Hi 2 Vermont. I wasn't aware a question was directed at me. As to the excerpt above, agreed. Ordinarily, there would be a right but not a duty, i.e. it would be legitimate but not necessary to vote for such a person. But I find it interesting that in the portion I have underlined, it is said that even someone who harms the Church (and I think we can agree President Trump is not harming the Church; indeed, in one of the videos earlier, I think the pro-life speech, he mentions that he's helped the Little Sisters of the Poor, who were being harmed under the Obama administration, with forced contraceptives/abortifacients etc being required at Catholic hospitals) may in some cases be necessary to vote for. A fortiori, I would submit for your consideration, it is more than legitimate to support President Trump; and can arguably be said to be necessary, in order to prevent the election of the other more unworthy candidate, namely Joe Biden, to vote for President Trump, on the basis of the above.

God Bless.

Today, virtually all parties in all ʝʊdɛօ-masonic republics of the "free world" go against natural law. Following Titus Cranny, we are free to interpret an election as a recognition of an unlawful government, and have an obligation of not voting.

Taylor Marshall is just another conciliarist posing as a trad-wannabe.

His book is a joke (and betrays his conciliarism).

It even features an introduction by +Schneider deploring the infiltration of subversives, without recognizing that +Schneider himself is one of them.

Perhaps one day, Marshall will go further along the road than Michael Matt did, but this far, he has not.

catholicapologetics.info indeed censored that section. I found it there.

3. CONDITIONS THAT MAY RELIEVE ONE FROM THE OBLIGATION

OF VOTING

While in general it seems that the citizen is bound sub levi to
vote in every ordinary election, and even sub gravi in matters of
grave importance, there may be extenuating circuмstances that will
relieve him of the obligation. While the gravity of the obligation
depends upon the good to be gained and the evil to be avoided so
that it is somewhat difficult to determine all the excusing causes,
still some general principles may be listed.

If the election were interpreted as the recognition of a tyrannical
form of government or an unlawful one, there would lie no obliga-
tion to vote. Indeed there would be an obligation of not voting.
Tanquerey points out that if a person were morally certain that
his ballot would in no way affect the outcome of an election, he
could refrain from voting for a slight cause, although, he adds, it
would be better to vote for some worthy candidate and thus give
good example.

Slight reasons such as vacation, hunting, recreation, etc., would
in themselves not constitute an excusing cause. [...]

And I'll say it again ...the few Catholics you're speaking to aren't going to change the blue states to red.  But you keep wagging your finger if that makes you feel better.

When you only think state-level, it's hard to not think that most votes are worthless. I show up to vote firstly for my congressional district which has been blue since it was created, but with only about 2/3 of the votes. The right candidate in the right year will change that. (Hoping 2020 is that year!)

Choosing a lesser evil means that, in its simplest form, you have TWO choices to do something, and you HAVE TO choose one by force of circuмstance. You choose what you consider to be the lesser evil.

If I had to choose to vote between Trump and a Democrat, it's obvious I would vote for Trump.

But IF voting for Trump were intrinsically evil for some reason, then I would either have to choose to refrain from voting at all, or choose someone else who is not an intrinsically evil vote.