Who To Vote For?

[Era Might]

We disagree, and I'll just leave it at that.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1089703' date='Oct 12 2006, 12:08 AM']
We disagree, and I'll just leave it at that.
[/quote]
Precisely!

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1089634' date='Oct 11 2006, 10:49 PM']
You need to state your position clearly and concisely, as whatever it is, it is not clearly defined.

"Much longer process than we have time for?" What's that supposed to mean? How long a process [b]do[/b] we have time for? Are you saying we should not bother with anything that does not yield immediate results, nor consider the future?
Sounds like simple impatience to me.
I refer to your opinion that the war in Iraq takes moral precedence over abortion. [/quote]

My position again, in fewer words: Iraq War does NOT take moral precedence over abortion. I would never say that. Nor would I ever be against step-by-step action. Things don't happen overnight. However, in the type of system that is in place now, such actions take too long to implement before the other side gets back into power and begins to reverse it in the opposite direction and we need to start all over again. Yes the Supreme Court justices are their for life. But they will die eventually and the other side can do the same thing our side does. It is an honorable thing to do, but impractical. To say that I would ever place this war in Iraq over abortion in terms of moral precedence is simply dishonest. If that's how you want to be then go for it. But it would be much more efficient to simply shoot down my actual argument (which I'm sure you are quite capable of doing) than to throw out these labels that don't even apply to me.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1089634' date='Oct 11 2006, 10:49 PM']The media likes to focus on the war and its supposed evils, but regards abortion as a non-issue. [/quote]
Point? This applies to me how. Frankly I couldn't possibly care less about anything in the world than I do about what the media does or says. That goes for any network of any political leaning. Their all out to push their own agenda no matter what the cost.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1089634' date='Oct 11 2006, 10:49 PM']And your sedevacantism fails to impress me. There are billions of others who would rather follow their own personal interpretation of Christianity than submit to the yoke of Church authority, particularly in America. Simply another flavor of protestant do-your-own-thing religion.
[/quote]

Well as I certainly didn't convert to impress you or anybody else here, that's not a very useful piece of information... I see all the millions of people calling themselves catholic choosing what they do and don't want to believe as well, interpreting church documents in a way that fits their beliefs. They're no different than the protestants either, as far as I can tell. Sure they might not be considered Catholics according to the more conservative side. But neither do many protestants consider many Unitarians etc. to be Christians. The Unitarians use the same book the protestants do. They just interpret it differently. Many catholics interpret the different church documents differently in order to get different results. Yes, I understand there are official interpretations of these documents. But as most catholics will agree today, these explanations are so "philosophical" and hard to understand that they are essentially no better than the original documentation.

I don't point out my sedevacantism, or any of the other things to impress anybody. Far from it. If I wanted to impress somebody, I couldn't think of any positions less capable of accomplishing such a goal. People think me quite stupid and ignorant because of these archaic ideas actually. Far from admirable. But I did point them out because you seem to have this idea that I get all of my beliefs from watching CNN or Foxnews or some other such nonsense. I would be interested in seeing which belief of mine I hold that falls into that category. As regards government, I am strongly against both the Republican and Democratic parties, and also against whatever independent parties I know about (although lesser against some of these than against the two bigger leaders). My beliefs regarding government and economy have been likened (inaccurately of course, but likened nonetheless) to Socialism which, last time I checked, wasn't too popular in this country.

Edited October 12, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1089736' date='Oct 12 2006, 02:32 AM']
My position again, in fewer words: Iraq War does NOT take moral precedence over abortion. I would never say that. Nor would I ever be against step-by-step action. Things don't happen overnight. However, in the type of system that is in place now, such actions take too long to implement before the other side gets back into power and begins to reverse it in the opposite direction and we need to start all over again. Yes the Supreme Court justices are their for life. But they will die eventually and the other side can do the same thing our side does. It is an honorable thing to do, but impractical. To say that I would ever place this war in Iraq over abortion in terms of moral precedence is simply dishonest. If that's how you want to be then go for it. But it would be much more efficient to simply shoot down my actual argument (which I'm sure you are quite capable of doing) than to throw out these labels that don't even apply to me.
[/quote]
My apologies, I was tired and probably worded things badly. You did seem to be saying, though, that voting regarding the war should take priority over voting regarding abortion, and it would be better if people had voted for Kerry rather than Bush in the last election.

I still cannot follow your logic regarding SCOTUS justices and Roe v. Wade.
You first say it should not be a priority because it would take too long before Roe v. Wade would be overthrown.
You then say it should not be a priority because (according to you) it is inevitable that Roe v. Wade will be reinstated.

This is nothing but defeatism and apathy, pure and simple.

I do not claim to be able to see into the future and know exactly what is going to happen regarding the Supreme Court and abortion. However, if we take a defeatist attitude and give up the fight altogether, we can be certain we will not win in the end. Defeatism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If nobody strives for victory, for fear the victory might not be permanent, no good could ever be accomplished in the world.

And that argument really makes no sense regarding why voting against the war should take priority over voting pro-life. Even presuming Kerry (or whomever) were able to get us out of the war and make everything wonderful, how would this prevent another war in the future? (Catch my drift? You're making a double-standard here.)

Look, I'm as frustrated and disillusioned with politics as anyone else, but we are deluding ourselves if we think things will ultimately be better if we all just give up, and withdraw from politics altogether (or throw in the towl, and vote for pro-abort liberals like Kerry - it's really not clear what you are suggesting).

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1090098' date='Oct 12 2006, 08:16 PM']
My apologies, I was tired and probably worded things badly. You did seem to be saying, though, that voting regarding the war should take priority over voting regarding abortion, and it would be better if people had voted for Kerry rather than Bush in the last election. [/quote]

No big, I do the same thing all the time. My basic point in this is I don't think it is really possible in many cases to actually pick the right guy whether one intends to or not. I picked Bush last election. Kerry is... well let's just say it could be an editable word here :. I don't think I made the *worse* choice. But I am not sure at this point that they are so far apart on the "axis of evil" to borrow Mr. President's term. Of course, this could all go into multiple threads because I am now operating on a "conspiracy theorist" mindset and I think there is much more to it than simply Bush went to war. Going to war isn't necessarily a bad thing. I support just war. I support freeing the Iraqi people from a dictator. But I'm not convinced me and George are quite on the same page as regards his intentions for this war. Not that I think Kerry would be a better choice. But this is of course where cash comes into play and anybody I think might have somewhat of a sense of decency would have no chance of making it. Could we pick one that we think would be better? Sure, go for it if you are pretty confident. All I can say I was confident in my choice as well. I'm just not up for the guessing game and then feeling that I hold myself partly responsible for some possibly unforeseen evil that takes place on the hands of the one I helped put into office.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1090098' date='Oct 12 2006, 08:16 PM']I still cannot follow your logic regarding SCOTUS justices and Roe v. Wade.
You first say it should not be a priority because it would take too long before Roe v. Wade would be overthrown.
You then say it should not be a priority because (according to you) it is inevitable that Roe v. Wade will be reinstated.

This is nothing but defeatism and apathy, pure and simple. [/quote]
I don't say it's a bad thing. Certainly not a bad temporary fix for this one issue. But I think there are also other moral issues that need to be taken into account. And yet while it is fine temporarily (providing you don't compromise other moral issues) it simply will not last. It's only the nature of things in this kind of system.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1090098' date='Oct 12 2006, 08:16 PM']I do not claim to be able to see into the future and know exactly what is going to happen regarding the Supreme Court and abortion. However, if we take a defeatist attitude and give up the fight altogether, we can be certain we will not win in the end. Defeatism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If nobody strives for victory, for fear the victory might not be permanent, no good could ever be accomplished in the world. [/quote]

Sure. But I'm not sure that there is an "end". It's a circular process that will continue forever and onwards. And while we could be making progress (notice the wording, not actually getting rid of abortion once and for all) in this area, I believe we could very well be losing in other areas that are quite important as well.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1090098' date='Oct 12 2006, 08:16 PM']And that argument really makes no sense regarding why voting against the war should take priority over voting pro-life. [/quote]

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Who posited this argument?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1090098' date='Oct 12 2006, 08:16 PM']Even presuming Kerry (or whomever) were able to get us out of the war and make everything wonderful, how would this prevent another war in the future? (Catch my drift? You're making a double-standard here.) [/quote]
He can't prevent another one. Just as we will never be able to permanently get rid of abortion as the system stands now. And I never said anything about no war. I'm no peace-signing hippy . But as I said, the "conspiracy theorist" in me is way uncomfortable with certain things surrounding this particular one. Just war is no problem with me. It's the other kind that grinds my gears a little bit.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1090098' date='Oct 12 2006, 08:16 PM']Look, I'm as frustrated and disillusioned with politics as anyone else, but we are deluding ourselves if we think things will ultimately be better if we all just give up, and withdraw from politics altogether (or throw in the towl, and vote for pro-abort liberals like Kerry - it's really not clear what you are suggesting).
[/quote]

Well, if nobody votes then the democratic system fails which would be a great victory for those of us who are against it. Impossible fight, but so is voting for some no name dude hoping s/he gets elected over the two (occasionally three) biggies. Honestly, maybe the idea of a lesser evil is a good thing. But I'm also just not too comfortable putting my support behind a guy is who is anti-abortion but pro-birth control.

[Veritas]

+

By the way, it is "whom to vote for" as in "whom shall I vote for". Or, more correctly, "For whom shall I vote?" Then again, there's the question of using "shall" in the first person. That's a bit of a no-no.

In essence, "who" is only used as the subject. In the case above, the dative, indicated by "for" requires "whom".


Ahhh... this is what happens when one takes too much Latin -but I love it!

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1090235' date='Oct 12 2006, 09:19 PM']
No big, I do the same thing all the time. My basic point in this is I don't think it is really possible in many cases to actually pick the right guy whether one intends to or not. I picked Bush last election. Kerry is... well let's just say it could be an editable word here :. I don't think I made the *worse* choice. But I am not sure at this point that they are so far apart on the "axis of evil" to borrow Mr. President's term. Of course, this could all go into multiple threads because I am now operating on a "conspiracy theorist" mindset and I think there is much more to it than simply Bush went to war. Going to war isn't necessarily a bad thing. I support just war. I support freeing the Iraqi people from a dictator. But I'm not convinced me and George are quite on the same page as regards his intentions for this war. Not that I think Kerry would be a better choice. But this is of course where cash comes into play and anybody I think might have somewhat of a sense of decency would have no chance of making it. Could we pick one that we think would be better? Sure, go for it if you are pretty confident. All I can say I was confident in my choice as well. I'm just not up for the guessing game and then feeling that I hold myself partly responsible for some possibly unforeseen evil that takes place on the hands of the one I helped put into office.
I don't say it's a bad thing. Certainly not a bad temporary fix for this one issue. But I think there are also other moral issues that need to be taken into account. And yet while it is fine temporarily (providing you don't compromise other moral issues) it simply will not last. It's only the nature of things in this kind of system.
Sure. But I'm not sure that there is an "end". It's a circular process that will continue forever and onwards. And while we could be making progress (notice the wording, not actually getting rid of abortion once and for all) in this area, I believe we could very well be losing in other areas that are quite important as well.[/quote]
You cannot know the future with certainity.
Your claim that the abortion fight is "a circular process that will continue forever and onwards" is nothing but your own opinion, and is rather nonsensical in light of history.

Getting good Supreme Court justices appointed is only part of the battle, of course, but is important nonetheless. We must also be working to change hearts and minds, or that vioctory would be empty in itself.
History is not endlessly circular. It is linear. Things change. Progress can be made.
Look at the history of slavery, for example . No one seriously debates the rightness or legality of slavery in America today.

I'm not saying that abortion necessarily will be outlawed or that we will win this fight - we can't know the future - but what is certain as that there will be no victory if we don't fight for what's right. No fate but what we make.
And no victory for defeatists.

Simply withdrawing from the battle because we think ultimate defeat is inevitable is not noble or wise, but is simply cowardice and laziness, and is contrary to the Christian virtue of Hope.
There is no honor or glory in defeatism.

[quote]Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Who posited this argument?
He can't prevent another one. Just as we will never be able to permanently get rid of abortion as the system stands now. And I never said anything about no war. I'm no peace-signing hippy . But as I said, the "conspiracy theorist" in me is way uncomfortable with certain things surrounding this particular one. Just war is no problem with me. It's the other kind that grinds my gears a little bit.[/quote]
Get off the conspiracy-theory nonsense. Seriously, that garbage will rot your brain.

[quote]Well, if nobody votes then the democratic system fails which would be a great victory for those of us who are against it. Impossible fight, but so is voting for some no name dude hoping s/he gets elected over the two (occasionally three) biggies. Honestly, maybe the idea of a lesser evil is a good thing. But I'm also just not too comfortable putting my support behind a guy is who is anti-abortion but pro-birth control.[/quote]
That statement about the democratic system failing being a "great victory" is utterly moronic.
I've heard that nonsense before by other people of an "ultra-traditional" bent, and still does not fail to impress me with its sheer thoughtless stupidity.

Some people seem to be under the impression that if people simply refuse to vote, our democratic system will collapse, and some glorious Catholic monarchy will somehow miraculously rise up in its place, and happiness and justice will prevail.

If good people simply withdraw from public life, and do nothing, all that will do is hand over all control to the "bad guys" and give them complete unchecked power. (Imagine a Bush or Clinton as dictator-for-life!)

And if nobody votes, that would simply give those already in power unchecked and unlimited power.
If the system collapses into anarchy, power would simply go to the strongest and most ruthless, not the most holy and just. (Just look at Somalia, Bosnia, or the Middle East for examples of how such anarchy might look like in fact.)

I guess there's really not much arguing this further, though, as I'm sure you'll outgrow these childish ideas within ten years or so in the real world.

Edited October 14, 2006 by Socrates

[Winchester]

It doesn't make sense to automatically abstain from voting, unless one is going to become an actual revolutionary. Societal movements can take years or generations to build.

Voting is usually a popularity contest. It's the MTV phenomenon. A hit song can be created by putting the song in high rotation or playing the video repeatedly on MTV. The worst song in the world can be sold if people are exposed to it enough. Witness Beyonce, whos talent seems to be in repeating the same line several times at differing levels of useless vocal gymnastics to samples that run the length of the song (not samples)

If numbers for a certain candidate or type of candidate climb over time, then the sheep voters will follow and add to the numbers. It may not result in success, but it can result in the group the candidate represents gaining something of a voice. It is in this way that the sissy Americans have managed to take over the Democrats.

[Anomaly]

Not voting is the WORST thing you can do, especially in today's political world.

When you view the most recent political trends, you find that polls often show very close races. (Presidential race, 2000?) This tells you that you should vote often and boldly in small races, especially primaries. If Candidate A knows that she is within 3 points of Candidate B, but during the primaries, Candidate W got 6% of the vote, she may consider what were some of the issues that Cadidate W stood for that got those votes. Was there a 'key issue' such as a REALISTIC goal on immigration? If she adopted and promoted that goal, could she garner 1/2 of those voters and win?

It's silly to think you have to vote for the 'winner' in every race. If you are really voting issues, you should be voting in primaries to show where the votes are. In the final race, you should be more sophisticated because you may have to vote for the lesser of two evils. But if you voted during primaries and local elections, you show where the political winds are blowing.

Who did you vote for mayor, and what did he stand for? How about County Commissioner or School Board? What candidates got solid voting blocks in the local races where candidates can better afford to support specific local issues?

When it comes down the the actual final elections, some candidates are trying to suppress votes by giving the impression a vote for the other guy is wasted and you shouldn't have to go through the 2 hours in line. Other candidates are urging the mariginally attentive to come in and vote because that naturally favors the incumbent. Some marginal candidates will go in stealth and depress voting for a 'shoe-in' by letting people think they don't need to waste their time, they've got enough votes. The may not win, but it will undermine the perception of the popularity of the winner and make things more politically difficult.

When or lose, you should vote for your candidate or the issue. Losing by 30 points is much worse than losing by 10 points. At least you provide the challenger's party some political clout for compromise if it's close. Or if a candidate is wildly popular, having 80% of the vote is more powerful than getting in with 60% because people didn't show up.

The ocean is filled with rivers. Rivers are filled with rain. Rain comes from clouds which are zillions of tiny droplets. Christians should know the lesson of patience and the worth of one droplet.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1091186' date='Oct 13 2006, 10:31 PM']Get off the conspiracy-theory nonsense. Seriously, that garbage will rot your brain.
That statement about the democratic system failing being a "great victory" is utterly moronic.
I've heard that nonsense before by other people of an "ultra-traditional" bent, and still does not fail to impress me with its sheer thoughtless stupidity.

. . .

I guess there's really not much arguing this further, though, as I'm sure you'll outgrow these childish ideas within ten years or so in the real world.
[/quote]

Maybe my beliefs are childish. Obviously though it doesn't matter if I follow error. After all it'll only take 10 years or so for me to heal. You guys are real on top of the whole evangelization thing around here huh?

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1091740' date='Oct 14 2006, 05:54 PM']
Maybe my beliefs are childish. Obviously though it doesn't matter if I follow error. After all it'll only take 10 years or so for me to heal. You guys are real on top of the whole evangelization thing around here huh?
[/quote]
"Childish" doesn't mean heretical. This is about politics, not dogmas of the Faith, so this really isn't an "evangelism" issue. Your "sedevacantism" is another matter, but we'll leave that to another debate.
(And I think you'll probably wise up in fewer than ten years - that's just a maximum time-span. Most of the people I've heard giving your kind of views are teenagers or college kids like yourself, which is why I suspect it is a passing phase, condescending as that my sound.)

I'm just calling a spade a spade here. The idea that good people simply failing to vote in a democratic republic will result in a "great victory" for us is simply a really stupid idea. I don't believe it can be logically defended. If you want to give it a shot, go ahead - but it appears you have a tendency to simply spout out "extreme" positions without taking the time to logically think them through.

If you want to give a logical, coherent defense of that position, go ahead.
Otherwise, I really don't think there's much left to say.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1091740' date='Oct 14 2006, 05:54 PM']
Maybe my beliefs are childish. Obviously though it doesn't matter if I follow error. After all it'll only take 10 years or so for me to heal. You guys are real on top of the whole evangelization thing around here huh?
[/quote]
Dude,
You don't have to let your feelings get so hurt and let your panties bunch up. Just because you're wrong and you over invest in your opinion, that doesnt' make you a drooling idjut. Though that attitude is typical for people your age.
You're all on top of that wanting others to shake the dust off thing around here, huh?

[goldenchild17]

nm this post. I was going to say something in response. But I don't want to get caught up in all of that mess. When my heretical position (not referring to this topic, but my sedeism) actually becomes a concern to you all and you feel it important to save me from this, then you can find me around the boards. I'll be here.

Edited October 16, 2006 by goldenchild17