Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[Mercy365]

One shouldn’t be sickened over something about which he knows nothing.

To my understanding, he spoke approvingly of waterboarding, which the Church has never condemned.

Otherwise, he didn’t specify any particular method of interrogation.

But if you have specific things he advocates and specific Church teachings against them, then you can post them.

If one hates Trump just because one hates him, that person should just say so.

**
THANK YOU!!! ** :clapping:

.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

That said Catholic Vote is independent of the Church and while I agree with much of their take I don’t feel as strongly as they do and feel Hillary and Kerry again is unacceptable.

From my vantage point I think you in the US need to know when and how far to be slightly wary of most of your bishops.

 

[Kaliaa]

Again, how can any Catholic in good conscience support Hillary Clinton?

There are some things in this church which are not up for rebranding, debate or reinterpreting. Abortion and gay “marriage” are two of them.

HIllary Clinton is strongly in favor of both. As president this is what she would work for. This rules out any choice but voting for another candidate or not voting at all. It is really that simple.

It doesn’t matter what other good she might do. Being in favor of murder negates all the rest. Doing grave evil for some intended good is still grave evil. The end does NOT justify the means.

Hillary is a no go.

 

[TomFromMD]

To my understanding, he spoke approvingly of waterboarding, which the Church has never condemned.

And said he would “bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

I can’t in good conscience vote for either of them.

 

[Crossbones]

One shouldn’t be sickened over something about which he knows nothing.

To my understanding, he spoke approvingly of waterboarding, which the Church has never condemned.

Otherwise, he didn’t specify any particular method of interrogation.

But if you have specific things he advocates and specific Church teachings against them, then you can post them.

If one hates Trump just because one hates him, that person should just say so.

“Look, I think we have to change our law on the waterboarding thing, where they can chop off heads and drown people in cages, in heavy steel cages and we can’t water board. We have to change our laws and we have to be able to fight at least on almost equal basis. We have laws that we have to obey in terms of torture. They have no laws whatsoever that they have to obey.” - Donald Trump

“He may be talking, but he’ll talk faster with the torture” - Donald Trump

"We have to be smart. It’s hard to believe we can’t waterboard which is – look, nothing’s nice about it but, it’s your minimal form of torture. We can’t waterboard and they can chop off heads. - Donald Trump

So Donald Trump says we have to do more than waterboarding, which he admits is torture. Now, if he thinks it’s torture and wants more of it (and worse), then I take him at his word he’s ok with torture.

 

[jtauke]

Not that Trump supported it, which he didn’t.

Yeah he did. I’m interested to see how one tries to whitewash the below quote.

“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,” Trump said.

 

[jtauke]

One shouldn’t be sickened over something about which he knows nothing.

To my understanding, he spoke approvingly of waterboarding, which the Church has never condemned.

Otherwise, he didn’t specify any particular method of interrogation.

But if you have specific things he advocates and specific Church teachings against them, then you can post them.

If one hates Trump just because one hates him, that person should just say so.

Meanwhile, at the same event, Trump pledged to “bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-torture-works-backs-waterboarding-and-much-worse/2016/02/17/4c9277be-d59c-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html

It doesn’t matter what you “claim” the Church has said, or hasn’t. Waterboarding, however you want to categorize it, is wrong.

But please, continue being arrogantly dismissive.

 

[jtauke]

**
THANK YOU!!! ** :clapping:

.

So you, as a Catholic, approve of strapping someone to a table and systematically drowning them them, over, and over, and over?

 

[estesbob]

Yeah he did. I’m interested to see how one tries to whitewash the below quote.

“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,” Trump said.

*Donald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.

Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.

”*

huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d

 

[estesbob]

So you, as a Catholic, approve of strapping someone to a table and systematically drowning them them, over, and over, and over?

I dont-but i dont put that at the same level as supporting unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand

 

[jtauke]

Again, how can any Catholic in good conscience support Hillary Clinton?

There are some things in this church which are not up for rebranding, debate or reinterpreting. Abortion and gay “marriage” are two of them.

HIllary Clinton is strongly in favor of both. As president this is what she would work for. This rules out any choice but voting for another candidate or not voting at all. It is really that simple.

It doesn’t matter what other good she might do. Being in favor of murder negates all the rest. Doing grave evil for some intended good is still grave evil. The end does NOT justify the means.

Hillary is a no go.

Why do you assume that all of us that despise Trump will be voting for the Harpy? I won’t denigrate my conscience by voting for either.

 

[Crossbones]

*Donald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.

Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.

”*

huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d

He said “take them out” and I don’t think he meant for a nice dinner with candlelight.

 

[dixieagle]

Sorry, someone who has silly views on immigration is not in the same position as someone is openly and vehemently pro-abortion.

I sympathize with those who say they don’t really know where Trump stands, but how that can excuse a person from voting, by proxy, for someone whose positions they know all-too-well is simply beyond me.

Voting for someone who may not be as pro-life as they claim =/= voting for someone who is adamantly pro-choice.

Or, they can do as many of us will and write-in a vote - in good conscience - for someone who is both pro-life and has more reasonable views, in line with Catholic teaching, on other issues. I am researching possibilities.

 

[jtauke]

I dont-but i dont put that at the same level as supporting unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand

Support for the lesser of two evils is still support of evil, is it not?

I for one won’t oppose one evil to enable a second. Which is why I won’t be voting for either major party candidate.

 

[Thorolfr]

There is no clash between Trumps position on immigration and Church teachimg

The problem is not just with Trump’s position on immigration. He actually encourages many of his supporters’ anti-Hispanic prejudices (not just anti-illegal immigrant). Take this, for example:

Barely a day goes by when Donald Trump offers Latino something new to get riled up about. In a “Cinco de Mayo” tweet on Thursday, for example, he declared “I love Hispanics!” in the caption to a selfie that showed him digging into a “taco bowl” at his desk.

“This can’t be serious,” said my Mexican cousin. “No words,” wrote a Cuban colleague. “No” and “disgusting” were just some of the other comments my Latino friends – both Democratic and Republican – posted after I uploaded a screen shot of the tweet to my Facebook page.

The presidential candidate started his campaign by saying that Mexicans are rapists and criminals. He then extended his hateful remarks to include those “coming from all over South and Latin America” and the Middle East, vowed to deport all undocumented immigrants and bar all Muslims, and proposes rescinding birthright citizenship and building a great wall between us [and] Mexico. And yet, he is now the presumptive Republican nominee.

And it’s apparently dawned on him that he might need some of the approximately 27.3 million Latino eligible voters to cast a ballot for him if he actually wants to win.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/09/latino-voter-turnout-trump-kryptonite

 

[Ridgerunner]

“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

Nowhere in that does the word “murder” appear. Nor does he say he advocates specifically targeting the families of terrorists. In the context, he was talking about the political correctness that rewards terrorists who hide behind civilians, preventing our forces from attacking them if there is any possibility of collateral deaths.

But he could be wrong in another way. Terrorists might not care very much whether their families die or not. After all, there are those who strap bombs on their own children just to kill Jews or Americans, and Bin Ladin tried to use his wife as a “body shield”.

So Trump might be wrong about that part of it.

 

[jtauke]

*Donald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.

Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.

”*

huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d

And yet he still doesn’t say what “go after them” means. Funny that he has that awesome ability to open his mouth, speak, and say nothing of substance.

There’s two options that going after them results in:
1.) Being killed by soldiers
2.) Being killed by a hellfire missile or bomb from a predator or reaper drone
3.) Captured and thrown in some gitmo style camp . Where they are held indefinitely and most likely tortured.

All of those options sound like murder or worse. Don’t they?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Support for the lesser of two evils is still support of evil, is it not?

I for one won’t oppose one evil to enable a second. Which is why I won’t be voting for either major party candidate.

Another vote for Hillary Clinton and abortion on demand.

 

[jtauke]

He said “take them out” and I don’t think he meant for a nice dinner with candlelight.

I think I’ve found my message board kindred spirit…

Any thoughts on the best, non-Trump/Clinton candidate?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The problem is not just with Trump’s position on immigration. He actually encourages many of his supporters’ anti-Hispanic prejudices (not just anti-illegal immigrant). Take this, for example:

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/09/latino-voter-turnout-trump-kryptonite

Your quoted example also mentioned people from the Middle East. It also left out, of course, his follow-on statement saying there would be a 'great big door" in the middle of the wall. In other words, he would not oppose legal immigration; only illegal immigration.

But I understand Democrat propaganda requires a view different from what he actually said.