Trump Thread

[meltzerboy]

Abortion will not be ended at the federal level. There are estimates that abortion would be lowered by a mere 6 % if Roe v. Wade were overturned, because of all the state laws that would remain in place.

If one is pro-life, trying to influence the legal system is an utterly inefficient, dead-end way of improving things. We have to work on the root causes of abortion.

The “root causes of abortion” are intertwined with the monumental cultural shifts that have taken place in our society and our world. Until cultural attitudes themselves change, abortion on demand will not significantly decrease.

 

[irishpatrick]

The “root causes of abortion” are intertwined with the monumental cultural shifts that have taken place in our society and our world. Until cultural attitudes themselves change, abortion on demand will not significantly decrease.

Yes, I agree, and that won’t happen until the Church (including faithful Catholics) becomes truly firm enough in the faith to speak the truth in and out of season. Until that happens, the decay will continue…one day the decay will be enough that even people on the left will see it, and then millions will wonder how it happened.

Fornicating remains a sin.

Adultery remains a sin.

Abortion remains a sin.

Greed remains a sin.

The list goes on-and-on…the sad thing is, most do not think of sin today, and until we reverse that, the decay will continue.

 

[ProVobis]

The republicans are committing suicide and are just fine with losing.

As long as they (as individual Republicans) aren’t blamed for it. Their gut tells them that Trump will be a failure and so far he hasn’t shown much to counter that feel.

 

[ProVobis]

IN ADDITION, in two previous presidential elections, the Republicans put forth two candidates who were the weakest imaginable. And they lost.

McCain and Romney.

I disagree. McCain was strong on foreign policy. Unfortunately he had a collapse of the banks which he couldn’t overcome.

 

[BernadetteM]

All the people I have talked to are voting for Trump. That includes women and Hispanics.

I do wonder if many on here ever actually research some of the people or situations where Trump has said an unpopular comment about a person. I have and have found some very interesting background that Trump probably is aware of, but I admit he doesn’t go into detail about his comments. It is very difficult it appears for him to not attack back when he is first attacked, although the media (including FOX) change what he says or maybe just leaves out a word that makes his comment different than what he really said.

Most people just listen to the news on TV or read articles, or listen to others, rather than take the time to really research. They believe everything that the anti Trump media and others say without really verifying it. Sometimes it is difficult to find an article from years ago and many I believe have been deleted by the internet, some escape and are still there.

Although I don’t say some of the things I really think to others, I am sure that many who are throwing stones also think some negative thoughts, but won’t say them publically, this is where Trump gets into trouble, he is thinking like the average person and has not been programmed by politicians to speak whatever will help them win, just say what we want to hear and then win and do nothing as they promised.

Maybe I am wrong, but it feels like many just don’t like Trump’s personality and are voting on that, not his policies. He has given very good speeches the past few days, but because many hate him, they say negative remarks about it, even if it makes sense and many of his expert advisors have discussed his policies with him. At least we know where he really stands, not where most politicians really believe and have an agenda. I don’t believe he has an agenda. Also why would anyone want to be treated in such an unchristian manner by so many, when they could just enjoy life?

Maybe many people know why many Republicans are against Trump from information they actually learned from the Republican senator etc. and not from articles. Or maybe they read minds and hearts.

I pray that Hillary doesn’t win, as it is terrifying to think about what Obama has done in 8 years to the U.S. and she may do worse.

There are articles about her health, that are not just the physical but how she is affected mentally by whatever is really wrong. She herself said she had short circuited when Chris Wallace interviewed her.

We all must choose who we want to be president and also take responsibility if we have made a wrong decision that affects all Americans.

Please avoid making unchristian responses to my post as this is all I have seen on CAF when the thread is about Trump. One could just say this is why I don’t agree with him, but most posts seem to attack him personally.

Bernadette

 

[gracepoole]

All the people I have talked to are voting for Trump.

Respectfully, your circle is very small and limited if this is true.

 

[meltzerboy]

All the people I have talked to are voting for Trump. That includes women and Hispanics.

I do wonder if many on here ever actually research some of the people or situations where Trump has said an unpopular comment about a person. I have and have found some very interesting background that Trump probably is aware of, but I admit he doesn’t go into detail about his comments. It is very difficult it appears for him to not attack back when he is first attacked, although the media (including FOX) change what he says or maybe just leaves out a word that makes his comment different than what he really said.

Most people just listen to the news on TV or read articles, or listen to others, rather than take the time to really research. They believe everything that the anti Trump media and others say without really verifying it. Sometimes it is difficult to find an article from years ago and many I believe have been deleted by the internet, some escape and are still there.

Although I don’t say some of the things I really think to others, I am sure that many who are throwing stones also think some negative thoughts, but won’t say them publically, this is where Trump gets into trouble, he is thinking like the average person and has not been programmed by politicians to speak whatever will help them win, just say what we want to hear and then win and do nothing as they promised.

Maybe I am wrong, but it feels like many just don’t like Trump’s personality and are voting on that, not his policies. He has given very good speeches the past few days, but because many hate him, they say negative remarks about it, even if it makes sense and many of his expert advisors have discussed his policies with him. At least we know where he really stands, not where most politicians really believe and have an agenda. I don’t believe he has an agenda. Also why would anyone want to be treated in such an unchristian manner by so many, when they could just enjoy life?

Maybe many people know why many Republicans are against Trump from information they actually learned from the Republican senator etc. and not from articles. Or maybe they read minds and hearts.

I pray that Hillary doesn’t win, as it is terrifying to think about what Obama has done in 8 years to the U.S. and she may do worse.

There are articles about her health, that are not just the physical but how she is affected mentally by whatever is really wrong. She herself said she had short circuited when Chris Wallace interviewed her.

We all must choose who we want to be president and also take responsibility if we have made a wrong decision that affects all Americans.

Please avoid making unchristian responses to my post as this is all I have seen on CAF when the thread is about Trump. One could just say this is why I don’t agree with him, but most posts seem to attack him personally.

Bernadette

You are so right that many people are voting for or against Trump based on his personality rather than his policies. Of course, his personality is such that it does not give many observers much of a chance to see beyond it. Trump may either want it that way, in large part, or he may not be able to do anything about it.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

She wants a candidate who will be nice.

There is a difference between wanting nice and opposing a candidate who publicly has committing war crimes as an idea to make America better.

She is also running for reelection in a blue state

This announcement, I think is more about Susan Collins than it is about Donald Trump

I’m sure there are many in red states who dislike Trump, but publicly support him for fear of losing office. Blue states tend to result in more moderate Republicans being elected so she very well might be personally opposed to Trump

Absolutely!He is a convienent target.Lest those naysayers forget,he beat out 16 other "establishment " candidates.He is a reaction to the same old same old.Theybare now licking their wounds and doing everything in their power to create continued chaos and disunity within the party. It is going to backfire big time,IMO

it is the result of winner take all allowing someone to win the entire state with 1/4 of the votes cast allowing this. The issue is the non-extremist vote was split up.

Abortion will not be ended at the federal level. There are estimates that abortion would be lowered by a mere 6 % if Roe v. Wade were overturned, because of all the state laws that would remain in place.

If one is pro-life, trying to influence the legal system is an utterly inefficient, dead-end way of improving things. We have to work on the root causes of abortion.

Ironically Jill Stein if elected would probably do the most to decrease abortion.

I can’t speak for everyone, but for everyone I’ve talked with (of all political affiliations), nobody wants Clinton or Trump. That might be because I’m from Minnesota, and a lot of people here like third-party candidates. Many are planning to vote for Gary Johnson. It seems to change in regards to which major candidate will be affected by this more. In this particular election, I hope more people spend less time worrying about if a vote for Gary Johnson will take away form a major party candidate, and more time trying to get more people to vote for him. There are a lot of “Never Hillary” people that wanted Bernie, I’m trying to get them to vote for Johnson, and I know many that are considering it. The same goes for some that I’ve talked to that are "Never Trump"people.

He is by no means the perfect candidate, but I think he’s still much better than the other 2.
I know I will be praying for a Gary Johnson presidency. Hopefully others will join.

If you can convince lots of would be Hillary voters to go Johnson we could have Johnson win with 30% of the vote. Johnson also seems to be pulling more away from Clinton that Trump. Remember, point out that Hillary has in fact been doing much of the stuff Trump has advocated.

As long as they (as individual Republicans) aren’t blamed for it. Their gut tells them that Trump will be a failure and so far he hasn’t shown much to counter that feel.

Even if Trumps wins he will be a failure, perhaps even worse than if he loses.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, which reaffirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade, was decided in favor by five Justices which all were Republican appointed.

See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

Click the names in the right hand column for checking the presidential appointments. The dissenters were three other Republican appointed justices and one appointee by JFK (White).

Times have changed from back then when nobody saw the legalization of abortion on demand coming. Particularly instructive is the more recent “Carhart vs. Gonzeles” in which every Republican appointee voted in favor of state bans on partial birth abortion, and in which every Democrat appointee voted against such bans.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The “root causes of abortion” are intertwined with the monumental cultural shifts that have taken place in our society and our world. Until cultural attitudes themselves change, abortion on demand will not significantly decrease.

More likely it’s the other way around. Unfortunately, many, if not most people base their morals on what’s legal. Leadership is a funny thing. Leaders actually lead, and not only in action.

 

[adowcday]

You are so right that many people are voting for or against Trump based on his personality rather than his policies. Of course, his personality is such that it does not give many observers much of a chance to see beyond it. Trump may either want it that way, in large part, or he may not be able to do anything about it.

What are Trump’s policies? So far, his economic plan, if you can call it that, is to reduce taxes, especially on the wealthiest Americans, and to reduce government regulations. These are standard GOP talking points for the past 30 years or so that, when implemented, have not stimulated the economy and have exacerbated income inequality. As for foreign policy and the military, he has talked about building a wall to exclude Hispanic immigrants and halting immigration from “terrorist” (that is, Muslim) countries. He has been exceptionally light on specifics, and the specifics of which I am aware are not attractive in the least.

No, those of us who won’t vote for Trump are well aware of both character and his policies and find neither acceptable. He is a lousy candidate for president, but he’s the one the Republican voters preferred over both mainstream (like Jeb Bush) and far right candidates (like Ted Cruz). If voters are rejecting him, it’s not because of what we don’t know, it’s because of what we know.

 

[irishpatrick]

Times have changed from back then when nobody saw the legalization of abortion on demand coming. Particularly instructive is the more recent “Carhart vs. Gonzeles” in which every Republican appointee voted in favor of state bans on partial birth abortion, and in which every Democrat appointee voted against such bans.

If people (including GOP politicians) truly believed that the unborn are human persons, they would never give-up their values to let them be killed. I believe the overwhelming majority just do not see the unborn as being human persons.

If people believed (and I mean really believed) that we have killed 60,000,000+ innocent persons since 1973, they’d rush to stop the slaughter, and I believe that would be Democrats and Republicans alike–they’d all join hands in stopping the killing.

 

[Al_Moritz]

More likely it’s the other way around. Unfortunately, many, if not most people base their morals on what’s legal. Leadership is a funny thing. Leaders actually lead, and not only in action.

Even if this were true, which it isn’t, how do you change laws without changing minds?

Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned there are estimates that this would reduce nationwide abortions by a mere 6 %, because of all the state laws remaining in place. In order to outlaw abortion you need to change the minds of people in ‘liberal’ states, before you can even think about changing corresponding state laws.

 

[irishpatrick]

Even if this were true, which it isn’t, how do you change laws without changing minds?

Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned there are estimates that this would reduce nationwide abortions by a mere 6 %, because of all the state laws remaining in place. In order to outlaw abortion you need to change the minds of people in ‘liberal’ states, before you can even think about changing corresponding state laws.

No, you need to protect life from natural conception to natural death with Federal laws that states cannot usurp.

We simple do not, as a nation, take life seriously and we most certainly do not view life as sacred.

 

[karow]

Collins says three incidents led her to this decision not to support Trump, a full 17 months after he announced his candidacy: Trump’s mocking of Serge Kovaleski; his insistance that Gonzalo Curiel could not be impartial because of his Mexican heritage; and his criticism of the parents of Army Capt. Khan.

But she says nothing of Trump calling undocumented immigrants rapists on day one of his presidential run.

That day, day one, is when anyone with decency would have disavowed him as a person fit for the presidency.

Collins gets no credit for saying Trump is too hateful and hurtful to endorse now, when he’s fixing to lose spectacularly and it’s politically expedient to distance herself from him. Trump was the same kind of nasty a year a half ago.

 

[Thorolfr]

Yes, I agree, and that won’t happen until the Church (including faithful Catholics) becomes truly firm enough in the faith to speak the truth in and out of season. Until that happens, the decay will continue…one day the decay will be enough that even people on the left will see it, and then millions will wonder how it happened.

Fornicating remains a sin.

Adultery remains a sin.

Abortion remains a sin.

Greed remains a sin.

The list goes on-and-on…the sad thing is, most do not think of sin today, and until we reverse that, the decay will continue.

You make it sound as if this “decay” and fornication, adultery, greed, etc. are new things. You should try reading the new book about Charles II of England who reigned from 1660-1689 that just came out this year by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh, The King’s Bed: Ambition and Intimacy in the Court of Charles II (Pegasus Books, 2016). It gives details about Charles, his seven mistresses and his 12 illegitimate children. According to the blurb at Amazon:

An intelligent and spirited history of Charles II’s dissolute life and surprising legacy, by two veteran historians.

To refer to the private life of Charles II is to abuse the adjective. His personal life was anything but private. His amorous liaisons were largely conducted in royal palaces surrounded by friends, courtiers and literally hundreds of servants and soldiers. Gossip radiated throughout the kingdom.

Charles spent most of his wealth and his intellect on gaining and keeping the company of women, from the lowest sections of society such as the actress Nell Gwyn to the aristocratic Louise de Kérouaille. Some of Charles’ women played their part in the affairs of state, coloring the way the nation was run.

The authors take us inside Charles’ palace, where we will meet court favorites, amusing confidants, advisors jockeying for political power, mistresses past and present as well as key figures in his inner circle such as his ‘pimpmasters’ and his personal pox doctor.

amazon.com/Kings-Bed-Ambition-Intimacy-Charles/dp/160598969X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1470765522&sr=8-1&keywords=king%27s+bed+jordan

As one of Charles’ friends said of him:

Restless he rolls from whore to whore
A merry monarch, scandalous and poor.

Daniel Defoe (the author of Robinson Crusoe) talked about “his lazy, long, lascivious reign.”

 

[irishpatrick]

You make it sound as if this “decay” and fornication, adultery, greed, etc. are new things. You should try reading the new book about Charles II of England who reigned from 1660-1689 that just came out this year by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh, The King’s Bed: Ambition and Intimacy in the Court of Charles II (Pegasus Books, 2016). It gives details about Charles, his seven mistresses and his 12 illegitimate children. According to the blurb at Amazon:

amazon.com/Kings-Bed-Ambition-Intimacy-Charles/dp/160598969X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1470765522&sr=8-1&keywords=king%27s+bed+jordan

As one of Charles’ friends said of him:

Restless he rolls from whore to whore
A merry monarch, scandalous and poor.

Daniel Defoe (the author of Robinson Crusoe) talked about “his lazy, long, lascivious reign.”

There is NOTHING new under the sun.

Yet, I do believe the rate of sin and the overwhelming acceptance of grave sin is something that has not been seen in a very long time, and never in USA history.

If people really believed that there is something wrong with fornication, and if they really believed that sin could place their eternal souls at risk, then a great many would not commit fornication. Yet, today, sin and the consequences of sin, are tossed into a bucket akin to myths and fairytales. THAT is unique the USA.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If people (including GOP politicians) truly believed that the unborn are human persons, they would never give-up their values to let them be killed. I believe the overwhelming majority just do not see the unborn as being human persons.

If people believed (and I mean really believed) that we have killed 60,000,000+ innocent persons since 1973, they’d rush to stop the slaughter, and I believe that would be Democrats and Republicans alike–they’d all join hands in stopping the killing.

I know and believe these are babies. Which saddens me to no end that trump is the supposed savior of the babies. He’s not prolife. He has no idea about what is in Roe v wade, what is in Doe v Bolton. He didn’t mention the unborn in his convention speech once.

He praised planned parenthood.

 

[irishpatrick]

I know and believe these are babies. Which saddens me to no end that trump is the supposed savior of the babies. He’s not prolife. He has no idea about what is in Roe v wade, what is in Doe v Bolton. He didn’t mention the unborn in his convention speech once.

He praised planned parenthood.

Yet, I do believe Trump will nominate better people to the SC, and that is where abortion will be denied or affirmed.

 

[Al_Moritz]

No, you need to protect life from natural conception to natural death with Federal laws that states cannot usurp.

We simple do not, as a nation, take life seriously and we most certainly do not view life as sacred.

Then overturning Roe v. Wade will not suffice. But overturning Roe v. Wade is what the political pro-life movement constantly talks about, as if that were the magical solution.

You will, however, never get to such a Federal law that states cannot usurp, without first changing minds – otherwise there simply will be no political will.