Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: StonewallCatho on March 08, 2016, 08:54:37 AM
-
Dear friends,
Today is His Excellency's 76th birthday.
Please offer your prayers and sacrifices for him on this day, so that God may continue to grant him good health, courage, enlightenment, peace and joy.
May God surround him with real friends and crush his ennemies. May He be his consolation in times of contradiction. May He grant him continual growth in holiness and may He unceasingly pour His wisdom in his soul.
Let us not forget to join to these prayers our gratitude for all graces God has granted His servant in the past.
Thank you.
-
:pray:
-
:pray:
-
Thanks for that prayer, Patricius. H.E. has many enemies within "traditional" Catholic ranks. He needs our prayers like never before.
-
Of course, Our Lord had so many enemies among "his own people" as well. It would be normal for the pagans, such as the Romans, to persecute Our Lord. After all, they were in error, darkness and immorality, whereas Our Lord represented truth, light and goodness, and promoted these.
But the Chosen People, who had been groomed over centuries to have a true sense of the proper worship of God, the Ten Commandments, all the prophecies and foreshadowing in the Old Testament religion? The Jews knew the True God better than any other people -- and yet how many of them persecuted Our Lord when they should have loved him?
Which hurts more: a stranger hating you, or a family member hating you?
May Our Lord give to His Excellency all the graces, strength, and consolations necessary to continue to carry his cross alongside Him.
:pray:
-
:pray:
-
Matthew:
The Jews knew the True God better than any other people -- and yet how many of them persecuted Our Lord when they should have loved him?
Which hurts more: a stranger hating you, or a family member hating you?
Point taken, Matthew. But the Jews, then, were a generation, living in the last days of an ancient Covenant. It was about to be replaced by a New Covenant in His Blood. Jesus gave birth to it through His death and Resurrection.
One can't help but wonder that many in the contemporary, so-called "traditional Catholic movement" may also be at the end of an era, as well. The SSPX is over. The R&R is virtually over, and, maybe, never was. SVism has been basically discredited and made obsolescent. Siriism is dopey. Quite possibly, we have to move on from a fossilized Lefebvrianism, and all of its varied nuances and offshoots.
I think that Bp. Williamson and the other two new bishops, given the opportunity, can help us do this. For me, they echoe the voice of the Shepherd. Most of the other voices are those of hirelings, who care nothing really for the sheep. Williamson's is a genuine, voice, interested only in pursuing the truth. Williamson, for me, is the 'Donald Trump' of the present era, the voice of Catholic tradition future. But that window of opportunity could close at any time.
I know I'll get flak for saying these things. But so what? :thinking:
-
Our priest offers the first 9 Masses of the month for +W and +Faure's welfare. Next month, Dom Tomas will be included.
-
I just wish BW would give an interview to a tv station, any tv station, and tell the Truth.
-
Matthew: The Jews knew the True God better than any other people -- and yet how many of them persecuted Our Lord when they should have loved him?
Which hurts more: a stranger hating you, or a family member hating you?
Point taken, Matthew. But the Jews, then, were a generation, living in the last days of an ancient Covenant. It was about to be replaced by a New Covenant in His Blood. Jesus gave birth to it through His death and Resurrection.
One can't help but wonder that many in the contemporary, so-called "traditional Catholic movement" may also be at the end of an era, as well. The SSPX is over. The R&R is virtually over, and, maybe, never was. SVism has been basically discredited and made obsolescent. Siriism is dopey. Quite possibly, we have to move on from a fossilized Lefebvrianism, and all of its varied nuances and offshoots.
I think that Bp. Williamson and the other two new bishops, given the opportunity, can help us do this. For me, they echoe the voice of the Shepherd. Most of the other voices are those of hirelings, who care nothing really for the sheep. Williamson's is a genuine, voice, interested only in pursuing the truth. Williamson, for me, is the 'Donald Trump' of the present era, the voice of Catholic tradition future. But that window of opportunity could close at any time.
I know I'll get flak for saying these things. But so what? :thinking:
The Church of today is shadowing the Church of the Old Testement. The positions of Authority were ocuppied by wicked men... The Jews of the time rejected Our Lord, for he was a contadiction to their wicked hearts. And today we see men rejecting the few Good Bishops for the same reasons, IMO.
I believe that the Mystical Body of Christ is now well into Its Passion.
-
I think that Bp. Williamson and the other two new bishops, given the opportunity, can help us do this. For me, they echoe the voice of the Shepherd. Most of the other voices are those of hirelings, who care nothing really for the sheep. Williamson's is a genuine, voice, interested only in pursuing the truth. Williamson, for me, is the 'Donald Trump' of the present era, the voice of Catholic tradition future. But that window of opportunity could close at any time.
I know I'll get flak for saying these things. But so what? :thinking:
Uh, yeah. Those who don't like Trump -- but like +Williamson -- would certainly take umbrage with that.
+Williamson is not so base, sinful, or principle-less as Trump. I actually fail to see any correlation between the two, aside from the fact that both are male. In terms of virtue, they are polar opposites. Seriously, Trump's vices are of the same magnitude as +Williamson's virtues.
What's next, are we going to compare Archbishop Lefebvre to Hugh Hefner, Howard Stern, or Kanye West? Give me a break!
Have people forgotten everything that used to be common knowledge about Trump? How he wanted/wants his beauty pageant to have smaller swimsuits, etc.? The man is a womanizing pig. He's a proud blowhard full of hot air and bluster.
The man has been divorced multiple times. And not in a "don't judge, maybe his wife left him" sort of way. No, all the stereotypes hold in his case. Just look at his current (supermodel) wife and you'll understand everything you need to know. He is your stereotypical, superficial pig who divorces and leaves his 40-something wife for a hot pretty young thing. He is 100% superficial and 100% physical -- and morally bankrupt.
It's disturbing how many Traditional Catholics are genuinely excited about a possible Trump presidency.
I think some Trads -- and many Americans -- have watched too much TV, specifically reality TV. Even more specifically, Trump's reality TV show. They have a distorted, glamorized view of the man Donald Trump. They see him as a confident, successful, rich man. And they also see him as an outsider (?) which really baffles me, as he's in the back pocket of the Jews right next to all the rest of them.
Trump is working elbow-to-elbow with countless Jews to corrupt America to ever-lower levels of immorality. They're all on the same page. Living for this world, living for pleasure, wealth and power. Don't forget that the тαℓмυdic Jews in power -- the ones pulling the strings behind the scenes and working towards the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr -- are largely SECULAR. They have no religion. They live for themselves, their race, and for this world. Just like Donald Trump.
-
I think it ought to have been pretty apparent, but I guess not. Maybe I should have explained further. Trump and +Williamson are in no way to be compared morally or spiritually. I simply meant, that whereas Trump may well represent the political, economic and social future for secular America, +Williamson represents the way going forward for Catholic tradition
-
Patricius:
But I think that where he and Bishop Williamson have something in common is that they are not afraid of saying what they think, and that they both despise the "vile medias" (+W's expression). They both understand that the Establishment (secular and religious) have betrayed those who trusted in them. They both couldn't care less about what is politically correct. They both are outsiders who do not trust the system anymore, because they see the system only perpetuates the same problems, and that it is time to think outside the box...
...I am not saying who people should vote for. This is not a political forum. I am just explaining why I think Hollingsworth has a point about a similarity between Trump and +Williamson.
Thanks, Patricius, for letting me up for a little air. Of course I am aware of Trump's reputation. No knowledgeable person represents him as a paragon of moral virtue. But the similarities, which I think you intelligently recognize, are there.
BTW. we Catholics, and Christians in general, have to recognize that not all of our spiritual forefathers were examples of moral probity either. Reuben went into his own father's concubine. Judah hired his daughter-in-law for sex, though he was not aware of her identity at the time. Yet Judah is the father of the the tribe of Judah, from whose line our Lord emerged. Rahab the harlot was certainly not virtuous, yet she is counted in the line of Christ, as well. Samson had a few dalliances along the way. David got Bathsheba's husband killed, so he could have the man's wife. She bore to him Solomon, illegitimately, I might add. And what can we say about Solomon, except that sɛҳuąƖly this great King of Judah was way over the top. We've had popes who were absolute moral pariahs. A number of popes had the wandering eye. I cite Alexander VI and John XII for starters. During the Renaissance, you could hardly find a priest who was celibate, much less bishop or cardinal. A recent pope, of unfond memory, Paul VI, was probably a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ I could go on, but won't. So in light of the testimony supplied by prominent Biblical figures themselves, and numbers of Roman Catholic popes and clergy, I rest my case.
I would not huff and puff too indignantly over Trump. He is at worst imperfect and immoral. At best, he might, though unwittingly, break decades of bondage to the Jews.
-
:pray: :pray: :pray:
Bishop Williamson is a GREAT Bishop in the Church of Rome. Today smoke pours out from this foolish Franciscan's ears with fiery prayers for Bishop Williamson on this his birthday.
None of our personal biases about him count for a fig. He has done great things for the Lord. He has run the race swiftly and is head and shoulders far above us all.
-
:pray:
-
May he shine for Christ this day !
-
Nevertheless, I fail to see why Trump would even WANT to oppose the Jєωιѕн establishment.
As I said earlier:
Trump and the Jews are on the same page. Living for this world, living for pleasure, wealth and power. Don't forget that the тαℓмυdic Jews in power -- the ones pulling the strings behind the scenes and working towards the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr -- are largely SECULAR. They have no religion. They live for themselves, their race, and for this world. Just like Donald Trump.
Why would Trump do something good for Catholics, even accidentally? However he went about fighting for a new world -- or even succeeding in achieving it -- he would be the first one in trouble, along with all the Jews he vanquished.
Is he going to vanquish pleasure in favor of mortification? He's in trouble.
Vanquish avarice in favor of justice, poverty, living simply, and spiritual goods? He's in trouble.
Is he going to give more power to the people? He, the biggest power seeker of all, would be in trouble.
You can't vanquish the devil's program -- pleasure, wealth and power -- without vanquishing Trump himself in the process.
That's why it's ILLOGICAL to hope for any kind of benefit or change from a President Trump.
You claim he's not part of the establishment, but fundamentally he is -- there are only two sides (God and Satan) and Trump is firmly ensconced in the latter camp. Pleasure (divorcing your wife to marry a supermodel who posed in the nude, pushing for smaller swimsuits and taller heels in the Beauty Pageant you bought), wealth, and power are the goals and aims of the devil, not God.
Trump stands for love of self, not love of God. Trust in self, not trust in God. Lies, not truth. Pride, not humility. Pleasure, not mortification. Avarice, not poverty. Anger, not patience. Contempt of God, not contempt of self. This is the platform of vice, the platform of the devil, which is shared by those in the so-called "establishment" you rightfully revile.
At best, Trump "fighting" the establishment would be like two hoodlums fighting in a bad neighborhood: bad guy vs. bad guy, and whichever one wins it's not going to help any of the good people in the neighborhood. What does an old grandma or grandpa care which drug lord gets to be master of the street drug sales? Whichever drug kingpin prevails, it doesn't have much impact on their daily life.
Any other distinction ultimately doesn't matter: Two party vs. independent, establishment vs. outside the establishment, or self-funded vs. PAC-funded. Satan doesn't fight Satan. If they are ultimately on the same side, they're on the same side PERIOD.
-
Trump or Hillary
satan or the devil
Take your choice :tv-disturbed:
:facepalm:
-
Patricius:
Yes, but there is still a major difference: The Establishment is a structural form of evil, whereas Trump's flaws and sins are personal weaknesses. With God's grace, which He doesn't refuse to good willing State leaders (who receive their authority from Him), it is possible for an individual to convert. But it is impossible for an evil organisation to convert.
I agree totally. And included in that "Establishment," we must include wayward Fellay-led trad groups like the SSPX. They have become a "structural form of evil too," in a few short years.
-
I just wish BW would give an interview to a tv station, any tv station, and tell the Truth.
TV stations are owned and controlled by Jews. The only way they'll interview the good Bishop is if they intend to edit the interview and take his comments out of context, or completely fabricate what he says. They have no intention of reporting the truth contained in his views and comments.
-
Yes, but is there good cause for hope from an unrepentant public sinner?
That is the real issue, and the real question here.
Would Catholics in the past rejoice when a wicked prince ascended the throne, on the hopes that he would have an ex miraculo (miraculous) conversion? I don't think so.
My point is that we can hope for an ex miraculo conversion from Ted Cruz as much as we can hope for one from Donald Trump. When you're talking ex miraculo conversions, anything is possible, and ANYONE is a candidate.
Up to the present day, Donald Trump has shown about as much disposition to God's grace as Ted Cruz, and to be honest, I'd have to say he's shown LESS.
And no, being beholden to the Establishment isn't an issue. Once a person converts, he makes new friends and breaks old bonds with his sinful past life. The real lynchpin is that ex miraculo conversion -- everything else falls into place after that.
-
Matthew:
Up to the present day, Donald Trump has shown about as much disposition to God's grace as Ted Cruz, and to be honest, I'd have to say he's shown LESS.
One of three persons will probably become the next president of the U.S. The two you mention do not show much of a disposition to Gods grace. The third, I think you will agree, shows even less of a disposition than the other two. So I would have to conclude that happy days are not ahead for America.
-
Matthew: Up to the present day, Donald Trump has shown about as much disposition to God's grace as Ted Cruz, and to be honest, I'd have to say he's shown LESS.
One of three persons will probably become the next president of the U.S. The two you mention do not show much of a disposition to Gods grace. The third, I think you will agree, shows even less of a disposition than the other two. So I would have to conclude that happy days are not ahead for America.
Yes, but do we need to wait for somebody that he converts beforehand? Or that he gives greater signs of goodness than the others? Given that all candidates are heretics and sinners, does that mean we cannot vote? History is full of rulers that were public sinners. Some of them, for purely secular reasons, did some good to the Church, for instance Mussolini. If there was a great public sinner, it was Mussolini! He lived in adultery with Clara Petacci, he killed/imprisoned his opponents. But, because he was free from bondage to the Establishment, he was also able to sign the 1929 Concordat with the Church. (He also crushed the Free Masonry).
I am not saying Trump is Mussolini. But Trump does have some good ideas on immigration and Islam and said he was against abortion and would de-fund PP. He will also be strong in foreign policy. No Benghazi tragedy with him! You have to see beyond the braggadoccio, which he himself doesn't take seriously, and he knows his supporters know that.
So let us not rent our garments and wait for Mr. Perfect.
The Moral Obligation of Voting, Rev. Titus Cranny, The Catholic University of America Press, 1952, pg 93
In practical life it is often difficult to determine whether a particular candidate is worthy or unworthy because there seems little upon which to judge accurately, especially in local or municipal elections. It does not follow that every Catholic is necessarily the best man for office and that every non-Catholic is not; nor that every Catholic will promote the interests of the common good of the state of religion and that the non-Catholic will not. Even if a man is of sterling character in his private life, he will not by necessity prove competent in public office. Sometimes too, as St. Robert Bellarmine pointed out in his De laicis [175] the so-called evil rulers may do more good than harm, as Saul and Solomon.
-
Yes, but is there good cause for hope from an unrepentant public sinner?
That is the real issue, and the real question here.
Would Catholics in the past rejoice when a wicked prince ascended the throne, on the hopes that he would have an ex miraculo (miraculous) conversion? I don't think so.
My point is that we can hope for an ex miraculo conversion from Ted Cruz as much as we can hope for one from Donald Trump. When you're talking ex miraculo conversions, anything is possible, and ANYONE is a candidate.
Up to the present day, Donald Trump has shown about as much disposition to God's grace as Ted Cruz, and to be honest, I'd have to say he's shown LESS.
And no, being beholden to the Establishment isn't an issue. Once a person converts, he makes new friends and breaks old bonds with his sinful past life. The real lynchpin is that ex miraculo conversion -- everything else falls into place after that.
Let's go back a couple decades... You probably would have said something similiar about Putin. Now at present, what would the state of affairs be in the world today if it weren't for his moral compass to deter the world (i.e. the U.S. and U.K.) from further warmongering over other sovereign Nations such as Syria? And let's not forget that he liberated Russia from the clutches of the Zionists.
Now can I morally vote for Trump? I don't think so, nor can I for the other candidates as well, because they are all tied into the "Secret Societies." In this sense, I believe that Trumps crimes are of a lesser nature.
Another matter which is not of little importance, had not Trump brought up the immigation issue to the forefront, we would at this moment be flooded with who knows how many tens of thousands of Muslim so called refugees. This was a non-issue before.
In regards to the best of the bad, I will assume that Putin sits in a pretty good position to judge whom would be the best to work with in battling the "Waremongers." Don't remember the exact quote from Putin, but it was something like "I can work with Trump." IMO, Putin knows our common enemies.
Just my opinion.
-
In regards to the best of the bad, I will assume that Putin sits in a pretty good position to judge whom would be the best to work with in battling the "Waremongers." Don't remember the exact quote from Putin, but it was something like "I can work with Trump." IMO, Putin knows our common enemies.
Just my opinion.
I think you might have that backwards. Here is what Putin said in response to a question about Trump.
“He is a very flamboyant man, very talented, no doubt about that. But it’s not our business to judge his merits, it’s up to the voters of the United States," Putin told reporters.
I believe it was Trump who postured that they could work well together.
-
materdominici - Putin did respond to Trump's "working together/getting along" statement, and he said something along the lines of "of course we welcome it".
-
materdominici - Putin did respond to Trump's "working together/getting along" statement, and he said something along the lines of "of course we welcome it".
Yes, exactly. It's a very minor point, but Putin's willingness to work together was not reserved for Trump in particular. He was expressing the idea that working with the US rather than against it would "of course be welcomed".
ADD: Here's the quote:
"[Trump] says that he wants to move to another level relations, a deeper level of relations with Russia," Putin said. "How can we not welcome that? Of course, we welcome it.”
-
Trump is an illuminati half jew. Come on people, wake up! Everyone thought (maybe still thinks) that George W Bush was a 'compassionate' conservative. Wake up! He did more to ruin civil liberties and the bill of rights than Lincoln did in the cινιℓ ωαr. Awful!
Do you need to be reminded that you can now be held without process in a prison cell in Guantanamo for years, for being 'labeled' a being a terrorist? No proof, no hearing, no trial, just prison. Add that to all the TSA checks at airports, bank rules, etc, etc, etc. Yeah, Bush was sooooo conservative. He was a skull n bones illuminati like his father and grandfather.
-
P.s. I don't believe for a second that Putin is 'against' the establishment. Hes just a different side of the global coin. As the democrats fight the republicans here in the US, so the east fights the west, in global politics. Theres always fights, theres always debates, but the revolution against God and towards global govt never stops. Why? Because its a charade! Wake up people!
-
What the heck happened to this thread?
-
What the heck happened to this thread?
Revolution happened
-
Matthew:
Nevertheless, I fail to see why Trump would even WANT to oppose the Jєωιѕн establishment.
Yes, one must at least acknowledge that the Jєωιѕн establishment might, indeed, become Trump's achilles heel going forward. We have considered that possiblility. It is a bit worrying, I'll admit.
-
Aren't most Traditional Catholics voting against their economic interests by supporting republican candidates??
-
The entire Republican Establishment is out to get Trump. Trump is an outsider. Personal sins? Compared to what? This crowd? Are you serious? Lying Ted Cruz who's backing the NAU -North American Union and has a wife that works for Goldman Sachs. Paul Singer-a Jєωιѕн billionaire-bought Cruz like a would buy a new pr. of work boots. Rubio? The guy who's owned by Sheldon Adelson? The guy who belonged to a fraternity in college known for cocaine and cross-dressing? Give me a break. And they ARE stealing primaries from Trump. Cruz polls at 17-27% but miraculously jumps 20 points on election day? Trump supporters are fueling this record turnout. 30,000 people voted in ALL of Kansas in 2012 ( in the Repub. primary ) but Cruz rcvd 35,000 votes ALONE?! Remember Trump is polling 40-50% nationally. Somehow, just like in Tx, Okl, and Alaska with record numbers of voters, with Trump garnering the largest crowds; the lions share of votes go to Cruz?
The Chief Dunce O'Reilly asked Gingrich why the Repub. Establishment doesn't want Trump. Gingrich responded; " Well he's not part of the secret society, he hasn't been through the secret initiation..so they don't know what to make of him..." These people can say things like this because the avg. Republican IS a dunce who thinks " there ain't no conspiracy...I can go back to my beer and football"....Trump may not be Louis IX or even Franco but compared to this crowd he's worth supporting. I remember an incident in Nov. '91. Trump and Marla ( eyes roll-previous marriage-let's burn him at the stake ) were on their way to a concert. They were rolling along 45th St. at 9th Ave when Trump spotted a mugging on the sidewalk. Trump told his driver to pull over. He jumped out and confronted the guy, " Look, you have to stop this..put down the bat.." The guy told Trump he wasn't " doing anything wrong". Trump said, " oh yeah, how could you be? You're just bashing the guy over the head.." The guy dropped the bat and took off. Trump stayed until a doctor came over and an ambulance was on the way. I don't know too many multi-millionaires who would have done this.
Bill Kristol said he would prefer Hillary the evil Queen over Trump. He speaks for the entire GOP Establishment who are confabbing right now to derail Trump.. :reporter:
-
How exactly can they cite an exit poll showing Cruz getting 50% before anyone even exits a poll? Believe me; they're giving Trump's votes to Cruz and Cruz's votes ( lower amount ) to Trump.
-
How exactly can they cite an exit poll showing Cruz getting 50% before anyone even exits a poll? Believe me; they're giving Trump's votes to Cruz and Cruz's votes ( lower amount ) to Trump.
For anyone who believes elections are rigged and the general population has no control whatsoever:
Either
A) Trump is truly an outsider and won't win because it's all rigged.
Or
B) Trump does win which shows that he's not really an outsider at all because if he was, they would have rigged everything against him.
So, you don't bother voting.
What's left to discuss?
-
I don't believe elections are rigged..they are rigged. They're not giving all the primaries to Cruz, that would be too obvious. Can you people actually address the facts on the ground? In 2012 6,000 Maine citizens voted for Ron Paul ( the same guy who trashed Cruz as a fraud.) and yet in 2016 w/Donald Trump's record turnout of new voters here is T. Cruz again taking more votes -8500-than any candidate ever rcvd in Maine before. Again; with the Trump surge 18,200 votes were apparently cast in Maine ( 2 and a 1/2 times more than ever before ) and here is Ted Cruz again wiping out everyone, when his numbers are no where near this nationally or in any other state..
-
Again look: The votes are not matching up to known polling: Please just look: The day before the primary Cruz was barely polling 28%. Then on election day this is how it shook out:
T. Cruz 48.2% 35,207 D. Trump 23.3% 17,062 M. Rubio 16.7% 12,189 J. Kasich 10.7% 7,795.
In 2012:
Santorum 51% 15,521 Romney 21% 6,346 Gingrich 14% 4,358 Paul 13% 3,900.
Don't think our elections have been hacked on occasion? Check out the Hacking Democracy video on youtube. Find the testimony of Clint Curtis ( an American attorney, computer programmer & ex-NASA employee ) when he testified before the US House Judiciary Members under oath.
He's not perfect but Trump is the only candidate that has said that these toxic vaccines are causing autism. ( By the way, the tdap vaccine seems to be the cause of the microcephaly in Brazil )
And how's this: " The war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? The war in Iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives....We should've never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. You call it whatever you want. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none..."
If you can picture Cruz or Rubio saying the above ( or praising Putin's actions in Syria as Trump has also done ) then your imagination exceeds mine. ( Of course ISIS is a proxy terrorist military formation created by the US, Saudi Arabia/Qatar, Israel and Turkey..Israel has gone so far as to give ISIS air support and treated their wounded ).
-
Matthew's wife shilling for Rafael really illustrates why women shouldn't get involved in politics. Trump is a leader of men and a nationalist. His campaign represents the triumph of blood over money and a last-ditch opposition to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Despite a lifetime spent wallowing in worldly culture, he displays many admirable qualities and I would gladly support him were I an American citizen.
-
Matthew's wife shilling for Rafael really illustrates why women shouldn't get involved in politics. Trump is a leader of men and a nationalist. His campaign represents the triumph of blood over money and a last-ditch opposition to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Despite a lifetime spent wallowing in worldly culture, he displays many admirable qualities and I would gladly support him were I an American citizen.
How dare you speak out against Women's rights!!!
Good point.
-
I think God may actually be giving us a chance to slow down the decay and the enslavement by giving us Trump.
You need to put away the drugs and face reality. Trump is as conservative as Bush was - which means not at all. You must be part of the catholic population that thinks Benedict was a good pope too.
There is no way, NO WAY, that any 'outsider' is ever becoming president, or even getting a chance to. Last one that had a chance was JFK and he was killed after starting out as an insider and changing his mind.
If you want an example of how an outsider will be treated by the media/party members, look at Ron/Rand Paul. They are ignored, marginalized and forgotten. THIS is what happens to candidates that aren't 'part of the game'. They get no air time, they are ridiculed, they are treated like 2nd rate politicians.
Saying all this is not being a 'defeatist'; it's facing reality. It's also being smart because in the grand scheme of things the presidency is FAR LESS important than your state senate/congress races. And if good people put as much effort into these races, (and local ones too) our country would change in a heartbeat.
Trump may well be playing the 'outsider' game because the NWO knows that people are waking up and they're going to manipulate this feeling, because people are mad that they were duped by 0bama. Trump may very well be taking hits from the media, but as they say in show biz, "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and this whole Trump show is straight out of a hollywood script.
-
I think God may actually be giving us a chance to slow down the decay and the enslavement by giving us Trump.
You need to put away the drugs and face reality. Trump is as conservative as Bush was - which means not at all. You must be part of the catholic population that thinks Benedict was a good pope too.
There is no way, NO WAY, that any 'outsider' is ever becoming president, or even getting a chance to. Last one that had a chance was JFK and he was killed after starting out as an insider and changing his mind.
If you want an example of how an outsider will be treated by the media/party members, look at Ron/Rand Paul. They are ignored, marginalized and forgotten. THIS is what happens to candidates that aren't 'part of the game'. They get no air time, they are ridiculed, they are treated like 2nd rate politicians.
Saying all this is not being a 'defeatist'; it's facing reality. It's also being smart because in the grand scheme of things the presidency is FAR LESS important than your state senate/congress races. And if good people put as much effort into these races, (and local ones too) our country would change in a heartbeat.
Trump may well be playing the 'outsider' game because the NWO knows that people are waking up and they're going to manipulate this feeling, because people are mad that they were duped by 0bama. Trump may very well be taking hits from the media, but as they say in show biz, "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and this whole Trump show is straight out of a hollywood script.
Exactly.
Like I said, people are *truly excited* about Trump, and that is what disturbs me. To hear some people, you'd swear Trump was a hop, skip and a jump away from the Great Catholic Monarch. Ridiculous!
Just for starters, they are not only forgetting everything we know about Trump, but everything we Trads know about how the world is run. Hint: an outsider wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the presidency. Like you said, just look at Ron Paul to see how they treat "audit the Fed" true outsiders. And even he might not be a complete outsider; he does attract people like us but I've heard some bad things about Ron Paul.
These excited Trump fans will begrudgingly admit that he's "no Garcia Moreno" (a short-lived Catholic president who placed his country under Christ the King). But that's a massive understatement.
Saying "Trump might not be a Catholic, but he's a decent option" is like saying to a group of fellow survivors, "We may not have any food, but at least this feces I found is from a human rather than a dog or a horse. There might be some nutrition left in it! Didn't we luck out! Yee-haw!"
A sane person would try to bring him down a few notches: Dude! It's still feces. Don't get TOO excited about our "good fortune".
In other words, the distance between Trump and a truly decent (Catholic) leader is approximately the distance between heaven and earth. Whereas the distance between Trump and Cruz/Rubio/Kasich is measured in nanometers. That's assuming he's any better than the other 3, which is quite open for debate.
What is there to get excited about?
-
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.
-
Trump is theatre for fools. He no more represents "change" than the Kenyan bathhouse boy.
Trump is a money-worshipper and an ardent Zionist despite his recent one-liner that he wants to appear neutral.
https://youtu.be/6gNk2wg7Xo8
January 23, 2015, Here Is Pedophile Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s Little Black Book
by Nick Bryant, Gawker, 1/23/2015
“Donald Trump, Courtney Love, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and uber-lawyer Alan Dershowitz may have been identified by a butler as potential ‘material witnesses’ to pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes against young girls, according to a copy of Epstein’s little black book obtained by Gawker.”
http://gawker.com/here-is-pedophile-billionaire-jeffrey-epsteins-little-b-1681383992
(http://judaism.is/images/epstein-s%20little%20black%20book.jpg)
January 22, 2015,
Flight Logs Put Clinton, Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaire’s Sex Jet
by Nick Bryant, Gawker, 1/22/15
http://gawker.com/flight-logs-put-clinton-dershowitz-on-pedophile-billio-1681039971
-
I think Trump needs to repent and convert. He must, first, become a traditional Catholic, and declare openly that the New Mass supplies no graces. He must go back to his first wife, give up his immoral past, and not build a wall that exceeds 50' in height. Otherwise, I, for one will not vote for him. And, oh yes, he must do something about his hair. :shocked:
-
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.
-
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, 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.
-
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?????
-
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.
-
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.
-
Centro:
What the heck happened to this thread?
:roll-laugh1:
-
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?
-
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.
-
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...
-
...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!!
-
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".
-
FYI -
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Presidential-Primary-Poll-2016
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
She is a horrible role model for a Catholic woman. She is militant "feminist" who defines that term as being pro-abortion, pro-contraception, and anti-tradition.
-
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.
She is a horrible role model for a Catholic woman. She is militant "feminist" who defines that term as being pro-abortion, pro-contraception, and anti-tradition.
Indeed she is. She attacks the mind and the soul (feminism, pro-abortion) whereas Trump's current trophy wife merely attacks morality of the flesh. At least being a wh___ doesn't require a fundamental destruction of feminine nature (except for the element of purity, which is certainly important, make no mistake), whereas it is NOT part of feminine nature to put on a pantsuit, compete with men, have a career as a lawyer, and promote the slaughter of the unborn.
A wh___ could convert and end up a decent woman -- like Mary Magdalen. All she has to do is renounce and repent for her sins against the Sixth Commandment, and of course do adequate penance.
But a feminist? When one's very thinking and mindset is warped and twisted against her feminine nature? Such a person rarely converts. It's hard to convert to God when every fiber of your being, and all your habits and ways of thinking, rebel against His design for man and woman. The very runway has been destroyed; the airplane of supernatural grace can't land.
But seriously -- having to choose between Hillary in the White House (communist, feminist, rabidly pro-babykilling, etc.) and a woman who has actually posed nude being our "First Lady" -- kind of like choosing between death by Plague and death by Ebola.
-
Maybe the best answer to all criticisms against Trump is the great endorsement speech by Doctor Ben Carson today:
http://www.donaldtrump2016online.com/2016/03/fox-friends-march-11-2016.html?m=1
He seems to be an honest man. Someone here called him an idiot a few days ago which I don't think was deserved. He might not be a good choice for president given some gaps in his expertise and there are some things which I simply disagree with him on, but he does strike me as honest and intelligent.
I didn't click your link there, but I just watched 12 minutes of him answering questions about this endorsement. The summary was that he believes Trump is the mostly likely to attract independent votes and his desire to beat the Democrat candidate was his foremost concern. I don't think that's an unreasonable position, but if his Facebook page is any indication, the majority of his fans aren't going to follow his lead. I'm also not convinced that Trump is the most likely to beat the Democrats as many head-to-head polls have said otherwise.
-
Well, between the arguments supporting the thrice married, previous pro-abort, current owner of a strip club and the claim that Obama is gαy and his wife is a man, I just can't find a side I even understand, let alone agree with. The only conclusion I can come to is the Social Kingship isn't going to be accomplished here at CathInfo.
-
One thing nobody can deny is that Trump's presence in the race has given a breath of fresh air to politics, and has risen people's interest in it.
The air isn't fresh. It's stank. This dude said he had nothing in his past for which to ask forgiveness. When asked about his favorite Bible verse he said he loved the whole Bible. He has been married three times, he has changed his positions on everything that should be meaningful to a Catholic, he owns a strip club, and on and on. And, by the way, in spite of the fact that he is Donald Trump he can't do much of anything that he claims he will do without congressional consent.
But you are right in that he has "risen people's interest." The opiate for the masses.
-
Nancy was Reagan's second wife and Cindy was McCain's second wife.
-
Nancy was Reagan's second wife and Cindy was McCain's second wife.
Yes, but Trump is still lowering the bar.
Nancy was close enough to Ronald in age so that it was hard to tell who was older than who. Not defending divorce here, but Ronald's divorce was more like "it didn't work out" than the classic chauvinist pig cheating on his wife with a secretary, then later divorcing her and marrying some 20-something bimbo he met in a strip club.
Seriously, Trump's latest wife is not just "another woman" who came into the picture after a marriage he gave up on. His current wife has posed nude. She's a model. I think that is quite different from what Ronald Reagan did.
Then again, we've all heard about John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton's exploits.
I'm not familiar with the McCains, so I'll "passover" their case for now. (Nice little dig there at McCain for his extreme "I haven't met a Middle East country I didn't want to bomb" neocon views -- which includes being pro-Israel)
-
Matthew's wife shilling for Rafael really illustrates why women shouldn't get involved in politics. Trump is a leader of men and a nationalist. His campaign represents the triumph of blood over money and a last-ditch opposition to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Despite a lifetime spent wallowing in worldly culture, he displays many admirable qualities and I would gladly support him were I an American citizen.
How dare you speak out against Women's rights!!!
Good point.
Gentlemen, it's a difference of priorities. I think the biggest obstacles to saving my children's souls are the decline of morality in America and I do believe that electing a person who embodies the behaviors which send the majority of souls to Hell is a step in the wrong direction.
-
Nancy was Reagan's second wife and Cindy was McCain's second wife.
Yes, but Trump is still lowering the bar.
Nancy was close enough to Ronald in age so that it was hard to tell who was older than who. Not defending divorce here, but Ronald's divorce was more like "it didn't work out" than the classic chauvinist pig cheating on his wife with a secretary, then later divorcing her and marrying some 20-something bimbo he met in a strip club.
Seriously, Trump's latest wife is not just "another woman" who came into the picture after a marriage he gave up on. His current wife has posed nude. She's a model. I think that is quite different from what Ronald Reagan did.
Then again, we've all heard about John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton's exploits.
I'm not familiar with the McCains, so I'll "passover" their case for now. (Nice little dig there at McCain for his extreme "I haven't met a Middle East country I didn't want to bomb" neocon views -- which includes being pro-Israel)
Matthew this is silly you are saying being a flagrant adulterer is worse if it's with a younger woman.
-
Centro: What the heck happened to this thread?
:roll-laugh1:
And now he's in the ring! :boxer: Welcome Centro... it's good to have your two bits!
-
Matthew's wife shilling for Rafael really illustrates why women shouldn't get involved in politics. Trump is a leader of men and a nationalist. His campaign represents the triumph of blood over money and a last-ditch opposition to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Despite a lifetime spent wallowing in worldly culture, he displays many admirable qualities and I would gladly support him were I an American citizen.
How dare you speak out against Women's rights!!!
Good point.
Gentlemen, it's a difference of priorities. I think the biggest obstacles to saving my children's souls are the decline of morality in America and I do believe that electing a person who embodies the behaviors which send the majority of souls to Hell is a step in the wrong direction.
It seems like the moderators are leaning toward favoring a Hillary president. Basically I understand it like this: "I don't care if she is a murderous liar that is militantly in favor of homesɛҳuąƖs and abortion, at least she has only had one divorce and is still with her second husband."
-
Matthew's wife shilling for Rafael really illustrates why women shouldn't get involved in politics. Trump is a leader of men and a nationalist. His campaign represents the triumph of blood over money and a last-ditch opposition to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Despite a lifetime spent wallowing in worldly culture, he displays many admirable qualities and I would gladly support him were I an American citizen.
How dare you speak out against Women's rights!!!
Good point.
Gentlemen, it's a difference of priorities. I think the biggest obstacles to saving my children's souls are the decline of morality in America and I do believe that electing a person who embodies the behaviors which send the majority of souls to Hell is a step in the wrong direction.
Talk about hyprocrisy...this is who your household voted for?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt-vG_TdOT4
-
Matthew this is silly you are saying being a flagrant adulterer is worse if it's with a younger woman.
Yes, as a matter of fact I am.
I believe all "remarriage" and adultery are wrong.
However, it is that much more heinous when it's done with the basest of motives. There are definitely circuмstances which can add to the gravity of a crime.
Marriage is difficult; some people give up when things get tough, and they have worldly beliefs like, "We were young", "It didn't work out", "Time to move on", etc. Just for starters, most non-Catholics consider divorce to be an option in the first place. They don't believe in the permanence of marriage.
I don't agree with their thinking, but at least it's socially acceptable to modern worldlings. To prove my point, many times divorces are even "mutual" where the spouses agree it's for the best to end the marriage and for both spouses to find happiness with new partners.
What I'm saying isn't that much of a stretch. In prison, for example, the criminals there have a special disdain for child molesters. Yes they are ALL convicted felons, or they wouldn't be in prison. But among themselves, they consider child molesters to be the lowest of the low and they treat them accordingly.
Likewise, a man and a woman (usually non-Catholic) getting divorced and each getting re-married is one thing.
But the case of a man:
A) cheating on his wife and then
B) one-sided divorcing her, only to get remarried to his
C) supermodel girlfriend
D) several decades younger than himself -- that's another thing altogether.
If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you.
It adds extra malice or evils to the mix.
So you're saying a man divorcing his wife to marry Jane is the SAME as a man who divorces his wife to marry his wife's sister, or his wife's best friend?
Or how about a man who divorces his wife and spends big money on lawyers to see she gets nothing, vs. a man who divorces his wife but makes sure she's "taken care of" financially. Obviously the latter is much less evil.
I think most people can see there are many degrees of evil (even if the "least degree" is a quite woeful state of Mortal sin), even in something like divorce.
In other news, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that all mortal sins are equally evil. They all merit eternal punishment in Hell, yes, but intentionally missing Mass on Sunday requires different reparation -- and does different long-term damage to your soul -- than killing one's mother.
Perhaps the "added evils" are only accidentals, which merely ADD to the base gravity of an already serious crime. I'll give you that. But there are certainly ways of adding insult to the grave injury which is divorce.
-
Matthew this is silly you are saying being a flagrant adulterer is worse if it's with a younger woman.
Yes, as a matter of fact I am.
I believe all "remarriage" and adultery are wrong.
However, it is that much more heinous when it's done with the basest of motives.
Marriage is difficult; some people give up when things get tough, and they have worldly beliefs like, "We were young", "It didn't work out", "Time to move on", etc.
I don't agree with their thinking, but at least it's socially acceptable to modern worldlings. To prove my point, many times divorces are even "mutual" where the spouses agree it's for the best to end the marriage and for both spouses to find happiness with new partners.
What I'm saying isn't that much of a stretch. In prison, for example, the criminals there have a special disdain for child molesters. Yes they are ALL convicted felons, or they wouldn't be in prison. But among themselves, they consider child molesters to be the lowest of the low.
Likewise, a man and a woman (usually non-Catholic) getting divorced and each getting re-married is one thing.
But the case of a man:
A) cheating on his wife and then
B) one-sided divorcing her, only to get remarried to his
C) supermodel girlfriend
D) several decades younger than himself -- that's another thing altogether.
If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you.
But you voted for Ted Cruz...they guy aspiring to be in the " teen tit films". Give me a break.
-
Are you referring to the video of Cruz taken after his High School graduation, during which the 18 year old Cruz said a bunch of silly things?
But this isn't about Cruz, it's about Trump and how Trad Catholics (at least 10 of them on CathInfo alone) whole-heartedly support him, some with a great deal of hope and excitement.
Nice attempt to deflect the attention away from Trump, however.
-
The Zionists have ensured that every visible presidential candidate is a slobbering catamite for the Zionist agenda. Every one of them is a sycophantic dirt bag.
Since some admire Trump, I thought you might be interested in this very well-referenced article about Trump's connections to organized crime:
Donald Trump and The Palm Beach Homies
http://www.madcowprod.com/2016/03/09/donald-trump-palm-beach-homies/
-
Another thing I should point out --
Yes, it is not unprecedented for a President of the United States -- or candidate for this office -- to be divorced.
But Ronald Reagan is deceased, and McCain isn't running in this election.
The question is, what choices do we have this election cycle for our next President?
Have any of the other candidates been divorced? That is what we should ask ourselves, as part of informing our decision-making process before deciding who to support.
-
And, by the way, in spite of the fact that he is Donald Trump he can't do much of anything that he claims he will do without congressional consent.
But you are right in that he has "risen people's interest." The opiate for the masses.
If I could give a "thumbs up" for this 10,000 times, I would spend the time to click 10,000 separate times. It's just shocking to me how many of y'all are trumping for Trump. You WANT to believe good things, therefore you do. But there's no factual basis for any of your exuberance over him. The lack of rational thought is mind boggling. I wish we were back in the days where only property owners had votes, because America would be better off without emotional votes.
And, quit saying that a 'No' vote to Trump is a vote for Hillary. That's the true tragedy of american politics - 40% of voters consider themselves independent. Meaning, they don't like DEMs or REPs. If only the 40% would vote independent or constitution party, for a normal, regular guy, he'd win by a landslide. But, the 'powers that be' have everyone convinced that "everyone else" is going to vote DEM or REP, so they have to as well. Tragic. And totally illogical.
-
Another thing I should point out --
Yes, it is not unprecedented for a President of the United States -- or candidate for this office -- to be divorced.
But Ronald Reagan is deceased, and McCain isn't running in this election.
The question is, what choices do we have this election cycle for our next President?
Have any of the other candidates been divorced? That is what we should ask ourselves, as part of informing our decision-making process before deciding who to support.
Your decision is based one hundred percent off of his personal life, which I had no clue about until I read your posts, and not his policies. His personal life affects you in no way whatsoever. The policies of the next president will. I think you are being really, extremely shallow-minded in this matter. I would even go so far as to say it is effeminate.
As if everything boils down to if he has been divorced or has a young hottie. I think there is something more to it that you're holding back on saying as for your reason to not being in favor of a Trump presidency.
-
Matthew, with all due respect, we seem to be living in two different countries. The one I'm living in was founded on freemasonic principles, has NEVER been a Christian nation. It adopted "Liberal Democracy" which is condemned by the Church. It has been tolerant of all religions except for the Catholic religion. It has been the primary tool of the Global Elite to use against all of its adversaries around the world for over a century, it has not been a sovereign nation for nearly a century. It has been the primary petri-dish for the cultivation of todays rotten culture in the West.
Now, being the "Mayor of real-ville," I can't seem to grasp how you can possibly assume that our present circuмstances can possibly produce the desired results that you anticipate. I don't disagree with your desires, they should be of all of us Catholics. Although, we must recognize that we have now been reduced to a state of absolute barbarism. I believe that due to the current circuмstances, one must hope to reduce the greater evils at play. I believe you put ones personal sins at a more serious nature than those sins which are against the common good, or should I rather say, sins against society.
I don't believe that most here are what you say they are, "Trump supporters," rather ones who see the depths of evil which our current politicians have involved themselves with. I'm sure I could expound further on this, but I think it will give you an idea what I'm trying to get at.
-
I couldn't agree w/St. Ignatius more. And this idea that people who favor Trump are saying that " a vote against Trump is a vote for Hillary" (What??) A little research will lead to the opposite conclusion; rather it's the Republican Establishment that would rather have Hillary than Trump. Hill's a neocon, brags about how she and Obama destroyed Libya and murdered it's leader. ( a Col. that we helped put in power, protected Christians and was framed btw for Pan Am 103 and the German discoteque bombing ). She's a female version of McCain on Iran and all things the neocons care about. Trump would, for the most part, stop meddling in the affairs of other nations...thinks Putin is doing a good job of wrapping up ISIS for us..( the ISIS/al-Nusra types that the US and Saudis/Qataris recruited, equipped and sent into Libya as a template for the next operation-Syria..)
Trump realizes these new vaccines aren't like the much less harmful, less risky ones that we got as kids. Trump is at least partially aware. Meanwhile phonies like Glenn Beck are hosting Ted Cruz rallies...There's really no comparison. And this idea that a Constitution or Green Party candidate has any chance in a presidential election is beyond far-fetched.
This spectacle in Chicago is pretty interesting. Listened to the coverage on the way home from Church ( about 8:30pm )..The MSNBC coverage of it ( Maddow, Mathews ) seems like it came from an alternative universe. A rowdy, violent leftist crowd showed up seeking to deprive other Americans of the right to free speech and assembly. Trump took the side of caution and called off the event....And Maddow and Matthews made him out to be the bad guy..If anything the anarchistic crowd only convinced more people that we need a man like Trump in the White House. :reporter:
-
Matthew's wife shilling for Rafael really illustrates why women shouldn't get involved in politics. Trump is a leader of men and a nationalist. His campaign represents the triumph of blood over money and a last-ditch opposition to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Despite a lifetime spent wallowing in worldly culture, he displays many admirable qualities and I would gladly support him were I an American citizen.
How dare you speak out against Women's rights!!!
Good point.
Gentlemen, it's a difference of priorities. I think the biggest obstacles to saving my children's souls are the decline of morality in America and I do believe that electing a person who embodies the behaviors which send the majority of souls to Hell is a step in the wrong direction.
Sorry Mater Dominici, but I think the biggest obstacle to saving our children's souls is no the lack of morality. It is the lack of true doctrine. Because there can be no morality if you don't have true doctrine. Why? Because when you leave/ignore true doctrine, you are taking yourself as guide, and not the eternal principles given by God. Laxity/choice in doctrine reveals you make yourself God. You become the center of your universe. Thus you can see no reason why you could not set your own rules of morality. Your ego becomes the justification for everything. The first sin is, indeed, to consider oneself as the yardstick of truth. There is already immorality there.
I think the greatest trap for our children's souls comes from "decent" heretics. Because their most grievious sin, unbelief in God's only true Church, is wrapped under the pretense of moral virtue. Thus children are led to believe you can be a "good" person even if you belong to a sect. There is only one more step for them to make, and it is to believe that all religions are good. And that is a most grievious sin. The sin of our modern age: Liberalism.
Therefore, a guy like Cruze is much more dangerous for the salvation of our children than Donald Trump, who is an obvious sinner, and who doesn't really know religion. Nobody is fooled by Trump. Everybody sees him for what he is. There is therefore no danger of a temptation to take him as a role model, or as a saint. Therefore, no temptation in his case to make us believe that a sect can produce "decent" people. No temptation to forget that the most important of our duties is to believe/adhere to the one true Church. (In fact, in his case, there would be more chances that people would see that a sect cannot produce good fruits).
It is very difficult to convert a heretic who really knows/believes the teachings of his sect, especially if he sees himself as "decent". A guy like Trump, who doesn't really know and care about religion, and who is living in sin, has more chances, especially when faced with great trials, to wake up and search/turn towards the Truth, and eventually convert. And we know such trials will be plenty if he reaches the White House.
One thing that shows he could redeem himself, especially since he is not really attached intellectually to a sect (he says "Two Corinthians"), is that he is willing to put his whole life on the line for the sake of the country. He is financing his campaign himself. He is risking millions of his own dollars, and not those of donors who would later on call back the favors.
A reasonable position. The majority of those I've known who were raised Trad and then left the faith did so because of sins related to the 6th & 9th Commandments. They're common cry is that Catholicism is "unfair" in its demands for purity and marriage. I'm not sure if I know anyone who has moved from Trad Catholicism to Protestantism, so I don't really consider it a serious threat.
-
and get on the street to fight for a guy who puts his life on the line to try and save America, or at least slow down the process of her destruction.
You wrote the above and I'M the idealist?! Who lives in a make believe world, you or me?
Your world (at least this is what you sound like you believe):
1) you believe that Trump cares about america more than his global companies' profits
2) you believe that Trump can "do what he says" even though no president, not even George Washington, could fulfill his promises, simply due to the separation of powers in our govt.
3) you believe that Trump cares about the constitution and hasn't flip flopped more times than I can count.
4) you believe when Trump mentions 9/11, 0bama's birth certificate, or vaccinations, he really cares and he ISN'T saying what people want to hear, to get votes.
My world/factual:
1) Trump is an illuminati jew who is running for office for power and fame
2) Trump can only do anything if Congress votes for it. He could issue executive orders, but those are unconstitutional and I wouldn't want this abused anymore than it has been. Too dangerous. But even these are very limited. A president isn't a King, who can do anything.
3) Trump, in the past, supported the Iraq war, abortion rights, gun control, etc etc but he has now "converted" to conservatism.
4) Trump is best friends with the Clintons, every jew in NY and any other influential/politically minded guy in existence. In other words, he's "part of the club". Heck, he may even run the club.
If you really think Trump has anyone's best interests at heart (other than Israel's and his own) you are the one living in a fantasy land, and you probably believe that JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. Go ahead, keep drinking the kool-aid.
-
I say: Liberals have their ways, it is our time to have it our way. If it means executive orders. So be it.
THIS. Is another reason why I'm against Trump. I don't want a dictator. The only thing holding this country together is a few checks and balances. I want someone sane enough to know what is and isn't against the law and further, pushes power back to the states where it belongs.
-
Patricius,
Ha ha. I have facts to back up my claim that he's a hypocrite. You have wishful thinking and 'his word' that he isn't. If I had a penny for every politician who had a 'change of heart' i'd be the wealthiest man on earth.
Also, so you are now for "the end justifies the means" when it comes to law and politics? You're for executive orders, basically turning the presidency into a dictatorship, and you think this is a good idea? If you want a dictator, why don't you move to Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea (even Russia)? This is insanity. Have you ever opened a civics book?
I'll post here the famous conversation of St Thomas More, concerning the importance of law, even when it comes to the devil (or in our case, terrorists).
William Roper: So, now you give the devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
The point is to support the laws/process our country was founded on. It's worked for 250 years. The answer to our current problems are 2: 1) return to morality (which Trump can't fix) and 2) make the Fed govt smaller (which Trump will expand through executive orders, if you have your way). Wishful thinking and trusting in a used car saleman who's running for president is just sad.
-
What is the result of all these laws and checks and balance of yours (MaterDominici)? It's abortion, gαy marriage, obamacare, freedom of all kinds of press-tv-radio-Net, with all the immorality and false doctrines.
Was this question for me?
I absolutely want someone who cares about the law because the law is such that these issues should largely be state issues. We're so far removed from that today that I can't even tell you what things our gov't has done rightly within its power and what it has abused to get us to where we are.
I agree with St. Thomas More about the results of tearing down the laws. To clear all of these "obstacles" out of the way only serves to give the devil an easy, clear path when the tides turn in his favor.
-
The system works. Its not ideal but Its not intrinsically evil. Nothings perfect, not even a Catholic monarchy. Yes, the presidential system of voting is flawed, controlled, rigged. But not the whole rest of the system. Theres lots of good that can be done if energy was concentrated locally and on congress. The reason we have problems is due to a neglect of checks and balances not because of the 'rule of law', which exists even in a monarchy.
When I say 'wake up', I'm complaining that people think Trump is any different than what hes been his whole life - a smart, funny, salesman who says whatever it takes to get what he wants. This could be good or bad, depending on how he uses his talents but don't act like hes the 2nd coming of George Washington who's gonna "beat the liberals" and make "america great again". Its empty talk. So save yourself the energy and spend it on political races that matter.
-
The system works. Its not ideal but Its not intrinsically evil. Nothings perfect, not even a Catholic monarchy. Yes, the presidential system of voting is flawed, controlled, rigged. But not the whole rest of the system. Theres lots of good that can be done if energy was concentrated locally and on congress. The reason we have problems is due to a neglect of checks and balances not because of the 'rule of law', which exists even in a monarchy.
When I say 'wake up', I'm complaining that people think Trump is any different than what hes been his whole life - a smart, funny, salesman who says whatever it takes to get what he wants. This could be good or bad, depending on how he uses his talents but don't act like hes the 2nd coming of George Washington who's gonna "beat the liberals" and make "america great again". Its empty talk. So save yourself the energy and spend it on political races that matter.
Here's where this process leaves me scratching my head... First, you find that guy you want to rally behind and he gets elected and then he heads off to Washington or the state capitol. Then, a few years later, he either gets bumped up (say, Speaker of the House) or even runs for another office (say, state up to federal) and now, all of the sudden the guy you were rooting for is described by most as "establishment", by Trads as "NWO" and others as just plain 'ol "politician". Now, short of following every second of the person's political career, how do you know if he was always compromised, compromised after entering office, or is just being smeared by his rivals?
I'll use Rubio as an example since he's tanking now and will probably be out of this soon. I will preface by saying I probably don't know enough about him, and this example might fall flat on its face. What I do know is that he was elected as a "Tea party guy" which usually means he's not interested in the usual Washington methods. All I know about his record is the "gang of 8" issue which tells me that the other 95% of what he did while in office is probably neutral to praiseworthy. Next, he wants to have a go at the presidency. In order to afford this process, you have to take donations, particularly from wealthy people, who often happen to be Jєωιѕн. Now, he's in the thick of it and is labeled "establishment", "NWO", and "politician". All three mean, nasty things and other than one dumb lawmaking decision, I don't see how he could have avoided these characterizations, be they true or not. What should he have done differently other than being independently wealthy? What other things have told you that this guy is "not your man?"
-
I think God may actually be giving us a chance to slow down the decay and the enslavement by giving us Trump.
You need to put away the drugs and face reality. Trump is as conservative as Bush was - which means not at all. You must be part of the catholic population that thinks Benedict was a good pope too.
There is no way, NO WAY, that any 'outsider' is ever becoming president, or even getting a chance to. Last one that had a chance was JFK and he was killed after starting out as an insider and changing his mind.
If you want an example of how an outsider will be treated by the media/party members, look at Ron/Rand Paul. They are ignored, marginalized and forgotten. THIS is what happens to candidates that aren't 'part of the game'. They get no air time, they are ridiculed, they are treated like 2nd rate politicians.
Saying all this is not being a 'defeatist'; it's facing reality. It's also being smart because in the grand scheme of things the presidency is FAR LESS important than your state senate/congress races. And if good people put as much effort into these races, (and local ones too) our country would change in a heartbeat.
Trump may well be playing the 'outsider' game because the NWO knows that people are waking up and they're going to manipulate this feeling, because people are mad that they were duped by 0bama. Trump may very well be taking hits from the media, but as they say in show biz, "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and this whole Trump show is straight out of a hollywood script.
One of the best posts in the thread (other than the 1st few until the topic changed). If not for realistic posts like this and a few others such as Mater's, I would think I was living in the Twilight Zone. :facepalm:
-
(http://i.imgur.com/WCQiucj.jpg)
-
I say: Liberals have their ways, it is our time to have it our way. If it means executive orders. So be it.
THIS. Is another reason why I'm against Trump. I don't want a dictator.
Yeah, the liberals have already made videos comparing him to Francisco Franco. If you look on Youtube, you might find some more things like that to post here. I highly distrust the reaons that are being given...
-
Maybe the best answer to all criticisms against Trump is the great endorsement speech by Doctor Ben Carson today:
http://www.donaldtrump2016online.com/2016/03/fox-friends-march-11-2016.html?m=1
He seems to be an honest man. Someone here called him an idiot a few days ago which I don't think was deserved. He might not be a good choice for president given some gaps in his expertise and there are some things which I simply disagree with him on, but he does strike me as honest and intelligent.
I didn't click your link there, but I just watched 12 minutes of him answering questions about this endorsement. The summary was that he believes Trump is the mostly likely to attract independent votes and his desire to beat the Democrat candidate was his foremost concern. I don't think that's an unreasonable position, but if his Facebook page is any indication, the majority of his fans aren't going to follow his lead. I'm also not convinced that Trump is the most likely to beat the Democrats as many head-to-head polls have said otherwise.
He lost all credibility with me after his "full scholarship" to the USMA story came out.
-
Are you referring to the video of Cruz taken after his High School graduation, during which the 18 year old Cruz said a bunch of silly things?
But this isn't about Cruz, it's about Trump and how Trad Catholics (at least 10 of them on CathInfo alone) whole-heartedly support him, some with a great deal of hope and excitement.
Nice attempt to deflect the attention away from Trump, however.
18 is not 8...you are a man at 18.
-
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.
:applause:
He is the first candidate that isn't under the thumb of La Raza. His income does not depend on increasing the illiterate & anti-intellectual Hispanic culture that raises generation after generation of bastard whores & criminals.
edited: Pat Buchanan wasn't under their thumb either.
-
But seriously -- having to choose between Hillary in the White House (communist, feminist, rabidly pro-babykilling, etc.) and a woman who has actually posed nude being our "First Lady"....
No. That's not the analogy. You have compared a President with a First Spouse. Playing your game, let's compare Trump's wife to Bill Clinton, because that's the analogy.
Yes, Bill Clinton is just so much a better role model in the WH than Trump's wife is. The man who surely would make a full-time job of Catholic parents explaining the different philosophical understanding of the word "is" in Catholic thought vs. in Clintonology, or How Not to Go to Confession (Before I answer your question, Father, what do you mean by "is"?)
Why didn't I think of what a superior moral asset BC would be in the WH?
I also don't think that Trump's wife would be interested in being a shadow President, whereas BC still has politics in his blood and is very much interested in convenient opportunities to practice it. So we would get two super-lefties, super-degenerates in the WH. Swell.
Let's all agree we have two rotten role model couples in the 2 front-runners. With that, I find this reply apt:
Well, between the arguments supporting the thrice married, previous pro-abort, current owner of a strip club and the claim that Obama is gαy and his wife is a man, I just can't find a side I even understand, let alone agree with. The only conclusion I can come to is the Social Kingship isn't going to be accomplished here at CathInfo.
-
Matthew is completely disconnected from reality with his analogies, and I am glad that so many people have pointed it out to him. Given the situation, I think there is something more as to why Matthew takes the position he does. I would question whether it is even him that made the decision. It is so unlike him to not support someone who is vocally anti-mohamedan and anti-AIPAC. Something fishy about it. The real suspicion is confirmed when you notice that the only beef and argument against Trump being a president that he continuously makes is because he has a young "hottie" for a wife. I am sorry but that has a woman's fingerprints all over it, and lacks the rationality that Matthew normally displays.
-
Matthew is completely disconnected from reality with his analogies, and I am glad that so many people have pointed it out to him. Given the situation, I think there is something more as to why Matthew takes the position he does. I would question whether it is even him that made the decision. It is so unlike him to not support someone who is vocally anti-mohamedan and anti-AIPAC. Something fishy about it. The real suspicion is confirmed when you notice that the only beef and argument against Trump being a president that he continuously makes is because he has a young "hottie" for a wife. I am sorry but that has a woman's fingerprints all over it, and lacks the rationality that Matthew normally displays.
Another ad-hominem, eh?
You can't address any of the points I've made about Trump or try to understand my point of view at all, even if you don't agree with it; instead you have to say, "He must be crazy", or, "His wife must have brainwashed him." That's not very fair or charitable -- have I said any of those things about you guys, even though I'm the one outnumbered at least 15 to 1?
I say you all are the ones disconnected from reality. I believe Trump has pulled the wool over your collective eyes. But that goes without saying, and in my posts I continue to treat the forum at large as a rational body that wants to discuss ideas and facts, rather than engage in ad-hominem emotional attacks on each other.
And no, I strongly disagree with your assumption that every "man's man" will naturally, automatically support Trump. He is the opposite of the kind of man I admire and aspire to be. My hero is more like Bishop Williamson. And as Hollingsworth admitted early on in this thread, they ARE pretty much polar opposites.
He was making a very narrow comparison, but even that narrow comparison I disagree with.
Anyhow, I look at Trump and I see no "reason to hope" at all, just like when I look at Hillary. That is my opinion, and how I see things. I have a right to my opinion, just like you have a right to yours.
You act as if you're right and I'm wrong! How can you say that? Can you see the future and I can't? On the contrary -- we'll see who's right after Trump is elected and nothing changes, eh?
-
Are you referring to the video of Cruz taken after his High School graduation, during which the 18 year old Cruz said a bunch of silly things?
But this isn't about Cruz, it's about Trump and how Trad Catholics (at least 10 of them on CathInfo alone) whole-heartedly support him, some with a great deal of hope and excitement.
Nice attempt to deflect the attention away from Trump, however.
18 is not 8...you are a man at 18.
That is a matter of opinion. An 18 year old is a youth, and youth is full of folly.
There's nothing magical that happens at age 18. You aren't overnight infused with maturity and wisdom during the night before your 18th birthday.
The law even says that a man laying with a woman of 17 is committing "statutory rape". So the law considers a 17 year old to be a child. But magically at 18 everything changes?
I know, in America you're old enough to run up thousands of dollars of debt, old enough to have an abortion (kill) without parental consent, or old enough to kill and be killed in the military. But that doesn't change the objective facts about the actual state of 18 year olds: wet behind the ears, foolish, and next to no experience in REAL life.
Most 18 year olds have been in public school for the previous 13 years. That is about as far from REAL life as it gets.
-
I had forgotten about this old Bro. Kapner video from 2012. But in it, business man Trump offers a challenge to President Obama, which, of course, the latter never took up. Some may find this interesting:
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=766
BTW,has anyone noticed that the Trump/Williamson comparison fell off the radar. The good bishop exited stage right at least 20 pages ago. LOL.
-
Are you referring to the video of Cruz taken after his High School graduation, during which the 18 year old Cruz said a bunch of silly things?
But this isn't about Cruz, it's about Trump and how Trad Catholics (at least 10 of them on CathInfo alone) whole-heartedly support him, some with a great deal of hope and excitement.
Nice attempt to deflect the attention away from Trump, however.
18 is not 8...you are a man at 18.
That is a matter of opinion. An 18 year old is a youth, and youth is full of folly.
There's nothing magical that happens at age 18. You aren't overnight infused with maturity and wisdom during the night before your 18th birthday.
The law even says that a man laying with a woman of 17 is committing "statutory rape". So the law considers a 17 year old to be a child. But magically at 18 everything changes?
I know, in America you're old enough to run up thousands of dollars of debt, old enough to have an abortion (kill) without parental consent, or old enough to kill and be killed in the military. But that doesn't change the objective facts about the actual state of 18 year olds: wet behind the ears, foolish, and next to no experience in REAL life.
Most 18 year olds have been in public school for the previous 13 years. That is about as far from REAL life as it gets.
I was trying to say he is past puberty not a legal age. He wasn't a child who was just repeating a crude sɛҳuąƖ comment.
-
I was trying to say he is past puberty not a legal age. He wasn't a child who was just repeating a crude sɛҳuąƖ comment.
Sort of.
He may not be a "monkey see, monkey do" toddler, but he was also somewhat less than a fully mature 40 year old adult. My point is that he could easily say, "I was young and stupid then; I've grown up since then." and in virtually all cases that would be true. Everyone does a LOT of growing up after age 18, myself included.
Everyone knows, by common sense, that "the follies of youth" explain much that happens in the first few years of "adulthood".
In fact, most 18 year olds today are less mature than 14 year olds were in the 1820's. Look how long it takes men to mature in the modern world -- some of them are still acting the fool in their 20's or 30's. How much more so when they are only 18?
Might I point out that college usually takes place from ages 18 - 22? So every hijinks you've ever heard about at college, every fraternity stunt in history, etc was done by "adults" over 18 yet firmly ensconced in the folly of youth.
I rest my case.
-
Matthew is completely disconnected from reality with his analogies, and I am glad that so many people have pointed it out to him. Given the situation, I think there is something more as to why Matthew takes the position he does. I would question whether it is even him that made the decision. It is so unlike him to not support someone who is vocally anti-mohamedan and anti-AIPAC. Something fishy about it. The real suspicion is confirmed when you notice that the only beef and argument against Trump being a president that he continuously makes is because he has a young "hottie" for a wife. I am sorry but that has a woman's fingerprints all over it, and lacks the rationality that Matthew normally displays.
Another ad-hominem, eh?
You can't address any of the points I've made about Trump or try to understand my point of view at all, even if you don't agree with it; instead you have to say, "He must be crazy", or, "His wife must have brainwashed him." That's not very fair or charitable -- have I said any of those things about you guys, even though I'm the one outnumbered at least 15 to 1?
I say you all are the ones disconnected from reality. I believe Trump has pulled the wool over your collective eyes. But that goes without saying, and in my posts I continue to treat the forum at large as a rational body that wants to discuss ideas and facts, rather than engage in ad-hominem emotional attacks on each other.
And no, I strongly disagree with your assumption that every "man's man" will naturally, automatically support Trump. He is the opposite of the kind of man I admire and aspire to be. My hero is more like Bishop Williamson. And as Hollingsworth admitted early on in this thread, they ARE pretty much polar opposites.
He was making a very narrow comparison, but even that narrow comparison I disagree with.
Anyhow, I look at Trump and I see no "reason to hope" at all, just like when I look at Hillary. That is my opinion, and how I see things. I have a right to my opinion, just like you have a right to yours.
You act as if you're right and I'm wrong! How can you say that? Can you see the future and I can't? On the contrary -- we'll see who's right after Trump is elected and nothing changes, eh?
I'm going to try to stop commenting about this subject. It isn't very productive to me. It's not about being right and wrong. In fact, for a long time I was not supportive of Trump. I only recently began to support him. Basically, it comes down to the list of things I mentioned somewhere lost on one of these endless threads. The public positions that Trump has taken are astounding and we couldn't expect that from any other candidate in the near future. I see it as counter-productive to oppose his presidency. I really like what he said at AIPAC, his willingness to work with Putin, and what he said about keeping mohamedans out, along with other things.
Let me reveal some of my more personal reasons that add to what is above (which already was enough). You see, his personal life does not affect me, but other points could gravely affect my future. I'm not talking about his idea to help the jobs by keeping them from setting up shop in Mexico, although this also should be taken into account. You see, when the ridiculous sham of marriage was passed last summer, this did indeed affect Americans living abroad with foreign spouses. Now, if I decide to file the papers for my wife and I to reside in the U.S., I will have to wait in line with Lord only knows how many degenerates waiting to bring their ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs to the U.S. The whole immigration system was already complicated and then that. The amoral liberals love to talk about how people should stay out of people's bedrooms because it has nothing to do with them. In my case, those bogus "marriage" laws could mean the difference between my family waiting outside the U.S. 5 to 10 years to get in, should I choose to come back. I think the average expected wait is something like 2 1/2 years now. So, when one of these militant leftists or war monger puppets gets in there and starts accepting more and more refugees and granting amnesty or accepting tons of illegal immigrants, this will affect me personally. I've crossed borders illegally. Illegals want something that they are not willing to give in their own countries. My wife will do it the legal way. Those who don't do it the legal way, frustrate the system for those who don't. This is why there are Latinos that support Trump. Many legal immigrants are sick of the illegal immigrants making it harder for everyone.
So, on one hand, I like what Trump is saying when he challenges the media and liberals. On the other hand, keeping those liberals from accepting huge influxes of immigrants is important to my personal life. It's my opinion that my motive is superior to yours. You haven't said much except that you worry about the morality of the country, etc. It is ridiculous to blame the degenerative culture of the U.S. on Trump. I'm sure he has very little culpability in that matter.
I stick by my original opinion that your attitude about this is highly unlike you. You couldn't even admit that you like it that he wants to keep mohamedans out. I'm surprised really. It is extremely odd, given your usual stance for the Truth. There is Truth in wanting to restrict false religions, even when the immoral does it.
I am not going to put any more time into the topic.
-
I like Trump's idea of building a wall to keep illegals out. I think we need to over-correct a bit towards xenophobia for a while, considering we've had free-for-all open borders for all these years.
I am against Israel
I think the US should stop war-mongering and work with Putin
I am against factories moving to Mexico and loss of many American jobs.
I'm sure most other Trump campaign promises would resonate with me as well.
I know he says many things that I'm thinking.
But that doesn't mean I'm for Trump as a candidate.
A) I don't believe him. More importantly, I have no reason to believe him other than blind faith. No thanks. A human being is going to have to give me SOME reason to believe.
B) I don't believe he can deliver, even if he is sincere.
C) There are also Trump positions/promises I have a moral problem with. He competes with "the worst of them" on fighting the so-called terrorists. He wants to kill the terrorists' families! That's ridiculous and immoral.
-
...I just wish you had as much clarity of thought when it comes to Trump!
(o:
Seriously, from all the posts that I saw, it really looks like we can make the following observations:
1-Anti-Trump comments all deal with his personality (his sins, his scandals, his supposed links to secret societies, his supposed hyprocrisy, etc. etc.). They basically don't want to trust him, and don't even want to learn his positions.
2-Pro-Trump comments all deal with his doctrine and positions. They acknowledge his personal flaws and sins, but they go beyond the "supposed" stuff he is being accused of and all the other "what ifs?" and "maybe he is..." type of objections.
I find it to be completely the opposite.
Donald Trump’s A Democrat In Disguise, Based On These Liberal Quotes.
1. Donald Trump on Universal Healthcare: “Everybody’s got to be covered, this is an un-Republican thing I’m going to say, I’m going to take care of everybody.”
When asked, ‘Who pays for it?’ Trump flatly replied, “the government’s going to pay for it.”
— CBS, “60 Minutes,” 9/27/2015
“The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans… We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan.”
—Writing in his book, The America We Deserve, January 2000
“I’m very liberal when it comes to health care. I believe in universal health care.”
—Interview with CNN’s Larry King, October 1999.
11. Donald Trump on immigration and the DREAM Act: “For people that have been here for years, that have been hard workers, have good jobs, are supporting a family, it’s very, very tough to just say ‘you have to leave, get out.’ How do you throw someone out that’s lived in this country for 20 years, you just can’t throw everybody out.”
— Fox News, June 18, 2012.
9. Donald Trump on Obama’s economic stimulus: “I thought he did a terrific job […] I thought he was strong and smart, and it looks like we have somebody that knows what he is doing finally in office, and he did inherit a tremendous problem. He really stepped into a mess, Greta [Van Susteren].
Fox News, 2/9/2009
7. Donald Trump on who’s the most qualified to make a nuclear deal with Iran: “Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s always surrounded herself with very good people, I think Hillary would do a good job.”
CNN, “The Situation Room,” 9/24/2007
8. Donald Trump on liberal Nancy Peℓσѕι:
“Nancy — you’re the best. Congrats. Donald.”
—Handwritten note to Speaker Nancy Peℓσѕι, January 2007
“I’m very impressed by her [then-House Speaker Nancy Peℓσѕι], she’s a very impressive person. I like her a lot.
CNN, “The Situation Room,” 9/24/2007
3. Donald Trump on whether he’s a Democrat or a Republican: “In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat.”
— CNN, “The Situation Room,” 3/21/2004
10. Donald Trump on the Democrats’ economic policies: “It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn’t be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats. …But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we’ve had some pretty bad disasters under the Republicans.”
— CNN, “The Situation Room,” 3/21/2004
4. Donald Trump on guns and background checks: “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record.”
— Donald Trump, “The America We Deserve,” 2000
2. Donald Trump on taxing the rich: “Well, basically, this would be a one-time tax, 14.25 percent against people with a net worth of over 10 million […] It would pay off in its entirety the national debt of $5.7 trillion, and you’d save $200 billion a year. So taxes for the middle class would go way down, the estate and inheritance tax totally wiped out, and the Social Security system would be saved.”
— NBC, “Good Morning America,” 11/10/1999
5. Donald Trump on quitting the GOP: “I really believe Republicans are just too crazy […] I mean, hey, I lived in New York City, Manhattan all my life, okay? So my views are a little bit different than if I lived in Iowa, perhaps.”
— NBC, “Meet the Press,” 10/1999
6. Donald Trump on abortion, including Partial Birth Abortion: “I’m very pro-choice. I am pro-choice in every respect.”
— NBC, “Meet the Press,” 10/1999
9) “By imposing a one-time 14.25 percent net-worth tax on the richest individuals and trusts, we can put America on sound financial footing for the next century.”
—Writing in his book, The America We Deserve, January 2000
10) “I think he [Obama] has a chance to go down as a great president.”
—Interview with NY1, November 2008
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.
Yes, your man Trump advocated killing innocent civilians. Recently.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsHUPqhAGrk&feature=youtu.be
I'm Angry! So I'm Voting For Donald Trump.
-
And, by the way, in spite of the fact that he is Donald Trump he can't do much of anything that he claims he will do without congressional consent.
But you are right in that he has "risen people's interest." The opiate for the masses.
If I could give a "thumbs up" for this 10,000 times, I would spend the time to click 10,000 separate times. It's just shocking to me how many of y'all are trumping for Trump. You WANT to believe good things, therefore you do. But there's no factual basis for any of your exuberance over him. The lack of rational thought is mind boggling. I wish we were back in the days where only property owners had votes, because America would be better off without emotional votes.
And, quit saying that a 'No' vote to Trump is a vote for Hillary. That's the true tragedy of american politics - 40% of voters consider themselves independent. Meaning, they don't like DEMs or REPs. If only the 40% would vote independent or constitution party, for a normal, regular guy, he'd win by a landslide. But, the 'powers that be' have everyone convinced that "everyone else" is going to vote DEM or REP, so they have to as well. Tragic. And totally illogical.
:applause: to both posts.
-
Trump Promises “Forward Motion on Equality for gαys and Lesbians”
Donald Trump recently gave an interview with New England Cable News’ (NECN) Sue O’Connell, ... O’Connell is a lesbian who has been an active advocate in her community, which is what led her to ask if President Trump would be a friend to the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and transgender community.
“When President Trump is in office can we look for more forward motion on equality for gαys and lesbians?” O’Connell asked him.
“Well, you can,” Trump answered.”
-
(http://i.imgur.com/WCQiucj.jpg)
:laugh1:
-
... The real suspicion is confirmed when you notice that the only beef and argument against Trump being a president that he continuously makes is because he has a young "hottie" for a wife.
That is far, far from being the "only beef" or argument against Trump for president, but Trumpites don't seem to be paying any attention to the vast amount of docuмentation put in front of you.
Case in point:
There are also Trump positions/promises I have a moral problem with. He competes with "the worst of them" on fighting the so-called terrorists. He wants to kill the terrorists' families! That's ridiculous and immoral.
His support for abortion is also something Catholics should have a moral problem with.
-
C) There are also Trump positions/promises I have a moral problem with. He competes with "the worst of them" on fighting the so-called terrorists. He wants to kill the terrorists' families! That's ridiculous and immoral.
That's not just immoral, that's a war crime. If Trump thinks lives are disposable just like that, we're looking at the Slobodan Milošević of our time.
-
Trump's multiple marriages. Cruz's pushing for the North American Union and his Goldman Sachs employee wife ( Cruz being a puppet of Jєωιѕн billionaire Paul Singer ). Rubio being owned by Sheldon Adelson. Granted these aren't perfect choices. But I know this: America ( at the very least ) needs a president who is " off the chain"..and, for the first time since Nov. '63, we might be able to get one. I had a problem with John Elway upgrading his spouse. But I still always found myself rooting for him on the field. ( Except when they played the Jets ). But I digress. Or did I? I still respected him as a player and I respect Trump's ability to connect with people and his love for the country. Say what you will but until a few mos. ago they all looked like clones of Bush/Cheney/McCain/Ryan/Romney.
With Trump there's a possibility to get to the bottom of a few of the exceptionally strange things that have happened to our country over the past 15 yrs. With the rest of the crowd? Not a snowballs chance in Hades.
We're losing on the "social issues" no matter who becomes president guys. I hate to break the news to you, but it's true. As soon as the sodomites made the "marriage" issue all about freedom and equal rights I knew they were eventually going to win because pluralistic America has no answer to that argument. For several generations the clinging residue of Christianity kept some of these more depraved elements in place. Now that's gone and only a Great Chastisement will change that. ROMNEY was in favor of gαy civil unions AND adoption rights for them...
If the Republicans cared about the issues that " social conservatives " ( vs. the libertarian branch ) care about they wouldn't have given you Sandra D. O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. ( They could have AT LEAST stood behind Judge Bork )..No, this crowd is just happy to have another issue ( sodomite "marriage" ) that they can smack around every 4 yrs.
:reporter:
-
The same Soros funded rioters that showed up in Ferguson, Mo. are -without much doubt-now being paid to go after Trump. ( Remember: the mayor of Ferguson clearly stated several times that the rioters were not from Ferguson , and that they had been brought in from somewhere. These are thugs for hire, will be violent and were probably used on Trump last night. Trump was probably right to cancel because the police have figured out that several thousand people who fit the above profile were there and probably would have rushed the stage. Alright stop and think; why aren't these methods being employed against the other ( vetted ) candidates?
I have a problem with some of the things Trump has said but there's a couple things about him that have made him the only viable candidate for me. In the words of none other than Newt Gingrich, " well, he's not a member of the secret society..he hasn't been through the secret initiation..so they ( the Establishment Republicans ) don't know what to make of him.." That's it: the oligarchy can't allow an honest man who loves the country to step foot in the WH...Trump said a few hrs. ago the violent protests were " staged and funded.." The guy's aware of what's going on and isn't afraid to say it..That's a personality trait that the oligarchy definitely doesn't like. They don't care if he gets stomped under a mob or chokes on a twinkie they want to stop this guy. :reporter:
-
Soros is doing what he did in Ferguson: hiring thugs to cause trouble. And the response from Rubio and Cruz? They blame Trump. That's despicable behavior.
-
Soros is doing what he did in Ferguson: hiring thugs to cause trouble. And the response from Rubio and Cruz? They blame Trump. That's despicable behavior.
Rubio very clearly said yesterday that he thought the trouble in Chicago was hired disruption. I didn't hear Cruz's comments.
-
I'm going to try to stop commenting about this subject. It isn't very productive to me. It's not about being right and wrong. In fact, for a long time I was not supportive of Trump. I only recently began to support him. Basically, it comes down to the list of things I mentioned somewhere lost on one of these endless threads. The public positions that Trump has taken are astounding and we couldn't expect that from any other candidate in the near future. I see it as counter-productive to oppose his presidency. I really like what he said at AIPAC, his willingness to work with Putin, and what he said about keeping mohamedans out, along with other things.
Let me reveal some of my more personal reasons that add to what is above (which already was enough). You see, his personal life does not affect me, but other points could gravely affect my future. I'm not talking about his idea to help the jobs by keeping them from setting up shop in Mexico, although this also should be taken into account. You see, when the ridiculous sham of marriage was passed last summer, this did indeed affect Americans living abroad with foreign spouses. Now, if I decide to file the papers for my wife and I to reside in the U.S., I will have to wait in line with Lord only knows how many degenerates waiting to bring their ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs to the U.S. The whole immigration system was already complicated and then that. The amoral liberals love to talk about how people should stay out of people's bedrooms because it has nothing to do with them. In my case, those bogus "marriage" laws could mean the difference between my family waiting outside the U.S. 5 to 10 years to get in, should I choose to come back. I think the average expected wait is something like 2 1/2 years now. So, when one of these militant leftists or war monger puppets gets in there and starts accepting more and more refugees and granting amnesty or accepting tons of illegal immigrants, this will affect me personally. I've crossed borders illegally. Illegals want something that they are not willing to give in their own countries. My wife will do it the legal way. Those who don't do it the legal way, frustrate the system for those who don't. This is why there are Latinos that support Trump. Many legal immigrants are sick of the illegal immigrants making it harder for everyone.
So, on one hand, I like what Trump is saying when he challenges the media and liberals. On the other hand, keeping those liberals from accepting huge influxes of immigrants is important to my personal life. It's my opinion that my motive is superior to yours. You haven't said much except that you worry about the morality of the country, etc. It is ridiculous to blame the degenerative culture of the U.S. on Trump. I'm sure he has very little culpability in that matter.
I stick by my original opinion that your attitude about this is highly unlike you. You couldn't even admit that you like it that he wants to keep mohamedans out. I'm surprised really. It is extremely odd, given your usual stance for the Truth. There is Truth in wanting to restrict false religions, even when the immoral does it.
I am not going to put any more time into the topic.
There's a very reasonable position in this thinking, but you didn't actually say it, so I'm not sure if that's what you're getting at. It's the position of Dr. Carson -- the, "I don't want the Dems to win and I think Trump is the best chance at beating them." It's highly debatable which sort of Republican is best suited to push all the swing states in the Rep direction and no one really has the answer on that. All I know is that most of the other guys fair better in head-to-head polling with Clinton than Trump does, but I also know that those polls are inherently limited and the percentage differences were minimal. So, to back Trump because you think he has a better chance than the others in the general isn't unreasonable.
Now that I've filled Graham's requirement that I point out where we agree, I'll tell you where I disagree. : )
You mention the things you like about Trump as if he's the only one who says these things. There are a number of things unique to him, but those statements are all off-the-cuff comments and not official parts of his policy.
Putin - point me to something official that says he's going to handle Russia differently than everyone else
Israel - He says in one breath that he's going to be "neutral" and then in the next declares that there is "no one more pro-Israel than I am". Enough said.
Mohamedans - I don't believe he'd ever actually require a religious statement before admitting people into the US. He speaks in this black and white language, but he'd never follow through on such an extreme position, just like his backtracking on wanting to kill the children of terrorists. On the other hand, his rivals want to put a ban on immigration from countries with strong ISIS presence which is probably all Trump would do, but the more extreme statements get him more free publicity than his competition. (In a related point, I don't think it's coincidence that he says the extreme statements on TV and then backtracks on Twitter or via press release.)
marriage laws - The Republicans all agree here expect for possibly Kasich who naively thinks we should all be able to get along in such matters without laws protecting Christians from liberal agendas.
bought politicians - I asked a question regarding this yesterday, but no one has answered. Are we at the point where only self-funded candidates should be considered for president? If not, how do you see an honest person running a presidential campaign without appearing or being compromised?
9/11 - He's questioned the official story, but he's also said that we should keep Muslims out of the country to avoid another 9-11 and that he saw crowds of Muslims cheering after 9-11. Actually, I don't know what part of the 9-11 script he questions as what I heard was him attributing the WMD in Iraq as a lie and the he later backtracked to say he doesn't know if it was a lie or not. Can you show me what has he said about 9-11 that I missed?
donors in debates - This was pretty much a lie on his behalf. Each of the candidates gets an equal number of seats to fill at a debate and he's free to fill his with supporters just as everyone else does. He tried to get mileage from the "boos" by suggesting the audience was compromised, but it didn't make any rational sense (which is why I find mention of this one odd). Of course, if you give a candidate money, you might get debate tickets out of it, but Trump who doesn't want your money gets just as many tickets to distribute and I don't think he was handing them out at the Fiorina rallies. Now, if he were to argue that tickets should be distributed based on polling numbers, he might have had a valid point, but that's not even close to what he said.
I think I made it through your 6-point list. Someone added Hillary, but she's pretty much doomed if she doesn't win herself. She's a criminal and Obama is shielding her, but his time will soon be up.
-
Soros is doing what he did in Ferguson: hiring thugs to cause trouble. And the response from Rubio and Cruz? They blame Trump. That's despicable behavior.
Rubio very clearly said yesterday that he thought the trouble in Chicago was hired disruption. I didn't hear Cruz's comments.
Both Rubio and Cruz blamed Trump. I posted the video from info wars, but asked Matthew to take it down because there was a scene where they showed the cover Charlie Hebdo.
Dr. Carson went on a psycho babble about making war with Putin. Trump said he liked what he was doing. I think you're a bit lost on some of the things that are being said.
-
Both Rubio and Cruz blamed Trump. I posted the video from info wars, but asked Matthew to take it down because there was a scene where they showed the cover Charlie Hebdo.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4797865836001/rubio-on-chicago-trump-protests-very-sad-for-our-country/?intcmp=hpbt1#sp=show-clips
I made it to 3:30 and he said repeatedly that these are organized, paid groups. How can he say it more clearly?
-
Dr. Carson went on a psycho babble about making war with Putin. Trump said he liked what he was doing. I think you're a bit lost on some of the things that are being said.
Can you clarify? Trump said he liked what who was doing? About what?
-
Dear CWA: Instead of old "off the cuff" sayings, why don't you take the time to get acquainted with the official positions Mr. Trump is presenting in his official website? And I would recommend everybody to go as well and read. There are a few topics. Just click on each to get his detailed policies for each topic: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions I am sick and tired of people who oppose him without real knowledge of his positions. If you let the drive-by medias brainwash you, there is no point in continuing the discussion.
Fair enough. Although I've been there before, let's talk about these topics. The six issues covered are as follows:
1. Healthcare Reform
2. US - China Trade Reform
3. Veterans Admin Reform
4. Tax Reform
5. Second Amendment Rigths
6. Immigration Reform
It would be a bit tough to tackle them all at once. Is there one in particular you'd like to see first? What Trump's plans are vs. what his opponents plan to do. Pick one and we can start a new topic about it.
-
...I just wish you had as much clarity of thought when it comes to Trump!
(o:
Seriously, from all the posts that I saw, it really looks like we can make the following observations:
1-Anti-Trump comments all deal with his personality (his sins, his scandals, his supposed links to secret societies, his supposed hyprocrisy, etc. etc.). They basically don't want to trust him, and don't even want to learn his positions.
2-Pro-Trump comments all deal with his doctrine and positions. They acknowledge his personal flaws and sins, but they go beyond the "supposed" stuff he is being accused of and all the other "what ifs?" and "maybe he is..." type of objections.
I find it to be completely the opposite.
Donald Trump’s A Democrat In Disguise, Based On These Liberal Quotes.
1. Donald Trump on Universal Healthcare: “Everybody’s got to be covered, this is an un-Republican thing I’m going to say, I’m going to take care of everybody.”
When asked, ‘Who pays for it?’ Trump flatly replied, “the government’s going to pay for it.”
— CBS, “60 Minutes,” 9/27/2015
“The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans… We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan.”
—Writing in his book, The America We Deserve, January 2000
“I’m very liberal when it comes to health care. I believe in universal health care.”
—Interview with CNN’s Larry King, October 1999.
11. Donald Trump on immigration and the DREAM Act: “For people that have been here for years, that have been hard workers, have good jobs, are supporting a family, it’s very, very tough to just say ‘you have to leave, get out.’ How do you throw someone out that’s lived in this country for 20 years, you just can’t throw everybody out.”
— Fox News, June 18, 2012.
9. Donald Trump on Obama’s economic stimulus: “I thought he did a terrific job […] I thought he was strong and smart, and it looks like we have somebody that knows what he is doing finally in office, and he did inherit a tremendous problem. He really stepped into a mess, Greta [Van Susteren].
Fox News, 2/9/2009
7. Donald Trump on who’s the most qualified to make a nuclear deal with Iran: “Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s always surrounded herself with very good people, I think Hillary would do a good job.”
CNN, “The Situation Room,” 9/24/2007
8. Donald Trump on liberal Nancy Peℓσѕι:
“Nancy — you’re the best. Congrats. Donald.”
—Handwritten note to Speaker Nancy Peℓσѕι, January 2007
“I’m very impressed by her [then-House Speaker Nancy Peℓσѕι], she’s a very impressive person. I like her a lot.
CNN, “The Situation Room,” 9/24/2007
3. Donald Trump on whether he’s a Democrat or a Republican: “In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat.”
— CNN, “The Situation Room,” 3/21/2004
10. Donald Trump on the Democrats’ economic policies: “It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn’t be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats. …But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we’ve had some pretty bad disasters under the Republicans.”
— CNN, “The Situation Room,” 3/21/2004
4. Donald Trump on guns and background checks: “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record.”
— Donald Trump, “The America We Deserve,” 2000
2. Donald Trump on taxing the rich: “Well, basically, this would be a one-time tax, 14.25 percent against people with a net worth of over 10 million […] It would pay off in its entirety the national debt of $5.7 trillion, and you’d save $200 billion a year. So taxes for the middle class would go way down, the estate and inheritance tax totally wiped out, and the Social Security system would be saved.”
— NBC, “Good Morning America,” 11/10/1999
5. Donald Trump on quitting the GOP: “I really believe Republicans are just too crazy […] I mean, hey, I lived in New York City, Manhattan all my life, okay? So my views are a little bit different than if I lived in Iowa, perhaps.”
— NBC, “Meet the Press,” 10/1999
6. Donald Trump on abortion, including Partial Birth Abortion: “I’m very pro-choice. I am pro-choice in every respect.”
— NBC, “Meet the Press,” 10/1999
9) “By imposing a one-time 14.25 percent net-worth tax on the richest individuals and trusts, we can put America on sound financial footing for the next century.”
—Writing in his book, The America We Deserve, January 2000
10) “I think he [Obama] has a chance to go down as a great president.”
—Interview with NY1, November 2008
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.
Yes, your man Trump advocated killing innocent civilians. Recently.
It was VII that spoke out against total war strategies.
-
...blah, blah, blah...
I have absolutely no qualms of conscience here. We have let these barbarians dictate the course of events for far too long. Let's go back to biblical military strategy.
If you are so hot to do the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan's wetwork, Mr. Chicken Hawk, sign up. Nobody here is stopping you.
-
Since it (shockingly!) seems necessary to show that the Church is against the killing of innocent people, here is a relevant (Pre-VII) docuмent on the morality of obliteration bombing.
http://theahi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ford-Morality-of-Obliteration-Bombing.pdf
There's a section on "The Mind of the Holy See" beginning on pg 305
Short of a direct command from God, killing civilian populations is against both natural and international law.
That is to say nothing of whether or not these conflicts meet the requirements of just war AND whether it is Muslims or western governments who are the ones truly responsible for terrorist activity.
-
I have been lurking a while, but those that remember my posts in the past might remember me as fiercely independent.
In the 2000 campaign, I joined the Reform party, was a delegate at the convention, representing the 8th district of Wisconsin. One of the things I remember most about that campaign, was the issue of "free trade." Pat Buchanan was cheated out of the Republican nomination, by being labeled a "bigot," a "racist," and an "αnтι-ѕємιтє" , consequently running on the Reform Party ticket, and was really the second candidate to talk about the trade problem. The first, as I recall, was another billionaire named Ross Perot.
I think one bonus about Trump is that he learned that in order to actually do something, he couldnt go that route. It had already been tried, and after CIA ops did everything they could ( through the fake "Natural Law Party" at the Reform Party convention I saw these people with my own two eyes and only two years after the convention were they exposed did anyone hear about them on page 12, if it was even in the newspapers at all) to bury the possibility of a third party ever emerging again. (How amusing :) I found video of me at the Reform Party Convention nominating Ezola Foster. C-span has the whole thing. The audio was having problems that day, but it was day 3, session 1, right around the 24:10 mark, in case anyone wanted to look.) As usual, revisionist historians try to pin blame on Pat Buchanan as a purposeful destroyer of the Reform Party.
At any rate, you had the tired argument (especially now) from people saying, "if you vote Buchanan, you're voting for Gore." Weve had decent candidates before, heck, Buchanan might go to the indultery, but he is a very devout man, and people did NOT vote their conscience. Instead, they would vote for a satanist!
Between these elections, I joined a 501c (4) (I think) called Save American Manufacturing (SAM, for short.) A lady and a gentleman from a suburb of Milwaukee started it, to draw attention to the China/NAFTA issues that both parties were flag wavers for (perhaps more Republicans than Democrats, only because of the mostly controlled commie union vote). I saw factories closing left and right, and I wasn't going to sit around and watch that happen. I started becoming savvy at researching on the internet, and I learned how to navigate the Thomas website, and began compiling voting records for meetings with businesses that the people I was helping were trying to unite, small and medium sized manufacturers, primarily.
A lobbyist from AMTAC noticed my work, often tireless work, that I was doing for Cathy (RIP) for free, and he offered to hire me for a very satisfactory salary, 30 hours a month.
We got some press, for a while, and then, people got apathetic and obviously the establishment had designed this to entirely wipe out the middle class. Russ Feingold (yes, I know, Jew) liked my spunk and suggested, pointing right at me, that I should run for office. Of course it was out of the question. I was not a liberal, and was a mother of 3 small children at the time. Plus, not my place, et cetera.
My boss was relegated to the sock industry after the megalith beast that is the boondoggle called trade, defeated him. I spoke with him a couple months before he died and talked with him about the compartmentalization and total control of the world through these agreements, to which he replied, "This is so much bigger than we can even dent. I know."
Skipping 2004, other than to say, Bush didnt get help from me. I voted constitution party that year.
In 2008, Ron Paul was running in the primary, and got the shaft, and that corpse of a traitor, McInsane, wasn't getting my vote. The Establishment on the Republican side lost that one on purpose. I thought by then people would start to get the Carol Quigley paradigm. But they really didn't.
In 2008, when Ron Paul ran, people were starting to listen, some people anyway. A couple months ago, I read one of the sickest nuggets of revisionist history I've ever seen, and that was the fairy tale that Rick Santorum won Iowa. First it was magical underwear Obamney, and then Rick Santorum. The fact is, that RON PAUL won Iowa. You know why first, you didn't hear about that, and second, he couldn't do anything about it? Here's proof first, of what I'm saying.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-wins-iowa-caucuses-2012-6
Why could he do nothing? He was asking for money multiple times a month for his campaign. He was running on individual donations, and it simply was not enough. When he gained traction, they labeled him the same way they labeled Buchanan, and it was pretty much over.
Enter 2016. After the obvious rigged railroading of Ron Paul, I had given up entirely, but would still write in if we had another tweedle-dee/dum scenario like we've experienced since... well, at my age, in my oldest memory, just based on principle. It was all rigged, they're playing all of us for fools. It's over.
I never fell for Rand Paul's craplines. After his praise for Israel, the Wailing Wall photo op, and the pledge for foreign aid to continue there, certainly he was NOT his father, who, incidentally had Traditional Catholics working in his office for many years.
I really didnt pay much attention to things at all until the field narrowed a bit more. 12 people with lackluster talent... sellouts to the establishment and the banks... no thanks. Don't care. Republicans had so many chances to get it right over the last 20 years that I was voting age, and they blew it every time. SO, whatever we end up with, we sure as hell deserve.
Until last weekend when I got really curious as to why the media and pundits were in absolute freakout mode over Trump. I thought, "How stupid are we as a country that we would seriously consider electing a reality TV show host?!" But then, I actually listened to him, and it all became clear...
The globalists are scared crapless of Trump right now, and if he is who he says he is, I surmise one of two things could happen: 1) if Trump really tries to do what he says, he is putting himself in a very dangerous place, and if he gets elected, the recognized beginning, (not official of course because its already started and we know) 'of WWIII will commence, and he might end up being αssαssιnαtҽd. 2) If he's a fraud, well, at least we didn't ask for someone that was unapologetically from the groups that want to destroy the country in insert-name-of-any-establishment-candidate-on-either-side-including-CanadaCruz-here.
Bottom tl`dr: I'm giving Trump a chance. Traditional Catholics need jobs to support their families. Good jobs that pay a decent wage that the woman can stay home and homeschool. That is fast becoming out of reach for many, and fine, if Trump is a fraud, the other ones would keep going down the same track as before, maybe one applying breaks slightly more often, the other speeding up the wreck. I'm for attempting to fix it. If he's lying, then fine. Taking the risk. I've always voted my conscience, and I'm not stopping now. Thanks.
I thought of one more thing... Father Bolduc said that he wished he could live long enough to vote against Obama (he didnt sadly) but he would vote for Donald Duck if he were running. Hillary IS Obama with a different spelling, so maybe even he would have voted for Trump. :) Maybe...
-
Good to have you posting once more, PFT. I have always really appreciated what you have to say. As of this year, I will no longer vote. It is all fixed and the insiders hold every single string. In this country, presidents are not elected by vote, they are installed by their masters. Yes, indeed, it is over. Kyrie Eleison .....
-
I contributed a pretty decent sum to PJB in '00. A certain indep. Latin Mass priest in NJ was all about Bush. Asked questions like, " why don't he and his wife have any kids?" ( They couldn't )...Someone pointed out to him that Bush was Skull & Bones ( elite Luciferian Masonic college fraternity )...his response? " Oh kids join all sorts of stuff in college..." Any Catholic that didn't support Pat and supported Bush instead should be ashamed of themselves.. :reporter:
-
At this point,
people who are adamantly opposed to a Trump presidency:
1. George Soros
2. Black Lives Matter
3. Bill Ayers and the U.S. Communist Party
4. Liberals and militant leftists
5. The Mainstream Media
6. The moderators of Cath Info, Matthew and his wife
Notable new supporters this week:
Dr. Ben Carson
*Note: this is an incomplete list.
-
Australians would be speaking Japanese if we had not sunk civilian ships.
-
At this point,
people who are adamantly opposed to a Trump presidency:
1. George Soros
2. Black Lives Matter
3. Bill Ayers and the U.S. Communist Party
4. Liberals and militant leftists
5. The Mainstream Media
6. The moderators of Cath Info, Matthew and his wife
Notable new supporters this week:
Dr. Ben Carson
*Note: this is an incomplete list.
1 to 5 are 'important' because of the influence they have, to some extent, in society. The moderators of Cathinfo are just not important at all. Just a fact, no offense intended.
-
At this point,
people who are adamantly opposed to a Trump presidency:
1. George Soros
2. Black Lives Matter
3. Bill Ayers and the U.S. Communist Party
4. Liberals and militant leftists
5. The Mainstream Media
6. The moderators of Cath Info, Matthew and his wife
Notable new supporters this week:
Dr. Ben Carson
*Note: this is an incomplete list.
CentroAmerica, I don't think I like being in that company.
But I could probably come up with some unsavory characters you're accidentally standing next to.
But your whole post (above) is invalid because of a logical fallacy.
The "unspoken premise" or "minor" in your argument is that I have bad guys on my side, therefore Trump must be the good side.
I fell for the same thing in 2009, and learned my lesson. Namely, I found Eamon Shea, SJB, etc. attacking Fr. Cekada who I knew was a "bad guy" for what he did to the SSPX during the 80's (stealing properties, etc.) He was the ringleader of The Naughty Nine. So I assumed Eamon must be a shining knight of virtue, since they were opposing a known bad guy.
I was wrong.
Apparently, you can have 2 bad guys duking it out quite earnestly. Don't believe me? The proof is legion:
1. In Hell they all fight with each other constantly. There is no love there.
2. Picture a part of the world where the Faith hasn't made many inroads -- think some of the failed states in Africa like Somalia. Which of the warlords represents "the good side"?
3. Or, closer to home, think of the conflicts between rival drug cartels. Which side is the side of righteousness?
There is a saying, "even a broken clock is right twice a day". Are you saying that I must be wrong that today is Sunday, just because Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Howard Stern, and Gloria Steinem agree with me that it is?
Are you saying that just because a person is evil, wrong, or deep in a state of Mortal Sin, that they can't be right about ANYTHING?
-
1 to 5 are 'important' because of the influence they have, to some extent, in society. The moderators of Cathinfo are just not important at all. Just a fact, no offense intended.
Who do you think I am, Napoleon? You think I'm going to get all upset when you utter something that is true?
Columbiano, you need to stop listening to the anti-CathInfo crowd at ABL, the Recusant, and Fr. Pfeiffer/Pablo's other attack troops.
I would be the first to point out the truth that I have little influence over the Trad world, much less the world at large.
The only things I believe and tell others are those things which are TRUE. For example, I might say that CathInfo is the best Trad forum in the English speaking world, because it is. What forum is bigger? Fisheaters? That's not really a Trad forum anymore. Tracy (the owner) went for numbers and money, and now it's basically Catholic Answers II with slightly more tolerance for those "who prefer the Latin Mass".
But when you say "not important at all" you have to distinguish. Insofar as I decide what appears (and doesn't appear) here on a forum that is bookmarked by the higher-ups at the SSPX as well as countless other groups -- that's a bit of influence/power. The owner of such a large media outlet is not exactly big leagues (more like a large fish in a small pond), but simplifying it as "not important at all" is an exaggeration.
But it's CathInfo that's important because of the membership and gathering of minds here, not me specifically. Just look at the threads about Trump.
I put up a poll and I was the only one to vote for Cruz. The other 20 people who voted all voted for Trump. That just proves people aren't following ME. They are here to discuss the news, stay informed, and socialize with other real Catholics.
-
I think you know what I am saying and ignore it. I am saying that if the media and all these hard core leftists are against a candidate, there is a reason for it. You know it, and everyone knows it.
Further, it is practically proven beyond a reasonable doubt that your candidate is a member of a secret society, owned by Golman and Sachs. Notice how he lied about CNN so blatantly, and the media doesn't go after him.
Your arguments are getting weaker by the minute. There is a huge reason why you and everyone should vote for Trump. If a liberal democrat gets in and appoints two liberal judges, it will change the face of America for decades. A bad Trump presidency (which seems unlikely since he couldn't be any worse than Obama) would only last 4 years. There is a lot to lose and everyone on that list with you knows it.
-
Tiffany said: It was VII that spoke out against total war strategies.
Yes, before VII, there was not so much sentimentality.
In many places in the Bible, God ordered "anathema" on the people the Israelites were to invade and conquer. That meant killing not only the warriors, but old folks, women, children, and even animals. It also meant destroying all the ennemy"s material possessions.
There were three reasons for God's order: 1-To avoid the Israelites being corrupted by survivors (especially by women); 2-To punish these peoples for their many generations of heinous crimes (God's patience was at an end); 3-To make sure the motives of the Israelites were to do God's will, and not greed and hope for spoils. Whenever the Israelites spared some people or things, they were rebuked and punished by God.
If we would promise ISIS and other terrorist groups: "Listen up, folks: If you attack our citizens, no matter where they are in the world, we will carpet-bomb your country, and any place where you happen to be. Then, we will spray pig fat over the rubble, and we will send napalm on top of it", we would not have these attacks we have now.
You cannot defeat terrorism, unless people and countries who help them fear you more than they fear the terrorists. These people need to know you mean business.
Do this once or twice, and you will not have any problems any more. You will avoid spending trillions of dollars in protracted military operations. It took only two bombs to stop the Japanese in their tracks in 1945. How many American lives have been spared by avoiding an invasion of Japan itself!
It's like with bullies: If you answer with force, they leave you alone.
I have absolutely no qualms of conscience here. We have let these barbarians dictate the course of events for far too long. Let's go back to biblical military strategy.
I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you on your opinion regarding indescriminate bombing. I'm on the road right now, so all I can do is provide a link to an article. I don't agree intirerly with all of it, but it has some good information.
http://americamagazine.org/issue/581/bookings/terror-bombing
-
Japan was already using total war warfare long before we bombed Tokyo.
-
Japan was already using total war warfare long before we bombed Tokyo.
:confused1:
-
The Japanese were fighting Chinese Communists who would have done to all of Japan exactly what Japanese troops did to Nanking if they could have..it was a pretty amoral war really. We shouldn't have provoked the Japanese into making the first strike ( Lt. commander McCollum's 11-point plan which incl. pop-up cruises in Japanese waters and ended with a full-scale natural resources embargo )..My biggest beef with the Japanese? That they didn't "strike north" against the Soviets ( joining Operation Barbarossa fm the other side ). That was the advice given by Foreign Min. Matsuoka and Navy Min. Oikawa ( which would have ended the involvement in China which was, until then, America's chief complaint ). They chose the seemingly easier, myopic path that led to catastrophe.
They were a thoroughly beaten country by '45. If they had given the whole Pacific theater to MacArthur ( instead of 1/2 to Halsey ) we would've wrapped-up all operations there much sooner as MacArthur would have stressed getting back the Philippines, achieving Naval supremacy and bypassing worthless islands ( after bombing their airfields, isolating the enemy troops there ) like Peleliou (sic?), Tarawa, Iwo...Japan offered to surrender in Jan. '45 and we wouldn't accept...we accepted essentially the same terms in Aug. '45. That Cathedral in Nagasaki was Ground Zero essentially for that bomb drop. Certainly seemed intentional...What a beautiful Church, it's never been rebuilt.
-
Matthew:
But it's CathInfo that's important because of the membership and gathering of minds here, not me specifically. Just look at the threads about Trump.
I wouldn't take it all seriously, Matt. You are important as the coordinator of a discussion forum which has done a pretty good job over all, for some period of time. I've gone after you myself in the past. just keep hanging in there. Not everybody has your particular set of gifts. You need a thick skin. Blessings.
-
Give me a benevolent dictator over a 51% majority, corrupt, unresponsive oligarchy that is hostile to the people's ( and the nation's ) long-term best interests any day of the week.
-
At this point,
people who are adamantly opposed to a Trump presidency:
1. George Soros
2. Black Lives Matter
3. Bill Ayers and the U.S. Communist Party
4. Liberals and militant leftists
5. The Mainstream Media
6. The moderators of Cath Info, Matthew and his wife
Notable new supporters this week:
Dr. Ben Carson
*Note: this is an incomplete list.
Ben Carson was in the vanguard of those working to prevent Catholics and others to exercise their consciences by opting out of immunizations, including immunizations based on the products of aborted babies.
How is such a man a moral choice for Catholics?
-
This site's Chicken Hawk wants you to support a man who supports racial supremacism (http://judaism.is/who-is-human.html), terrorism and genocide (http://judaism.is/genocide.html).
As I said before, Patricius, if you are so hot to kill for the Zionist agenda, sign up. Nobody is stopping you.
-
Dear CWA: Instead of old "off the cuff" sayings, why don't you take the time to get acquainted with the official positions Mr. Trump is presenting in his official website? And I would recommend everybody to go as well and read. There are a few topics. Just click on each to get his detailed policies for each topic: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions I am sick and tired of people who oppose him without real knowledge of his positions. If you let the drive-by medias brainwash you, there is no point in continuing the discussion.
Fair enough. Although I've been there before, let's talk about these topics. The six issues covered are as follows:
1. Healthcare Reform
2. US - China Trade Reform
3. Veterans Admin Reform
4. Tax Reform
5. Second Amendment Rigths
6. Immigration Reform
It would be a bit tough to tackle them all at once. Is there one in particular you'd like to see first? What Trump's plans are vs. what his opponents plan to do. Pick one and we can start a new topic about it.
Did you decide which of Trump's official positions you want to discuss first?
-
At this point,
people who are adamantly opposed to a Trump presidency:
1. George Soros
2. Black Lives Matter
3. Bill Ayers and the U.S. Communist Party
4. Liberals and militant leftists
5. The Mainstream Media
6. The moderators of Cath Info, Matthew and his wife
Notable new supporters this week:
Dr. Ben Carson
*Note: this is an incomplete list.
Ben Carson was in the vanguard of those working to prevent Catholics and others to exercise their consciences by opting out of immunizations, including immunizations based on the products of aborted babies.
How is such a man a moral choice for Catholics?
What about his endorsement by Phyllis Schlaffly in St. Louis MO last Friday?
By the way, you should have seen this rally! I don't know how Trump managed to keep his cool after being interrupted every 5-10 minutes by protestors. It was clear those had been hired and had a strategy. Man, this shows how much the opposition is afraid of Trump!
Ben Carson is not a moral choice for Catholics because he himself works to prevent Catholics from exercising their consciences.
Donald Trump is not a moral choice for Catholics because he is a money-worshipping, blood-lusting Zionist whose money, far from being built on moral industriousness, has been built upon his willingness to work with organized crime.
Phyllis Schlafly is not a US Presidential candidate, so why mention her?
-
I think you know what I am saying and ignore it. I am saying that if the media and all these hard core leftists are against a candidate, there is a reason for it. You know it, and everyone knows it.
Can you show me where the liberal media is in favor of any one of the Rep candidates? I don't think Donald is alone in getting attacked by leftists, but he's getting the biggest beating because he has been and continues to be the most likely to win the Rep nomination.
Further, it is practically proven beyond a reasonable doubt that your candidate is a member of a secret society, owned by Golman and Sachs. Notice how he lied about CNN so blatantly, and the media doesn't go after him.
What is the CNN lie you are referring to?
Your arguments are getting weaker by the minute. There is a huge reason why you and everyone should vote for Trump. If a liberal democrat gets in and appoints two liberal judges, it will change the face of America for decades. A bad Trump presidency (which seems unlikely since he couldn't be any worse than Obama) would only last 4 years. There is a lot to lose and everyone on that list with you knows it.
A bad Cruz presidency will only last 4 years, too. Perhaps you can explain to me why Trump consistently does so poorly when polled against Hillary, but the other Rep candidates fare reasonably well.
In the most recent poll, he's down by 13 whereas Rubio ties and Cruz is only down by 2. If my number 1 concern is beating Hillary, the numbers don't suggest that Trump is the way to do it. How do you explain that?
-
Donald Trump is not a moral choice for Catholics because he is a money-worshipping, blood-lusting Zionist whose money, far from being built on moral industriousness, has been built upon his willingness to work with organized crime.
-
Dear MaterDominici. We both have access to the website and can read for ourselves and make our own opinions. This thread, which I started in order to get prayers for +W has gone way off track, and if we start a discussion on every single issue, we are going to have to spend our days in front of the screen. I just don't have that kind of time. I normally don't write on forums and I just look at what is new on cathInfo a couple of times a day.
Now, this has started to be about the presidential race, and I got hooked. I even went so far as exploring the control panel and figuring out how to get a nice picture as avatar. I chose that one, thinking of one of your replies against carpet-bombing. Hope you have a sense of humour and like it! But I think I pretty much have said all I had to say about Trump. If people don't agree, it's fine. They can continue to suck their thumbs, hoping a Garcia Moreno 2.0 will fall down from the sky and save the country.
Yes, I've been there and read them and I wasn't sure what you found so unique about them. I was wondering if you thought Trumps immigration plan (or healthcare plan or tax plan or economic plan) was superior to Rubio's or Cruz's or even Kasich's and, most importantly, why?
Otherwise, I always understand the desire to get "unhooked" and I bid you well until we chat again. :cowboy:
I always appreciate your service as Fr. Girouard's media man!
-
I think that people need to step back and take note of all the frenzy surrounding this election. This is a beginning of sorrows I believe. And, at least trump is echoing that message. He is screaming from the rooftops, while all of the other candidates think we are fine and dandy. And, this is not to say that I am going to vote for him. But, we are in for tough times. And, I really think the best way to look at it may be like this. Trump is the golden handcuff(quite literally). Handcuffs are coming. And, as with eminent domain, Trump says, if the person is smart, they can get 2-3 times their value by selling. But, the question is, are we smart.
-
1 to 5 are 'important' because of the influence they have, to some extent, in society. The moderators of Cathinfo are just not important at all. Just a fact, no offense intended.
Columbiano, you need to stop listening to the anti-CathInfo crowd at ABL, the Recusant, and Fr. Pfeiffer/Pablo's other attack troops.
Ha, and you have to get your facts straight!
Because nothing in my posts indicate that I do (in fact, regarding Pablo, quite the contrary), I see only two possibilities:
1-If I say something you don't like, I surely MUST be listening to the other 'group'. I don't need to expand on how ridiculous it would be......should this be the case.
or,
2-Someone in common (Mr. M) told you a few things about me many months ago and therefore you think you can safely throw the "you need to stop listening to the bla, bla, bla..." and be on the side of truth.
Well, you constantly champion yourself as the defender of truth but here, you do not know what you are talking about. It is this attitude you exhibit, together with many other examples that come to mind, from you and others, that turn me off completely from your 'group'. By 'group' I mean the most visible, outspoken defenders of each side of the Resistance. I'm equally repelled by both.
-
Donald Trump is not a moral choice for Catholics because he is a money-worshipping, blood-lusting Zionist whose money, far from being built on moral industriousness, has been built upon his willingness to work with organized crime.
Would those be the Catholics who overwhelmingly put Obama in the White House twice?
-
Donald Trump is not a moral choice for Catholics because he is a money-worshipping, blood-lusting Zionist whose money, far from being built on moral industriousness, has been built upon his willingness to work with organized crime.
Would those be the Catholics who overwhelmingly put Obama in the White House twice?
Only if you consider Novus Ordinarians to be Catholic.
-
Donald Trump is not a moral choice for Catholics because he is a money-worshipping, blood-lusting Zionist whose money, far from being built on moral industriousness, has been built upon his willingness to work with organized crime.
Would those be the Catholics who overwhelmingly put Obama in the White House twice?
Only if you consider Novus Ordinarians to be Catholic.
I have a recording of Fr. Hewko's sermon on the Sunday after the election that first put Obama in the White House. He got to the pulpit and the first words out of his mouth were "If you voted for Obama, do not approach the Communion rail until you have been to Confession because you are in the state of mortal sin". Needless to say it did not apply to anyone in the chapel (visitors excluded).
-
Would those be the Catholics who overwhelmingly put Obama in the White House twice?
I am persuaded that Catholics generally have never been the most enlightened of voters. And I mean Catholics who went faithfully to the Old Mass.
-
Would those be the Catholics who overwhelmingly put Obama in the White House twice?
I am persuaded that Catholics generally have never been the most enlightened of voters. And I mean Catholics who went faithfully to the Old Mass.
My parents (immigrants) pulled the (D) lever across the board. They still do the same for some reason, even though they don't agree with any of the liberal social positions.
-
My parents (immigrants) pulled the (D) lever across the board. They still do the same for some reason, even though they don't agree with any of the liberal social positions.
I rest my case.
-
When I was a kid my dad was a JFK Democrat. At the end of his life he had a Confederate flag hanging in his living room.
-
You know what is incredibly laughable to me?
Those people who said that if I voted for Buchanan, I was voting for Gore... Those people who said if I voted for a third party, I was voting for a Democrat. When I wrote someone in, I was wasting my vote. Last election, I flat out wrote in Ron Paul because he literally got screwed. People still will not even admit that HE was the winner of the Iowa Caucuses!
I vote for who DESERVES my vote. I have always been an independent spirit, and if Donald Trump can prove to me that he isn't beholden to special interests, and that he is genuine, then whatever his past contains is likely NOTHING compared to many of these career politicians who have had their lives neat and tidy to the public, but have backroom deals going on ad nauseam that any decent person would probably faint to hear about.
-
is likely NOTHING compared to many of these career politicians who have had their lives neat and tidy to the public, but have backroom deals going on ad nauseam that any decent person would probably faint to hear about.
Given that Ron Paul held elected office beginning in 1976, how did he convince you that he was not the sort mentioned above?
-
Last election, I flat out wrote in Ron Paul because he literally got screwed.
I see you're using "literally" in the sense of "figuratively" which is such a trend these days...
People say "literally" when they mean "exceedingly", "seriously" or "really, really". BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT LITERALLY MEANS, DARN IT!
:soapbox:
Unless, of course, you are claiming that Ron Paul was actually sodomized by someone in the last election...
-
Okay. I relent. The correct word would have been defrauded, but that just doesn't sound right...
I mean, I don't know, they did the same thing to Pat Buchanan in 1996. What's a better word for that?
I guess subtract the literally.
-
Last election, I flat out wrote in Ron Paul because he literally got screwed.
I see you're using "literally" in the sense of "figuratively" which is such a trend these days...
People say "literally" when they mean "exceedingly", "seriously" or "really, really". BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT LITERALLY MEANS, DARN IT!
:soapbox:
Unless, of course, you are claiming that Ron Paul was actually sodomized by someone in the last election...
Ok, that made me laugh...
-
That is precisely what it is all about: No matter his personal flaws, Trump is not attached to the Establishment. He has no favors to pay back. He finances his own campaign. He is the only one who could truly do what he sees fit as President.
Is this an affirmative to my question? Do you believe only self-funded billionaires should be elected to the presidency?
-
That is precisely what it is all about: No matter his personal flaws, Trump is not attached to the Establishment. He has no favors to pay back. He finances his own campaign. He is the only one who could truly do what he sees fit as President.
Is this an affirmative to my question? Do you believe only self-funded billionaires should be elected to the presidency?
In 2016, yes.
In what hypothetical circuмstance would that rule not apply?
-
That is precisely what it is all about: No matter his personal flaws, Trump is not attached to the Establishment. He has no favors to pay back. He finances his own campaign. He is the only one who could truly do what he sees fit as President.
Is this an affirmative to my question? Do you believe only self-funded billionaires should be elected to the presidency?
In 2016, yes.
In what hypothetical circuмstance would that rule not apply?
I feel there is a snare in that question. My answer is: Let us remain in the realm of reality, not of hypothesis. Now, in the 2016 race, I say we can trust Trump for implementing his promises, because we know that he will not have to pay back people who would have financed his campaign, because he is financing it himself. I hope you understand the implication of this decision of his.
If he would have wanted to, he could have had many financial backers, He would not have had to spend his own money. (Money which he will never see again). But he wanted to remain free to say/do what he believes in. This, in itself, should be for us a guarantee that he will, indeed, keep his promises.
Can you name another person in the US that would/could do what Trump is doing that has a snow white background? I can't.
-
is likely NOTHING compared to many of these career politicians who have had their lives neat and tidy to the public, but have backroom deals going on ad nauseam that any decent person would probably faint to hear about.
Given that Ron Paul held elected office beginning in 1976, how did he convince you that he was not the sort mentioned above?
I'll tell you why. Because he was known as "Dr. NO." You look at his voting record, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Here's a good place to start.
https://www.congress.gov/members
https://www.congress.gov/member/ron-paul/P000583
-
Here's just an example of ONE of his oppositions to the most recent NDAA bill. Please read. You can find this and more in the right margin of the page where it says, "See this member's remarks in the Congressional Record" and just do a search in the page for his name, and you can read what he has to say on basically EVERYTHING he's ever said in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose what will be the final
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) I will face as a Member of
the U.S. House of Representatives. As many of my colleagues are aware,
I have always voted against the NDAA regardless of what party controls
the House. Far from simply providing an authorization for the money
needed to defend this country, which I of course support, this
authorization and its many predecessors have long been used to fuel
militarization, enrich the military industrial complex, expand our
empire overseas, and purchase military and other enormously expensive
equipment that we do not need and in large part does not work anyway.
They wrap all of this mess up in false patriotism, implying that
Members who do not vote for these boondoggles do not love their
country.
The military industrial complex is a jigsaw puzzle of seemingly
competing private companies; but they are in reality state-sponsored
enterprises where well-connected lobbyists, usually after long and
prosperous careers in the military or government, pressure Congress to
fund pet projects regardless of whether we can afford them or whether
they are needed to defend our country. This convenient arrangement is
the welfare of the warfare state.
Because of the false perception that we must pass this military
spending authorization each year or our men and women in uniform will
go hungry, Congress has over the years taken the opportunity to pack it
with other items that would have been difficult to pass on their own.
This is nothing new on Capitol Hill. In the last few years, however,
this practice has taken a sinister turn.
The now-infamous NDAA for fiscal year 2012, passed last year, granted
the president the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens
without charge, without access to an attorney, and without trial. It is
difficult to imagine anything more un-American than this attack on our
Constitutional protections. While we may not have yet seen the
widespread use of this unspeakably evil measure, a wider application of
this ``authority'' may only be a matter of time.
Historically these kinds of measures have been used to bolster state
power at the expense of unpopular scapegoats. The Jєωιѕн citizens of
1930s Germany knew all about this reprehensible practice. Lately the
scapegoats have been mostly Muslims. Hundreds, perhaps many more, even
Americans, have been held by the U.S. at Guantanamo and in other secret
prisons around the world.
But this can all change quickly, which makes it all the more
dangerous. Maybe one day it will be Christians, gun-owners,
homeschoolers, etc.
That is why last year, along with Reps. Justin Amash, Walter Jones,
and others, we attempted to simply remove the language from the NDAA
(sec. 1021) that gave the president this unconstitutional authority. It
was a simple, readable amendment. Others tried to thwart our
straightforward efforts by crafting elaborately worded amendments that
in practice did noting to protect us from this measure in the bill.
Likewise this year there were a few celebrated but mostly meaningless
attempts to address this issue. One such effort passed in the senate
version of this bill. The conferees have simply cut it out. The will of
Congress was thus ignored by a small group of Members and Senators
named by House and Senate leadership.
There are many other measures in this NDAA Conference Report to be
concerned about. It continues to fund our disastrous wars in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere for example.
The Conference Report contains yet another round of doomed-to-fail
new sanctions against Iran. These are acts of war against Iran without
actually firing a shot. But this time the House and Senate conferees
are going further than that. The report contains language that pushes
the U.S. as close to an actual authorization for the use of force
against Iran as we can get. The Report ``. . . asserts that the U.S.
should be prepared to take all necessary measures, including military
action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the U.S., its
allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon and reinforces the
military option should it prove necessary.''
This kind of language just emboldens Iran's enemies in the region to
engage in increasingly reckless behavior with the guarantee that the
U.S. military will step in if they push it too far. That is an unwise
move for everyone concerned.
This Conference Report contains increased levels of foreign military
aid, including an additional half-billion dollars in missile assistance
to an already prosperous Israel and some $300 million to help an
increasingly prosperous Russia control its chemical, nuclear, and
biological weapons. And Russia does not even want the money!
Overall, this authorization will give the president even more money
for military activities next year than he requested. At a time when the
news has been dominated by reports of our budget crisis, the ``fiscal
cliff,'' and the ``need'' to increase taxes on Americans, Congress is
foolishly spending even more on the military budget than the
administration wants! I suppose that is what counts as a reduction in
the language of Washington.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this, and all future, reckless and
dangerous military spending bills that are destroying our national
security by destroying our economy.
-
That's not just immoral, that's a war crime. If Trump thinks lives are disposable just like that, we're looking at the Slobodan Milošević of our time.
Or the next Hitler. Definitely not the next Trotsky because Trotsky was a Jew and Jews never do anything wrong so the comparison with a war criminal wouldn't work.