Catholic.com presidential poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Savage
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crossbones said:
You seem to be concerned about having a name of a bishop that supports voting for a pro-choice candidate. I’m asking you to provide a name of a bishop that supports voting for a pro-torture, pro-targeting noncombatants, pro-racist statement candidate. Surely you have such a name. Please provide it.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know that Trump was racist.
Also, I didn’t know that he was for targeting noncombatants any more so than what we now have. With reference to the recent Orlando shootings, I read that the police are questioning the wife of the shooter and are planning to charge her with failing to inform the police before the incident, since it appears she may have known something. So they are already “targeting” people who are technically non-combatants but who may have had prior knowledge.
 
Crossbones said:
You seem to be concerned about having a name of a bishop that supports voting for a pro-choice candidate. I’m asking you to provide a name of a bishop that supports voting for a pro-torture, pro-targeting noncombatants, pro-racist statement candidate. Surely you have such a name. Please provide it.
Click to expand...
You believe he is a racist, but your view is not shared by everybody. There are people of differing ethnic ancestry, who do not think Trump is a racist.
 
Tomdstone said:
I didn’t know that Trump was racist.
Click to expand...
Didn’t say he was racist. Said he made racist comments.
Also, I didn’t know that he was for targeting noncombatants any more so than what we now have.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and familiarize yourself with the teachings on targeting noncombatants.
With reference to the recent Orlando shootings, I read that the police are questioning the wife of the shooter and are planning to charge her with failing to inform the police before the incident, since it appears she may have known something. So they are already “targeting” people who are technically non-combatants but who may have had prior knowledge.
Click to expand...
It’ll be interesting to see what comes of it. Given her husband was a gay-hater homosexual member of ISIS (kind of), then it might be able to pin charges on her. We’ll see.
 
Crossbones said:
Perhaps you should read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and familiarize yourself with the teachings on targeting noncombatants.
Click to expand...
The wife of the Orlando shooter was a non-combatant. Is it right for the FBI to target her for questioning about what she knew and why she did not inform the police that her husband was dangerous?
I am not sure, but my guess is that this is what Mr. Trump was talking about. Further, I don’t see where he used the term non-combatant? Can you give a quote where he ever used this terminology?
 
Tomdstone said:
The wife of the Orlando shooter was a non-combatant. Is it right for the FBI to target her for questioning about what she knew and why she did not inform the police that her husband was dangerous?
Click to expand...
Of course, they are right to question her. This is a criminal investigation.
I am not sure, but my guess is that this is what Mr. Trump was talking about. Further, I don’t see where he used the term non-combatant? Can you give a quote where he ever used this terminology?
Click to expand...
He said that he would target the families of terrorists for ‘retribution’ and to ‘make them suffer’.
 
Crossbones said:
He said that he would target the families of terrorists for ‘retribution’ and to ‘make them suffer’.
Click to expand...
This is what the FBI is doing now to the wife of the Orlando shooter? I don;t see where you can let people go free if they had good knowledge of a future terrorist event and refused to reveal this information to the police. Even if they were non-combatants and did not take part in the mass killings, they should be targeted for questioning and possible prosecution. I don’t think that the bishops statement that you referred to is relevant to a situation like this where family members might have knowledge of a mass killing about to occur, but did nothing to prevent it.
 
“Catholics need to be cognizant that there may be as many as five seats on the US Supreme Court to be filled by the next President of the United States. Christians must be vigilant not to be influenced by cunning deception to vote for anyone other than the most Pro-Life Political Candidate which is Donald Trump, who has provided a list of outstanding Conservative Pro-Life Judges. We know with absolute certainty, that if elected, Hillary Clinton will fill every one of those vacancies with ultra liberal pro-abortion judges. Christians who vote for abortion directly enable those who rip these defenseless innocent pre-born babies apart. Jesus said that whosoever harms one of these little ones, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea (Mark 9:42)”:
Catholic-Voter.com

"Fr. Frank stated, “Mr. Trump was crystal clear about the need to defend and promote the sanctity of life, to preserve the institution of marriage, to appoint pro-life judges, and to protect religious liberty. In fact, he mentioned explicitly the efforts of some to “restrict religious liberty with government mandates.” Priests for Life was among the first group to challenge the HHS mandate in court, and our case went all the way to the Supreme Court and is still unresolved”:
priestsforlife.org/pressreleases/5741-fr-pavone-thanks-donald-trump-for-key-message-to-christians

“Pro-life leader praises Donald Trump’s ‘exceptionally strong’ Supreme Court short list”:
lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-leaders-praise-donald-trumps-exceptionally-strong-supreme-court-sh
 
I’m sorry to say that at the current time I plan on going to my polling place, getting a ballot, and voting for all of my local issues and offices, my senator, representative, and leaving the president choice alone. I am waiting to see if there is a 2016 update forthcoming from the USCCB that may help us discern our way through the first American election which does not offer a moral choice for President. As a Catholic Christian, the best of two evils doesn’t work for my conscience. When I apply “What would Jesus Do”, I really can’t find anything in the Gospels that I can apply to this. The most moral thing to me seems to me to leave it alone, serve in humble obedience to the ‘winner’, as we are always supposed to do, and continue to work at the grass roots level to make Christian principles more understandable and desired by my neighbors friends, and fellow parishoners.

The guidance from the last elections is not directly applicable to this presidential choice. I don’t see an upside to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, and I don’t believe there is a viable 3rd party choice. At least not so far, and we’re too far in for much else to happen in the way of candidates.

I will say, that I respect whatever personal choice that each and every one of you have made in this extraordinary situation. So long as we all praying about the choice we make, asking for discernment from the Holy Spirit, and praying for America as a country no matter what happens. To those of you who don’t even see the problem, or believe that one is better than the other, then I respect that too. There is no wrong answer. I’m sure we are all going to do our best with prayer and our conscience.

God bless us all,
and my God bless and heal the United States
 
StevenFrancis said:
The guidance from the last elections is not directly applicable to this presidential choice. I don’t see an upside to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, and I don’t believe there is a viable 3rd party choice…
Click to expand...
There does not have to be a “viable” 3rd party choice in this election to make voting for a 3rd party candidate worth-while. The only way 3rd parties become viable is for people to vote for them before they are viable. This is likely not the last election. There will be another in 2020. And the 3rd parties that have some showing this election may be viable in the next. That’s long term thinking instead of immediate short-term thinking.
 
Tomdstone said:
This is what the FBI is doing now to the wife of the Orlando shooter? I don;t see where you can let people go free if they had good knowledge of a future terrorist event and refused to reveal this information to the police. Even if they were non-combatants and did not take part in the mass killings, they should be targeted for questioning and possible prosecution. I don’t think that the bishops statement that you referred to is relevant to a situation like this where family members might have knowledge of a mass killing about to occur, but did nothing to prevent it.
Click to expand...
The context of his quote was not to investigate family members and charge them if they are suspected of wrongdoing, but to murder them.
 
Crossbones said:
The context of his quote was not to investigate family members and charge them if they are suspected of wrongdoing, but to murder them.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt the Mr. Trump ever said he was in favor of murdering non-combatants. Do you have the quote?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
There does not have to be a “viable” 3rd party choice in this election to make voting for a 3rd party candidate worth-while. The only way 3rd parties become viable is for people to vote for them before they are viable. This is likely not the last election. There will be another in 2020. And the 3rd parties that have some showing this election may be viable in the next. That’s long term thinking instead of immediate short-term thinking.
Click to expand...
Except that there is no reason to think so. Third party candidates, even strong ones like Perot, tend to fade out after they fail.
 
Tomdstone said:
I seriously doubt the Mr. Trump ever said he was in favor of murdering non-combatants. Do you have the quote?
Click to expand...
Look up the Dec. 15 Fox and Friends appearance of Donald Trump and follow that up with the Republican debate around that time as well as his appearance on Bill O’Reilly’s show. That will give you the full context of his meaning.
 
Crossbones said:
Look up the Dec. 15 Fox and Friends appearance of Donald Trump and follow that up with the Republican debate around that time as well as his appearance on Bill O’Reilly’s show. That will give you the full context of his meaning.
Click to expand...
IOW, there really is no quote of Mr. Trump saying that he is in favor of murdering non-combatants, as you have claimed?
 
Tomdstone said:
in favor of murdering non-combatants
Click to expand...
How many died today, this day, under the Obama watch? I would only ask do the democrats know or care?
Civilians have been killed in heavy shelling or buried alive under the wreckage of their homes, according to reports received by the United Nations refugee agency, or UNHCR.
Click to expand...
“There are also reports of several hundred families being used as human shields” by Islamic State militants, said agency spokesman William Spindler. Militants are putting those families in or around military targets in hopes of preventing an attack, he said.
Click to expand...
learningenglish.voanews.com/a/iraq-fallujah/3355956.html

Today, same thing, only a shortage of medical supplies.

Obama policy.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Except that there is no reason to think so. Third party candidates, even strong ones like Perot, tend to fade out after they fail.
Click to expand...
If that were so, then looking backwards into history we would see only D’s and R’s all the way back to the beginning. But we don’t. It has happened before. It can happen again. It happens quite often in other countries. There is no reason to think it could not happen here.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
There does not have to be a “viable” 3rd party choice in this election to make voting for a 3rd party candidate worth-while. The only way 3rd parties become viable is for people to vote for them before they are viable. This is likely not the last election. There will be another in 2020. And the 3rd parties that have some showing this election may be viable in the next. That’s long term thinking instead of immediate short-term thinking.
Click to expand...
Good point. One that I believe, by the way. I did this once, actually. It’s just that at that time, there WAS a third part candidate that I could favor. I DON’T believe in blocking or negative voting. If someone arises who I feel is a true moral choice, I am still open to voting the office of President. Otherwise, I could also write in a good moral choice. Thanks for reminding me of the fact that if we always do what we always did, we’ll always get what we always got. No real third party can arise if nobody goes out on a limb for a few elections to MAKE one viable and accountable. As the GOP rose from the ashes of the Whigs, perhaps something else will rise from the ashes of the GOP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top