Republican Debates

[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.

[Maggyie]

On April 9, 2016 at 7:32:13 PM, Ark said:

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

Don't forget Trump's secret interview with the New York Times... He won't release the transcript. Why do you think? Because he spent the time laughing with the Timesmen about what a bunch of gullible rubes his supporters are...

[little2add]

Image of Donald Trump and Jeb Bush debating about defunding Planned Parenthood at the first Republican debate in Cleveland, OH, on Aug. 6, 2015 Source: Peter Stevens, "Trump Fails to Back Up Misogynist Slurs with Anti-woman Proposals, Rivals Say," flickr.com, Aug. 6, 2015

Ted Cruz

it is in the business of killing unborn children on an industrial scale…   I intend to lead the fight in the United States Senate to defund Planned Parenthood."

Source: Ted Cruz, "Cruz: End Planned Parenthood funding," usatoday.com, Aug. 20, 2015

````````````````````````

Donald Trump

"I'm against it. I'm for defunding Planned Parenthood, very strongly. 

Source: Last Night Today, "Donald Trump Speech Holds Rally in Newton, IA 11/19/15 (Full)," www.youtube.com, Nov. 19, 2015

````````````````````````

John Kasich

"I'm for getting rid of all this Planned Parenthood funding and to be able to shift it to other kinds of family planning institutions...

Source: Bill Hoffman, "Kasich: 'Fight Like Crazy to Defund Planned Parenthood,' but Don’t Close down Govt," www.newsmax.com, Sep. 28, 2015

[little2add]

At least they agree on one (good) thing.  Odd that ALL the democrats are horizontally (extremely) opposed on this issue

Did anyone hear Sander's this morning on "meet the nation" talk about pro- abortion

he was disgraceful 

Edited April 17, 2016 by little2add

[Socrates]

On 4/8/2016, 5:24:44, Peace said:

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?

But what if pigs could fly?  What if money grew on trees and the rivers all flowed with whiskey?

All the evidence I've seen and read leads me to believe that a free economy in fact leads to the greatest prosperity and availability of goods and services for all.  And I don't believe that healthcare is immune to the basic laws of economics simply because politicians want it to.  But we've been over this all before, and unless you have some new and compelling arguments to bring to the table, I see no point in re-stating our disagreements on this for the umpteenth time.

[Socrates]

On 4/9/2016, 6:27:22, Ark said:

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.

So for most of his life, Trump was a crooked businessman, buying politicians to get favors from them, yet we're supposed to believe he'll be honest as a politician?  Really?  And Trump often favored liberal and establishment pols over conservative contenders.   What has he actually done in his long career to actually put America first, or advance conservative causes?  Absolutely nothing.  Remember, only a few years ago, he said Hillary would make a great president.  (And if he was lying then, why should we trust him now?)

Of course, it's hard to tell where Mr. Trump actually stands on anything, since his positions on everything seem to change every week.  He's offered little in the way of concrete solutions beyond saying he'll "build a wall" and somehow make Mexico pay for it (though he held a meeting with the editorial staff of the NY Times explaining that he really didn't mean what he told voters - which time was he lying?), and levy massive tariffs which would wreck the U.S. economy (for a historical reference, google the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, one of the causes of the Great Depression).

This is also the man who suddenly declared he had become "pro-life" before running for president as a Republican, yet also insists that taxpayers should continue funding Planned Parenthood, while singing the praises of that vile baby-killing organization.

All-in-all Trump is as phony as a three dollar bill.

Unsurprisingly, you've said nothing of substance on the actual issues.  There's a reason Trump keeps refusing to debate Cruz one-on-one on the real issues, because he's out of depth in discussing anything beyond the size of his "hands."

If you want to talk actual policies and compare where the candidates stand on the real issues, you can start here:  https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates

Or you can keep repeating inane slogans and look like a fool.