LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is hard to take you seriously when you also maintain that anyone who votes for a pure 100% pro-life candidate instead of Trump is guilty of mortal sin!
- Status
C
Crossbones
Guest
Perhaps you should reread JimG’s comment that I was responding to where he said he needed no Church documentation. That said, it is important for lurkers and newcomers to not depend on someone’s personal interpretation of Church teaching to determine who to vote for, but rather, they should review Church documents such as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship as well as the comments of various bishops when weighing their vote.
J
JimG
Guest
What I meant is this: For all of it’s history the Church has condemned abortion. It has never accepted same sex marriage. It’s moral precepts are well known and have been well known long before the USCCB every published a voting guide. The Church’s moral teachings are not secret. It does not require much interpretation to read through the Democratic party platform or Hillary Clinton’s position statements to note that many of them are seriously at odds with Church teaching.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I don’t see the quote in any of the materials I looked at. If you have the quote, then give it to us honestly and openly. Like I said, the FBI is already targeting a non-combatant, the wife of the shooter and from the news it appears that she had knowledge which she failed to reveal to the police. The press claims that she may have to face charges.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
My take on this is that nothing is forever, especially in politics. The fact that the USA has a two party system now does not guarantee that it will be that way in the future. So, I think it is perfectly acceptable to vote for a third party candidate or to write in the name of someone you prefer and is in line with your principles.
C
Crossbones
Guest
Thank you for explaining your personal interpretation of Church teaching. Catholics, however, should not depend on someone’s personal interpretation, but, rather, should read Church documentation such as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and the various quotes of individual bishops when deciding how to vote.
C
Crossbones
Guest
Donald Trump on Fox and Friends: “Another thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families.”
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I suspect that he’s going to backtrack on that and say something like “take out” really means taking out of the house and interrogating, the way that the FBI was taking her out of the house and interrogating the wife of the Orlando shooter.
Yes, I am opposed to murdering non-combatants and am also opposed to the use of torture.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
What is the date and where is the link to the exact quote. Here’s what Mr. Trump says and unlike some people on this thread, I will give a link to what I am quoting:
Trump Says He Never Pledged To Kill Family Members Of Terrorists
“I didn’t say kill. We have to go after them.”
huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Acceptable, but a wasted effort.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
I would like for the FBI to go after the wife of this latest terrorist actually, and find out shy she sat on information that led to these scores of deaths.
They dropped the ball on this already, having this guy in their sights, and letting him act with impunity anyway.
They dropped the ball on this already, having this guy in their sights, and letting him act with impunity anyway.
C
Crossbones
Guest
It was on Fox and Friends on 12/16.
He then said on Bill O’Reilly that he would ‘make them suffer’ and would do this for ‘retribution’.
His intention was clear to those that have a normal understanding of the English language. That said, there are those on this forum that argued he didn’t mean what he said (like he doesn’t mean a lot of what he actually said).
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Is it a waste of time for a Republican to vote in California. It is never a waste of time to vote for the candidate of your choice. One Republican vote is not going to change the outcome of a Democratic presidential victory in a largely Democratic state and no one is claiming that it is a wasted effort for a Republican to vote for president in California? Or do you claim so?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Wasted on a third party candidate who has no chance of winning, for sure.
Wasted voting for a viable candidate against Hillary Clinton in California? No. At least one knows herself that she did her moral duty. One thing about this life…we largely make ourselves what we are, and every act contributes to it. Failure to oppose the abortion on demand candidate might cast longer shadows in our souls than we might suppose.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
All the principles and all the integrity in the world are useless if you do not have a vehicle to carry them forward into the world. I mean there is something very Christian about being a hermit and retreating to the desert, and if you are aesthetic enough, there was a time 1500 years ago at least where people would come to you on account of that holiness.
But for the rest of us who fall far short of the mark of that kind of holiness in a world where holiness is no longer even a value, in America, the only two vehicles that can bring you to any sort of influence are either Democratic or Republican.
Ex-Republicans like Jay Nordlinger and Mona Charen have in effect made themselves irrelevant by abandoning ship. It is laughable to watch them wince over the idea of joining up with a third party whose conventions include half naked obese guys doing a little dance up on the stage of their convention.
But for the rest of us who fall far short of the mark of that kind of holiness in a world where holiness is no longer even a value, in America, the only two vehicles that can bring you to any sort of influence are either Democratic or Republican.
Ex-Republicans like Jay Nordlinger and Mona Charen have in effect made themselves irrelevant by abandoning ship. It is laughable to watch them wince over the idea of joining up with a third party whose conventions include half naked obese guys doing a little dance up on the stage of their convention.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The Democratic Party has only been around for 188 years. The Republican Party, only 162 years. And during that time both parties has changed so much that on some issues they have literally traded places. So the true age of these parties in their present form is even younger than that, especially when compared to something really permanent, like the Church. You give these parties far more permanance than they deserve. They are both a blip in the grand scheme of things.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
My focus is only on the politics of our own generations, and what is available to us in the here and now.
Opting for the Whigs may well be within what has been possible in American history, but it just won’t give anyone a vehicle to move forward, in the here and now.
C
Crossbones
Guest
Well, in fairness, you’re Canadian, so it isn’t available to you in any way.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Well, the founding fathers were certainly thinking of future generations. I’m glad you and you “here and now” thinking were not there advising them at the time.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I certainly was not making any point against the founding fathers.
If there is any political vehicle to power in this current election cycle that does not involve either a Republican or a Democrat, I do not know what it is.
- Status