Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Millie123 said:
One of my biggest complaints about Trump is that there is no consistency in what Trump says and means. His intentions are a moving target from one day to the next.

December 7, 2015:
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”
donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

July 22, 2016
“Lastly, and very importantly, we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place. We don’t want them in our country.”
vox.com/2016/7/21/12253426/donald-trump-acceptance-speech-transcript-republican-nomination-transcript

August 15, 2016
“A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern
all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this
country those who share our values and respect our people.
In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. 110
The time is
overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.
In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist
groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes
towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law
should supplant American law.
Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry
and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.
Only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace
a tolerant American society – should be issued immigration visas.”
assets.donaldjtrump.com/Radical_Islam_Speech.pdf

So to summarize initially he wants to ban ALL muslims as immigrants…then he wants to ban all immigrants from country’s compromised by terrorism…now he he wants to ban immigrants who have hostile attitudes to us OR who don’t share in our principles. His policies are all over the place, I am truly confused as to what it is he wants to do.
Click to expand...
Trump: " … extreme vetting … "

Instead of quoting from one source or another, listen for yourself.

Listen to his entire Ohio speech from Monday August 15, 2016.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Trump: " … extreme vetting … "

Instead of quoting from one source or another, listen for yourself.

Listen to his entire Ohio speech from Monday August 15, 2016.
Click to expand...
Why do I need to listen to the entire speech again when I just read the whole thing and posted the link to it in my reply that you just quoted?
 
Good_Tidings said:
Unfortunately, it’s the other way around.
health.heraldtribune.com/2014/07/22/doesnt-europe-import-u-s-beef/
Click to expand...
Yes, American meat is generally poor and Americans eat too darn much of it although I don’t think going from one extreme to the next is good.
oneofmany said:
I don’t trust Snopes plus this is from the other web site and talking about a wall, the Pope thinks it’s not Christian but Trump pointed out the huge wall around the Vatican.
Click to expand...
The Vatican has two walls that were built after Rome was raided by soldiers and this was the 16th century for one and the 9th for another. Until they become a problem I don’t see why they need to be torn down.
Monkey1976 said:
Interesting how today, it’s seen as a bad thing when one adjusts a controversial position in response to new feedback and information.
Click to expand...
If he started with banning entry of Muslims followed by rounding them up in concentration camps all the ones that are here, then walked it back would you treat that as a good thing or does he just seem mad to begin with? There is a difference between increasing taxes because you cut taxes too far and walking back something dodgy at best.
 
DaveBj said:
This is off-topic, but . . .

Give him/her a ham sandwich and a beer and see what he does, maybe?
Click to expand...

So if there’s someone who we thought was a Muslim terrorist, but he eats ham, we can let him into the country?

Really?
 
Theo520 said:
Mr Shea should give up his blogging pen
They don’t advocate the same policies, not by a long shot.
Mark is a Hillary apologist
Click to expand...
Is it possible to be a Hillary apologist when you say you’re not going to vote for her?

Why I’m Not Voting for Hillary–by Mark Shea

I dunno…it seems pretty clear that you’re NOT a Hillary apologist, but maybe that’s just me?

And even if he were a “Hillary apologist”, that doesn’t refute his statement. 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
Is it possible to be a Hillary apologist when you say you’re not going to vote for her?

Why I’m Not Voting for Hillary–by Mark Shea

I dunno…it seems pretty clear that you’re NOT a Hillary apologist, but maybe that’s just me?

And even if he were a “Hillary apologist”, that doesn’t refute his statement. 🤷
Click to expand...
He claims he’s voting “against Trump”, but that’s a distinction without real difference. What he fails to do is explain which of Mr. Trump’s proposed policies will result in the deaths of over 1 million people per year, thus giving him the “proportionate reasons” figleaf.
 
Monkey1976 said:
He claims he’s voting “against Trump”, but that’s a distinction without real difference. What he fails to do is explain which of Mr. Trump’s proposed policies will result in the deaths of over 1 million people per year, thus giving him the “proportionate reasons” figleaf.
Click to expand...
It is Mr. Shea’s opinion that Trump would be that bad for our nation. It is not necessary that he convince you or anyone else that his reasons are valid. He only needs to justify his decision that he is making for himself.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is Mr. Shea’s opinion that Trump would be that bad for our nation. It is not necessary that he convince you or anyone else that his reasons are valid. He only needs to justify his decision that he is making for himself.
Click to expand...
In his article, he doesn’t simply claim that Trump will be “bad for our nation”, but that he will be so horrific that one can ignore the enthusiastic enabling of the killing of over 1 million children per year.

I’m simply wondering what have I missed in Mr. Trump’s speeches, Tweets, and the policy statement on his website that points to something that will result in the direct, procured murder of more than 1 million persons per year.
 
Monkey1976 said:
In his article, he doesn’t simply claim that Trump will be “bad for our nation”, but that he will be so horrific that one can ignore the enthusiastic enabling of the killing of over 1 million children per year.

I’m simply wondering what have I missed in Mr. Trump’s speeches, Tweets, and the policy statement on his website that points to something that will result in the direct, procured murder of more than 1 million persons per year.
Click to expand...
In his other article,

patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2016/05/voting-to-support-a-lesser-evil-vs-voting-to-lessen-evil.html

Mark Shea states that he thinks Trump would make zero difference to Hillary when it comes to abortion. I happen to agree.
 
Al_Moritz said:
In his other article,

patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2016/05/voting-to-support-a-lesser-evil-vs-voting-to-lessen-evil.html

Mark Shea states that he thinks Trump would make zero difference to Hillary when it comes to abortion. I happen to agree.
Click to expand...
Has Mr. Trump called for religious views to change? Has he promised to push for the recall of the Hyde Amendment? Has he been endorsed by Planned Parenthood? Has he promised to appoint judges who will uphold Roe v Wade?

If the answer to any of these is no, explain to me how his position (nominally pro-life, wants to defund PP, will appoint justices like Scalia) is somehow equal to Mr. Clinton’s.
 
ProVobis said:
Can Cruz, Bush, Kasich, Rauner, et al be all wrong in not endorsing Trump? And if you think the cold or lukewarm endorsements by Paul Ryan, McConnell, McCain et al will translate into a Trump landslide, I would suggest rethinking that strategy.
Click to expand...
Yes, they can be wrong. Both Bush and Kasich want clinton to win. That way they can have four more bad years then hope to ride in on a white horse to save the day.
 
Monkey1976 said:
Has Mr. Trump called for religious views to change? Has he promised to push for the recall of the Hyde Amendment? Has he been endorsed by Planned Parenthood? Has he promised to appoint judges who will uphold Roe v Wade?

If the answer to any of these is no, explain to me how his position (nominally pro-life, wants to defund PP, will appoint justices like Scalia) is somehow equal to Mr. Clinton’s.
Click to expand...
You might want to read these links:

Donald Trump the false compromise of the pro-life community
by Frr. Marcel Guarnizo

and

**Trump’s Abortion Ruling Silence Worries Pro-Lifers
**

as well as

**There is no pro-life case for Trump
**
 
_Abyssinia said:
Pollster Zogby: ‘Back to a close race,’ Clinton 38%, Trump 36%

washingtonexaminer.com/pow-its-just-a-2-point-race-clinton-38-trump-36/article/2599471
Click to expand...
538 blog in 2012:

The online polls conducted by JZ Analytics, run by the pollster John Zogby, were not used in the FiveThirtyEight forecast because we do not consider their method to be scientific, since it encourages voters to volunteer to participate in their surveys rather than sampling them at random. Their results were less accurate than most of the online polling firms, although about average as compared with the broader group of surveys.
Latest NBC/Survey Money online poll: Clinton/Trump = 50/41
 
Monkey1976 said:
He claims he’s voting “against Trump”, but that’s a distinction without real difference. What he fails to do is explain which of Mr. Trump’s proposed policies will result in the deaths of over 1 million people per year, thus giving him the “proportionate reasons” figleaf.
Click to expand...
The above is a nonsequitur.

Someone accused Shea of being a Hillary apologist.

Do you think it’s possible to be a Hillary apologist without voting for her?

Isn’t that like saying, “I’m a Catholic apologist but I’m a Jehovah’s Witness”?
 
Al_Moritz said:
538 blog in 2012:

The online polls conducted by JZ Analytics, run by the pollster John Zogby, were not used in the FiveThirtyEight forecast because we do not consider their method to be scientific, since it encourages voters to volunteer to participate in their surveys rather than sampling them at random. Their results were less accurate than most of the online polling firms, although about average as compared with the broader group of surveys.
Latest NBC/Survey Money online poll: Clinton/Trump = 50/41
Click to expand...
That was three and a bit something years ago… do they still poll in that way? It says in the Washington Examiner that it’s a poll of likely voters but doesn’t delve much further into the polling methods.

Not sure it’s anonymous.
 
Monkey1976 said:
To sum up these articles: “Unless the opposition to the rabidly pro-abortion candidate meets my particular definition and standards of being ‘pro-life’, it’s okay to vote for the rabidly pro-abortion candidate.”
Click to expand...
Well have to add that to the list
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top