Trump Wants a Third Term

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChuckB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joss said:
I hope we shall get rid of this third-rate “joker” in November.
Click to expand...
If that happens, you’ll see Catholic charities go out of business within one Biden term. He has promised to reinstate the HHS Mandate forcing Catholic charities to provide abortifacients to their workers. The Little Sisters of the Poor (and others) said they can’t perform their missions under that mandate because it’s against conscience to do so. Finally, finally, the secularists will drive Catholicism out of public life. What the “Know Nothings” couldn’t do, what the KKK couldn’t do, the Biden administraiton will do.

As a self-proclaimed “ex-Christian” that might not bother you. But replacing faith-based charitable organizations with government has never been a happy switch.
 
Very unlike mugabe. For example, trump isn’t a murderous communist.
 
So you’re okay with a presidency-for-life or hereditary presidency as long as it keeps your preferred candidate in power indefinitely. That is not the sort of country that the United States was ever intended to be. Even prior to Amendment XXII, custom dictated that presidents did not serve more than two terms. Only one president, FDR, has served more than two terms, and only one president, Grover Cleveland, has served non-consecutive terms. The prohibition against iteration of offices is based on the principles of government of the ancient Greeks and Romans. It is a good system designed to ensure that too much power cannot be concentrated in any one person’s hands, irrespective of that person’s merits.
 
An amendment was passed. Wasn’t unconstitutional when FDR did it, would be now. The amendment could be repealed, but won’t be.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
He’s joking. He also knows it will push buttons among his opposition. He likes to push buttons and his fans like him to push those buttons.
Click to expand...
How can this be a good thing in a leader? Many years ago I worked for an organization that did corporate training development and workplace cohesion courses. That type of tactic let alone in a leader is so toxic to group cohesion. It’s considered to be antisocial. Leaders are supposed to have a good capacity to bring a workplace together in times of crisis. It’s a sickness to enjoy causing disharmony.
 
Joss said:
These practitioners have no place in the medical field.
Click to expand...
So you would drive physicians, nurses, etc out of medicine if they wouldn’t do abortions. Lots of Democrats feel that way, and will enforce it if they get enough power.
 
I think the “unity” boat sailed a long time before Trump ever won the election. There is no way that those who dislike him would ever wish to join with his group. They had written him off long before the election, going so far as having then-sitting President Obama openly mock him on a TV show.
Therefore, Trump plays to his base.
 
Motherwit said:
Leaders are supposed to have a good capacity to bring a workplace together in times of crisis. It’s a sickness to enjoy causing disharmony.
Click to expand...
The Democrats were spying on him and setting him and his supporters up for criminal prosecution even before he was elected. They had him investigated up until the time they impeached him for something else on a strictly party line vote. And you think he should seriously believe there’s any potential for “workplace cohesion” with those who perpetrated those things? He might as well enjoy the give and take when it was irreconcilable from the very beginning and has not improved one whit since.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I think the “unity” boat sailed a long time before Trump ever won the election. There is no way that those who dislike him would ever wish to join with his group. They had written him off long before the election, going so far as having then-sitting President Obama openly mock him on a TV show.
Therefore, Trump plays to his base.
Click to expand...
Do you think that the issue is with the American people and Trump is a victim?
 
Nah, I don’t think any billionaire is a victim.

I do think that the American people, both pro-Trump and anti-Trump, have a great, great many issues and that they are always looking to blame them on someone, like the President (whether the President happens to be Trump or Obama or someone else), rather than take responsibility themselves. I also think there were some aspects of the Obama presidency that Obama mishandled, making it somewhat inevitable that a Trump-type President would emerge at some point, whether it was now or after Hillary served a term if she had won, and whether that President was Trump or Cruz or someone else.
 
Last edited:
Joss said:
As for the selective treatment of conditions that the practitioner happens to disagree with, that is a serious problem.
Click to expand...
If a doctor is not free to follow their conscience, whose do you suggest they follow?

And how exactly is that not a violation of religious freedom?
 
Wouldn’t you be better going the whole way and making his office hereditary? I think that given that Mexico was was considered an Empire, the USA would qualify as the Empire of America and the Imperial House of Trump as its ruling dynasty.
 
Joss said:
As for the selective treatment of conditions that the practitioner happens to disagree with, that is a serious problem. Anyone can declare that treating certain people is against their conscience. These practitioners have no place in the medical field.
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t arbitrary. As with any exception requested based on conscience, it has to be sincerely held. As with conscientious objectors, the belief “must be ‘sincere and meaningful’ and occupy ‘a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by an orthodox belief in God’.” It cannot be “You know, I will only perform appendectomies on red heads because my favorite people have red hair.”

People with sincerely held religious objections are not to be excluded from a field of service because of those beliefs. Nor should they be required to perform morally objectionable acts to maintain their place within their occupation.
 
Last edited:
Joss said:
So a skinhead doctor should be allowed to withhold treatment from Jews. Not a good idea. If you are a doctor, leave your conscience in the cloakroom while you are at work.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they can, if those beliefs are “sincere and meaningful” and occupy “a place in the life of the possessor parallel to that filled by an orthodox belief in God.”

Is that true of skinheads? I’m not so sure. But regardless, how long do you think a skinhead doctor would last before being deprived of patients? If your beliefs are unpopular enough (which I suspect a skinhead’s would be), you won’t have many patients, much less Jewish ones.
 
Joss said:
The conscience has no place in the hospital.
Click to expand...
I note your profile states you are “ex-Christian or CINO”.
Obviously, Catholics who are practicing their faith disagree with you very, very strongly on this point.
Also, a doctor whose conscience was actually developed and working would treat everyone, including the murderers of Christ. The person you described is not being ruled by a good conscience, he is being ruled by sin.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top