across the three of them, still leaving Gary Johnson as clearly the least stupid, incompetent, and crazy of them all. It wouldn't eliminate any of them from being considered because every candidate running would have the same objectionable stance on your favorite issue. Which only leaves other issues on which to make the decision.

 

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Ultimately there is no solution to the problem except to foster a true culture of life in our society (which we have never had) and to convince a large majority of people that abortion is evil. Before that happens making it illegal will be pretty tough. That probably starts with us here at Phatmass first - living our own lives in a manner that allows the light of Christ to shine in the world.

This is my opinion. The only real solution to abortion at this late stage is to change the hearts of Americans, one by one. Starting with making it socially taboo—even if it remains legal—is a good way to go, IMO, and making it illegal or very difficult at the state level could help with that. We need to get it to the point where it is something that one could do, but no one would dare because society perceives it as so awful. From there, it is possible to actually outlaw it again. But it's a long way off.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Gabriela

[HisChildForever]

Donald Trump might claim to be pro-life but on a lot of social justice issues he is hardly the poster child for the Catholic vote. The things he has said about immigrants and refugees, his mockery of the disabled, the degrading language used about women and human sexuality in general, hardly in line with Catholic values. I for one refuse to be "shamed" or called a bad Catholic for not voting Trump. I will not cast judgment on those voting for him and expect the same in return.

[Amppax]

On 10/24/2016 at 7:34 PM, Peace said:

They are fresh off the boat. But I like their platform. I was thinking about voting for McMullin, but ASP got on the ballot in VA about a week ago. Maybe I will vote for the ASP candidate.

Do it and you're cool! 

[Archaeology cat]

On 10/24/2016 at 7:34 PM, Peace said:

They are fresh off the boat. But I like their platform. I was thinking about voting for McMullin, but ASP got on the ballot in VA about a week ago. Maybe I will vote for the ASP candidate.

I voted ASP (did early voting yesterday)

On 10/24/2016 at 9:49 PM, HisChildForever said:

Donald Trump might claim to be pro-life but on a lot of social justice issues he is hardly the poster child for the Catholic vote. The things he has said about immigrants and refugees, his mockery of the disabled, the degrading language used about women and human sexuality in general, hardly in line with Catholic values. I for one refuse to be "shamed" or called a bad Catholic for not voting Trump. I will not cast judgment on those voting for him and expect the same in return.

Ditto

[Gabriela]

Watch the video at this link for a campaign ad that's making the rounds as an excellent example of good (i.e., not hateful) campaigning.

@dUSt: Getting a 403 error anytime I try to embed video.

[LittleWaySoul]

On 10/24/2016 at 7:34 PM, Peace said:

They are fresh off the boat. But I like their platform. I was thinking about voting for McMullin, but ASP got on the ballot in VA about a week ago. Maybe I will vote for the ASP candidate.

Unless you're in Utah, voting McMullin might actually hurt his chances of forcing a tie, from what I understand. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438907/evan-mcmullin-independent-candidate-does-he-have-chance

[Basilisa Marie]

I voted last week (yay mail ballots) and feel way better about voting ASP than I would have trying to choose between Clinton or Trump. 

 

Plus there's the sense of moral superiority. 

[Socrates]

Is the warm, fuzzy little feeling of smug moral superiority really worth the absolute moral, constitutional, and economic disaster that would be a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency?

Because, like it or not, that will be the result of any significant number of conservative or seriously Catholic/Christian voters sitting out this election, or voting for some third-party candidate or another.  I'm not saying Trump is a great guy, or that anybody has to like him, but at least with his team there's some hope on certain issues, whereas with Her Cackling Highness and her minions, there's none whatever.  And the reality is that either one or the other will be President.

(And please, for the love of God, spare me silly dystopian fantasies

 

Already, federal courts are cracking down on state restrictions on abortion:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/10/alabama-judge-finds-right-to-gruesome-abortion-procedure-and-allows-clinics-near-schools

Almost half of federal court judges are leftist Obama appointees, and under a Hillary presidency, most of the federal judges would be appointed by either Obama or Hillary.  With the Cackling Witch's SCOTUS appointments, it's a near guarantee that any pro-life legislation will be struck down, and the damage from this will take generations to undo.  And it's not only the right to life that's in jeopardy, but many basic rights, such as those guaranteed in the first and second amendments.

But what the hey?  At least some self-righteous folks will have the private joy of looking down their noses at us "deplorables" who did what we could to prevent this.

 

Something to seriously and soberly ponder before heading to the polls (or choosing not to). (For those who haven't already.)

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

Is the warm, fuzzy little feeling of smug moral superiority really worth the absolute moral, constitutional, and economic disaster that would be a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency?

Because, like it or not, that will be the result of any significant number of conservative or seriously Catholic/Christian voters sitting out this election, or voting for some third-party candidate or another.  I'm not saying Trump is a great guy, or that anybody has to like him, but at least with his team there's some hope on certain issues, whereas with Her Cackling Highness and her minions, there's none whatever.  And the reality is that either one or the other will be President.

(And please, for the love of God, spare me silly dystopian fantasies

 

Already, federal courts are cracking down on state restrictions on abortion:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/10/alabama-judge-finds-right-to-gruesome-abortion-procedure-and-allows-clinics-near-schools

Almost half of federal court judges are leftist Obama appointees, and under a Hillary presidency, most of the federal judges would be appointed by either Obama or Hillary.  With the Cackling Witch's SCOTUS appointments, it's a near guarantee that any pro-life legislation will be struck down, and the damage from this will take generations to undo.  And it's not only the right to life that's in jeopardy, but many basic rights, such as those guaranteed in the first and second amendments.

But what the hey?  At least some self-righteous folks will have the private joy of looking down their noses at us "deplorables" who did what we could to prevent this.

 

Something to seriously and soberly ponder before heading to the polls (or choosing not to). (For those who haven't already.)

Your logic seems faulty to me. There are more than two candidates on the ballot. If Candidate A (Democrat) wins, you can just as easily chalk up A's victory to a failure of a sufficient number of people to vote for Candidate C (ASP) as you can chalk up A's victory to a failure of a sufficient number of people to vote for Candidate B (Republican).

If a sufficient number of people such as yourself "did what you could" and voted for Candidate C, then neither Hillary nor Trump would be elected. So it seems to me that the dire situation the country is facing is due to a lack of people such as yourself to vote for a principled candidate.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you can argue logic either way per voting for third party or not. on the one hand, the third party won't win unless people vote for em, on the other hand, it will probably be trump or clinton almost surely so a vote for a third party is a vote for the one you like least. if i were to argue logic, it'd be against a third party vote, at least in these circumstnces, cause it's next to certain that it will be trump or clinton. it's inescapable, just like the logic behind it.

[Peace]

Is the argument for voting for Trump a case of the ends justifying the means?

It seems similar to folks who practice contaception (voting for Trump) in order to avoid the greater evil of abortion (a Clinton presidency). But the Church would not allow that. She would say practice NFP (Avoting for the ASP) instead, because both of the other choices are morally illicit. 

It is not a perfect analogy, admittedly.