Amazing Day at the Women's March

[Peace]

7 hours ago, havok579257 said:

when did I say anything about voting for a candidate being sinful?

 You did not as far as I am aware.

7 hours ago, havok579257 said:

also are you just trying to be arguementative for arguements sake?  

No. I am attempting to show you that you are being hypocritical.

7 hours ago, havok579257 said:

So the week before the election, two weeks before the election is was not inevitable that Trump or Clinton would be president?

No. It was not inevitable. It was unlikely.

7 hours ago, havok579257 said:

Not looking at what you want to happen but realistically a week out from the election you legit thought one of the 2 third party candidates had a resonable chance to win the election?

I thought that perhaps there was a 5% chance of someone other than Hillary or Trump winning. Whether or not you consider that to be "reasonable" you can judge for yourself.

7 hours ago, havok579257 said:

 If you actually thought that, your being delusional.  

I voted for a person who I thought was a morally acceptable candidate and prayed to God that if He saw it fitting, that neither Hilary nor Trump should be president. If you think that is delusional I am perfectly fine with that.

7 hours ago, havok579257 said:

I'm not saying a third party candidate could never win and election, I am saying it was not going to happen this election and I was proven right by the facts. The facts show both third party candidates had minimal support compared to Trump or Clinton this election.

None of the facts you state prove that a third party candidate could not have won this past election. The facts indicate that it was unlikely. The very same polls you refer to indicated that Trump was almost certain to lose, yet Trump won. In fact, one may have thought a tie to be a more likely result than Trump winning, based on the polls. And in the case of a tie the vote would have gone back to the House of Representatives, who  could have chosen a candidate other than Trump or Hillary.

7 hours ago, havok579257 said:

 Supporting a third party candidate is good and should be done.  Although one should at the same time not stick their head in the sand and be delusional.  The facts were there before the election that no thirdy party candidate had enough support to win the electoral college.  That's not opinion, that's fact.  I can almost be certain no third party candidate actually thought they had a legit chance at becoming president this election a week out.  

Those very same polls also indicated that Trump did not have enough support to win the electoral college, but he most certainly did, because people came out during the election and actually voted for him. If a sufficient number of people voted for the ASP candidate instead, the ASP candidate would be president.

7 hours ago, havok579257 said:

I never stated people could not have voted for Hilary and be justified in their votes. Also just because someone voted for a third party candidate does not mean they made a good vote in voting for a not evil candidate.  The other candidates were not loads better than either Trump or Hilary.  To claim that a third party candidates this election were good and Hilary and Trump were evil is laughable.  All the candidates this election were not good choices. 

Hillary advocates for abortion, an intrinsic evil. Donald Trump advocates for torture, an intrinsic evil. The ASP candidate did not advocate for any intrinsic evil. The ASP candidate was objectively better than both of them in terms of the issues that should matter to a Catholic.

7 hours ago, havok579257 said:

I as a person believe it is wrong to not vote for any person in an election and just refuse to vote.  Some people may not agree with my beliefs but I have yet to be alive for an American election where I conisdered all candidates so morally opposed to the churches teachings that I could not vote for anyone.  I believe it is the duty of every citizen to vote for elected officals.  I don't take the stance that I can obstain from voting just because a candidate does not support every single view I support.  Cause if your waiting for that you will wait forever.  Each person is different and no 2 people will ever agree on every single thing.

I am glad that you think voting is a good thing. But our duty is to vote for good people. We have no duty to vote for evil people.

7 hours ago, havok579257 said:

Again attending a march is completely different than voting.  Nothing worse would have come about if she did not attend the march.  Unless I am mistaken.  Although no matter who you voted for, dem or repub or thirday party, someone on the ticket was becoming president.  Its not going to happen that after the election we have no one elected president and the seat sits open.  This is not "Brewsters Millions".  So if you choose not to vote for a candidate, one you perceive who is less evil, then the other candidate could get in.  If you don't vote, someone will still win the election.  If you don't go to the march that supports many things the catholic church is against, a worse protest/march will not take its place.  

No. The situations are not completely different. Perhaps the reason that you cannot see the obvious parallel is because you are too focused on the speck in someone else’s eye while ignoring the plank in your own eye. The situations are analogous at least in the following respects:

1)    Both involve indirectly cooperating with evil actors.

2)    Both evil actors presumably have some positive good (although I am not quite sure what it would be in the case of Donald Trump).

3)    In both cases there were alternative moral choices, where one need not indirectly cooperate with the evil actor.

4)    Both situations involve the a person making a choice that resulted in indirectly cooperating with the evil actor, because he/she believes that the choice will  support a positive good that is greater than the harm done by the indirect cooperation with the evil actor.

The only substantive distinction that you attempt to draw is that in situation (A)(Trump) you believe that the action resulting in indirect cooperation with the evil actor is absolutely necessary in order to avoid an even greater evil, while in situation (B)(the women’s march) you believe that no greater evil must result in the case that she did not take action that resulted in the indirect cooperate with the evil. 

But your attempted distinction fails for at least two reasons. First, in situation (A) there was no 100% guarantee that Hillary would have won if you voted for someone other than Trump. It was merely unlikely, and the reason that it was unlikely was because you and other people like you refused to vote for another candidate. Your refusal to publicly support another candidate is the very reason why it was unlikely, so you are hard pressed to turn around and assert the consequence of your refusal as a justification for not voting for another candidate. You cannot use a consequence that results from your refusal to take action as the very justification for refusing to take the action in the first place. The justification you use for your action is entirely circular.

Secondly, from the standpoint of basic Catholic morality, the distinction you attempt to draw (that it was acceptable for you to vote for Trump to avoid the greater evil of Hillary being elected) in and of itself is not a proper reason to take action that would result in  indirect cooperation with evil. As an example, you cannot torture a terrorist in order to obtain information that would prevent someone else from being killed. Similarly, one cannot cooperate with evil (voting for Trump) so as to avoid a greater evil (Clinton). In this situation the only moral option is to refuse to cooperate with either evil, choose a morally good action, and pray to God for a solution. You can only choose an action that will result in the indirect cooperation with evil to the extent that there is a positive good to be found in the action itself that justifies the toleration of the indirect evil, not merely to avoid a greater evil.

So for those reasons I do not think that your attempted distinctions are sufficient to shield your criticisms from an accusation of hypocrisy. Both you and the OP are fundamentally engaging in the same type of decisions – you just refuse to admit it because that would subject yourself to the very same criticism that you are levying against her.

But I would not take it so personally. If someone were to go back and compare the various things I have written on this site I do not think it would be very difficult to demonstrate that Peace too is a hypocrite. In this particular instance I believe that you guys are wrong. But you are all still good people.

7 hours ago, havok579257 said:

Also one last thing.  Voting in private for a candidate you believe is the lesser of two evils is completely different than publically supporting a march that supports many things the church is against.  It would be no different than if I voted for Trump in private because I did not want Hilary to win as opposed to me getting on social media and going to rallies to support planned parenthood because they provide medical care for low income women.  Publically supporting planned parenthood because they offer medical care for low income women and trying to ignore they are the worlds largest abortion provider doesn't work.  Whatever reasons I try to use to justify my support for them, I am still supporting publically an entity that supports abortion in demand, tax payer funded and deems an infant in the womb to not be a person receiving personhood status.

Perhaps I would agree that performing an action in public is worse than performing the same action in private (at least in certain circumstances). But I do not think this gets you off the hook. First, you are a professed Catholic and you are Church Militant and you have made your support of Trump public at least right here on this public website. Secondly, while performing an action publicly may make it worse, performing an action privately does not by itself make the action morally justifiable. If you vote for an evil person and he is elected the damage is done and you have participated in it, regardless of whether you voted in a private booth or in an open square.

2 hours ago, havok579257 said:

You addressed all these groups of people who were included in the march and the accomidations made for them but I see you left out the fact pro life groups were told not to go to the rally by the leaders.  How is support for a march which excludes the pro life groups any differnt from a march which excludes black people.  The facts are pro life groups were told they were not invited.  Would you have been ok with the march if the leaders told all black people they were not allowed to go?  I imagine you would be outraged.  You talk about how great these marches were and how bad Trump is but your refuse to acknowledge how bigoted this march was to pro life women's group.  It seems because this fact goes against your point, you are just avoiding it.  Its sad because I can almost be certain if the march leaders told black people they did not want them there, you would take issue with that.

You bash on Trump for many things he has said and many things people think he is going to do.  Fair enough and justified.  I won't argue saying Trump was ok in some of the things he has said.  Although just because of the bad things Trump does, does not mean the opposition to him are beyond reproch.  Although you seem to act like this.  You disregard the groups who the march excluded because of their religious beliefs.  You disregard the agenda the leaders were promoting for unfettered access to abortion.  You disregard a speaker who said she has thought about blowing up the White House (I am sure had Trump said he had thought abvout blowing up the women's march you would have issues with that statement).  You did regard the attire they were selling of women;s genitalia to help promote the rally.  The problem with so many people today is they see the oppoisiton to their views as all bad and disrgard the sides flaws and evils they commit.  All they do is promote how good their side is and how bad the other side is.  It seems from all your posts you are falling into the trap.  You gloss over or ignore the evil things the march supported or did such as to pro life groups and instead only look at the things which support your point of view.

You don't know that she has glossed over any of these issues, or did not take them seriously. You are making an argument from silence, and that is one of the weakest type of arguments there is.

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

How do you think Christ would have reacted if he was invited to dine with a group of sinners but and his followers were forbidden to preach repentance of sins, infanticide for example?

Why don't you tell me how Jesus would have reacted when someone told Him that he was planning to vote for a candidate who brags about walking up to women and “grabbing them by the p***Y” and openly advocates for intrinsic evils such as the torture of human beings, when there were moral candidates that he could just as easily have voted for instead? I suppose you think that Jesus would be OK with that? This is precisely why I have asserted hypocrisy  – you criticize, but think it is OK when you do the same thing yourself.

As for the answer to your question, I do not know. I can only speculate. Maybe Jesus would have declined the dinner invitation if they told him that he cannot preach. Maybe he would have dined with them, and then preached repentance of sin, and preached against infanticide anyway. Or maybe he would have dined with them, used it as an opportunity to change their hearts, and then after changing their hearts, preached to them about repentance of sin the next time he spoke to them.

I suggest that you consider the question that the OP left you to ponder. It's a bit difficult to seek, find, discern, instruct people, or help bring them to to the truth, if you will not even interact with them, is it not?

4 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Oh dear. Do you?

Somehow I doubt that she is asking whether public revelation ended at the death of the last apostle.

Do you believe that Jesus has nothing left to teach you that has not already been revealed?

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Somehow I doubt that she is asking whether public revelation ended at the death of the last apostle.

Do you believe that Jesus has nothing left to teach you that has not already been revealed?

I was only referring to that particular sentence. 

[havok579257]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

 You did not as far as I am aware.

No. I am attempting to show you that you are being hypocritical.

No. It was not inevitable. It was unlikely.

I thought that perhaps there was a 5% chance of someone other than Hillary or Trump winning. Whether or not you consider that to be "reasonable" you can judge for yourself.

I voted for a person who I thought was a morally acceptable candidate and prayed to God that if He saw it fitting, that neither Hilary nor Trump should be president. If you think that is delusional I am perfectly fine with that.

None of the facts you state prove that a third party candidate could not have won this past election. The facts indicate that it was unlikely. The very same polls you refer to indicated that Trump was almost certain to lose, yet Trump won. In fact, one may have thought a tie to be a more likely result than Trump winning, based on the polls. And in the case of a tie the vote would have gone back to the House of Representatives, who  could have chosen a candidate other than Trump or Hillary.

Those very same polls also indicated that Trump did not have enough support to win the electoral college, but he most certainly did, because people came out during the election and actually voted for him. If a sufficient number of people voted for the ASP candidate instead, the ASP candidate would be president.

Hillary advocates for abortion, an intrinsic evil. Donald Trump advocates for torture, an intrinsic evil. The ASP candidate did not advocate for any intrinsic evil. The ASP candidate was objectively better than both of them in terms of the issues that should matter to a Catholic.

I am glad that you think voting is a good thing. But our duty is to vote for good people. We have no duty to vote for evil people.

No. The situations are not completely different. Perhaps the reason that you cannot see the obvious parallel is because you are too focused on the speck in someone else’s eye while ignoring the plank in your own eye. The situations are analogous at least in the following respects:

1)    Both involve indirectly cooperating with evil actors.

2)    Both evil actors presumably have some positive good (although I am not quite sure what it would be in the case of Donald Trump).

3)    In both cases there were alternative moral choices, where one need not indirectly cooperate with the evil actor.

4)    Both situations involve the a person making a choice that resulted in indirectly cooperating with the evil actor, because he/she believes that the choice will  support a positive good that is greater than the harm done by the indirect cooperation with the evil actor.

The only substantive distinction that you attempt to draw is that in situation (A)(Trump) you believe that the action resulting in indirect cooperation with the evil actor is absolutely necessary in order to avoid an even greater evil, while in situation (B)(the women’s march) you believe that no greater evil must result in the case that she did not take action that resulted in the indirect cooperate with the evil. 

But your attempted distinction fails for at least two reasons. First, in situation (A) there was no 100% guarantee that Hillary would have won if you voted for someone other than Trump. It was merely unlikely, and the reason that it was unlikely was because you and other people like you refused to vote for another candidate. Your refusal to publicly support another candidate is the very reason why it was unlikely, so you are hard pressed to turn around and assert the consequence of your refusal as a justification for not voting for another candidate. You cannot use a consequence that results from your refusal to take action as the very justification for refusing to take the action in the first place. The justification you use for your action is entirely circular.

Secondly, from the standpoint of basic Catholic morality, the distinction you attempt to draw (that it was acceptable for you to vote for Trump to avoid the greater evil of Hillary being elected) in and of itself is not a proper reason to take action that would result in  indirect cooperation with evil. As an example, you cannot torture a terrorist in order to obtain information that would prevent someone else from being killed. Similarly, one cannot cooperate with evil (voting for Trump) so as to avoid a greater evil (Clinton). In this situation the only moral option is to refuse to cooperate with either evil, choose a morally good action, and pray to God for a solution. You can only choose an action that will result in the indirect cooperation with evil to the extent that there is a positive good to be found in the action itself that justifies the toleration of the indirect evil, not merely to avoid a greater evil.

So for those reasons I do not think that your attempted distinctions are sufficient to shield your criticisms from an accusation of hypocrisy. Both you and the OP are fundamentally engaging in the same type of decisions – you just refuse to admit it because that would subject yourself to the very same criticism that you are levying against her.

But I would not take it so personally. If someone were to go back and compare the various things I have written on this site I do not think it would be very difficult to demonstrate that Peace too is a hypocrite. In this particular instance I believe that you guys are wrong. But you are all still good people.

Perhaps I would agree that performing an action in public is worse than performing the same action in private (at least in certain circumstances). But I do not think this gets you off the hook. First, you are a professed Catholic and you are Church Militant and you have made your support of Trump public at least right here on this public website. Secondly, while performing an action publicly may make it worse, performing an action privately does not by itself make the action morally justifiable. If you vote for an evil person and he is elected the damage is done and you have participated in it, regardless of whether you voted in a private booth or in an open square.

You don't know that she has glossed over any of these issues, or did not take them seriously. You are making an argument from silence, and that is one of the weakest type of arguments there is.

Why don't you tell me how Jesus would have reacted when someone told Him that he was planning to vote for a candidate who brags about walking up to women and “grabbing them by the p***Y” and openly advocates for intrinsic evils such as the torture of human beings, when there were moral candidates that he could just as easily have voted for instead? I suppose you think that Jesus would be OK with that? This is precisely why I have asserted hypocrisy  – you criticize, but think it is OK when you do the same thing yourself.

As for the answer to your question, I do not know. I can only speculate. Maybe Jesus would have declined the dinner invitation if they told him that he cannot preach. Maybe he would have dined with them, and then preached repentance of sin, and preached against infanticide anyway. Or maybe he would have dined with them, used it as an opportunity to change their hearts, and then after changing their hearts, preached to them about repentance of sin the next time he spoke to them.

I suggest that you consider the question that the OP left you to ponder. It's a bit difficult to seek, find, discern, instruct people, or help bring them to to the truth, if you will not even interact with them, is it not?

Somehow I doubt that she is asking whether public revelation ended at the death of the last apostle.

Do you believe that Jesus has nothing left to teach you that has not already been revealed?

Now I see the truth that no matter what anyone says to you, you will refuse to consider it because your extremely partisan.  You claim you ca not find any good about Trump.  This right here shows you are extremely partisan toa fault.  You are no different than the conservatives and liberals who believe their way is the only possible way and everyone else is wrong, no matter what.  The facts don't matter, just your opinion.

 

I was not a fan of Obama and I did not want the man president.  Although I would never claim that Obama did not have any positive good in him or his actions.  Did I like a lot of things he did? No. Although I would never claim Obama had no positive good in him and his actions were all bad.  All that is, is being partisan for partisan sake.  

 

I was going to respond to your points but obviously it is pointless.  You are so partisan about Trump there is no point.  The fact that you can find no good in the man shows something.  As evidence by the majority of your posts about the election, you are no different than the extreme end liberals and conservatives and will never consider another point of view if it goes against your views of Trump.  You revile the man that much you can find no good in him at all.  To me someone like Hitler is someone I could say I could not find any good in.  I don't consider any president of america to come close to that.  Obviously you seem to think that since by your own words you can not find any good in Trump.

 

I would urge you to stop being so partisan about Trump.  You seem to support Obama and I am sure you thought the people stupid who claimed Obama was evil and he was going to destroy the world and blah, blah, blah.  Well you are acting the same way as those people.  Trump has good in him and will do good things.  Obama had good in him and did good things.  Maybe not as much as either of us would have wanted, but to claim they have no good in them is ridiculous.

oh and just one more comment about the ASP candidate winning the election being possible a week out.  He wasn't even on the ballot in most of the states in this country.  He was on the ballot in one state and was an accepted write in on like half the states in America.  Meaning they don't even count his votes in some states.  So unless he won every single state he could be written in on and I don't even know if that would be enough electoral college cotes, he was not winning the election. To even consider a write in candidate who's votes don't count in half of America a 5% chance of winning is laughable. I would have to look at the electoral college numbers but its possible the 20 states he could have won had he won every single one of those states might not have even put him to 270.  If that's the case, he had a 0 % chance of winning.  

[Ash Wednesday]

11 hours ago, McM RSCJ said:

This is my last word on this thread that I created--to share my amazing experience in the March last Saturday.

I'm glad you're still here... I was a little worried we were going to scare you off. 

[Peace]

Good morning @havok579257.

6 hours ago, havok579257 said:

Now I see the truth that no matter what anyone says to you, you will refuse to consider it because your extremely partisan.  You claim you ca not find any good about Trump.  This right here shows you are extremely partisan toa fault.  You are no different than the conservatives and liberals who believe their way is the only possible way and everyone else is wrong, no matter what.  The facts don't matter, just your opinion.

 

I was not a fan of Obama and I did not want the man president.  Although I would never claim that Obama did not have any positive good in him or his actions.  Did I like a lot of things he did? No. Although I would never claim Obama had no positive good in him and his actions were all bad.  All that is, is being partisan for partisan sake.  

 

I was going to respond to your points but obviously it is pointless.  You are so partisan about Trump there is no point.  The fact that you can find no good in the man shows something.  As evidence by the majority of your posts about the election, you are no different than the extreme end liberals and conservatives and will never consider another point of view if it goes against your views of Trump.  You revile the man that much you can find no good in him at all.  To me someone like Hitler is someone I could say I could not find any good in.  I don't consider any president of america to come close to that.  Obviously you seem to think that since by your own words you can not find any good in Trump.

 

I would urge you to stop being so partisan about Trump.  You seem to support Obama and I am sure you thought the people stupid who claimed Obama was evil and he was going to destroy the world and blah, blah, blah.  Well you are acting the same way as those people.  Trump has good in him and will do good things.  Obama had good in him and did good things.  Maybe not as much as either of us would have wanted, but to claim they have no good in them is ridiculous.

oh and just one more comment about the ASP candidate winning the election being possible a week out.  He wasn't even on the ballot in most of the states in this country.  He was on the ballot in one state and was an accepted write in on like half the states in America.  Meaning they don't even count his votes in some states.  So unless he won every single state he could be written in on and I don't even know if that would be enough electoral college cotes, he was not winning the election. To even consider a write in candidate who's votes don't count in half of America a 5% chance of winning is laughable. I would have to look at the electoral college numbers but its possible the 20 states he could have won had he won every single one of those states might not have even put him to 270.  If that's the case, he had a 0 % chance of winning.  

I thought that there was a 5 percent chance of a tie, which would have put the choice of president back with the House of Representatives, as I indicated previously. You can find plenty of news articles around the time of the election that discussed that possibility. If you find that laughable that is perfectly fine by me.

If it is important for me to recognize good things about Trump, then I can do that for you. I find his ideas on school choice to be good, for example. If you go back and read some of the old threads you will notice that I already admitted that about him, and was at least at one point considering voting for him. You will also find threads in which I said that he won the election fair and square, that he should be given the benefit of the doubt and a chance to do his job, and that we should pray for him.

But I did not find any positive good about Trump that would have justified tolerating his faults, and I am still not sure what those things would be. The reason that most people here indicated as the reason for voting for Trump was not because they felt he was actually qualified for the job, but rather to avoid the evil of Clinton being elected. One might think of her not being elected as a good in a colloquial sense, but it is not a positive good about Trump in a strict sense in Catholic morality (at least as far as I understand it).

Have a nice day. 

[havok579257]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Good morning @havok579257.

I thought that there was a 5 percent chance of a tie, which would have put the choice of president back with the House of Representatives, as I indicated previously. You can find plenty of news articles around the time of the election that discussed that possibility. If you find that laughable that is perfectly fine by me.

If it is important for me to recognize good things about Trump, then I can do that for you. I find his ideas on school choice to be good, for example. If you go back and read some of the old threads you will notice that I already admitted that about him, and was at least at one point considering voting for him. You will also find threads in which I said that he won the election fair and square, that he should be given the benefit of the doubt and a chance to do his job, and that we should pray for him.

But I did not find any positive good about Trump that would have justified tolerating his faults, and I am still not sure what those things would be. The reason that most people here indicated as the reason for voting for Trump was not because they felt he was actually qualified for the job, but rather to avoid the evil of Clinton being elected. One might think of her not being elected as a good in a colloquial sense, but it is not a positive good about Trump in a strict sense in Catholic morality (at least as far as I understand it).

Have a nice day. 

so you were banking on a tie and then democrats and republicans to pick an ASP candidate over their own?

 

Well one positive good about Trump that would cause I would think most would be able to tolerate his faults is if he elects a pro life supreme court justice or possibly two if Ruth Ginsburg retires.  With two more pro life supreme courts justices it is possible Roe v Wade gets struck down and abortion is made illegal again.  I personally don't care what Trump does to improve this country over the next four years with in reason.  I dont care if he keeps Obamacare, runs up the deficit, increases spending, makes immigration legal, makes us pay for a wall that is dumb.  I don't care about any of that with him.  I voted for the man to put a pro life candidate in the supreme court seat making it so there could be a possiblity of roe v wade being overturned.  I voted for him because if a liberal justice like Ruth Ginsburg retires then Trump can but a pro life justice in her place and we will have the best chance we have ever had since Roe v Wade was made legal to get it struck down.  

 

I guess this is what shows your partisanship to me.  Trump has many faults.  He wants to build a dumb wall.  He has said degrading things about people.  Although if Roe v Wade gets overturned and abortion is illegal again, would that not be a poisitve good to come out of his time in office?  No matter who you vote for, even the ASP candidates are not going to be all good, nor all bad.  Again because you can not see any good in Trump being president that you can toleratre shows you fit in with a majority of this country and stick your head in the sand and are partisan for partisan sake.  

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

so you were banking on a tie and then democrats and republicans to pick an ASP candidate over their own?

I was hoping that neither of them would be president, and neither of them getting to 270 and the vote returning to the House was the most likely way that would happen.

11 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

Well one positive good about Trump that would cause I would think most would be able to tolerate his faults is if he elects a pro life supreme court justice or possibly two if Ruth Ginsburg retires.  With two more pro life supreme courts justices it is possible Roe v Wade gets struck down and abortion is made illegal again.  I personally don't care what Trump does to improve this country over the next four years with in reason.  I dont care if he keeps Obamacare, runs up the deficit, increases spending, makes immigration legal, makes us pay for a wall that is dumb.  I don't care about any of that with him.  I voted for the man to put a pro life candidate in the supreme court seat making it so there could be a possiblity of roe v wade being overturned.  I voted for him because if a liberal justice like Ruth Ginsburg retires then Trump can but a pro life justice in her place and we will have the best chance we have ever had since Roe v Wade was made legal to get it struck down.  

I did not think that Trump was sincere about being pro-life, nor was I convinced that he would nominate a pro-life judge. That was largely because he has been a staunch Democrat for most of his life, once described himself as "very pro-choice", generally appears to have no idea of the sanctity of human life (as evidenced by his torture comments, for example), and does not seem to have any genuine religious convictions.

But if you believed that he was sincere that would be a positive good. The point here is that if you are allowed to exercise your conscience, exercise your own judgment, and take action (voting for Trump) that involves the indirect cooperation with evil, and expect people to not jump all over your case and throw tons of shade at you (like I have in this thread), then you should allow the OP to make the same type of judgments for herself without throwing tons of shade at her.

Hopefully Trump will make good on what he said and nominate a good judge. Apparently he will next week, so we shall see.

11 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

I guess this is what shows your partisanship to me.  Trump has many faults.  He wants to build a dumb wall.  He has said degrading things about people.  Although if Roe v Wade gets overturned and abortion is illegal again, would that not be a poisitve good to come out of his time in office?  No matter who you vote for, even the ASP candidates are not going to be all good, nor all bad.  Again because you can not see any good in Trump being president that you can toleratre shows you fit in with a majority of this country and stick your head in the sand and are partisan for partisan sake.  

I did not support either the Democratic candidate nor the Republican candidate, so I am not quite sure how that makes me partisan. I dislike them both fairly equally, and voted for someone that I thought was moral and that I liked.

As for Trump, you asked me to name something that I liked about him, and I did. I do not know what else to tell you. The things that I think are good about him were not enough for me to tolerate his flaws, just like the things you may like about Clinton were not enough for you to tolerate her flaws. If that means that I am partisan or have my head in the sand then I am perfectly fine with that.

Have a blessed afternoon.

[havok579257]

7 minutes ago, Peace said:

I was hoping that neither of them would be president, and neither of them getting to 270 and the vote returning to the House was the most likely way that would happen.

I did not think that Trump was sincere about being pro-life, nor was I convinced that he would nominate a pro-life judge. That was largely because he has been a staunch Democrat for most of his life, once described himself as "very pro-choice", generally appears to have no idea of the sanctity of human life (as evidenced by his torture comments, for example), and does not seem to have any genuine religious convictions.

But if you believed that he was sincere that would be a positive good. The point here is that if you are allowed to exercise your conscience, exercise your own judgment, and take action (voting for Trump) that involves the indirect cooperation with evil, and expect people to not jump all over your case and throw tons of shade at you (like I have in this thread), then you should allow the OP to make the same type of judgments for herself without throwing tons of shade at her.

Hopefully Trump will make good on what he said and nominate a good judge. Apparently he will next week, so we shall see.

I did not support either the Democratic candidate nor the Republican candidate, so I am not quite sure how that makes me partisan. I dislike them both fairly equally, and voted for someone that I thought was moral and that I liked.

As for Trump, you asked me to name something that I liked about him, and I did. I do not know what else to tell you. The things that I think are good about him were not enough for me to tolerate his flaws, just like the things you may like about Clinton were not enough for you to tolerate her flaws. If that means that I am partisan or have my head in the sand then I am perfectly fine with that.

Have a blessed afternoon.

There are more than two parties in America.  Partisanship is not exclusive to republicans and democrats.

 

Also as regards to the OP.  She herself came on here extoling the greatness of the march.  A march which excluded people over their relgious beliefs.  Why would you honestly not expect people to take issue with her glowing praise of the march.  If someone posted on here how great Trump is and he is so inclusive and he is so moving and he is such a great great and kept heaping praise on him and ignoring his many faults would you not say anything?  Are you telling me you would have just sat ideally by and complimented the poster who ignored any of the bad Trump has said and done?  No, you wouldn't.  So why if someone supports a view you like are they above reproach?   Why when someone supports a group of people and praises these people who exclude people because of their religious views, support the killing of the most innocent, say they thought about murdering people in the White House and said hateful things we should just sit silently by?  

[Peace]

42 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

There are more than two parties in America.  Partisanship is not exclusive to republicans and democrats.

Well that is the first time I voted for the ASP and it may be the last. On that same ballot everyone else I voted for was Republican, FWIW. I am not sure how I am partisan when I am voting for people from different parties on the same ballot, but perhaps you are using some unique definition of partisan that I am not aware of.

42 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

Also as regards to the OP.  She herself came on here extoling the greatness of the march.  A march which excluded people over their relgious beliefs.  Why would you honestly not expect people to take issue with her glowing praise of the march.  If someone posted on here how great Trump is and he is so inclusive and he is so moving and he is such a great great and kept heaping praise on him and ignoring his many faults would you not say anything?  Are you telling me you would have just sat ideally by and complimented the poster who ignored any of the bad Trump has said and done?  No, you wouldn't.  So why if someone supports a view you like are they above reproach?   Why when someone supports a group of people and praises these people who exclude people because of their religious views, support the killing of the most innocent, say they thought about murdering people in the White House and said hateful things we should just sit silently by?  

Well. It is nice to know that you are prophetic and have knowledge about how I will act in hypothetical situations. What will I be having for dinner tonight if I may ask?

I do not know what I would do. I would need to see the specific thread, but I imagine that I may disagree with some of the authors conclusions about Trump. I doubt that I would imply that the poster was a bad Catholic because he wrote good things about Trump, or voted for Trump, however. My main issue with the criticism against the OP is the implication that she is somehow a bad Catholic by choosing to participate in a march that was flawed.

But I think your point is fair. If you admit that you are subject to the same type of criticisms that you are subjecting her to, because you essentially did the same thing when you voted for Trump, then at least you are being consistent.

Good day.

[havok579257]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Well that is the first time I voted for the ASP and it may be the last. On that same ballot everyone else I voted for was Republican, FWIW. I am not sure how I am partisan when I am voting for people from different parties on the same ballot, but perhaps you are using some unique definition of partisan that I am not aware of.

Well. It is nice to know that you are prophetic and have knowledge about how I will act in hypothetical situations. What will I be having for dinner tonight if I may ask?

I do not know what I would do. I would need to see the specific thread, but I imagine that I may disagree with some of the authors conclusions about Trump. I doubt that I would imply that the poster was a bad Catholic because he wrote good things about Trump, or voted for Trump, however. My main issue with the criticism against the OP is the implication that she is somehow a bad Catholic by choosing to participate in a march that was flawed.

But I think your point is fair. If you admit that you are subject to the same type of criticisms that you are subjecting her to, because you essentially did the same thing when you voted for Trump, then at least you are being consistent.

Good day.

You will have ham and cheese for dinner if you wanted to know.  

 

I dont think anyone here has said the OP was a bad catholic or even implied such a thing.  I think they are questioning how someone who is tied to the church could support and praise such a march when many things there not only went against catholic teachings but common goodness.  I think questioning someone about something that supports things the church is against is not the same telling someone they are a bad catholic.  

 

I fuly admit anything I say in a public forum is open for criticism no different than the OP.  I accept if someone wants to criticism me for voting for Trump.  The difference though between the OP and I on this subject is I am not looking at only the good Trump could do and acting like he is a great man with no faults.  The OP defends the march like this.  She does not acknowledge the evil the leaders/promoters were doing.  She only see's the good and ignores the evil because its a lot harder to justify her position that the march was all good.  I recognize Trump has many faults.  Although I believe he will pick a pro life supreme court justice or possibly two over the next four years.  As we know in American society, the justices hold all the power.  They are the ones who make the laws and its nearly impossible to overrule their decree's.  So for me, I will deal with Trump's faults and problems if Roe v Wade is overturned and there are a majority of pro life judges on the supreme court for possibly decades.

[Peace]

I was hoping it would be steak. Alas.

[PhuturePriest]

An interesting perspective from a woman who attended both the Women's March and March for Life: http://ijr.com/2017/01/788280-i-am-a-woman-who-went-to-the-womens-march-and-the-march-for-life-the-differences-were-stunning/

[Kateri89]

I'm curious as to the motivation behind calling it the "Women's March".  The issues specifically affecting women would be things like abortion/contraception, wage inequality, statute of limitations for sexual assault, etc.  I fail to see how racism, LGBT issues, immigration, etc. are "women's issues".  They are issues for everyone.  Speaking as a woman, I am beyond tired of so-called feminists making every single issue "their" issue.  Not every problem that exists is rooted in gender inequality.  Besides that, watching speeches from some of the celebrity speakers (i.e. Madonna and Ashley Judd) makes me wish I had just as large of a platform to say that they do not represent all women.  Sure, I want equality between the sexes but I am not as angry and vulgar as they are.  As far as I am concerned, they are mirror reflections of the man they are protesting.  I am grateful for the many freedoms I do have in this country compared with women in places like Saudi Arabia.  I think that if feminists are going to fight for equality, they would do well to show gratitude for what has been won for them already.

[little2add]

1 hour ago, Kateri89 said:

Madonna and Ashley Judd

are very rich, spoiled hypocrites    far from oppressed 

 

just saying...

 

[Socrates]

On 1/22/2017 at 2:28 PM, havok579257 said:

so what are your thoughts about the march wanting the government to leave women's reporudctive health alone enshrine and support baby-killing as a "right" and not try to reverse roe v wade?  

fixed

On 1/23/2017 at 9:21 PM, Peace said:

OK. But I can only pay you minimum wage . . .

You got hit with the abortion block. It is a Phatmass rite of passage.

It goes something like this:

I would like to start a thread to discuss police violence against African Americans.  Oh really? More African Americans are aborted every year than killed by police, so why don't you stop whining about police violence against African Americans and talk about the number of African American abortions instead? Don't you even care about abortion?

I would like to start a thread to discuss the use of the Confederate Flag in South Carolina, which many people view as racist.  Oh really? And why should we spend any time talking about that when 1 million children were aborted last year? Why don't you stop whining about the Flag and talk about the 1 million children that were aborted last year instead? Don't you even care about abortion?

I would like to start a thread to discuss US immigration policy. Oh really? And why should we spend any time talking about that when . . .

When you have nothing of substance to say concerning the actual topic of a thread, I suggest you try it out.

Oh you poor things.