Obviously many Catholics (myself included) find themselves stuck as neither major party candidate seems ideal. It seems like this would be the year for a third party candidate to at least gain traction and maybe even pick up a few electoral votes. The only remote option in a third party seems to be Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party (who I actually voted for in 2012 when I was not a Catholic). Certainly he has some stances that are disconcerting as well in that he supports the so called “right to choose”, legalization of marijuana and other drugs, and (for some) his support of unbridled capitalism. However, I’m wondering if a Catholic could still in good conscience vote for someone like this given the current situation. In theory at least, a Libertarian president would not force taxpayers to pay for things like contraception and abortion under mandates like Obamacare. I realize on the other hand that his choices for the Supreme Court could be dicey from a moral standpoint. I’m really just looking for any excuse to not vote for either of the other two options, since I find them both untenable. Anyone else have thoughts on this or considered the Libertarian option themselves?
Thread needs a link to a news article.
I found this
I would never vote for him…legalizing marijuana is a very bad idea.
Gary Johnson believes the threat of radical Islam is “overblown,” and I think he is ignorant and a vote for him aligns with Obama optics. I believe in a time proven axiom of war of divide and conquer. So be it ignorance or intentional I can’t cooperate with it as its much of the same imho.
Why? It’s (relatively) harmless compared with alcohol and tobacco, and given the US’ horrendous felon-voting and employment laws, its criminality actively ruins the lives of otherwise productive citizens far more than personal use would effect them. Given its prevalence in popular-culture, making it illegal only increases organised-crime’s market share. The war on drugs has only caused violence and needless disenfranchisement for mistakes typically associated with youth or pernicious culture. Legalise it and it goes from something gang-bangers fight over to a potted plant your Grandma might own.
I’m not sure why you’d reject a libertarian candidate - the only kind that could possibly be palatable to Liberals and Conservatives - because you don’t want a toke of what he’s offering.
Its a secondary issue and by promoting the world of illusion admittedly I don’t find to be impressive, but an obstacle to success.
So. Gary Johnson believes the threat of radical Islam is “overblown,” and thinks you should smoke dope so you see all this clearly? Hmmm OK, but its OK to be a designated driver right?
Dude - use the edit and quote buttons. You’re spamming up the chat and it’s hard to tell who you’re talking to.
So are you saying “dude” your having issues following? Or thats your best response?
On the context. The word “dude” itself is informal, not strictly offensive or disrespectful. It can, however, be used in an offensive way and taken as such especially by older people who grew up with a different idea of.
Maybe you should explain your own PC dialogue while addressing the other obvious issues? Should i wait?
With the way the American electoral system is set up it is all but impossible for a 3rd party candidate to pickup any electoral votes since the votes are awarded on a winner take all basis. Heck in 1992 Ross Perot had about half the number of votes that Bush had, yet Bush still managed to pick up 168 electoral votes. Perot only managed to carry a handful of counties nationwide let alone any states. I think for a third party to experience any level of success in the near future we’d have to see mass defections that led to something like the Dixiecrats in the 1960s or the collapse of the Whigs in the 1850s.
A “dude” is a guy whose pretensions greatly outweigh his reality. Lyndon Johnson had the perfect description of a “dude”; “all hat and no cattle”.
To me, voting third party is withdrawing from the fight against abortion on demand and persecution of religion.
Libertarians are just ultra-liberals who don’t even pretend to care about the less fortunate like liberals pretend to do.
Third party candidates don’t win.
You can fight that fight for your whole life, and you will lose. If you want people not to have abortions, persuade them of the morality of not receiving one - don’t run to the government. You think yourself a warrior because instead of evangelising, you tick a box next to whatever socially-rejected, dullard Republican they stand up next?
Libertarians do care about the less-fortunate, they, unlike what you would term “liberals”, simply don’t resort to the demonstrably ineffective economic policies of centralisation.
You can fight that fight for your whole life, and you will lose
Vague unsubstantiated opinion, I think is basic ignorance , prove your points, thats whats lacking here. :shrug: No one cares about vague “opinion”.
Just don’t vote for a presidential candidate this election. Nothing says we have to.
If you are committed to a 3rd party vote, you might find the Constitution Party to be more aligned with your stated values.
Libertarians are socially as bad as Democrates. Socially, their positions are in theory similar the liberals. They believe the govt should stay out of morality and social stuff. Aka - abortion, same sex marriage, etc would be politically ok with a true libertarian.
A third party for this election is not possible. We Catholics should get behind Trump for the SOLE reason of the Surpreme Court.
In all honestly, a third party candiate has no chance at the Presidency until the third party can show that it can win state elections. Starting with state legislatures, then governors, followed by congress.
However, I do think it’s time to seriously start organizing a true Christian Party that is inline with Catholic Social Teaching. We need to start running (Catholic) Christian Party candidates for state legislatures as soon as possible.
Democrats for Life have basically lost any/all chances of ever reversing their party’s platform of pro-death.
A Catholic friendly Christian Party would be a good place for Democrats for Life to move too, plus Catholic Republicans who are having issues with the Republican Party.
If it comes down to Clinton vs. Trump, and a credible alternative walks up, I think it might work. I am not sure who the candidate would be, but it would not be one of the usual “third party” wackos. It would have to be someone who is trusted and traditional. Maybe a retired General or Admiral who can think and talk straight. He would have my vote!
Voting is electronic these days, so it will be interesting to see who the IT guys choose.
I doubt it. They would need to get on the ballets in all 50 states (or at least most of them, including CA, TX & NY
So hey would pretty much need to declare their candidacy very soon, if not now.