Episcopalians of the United States: Democrat, Republican, or what?

[mark46]

3rd parties can make a difference. If Nader hadn't run in FL in 2000 (or even in NH), George Bush would't have been elected. If Perot hadn't run, Clinton wouldn't have been elected. These people stood on their mighty principles and elected people they strongly opposed. The Wallace vote elected Richard Nixon.

An election is ALWAYS about the lesser of two evils.

You are correct. Parties can choose to run only in those states where their protest vote would not swing the election. Nader couldn't run in every state. He was asked not to run in the swing states. He refused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect

I don't know. How many people even know that the Electoral College is winner-take-all-by-state?

But there were not nearly enough votes for the LP to shift WA into the GOP column even if every single one had switched to Romney.

I prefer the futile protest vote I cast to the one I could have cast. At least it was for someone I actually agreed with. If I'm going to compromise my principles by settling for the lesser evil, I expect a reasonable shot at victory in exchange.

 

[Albion]

3rd parties can make a difference. If Nader hadn't run in FL in 2000 (or even in NH), George Bush would't have been elected. If Perot hadn't run, Clinton wouldn't have been elected. These people stood on their mighty principles and elected people they strongly opposed.

The Wallace vote elected Richard Nixon.

FWIW, experts on voting patterns and etc. have shown that that last one is a misconception, however popular.

You are correct. Parties can choose to run only in those states where their protest vote would not swing the election.

As I understood it, however, that wasn't her point. In theory, the Libertarian candidate (who was on the ballot in just about every state) could have affected the outcome in Washington State, but polling showed that it wouldn't.

 

[mark46]

I agree that the LP is so small that it rarely affects election outside of New York State.

That 3rd parties made the difference in the Gore-Bush election is very clear (for example in FL and NH).

You are correct that the Wallace factor was less clear. This is because it is not clear when the far right democrats actually moved to the Republican Party. Perhaps Wallace voters were really Nixon voters. I think it unlikely. In any case, the liberals have little to complain about. They stayed home in large numbers. It was these voters that truly made the difference.

FWIW, experts on voting patterns and etc. have shown that that last one is a misconception, however popular.


As I understood it, however, that wasn't her point. In theory, the Libertarian candidate (who was on the ballot in just about every state) could have affected the outcome in Washington State, but polling showed that it wouldn't.

 

[Albion]

I agree that the LP is so small that it rarely affects election outside of New York State.

New York State?? There's some misunderstanding about that.

Anyway, the Libertarian Party often holds the balance between the two major parties and, to that extent, can be said to control the outcome of the election. However, the assumption is that every Libertarian Party voter would otherwise be voting Republican. That is not true, as various studies have shown that it's more like 60-40.

If that is taken into consideration, then of course the party would seldom hold the balance of power except statistically. The Libertarian Party is the only minor party that is not on some extreme like the Greens, Constitution Party, the various Socialist Parties, etc.

That 3rd parties made the difference in the Gore-Bush election is very clear (for example in FL and NH).

Maybe. The Nader candidacy seems almost certainly to have cost Gore the state of Florida, but the recount issue concerned the Reform Party winning Gore votes in South Florida, not Nader. You probably remember that.

You are correct that the Wallace factor was less clear. This is because it is not clear when the far right democrats actually moved to the Republican Party. Perhaps Wallace voters were really Nixon voters. I think it unlikely.

It's actually pretty clear, but I suppose that the research on this matter would be hard to find now if you wanted to read it.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

WA was not close. It went overwhelmingly for Obama. The 1-2% that went for Johnson could not have made a difference. This was no surprise. It was just as the polls had been showing.

 

[mark46]

If Nader had chosen not to be on the ballot, both FL and NH would have gone to Gore, probably without recount.

New York State?? There's some misunderstanding about that.

Anyway, the Libertarian Party often holds the balance between the two major parties and, to that extent, can be said to control the outcome of the election. However, the assumption is that every Libertarian Party voter would otherwise be voting Republican. That is not true, as various studies have shown that it's more like 60-40.

If that is taken into consideration, then of course the party would seldom hold the balance of power except statistically. The Libertarian Party is the only minor party that is not on some extreme like the Greens, Constitution Party, the various Socialist Parties, etc.


Maybe. The Nader candidacy seems almost certainly to have cost Gore the state of Florida, but the recount issue concerned the Reform Party winning Gore votes in South Florida, not Nader. You probably remember that.


It's actually pretty clear, but I suppose that the research on this matter would be hard to find now if you wanted to read it.

 

[mark46]

NY State has a large Libertarian Party. But I was probably thinking of the Liberal Party. In the 1992 senate race, libertarian polled well over 100,000. There were other 3rd parties also. The 3rd parties could have been the difference, or not.

But the reality is that I tend to ignore 3rd parties other than the Greens which seem to get enough votes to make a difference.

New York State?? There's some misunderstanding about that.

Anyway, the Libertarian Party often holds the balance between the two major parties and, to that extent, can be said to control the outcome of the election. However, the assumption is that every Libertarian Party voter would otherwise be voting Republican. That is not true, as various studies have shown that it's more like 60-40.

If that is taken into consideration, then of course the party would seldom hold the balance of power except statistically. The Libertarian Party is the only minor party that is not on some extreme like the Greens, Constitution Party, the various Socialist Parties, etc.


Maybe. The Nader candidacy seems almost certainly to have cost Gore the state of Florida, but the recount issue concerned the Reform Party winning Gore votes in South Florida, not Nader. You probably remember that.


It's actually pretty clear, but I suppose that the research on this matter would be hard to find now if you wanted to read it.

 

[Albion]

NY State has a large Libertarian Party. But I was probably thinking of the Liberal Party.

That was my hunch.

 

[Fotis Greece]

I'm Libertarian... and I tend to Anarchocapitalism. I believe that God gave us free will so that we can exercise it. Both Rightist and Leftist groups tend to remove freedom from people. Either social freedom or economic one. I will also give you a scripture that I like much concerning the matter

Ephesians 6:12 ''For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against.'' (NIV)

 

[PaladinValer]

I'm Libertarian... and I tend to Anarchocapitalism. I believe that God gave us free will so that we can exercise it. Both Rightist and Leftist groups tend to remove freedom from people. Either social freedom or economic one. I will also give you a scripture that I like much concerning the matter

Ephesians 6:12 ''For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against.'' (NIV)

We don't have a "free will" in terms of salvation. We don't have a will that is capable of saving ourselves.

That passage has to do with the struggle of running the race against the ungodly, not to do with whether certain people have the right to vote or not.

 

[Fotis Greece]

That passage has to do with the struggle of running the race against the ungodly, not to do with whether certain people have the right to vote or not.

''Not only does the action of Governments not deter men from crimes; on the contrary, it increases crime by always disturbing and lowering the moral standard of society. Nor can this be otherwise, since always and everywhere a Government, by its very nature, must put in the place of the highest, eternal, religious law its own unjust, man-made laws, the object of which is neither justice nor the common good of all but various considerations of home and foreign expediency.'' Leo Tolstoy

 

[Fotis Greece]

We don't have a "free will" in terms of salvation. We don't have a will that is capable of saving ourselves.

As an arminian, I am a synergist

 

[PaladinValer]

''Not only does the action of Governments not deter men from crimes; on the contrary, it increases crime by always disturbing and lowering the moral standard of society. Nor can this be otherwise, since always and everywhere a Government, by its very nature, must put in the place of the highest, eternal, religious law its own unjust, man-made laws, the object of which is neither justice nor the common good of all but various considerations of home and foreign expediency.'' Leo Tolstoy

Does the words "Straw Man" mean anything?

Read what is said in its context, not what you make it out to be.

 

[PaladinValer]

As an arminian, I am a synergist

So am I, except actual orthodox synergism NEVER STARTS WITH ONESELF BUT IS A GIFT FROM GOD ALONE AND NEVER TEACHES ANY SORT OF PRECONDITIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON.

I highly suggest a rereading of the writings of St. John Cassian.

 

[Fotis Greece]

Read what is said in its context, not what you make it out to be.

Pfff... Come on now... I'm a Libertarian... Deal with it. Why do you always quote me...?

 

[Fotis Greece]

So am I, except actual orthodox synergism NEVER STARTS WITH ONESELF BUT IS A GIFT FROM GOD ALONE AND NEVER TEACHES ANY SORT OF PRECONDITIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON.

I highly suggest a rereading of the writings of St. John Cassian.

And where exactly I mentioned something different?

 

[PaladinValer]

Pfff... Come on now... I'm a Libertarian... Deal with it. Why do you always quote me...?

"Deal with it"

Whose words?

And why do I quote what you say? Well...

1. To show whom I'm replying to
2. To show what I am replying about
3. Yours' are the newest posts, so who else need I quote?

Furthermore, again, the point is, what is the need for the quotation from Tolstoy since I never argued your politics, merely the idea that the Scripture quoted from had anything to do with them?

And where exactly I mentioned something different?

It is implied when it is a rebuttal to my statement of, quote, "We don't have a 'free will' in terms of salvation. We don't have a will that is capable of saving ourselves."


Saying essentially "Well I'm a syngerist" to that implies that synergism teaches that we do have a free will in terms of savation that is capable of saving ourselves.

 

[Fotis Greece]

"Deal with it"



Saying essentially "Well I'm a syngerist" to that implies that synergism teaches that we do have a free will in terms of savation that is capable of saving ourselves.

Let's define the word synergism then to make it clear to you. Synergism comes from the greek wοrd συνεργώ that means act along with someone else. Now... God offers His grace and atonement... (that is His part) We on the other side use our free will and we choose either follow him and make our part or reject Him . Now personaly I believe that God did not gave us free will only for spiritual matters... Free will has to do with the whole human behavior either spiritual or material (political for example). And there I come and say that I'm a Libertarian and I give the verse from Ephesians that condemns the evil of the goverments as institutions. And now I ask you again... I really can not understand where is your disaggrement based

 

[PaladinValer]

Let's define the word synergism then to make it clear to you.

I know what the word means; it is that your stated beliefs are NOT Christian synergism as popularly understood by the Eastern Orthodox or even Anglicans or the Vatican Catholic Church..

I suggest, again, a rereading of the Church Father who arguably wrote the best of the theology, St. John Cassian.

Synergism comes from the greek wοrd συνεργώ that means act along with someone else. Now... God offers His grace and atonement... (that is His part) We on the other side use our free will and we choose either follow him and make our part or reject Him .

I'm sorry, that's not Arminianism; that's Semipelagianism, and it is a heresy condemned by Arminians themselves.

Syngergy does not teach this nor mean it in Christian theology. Thus, my suggestion, even now more strongly, that St. John Cassian's writings be reviewed.

Semipelagianism is a heresy to all orthodox Christians, including actual Arminians. The actual doctrine of "conditional election" teaches that God, not humanity, makes the first move and that God still only chooses those who, according to His foreknowledge, will actually accept faith. The only difference between it and "unconditional election" is an emphasis on the individual's faith.

That's why Arminianism is really as bad as Calvinism; they're both bedfellows of the same erroneous theology that doesn't begin with the question of "Who is Jesus" but rather "What is Election?"

Now personaly I believe that God did not gave us free will only for spiritual matters... Free will has to do with the whole human behavior either spiritual or material (political for example).

To equate the two is a product of Semipelagianism or outright Pelagianism.

And there I come and say that I'm a Libertarian and I give the verse from Ephesians that condemns the evil of the goverments as institutions. And now I ask you again... I really can not understand where is your disaggrement based

Quite honestly, I know of a Libertarian Lutheran who posts here who would have a field day with this...

In any event, the Ephesians quote has nothing to do with what you suggest. Rulers, Powers, and Authorities were various names given to the Nine Angelic Choirs. Its a passage talking about the struggle against the diabolical and evil, not secular authority figures and governments.

 

[Fotis Greece]

e