Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholic_farmer said:
I simply don’t trust Trump’s stance on abortion. He praises PP, then says he’d jail women? It makes no sense. He was pro-choice up until last year, and now, he’s supposedly pro-life, but it’s okay in some cases?
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Not to mention his entire view on sex is*** that which sets the stage for abortion and the culture of death.***

When you don’t get sexual morality right, everything else about the prolife position falls apart. You can’t have an anomalous sexual ethos and an orthodox prolife ethos. At least if you want to espouse a coherent position.

Not to mention he has refused to answer the question as to whether he’s actually funded an abortion personally.

That should both any prolife Trump supporter. Very, very much.

Would it not be actually worse IF Trump had actually killed one of his children as compared to Hillary, who only supports the right to do so, and has actually never aborted her baby?
 
PRmerger said:
Indeed.

Not to mention his entire view on sex is*** that which sets the stage for abortion and the culture of death.***

Not to mention he has refused to answer the question as to whether he’s actually funded an abortion personally.

That should both any prolife Trump supporter. Very, very much.

Would it not be actually worse IF Trump had actually killed one of his children as compared to Hillary, who only supports the right to do so, and has actually never aborted her baby?
Click to expand...
Why do you keep perseverating on the possibility thst Trump may or may not have been complicit in an abortion? Also if that is your driving concern,how can you be sure Hillary hasn’t also had an abortion?Because she says she hasn’t? We all know how credible her word is:rolleyes: Regardless what does any of that have to do with where Trump stands on the issue today?:What ofvzhillarybhaving had actually been complicit in some way with and abortion but was now pro life,would you question her motives that way you are questioning DT?
 
Jeanne_S said:
Why do you keep perseverating on the possibility thst Trump may or may not have been complicit in an abortion? Also if that is your driving concern,how can you be sure Hillary hasn’t also had an abortion?Because she says she hasn’t? We all know how credible her word is:rolleyes: Regardless what does any of that have to do with where Trump stands on the issue today?:confused:
Click to expand...
I will answer, but first let me ask you these 2 questions: would you still vote for Trump if he said he had aborted one of his children? And Hillary declared that she had never aborted any of her babies?

And, just theoretically: which is worse–to have actually aborted your child, or support the right to do so?

To answer your questions: I perseverate on it for many reasons. 1) IF he actually has aborted his child (and Hillary hasn’t) that would make it a horrific thing to vote for a man who has killed his own child. 2) Because he refuses to answer the question. We could simply end this discussion if he would simply answer, "No, I never aborted any of my and my mistresses’ (or wives’) babies 3) The fact that he refuses to answer–something which would solidify his prolife position if he were to declare he had never killed his child–is telling. It supports that which most of us have been saying here: he’s not prolife.

As far as Hillary perhaps having aborted her babies–she’s not claiming to be prolife, so…
 
PRmerger said:
Would it not be actually worse IF Trump had actually killed one of his children as compared to Hillary, who only supports the right to do so, and has actually never aborted her baby?
Click to expand...
Translation: Mr. Trump doesn’t fit my personal definition and standards of “pro-life”, so therefore I can vote for the rabidly pro-abortion candidate, who advocates changing religious beliefs for accept abortion, and the federal funding of abortions on demand.
 
PRmerger said:
I will answer, but first let me ask you these 2 questions: would you still vote for Trump if he said he had aborted one of his children? And Hillary declared that she had never aborted any of her babies?

And, just theoretically: which is worse–to have actually aborted your child, or support the right to do so?

To answer your questions: I perseverate on it for many reasons. 1) IF he actually has aborted his child (and Hillary hasn’t) that would make it a horrific thing to vote for a man who has killed his own child. 2) Because he refuses to answer the question. We could simply end this discussion if he would simply answer, "No, I never aborted any of my and my mistresses’ (or wives’) babies 3) The fact that he refuses to answer–something which would solidify his prolife position if he were to declare he had never killed his child–is telling. It supports that which most of us have been saying here: he’s not prolife.

As far as Hillary perhaps having aborted her babies–she’s not claiming to be prolife, so…
Click to expand...
Wow,now that is some mental gymnastics! So what you are saying is,DT or anyone for that matter who may have participated in an abortion directly or indirectly,cannot have a contrite heart and now be prolife? That HC because she may not have actually participated in an abortion herself but to this day unabashedly promotes and supports the abortion industry is somehow morally superior?:eek:
 
Monkey1976 said:
Translation: Mr. Trump doesn’t fit my personal definition and standards of “pro-life”, so therefore I can vote for the rabidly pro-abortion candidate, who advocates changing religious beliefs for accept abortion, and the federal funding of abortions on demand.
Click to expand...
This sounds to me like a mistranslation. I’ll leave it to PRMerger to explain why.
 
PRmerger said:
I will answer, but first let me ask you these 2 questions: would you still vote for Trump if he said he had aborted one of his children? And Hillary declared that she had never aborted any of her babies?

And, just theoretically: which is worse–to have actually aborted your child, or support the right to do so?

To answer your questions: I perseverate on it for many reasons. 1) IF he actually has aborted his child (and Hillary hasn’t) that would make it a horrific thing to vote for a man who has killed his own child. 2) Because he refuses to answer the question. We could simply end this discussion if he would simply answer, "No, I never aborted any of my and my mistresses’ (or wives’) babies 3) The fact that he refuses to answer–something which would solidify his prolife position if he were to declare he had never killed his child–is telling. It supports that which most of us have been saying here: he’s not prolife.

As far as Hillary perhaps having aborted her babies–she’s not claiming to be prolife, so…
Click to expand...
PR, I think your analysis here is a tad off the mark and here is why:

I would think someone who did abort their own child and later on came to regret it could legitimately have become pro-life after the fact and possibly because of having had the personal experience of an abortion.

I would also suppose that someone who has never aborted their own child but is quite willing to promote abortion on demand could very plausibly take that position because of narcissistic egoism with regard to their own flesh and blood but could, consistent with that narcissism show a willingness to promote legalized abortion precisely because they don’t give a hoot about anyone else or their children.

Ergo, even given your theoretical situation, someone who has aborted their own child is not necessarily “worse” than someone who promotes the right of everyone else to do so. That would all depend upon whatever reasons either individual has for their current position.

In fact, it is entirely plausible for someone to be somewhere between regretting their own choice of having aborted a child (Think: I Regret My Abortion) and having arrived at a solid pro-life position. I mean, Tim Kaine gets a bye for "I am personally opposed but wouldn’t want to impose my views. Why couldn’t someone be “personally opposed” BECAUSE they went through the experience and regretted it but wasn’t quite ready to impose that view on others because they were still working through their personal justification that could warrant taking a wider political stance including imposing that position on others?

A second point with regard to -]Hilary/-] the individual who never had their own abortion but supports abortion on demand at taxpayers’ expense: given the way the Clinton Foundation profited in Haiti from the poverty and suffering of those people they didn’t help, it is entirely possible for someone who would carry out that kind of profiteering to have an entirely uncaring and ulterior set of reasons for supporting abortion for “others” (Think: Margaret Sanger award recipient) – including everyone outside of their in-group – although they would never even entertain aborting their own flesh and blood.

The other problem with your analysis is that it would seem to imply that women who have abortions are necessarily more immoral than those who endorse or promote abortions “for others.” I wouldn’t think that that is necessarily true.
 
Former Romney finance chairman endorses Clinton

Declaring that Donald Trump “speaks positively about foreign dictators and acts like one himself,” one of Mitt Romney’s original finance committee chairmen endorsed Hillary Clinton for the presidency on Friday.

**“Trump is the most dangerous major party presidential candidate in my lifetime, maybe in American history,” **David Nierenberg wrote in a CNBC op-ed. "His character, temperament, and behavior definitely are not presidential. I don’t think he’s fit to be our president. He speaks positively about foreign dictators and acts like one himself."

Nierenberg, who along with Meg Whitman was one of the former Massachusetts governor’s first national finance chairs, took particular issue with Trump’s reluctance to release his tax returns. Romney himself has speculated that there might be a “bombshell” in the Republican nominee’s documents, while Trump has maintained that he will not release them while they are under audit.

“For decades, candidates, including successful business people, have released their tax returns; why does Trump think he shouldn’t follow the rules of the game?” Nierenberg asked. “Defeating him has to be our national priority.”

While noting that he will vote for other Republicans in November, the Camas, Washington-based investor said that Clinton “knows her stuff.”

“She is emotionally mature and centered. She respects and enjoys working with people from all backgrounds. She has the diplomatic skills needed to break the gridlock in Washington and lead our country well. America needs a steady hand on the tiller,” Nierenberg concluded. "We cannot afford the risk of a man whose temperament and behavior are erratic."
 
Clinton leads Trump by eight points: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton leads Republican rival Donald Trump by 8 percentage points among likely voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday.

The Aug. 14-18 survey showed 42 percent of Americans supported Clinton ahead of the Nov. 8 general election. That compares with 34 percent support for Trump. Another 23 percent of likely voters would not pick either candidate.

Clinton has led Trump in the poll throughout most of the 2016 campaign, and has maintained her advantage following last month’s Republican and Democratic conventions. Since late July, support for the former secretary of state has ranged between 41 percent and 44 percent of likely voters, while Trump’s support has varied between 33 percent and 39 percent.

The race was tighter at this point in the 2012 election, with Democratic President Barack Obama ahead of Republican nominee Mitt Romney by less than 2 percentage points.

Clinton also led a separate Reuters/Ipsos poll that asked people to choose between Clinton, Trump, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Jill Stein of the Green Party. Some 41 percent supported Clinton and 34 percent supported Trump. Among alternative-party candidates, Johnson came in third with 7 percent and about 2 percent supported Stein.

Clinton and Trump have both struggled to inspire American voters this year. According to the poll, neither candidate is regarded favorably by most Americans, and two-thirds of U.S. adults believe the country is on the wrong track.

Clinton continues to face questions about her handling of classified emails while serving as Obama’s secretary of state, while Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks about immigrants, women and Muslims have rankled members of his own party.

Republican leaders, including former members of Congress, have called for the Republican National Committee to stop helping Trump and refocus its resources on helping candidates win down-ballot races for the House of Representatives and the Senate. Earlier this week, Trump reshuffled his campaign leadership while his campaign chief, Paul Manafort, faced increased scrutiny over his work with pro-Russian political groups in the Ukraine. Manafort resigned on Friday.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online in English in all 50 states. It surveyed samples of 1,119 and 1,118 likely voters, respectively, and has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 3 percentage points.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Clinton leads Trump by eight points: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton leads Republican rival Donald Trump by 8 percentage points among likely voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday.

The Aug. 14-18 survey showed 42 percent of Americans supported Clinton ahead of the Nov. 8 general election. That compares with 34 percent support for Trump. Another 23 percent of likely voters would not pick either candidate.

Clinton has led Trump in the poll throughout most of the 2016 campaign, and has maintained her advantage following last month’s Republican and Democratic conventions. Since late July, support for the former secretary of state has ranged between 41 percent and 44 percent of likely voters, while Trump’s support has varied between 33 percent and 39 percent.

The race was tighter at this point in the 2012 election, with Democratic President Barack Obama ahead of Republican nominee Mitt Romney by less than 2 percentage points.

Clinton also led a separate Reuters/Ipsos poll that asked people to choose between Clinton, Trump, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Jill Stein of the Green Party. Some 41 percent supported Clinton and 34 percent supported Trump. Among alternative-party candidates, Johnson came in third with 7 percent and about 2 percent supported Stein.

Clinton and Trump have both struggled to inspire American voters this year. According to the poll, neither candidate is regarded favorably by most Americans, and two-thirds of U.S. adults believe the country is on the wrong track.

Clinton continues to face questions about her handling of classified emails while serving as Obama’s secretary of state, while Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks about immigrants, women and Muslims have rankled members of his own party.

Republican leaders, including former members of Congress, have called for the Republican National Committee to stop helping Trump and refocus its resources on helping candidates win down-ballot races for the House of Representatives and the Senate. Earlier this week, Trump reshuffled his campaign leadership while his campaign chief, Paul Manafort, faced increased scrutiny over his work with pro-Russian political groups in the Ukraine. Manafort resigned on Friday.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online in English in all 50 states. It surveyed samples of 1,119 and 1,118 likely voters, respectively, and has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 3 percentage points.
Click to expand...
What is the sample breakdown, percentage of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents?
 
Al_Moritz said:
Former Romney finance chairman endorses Clinton

Declaring that Donald Trump “speaks positively about foreign dictators and acts like one himself,” one of Mitt Romney’s original finance committee chairmen endorsed Hillary Clinton for the presidency on Friday.

**“Trump is the most dangerous major party presidential candidate in my lifetime, maybe in American history,” **David Nierenberg wrote in a CNBC op-ed. "His character, temperament, and behavior definitely are not presidential. I don’t think he’s fit to be our president. He speaks positively about foreign dictators and acts like one himself."

Nierenberg, who along with Meg Whitman was one of the former Massachusetts governor’s first national finance chairs, took particular issue with Trump’s reluctance to release his tax returns. Romney himself has speculated that there might be a “bombshell” in the Republican nominee’s documents, while Trump has maintained that he will not release them while they are under audit.

“For decades, candidates, including successful business people, have released their tax returns; why does Trump think he shouldn’t follow the rules of the game?” Nierenberg asked. “Defeating him has to be our national priority.”

While noting that he will vote for other Republicans in November, the Camas, Washington-based investor said that Clinton “knows her stuff.”

“She is emotionally mature and centered. She respects and enjoys working with people from all backgrounds. **She has the diplomatic skills needed to break the gridlock in Washington and lead our country well. **America needs a steady hand on the tiller,” Nierenberg concluded. "We cannot afford the risk of a man whose temperament and behavior are erratic."
Click to expand...
LOL, she IS the gridlock in Washington.
 
Abynissa said:
I
Email server issue:
Fact, Bush administration and his White House staff used private servers where over 5 million emails were lost in violation of Presidential Records Act. Karl Rove used kr@georgewbush.com for 95% of his emails while other staff members where using gwb43.com and rnchq.org where 22 million emails were lost! Where is the outrage by the GOP when Secretary of State Colin Powell used a private email server and lost most of those emails? Some of these servers were hosted by the RNC!
Click to expand...
This is appearing more and more to be a fabrication by Clinton.

Powell used a private account for his own personal email but a secure server for state business. Most human beings would do the same.

youtu.be/4Hh40ubsNMY

Clinton intentionally blurred the lines between personal and state business AND now she is attempting to blur the lines between what she did and what Powell and others did which were in no way similar.
 
Monkey1976 said:
Translation: Mr. Trump doesn’t fit my personal definition and standards of “pro-life”, so therefore I can vote for the rabidly pro-abortion candidate, who advocates changing religious beliefs for accept abortion, and the federal funding of abortions on demand.
Click to expand...
More Accurate Translation: If the only viable choices are a Crook and a Clown, and the Clown won’t be able to accomplish anything with a Crook-Majority Senate that won’t approve the Clown’s Rumored “Pro-Life” SCOTUS nominee…
 
Divine Mercy

Eternal Father, I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your Dearly Beloved Son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world.

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
 
I got a good laugh this morning when I saw that there is an opinion piece in the Washington Post endorsing Donald Trump by Jerry Falwell, Jr. , the president of Liberty University with the title, “Trump is the Churchillian leader we need”. The idea that Donald Trump is in any way comparable to Winston Churchill seems a little silly.

Not only did Winston Churchill prove his mettle as a leader during World War II, he also had a long history of public service before becoming prime minister, having served a number of years as a member of parliament and as First Lord of the Admiralty and Chancellor of the Exchequer.

But what are Mr. Trump’s qualifications to be President of the US besides being a real estate developer and a reality TV star?
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
This is encouraging to me. Trump did the right thing going there IMO. Is Trump sincere in his visit? Who knows?

As someone on the fence, this puts Trump back in play.
Click to expand...
usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2012/11/02/donald-trump-should-donate-his-5-million-to-hurricane-sandy-victims

I looked up Donald Trump’s response to Hurricane sandy.

What I was able to find that
  1. He kept the atrium open at Trump tower and provided coffee and food during the hurricane. Trump tower isn’t located to where a significant many of those effected were located. I’m not sure if power was lost in that area or if people from that area were displaced.
  2. Simultaneously, he had 5 million dollars as a reward for a challenge to Barrack Obama to release his college transcripts and passport. His city and the surrounding areas are significantly damaged, and he thinks of offering this challenge.
  3. He also tweeted that Obama would be coming to the effected areas with billions of dollars solely to buy votes. He thought Obama was there for ulterior motives.
  4. I don’t recall Trump acting similarly. No trump giving out hugs or checks or food or coffee in the areas effected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top