Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gracepoole said:
The Church does not accept utilitarian philosophy when determining the morality of actions. One life is just as sacred as a thousand.
Click to expand...
You avoided answering my questions. I’ll quote them again for you.
zz912 said:
Really? You need this one spelled out?

Over 1 million babies are killed every year in just this country alone.

How many people are tortured in or by this country each year? What does this “torture” entail? How many people could Mr. Trump possibly torture even if he caught every single terrorist?

Why don’t you lay out the case for me how torture is worse than abortion. I’ll wait…
Click to expand...
I’ll also add another question.

Does the Church recognize a difference in gravity of sin?
 
zz912 said:
You avoided answering my questions. I’ll quote them again for you.

I’ll also add another question.

Does the Church recognize a difference in gravity of sin?
Click to expand...
I did answer your question. You want to justify voting for a pro-torture candidate because fewer people are tortured than are murdered via abortion. It’s fine to make this kind of assertion for yourself, of course. It’s important, too, to note that both abortion and torture are “non-negotiables” – nothing justifies either, including a body count.
 
There is a war going on against innocent people and children. American children deserve peace and security from terrorists.
 
gracepoole said:
I did answer your question. You want to justify voting for a pro-torture candidate because fewer people are tortured than are murdered via abortion. It’s fine to make this kind of assertion for yourself, of course. It’s important, too, to note that both abortion and torture are “non-negotiables” – nothing justifies either, including a body count.
Click to expand...
No, you avoided my questions.
  1. How many people are killed by abortion each year in this country?
  2. How many people are tortured in or by this country each year?
  3. What does this “torture” entail?
  4. How many people could Mr. Trump torture even if he caught every single terrorist?
  5. Does the Church recognize a difference in gravity for sins?
And here’s a few more:
6. Does the Church recognize that multiple sins are worse than just one sin (assuming they are the same sin)?
7. Is it permissible for Catholics to vote to limit evil?
8. Can Catholics vote for unacceptable candidates if their opponent is even worse?
 
ucfengr said:
Saw this in the Washington Post:

**“The horror in Brussels is a rebuke to Trump’s foreign policy”
**

Did I fall asleep and miss the election?
Click to expand...
Apparently the loyal writers at the Washington Pravda couldn’t blame Bush any more for Obama’s failures, and now they’ve switched to blaming Trump before he’s even elected to office for Obama’s failures! 😃
 
zz912 said:
No, you avoided my questions.
  1. How many people are killed by abortion each year in this country?
  2. How many people are tortured in or by this country each year?
  3. What does this “torture” entail?
  4. How many people could Mr. Trump torture even if he caught every single terrorist?
  5. Does the Church recognize a difference in gravity for sins?
And here’s a few more:
6. Does the Church recognize that multiple sins are worse than just one sin (assuming they are the same sin)?
7. Is it permissible for Catholics to vote to limit evil?
8. Can Catholics vote for unacceptable candidates if their opponent is even worse?
Click to expand...
The first four questions are irrelevant because, again, it doesn’t matter how many are affected by a non-negotiable evil. It’s still a non-negotiable evil.

As I stated, it’s fine for you to determine that a vote for a pro-torture candidate is preferable to a pro-choice candidate if this is the result of prudential judgment. It’s false, however, to claim that this must be the result for all Catholics – that somehow the Church teaches that the greater number affected by an evil makes it worse. Because it doesn’t.
 
Bataar said:
I’m not sure if that’s true or not, could you provide a source? And even if it is true, that still leaves the choice up to us.

So what would you choose? One death or thousands? As bad as enhanced interrogation is, it rarely results in death. Abortion ends in death 100% of the time, so, you get to make the choice, the possibility of enhanced interrogation of terrorists or the deliberate death of millions of babies. Which one is worse?
Click to expand...
The Catechism is clear on this:
2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.91
Click to expand...
2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
Click to expand...
ETA: The answer is we should oppose both torture and abortion. In this case I don’t see Trump affecting abortion in any way and maybe even possibly causing an increase.
 
J_Peterson said:
At least with Trump you will not have your religious freedom compromised.
Click to expand...
That was funny! Sadly, ironically funny. What also was amazing was this follow-up. "Muslims are born with the right to enter the US anytime they want, right? "

Really? "Murica could not possibly have Muslim citizens born here!
Click to expand...
 
Tomdstone said:
There is a war going on against innocent people and children. American children deserve peace and security from terrorists.
Click to expand...
Nobody “deserves” peace and security. Peace and security are things that must be fought for.
 
gracepoole said:
The first four questions are irrelevant because, again, it doesn’t matter how many are affected by a non-negotiable evil. It’s still a non-negotiable evil.

As I stated, it’s fine for you to determine that a vote for a pro-torture candidate is preferable to a pro-choice candidate if this is the result of prudential judgment. It’s false, however, to claim that this must be the result for all Catholics – that somehow the Church teaches that the greater number affected by an evil makes it worse. Because it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
The questions aren’t irrelevant, you just don’t want to answer them because your position crumbles if you do. What’s noticeable is that you didn’t even attempt to answer ANY of the questions.

And your second paragraph is an example of a strawman. It shows your argument is weak and cannot stand on its own because you have to change what I said to argue against it.

My actual position, as I posted earlier, is that I personally wouldn’t be voting for Mr. Trump, but that a Catholic could vote for him if the intent was to limit the greater evil of Hillary Clinton. A Catholic could not vote for Hillary Clinton because there is no candidate that is worse than her on intrinsic evils.

Again, I’ll ask you another question:

Does the Church recognize that killing two innocent people (two sins) is a greater evil than killing only one person (one sin)? Yes or no please.
 
Alex_H said:
Question: Can a Catholic, in good conscience, vote for someone who is not Christian, like Donald Trump?
Click to expand...
The question is how informed are their consciences? If you are trying to live the message of Christ – too many of his ways and many of his ideas are not in line with Jesus. You have to please God not the majority or the almighty dollar!
 
zz912 said:
No, you avoided my questions.
  1. How many people are killed by abortion each year in this country?
  2. How many people are tortured in or by this country each year?
  3. What does this “torture” entail?
  4. How many people could Mr. Trump torture even if he caught every single terrorist?
  5. Does the Church recognize a difference in gravity for sins?
And here’s a few more:
6. Does the Church recognize that multiple sins are worse than just one sin (assuming they are the same sin)?
7. Is it permissible for Catholics to vote to limit evil?
8. Can Catholics vote for unacceptable candidates if their opponent is even worse?
Click to expand...
Are you denying that you’re capable for voting for a candidate that is against both torture and abortion? So many Trump supporters have tunnel vision on the two party system that they’re willing to compromise morality just to be against abortion.
 
jtauke said:
Are you denying that you’re capable for voting for a candidate that is against both torture and abortion? So many Trump supporters have tunnel vision on the two party system that they’re willing to compromise morality just to be against abortion.
Click to expand...
Give us your candidate, and we’ll find a weakness in that person that’s contrary to catholic teaching. Promise.
 
jtauke said:
Are you denying that you’re capable for voting for a candidate that is against both torture and abortion? So many Trump supporters have tunnel vision on the two party system that they’re willing to compromise morality just to be against abortion.
Click to expand...
Something that needs to be considered, though, is this. Abortion is a binary thing. Either the child is killed or he’s not, in abortion, and the difference is quite clear. With torture, I am not sure two people agree on what it is and what it isn’t. The definition of “torture” has been discussed on CAF many times, and many times people have been asked to give a “bright line” test as to what torture is and what it is not. Only one has ever been produced other than “it’s what I think it is”.

And when Trump says he’ll do “more” or “worse” or whatever, than waterboarding, nobody but Trump knows what he means by it, if he knows himself.

Hillary Clinton has endorsed abortion. And she has endorsed obliging the public to pay for it. Nobody really knows what Trump intends as a practical matter.

And, depending on what one means by “torture”, it’s unclear whether the methodology is fatal or not. Waterboarding, as practiced by the government, wasn’t. Abortion always is, and the killing is the purpose.
 
Tomdstone said:
Yes. I find some things I don’t like about Trump, but where is the alternative candidate? Perhaps I should write in the name of Rand Paul, even though he is not running?
Click to expand...
Rand Paul had some good things about him, but he had some maturing to do, IMO. The republican race needs to be over soon so all guns can be trained on hillary. She is the real scary one.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Something that needs to be considered, though, is this. Abortion is a binary thing. Either the child is killed or he’s not, in abortion, and the difference is quite clear. With torture, I am not sure two people agree on what it is and what it isn’t. The definition of “torture” has been discussed on CAF many times, and many times people have been asked to give a “bright line” test as to what torture is and what it is not. Only one has ever been produced other than “it’s what I think it is”.

And when Trump says he’ll do “more” or “worse” or whatever, than waterboarding, nobody but Trump knows what he means by it, if he knows himself.

Hillary Clinton has endorsed abortion. And she has endorsed obliging the public to pay for it. Nobody really knows what Trump intends as a practical matter.

And, depending on what one means by “torture”, it’s unclear whether the methodology is fatal or not. Waterboarding, as practiced by the government, wasn’t. Abortion always is, and the killing is the purpose.
Click to expand...
Trump, with his answers various times seems to think that waterboarding is torture. And he does seem to advocate for torture.

Here’s just one quote that I found in 2 seconds:
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that Belgian authorities could have thwarted Tuesday’s terrorist attack in Brussels by torturing Salah Abdeslam, the suspected terrorist who was captured days earlier.
Click to expand...
Trump argued in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that Abdeslam, a suspect in last year’s terrorist attacks in Paris who fled to Belgium, knew of the plot that ISIS-linked terrorists carried out Tuesday and would have talked “a lot faster with the torture.”
Click to expand...
cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/donald-trump-torture-brussels-abdeslam/index.html

He’s not even using any euphemism like, “enhanced interrogation” or anything to that effect. He’s using the word torture..
 
Tomdstone said:
Yes. I find some things I don’t like about Trump, but where is the alternative candidate? Perhaps I should write in the name of Rand Paul, even though he is not running?
Click to expand...
I’d write in Rand before ever casting my vote for Clinton or Trump.
 
queenofheartscv said:
Rand Paul had some good things about him, but he had some maturing to do, IMO. The republican race needs to be over soon so all guns can be trained on hillary. She is the real scary one.
Click to expand...
As opposed to the maturity Donald has shown via numerous insults lobbed at fellow candidates, women, etc…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top