Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sy_Noe said:
In the 2008 primary season, Obama did not win OH, PA, MI or FL. And yet he carried all 4 in the general.

Hillary has done quite well among African Americans.

80% of Latinos have an unfavorable view of Trump.

50% of women view him very unfavorably.
Click to expand...
These numbers are all current. The fact is we don’t know what would happen with Trump in the general. If these numbers fluctuate at all toward him it is a whole new ball game. I am just warning against complacency, that is all. That is what it looks like from over here. And I do think Trump would be competitive in Michigan, Ohio and Florida; he may not get them all of course; if he does, he wins, simple as that. He could compete in Pennsylvania, California, the Northeast, the Southwest, you name it. Containment - that is where you go. Now, if that is even possible.

Won’t it be something when we see the DNC and the RNC leaders meet in mid October to pick and run a compromise candidate. 😉
 
Lily_Bernans said:
LOL It’s not a tired, hollow argument. It shows that your contention that we need a Republican president so he can appoint Republican Supreme Court justices is hollow. They have ushered in the “culture of death.”
Click to expand...
Church teaching tells us not to vote for politicians that enable abortion, this is a deflection to the debate. Whomever votes for politicians that enable abortion, vote for the culture of death.

Accusing the Republicans of doing this per a Supreme Court decision is just spiteful; there are other parties involved.
 
Sy_Noe said:
In the 2008 primary season, Obama did not win OH, PA, MI or FL. And yet he carried all 4 in the general.

Hillary has done quite well among African Americans.

80% of Latinos have an unfavorable view of Trump.

50% of women view him very unfavorably.
Click to expand...
There would be overlap to some of that. I’m not sure what the percentage of Latinos and blacks is in the U.S. But let’s assume about 25% together. Of those, slightly more than half would be women. So, of the 50% of voters who are women, somewhere around 10%-12% are already accounted for among the blacks and Latinos. You don’t add all three together. And, 50% of women equals 25% of voters. So, the unfavorable-to-Trump voters is something like 40% of all voters. That’s a big number. There will be a lot of people who will stay home for various reasons; including people who like him and people who don’t and people who will just vote the party. Can Trump make that work for him? I don’t know. But the above numbers don’t tell me he can’t.

I doubt many Hispanics will vote for Trump, or would have voted Republican anyway. That’s a situation all its own. But can he make inroads among blacks, particularly black males? Personally, I think he can if he goes about it the right way. There are a whole lot of them whose forbears “came north” to take the good-paying manufacturing jobs that are now going to China, Mexico and elsewhere. And I have never met a single black who likes uncontrolled immigration. Trump might be able to appeal to a fair number of those voters.

Despite the many who have a negative view of Trump, somebody is voting for him in these primaries, and most of them are probably not party regular types or ideological conservatives. So who are they? I don’t think anybody really knows.
 
Path_Finder said:
Lawyer who brought Roe v. Wade to the SCOTUS was a democrat: Henry Wade:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wade

So, perhaps a proper retort is Democrats ushered in the Culture of Death per the reasoning of some.

Also, per abrtion advocates, you might get quite a mix of religious backgrounds, let alone political backgrounds. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARAL_Pro-Choice_America
Click to expand...
It’s the Republican appointed justices who voted. Presumably they were not the puppets of Henry Wade and could have struck down Roe v Wade. They did not.

And then again in 1992, when they had a chance, the Republican justices upheld Roe v Wade. A different group of Republican appointed justices.

So I’d say the Church would not want any more Republican justices on the Supreme Court. They vote for abortion on demand.
 
queenofheartscv said:
What you are advocating here is that we do not fight the war. Let the enemy kill our military and civilians. Let us be the meek little lambs. I’m sorry you may be inspired to do that in a street attack but it’s wrong to expect our government to not take actions. That’s why we have military schools to train the best and brightest so we can trust them to make the best decisions. Are they always right? Of course not, but they have to be trust to do their job.
Click to expand...
Funny, last time I checked war was declared by congress. Did they declare war when I wasn’t looking?

Legally, we are not at war.
 
queenofheartscv said:
Yes but those we capture we don’t kill, right?

If drone strikes are already happening, why are you not mad about that? Why is your disdain only directed at Trump? Do you not want to win the war?
Click to expand...
It’s directed at everyone involved, including Obama.
 
Ridgerunner said:
There would be overlap to some of that. I’m not sure what the percentage of Latinos and blacks is in the U.S. But let’s assume about 25% together. Of those, slightly more than half would be women. So, of the 50% of voters who are women, somewhere around 10%-12% are already accounted for among the blacks and Latinos. You don’t add all three together. And, 50% of women equals 25% of voters. So, the unfavorable-to-Trump voters is something like 40% of all voters. That’s a big number. There will be a lot of people who will stay home for various reasons; including people who like him and people who don’t and people who will just vote the party. Can Trump make that work for him? I don’t know. But the above numbers don’t tell me he can’t.

I doubt many Hispanics will vote for Trump, or would have voted Republican anyway. That’s a situation all its own. But can he make inroads among blacks, particularly black males? Personally, I think he can if he goes about it the right way. There are a whole lot of them whose forbears “came north” to take the good-paying manufacturing jobs that are now going to China, Mexico and elsewhere. And I have never met a single black who likes uncontrolled immigration. Trump might be able to appeal to a fair number of those voters.

Despite the many who have a negative view of Trump, somebody is voting for him in these primaries, and most of them are probably not party regular types or ideological conservatives. So who are they? I don’t think anybody really knows.
Click to expand...
17% of the US population is Hispanic or African-American, I think. That seems low to me, and I’m not sure my source is totally reliable.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I have. More than once. One poster did suggest an addition on one thread, and I incorporated it. Nobody else did, nor did anyone question its utility from a moral standpoint.

Not saying I was right or that my definition was complete. But my point is that everybody seems to classify something as “torture” or “not torture” based simply on his/her subjective feelings about such things or his/her own political predilections.

It’s not a comfortable thing to do, I’ll grant. When the Church establishes very broad, but sometimes vague directives, then establishing more precise boundaries is a worthy subject of debate. But it is worthy of doing carefully.

When it comes to torture, there are things upon which all would agree; things like Saddam Hussein’s acid baths, rape rooms, flaying alive. But when one gets too general about it, one can end up including things like being arrested, being drafted, even being investigated, which leaves the whole discussion meaningless.
Click to expand...
Is there a charitable way to say…I don’t believe you?
 
Lily_Bernans said:
LOL It’s not a tired, hollow argument. It shows that your contention that we need a Republican president so he can appoint Republican Supreme Court justices is hollow. They have ushered in the “culture of death.”
Click to expand...
Nobody who appointed the justices who voted with a one man majority to legalize abortion, saw that coming. Who would have ever imagined the constitution had a “penumbra”?

More recent decisions, though, tell you a lot. In Gonzalez vs. Carhart, the partial birth abortion ban case, the justices who voted to uphold the state bans were all Republican appointees, some of them, like Roberts and Alito, fairly recent appointees. Those who voted in favor of partial birth abortion were all Democrat appointees, some fairly recent appointees.

I think we can be fairly confident that all future Democrat appointees will favor abortion, including partial birth abortion, and that all future Repub appointees will probably oppose it.

Let’s not self-delude about what we’re supporting when we vote Democrat.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
It’s the Republican appointed justices who voted. Presumably they were not the puppets of Henry Wade and could have struck down Roe v Wade. They did not.

And then again in 1992, when they had a chance, the Republican justices upheld Roe v Wade. A different group of Republican appointed justices.

So I’d say the Church would not want any more Republican justices on the Supreme Court. They vote for abortion on demand.
Click to expand...
Is one really saying the Church did not want Judge Robert Bork on the Supreme Court? The Democrats as repeated already a number of times, fought to keep him from being appointed and Senators like Ted Kennedy made it clear that one of the factors was abortion rights.

This forum is for current events; not history.

Again, a democratically controlled senate confirmed Justice Kennedy in 1987 after rejecting other nominees.

The Senate advises and consents as to whom is appointed to the Supreme Court.

Wade was a Democratic Politician who brought up Roe V. Wade to the SCOTUS, so therefore, the Democrats ushered in the culture of death.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
It’s the Republican appointed justices who voted. Presumably they were not the puppets of Henry Wade and could have struck down Roe v Wade. They did not.

And then again in 1992, when they had a chance, the Republican justices upheld Roe v Wade. A different group of Republican appointed justices.

So I’d say the Church would not want any more Republican justices on the Supreme Court. They vote for abortion on demand.
Click to expand...
This is true - also 1996. There is outright support for abortion in the Republican party, the so-called liberal wing, but there are also those who recognize that prolife decisions are unpopular with Americans at this point in time in the country, so they don’t go there, at least on the federal level. We did this with slavery for years. It took a war to change that. Support for abortion is amoral, but people are often amoral. It is not just ‘the evil Democrats.’
While support for legal abortion edged up to 40 percent among Republicans in this month’s poll, from 35 percent in January, the survey found that the GOP remains deeply divided on the issue: Seven in 10 conservative Republicans said they want abortion to be illegal in most or all cases; six in 10 moderate and liberal Republicans said the opposite.
Click to expand...
townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/12/23/prochoice-nation-support-for-abortion-highest-in-two-years-n2096829
 
Path_Finder said:
Church teaching tells us not to vote for politicians that enable abortion, this is a deflection to the debate. Whomever votes for politicians that enable abortion, vote for the culture of death.

Accusing the Republicans of doing this per a Supreme Court decision is just spiteful; there are other parties involved.
Click to expand...
LOL. I don’t think anyone here is advocating voting for someone that supports abortion.

And no, trumpets, voting for a third party in a Clinton vs Trump general election, is not a vote for abortion. As many of you would have us believe.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
This is true - also 1996. There is outright support for abortion in the Republican party, the so-called liberal wing, but there are also those who recognize that prolife decisions are unpopular with Americans at this point in time in the country, so they don’t go there, at least on the federal level. We did this with slavery for years. It took a war to change that. Support for abortion is amoral, but people are often amoral. It is not just ‘the evil Democrats.’

townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/12/23/prochoice-nation-support-for-abortion-highest-in-two-years-n2096829
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response.
 
jtauke said:
Is there a charitable way to say…I don’t believe you?
Click to expand...
I can’t think of a way, no, including the above.

Are you actually saying I haven’t posted at least my own version of a “test” for what is “torture” and what isn’t?

Well, let’s expend a little energy here. I believe there is a way people on here can go back and check the posts of particular people. With a little diligence, I think you will find that I am not lying. Might even be an aid to charity to do so.
 
Path_Finder said:
And who else has used torture in the past? Are we just talking about secular societies?
Click to expand...
Who else has used it is irrelevant. We cannot allow our government to endorse such actions that degrade the value of human life.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I can’t think of a way, no, including the above.

Are you actually saying I haven’t posted at least my own version of a “test” for what is “torture” and what isn’t?

Well, let’s expend a little energy here. I believe there is a way people on here can go back and check the posts of particular people. With a little diligence, I think you will find that I am not lying. Might even be an aid to charity to do so.
Click to expand...
Your post made is sound like you had undergone waterboarding yourself…is that not what you were trying to say?

If not, then just ignore what I said. I don’t need repetition of your “test for what is torture” spiel. I got enough of that in the thread about Trump when he first made the torture statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top