With G.O.P. ticket set, Catholic “never-Trump” camp remains defiant.

“Morally unacceptable.” “Especially dismal.” “Destructive.” “A bit like being water-boarded.”

That is how some Catholic academics active in conservative political circles who signed a letter earlier this year urging their fellow believers to reject Donald Trump are describing November’s election now that the match appears set.

Advertisement

Back in March, Trump was comfortably on his way to win the G.O.P. nomination. But about three dozen Catholics hoped a last minute effort could block the Manhattan real estate mogul from earning enough delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz and Governor John Kasich were still in the race, and while it was impossible for them to overtake Trump, they hoped that his rivals could win enough delegates to force a contested convention.

“Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to be president of the United States,” wrote the authors, Robert P. George and George Weigel. They cited Trump’s “appeals to racial and ethnic fears and prejudice” and his support for torture as reasons why Catholics could not support Trump. They expressed skepticism that his views on abortion or marriage were in line with church teaching.

Nearly five months later, Trump has accepted the G.O.P. nomination and he will likely face Democrat Hillary Clinton in November. So, what do the signers of the National Review letter believe Catholic voters are to do at the ballot box? America reached out to all the signers, and those who replied said they stand by their statement. Clinton is not fit to be president, and neither is Trump, they said. But, they added, this does not mean Catholics should stay home in November.

“I'm convinced that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would use the office of the presidency to act in ways profoundly contrary to, and, ultimately, destructive of, the common good,” said Stephen P. White, a Catholic studies fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “I won't vote for either.”

White, author of Red, White, Blue and Catholic, said it is a mistake to turn to politics for salvation, but that Catholics nonetheless have a duty to work through political channels. “To despair of politics is, in this sense, a sin against charity,” he said.

A few of the signers said they believe both Clinton and Trump represent unique threats to the common good.

David R. Upham, a politics professor at the University of Dallas, called the election “an especially dismal choice.”

Both candidates “would each substantially harm the common good.” But, he said, “abstention is arguably morally problematic.”

Bruce D. Marshall, a theology professor at Southern Methodist University, agreed, saying it is “incompatible with Catholic conviction to vote for either one.”

“That doesn’t mean I’ll ‘stay home,’ since there are naturally numerous state and local elections in which I intend to vote,” he continued. “Much as I regret it, though, I do not intend to cast a vote for president this year.”

The head of the pastoral ministry program at the University of St. Thomas, Deborah Savage, said that non-presidential races should become the focus for Catholic voters, who are, “at a minimum, obligated to cast a vote for the best choice in those matters.”

Some conservatives who are not necessarily on board with Trump nonetheless think voting for him is worth it, because they believe he is likely to pick Supreme Court justices who align more closely with their views. Others point to his running mate selection, Governor Mike Pence of Indiana, as an example of the kind of people Trump may gravitate toward as he fills out his team of advisers.

RELATED: Mike Pence’s Relationship with the Catholic Church is...Complicated

David Deavel, an associate editor of the journal Logos, called this line of thinking “plausible,” especially when it comes to religious liberty issues. But he remains dubious about the gamble, saying, “many of Mr. Trump’s commitments to things Catholics care about don’t jive with his past positions and don’t seem sincere.”

But the president of the D.C.-based Faith and Reason Institute, Robert Royal, was less sanguine about the possibility of a Trump presidency. He said voting this year will be a “bit like being water-boarded.” Trump is a bad option “because of his near ignorance about our Constitutional system and foreign affairs” and “his repulsive and dangerous characteristics as a person.”

“I’m astonished at how many people—some longstanding, mature and intelligent friends—don’t see that at a glance,” he said.

A scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, James C. Capretta, agreed.

“There’s a question of whether someone has the personal character to be president of the United States, someone who understands the office, the power,” he said. “Donald Trump plainly does not understand that at all.”

“He shouldn’t be president despite the problems that would come from electing someone else,” he continued.

Then there is the Catholic idea of voting with well-formed consciences. When no single candidate perfectly encapsulates church teaching, the church teaches, Catholic voters should vote with their consciences. Relying on church teaching, voters should discern which candidate would enact policies that best protect the common good while not violating core beliefs.

But one of the signers thinks conscience is not on the mind of many voters.

Chad Pecknold, a theology professor at the Catholic University of America, pointed to Senator Ted Cruz being met with loud boos when he told delegates at the G.O.P. convention last week to vote their consciences. Cruz’s comment was interpreted as a rebuke to Trump, whose attacks on Cruz had been unusually personal during the G.O.P. primary.

“Obviously there are also Catholics who mournfully, reluctantly voting for Trump for prudential reasons rather than consequentialist ones,” Pecknold said, referring to the idea that voting for Trump could yield better results than a vote for Clinton. “But when a U.S. senator is booed off the R.N.C. stage for telling Americans to ‘vote your conscience,’ that tells you that a great many voters are not being guided by it.”

The signers of the letter aren’t alone when it comes to Catholic distaste for Trump. According to a Pew poll released earlier this month, 56 percent of U.S. Catholics say they plan to support Clinton. The number is higher than the share of Catholics Democrat Barack Obama won in 2012, and it is driven largely by Hispanic voters.

RELATED: Pew Reports Catholics Gravitating Toward Clinton

Stephen J. Heaney, a philosophy professor at the University of St. Thomas, said Catholics should consider a candidate’s views first on life issues, followed by marriage and religious freedom. When it comes to Trump, Heaney calls the notion that Trump is suddenly on board with Catholic teaching on those issues “magical thinking.”

“I can see that some may hold out a glimmer of hope that Trump may, under the influence of a Republican Congress, do at least some things good that Clinton would never do,” he said.

Meanwhile, the authors of the letter have addressed the election on social media and in other columns, suggesting that the Republican Party under Trump might not be a valid option for Catholics.

Writing for Denver Catholic, Weigel said he has not completely lost hope in the Republican Party, especially when it comes to abortion and economic issues. But he said he cannot bring himself to vote for Trump, “even under the rubric of playing strategic electoral defense.”

George, for his part, tweeted during the G.O.P. convention that it was “distressing” listening to people “call Trump ‘a good man.’ Whatever he is, he is not that. Not by a long shot.” He also tweeted that he would continue to fight for conservative values and help “rebuild—or, if necessary, replace—the Republican Party.”

Michael O’Loughlin is the national correspondent for America. Follow him on Twitter at @mikeoloughlin.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
J Cosgrove
1 year 3 months ago
A lot of Catholics are squeamish about Trump including myself. But as a president, would Trump inflict as much damage as Clinton. A lot of people are saying no and the main objective is to get Clinton defeated. Here is an assessment by Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal
Welcome to 21st-century American liberalism, which no longer even pretends to produce results. Whatever the shortcomings of Mr. Trump’s people, non-progressives simply do not share the itch to use the government to boss everyone else around. On top of this, an overreaching President Trump would not be excused by the press and would face both Republican and Democratic opposition. Fair enough to argue that Mr. Trump represents a huge risk. But honesty requires that this risk be weighed against a clear-eyed look at the certainties a Hillary Clinton administration would bring.
Here is the link to tis article. If it does not show up as a free article just put "The Case for Donald Trump" and Wall Street Journal into google. http://on.wsj.com/2a4ZQS3
William Rydberg
1 year 3 months ago
For the sake of fair and transparent balance for once ask a practical Catholic that supported Mr Senator Bernie Saunders and another that unequivocally supports the Republican Nominee... We are all getting 'ONE CHANNEL' from America this Election Cycle.
Anne Chapman
1 year 3 months ago
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Bernie Sanders is no longer a candidate for the nomination. He is supporting Hillary Clinton. This article is reporting how those who find both the Republican and Democratic party candidates to be unacceptable intend to vote - or not vote, as the case may be.
Tim O'Leary
1 year 3 months ago
With great sadness, I have to agree with most of the Catholics quoted above that a vote for either Clinton or Trump is unacceptable for me. As Ted Cruz (the new Lion Ted) had the courage to say - I will be voting my conscience. I know the country will face damage with either. However, I can understand and not criticize others making the prudential choice (one way or the other) and most will of course have no problem voting for one of them, but I cannot. Even if I agree that Clinton will damage the Supreme Court for years to come, Trump damages other parts of the body politic and it is not possible for me to weigh the relative damage. I have seen too much of both of these candidates to not be able to vote for either. I will be voting for others on the day, so I will not be staying home. Until then, I will pray to God that he will somehow make the situation more clear.
Robert Killoren
1 year 3 months ago
Voting IS a moral issue but statistics tell the story. Since 1950 Catholics have voted Democrat except for Nixon's second term and both of Reagan's. Most elections were relatively close except 1960 Kennedy, 1968 Johnson, and 1984 Reagan, according to CARA.Georgetown.edu, based on Galllup polls. Bill Clinton won comfortably among Catholics in his two terms so perhaps there is a predisposition for Clintons. It's hard to see Trump beating the odds.
Lena Dalvi
1 year 3 months ago
And I hope for those Catholics that voted for Clinton that they can sleep soundly at night and have a clear conscience now that we know what a horrible womanizer/rapist he was. Corrupting a very young intern only a few years older than his daughter. How corrupt he is with the Clinton Foundation. The list goes on and on.
Tim O'Leary
1 year 3 months ago
Robert - while I agree with your main point that it is hard to see Hillary losing to Trump, I do quibble with your interpretation of the CARA statistics. Self-identifying Catholics (SICs) might have tracked practicing/believing Catholics in the 1950s & 1960s, but Roe v. Wade and further departures from natural law have separated the wheat from the chaff in terms of convinced vs. cultural Catholics. So, today, many SICs will freely admit they do not practics/believe Church doctrine, meaning they are often less Catholic than many self-identifying Protestants. Furthermore, Bill Clinton in Exit polls garnered 44% in his first election (and 53% in his second) & Ross Perot, a whacky outsider, was a factor in the two elections (getting nearly 20% & 10% Catholics respectively).
Lena Dalvi
1 year 3 months ago
My family and I are Catholics and we are voting Republicans. Pls explain how any Catholic in good conscience can vote for any Democratic candidate when their party is pro abortion? For Planned Parenthood who does 300-500 abortions in one of their clinics a day? How can any Catholic reconcile with that?
James Stewart
1 year 3 months ago
Robert George knows Trump's heart does he? Did he become Jesus or something? I don't care what the Catholic never Trumpers say and I don't care what our Liberal Pope says either. People are hurting and many average blue collar people need work. This Country is headed to Civil war regardless of what these scholars want to believe with their tunnel vision. George says Trump is not a Catholic option? And communism is? So John Paul 2 brings down the Soviet Union so Catholics can vote in the same ideology in America? Give me a break Robert George. Rebuild the party, the world is on the brink and time is out. This is the last chance to stop the progressives without war. I and every Catholic I know at my parish love Trump and he has our full support.
Stanley Kopacz
1 year 3 months ago
Whether to halt anthropogenic global warming or saving other people's embryos from those people, you can't vote for a candidate that finds the Constitution of the United States dispensible. The engine of democracy, sputtering and coughing as it is, has to be maintained. If a president or enough people see the Constitution as an impediment, our republic can slide irreversibly into something else.
Carlos Orozco
1 year 3 months ago
Something else?... Like an out of control surveillance state that monitors its citizens with the excuse of keeping them safe? A government that feeds its military-industrial complex through perpetual warfare, destabilization of secular states and arming "moderate" terrorirst groups? Or that indebts current and future generations in order to keep alive corrupt too-big-to-fail banks? Or maybe that pushes all sorts of immorality in order to impose political ideology that contravenes biology and common sense? Stanley, I think you might be worrying too much.
Vincent Gaglione
1 year 3 months ago
After reading this article I felt like I was listening to a three-hour debate on how many angels fit on the head of a pin! I find the constant repetition of the suffering white middle class as the reason so many are voting for Trump to be disingenuous. During all the time that that white middle class was enjoying prosperity, whole blocks of Americans were (and are) still living in poverty. And that white middle class, and the rich, didn’t give a rat’s ass for those in poverty. They provided no leadership for a decent minimum wage. They have voted for politicians who oppose unionization. They mostly live in housing and neighborhoods segregated by income (as well as by race and ethnicity). Ironically, I’ve seen statistics which show that many of those whites in support of Trump are actually earning above the national average! The Republicans delivered in 2008 an economic meltdown that approached a depression and that white middle class voted for them! You reap what you sow and they still can’t figure it out for themselves! As for all those who make the case about abortion, I repeat what I have always believed….that the Republican Party has played the abortion card without any true movement on the legislative level. As one critic has pointed out, they are anti-abortion but certainly not pro-life because they refuse to provide the necessary economic and social supports for the mothers who accept children into their lives. That also goes for all those Catholics and others who pretend to be pro-life but who do nothing to provide ONGOING economic and emotional support to women who do not abort. A box of pablum donated at the back of church to a nursery is not support for women who do not abort. Finally, on the abortion issue vis-à-vis the freedom of religion issue, there are significant numbers of US citizens whose religions do not oppose or forbid abortion. It isn’t a clear cut moral issue for all Christians, as it isn’t for all Jews, and I surmise for members of other religions as well. How do we claim that the Catholic Church is being denied freedom of religion and then proceed to push for policies that deny other religions their beliefs? I haven’t seen any kind of significant Catholic discussion on that issue. Nor have I seen any significant discussion on the moral obligations of Catholics to those women who do not abort. It isn’t enough in such situations to just tell them “no”. We have to pay up to back up our words. Comparing the life’s works of Trump and Clinton, I think the choice is clear for any thinking and prudential person. When the time comes to prove which of them worked best to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc., I think one of them can make better claim than the other for doing it. And that’s the key…working to accomplish those goals, not just talking about them with worn clichés and pious sentiments.
Anne Chapman
1 year 3 months ago
Bravo for pointing out the simple truth. Well done.
William Rydberg
1 year 3 months ago
The Natural Law applies as for degree of culpability I leave to the moral theologians. THIS IS THE CATHOLIC FAITH CHECK CCC...
Tim O'Leary
1 year 3 months ago
Vincent - the Republican party has been putting forward bill after bill to protect the unborn, even just those who are born alive, or those who are being tortured before being killed (as partial-birth abortion does). The Democrats and President Obama blocked many of these bills. So, it may assuage your conscience that you can say neither party protects the unborn but not mine or in fact anybody who is being honest with themselves. Also, your penultimate paragraph seems to suggest abortion is a purely religious issue for you, akin to a doctrine of the Church. Some pro-slavery protestants in the nineteenth century thought slavery was a religious issue too. But, you and they are wrong. It is clearly a justice and human rights issue, for any scientifically and logically thinking person. As to your expectation that Hillary Clinton will be better for justice, here is what Obama said in 2008 "She'll say anything, and change nothing."
Vincent Gaglione
1 year 3 months ago
In regard to Mr. O’Leary’s 7/28/16 response to my original comments: Not a single bill that any Republican has put forward in banning abortions has included significant economic and social supports for women who choose to give birth to their children. You can assuage your conscience by bragging about all those bills. I would be astounded if you told me that your conscience is assuaged that the children are to be born into economic and social deprivations that our very wealthy society could help to ameliorate. And please do not make an appeal with the “deserving poor” argument that the morally unwashed need not be protected. As for your comment about my issue with abortion being solely religious, at this point I can honestly say that’s true. Even when you study the history of the Catholic Christian debates on abortion, while adhering to a very strictly conservative viewpoint because there is no definition of the moment of “ensoulment”, there has been much debate among Catholic thinkers on the scientific issue of the point at which a fertilized egg becomes truly human. I have no knowledge as to how the current scientific establishment considers the issue but certainly other Christian believers and other faiths do not believe “ensoulment” occurs immediately. So for a Catholic I think that it has to be a religious issue. I don’t know to what Protestants you refer when you talk about the pro-slavery issue. Were it not for certain Protestant sects, the slavery issue might never have come to a head as the national issue it was in the 1850’s and 1860’s. If anything, a literal reading of the scriptures would lead one to think that slavery was a social given. As I write there are no prohibitions to slavery that come to mind in either the Old or New Testaments. The Catholic Church in the USA had been a “Johnny-come-lately” to anti-slavery and anti-Jim Crow. One of my heroes of social justice is a priest, Father Bernard Quinn (a candidate for sainthood), who started a parish in Brooklyn for black Catholics and built it into a thriving Catholic community, despite even the vituperous and racist remarks of some fellow priests. Again, that issue is no justice human rights issue for me. That is a Catholic moral issue for which the Church and we are accountable to God in not accepting that all human lives are children of God. As for what Obama said about Hillary in his campaign for the Presidential nomination against her in 2008, he had no subsequent qualms in making her Secretary of State. If you didn’t have the good fortune to listen to it last evening Obama made a speech that seems to correct his original opinion of her, denigrating both himself and her husband in terms of her qualifications for the presidency. For my part, her ongoing and thoughtful advocacy for children and mothers since her graduation from law school makes me confident that decency and justice will be served better by her election than what I now call “Manchurian Donald”, if you understand at all my reference! As for abortion, hopefully she’ll help get passed some social legislation that will make it possible for women to bear children into social and economic security. That’s a bill I look forward to seeing Republicans support and vote for.
Tim O'Leary
1 year 3 months ago
Vincent - read about the splits in the Baptists and others in the nineteenth century to see how Protestants were on both sides of the slavery claim. I absolutely think the anti-slavery movement in America was driven by Protestant religious leaders and the American Catholics in the south were slow to opposing slavery. Of course, slavery was not a Christian issue, in that the most slaves in history were owned and traded by pagans and muslims (not everyone knows that the Ottoman Turks kidnapped and enslaved more Europeans as slaves than Americans did of Africans in the 1500-1800 centuries). And the Catholic Church was fighting slavery since the Roman empire, eradicating it in the 4th century (although it persisted in the barbarian lands in North and East Europe (slavs) for longer), although her priority was always about slavery to sin than economic slavery. In its opposition to pagan slavery, slavery of the Native Americans and modern slavery, the Church always draws on natural law for its arguments and not doctrine. So, I strongly disagree with your claim that slavery and abortion are religious issues and not justice issues. It seems that you want to keep aborting children for economic reasons, in that you see it as more an economic issue than a human rights issue. Babies are not to be bartered for taxes! Keep in mind that it is Republicans who support birthright and many more charities for pregnant women than Democrats, who leave all their charity to the Government and "other people's money."
Vincent Gaglione
1 year 3 months ago
Some brief comments: If it's only natural law that the Church uses to oppose slavery, then maybe we need some doctrine on it. Given the history of slavery in the history of mankind, looks pretty much the natural law to me! You misinterpret my point about legislation for the economic support of women who do not abort. I am deadly serious about it and not as a ploy to get people to support abortion. You'd probably call me a socialist but I rather think of myself as a disciple of the Acts of Apostles where early Christians held all things in common. I do not believe in the Protestant concept that God blesses the good with wealth, that such people deserve to keep all their money because they earned it. Wealth is to be shared with all, deserving and undeserving alike, because every human being deserves to live decently. The charities that you claim are provided through Republican goodwill is a pittance in comparison to what is needed to live a decent life for every woman who chooses not to abort (and her children) in the USA . My career in teaching in a poverty-defined neighborhood school informs my knowledge of how many mothers and children struggle for survival.
Tim O'Leary
1 year 3 months ago
Vincent - I too want every person in the world to have access to basic needs of life (not just Americans), but I am against socialism & its more extreme Communism because they do the opposite - they have impoverished more people than almost any other modern system of government. Furthermore, as St. Pope JP II in Centissimus Annus noted, they fail because they are based on a false anthropology and undermine the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. They take away good things people need to have a good life beyond the material - the sense of satisfaction of work and self-reliance, the nobility of leading one's family, etc. But, to keep the unborn hostage to a socialist tax system is truly wrong - just as the slaveholders who demanded financial compensation for their slaves in return for support of abolition were also wrong - you cannot trade lives for economics.
Michael Barberi
1 year 3 months ago
Vincent, I think you make several good points and some that I do not completely agree with. First, I agree that the U.S. government should pass a law providing sufficient economic support for those women who become pregnant and cannot afford to adequately care for the child or the additional child or do not posses the emotional stability and financial ability for motherhood. Clearly carrying a fetus to term and giving the child up for adoption is the morally right thing to do in such circumstances and not abortion. Nevertheless, this begs the question of poverty in general. How many women who live in poverty are single parents with children where another child becomes almost an impossible burden. For such women, carrying the fetus to term and giving the child up for adoption is not possible for economic and social reasons. Thus, how we deal with poverty in the U.S. is a huge and complex issue with no easy solutions. The subject of abortion is both a religious issue as well as a moral and human rights issue. I agree with you that 'personhood' and 'ensoulment' are complex and controversial issues. I do not believe in abortion except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. Others believe differently about abortion including many Catholics, Jews and non-Catholic Christians. We live is a pluralistic society and Constitutional Democracy and the issue of abortion is complex. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, then we need to also address the economic and social issues that impact women who become pregnant and cannot care for a child or additional child. If we do not, then many of these women, as well as many other women who do not live in poverty, will seek an abortion whether it is legal or not. As for Clinton v. Trump. They are both flawed Presidential candidates. Clinton is a liar and cannot be trusted. She will say and do anything to achieve her desire for power. I agree she has done some things in her adult life that are noble. However, few can point to any significant accomplishments as Secretary of State and her political career is replete with scandal. To believe Clinton will pass economic legislation in support of women who need financial support to carry the fetus to term and give it up for adoption is a 'bridge too far'. I do not believe this is on her radar screen, nor a priority of the Democratic party. On the other hand, Trump is unpredictable and many things he has said is wrong and a cause for much concern. However, his approach to some of our domestic and foreign policies are better than Clinton if you believe that some of is extreme remarks will never happen. I will vote after the Presidential debates and post-debate campaigning. I will hold my nose and pray that I make the right choice. It is very possible that I may not vote for any Presidential candidate but for local and state-wide candidates.
Chuck Kotlarz
1 year 3 months ago
That’s the spirit Michael…help HRC get median household income up. Here’s some background. 400 Richest Americans Paid Same Effective Tax Rate as a Family Earning $105,000. A graph shows the 400 richest tax rates from 1992 through 2010. http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/400-richest-americans-paid-same-effective-tax-rate-family-earning-105000 Higher tax rates on the 400 richest taxpayers appear to correlate with stronger median household income growth. See the graph in the following link: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N Let's see how well that moral compass of yours works.
Michael Barberi
1 year 3 months ago
My moral compass works fine. When it comes to plurality politics, the moral compass of individual politicians vary and the polarization in Washington does not translate into the best legislation. The opinion of Catholics on moral issues varies as well as demonstrated in polling research. I support revising the U.S. Tax Code to stimulate job growth which has been dismal and anemic for the past 8 years. I also think the tax code should be made fairer and simple. The 400 richest taxpayers, most of whom are likely CEOs or owners of large businesses, can afford to pay more in taxes while the middle class should get a tax break. This does not mean higher taxes on corporations but on wealthy individuals. Higher tax rates for corporations is a jobs killer and a killer of the value of personal investments of all of us. U.S. corporations already pay some of the highest tax rates in the world. I understand that some corporations use the current tax code and pay very little in taxes. Some of this is good and bad. This is also a complex subject but I do believe in revising some tax loopholes. As for the poor and the causes of poverty, that is a complex issue that is far beyond this particular blog. I support all reasonable assistance like helping pregnant women who want an abortion to be able to have an option without cost of taking the pregnancy to term and putting the child up for adoption. This may or may not become law but I believe it should. My position does not mean increasing entitlement programs without adequately addressing the causes of poverty. You are correct that many children and infants are never adopted. However, this is better than abortion. The issue of children that are never adopted speaks to the issue of child adoption by gay and lesbian couples. A tangential issue is the issue of frozen embryonic adoption. The Catholic Church has never issued a position on the adoption of frozen embryos which I support. Again, these are complex issues that I do not want to debate because it will take us far afield.
Chuck Kotlarz
1 year 3 months ago
Over 40% of abortion patients live below the federal poverty level. https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion/demographics On the subject of adoption, I came across this picture of a couple that had three of their own kids and then adopted nine. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xfbZp2i-1C4/maxresdefault.jpg
Michael Barberi
1 year 3 months ago
The number of newborns who are adopted each year is small compared to the number of abortions. Newborn adoptions run about 14,000 a year versus 1.06 million abortions (in 2011). The problem is that the majority of women who have an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy (e.g., single women, poor women that have children and cannot care for another child) believe that abortion is the right answer regardless of its moral and societal stigma. Even if the government pays for another option to abortion (e.g, the cost of carrying a fetus to term and professional adoption services), a change of heart and a right view of morality is necessary. Polling research suggests that far too many Catholics believe that abortion should be permitted in some or all cases. Consider that the exception to save the life of the mother and cases of rape and incest are rare occurrences. The abortion issue will be a difficult issue to resolve unless Roe v. Wade is overturned and that is not likely to happen for a very long time. Nevertheless, I believe that all should be done to educate and provide options to women who face the decision of abortion.
Vincent Gaglione
1 year 3 months ago
Just a couple of comments: Adoption would be a sound solution if US people adopted children. There are too many children in the system who are NOT adopted. I think one of the regrets of my life has been not to have attempted to adopt. I am profoundly humbled by those who do. On the poverty issue, you would probably count me as a socialist. I see no difference between the deserving and undeserving poor. And I do not believe that any Christian needs more than what is sufficient to live decently. I take that view from the Acts of the Apostles where the early Christians shared their wealth in common. I cannot find in Trump any policies as he states them that convince me that he would be a competent President. Finally, do vote, do make a choice. I may not agree with it but taking a pass is a copout. And as for those down ballot choices, vote Democrat to help end the gridlock in government. From the day he was inaugurated the Republican sentiment was to stymy Obama's success. I have my own cynical opinions why they did that. If a woman is elected president, some of those "dinosaurs" will probably behave similarly!
Douglas Fang
1 year 3 months ago
It seems that these conservative Catholic academics still have the intellectual honesty to make them continue to oppose Trump. This is the same honesty shown by other active conservatives such as George Will, who quit the Republican Party on TV, or David Brooks, who lamented the death of the Republican Party: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/opinion/campaign-stops/the-dark-knight.html?_r=1 Some of you here still think that Trump represents the GOP. No, the GOP that used to be no longer exists. Things changed as time progresses. The GOP in the 60s is not the same GOP during the Civil War. The GOP today is not the same GOP during Reagan time. Here is a excellent article about the death of the old Republican Party http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-end-of-a-republican-party/ “Many Republicans think Donald Trump’s nomination is doing roughly the same thing to their party: destroying any chance for growth it once had and leaving the GOP to wither and die on Trump vineyard vines.” Compared to Clinton, Trump is not even close. Just review these tough questions against Trump and try to come up with an honest excuse for him. http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-28/the-independent-s-case-for-clinton “Throughout his career, Trump has left behind a well-documented record of bankruptcies, lawsuits, and angry shareholders and contractors who feel cheated, as well as disillusioned customers who feel ripped off. He says he wants to run the nation like he has run his business. God help us. I’m a New Yorker, and New Yorkers know a con when we see one” [Remember what Romney said about Trump - a fraud, a phony, and a con] http://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12298512/donald-trum-dnc-hack-russia The issue here isn’t left versus right, or liberal versus conservative, or Democrat versus Republican. It’s crazy versus not crazy. Donald Trump, of late, has been acting pretty crazy. That’s not acceptable in the job he’s running to fill. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-donald-trump-is-the-bernie-madoff-of-politics-2016-07-21 “But there is nothing of substance there, as even some other Republicans have acknowledged. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell conceded last month that “it’s pretty obvious [Trump] doesn’t know a lot about the issues.” McConnell is putting it mildly. When Trump was asked about the nuclear triad — our country’s land, sea, and air-based systems for launching nuclear strikes — it was clear he had “absolutely no idea” what was being asked.” No wonder why a lot a Catholics who attend church weekly are moving away from Trump. Why? because they still have a rational mind. They don't allow themselves to be blinded by anger and hatred. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-driving-catholic-voters-toward-clinton/ Don’t jump up and down against the data. Just watch and hear for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqCJfUKlls "I could stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot SOMEBODY and I wouldn’t lose voters" It seems that he may also say “I could call the Pope anti-Christ and I wouldn’t lose Catholic voters (sic, those Catholics who already plan to vote for me)
Tim O'Leary
1 year 3 months ago
Douglas - I completely agree that Trump does not represent the Republican Party of Lincoln or Reagan that I supported most of my adult life, just as the Democratic Party has completely changed since abortion. (I stopped supporting the Democrats when they stopped supporting the unborn and the poor, and became a party of gender and racial identity and every left-wing cause they could think of). Trump was a Democrat for most of his adult life for cultural and populist reasons, and he has capitalized on an alienated public for a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. He may well kill the Republican party, especially if he wins. And, for all your reasons and more, he is unacceptable. But, so is Hillary. She lies almost as often as Trump, is suspicious and verges on paranoia, which is possibly not completely irrational for her as she has a lot to hide. Just one of many examples - imagine telling a family that their son died in Benghazi because of an anti-Muslim video when she knew if was terrorist-related (having told the Egyptians the truth just before). What kind of person does that?
Douglas Fang
1 year 3 months ago
Tim – leave the unborn issue aside, which for me, no party can provide an acceptable solution for this increasingly secular society and world, it seems that your righteous outrage against HRC is either misled , misguided, or outright self-deceptive. Jesus once said “The truth will set you free”. The question is – Can or can’t you handle the truth? (from “A few good men”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk 1. “She lies almost as often as Trump” – This is very far from it. Here is the data: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ ~29% as false or worse http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ ~71% as false or worse As you can see, Trump is lying more than twice as Clinton (to be exact, 2.45 more)! A very good article that can provide some explanation to this disparity, it is all psychological driven: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/why-clinton-is-less-trusted-when-trump-lies-much-more/ “So even though research tells us that people should be much more put off by Trump’s deceptions than Clinton’s, her apparent motivation to be believed lessens that disparity” 2. Benghazi story – I agree that she made a serious mistake in handling this story. Her biggest mistake was to put too much trust in the people of Benghazi, to put the embassy in the middle of a residential area as she believed that Benghazi people would never harm us as we just saved them from a massacre. After that, she could have come clean but she did not have the courage to do this. But her mistake is infinitely smaller compared to Bush and VP Dick, who intentionally lied to country and to the world to create a war that have uncalculatable cost in term of human suffering and good will. At the end, after 4 years and costly series of witch-hunting, the Economist (a very prestigious and serious magazine) has the recent story: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/06/bitter-end “But when it comes to Republican anger, any report was likely to fall short, for the simple reason that in the court of partisan opinion Mrs Clinton has already been tried and convicted of something imaginary: murder, or at best a murderous dereliction of duty.” Can't you handle the truth???
J Cosgrove
1 year 3 months ago
Can't you handle the truth???
Incredible comment!!! I think you should apologize to Tim O'Leary. It is easy to cherry pick quotes from a news report to suit one's advantage but in this case it is egregious. The Economists article in question reads like a Democratic Party talking points and distorts the issues. First, they say that there wasn't enough time to intervene. How did they know that? Did they get a post op report at the White House and State Department as to how this attack would play out? The absurdity of this claim is what makes everything else suspect in the article. While the White House and State Department were dithering, an attack was proceeding. This attack could have lasted for several days or only an hour. No one knew. There were dozens of American operatives under attack. Lucky, only four died. So this spin makes the article in question suspect. From the Benghazi Report
Finally, we learned troubling new details about the government’s military response to the attack. Until now the administration has led us to believe the military did not have assets — men or machines — close enough or ready enough to arrive in Benghazi in time to save lives. As one earlier committee put it, ‘given their location and readiness status it was not possible to dispatch armed aircraft before survivors left Benghazi.’ The first asset to arrive in Libya — a Marine ‘FAST’ platoon — did not arrive until nearly 24 hours after the attack began. What is troubling is that the administration never set in motion a plan to go to Benghazi in the first place. It is one thing to try and fail; it is yet another not to try at all. In the end, the administration did not move heaven and earth to help our people in Benghazi, as Americans would expect. The contrast between the heroic actions taken in Benghazi and the inaction in Washington — highlights the failure.
The real line for Benghazi should have been
People Died. She Lied. Or better. They Lied.
Second - The whole story about Benghazi was about damage control as Obama was in the midst of a presidential campaign with his foreign policy achievements based on Al Qaeda being essentially defeated and on the run. So they went to the video as the cause of the attack which they all knew was absurd. This is barely mentioned in the Economist story. Why aren't you bringing this up? The real reason Benghazi upset Republicans is that Obama and the Obama administration lied about it during a campaign. Then when Romney made a point of this in the presidential debate, the moderator seemed to support Obama by reading a transcript of a Rose Garden press conference which she interrupted the debate to defend the president. An incredible partisan act. Obama acted like he knew she had it and would use it so was it a set up? And then you make this claim:
But her mistake is infinitely smaller compared to Bush and VP Dick, who intentionally lied to country and to the world to create a war
There is no evidence that Bush and Cheney lied. If they did, then Hillary and Bill Clinton and John Kerry also lied. And by the way both Obama and Biden made a big deal that they had won the war in Iraq and it was safe to leave it as the peaceful future was assured. http://bit.ly/2akK9Fh So again, I would suggest you apologize.
Douglas Fang
1 year 3 months ago
J – This is why I feel useless to debate with you. The article already predicted that you would have reached the exact same conclusion as other hard core Republicans - Mrs Clinton has already been tried and convicted of something imaginary… You completely ignored the conclusion reached after 4 year of costly witch hunting - The new Republican report comes to the same conclusion as all previous official enquiries: “The assets ultimately deployed by the Defense Department in response to the Benghazi attacks were not positioned to arrive before the final, lethal attack.” Put more simply, no assets were close enough to help in time. Did Clinton lie? Yes, she lied in the same manner as other politicians. She lied to excuse for the poor planning of the post war Libya that resulted in the death of “4” Americans at the embassy. How does it compare to the lie of Bush and VP Dick that resulted in the death of 1,000s of Americans, 100,000s of Iraquis, the almost extinction of Christians in this area..? In the other hand, you still deny the truth that Bush and VP Dick had misled the country and the world to an unjust war in Iraq. Here is the latest book on this subject: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/philippe-sands/a-grand-and-disastrous-deceit “The Iraq Inquiry, chaired by Sir John Chilcot and composed of five privy councillors, finally published its report on the morning of 6 July, seven years and 21 days after it was established by Gordon Brown with a remit to ‘look at the run-up to the conflict, the conflict itself and the reconstruction, so that we can learn lessons’.* It offers a long and painful account of an episode that may come to be seen as marking the moment when the UK fell off its global perch, trust in government collapsed and the country turned inward and began to disintegrate”. The Iraqi war is not just a simple lie, it is a Grand and Disastrous Deceit with severe consequences that are still playing out today. “The truth will set you free”. The question is – Can you handle the truth? PS: This is the only response to your comment. I don't see any further discussion is necessary.
J Cosgrove
1 year 3 months ago
As I said you should apologize for your comments. Your comments are meant to belittle people and then to call them dishonest with the comment
Can you handle the truth?
is incredibly ironic given that you use false claims to tell people they cannot handle the truth. There is no evidence that Bush and Cheney lied. Even Hillary Clinton said they didn't. She just claimed they were stupid because they actually believed the intelligence. But she was willing to go to war even though she thought the intelligence was false. That is where your ire should be directed. Then you use the false argument put forth in the Economist again after you were told it is false and a non-sequitur. How could the White House and State Department make the judgment that there wasn't enough time to send help when they did not know how long the attack would last? So for the Economist to make this assessment means that they were either biased on inept. Choose one or both. Which means to use their claim to tell someone they are dishonest is hypocritical at best. So I again I suggest you apologize for poor behavior on your part. And if you truly didn't see the contradiction in the Economist claims then maybe you should stop commenting, especially using ad hominem comments on top of false information.
J Cosgrove
1 year 3 months ago
Tim, Out walking in the morning heat here in New York and listened to an interesting podcast on the walk. It is Yuval Levin being interviewed by Russ Roberts on his podcast, EconTalk. Roberts is an economist. http://bit.ly/2akg135 It is just over an hour so if you can listen to it in a car or on a walk, it is worth while. Levin is one of the best writers today on conservatism. In the podcast it is interesting to hear Robert's reactions at first who describes himself as a libertarian and is initially arguing against Levin's point of view but by the end is very sympathetic. Here is the amazon page for Levin's book which I am about half way through. (The Fractured Republic: Renewing America's Social Contract in the Age of Individualism) http://amzn.to/2aGpq1B At the beginning Roberts belittles cohesion in a society because it prevents exploration by individuals. I recently watched a Great Courses series on the history of the Middle East. Despite all the golden ages and great wealth the various caliphates commanded they essentially produced very little of lasting consequence. (I do like a lot of their architecture though.) One exception to this is a book produced in a desert tent in North Africa by Ibn Khaldun in the late 1300's. http://bit.ly/2a7weqT Khaldun describes the essence of a successful society and it is called "Asabiyyah". The modern expression of this idea is social cohesion which Roberts mocks at the beginning of the podcast. I am not so sure if he is willing to do so at the end. If you have time, the podcast and Levin's book are well worth while.
Tim O'Leary
1 year 3 months ago
J - thanks for the links. I did catch time in the car to listen to the podcast and Levin's discussion on the divergent nostalgia's of the left and right. I found his arguments for the principle of subsidiarity and strengthening of the intermediary institutions convincing.
Chuck Kotlarz
1 year 3 months ago
The total abortion rate decline of the Clinton and Obama (through 2012) presidencies has been nearly three times greater (30%) than the total decline of the Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 presidencies (11%).
Tim O'Leary
1 year 3 months ago
Chuck - I am not sure what you think these numbers imply, but most pro-abortion commentators have blamed Republican-led state laws on the decline in abortions in America. No one I know has praised Obama's vetoes on born-alive or partial-birth abortion bills as resulting in less abortions. The demographic decline (fewer fertile women in the population), the reduction in the status and number of abortionists (far less doctors want to be associated with this killing), the rising awareness of fetal development, capacity for pain, the humanity of the unborn, and the rising number of Americans who are anti-abortion and pro-life (58% oppose all or nearly all aboritons CNN poll in 2015: http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/14/cnn-poll-america-becoming-more-pro-life-58-oppose-all-or-almost-all-abortions/) all contribute to this decline. As to the actual decline, this article gives a good overview of it, and, contra Chuck, shows a rapid rise in the 70s, plateau in 1980-1990, & gradual decline since 1990. (http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/FS01AbortionintheUS.pdf).
Chuck Kotlarz
1 year 3 months ago
“I am not sure what you think these numbers (Obama and Clinton’s 30% reduction in abortion rates) imply…”. Perhaps the 30% abortion rate reduction was the result of a president's sincere effort, intelligent direction and skillful implementation.
Douglas Fang
1 year 3 months ago
Another scathing confession from a prominent Republican intellectual against Trump and the GOP http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy …The Republican Party has lost its right to govern, because it is driven by white nationalism rather than a true commitment to equality for all Americans… …Until the conservative movement can stand up and live by that principle, it will not have the moral authority to lead the country,”… …“The fact is, today, the Republican coalition has inherited the people who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the Southern Democrats who are now Republicans,” Roy says. “Conservatives and Republicans have not come to terms with that problem.”… …They deny the party’s racist history, that its post-1964 success was a direct result of attracting whites disillusioned by the Democrats’ embrace of civil rights. And they deny that to this day, Republican voters are driven more by white resentment than by a principled commitment to the free market and individual liberty… … For the entire history of modern conservatism, its ideals have been wedded to and marred by white supremacism. That’s Roy’s own diagnosis, and I think it’s correct. As a result, we have literally no experience in America of a politically viable conservative movement unmoored from white supremacy… No wonder why ~100% black, 80% of Hispanic, and 70+% of Asians vote for Democrats. “You cannot fool everyone all the time” “The truth will set you free”. The question is – Can you handle the truth?
Tim O'Leary
1 year 3 months ago
Douglas - You are completely forgetting that a huge number of Republicans are motivated by the pro-life and pro-family causes and are much more religious than the Democrats. They are as much against the abortion of babies of all races and decry the (Democrat-induced) decay of the African-American family and the loss of law and order in the African-American communities as anywhere else. So, your attempt to use racism (or white racism) is just as bigoted as the opposite. The conservative arguments against race-based Affirmative-Action are not racist, but about overall fairness (a poor Appalachian caucasian family should not be pushed to the back of the queue when it comes to education, just because of their skin color, etc.) and more fitting with MLK Jr than the current democrat racial spoils system. Are there white supremacists in the Republican Party? Sure there are. Just as the remaining Communists and anarchists are more likely to be in the Democratic ranks. I don't believe Donald Trump's list of many sins includes racism (he is nasty to everyone, even his supporters at times). For those who think he is, recall that until very recently he was in the Democratic party, so that argument would suggest he was a happy racist in the Democratic camp for years? He is not a racist. He is a populist and xenophobe, as well as a fraud and a liar. He is a supremacist, but a Trump supremacist, or chauvinist, not a racial one. No doubt, some white supremacists like his strongman xenophobia, even if he repudiates them (sometimes). But, even Hillary and Obama say Trump is betraying Republican principles. Surely some communists liked Bernie. Do you think it reasonable to say the Democrats are "driven by communism" - just because that is where they go to? Read the party platforms to get a good idea what both parties' rank and file members think are good things to want (even if their leaders only pay lip service to them when elected). Where is the big difference? It is cultural and financial: The Republicans think the unborn and traditional families are great goods that need to be protected. They want a smaller government, less taxes and more resources in the hands of parents and intermediary institutions. They want school choice and religious freedom. They want a strong military and law and order (to protect all Americans, not just a racial subgroup). Democrats think abortion and gay marriage are goods that need to be promoted (I hear Hillary has now dropped the "rare" from her previous aspiration on abortion to be "safe, legal and rare"). They see the family breakdown as just individuals expressing their sexual rights, etc. They are suspicious of religious freedom (for Christians) and want it curtailed, to accommodate their rising atheist voters., etc. They want to destroy ISIS, but are more fearful of the phantom Islamophobia and so fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Hence, ISIS has grown exponentially under their watch. So, can you handle this truth? I will not be voting for the Trump or Hillary frauds. But, you might be voting for the Hillary lies. Remember that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
Chuck Kotlarz
1 year 3 months ago
That’s the spirit Tim. Great stuff, stuff about who we are and who we want to be. That ship set sail years ago without the Republican elite. Now we have Trump.
Douglas Fang
1 year 3 months ago
Trump is not a racist? Are you deluding yourself or did you hide under the rock recently? Don’t you know anything about his attack on judge Gonzalo Curiel? Even Ryan conceded that Trump's comments were racist when the candidate suggested that federal judge Gonzalo Curiel's Mexican heritage made him too biased to fairly adjudicate the class action case against Trump University! Even worse, it seems that he has no more sense of decency – “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-khizr-khan-donald-trump-joseph-mccarthy-welch-decency-214128 Voting for Hillary lies? Did she lie when she said “…Our founders embraced the enduring truth that we are stronger together…” Did she lie when she said “…The only thing we have to fear is fear itself…” Did she lie when she said “…There's too much inequality. Too little social mobility. Too much paralysis in Washington. Too many threats at home and abroad…” Did she lie when she said “…We have the most dynamic and diverse people in the world. We have the most tolerant and generous young people we've ever had. We have the most powerful military. The most innovative entrepreneurs. The most enduring values — freedom and equality, justice and opportunity…” No, if I vote for her is because she appeals to the better angel in me, who still believes in the American dream and hope. This is in total contrast to Trump, who believes the America is living in a hellish dystopia, i.e. Gotham city, and only him as the Dark Night can fix it himself alone via fear, hatred, and division. Finally, it seems that you are suffering from a form of fallacy called Stereotyping fallacy as you claim that Republican is all good and Democrat is all bad. Maybe you live in bubble and surround yourself with the likeminded people and see someone who don’t agree with you as bad or evil. You suffer the same condition as Bush when he said “Either you are with us or against us”… There is nothing further from the truth in the social and political area. For example, you claim that Democrats promote gay marriage and abortion. You are confusing between allowing a legal choice vs promoting a behavior… If you cannot see this, there is nothing more to be discussed. You also claim that “they see the family breakdown as just individuals expressing their sexual rights…” Are you afraid of you own imaginative shadow? Look at Obama’s family and Clinton’s families, do you see a broken family (Remember that Trump is in his 3rd marriage, a series of affairs and divorces…). Personally, in my extended families and circle of friends, I see a lot of the “agnostic/none” couples with stable marriages and quite a few Catholic couples with broken marriages. What do you make of this? Every politician lies. So, to some extent, every politician is evil. The choice is between a predictable, known evil and an unfathomable, unpredictable evil. There is almost no choice.
Tim O'Leary
1 year 3 months ago
Douglas - I guess my definition of racism is a little more stringent than yours, and the word is thrown around too loosely it loses its force. Moreover, racism is too narrow a term to define the bigotry of Donald Trump. You have to come up with a term that captures his insults on Muslims, John McCain, Obama, the Bush family, illegal immigrants, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Megyn Kelly, Heidi and Ted Cruz, etc. etc. and your list. It must also exclude Ben Carson, Diamond and Silk, Juan Hernandez, the Russians (for now) and those who he likes. Anyway, Trump seems to be an equal-opportunity bigot, attacking anyone who criticizes him. As to Hillary’s chronic lies, it’s hard to see how listing her fine aspirations in a speech (written by who?) could be a counter for the several lies the FBI found re her emails, or her statements to the parents of the Benghazi victims, or her claim to have ever been "dead broke," or to have dodged sniper fire in Bosnia, or to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary, etc., etc., all in recent years. Perhaps, you think the Washington Post is also deluded, since it gave her 4 Pinocchio’s for another claim just this weekend. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/31/clintons-claim-that-the-fbi-director-said-her-email-answers-were-truthful/ So, you can support Hillary all you want. But, it is you who are deluded if you think she is not terribly compromised by her lies and ideology. I believe the Republican party has by far the better principles and track-record than the Democratic Party, and a far less sullied past. However, it may be coming to an end with its hostile takeover by Trump, so this might soon be more of a historical disagreement. Meanwhile, the Democrats have to live with a past that includes Slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow segregation, and Abortion.
Douglas Fang
1 year 3 months ago
Tim – It seems that you don’t mince your words in criticizing Trump. There is one critical factor that you never talked about. Is this intentionally or it is because the truth is too ugly and too painful? Trump is chosen by the people (WE THE PEOPLE) who identify themselves as Republicans!!! They choose him because they agree with him! This speaks volume. Looking at the RNC and the Trump’s rallies, it looks like White angry mobs. Perhaps, the complete transformation of the GOP based on the Southern Strategy has run its course. The Party of Lincoln is now the same as the Democrat Party during his time and vice versa. It's sad if Democrat is the only sane and viable Party for the future as there are a lot of things that I don't agree with them, i.e. unrestricted abortion. PS: I just noticed that of the list of people that Trump insulted, you missed the MOST important name, the name that reveals Trump’s true nature as someone who has no decency left - Khizr Khan - a Gold Star family! Please don’t say that he is just a Muslim and therefore no need to spell out his name. Is this an oversight or intentional? Only you and God knows it.
Tim O'Leary
1 year 3 months ago
Douglas - your insinuations are dishonest. I included Khan in the Muslim term because Khan did the very same thing himself (he was attacking Trump for his proposed Muslim ban). I could never keep up naming Trump's targets as he keeps adding people. It is dishonest of you to claim some nefarious motive, since I have been very outspoken in my antipathy for Trump (whereas you cover up Hillary's lies). You are missing the central point of this election if you think the Republican Party is unified behind Trump. First, many who came into the Republican primaries to vote for Trump admitted they had never voted for a Republican before. Second, many Republicans I speak to say they are voting for Trump as the lesser of two evils and deem her pro-abortion Supreme court picks as the worst evil (not my position). In polls, over 60% of Trump 'supporters' do not approve of his bigotry and buffoonery, so it is simplistic to equate all his support with approval of his behavior. for example, the just released ABC poll has 35% women and 26% Hispanics support Trump over Hillary. Surely, you are not claiming they are doing that because they are self-loathing people? Much more likely, they are overlooking his misogyny or bigotry because they are pro-life and care more about the unborn than about themselves. Read this to get a better idea of why people are voting for Trump. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/donald-trump-supporters-bigots-left-demonise. I hate misogyny (even the feminist-kind). I hate racism (of any type or color). I hate baby killing even more. And I hate the carnage ISIS is inflicting the worst. I expect a Presidential candidate to oppose these injustices effectively, and to have a minimal level of decency - someone without enemy lists and someone who is mostly honest. So, I am nevertrump, neverhillary.
Lena Dalvi
1 year 3 months ago
I am never Hillary maybe Trump.
Lena Dalvi
1 year 3 months ago
Mr. Dang: And with that you are willing to put the entire country in peril for the next 4 years? Given Hillary Clintons history and track record in lying, Benghazi and her ties with the Saudi with her foundation, you use Khan family to excuse Clintons behaviors?
Lena Dalvi
1 year 3 months ago
I am a devout Catholic and I am not and will never be s democrat. Abortion is my leading reason.
Joseph J Dunn
1 year 3 months ago
This year, the nominees of both major parties present many people of good conscience, both Democrats and Republicans, with a dismal choice. The Editorial Board at the Washington Post captures the current angst: The Editors castigated HRC's "inexcusable, willful disregard of the rules" as soon as the State Department Inspector General released his 82-page report on her use of a private email server: “Clinton’s inexcusable, willful disregard of the rules.” Washington Post, Editorial, May 25, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-inexcusable-willful-disregard-for-the-rules/2016/05/25/0089e942-22ae-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html?tid=a_inl. In a July 22 full-page editorial, the Editorial Board declared that they would not endorse Trump for president--an unusually early decision in any election year: “Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy.” Washington Post Editorial, July 22, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-is-a-unique-threat-to-american-democracy/2016/07/22/a6d823cc-4f4f-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html?tid=a_inl. Then, on July 28, the Editors elaborated on their position, by declaring that their decision not to endorse Trump could not be taken as an endorsement of Clinton. The FBI Report https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system. on the use of the personal email server, among other things, gives them pause: “The only people that could save the country from Donald Trump” Washington Post, 7/28/2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/07/28/the-only-people-that-could-save-the-country-from-donald-trump/. There are other concerns. How can a political party that claims voter ID laws inhibit fair elections have leaned so heavily on its own electoral scales that its own grass-roots members howled until the party chairperson resigned? How can a party that claims to support the disadvantaged deny school choice to children in failing schools? How can a president who agrees that "Americans don't want to be ruled" entrap our disabled veterans in a single-provider medical system that has been mired in scandal for the past decade? What should we read into the appearance of Bernie Sanders, during HRC's acceptance speech, sitting in the bleachers, scowling, red-faced, arms folded? No easy choice.

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

James Comey is perhaps a better Niebuhrian than Niebuhr himself.
Drew Christiansen, S.J.November 20, 2017
“Not everything that is technically possible or feasible is therefore ethically acceptable.”
Gerard O’ConnellNovember 20, 2017
I have been trying with all my heart—with all my mind, with all my soul, to live peaceably with a terror that has been grafted onto me.
Robert I. CraigNovember 20, 2017
Image: iStock, (CNS photo/Jim Lo Scalzo, EPA) Composite: America
What ought to be the Ignatian contribution to the fight for racial justice, given our mission and our values?
Bryan N. MassingaleNovember 20, 2017