How to convince a Christian to vote 3rd party?

Ammitai,

If you can convince me of those 6 things, I will vote for Peroutka. If not, then don't waste your time.

What do you think Peroutka can realistically do about 4 million abortions within the reality of his contitutional powers and authority? Is he gonna wave his magic wand and one day, poof, almost 40 years of evil will disappear? If he thinks so, then he is more idealistic than realistic and will find out that reality can be rather harsh sometimes. He will either fail because of the checks and balances of Congress and the Supreme Court, or he will do away with the Constitution in order to do this. Or, he will do what Bush is doing and make slow gradual changes over time and maybe actually, in the long run, do away with abortion.

Joseph Botwinick

 

From Article III, Section 2:

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Republicans stand guilty of not even trying as they control the House, the Senate, and the White House. They refuse to even try to use this constitutional tool that is available to them.

 

So you will be fine with contributing to the death of 120 million people over the next 30 years??? That is the number of people who will die when Kerry's SCOTUS nominees uphold Roe for the thirty or so years that they will control the court. It seems pretty cavalier to view life so cheaply, especially when you can do something about it.

Amittai, it is a meaningless stand. If you ask the average person on the street who is running for president, Peroutka will not come to their mind, even for politically engaged people. If you ask people who Peroutka is, they will have no idea. His name is meaningless to people. To vote for him is to take a meaningless stand.

 

That's not what you said in another thread, Pastor Larry. You said that the Peroutka candidacy could cause President Bush to lose. Do you consider a Bush loss to be be meaningless?

 

So if it is God's will for Senator Kerry to become president are you going to complain to God about His will?

 

Ken,

Do you? Would you consider a Kerry win to be meaningless.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Ken, you are missing the point. You are voting for Peroutka to make a point about constitutionalism. You will not make that point. It will be meaningless. It will however possibly affect the outcome of the election. In other words, there will be a lot of votes that no one knows who they were cast for or what they were cast for. All they will know is that it was enough to cost Bush the election and give it to Kerry.

 

No, but there is no way that I will contribute to that outcome. But that was a convenient way of avoiding the issue.

 

I wouldn't call them meaningless. If enough conservatives vote for Peroutka, the GOP will see that they can't continue to run moderates like GWB and count on the conservative vote. Where if people don't vote for Peroutka, then the GOP will see that they can continue moving to the left because they have the conservative votes regardless of their platform or policies.

If we repeat another four years with Bush like we had these first four, then Bush and the GOP will go down in the history books as creating the largest federal government and increasing federal spending even more than socialist FDR.

 

I would not say it would be meaningless. I think it could be the best thing to happen for the conservative movement since the heyday of Ronald Reagan.

 

Then I'll tell you straight out. My conscience will be quite clear having voted for Michael Peroutka.

 

Have you seen what Kerry is promising? Look, I am very disappointed in Bush in a number of issues, but it is nothing compared to what Kerry has already promised to do. If the conservatives will stand up and let their voice be heard in the Republican party at the lower levels, this problem would be addressed differently.

 

I don't think a GOP Congress will let Kerry do as much as people fear, the GOP Congress has however "asked how high" every time GOP Presiedent Bush asked them to jump.

 

Wow ... inconceivable. Can you imagine the faces of all those babies who will die so you and other can make their "conscience vote"? I realize that is straightforward and to the point, but we need to start thinking here folks. We have gone down this road long enough. It is time to wake up and realize what Kerry will do to this country. I can't believe this is even a topic of conversation among people who claim to love life. Even assuming that Bush and Kerry are identical on social and fiscal policy (a laughable assertion to be sure), the issue of abortion is a clear demarcation between the two.

Did you notice how the strip joints are banding together to oppose Bush? Why? Because they understand his moral authority and moral will. Why aren't the people of light smarter than the people darkness?

 

So now you are admitting that the president doesn't have enough power to make all these broad sweeping changes??? Tell that to your friends here who are blaming Bush for not putting an end to abortion. Tell them that he can't. They don't believe me when I say it ... Perhaps they will believe it when someone from their own side tells them.

 

So now you are admitting that the president doesn't have enough power to make all these broad sweeping changes??? Tell that to your friends here who are blaming Bush for not putting an end to abortion. Tell them that he can't. They don't believe me when I say it ... Perhaps they will believe it when someone from their own side tells them. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't believe a President can end abortion by himself, but I do believe a President can make abortion the main issue and choose to take a LOUD public stand against it, instead of avoiding the issue and remaining silent on the issue like George W. Bush has. Other than the PBA ban, that will do nothing to save a single life, what has GWB done to stop abortions?

Bush showed us how easy it is for a Republican President to get a Republican Congress to pass liberal and socialist bills very quickly through both the House and the Senate so that he can sign the bills. If he wanted Congress to put the abortion issue in the spotlight he could, but he doesn't want to. At least Peroutka will make sure that the issue of abortion is in the spotlight untill something is done to end it.

We go and invade another country to liberate the people being killed overseas, but choose to do nothing about the millions of babies butchered in America. Bush uses the abortion issue to court the religious right, but he has no intentions of even trying to end the American holocaust, that is why he dodges the issue.

 

The Republicans control the House.

The Republicans control the Senate.

The Republicans control the White House.

The majority of Supreme Court justices(I think it is 7 of the 9) were appointed by Republican presidents.

How much more power do the Republicans have to have to be held responsible for not stopping abortion? Maybe you need to stop and think if maybe, just maybe, the road we have been going down for long enough is the one expecting the Republicans to actually fight with every legal, constitutional weapon of law at their disposal to stop abortion.

 

I would not say it would be meaningless. I think it could be the best thing to happen for the conservative movement since the heyday of Ronald Reagan. </font>[/QUOTE]So,

Voting for four years of liberal Kerry isn't really a conscience vote? It is a political strategy.

Joseph Botwinick

 

You would have to ask that of someone who will be voting for Senator Kerry.

 

It is a strategy that some are using, I choose not to, here are 4 options for conservatives in November:

1) Continue to vote for the Republican Party candidates. Maybe we won't end up with a Democrat - or maybe we will. Either way, the Republican Party learns once again that they have the conservative vote no matter what they do.

2) Vote for the Democratic candidates. Some on the far edges of conservatism have suggested this as a way to hurry along what they see as the inevitable collapse of America, and see a rebuilding as freedom's opportunity.

3) Don't vote at all. This is a common strategy in other parts of the world. The objective is to demonstrate that the elections are not valid by boycotting the election. Another objective of this strategy is to voice dissatisfaction with all the candidates - effectively saying "None of the above."

4) Vote for a third party candidate. There are two possible outcomes - both of which work toward greater liberty:

a) Third party candidate wins. Although it is highly unlikely, circumstances could evolve resulting in the third party candidate actually winning. Again, highly unlikely, but still possible under the right conditions.

b) Third party candidate loses, but garners a significant percentage of the votes. The objective here is to show that there are votes available that the Republican Party will not get until they change their ways. The objective is not based on finding and supporting a third party candidate who can win an election. For the foreseeable future, the chances of that happening are remote. Instead, the objective is to demonstrate to the Republican Party that voters will leave the party if they are not represented by that party. The working assumption by the Republican Party has always been that conservatives have no where else to turn, and that they are pragmatic enough to not "waste their vote" by voting for a third party. Our objective is to show that assumption to be false.

SOURCE