Trump Thread

[Mary_Gail_36]

And Hillary Clinton is a friend to the unborn?

No one is saying she’s pro-life.

That would be the difference. Trump has no prolife background. Trump gave a very long acceptance speech. No mention of the unborn at all. Compare it to Bush who used the phrase “culture of life”. Trump has lead a very high profile jet set braggadocio filled lifestyle. He’s bragged about his promiscuity on radio programs.

But somehow, I have to believe he’s the savior of the babies.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Trump will be no friend to the unborn if, God forbid, he is elected.

Well, you don’t KNOW that for certain, do you?

We do KNOW what Hillary has in mind, however – turning PP into a lucrative chop shop for baby parts by having tax payers fund it to the hilt.

Not even an option. :frighten:

 

[mary_bobo]

This article ^^.

Will be posting that on Facebook to discuss with all my prolife Catholic friends from my parish who have been arguing that Trump will help the prolife movement.

Trump will be no friend to the unborn if, God forbid, he is elected.

Trump has given a list of judges he would nominate to the SC and they are good. It is the courts that can help with the pro-life movement not the president alone. We are going to get one of those two, may as well take a chance on the unknown (as many did with Obama) rather than they one we know will be totally pro-abortion in every way possible.

 

[Michael68]

If this is even half - true, then the entire human race is doomed for the next 4 years.

Say goodbye to global security measures that have been in place since WWII and kept the peace.

Say hello to useless trade wars between the great powers, macho authoritarianism, the breakdown of the rule of law in the US…

The consequences of a Trump victory are too horrifying for my brain to cope with. It would make Brexit look like a drop in the ocean by comparison.

We live in very frightening and uncertain times.

Truly, I dislike Hillary and don’t want her in the White House but I am praying that Trump doesn’t get in. Novenas, the rosary, you name it. I’m praying harder than I’ve ever prayed about any single issue in my entire life.

I don’t positively desire a Clinton presidency bit I’m not going to lie: I do negatively speaking desire that Trump loses the White House by a landslide so as to make populist nativism of the kind he represents an extinct beast in American and world politics for the forseeable future.

If God does not heed the prayers of millions in regard to Trump then I must conclude that the Almighty is punishing us all, collectively, for our sins.

I don’t know how you can say all this stuff will happen under Trump (with no proof) then conclude God is punishing us if Trump wins. That’s just silly!!!

 

[Michael68]

I know why the media and Washington elites hate Trump!
Donald Trump talks to the average Joe. He uses the same language and conveys what the average Joe is really thinking.
The others talk down to the average Joe and suggest the average Joe is not correct in his thinking and the media and elites will tell you what you should think

 

[Strydersroom]

I know why the media and Washington elites hate Trump!
Donald Trump talks to the average Joe. He uses the same language and conveys what the average Joe is really thinking.
The others talk down to the average Joe and suggest the average Joe is not correct in his thinking and the media and elites will tell you what you should think

IMO the only average “joe” that Trump talks to is angry white Christian men in their 60s and 70s. Then yes, he absolutely talks to “them.” Would you say then that the “average Joe” wants all illegals deported, a wall built up, Mexicans are rapists (but some of them good), vulgar against women, and banning all Muslims from entering the USA.

But luckily we’re not living in the 50’s anymore, this is 2016 and Americans are as diverse as they come and can’t be labeled.

 

[Michael68]

IMO the only average “joe” that Trump talks to is angry white Christian men in their 60s and 70s. Then yes, he absolutely talks to “them.” Would you say then that the “average Joe” wants all illegals deported, a wall built up, Mexicans are rapists (but some of them good), vulgar against women, and banning all Muslims from entering the USA.

But luckily we’re not living in the 50’s anymore, this is 2016 and Americans are as diverse as they come and can’t be labeled.

I would say no because Trump doesn’t want any of what you said either, except for the wall and deportation.

 

[Al_Moritz]

If this is even half - true, then the entire human race is doomed for the next 4 years.

Say goodbye to global security measures that have been in place since WWII and kept the peace.

Say hello to useless trade wars between the great powers, macho authoritarianism, the breakdown of the rule of law in the US…

The consequences of a Trump victory are too horrifying for my brain to cope with. It would make Brexit look like a drop in the ocean by comparison.

We live in very frightening and uncertain times.

Truly, I dislike Hillary and don’t want her in the White House but I am praying that Trump doesn’t get in. Novenas, the rosary, you name it. I’m praying harder than I’ve ever prayed about any single issue in my entire life.

I don’t positively desire a Clinton presidency bit I’m not going to lie: I do negatively speaking desire that Trump loses the White House by a landslide so as to make populist nativism of the kind he represents an extinct beast in American and world politics for the forseeable future.

If God does not heed the prayers of millions in regard to Trump then I must conclude that the Almighty is punishing us all, collectively, for our sins.

You are completely right of course. Europeans like you look at the Trump horror show and, justifiedly so, ask themselves how Americans can be so plain out of their mind to fall for it. Unfortunately, it’s Americans who will decide the election. Fortunately, they seem to be wiser than I thought, if you can believe the polls the last few weeks.

Yes, a Trump loss by a landslide might put the genie back in the bottle, at least a good part of it – I am afraid the genie will never completely die from now on.

 

[Al_Moritz]

No one is saying she’s pro-life.

That would be the difference. Trump has no prolife background. Trump gave a very long acceptance speech. No mention of the unborn at all. Compare it to Bush who used the phrase “culture of life”. Trump has lead a very high profile jet set braggadocio filled lifestyle. He’s bragged about his promiscuity on radio programs.

But somehow, I have to believe he’s the savior of the babies.

Well said.

 

[PRmerger]

And Hillary Clinton is a friend to the unborn?

Not at all.

Point is: any person who votes for Trump because of his position on abortion will not be voting for a prolife candidate.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, you don’t KNOW that for certain, do you?

We do KNOW what Hillary has in mind, however – turning PP into a lucrative chop shop for baby parts by having tax payers fund it to the hilt.

Not even an option. :frighten:

Re: Trump and the chance that he might nominate a prolife SC justice:

As the article previously cited states, “I’d note that the argument invariably reduces to a blind assertion of faith that such a chance exists”.

and “It is an article of faith, impervious and impenetrable to rational assessment.”

Not to mention we have the example of Trump’s life choices which demonstrate his lack of commitment to prolife values.

In fact, his life “is a walking-anecdote for the various cultural ideologies and trajectories that the pro-life movement opposes.”

 

[MaryT777]

Well, you don’t KNOW that for certain, do you?

We do KNOW what Hillary has in mind, however – turning PP into a lucrative chop shop for baby parts by having tax payers fund it to the hilt.

Not even an option. :frighten:

; Her push for abortion is indeed frightening. It’s bad enough to let it slide( the death industry) as it is but to push for more funding and more abortion is horrifying to me.

 

[PRmerger]

Trump has given a list of judges he would nominate to the SC and they are good. It is the courts that can help with the pro-life movement not the president alone. We are going to get one of those two, may as well take a chance on the unknown (as many did with Obama) rather than they one we know will be totally pro-abortion in every way possible.

As a prolife voter, I find it injudicious to accept the personal, cultural and moral decay of our candidates for the sake of (possible) conservative judges and legal writs.

 

[_Abyssinia]

No one is saying she’s pro-life.

That would be the difference. Trump has no prolife background. Trump gave a very long acceptance speech. No mention of the unborn at all. Compare it to Bush who used the phrase “culture of life”. Trump has lead a very high profile jet set braggadocio filled lifestyle. He’s bragged about his promiscuity on radio programs.

But somehow, I have to believe he’s the savior of the babies.

Check this out from the president of the Susan B Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser:

The Pro Life Case For Trump: m.townhall.com/columnists/marjoriedannenfelser/2016/05/09/the-prolife-case-for-trump-n2160264

I understand your issue because he has a mixed history on the issue, but Gov Mike Pence, says that with Trump, Roe v Wade would go on the “ash heap of history”. Not only that, but Trump has received the endorsement from various pro-life groups:

Right To Life Michigan:
lifenews.com/2016/08/04/pro-life-group-endorses-donald-trump-millions-more-babies-will-die-under-hillary-clinton/

West Virginians For Life Political Action Committee: lifenews.com/2016/07/22/pro-life-group-endorses-donald-trump-he-is-committed-to-supporting-pro-life-values/

Ohio Right To Life:
lifenews.com/2016/08/01/pro-life-group-supports-donald-trump-there-is-no-bigger-threat-to-unborn-babies-than-hillary/

Missouri Right To Life:
lifenews.com/2016/07/18/pro-life-group-endorses-donald-trump-and-mike-pence-they-will-pursue-pro-life-goals/

Pro Life Council of Connecticut:
lifenews.com/2016/06/28/pro-life-group-backs-donald-trump-we-applaud-his-list-of-pro-life-candidates-for-supreme-court/

Nebraska Right To Life:
lifenews.com/2016/06/30/nebraska-pro-life-group-supports-donald-trump-for-president-the-supreme-court-matters/

Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation:
lifenews.com/2016/06/20/pennsylvania-pro-life-group-endorses-donald-trump-he-will-be-a-defender-of-human-life/

The New York State Right to Life Political Action Commitee: lifenews.com/2016/06/23/pro-life-group-backs-donald-trump-he-will-appoint-pro-life-judges-and-defund-planned-parenthood/

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I have noted these words from the article you posted, “right now”. The election isn’t now, it’s in November, and all kinds of things can happen from now until then. Dukakis was up 17 points, presumably nationally, coming out of the convention in 1988 and obviously he didn’t end up winning.

The fact is, what the two articles I posted reveal, is that there is room for improvement in White turnout and it’s not some myth that there are millions of so called “missing” voters. If these voters turnout for Trump, it could make all the difference for Trump in those states.

By the way, the Real Clear Politics average was way off compared to what Trump actually won by in Pennsylvania during the primary:

Pennsylvania - Real Clear Politics Average: Trump +21.8 - Final Results +36.0 = Real Clear Politics was off by 14.2 points.

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_republican_presidential_primary-3788.html

Thanks for these posts.

Trump has provided a list of people from whom he would select Supreme Court justices.

He has stated that he will pick justices who would support the Second Amendment.

AND he has exhorted gun owners to vote. The NRA has only a few million members, but there are 100 million or more gun owners.

Whether he will actually do what he said is questioned by some people.

ON THE OTHER HAND, does anyone doubt that Hillary Clinton would pick the most left wing, anti-life, pro-abortion, anti-gun candidates?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Re: Trump and the chance that he might nominate a prolife SC justice:

As the article previously cited states, “I’d note that the argument invariably reduces to a blind assertion of faith that such a chance exists”.

and “It is an article of faith, impervious and impenetrable to rational assessment.”

Not to mention we have the example of Trump’s life choices which demonstrate his lack of commitment to prolife values.

In fact, his life “is a walking-anecdote for the various cultural ideologies and trajectories that the pro-life movement opposes.”

And the same “article of faith, impervious and impenetrable to rational assessment” applies to any supporter of HRC who thinks that her life is not “a walking anecdote for the various cultural ideologies and trajectories” that any decent, thoughtful, moral and reasonable human being would oppose.

Look into the Clinton Foundation’s handling of their supposed “charitable” works in Haiti and to fight AIDS, among other things. “Walking anecdote” is an understatement. At least Trump doesn’t use the pretext of helping the poor and gravely ill to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars, unlike the Clintons.

I suspect those who support Clinton are far more “impervious and impenetrable to rational assessment” than Trump fans precisely because there is so much more serious inequity that follows her around without as much as a shrug of concern from her defenders.

Take any one of the so-called ”scandals" that dogs Clinton and imagine that there was the same level of credible evidence that Trump had done something similar, the outrage in the MSM would be explosive. Instead, what we have to endure is non-stop outrage over the Donald’s stereotyping of Muslims, about some KKK affiliated individual he vaguely crossed paths with decades ago, or his suggesting that a wall be built to protect American jobs.

Yet, here is HRC selling state access and policy, jeopardizing the safety and security of millions of Americans, and abetting terrorism; and all we hear, even from high-ranking officials, are tepid excuses and cover-up. “Impervious and impenetrable” are apt terms to describe the media’s sycophantic alliance with HRC. Donald Trump can only hope his wall will be engineered to be as “impervious and impenetrable.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Re: Trump and the chance that he might nominate a prolife SC justice:

As the article previously cited states, “I’d note that the argument invariably reduces to a blind assertion of faith that such a chance exists”.

And an equally “blind assertion of faith” that such a chance DOESN’T exist.

With HRC there is absolute certainty that she will nominate as extreme a pro-abortion SC justice as she possibly can. Not even an iota of faith is required.

 

[lmachine]

Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump’s Campaign Chief

Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.

In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies that helped members of Mr. Yanukovych’s inner circle finance their lavish lifestyles, including a palatial presidential residence with a private zoo, golf course and tennis court. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin.

 

[Sy_Noe]

As a prolife voter, I find it injudicious to accept the personal, cultural and moral decay of our candidates for the sake of (possible) conservative judges and legal writs.

You seem to be saying Catholic Church teaching is not such that in this cycle prolife faithful Catholic voters have to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton or that they can not vote for Hillary Clinton. This is refreshing to know.

 

[didymus]

**Why does Trump have a Mormon problem? **

The unorthodox campaign of Donald Trump has a question, one that no Republican presidential candidate in half a century has had to ask: What is the problem in Utah?
“Utah is a different place,” Mr. Trump told a gathering of evangelical Christian pastors in Orlando, Fla., on Thursday. “Is anyone here from Utah?.. I didn’t think so. We’re having a problem.”
As it has nationally, Trump’s campaign has created a rift in Utah’s Republican Party, openly dividing Mormons and other GOP voting blocs and transforming the Mormon-rich, Republican stronghold into a swing state for the first time since Lyndon B. Johnson.

In explaining this rift, Utahns told the Monitor about how they see the GOP candidate and why his promises to “make America great again,” aren’t resonating with this traditionally bright-red electorate. They point to moral, historical, and political convictions in unusual tension during the 2016 election.
Evidence of Trump’s Utah “tremendous problem” emerged in March, during the Republican caucus. Trump came in a distant third, carrying just 14 percent of the vote behind Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas and Gov. John Kasich (R) of Ohio.