Author Topic: Bishop Williamson and Donald Trump - huh? (Read 21262 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #45 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:06:09 PM »

Yes, and this real gem of a candidate JUST SO HAPPENS to be the majority bandwagon candidate who is in the lead right now.

The people that were rooting for Romney, various Bushes, other Illuminati tools, etc. are now just as willing to vote for this modern-day Garcia Moreno. Gotcha.

You bring up common sense? I don't think it's that likely that an anti-Israel, anti-9/11 government lie, anti-Muslim candidate could draw even 40% of the popular vote.

How much of the United States popular vote did Obama get during the past 2 elections? And he's a gαy Muslim "married" to a transsɛҳuąƖ. How can any of those same people vote for the Trump as you describe him?

Maybe Trump just says a lot of things, or even everything, so everyone has something to point to and believe in? Everyone thinks "he represents and agrees with me". In this respect, he's a master politician.

Just trying to toss some wet common sense on this raging inferno.

Peter15and1 · « **Reply #46 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:15:52 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Yes, and this real gem of a candidate JUST SO HAPPENS to be the majority bandwagon candidate who is in the lead right now.

He's not even the "majority bandwagon candidate." Some Trump supporters talk like he has such a huge lead; he does not. Of the primaries and caucuses held thus far, Trump has received 35% of the Republican vote. More than any other candidate? Yes. A huge lead? No. Far more people voted against him than for him? Absolutely.

Matthew · « **Reply #47 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:20:36 PM »

Quote from: Peter15and1

Quote from: Matthew
Yes, and this real gem of a candidate JUST SO HAPPENS to be the majority bandwagon candidate who is in the lead right now.

He's not even the "majority bandwagon candidate." Some Trump supporters talk like he has such a huge lead; he does not. Of the primaries and caucuses held thus far, Trump has received 35% of the Republican vote. More than any other candidate? Yes. A huge lead? No. Far more people voted against him than for him? Absolutely.

Yes, but if he's not "the winner" everyone wants to be found backing, then pray tell me who is?

If you're involved/concerned with the Republican nomination at all, you can't be more bandwagon, acceptable, popular or mainstream than Donald Trump right now.

Everyone wants to be on the winning side. It's human psychology. It's hard to cast Trump as some kind of underdog, when he is currently the FRONT RUNNER in the Republican contest.

Miseremini · « **Reply #48 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:21:22 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Your analogies all miss the point and are really cheap. It's not that people are excited about Trump, it's that people agree with him and they don't see the chance of another candidate ever coming onto the scene doing some of the things that he is doing. Whether he is an outsider or not is not my concern, but since you mentioned it, there are some real points to Trump that differ him from Ron Paul. Ron Paul had huge rallies too and was ignored by the media. Trump has enough money to propel himself and he was already known decades before anyone heard of who Ron Paul is. These are two very critical points that helped him get this far. No one believes that it was the establishment that helped him get this far. He is well-known and has the funds and resources. Two things that Ron Paul lacked.

Here's a few things you could never expect from any other candidate ever...

1) Mohamedans should not be able to enter the U.S. (Religious liberty anybody?)

2. AIPAC only wants to buy and control presidents. (anti-zionist lobbies)

3. The U.S. has been toppling Middle Eastern leaders making the situation worse.

4. Questioned the truth about 9-11.

5. Pointed out manipulations in modern 'democracy' live on T.V., like only allowing donars in the debates.

6. He is the only candidate who has spoken highly of Putin, a man who is defending persecuted Catholics in the Middle East against the will of Washington. By speaking highly and showing himself willing to work with a person who is defending persecuted Catholics in the Middle East, he is indirectly showing the same good will.

I mean, I could keep going, but it isn't necessary. I would call into serious question the intelligence of any Traditionalist who is not willing to lend support to any candidate that makes public, unashamed comments like this, and like Catholic Mom pointed out on another thread, there is enough reason to believe that he is being sincere.

It's not about following the crowd or being excited about a possible candidate who will lean in our favor. At this point, it is really about comment sense.

He also said he would charge Hillary with treason.

Trump is the only one who challenged Obama's right to the presidency.
If elected he just might UNSEAL all Obama's past history and though I'm not a lawyer could he legally undo some of Obama's orders?????

Matthew · « **Reply #49 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:22:58 PM »

Quote from: Patricius

Quote from: Matthew
How much of the United States popular vote did Obama get during the past 2 elections? And he's a gαy Muslim "married" to a transsɛҳuąƖ. How can any of those same people vote for the Trump as you describe him?

Just trying to toss some wet common sense on this raging inferno.

Truly? Matthew? Is this an example of common sense? I thought there were rules in Catholic morality, that said it is forbidden to calumny/detract other people, and that the more the target is highly placed, the graver the fault? Are you not, by such comments, fueling the fires of the "raging inferno"?

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

Sit down and let me teach you some Catholic morality, since you seem to be ignorant of various parts of it:

Obama is a public man, so we have a right to know that he's A) Muslim and B) married to a transsɛҳuąƖ. Perhaps if that information became more well-known then more people would push to get him out of office. If this had become known sooner, maybe Obama wouldn't have won a second term.

Detraction doesn't apply to public figures. Two words: public good.

And don't even put me and calumny in the same sentence. I don't lie. If I didn't have moral certainty that it was the truth, I wouldn't say it.

Obama has a past in the Chicago gαy scene (including the "bath houses"), plus there are all kinds of videos on the Net exposing how "Michelle" is actually "Michael" and how "her" physiology is all clearly, unambiguously male.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #50 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:24:51 PM »

Maybe some people didn't notice how far "Islam" has gone on the offensive. Trump wants to keep them out and has said so on more than one occasion. This is absolutely anti-NWO.

This reminds me of those lunatics that accuse +Williamson of being Rosicrucian. He (+Williamson) lives and breathes anti-NWO, but that isn't enough for some people. There is an interesting parallel.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #51 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:27:59 PM »

Centro:

Quote

What the heck happened to this thread?

:roll-laugh1:

Centroamerica · « **Reply #52 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:28:23 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini

Quote from: Centroamerica

Your analogies all miss the point and are really cheap. It's not that people are excited about Trump, it's that people agree with him and they don't see the chance of another candidate ever coming onto the scene doing some of the things that he is doing. Whether he is an outsider or not is not my concern, but since you mentioned it, there are some real points to Trump that differ him from Ron Paul. Ron Paul had huge rallies too and was ignored by the media. Trump has enough money to propel himself and he was already known decades before anyone heard of who Ron Paul is. These are two very critical points that helped him get this far. No one believes that it was the establishment that helped him get this far. He is well-known and has the funds and resources. Two things that Ron Paul lacked.

Here's a few things you could never expect from any other candidate ever...

1) Mohamedans should not be able to enter the U.S. (Religious liberty anybody?)

2. AIPAC only wants to buy and control presidents. (anti-zionist lobbies)

3. The U.S. has been toppling Middle Eastern leaders making the situation worse.

4. Questioned the truth about 9-11.

5. Pointed out manipulations in modern 'democracy' live on T.V., like only allowing donars in the debates.

6. He is the only candidate who has spoken highly of Putin, a man who is defending persecuted Catholics in the Middle East against the will of Washington. By speaking highly and showing himself willing to work with a person who is defending persecuted Catholics in the Middle East, he is indirectly showing the same good will.

I mean, I could keep going, but it isn't necessary. I would call into serious question the intelligence of any Traditionalist who is not willing to lend support to any candidate that makes public, unashamed comments like this, and like Catholic Mom pointed out on another thread, there is enough reason to believe that he is being sincere.

It's not about following the crowd or being excited about a possible candidate who will lean in our favor. At this point, it is really about comment sense.

He also said he would charge Hillary with treason.

Trump is the only one who challenged Obama's right to the presidency.
If elected he just might UNSEAL all Obama's past history and though I'm not a lawyer could he legally undo some of Obama's orders?????

Yeah, good point. He had a lot of support for the birthers and publicly challenged Obama to show his passport stating that he would donate millions to a charity of his choice if he did, which he never did. He was smart enough to see that the passport would corner him, unlike the testimony of live birth. I remain convinced that he is a wordly guy that came around to some of the shams that are being pulled over on Americans. Is that so hard to imagine?

Matthew · « **Reply #53 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:30:52 PM »

You know what's really tragic, CentroAmerica?

Even if you convinced me (and the others here on CathInfo) to support Trump if he got nominated -- that is, to go out and vote for him so that Hillary doesn't win -- there would still be a large swath of people who we on CathInfo can't reach.

There are GOING to be people sitting at home moping if it's Trump vs. Hillary. People will either vote for a third party, "Mickey Mouse", or they will abstain from voting.

And nothing anyone says -- including me, you and the most eloquent voices on CathInfo -- will change that.

(Yes, there is also a % who would not vote in November if Trump DOESN'T get the Republican nomination, but that's beside the point.)

My point? I think we're screwed either way. Might as well psych ourselves up now for the next President Clinton. Ugh!

I think it's too late to salvage this election. It's too polarized on the Republican side.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #54 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:31:33 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Patricius
Quote from: Matthew
How much of the United States popular vote did Obama get during the past 2 elections? And he's a gαy Muslim "married" to a transsɛҳuąƖ. How can any of those same people vote for the Trump as you describe him?

Just trying to toss some wet common sense on this raging inferno.

Truly? Matthew? Is this an example of common sense? I thought there were rules in Catholic morality, that said it is forbidden to calumny/detract other people, and that the more the target is highly placed, the graver the fault? Are you not, by such comments, fueling the fires of the "raging inferno"?

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

Sit down and let me teach you some Catholic morality, since you seem to be ignorant of various parts of it:

Obama is a public man, so we have a right to know that he's A) Muslim and B) married to a transsɛҳuąƖ. Perhaps if that information became more well-known then more people would push to get him out of office. If this had become known sooner, maybe Obama wouldn't have won a second term.

Detraction doesn't apply to public figures. Two words: public good.

And don't even put me and calumny in the same sentence. I don't lie. If I didn't have moral certainty that it was the truth, I wouldn't say it.

Obama has a past in the Chicago gαy scene (including the "bath houses"), plus there are all kinds of videos on the Net exposing how "Michelle" is actually "Michael" and how "her" physiology is all clearly, unambiguously male.

You really believe that video you posted here about Michelle Obama being a transɛҳuąƖ. There were obvious edits and untrustworthy things in that video. Man, maybe you should lay off youtube for a while, buddy...

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #55 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:32:35 PM »

Quote

...it's that people agree with (Trump) and they don't see the chance of another candidate ever coming onto the scene doing some of the things that he is doing. Whether he is an outsider or not is not my concern,

The sad reality is that all of you who are excited about Trump, seem to think 1) he actually believes what he says and 2) he will act on it.

Politics 101 is to tell people what they want to hear. What did Hitler tell the Germans? That they would return to world power, and return to economic greatness. What actually happened?

How does it not matter that he's an illuminati member? You don't think politicians speak the truth every now and again so that people will believe? WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!

Matthew · « **Reply #56 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:55:03 PM »

Let the reader be the judge:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/3Y6XW7hgfq8[/youtube]

I typed into Google, "evidence mich" and it filled in "evidence michelle is a man". The evidence for this theory is discussed ALL OVER THE INTERNET because it's so likely. It's not just one video; the evidence is legion. Just look at "her".

Matthew · « **Reply #57 on:** March 11, 2016, 03:23:12 PM »

FYI -

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Presidential-Primary-Poll-2016

Matthew · « **Reply #58 on:** March 11, 2016, 04:33:49 PM »

I'm going to continue to poke you guys, to keep you honest/Catholic/grounded to earth in this otherwise insane Trump-mania. You might as well put up with it, because you have to! hahaha

As as sidenote, would you believe that a dozen or two people honestly call this place Matt Info or Math Info, as if it were just a Matthew fan club and personal blog surrounded by sycophantic "yes men"? Hilarious, right? I agree. See my 2016 Primary Poll in the "Politics" subforum. Right now it's 10 Trump to 1 Cruz, and yes I voted for Cruz. That doesn't sound like "yes men" to me!

I'm not convinced that Trump is any better than Hillary, and in fact he is actually worse in some ways.

At least Hillary was only married once, and is still married to her husband (the Clinton marriage is somewhat of a sham, but at least it has a surface veneer of respectability)

If Hillary Clinton divorced Bill and married a 20 year old jigolo was was famous for posing in the nude, THEN we would have an equivalent to Trump in the area of marriage fidelity and morality.

That is just one example of what I'm getting at.

The office of President doesn't have as much power as you might think. We're not voting for our next dictator or king. However, they have a lot of power as role models and revered, highly public figures. They influence the nation by their morality, principles, and priorities -- probably more so than they do by the actual power they wield in the government.

And yes, I take this (personal life, past record) into consideration AT LEAST AS MUCH as I consider a candidate's lip service campaign promises.

Anyhow, I think this issue is worth discussing. Catholics should be able to disagree with each other and stay within the bounds of Catholic morality.

If you are on the side of "being in the right" and "truth", you have nothing to fear anyhow.

Matthew · « **Reply #59 on:** March 11, 2016, 04:55:13 PM »

Also, the older an individual gets, the more he should be judged on his PAST RECORD vs. any promise about the future.

For example, Bishop Williamson. He just turned 76. I think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of his earthly life is behind him. So his past life, writings, positions, etc. should play a HUGE role in our assessment of the man.

As a corollary, anything he says should be taken in light of his life, past and present -- everything BUT the future. Keep in mind that an older a man gets, the more "set in his ways" he becomes. This is another reason why the past should be a larger % of your consideration about a man as he gets older. A tiger can't change his stripes, and you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

For example, let's take a hypothetical priest named Fr. Piper.
Fr. Piper comes up to you and over-simplifies/distorts the truth and tells you, "Bishop Williamson says you can go to the New Mass."

Now that doesn't even make sense, considering he got kicked out of the SSPX for opposing the nascent practical accord with Modernist Rome. Also, after +Williamson converted to Catholicism/Tradition and joined the SSPX in his 30's (?), his whole life was spent contradicting Vatican II, the New Mass, and Conciliar Rome. Even in 2001, as an SSPX member in good standing, he gently threw a wet blanket on the optimism Bp. Fellay was giving in his "The state of SSPX and Rome conferences" which was basically the same conference given countless times over a period of at least 4 years.