Do Catholics still support Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter MamasBoy33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HarryStotle said:
Why not just keep it even simpler and judge actions, which we can have some knowledge of, and stay out of the business of judging characters or persons, BECAUSE the character of the person is ever-changing and we don’t have any sure access to either of those in the first place? (Although some of us think we do.)
Click to expand...
We have to decide who to vote for. Again (second post of this), from the USCCB guide:
These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.
Click to expand...
A person of poor moral character and lacking integrity is a serious liability in public office. When it comes to politicians, it is one of my greatest considerations, as a person will act in accord with his character more than what he says. In the case of Donald Trump, did anyone doubt that any tax cut would leave him in the best financial shape of any other class? His character has been defined by pursuit of wealth as an end, even more than other, more carnal, pursuits.

This does not mean it might not be wise to vote for him over those who might be worse, but I sure couldn’t do it.
 
Last edited:
OKi said:
Why do you say that Trump has not been implicated?

Um, because he has not been implicated. Do you understand how reality works?
Click to expand...
Do you understand how the legal system works? I pretty much laid it out for you.

Monday - not implicated
Tuesday - not implicated
Wednesday -not implicated
Thursday - Indictment handed down and sealed - still not implicated publicly
Friday - 5:30 AM visit from FBI - Implicated and arrested

Just because Mueller’s team hasn’t leaked that Trump is implicated does not mean Trump is not implicated. It only means they haven’t leaked that Trump is implicated.
 
sainteriksrose said:
We did not destroy property and make public nuisances out of ourselves over Obama…

Oh, and prevent his supporters from speaking at schools. Nor did professors call his being elected an act of treason.

Prayer needs, all.
Click to expand...
Unless you are willing to be included in all that some Trump supporters do, which includes some students who marched both with Trump signs and “White Power” signs, you’d do well not to blame others on this forum for the domestic terrorists protesting against him.

There are some “out there” people who have been emboldened to commit crimes and spew hatred both for and against the President. They’ve implied that there are sectors of their fellow Americans who don’t deserve to be in this country and say they ought to leave and any number of other outrageous things.

Both sides need to adamantly disavow those who dare to do such awful things as if they represent anyone else. We should not fall for these ploys to divide the majority on either side in that way. It is the work of the devil, it literally is.
 
pnewton said:
I know this may sound simple, but I was fully aware who was running for president. I posted the voter’s guide link above for those who are not aware that Catholics are under no obligation to vote binary.

Is any one else appreciating the irony of the argument that “at least Trump is not Clinton” when Donald Trump, as one of many candidates was the only person running for their nomination that would not agree and sign a pledge to support the Republican candidate and not try a third party run? Or is that too far back in memory?
Click to expand...
There are some who could not see their way clear to vote for either candidate, some who decided to hold their nose and vote for the least-bad candidate and even some who by honestly making their best effort really thought that one or the other truly was a good candidate, as human beings go and all things considered.

I agree with you that it is better to stick to enumerating the reasons we voted the way we did, rather than making presumptions about the inner qualities of those who voted differently.
 
I asked the question because you responded to only part of what I said and ignored the part about the relationship between forgiveness and support.

So please forgive me. And thank you for your future support.

BTW, words are the main way we communicate, especially in a written medium. I hope those little hairs tingle when you do what you accuse others of doing.
 
jfz178 said:
Between the time Hillary was Secretary of State and her presidential run, one of her biggest earning streams was for speaking engagements in Russia and paid for by Russia. You don’t think some promises were made on those deals?
Click to expand...
I continue to be amazed at the double standards when it comes to collusion and rash judgment. Just because I would not trust Mrs Clinton farther than I could throw a piano one-handed does not mean Mr Trump and his campaign could do no wrong.

A law that has not been taken off the books is not automatically “moot.” It takes a court to decide that a desuetude defense is applicable. I think it certainly could be argued that in the matter under discussion the acts being alleged would be intrinsically wrong and offenses against the United States, if proven, because the allegation is that members of the Trump campaign were communicating with Russia not in a disinterested way on behalf of the best interests of the United States but rather for gain specific to the negotiating parties.

It really depends on the substance of what was being negotiated and whether there was personal gain involved rather than just political objectives more in keeping with the new Administration’s goals than the ones of the outgoing Administration.

In other words, if there is a stark disconnect between what the Trump campaign was doing and what Donald Trump had openly said his Administration’s intentions were with regards to US interests in Russia, I think many people will be changing their tune about whether this is a serious matter or not.
 
pnewton said:
We have to decide who to vote for. Again (second post of this), from the USCCB guide:
These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.
Click to expand...
Let us concede that in order to decide whether someone being considered for public office, their character or what you are absolutely certain about it would be a consideration for you to decide whether you could, in good conscience, vote for them or not. That could be done privately and judiciously while undertaking your civic responsibilities.

That, however, is a far cry from denigrating, lampooning, ridiculing, reviling, lambasting and impugning their character on a public forum when it is of absolutely no purpose, edification, or good to oneself or to anyone else reading the diatribe to do so. It merely comes across as acrimonious, pointless, petty and divisive.

By all means let’s justify our own petty animosity by warranting our uncharitable comments and behavior by references to Church teaching and thereby implicate both Christ and the Church at large in our ruthlessness.

Yeah, no thanks.
Click to expand...
 
pnewton said:
A person of poor moral character and lacking integrity is a serious liability in public office. When it comes to politicians, it is one of my greatest considerations, as a person will act in accord with his character more than what he says. In the case of Donald Trump, did anyone doubt that any tax cut would leave him in the best financial shape of any other class? His character has been defined by pursuit of wealth as an end, even more than other, more carnal, pursuits.

This does not mean it might not be wise to vote for him over those who might be worse, but I sure couldn’t do it.
Click to expand...
If I had to identify one overriding motive or character trait that SEEMS to be driving the President (since I cannot read minds), I’d say he wants to be the center of attention, he wants to be talked about, he wants to be “remarkable.” I don’t think its just about making money with him. I think it is about feeling like he’s the winner every time and all the time.

If he just wanted to pile up more money so he could do whatever he wanted, becoming President was an extremely poor choice. He is never going to be free again. He is trying to eat his cake and have it too when it comes to both running the nation and running his private business concerns–please tell me no one believes he is content to be blind to how his businesses are being run, lest there be a conflict of interest–but I have to wonder if he realizes that there is nothing one can do to make oneself more reviled to more people more quickly than to be elected President of the United States.

Did he think he’d be the first real living exception to this rule since George Washington? Maybe he did.
 
Last edited:
It’s fascinating that Trump supporters can’t see their own glaring confirmation bias…
I see it on both sides. American politics can be boiled down to “the pot calling the kettle black”.
 
HarryStotle said:
No, but apparently it is your place to impute very serious sins to him, even though it is not your “place to know?” I see.
Click to expand...
No, it is not my place to impute sins to him either. None of us can know his heart. All I can go on is what I have observed.
HarryStotle said:
You prefer STALE halitosis?
Click to expand...
😂

I really miss those rolling laughing emogis
MonteRCMS said:
On second thought, perhaps Hillary Clinton’s doppelgänger might be a better president than either Hillary herself or the Donald.
Click to expand...
It is a tragic state of affairs.
PaulinVA said:
Then don’t make the choice.

It doesn’t matter what the choices are. If you voted for a bad person, you voted for a bad person. You are complicit.
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that we have an obligation to bring our faith to the world, in the best way we know how. We need to choose, even if it is a choice between bad and worse.
HarryStotle said:
You have some great ability to judge hearts and motives? Based upon what? I would reflect on that as well, if I were you. The judgements you mete out are those by which you will be judged.
Click to expand...
One can only discern based upon what one can see and hear. What can be inferred about his motives is based upon his expressions.

Loading…

thehill.com

Since when did greed become an admirable quality of character?
 
HarryStotle said:
Seems is the operative word. Jesus said not to judge by appearances, the way things seem to be.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” John 7:24
Certainly we cannot depend solely on “appearances”, but we also cannot ignore what we observe. How does one acquire “right judgement”? Could this be done by ignoring what is before our eyes?
HarryStotle said:
I only care about what God thinks and the truth of things. My concern is whether I embody the Holy Spirit. That is as far as I go with “discerning spirits.”
Click to expand...
This is noble. One of the principles of embodiment of the Holy Spirit is discerning right from wrong, righteous from unrighteous. For example, would the HS teach us that “greed” is a virtue?
 
ProVobis said:
Which is why he’s building hotels and putting HIS name on them around the world for himself.
Click to expand...
Well he was doing that long before he decided to get into politics. Now he just uses his investments to supplement his office, or his office to supplement his investements. The week he was elected, foreign dignitaries changed their reservations to the Trump Hotel. He financially benefits from taxpayors supporting trips to his resort house in Florida to conduct the business of his office. Or at least, that is what he says it is…

I am not sure how exactly his virtue of personal greed is to benefit the country, perhaps giving tax cuts to the most wealthy? Perhaps defunding the UN? Cancelling health insurance for the lower middle class and the poor?
 
guanophore said:
Then don’t make the choice.

It doesn’t matter what the choices are. If you voted for a bad person, you voted for a bad person. You are complicit.

The Church teaches that we have an obligation to bring our faith to the world, in the best way we know how. We need to choose, even if it is a choice between bad and worse.
Click to expand...
I disagree. You do not need to make a choice. Making a bad choice is making a bad choice.

Mussolini or Hitler - who to vote for?

NEITHER!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top