Which Is Better

[dairygirl4u2c]

unlike i've been arguing, i was thinking i might be able to see a rationale for not wanting mccain that kinda makes sense if there were more information, as far as consistency in insisting on bush but not mccain voting... but before i explain it, i want to see what the poll results are.

[CatholicCid]

George H.W. Bush?

[Justin86]

Why is Bush lumped together with Hillary and Obama?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't really want to say... because you should jsut vote without knowing what i'd be drawing from the poll.

but, the reason is because the most plausible to me excuse for not voting for mccain yet insisting on voting for bush... is because you think y0u could get a situation similar to what i polled. actually, you'd want more than that, but what i posted seems the most reasonable, so i wanted to see what you'd say.

i suppose i could see if you think mccain wants to keep roe, you wouldn't vote for him. but given that he wants health and life exceptions and rape, as do most republicans, and given that he's voted 117 out of 121 times on the prolife and is rated perfectly prolife... to think he's bent on preserving roe because of a few debatable quotes seems like you're only rationalizing this as the reason you don't want ot vote for him. you'd be getting a democrat if mcccain doesn't win.
i still think there's not been given any real answers as to why it's justified to vote effectively for a democrat given how the last two election arguments went for who has to be voted for.

[mommas_boy]

As I understand the currently conceived method of getting rid of abortion, it involves the gradual process of appointing justices to the supreme court. As justices serve unlimited terms, they are only removed when they step down of their own volition or die. Thus, in order to get a majority in the supreme court, the president must wait until a justice steps down or dies, and then replace them through the senate confirmation process. Thus, the only sure-fire way of getting justices appointed are long stretches of time with a pro-life president and pro-life senate. Ergo, my answer was two years of McCain.

[XIX]

McCain is considerably better than either of the Dems. So the first four years would be considerably better.

Bush is a little better than McCain. So those four years would be a bit worse with McCain in office, but the difference isn't as great. So I'd rather have 8 of McCain than have 4 of Bush and 4 of McCain/Obama.

[BeenaBobba]

None of the above.

[Deb]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1468449' date='Feb 24 2008, 11:41 PM']None of the above. [/quote]


I second that.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you can't vote none of the above. that is, if you insisted you hav eto vote bush the last elections. beause you're effectively voting for obama etc.

the reason i said this is the most plausible isutation, the poll.... if you vote "other" you're effectively voting for obama etc. that means if you had your way, obama would effectively win. for the mccainites, mccain would win. that takes care of the first term. the antimccains are pullig for another bush, but the best chance they have is fifty fifty (i'm assuming that's the odds of getting a republican, and i'm assuming since most have been similar to bush, that mccain is an outlyer and wouldn't come again). the mccains would have to concede that a bush cannot run, because mccain is the incumbant or i mean the one who's almost likely going to try to run again. there's a ffity fifty chance mccain would win again, i'd assume.
if these assumptions are correct, if the antimccain's get the best possible presumption in their favor, so should the mccains. hence, those are my options in the poll.

(essentially for most elections you'd assume a flip of the coin probability of the party winning, as a rule of thumb)

if you assume each president gets to elect one Justice, what obama elects will cancel out what the new bush elects. wouldn't it be wiser to have two mccains, even if they aren't bent on overturning roe? (really, i don't see why you couldn't assume they'd be just as bent as alito and roberts are but... especially given that democrats insure nonmilitant justices get elected during nnomination processes)

plus if you look at the numbers... using the natinoal right ot life committee's numbers (althought those aren't that accurate cause they include euthanasia views etc and stem cell research which is bound to become legalized, especially if you effectively vote for a demorat... probably NARAL's record is more accurate that he's practically perfectly prolife given hgis 97% voting record) obama is zero, mccain is 75, bush is 95. that means, averaging my poll options..... the first one has a score of like 48, and the second has an average of 75. 75 is better than 48...

so anyway you slice it... even if you distrust mccain on roe, which i doubt is valid given his record (and given that most wouldn't distrust romney who only two years ago was militant preserving roe... but the republicans are mindless and wouldn't vote against him because of that when they are anti mccain)(and given that mccain wants to preserve life of mother exceptions etc, just like all other republican presidents want to do... he might just be hesitant to allow states to put women in jail for fifty years for preventing her death along with the babies death, which would be allowed b a literal overruling of roe), mccain is still the best option.

yes i put way too much thought into this, and it's got a lot of necessary assumptions... i propose the assumptions are the most reasonable though, and so the challenge still remains to argue that it's okay to be antimccain in ytour vote and still insist to vote for bush types bc of abortion.

Edited February 25, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Justin86]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1468607' date='Feb 26 2008, 03:12 AM']you can't vote none of the above[/quote]
Oh yes we can. I'm staying out of your little mind game, missy.

[goldenchild17]

voted for 2 terms of McCain but read the question wrong. Meant to vote for the other. I can't see McCain as much better than the other democrat options. Even if he is slightly better I don't know if I can support the deliberate move to the left/middle that the Republicans are making. Supporting McCain, in my mind, shows that Catholics will be okay with yet another slightly better than the dems, but continually worse, candidate the next election and so on until there is no difference between the parties on moral issues. When it comes to that, we will have effectively taken moral issues out of the equation because both of the major parties will eventually have the same position.

Fr. Heribert Jone in one of his works on moral theology points out that it is allowable and maybe even required to vote for the lesser of two evils in order to keep the worse out of office. I don't agree with him at all in cases where this is not an ongoing, probably even deliberate situation. If there were to be absolutely no carry-over from one election to the next then I would absolutely vote for the lesser of two evils in the election, if McCain actually were so. When looking years down the road, I'm not so sure he is the lesser of the two evils. I voted for George Bush and I'll admit I am not happy about many things that he did. But he did do some positive pro-life things. I absolutely do not see this from McCain and voting for him shows (whether one intends to or not) a support for the gradual liberalization of the Republican Party. Say McCain wins? If he does then we automatically have our Republican candidate for the next term, so that's four more years of a set-back. And if he wins that second term, then that's further confirmation that what the Republicans are doing with their move towards the left in regards to moral issues, is okay and supported by the Republican base. With that in mind, can one logically hope (after the success they had with the Democrat McCain) that they would completely reverse their strategy, which had been successful, and go with an openly pro-life President?

Maybe, but I definitely can't see it. Instead, in my mind these next four years are trouble no matter what. With Hillabama it's going to be hell, with McCain I don't see it being hardly any better. If the Republicans don't win this election then maybe that will convince them to actually run a Republican (go figure ), with some moral fabric, as their next candidate in four years. If McCain wins, it's [b]at least[/b] (probably more) another 8-12 years, after a Republican loss in 2016 or 2020 before they get their heads out of their butts.

[Deb]

No offense. but this poll should be on the Lame board because it makes no sense.

[jeffpugh]

I as a veteran lame boarder take much offense!

[Deb]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1470113' date='Feb 27 2008, 05:02 PM']I as a veteran lame boarder take much offense![/quote]


Thank you for proving my point.

[Deb]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1470113' date='Feb 27 2008, 05:02 PM']I as a veteran lame boarder take much offense![/quote]


Double post

Edited February 27, 2008 by Deb