Why Catholics Should Vote for Trump article

  • Thread starter Thread starter Limoncello4021
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peeps said:
But the Prez. doesn’t get a “vote” on legislation. So I’m not sure how your criteria would apply to presidential candidates, unless you tabulate how many of their campaign promises were kept.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of the “veto”? That is the Pres. vote on legislation. If the Pres says I will veto any bill that does X. Even in the house and senate pass the legislation, the veto kills it unless the house and senate have enough support to overrule the veto.

Civics anyone?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LilyM:
Right. And what happens when thousands of other people who also elected them want them to vote differently from you?

And what about the people who didn’t vote for them at all , who they also need to represent the interests of because their job is to work for all the people of their electorates?
Click to expand...
Why on earth would they cast a vote for him if they didn’t agree with his promise?

That means the lowest common denominator?
Click to expand...
OK. Let me paint a picture for you here.

Candidate A is voted into office by a million voters. When polled, 100 of those voters say they voted for him because he said he would always wear a spiffy red tie, and they love spiffy red ties.

The other 999,900 voters who voted him into office say they didn’t vote for him because of his red ties (instead it was because of his promise to always wear natty striped shirts or something). If pushed, most of them would go further and say that they don’t like red ties in general, and in fact would prefer that he not wear one, but that his wearing the shirts is far more important to them than his wearing or not wearing the ties.

Given that only 100 out of his million supporters even care about his red ties, and the rest are either indifferent or actually dislike them, is he obliged to do only what the 100 like and wear the red ties?

This is reality. I have never yet in my near 50 years on this planet come across a political candidate of any persusasion that I agree with all of their promises and policies. And I dare say most voters would say the same. I certainly do vote, and vote for the candidate that I agree best with.

But in the end the person is chosen to represent their whole electorate, not just me. And if the majority do not have the same views or priorities as myself, well I and my wishes are not meant to be the only or primary concern of my representative if they run counter or fringe to the concerns of the majority.
 
Last edited:
farronwolf said:
Ever heard of the “veto”? That is the Pres. vote on legislation. If the Pres says I will veto any bill that does X. Even in the house and senate pass the legislation, the veto kills it unless the house and senate have enough support to overrule the veto.

Civics anyone?
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s true.

And if the President’s veto is truly foolish or dangerous, the Senate should override it, and the public should prevail upon their Senators to vote to override a bad Presidential veto.

It’s very well thought-out, a beautifully-designed system of checks and balances that ensures that one person or one small group will never be able to force bad government upon the citizens (without their permission, that is). Praises to our Founding Fathers!
 
Last edited:
JoeFreedom said:
. You are 100% correct on the statement.
Click to expand...
Not true. The reason for voting for the abortion candidate must be proportionate to the evil of abortion. What, in this election, is truly proportionate to the killing of nearly a million innocent children annually?
Rau said:
The predominance of deaths among the elderly, those in nursing homes and those with comorbidities is common around the world.
Click to expand...
No. First world countries have a lot more people with comorbidities because we keep them alive.
LeafByNiggle said:
No, most New Yorker’s never got infected. It did not “run its course”.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It will be endemic and may never quite go away.
twoangels said:
I’m asking for candidates that actually seem like they’d be good for the job, where I’d simply be comparing their qualifications, their personality to handle the job position and be asked to look at their strategy for solving problems, comparing the different strategies and deciding which one I feel would be most effective at solving a specific problem.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
I would like a candidate who started no wars.
I would like a candidate who defeated the odious “caliphate” that was torturing and raping innocent people.
I would like a candidate who refused to fund abortions worldwide.
I would like a candidate who appointed prolife justices to the Supreme Court.
I would like a candidate who supports religious freedom, including that of Catholic sisters and charities.
I would like a candidate who achieved the lowest unemployment rate in 60 years, including the lowest black and hispanic rates.
I would like a candidate who would attempt to clean out the political hacks who run so many of our supposedly “neutral” government agencies.
I would like a candidate who would cut three years off the vaccine-producing process for Covid.
I would like a candidate who would attend the March for Life.

Oh, wait…🙂
 
Ridgerunner said:
What, in this election, is truly proportionate to the killing of nearly a million innocent children annually?
Click to expand...
That is not the proper question, because that is not what is actually at stake. If the nearly one million innocent children are already dying during a Trump Presidency, we have no guarantee they won’t still be dying during a Trump second term. Therefore it is not correct to consider that those one million lives are actually at play right now.
Ridgerunner said:
No. First world countries have a lot more people with comorbidities because we keep them alive.
Click to expand...
America is not the only country capable of keeping old people alive. In fact, among developed nations, we are only mediocre at it.
buffalo said:
40.png
Rau:
Fine, but that leaves the US doing poorly among first world countries.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t that be the choices of a free society?
Click to expand...
What does that mean??? Are you saying that because we have a free society we can chose to do poorly at managing a pandemic? That does not speak very well of free societies, then.

The Catholic notion of freedom is not the freedom to sin. It is the freedom to chose the right and good:
CCC 1733:
The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. the choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to “the slavery of sin.”
Click to expand...
That’s what a free society should be.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Wouldn’t that be the choices of a free society?
Click to expand...
I suspect it can be put down to a number of factors. Eg. Some leaders felt lockdown measures would cause economic harm outweighing loss of life; some leaders and administrations simply did a poor job of executing measures to protect citizens; Some citizens took it upon themselves to decide what suited them and so did not follow public health advice/ requests/ instructions. I imagine this will be all analysed at some later date.
 
Trump–

The good:
Keeping muslims from here through Mexican borders. Canadian borders idk.

The neutral:
Good at business

The bad
Every presidential candidate needs a mental health report.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
What does that mean??? Are you saying that because we have a free society we can chose to do poorly at managing a pandemic? That does not speak very well of free societies, then.
Click to expand...
The point was Americans have many co-morbitities due to their free choices. As a result pandemic affected us worse. Unless we want to institute government mandated meal menu’s.

10,000 deaths without co-morbitites. Study the age and death charts.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LilyM:
But in the end the person is chosen to represent their whole electorate, not just me.
Click to expand...
Once again, lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...
No, it is an elected official representing the (majority of) interests of those many people who elected him or her. In other words pretty much doing their job.

Yes, they can and do and should advocate for minority interests at times, but are not necessarily bound to advocate for what buffalo thinks is important at all times.

You think majority = lowest common denominator? Well, you choose to live in a country that has popular elections, and rule of the people, not just rule of buffalo.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
The point was Americans have many co-morbitities due to their free choices.
Click to expand...
That is nonsense. People without free choices tend to be even less healthy and have more conditions that make them vulnerable.

The reason the US is doing so poorly is because the misinformation and unscientific leadership from the top confused the population and undermined compliance with public health guidelines. The nations that did the best are those where the people followed their science-based public health guidelines. Anything else is just an attempt to cover up for Trump’s incompetence.
 
Last edited:
Here is the data I am coming to terms with:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Many nations got hit hard, including the US, in the beginning. But other nations learned, followed directions, and got control. The US did not learn, and is still floundering. We all watched and heard the evolving parade of excused and misdirections Trump gave over these months. (Note how the UK is not doing to well either, which can be traced to the irregular guidance of Boris Johnson. But even the UK is doing better than us.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top