Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s what the polls say.
It really is not what it says at all. Using the logic from post #2777, should we conclude that republican women do not support any of the three candidates since 62% do not favor Trump, 69% do not favor Cruz and 71% do not favor Kasich? That is an absurd way to make a conclusion.
 
It’s a natural inclination to interpret data in a way pleasing to ourselves.
Agree, People will also present data in a such way to try to support their message. I am reminded of the phrase “Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Figure”. (No, I am not accusing anyone here of lying)
 
I’m a Catholic theology professor. I’ve taught Catholic Bioethics. My views are just fine.
Your views are contrary to Church teaching.
I’m one of the few here who thinks the mothers who freely choose to murder their unborn children are wrong, wrong, wrong. I’m one of the few who want to protect them from those who would kill them - their own mothers.
No, you’re advocating with keeping abortion legal. You are doing the opposite of protecting unborn children. You’re actually encouraging them being killed.
 
I’m a Catholic theology professor. I’ve taught Catholic Bioethics. My views are just fine.

I’m one of the few here who thinks the mothers who freely choose to murder their unborn children are wrong, wrong, wrong. I’m one of the few who want to protect them from those who would kill them - their own mothers.
Freely is the key word here. As a bioethics professor, I shouldn’t have to drag up truly informed consent.

Also, AFAIK, at no time has the government or what passes for an educational system in this country provided wholesale support to other killings and rapes. When they do, I’m sure the “well, let’s let all the rapists and killers go free” will mean something. Until then, not so much.

We aren’t going to agree on this and I am leaving this thread for a bit.
 
National pro-life group backs Cruz after Trump stumbles on abortion
Donald Trump’s shifting statements on abortion has led a major pro-life group to back Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
National Right to Life’s political action committee said Monday it will support Cruz because he is the only candidate “who has always been pro-life.” The endorsement comes after front-runner Donald Trump made several differing statements over the past week on abortion.
:whistle:
 
politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-campaign-staff-disarray-221557
Donald Trump’s campaign is increasingly falling into disarray as the Manhattan billionaire braces for a loss in Wisconsin that could set him on course for an uncertain convention floor fight for the Republican presidential nomination.
Since March, the campaign has been laying off field staff en masse around the country and has dismantled much of what existed of its organizations in general-election battlegrounds, including Florida and Ohio.
Story Continued Below
Last month, the campaign laid off the leader of its data team, Matt Braynard, who did not train a successor. It elevated his No. 2, a data engineer with little prior high-level political strategy experience, and also shifted some of his team’s duties to a 2015 college graduate whose last job was an internship with the consumer products company Colgate-Palmolive. Some of the campaign’s data remains inaccessible.
 
I hope Wisconsin gets the credit for ending it all. Can’t wait to get started on Hillary.
 
This is my point. This stance reveals the pro-life movement to be just another political entity. The movement is either being disingenuous about its actual goals, or its willing to overlook murder to achieve its goals.
More rationalization. Because we don’t react the way you say we should it proves we are just another political entity-which, of course, makes it perfectly acceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate because we are not “sincere” Correct?

zz912 we are definately going to have to add this to the list:

Pro-lifers dont want to punish women who have had abortions as I have determined they should therefore its ok to vote for the virulentley pro-abortion candidate
 
Would making abortions ‘illegal’, but having no criminal penalties for the women that procure abortions really stop it?
 
Right. I have seen stories like this now for a couple of weeks. It is obvious the campaign is reeling and trying to regroup. They are a tight-knit bunch of outsiders who are very devoted to Trump but not necessarily sharp about grass roots politics - how the ground game is played. Trump himself has just used his celebrity status - played media cycles and rallies, late night tweets. He has avoided using insiders in his team. Hence the mistakes.

Rumor has it Corey Lewandowski will soon be replaced. And I expect Trump will try to get more insider support, direction going forward. The question will be is it too little too late.

Which is why losing Wisconsin is a blow (also Colorado defeat coming too). I think the public will increasingly see this “wheels coming off” problem.

The final test of Trump’s strength will be New York (4/19/16) and then Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island (4/26/16). New York is proportional, so all of the candidates get a percentage of delegates. If he wins big there (and he should; this is “his country”), then he is back in the game. But after that, another problem: the race goes back to states more favorable to Cruz. Kasich could be a factor in PA/NY also. He is campaigning hard in both states. We don’t know at this point what impact that will make. I am interested to see how Kasich does tonight in WI. That might be an indicator whether there is any life there or not.

The most likely outcome, assuming Cruz takes Wisconsin tonight, is an open convention, nobody gets to 1237. If Trump does take Wisconsin by some miracle, I completely agree it is over. (and by over I mean Trump wins nomination, loses general) But I also think if he loses tonight and Cruz or Kasich make dents in the delegate count in PA, NY, etc. it is more or less over for Trump. By that I mean, open convention, Cruz has sizable delegate count, wins on second ballot. Likely loses general, but maybe not.
 
From today’s news:
(CNN)Donald Trump announced Tuesday he would use a federal anti-terrorism surveillance law as a tool to force Mexico to pay for the border wall he has pledged to build on the U.S.'s southern border.
Trump outlined the steps his administration would undertake to compel Mexico to pay the U.S. “$5-10 billion” to fund a border wall in a memo his campaign released Tuesday morning – a plan that relies largely on threatening to bar undocumented Mexican immigrants in the United States from wiring money to relatives in Mexico.
Using a broad interpretation of the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act, Trump writes in the memo that he would threaten to issue new regulations that would compel money transfer companies like Western Union to verify a client’s identity and legal status before authorizing a wire transfer.
“Good luck with that,” President Barack Obama said Tuesday when asked about the plan during an appearance in the White House briefing room. He said the plan was “impractical” with enormous implications for the Mexican economy.
“(It) actually sends more immigrants north because they can’t find jobs back in Mexico,” Obama said.
Trump’s memo also lays out other potential tactics to force Mexico to shell out for the border wall that Trump first laid out in the immigration policy paper he released in August, including imposing tariffs on imports from Mexico, canceling Mexican nationals’ visas and raising visa fees.
cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/donald-trump-mexico-wall-pay/index.html

That’s a good idea! Lets force a relatively poor country like Mexico to pay it’s rich neighbor billions of dollars to build a wall between our countries and we’ll use blackmail to do it. If thy don’t comply, we’ll cut off the money that Mexicans send home and wreck the Mexican economy, impose more tarrifs on Mexican goods which would probably lead to even more unemployment among Mexicans desperate for work and we’ll cancel Mexican visas. That Donald has a good head on his shoulders! :rolleyes:
 
Would making abortions ‘illegal’, but having no criminal penalties for the women that procure abortions really stop it?
We would go back to the way things were prior to roe being imposed-women were nt punished, abortiosits were. Withng two years of Roe being imposed abortions increased from 400,00 a year to over 1.5 million a year. obviously legalization had a huge effect
 
From today’s news:

cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/donald-trump-mexico-wall-pay/index.html

That’s a good idea! Lets force a relatively poor country like Mexico to pay it’s rich neighbor billions of dollars to build a wall between our countries and we’ll use blackmail to do it. If thy don’t comply, we’ll cut off the money that Mexicans send home and wreck the Mexican economy, impose more tarrifs on Mexican goods which would probably lead to even more unemployment among Mexicans desperate for work and we’ll cancel Mexican visas. That Donald has a good head on his shoulders! :rolleyes:
You can mock all you want, but people on the street are going to like “American first” mentality. If Mexico wants to be a good neighbor, they should help stop illegal immigration and drug trafficking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top