Consider this about Trump... How many times throughout this campaign has he changed his stated position on one issue after another? From one day to the next? From one hour to the next? The answer is....a lot! This demonstrates that Trump has no core values...no core moral code...no set of standards or principles that guide his decision making process... As he repeadly said, " im Flexiable...I can change, im going to change...very fast...you'll see....I will change." Really, is that what you want to hear? I don't. I want to hear is your truth...not just what is politically expedient for the moment, but what and how you really think...how you really feel....NOT what gets you elected! I want your truth...but if you have no core beliefs or truth and you can change your positions on a dime, how can anyone trust what you say about anything? How can anyone quote you with certainty that you will not be "Flexiable" on your issue after elected? The simple answer is....you can't! Clinton is as evil as you get....but I do know where she stands. Trump switched parties FIVE times....because he has no core values. He will be whatever suits him at the moment. He is only running as a republican because he knew Hillary had the dem. Nomination....so he decided to run as a republican. Now we are supposed to believe that after being a lifelong liberal who supported the clintons and all the other liberal democrats, we are to trust him on our issues? Now he is saying that he will get tons of democrats supporting him...really? Do the dems know more than the republicans? Even they know trump is "Flexiable" and capable of supporting all the liberal positions that he did when he wasn't running for office. Trump was contributing to these liberals only very recently ....and you're willing to believe him because you think , "he is telling it like it is".....IS HE? Or is he telling you like it is today...like it is this hour, as it is...this minute? How does anyone with ears to hear believe trump on anything?
Hi Fallen Saint. Ok, one issue I see you mentioned is that because the U.S. is so powerful, other world leaders would have to deal with him. I don't dispute that. But this is not just a personality conflict, there are serious moral issues here and, as you correctly note, since we are a leader in every geo-political crisis worldwide, how can one reconcile, either according to moral grounds or the so-called "real-life" and "practical" grounds Trump supporters are arguing, that that would be a benefit? The twentieth century proved the two are inextricably linked, looking the other way morally leads to disaster on every level, including economic and "practical". The disasters of twentieth century, which were moral and economic, ended with the United States taking a leadership role. We got there, with the wealth that came with it, because we stood for what was right. Because we helped the suffering. Because we put ourselves on the line to help victims of people who, like or not, sounded just like Trump when they were given the reigns of their respective countries. That is how the United States came to be the most powerful and wealthy country on the face of the earth, because we did right. God gave us those blessings and He can remove them. You sound like you think our economic strength thus far came exclusively from our own steam. That is where you are wrong. But, to the extent that you are right, a key tenet of the economic success of the lower classes is free trade. It is a key concept of the American Revolution: that individual citizens should be able to conduct commerce with their neighbors in a way that allows everyone, not just the governments, to accumulate wealth. The United States would not be the economic giant it is today without free trade. Period. If we did not trade freely with other countries, but tried to produce and consume only our own goods, our economy would be like that of the Soviet Union from 1924-1991. Sure, Stalin revolutionized industry, but by force, at the cost of tens of millions of lives. That's the communist way. Sure, Hitler and Mussolini took control of their economies as well, more like Trump wants to, by the way. They also made economic strides, but like today's Russian oligarchs do. Everyone was still a slave to the government and the system and should they have attempted to step out of line, go off on their own to help themselves out economically, they would have disappeared in the same way the Jews disappeared. The Jews did not fit into Hitler's plan and before he got elected, he spoke of them like Trump speaks of Muslims and Hispanics. He did not say when his party was running that he would round up all Jews and execute them, he just spoke disparagingly of them, just as Trump is now. But the rest of Europe did exactly what you said, fallen saint. They "worked with him". The cajoled him. They let him get away with murder, as long as they could imagine it would not effect them. One man said this was crazy, that an immoral man with that much power could never be trusted, Churchill, but he was called a war monger, not Hitler. Sound familiar? What you are asking for as far as an end to trade agreements, which, at least, try to level the fairness when we are dealing with economies that do not subscribe to free trade, does not end in the result you want. Nixon decided the way to change China was to try to deal with them in some way economically. If a closed economy deals with an open economy, some kind of agreement has to be made. Otherwise we ourselves become a closed economy. Before the world wars, we were protectionist because we were still a relatively new country and we could not compete openly with goods coming mainly from Britain. By the early 20th Century, even before the world wars, both parties realized for the citizens of the U.S. to grow in wealth we had to trade more openly and freely, which is the original economic tenet of the American Revolution. What you advocate would not make us wealthy, in the end, we limit our wealth. The government would collect lots of taxes, sure, but prices would go way up for the people on all goods across the board. From the navigation acts to the Corn Laws of Britian, that is what happened. Period. That is how it works. What other things did you bring up, let me know, I would like to have an honest discussion. But, I can't be convinced that amoral tactics or goals will in any way lead to long term wealth, stability, safety or success. As a Catholic, I know these things can't be separated. They are inextricably linked according the laws of the universe God created.
The Bottom Line Gang is that it will probably not matter at all who gets elected this November 'cause the USA has strayed so far from the Faith, Traditions, Beliefs and Intentions of Our Founding Fathers all of whom, by the by, were Human with manifest Human Failings that one would not learn about until reading college level texts/histories. So ... if you are looking for a Saint in politics or even in your family, Church or neighborhood ... well! ... Good $*@&^?^ Luck!! It is our duty to vote and do as best we can by our beliefs, observations and study of the matters that count to us!! .... and I'll say again ... and keep saying till the power goes out!!: See to your own affairs/needs/requirements, neighborhood and local Church/Community! If the worst comes that is where SURVIVAL and REBUILDING will come from not from DC or Dublin or Paris ..... or Rome!! If the worst doesn't come Ya have Grub to eat or give to the Food Bank, stuff to go camping and new friends to Hang-Out with GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
So true, the world , as we kew it is passing away. Just like the Fall of Ancient Rome. We are arguing over a corpse.
I refuse to think that way Padraig, because too many times the prophecies have been misinterpreted. From the Pharisees who could not see Jesus was the messiah of prophecy to the death of Joey Lomangino, we do not know how they play out until they do. (I was very afraid that people listening to Charlie would think that way and as a consequence of the "oh well, it's going to hell in a hand basket" thinking they would go for Trump and I can see by at least one Trump supporter here today, that is what happened.) We have no idea how these prophecies will turn out. Charlie's bishop says to follow Jesus. No one can follow Jesus and say, oh well, who cares, I'll just vote for the immoral choice. We have a duty and a responsibility to elect officials God would want us to. As citizens in a democracy it is our duty.
I agree with nearlyeverything you write Dawn. For, asically you are brnging out the points I made, though you have a different interpretation. I did not however bring Prophecy into my post. I do not need to . Prophecy is in part concenring the future , I think we have enough evidence before us not to bring the futristic element of Prophesy into the discussion. Events are right before us. As to your statemnt , 'We have a duty and responsibilty to to elect officials God would want us to' That is so true. But there's the rider....'God would want us to. But if no one comes forward with moral policies then , I would contend we have no choice but not to vote. But Donald Trump and hillary Clinton plave forward spme policies 9ie abortion) that are siply evil. We cannot cherry pick these poliicies and say that oh well, the evil ones don't amtter. They always matter. So we can;t vote. No Catholic in good conscience can vote for a candidate who supports abortion. This is basic Catholic teaching. Its nothing to do with my opinion, it's nothing to do with Prophecy, it is the Teaching of the Catholic Church. It is just as simple as that. https://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm '3. If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate? If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.” A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about “disqualifying issues” is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society’s effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society’s goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law.'
I agree with you Padraig. I will follow closely and support the movement for a pro-life, pro- constitution conservative third candidate. Someone who has not thought to run for president on his/her own but will if drafted. It is our only choice.
But see, that's exactly how we got eight years of Obama, who has lead us down a road far more perilous than what Romney probably would have done, as many Christians didn't want to vote for him, either, as Mormon, who was also not totally against abortion. What we're facing now is increasingly perilous. More excerpts from that same page: https://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm Carefully look at these, and see if they do not really answer the question we're asking ourselves here. 8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life? [And none of our presidential candidates are...] As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official [or similarly, we the voters]... could licitly support proposals... lessening... negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue. 9. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win? In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 8 above. 10. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do? Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. * * * The point is that, while Trump is nobody most of us wanted, potentially more children would live under him than if Hillary was in charge. She has reportedly had several abortions of her own (we can't know, it's just the story), but what is sure, absolutely sure, is that she celebrates abortion as religiously as if it was a sacrament -- she promises to keep every form of it legal. She says that moments before birth, they have no civil rights. Every one of those is a soul, and I think Catholic teaching requires me to save as many as possible from those who would kill as many as possible. Yes, the saddest thing is that we had so many GOOD people running. And sad also, that not only so many people voted so carelessly, without any deep thought, but that most people did not bother to vote at all. These guys (and gal) won by relatively few votes, when the GOOD guys could have won, instead, if thinking people had simply gotten out and done what they should have. So, doesn't this answer the question? I admit it's a rock and a hard place. No, we can not know what Trump will actually do. But we have reason to hope that he has better people around him to advise him. Beyond that, he will have to answer for himself.
I voted for Romney. The last election was also about the first African American president. Many did not want to vote out the first African American president. Still, I voted for the one who matched my values the best. I don't think many Christians were afraid to vote for him because he's Mormon. Anyway, he chose a Catholic VP candidate. The problem is that Trump is not someone who has a few minor moral issues. People keep saying you can't wait for a saint to run for president. Fine, I don't expect to. But you could make an argument this guy fits the bill for an antichrist. I am serious about it. Sometimes I get sarcastic and I know I should not, I'm sorry. But I am not being sarcastic. Either that or the one who is to come before the antichrist. He literally has said he does not subscribe to any moral code and he has never needed forgiveness for anything. We have never had a president or presidential candidate, including the Clintons and President Obama, who has said something like that. Never.
I think as Jesus said we need to read the Signs of the Times. Not just in politics but in all walks of life, Scinece, the Arts, medicine and so on. We are in Societies that are turning away from God. Not only turning from God but doing so with a great acceleration of wickedness. Essentially the place of the Christian in hanging on the Corss with Jesus, his/her only home ebing the catacombs before being dragged out to join Jesus there. Jesus warned s about this. He remininded us that if they treated someone so badly when someone was innocent and the wood was green they would have a ball when the wood was dry and sinful as we all are. This is the direction we are all headed in with great rapidity. Either folks are for Christ or they are against them. There is no in between, especailly in these latter times. As times go on our choices wil lbecome more and more restrcited, firstly in things like how we can vote, but latterly in how we can live and bring up our familes. Thats the way things are heading. These are the Signs of the Times. We need to get spiritually set for this. I notice this even at work in the hospital. Folks hav noticed that I go to amss everyday in the hospital, they know I fast and pray. They know I am a Cahtolic not just in words but in all that I am. I am effectively a marked man . If people did not realise this the devil would not be too long telling them. We are, all of us marked men.
Dear Summerfields, These ProLife voting standards are what I have traditionally followed my whole life...they are a good and proper formula for most, if not all voting delimmas . Ordinairly, I would apply them myself....but, in this election I cannot and this is why... When I have used this standard, it was because I had good reason to believe that the stated positions of the candidate were sincere....even if they were not 100 % ProLife, I had a reasonsonable expectation that the candidate was telling the truth...you can never be completely certain, but you actually do believe them. You base this assessment on their reputation for honesty and often on their record. If either of these, or all of these components are not compatible with your "truth radar", then personally, I ignore these standards because the criteria for using them ( trustworthiness) does not exist...rendering them useless. In the case of Trump, his history of dishonesty, unfaithfulness, and numerous flip flops disqualifies him for consideration. Trumps character and history makes him untrustworthy for me to give him the benefit of the doubt in matters of life and death. This will be the first time that I have ever felt so strongly adverse to a candidate that even against Clinton, I find myself unable to vote for him. Your stated voting standards are spot on for every other election...I just cannot apply them to this election. I'd be very happy for God to tap me on the shoulder and give me a heads up, because I know full well how evil and dangerous Clinton is. I know exactly where she stands on these issues. My fear is that trump will not be any better and he might possible be worse. His fascist remarks and his personality put him in the same danger zone as Clinton. I have zero faith in anything he says...he changes his position routinely. Trump funded the very people he is now running against. Trump professed the same position on abortion ....including partial birth abortion as Clinton. God help us, because this election will be life changing for everyone. Voting for trump would go against every instinct in my soul...my conscience would be tormented....what else can I say... Praying that God will raise up a third party candidate that could actually win. Sounds impossible? Not for God...with God, all things are possible...if it is his will. I'll pray that it is His wil.
By your standards, no one would ever be elected and by your standards no one could ever be trusted. And yes, this election will be life-changing. If Hillary gets elected, this country is finished and there is a high probability of a hot war with Russia and/or China. A Trump win will indeed be "life-changing" for the Neocons and other traitors and warmongers who have been running the country into the ground since Reagan left office. As for truth, Trump has told more truth about more important issues than any candidate in our lifetime. Maybe if leading pro-life advocates had reached out to Trump early on, rather than demonizing him and and questioning his sincerity at every turn, Trump would be closer to the truth on abortion than he is. No candidate in recent memory (with the exception of Ron Paul) has been so attacked and so demonized by the Establishment as Donald Trump. You are delusional if you think Trump is a fascist or worse than Clinton. You have been listening to your own talking points for far too long. Clinton is an unrepentant pro-abort and an anti-American warmonger and traitor. Trump has moved in the right direction on abortion (no thanks to the leaders in the pro-life community) and genuinely loves this Country and loves the people of this country. You are also mistaken if you think a third party is the solution. A third party would guarantee a Clinton win.
I never mentioned any of that, but since you mentioned...free trade is not good when someone has an advantage. And that is everybody except the US. The plan is to make the United States a consumer nation of third world products. The sad part is free trade is destroying the United States. It takes away our jobs... to give to third world countries. Not only that those third world countries basically create a slave class. Free market is way different then free trade. I think Trump is willing to work with Democrats as well with Republicans. The art of the deal is what Reagan did. Again...it's easy to find the problem but you have not given solution. Brother al
Free Trade and Free Market are the same. Protectionist policies only help a newly industrialized country, Britain figured that out in the 19th Century and we figured it out late 19th Century/early 20th. Free trade helps a complex economy. Protectionist policies only help the government collect more taxes. The wealth of the consumer goes down due to the rise in prices across the board. That is fact.
Wow...did michael nail this! We really did lose the battle long ago...the compromises Christians/Catholics caved into early on set the stage for what we have now...two godless choices....both losers... We have lost the culture war in the political debate....all that's left is that war within our souls. As michael said, nothing much left of it all to bail us out....except perhaps Divine intervention. I'll remain in the 1% that care more about the moral issues even if they remain at the bottom. The choices we are left with aren't really choices at all. When you have lost the culture war, your done. Your nation is in total moral decline and the only factor left is Not if it hits bottom...but the speed at which it does. The only hope to reverse this decline ended when these two candidates won their parties nomination....because those pesky moral issues just weren't as important.
No, Richard. Beth and I both explained why Trump is not your typical conservative who has switched once on abortion, or has been known to commit adultery but is still married to the mother of his children (all his children), etc. If we held the standard that high, then you would be right. It is very clear we are dealing with someone beyond that category. Even beyond the Clintons, because even though we don't agree with their moral code, they generally have one and stick to it. You know exactly what you are getting if you vote for Obama, either Clinton or Sanders. Those who share their values can trust them to do what they say they will do. Trump, it is obvious to anyone who wants to see it, simply can't be trusted. Yet, he's not just a flip-flopper like John Kerry. He is not at all someone you can say, well, no candidate is a saint. He has come out and said his code of values is not socialist or secularist, like the Clintons or Sanders, it is nonexistent. Anyone who votes for a clearly amoral, literally and self-admittedly amoral, candidate is morally culpable and voting for catastrophe of any possible proportions. History proves it. Whether your goals are simply economic benefit or moral soundness, which includes healthy and fair economic growth anyway, history has shown that kind of ruler does not bring either, they bring disaster, economic and moral. The whole "establishment", "elite" nonsense is what you have been told to keep repeating by people who can't speak to the issues (but like having a blog to sell advertisements on for prepper goods, making lots of money off them too). If that whole line of nonsense were credible, it would mean no person with honest intentions to run for office, if they win more that once, can be trusted because they have become part of the "elite". If that were the case, then democracy itself is not a credible form of government and I would advocate a return to monarchy. But, as Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
As I have shown with the example of Lincoln and the creation of the Republican party itself, which started essentially as a third party, yes, a credible third party candidate can win. For those of you who have complained on and on that the Republican party is full of "elites" and "insiders", well, here is your chance to put your money where you mouth is as well as hold to the Catholic values you are called to support. It took Lincoln 5 years to gain the recognition needed to run as a third party candidate and win the presidential election. Today because of mass communication it would only take months. It can be done. Perot almost did it and his was not a serious candidacy for a host of reasons, not to mention he was running against a sitting president. If the Republican party is corrupt and "establishment" than let's let it die. The fact that they produced the candidate they did proves something is vastly wrong with it. Now is your chance.
Fallen Saint, you have said the legitimate Republican candidates compromised too much with Democrats. That is the only reason anyone here has given for choosing Trump. Which is it? If your argument for Trump was not about Free Trade, Fair Trade, or trade agreements, please let me know what your issue is. I am sorry I misunderstood and responded on a different issue. I would like to have an honest discussion. Thank you for engaging.
Dawn, nobody is saying that the Republican Party is full of elites or insiders. The primaries proved that not to be the case, however, there is an elite set of insiders who have been controlling it until Trump rattled their cage. Further proof was making Trump sign a pledge saying that he would support the eventual nominee. All candidates signed that pledge and some have broken it already. So much for their word being their bond. And they accuse Trump of flip-flopping! There's also an elite controlling the Democratic Party whose cage is being rattled by Sanders. This talk of running a third party "genuine conservative" whose real objective will be to get Clinton elected proves that both sets of elite are closer to each other than they are to their voters. The difference between the elite in the two parties is that the Democrats throw some crumbs at their electorate, while the Republicans get away with making promises that they have no intention of keeping. Letting the Republican party die means gift wrapping America for the Democrats. "Almost did it" means that Perot failed. Voris is right when he says that the culture war has been won. Powerful Republicans who made money their God were complicit in that victory. Their bank balance mattered more than the lives of unborn babies, more than jobs for Americans and more than the lives of American troops. Stopping Trump means that their control will never be broken. A Trump victory means that they can never again take their electorate for granted, and you might actually see them stand up for some of your values for a change.
