Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: Jehanne on October 13, 2014, 08:15:09 PM
-
The anti-Ernst ads by her opponent Bruce Braley have convinced me that she is a true moral conservative and not a lying, vote-getting Republican hypocrite, and I intend on voting for her. I hope that every true Catholic living in Iowa does, also.
-
She's still a neocon zionist...And she chose a career instead of having more than one child, and she's a protestant, and butch.
-
She's still a neocon zionist...And she chose a career instead of having more than one child, and she's a protestant, and butch.
So who would you vote for?
-
Have we still not learned that the democratic process is an anti-Catholic sham?
Don't vote at all.
-
Have we still not learned that the democratic process is an anti-Catholic sham?
Don't vote at all.
What do you ultimately see refraining from voting accomplishing? I am seriously considering voting for an independent candidate in my U.S. Senate race who may get 0.5% of the vote. So help with what not voting, or "throwing ones vote away" as I am contemplating doing, stands to accomplish.
Btw--it's a close race between the main candidates. The Dem challenger is clearly stuck up Obama's ass. The GOP candidate would be the clear choice, but he does have an NWO neocon record.
-
Vote for the person who would do the least amount of damage!
-
Have we still not learned that the democratic process is an anti-Catholic sham?
Don't vote at all.
What do you ultimately see refraining from voting accomplishing? I am seriously considering voting for an independent candidate in my U.S. Senate race who may get 0.5% of the vote. So help with what not voting, or "throwing ones vote away" as I am contemplating doing, stands to accomplish.
Btw--it's a close race between the main candidates. The Dem challenger is clearly stuck up Obama's ass. The GOP candidate would be the clear choice, but he does have an NWO neocon record.
We agree that no Catholic can vote for a democrat. I disagree that any GOP candidate in any race is a "clear choice." How is a vote for a candidate from a pro-usury, pro-Zionist, pro-unjust war political party that has given up the fight against sodomy and abortion any kind of a choice at all for a Catholic?
Haven't you ever wondered why the Sod Marriage lobby is such an unstoppable juggernaut? It's because they're riding the false masonic concept of "individual liberty" enshrined in the nation's constitution right down the line to its abominable logical conclusion. Their arguments are more constitutionally sound and consistent than the opposition's. That's the horrible truth that so many American "conservatives" seem unable or unwilling to accept. An anti-Catholic, godless, Christless masonic republic like ours - whose laws and founding docuмents refuse to affirm and secure the Rights of Almighty God first and foremost before the rights of men - is tailor-made to protect all manner of perversions and evils as "rights." Social conservatives have absolutely no leg to stand on as long as this nation remains as officially, fundamentally godless as it has been since its inception.
Voting for a third partty candidate who has no chance of winning and would not rule like a Catholic anyway if he were to win (especially if he's some kind of Libertarian) accomplishes exactly nothing.
Conscientious Catholic refusal to vote accomplishes several things: It accomplishes non-participation in an un-Catholic governmental process. It accomplishes a refusal to choose a "lesser evil" that's hardly lesser at all. And it accomplishes disabusing oneself of the delusion that one can "win" in a rigged game of Three Card Monty. It's the sobering pot of black coffee that we all need a good draught of in order to recover from the inebriation of our more than two century long bender as Catholics believing and participating in the disastrous American Democratic Lie.
-
Vote for the person who would do the least amount of damage!
God have mercy on us. Americanism is madness.
So if given the choice between shooting yourself in the head with .38 snubnose or a 12 guage shotgun, you'd pick the former, since it would do the least amount of damage?
Or would you possibly consider the radical option of not shooting yourself in the head at all?
-
She's still a neocon zionist...And she chose a career instead of having more than one child, and she's a protestant, and butch.
Hear hear.
Voting for a chop-haired mannish female who supports the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan would have been the very height of madness for nearly all Catholics a mere 70 years ago. How can we call ourselves "Traditional" Catholics if our Sensus Catholicus is not even as well-calibrated as Catholics from as recently as the 1940s?
Does the madness of the American democratic process begin to become clear in this perspective? Can you imagine "Traditional Catholics" in America boostering for some GOP sodomite candidate 70 years from now because he's "conservative" according to whatever the standards of 2084 will be? "Catholics - Vote Smith in 84! He's against lowering the age of consent from 9 to 6 and he supports a "Primates Only" limit on inter-species marriage!"
A real woman would not want to vote, let alone run for office. If Joni Ernst wants to do some good, let her leave the pants wearing to her husband (whose name, apparently, is "Gail," so maybe I'm asking the impossible), grow her hair back to a length with some semblance of femininity, get back in the kitchen and take care of her home.
Woman can never be man's equal and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights. Few women would ever desire to legislate, and those who did would only be classed as eccentrics.
– Pope St. Pius X
-
God have mercy on us. Americanism is madness.
Madness because it's a heresy, so it will continue to destroy.
The majority are still caught in the left-right / democrat-republican paradigm, when both parties are two sides of the same ʝʊdɛօ masonic coin - or lesser of two evils argument. It's the same song every election while the jews continue to advance with or without their puppet candidates. A huge 'anti Catholic scam', as BTNYC states.
If the system were even somewhat honest, one could argue for the "responsibility to vote", but
it's corrupt beyond recovery. Or, as someone said, "Would you play a game at a casino where you knew the casino owners had rigged the game?"
This is an outrageously evil government and a most dangerous enemy of His Church. Think through your cooperation.
-
btnyc - I agree with you completely.
-
It's the same song every election while the jews continue to advance with or without their puppet candidates.
They are sure of winning because they have friends in all sides and nobody see them coming. The real enemy is seen by most as the victim.
-
Have we still not learned that the democratic process is an anti-Catholic sham?
Don't vote at all.
Agreed
-
Have we still not learned that the democratic process is an anti-Catholic sham?
Don't vote at all.
Agreed
Agreed.
-
Conscientious Catholic refusal to vote accomplishes several things: It accomplishes non-participation in an un-Catholic governmental process.
Short-term, or as a strong statement in a given race, this may be commendable. But as a long-term solution, this is tantamount to acquiescence and surrender. If it's this bad, then it's incuмbent upon some of us Catholics to sacrifice and run ourselves, even if it's just to air the issues that make the other candidates so bad in our eyes.
It accomplishes a refusal to choose a "lesser evil" that's hardly lesser at all.
Good idea--and then sit back and pat ourselves on the back over the next six years while we live under the rule of the "greater evil."
And it accomplishes disabusing oneself of the delusion that one can "win" in a rigged game of Three Card Monty.
Are you going to town meetings/public appearances and asking questions about the issues to get them out there to some degree; are you writing the candidate who is the "lesser evil" and saying I would consider voting for you if you re-consider your position on xyz; are you urging people with Catholic viewpoints to run for office?
Change the "delusion." Don't just pick up your toys and go home and forfeit.
It's the sobering pot of black coffee that we all need a good draught of in order to recover from the inebriation of our more than two century long bender as Catholics believing and participating in the disastrous American Democratic Lie.
Should our ancestors have never moved here? Should we pack up and move home to Ireland--the bastion of Catholicism? Is it bad enough to take up arms? Catholics aren't passifists--at what point is it bad enough to take up arms?
I don't fault anyone who chooses to sit out this election cycle, especially with the choices that I'll have. But I don't think it's the right thing to do long-term.
-
We agree that no Catholic can vote for a democrat. I disagree that any GOP candidate in any race is a "clear choice." How is a vote for a candidate from a pro-usury, pro-Zionist, pro-unjust war political party that has given up the fight against sodomy and abortion any kind of a choice at all for a Catholic?
Haven't you ever wondered why the Sod Marriage lobby is such an unstoppable juggernaut? It's because they're riding the false masonic concept of "individual liberty" enshrined in the nation's constitution right down the line to its abominable logical conclusion. Their arguments are more constitutionally sound and consistent than the opposition's. That's the horrible truth that so many American "conservatives" seem unable or unwilling to accept. An anti-Catholic, godless, Christless masonic republic like ours - whose laws and founding docuмents refuse to affirm and secure the Rights of Almighty God first and foremost before the rights of men - is tailor-made to protect all manner of perversions and evils as "rights." Social conservatives have absolutely no leg to stand on as long as this nation remains as officially, fundamentally godless as it has been since its inception.
Voting for a third partty candidate who has no chance of winning and would not rule like a Catholic anyway if he were to win (especially if he's some kind of Libertarian) accomplishes exactly nothing.
Conscientious Catholic refusal to vote accomplishes several things: It accomplishes non-participation in an un-Catholic governmental process. It accomplishes a refusal to choose a "lesser evil" that's hardly lesser at all. And it accomplishes disabusing oneself of the delusion that one can "win" in a rigged game of Three Card Monty. It's the sobering pot of black coffee that we all need a good draught of in order to recover from the inebriation of our more than two century long bender as Catholics believing and participating in the disastrous American Democratic Lie.
[/quote]
I could not agree more with this statement. Excellent.
-
As I sort of instigated this thread I will say what my position is on voting.
In a normal country (meaning non-modern times) every Catholic is obligated to vote for the most Catholic candidate, if only candidates who reject basic social values, you don't need to vote.
In a Country in the modern world, catholics can vote for the most moral candidate, but as there really aren't any politicians who support basic morality- there is no need. If a candidate comes along who is Anti-abortion (in all circuмstances (which gets rid of 95% of republicans), anti-sodomy (supports its illegality), against public vice (pornography, prostitution, adultery), and would ideally would criminalize birth control, or someone who is at least close to these positions, then I would say a Catholic should vote for him. But as no one is these things, there is no need to vote.
I believe Catholics, under pain of sin, are obligated to vote in a referendum regarding morality subjects. For example, if a referendum that restricts abortion is being voted on- a Catholic must vote in it.
So in these modern times, where the political system is rigged, and there are not even close to any moral candidates there is no need to vote, so instead on election day I would recommend praying that there is one day a Catholic Monarch in every country, who justly rules, and he does't use a masonic constitution derived from heretical enlightenment 'philosophers' but instead uses Summa Theologica as his constitution.