homeschoolmom Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Okay... what's the debate here??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ora et Labora Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 i'll vote for anyone pro-life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Bone _ Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 First off, voting for the lessor of two evils is still evil. Secondly, unless you live in a Swing State, your vote for the President is utterly and totally meaningless, so you might as well vote your conscience. (Voting against a candidate is useless.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateri05 Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 you mean CA isn't a swing state oh if only that were funny. i've voted in MD and CA, and as usual my vote counts for POO. our system needs revamping. heck, i'll be honest, i'm with adt, the masses aren't fit to rule, monarchy really does sound better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 [quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1351212' date='Aug 6 2007, 02:14 PM']Okay... what's the debate here??? [/quote] I think we're all waiting for Ironmonk to show up ... [quote name='kateri05' post='1351487' date='Aug 6 2007, 06:57 PM']you mean CA isn't a swing state oh if only that were funny. i've voted in MD and CA, and as usual my vote counts for POO. our system needs revamping. heck, i'll be honest, i'm with adt, the masses aren't fit to rule, monarchy really does sound better.[/quote] Oddly I find myself at least mildly intrigued by the idea. I have to think about it more by adt makes a compelling argument ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 (Like everyone else, it seems) I'd probably vote third-party as a display of principle (and to show the GOP they can't take us "religious right" people for granted). However, if I was in a "swing state" and there was a close election, I might vote for Rudy just to keep Hillary out of the White House. (That's a big "if," though.) I do think Rudy is definitely the lesser evil in this case, though, but I'm not going to really throw any support behind him. He's said he's for abortion being turned over to the states (which is probably a legally necessary first step), though he'll probably do nothing substantial to help the pro-life cause. Hillary, on the other hand, will do all in her power to support abortion at every turn (as evidenced by her 100% pro-abort Senate voting record). All-in-all, not a happy situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 [quote name='Socrates' post='1351527' date='Aug 6 2007, 08:00 PM']... I'm not going to really throw any support behind him.[/quote] You aren't the only one ... did you read that [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070806/giuliani-daughter/"]his own daughter[/url] is supporting Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 [quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351154' date='Aug 6 2007, 12:07 PM']I would personally be totally in favor of such methods. I think it's high time there were more than two players at the table. The time has long since passed (if it ever existed) in which either of the two parties truly represented the sentiments of a majority of voters.[/quote] I can definitely agree with this sentiment, though I'm afraid TF and I would probably strongly disagree on what the ideal third-party candidate/party would be like. I think the two major parties are much too alike, rather than representing two polar "extremes" out of touch with the "moderate middle" (as commonly presented by media commentators). My ideal party would be solidly to the "right " of the GOP, rather than being a mix of Republican and Democratic policies. (This may or may not have any relevence to TF's views - I'm basically just stating my own view here.) As for monarchies and such, I'm for checks and balances in government. I think for a "Catholic Monarchy" to work, we would first need a total conversion of our society to the ideals of old Christendom. A serious modern monarchy, I'm afraid, would probably end up looking more like Kim Jong Il's North Korea than 12th century France. (Call me a cynic, but that's my cold, hard view.) Where people are godless and corrupt, any system of government will fail. And my general view of government is the less, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 [quote name='Socrates' post='1351606' date='Aug 6 2007, 08:47 PM']And my general view of government is the less, the better.[/quote] Hopefully not to the point of [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy"]anarchy[/url]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 [quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351618' date='Aug 6 2007, 09:10 PM']Hopefully not to the point of [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy"]anarchy[/url]?[/quote] I'm not an anarchist, but I do believe in a principle of limited government. Government should generally not do what can be done privately, and federal government should not do what can be done at the state or local level. (Basically, the principle of subsidiarity) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 [quote name='Socrates' post='1351693' date='Aug 6 2007, 09:54 PM']I'm not an anarchist, but I do believe in a principle of limited government. Government should generally not do what can be done privately, and federal government should not do what can be done at the state or local level. (Basically, the principle of subsidiarity)[/quote] I figured, but you scared me for a second there with "as little government as possible" ... since anarchy is pretty much that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 [quote name='XIX' post='1350922' date='Aug 6 2007, 01:26 AM']I'd probably vote for Brownback. Voting for someone who is as soft on moral issues as Rudy is, in an effort to keep Hilary out...that kinda seems like "ends justifying the means." I dunno. I'd have a hard time getting myself to pull the lever for a pro-abortion politician, under any reasonable circumstance.[/quote] Since rudy isn't picked yet, maybe it would be better to focus on what's going on now instead of what might not happen... cross bridges when you come to them. Research all the candidates, double check what they claim - with their own words and look at their track record while in office... pick one, and explain to others why you think they should vote for your guy. Debating over something that might not be is wasted energy.... let's cross that bridge if we get there. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my6in7 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I signed a pro-life statement many years ago making a promise to God that I would not endorse any candidate who did not have a solid pro-life stance. That to me is of upmost importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abercius24 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I'm going for the Benedict XVI write-in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateri05 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 i'd do that if he would take the job... wait a sec, hes not a citizen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now