Do Catholics still support Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter MamasBoy33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HarryStotle said:
Now take note: the LORD did NOT send a mob of raging citizens – wearing funny pink hats and suffering from David derangement syndrome – into the street and across the media world shouting, “David is not my king!” using an assortment of derogatory epithets.
Click to expand...
His grandson Rehobam, on the other hand?
 
I just think it was awesome that they gave Trump the Pro-life man of the year award.
He must be doing something right.
Amen
 
Jig_Saw said:
I’m not sure how reading a document approved by the vast majority of US bishops and then weighing how to vote can be advocating moral responsibility. Maybe you should read it.
Click to expand...
When a pamphlet can be used to equally justify either side of whether the dismemberment killing of a human being is permissible by a society then that pamphlet cannot be of much use, morally speaking.

I prefer my morality just a tad less tenuous and unhelpful, thank you.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I would not be content with partial birth abortion even if there was only one. But “not being content” does not translate to “promising my vote to the first guy to say the magic word regardless of his other qualifications.”
Click to expand...
Well of course. If the “first guy” also promised to execute all two-year-olds, you wouldn’t vote for him.

But what issue in the real world would cause you to not vote for the one most likely to appoint justices who would not find a “constitutional right” to partial birth abortion?
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I would not be content with partial birth abortion even if there was only one. But “not being content” does not translate to “promising my vote to the first guy to say the magic word regardless of his other qualifications.”
Click to expand...
Well of course. If the “first guy” also promised to execute all two-year-olds, you wouldn’t vote for him.

But what issue in the real world would cause you to not vote for the one most likely to appoint justices who would not find a “constitutional right” to partial birth abortion?
Click to expand...
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?
 
niceatheist said:
Do you really think there’s any real likelihood of a repeal in the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...
I do. Roberts and Alito both voted for life in the “Carhart” case. On the one hand, at worst, one has uncertainty whether Trump appointees will vote prolife. On the other hand, one knows for absolute certainty that all Dem appointees will be pro-abortion.

So the choice is clear.
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I would not be content with partial birth abortion even if there was only one. But “not being content” does not translate to “promising my vote to the first guy to say the magic word regardless of his other qualifications.”
Click to expand...
Well of course. If the “first guy” also promised to execute all two-year-olds, you wouldn’t vote for him.

But what issue in the real world would cause you to not vote for the one most likely to appoint justices who would not find a “constitutional right” to partial birth abortion?
Click to expand...
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.
 
HarryStotle said:
When a pamphlet can be used to equally justify either side of whether the dismemberment killing of a human being is permissible by a society then that pamphlet cannot be of much use, morally speaking.

I prefer my morality just a tad less tenuous and unhelpful, thank you.
Click to expand...
You, of course, are welcome to your opinion, but I think it is out of line with the teachings of the bishops through the voter’s guide.
 
A daily reminder that Trump is neither racist, sexist nor homophobic. All of three of these have historically been a part of the Democratic Party and are routinely practiced in Muslim-majority nations.
 
SuperLuigi said:
A daily reminder that Trump is neither racist, sexist nor homophobic. All of three of these have historically been a part of the Democratic Party and are routinely practiced in Muslim-majority nations.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t agree with your statement about Trump, but I will say that his goal is to turn this country into Trumpistan. It’s a first world, isolated country that has no coherent policies but it’s really fun to read the King’s tweets.
 
godisgood77 said:
DACA

Death penalty

Immigration / Travel Ban

ProLife
Click to expand...
DACA - Why exactly should people who are here illegally get rewarded for criminal behavior?

Death penalty - I’m on the fence, there’s a strong argument for executing people justly. But there’s always a chance an innocent man gets executed, which is why I tend to lean in favor of not using it in all but the most extreme cases

ETA: In fact, the Papal States had a death penalty, and it was used.

Travel ban - we as a country can allow or not allow anyone from anywhere for any reason entrance or denial of entry. Foreigners do not have a carte blanche right to come here.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that since the Democratic Party once held certain views, they can never change?

Shouldn’t that apply to other things also? Once pro-choice, can never be pro-life? Once not a Christian, never can be a Christian?
 
godisgood77 said:
DACA

Death penalty

Immigration / Travel Ban

ProLife
Click to expand...
DACA : He didn’t make any policy decision, he left it up to the Legislative branch, as it should be.

Death penalty: He has a personal opinion but not policy that some horrendous criminals should face the death penalty, but yet he selected a Catholic judge that said “the punishment ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity”. The judges are the ones who decide after all.

Immigration / Travel Ban : Security is the main reason for government. They are serving their primary purpose by filtering out the bad guys. They don’t have a way to know who is good or who is bad.

ProLife : “In 2011, Trump has recently said numerous times that he is pro-life on abortion and that he changed his views from supporting abortion to pro-life based on his relationships with close personal friends who had children. Their pregnancy experiences, Trump maintains, allowed him to mature on the abortion issue to the point of now opposing abortion.”

“If you look at it, I said, ‘It really, really troubles me, and it really, really bothers me, the whole concept of abortion” Trump said.
 
Last edited:
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...
So, because Trump called Kim “little rocket man” and did something-or-other that you think “gave comfort” to racial supremacists, you would back partial birth abortion. I would have thought one would need better reasons.
 
Jig_Saw said:
You, of course, are welcome to your opinion, but I think it is out of line with the teachings of the bishops through the voter’s guide.
Click to expand...

The Catholic Bishops of the United States teach that Catholics are not single-issue
voters, yet “if a candidate’s position on a single issue promotes an intrinsically evil act,
such as legal abortion, redefining marriage in a way that denies its essential meaning, or
racist behavior, a voter may legitimately disqualify a candidate from receiving support”
(Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, n. 42). On the level of the presidential
election, both Hillary Clinton and Senator Tim Kaine, the Democratic candidates for
President and Vice-President, respectively, both hold stridently aggressive positions
9
that promote intrinsically evils acts “such as legal abortion” and “redefining marriage
in a way that denies its essential meaning.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top