Third Party Vote

[Gabriela]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

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.

That's not bad thinking there, brother.

[LittleWaySoul]

22 hours 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.)

It'd be #supergr8 if we could avoid resorting to name-calling to express our political opinions. 

#electiongoals #adulthoodgoals #virtuegoals #YOLO #noragrets

[Peace]

10 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

It'd be #supergr8 if we could avoid resorting to name-calling to express our political opinions. 

#electiongoals #adulthoodgoals #virtuegoals #YOLO #noragrets

I guess you are right. I am guilty of that. 

[Amppax]

17 hours ago, Peace said:

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.

I think that that particular argument absolutely is, and is flawed from the perspective of Catholic moral theology.

Here's a good article on the morality of voting to support what Peace said: http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/2016/11/catholics-and-voting.html?m=1

[Anomaly]

Third Party voting should not be limited to just for president race or this cycle.  The political outliers need to intelligently considered and supported for other positions.  We get the politicians we have because we support them or allow them with complacency, apathy, and naïveté and letting one side tell us what the other side is about.   Waiting to vote third party for president and think that "sends a message" is ineffective at best, and probably simply moronic.

Look for third parties and alternative politicians now to support for the next election cycles and for offices other than POTUS.

[LittleWaySoul]

7 hours ago, Peace said:

I guess you are right. I am guilty of that. 

I haven't noticed it from you, but yeah, I think it's important to try to avoid stuff like "Cackling Witch," or "Donald Drumpf." It just comes across as petty and never helps anyone's argument. 

[Amppax]

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Third Party voting should not be limited to just for president race or this cycle.  The political outliers need to intelligently considered and supported for other positions.  We get the politicians we have because we support them or allow them with complacency, apathy, and naïveté and letting one side tell us what the other side is about.   Waiting to vote third party for president and think that "sends a message" is ineffective at best, and probably simply moronic.

Look for third parties and alternative politicians now to support for the next election cycles and for offices other than POTUS.

I agree it should not be limited solely to the presidential race. However, calling a third party vote ineffective or moronic ignores the moral problem of support for either disastrous candidate or the real progress that a 3rd party can make through the presidential election. Percentages of the popular vote have a real meaning for ballot access and funding (see here: http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/03/how-gary-johnsons-vote-percentages-will). So voting third party for president can help these smaller parties with their state level goals, as it helps them gain ballot access and funding. As for the moral reasons to avoid these candidates, I think we've all heard enough about that, and whatever I say here wouldn't change anyone's mind. 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

No boo voting

[Socrates]

On 11/2/2016 at 9:13 PM, Peace said:

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.

What you say is true as a pure abstract, but it disregards the realities of actual elections.  It may be unfortunate, but the reality is that most people have already decided to vote for either Trump or Hillary, and there is absolutely nothing factual indicating otherwise.  At this late stage, the most a third-party conservative or Christian vote would do is take enough votes away from Trump to swing the election to Hillary.

There should have been more rallying behind principled candidates in the primaries.

And there is no single "Candidate C," but the "protest" vote is actually split among various different candidates/parties.

I'm not saying it's a sin to vote third-party (especially if you're in a very solidly red or blue state, rather than a contested state), but I'm saying people should give serious consideration as to whether doing so will contribute to a Hillary win, and what a Hillary presidency would entail for the country.  I think the stakes are simply too high to risk this.

 

On 11/3/2016 at 4:14 PM, Peace said:

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.

Voting for Trump (or anybody) is not in itself an intrinsically evil act.  Voting for someone does not necessarily mean you support everything they do.

And the Church actually teaches that it can be permissible to vote for a candidate who supports morally problematic things in order to prevent greater evil from the other candidate if there are proportionate reasons.  (In this case I think there definitely are, and Trump's stated policies are not inherently evil - even if some may be stupid - the issue for me is more about trust and character.  But Hillary is definitely worse in every way.)Insert other media

[Peace]

8 hours ago, Socrates said:

What you say is true as a pure abstract, but it disregards the realities of actual elections.  It may be unfortunate, but the reality is that most people have already decided to vote for either Trump or Hillary, and there is absolutely nothing factual indicating otherwise.  At this late stage, the most a third-party conservative or Christian vote would do is take enough votes away from Trump to swing the election to Hillary.

There should have been more rallying behind principled candidates in the primaries.

And there is no single "Candidate C," but the "protest" vote is actually split among various different candidates/parties.

I'm not saying it's a sin to vote third-party (especially if you're in a very solidly red or blue state, rather than a contested state), but I'm saying people should give serious consideration as to whether doing so will contribute to a Hillary win, and what a Hillary presidency would entail for the country.  I think the stakes are simply too high to risk this.

 

Voting for Trump (or anybody) is not in itself an intrinsically evil act.  Voting for someone does not necessarily mean you support everything they do.

And the Church actually teaches that it can be permissible to vote for a candidate who supports morally problematic things in order to prevent greater evil from the other candidate if there are proportionate reasons.  (In this case I think there definitely are, and Trump's stated policies are not inherently evil - even if some may be stupid - the issue for me is more about trust and character.  But Hillary is definitely worse in every way.)Insert other media

I don't think that is quite what She teaches. Check out the article above that Amppax posted on the morality of voting for the lesser of two evils. It's good.

[Socrates]

10 hours ago, Peace said:

I don't think that is quite what She teaches. Check out the article above that Amppax posted on the morality of voting for the lesser of two evils. It's good.

Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote, 

Quote

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

Jimmy Akin gives what I think is a pretty good explanation of this principle in this article.  

Here's an excerpt:

Quote

 

Here is a clear case: Suppose that in a given election either Candidate A or Candidate B is morally certain to win, but it is not clear which will win. Candidate A’s only policy is that he supports abortion, while Candidate B has two policies: He supports both abortion and euthanasia. In this case, more harm will be done to society by the election of Candidate B, and so based on principles touched on by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae 73, one may cast one’s vote in such a way as to limit the harm done to society.

In such a situation, casting one’s vote for Candidate A does not amount to an endorsement of his policies. It represents an attempt to reign in the greater harm that otherwise will result.

 

This seems to be pretty close to the real-life scenario of this election regarding Clinton and Trump.  Trump's pro-life sincerity may be dubious, though he has promised to nominate good SCOTUS justices in this regard, while Clinton is far more openly and aggressively pro-abortion, and would likely do much greater harm through the kind of justices she would nominate and federal judges she would appoint.

The problem with the argument you used is that you treat voting for Trump itself as an intrinsically evil act (like contraceptive sex).  I guess I'm just not seeing where the Church teaches "Thou Shalt Not Vote for Donald Trump."

If you're convinced Trump would do nothing but evil if elected President, don't vote for him, but this is a prediction or an opinion rather than objective fact.  In any case, I don't think you can really argue that voting for Trump to prevent a Hillary Clinton presidency and the grave evils it would certainly entail is objectively sinful or evil, even if you may happen to personally disagree with it.

Anyways, keep praying hard.

[Peace]

13 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote, 

Jimmy Akin gives what I think is a pretty good explanation of this principle in this article.  

Here's an excerpt:

This seems to be pretty close to the real-life scenario of this election regarding Clinton and Trump.  Trump's pro-life sincerity may be dubious, though he has promised to nominate good SCOTUS justices in this regard, while Clinton is far more openly and aggressively pro-abortion, and would likely do much greater harm through the kind of justices she would nominate and federal judges she would appoint.

The problem with the argument you used is that you treat voting for Trump itself as an intrinsically evil act (like contraceptive sex).  I guess I'm just not seeing where the Church teaches "Thou Shalt Not Vote for Donald Trump."

If you're convinced Trump would do nothing but evil if elected President, don't vote for him, but this is a prediction or an opinion rather than objective fact.  In any case, I don't think you can really argue that voting for Trump to prevent a Hillary Clinton presidency and the grave evils it would certainly entail is objectively sinful or evil, even if you may happen to personally disagree with it.

Anyways, keep praying hard.

Sure, it is not a perfect analogy. 

I don't think that Akin is correct if there is another candidate who supports neither abortion nor euthanasia. The only reason why A and B are "morally certain" to win is because people refuse to vote for C. Your failure to vote for C causes the very circumstance that you use as the justification to vote for A or B.

I don't have to make the argument because someone else already did. Again, it is in the link that Amppax posted. For mediate material cooperation to apply Trump must offer something positively good (such as his tax plan, for example) that justifies voting for him despite his other failings. "Not being Hillary Clinton" is not a positive good. It is merely being a lesser evil. If there is something positively good about the man that would otherwise cause you to vote for him, you can vote for him, but if you find him to be an unworthy candidate you can't vote for him simply because Clinton is more unworthy. That is basically committing a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil.

I don't know if I would call voting for Trump intrinsically evil, but I will note that he has advocated for things that the Church considers intrinsically evil, such as torture or killing innocent people such as the families of terrorists. If you think he will do something good that will offset those evils you can vote for him because of that good. That would be mediate material cooperation. Voting for him merely to avoid the evil of Hillary Clinton would not be. 

But I could be wrong here.

[Socrates]

41 minutes ago, Peace said:

Sure, it is not a perfect analogy. 

I don't think that Akin is correct if there is another candidate who supports neither abortion nor euthanasia. The only reason why A and B are "morally certain" to win is because people refuse to vote for C. Your failure to vote for C causes the very circumstance that you use as the justification to vote for A or B.

If only a tiny percentage of the voting population supports a particular candidate right before the election, then we can have morally certainty that they will not win the election.  Yes, it's good to have principle, but that doesn't mean we should be stupid, or willfully blind to the reality of circumstances.

Quote

 

I don't have to make the argument because someone else already did. Again, it is in the link that Amppax posted. For mediate material cooperation to apply Trump must offer something positively good (such as his tax plan, for example) that justifies voting for him despite his other failings. "Not being Hillary Clinton" is not a positive good. It is merely being a lesser evil. If there is something positively good about the man that would otherwise cause you to vote for him, you can vote for him, but if you find him to be an unworthy candidate you can't vote for him simply because Clinton is more unworthy. That is basically committing a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil.

I don't know if I would call voting for Trump intrinsically evil, but I will note that he has advocated for things that the Church considers intrinsically evil, such as torture or killing innocent people such as the families of terrorists. If you think he will do something good that will offset those evils you can vote for him because of that good. That would be mediate material cooperation. Voting for him merely to avoid the evil of Hillary Clinton would not be. 

 

But I could be wrong here.

While he has serious flaws, there are plenty of positive goods that Trump advocates (though I'd probably disagree with a lot of people here on those).  If he nominates anyone on his shortlist for SCOTUS, or similar, imo, that would be a tremendous good, and in itself reason to support him.  (I don't see the need to rehash the entire debate here on whether he can be relied on to keep his promise, but that's another issue).  

While he definitely has his problems, I don't see Trump or his platform as being pure evil, and I don't think anyone here voted for him for evil reasons.

 

And I think saving the country from the vast damage that would be inflicted by a Hillary presidency is itself a good.  (Though perhaps it's already too late.)

[dominicansoul]

I thought the third party vote would hurt trump it looks like it helped him....

[Anomaly]

On 10/12/2016 at 5:49 PM, Anomaly said:

I live in Florida.   Optimism is in the water, uncertainty falls from the sky, unusual is as sure as the humidity.   I still wouldn't count on an upset or some one other than Hillary or Donald  

Dewey wins.  Gore wins.  Hillary wins. 

We'll see.  

But either way, it's important to review who else you may vote for on the State, Federal, and local levels.   There are probably some good alternative choices that aren't pathological politicians or 70 year old stunted adolescents. 

Who else win be in government and will they help or hinder what you'd like to see happen or not happen?  There are only four years to build momentum to replace a probably unsatisfactory president with something different.   More primary and general elections in 2018 and 2020.  

On my ballot, there are 6 candidates running for Federal Office (Senate or Congressman) that are not Republican or Democrat.  Either Libertarian, Reform, or No Party Affiliation.   They are certainly worth looking into way before you read their names while nauseously standing in the voting booth, voting for a President. 

Ha ha ha.  I heard the "Dewey Wins" remark on the radio by political experts.  I'm practically a soothsayer.