Republican Debates

[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

[Ice_nine]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

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.

But would you say there's meaningful difference in voting for a long-shot (i.e. mathematical impossibility)/voting for the lesser evil or not voting at all? You seem to be the type who might sneer at refusing to vote all together. Maybe I'm wrong. I think voting doesn't matter. You change policy with $$ not voting.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Ice_nine said:

But would you say there's meaningful difference in voting for a long-shot (i.e. mathematical impossibility)/voting for the lesser evil or not voting at all? You seem to be the type who might sneer at refusing to vote all together. Maybe I'm wrong. I think voting doesn't matter. You change policy with $$ not voting.

No, I certainly think that refusing to vote can be a moral choice. Frankly I do not think it makes sense to speak of a lesser evil if that so-called lesser evil is still unequivocally in favour of numerous moral evils. Lesser or not, such a candidate is gravely harmful to the common good.

[Socrates]

On 4/6/2016, 12:10:23, 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.

It's disturbing, but hardly surprising, as for a long time now "liberal Catholicism" has largely substituted Marxist ideology for the teaching of Christ.

Attending a traditional parish in North Texas, I haven't personally dealt with these folks myself.  Out of curiosity, are these pro-Sanders "apparently faithful Catholics" traditional-minded Catholics, are just the "lib Catholic" usual suspects?

On 4/6/2016, 11:03:56, Nihil Obstat said:

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).

I find his socialism more than simply off-putting; socialism had been strongly, unambiguously, and repeatedly condemned by Church, and, imo, would be reason enough to oppose him.  (I know folks will try to explain that his "Democratic socialism" is really totally different, but I'd suggest they read Quadragesimo Anno.)

I also think what you've said about Sanders regarding abortion, etc., also applies to Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are really not quite so different from Sanders as some think.  Those persons are all a disgrace, and all socialistic to varying degrees.

22 hours ago, Ark said:

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

a Cruz nomination would be a nightmare

Would that be the same Donald Trump who spent his career donating big bucks to leftist Democrat and establishment Republican politicians?

 

And how exactly would a Cruz nomination be "a nightmare"? (Answer with real policies and facts please, rather than type Trump campaign slogans.) Is the thought of a president who actually respects the Constitution frightening to you?  

[Socrates]

3 hours 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.

Lots of "decent people" have supported all kinds of horrible things.  The road to hell being paved with good intentions and all that. Some people may be genuinely and sincerely mistaken in their ideas, but that shouldn't be an excuse to avoid standing up for what is right.

And this is veering off-topic, but neither Sanders nor socialistic policies in reality will do anything to eliminate poverty or prevent abortion.  And the entire hedonistic amoral ethos of the "sexual revolution" is what led to the widespread acceptance and practice of abortion.  Don't be fooled by that line of rhetoric.

 

Also, if voting is entirely useless and ineffective as you assert (in other posts), and it makes absolutely no difference who you vote or don't vote for, why even waste time arguing about how worthless it is?

True, good people or policies may not always win the vote, but if good and right-minded people just stay home every election, that will ensure that the absolutely worst politicians will be elected to office.  Defeatism will result only in defeat, and the enemy does not share this defeatist attitude.

4 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

 It leaves us in a difficult predicament yes, but we cannot continue to capitulate to the hedonistic juggernaut that is Americanism Leftism.

Fixed it for you.  You're welcome.

(Also, Clinton, Sanders, and Trump are not the only contenders in the presidential race.)

[Nihil Obstat]

4 hours ago, Socrates said:

It's disturbing, but hardly surprising, as for a long time now "liberal Catholicism" has largely substituted Marxist ideology for the teaching of Christ.

Attending a traditional parish in North Texas, I haven't personally dealt with these folks myself.  Out of curiosity, are these pro-Sanders "apparently faithful Catholics" traditional-minded Catholics, are just the "lib Catholic" usual suspects?

[NIHIL] Ah... well, not necessarily the liberal Catholics. Not Catholics I would have expected, at least a few years back. I believe we have discussed this before, but I think many Catholics took a hard left turn at the outset of Francis' pontificate. I find it very sycophantic.

I find his socialism more than simply off-putting; socialism had been strongly, unambiguously, and repeatedly condemned by Church, and, imo, would be reason enough to oppose him.  (I know folks will try to explain that his "Democratic socialism" is really totally different, but I'd suggest they read Quadragesimo Anno.)

[NIHIL] Agreed.

I also think what you've said about Sanders regarding abortion, etc., also applies to Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are really not quite so different from Sanders as some think.  Those persons are all a disgrace, and all socialistic to varying degrees.

[NIHIL] Also agreed. I only mention Sanders in particular because I do not think Clinton has duped any Catholics with a shred of decency left. Sanders, as I said earlier, seems to have done so. God knows how.

 

 

[Ice_nine]

20 hours ago, Socrates said:

 

 

Also, if voting is entirely useless and ineffective as you assert (in other posts), and it makes absolutely no difference who you vote or don't vote for, why even waste time arguing about how worthless it is?

 

Because people's intentions, beliefs and what they're trying to accomplish do matter and are worth discussing even if the method (voting) is wholly ineffectual.

As to whether what would decrease poverty or abortion well we can argue that until the cows have home. You have no data, just you're opinion. To act like it's some wild and crazy idea that social welfare programs that assist the poor financially might lead to less abortions is silly. Maybe it won't work, or maybe it won't work perfectly, but it's a logically coherent idea.

[Peace]

21 hours ago, Socrates said:

And this is veering off-topic, but neither Sanders nor socialistic policies in reality will do anything to eliminate poverty or prevent abortion.

But what if some policies (such as Universal Health Care) did reduce poverty? Would you support them or would you still object because they restrict your right to do with your money as you please? Even if Universal Health Care were scientifically proven to be superior, I suspect that you would still be against it, only because it is "socialistic". Is that correct, or would you support it?

[Ark]

On April 7, 2016 at 7:55:25 PM, Socrates said:

It's disturbing, but hardly surprising, as for a long time now "liberal Catholicism" has largely substituted Marxist ideology for the teaching of Christ.

Attending a traditional parish in North Texas, I haven't personally dealt with these folks myself.  Out of curiosity, are these pro-Sanders "apparently faithful Catholics" traditional-minded Catholics, are just the "lib Catholic" usual suspects?

I find his socialism more than simply off-putting; socialism had been strongly, unambiguously, and repeatedly condemned by Church, and, imo, would be reason enough to oppose him.  (I know folks will try to explain that his "Democratic socialism" is really totally different, but I'd suggest they read Quadragesimo Anno.)

I also think what you've said about Sanders regarding abortion, etc., also applies to Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are really not quite so different from Sanders as some think.  Those persons are all a disgrace, and all socialistic to varying degrees.

Would that be the same Donald Trump who spent his career donating big bucks to leftist Democrat and establishment Republican politicians?

 

And how exactly would a Cruz nomination be "a nightmare"? (Answer with real policies and facts please, rather than type Trump campaign slogans.) Is the thought of a president who actually respects the Constitution frightening to you?  

Trump is a businessman, he acted out of interest to his family and company. In the end you donate to both sides so that the winner does your bidding. The thing is that now trump is running, and he can't be bought out, and therefore he can't be influenced. Remember how Rubio campaigned to get his senate seat on the idea that he is totally against amnesty? He was the tea party hopeful, so why did he end up supporting the gang of eight bill? Because he was owned by private interest groups that support a globalist agenda. These guys will say whatever they need to get power and then they will do the exact opposite. Trump is feared because he is beholden to no one and therefore he upsets the established order which ensured that whether Dem or republican is elected, the same globalist trajectory is fulfilled. Trump is America First.

People forget Cruz played a big part in George w bush's administration, and the policies he help enact were hardly conservative. The man is a phony, his election would only further destroy America. Fortunately, Cruz is just an establishment pawn to deprive trump of the nomination, it's more likely that Paul Ryan will get the nomination than Cruz. Watch and see.

[Ark]

Let us not forget Heidi Cruz connections to Goldman Sachs, and teds secret loan from Goldman Sachs he failed to report twice... 

[Socrates]

On 4/8/2016, 3:47:45, Ice_nine said:

Because people's intentions, beliefs and what they're trying to accomplish do matter and are worth discussing even if the method (voting) is wholly ineffectual.

As to whether what would decrease poverty or abortion well we can argue that until the cows have home. You have no data, just you're opinion. To act like it's some wild and crazy idea that social welfare programs that assist the poor financially might lead to less abortions is silly. Maybe it won't work, or maybe it won't work perfectly, but it's a logically coherent idea.

Perhaps you should let the politicians in on this, as they and groups supporting them spend huge amounts of money on campaigns trying to convince people to vote for them, and not for the other guys.  Such a huge waste of money, if votes have absolutely no effect on the outcome. . . .

But if you in fact really, sincerely believe that it's all just a big facade, and it makes absolutely no difference who anyone votes for, then what's it to you if I vote, or whom I vote for?  If it's all meaningless, then why bother talking about it at all?  Why not just post in a thread about cooking, fishing, bowling, or some other less depressing topic?

 

On 4/8/2016, 3:47:45, Ice_nine said:

Because people's intentions, beliefs and what they're trying to accomplish do matter and are worth discussing even if the method (voting) is wholly ineffectual.

As to whether what would decrease poverty or abortion well we can argue that until the cows have home. You have no data, just you're opinion. To act like it's some wild and crazy idea that social welfare programs that assist the poor financially might lead to less abortions is silly. Maybe it won't work, or maybe it won't work perfectly, but it's a logically coherent idea.

Saying that yet more government spending is the answer to abortion is nothing but opinion, and ill-informed opinion at that, with nothing solid or real to back it up.  In fact, the big increase in abortion and its acceptance and legalization in this country followed the biggest increase in federal spending on social welfare (Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society").  I don't see the point in arguing pure hypotheticals here.  They certainly shouldn't be used to justify the blatant injustice of the law failing to protect innocent human persons, and allowing their murder on demand.