Do Catholics still support Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter MamasBoy33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve been accused of advancing Stormfront talking points on another thread even though I don’t read that.
 
“2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens“

Since illegal immigrants do not obey our laws by nature of having come here illegally, and since they do not contribute taxes towards the common good (at least not in all the same ways legal residents and citizens do) they have forfeited their protection. They just go back to their country of origin.
 
niceatheist said:
Because surely the pro-life movement has been down this road before since Roe v Wade, and yet abortion is still legal. Do you really think there’s any real likelihood of a repeal in the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...
Seems like the tide of thinking that abortion is wrong is growing stronger with the younger crowd… at least according to EWTN… Maybe someday soon most people will see it for what it really is and science is backing them up… seeing the baby in the womb via ultrasound? Beautiful!
 
Yeah they’ll try to get you.
The only reason why i respond bevause i want to see if they would change there view
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If in my judgement that candidate also posed an existential threat to our country then I would not vote for him even if he said the magic words “anti-abortion.” For example (and totally hypothetically), if I thought that the candidate was the kind of person who would taunt a nuclear-armed and mentally unstable dictator by calling him “Little Rocket Man” and talking about whose nuclear button is bigger, and had no sense of diplomacy and isolated us from our allies, and gave comfort to those with racial supremacist ideologies who would spread hate throughout our society - that hypothetical candidate would not get my vote.
Click to expand...
Just think for a moment of all the people who have treated NK the same old way, playing their game, giving them concessions… all of it has NOT worked. Still they threaten the US and actually launch rockets that COULD hit the mainland with what ever payload they develop to attach… Would you not say to TRY something else? You don’t want to keep doing the same old thing, do you?
 
petra22 said:
Just think for a moment of all the people who have treated NK the same old way, playing their game, giving them concessions… all of it has NOT worked. Still they threaten the US and actually launch rockets that COULD hit the mainland with what ever payload they develop to attach… Would you not say to TRY something else? You don’t want to keep doing the same old thing, do you?
Click to expand...
On the contrary, the existing policy toward NK has worked. There are so many worse ways things could be turning out right now. There is every reason to believe that all out war on the Korean peninsula would result with the possible involvement of China. No. I would not want to try some high risk move in the hopes that it might turn out better, given the fact that it is more likely to turn out much worse ways than now.
 
dvdjs said:
But saying that something will support the non-negotiable against strong evidence to the contrary should not be mistaken as genuine support.
Click to expand...
what have we achieved for all the money we threw at these issues?
dvdjs said:
Surely you know the answer to that. Why ask me?
Click to expand...
if you support the left, you support these programs? you think that voting progressive won’t help further its anti-religious agenda? you think they will only vote for what you believe in?
godisgood77 said:
For the death penalty, AG Jeff Sessions and President Trump are at odds with the Catechism,
Click to expand...
the catechism allows the death penalty. it should be rarely used but it can be used
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Click to expand...
godisgood77 said:
The USCCB has spoken out against Trump’s actions related to DACA and immigration/travel Ban.
Click to expand...
they have different goals.

how are the immigration policies working in europe? the muslims claim europe will be muslim by 2050. have the bishops address these claims?

kinda goes against ccc 2241
Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens“
Click to expand...
niceatheist said:
Do you really think there’s any real likelihood of a repeal in the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...
it isn’t all or nothing. we can seek smaller achievements
  1. Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, St. John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.
Click to expand...
 
Really? Care to demonstrate where the Church forbade voting for Clinton?
 
Yeah Your right about that. Line New Mexico was very Catholic and we thought they be more pro-life and vote for Trump or a 3rd party but they went with Hillary. They thought the Wall was more serious then abortion i guess.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I’m literally impressed with unnecessary confusion for the lawmakers at DACA meeting hosted by Trump.

He’s perfect for both sides because he don’t care as long as he sign the bill.

Hey Ann Coulter… good luck!
 
I do like his desire to open a path to citizenship for millions, though this remains to be seen. I would even support a wall under those circumstances. I find it interesting that when it comes to actually helping immigrants, Republicans have the worst rhetoric, but the best track record, what with Reagan, G.W. Bush, and now maybe Trump?

Making it easy to tax, track and evaluate immigrants so that there is no incentive for them to come illegally is the best way to secure the border against the illegal entry for the purpose of terrorism or drugs trafficking.

It is the building of a wall and a bridge, with background checks and tracking across the bridge. That is kind of what the Church teaches.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top