Do Catholics still support Trump

[JanSobieskiIII]

Iraq was justified through UN resolutions alone which held that if Saddam violated agreements after Desert Storm he would be subject to being removed.

You say Afghanistan could have been contained other ways, but I highly doubt it. The Taliban themselves were no direct threat, but their refusal to stop harboring al-qaeda made them a target. You can’t institute regime change without putting boots on the ground.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

When they were fighting the Soviets, of course we did.

Our failure was stopping the support of the Northern Alliance after the Soviets were kicked out. Had we continued support of the moderate faction in Afghanistan the Taliban probably wouldn’t have been able to seize power as effectively. They’d still have been a player in ethnic pashtun regions where their main power base is.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Hold on…are you saying the same people who use the UN to bully Israel (I know since I have “white supremacist talking points,” I shouldn’t even be saying that, right @(name removed by moderator)?) do not recognize the authority of the UN in the Iraq War?

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Agreed. Were I in charge both would have involved multi generational military governorship’s until their cultural problems were remedied. But the American people don’t have the stomach or attention span for that sort of thing.

 

[anon65111186]

A political position is a job, after all. He does work for the electorate. Perhaps I should ask why you think it a poor analogy.

While it is a job they get paid for we are not the President’s employer in any real sense.

First, an individual hires an employee, not a collective. Second, the committes and the electoral college do the real vetting and election, not those putting in the popular vote. We don’t pay his wage directly, employee s directly pay. We can’t fire the President if we opine he is doing a terrible job, employers can. We also have no oversight or authority over the President, rather he has a great deal of authority and power over us individually. The President doesn’t interview for the job and take questions that we ask ourselves, they present their best arguments at debates, oftentimes not in response to any particular question by the moderators.

I could go on, but the main point is no, the President is nobody’s employee, nomatter how much one might wish he was so they had some control over him.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Trump supported racism and continues to support racism.

Prove it. There’s no reason to believe it, and good reason not to believe it.

Bush supported unjust wars

Prove it. There’s no reason to believe it, and good reason not to believe it.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Prove it. There’s no reason to believe it, and good reason not to believe it.

Central Park Five, Sued by government for discriminating against blacks, Judge Curiel, Sheriff Arpaio, Charlottesville and fine people on both sides.

Prove it. There’s no reason to believe it, and good reason not to believe it.

Iraq War.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course it is proportionately more important to save those 50 million babies.

Exactly.

When deciding on proportionate reasons to choose between two or more candidates, the proper thing to weigh is the value of the underlying issue together with the probability of that issue being positively affected by your candidate.

With Repub presidential candidates, there is a chance abortion will be banned or at least turned over to the states. With Dems, there is none at all. With Repubs on the state level, there is a very good chance for limiting or eliminating it. With Dems at that level, there is none. So the probability of at least reducing the evil is massively greater with Repubs than with Dems.

Maintenance of national parks? Even with a chance of limiting abortion that doesn’t even come close to a proportionate reason. That’s just frivolous.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Imaginably you could give us the source if you expect anybody to believe this is anything but your own assessment.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You asked. I answered. And yes he is entitled to his opinion and to bind his flock.

Imaginable in Byzantine Catholicism a prelate in his position has authority, all on his own, to declare an action of state to be mortally sinful, binding on those under his jurisdiction (though I doubt that) but an individual Latin bishop does not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

When deciding on proportionate reasons to choose between two or more candidates, the proper thing to weigh is the value of the underlying issue together with the probability of that issue being positively affected by your candidate.

With Repub presidential candidates, there is a chance abortion will be banned or at least turned over to the states. With Dems, there is none at all. With Repubs on the state level, there is a very good chance for limiting or eliminating it.

This is as prudential judgement on your part - not a matter of Church doctrine, which does not make pronouncements on the chances of anything political happening. So while you may have very good reasons for believing the chances are high that voting for a pro-life candidate will ban or reduce abortions, the fact remains that the Church does not forbid someone from coming to a somewhat different conclusion.

Maintenance of national parks? Even with a chance of limiting abortion that doesn’t even come close to a proportionate reason. That’s just frivolous.

That depends on what those chances are.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is as prudential judgement on your part - not a matter of Church doctrine, which does not make pronouncements on the chances of anything political happening. So while you may have very good reasons for believing the chances are high that voting for a pro-life candidate will ban or reduce abortions, the fact remains that the Church does not forbid someone from coming to a somewhat different conclusion.

It’s more than that. The Dem party is straight up about its support for abortion on demand, putting it right in their party platform. Also, of course, both NARAL and NRL identify virtually no Repubs with a pro-abortion record and virtually no Dems with a prolife record.

So, at a point, while judgments must be made, some are so obvious that there’s no “prudential” to them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

This is as prudential judgement on your part - not a matter of Church doctrine, which does not make pronouncements on the chances of anything political happening. So while you may have very good reasons for believing the chances are high that voting for a pro-life candidate will ban or reduce abortions, the fact remains that the Church does not forbid someone from coming to a somewhat different conclusion.

It’s more than that. The Dem party is straight up about its support for abortion on demand, putting it right in their party platform. Also, of course, both NARAL and NRL identify virtually no Repubs with a pro-abortion record and virtually no Dems with a prolife record.

So, at a point, while judgments must be made, some are so obvious that there’s no “prudential” to them.

While it is obvious that Democrats are generally opposed to legal restrictions on abortion (there is no “prudential” about that) it is not entirely clear that voting for an opponent of theirs will make anything better. That is the part that involves prudential judgement - what might you get when electing a nominally pro-life candidate? For example, Trump was nominally pro-life. How many abortions have been prevented so far? How certain are we that in the next 3 years many more abortions will be prevented?

 

[Axsenex]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vi.../why-the-deaf-community-fears-president-trump

There’s plenty of conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist & independent across the political spectrum in the Deaf Community.

At the end of the day, I’m proud to be part of amazing group of people sharing our common goals & unique culture.

 

[dvdjs]

It’s more than that.

The fundamental moral theology is not about the act of voting per se, but about cooperation in the evil act.
If there is no genuine reason (not just wishful thinking or partisan prejudice) that the persons under consideration will have an impact on the commission of the evil act, then the issue of moral responsibility is moot; the vote has no bearing on the commission of the evil act. In that situation other issues with genuine possibilitiers of impact are inherently of greater gravity.

You may choose, on the matter of character, not to entrust your vote to someone whose moral compass is, from your perspective, horribly amiss. But that is a different argument altogether.

 

[Ridgerunner]

it is not entirely clear that voting for an opponent of theirs will make anything better.

Well, voting for G.W. Bush put Alito and Roberts on the bench. Voting for Obama got us Sotomayor and Kagan. Still one short, but there’s a chance Trump will be able to name one more justice, which could tip the balance of the Court to prolife, whereas Clinton would have already appointed a pro-abortion justice.

What is entirely clear is that voting for a Dem presidential candidate is a vote for abortion on demand. Probably partial birth abortion as well, given that every Dem appointee wanted to make it a “constitutional right”, and so voted in Carhart vs. Gonzales.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Sotomayor. And you don’t think it’s clear what your vote does?

Now, maybe someday the Dem party won’t be totally pro-abortion. But it is now.

 

[dvdjs]

Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Sotomayor. And you don’t think it’s clear what your vote does?

I think they are all judges of distinction - three of the four are Catholic, and two nominated by Bush - who will judge the cases before them with integrity. Something that I expect from all of the judges. And while the judges may disagree on matters of jurisprudence it would be a betrayal of trust and of their own integrity for them to work to advance a political agenda. That work belongs not in the SCOTUS but in Congress, where neither side does anything of consequence. Both political parties use the wedge, and seem happy to keep the wedge sharp; no one is working on solutions.

 

[godisgood77]

I

Yeah, so did David, King of Israel. In fact, David had one of the guys whose wife he slept with killed at the front line so he could marry that guy’s wife. Pretty despicable.

And yet, God promised David an eternal kingdom to be his legacy, a kingdom that would not pass away

Didn’t David repent?

 

[godisgood77]

Mar a Lago guests are all poor. They just paid about 750 dollars to attend a New Year’s Eve party

Yes… where their President opened his comments by say… ‘I just made you all a lot richer’ referring to his tax plan… the jig is up trump supporters, you were conned…