Will not vote for Trump, but no pro-life Democrats?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I appreciate the civil discussion and accept that you are asking an honest question out of curiosity šŸ˜Š

To give you some insight into my thinking,
Kinda scary I know, Haha. This is why/how I vote and why I support whom I support. I suppose for me it comes talk Vs. actions. While I donā€™t care for the way President Trump tweets and ect, and his previous pro abortion stance, he has been Pro Life. He has appointed Pro Life judges to the Supreme Court and lower courts. For me that Trumps, no pun intended šŸ˜†, stupid talk.

I like how he has convinced Ford to bring jobs back to the US - to Fordā€™s credit they have always had more production in the US than other domestic automotive manufacturers. He has done the same with other manufacturers. The unemployment rate is down. He has pretty much delivered or is delivering on his promises. So in the big picture, that is what I always look at, the positives out way the negatives with our current President. No politician, candidate or current elected official, will I ever totally agree with. I decide what issues are most important and that is who gets my support. Pro Life, Pro Constitutional Rights, Religious Freedom, Prosperity for our country. I am Pro Life and that is a non-negotiable one for me. I donā€™t vote political parties, although admittedly a lot of the times those candidates happen to have an R behind their names.

I wish there was that perfect President, Governor, Senator or Representative. Unfortunately, there isnā€™t and never will be. Look at what is most important to you, I listed mine, and vote for the candidate that comes closest. Hope that helps you understand my position and I respect yours. God Bless you my friend and Sister šŸ˜Š
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Are you sure you meant to reply to my post? I do not see a connection.

I have no idea what success or failure in Syria or anywhere else has to do with the unfortunate problem that the President of the United States habitually makes up preposterous things to say (not to mention tweet) which either have no basis in fact or which flatly contradict the truth.

Again: this is no small thing. We know who the Father of Lies is.

As Pope St. John Paul II said: Do not accept anything as the truth if it lacks love. And do not accept anything as love which lacks truth! One without the other becomes a destructive lie.
(Homily at the canonization of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, Oct. 11, 1998)
Click to expand...
This is no small thing? Is the slaughter of Christians a small thing? I consider what you are talking about as swatting gnats. He misstated something. He probably has thousands of things on his mind. I admit, misstatements are not flattering, still, all I have to do is type in ā€œliesā€ and the name of any of the recent presidents and I will get a load of hits and examples.

So, then, where does one draw the line? How many ā€œliesā€ are acceptable.

You expounded on something you dislike about the president, I expounded on something I like about the president. Touche.
 
A lot of people criticize. I think really we should know their stances on the issues too. Have they ever voted for pro-choice candidates? Would not that mean they have committed a wrong as well if they are criticizing others. But it is not our business how one votes I am told. Still, if they vote for a Biden, a Sanders and so on down the line, they are voting for the nonnegotiable evil of abortion.

I note, some politicians ā€œwhiter than the driven snowā€ are not elected president, letā€™s say an ideological purist like Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum whom I am a fan of. They did not get elected, maybe they are not electable.

But Trump was elected and not only that, not only that.

During the debates, Trump made clear how he felt about abortion, it was in the platform as well. But what he said during the debates was probably a stricter view of abortion than many accept. One would have to read the transcripts but at one point, it was even discussed about ā€œpunishing the woman that got an abortionā€. One really needs to check details on that for the curious. I can not describe it well off the top of my head but anyone can look it up.

Bottom line, if someone is criticizing Trump for something he said 20 years ago, itā€™s pretty hypocritical if one has voted for choicers to hold him to this standard.

And yes, I voted I think for Michael Dukakis, so I voted for a pro-choicer myself at one point. I doubt many of us are perfect on this issue. That was 1988 at that. So, he/she who is without sin cast the first stone. We have no business knowing the voting record of others but I can imagine in some cases.
TheLittleLady said:
Guessing because Mr Trumps public actions and the way he talks is not in conformity with Catholic Teaching.

So, I wonder, why is public deviation from basic Christian principals unacceptable for Mr Biden and acceptable for Mr Trump? I am asking in honesty, finding it baffling that the same arguments that were used to try to talk many of us into voting for Mr Trump are used to claim we should not vote for other candidates now.
Click to expand...
But people do change their minds. I admire one greatly if one has never indeed, voted for a prochoicer. I plea guilty that in 1988, I probably voted for Michael Dukakis so I am guilty as well.


But again, I commend anyone who has had the upstanding moral clarity to never vote for anyone who might say something outside of Christian principles.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
This is no small thing? Is the slaughter of Christians a small thing?
Click to expand...
Again, Iā€™m really not sure what youā€™re replying to. I wrote that the Presidentā€™s habit of brazen fabrication is no small thing.

It is not reasonable to write off these as mistatements. When people make honest mistatements, they issue corrections when the mistake is pointed out. Can you point out where the President has apologized for his false statements? I donā€™t mean that he starts saying something that is true when he used to say something totally different, because when one does that while pretending one has never ever said anything different, that is not a correction.

He makes up stuff about other people that is simply not true, things that are far worse than ā€œnot flattering,ā€ and he does it at a rate that is utterly unprecedented. He doesnā€™t just get selective with his facts or mislead by omission, which are bad enough. He doesnā€™t just repeat things he sees on television, which is bad enough. No, he just plain makes stuff up.

The most amazing are the things like the comment about people going out in their boats to watch Hurricane Harvey and blaming a wildfire in a failure to rake the forest (?!?!) that have his audiences scratching their heads. Claiming that huge numbers of illegal immigrants voted when there is no evidence to support the contention. The list goes on and on, because the fabrications come so regularly.

I defy anybody to find anything remotely like this level of fabrication coming out of the mouth of any President. There is no evidence for it, and it is not honest to simply wave hands and equate the number of false statements he makes with anyone else in politics. Making a charge like that is very serious, and requires evidence to make it. There is plenty of evidence for his false statements. Do not paint anyone else with the same brush without doing the work of amassing the evidence, and if the evidence simply is not there, then do not accuse them.
 
Last edited:
Thatā€™s your view. One can pin all of that on the last 3 presidents at least. Did Obama apologize for misstatements he made? Bush? Clinton? Where does one draw the line?

Iā€™m sure many people believe we have had many people vote in our elections who are not here legally. Thatā€™s an opinion. That doesnā€™t need to be backed up. Since, we do not have strict voter registration laws, making such an assertion may not need to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.


To be fair, this NY Times article is still an investigation into the process of illegal voting but I donā€™t consider 95,000 to be a small number.

The wildfire example is another example of what could be opinion.

Watching a hurricane from the harbor. He must have thought this. But anyway, when every president can be accused of lies, I wonder where the line is drawn then? 20 lies is okay?

Obama has his 57 states gaffe, he also implied Austrians spoke Austrian, I think they speak German. Were these lies? Iā€™m not so sure about this. He was mistaken. He might not have known better, he may have misspoken. Iā€™m not going to accuse him of lying.
 
Last edited:
I personally, do not vote on someone based on what they may have said 20 years ago.

Also, I will read up on Trumpā€™s exact words on same-sex marriage, I recall, he said something about Elton John and something like ā€œThatā€™s cool if two people dig each other.ā€ I am not sure if he ever made statements rejecting or endorsing Same-sex marriage. Again, compare to his predecessor if we must.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
A lot of people criticize. I think really we should know their stances on the issues too. Have they ever voted for pro-choice candidates? Would not that mean they have committed a wrong as well if they are criticizing others. But it is not our business how one votes I am told. Still, if they vote for a Biden, a Sanders and so on down the line, they are voting for the nonnegotiable evil of abortion.

I note, some politicians ā€œwhiter than the driven snowā€ are not elected president, letā€™s say an ideological purist like Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum whom I am a fan of. They did not get elected, maybe they are not electable.

But Trump was elected and not only that, not only that.

During the debates, Trump made clear how he felt about abortion, it was in the platform as well. But what he said during the debates was probably a stricter view of abortion than many accept. One would have to read the transcripts but at one point, it was even discussed about ā€œpunishing the woman that got an abortionā€. One really needs to check details on that for the curious. I can not describe it well off the top of my head but anyone can look it up.

Bottom line, if someone is criticizing Trump for something he said 20 years ago, itā€™s pretty hypocritical if one has voted for choicers to hold him to this standard.

And yes, I voted I think for Michael Dukakis, so I voted for a pro-choicer myself at one point. I doubt many of us are perfect on this issue.
Click to expand...
I agree, none of us are perfect and we change our position on issues as we grow older and wiser. Thankfully I donā€™t do some of the same stuff I did when I was younger, and am still here today, Haha.

As far as I can remember I was always pro life, except in cases of rape or the mothers life were to be put in jeopardy if she went through with the childā€™s birth. I was harsh on criminals, not forgiving and had no issues with the death penalty. As Iā€™ve gotten older and hopefully wiser, I have learned that with modern medicine a baby can be removed from the mother by non natural birth process and kept alive at an extremely young age. That changed my opinion on and made me 100% pro-life. Iā€™ve since changed my opinion on the death penalty, I donā€™t see a need for it in todayā€™s society. Especially when Iā€™ve read about the conversion of hearts, people wrongly accused and found guilty because of bad DNA results and other issues. So now I am 100% pro life from Conception to natural death. I also donā€™t believe in locking people up and throwing away the key like I used to. I believe in a real correction system that reforms and releases them to be a productive part of society. Our correctional facilities are way over crowded and cost us a lot of money when the entire process could be better handled. If a person is to violent to be in society then they should remain locked up, but that does not equate to the death penalty. If you told this to me about 5 years ago, I would disagree, but this is how I feel today. So most definitely we change šŸ˜‰
 
Last edited:
As much as I hear that people donā€™t like Trumpā€™s personality, I am pretty sure that if Hilary was elected, Christians and pro-lifers would have been crushed under her heel in every way she could have managed it.
 
No, the wildfire example is not an opinion. Nobody rakes forests to prevent wildfires. They donā€™t do it in Finland and if they were to have failed to do what nobody does in California it would have been in a national forest and it would have been the federal government who would have failed at the fantasy raking requirement.

He says FAR more things like this than any other President ever has.

Tell me, what would it take to say that someone has fabricated the things they say? Are you saying it is impossible to say whether or not a political figure is more or less believable than others?

Are you saying that it is impossible to say whether someone is regularly letting things out of his mouth that have no basis in fact? Youā€™re right: he may not be lying. He may have a screw loose that keeps him from being capable of telling fantasy from realilty. I donā€™t know what his problem is. I do know that never in my lifetime has any political figure spewed out such obvious fabrications or done it with such astonishing frequency.

I really hope he gets a primary opponent, but I somehow doubt he will.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
Still, if they vote for a Biden, a Sanders and so on down the line, they are voting for the nonnegotiable evil of abortion.
Click to expand...
Unless these people tell you ā€œI am voting for X because of their abortion standā€, you nor I are able to read hearts. The US Bishops have been clear in their guidance to American Catholics:

  1. Prudential judgment is also needed in applying moral principles to specific policy
    choices in areas such as armed conflict, housing, health care, immigration, and others. This does
    not mean that all choices are equally valid, or that our guidance and that of other Church leaders
    is just another political opinion or policy preference among many others. Rather, we urge
    Catholics to listen carefully to the Churchā€™s teachers when we apply Catholic social teaching to
    specific proposals and situations. The judgments and recommendations that we make as bishops
    on such specific issues do not carry the same moral authority as statements of universal moral
    teachings. Nevertheless, the Churchā€™s guidance on these matters is an essential resource for
    Catholics as they determine whether their own moral judgments are consistent with the Gospel
    and with Catholic teaching.
  2. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important
    to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among
    moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an
    intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting
    workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its
    essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voterā€™s intent is to support that position. In such
    cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter
    should not use a candidateā€™s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or
    inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
  3. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidateā€™s unacceptable position
    even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that
    candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly
    grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a
    fundamental moral evil.
    Continued next post
 
  1. When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the
    conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not
    voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate
    deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other
    authentic human goods.
  2. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed
    conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral
    obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our
    consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidateā€™s
    commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a
    decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.
 
Victoria33 said:
Thatā€™s your view. One can pin all of that on the last 3 presidents at least. Did Obama apologize for misstatements he made? Bush? Clinton? Where does one draw the line?
Click to expand...
Whataboutism is the expected response.

It would be refreshing to hear ā€œNo, President Trump does not apologize. I personally find that to be disturbing, but, I still will vote for him.ā€
Victoria33 said:
Also, I will read up on Trumpā€™s exact words on same-sex marriage,
Click to expand...
Go watch the November 2016 60 Minutes interview. He was very clear in that interview.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
Whataboutism is the expected response.

It would be refreshing to hear ā€œNo, President Trump does not apologize. I personally find that to be disturbing, but, I still will vote for him.ā€
Click to expand...
My biggest concern is how it reflects on Christianity when we seem willing to choose expediency over principles like integrity. Yes, everyone knows that none of us are perfectly correct all the time, but this time we have a candidate whose statements habitually go beyond the pale with regards to both the facts and the most minimal demands of charity. They really do.

And yes, it does pose a serious problem for any voter. Iā€™m not saying anybody ought to be seeking the confessional for being willing to vote for Donald Trump. Iā€™m explaining why I was willing to vote for neither major party candidate even though it was practically certain that one or the other would win. The answer is that I thought both had flaws so serious that they were disqualifying.
 
Last edited:
Since almost all humans have told falsehoods, it is not easy to judge but Iā€™ll keep it short.

Compared to the serious matters confronting our country, if you need absolutes, no, I donā€™t care about slight misstatements.

He said last weekend, ā€œmillionsā€ died in Sri Lanka. That is false and wrong but I consign no malice to it.
 
RealisticCatholic said:
A 3rd party candidate will not win. America has been entrenched in its two-party system.
Click to expand...
To add to this, the two main third parties (i.e. Libertarians and Greens) are arguably worse than the two main ones from a Catholic perspective. I mean, if you refuse to vote for a pro-choice candidate, both parties are out. And unfortunately, after 2016, I feel like I need to actually cite, soā€¦

From the Libertarian platform:
1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Click to expand...
The Green Party, from what I can tell, is a little less nationally open, but the California wing at least offers some insight:
Women have an inalienable right to control their own bodies. The decision whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term is a womanā€™s alone to make.

All women must have the option of obtaining a safe and legal abortion.
Click to expand...
RealisticCatholic said:
P.S. Iā€™m also asking if there ARE pro-life candidates. I just donā€™t know of any. Who is the least extreme? Is there at least a moderate? etc.
Click to expand...
Tulsi Gabbard has called out other Democrats for discrimination against Christians. Thatā€™s at least something. Iā€™d also imagine Joe Biden wonā€™t go too crazy. Other than that, Iā€™m coming up empty.
Aquinas11 said:
forced charity
Click to expand...
Hardly. The closest it gets to charity, whether voluntary or involuntary, is that I can vote for what I want my money to go towards, either directly in ballot measures or indirectly through the candidates I vote for. Other than that, though, itā€™s just someone taking my money to put it towards what they want to. Thereā€™s no charity, whether voluntary or involuntary, on my part and acting like there is is just empty rhetoric.

Also, I want to remind everyone:

https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/cath...455dd170cdf48231e559c563fc22d0a180ed04aa.jpeg

Context
 
Victoria33 said:
Since almost all humans have told falsehoods, it is not easy to judge but Iā€™ll keep it short.

Compared to the serious matters confronting our country, if you need absolutes, no, I donā€™t care about slight misstatements.

He said last weekend, ā€œmillionsā€ died in Sri Lanka. That is false and wrong but I consign no malice to it.
Click to expand...
When someone tells me something totally off-base once or on rare occasions, maybe that is a mistake.
When the person always puts their spin on anything they say, I take what that person says with a grain of salt.
When someone repeatedly tells me things with no basis in fact, I stop believing what the persons says.
That personā€™s word carries zero weight with me. I believe nothing he or she says but rely on other sources.

When someone who has the resources to get any fact straight that he wants to have straight repeatedly pulls assertions out of thin air that have no basis in fact, it is difficult to believe that he puts a high priority on making statements that are somewhere in the vicinity of the truth.

When that person is running for the President of the United States, he is not getting my vote. Period.
 
Last edited:
WillPhillips said:
If you want to reduce abortions in America, democratic platform policies are the most effective.
Click to expand...
LOL, thatā€™s why blue states generally have higher abortion rates, states like even Delaware, never mind California and New York.

Most of the top 10 are Democrat states, perhaps a few purple states are in there.


Red states have lower rates, even Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Dakotas and so on. Even a purplish state like Wisconsin.

The proof is in the pudding. What? The Democratic platform has abortion on demand and they are about to extend it to the full 9 months?

Please cite proof of what you say. State legislation is what is pushing rates down in some states and the Pro-Life movement.
 
Last edited:
Is the decrease in the abortion rate due directly to the pro-choice policies or due to the pro-life movementā€™s response to these policies? If itā€™s the latter, then the argument fails.

Note also that many of the pro-life movementā€™s activities, whether it be counseling women inside and outside abortion centers, the March for Life, the 40 Days for Life, and Rosary campaigns (among other things), have led many women to turn away from abortion and know that they have other, better options than abortion, changed peopleā€™s minds on it, and closed abortion centers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top