Choose style:
Subscription Options:

One-time Donations:

Author Topic: Trump: Bad Hombre  (Read 2147 times)

Paul

Re: Trump: Bad Hombre
« Reply #100 on: June 16, 2017, 03:56:pm »
As for immigration, I would hope the world government would institute a borderless world. However, until then I can at least say that most Mexican immigrants (as opposed to their children) are practicing Catholics who hopefully are loyal to church teaching.

What happens when that world government decides to make it illegal to be Catholic? Where will you go then?

"Can't we all just get along" sounds nice, but, unfortunately, we're stuck with the effects of original sin. This world will never be perfect, and differences between cultures (which, I thought, the Left tells us, are good?) will lead to division. Look at Quebec and the rest of Canada. Ireland and Northern Ireland. All of what used to be Yugoslavia. Rwanda. And, of course, the Middle East, where the Koran tells Muslims to follow the model of Muhammad and kill those who refuse to submit to Allah by becoming Muslim. Even in the US, there's the divide between liberals and conservatives, where one side supports sex with whomever or whatever you want, and the other believes that not only is that not okay, but you don't get to murder the results. There's no way that a world government would work - either it would be pretty much like the EU and go full-on liberal, or it would be too conservative, and the liberals in the world would stage yet another of their revolutions.

Optatus Cleary

Re: Trump: Bad Hombre
« Reply #101 on: June 16, 2017, 04:19:pm »
I don't get the cop adulation from some conservatives. If you distrust the government, why trust its armed agents? I don't oppose police, I certainly don't want anyone shooting at them. But they shouldn't be able to shoot and kill unarmed people and get away with it.

"Unarmed" doesn't mean "harmless". I see this all the time in the news when these situations come up, and it's purely political. A man driving a car at a police officer isn't "unarmed". Someone's who's charging at the office might be, or he might have a gun or knife in his pocket, but even if he doesn't, if the officer doesn't do anything, he could get the officer's gun from him and then shoot him. Or maybe he's really good at fighting, and, yes, it's possible to kill people by punching them hard enough. Or, like Saint Skittles, by getting the person on the ground and bashing his head against the concrete.

As Vox pointed out, it's rare for police to shoot someone who's complying. And even if the officer's wrong, the place to fight about it is in court, not on the street.

If people want to talk about whether the police are too quick to assume someone's a danger and too quick to shoot, maybe that's a discussion worth having, and ways police can de-escalate the situation without anyone getting shot. But that's not how the issue's ever framed. It's "the police are racist", and the Al Sharpton types pick the worst examples to defend (intentionally, in my opinion, so that when white people point out how the "victim" was a criminal, that, too, can be dismissed as racism, keep the country divided, and, more importantly for Sharpton, keep the donations coming in.)
I agree with this completely. That's why I can't stand Black Lives Matter.  My cousin was not complying, but she was also not a danger to the officer. The conversation about whether the police use too much force, or when they should use force, is not possible while the BLM types make a non-racial issue into something racial.
"I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ — though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory." -J.R.R. Tolkien

"I know quite well that, to you as to me, the Church which once felt like a refuge, now often feels like a trap. There is nowhere else to go! (I wonder if this desperate feeling, the last state of loyally hanging on, was not, even more often than is actually recorded in the Gospels, felt by Our Lord’s followers in His earthly life-time?) I think there is nothing to do but pray, for the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and for ourselves; and meanwhile to exercise the virtue of loyalty, which indeed only becomes a virtue when one is under pressure to desert it." -J.R.R. Tolkien

"There is none so blind as he who will not agree with me." -someone else

Melkite

Re: Trump: Bad Hombre
« Reply #102 on: June 16, 2017, 04:21:pm »
What happens when that world government decides to make it illegal to be Catholic? Where will you go then?

Where did Catholics go when it was illegal to be Catholic in the Soviet Union?  The PRC?  Lack of borders aren't the problem.
I am currently a lukewarm, fence-sitting Catholic/Deist, with neither the fortitude to fully accept Catholicism nor to fully abandon it.  Please pray for me.

austenbosten

Re: Trump: Bad Hombre
« Reply #103 on: June 16, 2017, 05:47:pm »
I support my own people (Catholics of any race or nation or immigration status) and will not sacrifice them for any other people (i.e. Protestant "American workers.").

As a Catholic, you have a duty to your country. You are talking like a dual-loyalty Jew. You are giving fodder to what the "Know-Nothings" believed. You misunderstand Catholic teaching about piety.

Not allowing one's country to be overtaken by immigrants doesn't mean one is "sacrificing" anyone. Mexicans need to get their country in order, and that won't happen if their (alleged) best are all coming up here. You want to support Mexicans, then send some of your money to Mexico. But don't take jobs away from my nieces and nephews to give them to others.
In Caritas in veritate Pope Benedict XVI argues for a world political authority to manage the economy, and says it needs the power to ensure compliance with its orders. In Laudato si Pope Francis argues that an international structure with power to enforce its decisions needs to be created to stop climate change. Encyclicals, from what I understand, are authoritative. It seems to me there is no room for "loyalty to one's country" if we as Catholics support one world government.

As for immigration, I would hope the world government would institute a borderless world. However, until then I can at least say that most Mexican immigrants (as opposed to their children) are practicing Catholics who hopefully are loyal to church teaching.

I really would like to see some evidence that they called for a world government.   Even so, calling for international organizations does not mean that you are not to be loyal to your country.  It was a commandment of the Medieval knighthood to "love the country one was born in".  Pope John Paul II had this to say about Patriotism:

Quote
Patriotism is a love for everything to do with our native land: its history, its traditions, its language, its natural features. It is a love which extends also to the works of our compatriots and the fruits of their genius. Every danger that threatens the overall good of our native land becomes an occasion to demonstrate this love…I belive that the same could be said of every country and every nation in Europe and throughout the world. (Memory and Identity, 65-66)

Melkite

Re: Trump: Bad Hombre
« Reply #104 on: June 16, 2017, 06:04:pm »
I really would like to see some evidence that they called for a world government.   Even so, calling for international organizations does not mean that you are not to be loyal to your country.  It was a commandment of the Medieval knighthood to "love the country one was born in".  Pope John Paul II had this to say about Patriotism:

Well, I'm screwed.  I don't love my country any more than a child loves their abusive parent.  I hate that I was born in this country and hate everything it stands for.

If I'm going to be objective, that probably is part of why I'm not opposed to the country breaking apart.
I am currently a lukewarm, fence-sitting Catholic/Deist, with neither the fortitude to fully accept Catholicism nor to fully abandon it.  Please pray for me.


austenbosten

Re: Trump: Bad Hombre
« Reply #105 on: June 16, 2017, 06:25:pm »
I really would like to see some evidence that they called for a world government.   Even so, calling for international organizations does not mean that you are not to be loyal to your country.  It was a commandment of the Medieval knighthood to "love the country one was born in".  Pope John Paul II had this to say about Patriotism:

Well, I'm screwed.  I don't love my country any more than a child loves their abusive parent.  I hate that I was born in this country and hate everything it stands for.

If I'm going to be objective, that probably is part of why I'm not opposed to the country breaking apart.

And what has your country of birth done that was so injurious to you and deserving so such un-Christian wrath?

Melkite

Re: Trump: Bad Hombre
« Reply #106 on: June 16, 2017, 07:09:pm »
And what has your country of birth done that was so injurious to you and deserving so such un-Christian wrath?

It fostered a society that not only encourages genital mutilation, but made up lie after lie after lie of supposed benefits, that haven't been found by any other industrialized nation's medical community, to continue pushing parents to subject their sons to it, (ETA) such that it is now ingrained in the culture and probably impossible to completely eradicate from it.

I know you don't agree with me on this issue, and there's no need to rehash all the details of why I'm opposed to it.  Needless to say, I perceive a society that determines healthy parts of my body are free to be dispensed with against my will (parents have no right to consent by proxy to unnecessary amputation) to be an extreme injustice.  When that society brainwashes its people to think it is not only necessary, but good, all based on blatant lies, that is too much for me to handle.  I have no loyalty to this country because of that, nor do I believe I owe it any.  Again, just my perception on the issue, but this one thing outweighs every good that I have by being an American.  If my wrath is unChristian, I'm ok with that - it only means to me that American Christianity is on the wrong side of this issue.
I am currently a lukewarm, fence-sitting Catholic/Deist, with neither the fortitude to fully accept Catholicism nor to fully abandon it.  Please pray for me.

Optatus Cleary

Re: Trump: Bad Hombre
« Reply #107 on: June 18, 2017, 12:30:am »
This is the most bizarre thing I've read in ages. Side with the Left? "Trump is an evil man"? Encouraging not doing X because of potential reprisals rather than because it is bad? It is absolutely a victory for Catholic principles to vote for someone who doesn't want to start World War III, who's against abortion and who acts on that belief, who's for restoring the middle class so people can afford to marry and start families again, who has all the oligarchs of the world against him, etc.? If Trump's "days are numbered," it's only because the Left and their oligarch overlords might play some hardcore games (as things stand now, that is). The possibility of their doing so doesn't mean that voting for Trump was wrong or that supporting Trump now is wrong. That's nuts. If the Left come after (at least) half of America with some sort of reprisal, then that's what they'll do, but I'm not going to support evil out of fear. (and, BTW, I am firmly convinced that Trump won the actual popular vote as well. I believe that the DNC engaged in major election fraud but that Trump got so many votes they couldn't pull it off. My God, Hillary hadn't even written a concession speech!)
I'm not saying to support evil. I'm saying to oppose all evil, and to be strategic about it.

You'd have sided with Nazis in Germany, Commies in the Soviet Union, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Mao in China -- wow, man.
I would not have.  Notice I am arguing that we should side with no one.  The bishops seem inclined to side with the Left when they can...I'm only saying this might be a "wise as serpents" strategy...don't anger the vicious beast that is roaring at you until you're at a safe distance and can strike back at it.  Personally, I'm not willing to make the moral compromise necessary to support any politician I have yet encountered.  I fell for that trap shortly after I became Catholic, and voted for Bush over Kerry.  I have felt guilty about it since, and I will never again support any candidate who doesn't take the correct position on every issue.
 
Quote
Quote
So much treating the perfect as the enemy of the good here in this thread, my gosh. I am stunned...
I'm saying that, between the two evil candidates, I think Catholics will be worse off due to Trump's election. The Left has more cultural power than the Right, which will translate to political power. I would rather Catholics be seen by them as "those friendly weirdos who help immigrants but don't like abortion" than "those vicious, racist Trump supporters." I would never do anything to help a left-wing candidate. But I would not vote for or support a left-wing candidate's opponent if he doesn't support Catholic principles.

We will be worse off if we don't do the right thing, have hope, stand tall, and fight. Prudence is one thing, but cravenness is quite another.
I agree.  But supporting a bad man because he is the enemy of other bad men is not the same as to "do the right thing, have hope, stand tall, and fight."  I would fight for any truly Catholic political party (the American Solidarity Party looks pretty good, but stands no chance of being elected).  But I'm not going to put my heart and (literally) soul on the line for an evil, even if it is a "lesser" evil.

Quote
Quote
And to Melike, shouldn't you be giving him the benefit of the doubt with regard to things like "the shove," etc." And you're bothered about his talking about grabbing women "by the pussy" -- which he followed by saying "when you're famous (or a star, I forget), they LET you"? My gosh, whatever you do, don't read about the antics of Lyndon B. Johnson; you might fall over and die in a swoon. And to whoever was bothered that Trump changed his mind on abortion: really?! You'd rather he didn't? You ever hear him tell the story of why he changed his mind about abortion? And the bit about his allegedly "changing his mind" about being "friends" with the Clintons? I don't think he ever did or ever said he did; he bought them off and has said he bought them off. That was the extent of their "friendship" aside from possible rounds of golf with Bill.
He said they "let" you. Meaning he tries it, and they don't stop him. Not that they ask him to. So is this the Bill Clinton "one free grope if I support your politics" rule?  I will not condone such actions from anyone, not even if they said they were going to establish a Catholic confessional state tomorrow!

This is "he's a rich, powerful man and I don't expect perfection" rule. King David had his way with Bathsaba, even killing her husband. God still used him for Good. That's how the world works. My knowing this doesn't mean I condone adultery, obviously.
Maybe God will use Donald Trump for good.  That's not in my hands, it's in God's.  What is in my hands is one vote, which I can use to signal agreement with a politician.  And if there isn't one who deserves to win, why would I vote for the one who seems a little less bad than the other?

Quote
Quote
I voted for Trump and am glad I did. My reasons for doing so, which I posted before the election and to which I can add:

* He got us out of the asinine Paris Climate Accord and
Okay. Personally, I believe climate change is real. But if it isn't, this was a good thing. I'll give him that: if his opinion on this scientific issue turns out to be true, he made the right choice.

Quote
*He defunded planned parenthood.
Again, a good thing. But if it results in backlash (pro-life=Trump) then will it have been worth it?

Would helping to prevent the murder of babies be "worth it" even if, maybe, someday, down the road, the Left, which you wrongly see as all-powerful, wants to visit "reprisals" on pro-life people? I say "yes."
Is preventing the murder of babies worth it at any cost?  Would you vote for a law banning late-term abortion that explicitly guaranteed a right to a first-trimester abortion?  I certainly wouldn't.  I know it would possibly save babies from being murdered.  But it would violate moral principals to support a law guaranteeing a right to abortion.  As for the left's power, my main point again is that I think you and others underestimate them.  The number of people willing and able to stand up to them is vanishingly small, and is disunited.  The Church is the only institution that could, realistically, do it.  But it won't be able to under the current circumstances, when it's being slowly devoured by the leftist machine.

Quote
Quote
* He's just what the doctor ordered when it comes to killing off the political correctness that's killing our culture. He says X, the media freak out, but the average American is going, "hell YEAH!". I don't believe for a second that he is racist or a woman-hater, which the media want you to believe. At the risk of sounding kitschy, I watched many seasons of "The Apprentice" and watched him deal with blacks, Hispanics, and women, and never, not once, saw any weirdness. Quite the opposite. The only thing that came remotely close was a comment he made about what a "pretty picture" it is to imagine some female celebrity or another "on her knees" when she said she'd get down on her knees and beg someone for something. To which I say, "Big deal. So he's a guy."
I disagree. I despise political correctness with all my heart. But I think Trump only makes it stronger. He's everything they hate: his existence gives them a reason to keep it up, to keep fighting. A conservative champion who was polite, well-spoken, and compassionate would make political correctness look stupid: Trump makes it look valid.

I think you are so incorrectly reading what's going on that it hurts.
Look at what actually happens, culturally.  Have you seen any restoration of traditional values in your lifetime?  I haven't.  What I see is this: when the left is in power, the right bides their time.  When the right is in power, the right attempts to act.  Thus, they make no progress towards their goals.  On the other hand, when the right is in power, the left acts (like the current attempts to limit free speech at universities).  When the left is in power, the left consolidates and reinforces their gains.  What president or congress has ever stopped this, or even slowed it down significantly?  When has social conservatism ever become more socially acceptable?  I started teaching eight years ago: things I could say in class then are unthinkable and would get me reported for "intolerance" now.  And I am a very carefully neutral teacher (I never say any of my own views in class).  Texts we could read and debate are now absolutely beyond the pale.  And the leftist teachers never hesitate to say their own opinions and teach them as fact.  Most people go to public schools, for good or for ill.  Even if we personally save our own children from indoctrination, the mass of voters will be thoroughly in the leftist camp.

Quote
Quote
* He wants to restore our industry by equalizing things with China (e.g., imposing tariffs) so that American industrialists can't use foreign veritable slave labor, depriving Americans of jobs in the process;
This is good.

Quote
* He's a law and order type who won't put up with people shooting at cops and getting sympathy for it;
I don't get the cop adulation from some conservatives. If you distrust the government, why trust its armed agents? I don't oppose police, I certainly don't want anyone shooting at them. But they shouldn't be able to shoot and kill unarmed people and get away with it. I have very personal experience with this (incidentally, that is why I can't stand the Black Lives Matter movement: my white relative is just as dead as any black person who ever got shot by the cops.

Almost always, if people cooperate with the police, they don't get shot. If a cope is found to be an actual murderer, he should go to prison, of course.
I agree.  My dad gave me a talk about how important it is to be respectful towards policemen when I was young (supposedly, according to BLM types, a uniquely black experience...I'm as white as it gets).  My cousin, tragically, didn't cooperate and was killed.  However, I think it is fair to say that she was not a danger to the police officer who killed her.  Regardless, the point stands: I am respectful and cooperative to the police, but I do not and have never trusted them, as a class.  They take their orders from superiors who are deep in the political establishment.  They support whatever the settled order is, and at present the settled order is not entirely friendly to us traditional Catholics.

Quote
Quote
* He wants to get rid of the Johnson amendment that renders churches politically powerless by having them lose their tax-exempt statuses if they support politicians or are too "political";
That would probably be good. But for most Catholic Churches it would just mean "climate change all the time" or "immigration sermons daily."  Still no reason not to do it: churches should be able to be as political as they want. The authority of the Church, after all, is superior to that of the state. So a law gagging the Church is unjust.

Quote
*He's for getting rid of the things that stand in the way of business in the U.S. (hyper-taxation, over-regulation, etc.);
Good

Quote
* He wants the world to recognize and respect our borders;
But the catechism says we have the natural right to migrate. I know, we disagree and we've been over this before, but regardless respecting borders is not an unqualified good in Church teaching.

This is what the Church has traditionally taught (and, therefore, still teaches) about immigration (and note that it's one thing to have a right to migrate; it's another thing to have a right to live in a given location):

The Catholic Encyclopedia on "Migration" (URL: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10291a.htm):

"The legal control of migration began when it ceased to be collective and began to be individual. Laws have been passed preventing people from leaving their native land, and also, by the country of destination, forbidding or regulating entrance thereto. Extensive regulation has been found necessary applying to transportation companies and their agents, the means of transportation, treatment en route and at terminal points. The justification of public interference is to be found in the right of a nation to control the variations of its own population. The highest necessity is that arising from war: on this ground nations almost universally regulate very closely the movements of population, forbidding emigration, that they may not lose their soldiers, and guarding immigration as a military precaution. Restrictive measures are also justified on grounds of health and morals, and on the general ground that a national family has a right to say who shall join it...

"...The attitude of the United States at the present time (1910) towards foreign immigration is one of caution. Actual and projected legislation aims, not at exclusion, but at selection. It is recognized that the assimilative power, even of America, has its limits. Legislation must, by the application of rational principles, eliminate those incapable of assimilation to the general culture of the country. Great care is, of course, necessary in determining and applying these principles of selection: an educational test, for instance, while it would exclude much ignorance, would also exclude much honesty, frugality, industry, and solid worth. It is probable that a more vigorous system of inspection of immigrants at ports of entry will be put in force, while a stricter control will be exercised over the steamship companies. At the same time, the co-operation of foreign governments is needed, if the exclusive measures designed for the protection of the United States against undesirable immigration are to be made thoroughly effective."
It is my understanding that Catholic documents are written for their time, and that newer documents supersede old ones.  Obviously, a moral absolute from 1123 has the same force today as the day it was written.  But a document from 1123 about how to handle trade with the far-off Chinese might no longer be relevant, or even be incorrect.  So it is my understanding that the open-borders attitude of the bishops and the last few popes is binding on us.  It doesn't have to make sense to me or to you, but it is the viewpoint we are supposed to follow and attempt to implement.


Quote
Quote
* He's a "what you see is what you get" kinda guy. He's not a "professional politician" type, which is so refreshing and exactly what we need;
I agree and I like that about him.  I just wish those attributes belonged to a less repugnant politician.

Quote
* He doesn't cower in front of media-types' nonsense; he tells it like it is, whether they like it or not. He's got BALLS;
He has a certain bravado, but I think it is a mask for actually knuckling under and doing as he's told by the "elites."

Quote
* He has a very masculine presence, which is something our young boys need to see these days (as opposed to the woman-pedestalizing, effeminate (not "feminine") men that abound);
I disagree. He represents the exact wrong kind of masculinity: the kind that drives people into the perverse arms of feminism. He's the "male chauvinist pig" that I always thought was mostly a myth.

As a female, I can tell you that women like and want strong men -- even the feminists who don't even realize that about themselves. Feminism is DYING a big, hard, nasty death. Even Laci Green got "red-pilled" about that.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with that.  Feminism, at least as commonly understood (and I doubt there is any real positive version possible) is a lie.  However, there is a difference between a strong man and a pig.  Trump does not seem like a strong, masculine example to me, any more than Bill Clinton did.  He's a pleasure seeker, which strikes me as inherently effeminate.

Quote
Quote
* He's pro-life and can be depended on to protect life as much as any other candidate (which isn't saying much, but it's true -- and it's possible he will do more to protect life than anyone else has or would);
Again, blowback might make this not worth it. The pro-life cause matters more to me than any other political issue, and I believe it is harmed by association with Trump.

Trump is the ONLY politician who has done ANYTHING to actually fight against abortion, and you're throwing him under the bus. The only reason I can see why you are doing that is because you think that everyone hates Trump and that the Left is all-powerful (you must listen to the mainstream media, eh?) and because the Left might avenge themselves someday.
I'm glad he does things to fight abortion, but I fear that it hurts the cause ultimately.  Suppose Hitler had banned abortion (I've heard contradictory reports about his stance on it...pro-choicers often claim he did).  Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?  Surely a good thing for the babies that might live rather than die because of his law.  But ultimately a bad thing down the road, because of the baggage that "pro-life Hitler" would be to any future pro-life leader.

Quote
Quote
* He's for taking care of our vets and puts his money where his mouth is on that;
Good.


Quote
* He's self-funding so isn't beholden to any lobbying group -- a HUGE plus, an invaluable plus! He has the freedom to tell lobbyists to sod off;
Yes...but does he? It seems to me he's been brought around and kowtows to all the "right" (wrong) people now.

Who would that be?
The Saudis, for one.  The neoconservative interests in his own administration, for another.

Quote
Quote
* He's pro-second amendment;
Personally, I'm pro second amendment too. But the bishops oppose it. So there is not an unqualified Catholic position on guns. I would rather give up guns and keep the Church safe than give up the Church to keep guns. 

The right to self-defense is a natural right. Ergo, there is a "Catholic position" on guns given reason. The Bishops are wrong. Many of them are allowing the divorced and remarried to receive Communion, too. And they're allowing gay "married" couples to do the same. God gave us brains, man.
All I'm saying is that the bishops' position cannot be heretical.  So it is not intrinsic to the faith that we be allowed to bear arms.  In countries where that is not seen as a "right," the Church is not fighting for the right to bear arms.  Like I said, I believe that it is good to keep and bear arms.  But I am not willing to put Trump's defense of that above his other faults.

Quote
Quote
* He's not stupidly wanting to isolate and demonize Putin and otherwise play bluffing games so WWIII would be so easily ignited by unnecessary no-fly zones and alliances, etc.;
This is the only argument that could have made me vote for him. I'm glad Clinton lost, even if I'm disgusted that Trump won.

Quote
* He was smart enough to be against destabilizing the entire Middle East by invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and which was bombed solely because AIPAC and other neo-conservatives wanted it bombed, with Democrats -- as  beholden to AIPAC as the Republicans -- going right along with it all (that war is what led to the rise of ISIS and the Muslim immigration that's about to destroy Europe);
I agree, but his stance towards Syria has not been promising. I feel like the war interests will get their day in his administration.

I was against what he did in Syria and even wrote to tell him so.
I'm not personally accusing you...I'm only pointing out his lack of adherence to the principles he claimed, and you're claiming, that he supports.  I don't trust him on the Middle Eastern issue.

Quote
Quote
* He's not afraid of Muslims and calls a spade a spade when it comes to Islam (which is NOT to say that there aren't wonderfully nice Muslims with natural virtue, which he obviously realizes. But it's a fact that Islam teaches violence, was spread by the sword from its inception, and that "the nice Muslims" are, in fact, "the bad Muslims" insofar as they are not practicing their religion as Mohammad did and as the Qur'an and Sunnah teach);
Okay. I'm not sure what the value is, though, of alienating "nice" Muslims. This kind of talk from a priest or bishop is inspiring, but from a president it might be foolish.

The value is not allowing people to be ignorant about orthodox Islam, protecting our country by not allowing it to be overrun by Muslims (esp. or at least unvetted ones), etc.
Okay...I'm not completely sold one way or another.  I agree people shouldn't be ignorant.  But in the real world, there are many Muslims who are not that dedicated.  Does it help if they become less ignorant?  Maybe they decide to be more devout, with dire consequences for the rest of us...

Quote
Quote
* He doesn't kowtow to Israel, a country that is the source of a good 90% of our foreign policy nightmares;
Doesn't he? He certainly talks a highly pro-Israel game.

Every President does.
So how is this a point in his favor?  If he does what every president does, and every president kowtows to Israel, isn't he kowtowing as well?  And if he does otherwise, why is he being inconsistent?  I don't find him trustworthy on the issue (I have no strong position on Israel...I don't see why it can't be treated as a country like any other...but nevertheless I would find a die-hard pro- or anti- Israel leader more consistent and trustworthy than one who talks out of both sides of his mouth about it.)


Quote
Quote
* He doesn't withstand bullies who try to take over his rallies (unlike Bernie Sanders who gives his microphone to BLM activists);
Good. Except his own bullying of others at his rallies (such as offering to pay the legal bills of those who assault protestors)

I consider that self-defense. Leftists showed up at Trump rallies to disrupt and commit violence against Trump supporters. All the time (and the media ignored it, even blaming Leftist violence on conservatives).
Yes, in San Jose the police stood by while protesters did violence to Trump supporters.  Nevertheless, it isn't "self defense" to encourage preemptive attacks on protesters.

Quote
Quote
* He's anti- the establishment Republicans who've done nothing to advance conservative causes;
Yes. And ISIS is anti-Assad. That doesn't mean they're our friends.

Obviously the enemy of our enemy isn't our friend, but establishment Republicans are our enemy. They've sold conservatism and this country out.
I agree.  I would never vote for any of them.

Quote
Quote
* He won't sell out European and European-derived people or brown-nose those who spew the "white privilege" nonsense;
He's perceived as a racist, which does a great deal to advance the "white privilege" nonsense. People who used to think it was stupid now take it seriously because Trump is such a convenient "racist."

He's perceived as such by idiots and those who believe what CNN, et al, are selling. People with minds know better.
Fine.  But idiots make up a huge percentage of the electorate.  We have to care what idiots think in a republic.

Quote
Quote
* He, unlike any other candidate, talks about the treatment of Christians in the Middle East and Africa, etc.
Good.

Quote
* He wants to rehaul government to get rid of the incredible amounts of waste that goes on, deal with the money that gets sucked up by bureaucracy, etc.;
He wants to. Any results yet? I agree this is good though.

He killed TPP, which would've been a regulatory bureaucratic nightmare. Ditto the Paris Accord. He's cut our debt by 68 billion after it had grown to $19,947 billion under Obama. He's cut all sorts of wasteful, ineffective government spending.
Well, good. (I disagree on the Paris Accord, but that is a simple scientific issue.  If Trump has reasons to disagree with the scientific consensus, and turns out to be right, then he was right to pull out of the Accord.  I do think a Catholic president would have been morally obligated to follow Laudato si on this matter, however.

Quote
Quote
* He knows exactly how "the game" is played and speaks very openly about having bought off politicians in order to succeed in accomplishing business goals (and one of the politicos he'd bought off is Hillary!). He's a businessman who outsources some of his stuff on the industrial side because he can't compete without doing so -- and he hates it, talks about it, and wants to fix it.  He's knows the game because, as a businessman, he's played it -- and plays it yet -- but wants to CHANGE that game because he sees how unjust and ridiculous and harmful to America it all is.
I don't think he does.  He has been rather ineffective so far.

He's been very effective. The media lie, but that doesn't mean HE is ineffective. The media are run by haters of Truth; they lie, and nothing a Truth-teller does will change that.
Okay...but again, people who believe what they are told make up a huge percentage of the electorate.  Perception matters, and if he can't turn around the perception of ineffectiveness he might as well have been ineffective.

Quote
Quote
* He wants to get rid of Common Core;
Common Core is a massive improvement over what came before.  I'm a teacher of a traditionalist bent: I have far more ability and justification to teach logic, analysis, and argumentation skills than I did under the old standards. Now, some idiots have terribly misunderstood and poorly implemented them, but the standards themselves are much better than the old standards.

I prefer getting rid of the Department of Education and leaving all that to the individual States. Trump wants all that bureaucracy gone as well.
I agree.  The Common Core, however, was developed by and implemented by the states, however.  That is why some states are not using them.  I would prefer these things be handled locally.  But the standards themselves are much better written than, at least, the old California standards.  And they have improved instruction in English greatly, from what I have observed.  In math they're more of a problem, though.

Quote
Quote
* He isn't afraid of the Teacher's Union, a VERY big deal if you care about the state of our public schools;
This is much more complex than some people think. It is usually administrators who want to impose left-wing, lowest-common-denominator programs. For all its faults, it is the union that protects my ability to teach authentic, logical thinking.

Your union is too powerful. Education needs to be handled at the State level.
I agree.  Now, I am a member of a local union.  It is a member of the state union, which in turn is a member of the national union.  It is only my local union that actually does anything to help or protect me.  I'm absolutely opposed to the national and state unions' endorsements of candidates, etc.  But there is a purpose for unions, especially in education.  It would be so difficult to teach well if we were constantly risking our jobs.

Quote
Quote
* He has no desire to have the U.S. play "World Cop" and get involved in endless wars we have no business being in;
Except when he's bombing Syria.

I agree about Syria.
:)

Quote
Quote
* He's a decent father. His kids seem relatively well-adjusted, industrious, sane, etc. -- and I think that says a lot about him as a man;
The divorces and adultery hardly scream "good father."  Nor does making sexual comments about his own daughter.

The proof is in Donald, Jr. And he never made sexual comments about his own daughter. Again, TURN OFF THE CNN.
I don't watch CNN...I did see that story all over though.  It seemed to fit my image of him so perfectly that I was willing to believe it.  I still don't know if it's true or not, but I'm willing to withdraw that statement.  I'm still convinced his divorces and adultery disqualify him from the "good father" category.

Quote
Quote
* Personally, he's a very generous man who gives a lot to others as individuals and through charities (see /
Okay. I'm glad to hear it. I hope he does good things with his money.

Quote
* He's been extremely consistent, naming the same problems America's been facing, and the same solutions to those problems, for at least the past 20 years. See, for ex., these: 
Yes, and I do defend him on this point. He has been consistent. He is not the liberal flip-flopped some people portray him as.

Quote
* He, also unlike any other candidate, explicitly talks about protecting Christianity here in the U.S.; (that might not mean much to the secular-minded, but religion as a cultural and moral force can't be downplayed or mocked, even from a strictly secular point of view. To go about this from a purely secular view, religion keeps people in line and, if they're doing it right, doing the right things. Most people aren't that bright, and if they can't refrain, say, from murder for other reasons, they might think twice if they think they'd go to Hell for it. Religion is a cultural force that orders society, and without it, societies get totally messed-up. For examples of atheist socities, see what happened under the atheistic rules of Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, et al,)
Again, blowback.

Really, just stop. Christians either rise up or cower. I am not going to cower. And tradition is coming back, as is conservatism. Dr. Jordan Peterson, Rebel Media, etc., etc., are HUGE phenomena. This is the internet generation; turn off the CNN and see what's going on.
Again, I don't watch CNN and I I don't believe that tradition or conservatism are coming back.  Perhaps tradition will come back within the Church, as it grows smaller and smaller and fewer liberals go into the priesthood.  As for conservatism, when has it ever come back?  And when did the internet become a vehicle for conservatism?  What I see is more and more people drawing a radical leftist agenda from Tumblr and Twitter.

I am not advising anyone to cower.  I guess the situation is this (by analogy): we're in a tent, and a bear has just come in.  It will eat us if we aren't careful.  I'm advising that we avoid angering the bear while we find a better position from which to fight it (strategically gather support, increase the number of Catholics in America, etc.).  Perhaps most of you think that we have a gun that will work against the bear, or that the rangers are nearby and will come soon, and that we can fight the bear ourselves.  I'm not convinced we have access to the tools needed.

Quote
Quote
* He's much, much more of a uniter than anyone else running is. His supporters are much more diverse ideologically and ethnically/racially than the media want you to know;

    a) The people who voted for Cruz = white Evangelical Israel-worshipers

    b) The people who vote for Bernie = very young progressive types who are (very understandably) fed up with their bleak prospects and the costs of higher education, but who don't have a good understanding of what socialism entails or even of the idea that "ain't nothing 'free'" .

    c) The people who vote for Hillary = womyn (spelled thus purposefully), black people who take orders from Jesse Jackson, Democrat Or Bust Types, prog men, and gay men.

    d) The people who vote from Trump = people of all types. The white poor, the Middle Class, Blacks who've broken away from the Democrat Plantation, Hispanics who don't want to compete for jobs with new immigrants from South of the Border. The media love to push the idea that Trump voters are angry, uneducated lily-white people, but it's a lie.  A few links to set THAT record straight: http://www.attn.com/stories/6291/trump-super-tuesday-voters-are-educated; https://www.datalounge.com/thread/16801294-the-economist-%E2%80%98myth%E2%80%99-that-uneducated-poor-voters-support-donald-trump; and https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224?page=5.  An excerpt from that last article -- an article written by someone who LOATHES Trump, using against him the standard spiel ("tyrant," "crazy," "authoritarian," "con man," etc.), but who had to admit, my emphasis:
Quote
        Trump has a chokehold on somewhere between 25 and 40 percent of the Republican vote, scoring in one poll across every category: young and old, educated and less so, hardcore conservatives and registered Democrats, with men and with women, Megyn Kelly's "wherever" notwithstanding. Trump the Builder of Anti-Rapist Walls even earns an estimated 25 percent of the GOP Latino vote.
 
        Moreover, there's evidence that human polling undercounts Trump's votes, as people support him in larger numbers when they don't have to admit their leanings to a live human being. Like autoerotic asphyxiation, supporting Donald Trump is an activity many people prefer to enjoy in a private setting, like in a shower or a voting booth. [Vox:  And the reason why there are some people who won't openly admit to supporting Trump but who'd vote for him is precisely this sort of article. The media HATE the guy, lie about the guy, twist his words, put a negative spin on any little thing, etc., and it's the media types who let everyone know what's "cool." No one wants to be "uncool." So if they're Trump supporters who are lacking in balls -- or who have a job to lose -- they just shut up and vote quietly.]
I agree to an extent: a wide variety voted for him. But I believe they will fall apart and be separately conquered by left wing identity politics.

Quote
* The excitement among his supporters is a great thing. The "average Joe" types are having a sense of hope once again, a crucial point, and something "the average Joe," a member of the Middle Class, desperately needs;
Joe needs a job, not just an exciting candidate.

Exxon, Hasbro, Samsung, Carrier, etc., etc. -- lots of companies are coming back or changing their minds about leaving the country. Coal is back. The Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines are a go.  NFIB Small Business Optimism Index is at the highest level since 2004. Killing off the Paris Accord and TPP saved us from economic ruin. Confidence in our economy is surging.

Quote
* He's ticking off the exact right people, assuming all of this isn't really well-done political theater. If what seems to be true is true, the powers that be are terrified of his getting elected. That, in itself, is enough to make me want to vote for him. Think about it:  the richest sellers-out-of-the-US oligarchs gathered on Sea Island, riding in on their 54 Lear jets, wanting to come up with a plan to stop him ( http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/09/huffpos-grim-54-private-jets-at-meeting-to-stop-trump/ ). The media don't stop trying to destroy him, telling lie after lie (e.g., he has a peaceful rally, then leftists show up and are nasty and violent, the headlines read "More Violence at Trump Rally", with the journalists intimating that it's the Trump-voters who are the violent ones). Watching the Social Justice Warrior types implode, lapse into literal hysteria, is a joy to behold by the likes of me, a paleocon who's endured, all of her life, watching conservatives lose every single "culture war" battle that's come up. Every single time (which removes "randomness" from the equation)
I think it's political theater. They would prefer Clinton. But I think they can make Trump work for them.

Not working out that way so far.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Quote
Quote
If what seems to be true is true, then the Zionists lose. The 1% loses, the Evangelical "Israel Uber Alles" types lose. The hawks lose. The insanely politically correct lose. The "Make America Mexico Again" La Raza people lose. The fake hate crime-creating Black Lives Matter ("and no one else's does, and it's "racist" to believe differently") people lose. The folks in Beverly Hills lose in that they'd have to pay more money to an American than they'd pay to an illegal immigrant to clean their pools (couldn't you just cry thinking of their pain?!?).
Mexico, at least, is a mostly Catholic country. More than you can say for the United States. If every Protestant in this country were replaced by a foreign Catholic, maybe we could actually implement Catholic teaching.

Mexicans come up  here and turn Protestant. But aside from that, there's more to immigration than just religion, and the Good of the U.S. has to come first.
Yes, Mexicans do come here and betray their faith and their people by becoming Protestants.  However, not all of them leave.  There certainly are some who remain Catholic.  And I simply can't comprehend the idea that loyalty to the Church could come after loyalty to one's country.  What do I have to do with a Mormon or a Protestant, just because they are American?  A Mexican Catholic shares (in theory) all of my beliefs and values.  There was a time when being a Catholic in America was unthinkable: then the Irish and Germans and Poles and Czechs, etc., came to America, and it was no longer unthinkable.  If America is going to be a Catholic country, it will have to come from the addition of Catholics...yes, hopefully we can convert Americans as well, but conversations are not all that common.

Quote
Quote
And who wins? If Congress stays out of his way and goes with what he's wanting, here's who wins: The U.S. as a whole. The Middle Class. People who want jobs -- and who don't want to compete for them with people who are here illegally and willing to work for an amount of money that Americans can't accept while maintaining their standard of living (seriously, READ THIS ARTICLE:  US Companies to Employees: ‘You’re Fired – Now Train Your Much Cheaper Foreign Replacement’: http://freedomoutpost.com/us-companies-to-employees-youre-fired-now-train-your-much-cheaper-foreign-replacement/ )  People who want to start their own businesses. Doctors and nurses who work at hospitals that'd otherwise be shut down because the costs of caring for illegals force it : http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/healthcare_09.pdf?docID=3521 (PDF file). Humor and chillaxing win, as does the restoration of hope in a people who want to live in a country that is united, who are sick to death of the ugly identity politics crap that's polluting our discourse and academia, and who are fed up with being sold out and sold down the river by those who've sold their souls to lobbyists.
And this is why illegal immigrants should be paid better! Compete on a level playing field, not against people who are at an unfair "advantage" in seeking jobs.

Illegal immigrants shouldn't be paid at all in this country; they're illegal and belong in their home countries or in jail.
If you want to get rid of illegal immigrants, pay them the same as you would an American.  If you did that, then Americans would be willing and able to take those jobs.  At present, illegal immigrants are needed.  They are the backbone of the economy in my area: without them, much of the country would starve.  There is literally no way to replace illegal immigrant labor in time to avoid massive loss to the food supply.  Perhaps you could, eventually, replace those laborers.  I'm not denying that possibility.  But you couldn't do it instantly.  It would take years to create the necessary incentives and infrastructure to move unemployed Americans into fieldwork.


Quote
Quote
* He isn't Lying Hillary
I agree: that's my favorite thing about him. Unfortunately, he is lying, cheating, groping Donald.

Not seeing the lying, cheating, or groping you are. He groped and cheated in the past (women who LET him), but that's the past.
[/quote]
He said they "let" him.  So he did it, and they didn't stop him.  Can you imagine the terror they must have felt?  A rich, powerful man grabbed them inappropriately.  He probably had his security guards nearby.  He has lawyers and money and the ability to ruin them financially and personally if they speak up.  So they "let" him.  Notice he doesn't say they asked him to, he doesn't say they grab him, he doesn't say "women are throwing themselves at me"...he takes the fact that women don't stop him to mean that they are okay with whatever he does to them.  I will accept the possibility that there were some who genuinely were okay with it...but does that matter?  Unless you actually know that they are okay with it, how can you justify doing that kind of thing?
"I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ — though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory." -J.R.R. Tolkien

"I know quite well that, to you as to me, the Church which once felt like a refuge, now often feels like a trap. There is nowhere else to go! (I wonder if this desperate feeling, the last state of loyally hanging on, was not, even more often than is actually recorded in the Gospels, felt by Our Lord’s followers in His earthly life-time?) I think there is nothing to do but pray, for the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and for ourselves; and meanwhile to exercise the virtue of loyalty, which indeed only becomes a virtue when one is under pressure to desert it." -J.R.R. Tolkien

"There is none so blind as he who will not agree with me." -someone else

Roger Buck

  • Gold Fish
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 688
  • Total likes: 96
  • Country: 00
  • Gender: Male
  • New book! - The Gentle Traditionalist
    • Cor Jesu Sacratissimum.org
Re: Trump: Bad Hombre
« Reply #108 on: June 19, 2017, 11:25:am »
Whoa. I hardly ever get involved in these long debates at FE because 1) I just don't have time and 2) I am really so ignorant and out of touch with so much that is being said in a thread like this focussed on American politics that I can't comment intelligently.

Still, I read much of this thread and also watched a good chunk of both the Paul Watson videos, something I also don't usually get the opportunity to do.

And ignorant as I am, I will struggle to say some things. Watson's style is not quite my "cup of tea". To those who know my books, I'm obviously more in favour of a "Gentle Traditionalist" approach.

HOWEVER ... I am grateful to ANYONE who is so clearly awake to the horror, ugliness and danger, sheer, sheer danger of popular culture.

And I am most encouraged by the idea in what he says that the youngest generation is different.

Also encouraged by what you say Vox in writing things like:

As a female, I can tell you that women like and want strong men -- even the feminists who don't even realize that about themselves. Feminism is DYING a big, hard, nasty death. Even Laci Green got "red-pilled" about that.

NO idea who Laci Green is and I have only recently learned what being "red-pilled" means!  :)  But I am intrigued indeed by this. Would be very grateful for more about this - links etc.



Really, just stop. Christians either rise up or cower. I am not going to cower. And tradition is coming back, as is conservatism. Dr. Jordan Peterson, Rebel Media, etc., etc., are HUGE phenomena. This is the internet generation; turn off the CNN and see what's going on.


Ignorant as I am, I have to say I really don't know how much "Generation Z" may be different, or feminism is dying in such a big way or tradition is coming back ...

Which is one reason why - only one! - that I really value this forum. All this gives me real reason to hope. I think you Vox have your finger on the pulse of so much that escapes many people's attention, very much including mine!

Moreover, the last two years have left me with more hope than I have had in years. I really did see us completely, completely STRANGLED by corporate-Leftist culture. But I do see the stranglehold is not quite what I thought, although it remains very, very dangerous, of course.

Thanks to this forum I really do find encouragement and hope. Also want to say hurrah for the call not to cower! This is SO important.

Would very much like to hear any more at all about the death of feminism, renewed tradition amongst the young, etc etc.

Click here to see my books at Amazon worldwide:





And see my new YOUTUBE CHANNEL here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl4-9CzVADQRKnS9-FZvu2Q

Vox Clamantis

  • Marta's Human
  • Forum Owner
  • Member
  • Posts: I am a geek!!
  • Total likes: 1326
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Female
Re: Trump: Bad Hombre
« Reply #109 on: June 19, 2017, 09:06:pm »
He said they "let" him.  So he did it, and they didn't stop him.  Can you imagine the terror they must have felt?  A rich, powerful man grabbed them inappropriately.  He probably had his security guards nearby.  He has lawyers and money and the ability to ruin them financially and personally if they speak up.  So they "let" him.  Notice he doesn't say they asked him to, he doesn't say they grab him, he doesn't say "women are throwing themselves at me"...he takes the fact that women don't stop him to mean that they are okay with whatever he does to them.  I will accept the possibility that there were some who genuinely were okay with it...but does that matter?  Unless you actually know that they are okay with it, how can you justify doing that kind of thing?

LOL "Terror"? At having a man make a move on you? Honey, that happens all the time when you're young and cute. It's not "terrifying." And I'd bet good money that women were all the time throwing themselves at him. That's what a lot of women do around rich, powerful, and/or famous men. My gosh, almost 50 years after Jim Morrison died, there's a veritable industry of women writing books about their fling with the guy, with one of them claiming to have been his one, true love, his wife even -- something she's been literally obsessed with for a half a century.

And, trust me, no woman wants to ask a man to grab them, kiss them, seduce them, make a move, etc., and no woman wants to hear a man ask for permission. That is about the least sexy thing a man can do. Of course, no man should be trying to seduce a woman unless he's married to her, but in the real world, that's not how things typically go, and women, religious or not, are very aware of how the world works.

Women are grown-ups. If a man makes a move, they can put an end to it unless he's a rapist who can and is willing to overpower her, and most men aren't felons like that. Most guys will take what you allow them to take, but no more, and I'd bet that not many rapists would go around raping chicks with security guards nearby. That's just silly.

As to your question, "Unless you actually know that they are okay with it, how can you justify doing that kind of thing", I don't "justify" it. Sex should be kept inside marriage. But as to how the secular world goes, that's how men get women into bed. They make a move. Chick either likes it or not. And when a man is rich, famous, and/or powerful, there are tons of women who like it just fine.
 
Matthew 22:36-39: "Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."


Subscription Options:

One-time Donations: