US Presidential election 2016

Trump or Clinton. The only difference is one is a socialist and the other a dictator. Same end result I am afraid.

 

I might have gotten the numbers slightly wrong, they were from memory. But a very recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showed Trump with the lowest favorability rating ever recorded (a net -39) Along with that, 67% of voters said they couldn't see themselves supporting Trump.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-where-have-all-popular-candidates-gone-n535756

 

No, Trump is not a dictator. Where did you ever get that crazy notion from?

Obama is a dictator.

Those that are violently protesting Trump's candidacy are the dictators.

The Establishment is the Dictator for attacking our democratic process and threatening Trump.

 

If the RNC acts like a Tyrant and refuses to honor the democratic process and the will of the voters, then they have set themselves up as Dictator. If the RNC really is this corrupt and tyrannical, then Trump will be fully justified to run third party.

 

How, exactly, has Trump shown himself to be a dictator? I would be far more concerned about people lining up with George Soros to oppose him. You might as well vote for Clinton as the devil you know rather than a puppet whose strings are being pulled by backroom devils.

 

Well, if he gets the majority of the delegates, I don't see how the RNC could deny him the nomination. If he only gets a plurality (more than anyone else but less than half), it is not his right to claim the nomination. There is an initial vote, and before this vote, Trump could try to convince unbound delegates to support him in order to reach the magical 1237 delegates. If this fails, it becomes a brokered convention, where the delegates at the convention are free to vote for whomever they wish, and the various candidates vie for their support. If the convention reaches this phase, Trump is unlikely to prevail. It is unclear who would - my guess is Cruz.

 

If the RNC is stupid enough to deny Trump the nomination, then they will have split the Party and Hillary will be the next President and the RNC will be guilty of all the evil that Hillary and the liberal Supreme Court will set out to achieve. I credit Trump for helping to expose the true intentions and principles of the power brokers in the Republican Party.

I already earlier cited the 116 GOP elites who vowed to withdraw support for Trump with some even vowing to vote for Hillary. And now I am learning that top anti-Trump Republicans will meet in Washington DC on Thursday to plot a third party run. The meeting was organized by RedState founder Erick Erickson who has vowed to never vote for Trump – even if it means a Hillary Clinton presidency: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...y-on-how-to-stop-trump-or-run-as-third-party/

I credit Trump's run for bringing out into the open what I long suspected about many of the power brokers in the Republican Party and "Conservative" movement: they don't give a damn about Pro-Life issues as evidenced by the fact that they would rather vote for Hillary than Trump.

 

The NYT tackles this issue today. Looks like they feel he has open path to the required number of candidates.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ruz-kasich-republican-delegate-lead.html?_r=0

 

This would not be the RNC - it is the elected delegates who would decide - sure some of them will be the GOP elite, but the vast majority will not. I would not be voting for Trump either. He has no solid pro-life credentials, and his character in my opinion is deeply unsuited for the Presidency. I will not vote for Hillary either. For myself, it won't make any difference one way or another. My state would probably vote Dem even if the GOP put up the second coming of Ronald Reagan. With Trump, my state will be won by Hillary by 10+ points, maybe 20.

I agree with Erick Erickson about the formation of a viable third party, though I am not so sure that the party that they may form would be the party I'd be looking for. I totally agree that many of the GOP power brokers don't care about pro-life. That has been known for a long time. My connection with the GOP is only tenuous at this point, and if Trump wins the nomination, I'll be officially out of the party. I certainly won't vote Dem - I'll just be politically homeless. I was barely able to bring myself to vote for Romney, and Trump is more of the same (barely conservative at all, no pro-life credentials other than claimed recent "conversion", and rich East Coast elitist) but even worse. That's what's so weird. The voters are mad about someone like Romney being put up, and then they put up someone who is probably to the left of Romney on most issues and with Narcissistic Personality Disorder to boot.

Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point...

 

With the help of the forum we were a couple steps ahead of NYT in figuring this out. Just without the percentages.

 

It is possible, but it will probably come down to whether he can win California or not.

 

Once the international bankers (and NWO elite) got your back it doesn't matter what the people want. They buy both sides to control the outcome. Hillary is a neocon disguised as a democrat and she will do what she is told by the elite. Nothing changes on election day, continued wars, more debt slavery, expanded police state, loss of rights and privacy.....I am surprised so many Catholics even care about elections, your vote is meaningless. It is now a facade to make you feel like you have some control over what happens. If, by some long shot the people actually elected who they wanted the official has 2 choices, follow the NWO plan or start counting your days.

The bankers will NEVER give up control and this is why career criminal Hillary will become president.

The systemic fraud is written in the laws, personal contribution limit $2,700. In 2010, the court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts independently on political campaigns


For 24 years Bill and Hillary Clinton have courted Wall Street money with notable success. During that time the New York banks contributed:


* $11.17 million to Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992.


*$28.37 million for his re-election in 1996.


*$2.13 million to Hillary Clinton’s senatorial campaign in 2002.


*$6.02 million for her re-election in 2006.


*$14.61 million to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008.


*$21.42 million to her 2016 campaign.


The total here is $83.72 million for the six campaigns,i ii disbursed from eleven congenial banks: Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, UBS, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo, Barclay’s, JP Morgan Chase, CIBC, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, and Morgan Stanley.

 

I suspect you have the truth of it here.

 

They haven't (yet) managed to buy the self-financing maverick, Trump, hence the brouhaha.

 

Or we are unaware of it, at least. Many have posited that he is in the race just to give it to his friend's, the Clintons.

 

Possibly. Or he just might like to be the president. If only, to take a base interpretation, to satisfy his ego-better than being a puppet of anonymous elites. It is stretching things overly to conceive a conspiracy in which his candidacy is a ruse to present the office to Clinton, while all the while her supporters in the media and her right-liberal allies in the Republican establishment smear him with the most outrageous and unjust labels even as Trump lands the only decent hits on Clinton herself and most particularly her husband. I can't see any of the other politically-correct pussies and wussies on the Republican side, who haven't even the guts not to equivocate on the Soros fascism, having an earthly hope against a Clinton wholly and partly backed by the respective political establishments and completely so by almost the entire mainstream media.

 

I will have no problem turning on Trump if he slips up while in office.

 

A Catholic Apology to Trump & His Voters
Posted By Marjorie Murphy Campbell on Mar 15, 2016

The God of Abraham asks us to turn our face outward to the world, recognising His image even in the people who are not in our image, whose faith is not mine, whose colour and culture are not mine, yet whose humanity is as God-given and consecrated as mine. ~Jonathan Sacks

On March 7, 2016, prominent Catholics Robert P. George and George Weigel published in the National Review “An Appeal to Our Fellow Catholics” to “reject [Donald Trump’s] candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination.” As a fellow Catholic to whom this appeal was addressed, I respond in this open letter, apologizing for both the purpose and language of this published piece.

While Professor George and Mr. Weigel opened their letter with a noncontroversial (if incomplete) statement of Catholic priorities, and a more questionable embrace of the Republican Party, they immediately shifted, not to a candidate-by-candidate, reasoned analysis, but to a direct and hostile attack on one candidate, Donald J. Trump. With no factual support for their assertion that Trump’s appeal rests upon racism and ethnic prejudice, George and Weigel fashioned a personal, conclusory, name-calling hit piece on this candidate whose voter base constitutes a culture distinct from the more polished, elite world in which the authors live.

Sadly, these authors cursorily urged Catholics to reject Trump’s candidacy because he is “manifestly unfit to be president of the United States” and because of “his vulgarity, oafishness, shocking ignorance.”

Many Catholics, myself included, were dismayed that these respected Catholic intellectuals drew upon the sort of language they disapprove of in the candidate Trump. This alone warrants an apology. I wish to assure candidate Trump and his voters that Catholics generally are called upon by Gospel and church law to respect people whose differences we might not understand and to treat all persons with dignity, even people with whom we most strongly disagree or don’t understand.

The Catholic laity is held to a higher standard than mere avoidance of hypocrisy. Our church law, and letters and directives from our popes, exhort us to engage our work in a manner that serves as ‘witness to Christ throughout the world.” (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, 1965). This fundamental mission entails concern and care for the dignity of every person, not merely the promotion of the church as institution and enforcement of Catholic principles via legislation and political mandate.

The dignity of every individual includes good reputation. Catholics are admonished to avoid name-calling, gossip and other harm to a person’s reputation in the community. Canon 220 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides:

“No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses or to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.”

These rights inhere in “the exceptional dignity which belongs to the human person.” (Gaudium et spes, 1965). There is no exception to this Catholic precept because an individual says something “vulgar” or behaves awkwardly or selfishly – or because a person supports a candidate who speaks to them in familiar sentiments and language. To the contrary, one’s protection against intentional harm to his or her reputation by others is embedded as a right in their very humanity.

Catholics can – and should – take action in the world to witness Christ and the fundamental principles of our faith. We may act to “protect both the common good … and the Church itself … even though [we] might thereby damage someone’s reputation.” (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 2000). Thus, for example, Church penalties are imposed publicly for wrongful behavior only as a last resort and Church law admonishes that “care must be taken so that the good name of anyone is not endangered.” (Canon 1717, sec. 2).

The concern for reputation imposes on all Catholics an obligation to avoid intentional attacks and harm to another in favor of rational dialogue, critique and even correction. Deal Hudson’s essay “Will Pro-life Catholics Vote for Donald Trump?” models how Catholics can and should dialogue with respect to all candidates. Professor George and Mr. Weigel could have, similarly, offered an analysis to fellow Catholics of their perspective of Catholic political priorities and how each of the Republican candidates might further such priorities, or not.

Their piece, however, was not a factual, reasoned analysis supportive of substantive conclusions; rather, their letter was a perfunctory, verbal assault to harm candidate Trump’s reputation. Notably, they also cast shame and intimidation on any Catholic who might consider voting for Trump with assertions that anyone of “genuinely Catholic sensibility” would agree with their attack.

Accusing a public figure (and, by extension, his supporters) of being oafish, vulgar, ignorant and unfit is language reserved for those anxious to express hostility and tarnish the reputation of the targeted individual. This is language which, I daresay, no ordained person would ever use with respect to another person; nor should any Catholic lay person.

Finally, the authors conclude with one final insult. They accuse Trump of demagoguery, adding for emphasis, “we do not hesitate to use the word.” Demagoguery – “an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side” – implicates the candidate as well as every one of the candidate’s supporters. Lest fellow Catholics miss their point, the authors urge a rejection not just of Trump but of those people who are supporting him. Such people, George and Weigel insist, are making emotional and prejudicial decisions, without reason or analysis.

I find this seemingly class-based bias most shocking of all. Are we to understand that the NASCAR, blue collar crowd’s objection to the apparent export and loss of their jobs; their objection to illegal immigration – that they believe is forcing down the wages of the jobs they do have, but fueling profits of big business; their objection to Free Trade — that they believe is gutting small town America, while fattening Wall Street; their objection to the exorbitant cost of health care and the phase out of benefits; their objection to the denigration of their sons and daughters who have served in the military, bled, and died … that these objections clearly articulated and addressed by candidate Trump are merely fears, prejudices and emotions? Are we to understand that their support of Trump is therefore without rational basis?

It is hard to fathom a more stinging insult to the dignity of Trump’s voter base. This base undoubtedly includes many practicing Catholics who, in trying to meet basic needs and protect and provide for their families in a climate the working class perceives as hostile, rejoice in finally having some voice in the political process and hope for their future. As Republican Kurt Schlichter recently wrote of the “Donaldites” at Townhall.com:

Immigration and free trade are generally good, but they impose real costs and our base is getting handed the bill. These folks have been asking us for help, and what was our response? Shut up, stupid racists.”

It is embarrassing that prominent Catholic voices have joined this chorus.

Mr. Trump, I do not know for whom I am going to vote. I have not personally determined the extent to which you will promote the Catholic values I cherish, though other Catholics believe our faith is consistent with support of your candidacy.

What I do know is that I am ashamed of the personal attack on you and your base by my fellow Catholics.

I apologize.

http://www.thechristianreview.com/a-catholic-apology-to-trump-his-voters/

 

Personally I am convinced that the Republican establishment will be happy to "throw" the election and lose it rather than have Trump as the candidate. Either by denying him the candidacy or funding an independent to run against him and split the Republican vote.

They want to preserve their power base more than they want the presidency. There is a lot of money and power at stake here should they lose control of the party to someone who is not beholden to anyone.

 

Ok, I can't wait any more...I gotta say this, and am surprised that no one else has said this yet...what if the warning happens and Hillary has a massive conversion and Trump remains a skeptic? Hillary is a woman and will be perhaps profoundly disturbed by her illumination...and could likely become a huge pro-lifer after the warning. Trump, well, I think he is listening to old Stan on his left shoulder and am not sure that the warning will affect him in the same way. I DON'T like Hillary now, but what if? I hope Charlie is right because I so don't want either of them in office, but if the warning happens this year before the elections it will change EVERYTHING, including the current candidates ...... just sayin'.