Donald Trump Thread

[estesbob]

From the Boston Pilot, Boston’s Catholic Newspaper:

Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for Trump?

Note: Also pay attention to the pro-life considerations raised in the article, and the doubts about Trump in connection with these. The Boston Pilot is not liberal by any means. You can’t blame the source, if you intended to do so as the usual deflection strategy to dismiss what is said here.

Why would I need a newspaper to tell me how Catholics should vote when I have the clear teachings of the Magesteruim?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Doesn’t the SC make any difference to you? Trump, with all his flaws, has given us a list of those judges he would nominate. We know what kind of justices Hillary would nominate. Neither party has done itself proud with the candidates for POTUS, but it is what it is.

The SC doesn’t make a difference to me, because he has a history of changing his mind, supporting liberal politicians in words and deeds, supporting liberal interpretations of the Constitution with his use of eminent domain.

Just a few years ago he was confused that students at Princeton would join a chastity club.

I don’t believe him regarding the Supreme Court.

Ronald Reagan, gave us Scalia. O’Connor and Kennedy. Only Scalia ended up being conservative.

Really, he can’t come up with a good speech writer for his WIFE, he’s going to come up with great judges?

Both candidates are about 70. Maybe they won’t seek reelection.

I feel very disillusioned by this entire process.

 

[DeniseNY]

The SC doesn’t make a difference to me, because he has a history of changing his mind, supporting liberal politicians in words and deeds, supporting liberal interpretations of the Constitution with his use of eminent domain.

Just a few years ago he was confused that students at Princeton would join a chastity club.

I don’t believe him regarding the Supreme Court.

Ronald Reagan, gave us Scalia. O’Connor and Kennedy. Only Scalia ended up being conservative.

Really, he can’t come up with a good speech writer for his WIFE, he’s going to come up with great judges?

Both candidates are about 70. Maybe they won’t seek reelection.

I feel very disillusioned by this entire process.

Huma Abedin has described Hillary as being “often confused”. You think “often confused” is going to result in great Supreme Court justices?

 

[jediliz]

The SC doesn’t make a difference to me, because he has a history of changing his mind, supporting liberal politicians in words and deeds, supporting liberal interpretations of the Constitution with his use of eminent domain.

Just a few years ago he was confused that students at Princeton would join a chastity club.

I don’t believe him regarding the Supreme Court.

Ronald Reagan, gave us Scalia. O’Connor and Kennedy. Only Scalia ended up being conservative.

Really, he can’t come up with a good speech writer for his WIFE, he’s going to come up with great judges?

Both candidates are about 70. Maybe they won’t seek reelection.

I feel very disillusioned by this entire process.

we would have had BORK, but the Democrats blocked him and we got Kennedy instead.

the supreme court is important to ME because this means any chance to overturn Roe vs Wade might not come until my nieces and nephews are grandparents (right now the oldest is 16).

The supreme court could decide to push assisted suicide or euthanasia on us.

Do I trust Trump*** completely***? No. But his list of judges have been called very good. So, who knows…

 

[gnjsdad]

The SC doesn’t make a difference to me, because he has a history of changing his mind, supporting liberal politicians in words and deeds, supporting liberal interpretations of the Constitution with his use of eminent domain.

Just a few years ago he was confused that students at Princeton would join a chastity club.

I don’t believe him regarding the Supreme Court.

Ronald Reagan, gave us Scalia. O’Connor and Kennedy. Only Scalia ended up being conservative.

Really, he can’t come up with a good speech writer for his WIFE, he’s going to come up with great judges?

Both candidates are about 70. Maybe they won’t seek reelection.

I feel very disillusioned by this entire process.

It is time for American Catholics to recognize conservatism for the dead-end ideology that it is. The rise of Trump is a direct consequence of the failure of conservatism, which, when you come right down to it, means economic exploitation of the weak by the powerful.

The Democrats are proponents of another ideology that is ultimately doomed to failure: sexual liberation. If they think they have escaped the fate of the GOP, they are kidding themselves.

When was the last time the left really cared about economic justice? Even Bernie Sanders ultimately had to be brought back into the fold.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is time for American Catholics to recognize conservatism for the dead-end ideology that it is. The rise of Trump is a direct consequence of the failure of conservatism, which, when you come right down to it, means economic exploitation of the weak by the powerful.

The Democrats are proponents of another ideology that is ultimately doomed to failure: sexual liberation. If they think they have escaped the fate of the GOP, they are kidding themselves.

When was the last time the left really cared about economic justice? Even Bernie Sanders ultimately had to be brought back into the fold.

One might rightly critique “conservatism” in an organizational sense if one identifies “conservatism” with the Repub party. But conservatism in itself does not deserve the epithet of “dead-end ideology”. If that were so, one would have to condemn as “dead end” the social encyclicals of the Popes as well as the writings of many meritorious writers.

 

[gnjsdad]

One might rightly critique “conservatism” in an organizational sense if one identifies “conservatism” with the Repub party. But conservatism in itself does not deserve the epithet of “dead-end ideology”. If that were so, one would have to condemn as “dead end” the social encyclicals of the Popes as well as the writings of many meritorious writers.

The Papal encyclicals can in no way be construed as endorsing conservatism of the sort practiced by the GOP.

 

[meltzerboy]

Trump is not well received on the international stage.

Fortunately there is zero chance that he will win the Presidency.

Hardly zero chance. It’s going to be a very close race.

 

[gnjsdad]

One might rightly critique “conservatism” in an organizational sense if one identifies “conservatism” with the Repub party. But conservatism in itself does not deserve the epithet of “dead-end ideology”. If that were so, one would have to condemn as “dead end” the social encyclicals of the Popes as well as the writings of many meritorious writers.

It is Republican voters who have given us Trump. They see first hand the fruits of conservatism. When they hear the benefits of free trade; free flow of capital; tax cuts; “limited government”; “right to work”, and a host of other conservative slogans and promises, what it has all boiled down to is a loss of economic viability. Good-paying jobs have been shipped to places where they would gladly eat toxic waste for 5 cents a day.

GOP voters and the man they have just nominated, it’s obvious, don’t care about “conservative principles”, which is exactly why the proponents of such principles feel so out of place at the convention.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR REMINDER

No personal attacks upon political candidates or their families

All posts are to remain charitable at all time

 

[Monte_RCMS]

They, at least, appears to be somewhat normal as we know it. Trump is starting to sound deranged. I seriously wonder about his mental health.He’s not someone whose finger should get near the button.

Trump sounds reasonable.

He starts off his appearances with a discussion of current events.

Instead of a scripted speech on a teleprompter, generally Trump has a set of notes which he refers to, and sometimes shows to his audience. When he is interrupted by the audience, he often directly responds.

Not at all deranged.

You can see for yourself by visiting Google and typing in … youtube trump july

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The Papal encyclicals can in no way be construed as endorsing conservatism of the sort practiced by the GOP.

Read over the papal encyclical by Pope St. John Paul II, … Centesimus Annus.

It’s all about free market economics … which is conservatism of the sort practiced by the GOP.

It is very much worthy of being read by all Catholics.

 

[CarolNoel]

Love my country too much to abandon it.

 

[mary_bobo]

The SC doesn’t make a difference to me, because he has a history of changing his mind, supporting liberal politicians in words and deeds, supporting liberal interpretations of the Constitution with his use of eminent domain.

Just a few years ago he was confused that students at Princeton would join a chastity club.

I don’t believe him regarding the Supreme Court.

Ronald Reagan, gave us Scalia. O’Connor and Kennedy. Only Scalia ended up being conservative.

Really, he can’t come up with a good speech writer for his WIFE, he’s going to come up with great judges?

Both candidates are about 70. Maybe they won’t seek reelection.

I feel very disillusioned by this entire process.

Believe him or not, I certainly would take his word for it over Hillary.

 

[Usige]

Hardly zero chance. It’s going to be a very close race.

I suspect the same thing. It will likely come down to how many people show up to vote against Clinton or Trump. I suspect it will depend on how much people are moved from dislike to disgust with a given candidate. I personally don’t know of anyone who is voting for someone, but rather is voting so X doesn’t become president. Pretty bad when most people don’t vote for what a candidate might do, but rather vote against what the other candidate would potentially do.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I suspect the same thing. It will likely come down to how many people show up to vote against Clinton or Trump. I suspect it will depend on how much people are moved from dislike to disgust with a given candidate. I personally don’t know of anyone who is voting for someone, but rather is voting so X doesn’t become president. Pretty bad when most people don’t vote for what a candidate might do, but rather vote against what the other candidate would potentially do.

It is all going to be about who turns out and which groups can hold their nose.

 

[didymus]

Los Angeles Times runs op-ed promoting military coup against Donald Trump

Normally military coups are instigated by the right, but a senior fellow with the left-wing Foreign Policy Institute is arguing that an overthrow of the U.S. government might be necessary if Republican nominee Donald Trump is elected president.
What’s more, the op-ed by James Kirchick ran Tuesday in a major U.S. newspaper, the Los Angeles Times.

“Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world,” Mr. Kirchick wrote in the op-ed. “If Trump wins, a coup isn’t impossible here in the U.S.”
“Voters must stop him before the military has to,” he concluded.
The op-ed drew nearly 300 comments in less than 24 hours, mainly from readers who condemned his article as “irresponsible” and “reprehensible.”

“It’s a well known fact that the LA Times is an ultra liberal newspaper. What they have done with this op-ed piece goes far beyond their obvious bias,” said one commenter.
Said another, “Is this a joke? Sounds like [it’s] written by some nut job. I have no intention of voting for Trump but the LA Times should know better [than] to publish this ****.”
Mr. Kirchick has a lengthy journalism resume: His biography identifies him as a former New Republic staffer and current Daily Beast correspondent who also writes columns for the New York Daily News and Haaretz, Israel’s oldest newspaper.

He is also a former Hoover Institution Media Fellow and Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow, and past winner of the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association Journalist of the Year award.
In the op-ed, Mr. Kirchick argued that the military might be forced to act if Mr. Trump were to command troops to do something “stupid, illegal or irrational.”
“Faced with opposition from his military brass, Trump would perhaps reconsider and back down. But what if he didn’t?” Mr. Kirchick asked.

“In that case, our military men and women, who swear to uphold the Constitution and a civilian chain of command, would be forced to choose between obeying the law and serving the wishes of someone who has explicitly expressed his utter lack of respect for it,” he said. “They might well choose the former.”

So according to Kirchick the military might have to destroy the Constitution in order to save it. Where have I heard that before?

 

[Vanny]

I did not support Trump during the primaries. I so much wanted CRuz to be the nominee.
However, I will be voting for Trump for POTUS. I will never cast a vote for HRC.
Trump has promised to appoint conservative SC justices.
He has promised to defend the 2nd amendment.
he has promised to help preserve religious liberty.
Now he may well break those promises. I hope not.
But we KNOW what HRC will do should she be elected POTUS.
We KNOW what kind of SC justices she’ll appoint.
We KNOW how radical she is on abortion.
Now granted, no, Trump has not been proven to be the most pro-life of candidates.
But the fact that he chose Mike Pence for VP and has promised to support groups like the little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby I find encouraging. we KNOW where HRC stands on religious liberty issues. Abortion on Demand and PP all the way, baby.
For me, the choice is clear. It also goes beyond the next 4 or 8 years, as well.
Because the next President will be appointing at least one, likely more, SC justices.
As Trump has promised to appoint conservatives, I will take him at his word.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I did not support Trump during the primaries. I so much wanted CRuz to be the nominee.
However, I will be voting for Trump for POTUS. I will never cast a vote for HRC.
Trump has promised to appoint conservative SC justices.
He has promised to defend the 2nd amendment.
he has promised to help preserve religious liberty.
Now he may well break those promises. I hope not.
But we KNOW what HRC will do should she be elected POTUS.
We KNOW what kind of SC justices she’ll appoint.
We KNOW how radical she is on abortion.
Now granted, no, Trump has not been proven to be the most pro-life of candidates.
But the fact that he chose Mike Pence for VP and has promised to support groups like the little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby I find encouraging. we KNOW where HRC stands on religious liberty issues. Abortion on Demand and PP all the way, baby.
For me, the choice is clear. It also goes beyond the next 4 or 8 years, as well.
Because the next President will be appointing at least one, likely more, SC justices.
As Trump has promised to appoint conservatives, I will take him at his word.

Agree!

 

[chero23]

Secret service is investigating a trump advisor for stating HRC should be shot.

time.com/4415120/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-shot/