Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: klasG4e on January 07, 2020, 06:01:37 AM
-
If I'm not mistaken CathInfo is sort of known as being made up mostly of R & R (Recognize and Resist) members -- even still -- regardless of how bad things have gotten with the current putative pope. When that pope's actions or lack thereof are roundly criticized on CathInfo not very many join poche's rescue squad. But when it comes to Trump a whole different dynamic seems to take over.
Just observe how some of those same R & R members seem to take such quick and righteous offense and become extremely defensive of Trump when one while never questioning in the least way the legitimacy of Trump's presidency, nevertheless strongly criticize some of his actions or lack thereof. Interesting phenomenon!
-
Are you sede-oval-office-vacant? Haha. How does one “question his legitimacy”? I’m interested to understand how you *think* this works? :laugh2:
-
I’m more R and R than anything else. I don’t like trump. I think he’s a shill for the Zionist lobby and the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lobby
-
Just observe how some of those same R & R members seem to take such quick and righteous offense and become extremely defensive of Trump when one while never questioning in the least way the legitimacy of Trump's presidency, nevertheless strongly criticize some of his actions or lack thereof. Interesting phenomenon!
I have said myself, Trump has faults. I don't like his pro-Israel stance. I also disapprove of his religion (Presbyterian?) and his adultery. He obviously has issues with pride, which is quite common with high-flying businessmen, TV personalities and other leaders, so that's par for the course.
The reason for my "defensiveness" is simple: I want Trump to win re-election. I want 4 more years. Plus, I can't stand stupidity. I can't hope for anything more than Trump, and neither can any of you. Asking for better than Trump is ASKING TOO MUCH. If you're honestly hoping for or expecting some Trad Catholic third-party candidate to win the next election, you are literally INSANE. Such a person should play the lottery, since he has no concept of numbers or odds.
The political situation in the USA does not permit some reactionary Trad Catholic candidate to win the presidency at this time. Anyone who "disagrees" is either stupid or crazy. What else do you call a person who is completely detached from reality? You know, those people who think men and women are the same except for how they go pee, or those who think men can menstruate? They're crazy and/or stupid.
Now one could VOTE FOR a third party without being stupid per se, as long as he doesn't expect him to win. But if you really think a third party could win -- you're stupid.
So what ARE you hoping will ACTUALLY happen this November? One of the major candidates is GOING TO win the thing. You want Biden to win? You want Buttigieg? Or do you HOPE that Trump wins?
Or more likely, you probably hope that a big asteroid smashes into earth and kicks off the Chastisement. I don't. I'm not ready yet. As I've said several times, I don't have a full bunker equipped with years of supplies/equipment along with TONS of survival skills tucked away in my brain. I, for one, could use more years to prepare.
Last but not least, I think it's shallow to criticize the best president we've had for decades, while offering no alternative. Who are we supposed to vote for then? At least offer an alternative. It's easy to criticize; everyone's a critic. How about stepping up and lighting a candle rather than just cursing the darkness, and then maybe we can have a discussion?
-
I agree with Mathew.
-
I was a volunteer for the first Trump campaign. I will vote again for Trump. What are my choices? Bernie or (gulp) Hillary??
To me, Trump is one of the most persecuted humans in history- how he takes it is beyond me. I pray for his health. However....
We know he is not a person of faith ( which is what it is for a political office) when morally he is all over the board with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, eschewing America first for Israel first, immigration et al. A lot of dissapointments here, but I admit, I'll never know the back story.
As Catholics I think ( if we vote at all) we HAVE to vote Trump because of the unborn. He certainly is the most pro-life President ever and we have to have him to continue appointing federal judges and hopefully more Supreme Court judges.
I hate all the neocon stuff that he has been sucked into, but if the Donald is able to overturn Roe with his actions, he will be the best President in the history of our country ,bar none.
-
It would be hilarious if the Catholic anti-Trump crowd put forward some super-ideal candidate, and he turns out to be flawed or a sinner as well!
Come on, never Trumpers! Let's see your alternative. It's not fair to Trump to have to run against "nobody" or "an ideal". Let's get a flesh and blood candidate to compare Trump to, so I can choose!
If your candidate has a single divorce, or used birth control, or supports Israel, or has ANY kind of "past", I might as well vote for Trump who actually has a chance of winning.
Don't be a Nancy Peℓσѕι -- either s*** or get off the pot!
-
Are you sede-oval-office-vacant? Haha. How does one “question his legitimacy”? I’m interested to understand how you *think* this works? :laugh2:
Well, I actually was a oval-office-vacantist during the Obama administration. He was constitutionally ineligible to hold the office. Alan Keys rightly called him a "usurper".
-
I was a volunteer for the first Trump campaign. I will vote again for Trump. What are my choices? Bernie or (gulp) Hillary??
Way too many Catholics have bought into "lesser evil" voting. Lesser Evil is another word for "ends justifies the means" ... which is 100% inimical to Catholic moral reasoning. Argue double effect if you will, but people need to dump the non-Catholic lesser evil thinking and terminology. If there is ONE principle that sets Catholic morality apart from all other moral systems, it's the hallowed principle that you can never do evil even in order to prevent a much greater evil.
-
It would be hilarious if the Catholic anti-Trump crowd put forward some super-ideal candidate, and he turns out to be flawed or a sinner as well!
Personal flaws and sins are not a primary concern. That is what was mean by an "unworthy" candidate, and Catholics have always been permitted to vote for such. But that's different from their political positions and their public persona. That's the same argument you hear about popes, that popes can be sinners. Yes, of course, but that's entirely distinct from their Magisterium.
If Donald Trump holds any evil POSITIONS, that is what matters. By evil is meant positively harmful (vs. being negatively deficient).
Here's an example. If Candidate A believed in abortion on demand through 9 months, while Candidate B believed in abortion on demand through 3 months only, can I vote for Candidate B? I have my thoughts, of course, but I'd rather wait to hear what others have to say rather than driving people's thinking here.
[as a hint:] Here's a nuance to consider. What if Candidate B's platform was officially formulated as follows, "I'm in favor of banning abortion after 3 months."
-
Way too many Catholics have bought into "lesser evil" voting. Lesser Evil is another word for "ends justifies the means" ... which is 100% inimical to Catholic moral reasoning. Argue double effect if you will, but people need to dump the non-Catholic lesser evil thinking and terminology. If there is ONE principle that sets Catholic morality apart from all other moral systems, it's the hallowed principle that you can never do evil even in order to prevent a much greater evil.
I hate the terminology too, but there isn’t necessarily active participation in any evil by voting for someone who will do less evil or if the person is somewhat bad, but there is hope he will do good. I think you’re in agreement with this.
-
Well, I actually was a oval-office-vacantist during the Obama administration. He was constitutionally ineligible to hold the office. Alan Keys rightly called him a "usurper".
LOL, Father Collins and I used to discuss this often. I agree with you!
-
I hate the terminology too, but there isn’t necessarily active participation in any evil by voting for someone who will do less evil or if the person is somewhat bad, but there is hope he will do good. I think you’re in agreement with this.
Taking into account my scenario, if you have a Candidate who says, "I am in favor of restricting abortion to 3 months," I find that it would be OK. While it falls SHORT of the ideal, and is evil by defect or deficiency, as stated here it's not a positive evil. But if the Candidate were to hold, "I am in favor of abortion through the first 3 months," then that's a positive evil. Everyone keeps saying that it's sinful to vote for a Candidate who is in favor of abortion, but then might backtrack in the type of scenario I presented, where the one guy favors MORE abortion than the other. They thereby undercut their case that it is intrinsically wrong to vote for a Candidate who favors abortion. Once people start thinking this way, then it's a slippery slope into justifying for a Pro-Abortion candidate who they think will do less evil than a Pro-Life candidate. Here's how someone might argue: "Sure, this RINO candidate SAYS he's against abortion, but it's just lip service and it's unlikely that he'll actually do anything to curb abortion. But this RINO is a war-hawk and might start an unjust war, whereas the Pro-Abortion candidate would not. Therefore, I will vote for the Pro-Abortion Candidate as a result of lesser evil." Very easy slippery slope to that thinking (which, by the way, many Catholics argue when voting for Obama) ... if you start with the WRONG principles and slide into Utilitarian argumentation. If we go by the "degree of evil" to be expected, that's more Protestant utilitarian ethics than Catholic theology.
Here's Alan Key rejecting the notion that McCain was Pro Life:
https://www.wnd.com/2008/11/79979/ (https://www.wnd.com/2008/11/79979/)
-
Way too many Catholics have bought into "lesser evil" voting. Lesser Evil is another word for "ends justifies the means" ... which is 100% inimical to Catholic moral reasoning. Argue double effect if you will, but people need to dump the non-Catholic lesser evil thinking and terminology. If there is ONE principle that sets Catholic morality apart from all other moral systems, it's the hallowed principle that you can never do evil even in order to prevent a much greater evil.
I agree with you. I hate the lesser evil scenerio and I didn't think I would submit to it....but how would you handle this situation? Is the unborn a priority no matter what? 60 million plus and counting......It has got to stop and it can't be compared to any other matter re: relevance. This world is truly evil and it's not black and white. The answer is not politics, for sure. But when I took the matter into my own hands, ( peaceful protests) I wound up in court for years and in jail for months. What do you suggest? What is the moral imperative?
-
Murder by unjust war and Anglo-Zionist terrorism is as culpable as abortion.
-
Maybe zionist wars are the punishment for genocide of unborn children? Seems that we gave the judaizers alot of spiritual power since 1973. I know this is a pretty arbitrary statement, but just the sheer numbers have to give you pause. Maybe there is an order to the mayhem.
-
I live in New York. In my state, particularly, trump winning here is just as unlikely as a third party candidate. My issue with him is not that here’s merely imperfect, but that he’s publically promoting ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and Zionism which are two of the BIGGEST issues in modern politics. Why shouldn’t I protest vote? Why should I vote for trump when he won’t even win here anyways?
I don’t judge those who prudentially decide to vote for trump, especially in a border state. I think voting is a tactical calculation. On the other hand the only way to truly get an anti war conservative is to refuse to support and vote for those who are pro war.
-
Personal flaws and sins are not a primary concern. That is what was mean by an "unworthy" candidate, and Catholics have always been permitted to vote for such. But that's different from their political positions and their public persona. That's the same argument you hear about popes, that popes can be sinners. Yes, of course, but that's entirely distinct from their Magisterium.
If Donald Trump holds any evil POSITIONS, that is what matters. By evil is meant positively harmful (vs. being negatively deficient).
Here's an example. If Candidate A believed in abortion on demand through 9 months, while Candidate B believed in abortion on demand through 3 months only, can I vote for Candidate B? I have my thoughts, of course, but I'd rather wait to hear what others have to say rather than driving people's thinking here.
[as a hint:] Here's a nuance to consider. What if Candidate B's platform was officially formulated as follows, "I'm in favor of banning abortion after 3 months."
Voting based on how a candidate decides to spin their position doesn't seem nuanced to me, just nonsensical.
The same Republican with the same views might say "I support banning abortion after 3 months" or "I support allowing abortion only up to 3 months" depending on how liberal his district is. It's just optics, PR spin. Acting like it suddenly goes from permissible to evil to vote for the guy when his position is the exact same is just nonsense.
-
Is there any Catholic teaching that says it is not lawful to vote for a candidate who holds one or more evil positions?
-
Is there any Catholic teaching that says it is not lawful to vote for a candidate who holds one or more evil positions?
No, as long as your not voting for him because he holds an evil position. It is not prohibited to vote for the lesser of two evils when the reason for doing so is to avoid a greater evil, since avoiding a greater evil is itself a positive good. So, you are really voting for a good, not an evil. It might even be a venial sin not to vote for the lesser of two evils.
-
Murder by unjust war and Anglo-Zionist terrorism is as culpable as abortion.
How true, how true, but apparently it is a major inconvenient truth for a good number on CathInfo.
Sorry, I'm being prevented from giving you a thumbs up on this post.
-
Maybe zionist wars are the punishment for genocide of unborn children? Seems that we gave the judaizers alot of spiritual power since 1973. I know this is a pretty arbitrary statement, but just the sheer numbers have to give you pause. Maybe there is an order to the mayhem.
In the same way, tepid and apostate Catholics deserve Jorge.
-
It might even be a venial sin not to vote for the lesser of two evils.
I don't buy that either because it enables wicked men to basically keep giving us progressively worse options, knowing we will pick one
-
Evil...lesser evil? Nonsense! Evil is evil and a lesser evil is evil in modest disguise...we haven't had a good president in my 59 years of life...God gives us what we deserve and from some of the comments I'm seeing in support of Orange Man...we'll get 4 more of him. Left-Right, conservative-liberal...open your eyes and you'll see there's no difference. How many of you were sympathetic to Kavanaugh and wanted him approved because of Roe v Wade? Guess what? He's Pro-Choice and that was for all to see before he made it on the court. But too many people get their daily dose from hannity, et al and that's their gospel.
-
Oh, also, what does R + R have to do with this?
-
Oh, also, what does R + R have to do with this?
Good question and great previous post! I used R & R in the OP simply to show that we (at least I do, anyways) recognize the Orange Man as our president, but resist his errors. I certainly don't give him a free pass to be the reigning policeman of the world, much less numero uno proxy man for Israel to rain death and destruction in sovereign countries which are no real threat to the U.S. For me the greatest day, the greatest hour of Trump's presidency was his inaugural speech. After that.... :facepalm: