I Can't Vote...Who's With Me?

[ALoveDivine]

America really needs a multi-party system, this two party system just does not cut it. Those of us who support traditional marriage, oppose abortion, AND support universal single-payer healthcare and oppose interventionist foreign policies have absolutely no party to which we can turn and cast our vote for. Given that nearly all politicians fit into this narrow two-party spectrum, voting for any politician is essentially me voting against what I believe in.

And given that America is controlled by a tiny financial elite, my vote is essentially nothing more than a ratification of plutocracy.

I still feel though that if one CHOOSES not to vote for president then he or she has no right to complain about whomever is put in office.

Wrong. You have every right to complain, because you didn't vote for that person! Not voting is not the same as a vote for the other candidate, it is simply a refusal to endorse any of the options offered. It is a "none of the above" vote.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I still feel though that if one CHOOSES not to vote for president then he or she has no right to complain about whomever is put in office.

It seems an absurd condition to me. If there are no acceptable candidates then the voter is forced to either pick one at random, which is worse than picking none at all, or write one in, which often is not even counted and does as little for the election results as not voting at all.

It only makes sense if we are viewing your vote not in terms of its effects, both on yourself and the election as a whole, but rather as some sort of sacred ritual.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It seems an absurd condition to me. If there are no acceptable candidates then the voter is forced to either pick one at random, which is worse than picking none at all, or write one in, which often is not even counted and does as little for the election results as not voting at all.

It only makes sense if we are viewing your vote not in terms of its effects, both on yourself and the election as a whole, but rather as some sort of sacred ritual.

How so if you ( general) have the chance to allow your voice to be heard and CHOOSE for it not to be then what right do you (general) have to complain about other people's decision for you?

 

[ALoveDivine]

if you ( general) have the chance to allow your voice to be heard and CHOOSE for it not to be

What if none of the candidates represent my voice? My voice says to stop murdering babies, stop bombing middle eastern countries, and end privatized healthcare in favor of a single-payer system. Which candidate expresses my voice exactly?

 

[pgp_protector]

Until Jesus runs for President (Even though he can't as He's not a natural-born citizen) You'll always have to choose between
Not Voting
or
Voting for someone that's not perfect.

 

[dogs4thewin]

What if none of the candidates represent my voice? My voice says to stop murdering babies, stop bombing middle eastern countries, and end privatized healthcare in favor of a single-payer system. Which candidate expresses my voice exactly?

none for all of those, but the fact is that no one can be 100% along party lines at least not honestly. For example, I consider myself a hard core Republican BUT I oppose the drug war as well as the death penalty.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Until Jesus runs for President (Even though he can't as He's not a natural-born citizen) You'll always have to choose between
Not Voting
or
Voting for someone that's not perfect.

If I could like this post ten times, I would.

 

[ALoveDivine]

I just can't bring myself to vote for a party that supports a holocaust of babies (democrats) or a party that supports decimating the poor (republicans). I'd feel complicit in grave evil if I voted for either of them.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I just can't bring myself to vote for a party that supports a holocaust of babies (democrats) or a party that supports decimating the poor (republicans). I'd feel complicit in grave evil if I voted for either of them.

The murder of babies? There is no such thing under SECULAR law which is what this country is run on. Moreover, abortion has been legal through several Republican terms, now.

 

[ALoveDivine]

There is no such thing under SECULAR law which is what this country is run on.

The theories of secular law in no way change the fact that abortion is murder and is intrinsically evil. That point really only supports my contention that abstention from voting is the most moral choice for Catholics.

 

[dogs4thewin]

The theories of secular law in no way change the fact that abortion is murder and is intrinsically evil. That point really only supports my contention that abstention from voting is the most moral choice for Catholics.

I am not catholic (though the concept of abortion confuses me.

 

[MoonlessNight]

The murder of babies? There is no such thing under SECULAR law which is what this country is run on.

What is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter if secular law declares pi to be three?

 

[dogs4thewin]

What is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter if secular law declares pi to be three?

Do what? I do not understand?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Do what? I do not understand?

Let's use Abraham Lincoln's example then:

How many legs does a dog have if secular law declares tails to be legs?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Let's use Abraham Lincoln's example then:

How many legs does a dog have if secular law declares tails to be legs?

four the tail is not a leg. HOWEVER, in secular law each crime has elements and currently abortion does not meet the ELEMENTS for the secular crime of murder. ( Even though each state may determine to a certain extent) how abortions will work within their borders.

 

[ALoveDivine]

See it seems for Catholics that the two party system forces us to either vote against the Church's teaching on protecting the life of the unborn (by voting democrat) OR to vote against the Church's teaching on the dignity of the poor and the need to help them, and the Church's social teachings more generally (by voting republican).

By voting for either party, Catholics are voting against the clear teaching of the Church.

four the tail is not a leg. HOWEVER, in secular law each crime has elements and currently abortion does not meet the ELEMENTS for the secular crime of murder. ( Even though each state may determine to a certain extent) how abortions will work within their borders.

Calling murder "the intentional premature cessation of an individuals life" does not make it not murder. Likewise, calling abortion "termination of a pregnancy" does not make it not murder. In any debate you hear regarding abortion replace the phrase "termination of a pregnancy" with the phrase "murder of a baby".

The point is, what secular law says is irrelevant. In Nazi Germany secular law said that euthanizing the handicap was legal and perfectly acceptable. That doesn't mean it wasn't murder. Secular law in America can say that abortion is legal and perfectly acceptable, that doesn't mean it isn't murder!

 

[dogs4thewin]

See it seems for Catholics that the two party system forces us to either vote against the Church's teaching on protecting the life of the unborn (by voting democrat) OR to vote against the Church's teaching on the dignity of the poor and the need to help them, and the Church's social teachings more generally (by voting republican).

By voting for either party, Catholics are voting against the clear teaching of the Church.


Calling murder "the intentional premature cessation of an individuals life" does not make it not murder. Likewise, calling abortion "termination of a pregnancy" does not make it not murder. In any debate you hear regarding abortion replace the phrase "termination of a pregnancy" with the phrase "murder of a baby".

The point is, what secular law says is irrelevant. In Nazi Germany secular law said that euthanizing the handicap was legal and perfectly acceptable. That doesn't mean it wasn't murder. Secular law in America can say that abortion is legal and perfectly acceptable, that doesn't mean it isn't murder!

Again, it depends on whose standards are being used to judge. Each crime (including murder) has elements under the law that MUST be met for that crime to have been committed. Under American law only certain abortions meet those elements, and if it fails to meet those elements then it is not the crime of murder and one may not be sentenced for the crime.

 

[MoonlessNight]

HOWEVER, in secular law each crime has elements and currently abortion does not meet the ELEMENTS for the secular crime of murder. ( Even though each state may determine to a certain extent) how abortions will work within their borders.

No one who says that abortion is murder is making the claim that it is illegal and would be tried as murder under current law. The concept of murder is prior to the laws that outlaw it. It is difficult to see how a Christian in particular could think otherwise.

 

[dogs4thewin]

No one who says that abortion is murder is making the claim that it is illegal and would be tried as murder under current law. The concept of murder is prior to the laws that outlaw it. It is difficult to see how a Christian in particular could think otherwise.

Because this particular Christian is really into secular law and to me law is defined by whether or not one can be sued, arrested, charged ECT if one commits an act.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Because this particular Christian is really into secular law and to me law is defined by whether or not one can be sued, arrested, charged ECT if one commits an act.

Are you claiming that God's law is identical to man's law when the same crime is discussed in both? That is, that Abortion was murder period before Roe v. Wade, but afterwards when the secular definition changed that changed the definition of murder generally (including God's law)?