Trump's Last Line of Defense

[Ridgerunner]

Well, I think that Catholics could have supported Hillary. Not necessarily *should *have.

Pope Benedict addressed this (as Cardinal Ratzinger):

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

Just kind of hard to imagine what countervailing reasons would have been “proportionate” to abortion in the last election.

But, as some have said here on various occasions, that election is past.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Just kind of hard to imagine what countervailing reasons would have been “proportionate” to abortion in the last election.
.

Precisely.

 

[PRmerger]

Just kind of hard to imagine what countervailing reasons would have been “proportionate” to abortion in the last election.

I guess that’s up to each of us Catholics to determine.

Some Catholics might endorse the view that Trump poses the gravest threats our world has ever known, so…

 

[Ridgerunner]

I guess that’s up to each of us Catholics to determine.

Some Catholics might endorse the view that Trump poses the gravest threats our world has ever known, so…

Actually, it isn’t up to each of us Catholics to determine, and I think Pope Benedict was telling us exactly that. To support an abortion-supporting candidate, there has to be a countering and equal evil to be avoided. Now, if the non-abortion candidate promoted killing half the two-year-olds for example, or all the Jews, that would be “proportionate”.

I think before I could affirm that some Catholics reasonably endorse the view that Trump poses, say, a graver threat than NoKo missiles, I would have to know what they think that threat might be.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, it isn’t up to each of us Catholics to determine, and I think Pope Benedict was telling us exactly that.

I think you’re categorically wrong.

To support an abortion-supporting candidate, there has to be a countering and equal evil to be avoided. Now, if the non-abortion candidate promoted killing half the two-year-olds for example, or all the Jews, that would be “proportionate”.

I think before I could affirm that some Catholics reasonably endorse the view that Trump poses, say, a graver threat than NoKo missiles, I would have to know what they think that threat might be.

Or if the candidate was the gravest threat to our nation.

That would be proportionate as well.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If every republican actually believed they needed to vote for the prolife candidate, trump would have lost at the first primaries.

His prolife background is inexistent. Every other republican candidate has more prolife credentials.

As for Gorsich, any other republican candidate would have nominated someone similar. And, because of his age, he didn’t have a great much of experience with cases having to do with abortion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think you’re categorically wrong.

Or if the candidate was the gravest threat to our nation.

That would be proportionate as well.

I think we would need to know the actual nature of the threat before deciding it to be an equal to or greater evil than the unnecessary deaths of a million children plus, per year in this country alone. Just knowing a politician’s name, or even disliking him intensely, doesn’t tell us what the threat is.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If every republican actually believed they needed to vote for the prolife candidate, trump would have lost at the first primaries.

His prolife background is inexistent. Every other republican candidate has more prolife credentials.

As for Gorsich, any other republican candidate would have nominated someone similar. And, because of his age, he didn’t have a great much of experience with cases having to do with abortion.

Maybe not. Trump announced himself prolife pretty early on. Now, a lot of people didn’t believe him, but nothing he has done so far tells us otherwise.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe not. Trump announced himself prolife pretty early on.

He, curiously, also refused to announce whether he had ever personally funded an abortion.

 

[PRmerger]

Just knowing a politician’s name, or even disliking him intensely, doesn’t tell us what the threat is.

Really? You think that people thinking that Trump may be the gravest threat to our nation (or even the world) is due to knowing his name or disliking him intensely?

Really?

 

[Jeanne_S]

He, curiously, also refused to announce whether he had ever personally funded an abortion.

What does that have to do with where he stands today? Why do you insist he own up to that especially since you have no basis for you assumptions. Even if he personally isn’t as prolife as we Catholics would desire,his actions so far as president have shown him to at least act in that vein.

 

[dvdjs]

It is not my practice to report violations of the rules here. But I can make a start if you keep calling people liars or “moral posturers”.

expose what you think you can expose in the way of error. But this personal attack business has gone well beyond simple ill manners.

I searched my posts and have one occasion in which a called someone a liar - it was Trump and it was, in fact a stipulation to another posters who argued that his Bush tape was not a confession of casually but boasting about imagined sexual escapes that never really happened.

I certainly have not called you a liar, which would be incorrect; in successive posts on the matter, with repeated objections, you have modified your uranium narrative. But it is still very misleading: we still have exclusive use of the uranium; Clinton was one of nine who signed off on the arrangement; the ostensible $145M quid pro quo was came years before the deal, before HRC was SoS, from a person who, at the time of the approval, was not a stakeholder. These relevant facts are omitted as you endeavor to leave impression that the matter were nefarious.

This repeated behavior is no longer surprising, and it even begins to lose its shock value. I I am sure have justified it to yourself, just as you justify your direct attacks on the morality of posters whom you accuse of hate - even as you decry people calling others names and make statements about other posters bad manners.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I searched my posts and have one occasion in which a called someone a liar - it was Trump and it was, in fact a stipulation to another posters who argued that his Bush tape was not a confession of casually but boasting about imagined sexual escapes that never really happened.

I certainly have not called you a liar, which would be incorrect; in successive posts on the matter, with repeated objections, you have modified your uranium narrative. But it is still very misleading: we still have exclusive use of the uranium; Clinton was one of nine who signed off on the arrangement; the ostensible $145M quid pro quo was came years before the deal, before HRC was SoS, from a person who, at the time of the approval, was not a stakeholder. These relevant facts are omitted as you endeavor to leave impression that the matter were nefarious.

This repeated behavior is no longer surprising, and it even begins to lose its shock value. I I am sure have justified it to yourself, just as you justify your direct attacks on the morality of posters whom you accuse of hate - even as you decry people calling others names and make statements about other posters bad manners.

Read “Clinton Cash” … hundreds of footnotes/endnotes.

Author is Peter Schweizer.

Lots of gory details available.

 

[PRmerger]

I searched my posts and have one occasion in which a called someone a liar - it was Trump and it was, in fact a stipulation to another posters who argued that his Bush tape was not a confession of casually but boasting about imagined sexual escapes that never really happened.

Now the narrative will be: “It’s hateful to call politicians a liar. Oh? I did that? Well, it’s tots ok because, well, I did it in 2010 and, well, because it’s true, and well, because it wasn’t hateful for me. Just for you. When you do it. In 2017. Because Trump. And because abortion.”

 

[fmchan52]

I guess that’s up to each of us Catholics to determine.

Some Catholics might endorse the view that Trump poses the gravest threats our world has ever known, so…

Do you believe Trump presents the gravest threat the world has ever known? Please
explain how anyone could know this.

 

[Ridgerunner]

He, curiously, also refused to announce whether he had ever personally funded an abortion.

Nor has he announced whether he had been to Mars. But that doesn’t mean he has been.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Do you believe Trump presents the gravest threat the world has ever known? Please
explain how anyone could know this.

I don’t think PRmerger was claiming that Trump was the gravest threat the world has ever known, only that there might be some people who believe that is the case. For the actual reasoning behind that belief you would have to ask those hypothetical people. The point is the Church does not forbid them from holding such a belief, whether you think that belief is well-founded or not.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I searched my posts and have one occasion in which a called someone a liar - it was Trump and it was, in fact a stipulation to another posters who argued that his Bush tape was not a confession of casually but boasting about imagined sexual escapes that never really happened.

I certainly have not called you a liar, which would be incorrect; in successive posts on the matter, with repeated objections, you have modified your uranium narrative. But it is still very misleading: we still have exclusive use of the uranium; Clinton was one of nine who signed off on the arrangement; the ostensible $145M quid pro quo was came years before the deal, before HRC was SoS, from a person who, at the time of the approval, was not a stakeholder. These relevant facts are omitted as you endeavor to leave impression that the matter were nefarious.

This repeated behavior is no longer surprising, and it even begins to lose its shock value. I I am sure have justified it to yourself, just as you justify your direct attacks on the morality of posters whom you accuse of hate - even as you decry people calling others names and make statements about other posters bad manners.

People can read.

“Still very misleading”

“…relevant facts are omitted as you endeavor to leave impression that…”

There’s more than one way to call a person a liar. Nobody’s fooled here.

 

[MidwestGuy]

People can read.

“Still very misleading”

“…relevant facts are omitted as you endeavor to leave impression that…”

There’s more than one way to call a person a liar. Nobody’s fooled here.

One of the reason’s why this poster has been on my ignore list for quite some time.

 

[dvdjs]

People can read.

“Still very misleading”

“…relevant facts are omitted as you endeavor to leave impression that…”

There’s more than one way to call a person a liar.

Actually, there is one way to call someone a liar. And an example of that has been given in this thread.

It is interesting, however, that you, once again, don’t respond to the facts of the actual matter. You do not discuss the facts, but pivot to the personal. But it is a simple fact that you consistently and repeatedly tell this story with the omission of relevant facts that paint an much different picture of the matter. A discussion of those facts might be interesting.

Making accusations against me for pointing them out is not.

You have expressed a preference that people should post on policy. But I don’t think that it is the least bit interesting to discuss policy without first arriving at a common understanding of analysis, and agreement on a practically complete set of facts; the structure of policy is built on analysis of facts. I don’t look at facts to quibble or play gotcha, but to resist the creeping post-modern mindset that facts are irrelevant, insubstantial, and inconsequential. No: facts matter. And there is nothing wrong with holding those presenting them accountable.

Nobody’s fooled here.

Lordy, I hope so.