Trump 5: Coming up trumps

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, Cleopatra7 said:

However, I did read some conservative Catholics defend Trump by pointing out the Church's support for fascist dictators in the 20th century, which is also astonishing, as if they're trying to fulfill all the negative pre-Vatican II stereotypes about Catholics (to be fair, I'd seen this kind of talk before Trump, but it was always with regard to other countries, not the US). Man, it's too early in the morning for me to be thinking about this.

Where have you read this? Yikes.  

 

[GreyhoundFan]

25 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Where have you read this? Yikes.  

 

I remember this from last year. 

An excerpt:

Quote

Pius XI began to see at least the possibility that Mussolini might be the person sent by God - a man of providence, as he would later refer to him as - who would reverse all that, who would end the separation of church and state, restore many of the prerogatives of the church. And at the same time as the pope was very worried about the rising socialist movement, again in the wake of the Russian revolution, and saw Mussolini as the man who was the best bet, perhaps, to prevent a socialist takeover of Italy.

 

[RoseWilder]

There was a discussion earlier in this thread where someone was saying they were worried that Clinton supporters just aren't answering their phones for surveys, but I can't seem to find the post so I can quote it. 

Most survey's factor that sort of thing in (the good ones do anyway.) They poll a certain number of Republicans and Democrats. So it's not a situation where if a Democrat doesn't answer the phone then they just substitute a Republican instead, or vice versa. At least the good polls do. Fivethirtyeight gives polls grades - based on how accurate they were in the past and whether or not they have oversampled Republicans or Democrats, etc. 

So I don't think you have to worry about Clinton supporters being undersampled in the quality polls. But even Fox News Polls (which tend to oversample Republicans are showing Clinton ahead by a lot.) 

Also, the polls generally say at the end that the results could vary by 2 to 3 points in either direction because they're trying to factor in any possible variable that might affect the results. But Hillary Clinton is still ahead by quote a bit even if you factor in 2 or 3 extra points for Trump. 

I can't seem to find the article now, but a day or two ago I read on Daily Kos that Hillary Clinton was doing so well in the polls that even if Trump caught up by 5 points nationally (which if extremely unlikely to happen given that the election is less than 3 weeks away) that Trump would still lose. I will try to find that article later and post it.  

[Palimpsest]

6 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I remember this from last year. 

An excerpt:

 

Yes, thanks.  I know that book.   It's pretty common knowledge that Pius XI was either in completely bed with or at the very least sold out to and failed to protest (depending on your POV) Mussolini.  He also signed a Concordat with the Nazi regime.  Individual Catholics did fight the Nazi regime but certainly not the leadership.

I meant where did Cleopatra read stuff about present day American Catholics justifying supporting Trump because the Catholic Church supported Fascists in the past.

Pope John Paul II did a rather half-hearted apology for inaction during the Holocaust in the late '90s.  Most Catholics I know think it is blot on the history of the church - and that Pius XI should be abhorred.

[AuntK]

The evangelical right do not understand Hillary's position on abortion. I think I do, because I think it mirrors mine because what she said in the 3rd debate about this being an intensely PERSONAL decision that the government has no business getting involved in, is how I feel. I consider myself pro-life, but whether another woman decides that an abortion is the choice for her, who am I to second-guess her?

I also believe being pro-life means providing good medical care, health insurance, education, child care, it doesn't just stop at BIRTH, pro-life to me means supporting every SEASON of life, including children, teens, adults and the elderly.

I have friends who have gotten abortions and it was not an easy choice for any of them, it was agonizing and heart-wrenching, but it was their decision, not mine. I think most people would like to see fewer abortions and perhaps with better educational opportunities, better health care, and improved child care, it could happen! Or maybe I'm just a cock-eyed optimist!

 

[GreyhoundFan]

19 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Yes, thanks.  I know that book.   It's pretty common knowledge that Pius XI was either in completely bed with or at the very least sold out to and failed to protest (depending on your POV) Mussolini.  He also signed a Concordat with the Nazi regime.  Individual Catholics did fight the Nazi regime but certainly not the leadership.

I meant where did Cleopatra read stuff about present day American Catholics justifying supporting Trump because the Catholic Church supported Fascists in the past.

Pope John Paul II did a rather half-hearted apology for inaction during the Holocaust in the late '90s.  Most Catholics I know think it is blot on the history of the church - and that Pius XI should be abhorred.

Sorry, I misunderstood!

Most of the American Catholics I know (and I'm Catholic, though have normally voted with the Dems) have either decided not to vote or are leaning towards Hillary. I find it sad that so many people think one single issue (abortion) is the only reason to support or oppose a candidate. I prefer to look at the overall picture.

[Cleopatra7]

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

Where have you read this? Yikes.  

 

Quote

With regard to Trump’s purported Fascism. It should go without saying that Fascism is a lesser evil than Communism, and is capable of advancing the Common Good (e.g., the Spanish Falange, the Kataeb Party). The Church can dialogue with Fascism (Lateran Treaty); it can do nothing with Communism as it is Rerum Novarum). The last point could equally apply to Hilary Clinton’s Liberalism.

https://vox-nova.com/2016/08/03/a-response-to-my-post-on-trump/

The reference to "Hilary [sic] Clinton's Liberalism" is probably an oblique reference to the famous book by 19th century Spanish priest Félix Sardà y Salvany "Liberalism is a Sin," which is a favorite among some traditionalists, which you can read in its entirety online:

http://www.liberalismisasin.com/

[Palimpsest]

2 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Sorry, I misunderstood!

Most of the American Catholics I know (and I'm Catholic, though have normally voted with the Dems) have either decided not to vote or are leaning towards Hillary. I find it sad that so many people think one single issue (abortion) is the only reason to support or oppose a candidate. I prefer to look at the overall picture.

Exactly.  I admit that I know very few rabid Republicans or rabidly pro-life people personally.  I only hang out with moderates.  Even though I know lots of Christians (of different denominations) most of them do not see abortion as the only issue.  Even my sister-in-law the Catholic nun is strongly Democratic, pro-choice and pro-contraception.  But I suppose she is a rather radical nun.  

21 minutes ago, AuntK said:

I consider myself pro-life, but whether another woman decides that an abortion is the choice for her, who am I to second-guess her?

Unfortunately, the rabid pro-lifers have always tried to misrepresent pro-choice as being "pro-indiscriminate abortions."  It is really not the same thing.  I think you describe yourself as pro-life - but also as pro-choice there.

[Childless]

23 minutes ago, AuntK said:

The evangelical right do not understand Hillary's position on abortion. I think I do, because I think it mirrors mine because what she said in the 3rd debate about this being an intensely PERSONAL decision that the government has no business getting involved in, is how I feel. I consider myself pro-life, but whether another woman decides that an abortion is the choice for her, who am I to second-guess her?

I also believe being pro-life means providing good medical care, health insurance, education, child care, it doesn't just stop at BIRTH, pro-life to me means supporting every SEASON of life, including children, teens, adults and the elderly.

I have friends who have gotten abortions and it was not an easy choice for any of them, it was agonizing and heart-wrenching, but it was their decision, not mine. I think most people would like to see fewer abortions and perhaps with better educational opportunities, better health care, and improved child care, it could happen! Or maybe I'm just a cock-eyed optimist!

 

I'm virulently pro-choice for the simple reason that no one and nothing has the right to use a person's body against their will.  Abortion should be legal for the same reason that it's illegal to force bone marrow donation (a procedure that also saves lives and is both less physically demanding and less time consuming than pregnancy).  I find it interesting that men find stripping of bodily autonomy abhorrent only when it involves them.

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, Scribber said:

Trump is a horrible man, but? He will overturn Roe V Wade (Hillary truly is a nasty woman, did you hear how she talked so casually about killing the babiez?)

The only two ways I am aware of to overturn Roe V Wade are:

1) Constitutional amendment 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

2) Having a new case about abortion come before the Supreme Court and a majority of the Justices overrule the previous decision.

I'll be kind and say that he's using shorthand to say that he believes that President Trump will present pro-life nominees to the Senate to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court to make the second option more likely. If he's betting on a Constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal again, the odds are heavily against that. 

I just hate the idea that some people seem to think that President Trump just shows up on January 20th and Roe V Wade immediately vanishes. If that were the case, then why haven't prior pro-life presidents gotten rid of Roe V Wade by now?

1 hour ago, AuntK said:

I didn't really understand the reasoning (if there was any), behind Trump's joke about Hillary "pretending not to hate Catholics."  WTH? She's been accused of a LOT of shit, but that's a new one. I guess because it was a Catholic dinner?   Boy, that "joke" BOMBED! WTH was he thinking? And look who's talking - the preferred candidate of the KKK, who REALLY hate Catholics, and Jews, and African-Americans and Hispanics, and smart women etc.!

He's referring to something in the emails that WikiLeaks released:

http://time.com/4528532/hillary-clinton-campaign-pushes-back-on-anti-catholic-charge/

34 minutes ago, AuntK said:

The evangelical right do not understand Hillary's position on abortion. I think I do, because I think it mirrors mine because what she said in the 3rd debate about this being an intensely PERSONAL decision that the government has no business getting involved in, is how I feel. I consider myself pro-life, but whether another woman decides that an abortion is the choice for her, who am I to second-guess her?

I also believe being pro-life means providing good medical care, health insurance, education, child care, it doesn't just stop at BIRTH, pro-life to me means supporting every SEASON of life, including children, teens, adults and the elderly.

I have friends who have gotten abortions and it was not an easy choice for any of them, it was agonizing and heart-wrenching, but it was their decision, not mine. I think most people would like to see fewer abortions and perhaps with better educational oppurtunities, better health care, and improved child care it could happen.  Or maybe I'm just a cock-eyed optimist!

I have news for you, you are pro-choice!  There's quite a few people in the pro-choice camp who would never personally have an abortion, but strongly believe that the option should exist for others. 

 

[Palimpsest]

3 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

https://vox-nova.com/2016/08/03/a-response-to-my-post-on-trump/

 

Thanks.

Holy cow.  I truly hope that bozo is not representative of many Catholics today- I liked this response in the comments.

Quote

Chris PERMALINK

August 4, 2016 3:35 pm

I’m just grateful that we have a Church and a Holy Father which present the authentic gospel of Christ on these issues rather than the sorry mess which is apparantly a “genuine American view”.

God Bless

 

6 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

The reference to "Hilary [sic] Clinton's Liberalism" is probably an oblique reference to the famous book by 19th century Spanish priest Félix Sardà y Salvany "Liberalism is a Sin," which is a favorite among some traditionalists, which you can read in its entirety online:

http://www.liberalismisasin.com/

Oh, noes!  I'm not going to wade through that book from 1899!  Seriously, that website reads like the lunatic fringe! 

Yes, there are pockets of extreme traditionalists around.  Not all of them are even in communion with the Vatican (and I'm pretty critical of the Vatican.)

There are two groups of extreme traditionalist Catholics near where I live (think Feeneyism), but I don't consider them as representative of the Catholic Church - Catholics in general - in the US.  I see them as the Catholic equivalents of Gothardites I suppose.  The Richmond, NH group is defined as a hate group by the SPLC.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

Yes, thanks.  I know that book.   It's pretty common knowledge that Pius XI was either in completely bed with or at the very least sold out to and failed to protest (depending on your POV) Mussolini.  He also signed a Concordat with the Nazi regime. 

Do you mean the Patti Lateranensi? Because those were signed in 1929 when the Nazis weren't yet relevant on the world's stage. Sorry if I am nit picking, but Nazis and Fascists weren't the same.

On all the other points I agree, yhe more or less explicit approval of the RCC was instrumental for Mussolini seizing power and thhis will forever taint the history of the RCC especially since they never recognised  and much lrss apologised for it. Because you know the risk of a left leaning country was so much worse than a rigjt wing dictatorship. /sarcasm

And the RCC still celebrates every year the memory of the Patti Lateranensi signature. I don't understand why,  that was really a pact made in hell.

[Cleopatra7]

7 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Thanks.

Holy cow.  I truly hope that bozo is not representative of many Catholics today- I liked this response in the comments.

Oh, noes!  I'm not going to wade through that book from 1899!  Seriously, that website reads like the lunatic fringe! 

Yes, there are pockets of extreme traditionalists around.  Not all of them are even in communion with the Vatican (and I'm pretty critical of the Vatican.)

There are two groups of extreme traditionalist Catholics near where I live (think Feeneyism), but I don't consider them as representative of the Catholic Church - Catholics in general - in the US.  I see them as the Catholic equivalents of Gothardites I suppose.  The Richmond, NH group is defined as a hate group by the SPLC.

I doubt that the average pro-Trump Catholic justifies his or her choice in terms of what Pius XI did or said in the 1930s or in terms of papal encycals like "Rerum novarum" or "Quadragesimo anno" (the latter one does endorse a corporatist form of government, which the Vox Nova poster correctly noted was a sign that Pius XI thought he could work with "moderate fascism" but not liberal democracy or communism). Rather, I think they just think, "White America will be great again, and we can get rid of political correctness." Hard-core separatist fundies, whether of the Gothard or traditionalist Catholic variety tend to be rare in real life, but are over-represented online. The problem occurs when their more moderate brethren give them as pass, as in, "They're more conservative than me, but they mean well and are so wholesome." This attitude gives extremists more power than their numbers should allow, because it gives them permission to to set the parameters of what is and isn't acceptable to be a member of the religious group in question. To bring this full circle back to Trump, "lifestyle racists" like Klan members, neo-Nazis, racist neo-pagans, and the like are small in number, but the Trump campaign has given them a platform to make their odious views mainstream, which in turn influences the views of rank and file Trump supporters whose own views become more extreme in response to the constant stream of lies Trump feeds them.

[Palimpsest]

8 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Do you mean the Patti Lateranensi? Because those were signed in 1929 when the Nazis weren't yet relevant on the world's stage. Sorry if I am nit picking, but Nazis and Fascists weren't the same.

On all the other points I agree, yhe more or less explicit approval of the RCC was instrumental for Mussolini seizing power and thhis will forever taint the history of the RCC especially since they never recognised  and much lrss apologised for it. Because you know the risk of a left leaning country was so much worse than a rigjt wing dictatorship. /sarcasm

And the RCC still celebrates every year the memory of the Patti Lateranensi signature. I don't understand why,  that was really a pact made in hell.

I actually meant the Reichskonkordat signed in 1933 not the Patti Lateranensi:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

I don't think you are nit-picking and it may be semantics.  I see National-Socialism (the Nazis) as a subset of Fascism.  So all Nazis are Fascists - but not all Fascists are Nazis.

We agree.  A very dark period of history indeed.

 

[Scribber]

@cartman99, I know the odds are extremely small that Roe V Wade would be overturned. However? I know at least a dozen ultra conservative families who truly believe that Trump will "make abortion illegal" -- some understand it's a Supreme Court thing (on a limited basis) and some just are dumb enough to believe the president has that control.

Either way? That is their sole reasoning for voting Trump.

I work for a non-profit where I am surrounded by many conservatives, and at least in my area? This is a highly popular belief.

Now, the next president does potentially have the ability to tilt the Supreme Court if all the stars align properly - but it would be years and the potential of it being overturned is incredibly slim.

[Palimpsest]

9 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

To bring this full circle back to Trump, "lifestyle racists" like Klan members, neo-Nazis, racist neo-pagans, and the like are small in number, but the Trump campaign has given them a platform to make their odious views mainstream, which in turn influences the views of rank and file Trump supporters whose own views become more extreme in response to the constant stream of lies Trump feeds them.

This I agree with.  They are small in number and - like the extreme Protestant Fundamentalist Christians - are in danger of having more influence with their extreme views than than their numbers warrant.  Niether group is representative of Christians as a whole.

[formergothardite]

4 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

And because abortion.  Although this person tried to fight back in an opinion piece back in September.   http://www.christianpost.com/news/trumps-offer-to-christians-is-same-offer-devil-made-christ-168993/

 

This article makes great sense and I have a couple of Christians I'm going to share it with. They have been pressured into thinking that Trump is the absolute only way to vote. 

This election has gotten my die hard Republican parents to vote for a Democrat. 

[AmazonGrace]

http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/

Bury Trump in a landslide

[Palimpsest]

Just now, formergothardite said:

This election has gotten my die hard Republican parents to vote for a Democrat. 

I think even many die hard Republicans are now scared of Trump.  With reason.

[Nomorethanfour]

Hi, I'm a new poster and am appreciative of everything I have read on this thread. I'm middle of the road, voting Johnson. Frankly, I find Hillary just as dangerous as Trump and cannot in good conscience vote for either of them.

I am, however, staunchly pro life. Not because of any religious reasoning, but because I believe it is just wrong. I find it horrific that our government has two standards, one for a mother who wants to abort, and another for a different person who ends the life of an unborn child. On federal property, if someone shoots a preganant woman (at any stage of her pregnancy) and she loses that child...that person is charged with murder. It is too much of a contradiction and makes no sense. It's either a life worth something, or it isn't. We determine death when the heart stops beating, yet refuse to afford it life when it starts beating.

I just wanted to give a tiny bit of balance to the pro life/choice debate here. I'm not some republican, gun toting, redneck, religious fanatic. I'm just an average person who thinks abortion is wrong.

[formergothardite]

5 minutes ago, Nomorethanfour said:

Hi, I'm a new poster and am appreciative of everything I have read on this thread. I'm middle of the road, voting Johnson. Frankly, I find Hillary just as dangerous as Trump and cannot in good conscience vote for either of them.

I am, however, staunchly pro life. Not because of any religious reasoning, but because I believe it is just wrong. I find it horrific that our government has two standards, one for a mother who wants to abort, and another for a different person who ends the life of an unborn child. On federal property, if someone shoots a preganant woman (at any stage of her pregnancy) and she loses that child...that person is charged with murder. It is too much of a contradiction and makes no sense. It's either a life worth something, or it isn't. We determine death when the heart stops beating, yet refuse to afford it life when it starts beating.

I just wanted to give a tiny bit of balance to the pro life/choice debate here. I'm not some republican, gun toting, redneck, religious fanatic. I'm just an average person who thinks abortion is wrong.

To be frank, most of us know all your arguments against abortion because many of us spent a hell of a long time in the pro-life camp. If you are up to learning about why people decided to go pro-choice, I can start a thread in NHB for the discussion. After really researching, I realized there was a lot more to this than "Save the Babies!" and would be willing to explain why. 

Also, if you are really wanting to lower abortion rates, you would vote for Hillary. 

[AmazonGrace]

Gary Johnson is pro choice based on his campaign site

[Nomorethanfour]

Just now, formergothardite said:

To be frank, most of us know all your arguments because many of us spent a hell of a long time in the pro-life camp. If you are up to learning about why people decided to go pro-choice, I can start a thread in NHB for the discussion. 

I wasn't trying to start an argument or debate. I was simply stating that some people don't fit your picture of a pro life person. I do know the pro choice arguments, all of them. I was in that camp for about 20 years!

 

Just now, AmazonGrace said:

Gary Johnson is pro choice based on his campaign site

I know, but it's not a deal breaker for me. There is so much to consider, and when I lined up my ideals. Johnson won. But no, obviously, typically noone lines up 100%.

[SilverBeach]

21 minutes ago, Nomorethanfour said:

Frankly, I find Hillary just as dangerous as Trump and cannot in good conscience vote for either of them.

Serious inquiry here. What specifically is it that you find about Hillary to be dangerous, let alone as dangerous as Trump? 

 

[formergothardite]

41 minutes ago, Nomorethanfour said:

I wasn't trying to start an argument or debate. I was simply stating that some people don't fit your picture of a pro life person. I do know the pro choice arguments, all of them. I was in that camp for about 20 years!

Actually you do fit the picture perfectly to me.  I don't mean this in a snarky way, but your reasons for being anti-choice only focused on the fetus and showed little to no concern for the actual woman, which is exactly what I have found to be true for almost all anti-choice people.

Anyway, Johnson wants to get rid of the minimum wage, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. All of those things are super important, especially to the poorer people in this country. He wants to make buying and owning guns easier. His tax plan is a disaster. He also has some shit views on how to deal with climate change. The poorest, most at risk people in our country are the ones who are going to be impacted by Johnson's plans.  What Johnson policies do you support? 

Hillary isn't the greatest, but there is no way she is even close to being as bad a Trump.