President Trump's pro-life proclamation

[upant]

Well, First Lady Obama rammed through a lot of regulations about healthier school lunches, which helps people to stay alive–that’s pro-life, isn’t it? (And those regulations are probably going to end soon, as schools can’t afford it and the kids don’t eat it.)

And Pres. Obama was a champion for researching and reversing climate change–that keeps people alive, and so he was pro-life, right? (And Pres. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris agreement, which means that he wants people to die, right? So he’s not really pro-life, right? )

the Obama’s were still pro-abortion, this is not pro-life for babies.

Where was Donald Trump five years ago on this issue?
Where was he 10 years ago?
Where was he 20 years ago?
He never was Pro-Life until he decided he wanted to run for President.
Total phony!

orange-man-bad in the past
orange-man-actions prove he is anti-abortion today

I’ll take his actions today over what the Dems are campaigning on.

federal government paid abortions, late-term abortions, infanticide (they put the idea out there), etc

 

[Donkey]

President Trump will be speaking soon at the March for life in Washington DC find a live newsfeed soon if you want to hear him make history

 

[EvangelistVictor]

I cannot even conceive of appearing before the God of hosts and trying to justify a vote that advances the death of countless innocent people. I just can’t do it. Maybe all the republicans are hypocrites! But I cannot support the other side. It’s just unthinkable.

So I’m not at all fooled

My reference for voting is Matthew 25:31-46 on how God will judge the nation’s. Read that and let me know if Republicans live up to that.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

The point I am making is that Trump is pandering for votes.
The first two years of his administration, the GOP controlled the House of R’s, the Senate, and the White House.
They did nothing about outlawing abortion.
Why? Because they need an unresolved issue they can run on every two to four years.
Trump talks a lot. But his actions speak much louder than his capitalized tweets!

 

[Jen95]

VeryBlessed:

I cannot even conceive of appearing before the God of hosts and trying to justify a vote that advances the death of countless innocent people. I just can’t do it. Maybe all the republicans are hypocrites! But I cannot support the other side. It’s just unthinkable.

So I’m not at all fooled

My reference for voting is Matthew 25:31-46 on how God will judge the nation’s. Read that and let me know if Republicans live up to that.

Let’s see, SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, WIC, public schools, school vouchers, all the foreign aid that is given. I’m sure we could come up with more.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Because they need an unresolved issue they can run on every two to four years.

I have to concede that this is an extremely valid point. If abortion were not an issue, there are a lot of people, who presently vote Republican because they equate it with a pro-life vote, but would have no reason to support the GOP otherwise. I cannot think the Republican Party is oblivious to this fact.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I pray that he is, but I do not trust the man, so I have doubts.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

(name removed by moderator), you always seem to say the right thing. Thanks for your down to earth perspective!

 

[EvangelistVictor]

Let’s see, SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, WIC, public schools, school vouchers, all the foreign aid that is given. I’m sure we could come up with more.

Yes, and these continue because of Democrats. Not that I support all Democrat policies, social programs are key priorities for them.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Hallelujah! AMEN!

 

[RCIAGraduate]

TANF’s actually a pretty weak program with not the greatest record or capacity (16 billion looks like a lot but poverty among families seems to overshadow it and arguably, looks like said families could use more substantial help).

WIC, I wonder if WIC could work better if scaled (diverting all the families from SNAP to WIC to promote nutritional vouchers and counseling) but I even read about a bad experience where someone’s boss saw her WIC vouchers and threatened to fire or reprimand her if she kept using them (without offering a corresponding raise). Something like that is bound to traumatic.

We give a lot of foreign aid but proportionally, we could do more (we may gibe a lot but as a proportion or percentage but we’re not near the top, if we were imagine how we could impact the world).

We have plenty of uninsured, not to mention struggling with medical pills like unaffordable deductibles, ,maybe a targeted expansion of Medicaid could aid in that? And I understand applying for disability is a major hassle (one that someone disabled or with health issues may issues with or aren’t in a place to handle) and the benefits may on;y go for so far.

 

[upant]

Yes, and these continue because of Democrats.

I doubt the GOP would do away with these programs, they would just make sure it only goes to the needy.

The point I am making is that Trump is pandering for votes.

every politician does
at least he is trying to save lives and not allow more babies to die.

The first two years of his administration, the GOP controlled the House of R’s, the Senate, and the White House.

because many in the GOP are never-Trumpers, they also don’t want him to succeed. you know, the McCain types, he ran for years on getting rid of ACA and then didn’t do it.

They did nothing about outlawing abortion.

we must live with the fact that evangelicals agree with abortion in specific cases, but it is better than the alternative.

Why? Because they need an unresolved issue they can run on every two to four years.

abortion isn’t the only issue anymore, the democrats have many anti-religious policies they are pushing.

Trump talks a lot. But his actions speak much louder than his capitalized tweets!

I agree and those actions are anti-abortion, we all should agree with his current actions.

 

[Rau]

as long as the government is doing our job, we can be at ease, eat, drink, and be merry, and assuage our guilt by claiming that our taxes are paying for the government’s attempts to help the poor become poorer–oops, I mean self-sufficient.

I don’t share your wish for government to exit the welfare area. Nor your cynicism

 

[HomeschoolDad]

They did nothing about outlawing abortion.

Some do, some don’t. We have discussed this on the forum before, but I don’t really think that sincere evangelical Christians carve out an exception for rape or incest — if pressed, I think they will admit that the crime doesn’t justify taking the life of the innocent child who just happened to be conceived. This seems more of an exception to be made, to pander to “somewhat pro-choice” people as if to say “it’s not like we are asking you to oppose all abortions”. Life of the mother, there are moral and ethical systems that place the life of the mother above that of the child. Traditional Judaism is among these. Someone who reluctantly accepts abortion to save the life of the mother, and for no other reason, can’t really be called “pro-choice”, they just solve the dilemma of “whose life to save? mother? child? both? neither?” differently than we would as Catholics. Gross fetal abnormality, especially one that will result in great suffering or death of the child anyway shortly after being born, again, some people resolve this by reluctantly allowing abortion as a means that is justified by its end (preventing suffering or hastening death that will just occur anyway) — I am not saying that they are correct, just that they have a different solution to this moral dilemma than Catholics do. Some people, both Christians and non-Christians, think that certain actions are permissible, means justified by their ends, that we as Catholics do not accept — elaborate systems of lies to secure a great temporal good, destroying embryos newly conceived to extract stem cells to cure and heal people, killing vast numbers of civilians in wartime to force the enemy to surrender, cheating to keep a college scholarship or a certain grade point average, and so on. Again, I would not call someone who accepts abortion in drastic circumstances, where tragic decisions have to be made, “pro-choice”.

 

[Peeps]

the Obama’s were still pro-abortion, this is not pro-life for babies.

Of course Pres. and First Lady Obama were completely pro-abortion. I still remember that disgusting comment President Obama made about what would happen if his daughter became pregnant and how he would want her to have the option to abort. Ecch!

I was being facetious in my comments about the Obamas and their school lunch and climate change activities. Apologies if I wasn’t clear about that. I have no liking at all for the Obamas and their pro-choice arrogance. I feel incredibly sorry for their beautiful daughters, that they have been indoctrinated with pro-abortion propaganda.

Remember, Barack Obama was a State Senator in my state (Illinois) before he was picked out and groomed by the Democratic Party to be the next President.

 

[Peeps]

If abortion were not an issue, there are a lot of people, who presently vote Republican because they equate it with a pro-life vote, but would have no reason to support the GOP otherwise. I cannot think the Republican Party is oblivious to this fact.

I don’t agree with you on this.

The Republican Party is a “small government” political party, and many of us support that. We are Republicans because we believe in the original vision for the United States–liberty in law.

I will agree that often, the Republican Party looks like Big Government as much as the Democratic Party. But that’s not the Party Platform–it’s just politicians chickening out and not trusting their constituents to be able to handle liberty. It’s too bad when they do for others what others COULD do for themselves if the laws allowed it.

The Democratic Party has always been the political party of Big Government. Democrats generally do not want to leave Americans free to be who they want to be, but instead, wants to compel them by laws to pay for government programs that will do the good works that individuals, families, churches, community organizations, and businesses SHOULD do. We shouldn’t need a government program to feed hungry people, but the Democrats convince a lot of people that yes, we DO need a government program and that we shouldn’t trust churches, rescue missions, aid societies, charities, and individuals to do the work of feeding the hungry. The Democratic Party allows people to sit back and do nothing except write a tax check, so no wonder so many people vote Democratic.

 

[JSRG]

JSRG:

Though I should note that it is not true that the electoral college is winner-take-all in each state. Nevada and Maine actually have it set proportionally.

Actually, that is Nebraska and Maine, and such a solution is absolutely constitutional. I would have no difficulty whatsoever with this for all 50 states.

Whoops, got Nevada and Nebraska mixed up. In fairness, they’re spelled quite similarly.

I think that if all states do with proportional electors, we’d need to make an actual constitutional amendment. Not to allow states to do so, but to deal with the fact we’d see elections with no one getting a majority of electors.

If no candidate gets a majority of electors, then the House of Representatives chooses (from among the top 3 candidates) who becomes President. Somehow, I doubt people will be particularly appreciative of the fact the President ends up getting elected by the House of Representatives. Weirdly, the Senate chooses (from among the top 2 vice presidential candidates) who becomes Vice President, meaning we could easily end up with a President and Vice President of opposing parties, which I don’t think is a good thing.

And I have a feeling this could happen a decent amount. In the 2016 election, neither Trump nor Hillary would have won a majority of the electors due two electors being awarded to Gary Johnson and one to Ewan McMullin (or maybe it was the other way around, I can’t remember, the point is the same either way). Thus, it goes to the House, which almost certainly elects Trump, and the Senate elects Pence. I suppose that wouldn’t necessarily lead to more grumbling than occurred under the actual election, but have that sort of thing occur multiple times and people will get really irritated. Since “it just ends up going to the House, making the election feel pointless” isn’t something people would be particularly happy about, you’d have to get some new amendment in order to have some new way to deal with the results of the election, either by just giving it to whoever has the most electors or by having a runoff election with two candidates.

Technically, there was one other route: Johnson or McMullin could have directed their electors to vote for Trump or Hillary, handing them the election. However, for this scheme to work, it would also require there be zero faithless electors among Trump and Hillary’s electors.

Of course, all of this is based on the results we did have of the 2016 election. If the electors were given proportionally we would have seen different voting patterns, and it’s impossible to predict how that might have affected things. This is similarly how it’s inaccurate to say “Hillary would have won if not for the electoral college”–we cannot know how voting patterns would have been had it been conducted under an actual popular vote system.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Read that and let me know if Republicans live up to that.

No one does.

 

[Rau]

We shouldn’t need a government program to feed hungry people

But nor is one an inherently bad idea. If it’s the will of the people to see the hungry fed, I don’t object, in principle, that taxes are applied in that direction.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

First Lady Obama

???

We shouldn’t need a government program to feed hungry people, but the Democrats convince a lot of people that yes, we DO need a government program and that we shouldn’t trust churches, rescue missions, aid societies, charities, and individuals to do the work of feeding the hungry.

What about having the government fund those entities like non profits? Seems like an idea with ideas like Compassionate or Civic Conservative or even aligned with Catholic Social Teaching (disclaimer: NOT a expert on this) like supporting intermediary bodies of society. Form of a middle road? I believe Bush II had something in mind with Faith Based Initiatives and Speaker Ryan had something with Opportunity Grants (though funding that by folding current programs that people need like SSI and Section 8 may seem much since people do currently depend on those).