Republican Debates

[Amppax]

Trump is a devout Christian? Has the definition of that changed since I last checked? 

[tinytherese]

 

 

 

[Socrates]

On 3/2/2016, 10:12:41, Nihil Obstat said:

Like I said, I do not think we can really establish a lesser evil between Trump and Clinton. So the trolley problem is not really a salient point.

And even if it were, I am inclined to refer as well to the fat man blocking the tunnel scenario, or however you have seen it formulated.

I am definitely not a fan of Trump (I think he's for the most part a fraud and a huckster with no morals or firm principles but his own power, and he's certainly not conservative in any meaningful sense of the term.)

However, I must disagree with you, and say with good confidence that Hillary Clinton is in fact the greater evil, and I think we should do whatever is legitimately necessary to prevent a Hillary presidency.

This is most clear when we consider what is in fact the most pressing issue at stake: the nomination of SCOTUS justices and federal judges.  The SCOTUS is at a tipping point with the loss of Scalia, where we are in danger of losing forever what remains of constitutional rule of law and any protections for the right to life, religious liberty, and second amendment rights.

Around 40% of federal judges are now leftist Obama appointees, and the percentage of such judges after Hillary could rise to 80%.

The courts would simply be a rubber stamp to whatever unconstitutional and ungodly tyranny the government wishes to inflict.

There's the odd chance that Trump might possibly nominate some semi-decent people (though I certainly wouldn't bet on it.  However, with Hillary, it's a 100% absolute certainty that she would only nominate leftist activists.  This simply MUST be prevented.

I'm just praying to God that Cruz somehow wins the GOP nomination.  If not, we're all screwed royally.

[Nihil Obstat]

That is a good point. I am still inclined to think that Trump is a positive evil more than a weaker good, but on a tactical level I am not willing necessarily to say that holding one's nose is objectively an evil choice. I am willing to say that about Clinton and, God help us, Sanders.

[4588686]

On 4/3/2016, 11:21:13, Socrates said:

I'm just praying to God that Cruz somehow wins the GOP nomination.  If not, we're all screwed royally.

Hahahahahaha

[Benedictus]

  Trump is simply Biff Tannen (Back to the Future) for me. Sad time for democracy.

[Socrates]

On 4/3/2016, 11:39:28, Nihil Obstat said:

That is a good point. I am still inclined to think that Trump is a positive evil more than a weaker good, but on a tactical level I am not willing necessarily to say that holding one's nose is objectively an evil choice. I am willing to say that about Clinton and, God help us, Sanders.

I tend to agree.  I think Trump would be a terrible president (though no worse than Obama, Hillary, or Sanders), which is why I'm not supporting him.  However, if (God forbid!) he's the GOP nominee, I would support him over Hillary to prevent the absolute judicial and constitutional wreckage a Clinton (or, God help us, Sanders) presidency would inevitably entail.  With the Supreme and federal courts packed with leftist appointees for life, I'm afraid that would be the end of any vestige of constitutional rule of law or legislative sanity in the this country.

That's simply something I could never in good conscience contribute to - directly or indirectly.  I think people need to seriously consider the consequences of their vote (or not voting) before they make their decision.  Blithely ignoring the likely consequences of one's actions is not virtuous or heroic, but simply stupid.

I simply don't believe the essentially certain legislative consequences of a Hillary presidency are worth it.  And for any Republicans, much less "conservatives," to actively vote for Hillary to stop Trump (as some have talked of doing) is the absolute height of idiocy.  Yes, even more idiotic than supporting Trump.

[Nihil Obstat]

I have said it before, probably in this thread even, but I was/am becoming increasingly disturbed by the number of apparently faithful Catholics who have vocally, or sometimes with a frankly dishonest and thin veneer of plausible deniability, been supporting Sanders. I cannot fathom how such support can be justified on Catholic principles. It is a disgrace.

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I have said it before, probably in this thread even, but I was/am becoming increasingly disturbed by the number of apparently faithful Catholics who have vocally, or sometimes with a frankly dishonest and thin veneer of plausible deniability, been supporting Sanders. I cannot fathom how such support can be justified on Catholic principles. It is a disgrace.

Why is he so bad? Other than the normal things that Dems get wrong? I haven't really been following them.

[Nihil Obstat]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

Why is he so bad? Other than the normal things that Dems get wrong? I haven't really been following them.

I find his socialism off-putting, but mainly it is the 'normal things'. The abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, all those evils that Democrats support, for Sanders they are practically sacraments. One thing that does concern me is that I do not think they are merely political issues, but a core part of his worldview. He is very much an anti-Christ in that sense (not in the eschatological sense).

[Ark]

Need to vote Trump who is not beholden to special interests or lobbyists. Down with the establishment!

a Cruz nomination would be a nightmare

Edited April 7, 2016 by Ark

[Ice_nine]

On 4/6/2016, 1:10:23, Nihil Obstat said:

I have said it before, probably in this thread even, but I was/am becoming increasingly disturbed by the number of apparently faithful Catholics who have vocally, or sometimes with a frankly dishonest and thin veneer of plausible deniability, been supporting Sanders. I cannot fathom how such support can be justified on Catholic principles. It is a disgrace.

At the risk of sounding like some leftist hippie is it only Sander's stance on abortion that you find abominable or is there something else? For anyone who may doubt, I'm against abortion and would not vote for a pro-choice candidate, but I feel like it's become one of those issues where people take sides simply to tow the party line and you have no idea about what they're real convictions are. And also, lots of decent people I know support Sanders. Even those against abortion, because they assume "nothing will change anyway." I tend to agree that even a staunchly anti-abortion president would not change much in terms of abortion rates.

Whether or not people want to admit it, poverty likely contributes to higher abortion rates. (there's also evidence ot suggest that comprehensive sex ed decreses the abortion rate, but let's open one can of worms at a time). Democrats (at least on the surface) appear to be sympathetic to the poor and underprivileged. They and their supporters seem to (again on the surface) embody the preferential treatment of the poor that the Church has embraced.

I'm just spitballing here. I would never vote for Sanders, or Clinton but people I respect do and people who have a genuine symapthy for hurting folks do. I think they're better people in general than the people who support Trump, who often appear at best self-interested and at worst racist and ignorant. I just don't think things are as cut and dried.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

2 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

At the risk of sounding like some leftist hippie is it only Sander's stance on abortion that you find abominable or is there something else? For anyone who may doubt, I'm against abortion and would not vote for a pro-choice candidate, but I feel like it's become one of those issues where people take sides simply to tow the party line and you have no idea about what they're real convictions are. And also, lots of decent people I know support Sanders. Even those against abortion, because they assume "nothing will change anyway." I tend to agree that even a staunchly anti-abortion president would not change much in terms of abortion rates.

Whether or not people want to admit it, poverty likely contributes to higher abortion rates. (there's also evidence ot suggest that comprehensive sex ed decreses the abortion rate, but let's open one can of worms at a time). Democrats (at least on the surface) appear to be sympathetic to the poor and underprivileged. They and their supporters seem to (again on the surface) embody the preferential treatment of the poor that the Church has embraced.

I'm just spitballing here. I would never vote for Sanders, or Clinton but people I respect do and people who have a genuine symapthy for hurting folks do. I think they're better people in general than the people who support Trump, who often appear at best self-interested and at worst racist and ignorant. I just don't think things are as cut and dried.

 

Abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia (the debate will be coming any year now, for you Americans), contraceptive coverage, not to mention that his political philosophy absolutely includes as a fundamental principle, hostility to the Church and Her teachings.

It is important now more than ever that American Catholics wake up and remember how to take a principled stand against the moral decadence which has become endemic to the western world. We cannot abandon opposition to legal recognition for unions based on a perversion of love simply because the prevailing opinion has turned against us.

These are not optional. We do not have the luxury to sit back and let these offences against God continue unopposed, hoping someday that something might change through a miracle. That is why Sanders and Clinton are now and always will be totally unacceptable for Catholics. And as I said, I think Trump is also unacceptable. Less so, perhaps very marginally, but I think he should also be opposed. It leaves us in a difficult predicament yes, but we cannot continue to capitulate to the hedonistic juggernaut that is Americanism.

[Ice_nine]

1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia (the debate will be coming any year now, for you Americans), contraceptive coverage, not to mention that his political philosophy absolutely includes as a fundamental principle, hostility to the Church and Her teachings.

It is important now more than ever that American Catholics wake up and remember how to take a principled stand against the moral decadence which has become endemic to the western world. We cannot abandon opposition to legal recognition for unions based on a perversion of love simply because the prevailing opinion has turned against us.

These are not optional. We do not have the luxury to sit back and let these offences against God continue unopposed, hoping someday that something might change through a miracle. That is why Sanders and Clinton are now and always will be totally unacceptable for Catholics. And as I said, I think Trump is also unacceptable. Less so, perhaps very marginally, but I think he should also be opposed. It leaves us in a difficult predicament yes, but we cannot continue to capitulate to the hedonistic juggernaut that is Americanism.

I mean you could try to jump in front of a train to stop it and have about as much luck. Dealing with a post-Christian society is a different beast and nobody has really offered any concrete solutions. The concepts given to us by Jesus of Nazareth, like loving and forgiving your enemies, taking care of the poor, loving your neighbor as much as yourself; once these were radical ideas but now they have been hijacked by people who forgot the roots of where they came from. The Church has little or no sway on public opinion and those who oppose Christ often appear (key word) to be more Christlike in some instances.

No meaningful opposition will occur by voting for national leaders, but whatever makes you feel better.

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

I mean you could try to jump in front of a train to stop it and have about as much luck. Dealing with a post-Christian society is a different beast and nobody has really offered any concrete solutions. The concepts given to us by Jesus of Nazareth, like loving and forgiving your enemies, taking care of the poor, loving your neighbor as much as yourself; once these were radical ideas but now they have been hijacked by people who forgot the roots of where they came from. The Church has little or no sway on public opinion and those who oppose Christ often appear (key word) to be more Christlike in some instances.

No meaningful opposition will occur by voting for national leaders, but whatever makes you feel better.

But you are conflating voting against one politician with voting for another. Sure, I have no issue with the opinion that a vote for one particular politician will do little or nothing towards establishing substantial progress for the Church in the US. Nevertheless, a vote for politicians who explicitly and formally support grave moral evils is still both unjustified and harmful. Withholds votes, write in, spoil ballots, whatever you think is best. Vote for a candidate whom you think is actually on board with Catholic values, if such a candidate exists. Whatever. But do not vote for a candidate whose principles run contrary to nearly every aspect of Catholic social teaching that has ever been articulated.

A useless vote for a good person simply has no practical effect, at worst. A vote for an evil person is cooperation with that person's evil.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Nihil Obstat