One so pure as this should just retire from the world.
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." The counter to that is the lesser of two evils is still lesser. The one who fails to vote for the lesser evil effectively supports the greater evil, since elections are won not merely by votes for, but also by an absence of countering votes against.
Trump or Harris? Instead of looking at personalities, look at practicalities. Which one has the better beliefs? Which one will enact policies that are better for the country, or at least less destructive of the country?
I myself cannot sanction not voting. I believe both actions AND inactions are accounted for in the final judgement and therefore in eternity. I read a piece in Breitbart regarding an opinion from a highly regarded Catholic priest and exorcist whom I respect as follows: "Father Chad Ripperger, a philosopher, theologian, and one of the most experienced exorcists in the Catholic Church, says that the faithful have an “obligation” to vote for the lesser of two evils. However, that’s not the same as “voting for evil.”
“And so people will say, ‘Well, yeah, but right now we’ve got, for example, candidates who are not perfect,” Ripperger recently told hosts Jesse Romero and Terry Barber on Virgin Most Powerful Radio (VMPR). “One actually holds stuff that’s really evil, another guy holds stuff that’s also evil, but it’s not as bad,’ etc…
“Discussion of this has been reiterated throughout the history of the church, all the way up and through John Paul II had actually talked about it. So, but the basic principle is, in a situation like that, then your obligation is to vote for the lesser of two evils.” “And the reason being is because, um, in the lesser of two evils, people say, ‘Well, you’re voting for evil.’ No, actually, you’re not voting for evil. When you’re voting for a lesser evil, you’re not voting for the person’s evil or the evil that the thing is doing. What you’re voting to is to preserve the good that would be lost if the other opponent got in, who’s more evil, or if the legislation got passed, which was actually even worse, or what have you.”
"So, when agonizing between two candidates, you’re not voting for the evil that the flawed but morally superior candidate would do. You’re voting for the good they would do, and that would otherwise be lost if the morally inferior candidate won."
You can certainly disagree with this viewpoint but I happen to agree with it and WILL VOTE my conscience for the clearly "lesser of two evils."
When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
System is broken. But it’s not fixed by not voting. The new systems that will emerge from people adopting your viewpoint will not be improvements. You’re focusing too intently on personalities: “They are deeply corrupt and stand for things I cannot condone.” Well, one of them stands for some things I CAN condone. Practically speaking, voting is still our best tool to fight back, and we best use it robustly. I would also argue that the greater of three evils is just giving up and not trying to move things in the right direction.
I think we have to break the current system somehow. Not voting isn't going to do it. I agree with don't comply with things you don't agree with. State your opinion when you can even if it's uncomfortable. Support free speech as much as you can, all is lost without it. I agree with there being no perfect candidate. Compromises like Kennedy had to make are at times necessary. Silence doesn't work.
I can't see how not voting could help the situation much, but I think we need a better system that insures accountability. It's a fixed system that won't be changed by not voting but perhaps by using other pressures such as alternative media, selective protests, boycotts, truth-telling, and leading a life of health and self-sufficiency. As long as there are greedy people, ignorant people, lazy people, brainwashed people... the vast majority it seems, we're stuck in this perpetuating system. I would hope that we don't lose the ability to speak freely ,debate, think critically, and act to call out the lies and corruption. In chaos theory there is a massive disruption that precedes a new paradigm, and we're seeing that now. The globalists are fighting to control free speech but it seems to be failing in some ways
In every election I’ve ever participated in, I have always been dissatisfied with my choice but pulled the lever anyway. I’ve now come to a clearer understanding that this doesn’t sit well with me anymore. It’s not that these candidates have minor flaws or imperfections. They are deeply corrupt and stand for things I cannot condone.
I've read Live Not By Lies but we do live in a world where no one is perfect. One person was and is, but I don't think by opting out of almost everything you will change a fallen world. Each Christian can help change the world one person at a time. I'm pretty sure you'll never get a president elected that is squeaky clean. I agree with David K., move it in the right direction, even if its a little bit.
Solzhenitsyn's approach just made it possible to pretend that he wasn't part of the problem. It only allows other people to decide your fate unopposed while you pretend that you are innocent of any blame. Voter turnout is abysmal. In the highest turnout elections, only 66% of the eligible voters participate. That is enough to bring even the least popular candidate well into the running. Even if they are not elected, it will effect a change in platform the next election in an attempt to garner those votes. Most elections are won by a tiny fraction of the voters who actually vote. Not voting only makes things easier for them. Even if you don't vote, you are still playing a role in the outcome.
You will never find a perfect candidate. All people are flawed. You will never find a candidate that will satisfy all voters. That is the problem with any form of democracy. You will never get exactly what you want. Casting a vote for someone you don't like that even moves the the tiniest fraction of a degree towards a direction that you feel is correct is still an improvement.
Maybe it might take the form of a litmus test issue. It might be abortion, gun rights, immigration, or a host of other issues you hold dear. If you want less of something, voting for a candidate that will permit less of them is better than voting for one that will permit more. It doesn't mean that you wholeheartedly support a particular candidate on all issues. Democracy demands compromise.
Yes, you will often have to cast a vote for someone who doesn't support something you want at the expense of something you don't want. As the saying goes, there are three boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, and the ammo box. If you don't participate the first two, you make the third inevitable.
And, I'm smiling. Great writing. Lovely thinking.
One so pure as this should just retire from the world.
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." The counter to that is the lesser of two evils is still lesser. The one who fails to vote for the lesser evil effectively supports the greater evil, since elections are won not merely by votes for, but also by an absence of countering votes against.
Trump or Harris? Instead of looking at personalities, look at practicalities. Which one has the better beliefs? Which one will enact policies that are better for the country, or at least less destructive of the country?
I myself cannot sanction not voting. I believe both actions AND inactions are accounted for in the final judgement and therefore in eternity. I read a piece in Breitbart regarding an opinion from a highly regarded Catholic priest and exorcist whom I respect as follows: "Father Chad Ripperger, a philosopher, theologian, and one of the most experienced exorcists in the Catholic Church, says that the faithful have an “obligation” to vote for the lesser of two evils. However, that’s not the same as “voting for evil.”
“And so people will say, ‘Well, yeah, but right now we’ve got, for example, candidates who are not perfect,” Ripperger recently told hosts Jesse Romero and Terry Barber on Virgin Most Powerful Radio (VMPR). “One actually holds stuff that’s really evil, another guy holds stuff that’s also evil, but it’s not as bad,’ etc…
“Discussion of this has been reiterated throughout the history of the church, all the way up and through John Paul II had actually talked about it. So, but the basic principle is, in a situation like that, then your obligation is to vote for the lesser of two evils.” “And the reason being is because, um, in the lesser of two evils, people say, ‘Well, you’re voting for evil.’ No, actually, you’re not voting for evil. When you’re voting for a lesser evil, you’re not voting for the person’s evil or the evil that the thing is doing. What you’re voting to is to preserve the good that would be lost if the other opponent got in, who’s more evil, or if the legislation got passed, which was actually even worse, or what have you.”
"So, when agonizing between two candidates, you’re not voting for the evil that the flawed but morally superior candidate would do. You’re voting for the good they would do, and that would otherwise be lost if the morally inferior candidate won."
You can certainly disagree with this viewpoint but I happen to agree with it and WILL VOTE my conscience for the clearly "lesser of two evils."
When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
System is broken. But it’s not fixed by not voting. The new systems that will emerge from people adopting your viewpoint will not be improvements. You’re focusing too intently on personalities: “They are deeply corrupt and stand for things I cannot condone.” Well, one of them stands for some things I CAN condone. Practically speaking, voting is still our best tool to fight back, and we best use it robustly. I would also argue that the greater of three evils is just giving up and not trying to move things in the right direction.
I think we have to break the current system somehow. Not voting isn't going to do it. I agree with don't comply with things you don't agree with. State your opinion when you can even if it's uncomfortable. Support free speech as much as you can, all is lost without it. I agree with there being no perfect candidate. Compromises like Kennedy had to make are at times necessary. Silence doesn't work.
I can't see how not voting could help the situation much, but I think we need a better system that insures accountability. It's a fixed system that won't be changed by not voting but perhaps by using other pressures such as alternative media, selective protests, boycotts, truth-telling, and leading a life of health and self-sufficiency. As long as there are greedy people, ignorant people, lazy people, brainwashed people... the vast majority it seems, we're stuck in this perpetuating system. I would hope that we don't lose the ability to speak freely ,debate, think critically, and act to call out the lies and corruption. In chaos theory there is a massive disruption that precedes a new paradigm, and we're seeing that now. The globalists are fighting to control free speech but it seems to be failing in some ways
In every election I’ve ever participated in, I have always been dissatisfied with my choice but pulled the lever anyway. I’ve now come to a clearer understanding that this doesn’t sit well with me anymore. It’s not that these candidates have minor flaws or imperfections. They are deeply corrupt and stand for things I cannot condone.
With you 100%. I'm out.
I've read Live Not By Lies but we do live in a world where no one is perfect. One person was and is, but I don't think by opting out of almost everything you will change a fallen world. Each Christian can help change the world one person at a time. I'm pretty sure you'll never get a president elected that is squeaky clean. I agree with David K., move it in the right direction, even if its a little bit.
Solzhenitsyn's approach just made it possible to pretend that he wasn't part of the problem. It only allows other people to decide your fate unopposed while you pretend that you are innocent of any blame. Voter turnout is abysmal. In the highest turnout elections, only 66% of the eligible voters participate. That is enough to bring even the least popular candidate well into the running. Even if they are not elected, it will effect a change in platform the next election in an attempt to garner those votes. Most elections are won by a tiny fraction of the voters who actually vote. Not voting only makes things easier for them. Even if you don't vote, you are still playing a role in the outcome.
You will never find a perfect candidate. All people are flawed. You will never find a candidate that will satisfy all voters. That is the problem with any form of democracy. You will never get exactly what you want. Casting a vote for someone you don't like that even moves the the tiniest fraction of a degree towards a direction that you feel is correct is still an improvement.
Maybe it might take the form of a litmus test issue. It might be abortion, gun rights, immigration, or a host of other issues you hold dear. If you want less of something, voting for a candidate that will permit less of them is better than voting for one that will permit more. It doesn't mean that you wholeheartedly support a particular candidate on all issues. Democracy demands compromise.
Yes, you will often have to cast a vote for someone who doesn't support something you want at the expense of something you don't want. As the saying goes, there are three boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, and the ammo box. If you don't participate the first two, you make the third inevitable.