If Hillary Clinton Makes Also Makes A Transparently Insincere Claim To Be Pro-Life Can Catholics Vote For Her

[4588686]

I'm just wondering. Since only somebody who'd be excited to learn that an exiled Nigerian Prince wanted to reward them handsomely for helping them launder money would actually believe for a moment that Trump feels any moral qualms whatsoever about abortion, would Hillary Clinton making an equally silly claim to all of a sudden be pro-life make her an acceptable choice for Catholics?

 

Thanks

[dUSt]

I don't think you understand things good.

How would we know it's insincere? If Hillary held a press conference today and said she had a change of heart on abortion, I'd vote for her.

Sincere or insincere, people generally don't like to contradict themselves and come off as liars--so regardless of how insincere Trump is on the issue, he's somewhat obligated to follow through on what he told us he believes.

You act as if people's words and actions have nothing to do with each other, and that's generally not how things work.

[Amppax]

23 hours ago, dUSt said:

I don't think you understand things good.

How would we know it's insincere? If Hillary held a press conference today and said she had a change of heart on abortion, I'd vote for her.

Sincere or insincere, people generally don't like to contradict themselves and come off as liars--so regardless of how insincere Trump is on the issue, he's somewhat obligated to follow through on what he told us he believes.

You act as if people's words and actions have nothing to do with each other, and that's generally not how things work.

Ummm... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/.

Trump has changed his position on abortion so many times I don't know how you can possibly take anything he says on the subject seriously. Trump has shown time and again throughout this campaign that he doesn't care about contradicting himself or coming off as a liar. There is absolutely no reason to believe he'll feel any obligation to follow through on the muddled promises he's made. 

[LittleWaySoul]

On 10/14/2016 at 11:04 AM, dUSt said:

If Hillary held a press conference today and said she had a change of heart on abortion, I'd vote for her.

Ugh, the dream. #Electiongoals

[little2add]

1 hour ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Ugh, the dream. #Electiongoals

dream or nightmare ?

her view in regards to the unborn is death

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/issues-clinton-trump-talk-abortion-planned-parenthood-42786619

Edited October 16, 2016 by little2add

[LittleWaySoul]

6 hours ago, little2add said:

dream or nightmare ?

her view in regards to the unborn is death

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/issues-clinton-trump-talk-abortion-planned-parenthood-42786619

The dream = Hillary becomes pro-life. 

[Papist]

When is she not insincere?   Lying, conniving and cheating got Hillary where she is today. She ain't changing what works.

[dominicansoul]

Even if they all became prolife, I'd stick to the Republican party.  Only because you cannot be a true Catholic and a socialist...

[Peace]

5 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

Only because you cannot be a true Catholic and a socialist...

Heh. You just couldn't resist, could you?

[Seven77]

On 10/15/2016 at 10:19 AM, Amppax said:

Ummm... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/.

Trump has changed his position on abortion so many times I don't know how you can possibly take anything he says on the subject seriously. Trump has shown time and again throughout this campaign that he doesn't care about contradicting himself or coming off as a liar. There is absolutely no reason to believe he'll feel any obligation to follow through on the muddled promises he's made. 

 

 

 And yet… he kind of has to deliver on what he said during his presidential campaign. If he is selected he has to do some of the things that he said he would do or face the real possibility of impeachment. I think there is––a case can we made that there is––a reason to believe that he will at least come through on issues of the platform of the Republican Party, especially where the question of life is concerned. After a history of muddled lies and etc., wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that he would at least try to make good as president, if nothing else than to better his image?

Edited October 20, 2016 by Seven77

[Amppax]

2 hours ago, Seven77 said:

 And yet… he kind of has to deliver on what he said during his presidential campaign. If he is selected he has to do some of the things that he said he would do or face the real possibility of impeachment. I think there is––a case can we made that there is––a reason to believe that he will at least come through on issues of the platform of the Republican Party, especially where the question of life is concerned. After a history of muddled lies and etc., wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that he would at least try to make good as president, if nothing else than to better his image?

Campaign promises are not grounds for impeachment. I truly don't believe there's any reason that Trump will come through on his promises, not in any meaningful sense. It's contrary to everything he's shown us thus far. He might nominate pro-life (or at least conservative) justices [though a Democratic senate will probably reject anyone who is actually good], however, I don't believe that the court will be the venue through which change in America regarding abortion will come. 

15 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

Even if they all became prolife, I'd stick to the Republican party.  Only because you cannot be a true Catholic and a socialist...

Better take away Pope Benedict's "true" Catholic sticker. From his article "Europe and Its Discontents": 

Quote

But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.

 

[LittleWaySoul]

14 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

Even if they all became prolife, I'd stick to the Republican party.  Only because you cannot be a true Catholic and a socialist...

C'mon now... let's not be intellectually lazy here:

Democrat ≠ Socialist.

2 hours ago, Seven77 said:

 And yet… he kind of has to deliver on what he said during his presidential campaign. If he is selected he has to do some of the things that he said he would do or face the real possibility of impeachment. I think there is––a case can we made that there is––a reason to believe that he will at least come through on issues of the platform of the Republican Party, especially where the question of life is concerned. After a history of muddled lies and etc., wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that he would at least try to make good as president, if nothing else than to better his image?

One would think. And yet time after time after time after time he has opportunities to respond to things reasonably and demonstrate reasonability where there otherwise was none and yet he still takes the unreasonable and politically unwise route for things. 

For example, the whole audio recording from 11 years ago could have been an opportunity of sorts for him to demonstrate that he's changed and past that. What does he do? Make himself look even worse than he already does by essentially acting like a 2nd grader and blaming everyone else and yelling about others' actions: "but HE WAS WORSE SO THERE."

He's not been smart and reasonable enough to know when to stay out of things when it's both morally and politically better for him to do so. I see no reason to think he'd start behaving reasonably once he's given the Oval Office. 

[dominicansoul]

The government distributing the wealth by stealing people's  hard earned property, whether they are Wall Street tycoons to a middle class family floating above the poverty line isn't my idea of capitalism.  Democrats brag about people's right to choose, but under their rule, you only have a right to choose what they want you to choose.  Liberties are sacrificed for "the common good."  (Good example, the little sisters of the poor and the Obamacare mandate.)  seems like lenins brand of socialism to me...government control over our wealth and every aspect of our lives that even our own religious beliefs don't matter anymore... 

also Hilary may be a big fat liar about things, but I believe her when she says abortion should be available all the way to birth and we all should be paying for it.   You all think trump will be wishy washy with his campaign promises but I'm more worried about Hilary's as she probably won't be wishy washy about hers...

[dUSt]

On 10/15/2016 at 9:19 AM, Amppax said:

Trump has changed his position on abortion so many times I don't know how you can possibly take anything he says on the subject seriously. Trump has shown time and again throughout this campaign that he doesn't care about contradicting himself or coming off as a liar. There is absolutely no reason to believe he'll feel any obligation to follow through on the muddled promises he's made. 

Hope you watched the debate last night when they talked about abortion. I don't remember any other presidential candidate ever come out and say straight up "I will appoint pro-life judges".

[little2add]

I don't remember any other presidential candidate so enthusiastically in favor of late term abortions .

or the goofy looking smile she put on her face, when she said it.  

[Amppax]

13 hours ago, dUSt said:

Hope you watched the debate last night when they talked about abortion. I don't remember any other presidential candidate ever come out and say straight up "I will appoint pro-life judges".

 

I did, and I stand by my criticisms of Trump.

[PhuturePriest]

Trump's stand on abortion was half-hearted and a missed opportunity. He said it was wrong to tear babies apart in the ninth month, but he didn't make the connection that this applies to other months. Further, when repeatedly asked directly by the moderator whether he would try to overturn Roe V Wade, he dodged and said given his choices it would go to the States. He refused to directly say he would try to overturn Roe. He had a good moment at the end of the topic, and I'm not trying to discredit any good said, but it wasn't exactly a courageous unequivocal stand for the pro-life movement.

[dUSt]

Just now, PhuturePriest said:

when repeatedly asked directly by the moderator whether he would try to overturn Roe V Wade, he dodged and said given his choices it would go to the States. He refused to directly say he would try to overturn Roe.

You do realize that the result of overturning Roe vs Wade would be that it would go back to the states, right? In other words, in order for it to go back to states, Roe vs Wade would have to be overturned. The one time Trump restrains himself by using safe language which says the same thing as "overturn roe vs wade" and he gets slammed for it. Haha.

[PhuturePriest]

7 hours ago, dUSt said:

You do realize that the result of overturning Roe vs Wade would be that it would go back to the states, right? In other words, in order for it to go back to states, Roe vs Wade would have to be overturned. The one time Trump restrains himself by using safe language which says the same thing as "overturn roe vs wade" and he gets slammed for it. Haha.

The one time Trump *should* use strong language and unequivocally condemn something, and he doesn't do it.

The question becomes, why? He was using strong language when speaking about the 2nd amendment and foreign policy, so why not abortion? It's either he's too afraid of what people think about it (in which case we can't really trust him to do much for pro-life legislation), or he doesn't care about it and it's way down on his list (in which the same principle applies).

[Anomaly]

2 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

The one time Trump *should* use strong language and unequivocally condemn something, and he doesn't do it.

The question becomes, why? He was using strong language when speaking about the 2nd amendment and foreign policy, so why not abortion? It's either he's too afraid of what people think about it (in which case we can't really trust him to do much for pro-life legislation), or he doesn't care about it and it's way down on his list (in which the same principle applies).

It is because abortion is so strongly coded as a woman's right by the vast majority of people.  They see it as an unfortunate necessity, but the lesser of having a child in poverty, with an infirmity, or having to struggle to raise them.   Coming out strongly against abortion is political suicide.    Being strongly anti-abortion is severely damaging Rubio now in Florida, and he is running against a very weak candidate.

There is bad, and there is worse.   Being pro life political citizens requires more than voting for president.