Trump's Catholic support...or lack thereof

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChuckB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
I would rather have the people respect life, and not seek abortion in the first place.
Click to expand...
Of course.

But until we reach that stage, would you rather have a President who appoints pro-life judges or liberal judges who allow abortion on demand?
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
A position I can totally respect.
Click to expand...
Thankyou. (for 10)
You sound pretty politically savvy, Is there any politician who has stated he or she is totally against abortion? I am googling to see if there is 🙂
 
Last edited:
OurLadyofSorrows said:
I do not have to choose between an argument being framed as the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...
To not choose means you don’t vote, or you vote for a 3rd party. Either is fine.

But if you vote for Biden or Trump, then you are indeed choosing who you are deeming “better” (or the less evil) of the two.
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
That’s fine, just curious. People seem reticent to admit how they voted around here, and I have never understood why,
Click to expand...
Because to reveal how we vote destroys the whole principle of a secret ballot (even if we are behind a screen-name; we do have on-line personas and I’m sure I could be identified by the abbey I’m affiliated with).

That said, the more I read the US News Forum (“World News” is largely a misnomer), the more I’m inclined to give up and simply retreat permanently to the Liturgy and Sacraments Forum where I can at least focus on the central core of Catholicism, and where people are not hostile to my enthusiasm for the Liturgy of the Hours as they usually are to my political opinions. Although I’m a Canadian and can’t vote for Trump.
 
I can only think of Ron Paul who encouraged adoption and a Constitutional Amendment to sanctify all life.
 
Yeah, I periodically leave CA (or am asked to leave; thanks Robert Bay…) because the World News forum is generally a negative, angry place. I rarely leave feeling better than when I showed up.

I get why you want to remain anonymous, I just think for many, it is because it is easier for those who like to complain to not have to put their cards on the table and admit just how “bad” the person they supported is.

Much easier to simply complain or argue and never have the backbone to stand by your decision (royal you, not you you). I generally won’t engage people much politically unless they are willing to say who they support or supported. unless we are discussing a binary issue with a definitive right and wrong answer, any other opinion rings hollow otherwise.
 
pnewton said:
How about not gassing and attacking protesters in his own backyard for a start so he can have his picture taken? How about not responding to complaints about the militarization of police by threatening to sending in the actual military?

A leader would not be making excuses, but you know, leading. Greg Abbott, Art Acevedo and others could provide examples to anyone wanting to learn to lead and with the humility not to confuse hubris with genius.
Click to expand...
Your statement that the protesters were gassed per the White House is not proven at all. They may have been curfew breakers, they may have been violent.

Half the nation apparently, would have supported the military going in.

And TX coronavirus cases have greatly risen, 71% since opening. One can always find something to criticize a leader about.
 
Victoria33 said:
Your statement that the protesters were gassed per the White House is not proven at all.
Click to expand...
Well, this is not a court of law. I can only judge what I have seen. And I saw it. The primary point is still baffling. Since when have we ever allowed a president to be immune from all responsibility for what is happening in the society for which he, is in theory, leading?
 
Last edited:
OurLadyofSorrows said:
The Magisterium is saying a politician is justified in supporting abortion? Give it a break.
Click to expand...
I just cited two sources, the USCCB and JPII directly contradicting the position you have taken. They have both declared that essentially half a loaf is better than none. That is, it is better to have a law that prohibits some abortions than laws that prohibit none. You may take yours to be the more noble, uncompromising position in opposing all abortions, but the result of that position is harmful in that it enables more destruction in direct contrast to what you claim to want.
I think you are also missing the point ender, the man supports abortion for rape and incest, I am not talking law, I am talking personal support.
Click to expand...
The point for whom? I’m pretty sure the point for the fetus in danger of being aborted is not whether Trump would allow it in some cases but whether it is permitted in his. What is it that really matters? Are fewer abortions not preferable to more of them? If you had the ability to reduce the number would you not take it? What is the argument that justifies working against those who would save some lives and in favor of those who would take them all?
Dr_Meinheimer said:
A position I can totally respect.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand this. This is not the position JPII expressed in Evangelium Vitae.
 
Ender said:
I don’t understand this. This is not the position JPII expressed in Evangelium Vitae.
Click to expand...
I respect the consistency and fairness, something rarely shown on here. I did not say I agree with it. Generally we get “Trump’s not truly pro-life as he allows for exceptions due to rape and incest, therefore I can vote for Biden.”
 
I don’t know. I would assume you want to see those four officers punished. Imagine if they were not arrested and others like that could act without reprisal, even the most racist of white supremacists.
 
tomarin said:
I think the point is not that he created the crisis but that the way he has responded to the crisis has dumped more gasoline on a burning fire.
Click to expand...
There seem to be two ways to approach riots and looting: withdraw the police, or send in the troops. It seems option one is simply capitulating to terror and abandoning citizens to face the rioters on their own. Why is option two not preferable?
ProVobis said:
40.png
Ender:
How is it Trump’s fault
Click to expand...
Perhaps it’s the way he constructed his tweet against them?
Click to expand...
Tweets? Rioters are burning cities and Trump’s tweets are the problem? At what point will we hold the rioters, mayors, and governors responsible for their own actions?
pnewton said:
Since you mentioned Caritas in veritate, that is love in truth, I would say that title sums up my objection to the current president as opposed to this mission of the Church which is love in truth.
Click to expand...
Then provide us with the truth. Pick a specific proposal Trump has supported and show us where the church teaches we must oppose it, or vice versa. I’ve made this as broad as possible: you may pick anything at all. Demonstrate where the church has explicitly condemned anything the president has done. Point to the passage in the catechism; cite an encyclical.
The Church never teaches that all evil is intrinsic.
Click to expand...
Nor has anyone suggested otherwise.
Evil can manifest in social justice in areas other than abortion and yet still be evil. What is this like? I know it when I see it. I have seen a lot these last two years.
Click to expand...
If you know it and have seen it then you should be able to cite it. All I’m asking for is one example which should be simple if you’ve seen it “a lot these last two years.”
 

slate.com

Trump Is the Least Pro-Life President Ever

From war crimes to executions to murdering dissidents, Trump treats human life with contempt.
slate.com slate.com

www.mic.com

Wasn't Trump once pro-choice? Here's the president's evolving platform on abortion.

On Friday, President Donald Trump tweeted that the anti-abortion March for Life had his "full support." However, that wasn't always the case. Trump, who now claims to be staunchly anti-abortion, has only taken on these views in recent years and was…
www.mic.com www.mic.com

and it goes on and on and on.
 
Ender said:
If you know it and have seen it then you should be able to cite it. All I’m asking for is one example
Click to expand...
So you can claim prudential judgement? Lying. I am not going to give specifics. Everyone has heard one, or ignored one. Here is one list of many.


Kids separated and lost from parents, no doubt prudentially thinking this was charity.

I remember him condoning police brutality, telling officers to put people in their patrol cars and make sure they do not protect their head. Then sending out his own troops to clear protesters with gas to go take his pictures.

Demeaning immigrants from other countries by calling them s… hole countries, in blatant violation of the Catholic social doctrine of preferential treatment for the poor.

Saying when we go after terrorist we also kill their families. Saying he could kill someone on the street and still be supported.

I can’t believe I am even sucked into doing this. Do you think I just woke up after three years? I understand the argument of supporting the President because of abortion. I am floored I have to explain all this other stuff. Is his support really that blind? Let me warn Republicans here. If you want to campaign for the president, don’t treat those who do not support him as if they have been in a coma. His shortcomings are vast and easy to know. Ignoring them, or as in this case acting as if they need explaining, only makes you look like a blind, Kool-Aid drinking follower. If you cannot at least acknowledge and understand the objections, you will never convince anyone. Rather, use the argument that abortion is worth everything, and somehow this one election in 2020 is “THE” election. That might work better.

Proverbs 12:22 The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.

End rant.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top