I hate seeing somebody as smart as Ladislaus getting duped into thinking that picking between political candidates would ever but RARELY be a strictly forbidden "lesser of evils" proposition.

I am not being duped.  I distinguish between unintended secondary effect and "lesser evil".  End result might be the same, materially speaking, but the reasoning is Catholic in the former case and decidedly non-Catholic in the latter.

I'm probably voting 3rd party just for principle's sake.  If my state really mattered, then I might vote Trump, if need be.  But Hillary's not winning my state, so my vote is moot.

And which state is yours?  Considering the shameless overt nearly-universal proHilary conspiracy of the U.S. "news"-media, it's now become reasonable to suspect that reporting of polls by that same "news"-media might be distorted to tamper with voter turn-out.  I've completely lost my comfort with any claim nowadays that any particular state ought to be guaranteed not to land in Hillary's column.

My principle of voting for the best candidate and not settling for a neo-con, whom I can't trust. [....] 
I still don't like (or know) his views on upholding the 4th amendment, foreign policy, getting rid of the TSA, etc...  basically upholding the constitution in ALL areas.

Methinks it's intellectually dishonest to object to a candidate by conflating what you don't like with what you don't know, by presenting the combination in a single list.  It makes me think that it's more important to you to have a longer list to show off than to present an honest argument.  Not especially charitable inferences?  I won't be the only reader to realize that what you "don't know" might be your failing, not the candidate's.

Why not vote for a third party candidate?

Rather than debating the reality or validity of binary choices, perhaps an example would better clarify the situation:

What if, e.g.,  3rd-party candidate Evan McMullin (sp.?), an 11-year veteran of the CIA, but a self-professed "constitutional conservative", is able to leverage the "principled conservative" voters he targets in Mountain-West states, into winning 1 or more of them, e.g., Utah, with its  6 electoral votes?

Do you think that he would be depriving the Democrat nominee of votes in the Mormon homeland?   Or would he be depriving the Republican nominee, especially this election's antiëstablishment nominee, who's made promises more conservative than the Republican establishment's past losing candidates have dared to make?   If you grant any credence to current reporting of professional polling, which nominee do you expect would feel that deprivation most keenly?   For which nominee might it make the difference between squeezing out a surprise national victory in this unusually crucial election, or barely losing, but--having mentioned binary choices--losing all the same?   Hmmm?

Lad:

Quote

We vote out of principle.  If we can't vote for Trump on principle, that is NOT a "vote for Hillary"

That's sounds noble and high-fallutin alright, but it's utter nonsense, IMO.  We vote for Trump, not because he is an angel, or even a good and sincere person.  He obviously has a past. He's a very successful real estate tycoon in a very Democrat Jew state.  He knows how to get along in that environment, whom to stroke and pander to, whom to support, whose rear ends to kiss.  He's admitted as much many times over.

He's even married a couple of his kids off to Jews.  That was good for business.  He proclaims 100% support for Israel.  That is also good for business.  But I've watched him display unveiled contempt for certain Jєωιѕн politicians, and to excoriate the jew press with impunity.

Hate him or love him, he is, it seems, the only thing standing between us and 6 or 7 liberal Jews on the Supreme  Court. He's the only one promising to seal  our borders and to keep the undocuмented, unvetted unwashed masses out, an to cut off the flow of drugs.  He alone of the two candidates, it seems, will cease the U.S. military adventurism in far flung places, and stop the Pentagon's habitual warmongering.  Only Trump wants to get along with the world's second most powerful nation, and seek some rapport with its leader.  Trump alone promises to drain the Washington swamp, and to shovel all the s____t out of agencies like the State Dep. Pentagon, DOJ and FBI.  He alone attacks Common Core,  the Dept. of Education and public education in general.  He alone proposes imposing Congressional term limits.  He alone proposes to do something solid in order to improve the lot of impoverished minorities.  And, of course, only Trump wants to bring jobs back to the U.S. and correct the enormous trade imbalances with countries like China.

If Trump is a total phony, what can we say?  But if he isn't, or if he is somewhagt sincere, then maybe his presidency might spell a reprieve for America, and keep this nation from being flushed down the figurative historical toilet into which all the great nations and empires have been eventually dumped

I agree with you 100%.

Quote from: MyrnaM

A little tidbit from a very long email I just received.  

Quote

You can only practice the faith in the state of Washington if that faith accepts Gnosticism as a tenant. That material does not matter and that it violates 90% of most Christian tenant's faith.  
did not type a portion
In the last primary, 30% of the voters were liberals.  One of the problems we have in the United States is Christians don't vote.  Consistently Christians do not vote.  They do not vote.  They do not exercise their responsibility to be good stewards of their civic duties.  And because we don't we lose.

Anyone that suggests we don't vote ought to be completely ignored.  This election is too crucial.  If she wins, we stand to lose whatever is left that is worth saving in this country.

 

True. Same voting Third Party, because this is most definitely NOT the time to be risking the election of that devil, Hillary Clinton.

Vote Trump! Help to save Christian Civilization. Whereas with Trump, the future is uncertain and we don't really know how it will turn out, with Clinton we already know for sure everything she stands for; and it is not Catholic, but detestable. Radical, despicable Left -wing.

Quote from: OHCA

I hate seeing somebody as smart as Ladislaus getting duped into thinking that picking between political candidates would ever but RARELY be a strictly forbidden "lesser of evils" proposition.

I am not being duped.  I distinguish between unintended secondary effect and "lesser evil".  End result might be the same, materially speaking, but the reasoning is Catholic in the former case and decidedly non-Catholic in the latter.

If you vote Hitlery you are not Catholic, she supports abortion..Trump doesn't , so there's no debate.  If Trump was pro choice then you could argue lesser than 2 evils. The other main issue is nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr candidate vs  anti nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr......in any event even if Trump wins I see him getting whacked

Ultimately the answer is Catholicism but Catholics should vote for Donald Trump. The recent book by Ann Coulter is recommended. Hollingsworth makes excellent points in his post. If I lived in the United States I would vote for Trump though electing him won't bring about the restoration of society.

In Britain people, who never voted before voted to leave the EU.  


Blacks and Latinos are backing Trump which shows people are fed up.

Anyone that suggests we don't vote ought to be completely ignored.

Ridiculous.  If Trump promotes evil principles, we cannot vote for him ... regardless of how evil his opponent might be.

If you had the choice of two candidates, both of whom promote abortion through all 3 trimesters, but one opposes partial birth abortion, can you vote for the guy who doesn't?  After all, he'd be the "lesser evil".

I have not seen a clear positive evil promoted by Trump that would have me not be able to vote for him, but to state that anybody who raises such an argument should be "completely ignored" is utterly absurd.

I must say that I'm concerned, given some of Trump's harsh rhetoric, that Trump might bomb innocent people in the interests of fighting terrorism.  That would be a grave evil that I would be responsible for in selecting him at the ballot box.