Author Topic: Staking my reputation on it  (Read 700 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 24368
  • Reputation: +21302/-461
  • Gender: Male
Staking my reputation on it
« on: March 17, 2016, 05:45:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let the record show, that I have been against Donald Trump since the beginning of the Republican Primary.

    I've posted many times against him on CathInfo; this can be seen by any member or guest.

    Trump doesn't even have the nomination yet (nor does he have it "locked up") but already I'm going on the record saying that he's bad news for America, and that he won't fulfill his campaign promises any more than any President has for the past 50 years.

    I even think there's a good chance (better than not) that he will lose to Hillary Clinton in the General Election this November.

    If he ends up working wonders for America as many of you claim, you can point to this thread and I will have to eat crow, because I'm staking my reputation on the fact that I'm right.

    I'll be the one saying, "I told you so."
    Feeling generous? Want to say "thank you"? Feel free to send gifts from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Start Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6089
    • Reputation: +3373/-228
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
    Staking my reputation on it
    « Reply #1 on: March 17, 2016, 05:50:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    I'm going on the record saying that he's bad news for America

    I agree even though I voted for Trump in the poll. I think all of the candidates are bad, even Cruz. I support Trump solely for the amusement value. I won't even vote for him if he wins the nomination but I will hope he wins merely because it entertains me the way he tells the media to f off and gets away with it.
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..


    Offline rum

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 828
    • Reputation: +413/-358
    • Gender: Male
    Staking my reputation on it
    « Reply #2 on: March 17, 2016, 06:05:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well from a Catholic perspective being against any politician in a secular Western state is sound, which is why I think it's legitimate for Catholics to not participate at all in politics. But saying you're "staking your reputation" by being against Trump suggests that you think anyone here thinks Trump is the herald of a new flowering of Christendom and that if he's not then his Catholic supporters will have eggs on their faces. I don't think anyone here's that naive. Pat Buchanan was beholden to Jewish interests.

    Without an overthrow of Jewish power even the most attractive candidates can only be so maverick.

    Some of us would consider it a breath of fresh air if a border wall were erected and some industry came back.

    Offline MaterDominici

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 5119
    • Reputation: +3797/-76
    • Gender: Female
    Staking my reputation on it
    « Reply #3 on: March 17, 2016, 06:26:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Patricius

    HAUGLAND:  No, I don't think that's the case once, you know, it would just be understood, we have a problem with the media -- he-he -- unfortunately.  That's a problem.  The media has created a perception that the voters will decide the nomination, and that's the conflict here.  We're just one of the political parties.  Political parties choose their nominee, not the general public, contrary to popular belief.

     


    There is a lot of truth in this, but it remains to be seen if the Rep party has learned from past mistakes.

    It wasn't so long ago that delegates were largely unbound and primaries were merely suggestions. But, when the delegates ignore the suggestions and go with their own man, that man loses in the general election.

    I suspect we're already at the point that we've handed the election to Hillary by being so divided in the primary. I can't help but wonder if that wasn't the goal from the outset.
    "I think that Catholicism, that's as sane as people can get."  - Jordan Peterson

    Offline MaterDominici

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 5119
    • Reputation: +3797/-76
    • Gender: Female
    Staking my reputation on it
    « Reply #4 on: March 17, 2016, 07:11:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: rum

    Some of us would consider it a breath of fresh air if a border wall were erected and some industry came back.


    I know not many around here actually want to discuss policy, but there are better ways to drastically reduce illegal immigration than building a wall. For starters, about 1/3 of illegals enter legally and then overstay their visa. A wall isn't going to stop that, but enforcing existing laws will.
    "I think that Catholicism, that's as sane as people can get."  - Jordan Peterson


    Offline rum

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 828
    • Reputation: +413/-358
    • Gender: Male
    Staking my reputation on it
    « Reply #5 on: March 17, 2016, 07:17:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: MaterDominici
    Quote from: rum

    Some of us would consider it a breath of fresh air if a border wall were erected and some industry came back.


    I know not many around here actually want to discuss policy, but there are better ways to drastically reduce illegal immigration than building a wall. For starters, about 1/3 of illegals enter legally and then overstay their visa. A wall isn't going to stop that, but enforcing existing laws will.


    But it will stop two-thirds, which sounds pretty good. And Trump has claimed he will send back the ones here illegally. He's mentioned following Eisenhower's tactic with illegals in California called Operation Wetback. Round some of them up to make an example, and huge numbers of them will go back to Mexico willingly without needing to spend government resources.

    Offline rum

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 828
    • Reputation: +413/-358
    • Gender: Male
    Staking my reputation on it
    « Reply #6 on: March 17, 2016, 07:25:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A different take on Rule 40(b):

    Quote
    by JOHN HAYWARD16 Mar 20161,114
    Hogan Gidley, who served as national communications director for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign, appeared on Wednesday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon to discuss a crucial aspect of the Republican primary: the previously obscure, but increasingly notorious, Rule 40.

    Technically, most of the analysts citing Rule 40 are referring to the current version of Rule 40(b), which sets a certain minimum threshold for candidates at the Republican National Convention. According to this rule, candidates must arrive at the convention with a majority of the delegates from eight states or territories, or else they are disqualified from the first round. In most elections, this is a mere formality because the clear winner of the nomination is well-known before the convention begins, making the convention an extended infomercial for the party and its nominee.

    Of course, there is good reason to suspect the Republican convention will be rather more exciting this year. Gidley noted there is apprehension among front-runner Donald Trump’s supporters that the GOP Establishment will use some “shenanigans” to “steal” the nomination from him at the convention. Among those shenanigans could be changing Rule 40 to bring candidates who don’t meet the established minimum threshold into the game.

    There are two ghosts from the 2012 election haunting the Shakespearean drama of the 2016 primary, and Gidley invoked them both in a single breath: Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.

    “This is actually called the ‘Ron Paul Rule.’ The Romney people put this in place,” Gidley explained. “The Establishment hurt Ron Paul, but I think this Establishment rule will actually help Donald Trump.”

    Gidley noted there is no way for one of the last three remaining candidates, Governor John Kasich of Ohio, to win the necessary majority of delegates from eight states. Texas Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
    currently stands at seven.

    He further asserted that, contrary to much speculation from pundits, Rule 40(b) technically blocks disqualified candidates from participating in any of the subsequent ballots, which scuttles the notion of denying Trump victory in an initial vote where only he and Cruz are qualified candidates, and then parachuting some other Establishment-preferred candidate into the convention hall to seize the nomination, possibly someone who didn’t even run in the 2016 primary at all.

    (Cruz is arguably even less acceptable to the Establishment of his own party than Trump — a point that will be made by many an anguished Hamlet delivering monologues over the skull of Marco Yorick in the weeks ahead, to continue that Shakespeare metaphor.)

    Rule 40 “was an effort to stop the Ron Paul faction from gaining traction at the convention,” Gidley recalled. “And now we see the fruits of that rule, which was designed to stop Ron Paul, could effectively stop the Establishment.”

    “The second part of the rule is, you can’t even count votes for anybody else who doesn’t meet that threshold,” he pointed out. “So people can try to submit votes for other people — like Kasich, or like Rubio, or like Romney — but if you haven’t won a majority of the delegates in eight states, you can’t be on any ballot, at any time. First, second, third, fourth, fifth — it doesn’t matter.”

    It has been suggested that the Rules Committee will simply change Rule 40 to arrange whatever outcome is necessary to block Trump, but Gidley was skeptical of this idea. Normally, a presumptive candidate who has reached the “magic number” of bound delegates needed to secure the nomination can control the rules. If Trump is held below that 1,237-delegate threshold this year, the Rules Committee could theoretically rewrite the rules to hurt him, but Gidley anticipated sheer chaos if such tactics were employed.

    “If you think people are mad now … it’s gonna be a political jihad,” he warned.

    Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 weekdays from 6:00AM to 9:00AM EST.

    Offline MaterDominici

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 5119
    • Reputation: +3797/-76
    • Gender: Female
    Staking my reputation on it
    « Reply #7 on: March 17, 2016, 07:29:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: rum
    Quote from: MaterDominici
    Quote from: rum

    Some of us would consider it a breath of fresh air if a border wall were erected and some industry came back.


    I know not many around here actually want to discuss policy, but there are better ways to drastically reduce illegal immigration than building a wall. For starters, about 1/3 of illegals enter legally and then overstay their visa. A wall isn't going to stop that, but enforcing existing laws will.


    But it will stop two-thirds, which sounds pretty good. And Trump has claimed he will send back the ones here illegally. He's mentioned following Eisenhower's tactic with illegals in California called Operation Wetback. Round some of them up to make an example, and huge numbers of them will go back to Mexico willingly without needing to spend government resources.


    No, not 2/3. More like 1/2. But, what if we just use the systems we already have to discourage them from entering in the first place? I think we should require e-verify, end sanctuary cities, and then take a look at immigration to see if a wall is really necessary. Most come here for work and if they can't work, they won't stay.

    And, btw, Trump is not the only candidate in favor of solving the immigration problem.
    "I think that Catholicism, that's as sane as people can get."  - Jordan Peterson


    Offline Prayerful

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 503
    • Reputation: +179/-28
    • Gender: Male
    Staking my reputation on it
    « Reply #8 on: March 17, 2016, 07:40:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If Trump wants to thrive as a President, he will have to realize that $3000 bolts are a good thing on jet fighters, or whatever way money is wasted in the interests of the military industrial complex. Sen Cruz is said to be loathed by his Senate colleagues, and Gov Kasich is nowhere. Now there are people who claim the RNC might prefer a Hillary (a nonentity as Secretary of State) to a Trump Presidency, but I think the RNC probably prefer a living GOP to a dead one, because blatant swindling will wreck the party. For all its faults, it is the only hope of banishing abortion from the Western World. The RNC hardly want to blow up the GOP. His stance on migration is not most Republicans would dissent from publicly, although Gov Kasich is probably not the only one who's fairly pro immigration laxity.

    Offline rum

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 828
    • Reputation: +413/-358
    • Gender: Male
    Staking my reputation on it
    « Reply #9 on: March 17, 2016, 08:14:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: MaterDominici
    Quote from: rum
    Quote from: MaterDominici
    Quote from: rum

    Some of us would consider it a breath of fresh air if a border wall were erected and some industry came back.


    I know not many around here actually want to discuss policy, but there are better ways to drastically reduce illegal immigration than building a wall. For starters, about 1/3 of illegals enter legally and then overstay their visa. A wall isn't going to stop that, but enforcing existing laws will.


    But it will stop two-thirds, which sounds pretty good. And Trump has claimed he will send back the ones here illegally. He's mentioned following Eisenhower's tactic with illegals in California called Operation Wetback. Round some of them up to make an example, and huge numbers of them will go back to Mexico willingly without needing to spend government resources.


    No, not 2/3. More like 1/2. But, what if we just use the systems we already have to discourage them from entering in the first place? I think we should require e-verify, end sanctuary cities, and then take a look at immigration to see if a wall is really necessary. Most come here for work and if they can't work, they won't stay.

    And, btw, Trump is not the only candidate in favor of solving the immigration problem.


    Using laws that already exist would work. I like the idea of a wall though, to discourage easy infiltration in the future, assuming that the current invasion can be solved by other means. Trump's not the only candidate in favor of solving the immigration problem but surely he's the one that made it an issue that can't be ignored. Republican leaders have been telling their base for a long time that they're going to solve the illegal immigration problem and the problem isn't solved, mainly because Globalists and Jews love open borders.

    Offline St Ignatius

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1011
    • Reputation: +781/-150
    • Gender: Male
    Staking my reputation on it
    « Reply #10 on: March 17, 2016, 08:45:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • rum:

    Quote
    Republican leaders have been telling their base for a long time that they're going to solve the illegal immigration problem and the problem isn't solved, mainly because Globalists and Jews love open borders.


    May I note; this is very true, it's primary purpose (open borders) is to destroy the white european male.


    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +455/-474
    • Gender: Male
    Staking my reputation on it
    « Reply #11 on: March 17, 2016, 10:17:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Matthew - your OP reeks of pride.  I really don't see anyone rubbing this error in your face if and when you are proven wrong about Trump.  Because, for one among many reasons, you have a history of banning members who do precisely that.  And, none of us on here are looking for trouble.  So, give it a break.  The last thing we need are more casualties.
    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4571/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Staking my reputation on it
    « Reply #12 on: March 17, 2016, 10:27:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: St Ignatius
    rum:

    Quote
    Republican leaders have been telling their base for a long time that they're going to solve the illegal immigration problem and the problem isn't solved, mainly because Globalists and Jews love open borders.


    May I note; this is very true, it's primary purpose (open borders) is to destroy the white european male.


    Reminded me of this meme:
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16