Who will you be supporting in the U.S. presidential election with our Catholic values in mind?

Status
Not open for further replies.
And further, I’m not convinced some Trump supporters are supporters primarily because of his anti abortion stance (which is pretty weak, all things considered). It’s not like they say “I’m voting for trump even though he’s a morally dubious figure”. Pro-life is part of large package and many socially conservative Trump supporters seem to advocate for the entire package, but use the anti abortion part of the platform as an ideological club to beat co-religionists over the head with.
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
It’s not like they say “I’m voting for trump even though he’s a morally dubious figure”.
Click to expand...
It’s pretty easy for his supporters to reference his policy directions as justification. It’s the opposition that is voting against Trump because they don’t like his twitter feed (dubious reason IMHO)
 
Yup

You hit the nail on the head.

I refuse to be bullied and didn’t vote for Trump.
 
Because Trump’s policy position are perfection and nobody could ever possibly disagree with him. Truly his policies are the greatest in the history of humanity, and his constant stream of stream of consciousness and attack tweets are the product of the greatest most agile and moral political mind of our age.

Frankly anyone who objects to anything Trump says or does is at best demented or at worst a vile and evil traitor to humanity
 
Last edited:
Don’t let the right wing media bully you either. I’m not saying they did, just warning about it in the future.
 
Victoria33 said:
I voted for Trump. I refuse to let the left wing media bully me.
Click to expand...
Bully you? What does that even mean? If you’re happy with your choice, you’re happy with it.
If you’re not, you’re not. If a news outlet (or a candidate or an elected official) is twisting the truth, I would hope we’d all be at least uncomfortable with that, whether the source is twisting it “in our favor” or against us. (I put “in our favor” in quotes because I think we’d all agree that it is never in our favor when someone twists the truth in a way that seems to be trying to be on our side of a question.)

I guess don’t get how a news outlet or anyone having an opinion is “bullying.” For instance, if Mrs Clinton thought she was “bullying” voters by her contemptuous comment aimed at “half” of Mr. Trump’s supporters, she was sorely mistaken about her standing to be a bully. Likewise, I don’t know how a news outlet can bully listeners. They can choose who they offend, I suppose? Unless you mean that people you actually know are being emboldened to be nasty (or worse) to you, I don’t know what you mean, I guess.
 
Aquinas11 said:
When it comes to Immigration , Trump is also closest to Catholic teaching, since only ensures America takes immigrants “to the extent they are able” (we have 50,000+ overdoses from drug use, not to mention 48,000 suicides per year, etc etc). HE also makes sure they follow all laws (bolded below IN CCC, including border laws)
Click to expand...
Absolutely untrue…Trump is the polar opposite of the most fundamental Gospel/Catholic teaching of Matthew 25: 31-46. Even a pro-life stance is NOT a free pass for trampling on the Lord’s warning on the judgment of nations…so, not sure who I will vote for, but Trump will not be on any short list I may have.
 
Last edited:
redal said:
Trump is the polar opposite of the most fundamental Gospel/Catholic teaching of Matthew 25: 31-46
Click to expand...
That has to do with individual responsibility to poor , sick, in jail , etc, not government responsibility

The separation of sheep from goats is people not governments

Government welfare is forced involuntary charity (each person must pay taxes) and thus not what Jesus is talking about. He’s talking about whether each person has engaged in free voluntary charity (not forced by State)

Thus Trump (reduces taxes so people can perform more free voluntary charity) is far more in line with this teaching than Dems (forced charity)
 
So tax cuts for the wealthy in the hopes that a sense of noblesse oblige overtakes them is how a modern industrialized state should deal with poverty.
 
Last edited:
Aquinas11 said:
That has to do with individual responsibility to poor , sick, in jail , etc, not government responsibility
Click to expand...
So I assume you believe abortion is an individual responsibility to decide on and not government responsibility to get involve in legislating? I’m not seeing how you can have it both ways.
 
Aquinas11 said:
That has to do with individual responsibility to poor , sick, in jail , etc, not government responsibility
Click to expand...
To some extent it is both. Governments operating for the common good have an obligation to institute policies that reflect the will of the people. If the will of those people is that they want their society to be charitable, then government should not oppose them. If you divorce all claims of morality from government you might find yourself unable to refute the argument that says the obligation of respecting the life of the unborn is also an individual one, not one for government.
Murder is not an act of charity performed to help the poor or sick, no…
Click to expand...
Ah, but you see abortion is not murder, which is a civil law term, not a moral term. So you will have to rephrase that as “Abortion as an immoral action is not a…”. But even that won’t fix your problem, because it is still an act whose immorality falls primarily on the individual who procures one.
Thus Trump (reduces taxes so people can perform more free voluntary charity) is far more in line with this teaching
Click to expand...
It is nothing but wishful thinking that a substantial fraction of a tax cut will in turn be turned into individual charity. There are no figures to show that. On the contrary, most of the money saved in tax cuts goes to either savings or spending on one’s self or one’s family. Only the tiniest amount shows up as increased charitable giving. So that is just an excuse for giving rich people a tax cuts they don’t need.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Governments operating for the common good have an obligation to
Click to expand...
No, again the question is specific to Matthew 25:31-46 and personal responsibility not governmental responsibility.
LeafByNiggle said:
abortion is not murder,
Click to expand...
False
LeafByNiggle said:
nothing but wishful thinking that a substantial fraction of a tax cut will in turn be turned into individual charity
Click to expand...
No, the point is that with the tax cut the person is more likely to perform individual charity (compared to no tax cut)
 
Aquinas11 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Governments operating for the common good have an obligation to
Click to expand...
No, again the question is specific to Matthew 25:31-46 and personal responsibility not governmental responsibility.
Click to expand...
Yes, the initial question was specific, but your argument was not that specific. It made the claim that because the scripture in question spoke of a personal responsibility, government has no business enforcing it. But the admonition against abortion is also a personal responsibility, not a governmental one.
LeafByNiggle said:
nothing but wishful thinking that a substantial fraction of a tax cut will in turn be turned into individual charity
Click to expand...
No, the point is that with the tax cut the person is more likely to perform individual charity (compared to no tax cut)
Click to expand...
I agree, but how much more likely? How much? Quantify it. I claim that it is minuscule. Therefore for every dollar cut from government welfare programs and returned to the tax payers as a tax cut, maybe one penny extra ends up being donated by those tax payers. The result is that the poor lose 99% of the help they previously had - all so that the ideological goal of having all welfare be individual choices can be maintained. The claim that people will use tax cuts to donate to charity is a sham.
 
Aquinas11 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
It made the claim that because the scripture in question spoke of a personal responsibility, government has no business enforcing it
Click to expand...
Never said that
Click to expand...
You did say that with respect to welfare, and it applies just as much to abortion.
LeafByNiggle said:
I agree, but how much more likely
Click to expand...
You agree so how much you agree is irrelevant
[/quote]
No, your claim that tax cuts leads to more charitable donations is irrelevant if the return is only 1%.
 
Aquinas11 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
No, your claim that tax cuts leads to more charitable donations is irrelevant if…
Click to expand...
You already said you agree with that claim
Click to expand...
It is a meaningless claim unless the tax cut effect on donation is enough to make up for the aid that was taken from the needy in order to fund the tax cut. All evidence is that it is not. The needy are worse off with your plan.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top