How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[StudentMI]

But it is not just democratics.

No it isn’t.

 

[Shakuhachi]

How do Conservative Republicans view Trump at this point?

 

[Shakuhachi]

What about fiscal conservatives?

BTW THIS IS WHAT I was looking for. 15% Democrats identified as Pro-Life. Poor things.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JSRG]

catholicwx:

And maybe I didn’t make clear that voting for the ASP could be viewed as a way to do and promote the works of mercy

I’m sorry, but you might as well go whisper your beliefs down a well as to vote for some party that has absolutely no chance of winning.

Let us consider the likelihood that your vote will decide the presidential election, or any statewide election for that matter. (the presidential election is national but the electoral college makes it a statewide election for each state)

First, the election in your state has to be so close that your vote actually makes a difference–in other words, that your vote makes it tied when previously one candidate would have won by 1 vote (what actually happens if it’s tied, incidentally?), or the election would’ve been tied and your vote made the difference. That already eliminates most of the population because there’s no chance of that happening outside of a swing state. And even in a swing state, the odds are astronomically small. To my knowledge, there has been exactly one statewide election in US history decided by one vote, the Massachusetts governor election in 1839. And even that one single case involved far fewer voters than would vote in any presidential election nowadays, as Massachusetts had a much lower population back then and of course you had the fact a much lower percentage of that population voted than now (in large part because far fewer people had voting rights). Wyoming, the least populated state in the country, had more than twice as many votes cast in the 2016 presidential election than Massachusetts did in that governor election.

So we’re talking about something that’s happened once in US history, and even then occurred under circumstances far, far more favorable than those of today.

So already the odds of your vote deciding the outcome in your state is astronomically low even among the swing states. But the odds are even worse than that, because even if that happens, it has to be in an election that was close enough in the electoral college that your state actually made the difference.

So as we can see, the chances of your vote deciding the presidential election are so laughably low they are for all practical purposes nonexistent. Under such circumstances, might as well vote for who you actually agree the most with.

Especially when one considers that your vote has a much better chance of sending some kind of message than deciding the election; bumping up the percentage a candidate/party receives a slight amount via rounding can at least make some kind of difference in terms of the amount of attention paid to that candidate/party, and the odds of your vote doing that are a lot better than deciding the election.

 

[pnewton]

Ridgerunner:

So you would vote for killing children because you don’t approve of Trump’s manners?

1. Killing children is not on the ballot.
2. There are many more reasons than just execrable manners to vote against DJT.

Neither is a third party vote a vote for killing children, or is it vote for either Trump or Biden. It is also not declining to vote. It is voting third party, technically, the only way to vote if you subscribe to the whole non-negotiable stuff.

. So it is on the ballot. Voting for Biden/Harris is exactly voting for abortion.

Say it twenty times, it does not gain more truth.

Please stop trying to co-opt pro-life.

The Catholic Church also makes it clear that being pro-life is about a lot more than just being born. If Republicans would embrace more of the Church’s others pro-life views, then the term would not be so easily changed to pro-birth. Whatever it is call, being anti-abortion is only the largest part of being pro-life.

With no intent to offend, I am not a big believer in gestures. I prefer to be a part of actual causation, however small.

And that is a proportionate reason to vote for someone who is not completely pro-life, like Donald Trump. Elect-ability is a good reason. However, one is not required to consider this.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Let us consider the likelihood that your vote will decide the presidential election, or any statewide election for that matter.

Of course it won’t, any more than my donation to the American Cancer Society will save a single life. That’s not the point. It’s doing what one can.

By the rationale you’re espousing, if widely held, no one would donate to anything. By your rationale, instead of contributing it to a worthy cause, one should throw it into the toilet and tell all one’s friends that one did.

It is voting third party, technically, the only way to vote if you subscribe to the whole non-negotiable stuff.

Think I’ll vote on the preeminent issue as defined by the bishops.

And that is a proportionate reason to vote for someone who is not completely pro-life, like Donald Trump

Why give blood then if one cannot single-handedly fill all the blood banks?

 

[TMC]

How do Conservative Republicans view Trump at this point?

Depends on how you define “conservative.” Trump is not a traditional conservative.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Think I’ll vote on the preeminent issue as defined by the bishops.

If you are serious about wanting to comply with the bishops you will want to read this thoroughly.
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac...ng-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-title

“The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself,4 because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed. At the same time, we cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

we cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty.”

Of course. But a) some of that is still the subject of prudential judgment, e.g. considered belief in the causes of any “environmental crisis” and the proper remedies for it. and b) “preeminent” is still preeminent.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Depends on how you define “conservative.” Trump is not a traditional conservative.

I think that depends on who you’re talking about and where. Mine is a very conservative part of the country and very Republican. To people here, Trump is far more a “conservative” in their view than people like Bush, Kristol, Romney or writers for National Review. I would say their allegiance is more to “conservatism” than it is to the Repub party, and perhaps to “traditionalism” most of all.

 

[Shakuhachi]

prudential judgment

“Prudential Judgement” can often be used to replace “whatever we think best”. Perhaps prudential judgement should also be applied to more creative ways of dealing with abortion. But I do concede the point that a Democratic ticket goes the opposite direction on that issue. Still, I can never vote for Trump. I would rather write in a name.

 

[TMC]

I think that depends on who you’re talking about and where. Mine is a very conservative part of the country and very Republican. To people here, Trump is far more a “conservative” in their view than people like Bush, Kristol, Romney or writers for National Review. I would say their allegiance is more to “conservatism” than it is to the Repub party, and perhaps to “traditionalism” most of all.

I would describe that as a cultural conservatism (I think, based on your comment). Up until pretty recently, the GOP has been much more defined as economically conservative (e.g. fiscal responsibility, free trade) and politically conservative (e.g. small government, limited executive authority). Trump has taken the party pretty much completely away from those things. I suppose Trump is culturally conservative, but honestly he seems pretty inconsistent on that front.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Preeminent but also remote. But:
There are some who hold that the Civil War was about states rights and not slavery much like some today hold that the real concern is Women’s rights rather than abortion.

The response is, “Yes, a states right to allow slavery” and “Yes, a woman’s right to abortion”.

In both issues it seems the constitution would in fact leave such matters to the state. UNLESS, there is agreement that some issues are universal…that no state or individual can have a right to slavery or abortion.

Of course no such agreement is not handy and a bloody war was necessary to resolve slavery. Finally we have a constitutional amendment in 1865. If there is going to be a resolution on the abortion issue, and that certainly not will please everyone, it seems to me it would have to be another amendment rather than a supreme court decision.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would describe that as a cultural conservatism (I think, based on your comment).

I would agree with that.

There are elements of Republican “doctrine” that would not be popular here at all. Repubs in the last few decades have been “free traders” and “interventionist”. Trump’s approach to those things is popular. I think it’s a mistake, however, to confuse Democrat refusal to act and consequent forcing the president to do things by executive action with a belief in big government.

, it seems to me it would have to be another amendment rather than a supreme court decision.

What the Supreme Court invented, it can un-invent.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“Prudential Judgement” can often be used to replace “whatever we think best”. Perhaps prudential judgement should also be applied to more creative ways of dealing with abortion.

How do you have abortion without killing? There’s really no room for prudential judgment with abortion.

 

[PaulinVA]

I suppose Trump is culturally conservative, but honestly he seems pretty inconsistent on that front.

Trump is a Trumpist.

He runs up the deficit. He doesn’t respect the rule of law. He does not accept the constraints of his office.

 

[StudentMI]

Trump is a Trumpist.

He runs up the deficit. He doesn’t respect the rule of law. He does not accept the constraints of his office.

Running up the deficit is something most politicians do, left and right. Wasn’t Clinton the last time we had a surplus? Yet even that, according to MMT theorists, was bad for the economy.

 

[Shakuhachi]

But there is not the political will for it yet. We need and entire cultural change. It is still 40% to 60%.
How do we best change public thinking about it?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[StudentMI]

How do we best change public thinking about it?

I know you weren’t asking me, but I just wanted to say I think the primary objective of the Church in the US should be evangelization. That needs to be the goal before anything else.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Truth is not a matter of numbers.

Of course not. So I’m going to help you find the truth! Two questions:

1. The Church teaches that a person with a soul is created at the moment of conception. The DNA from the egg combines with the DNA from the sperm to form a new individual. When does this happen?
2. In 1869 the Church changed its teaching of 1800+ years and said that all abortions = murder. What else was happening (particularly in the Church) that might have influenced this decision?

I eagerly await your (or anyone’s!) answers.