Who To Vote For?

[Paladin]

It seems to me the bipartisan system is failing. On the one side, you have the Republicans (a.k.a, Stupid and Evil Party) who support torture and war. On the other, you have Democrats (a.k.a., Evil and Stupid Party) who hate babies and religion. [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2297.htm"]Torture[/url] and [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2271.htm"]abortion[/url] are both grave and irreconcilable sins. So the Republicans deserve to lose, but the Democrats don't deserve to win.

So what's a voter to do? Vote for one sin that cries out to heaven for vengence and ignore the other? Go third party and face certain electoral doom? Find candidates that don't support agenda gravely contrary to human dignity? Abandon the politics and spend an hour on voting day in front of the Blessed Sacrament?

Personally, I'm going Constitution Party. They're anti-war, anti-torture, anti-gay marriage, womb-to-tomb pro-life. I disagree with some of their stuff, but none of it is intrinsically evil. And though we're sure to lose, I'd rather be faithful than effective. And I'll probably go pray before Our Lord, too. After all, no matter's who's in charge of the government, Christ is still King.

[Resurrexi]

I think our govt. is evil beyond repair and that no matter who is elected it will still smell of elderberries... so I wouldn't vote... but I'm to young to vote anyway.

[heavenseeker]

I dont vote by party, I vote by who i agree with the most as an indevidual.

[Veritas]

+

Pro-Life and Pro-Family. Thus, usually Republican.

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1087175' date='Oct 9 2006, 12:43 AM']
+

Pro-Life and Pro-Family. Thus, usually Republican.
[/quote]
usualy but not always

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]We are on a downhill spiral and it wont stop untill the world explodes.
So we should just sit back and tan!
[/size]

[Veritas]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1087192' date='Oct 8 2006, 10:57 PM']
usualy but not always
[/quote]

True --hence the "usually" not the "always"!

[goldenchild17]

I voted Bush last election, my first time voting. I voted for what I believed would be the lesser evil. I'm not sure such a strategy really works that well. So I'm not sure that I will be voting at all. If I do, it'll probably be for one of the unknown parties, but I doubt I will find someone I can support even there.

[kdewolf2]

It's hard to say who you should vote for anymore.

If you adopt the conventional "lesser of two evils" approach, what is really less evil?

The Republicans unashamedly endorse endless war, bloodshed, political violence, torture, and poverty, while the Democrats only endorse such things to a lesser degree, and perhaps more tactfully.

The purist third party voter has to face the fact that his candidate will not be elected.

I can only say that in a liberal democracy like the U.S. one's political activity does not have to be limited to voting.

Although it may seem ineffective, you can still protest, you can still speak your mind, you can still petition.

You could write the candidates and make it clear why you will not vote for them, if you choose not to vote.

So there's maybe more you can do than just vote.

I'd also suggest you can also pray.

This may seem the most ineffective of all, but we do believe in an Almighty God who hears our prayers, don't we?

[kamiller42]

While the dems will say the number of fallen in Iraq justify the removal of republicans, it still pales in comparison to the number of fallen because of abortion and euthanasia, which their party supports.

Republicans support interrogation techniques the media labels as torture. However, if you examine the list of techniques, it's really not torture as you think it is. Uncomfortable? Sure. But there's no permanent damage, and everyone does get to go home with their heads still attached.

There are other parties out there to vote for, but they are not viable choices if they can't pull in the numbers.

Edited October 9, 2006 by kamiller42

[Socrates]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1086975' date='Oct 8 2006, 09:32 PM']
It seems to me the bipartisan system is failing. On the one side, you have the Republicans (a.k.a, Stupid and Evil Party) who support torture and war. On the other, you have Democrats (a.k.a., Evil and Stupid Party) who hate babies and religion. [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2297.htm"]Torture[/url] and [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2271.htm"]abortion[/url] are both grave and irreconcilable sins. So the Republicans deserve to lose, but the Democrats don't deserve to win.

So what's a voter to do? Vote for one sin that cries out to heaven for vengence and ignore the other? Go third party and face certain electoral doom? Find candidates that don't support agenda gravely contrary to human dignity? Abandon the politics and spend an hour on voting day in front of the Blessed Sacrament?

Personally, I'm going Constitution Party. They're anti-war, anti-torture, anti-gay marriage, womb-to-tomb pro-life. I disagree with some of their stuff, but none of it is intrinsically evil. And though we're sure to lose, I'd rather be faithful than effective. And I'll probably go pray before Our Lord, too. After all, no matter's who's in charge of the government, Christ is still King.
[/quote]
First of all, I think the whole "abortion vs. torture" dilemna is bogus.

We're talking about the wholesale slaughter of billions of innocent babies (often by means which would certainly qualify as torture, such as being ripped limb-from-limb, or being chemically burned to death) vs. the rough treatment of a few brutal and ruthless terrorists, whose actions threaten many innocent people.

One can certainly be opposed to torture of prisoners, but to compare these two as being equivalent evils is simply ridiculous. I'm seeing a general pattern on here, in which many seem to lack any sense of proportion or justice.
It seems many on here see things such as the treatment of convicted murderers or terrorists as being as bad or worse than the slaughter of innocents.
Something is terribly wrong with people's thinking.

Bush and the Republicans have rejected signing certain international "anti-torture" decrees, because the language is vague enough that it could easily be used by America's enemies against her. (While at the same time, most of these anti-American countries would be performing much more serious atrocities). America has a lot of serious enemies, who have no interest in truth or "playing fair," so it would be foolish to place them as judges over America's activities.

Don't get me wrong; I'm against excessive torture, and things done for the sake of pure sadism, and there should be limits placed on how interrogation is conducted and treatment of prisoners.
But sweeping outlawing of "torture" creates loopholes big enough for America's enemies to drive a truck full of explosives through. Especially when such things as (gasp, horrors!) making prisoners listen to Metallica are defined as torture.
And there is really nothing new here. Much more brutal things were done by the U.S. against the Japs and Germans during WWII, but there was not the media to cry about it.
Excessive torture should not be used, and those guilty should be punished, but sometimes rough methods are needed to get vital information from the enemy -especially when not having that information could cost the lives of many!

And I have my problems with Bush and the Republicans, but for me the "torture" nonsense is a non-issue. It is simply a political football being played by the Left, and will probably be forgotten after the next election. There are many much more important issues at stake.

How I vote will depend on who the Republicans run and what his positions are. If they run a pro-abort "moderate," I may actually vote Constitution.
However, voters should not do that lightly, and keep in mind the consequences of having a Party of Death godless liberal Dem in office. For all Bush's problems, I am still glad Kerry was not in office, choosing the Supreme Court justices.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1086981' date='Oct 8 2006, 09:41 PM']
I think our govt. is evil beyond repair and that no matter who is elected it will still smell of elderberries... so I wouldn't vote...
[/quote]
When good people take this attitude, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy!

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1087813' date='Oct 9 2006, 08:10 PM']
First of all, I think the whole "abortion vs. torture" dilemna is bogus.
[/quote]
I think so too. However we need to remember that it isn't necessarily one OR the other. In the case of the current administration we have the issue in Iraq AND what real progress has been made against abortion? I understand it's a legal process and there are many hoops to jump through. But many people elected Mr. Bush in order to cut down the abortions. Has that actually happened? I'm not so sure it has. And then we have the extra deaths in this very poorly conducted war added on top of that.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087838' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:50 PM']
I think so too. However we need to remember that it isn't necessarily one OR the other. In the case of the current administration we have the issue in Iraq AND what real progress has been made against abortion? I understand it's a legal process and there are many hoops to jump through. But many people elected Mr. Bush in order to cut down the abortions. Has that actually happened? I'm not so sure it has. And then we have the extra deaths in this very poorly conducted war added on top of that.
[/quote]
Partial-birth abortion is now banned and the majority on the Supreme Court has been cut down to one. The legal hoops you mentioned have really impeded any further progress. The Court needs to be taken over, Roe vs. Wade overturned, then we can fight for some legislation.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087838' date='Oct 9 2006, 08:50 PM']
I think so too. However we need to remember that it isn't necessarily one OR the other. In the case of the current administration we have the issue in Iraq AND what real progress has been made against abortion? I understand it's a legal process and there are many hoops to jump through. [b]But many people elected Mr. Bush in order to cut down the abortions. Has that actually happened? I'm not so sure it has.[/b] And then we have the extra deaths in this very poorly conducted war added on top of that.
[/quote]
The facts say "Yes, it has."

From LifeSite news: [url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05053101.html"]Planned Parenthood Founded Institute Admits Abortion Rates Down Under Bush Administration[/url]

Bush has also worked hard to pass policies which make obtaining abortions inconvenient, which is the limit of a president's powers. He supports banning partial birth abortion, parental notification, no federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and nominated pro-life friendly Supreme Court nominees. This and more was done in cooperation with a republican congress. No way could this have been done with a democrat congress. The bills would have never made it to the floor.

The only mistake I see he has made is his most recent FDA nominee who supported over the counter morning after pills. :-(

[goldenchild17]

True, but then again it's only a matter of time before power swings in a different direction again and things will head back in the other direction. It's just the way it goes with democracy it seems. No real long-term stability with one agenda in place.

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1087867' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:11 PM']The only mistake I see he has made is his most recent FDA nominee who supported over the counter morning after pills. :-(
[/quote]

Which is no small mistake considering the millions this decision puts to death.