Trump v GOP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abynissa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stylteralmaldo said:
Trump is famous for his lack of details. Those plans need to include Planned Parenthood not being in the abortion business at all.
Click to expand...
Not releasing all your details is the smart strategy in a Primary election. You set the direction and don’t get tripped up, especially on minor details that will likely change.
I wonder if it would be okay to fund the third reich’s famously efficient highway system as long as those funds aren’t used for other purposes which would go to pay for evil purposes.
Click to expand...
Didn’t the Allied powers hire loads of German engineers and appropriate all the NAZI work/research? Nothing wrong with copying an efficient highway system.

To use your analogy, Trump is smart for acknowledging the good highways but stopping all funding if they keep running death camps (abortion mills). His strategy has kneecapped the Dem ‘war on women’ meme that sinks so many GOP politicians.
 
Theo520 said:
…To use your analogy, Trump is smart for acknowledging the good highways but stopping all funding if they keep running death camps (abortion mills). His strategy has kneecapped the Dem ‘war on women’ meme that sinks so many GOP politicians.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
queenofheartscv said:
Not only this, but there are actually Obama voters on this forum who criticize catholics who vote Trump. How funny!
Click to expand...
Kind of amazing how different you and I are in what we think of as funny. I shudder, shudder, to think how much mileage the democrats will out of criticizing Trump – and how many votes they will rake in.
 
queenofheartscv said:
Obama’s bad deals: Iran deal, Sergeant Bergdaul, Obamacare

He celebrated the gay marriage ruling by draping the white house in rainbow lights.

He withdrew from Iraq and threw away the victories already won there.
Click to expand...
In case you’ve forgotten, the agreement between the US and the Iraqi government which specified the date by which US troops were to withdraw from Iraq was negotiated by the Bush administration:
In 2008 the American and Iraqi governments signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, after being sought by the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government. It included a specific date, 30 June 2009, by which American forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities, and a complete withdrawal date from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

It was the Iraqi government, the one we put in place, which refused to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement allowing US troops to stay longer.
 
Thorolfr said:
In case you’ve forgotten, the agreement between the US and the Iraqi government which specified the date by which US troops were to withdraw from Iraq was negotiated by the Bush administration:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

It was the Iraqi government, the one we put in place, which refused to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement allowing US troops to stay longer.
Click to expand...
In the Republican alternative universe, President Bush made that agreement knowing that it couldn’t be kept; the Iraq government really wanted us to stay which and the only reason they refused to give US troops immunity was to save face because they knew President Obama wanted them out and it was President Obama who single-handedly made the decision to cut and run.
 
Tomdstone said:
If your plan is to refrain from exercising your right to vote, wouldn’t that be immoral according to CC2240 which says that citizens have a moral obligation to vote?
Click to expand...
CCC2240 mentions exercising the right to vote in a general context of submitting to lawful authority. It does not say that one must vote in every race in every single election. To violate CCC2240 in this way one would have to abstain from voting as a matter of course, perhaps out of general laziness or apathy. CCC2240 would not require one to vote, for instance, in a race in which both major candidates are seen as significantly undesirable by the voter.

Here is an apologist’s take on the question.
 
simple_soul said:
I don’t know about Jeb but from what Mitt Romney said it sounds like people may have taken his advice. So I believe it would be safe to say the he would be ok with it.
Click to expand...
I’m exceedingly happy happy happy Mitt will be OK with this. 😉
 
Peter_J said:
Kind of amazing how different you and I are in what we think of as funny. I shudder, shudder, to think how much mileage the democrats will out of criticizing Trump – and how many votes they will rake in.
Click to expand...
Whoever gets the Republican nomination need only broadcast commercials reminding voters that Democrat Obama had a Democratic Senate and House yet he still did NOT raise taxes on the top .1%. So, if he didn’t do it while the planets were all aligned giving him everything he needed, no democrat President will.
 
queenofheartscv said:
Wait till Trump is standing against Hillary, then. I hope people won’t come here and say how they won’t vote for Trump against Hillary because of blah blah blah.
Click to expand...
I asked you several days ago and I don’t think I ever saw a response, if Trumps stand on abortion doesn’t matter in the primaries, why do you think it should matter in the general elections.
It seems I’m always getting used in these elections. I always thought it was the establishment. They never wanted a pro-life zealot, just someone pro-life enough that I’m expected to vote for them in the general election.
This time it is t coming from the establishment, but the trump fans.
 
irishpatrick said:
No–I am saying that unless we (as Catholic first) choose to take a stand for life, than legal abortion will never end. We should, imo, never vote for any pro-choice person, not even in the lower offices because often those people move up. Until we make an absolute commitment to life, the slaughter will continue. We Catholics represents a quarter of the population–we have it within our grasp to end this horror, but we never take it seriously enough to make it the number one priority.

Imagine how much easier our political cycles would be if abortion and the marriage issue was solved and off the table? We’d be able to return to a much calm discussion of other issues.

Immigration is huge–and I mean huge. Yet, does it compare to 60,000,000 killed? We have slaughtered the equalivalent of the half Mexico’s population over the last 43 years and that just keeps going.

If we do not put life first, then who will?
Click to expand...
👍
 
queenofheartscv said:
How can you say that when there is voter turnout on the republican side the like of which has never been seen? Trump is winning more votes in the primaries than the total number of voters in 2012 in some instances.

Romney lost, twice! Trump is going to win.
Click to expand...
How exciting, more and more people who either care nothing for the life of the unborn, or place their lives somewhere below economics, building a wall, or whatever.
 
10gr8kids said:
How exciting, more and more people who either care nothing for the life of the unborn, or place their lives somewhere below economics, building a wall, or whatever.
Click to expand...
So, who does one recommend we vote for per being pro-life? Kasich? He’s the one with the solid record behind him for the pro-life cause.
 
mary_bobo said:
I guess it all comes down to what one is inspired BY. I can only speak for myself, but I bet others feel the same way–I look at this other than fiery speeches, invective, and promises I know they can’t keep. I look for a candidate with substance and sometimes they do not have the flamboyant personality, but rather a sense of quiet confidence.
Click to expand...
Yes, I guess they are just to boring for most voters. Flamboyance over substance. 🤷
 
LeafByNiggle said:
CCC2240 mentions exercising the right to vote in a general context of submitting to lawful authority. It does not say that one must vote in every race in every single election. To violate CCC2240 in this way one would have to abstain from voting as a matter of course, perhaps out of general laziness or apathy. CCC2240 would not require one to vote, for instance, in a race in which both major candidates are seen as significantly undesirable by the voter.

Here is an apologist’s take on the question.
Click to expand...
Here’s exactly what it says:
“2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:”
It states that it is** morally obligatory to exercise the right to vote**.
 
irishpatrick said:
We Catholics represents a quarter of the population–we have it within our grasp to end this horror, but we never take it seriously enough to make it the number one priority.
Click to expand...
According to the Pew Research Center, about 20.8% of the US population is Catholic. Gallup says 23%. But according to a 2015 survey by researchers at Georgetown University, only “about 25% of US Catholics say they attend Masses once a week or more, and about 38% went at least once a month.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States

According to a Pew survey from September 2015:
Indeed, about half (52%) of all U.S. adults who were raised Catholic have left the church at some point in their lives. A significant minority of them returned, but most (four-in-ten of all those raised Catholic) have not.
Click to expand...
Roughly two-thirds of those who have not returned (28% of all those raised Catholic) are now ex-Catholics. These are people raised in the church who no longer consider themselves Catholic in any way. We classified the remaining 13% as “cultural Catholics” – those who now have no religion or are part of another religious tradition (other than Catholicism), but nevertheless still identify as Catholic in some way.
Click to expand...
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/15/half-of-u-s-adults-raised-catholic-have-left-the-church-at-some-point/

So in the end, out of that 20-25% of US Catholics, the percentage of committed Catholics who are likely to be concerned about Church teachings on abortion, etc. is probably much less.
 
GaryTaylor said:
The idea is to outlaw abortion not overturn Roe vs Wade. Cruz spoke on this many many times.

rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-we-can-absolutely-outlaw-abortion-without-overturning-roe
Click to expand...
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said last month that Congress could “absolutely” criminalize all abortion by passing a law giving 14th Amendment protections to fetuses and zygotes, thus bypassing a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade. - See more at: rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-we-can-absolutely-outlaw-abortion-without-overturning-roe#sthash.QaWeVvcw.dpuf
Click to expand...
Actually, Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee have floated this idea from the link as well. Rand, who of course, is not running even put this in some bill before congress.

All I will say is Governor Kasich has a clear record of signing pro-life measures into law, it is also an idea to lower the number of abortions done, de-fund planned parenthood and so on.

I’m just saying, Governor Kasich has real accomplishments per this but if Cruz is elected President, perhaps such a bill could be passed and signed. That would be great.

Even “personhood” amendments have run into problems in a number of states where it has been put on the ballot.

Sometimes goals have to be realistic as well to do the most good just in my view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top