Democratic Party Convention General Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
You didn’t answer though 😉

It seems disingenuous to post this article as some font of knowledge when it says up front why they also can’t vote for Hillary, which I assume you would; correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to be disingenuous. I was merely responding to this from another poster as a justification for ignoring Republicans who disparage Trump:
You simply cannot deny that Clinton will appoint only the extreme pro abortion judges. Trump has listed his pro life judges.
Click to expand...
While it doesn’t make me popular around here, I’m pretty sure everyone knows for whom I’m voting. It has taken quite a bit for me to get there though.
 
mary_bobo said:
dmelosi;14075496:
I don’t know where this quote attributed to me came from, but I certainly don’t think that nor did I write that.
Click to expand...
Yes something went haywire. Maybe how people post and use the quote feature and then future quoted posts get messed up?

Dmelosi is the poster who asked me if I “really and truly think that Clinton is not the most divisive candidate of all time”? My answer was “Oh heavens no”.

Edit: and now I see this one replaced you with dmelosi. Something got screwed up back there. All I did was click “quote”. 🤷
Click to expand...
 
queenofheartscv said:
Both Chelsea’s and Hillary’s speeches last night were bad even from a linguistic perspective. Most of the speeches consists of simple sentences. Did anyone else notice that? Chelsea said, “she is amazing!” Sounded like a kindergartener.
Click to expand...
Come now. Chelsea Clinton is a lovely, poised young woman, as is Ivanka Trump. There was nothing wrong with either of their speeches, in which they both did a good job praising their parents. Whatever faults the parents may have, they are not reflected in their children.
 
meltzerboy said:
Come now. Chelsea Clinton is a lovely, poised young woman, as is Ivanka Trump. There was nothing wrong with either of their speeches, in which they both did a good job praising their parents. Whatever faults the parents may have, they are not reflected in their children.
Click to expand...
👍 Do we have to trash everyone “on the other side”?
 
gracepoole said:
mereorthodoxy.com/no-pro-life-case-donald-trump/
Click to expand...
This really has to be one of the worst-reasoned arguments that I have ever seen. Among many other things, he leaps from Trump’s having divorced to a conclusion that he can’t be prolife because, after all, divorce isn’t prolife. Huh? Divorce is a bad thing, but isn’t even necessarily sinful, but it doesn’t even begin to compare with the evil of abortion which is always gravely evil.

And just ignoring the importance of Supreme Court appointments when the Supreme Court is who gave us Roe and its progeny, along with homosexual marriage. He ignores the clear implications of Carhart vs. Gonzales in which ONLY Dem appointees (and all of them) voted to support partial birth abortion and ONLY Repub appointees (and all of them) voted in favor of bans on that odious practice favored by Hillary Clinton.

Just one more Hillary Clinton promoter, in fact if not in intent. A few lines mildly criticizing Clinton and page after page of vitriol against Trump, and really far-fetched conjectural stuff, to boot.

If this author really is a “conservative”, it’s a shame he chose this way of expressing it. There are, indeed, and as we have seen, some asserted conservatives who are so wrapped in their own cocoons of righteousness that they’re willing to go along with the horrible because the alternative isn’t perfect in their own eyes.

Gee, where have we seen that kind of thing critiqued before? 🙂
 
meltzerboy said:
But there is something even crazier than this, namely, that another candidate may become President of the United States.
Click to expand...
You must think that or you wouldn’t say it. But one thing is for sure. Trump never started a pointless war, endorsed two more, or supported terrorist takeovers in four countries. Nor does Trump espouse any. I would not characterize that as “crazier” than one who has done exactly those things.
 
Ridgerunner said:
This really has to be one of the worst-reasoned arguments that I have ever seen. Among many other things, he leaps from Trump’s having divorced to a conclusion that he can’t be prolife because, after all, divorce isn’t prolife. Huh? Divorce is a bad thing, but isn’t even necessarily sinful, but it doesn’t even begin to compare with the evil of abortion which is always gravely evil.
Click to expand...
He’s speaking of a pro-life culture, which certainly doesn’t involve three marriages and two divorces. As he explains, “If the abortion culture has anything to do with the wider degradation of our society’s sex and morals — as pro-lifers have argued it does for as long as I have been alive — then there is nothing pro-life in endorsing a candidate who has bragged about the number of his sexual partners. It matters that Trump is unwilling to answer whether he personally has funded abortions. It matters a great deal.”

You’re welcome to disagree. But I fail to see how this is “one of the worst-reasoned arguments.”
Ridgerunner said:
And just ignoring the importance of Supreme Court appointments when the Supreme Court is who gave us Roe and its progeny, along with homosexual marriage. He ignores the clear implications of Carhart vs. Gonzales in which ONLY Dem appointees (and all of them) voted to support partial birth abortion and ONLY Repub appointees (and all of them) voted in favor of bans on that odious practice favored by Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
This:
For one, the argument treats treats gaining conservative justices as so important that they trump to any other end or goal. The reasons for this judicial myopia are deep and important within the pro-life world. No pro-lifer can say that Supreme Court opinions simply do not matter, for reasons that are obvious. But ironically, shouting “The Judges!” as a political clincher deepens the very doctrine of judicial supremacy that Roe and other similarly bad rulings have exacerbated. Pro-lifers should play a role in deflating the Supreme Court’s singular power over American political life: The use of such power to enact social change has exacerbated tensions in American society, and undermined the conditions for long-term stability and peace.
Click to expand...
Ridgerunner said:
If this author really is a “conservative”, it’s a shame he chose this way of expressing it. There are, indeed, and as we have seen, some asserted conservatives who are so wrapped in their own cocoons of righteousness that they’re willing to go along with the horrible because the alternative isn’t perfect in their own eyes.
Click to expand...
Maybe he, you know, identifies as pro-life rather than Republican or Democrat.
 
Sy_Noe said:
mary bobo;14075607:
Yes something went haywire. Maybe how people post and use the quote feature and then future quoted posts get messed up?

Dmelosi is the poster who asked me if I “really and truly think that Clinton is not the most divisive candidate of all time”? My answer was “Oh heavens no”.

Edit: and now I see this one replaced you with dmelosi. Something got screwed up back there. All I did was click “quote”. 🤷
Click to expand...
Thanks for that explanation. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen again.
Click to expand...
 
meltzerboy said:
Come now. Chelsea Clinton is a lovely, poised young woman, as is Ivanka Trump. There was nothing wrong with either of their speeches, in which they both did a good job praising their parents. Whatever faults the parents may have, they are not reflected in their children.
Click to expand...
Just as one is entitled to say trump and hillary are two peas in a pod, I’m entitled to say Chelsea’s and ivanka’s speeches are night and day. I didn’t go into how the children reflect their parents at all. I never said Chelsea wasn’t lovely or poised. I’m merely commenting on their speeches and delivery. That’s all. If you are drawing other inferences they are on you.
 
Ridgerunner said:
You must think that or you wouldn’t say it. But one thing is for sure. Trump never started a pointless war, endorsed two more, or supported terrorist takeovers in four countries. Nor does Trump espouse any. I would not characterize that as “crazier” than one who has done exactly those things.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. It just seems to me that a man who has a dubious business past, who acts like a spoiled child, offends several groups of people–including Mexicans, Muslims, women, the disabled, Veterans, and “little guys” such as Marco Rubio and Michael Bloomberg–can hardly utter a coherent thought without contradicting himself in the next sentence or backtracking the next day, and thinks he alone can solve all our problems but, at the same time, has very little knowledge about foreign affairs and viable domestic solutions, is not exactly all there, and it would be really crazy to elect such a person to the highest office of the land.
 
meltzerboy said:
I don’t know. It just seems to me that a man who has a dubious business past, who acts like a spoiled child, offends several groups of people–including Mexicans, Muslims, women, the disabled, Veterans, and “little guys” such as Marco Rubio and Michael Bloomberg–can hardly utter a coherent thought without contradicting himself in the next sentence or backtracking the next day, and thinks he alone can solve all our problems but, at the same time, has very little knowledge about foreign affairs and viable domestic solutions, is not exactly all there, and it would be really crazy to elect such a person to the highest office of the land.
Click to expand...
not any crazier than electing Hillary!
 
The Democratic Party convention was a resounding success, especially compared to the GOP convention. The breadth and stature of the speakers was impressive. Highlights were Michelle Obama, VP Biden, President Obama, General Allen, and Mr. Khan. Hillary, while not as gifted an orator as President Obama, did what she needed to do. All of the attacks on Donald Trump were quite effective, as they used Mr. Trump’s own words against him. He is temperamentally unfit to lead our country.
 
Mulligan2 said:
The Democratic Party convention was a resounding success, especially compared to the GOP convention. The breadth and stature of the speakers was impressive. Highlights were Michelle Obama, VP Biden, President Obama, General Allen, and Mr. Khan. Hillary, while not as gifted an orator as President Obama, did what she needed to do. All of the attacks on Donald Trump were quite effective, as they used Mr. Trump’s own words against him. He is temperamentally unfit to lead our country.
Click to expand...
The convention was a resounding success except for the layers of walls, boos, protests, lies and empty rhetoric.
 
meltzerboy said:
Perhaps not. That’s the truly depressing part./QUOTE

Yes,truth be told,I doubt either side is enthusiastic about their candidate.Difference is the Dems will unite behind Hillary because it is always party first.Not so much for the Republicans.
Click to expand...
 
It seems to me that sometimes gives us what we deserve, and not what we want. We have to ask an honest question: with the depth of sin the USA embraces every day, what is it that we deserve?

There are 330,000,000 citizens of the USA and we have a choice between Trump and Hillary. Think about that!
 
gracepoole said:
Jeanne S;14076457:
I think the Democrats will unite behind Hillary because they are truly terrified of the Republican candidate.
Click to expand...
For the majority of Republicans they will vote for Trump for the very same reason. Again the difference is,the Dems are willing to ignore the fact that Hillary is corrupt for the sake of the party.Many Republicans simply cannot compromise their principles in order to do the same re any reservations they may have about Trump
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top