Trump Thread Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter XndrK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_Gail_36 said:
He’s praised Planned Parenthood and has claimed thousands of women have written him letters saying how awesome their care was there.
Click to expand...
Yeah but he also released a list of people he would appoint to the supreme court, all of them being pro-lifers.
 
_Abyssinia said:
May I ask, did you vote for McCain, Romney or Bush?

If Donald Trump was not the Republican nominee, but Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio was, would you vote for either of them against Hillary Clinton?

I think there is a serious question here about whether a proportionate reason can be something that is at least in part, speculative.
Click to expand...
I know you didn’t ask me, but I would have voted for Cruz or Rubio.

I can’t vote for Trump.
 
_Abyssinia said:
May I ask, did you vote for McCain, Romney or Bush?

If Donald Trump was not the Republican nominee, but Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio was, would you vote for either of them against Hillary Clinton?

I think there is a serious question here about whether a proportionate reason can be something that is at least in part, speculative.
Click to expand...
This is great consideration. Should republicans listen when a democrat, who would always vote for the democrat ticket no matter what, tell them trump is a proportionate reason to vote against the other side? Republicans haven’t won for so long. Why not try a different style for a change? Trumps policies are in fact very republican and conservative.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
He’s praised Planned Parenthood and has claimed thousands of women have written him letters saying how awesome their care was there.
Click to expand...
He has praised the work they do apart from abortion: lifenews.com/2016/03/01/donald-trump-praises-planned-parenthood-again-attacks-so-called-conservatives-who-disagree/

That has received criticism from pro-lifers.

Donald Trump has received endorsement from numerous pro-life groups… and Donald Trump’s VP candidate Gov Mike Pence (and he’s done a lot of good in Indiana on the issue of abortion), had said he believes Trump is pro-life: lifenews.com/2016/07/25/mike-pence-donald-trump-is-pro-life-and-will-appoint-good-supreme-court-judges/

I don’t think Trump is 100% pro-life because he supports the exceptions but he is far, far better on the issue of of abortion than Hillary Clinton and if somebody like Gov Mike Pence and various pro-life groups believe that he will do good on the issue of life, that means something, that is significant!
 
Al_Moritz said:
Absolutely. An existential threat to the nation and to the world order.

Someone as erratic and thin-skinned cannot be trusted with relationship between the US and the world, and with the nuclear codes. Not even speaking about the domestic fabric of society.

This is not a partisan issue. I would never have said this about Romney McCain or even Bush.
Click to expand...
Yes. Even as recent as a few hours ago his rebuttal to Michael Bloomberg’s speech was to call him “little”.
 
_Abyssinia said:
He has praised the work they do apart from abortion: lifenews.com/2016/03/01/donald-trump-praises-planned-parenthood-again-attacks-so-called-conservatives-who-disagree/

That has received criticism from pro-lifers.

Donald Trump has received endorsement from numerous pro-life groups… and Donald Trump’s VP candidate Gov Mike Pence (and he’s done a lot of good in Indiana on the issue of abortion), had said he believes Trump is pro-life: lifenews.com/2016/07/25/mike-pence-donald-trump-is-pro-life-and-will-appoint-good-supreme-court-judges/

I don’t think Trump is 100% pro-life because he supports the exceptions but he is far, far better on the issue of of abortion than Hillary Clinton and if somebody like Gov Mike Pence and various pro-life groups believe that he will do good on the issue of life, that means something, that is significant!
Click to expand...
I don’t think he’s prolife at all. He supports many exceptions as per an interview with Greta Van Susteren. He’s not sure what point in pregnancy abortion can be restricted. Somewhere after the first trimester. Most abortions take place then.
 
_Abyssinia said:
May I ask, did you vote for McCain, Romney or Bush?

If Donald Trump was not the Republican nominee, but Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio was, would you vote for either of them against Hillary Clinton?

I think there is a serious question here about whether a proportionate reason can be something that is at least in part, speculative.
Click to expand...
Just to add, because that last paragraph point was inspired by sentence on a post by estesbob, “It is hard to see how vague fears about what a candidate “might” do can overcome a candidates explicit statements about what they’re going to do” - forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14075086&postcount=160
 
queenofheartscv said:
This is great consideration. Should republicans listen when a democrat, who would always vote for the democrat ticket no matter what, tell them trump is a proportionate reason to vote against the other side? Republicans haven’t won for so long. Why not try a different style for a change? Trumps policies are in fact very republican and conservative.
Click to expand...
We here the same rationalizations every four years . The Republican candidate is evil personified and other than the fact they support the killing of 1.2 million children a year the Democratic candidate is perfect and every way .

In the end it’s a lack of knowledge of Catholic teaching. If Hillary Clinton were promoting the right ofva mother to kill her seven year old child have it paid for with taxpayer funds nobody would support her. Yet in the eyes of the Church there is absolutely no difference in the right to life for the unborn child and a seven-year-old . So the question then becomes what are the proportionate reasons that would allow a Catholic to vote for someone who advocates the right to kill seven year olds ?
 
estesbob said:
We here the same rationalizations every four years . The Republican candidate is evil personified and other than the fact they support the killing of 1.2 million children a year the Democratic candidate is perfect and every way .

In the end it’s a lack of knowledge of Catholic teaching. If Hillary Clinton were promoting the right ofva mother to kill her seven year old child have it paid for with taxpayer funds nobody would support her. Yet in the eyes of the Church there is absolutely no difference in the right to life for the unborn child and a seven-year-old . So the question then becomes what are the proportionate reasons that would allow a Catholic to vote for someone who advocates the right to kill seven year olds ?
Click to expand...
Interesting question, when applied to Trump’s policy of “We have to take out their families.” (referring to terrorists families)
 
estesbob said:
We here the same rationalizations every four years . The Republican candidate is evil personified and other than the fact they support the killing of 1.2 million children a year the Democratic candidate is perfect and every way .

In the end it’s a lack of knowledge of Catholic teaching. If Hillary Clinton were promoting the right ofva mother to kill her seven year old child have it paid for with taxpayer funds nobody would support her. Yet in the eyes of the Church there is absolutely no difference in the right to life for the unborn child and a seven-year-old . So the question then becomes what are the proportionate reasons that would allow a Catholic to vote for someone who advocates the right to kill seven year olds ?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s the same rationalization every four years. This election is different. I’m a practicing Catholic who believes and consents to all teachings of the Church.

I cannot vote for Trump.
 
I find it very interesting that the Trump thread is at the top of the page and the Hillary thread has practically dropped off to page 2.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
“totally” … pretty strong statement.

Trump identifies people who are sworn to attack us, as being a security threat.

Trump identifies that the United States has just about the highest levels of taxation in the western world. Clinton HAS already stated that she want to increase taxes. Non-competitive tax structures cause companies and employers and even highly productive individuals to move away to less onerous tax locations.

Trump identifies that the Second Amendment must be preserved.

Trump identifies that the states and localities must control education, NOT the central Federal government.

Trump identifies that the EPA has forced non-scientific standards and caused dislocations in communities.

Seems to me that Trump is eminently qualified based on these and other statements.

Trump has set this down in writing on his Web site.

And you can visit Google and type in " youtube trump july " and get his latest responses to the Democrats. His speeches generally start off with a dissection of the news.

Read what he has published and listen to what he actually says.
Click to expand...
You have addressed issues that do not worry me about Trump, but you have ignored all the Trump issues that do worry me. If you want to convince me that Trump is qualified to be president, address these issues.

More importantly, you missed the context in which my response was given. It was not in the context of trading personal opinions about Trump. The discussion had turned to whether concerns about Trump could constitute a “proportionate reason” in the sense of Cardinal Ratzinger’s famous memo, on how a Catholic is allowed to vote. Therefore it is not necessary for me to convince you of my personal opinion about Trump. My purpose was to prove that a person who held those personal opinions could see them as proportionate reasons to vote for Trump’s opponent. To refute that you would have to show that even if someone believes exactly what I said about Trump, that person would still not be able morally to vote for Clinton. Can you really imagine that rather than vote for Clinton, one would be morally obliged to accept the destruction of the nation?
 
estesbob said:
We here the same rationalizations every four years . The Republican candidate is evil personified and other than the fact they support the killing of 1.2 million children a year the Democratic candidate is perfect and every way .

In the end it’s a lack of knowledge of Catholic teaching. If Hillary Clinton were promoting the right ofva mother to kill her seven year old child have it paid for with taxpayer funds nobody would support her. Yet in the eyes of the Church there is absolutely no difference in the right to life for the unborn child and a seven-year-old . So the question then becomes what are the proportionate reasons that would allow a Catholic to vote for someone who advocates the right to kill seven year olds ?
Click to expand...
You would think that the pope had an adequate understanding of Catholic teaching when he called out Trump as not being a Christian ( in thinking)
 
DeniseNY said:
I find it very interesting that the Trump thread is at the top of the page and the Hillary thread has practically dropped off to page 2.
Click to expand...
Well,did you see the video clip of Bill Clinton snoozing while Hillary gave her " momentous" speech? I imagine his reaction is pretty reflective of the sentiments of most people…bored by HC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top