Catholic.com presidential poll

[Little_Sheep]

I’m sorry but these types of arguments are no different to me than saying blacks used to be considered 60% human and Jews were considered subhuman. They make no sense to me in regard to the abortion issue today no matter how you phrase it. There is pretty much a consensus today that blacks, Jews, and the disabled are human. Thank God.

Straw-Man arguments never persuade.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Well, all I can do is give you my perspective. I am ‘leaning towards’ Trump and ‘leaning away’ from a 3rd party candidate. Clinton is not an option.

Clinton says all the wrong things on all the issues I care about. I can not vote for her in good conscience.

Trump’s most solid position is on what he plans to do about the border. It’s an issue I care about and I do favor his position of building a wall. It’s not my top issue, but I lean towards a built wall and lean against open borders. In a nutshell, it’s not a make or break issue for me. However, it appears to be a very important issue for many Trump supporters.

Trump says some things I agree with, but mostly he says things that I disagree with especially when it comes to social and fiscal issues. He is running as a social and fiscal liberal which is what he has always been. He does favor tax reductions, but he seems to moderate his position on that and other issues which makes me question his sincerity on the issues. The issue he seems to moderate his position on most is abortion. Saying things like Planned Parenthood does great things for women truly make me pause.

Yet Clinton says she wants to expand abortion rights. Trump has said he would nominate judges with conservative credentials during the primary season and backed that up with an expanded list from his initial offering after he won the delegate count for nomination.

Trump’s past support for Clinton again makes me pause. Yet he is bringing up the scandals that have dogged the Clintons in the past which they’d like to think they got away with and figured it would be lost to history. However Trump has a knack for probably being the only candidate that could bring such topics up.

Which brings up one area where I think Trump would be good in particular: busting apart the political correctness stranglehold that has been built by the media. Trump is exposing the unfair one-sided reporting in this country. A Trump victory would go a long way towards breaking that apart. A Trump defeat could be devastating to the cause of free speech in this county IMO.

Do I trust Trump? Not really. His conversion is too new for me to really take him seriously. However, I know exactly what I would be getting with a Hillary Clinton presidency. I would get leftist justices appointed to the Supreme Court. I am a strong proponent of the individual right to bear arms. The most recent ruling on the 2nd Ammendment passed by a mere 5-4 majority. With Scalia’s death, gun rights are in the balance. A Clinton appointee would tip the balance to favor gun control which would likely curb those rights.

Most of all, I care deeply about the tragedy that has been wrought by Roe v. Wade and the unjust loss of life that has resulted to the tune of millions of children in the name of choice. I have my doubts about the appointees that Trump will consider for the federal courts mostly because I don’t think it will be something he cares much about. However, I do know that Clinton does care about who goes on the federal courts and with her leftist ideology would be devastating to not only the Supreme Court, but to all of our federal courts. The past eight years, the federal courts have been filled with Obama appointees. Now imagine another eight years with Clinton appointees. It’s an ultra liberal’s dream. I do not want that to happen. And although Trump himself is a liberal, he isn’t an ideologue like Clinton.

Lastly, as scary as Trump foreign policy might be, I am more afraid of Clinton foreign policy particularly how the whole Benghazi affair went down. I do not trust Clinton at all in this area.

To me, the only time to vote 3rd party is if both candidates are equally bad. A 3rd party vote is like giving each of the two major candidates one half vote - thus equal weight since a 3rd party candidate will not be winning the election this November. I’ve come to the conclusion (at least this far into the election cycle) that Clinton would be more damaging to this country than Trump.

So, that’s it in a nutshell. Thanks for reading.

I appreciate the thought you have put into your vote. Thank you for sharing it with us.

 

[Little_Sheep]

OK, so to sum up you are voting Trump because although you are not sure where he really is politically, you prefer that unknown to the known issues with Hillary. Is that a fair summary?

That’s what I heard. I appreciate this position because it admits confusion about where Trump stands. I couldn’t tell you where he stands if you put a gun to my head. But, if I loathed my other choice, I MIGHT vote for the lesser of two evils. I cannot say for certain because that is not a choice I have ever faced in a general election.

 

[Theo520]

That’s what I heard. I appreciate this position because it admits confusion about where Trump stands. I couldn’t tell you where he stands if you put a gun to my head. But, if I loathed my other choice, I MIGHT vote for the lesser of two evils. I cannot say for certain because that is not a choice I have ever faced in a general election.

If anyone doesn’t know where he stands, it’s through personal choice.
The information is out there.

ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm
donaldjtrump.com/positions

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

If anyone doesn’t know where he stands, it’s through personal choice.
The information is out there.

ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm
donaldjtrump.com/positions

Appreciate the link. :tiphat:

 

[GaryTaylor]

I truly do not know WHAT to make of such an argument. It blows my logic-sensors off the map.

Me too, you know what I think, its been going on so long with Obama and his followers that it might be something he opened the door for in politics today in “general”.

foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/02/state-department-admits-briefing-footage-on-iran-deal-intentionally-deleted.html

You would think we would have perfectly moral ethical presidents and secretary of states.

Its like Obama said yesterday, how long are you going to fall for the “okie-doke”

 

[pnewton]

If anyone doesn’t know where he stands, it’s through personal choice.
The information is out there.

ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm
donaldjtrump.com/positions

Depending on what you mean by “stands” this may or may not help. It is easy enough to find out what he is saying now and what he has said, and more importantly done, in the past. If however one wants to know what he believes, that is more difficult.

Not everyone is as gullible as Donald Trump thinks they are, though clearly plenty of people are.

 

[Crossbones]

RR, I am interested in your opinion as to why - in the face of the Church’s teaching on this singular issue - most Catholics tend to vote for Democrats in national elections.

Two possibilities:

1. The Church doesn’t teach that Catholics should vote based on that single issue

or 2) Catholics ignore Church teaching.

I think it is best for those who want to know which is to read the documents (such as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship) for themselves.

 

[GaryTaylor]

According to my reading Catholics are jumping ship from the Democratic party and especially those following Catholic Teaching with especially a formed conscience as the very ministers indicate below.

Stephen Schneck of Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies has noted that there’s been a certain “distillation” of the Catholic vote as a record number of presumably more liberal-leaning Catholics — some one-third of those raised Catholic — have left the faith altogether. “More and more of those who remain are those who actively choose to embrace the church and its teachings,” he wrote.

But neither of these trends explains why white Catholics have abandoned the Democratic Party so suddenly and so dramatically. After all, in 2008 Barack Obama managed to keep his margin of loss of white Catholic voters to John McCain to just 5 points. But four years later, he lost the white Catholic vote to Mitt Romney by a stunning 19 points.

Krueger points to the Catholic bishop’s demonization in 2011 of the “contraceptive mandate” in the Affordable Care Act, and their subsequent ginning up of the war on “religious liberty” — which was joined by elements of the religious right and fused with its war on Obamacare — as another factor helping to drive Catholics toward the GOP. And the numbers bear Krueger out. According to Pew,

salon.com/2015/03/15/the_democratic_party_is_facing_a_catholic_apocalypse/

 

[Ridgerunner]

Two possibilities:

1. The Church doesn’t teach that Catholics should vote based on that single issue

or 2) Catholics ignore Church teaching.

I think it is best for those who want to know which is to read the documents (such as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship) for themselves.

It’s good that people should read it, along with the statements of the other bishops like Burke, Chaput. It would help to read what the Popes have said.

But it’s not helpful or good to encourage Catholics to believe, wrongly, that the Church teaches that one cannot or should not vote on the basis of abortion alone. The Church actually teaches that we must oppose it with our votes UNLESS there is an equally grave or greater evil to be opposed in doing it. In this election, there is none equal to the annual killing of a million innocent children.

Nor is it right to encourage Catholics to ignore Church teaching as a legitimate moral “choice”. Nor is it right to encourage Catholics to interpret one document “for themselves”. That’s a protestant thing to do, not a Catholic thing.

 

[DeniseNY]

It’s good that people should read it, along with the statements of the other bishops like Burke, Chaput. It would help to read what the Popes have said.

But it’s not helpful or good to encourage Catholics to believe, wrongly, that the Church teaches that one cannot or should not vote on the basis of abortion alone. The Church actually teaches that we must oppose it with our votes UNLESS there is an equally grave or greater evil to be opposed in doing it. In this election, there is none equal to the annual killing of a million innocent children.

Nor is it right to encourage Catholics to ignore Church teaching as a legitimate moral “choice”. Nor is it right to encourage Catholics to interpret one document “for themselves”. That’s a protestant thing to do, not a Catholic thing.

 

[estesbob]

It’s good that people should read it, along with the statements of the other bishops like Burke, Chaput. It would help to read what the Popes have said.

But it’s not helpful or good to encourage Catholics to believe, wrongly, that the Church teaches that one cannot or should not vote on the basis of abortion alone. The Church actually teaches that we must oppose it with our votes UNLESS there is an equally grave or greater evil to be opposed in doing it. In this election, there is none equal to the annual killing of a million innocent children.

Nor is it right to encourage Catholics to ignore Church teaching as a legitimate moral “choice”. Nor is it right to encourage Catholics to interpret one document “for themselves”. That’s a protestant thing to do, not a Catholic thing.

Correct-what we see is the usual misstatement of church teaching from those trying to support their vote in support of evil. What Faithful citizenship says is a candidates position of a single issue will not require a Catholic to vote for them but their stance on a single issue can disqualify them from receiving a Catholics vote. and has we have shown numerous times the Magestrium it quite specific that that issue is abortion

 

[Bataar]

A) “the Donald”'s is not exactly perfect when it comes to abortion either, he fully supports planned parenthood.
B) what is wrong with letting people use marijuana? It’s utterly harmless. Or would you rather be the morality police.
C) I dont see how you could say that; unlike Johnson, Hillary supports tax-funding of planned parenthood and stem-cell research, abortion at ANY stage of pregnancy, and forcing healthcare providers to distribute birth control. On the contrary, Johnson is quite moderat in comparison

Donald Trump has said numerous times that as long as Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business, they should not receive government funding. Doesn’t sound like he fully supports it to me.

 

[pnewton]

But it’s not helpful or good to encourage Catholics to believe, wrongly, that the Church teaches that one cannot or should not vote on the basis of abortion alone.

This is a good distinction. Most of what the Church teaches allows for judgment. Catholics, as a group, are not single issue voters, according to FCFC. This does not mean that individual Catholics cannot, because of their conviction that abortion is grave enough* at this time *to be the sole issue, vote based on one issue. In fact, such a position is very important, both as an incentive for the Democratic Party to break its culture of death and a reminder to the Republicans that these voters are not a given if they put economics ahead of innocent life. I do not know this will happen, but this year is an indication that this can happen.

In light of the move of the Republican Party away from life issues, I do not think I would recommend to a pro-life Democrat that he abandon his party, as much as I would that he push to reform it, at least, to a neutral position that might allow for more pro-life Democrats.

 

[estesbob]

This is a good distinction. Most of what the Church teaches allows for judgment. Catholics, as a group, are not single issue voters, according to FCFC. This does not mean that individual Catholics cannot, because of their conviction that abortion is grave enough* at this time *to be the sole issue, vote based on one issue. In fact, such a position is very important, both as an incentive for the Democratic Party to break its culture of death and a reminder to the Republicans that these voters are not a given if they put economics ahead of innocent life. I do not know this will happen, but this year is an indication that this can happen.

In light of the move of the Republican Party away from life issues, I do not think I would recommend to a pro-life Democrat that he abandon his party, as much as I would that he push to reform it, at least, to a neutral position that might allow for more pro-life Democrats.

There has been no movement away from life issues by the republican party. There is no loophole in Church teaching that says you can vote for a pro-abortion candidate to either punish a Party for not being , in their opinion, not pro-life enough or as “incentive” to a Party to change their support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.

 

[Darryl1958]

RR, I am interested in your opinion as to why - in the face of the Church’s teaching on this singular issue - most Catholics tend to vote for Democrats in national elections.

When it comes to life issues, more Catholics are informed by their culture than their Church.
There is absolutely no difference between how Catholics vote and how the culture at large votes.
Mormons have tendencies and Evangelicals have tendencies, but Catholics do not.

 

[Theo520]

Depending on what you mean by “stands” this may or may not help. It is easy enough to find out what he is saying now and what he has said, and more importantly done, in the past. If however one wants to know what he believes, that is more difficult.

Not everyone is as gullible as Donald Trump thinks they are, though clearly plenty of people are.

smooth deflection, but my first link also shows position changes if/when they occur.
You can look up any candidate on the site.

 

[Crossbones]

It’s good that people should read it, along with the statements of the other bishops like Burke, Chaput. It would help to read what the Popes have said.

But it’s not helpful or good to encourage Catholics to believe, wrongly, that the Church teaches that one cannot or should not vote on the basis of abortion alone. The Church actually teaches that we must oppose it with our votes UNLESS there is an equally grave or greater evil to be opposed in doing it. In this election, there is none equal to the annual killing of a million innocent children.

Nor is it right to encourage Catholics to ignore Church teaching as a legitimate moral “choice”. Nor is it right to encourage Catholics to interpret one document “for themselves”. That’s a protestant thing to do, not a Catholic thing.

Thank you. Of course, Catholics should also read the comments of bishops as well as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. It is not helpful for anyone to encourage Catholics to believe something that is not Church teaching, so I highly recommend all Catholics read all these and use them to determine how to vote instead of depending on the personal interpretation of those on this site.

 

[Crossbones]

This is a good distinction. Most of what the Church teaches allows for judgment. Catholics, as a group, are not single issue voters, according to FCFC. This does not mean that individual Catholics cannot, because of their conviction that abortion is grave enough* at this time *to be the sole issue, vote based on one issue. In fact, such a position is very important, both as an incentive for the Democratic Party to break its culture of death and a reminder to the Republicans that these voters are not a given if they put economics ahead of innocent life. I do not know this will happen, but this year is an indication that this can happen.

In light of the move of the Republican Party away from life issues, I do not think I would recommend to a pro-life Democrat that he abandon his party, as much as I would that he push to reform it, at least, to a neutral position that might allow for more pro-life Democrats.

It’s painful to think that neither party is close to Catholic teaching. The Republicans used to be closer, but have been drifting away with their love of unjust wars, torture, targeting enemy combatants and racism.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Thank you. Of course, Catholics should also read the comments of bishops as well as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. It is not helpful for anyone to encourage Catholics to believe something that is not Church teaching, so I highly recommend all Catholics read all these and use them to determine how to vote instead of depending on the personal interpretation of those on this site.

No, it’s not a matter of reading one document and self-interpreting it. Others here, most notably Estesbob, have produced quotes from other bishops and the Pope himself. One should encourage a thorough reading. Those statements are consistent.

And there have been statements made by posters like myself and Estesbob in connection with the direct quotes, pointing out that some of the quotes were made in direct response to limited questions, and the context must also be taken into consideration along with the other statements made by the churchmen.

There have also been statements made by others encouraging a selective reading of one thing only, combined with one’s relativistic interpretation of it in order to encourage Catholics to vote for pro-abortion candidates. That’s a very wrong thing to do.