Interesting Facts about Sarah Palin

[ShannonMcCatholic]

So I see my vote, in my own prudential judgment, as my moral decision to try to make a difference long term in getting actual pro-life candidates.

This is my conclusion as well. I wish I was less scattered, or my kids were older or homeshooling less hands on....because if we could only get organised in this time of the blog...I think voting as a bloc would be much more powerful of a statement.

What I don't want to see is people jsut NOT voting...let's vote in record numbers and in record numbers refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

[Tigg]

And from someone ignorant, who are these other people running on a third party deal? Is there a site telling of them?

Lesser of two evils has been a way of voting, however, this year, woe is me. TYIA for any answers.

-Peace-

 

[katholikos]

Intrinsic evil is intrinsic evil...we are not allowed to support them. And there is no prioritizing of intrinsic evils....

Let me clarify my remark: We musty prioritize when it comes to voting in elections. Otherwise we could never vote because every candidate has something wrong with them.

That is not supporting evil. That is just making the best choice from the options we are presented with - and making a choice that can actually succeed (.....in elections).

 

[Davidnic]

Let me clarify my remark: We musty prioritize when it comes to voting in elections. Otherwise we could never vote because every candidate has something wrong with them.

That is not supporting evil. That is just making the best choice from the options we are presented with - and making a choice that can actually succeed (.....in elections).

I understand your view and do not judge or condemn it. Personally I think that argument only works if we are given what is called: "unjust alternative choice". And since we have other choices I choose to go with a third party or write in vote.

The argument can be made both ways, and I would normally agree with most of your logic but since both are aiding intrinsic evils...I opt for neither.

 

[Davidnic]

And from someone ignorant, who are these other people running on a third party deal? Is there a site telling of them?

Lesser of two evils has been a way of voting, however, this year, woe is me. TYIA for any answers.

-Peace-

There are some really "out there" candidates on the third party end. I am currently wading through them.

Here is a list of all parties: Link

You can go to their websites from that site and see who they are running and what their stance is.

 

[SolomonVII]

As far as my third party vote. If most Catholics would vote for someone other than the two choices it would help to break both sides using abortion and other life issues as wedge issues. It would show there is support for life that will not compromise on it for the "lesser evil". And that would help change things long term.

So I see my vote, in my own prudential judgment, as my moral decision to try to make a difference long term in getting actual pro-life candidates.

Who benefits the most from third party voting? Which of the two realistic contendeers will have the most votes stripped away by such votes?

And will third party votes really do anything to get pro-life candidates, or will it just bleed enough of the fervent pro-life votes from the more pro-life candidate of the two to make it less likely that pro-life will even be an issue for future elections?

Ardent liberals like Cosmic Charlie are on record as thanking people who are voting for third party people, and I would have to agree with him 100%. By and large third party votes will be indirect votes for Obama.

that is how such votes will ultimately be tallied after the election.

 

[Tigg]

There are some really "out there" candidates on the third party end. I am currently wading through them.

Here is a list of all parties: Link

You can go to their websites from that site and see who they are running and what their stance is.

TY so much. But one favor more. Please re-post your link as I can't go to your link. Thanks again.

-Peace-

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Tigg- I started a whole 3rd party candidate thread for you

 

[Davidnic]

TY so much. But one favor more. Please re-post your link as I can't go to your link. Thanks again.

-Peace-

Yeah...that's cause i forgot to put it in
link

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Who benefits the most from third party voting? Which of the two realistic contendeers will have the most votes stripped away by such votes?

And will third party votes really do anything to get pro-life candidates, or will it just bleed enough of the fervent pro-life votes from the more pro-life candidate of the two to make it less likely that pro-life will even be an issue for future elections?

Ardent liberals like Cosmic Charlie are on record as thanking people who are voting for third party people, and I would have to agree with him 100%. By and large third party votes will be indirect votes for Obama.

that is how such votes will ultimately be tallied after the election.

I don't care..I think McCain and Obama are both likely to do harm to America...I think McCain will do nothing to help the unborn, and increase or risk of war. I think Obama will do nothing to help the unborn, and yield to more and larger government. Both choices are unacceptable to me--therefore I am not going to vote for either of them, I don't care which candidate it "helps"...I refuse to exercise my right to vote that way any more. From now until I die I am going to vote for someone I actually think might make a great president, instead of who will be less worse. If for you that choice is McCain, and your well informed conscience let's you vote that way--then that's great. My conscience won't allow for me to vote for either guy, as both are greatly divorced from what I hold to be fundamentally important.

 

[Davidnic]

I don't care which candidate it "helps"...I refuse to exercise my right to vote that way any more. From now until I die I am going to vote for someone I actually think might make a great president, instead of who will be less worse. If for you that choice is McCain, and your well informed conscience let's you vote that way--then that's great. My conscience won't allow for me to vote for either guy, as both are greatly divorced from what I hold to be fundamentally important.

I agree here.

 

[isshinwhat]

A very principles response, Shannon, and I applaud you for it.

 

[katholikos]

I don't care... ..I don't care which candidate it "helps".....

Without being combative, in my opinion that line I quoted is preciseley what is wrong with your position - the fact that you realize you may well be helping the wrong person but simply "don't care."

A very principles response, Shannon, and I applaud you for it.

You think that it is "principled" to admittedly help the wrong person and not care if you do or not?

 

[Davidnic]

I don't think it helps either side. I think that if they wanted our support they should reflect our values in a better way.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

I clarified later why I don't care- I think McCain and Obama both equally committed to doing nothing to help the cause of the unborn, and that they both will likely harm America, possibly profoundly, in other ways.

Sometimes you have to commit to losing a battle in order to win a war, you know??

 

[isshinwhat]

I think it is principled to choose to refuse to vote for either person if you viewed some of their positions as evil, yes. I can understand someone not liking McCain for his strong defense stance (although I personally love it) and his stance on embryonic stem cell research (I think it stinks he'd support it). I happen to like his Federalist stance and I despise Obama's intent to turn my country into a socialists dream... For proportionate reasons, I feel I can vote for McCain as clearly the lesser of two evils. I do not personally think the same could be said for Obama. I don't think a person is justified in saying "Obama's economic policies will decrease abortions, so I'm going to vote for him even though he wants to expand the 'rights' of women to obtain them and derestrict state laws re: abortion, informed consent, parental notification, and conscience laws." Our economy is supposedly in the dumps right now, yet abortions are occurring at a lower rate than when Clinton was in the White House and the economy was supposedly booming... I can't believe they are buying that line of thought, but some are... Oh well, more's the pity... But I can understand someone voting third party because they cannot bring themselves to cooperate materially with some of McCain's (perceived or real) stances.

 

[Antigone]

JFK was 44 when he became president ?

Yeah, and a pretty crappy one at that. Even Eric Hobsbawn thinks so, and he's about as left as they come.

So what if her opinion is that polar bears are not endangered, last time I checked polar bears eat people.

Is it okay if I take over your house? I'm sure you can find a different place to live. Last time I checked, you weren't endangered.

She does to have foreign policy experience, she got Canada to sign a pipeline agreement.

I once talked a Belgian police officer out of giving my mom a traffic ticket. Maybe I should run for VP too.

Believing in creation science is a heck of a lot better than believing in abortion. I happen to believe in the resurrection.

Yay. Non-sequitor of the month.

Dear Fish and Bread:
Good morning. I haven't looked at this thread in 8 hours or so. Most of your original "facts" have been systematically torn apart. I think it's time you PM a moderator and beg them to close the thread. It's become painfully obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about and the continued discussion here only makes you look silly.

Nothing's been systematically torn apart. You just read what you want to read.
I wish I could be that selective, but alas, I was taught to read properly. Sigh.

 

[Fantine]

And from someone ignorant, who are these other people running on a third party deal? Is there a site telling of them?

Lesser of two evils has been a way of voting, however, this year, woe is me. TYIA for any answers.

-Peace-

Ralph Nader--Green Party

Bob Barr--Libertarian. I saw Barr on Jon Stewart and he said he's on the ballot in 48 states.

I'm not sure how many states Nader is listed with.

 

[Davidnic]

As far as her foreign policy experience she comes from one of the few states that need a foreign policy Governor.

Alaska shares a land border with Canada and a maritime border with Russia.

And fishing and energy reserve issues in the Bering sea in conflict with Russia have always been an issue the leaders in Alaska have had to deal with. There have been issues as recent as this year. We don't hear about them unless you research them yourself because she is doing a pretty good job up there.

She also negotiated with Canada for the natural gas pipeline and got the US a pretty good deal on it.

I am not voting for this ticket, but I think the "experience" argument is not somewhere Obama's people should go. When they can argue that she dwarfs the experience at the top of the opposing ticket (and that can be validly argued) it is not an area that they need to explore.

 

[Fish and Bread]

She also negotiated with Canada for the natural gas pipeline and got the US a pretty good deal on it.

I've yet to see any evidence of that. The New York Times article someone cited in support of that claim actually detailed that she led failed negotiations with oil companies (not the Canadian government) over a pipeline, and that ultimately the oil companies just decided to build the pipeline themselves some time after walking away from the table. So, to sum up, the article seemed to suggest that there were no negotiations with foreign governments and no deal with anyone.