Author Topic: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump? (Read 10691 times)

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #30 on:** August 21, 2020, 09:37:27 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2020, 08:50:55 PM

And if you do distinguish between democans and republicrats, I feel even sorrier for you:

Andrew Napolitano has never been married
The Fox News senior judicial analyst Napolitano, 67, has never been married to anyone till date. Neither has he been in the news for dating anyone. In this context, his close relationship with late-friend James Conley Sheil sparked the rumor that he was in a relationship with James.
James was an attorney and a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He passed away on March 19, 2013, at his Little Fall, N.J. home at the age of 48. He was one of the most sought-after analysts of the law and appellate brief writer, who spent most of his time working for immigration equality in New York City.

Andrew Napolitano and James C. Sheil

James was a gifted writer who had been honored with several accolades, which include seven N.J. Press Association awards and the Martin Luther King Jr. Human Rights Award. He was co-working on a book, ѕυιcιdє Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty, with Napolitano before his death.
Later, in the acknowledgments section of the book, Napolitano expressed his heartfelt condolence to James as, “... my happy dreams turned dark last year when Jim Sheil, my alter ego to whose memory this book is dedicated, died suddenly on March 19th, 2013, as we were working on this book. Jim and I shared much of our lives with each other. Among that which we shared was a love of the printed word. Yet our philosophies and politics were like oil and water.”
https://obits.nj.com/obituaries/starledger/obituary.aspx?pid=163779840

James Conley Sheil
Attorney in business litigation group at McCarter & English law firm and adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law School who did pro bono work in immigration field
James Conley Sheil, 48, died suddenly on March 19, 2013, at his home in Little Falls, N.J.
Born in Newark, N.J., on May 25, 1964, Jim was an attorney at McCarter & English and an adjunct professor of legal research and writing at Seton Hall Law School in Newark.
He was a member of the Business and Financial Services Litigation Group at McCarter and devoted much of his time to pro bono work for Immigration Equality in New York City. At McCarter, he was a sought-after analyst of the law and appellate brief writer who interacted with many of the firm's attorneys at all of its multi-state offices.
Jim was raised in Maplewood, N.J., and lived in Bloomfield, N.J., and Little Falls. He graduated from Columbia High School in Maplewood in 1982. While there, he excelled in gymnastics and competitive swimming.
Jim graduated from Columbia University in New York City with a B.A. in English in 1986 and received his J.D. from Seton Hall Law School, summa cuм laude, in 1999. At Seton Hall, he was the managing editor of the Seton Hall Law Review. Upon his graduation, Jim spent a year as a law clerk for the Hon. John C. Lifland in federal district court in Newark.
Prior to his legal career, Jim had been the managing editor for several weekly New Jersey newspapers and he worked in public relations. He was a gifted writer and received much recognition for his work, including seven N.J. Press Association awards; the Martin Luther King Jr. Human Rights Award from the City of Orange, N.J., and a public commendation from the Isaiah House Emergency Shelter for exposing the conditions of homeless families in East Orange, N.J.
Jim is survived by his longtime friend, Andrew Napolitano; his parents, Betsy and Harry Sheil; his siblings, Harry and Ellen Sheil, Marianne Sheil, Bonnie and David Brienza, and Brian and Susana Sheil; his grandmother, Anne Conley Funcheon; his six nieces and nephews, and a large, loving, extended family.
His commitment to the defense of personal freedoms and human rights was a guiding force in his life. He had a special place in his heart for animals, especially for his dog, Gina.
Jim was a loving family member, a voracious reader, and an amateur Egyptologist. He had a brilliant mind and a gentle soul, and he gave generously of his brief time on earth.
In addition to his family, Jim was loved by his colleagues and his students. His loss will be deeply felt by all whose lives he touched.
Viewing will be Sunday, March 24, 2013 at the Jacob A. Holle Funeral Home, 2122 Millburn Ave., Maplewood, N.J., from 1 to 6 p.m. A Funeral Mass will be held for the repose of Jim's soul at Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, 217 Prospect St., South Orange, N.J. at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, March 25, 2013. Interment will be private.
In lieu of flowers, please consider making a donation to The James Conley Sheil Foundation, P.O. Box 100, Newton, N.J. 07860, which will support the education of students at Seton Hall Law School and the many charitable organizations about which Jim was passionate and which served the poor, immigrants, and abandoned animals

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #31 on:** August 21, 2020, 09:38:11 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2020, 08:49:36 PM

Have you ever seen a traditional Catholic promote Trump on any other basis than the alleged and illusory end to abortion schtick?
I've been hearing that same argument for the last 30 years.

Yeah actually. And I don't buy the argument that Trump will end abortion. *at best* he might be more reluctant to use federal power against a State who decided to do the right thing.

I'm not arguing for Trump per se though. I'm trying to understand the rationale that it could be mortal sin to vote for him

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #32 on:** August 21, 2020, 09:54:16 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 21, 2020, 09:38:11 PM

Yeah actually. And I don't buy the argument that Trump will end abortion. *at best* he might be more reluctant to use federal power against a State who decided to do the right thing.

I'm not arguing for Trump per se though. I'm trying to understand the rationale that it could be mortal sin to vote for him

That was just a thought, given that he is promoting sodomy and the destruction of the family. I don't think I could vote for such a man without betraying my conscience (subjective), but I wonder whether any other knowing Catholic could do so without sin.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #33 on:** August 21, 2020, 10:00:15 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2020, 09:54:16 PM

That was just a thought, given that he is promoting sodomy and the destruction of the family. I don't think I could vote for such a man without betraying my conscience (subjective), but I wonder whether any other knowing Catholic could do so without sin.

At the least I can't imagine how it could be grave matter unless the intent was bad (ie. "I'm voting for Trump *because* I want ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage, not in spite of it") and I don't really see how it could be a sin at all.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #34 on:** August 21, 2020, 10:05:51 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2020, 09:05:48 PM

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx0ZXNsYXNlY3JldHMyfGd4OjJkNTk0Mzg3NTQ2NTI0NjA

Thanks for the link, SeanJohnson. This looks like good reading, and I will read it.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #35 on:** August 21, 2020, 10:09:42 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 21, 2020, 10:00:15 PM

At the least I can't imagine how it could be grave matter unless the intent was bad (ie. "I'm voting for Trump *because* I want ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage, not in spite of it") and I don't really see how it could be a sin at all.

My thought is more concerned with the mindset that reasons, "Yeah, I know he's for the fαɢs and the breakup of the family, but he's conservative and we gotta keep Biden out."

How is that not a culpable mindset: Knowing and consenting to putting a man in office who will violate natural law, and turning a blind eye (hard heart?) to it because someone else will violate natural law.

So two wrongs make a right?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #36 on:** August 21, 2020, 10:18:30 PM »

Byz-

You do raise the ultimate question:

When is it grave matter to vote for a particular candidate?

Is it never sinful, because all candidates are sinners, and promote deranged policies?

Or, is it a weighing: One candidate promotes 6 abominations, while the other only promotes 2-3 abominations (as Matthew pointed out earlier)?

Or, does one abomination per candidate rule them both out?

And as regards the non-Catholic "lesser of two evils" schtick, since there is no necessity/compulsion to vote, how will one who votes for evil claim they had no choice?

Keeping in mind that the classic example of "double effect" is one man tied to the railroad track, while a bus of children stalls on another railroad track, and the person must make a choice to save one of the other, but cannot save both. In choosing one, he does not will the death of the other. But I do not see this necessity to choose present in the context of political elections (or, at least not between these two faulty candidates).

In other words, it is not clear to me that double effect is relevant here.

But the "lesser of two evils" without necessity is even on shakier ground: It is a simple matter of overlooking all the abominations of one candidate because they support their particular interest, while condemning the abominations in the other candidate.

It seems hypocritical and immoral somehow to me.

StLouisIX · « **Reply #37 on:** August 21, 2020, 10:25:49 PM »

Obviously practically everyone here has more lived experience in dealing with the lies of the political system than me.

How would any of you who are against Trump now respond to someone who says that if Trump is not re-elected, political Reactionaries and Right Wing Dissidents (who tend to promote policies at least favorable to Catholics) will never have a chance at turning the GOP around? Some would say (and I am somewhat convinced by this argument) that the whole Trump phenomenon has proven that there is the potential for a real reaction against the political system.

Therefore, if Trump loses, the Democrats will certainly clamp down on these voices, and prevent any potential of a Trump-like candidate ever getting into a serious position of power ever again. Even the dissemination of right wing ideas and certainly the authentic Catholic Faith will likely be banned under “hate speech” laws and whatnot.

Though, after reading about Trump’s ties with Epstein, it makes me think that perhaps the system will never allow for a real reactionary/dissident who is truly outside the system to gain power. More importantly, as SJ reiterated, is the question of whether voting for Trump is a sin or not.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #38 on:** August 21, 2020, 10:33:14 PM »

Quote from: StLouisIX on August 21, 2020, 10:25:49 PM

Obviously practically everyone here has more lived experience in dealing with the lies of the political system than me.

How would any of you who are against Trump now respond to someone who says that if Trump is not re-elected, political Reactionaries and Right Wing Dissidents (who tend to promote policies at least favorable to Catholics) will never have a chance at turning the GOP around? Some would say (and I am somewhat convinced by this argument) that the whole Trump phenomenon has proven that there is the potential for a real reaction against the political system.

Therefore, if Trump loses, the Democrats will certainly clamp down on these voices, and prevent any potential of a Trump-like candidate ever getting into a serious position of power ever again. Even the dissemination of right wing ideas and certainly the authentic Catholic Faith will likely be banned under “hate speech” laws and whatnot.

Though, after reading about Trump’s ties with Epstein, it makes me think that perhaps the system will never allow for a real reactionary/dissident who is truly outside the system to gain power. More importantly, as SJ reiterated, is the question of whether voting for Trump is a sin or not.

Well, my own view is that the two-party system is designed to limit (not promote) choice, and the Catholic revolution we dream of will never transpire in a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic republic (as the banning of Ron Paul from the Republican convention proved):

This country's handlers in Tel Aviv will never permit a morally acceptable candidate to arise (nor could such a Catholic candidate ever arise, whose very doctrine opposes the Masonic separation of Church and state).

Keep in mind also, that Trump sat on his thumb while the churches were closed down, promotes fαɢɢօt marriage, masks, shut down the economy, plunged the nation further in debt to our Jєω bankrollers of the central banks, promotes sodomy, etc.

So the very idea of incrementalism is flawed: It is only permitted for liberals (i.e., democrats/republicans). The country is being steered relentlessly in a direction by hidden powers who will prevent at all cost an incrementalism heading in the opposite direction (unless it is tactical to quell concerns, momentarily).

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #39 on:** August 21, 2020, 10:41:17 PM »

Regarding Trump, he seems to be using a similar tactic as JPII’s ostpolitik. He forces them to negotiate with him, by appearing to be reasonable and ready to compromise. In many cases he actually does compromise, and allows the enemy to gain ground. This is not a winning strategy, and the best it can do is to slow them down, as it did with the conspiracy against the Church. I don’t believe that he really does think sodomy is good, but he probably does not see it as the sin against nature, which cries to Heaven for vengeance, as we do. He also enthusiastically encourages women and mothers to work, despite the fact that he saw the result with his own wife Ivana when he gave her a high level job, that she was turning into a power-tripping maniac, and losing her feminine nature. So on that front he clearly is not following his intellect. He’s a bit of a pushover with the social issues. He even used to be pro-choice until Melania convinced him to change his stance on that. He did stick to his list of scotus appointments, and he went to the rally in DC. But with battles he chooses not to fight, he seems to just keep his mouth shut. He doesn’t have much to say about masks, but I’m pretty sure he’s not in favor of them. He pays lip service to covid vaccines, but I don’t believe he actually supports them. He always follows up any discussion of vaccines with “but what I’m really excited about is the therapeutics”. That tells me he’s not a vaccine supporter. He says mask wearing can be patriotic, but the dems sure are frustrated with his lack of a federal mask mandate. I don’t think he LIKES masks. Same with this. I don’t see any real support for Obergfell. I don’t see any resistance to it either. Maybe he’ll be turned around on that like he was with abortion. He did ban transvestites in the military after all. I’ll almost definitely vote for him, but I’m not expecting him to save us. Only God can do that. And if you can convince me that it’s a mortal sin to vote for him then I’ll sit this one out. I’m more interested in prepping for the coming cινιℓ ωαr. Are we even going to have 50 united states in a few months? Am I going to be stuck with my family behind enemy lines? Those are the things that concern me most about the election. And since the dems don’t believe in election outcomes, it doesn’t really matter who wins. We’re probably going to war with each other anyway.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #40 on:** August 21, 2020, 10:56:55 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2020, 10:18:30 PM

Byz-

You do raise the ultimate question:

When is it grave matter to vote for a particular candidate?

Is it never sinful, because all candidates are sinners, and promote deranged policies?

Or, is it a weighing: One candidate promotes 6 abominations, while the other only promotes 2-3 abominations (as Matthew pointed out earlier)?

Or, does one abomination per candidate rule them both out?

And as regards the non-Catholic "lesser of two evils" schtick, since there is no necessity/compulsion to vote, how will one who votes for evil claim they had no choice?

Keeping in mind that the classic example of "double effect" is one man tied to the railroad track, while a bus of children stalls on another railroad track, and the person must make a choice to save one of the other, but cannot save both. In choosing one, he does not will the death of the other. But I do not see this necessity to choose present in the context of political elections (or, at least not between these two faulty candidates).

In other words, it is not clear to me that double effect is relevant here.

But the "lesser of two evils" without necessity is even on shakier ground: It is a simple matter of overlooking all the abominations of one candidate because they support their particular interest, while condemning the abominations in the other candidate.

It seems hypocritical and immoral somehow to me.

I think the underlying philosophical question is, what is a vote? Is it an absolute endorsement of the candidate? Or is it a strategic calculation, much like the wielding of a weapon?

In neither case I do I think we should always vote for the "lesser evil" because if we do that we just get more terrible candidates. So either way we have to have standards.

However, if a vote is really a full throated endorsement, than we can't really vote for anyone. We couldn't really even vote for Ron Paul (and I will admit, I think it would've been foolish not to, given the possibility) because he did *on principle* believe things like sodomy and the morning after pill should be legal (though he would have absolutely allowed any state to disagree with him) and that's objectively wrong, both should be banned.

On the other hand, if a vote is a strategic calculation than we make a decision, prudentially, OK will voting for this candidate *actually* help to promote Catholic priniciple in this country moreso than not doing so. And if we think it will, we should vote. If we don't, we shouldn't.

I don't think third party candidates are (usually) viable options in the sense of actually being able to win elections. The way the system is set up precludes this. However, they certainly can signal preferences. Voting for the Constitution Party candidate over Mitt Romney or Donald Trump or whoever essentially signals "you lost a vote because you weren't conservative enough."

So, if I'm right that a vote is a strategic allocation of resources rather than a full throated endorsement, one could still argue against voting for Trump on prudential grounds, and they could be right.

But unless the Church has clearly ruled on what a vote is (and as far as I'm aware it hasn't), I don't see how we can accuse of mortal sin, or even sin at all, *unless* a Catholic makes whatever choice they make for a non Catholic reason.

I'd be inclined to even extend this to a vote for Joe Biden *if* the person did it for an actually Catholic reason, I just don't see how they possibly could do so *unless* the argument was something purely strategic and having zero to do with character. Something like "I'm gonna support Biden because a lot of liberals hate him and he'll make a fool of himself and of liberalism." I *think* that would theoretically be acceptable, whether its truly prudent or not.

However, I can think of more possible reasons to get behind Trump. One obvious one is that, while Trump does support allowing evils like sodomy, he's probably doing this stuff to get elected. I see no evidence that Trump actually thinks that Christians who disagree with sodomy are bigoted or should be shut down or anything like that. But we know Biden does think that. Trump also seems somewhat woke on the dangers of Covidism, even suggesting rhetorically that he might force governors to allow churches to reopen (which he can't do constitutionally but nonetheless.)

One could also make compelling reasons not to vote for Trump, but I don't see how one could plausibly argue that he's the same as Biden.

But again, unless the Church has given something clearer that I'm not aware of, I don't see how we can say *either* choice is a sin. this seems like a prudence issue.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #41 on:** August 21, 2020, 11:05:58 PM »

FWIW, here's an SSPX blurb on the subject:

"Clearly, we are no longer in the circuмstance of having to choose between Catholic and non-Catholic, morally upright and liberal representatives. All the alternatives are liberal, the deception and the manipulation of the public by the media is rampant. In practice, it generally comes down to the question of whether or not it is permissible to vote for an unworthy candidate (e.g., a candidate who only approves abortion in cases of rape or incest), for he would at least (we suppose) be the lesser evil. In such a case, there can be no obligation to vote, for all the reasons mentioned by Pope Pius XII that could oblige, no longer apply. Nevertheless, it is still permissible to vote in such a case, provided that one can be sure that there truly is a lesser evil, and that there is a grave reason to do so (e.g., to avoid abortion on demand, or promotion of unnatural methods of birth control), and one has the good intention of providing for the good of society as best one can. This is called material cooperation. However, it can never be obligatory."
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/catholic_principles_for_voting.htm

Application:

1) Is Trump TRULY a lesser evil? (Debatable, which means one is not sure)

2) Is there a grave reason to vote for him? (Abortion on demand will persist regardless of who is elected next)

Consequently, it is still not clear to me one can vote for Trump.

donkath · « **Reply #42 on:** August 21, 2020, 11:12:24 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on August 21, 2020, 06:27:15 PM

Look, the guy is certainly NOT perfect. It is disgusting that he has no problem with sodomites and it’s been obvious from the beginning that he doesn’t have a Catholic attitude toward perversion. Come on, is anyone surprised by it? I’m not. I've said this many times on this forum, I’m voting for him because he is an outsider. The conspirators hate him, he is disrupting their plans. That is why we should vote for him.

He's always been after the'ecuмenical Christian' vote which now includes Catholics (mostly new church types) and LGBT votes because he believes that LGBT folk, cannot help being the way they are.
He prays with Pence and staff as a pentecostal 'Christian'. Point being made is that he is after the majority of votes. In his mindset being proud of the public's perception of him as favourable to LGBT is what counts and that he is charitable to all-comers.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #43 on:** August 21, 2020, 11:15:06 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2020, 11:05:58 PM

FWIW, here's an SSPX blurb on the subject:

"Clearly, we are no longer in the circuмstance of having to choose between Catholic and non-Catholic, morally upright and liberal representatives. All the alternatives are liberal, the deception and the manipulation of the public by the media is rampant. In practice, it generally comes down to the question of whether or not it is permissible to vote for an unworthy candidate (e.g., a candidate who only approves abortion in cases of rape or incest), for he would at least (we suppose) be the lesser evil. In such a case, there can be no obligation to vote, for all the reasons mentioned by Pope Pius XII that could oblige, no longer apply. Nevertheless, it is still permissible to vote in such a case, provided that one can be sure that there truly is a lesser evil, and that there is a grave reason to do so (e.g., to avoid abortion on demand, or promotion of unnatural methods of birth control), and one has the good intention of providing for the good of society as best one can. This is called material cooperation. However, it can never be obligatory."
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/catholic_principles_for_voting.htm

Application:

1) Is Trump TRULY a lesser evil? (Debatable, which means one is not sure)

2) Is there a grave reason to vote for him? (Abortion on demand will persist regardless of who is elected next)

Consequently, it is still not clear to me one can vote for Trump.

And just below that SSPX blurb is this concerning piece:

"However, it can be permissible to tolerate the lesser of two evils for a proportionate reason [without necessity? -SJ], and such toleration can be for the common good, precisely because it is the lesser of two evils. Thus it is possible to vote or even campaign for a candidate whose platform contains evils with which we do not agree. Everything depends upon a hierarchy of the most important values and issues taking priority over lesser ones.

For a Catholic, there can be no doubt that the issues that take the highest priority must be the moral issues, and not personal or economic issues. The whole continuation of society as we know it depends upon this, and those who deny the most basic principles of the natural order are bringing about an unheard of perversion. Consequently, it is permissible and prudent to vote on the one single issue of proscribing abortion, or forbidding same-sex marriages, or putting an end to euthanasia, or freedom of the Catholic Church to run educational institutions. All of these issues are of the utmost importance. Consequently, it would be permissible and prudent to vote for a candidate who promotes an unjust war, on the basis of one or other of these issues. Consequently, it is likewise permissible to vote for a candidate who is known to be a Freemason, although Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is an evil society condemned by the Church and opposed to the Catholic Church, if he maintains an important principle of the natural law such as the evil of abortion.

Lesser issues are also of moral importance, such as the justice or injustice of a particular war, or the paying of a just wage to employees, maintaining the right to private property by limiting government intervention, and so on. All other things being equal, one could vote on the basis of such issues. However, it would be wrong to vote for a candidate who has a correct position on one of these issues, but a perverse and wrong position on a more important issue.

Consequently, it would be manifestly immoral and sinful to vote for a candidate who pretends to be Catholic, but who in fact is pro-abortion, pro-gαy, or pro-euthanasia."

donkath · « **Reply #44 on:** August 21, 2020, 11:29:17 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2020, 11:15:06 PM

And just below that SSPX blurb is this concerning piece:

"However, it can be permissible to tolerate the lesser of two evils for a proportionate reason [without necessity? -SJ], and such toleration can be for the common good, precisely because it is the lesser of two evils. Thus it is possible to vote or even campaign for a candidate whose platform contains evils with which we do not agree. Everything depends upon a hierarchy of the most important values and issues taking priority over lesser ones.

For a Catholic, there can be no doubt that the issues that take the highest priority must be the moral issues, and not personal or economic issues. The whole continuation of society as we know it depends upon this, and those who deny the most basic principles of the natural order are bringing about an unheard of perversion. Consequently, it is permissible and prudent to vote on the one single issue of proscribing abortion, or forbidding same-sex marriages, or putting an end to euthanasia, or freedom of the Catholic Church to run educational institutions. All of these issues are of the utmost importance. Consequently, it would be permissible and prudent to vote for a candidate who promotes an unjust war, on the basis of one or other of these issues. Consequently, it is likewise permissible to vote for a candidate who is known to be a Freemason, although Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is an evil society condemned by the Church and opposed to the Catholic Church, if he maintains an important principle of the natural law such as the evil of abortion.

Lesser issues are also of moral importance, such as the justice or injustice of a particular war, or the paying of a just wage to employees, maintaining the right to private property by limiting government intervention, and so on. All other things being equal, one could vote on the basis of such issues. However, it would be wrong to vote for a candidate who has a correct position on one of these issues, but a perverse and wrong position on a more important issue.

Consequently, it would be manifestly immoral and sinful to vote for a candidate who pretends to be Catholic, but who in fact is pro-abortion, pro-gαy, or pro-euthanasia."

Makes me wonder if the SSPX applies these principles to its own defacto acceptance of 95% (or thereabouts) of the counterfeit anti-Christ conciliar newchurch.

..

Author Topic: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump? (Read 10691 times)

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

ByzCat3000

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

SeanJohnson

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

ByzCat3000

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

SoldierOfChrist

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

SeanJohnson

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

SeanJohnson

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

StLouisIX

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

SeanJohnson

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

SoldierOfChrist

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

ByzCat3000

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

SeanJohnson

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

donkath

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

SeanJohnson

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?

donkath

Re: Mortal Sin Now to Vote Trump?