Do Catholics still support Trump

[godisgood77]

So then by this logic, Catholics who vote Democrat support abortion.

Not true, Catholics who vote for Dems that support abortion (of which, there are a lot) support abortion. There is an entire organization called Dems for Life that is advancing the pro life cause in the Dem party

He’s picking the right judges, has a half-way decent tax and energy policy and stands up to global elites and bullies.

Well his Tax cuts add a boat load of money to our debt… so you must not be a fiscal conservative. Trump was very open about this at his NYE party at his resort, saying to his global elite friends “I’ve just made you all much richer”… so much for this plan being bad for Donald Trump - as he asserted over and over again…

I don’t know enough about his judicial appointments to comment.

Relative to standing up to the so-called global elites, he is one of them and is standing with them in plane sight.

Anyway, it’s silly to go line by line…all I’d say is that the constant lying and lack of trustworthiness trumps those three things you mentioned for me by a long shot.

Why don’t you care about the lying? Or are those things you mention more important to you than honesty?

 

[Jig_Saw]

That’s a pure ad hominem approach and that approach is wrong. The focus should be on the idea put forward.

I know (and disagree) with a number of people in the field of chemistry who deny anthropogenic climate change but they’re still credible when discussing for example molecular orbital theory.

A person who voted for Trump doesn’t by default disqualify that person’s credibility or expertise. To treat someone like that is rather immature.

Actually, the argument is sound. If someone claims that the earth is flat, then they lack the ability to do basic science to test this view and I would be justified in discounting them in all things science.

Now, in the case of voting for and being a Trump supporter, I did not say that I would not listen to their view on any issue, so you are extending the claim far past what I said.

 

[pnewton]

Not true, Catholics who vote for Dems that support abortion (of which, there are a lot) support abortion. There is an entire organization called Dems for Life that is advancing the pro life cause in the Dem party

That was kind of his point. It is not logical to say those that support Donald Trump support any specific policy of his, much less all of it.

 

[AJC]

St. Paul tells us to pray for our civic leaders, not love or hate them. Not always easy to do. But Christians of all stripes, in my opinion, invest far to much of themselves in politics. And I plead guilty. It goes for religious and Church leadership too. I think it’s a matter of choosing to see the eternal, God’s Kingdom over the temporal, this world.

 

[godisgood77]

That’s why I keep asking why and what about trump he supports. He asked me what I thought… and that is what I think.

Most of the Trump supporters in this long thread haven’t distances themselves from anything Trump has said, done, implemented or better, tried to implement.

 

[Hope2]

I sure do! I remain hopeful that he can revive support for our Constitution, and eliminate some of the very secular political correctness that has overtaken common sense these days.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Not true, Catholics who vote for Dems that support abortion (of which, there are a lot) support abortion. There is an entire organization called Dems for Life that is advancing the pro life cause in the Dem party

Sounds like your “logic” needs some revision then. I’d hate to think you have one standard for the GOP and another one for Democrats just to appease the cool kids on the block.

“I’ve just made you all much richer”… so much for this plan being bad for Donald Trump - as he asserted over and over again…

It’s also true that their wealth will create a rising tide for the working class and the poor. Rich people really help get this economy moving, and I am excited!

Anyway, it’s silly to go line by line…all I’d say is that the constant lying and lack of trustworthiness trumps those three things you mentioned for me by a long shot.

I don’t what “all the lying” means. That’s vague, and I thought you hated being vague. Trump has said he is going to do things and has done them as much as he can.

Why don’t you care about the lying?

Strawman question.

Or are those things you mention more important to you than honesty?

Abortion and the nuclear family trump words. If anyone thinks otherwise, they need to study Catholicism more carefully.

 

[SuperLuigi]

That’s why I keep asking why and what about trump he supports. He asked me what I thought… and that is what I think.

Most of the Trump supporters in this long thread haven’t distances themselves from anything Trump has said, done, implemented or better, tried to implement.

That’s because people misrepresent what he says.

Otherwise, his policies are pretty good.

 

[ATraveller]

Actually, the argument is sound. If someone claims that the earth is flat, then they lack the ability to do basic science to test this view and I would be justified in discounting them in all things science.

The argument is not sound. You debate the merits of the individual’s thesis or opinion. And yes, a flat-Earther could be credible in many other scientific disciplines but he or she would be up for ridicule though.

Now, in the case of voting for and being a Trump supporter, I did not say that I would not listen to their view on any issue, so you are extending the claim far past what I said.

I will ignore the opinion on any theological matter from a Trump supporter, so I wouldn’t care if Trump supporter believes in God or not in forming my belief on whether or not God exists.

Again that has nothing to do with the idea’s validity. It’s just prejudice. The political preference of a person has no bearing on the accuracy of that person’s theological position. The two are independent of each other in this case.

 

[Jig_Saw]

The argument is not sound. You debate the merits of the individual’s thesis or opinion. And yes, a flat-Earther could be credible in many other scientific disciplines but he or she would be up for ridicule though

Well, you go ahead and get your science from someone that can’t formulate a simple experiment to test what would turn out to be a false hypothesis. I’ll get my science from those that can.

Again that has nothing to do with the idea’s validity. It’s just prejudice. The political preference of a person has no bearing on the accuracy of that person’s theological position. The two are independent of each other in this case.

Well, you would get your science from someone who believes the earth is flat, so I don’t really consider your point of view valid on this topic.

 

[ATraveller]

I don’t really consider your point of view valid on this topic.

Unfortunately, you’ve demonstrated you don’t understand how science works nor do you want to understand it. And when it comes to debate and discussion, argumentum ad hominem is your preferred method. I’m not interested in this. I’m out.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Unfortunately, you’ve demonstrated you don’t understand how science works nor do you want to understand it. And when it comes to debate and discussion, argumentum ad hominem is your preferred method. I’m not interested in this. I’m out.

I’m pretty sure I do; that’s why I know not to listen to the science of anyone that is a flatearther. You, on the other hand, don’t seem to and that’s probably why it’s a good idea that you’re out.

 

[godisgood77]

Sounds like your “logic” needs some revision then. I’d hate to think you have one standard for the GOP and another one for Democrats just to appease the cool kids on the block.

If you’d go back a reread, you’ll likely retract your statement… we were talking about Donald Trump’s policies, words and actions… not the Republican Party. You tried to apply my comments to the entire dem party and abortion… not a valid comparison by you…not me. My logic is entirely consistent.

It’s also true that their wealth will create a rising tide for the working class and the poor

Trickle down economics or voodoo economics as Bush #1 called it has many, many detractors. I don’t believe we can call it a truth that that approach works for the working class… hyposthesis at best

I don’t what “all the lying” means.

There are so many, i’m surprised they you are not aware… let’s choose just a few…
-Trump said over and over that the tax plan would not benefit him… in fact he said it would be bad for him - an effort to mislead the public about the benefit that the working class would enjoy.
-Trump admitted that it was him talking and apologized for the audio recording of himself admitting groping women… just a few weeks ago, he said the voice may not be his… What gives?

• Trump - mexico will pay for the wall… he is now asking Congress for funding… What gives??

Strawman question.

Not a strawman… I’m dumbfounded that this level of dishonesty doesn’t bother Catholics to the point where they would temper their support

 

[pnewton]

Most of the Trump supporters in this long thread haven’t distances themselves from anything Trump has said, done, implemented or better, tried to implement.

That is a rather glaring difference. Thanks.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m pretty sure I do; that’s why I know not to listen to the science of anyone that is a flatearther. You, on the other hand, don’t seem to and that’s probably why it’s a good idea that you’re out.

It seems to me that by deliberately “not listening” to the science of a “flatearther,” you have implicitly admitted that you are at a loss to answer the misconceptions of that science. By admitting THAT, you are implying that your version of “science” has no capacity to correct those misconceptions which is why “not listening” is your only remaining option.

Why not listen, understand and identify clearly to both your benefits where and why the “flatearther” is mistaken?

It seems to me that your strategy is very like the goto strategy of social justice warriors who simply refuse to hear anyone who disagrees with them on any disputed issue and instead feign a “correct” stance that cannot be mistaken and won’t stoop to condescend to the level of their inferiors in thought and deed. I would suggest they only resort to that stance because they are incapable of responding to competing claims. It is a clear tell that they have neither the methods nor the means to answer the disputed issue in anything like a sufficient way.

Are you also that incapable of answering “flatearthers” that your only remaining option is to stop listening to them?

 

[Jig_Saw]

It seems to me that by deliberately “not listening” to the science of a “flatearther,” you have implicitly admitted that you are at a loss to answer the misconceptions of that science. By admitting THAT, you are implying that your version of “science” has no capacity to correct those misconceptions which is why “not listening” is your only remaining option.

No, my version of science would suggest a test that would prove the flatearther wrong.

Why not listen, understand and identify clearly to both your benefits where and why the “flatearther” is mistaken?

I’d be happy to listen, I’m just not taking the person seriously on matters of science.

It seems to me that your strategy is very like the goto strategy of social justice warriors who simply refuse to hear anyone who disagrees with them on any disputed issue and instead feign a “correct” stance that cannot be mistaken and won’t stoop to condescend to the level of their inferiors in thought and deed. I would suggest they only resort to that stance because they are incapable of responding to competing claims. It is a clear tell that they have neither the methods nor the means to answer the disputed issue in anything like a sufficient way.

It seems to me that you are making connections that have nothing to do with what I said.

Are you also that incapable of answering “flatearthers” that your only remaining option is to stop listening to them?

Nope, I listen. I’m not going to take their point of view seriously.

 

[HarryStotle]

Nope, I listen. I’m not going to take their point of view seriously.

Taking errors seriously is a good way to work through to a better understanding of those errors and why those who are decidedly in error are indeed in error.

Are you sure you aren’t phobic with regard to being in error? Perhaps you are suffering from errorphobia?

Are you frightened about being in error or being seen with someone who has errant views?

A pride thing, perhaps?

I could be completely mistaken about this, howerror.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Taking errors seriously is a good way to work through to a better understanding of those errors and why those who are decidedly in error are indeed in error.

I agree. That’s why I patiently respond to posts when the author clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

Are you sure you aren’t phobic with regard to being in error? Perhaps you are suffering from errorphobia?

No, and I’m going to take a flyer that you made up that word.

Are you frightened about being in error or being seen with someone who has errant views?

No.

A pride thing, perhaps?

No.

I could be completely mistaken about this, howerror.

You definitely are.

 

[Axsenex]

Trump is losing his sense of reality with his incoherent tweet about the book.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Yes, of course I did. From the article:

“He’s a Mexican,” Trump told CNN. “We’re building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings — rulings that people can’t even believe.”

That is racist. Do you not think it is?

NO.

His comment was racist.

I don’t even know that he said, but the comment would be racist if he did. But I don’t think for a minute Trump is a racist, sexist or homophobe or anything else the far left says he is.

If I were you, I wouldn’t play their game. It’s a losing proposition, especially with me.