Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!!

Resa77 · August 2012

Political threads can get scary, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. What are your thoughts on Paul Ryan? I don't know much of anything about him. I've seen some people post on FB that he's great, and I've seen people post about how the Catholic Bishops have spoken out against him...I'm confused!! Just wondering what you all know?

monkeysip · August 2012

Alright, you asked.

I think he's really dangerous.

His pro-life views are legit, but his economic views are very libertarian and don't match up with Catholic social teaching, IMHO. Despite his recent denials, he has been a vocal fan of Ayn Rand.

He also seems like every other republican in terms of foreign policy. Still going to keep us in war. As a pair, Romney and Ryan are both really inexperienced in foreign policy (although, Obama and Biden are almost as bad in that regard).

Of course, my distaste for Romney and Ryan does not equal an edorsement for Obama either. Don't get me wrong. I'm still meditating on who my write-in will be.

Resa77 · August 2012

I kinda consider myself a libertarian, and I don't think that is out of line with Catholic social teaching. Did you mean he's libertarian, and also out of line with Catholic social teaching, or that he's libertarian and therefore out of line? I'm interested in your take, and always open to expanding my point-of-view

[Deleted User] · August 2012

I don't know much, but I know he is young. I think this is interesting because although the entire country is in a slump, those who have already established themselves are clearly more established; but those young people who are not are looking for someone to relate to. Romney is also very religious, so having someone who is not as forward in his beliefs is welcoming to those who are not religious but he can bring some conservative views back to America.

ETA: My 11th grade American History teacher told us that his mother along with many other voters, do not vote based on politics, but based on who the best looking candidate is. Thoughts?

We were also taught though that you should always vote even if you don't know what our voting for, just to excercise your right to vote. I totally disagree with that and think that everyone should have the right to vote, but should only actually do so if they are making informed, intelligent decisions. Thoughts on this?

MedStudent13 · August 2012

I don't think that Libertarian ideals are out of line with the teachings of the church. It all depends what you think the role of government should be in providing charity. If you think that it is the government's responsibility to take care of the poor and those who cannot help themselves, then I can see why you would think that he could be dangerous. However, if you believe that it is the responsibility of the people to take care of the poor and not the government, then no, he or any libertarian ideals would not be out of line with the church

chelseamb11 · August 2012

I will vote for anyone that isn't Barack Obama.
End of story.

agapecarrie · August 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_politcal-threadahhh-beware?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:306ec733-1083-4ec3-b79f-862da99aad6aPost:5995cebf-b09b-4c08-b7b1-ad2c15351e62">Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!!</a>:
[QUOTE]I will vote for anyone that isn't Barack Obama. End of story.
Posted by chelseamb11[/QUOTE]

<div>Amen. </div>

erin5286 · August 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_politcal-threadahhh-beware?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:306ec733-1083-4ec3-b79f-862da99aad6aPost:d68b4eba-6440-4d26-af9d-ac6856124441">Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!!</a>:
[QUOTE]I don't know much, but I know he is young. I think this is interesting because although the entire country is in a slump, those who have already established themselves are clearly more established; but those young people who are not are looking for someone to relate to. Romney is also very religious, so having someone who is not as forward in his beliefs is welcoming to those who are not religious but he can bring some conservative views back to America. ETA: My 11th grade American History teacher told us that his mother along with many other voters, do not vote based on politics, but based on who the best looking candidate is. Thoughts? We were also taught though that you should always vote even if you don't know what our voting for, just to excercise your right to vote. <strong>I totally disagree with that and think that everyone should have the right to vote, but should only actually do so if they are making informed, intelligent decisions.</strong> Thoughts on this?
Posted by schlagetermari[/QUOTE]

Totally agree with you on this. People should take the time to at least look into the issues and candidates so they know who/what they're voting for.

Nickie431 · August 2012

Interesting commentary posted on CNN about both Ryan and Biden being Catholic and the conflict between right-leaning "family values" Catholics and left-leaning "social justice" Catholics (this provides more information on Ryan's stances than Biden's but is a good start to becoming more politically and spiritually informed):

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/14/my-take-paul-ryan-will-provoke-a-debate-on-catholic-politics/?hpt=hp_c1

Calypso1977 · August 2012

after what Romney did here in MA, i wont vote for him.

i plan to write in my choice. sure, many say that's a vote for Obama, btu i personally cant cast votes for people i dont believe in. i vote my conscience. if everyone did that, rather than voting straight party line, then i think we'd see some real change in our country.

Nickie431 · August 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_politcal-threadahhh-beware?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:306ec733-1083-4ec3-b79f-862da99aad6aPost:d5d312c2-9a37-441a-9920-cef9bc3aeb5d">Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!!</a>:
[QUOTE]i vote my conscience. if everyone did that, rather than voting straight party line, then i think we'd see some real change in our country.
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]

<div>Yes! Unfortunately, I think a lot of people confuse their consciences with long-standing political affiliations--or, even more sad, don't take the time and effort to evaluate whether their political affiliations align with their consciences. This is something for which we can all pray.</div>

monkeysip · August 2012

Modern economic libertarianism is not in line with the Catholic Church's view of the role of government.

The government cannot enforce charity. The government does have the right (with obvious restrictions) to enforce justice. Many people want to confuse the two, but taking care of those in need is very much an issue of distributive justice, not charity.

Catholics may legitimately disagree over whether a particular government action or law is just or necessary. Catholics may legitimately disagree over whether something could be handled more locally or more broadly. But it is not open to debate within the Church whether the government of a just society is supposed to ensure justice and the common good, often through taxation and social programs.

The foundation of Catholic social teaching is subsidiarity and solidarity, together. You can't have one without the other.

Subsidiarity is not code for "Handle everything locally, hate the government." It means that every issue should be handled in the most local way possible. The Church has long recognized that sometimes this means the state or federal level.

The Church is not socialist... she does not condone getting rid of private property or the free market. But there must be limits on the free market so that human dignity is respected. Ryan would remove as many limits as he could. And private property is not an inviolable right. Having property and material things comes with obligations toward your fellow men, obligations that must sometimes be enforced by the government.

My biggest problem with the republicans is that they are far more willing to cut social programs that help the poor than cut our military budget. We spend more on military expenses than every other nation in the world COMBINED. Reducing our military is the key to the deficit and taxation problem, not reducing social programs.

I also think it's really dangerous to say, "Anyone but Obama!" Is Obama a terrible president? Arguably so. Will Romney be any better? Arguably not. Romney may not be Hitler, but my point is that the "Anyone but Obama" mindset is the kind of mindset that blindly elects dictators.

I understand many see Romney as a lesser evil, and I completely respect that. I don't have a problem with people voting for Romney. I do have a problem with people defending Romney, and especially Ryan since he's a Catholic and should obey his Bishops better, as defenders of Catholic ideals. They're not.

While I respect the "lesser evil" approach, I'm not choosing that option. I can't support either party which I find morally corrupt. That's why I'm still voting but writing in, as my form of protest against our current political parties.

Sorry for the rant.

Resa77 · August 2012

I will likely be writing in my vote. I agree that sometimes Catholic Republicans act as though there is nothing Catholic about Democrats, and that's annoying. Obviously neither party or candidate will be 100% in line with every Catholic teaching and ideal, and so we all must weigh the good and bad, and form our consciences in such a way that we'll choose a good candidate.

chelseamb11 · August 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_politcal-threadahhh-beware?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:306ec733-1083-4ec3-b79f-862da99aad6aPost:af60a0b9-d7ce-4cc7-a727-e6f4f22fa16b">Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!!</a>:
[QUOTE]Modern economic libertarianism is not in line with the Catholic Church's view of the role of government. The government cannot enforce charity. The government does have the right (with obvious restrictions) to enforce justice. Many people want to confuse the two, but taking care of those in need is very much an issue of distributive justice , not charity. Catholics may legitimately disagree over whether a particular government action or law is just or necessary. Catholics may legitimately disagree over whether something could be handled more locally or more broadly. But it is not open to debate within the Church whether the government of a just society is supposed to ensure justice and the common good, often through taxation and social programs. The foundation of Catholic social teaching is subsidiarity and solidarity, together. You can't have one without the other. Subsidiarity is not code for "Handle everything locally, hate the government." It means that every issue should be handled in the most local way possible . The Church has long recognized that sometimes this means the state or federal level. The Church is not socialist... she does not condone getting rid of private property or the free market. But there must be limits on the free market so that human dignity is respected. Ryan would remove as many limits as he could. And private property is not an inviolable right. Having property and material things comes with obligations toward your fellow men, obligations that must sometimes be enforced by the government. My biggest problem with the republicans is that they are far more willing to cut social programs that help the poor than cut our military budget. We spend more on military expenses than every other nation in the world COMBINED. Reducing our military is the key to the deficit and taxation problem, not reducing social programs. <strong> I also think it's really dangerous to say, "Anyone but Obama!" Is Obama a terrible president? Arguably so. Will Romney be any better? Arguably not. Romney may not be Hitler, but my point is that the "Anyone but Obama" mindset is the kind of mindset that blindly elects dictators. </strong>I understand many see Romney as a lesser evil, and I completely respect that. I don't have a problem with people voting for Romney. I do have a problem with people defending Romney, and especially Ryan since he's a Catholic and should obey his Bishops better, as defenders of Catholic ideals. They're not. While I respect the "lesser evil" approach, I'm not choosing that option. I can't support either party which I find morally corrupt. That's why I'm still voting but writing in, as my form of protest against our current political parties. Sorry for the rant.
Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]

Okay but in a system like our own where only two people even have a CHANCE of being president, I would much rather elect the lesser of two evils. The way I see it, every vote counts. And if everyone who disagrees with BOTH presidents does a random write-in, it changes nothing and only takes votes away from truly making a difference in who is elected.
I don't think many people out there who plan on voting for Obama do so because they view him as a lesser evil. I obviously canot say the same about Romney (heck I'm one of them). Sometimes voting means voting for the person that would keep the "more evil" of the two out of office.
When it comes down to it, I would rather have Romney in office than Obama. Obama is a man who has zero grasp on the country and would literally be okay with his own daughters aborting his grandchildren. That is literally evil.

ETA What I really think needs to happen is this party thing needs to stop. No more of this one chioce from each party. I love how it is done in France. They have a primary which has no limit of candidates (but normally ends up being about a handful). If nobody gets at least 51% of the votes, then the top two go to the general election (regardless of "party", affiliation, etc). It is also illegal to advertise politicaly on TV there. Awesome.

That election system makes it so much easier for the country to elect the most popular candidate. The lack of 1 dem vs 1 gop makes it much more fair IMO.

Riss91 · August 2012

Re: Libertarian Economics/Catholicism, this is my compilation on what H has explained (he is a political journalist and won an award for a political economics project he worked on):

- Libertarian economics is not clearly defined. It is principled in the idea that free markets produce the best outcomes on their own and that government intervention creates fraud, theft or choosing "winners" and "losers". The idea is that it is not the government's place to interfere and decide how wealth is distributed.

- There aren't hand-fast rules or easily found political principles in Catholicism, though we believe in preserving the dignity of work, property and life. Catholic social teachings can be compatible with libertarian, conservative and modern democratic social philosophies. It depends on how they are defined in certain instances.

- The ethos behind the dissonence between Catholicism/Libertarian economics is that certain libertarian ideas can support a selfish lifestyle and create a society that is stratified where different socio-economic classes do not care for each other. It assumes the libertarian viewpoint taken to its most extreme, where humans are reduced to marketable functions. This would not be in line with preserving dignity. However, this isn't "THE" libertarian viewpoint. As I said, it would be the "extremist" libertarian viewpoint.

So in summary - as with most things (besides Catholic doctrine lol) - there isn't a cut-and-dry answer...

Resa77 · August 2012

I don't like the mentality of voting for a bad guy just because he'll beat a worse guy. Then again, I'm also not convinced Obama is worse than Romney. I will be writing in, because I think we need to make our voices heard, and make it clear that these current candidates/parties are not representing the people anymore. It might be a delayed result, but I think my write-in is more valuable than someone voting for a candidate they don't believe in, just to spite the other party/candidate (not that I'm saying you or anyone else is doing that...just that I think a lot of people do).

And as far as libertarians and social justice...then I guess no one believes in social justice, because the Republicans and Democrats aren't very good at it, I'd say lol!

monkeysip · August 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_politcal-threadahhh-beware?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:306ec733-1083-4ec3-b79f-862da99aad6aPost:36cf3d92-d66a-4753-8ebe-7d0a462c1a56">Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!!</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!! : Okay but in a system like our own where only two people even have a CHANCE of being president, I would much rather elect the lesser of two evils. The way I see it, every vote counts. And if everyone who disagrees with BOTH presidents does a random write-in, it changes nothing and only takes votes away from truly making a difference in who is elected. I don't think many people out there who plan on voting for Obama do so because they view him as a lesser evil. I obviously canot say the same about Romney (heck I'm one of them). Sometimes voting means voting for the person that would keep the "more evil" of the two out of office. When it comes down to it, I would rather have Romney in office than Obama. Obama is a man who has zero grasp on the country and would literally be okay with his own daughters aborting his grandchildren. That is literally evil. ETA What I really think needs to happen is this party thing needs to stop. No more of this one chioce from each party. I love how it is done in France. They have a primary which has no limit of candidates (but normally ends up being about a handful). If nobody gets at least 51% of the votes, then the top two go to the general election (regardless of "party", affiliation, etc). It is also illegal to advertise politicaly on TV there. Awesome. That election system makes it so much easier for the country to elect the most popular candidate. The lack of 1 dem vs 1 gop makes it much more fair IMO.
Posted by chelseamb11[/QUOTE]

Like I said, I don't have a problem with people who view Romney as a lesser evil, and vote for the lesser evil. I think that's a legitimate option in this election.

But my point was that some people have the "anybody but Obama" viewpoint so ingrained that they won't even research the other candidate. I know lots of people that don't know anything about Romney or even care... all they care about it getting rid of Obama.

You shouldn't say "<strong>anybody</strong> but Obama". There could be worse hypothetical candidates. I'm not saying Romney is worse, just that there could be worse.

I don't think voting third party or write-in accomplishes nothing. It makes a point, and the more people that do that, the greater message the people can send to our political parties. Will it bring instant change this election? No. But change away from our current political parties has to happen somehow, and that change won't happen when we keep supporting them because we feel that we have to. In my eyes, a vote for Romney isn't much different than a vote for Obama anyways. Same stuff, different party name.

I might also add that while Obama supports the intrinsic evil of abortion, Romney also supports the intrinsic evil of torture and nuclear deterrence. Of course, Obama does too (in action at least, if not in words). So you could argue that Obama supports more intrinsic evils than Romney does. But Romney still supports gravely and intrinsically evil things.

Resa77 · August 2012

Great response, Riss! Any extreme is usually a bad thing, so that makes sense.

I think people sometimes forget that a person's political beliefs don't necessarily indicate their social/moral beliefs. For instance, just because someone votes for a party that is all about social welfare doesn't mean that person cares about the poor. Likewise, just because someone doesn't believe in Fed Gov involvement in social welfare doesn't mean they aren't out there working the soup kitchen 3 nights a week.

monkeysip · August 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_politcal-threadahhh-beware?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:306ec733-1083-4ec3-b79f-862da99aad6aPost:8ae4804e-9a84-4748-a8ff-788743e7c7f7">Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!!</a>:
[QUOTE]Re: Libertarian Economics/Catholicism, this is my compilation on what H has explained (he is a political journalist and won an award for a political economics project he worked on): - Libertarian economics is not clearly defined. It is principled in the idea that free markets produce the best outcomes on their own and that government intervention creates fraud, theft or choosing "winners" and "losers". The idea is that it is not the government's place to interfere and decide how wealth is distributed. - There aren't hand-fast rules or easily found political principles in Catholicism, though we believe in preserving the dignity of work, property and life. Catholic social teachings can be compatible with libertarian, conservative and modern democratic social philosophies. It depends on how they are defined in certain instances. - The ethos behind the dissonence between Catholicism/Libertarian economics is that certain libertarian ideas can support a selfish lifestyle and create a society that is stratified where different socio-economic classes do not care for each other. It assumes the libertarian viewpoint taken to its most extreme, where humans are reduced to marketable functions. This would not be in line with preserving dignity. However, this isn't "THE" libertarian viewpoint. As I said, it would be the "extremist" libertarian viewpoint. So in summary - as with most things (besides Catholic doctrine lol) - there isn't a cut-and-dry answer...
Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]

Riss,

You're right, there is no cut and dry definition of libertarianism, and I didn't mean to completely condemn it all wholesale. A certain kind of libertarianism could be compatible with the Church's teachings. One that values subsidiarity and and more individual initiative to solve social problems.

But there is another strand of libertarianism that is popular today, and very much characterized by Ayn Rand, that holds that the individual is the foundation of society (the Church believes that the family is the foundation of society), and that protecting individual rights should take precedence over any other need or right. Ayn Rand characterizes society as the "makers" and the "takers". This idea says that there are two kinds of people... those who are hard-working people who make money and are successful, and those who dont work hard, are lazy and incompetent, don't make money and instead, take money from the "makers". For Rand, there is a class war of takers trying to rob the makers, and the makers must defend their individual property.

As I said before, this is completely untenable in Catholic doctrine. We accomplish nothing completely by ourselves, and what we own doesn't belong solely to us but to those in need.

It would be wonderful if individual initiative could solve all the needs of society. But when it doesn't, a just government must enforce society's obligations. This is the same idea as other moral requirements. It would be wonderful if no one ever stole, ever had abortions, ever killed people, etc. But in a sinful society, a just government has to help enforce the moral law, as long as this enforcement doesn't violate basic human rights or cause problems than it solves.

Riss91 · August 2012

Re: Romney/Ryan vs. Obama, it's highly doubtful I'll vote for either - I have a very hard time supporting anyone that believes in ideas that violate my conscience. here are some thoughts on Ryan:

- The Ayn Rand thing - it is hard to say whether Ryan actually agreed with anything she believed that would be against Church teaching. He has been quoted saying he enjoyed/was inspired by some of her books and speeches. I don't think that means he agrees with her atheism, views on self-sacrifice. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

- I'm concerned that his record doesn't match his words. Paul is a huge critic of the spending done under Obama, however, as Congressman under Bush, he not only personally supported this level of spending, but encouraged many other to vote to increase this spending. That's some shadiness...

- On the other hand, he has completely staked his reputation on this budget plan - which is extremely specific. This is something that pretty much no other politician has done. They do not want to even try to come up with something because they are so afraid of people not liking them. So, it is admirable that he is so devoted to this plan - does this mean he has turned a new leaf and his current viewpoint on spending can be trusted? Not sure - but I would hope so!

- He helps Romney on the conservative social issues front, especially with pro-lifers. This is an area that Romney needed help with.

- Concerns with the Romney/Paul ticket: (1) Foreign policy will likely be more aggressive than Obama, which is not my cup of tea (2) There's not much commitment to limiting government, which is something I think needs to be done (3) Romney seems to be governed by the moment, rather than directing it.

- On the plus side: (1) If Romney wins, there will likely be a lot of reform to many of the bills under Obama that I think are unconstitutional - specifically, the parts of Obamacare that are most offensive will be removed/repealed (2) Appointments to the UN and other councils will be more in line with the Catholic social viewpoint (ie not encouraging abortion in 3rd world countries) (3) From an economic standpoint, we migth actually see some movement. When a president is in his 2nd term, the country tends to be at a standstill bc the parties are no longer forcing issues that would effect the re-election

agapecarrie · August 2012

I agree with the ideal thoughts of writing in candidates, not liking the party system, etc. The problem right now is that this is such an immediate and extremely dangerous time to be "making a statement" with a write in vote. I don't think people (not necessarily those here) have any idea how absolutely dangerous obama is to the constitution, the faith, and the unborn. He is the most pro-death president ever. There is an urgency to get this man out of office now. I'm am so radically scared for what may happen if he is voted in again.

I don't know if anyone has read "Pierced by a sword" by Bud McFarlane... but I suggest it.

chelseamb11 · August 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_politcal-threadahhh-beware?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:306ec733-1083-4ec3-b79f-862da99aad6aPost:9b1c6833-064a-4800-9c34-5e9eb27bf9f1">Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!!</a>:
[QUOTE]I agree with the ideal thoughts of writing in candidates, not liking the party system, etc. The problem right now is that this is such an immediate and extremely dangerous time to be "making a statement" with a write in vote. I don't think people (not necessarily those here) have any idea how absolutely dangerous obama is to the constitution, the faith, and the unborn. He is the most pro-death president ever. There is an urgency to get this man out of office now. I'm am so radically scared for what may happen if he is voted in again. I don't know if anyone has read "Pierced by a sword" by Bud McFarlane... but I suggest it.
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

I don't 100% agree with Romney or Ryan. But making a statement isn't a smart idea right now. Look how effed up our country has gotten in just the past 3 1/2 years alone. I shudder to think what will happen if Obama is re-elected.

Making a statement needs to happen before an election. It will be less heard during an election IMO because they don't really report on who is written in. I know they do to an extent, but in the end, everyone is focused on who won, not who didn't win.

lv2011 · August 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_politcal-threadahhh-beware?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:306ec733-1083-4ec3-b79f-862da99aad6aPost:6a7eb243-d6c6-4f61-927a-46998908496e">Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!!</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!! : Agreed. I don't 100% agree with Romney or Ryan. But making a statement isn't a smart idea right now. Look how effed up our country has gotten in just the past 3 1/2 years alone. I shudder to think what will happen if Obama is re-elected. Making a statement needs to happen before an election. It will be less heard during an election IMO because they don't really report on who is written in. I know they do to an extent, but in the end, everyone is focused on who won, not who didn't win.
Posted by chelseamb11[/QUOTE]

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I don't see how this country is significantly more messed up now than it was 3 1/2 years ago. The debt was high then, it remains high now. We were at war then (with far more loss of life) and we are at "war" now (with significantly less loss of life". We had no plan tor better healthcare then, we have a plan for better healthcare now but it still has huge problems. Abortion was legal then, it is legal now. Capital punishment existed then, it exists now. Social injustice was everywhere then, and as someone in the lowest income bracket I can tell you it's slightly better now.

The problems we had, we still have, and we will continue to have despite any change to the 2-party ticket because it would take the largest, most-sweeping movement since the Revolutionary War to fix the problems all across the board that exist in our country. There is no way to fix the problems. I hate to be a downer, but there really isn't.

I can understand why Catholics might be against Obama from the standpoint that he has done nothing to federally limit abortion, and his healthcare law. But I can also see why a huge population might be against Romney when his policies and rhetoric is geared toward protection of the top 1%, rather than making efforts to help the middle and "lower" classes. For me personally, I struggle with opposing Obama. At least he's trying. The healthcare law is far from perfect, but at least he is trying to do what no one has bothered to do. And while I oppose abortion, I can understand the conflict he must feel. He has said he opposes abortion - and, by the way, making a hideous statement that he would endorse the abortion of his grandchildren is pretty disgusting- abortion is largely a religious issue. We have a separation of church and state and that means our personal moral code cannot be forced upon those that may not agree with us. Unfortunately, the same is true when you consider the religious issue of social justice.

There is no way to win. There is no candidate in this election, or likely will ever be in our lifetimes, that will be able to fix the problems. And that is why I feel strongly about writing in a candidate, however meaningless to the outcome. If we don't start to take action now, it'll never get done. Ever.

monkeysip · August 2012

I echo Iv2011 in saying that I don't think Obama has really ruined our country any more than Bush did. I think the economic crisis was started by Bush and the Congress under him. Did Obama help it? No, not really. But it's unfair to blame Obama when Bush's two wars were put entirely on the national "credit card" so to speak.

I also agree that abortion hasn't changed under either. Several of the pro-choice justices on our court were appointed by Republican presidents. Besides banning partial birth abortions, Republicans have done nothing else to help fight abortion, and in my opinion, their social and economic policies help encourage abortion. They speak of being pro-life, but they want to defund the kinds of programs that help pregnant women and poor mothers.

I honestly think it's all for show. They know that as long as abortion remains legal, and they pretend to be "pro-life", a lot of christians will keep voting for them. While Ryan's pro-life stance is solid, Romney's is not.

So, no, I don't think it's a dangerous time to be making a point by voting for a write-in. Even though Obama is very pro-choice in his talk, abortion has not gone up under his presidency. And I don't think any abortion laws would be passed, nor would abortion go down under Romney's presidency. I do tend to vote pro-life, and I do think abortion is a pinnacle issue. But I won't blindly vote for a "pro-life" candidate who I don't trust and who won't do anything to help this country just for the sake of supporting the pro-life cause on principle.

@Iv2011--from your post, it sounded like you thought Chels was making inflammatory remarks about Obama aborting his own grandchildren. Chels wasn't making that up--Obama did say that if his daughters became pregnant, he would support them choosing abortion so that they didn't have to be "punished" by a mistake. He apparently views grandchildren as "punishment". Maybe I misread your post, but I just wanted to clarify.

agapecarrie · August 2012

The first thing that obama did...the very first week...was send money to Mexico for abortions.

Obama said himself he would have his grandchildren killed. He said it himself. He wouldn't want his daughter "punished with a problem". This isn't rhetoric. This is hard truth.

You better believe that there are way more babies dead since Obama became in office. The church has told us there are 5 non-negotiables in voting.

This is what Bush did when he was in office:

Reinstated Mexico City policy

Restricted Federal medicaid funding for RU-486

Appointed several pro-life judges in lower 2 branches of judiciary

Overruled his SecState by appointing a pro-lifer to a U.N. committee on population and refugees, extended health care coverage to poor children by defining those in the womb as children

Saught increased abstinence funding

Opposed human cloning and the destruction of embryos for stem-cell research

Opposes abortion at UN conferences that attempt to force abortion on poor countries

Withheld UNFPA money various times

Signed born alive infant protection act

Signed unborn victims of violence act

Supported child custody protection act and abortion non-discrimination act (so that Catholic hospitals aren't forced by states to perform abortions)

Appointed Dr. Hager to Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee

Pressured Congress to keep military abortion ban

Cracked down on illegally imported abortion drugs

Refused to buckle when pro-abortion Senators held up aide to women in Afghanistan

Threatened to veto spending bills with money for abortion in them causing them to be modified

Made a recess appointment of a judge who was filibustered because he was a pro-life Catholic

Started public service announcements encouraging adoption

Publically suppoted his brother and others trying to save Terri Schiavo's life

Weighed the possibility of requiring warning labels on condoms

Last and certainly not least, appointed two pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court.

monkeysip · August 2012

@ Agape

The "five non-negotiables" was created by Catholic Answers. There exists no such Church document that outlines 5 specific "non-negotiable" voting points.

Besides, no one here was saying that they wanted to vote for Obama. But some of us don't feel that it is right to vote for Romney.

And the abortion rate has gone down despite Obama's policies.

Bush, in his 8 years, may have won many very small pro-life victories, but the point is, abortion didn't go down under his presidency. He also supported another intrinsic evil, torture and nuclear deterrence. And two unjust wars. How many innocent people died under his foreign policy? We'll never know for sure.

Again, I'm not pointing out all this to defend Obama or the democratic party. I'm just pointing out the many flaws of our current republican party, and hence, why I won't vote for them.

chelseamb11 · August 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_politcal-threadahhh-beware?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:306ec733-1083-4ec3-b79f-862da99aad6aPost:da90ae55-fe7e-4bd0-987e-761ac8aa340b">Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!!</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!! : I don't mean to offend anyone, but I don't see how this country is significantly more messed up now than it was 3 1/2 years ago. <strong>The debt was high then, it remains high now.</strong> We were at war then (with far more loss of life) and we are at "war" now (with significantly less loss of life". We had no plan tor better healthcare then, we have a plan for better healthcare now but it still has huge problems. Abortion was legal then, it is legal now. Capital punishment existed then, it exists now. Social injustice was everywhere then, and as someone in the lowest income bracket I can tell you it's slightly better now. The problems we had, we still have, and we will continue to have despite any change to the 2-party ticket because it would take the largest, most-sweeping movement since the Revolutionary War to fix the problems all across the board that exist in our country. There is no way to fix the problems. I hate to be a downer, but there really isn't. I can understand why Catholics might be against Obama from the standpoint that he has done nothing to federally limit abortion, and his healthcare law. But I can also see why a huge population might be against Romney when his policies and rhetoric is geared toward protection of the top 1%, rather than making efforts to help the middle and "lower" classes. For me personally, I struggle with opposing Obama. At least he's trying. The healthcare law is far from perfect, but at least he is trying to do what no one has bothered to do. And while I oppose abortion, I can understand the conflict he must feel. He has said he opposes abortion - and, <strong>by the way, making a hideous statement that he would endorse the abortion of his grandchildren is pretty disgusting- </strong>abortion is largely a religious issue. We have a separation of church and state and that means our personal moral code cannot be forced upon those that may not agree with us. Unfortunately, the same is true when you consider the religious issue of social justice. There is no way to win. There is no candidate in this election, or likely will ever be in our lifetimes, that will be able to fix the problems. And that is why I feel strongly about writing in a candidate, however meaningless to the outcome. If we don't start to take action now, it'll never get done. Ever.
Posted by lv2011[/QUOTE]

Okay, the debt was high then. Obama is literally videoed and quoted promisinig to lower the debt and that if he didn't cut it in half by now, he wouldn't run. Doesn't sound like a man very good for his word.

As for the second bolded, I know the others told you this, but he actually DID say that. He doesn't want his daughters punished for their "mistakes" if they make one.

I am not defending Bush, I don't think he was the best president either.

But Obama is by far, one of the worst presidents this country has ever seen. This is a man who is more interested in putting himself down in history as the president to make healthcare more socialized for this country than in upholding the constitution. Getting healthcare for those who need it? Great. Defining certain services as "heathcare" when they are not and making people pay for something they are religiously morally opposed to? Horrible. He only cares about the citizens of this country who actually believe what he believes. If you don't share his beliefs?

What we need is a RADICAL change. I don't know how that will happen exactly, but it does need to be done.

Riss91 · August 2012

Something to consider as well is that it isn't just what the President specifically does - it is what Congress does under the President. The party lines and all that nonsense will shift and support their party's cause - even if they disagreed with it a few years ago!

Personally, the HHS debacle is so offensive to me (completely unconstitutional, completely unnecessary, and absolutely meant to attack and not to help) that I think it outweighs anything Bush screwed up.

I also feel like the hot-button social issues have been ignited much more under Obama than Bush... so basically I've spent the last few years in an anxious and upset stte of mind. It might be nice for a break!

Resa77 · August 2012

This is obviously a very complex issue, but I'm glad to have this forum in which we can discuss it respectfully. Even though we can all get fired up about politics, I find it important to be able to discuss politics with people whose moral values I trust. It's really hard for me to find anyone to talk to anymore, since everyone seems to just blindly ignore the facts about certain candidates/parties. I really appreciate being able to see the thoughts expressed here, so thanks

Riss91 · August 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_politcal-threadahhh-beware?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:306ec733-1083-4ec3-b79f-862da99aad6aPost:6da42cad-1b43-4fde-ba5d-b4d755d642d4">Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!!</a>:
[QUOTE]This is obviously a very complex issue, but I'm glad to have this forum in which we can discuss it respectfully. Even though we can all get fired up about politics, I find it important to be able to discuss politics with people whose moral values I trust. It's really hard for me to find anyone to talk to anymore, since everyone seems to just blindly ignore the facts about certain candidates/parties. I really appreciate being able to see the thoughts expressed here, so thanks :)
Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]

Agreed!

Resa77 · August 2012

Carrie, or anyone else -- in what ways is Obama the most pro-abortion/pro-death president? I've heard a few people say this, so I'm just curious what he's done beyond Clinton, for example. I believe it, I just don't know the facts

Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!!

Re: Politcal thread....ahhh, beware!!!!

Choose Another Board

Search Boards