Trump / Clinton--Final Presidential Debate Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dwyer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apparently HRC has demonstrated her inability to keep National secrets. During the debate she gave the time frame for launch of a nuclear weapon!!! This lady needs to be stopped!
Her e-mails prove that she does not handle classified information properly. Her carelessness with classified information shows that she is unsuitable to be president of the USA.
 
Her e-mails prove that she does not handle classified information properly. Her carelessness with classified information shows that she is unsuitable to be president of the USA.
Unsuitable and possible treason! No, this IS treason!
 
I just don’t like being told I will be morally culpable for all the abortions in the US simply because I chose to go with a third party.

They can disagree with my decision, I understand their rationale too, but please don’t condemn me as one in serious sin when I’m not according to the Church.
Since Grace was responding to me, I’ll respond to you. I support voting for a third party candidate. What I don’t understand or accept is people claiming they are faithful Catholics who point out Trump’s glaring (and you better get out those sunglasses because it is one hell of a glare) deficiencies while voting for all of the awful things that Clinton proposes to do that directly contradict Church doctrine, her subordinates plans to undermine the Church, her probable EEOC and Civil Rights Commission directors trying to drive religion into the four walls of the churches and deny religious people a right to live their faith…I could go and on.

No, I have nothing but respect and support those who decide to vote neither for a lout nor the champion of doctrine born entirely from the agenda of radical sexual revolutionaries who oppose and wish to tear down the Church.

There’s no good reason why a Catholic would ever vote for Donald J. Trump or Hillary R. Clinton on the basis of who they are as people. SO if one moves onto the party platforms there’s absolutely no excuse imaginable for a Catholic to vote for the 2016 platform put forth by the democrats. It’s not that there’s nothing in the democrats platform which, means aside, we might not support in spirit but the evils proposed are egregiously offensive.
 
Since Grace was responding to me, I’ll respond to you. I support voting for a third party candidate. What I don’t understand or accept is people claiming they are faithful Catholics who point out Trump’s glaring (and you better get out those sunglasses because it is one hell of a glare) deficiencies while voting for all of the awful things that Clinton proposes to do that directly contradict Church doctrine, her subordinates plans to undermine the Church, her probable EEOC and Civil Rights Commission directors trying to drive religion into the four walls of the churches and deny religious people a right to live their faith…I could go and on.

No, I have nothing but respect and support those who decide to vote neither for a lout nor the champion of doctrine born entirely from the agenda of radical sexual revolutionaries who oppose and wish to tear down the Church.

There’s no good reason why a Catholic would ever vote for Donald J. Trump or Hillary R. Clinton on the basis of who they are as people. SO if one moves onto the party platforms there’s absolutely no excuse imaginable for a Catholic to vote for the 2016 platform put forth by the democrats. It’s not that there’s nothing in the democrats platform which, means aside, we might not support in spirit but the evils proposed are egregiously offensive.
👍
 
Good 'Ol Uncle Joe Biden is inciting violence by announcing he wants to take Trump behind the barn. Nice!
 
I just don’t like being told I will be morally culpable for all the abortions in the US simply because I chose to go with a third party.

They can disagree with my decision, I understand their rationale too, but please don’t condemn me as one in serious sin when I’m not according to the Church.
You’re right…that’s because so many are consumed with their political bias against anyone who doesn’t conform to their views…and yes…even those of us who are 100% anti abortion and would never vote for a party that is pro abortion…yet because we see the other party as untrustworthy we are accused by innuendo as supporting abortion because we don’t subscribe to their political beliefs…there is nothing Catholic in those sorts of accusations…that’s what is really sad… it’s that their political bias and personal hatred towards HRC is such that any Catholic who doesn’t support their political views is lumped under the pro abortion umbrella…God knows my thoughts on abortion…he also knows my thoughts on both political party leaders and the reasons why I will not vote for either…what I also don’t need or want is someone preaching to me about Catholic morality…if I want that I will go to my Priest
 
I think it’s reasonable to be terrified, but not by Trump.
As if trying to negotiate the national debt the same way he negotiated his own debt isn’t worthy of some attention. How quickly Nixon’s actions (of effectively “negotiating” public debt by forcing printed money) were forgotten and his successors got blamed for the hyperinflation he caused.
 
As if trying to negotiate the national debt the same way he negotiated his own debt isn’t worthy of some attention. How quickly Nixon’s actions (of effectively “negotiating” public debt by forcing printed money) were forgotten and his successors got blamed for the hyperinflation he caused.
Can you tell us the details of Trump’s plan for the national debt? One really ought to realize that if we get full and well-paid employment in this country, interest rates will rise, inevitably. If they do, so will rates on debt instruments of all kinds. Because the bond markets always discount to the current rates, “old” debt (of which there is plenty) will be devalued, not by Trump but by the market itself, and without hurting the economy at all. The Fed itself could buy back “old” debt at a discount, as could the Treasury. If they don’t then someone else will, and always at a discount.
 
You’re right…that’s because so many are consumed with their political bias against anyone who doesn’t conform to their views…and yes…even those of us who are 100% anti abortion and would never vote for a party that is pro abortion…yet because we see the other party as untrustworthy we are accused by innuendo as supporting abortion because we don’t subscribe to their political beliefs…there is nothing Catholic in those sorts of accusations…that’s what is really sad… it’s that their political bias and personal hatred towards HRC is such that any Catholic who doesn’t support their political views is lumped under the pro abortion umbrella…God knows my thoughts on abortion…he also knows my thoughts on both political party leaders and the reasons why I will not vote for either…what I also don’t need or want is someone preaching to me about Catholic morality…if I want that I will go to my Priest
Some people actually want to oppose the abortion-promoters. Some refuse to do so. If that doesn’t represent a moral choice, then I don’t what would ever qualify as one. Mere personal preference does not qualify as a basis for a moral choice.
 
Billy Bush had to be fired from NBC’s Today show so the media can pretend that Trump’s using vulgar language is a very serious offense.
This is a straw man. It isn’t his use of “vulgar language” that’s offensive. It’s the action he describes taking when using vulgar language. I’m no shrinking violet. And I’d dare say Howard Stern isn’t either. Yet both of us and plenty of others can recognize language gleefully describing sexual assault when we hear it.
 
Since Grace was responding to me, I’ll respond to you. I support voting for a third party candidate. What I don’t understand or accept is people claiming they are faithful Catholics who point out Trump’s glaring (and you better get out those sunglasses because it is one hell of a glare) deficiencies while voting for all of the awful things that Clinton proposes to do that directly contradict Church doctrine, her subordinates plans to undermine the Church, her probable EEOC and Civil Rights Commission directors trying to drive religion into the four walls of the churches and deny religious people a right to live their faith…I could go and on.

No, I have nothing but respect and support those who decide to vote neither for a lout nor the champion of doctrine born entirely from the agenda of radical sexual revolutionaries who oppose and wish to tear down the Church.

There’s no good reason why a Catholic would ever vote for Donald J. Trump or Hillary R. Clinton on the basis of who they are as people. SO if one moves onto the party platforms there’s absolutely no excuse imaginable for a Catholic to vote for the 2016 platform put forth by the democrats. It’s not that there’s nothing in the democrats platform which, means aside, we might not support in spirit but the evils proposed are egregiously offensive.
Interesting to read. On the one hand we have a person described as a “lout”. While I think more than half the population and most politicians could be so described, let’s paste the term on Trump because, as compared to genteel people on their best behavior at a garden party, he is one when he’s not on his best behavior at a garden party.

On the other hand, we have Hillary Clinton as abovedescribed; a grim portrait and almost certainly an accurate one. She is, indeed, a promoter of abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion, and is attempting to destroy the Catholic Church in America. (I’ll let the Evangelicals, equally threatened, speak for themselves)

And those things are equally disqualifying? Have we no sense of balance?

I cannot help but invite readers to reflect on it and think it through again.
 
Some people actually want to oppose the abortion-promoters. Some refuse to do so. If that doesn’t represent a moral choice, then I don’t what would ever qualify as one. Mere personal preference does not qualify as a basis for a moral choice.
Like I said…if I want someone preaching to me on morals it will be my priest…enough said.
 
Like I said…if I want someone preaching to me on morals it will be my priest…enough said.
You Peebo are called to preach the Good News of Salvation - the Gospel of Life … not just your priest - but you …this by virtue of your Baptism - you - Peebo - [and me and all the faithful are made a priest, prophet and king] … so that we can make a difference in our society, in ourselves and in each other individually … and this begins with respect for the least ones - the smallest and most voiceless victims of carnage …

It is in Christian love and charity that we admonish those that error in moral issues …we need to love the sinner but detest the sin …

Like a mother scolds a child from running out into traffic lest they be struck and injured by a passing car …as Christians we are to support each other so that we do not fall pray to depravity and lose our salvation …
 
This is a straw man. It isn’t his use of “vulgar language” that’s offensive. It’s the action he describes taking when using vulgar language. I’m no shrinking violet. And I’d dare say Howard Stern isn’t either. Yet both of us and plenty of others can recognize language gleefully describing sexual assault when we hear it.
He said they LET YOU. Go back and listen to Trump. It sounded gross no matter what, but the word LET YOU is there. That’s a big part of it, and that’s being overlooked. If someone LET’S YOU it’s not sexual assault, it’s consensual. Period. It would win in a court of law.
 
Like I said…if I want someone preaching to me on morals it will be my priest…enough said.
And I don’t want someone preaching to me in a word salad I need to accept immoral behavior because they don’t want to hear it.
 
He said they LET YOU. Go back and listen to Trump. It sounded gross no matter what, but the word LET YOU is there. That’s a big part of it, and that’s being overlooked. If someone LET’S YOU it’s not sexual assault, it’s consensual. Period. It would win in a court of law.
He’s bragging, in part, about kissing women without their consent – and the women who’ve confirmed this action have described being disgusted and surprised by it.
 
He said they LET YOU. Go back and listen to Trump. It sounded gross no matter what, but the word LET YOU is there. That’s a big part of it, and that’s being overlooked. If someone LET’S YOU it’s not sexual assault, it’s consensual. Period. It would win in a court of law.
Goes back to the groupie thing. If you don’t understand groupies you will never understand what they were talking about
 
You Peebo are called to preach the Good News of Salvation - the Gospel of Life … not just your priest - but you …this by virtue of your Baptism - you - Peebo - [and me and all the faithful are made a priest, prophet and king] … so that we can make a difference in our society, in ourselves and in each other individually … and this begins with respect for the least ones - the smallest and most voiceless victims of carnage …

It is in Christian love and charity that we admonish those that error in moral issues …we need to love the sinner but detest the sin …

Like a mother scolds a child from running out into traffic lest they be struck and injured by a passing car …as Christians we are to support each other so that we do not fall pray to depravity and lose our salvation …
What the heck? Now we are sinners who need to be admonished by you? I am a sinner, I don’t deny that for an instant, but it is not for THIS reason. I’m doing nothing wrong at all here. 🤷
 
He’s bragging, in part, about kissing women without their consent – and the women who’ve confirmed this action have described being disgusted and surprised by it.
I read that regarding the plane incident, there was a person sitting nearby who said that nothing happened. "Donald Trump’s campaign says a British man is countering claims that the GOP presidential nominee groped a woman on a cross-country flight more than three decades ago.

The man says he was sitting across from the accuser and contacted the Trump campaign because he was incensed by her account — which is at odds with what he witnessed.

“I have only met this accuser once and frankly cannot imagine why she is seeking to make out that Trump made sexual advances on her. Not only did he not do so (and I was present at all times) but it was she that was the one being flirtatious,” Anthony Gilberthorpe said in a note provided to The Post by the Trump campaign."
““She wanted to marry him,” Gilberthorpe said of Leeds, who apparently made the confession when Trump excused himself and went to the bathroom.”
thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/list-debunked-groper-allegations-corrupt-media-donald-trump/
"Mindy McGillivray says Donald Trump nudged her at a concert at Mar-a-Lago at a concert on January 24, 2003. She went public with her story this week.

There was no such concert at Mar-a-Lago on January 24, 2003."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top