Trump Thread

[ringil]

You think it’s in the bag for Hillary Clinton? Is that correct? Because if that’s what you think, I suspect the Republicans are hoping there are a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters that think the way you do, because you may vote, but if some Hillary Clinton supporters think it’s in the bag for her, they may not vote for their candidate because they just think it’s going to be a safe Hillary Clinton win regardless of if they personally vote or not, and that could in turn result in a Trump win.

Not gonna happen.

This will be a historic landslide election.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Interesting. One wonders whether he has considered the Supreme Court appointments each promises to make. Flaws are flaws, but the legal system my children and grandchildren inherit is something else entirely. One remembers that the Bill Clinton appointee was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who always votes to support abortion, even partial birth abortion, and who has opined that the age of sexual consent should be 12.

I guess I am arch-conservative, even reactionary, in today’s U.S., in thinking the courts should be interpreting and applying the law passed by representatives as well as the constitution as written, rather than instead of inventing novel opinions designed to effect cultural change.

So, for me, there’s no choice to this but Trump. If Abp Chaput feels there is no moral difference between the candidates, that’s his to judge for himself, and perhaps he’s right. But for me, it’s a more practical matter affecting whether my children and grandchildren live under the rule of law or that of executive fiat backed by a radical judiciary.

And as a purely practical, and more selfish, matter, as a sometime investor I dread the near certainty that the winners and losers in the economy will be determined by what giant corporation (or country) gives the most money to Hillary Clinton. I would rather see the markets determine those outcomes.

But probably those practical (and to a degree selfish) considerations are not the kinds of things Abp Chaput is concerned with.

You do know that 5 Republican appointees decided in favor of Roe v. Wade, right?

 

[JW55]

We are really at the crossroads in this election. As wild as some of the things that Trump says, they come no where near matching the absurdity, immoral and despicable positons proposed by the opposition. For the sake of our country we have to step up and put a stop to what is happening to our country.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You do know that 5 Republican appointees decided in favor of Roe v. Wade, right?

According to following info linked, the Republican Party adopted a platform in favour of a constitutional amendment for unborn children in 1980. The platform of 1976 was far more vague in regards to abortion: articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/31/opinion/la-oe-0831-kinsley-abortion-gop-platform-20120831

So would the Presidents who made those five nominees have looked at abortion in regards to nominees they made? Back when those nominees were made, the issue of abortion may not have been something that was looked at in regards to judicial nominees in the way that it may be done in contemporary times.

The following article makes the point that if Democrats had not blocked Reagan nominee, Robert Bork, Roe v Wade may have been “reversed” by now: lifenews.com/2012/12/28/roe-v-wade-could-have-been-reversed-if-robert-bork-had-been-approved/

 

[_Abyssinia]

Pollster warns Clinton’s lead over Trump is soft

"“Simply put, the election still is far from over!” said Ipsos President Clifford Young. "

washingtonexaminer.com/pollster-warns-clintons-lead-over-trump-is-soft/article/2599541

The Trump campaign I don’t think has been running any ads, well that’s changing: politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-tv-ads-227092

According to that article more than $100 million has been spent from Clinton and the super pac.

 

[TMC]

According to following info linked, the Republican Party adopted a platform in favour of a constitutional amendment for unborn children in 1980. The platform of 1976 was far more vague in regards to abortion: articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/31/opinion/la-oe-0831-kinsley-abortion-gop-platform-20120831

So would the Presidents who made those five nominees have looked at abortion in regards to nominees they made? Back when those nominees were made, the issue of abortion may not have been something that was looked at in regards to judicial nominees in the way that it may be done in contemporary times.

The following article makes the point that if Democrats had not blocked Reagan nominee, Robert Bork, Roe v Wade may have been “reversed” by now: lifenews.com/2012/12/28/roe-v-wade-could-have-been-reversed-if-robert-bork-had-been-approved/

The idea that Roe v Wade is teetering on one vote is a fiction promoted by both parties for fund raising purposes. The last few abortion cases have been about the scope of the government’s ability to regulate abortion, not about overturning RvW. The only current Justice that appears to support overturning RvW is Thomas. The rest disagree about the limits that can be placed on abortion, but none of the rest are arguing to overturn Roe.

 

[TMC]

Pollster warns Clinton’s lead over Trump is soft

"“Simply put, the election still is far from over!” said Ipsos President Clifford Young. "

washingtonexaminer.com/pollster-warns-clintons-lead-over-trump-is-soft/article/2599541

The Trump campaign I don’t think has been running any ads, well that’s changing: politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-tv-ads-227092

According to that article more than $100 million has been spent from Clinton and the super pac.

This election is not over. Anyone that thinks it is over is kidding themselves. Maybe we can call it in a month or 45 days if Trump continues to crater, but its too early to write off a comeback at this point.

 

[lmachine]

Not gonna happen.

This will be a historic landslide election.

I’m looking forward to election night. It’ll be like the last ones where the minute west coast polls close it’ll be called for Hillary.

 

[Thorolfr]

Here’s something from Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight:

In January, even as he stood atop Republican primary polls, Trump was exceptionally unpopular with general election voters. At that time, Trump had a 33 percent favorable rating and a 58 percent unfavorable rating with the general electorate. Today? His numbers are even worse. His favorability rating is just 32 percent, according to the HuffPost Pollster aggregate, while his unfavorable rating has risen to 65 percent.

Trump is helped by the fact that Hillary Clinton might be the second-most-unpopular nominee ever, after Trump. But still, remarkably few Americans are willing to commit to voting for Trump. In the table below, I’ve listed every poll from a 2012 swing state1 taken since the conventions. On average, Trump has just 37 percent of the vote in these polls (Clinton has 44 percent). That puts him on par with Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, who each got 38 percent of the vote in their respective landslide defeats of 1964 and 1972.

fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-doubling-down-on-a-losing-strategy/

So is Trump heading for a landslide defeat? As Silver points out, instead of trying to broaden his base of support, Mr. Trump appears to be doubling down on appealing to the core supporters that allowed him to win in the Republican primaries.

What’s more, Trump already doubled down on Trumpism at the Republican convention, with a disorganized program and gloomy acceptance speech full of nationalist and populist themes. The result was a convention that left most voters with a worse impression of Trump and the Republican Party. Clinton went from having roughly a 3 percentage point lead just before the conventions to more like a 7 or 8 point lead just afterward, and her advantage has held roughly steady ever since. August is still too soon to declare any presidential campaign over. But Trump and his acolytes seem to be in profound denial about the narrowness of their appeal.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The idea that Roe v Wade is teetering on one vote is a fiction promoted by both parties for fund raising purposes. The last few abortion cases have been about the scope of the government’s ability to regulate abortion, not about overturning RvW. The only current Justice that appears to support overturning RvW is Thomas. The rest disagree about the limits that can be placed on abortion, but none of the rest are arguing to overturn Roe.

You mention about the last few abortion cases, but that’s the last few cases, who knows how long it’s going to be before there is a case that goes before the Supreme Court that is much larger in its potential scope that could lead to addressing the overturning of Roe v Wade. That’s why the balance of the Supreme Court is so important. The next President could nominate multiple judges.

 

[Peter_J]

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’m no Trump fan but that post seems rather dramatic. And I don’t see that HRC is any better.

I hope Americans still know how to compromise, because that’s the only way we will avoid getting a really bad president.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

I agree, to a point. He certainly did us no favors when he made the prolife movement out to be a punish-women movement. On the other hand, in some ways he’d surely be better than Hillary (if he can beat her, which I strongly doubt).

 

[Padres1969]

You mention about the last few abortion cases, but that’s the last few cases, who knows how long it’s going to be before there is a case that goes before the Supreme Court that is much larger in its potential scope that could lead to addressing the overturning of Roe v Wade. That’s why the balance of the Supreme Court is so important. The next President could nominate multiple judges.

Problem is how do you overturn Roe via the courts? Stare decisis would dictate that the Supreme Court of today is bound by Roe. So abortion will never be outlawed by the court in light of Roe. If you really want Roe overturned, the Supreme Court isn’t who you should be worried about. It’s those 100 senators and 435 congresspersons you should be focused on. They’re the ones who can change the law. Thus far in 40 years they’ve been unwilling to do so.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Problem is how do you overturn Roe via the courts? Stare decisis would dictate that the Supreme Court of today is bound by Roe. So abortion will never be outlawed by the court in light of Roe. If you really want Roe overturned, the Supreme Court isn’t who you should be worried about. It’s those 100 senators and 435 congresspersons you should be focused on. They’re the ones who can change the law. Thus far in 40 years they’ve been unwilling to do so.

It’s fine to focus on congressmen, but they can’t change Roe no matter how many of them want to. Only the Supreme Court can do that.

Courts overturn prior decisions all the time. Stare decisis is not an absolute. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of state determinations of who can marry until it recently overturned that. It upheld abortion prohibitions until it didn’t. It ruled in favor of slavery and segregation until it didn’t.

Appointments to the Supreme Court are absolutely crucial to ever getting rid of abortion on demand. Worse, if a pro-abortion majority is installed, (and all it would take is one) it will probably overturn the “Carhart vs. Gonzales” case which allowed states to ban partial birth abortions. In “Carhart” every Repub appointee voted in favor of the bans, and every Dem appointee voted for partial birth abortion without restrictions.

It’s as clear as clear gets. And only the president can appoint Supreme Court justices.

 

[TMC]

You mention about the last few abortion cases, but that’s the last few cases, who knows how long it’s going to be before there is a case that goes before the Supreme Court that is much larger in its potential scope that could lead to addressing the overturning of Roe v Wade. That’s why the balance of the Supreme Court is so important. The next President could nominate multiple judges.

You misapprehend my point. The problem is not that the cases were not large enough in scope to embrace Roe. The last several cases provided an opportunity to overturn Roe v Wade, if the Court were so inclined. The problem is that the Court is not so inclined. Justice Thomas wrote a dissent to each of those cases opining that he would overturn Roe. No current Justice agreed with him. So the only Justice on the record for overturning RvW is Thomas, and each of the other seven are on the record for interpreting (not overturning) that precedent.

Scalia was also a vote for overturning Roe v Wade, but Scalia believed that the unborn have no rights. His objection to RvW was on Federalism grounds. His opinion was that the states were free to allow abortion if they so choose, but that the federal government should not be involved.

Appointing certain judges can help to narrow or restrict abortion rights, but we are way more than one vote from overturning Roe. Both parties pretend otherwise because it is useful for raising funds and charging up their bases.

Personally, I don’t trust Trump to appoint any particular flavor of judge. Based on the folks he has surrounding himself with thus far, I fear that he may pick someone fairly radical or dangerous.

 

[Abynissa]

Trump advisers waged covert influence campaign

WASHINGTON (AP) – A firm run by Donald Trump’s campaign chairman directly orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine’s ruling political party, attempting to sway American public opinion in favor of the country’s pro-Russian government, emails obtained by The Associated Press show. Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, never disclosed their work as foreign agents as required under federal law.
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_TRUMP_AIDES_UKRAINE_LOBBYING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-18-20-08-08

Trump tweets make sense now. Who is he really working for. Reagan was against Totalitarian regimes apparently Trump admires them according to his tweets.

 

[Little_Sheep]

The idea that Roe v Wade is teetering on one vote is a fiction promoted by both parties for fund raising purposes. The last few abortion cases have been about the scope of the government’s ability to regulate abortion, not about overturning RvW. The only current Justice that appears to support overturning RvW is Thomas. The rest disagree about the limits that can be placed on abortion, but none of the rest are arguing to overturn Roe.

Truer words have never been written. Abortion is a political football. The right to safe, legal abortion is here to stay.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Here’s something from Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight:

fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-doubling-down-on-a-losing-strategy/

So is Trump heading for a landslide defeat? As Silver points out, instead of trying to broaden his base of support, Mr. Trump appears to be doubling down on appealing to the core supporters that allowed him to win in the Republican primaries.

I believe that the media will call it close at different times during the next few months - mainly for the purposes of keeping things interesting. But there’s no way in Hades that America will elect anyone other than Hillary Clinton as its next POTUS.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not sure I agree with mr. Shea about Hillary being the less of two evils. I think her stance on abortion is not compatible with Catholicism. But trump isn’t prolife. So it’s six of 1 half dozen of the other.

I feel duped though. The Republican Party was supposed to be the prolife party. But abortion didn’t matter much when it came to getting Trump as the candidate.

I think the Republican Party is the least Republican that it has been in a long time.

 

[Peter_J]

Not really, no:

Pope suggests Trump ‘is not Christian’

Reports that His Holiness has endorsed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump originated with a fake news web site

The Pope’s remarks about The Donald ended up helping him rather than hurting him – or at least some pundits have made that claim. But it seems to me it wasn’t so much a matter of carelessness on the part of His Holiness: I think the media presented his criticisms poorly.