Exclusive: Trump threatens third-party run

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Considering you have called Christie sleazy and corrupt with no backup, no indictments really just seems to show you speak of anyone in the GOP basically with unbridled uncharitable behavior and not even with factual information.
You wanted backup, I gave you backup. I can only shine a light; I consider forcing someone to take the blinders off to be an imposition.

Nothing I said about any politician was necessary nonfactual. Christie is sleazy. Jindal is unpopular. Santorum is shrill. Cruz is nationally irrelevant. These are all harsh facts, but facts nonetheless. Alas, the truth is often uncharitable.
 
You wanted backup, I gave you backup. I can only shine a light; I consider forcing someone to take the blinders off to be an imposition.

Nothing I said about any politician was necessary nonfactual. Christie is sleazy. Jindal is unpopular. Santorum is shrill. Cruz is nationally irrelevant. These are all harsh facts, but facts nonetheless. Alas, the truth is often uncharitable.
Then your backup is a joke and oh, here we go, scattershot ad homs at all of these other people.

They are merely your point of view not facts.
 
Then your backup is a joke and oh, here we go, scattershot ad homs at all of these other people.
I was describing self-evident qualities of these politicians.

If Christie wasn’t sleazy, then he wouldn’t be dogged by an atmosphere of perpetual scandal. If Santorum wasn’t shrill, then he could carry a debate with a lightweight like Romney without resorting to personal attacks. If Jindal wasn’t unpopular, then he’d be above 1% in the Iowa polls. If Cruz were nationally relevant, then he wouldn’t be eighth-place among Republican candidates.
They are merely your point of view not facts.
There are two points of view, here. One point of view branches deep from the facts and exists in a hermetic bubble where these hugely flawed people are “squeaky clean” and “choirboys”.

There’s the other point of view, which, although harsh and unpleasant, closely aligns with a world of unelectable moralists, political dilettantes and woefully unpopular niche candidates.

Never the twain shall meet, as they say.
 
So if Sanders is for abortion, you vote for abortion.

I have a huge dislike for the Democrats, pushing same sex marriage, abortion, illegal immigration, gun control, I mean, it sounds more like the opposite of Catholicism.
As opposed to voting for a egomaniac, philandering, billionaire?
 
As opposed to voting for a egomaniac, philandering, billionaire?
Aside from your unproven allegations, heck yeah, support Planned Parenthood candidates? Allow me to walk on burning coals first!
 
One thing for sure, a Trump/Clinton match-up would provide for a complex applied morality debate. The addition of a moral third choice would complicate the matter even more. I hope I am spared this issue, as I prefer not voting third party, but am willing if I deem the other two are unacceptable.
 
Of course, now, there are allegations that Trump’s first wife accused him of spousal rape during their divorce proceedings, with Trump’s lawyer claiming that “there’s no such thing as spousal rape” (even though every single state has made spousal rape illegal - with the last state doing so in 1993).

CNN Video

But, I’m sure the Trump campaign will state that this came from the “Leftwing media” and is therefore not credible.
Today Ivana Trump gutted the Daily Beast smear piece.
“The story is totally without merit.”
CBS reported:

Ivana Trump has gradually walked back the “rape” accusation since 1990. In a statement provided to CBS News after the “Daily Beast” story was published, she said she made the allegation “at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald.”

“The story is totally without merit,” she said. “Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised 3 children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign.”

“Incidentally,” she added, “I think he would make an incredible president

Read more: thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/ivana-trump-hits-back-guts-daily-beast-smear-piece-i-think-he-would-make-an-incredible-president/#ixzz3hDF3FgZf
 
Today Ivana Trump gutted the Daily Beast smear piece.
“The story is totally without merit.”
CBS reported:

Ivana Trump has gradually walked back the “rape” accusation since 1990. In a statement provided to CBS News after the “Daily Beast” story was published, she said she made the allegation “at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald.”

“The story is totally without merit,” she said. “Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised 3 children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign.”

“Incidentally,” she added, “I think he would make an incredible president

Read more: thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/ivana-trump-hits-back-guts-daily-beast-smear-piece-i-think-he-would-make-an-incredible-president/#ixzz3hDF3FgZf
No, the point isn’t whether Trump “raped” Ivana. Whether that happened or not is too long ago to determine, anyway. It’s his lawyer saying that, under the law, there’s “no such thing as spousal rape”, when every state in the country has laws against spousal rape.
 
A number of years ago, the Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics was published.

Where does Mr. Trump stand on those issues?
ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Abortion.htm
I support a woman’s right to choose, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures. When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial-birth abortion, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no. After the show, I consulted two doctors I respect and, upon learning more about this procedure, I have concluded that I would support a ban.
Then, as a candidate, he says,
Describing himself as “pro-life,” Trump told Bloomberg News in January that he believes abortion should be banned at some point in pregnancy, with exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother. In 2011 he explained to the Christian Broadcasting Network that he had changed his mind on the issue. In “The America We Deserve,” Trump then wrote that he supported a woman’s right to choose.
So no, he is not as bad as most Democrat candidates, but I couldn’t vote for him if there was a better choice, even if they were unelectable.
 
No, the point isn’t whether Trump “raped” Ivana. Whether that happened or not is too long ago to determine, anyway. It’s his lawyer saying that, under the law, there’s “no such thing as spousal rape”, when every state in the country has laws against spousal rape.
I wasn’t aware his lawyer was running for office?

Trump is dead last on my list of republican candidates. There is enough to dislike about him without having to make things up.
 
So if Sanders is for abortion, you vote for abortion.

I have a huge dislike for the Democrats, pushing same sex marriage, abortion, illegal immigration, gun control, I mean, it sounds more like the opposite of Catholicism.
I too have a dislike for Democrats, but Sanders is an Independent senator running on a Democratic ticket. It’s virtually impossible to win a presidential election without being a GOP or Democratic candidate.

Yes I’m sure gun control is very anti-Catholic.
 
There are lots of non-politicians who covet political power (e.g. Carly Fiorina) that are much less personally and professionally odious than Trump. Why set your standards so low?
At this point of time I do not see any good GOP candidate to choose from besides Trump (Carson is my second option). I like Trump because he simply can’t be bought out like every other politician. Fiorina is ok, but when she ran for senator in my state she lost to Barbara Boxer. Which tells me she is not a winnable candidate.
 
I wasn’t aware his lawyer was running for office?

Trump is dead last on my list of republican candidates. There is enough to dislike about him without having to make things up.
His lawyer isn’t running for office. But see, the thing about Trump is that he doesn’t care what people think about him. He’s rich enough to not care. And he has enough money to self-fund his entire campaign. Unfortunately, though, he’s made enough remarks already so that should he still be in the running when the general election comes around, the Dems can use it to rile up a frenzy. His lawyer’s comments just add to that.

Seriously, though, does Trump really want Hillary elected?
 
His lawyer isn’t running for office. But see, the thing about Trump is that he doesn’t care what people think about him. He’s rich enough to not care. And he has enough money to self-fund his entire campaign. Unfortunately, though, he’s made enough remarks already so that should he still be in the running when the general election comes around, the Dems can use it to rile up a frenzy. His lawyer’s comments just add to that.

Seriously, though, does Trump really want Hillary elected?
One wonders.
 
So if Sanders is for abortion, you vote for abortion.

I have a huge dislike for the Democrats, pushing same sex marriage, abortion, illegal immigration, gun control, I mean, it sounds more like the opposite of Catholicism.
The Church is neutral on your last two items.

Conservatism, per se, is not the gospel.

ICXC NIKA
 
ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Abortion.htm

Then, as a candidate, he says,

So no, he is not as bad as most Democrat candidates, but I couldn’t vote for him if there was a better choice, even if they were unelectable.
Hmm… “At some point in the pregnancy”. So he’s fine with the legality of probably most abortions. (Most happen in the first trimester)

Doe v Bolton had established “health of the mother” to include psychological health.

Psychological health is the reason that is normally evoked for later term abortions. The pregnancy would cause “psychological harm” to the mother.

Sigh, sounds like an election between him and Clinton might end up being “6 of one, half a dozen of the other”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top