Voting for Biden is a mortal sin. Not voting is (at least) a serious venial sin. Voting for President Trump is a moral obligation and, for Christians, is a supernaturally meritorious act.

Let's jump in the time machine and zip on ahead to election year 2040.

The Democratic candidate is LaQuonda Umoja Jenkins (pronouns: Xe / Xer), junior senator from the state of Tubmansylvania (formerly Pennsylvania, renamed in 2023). Senator Jenkins identifies as non-gender binary (but is a biological female undergoing testosterone injections), is in an open polyamorous relationship with three other people, and is running on a (by 2040 standards) moderately liberal platform. She supports lowering the age of consent from 12 to 6; mandatory state-administered transgender education beginning in nursery school; tax incentives for every child that undergoes gender reassignment surgery before puberty; formal, state-declared abolishment of the nuclear family, and extending "abortion rights" (which currently allows for the killing of a baby up to a month after birth) to 18 months of age (the average age when most children pass the "mirror test").

The Republican candidate is Herschel Mordechai Goldstein, governor of Vermont, a biological male, openly ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, "married" for fifteen years to Miguel Gutierrez-Goldstein, a Mexican-born model-turned-climate activist whom Governor Goldstein met while working at Goldman Sachs (Goldstein, then 25, was introduced to the then 16 year old Gutierrez shortly after Goldstein's yoga instructor adopted him after a yearlong sabbatical in Mexico). The two men have two young adopted children. The GOP is pushing Goldstein as a "family man" with strong "family values." He rejects his opponent's platform in very strong terms. He believes the age of consent should remain at 12, though is willing to make concessions over "cultural concerns" for the country's large Muslim population, but believes a hard line should be drawn at age 9 in such cases. He also rejects the proposed mandatory preschool transgender education, stating it should not be mandatory until 3rd Grade, and that pre-K-2nd Grade sex education classes (introduced in 2031) should focus on promotion of monogamous ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, as the best synthesis of "traditional values" and "climate responsibility" (as no natural reproduction occurs therein. He rejects abolishment of the nuclear family, and proposes a "pro-climate, pro-family" program that offers tax incentives for "married" ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ couples who adopt, and limiting of heterosɛҳuąƖ marriages to interracial couples who agree to be sterilized after the birth of their second child. On abortion, he is firm: "LIFE BEGINS AT BIRTH" - he vows not only to never allow infanticide up to 18 months, but to make abortion up to AND ONLY UP TO birth as the law of the land (with exceptions for allowing infanticide up to 1 month postpartum only in cases where the mother's mental health is in jeopardy). Finally, Governor Goldstein believes greater aid must be given to "America's sole ally" - Israel. He supports Israel's plan for the annexation of Egypt and has vowed to offer whatever military support is needed to that end.

I think we can agree voting for Jenkins is a mortal sin. Would not voting in 2040 also be a serious venial sin? Are Catholics morally obligated to vote for Goldstein?

And before my hypothetical scenario is laughed off as ridiculous, I'll just drop these off here without comment:

Voting for Biden is a mortal sin. Not voting is (at least) a serious venial sin. Voting for President Trump is a moral obligation and, for Christians, is a supernaturally meritorious act. Failure to do so makes one complicit in allowing the abortion h0Ɩ0cαųst to continue.

Utter nonsense! You are delusional.

In the United States, according to polls (Pew and Gallup), 91% of its citizens believe in contraception, and this despite the fact that an estimated 10 to 18 times as many unborn babies are murdered by contraception than surgical abortion.....

... Donald Trump is of course pro-contraception (pro-murder), pro surgical abortion in at least some cases, pro-divorce, supportive of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and the legality of “gαy marriage”, etc. He has done some things to support the pro-life cause and the family, but there is nothing to indicate that he is anywhere near being integrally pro-life, pro-family, or pro-Catholic in his moral beliefs. There is of course, no way of determining how calculated or cynical in terms of political “opportunism” is his courting of the Catholic and evangelical vote on such issues. In either case, any notion that the current battle with the forces of antichrist can be engaged in effectively, and defeated, by such poisoned conservativism is pure fantasy.

http://rosarytotheinterior.com/archbishop-vigano-donald-trump-and-the-americanist-delusion-of-traditional-catholics/

Having taught Hegel's dialectic, I am interesting in learning from you about the "two-part" Hegelian dialectic, of which I have never heard.

As applied to politics, it's the tactic of polarizing the two sides on issues of lesser concern (at the moment) for the polarizers while having both groups secretly (and out of the spotlight) agree on other issues that are of interest to them.  So, for instance, abortion is actually manipulated to be such a polarizing topic.  It's a very emotional issue and polarizes the two sides.  This entire racial thing is also along those lines.  Meanwhile, both parties loot the government, enrich themselves, are on the take from private corporations, and are selling out the country in bad trade deals, etc. etc.  But because people are focused on the hot-button issues, they pay less attention to these other nefarious activities being done by both parties in lock-step with one another.

It's not a precise application of Hegel, although you see some of that too, where the two opposite sides end up being polarized so that they can come up with an agreement that slides the bar on a particular issue in the direction that the manipulators want it to go.

But the hostility that Democrats and Republicans exhibit toward one another in public is nothing but a performance, a theater act, not unlike the fake wrestling (ala WWE) spectacles.  At the end of the day, they're all on the same team and working for the same masters, just as the wrestlers are all employed by the same people and making a show of hostility as a performance.

Of course, occasionally some honest sincere people slip into their ranks, such as a Ron Paul.  But they just keep them down one way or another.  They don't mind a few of these, because it gives the impression that not everyone in the government is controlled.  Former Congressmen have talked about how the second they won office, they had women coming after them trying to seduce them.  Epstein was a Mossad operative whose sole mission was to obtain blackmail material on various politicians and other people of influence so that they could be controlled by Mossad.  And Epstein is just one of many, one who happened to get caught.  Lewinsky was also on the Mossad payroll, and at one point during the investigation, there's a recording of Bill Clinton telling Lewinsky to be careful because the phone lines at the White House are tapped by a foreign government.  Perhaps that was Zimbabwe tapping the White House phones.

Both parties are absolutely dominated and controlled by the Jews, but the Jews actually are more open about their support of Republicans.  Just look at all the Jews with whom Trump is absolutely surrounded.  Trump created a Jєωιѕн swamp inside the White House.  His daughter is married to one, and several Jews have bailed Trump out of bankruptcy.  You don't make millions in real estate in New York City without being beholden to the Jews.  There's little doubt that Ivanka didn't marry Kushner simply because she fell head-over-heels in love with him.  This was likely an arranged marriage so that Kushner could direct Trump.  One could go on for hours about Trump and the Jews.

You may not like Trump’s promotion of homos, but that’s a far less evil than abortion, which he’s against.  

Evil is evil, and this notion of "voting for the lesser evil" needs to be stricken from the Catholic vocabulary and the Catholic mentality.  End does not justify the means is the most hallowed and uniquely Catholic principle of moral theology.  We can never do an evil to prevent greater evil.

If one wants to speak in Catholic terms, we must use the term double effect.  For instance, I may vote for Trump with the intention that he MIGHT appoint a decent Justice to the Supreme Court if/when Ginsberg dies or any of the others retire or die, etc.  I know that voting for Trump might have the undesired secondary effect of his promoting the gαy agenda or other such evil, but I do not intend the secondary effect and believe that the proportionality between the two effects justifies the vote despite the evils that Trump might do.  There are good articles out there about the principle of double effect.  But we must stop talking and thinking in terms of "lesser evil."

What if we had a Republican who was pro-abortion except in the third trimester, and a Democrat who was pro-abortion through the entire term?  Would we be allowed or even obliged to vote for the Republican?  If you take "lesser evil" thinking to an extreme, then people will start to argue, yes.  And this is why everything is constantly sliding to the left, because we're compromising, giving ground, and constantly accepting "lesser evil" candidates.  Then the next "Republican" candidate might be for abortion but against partial-birth abortion, while the Democrat is for that too.  So we still have to vote "lesser evil" here?

Alan Keyes wrote a great article denouncing "lesser evil" voting.

Not voting is always a righteous option, but I will vote for Trump for purely practical reasons that most, even those who vote against him, will for the short term at least, materially benefit from. I am not placing my hope in Trump for anything other than some material benefits, along with those few temporary and puny victories here and there that I hope his presidency brings to the people of this country.

So you agreed with Nadir's post outlining how Trump stands for POSTIVE MORAL evil and you can bring yourself to vote for him in order to attain "some material benefits"?

I fail to comprehend the moral reasoning that would permit this.  According to the principle of double effect, you simply cannot participate by voting in this gravity of formal evil for some proportionally minuscule material benefits.  That's one of the cardinal principles of double effect.

Pope Leo XIII  said you must always vote for the lesser of the two evils. Even when there are two Socialists the lesser of the two is preferable.

So you agreed with Nadir's post outlining how Trump stands for POSTIVE MORAL evil and you can bring yourself to vote for him in order to attain "some material benefits"?

I fail to comprehend the moral reasoning that would permit this.  According to the principle of double effect, you simply cannot participate by voting in this gravity of formal evil for some proportionally minuscule material benefits.  That's one of the cardinal principles of double effect.

I agree with Nadir's post that it's pure fantasy to think a vote for either candidate will overcome the forces of evil. I sum it up as a vote for Trump is a vote against a greater evil. It's as simple as that.