View Full Version : The Pope vs The Donald
iris lilies
2-18-16, 3:10pm
Today The Pope said that Trump isnt a Christian due to his ungenerous opinion on immigration in the U.S. The Pope mentioned Donald's wish to build a wall.
To apologists for the Pope, does it logically follow that other AmerIcans who talk about further restricting immigrants to this country are not Christian?
What about Mexicans, are they better Christians for opening up their country wider to foreign immigrants? Oh wait, that doesn't happen. The U.S. immigration number is about 10x that of Mexico.
Many points to discuss here, but today I am annoyed by the Pope because
1) he is dissing my country and my contributions to the world via tax dollars, as though a country that gives billions more in financial aid than more Catholic countries does noth Ng, its just the mythical wall that counts
2) he is giving Trump another day of sound bites all over the media just before a big primary vote
The Pope's comments today made me wonder about the immigration policy of Vatican City, an internationally recognized nation/state. It turns out they don't permit it.
I usually like what the pope says. I'm an atheist, but he seems like a genuinely good person. He always is for love and peace. However........I was disappointed that he said this about Trump's immigration policy, because even though I find Trump offensive, obnoxious, etc., etc., I also feel like there has to be limits on immigration. But I guess if you're supposedly the head of a church, you are probably going to have this opinion about always taking in everyone. It's a little out of touch with some of the aspects of this issue. But still.........he's a pretty cool dude. :)
iris lilies
2-18-16, 3:56pm
The Pope's comments today made me wonder about the immigration policy of Vatican City, an internationally recognized nation/state. It turns out they don't permit it.
Hey, do you thnk that big wall around Vatican City has anything to do with keeping out the riff raff?
Hey, do you thnk that big wall around Vatican City has anything to do with keeping out the riff raff?Looks pretty effective to me.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPnpBCMUEAAe_-6.jpg:large
ToomuchStuff
2-18-16, 4:41pm
The Pope's comments today made me wonder about the immigration policy of Vatican City, an internationally recognized nation/state. It turns out they don't permit it.
Typical hypocrisy of the church. However I do wonder why the pope thinks he speaks for Christians, when to the best of my knowledge, he is the leader of the Catholic church, and not other Protestant denominations?
Seems as arrogant as saying Trump isn't a good Muslim.
:~)Never thought that I would see The Trump defended in the Spirituality forum. Now I believe that anything is possible. :laff:
1570
I had no problem getting in.
I saw a quote the other day that represents the way the Pope views it: "If you are more fortunate than others it is better to build a longer table than a higher fence."
Pragmatically and politically, some may feel it's foolish to open our borders to all, but not to a Christian. (ETA: well, some Evangelicals may disagree)
I had no problem getting in:
I saw a quote the other day that represents the Pope's thinking as a Christian: "If we are more fortunate than others, it is better to build a longer table than a higher fence"
Pragmatically and politically, some may say we are foolish to keep the borders open, but the spirit of Christianity says otherwise.
I agree, although I believe most people would also agree that a sovereign nation should be able to control the volume of immigration to it's shores. I think the United States currently welcomes more legal immigrants each year than any other country in the world, and that's on top of the massive numbers of immigrants entering illegally. Plus, the President has previously affirmed that we are not a Christian nation, so, should we be held to that standard?
I agree, although I believe most people would also agree that a sovereign nation should be able to control the volume of immigration to it's shores. I think the United States currently welcomes more legal immigrants each year than any other country in the world, and that's on top of the massive numbers of immigrants entering illegally. Plus, the President has previously affirmed that we are not a Christian nation, so, should we be held to that standard?
True, that's why the lenses through which we look at this issue is so different. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and render to God the things that are God's." Very interesting question: Are we a Christian nation? Faith should not dictate policy, but it can (and does) inform it, I suppose.
ToomuchStuff
2-18-16, 5:14pm
:~)Never thought that I would see The Trump defended in the Spirituality forum. Now I believe that anything is possible. :laff:
Faith, beliefs are an individual thing. Religion is an organized collection of people of similar beliefs (even they differ). Why wouldn't Trump deserve the same constitutional protections as the rest of the United States citizens?
Doesn't mean one has to agree with him to defend his right to be different!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:~)Never thought that I would see The Trump defended in the Spirituality forum. Now I believe that anything is possible. :laff:
Believe it or not, I didn't intend that! So, I moved it to the board where it belongs, Simple Public Policy.
Thanks for pointing this out :)
Questioning the sincerity of someone's religious beliefs usually backfires in politics -- witness the kerfuffle that ensued over Elizabeth Dole's "godless" attack ad against Kay Hagan in 2008. The pope, being neither an American nor a politician, might be forgiven for not knowing this. At the risk of over-parsing the pope's original statement, though, he said Trump wasn't Christian, not that Trump wasn't a Christian. It's certainly true that a lot of people (maybe most) who call themselves Christians usually aren't within shouting distance of following the actual teachings of Jesus.
BTW, implying that the pope is a hypocrite because the Vatican doesn't allow "immigration" is a ridiculous straw man argument. Technically the Vatican is a country, but that's all. In fact, it's a giant administrative center, essentially the corporate headquarters of the Catholic church, which runs tens of thousands of schools, hospitals and other charitable organizations -- including many that help refugees -- worldwide. And I'm not a Catholic, in case you're wondering.
iris lilies
2-18-16, 5:22pm
But now this thread has gone off on a Spirituality path, maybe I should move it back? haha.nope.
iris lilies
2-18-16, 5:25pm
...BTW, implying that the pope is a hypocrite because the Vatican doesn't allow "immigration" is a ridiculous straw man argument. Technically the Vatican is a country, but that's all. In fact, it's a giant administrative center, essentially the corporate headquarters of the Catholic church, which runs tens of thousands of schools, hospitals and other charitable organizations -- including many that help refugees -- worldwide. And I'm not a Catholic, in case you're wondering.
I think it's just a little fun we are having with the immigration policy of Vatican City and their wall.
In all actuality I would be the first to throw myself on that wall were they to start bulldozing it. I suuport keeping historical architecture intact. I do not like when old things are bulldozed.
ApatheticNoMore
2-18-16, 5:35pm
The pope may also have his own agenda: the advance of Catholicism. The only way you'll ever make the U.S. Catholic is immigration. Also it explains completely nutty ideas like advancing an environmental agenda without birth control. If the goal is protecting the environment then voluntary reduction of population with birth control seems infinitely sensible, but if you also want increase the population of Catholic church goers then ...
The U.S. should share more with the rest of the world, I don't disagree, but I see immigration as a pretty poor way to do this. Those forced to share under such schemes are always those who have almost nothing themselves (it's people with very little themselves who lose jobs to immigrants) AND in the U.S. immigration scheme even the immigrants themselves are most definitely NOT empowered (though they may be better off than at home), they don't have the legal protections usually of full U.S. citizens, so they are a pretty exploitable workforce for sure.
I can see how one can favorably interpret what the Pope says, but it can also be unfavorably interpreted as an agenda that serves to advance a more narrow interest of Catholicism as much as anything.
ToomuchStuff
2-18-16, 5:43pm
Technically the Vatican is a country, but that's all.
So that makes them, technically, hypocritical.
Other countries have bases of operations, the Vatican's are called churches.
I've kind of stopped watching the news as it makes me feel irritable. It seems like the whole world is irritable now.
His Holiness may have overstepped his area of expertise and gone outside the bounds of doctrinal infallibility.
So did the Pope.
Williamsmith
2-19-16, 9:46am
I've kind of stopped watching the news as it makes me feel irritable. It seems like the whole world is irritable now.
As long as you realize it's for entertainment and advertising.......not to produce an informed populace, then you'll be alright. Watching the morning news, I saw a nice pool of very red frothy blood which stood out nicely against the white snow it was mingled with. This marked the very spot that someone was killed. Very entertaining and shown immediately before cutting to commercial it maximized the viewers for the paying customer of air time. The average person isn't lucky enough to see real blood in that large amount on a daily basis but with the news, it's possible for anybody to get their fix without being exposed to the dangers of the actual event or scene.
It seems like the whole world is irritable now.
Seems like I've noticed that, too, although angry is the word I've used.
I could understand the pope commenting on whether some one is Catholic or not, but not to pass judgement on the broad realm of Christianity among American politics seems a little out of his realm.
Williamsmith
2-19-16, 10:23am
His Holiness may have overstepped his area of expertise and gone outside the bounds of doctrinal infallibility.
So did the Pope.
The Pope has been rather cranky lately....scolding his adoring fans for pulling a little too aggressively on His Spotlessness. Speaking on behalf of Christ that's a stressful job. Im actually starting to feel a little sorry for Trump now, even God is against him. I wonder if God is a socialist or a Republican?
Trump is starting to win me over. I had a friend like him as a kid. We tolerated him because he didn't mind playing the outfield all the time and batting last in the lineup. And occasionally, he would say something you would like to say but had too good of manners to say yourself and that could be useful.
He never got in trouble because everybody just expected stupidity out of him. He died in a car wreck in high school and nobody was surprised. I was actually a little sad about the whole thing and went to visit the big maple tree he wrapped his car around. The tree just had a few scuff marks on it. The car was destroyed. It was one of the first experiences I had where you stood there and said to yourself, "wow, somebody died here." I didn't know that death had a smell until then.
I always have rooted for the person getting picked on. Just feel like the Pope would be better doing whatever it is that Popes do on a daily basis instead of publicly outing someone he doesn't like and trying to make an example of them. Somehow I thought the Pope was supposed to be more Christlike than that.
Favorite Pope joke:
"Pope Francis was the runner-up to Pope Benedict in the last election. And this time he got elected. You know what that means? There's still hope for Mitt Romney." –Jay Leno
rodeosweetheart
2-19-16, 10:39am
Trump is starting to win me over. [/FONT][/COLOR]
I wouldn't dream of speaking for the pope, but maybe Trump is not starting to win over the pope.
Maybe the pope is trying to remind the faithful that might consider voting for Trump that there is another way to look at the issue of the wall, and of accepting our brothers and sisters as, well, our brothers and sisters, as we would like them to accept us.
I like Catherine's quote about the wall and the table very much!
So that makes them, technically, hypocritical.
Ah, so we're comparing the "country" of Vatican City, which has an area of 109 acres and a population of 450 (and isn't completely surrounded by walls (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/world/europe/in-defense-of-trump-some-point-wrongly-to-vatican-walls.html?_r=0)), to the US, which has an area of 3.8 million square miles and a population of 330 million.
We should check on Monaco--they're probably not pulling their weight either.
Vatican aside, there have been a number of Christians who have practiced isolationism, from the Essenes down to the Mormons and more. Personally, I would consider the opinion of the Dalai Lama. Though the situation has distinct differences, some of the basic issues are the same.
“…the unabated influx of Chinese immigrants to Tibet, which has the effect of overwhelming Tibet’s distinct cultural and religious identity and reducing the Tibetans to an insignificant minority in their own country, amount to a policy of cultural genocide.”
catherine
2-19-16, 11:08am
His Holiness may have overstepped his area of expertise and gone outside the bounds of doctrinal infallibility.
So did the Pope.
haha!
Politics and religion are NOT a good mix. But I respectfully disagree with ANM's POV that the Pope's agenda is more Catholics.. I really think he just wants more people to act Christlike. So oldhat is right on... the Pope didn't say "Donald Trump is a bad person because he isn't a Christian." He said "someone who believes in building walls is not exemplifying behavior consistent with Christian values of love and mercy."
I know the following is long and I know it belongs in Spirituality, and not in Public Policy, but as I've said before, I love Richard Rohr, and here's his meditation for today which kind of describes the social/political/theological murky intersection and where the Pope stands on it--and I like it because it's a simple living message:
Most of us have grown up with a capitalist worldview, which makes a virtue and goal out of accumulation, consumption, and collecting. Normally we cannot see this as an unsustainable and unhappy trap because all of our rooms are decorated with this same color. It is the only obvious story line that our children see. "I produce therefore I am" and "I consume therefore I am" might be our answer to Descartes' "I think therefore I am." They are all terribly mistaken.
This foundational way of seeing has blinded us, so that we now tend to falsely assume more is better. The course we are on assures us of a predictable future of strained individualism, severe competition as the resources dwindle for a growing population, and surely perpetual war. Our culture ingrains in us the belief that there isn't enough to go around. This determines much if not most of our politics. In the USA there is never enough for health care, for education, for the arts, for basic infrastructure. The only budget that is never questioned is for war and armaments and military gadgets.
Anything you need more and more of is not working--as the people in addiction recovery love to say. That's exactly why we always need more of it. The fact that we need more and more, and better and better--of almost everything except love--tells us that we are in a finally unworkable situation. But there is an alternative worldview, one that has been deemed necessary and important by most spiritual masters. It isn't a win/lose worldview where only a few win and most lose. It's a win/win worldview, which alone makes community, justice, and peace possible.
E. F. Schumacher said years ago, "Small is beautiful," and many other wise people have come to know that less stuff invariably leaves room for more soul. In fact, possessions and soul seem to operate in inverse proportion to one another. Only through simplicity can we find deep contentment instead of perpetually striving and living unsatisfied. Simple living is the foundational social justice teaching of Jesus, Francis, Gandhi, and all hermits, mystics, prophets, and seers since time immemorial. [1]
Williamsmith
2-19-16, 11:52am
Catherine,
I get what this Richard Rohr is saying. As long as everybody is following the same program making little pretty sandcastles on the beach is the definition of contentment. Until some idiot decides to start knocking over sandcastles. The world is really a pretty turbulent place where this philosophy works only on one human at a time.
That's what we have government for so we can practice piety all the while we are carpet bombing the hell out of some poor bastards that either deserve it or are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't think war is wrong but I think we too often use it as the first option and then really screw things up. There is a balance point somewhere. Where that is apparently is up for discussion.
catherine
2-19-16, 11:59am
Catherine,
I get what this Richard Rohr is saying. As long as everybody is following the same program making little pretty sandcastles on the beach is the definition of contentment. Until some idiot decides to start knocking over sandcastles. The world is really a pretty turbulent place where this philosophy works only on one human at a time.
I don't consider a spiritually-committed life to be like building pretty little sandcastles on the beach--not at all. The first Christian died a very violent death and because of that the Christian symbol is the cross. But what you said about balance--what I would call tension--between faith and politics.. yes, it's very difficult with no easy answers. I'm sure you've lived your life with that tension, as a Christian and an agent of the law, so I respect your opinion.
haha!
Politics and religion are NOT a good mix. But I respectfully disagree with ANM's POV that the Pope's agenda is more Catholics.. I really think he just wants more people to act Christlike. So oldhat is right on... the Pope didn't say "Donald Trump is a bad person because he isn't a Christian." He said "someone who believes in building walls is not exemplifying behavior consistent with Christian values of love and mercy."
I know the following is long and I know it belongs in Spirituality, and not in Public Policy, but as I've said before, I love Richard Rohr, and here's his meditation for today which kind of describes the social/political/theological murky intersection and where the Pope stands on it--and I like it because it's a simple living message:
I think you (and oldhat) are right. It goes back to “hating the sin but loving the sinner”, but our media make no such fine distinctions in their search for little dramas to purvey. I can’t help but think that if we reduce all of life and thought to mere politics we lose a great deal. Is it hypocritical to profess an ethical standard that all but the most saintly of us will fall short of? Or is it important to aim high and hope for some wiggle room for your imperfection in the form of grace? If I can never quite love my neighbor as myself, should I not even try; or perhaps demand that government do it on my behalf?
I also think it’s a mistake to condemn capitalism on moral grounds. It’s a resource allocation system, not an ethical system. Since it’s a more efficient system than feudalism or communism, it tends to produce more total wealth, which some seem to confuse with greed and selfishness. But any system can be exploited for selfish reasons. If morality is at base an individual challenge, isn’t it futile to demand that our political system force morality on us?
Miss Cellane
2-19-16, 12:33pm
My take on what the Pope said was that Trump's attitude towards illegal immigrants was not Christian.
As for the Vatican not allowing immigrants--they don't allow any immigrants, whereas Trump wants to discriminate against a particular group of immigrants. There's a difference.
lessisbest
2-19-16, 12:44pm
As a former Catholic, nearly everything political that comes out of this Pope's mouth points to his socialists upbringing in Argentina. I'd like to see him excommunicate the "good" Roman Catholic, Nancy Pelosi, for her stance on abortion, which has much more religious merit than a non-Catholic like Trump and walls. But Pelosi goes to Rome each Easter, and I'm sure she's welcome, along with a generous donation to the Church. Typical!!!
As a former Catholic, nearly everything political that comes out of this Pope's mouth points to his socialists upbringing in Argentina. I'd like to see him excommunicate the "good" Roman Catholic, Nancy Pelosi, for her stance on abortion, which has much more religious merit than a non-Catholic like Trump and walls. But Pelosi goes to Rome each Easter, and I'm sure she's welcome, along with a generous donation to the Church. Typical!!!
If the Church were to excommunicate every sinner, who would be left to turn out the lights? Is Nancy Pelosi compromising her professed faith for political purposes? Yes. Does Francis sometimes let ideology color his pronouncements? Yes. Does the Church exist to serve the imperfect? I think so.
Williamsmith
2-19-16, 1:33pm
I don't get where the Pope thinks it is appropriate to comment on a political figure with the direct knowledge that he will influence many to not vote for him. First of all, who says building a wall has anything to do with your Christlikeness? I have a gate that shuts at night to keep out unauthorized people......am I not like Christ. Do you have a fence around your property? Can I get into the White House? Not Christlike? A wall for to slow down illegal penetration of a sovereign country is political and has nothing to do with religiousity. The Pope knows it and is using it to sway political thinking. Are all Chinese unChristlike? I think it is a horrible accusation and one which indirectly sheds doubt on ones Christian claim. only a god can know your heart.
Ultralight
2-19-16, 1:47pm
I don't get where the Pope thinks it is appropriate to comment on a political figure with the direct knowledge that he will influence many to not vote for him. First of all, who says building a wall has anything to do with your Christlikeness? I have a gate that shuts at night to keep out unauthorized people......am I not like Christ. Do you have a fence around your property? Can I get into the White House? Not Christlike? A wall for to slow down illegal penetration of a sovereign country is political and has nothing to do with religiousity. The Pope knows it and is using it to sway political thinking. Are all Chinese unChristlike? I think it is a horrible accusation and one which indirectly sheds doubt on ones Christian claim. only a god can know your heart.
How did the pope reach such high rank without a direct line to the man upstairs?
Williamsmith
2-19-16, 2:01pm
How did the pope reach such high rank without a direct line to the man upstairs?
Dont you know? He does have a direct line. And God told him women are not good enough to be Pope. But don't build a wall.
Ultralight
2-19-16, 2:08pm
...women are not good enough to be Pope. But don't build a wall.
How does this make sense to...well...to anyone?
Teacher Terry
2-19-16, 2:09pm
There is no reason that Nancy P. has to be against abortion to be a good Catholic. I know many Catholics that are pro-choice. The Pope is a man and is not perfect but he is the best one I have seen in a long time.
Ultralight
2-19-16, 2:16pm
What does a person have to do in order to not be a good Catholic?
Teacher Terry
2-19-16, 2:19pm
I know very few people that blindly follow everything their church says. They shouldn't be expected to. We have minds & free will. It does not make someone bad at their religion.
Ultralight
2-19-16, 2:26pm
I know very few people that blindly follow everything their church says. They shouldn't be expected to. We have minds & free will. It does not make someone bad at their religion.
What would make someone bad at their religion?
What would make someone bad at their religion?
It obviously depends upon who you are and whether your actions, although perhaps abhorrent, are popular. It's been said here many times that all Christians are hypocrites, that Christians not in favor of a welfare state are bad Christians, etc., although it now turns out that someone like Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, who believe that infanticide within one day of delivery is OK can still be good Christians. It's weird I know, but, there it is.
Ultralight
2-19-16, 2:38pm
It obviously depends upon who you are and whether your actions, although perhaps abhorrent, are popular. It's been said here many times that all Christians are hypocrites, that Christians not in favor of a welfare state are bad Christians, etc., although it now turns out that someone like Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, who believe that infanticide within one day of delivery is OK can still be good Christians. It's weird I know, but, there it is.
So anyone who does anything -- no matter how cruel or frightening -- can be good at their religion?
Ultralight
2-19-16, 3:03pm
I guess I am the only one who sees this as a red flag.
Oh well...
Moving on.
Williamsmith
2-19-16, 3:31pm
Okay so For me....it's not about being good or bad at ones religion....I already accept defeat there. It is really not about anything I can do to earn favor with my God. I trust Jesus Christ, the son of God who was made a sacrifice for my shortcomings. In other words, through him I become acceptable to God. Now I go about my life trying the best I can to not be a hypocrite. You either get it........or you don't.
Miss Cellane
2-19-16, 3:32pm
I guess I am the only one who sees this as a red flag.
Oh well...
Moving on.
A red flag for what? There are so many possibilities here.
Ultralight
2-19-16, 3:40pm
A red flag for what? There are so many possibilities here.
A red flag for "this don't add up!"
A red flag for "this don't add up!"
It's difficult to answer your question with precision from this plane of existence. In the Catholic tradition, the general formula "to save a wretch like me" is something along the lines of:
(x)Faith+(y)Works = Redemption
Fortunately, we can also apply fudge factors of grace and mercy for the universal condition of insufficiency.
I also think it’s a mistake to condemn capitalism on moral grounds. It’s a resource allocation system, not an ethical system. Since it’s a more efficient system than feudalism or communism, it tends to produce more total wealth, which some seem to confuse with greed and selfishness. But any system can be exploited for selfish reasons. If morality is at base an individual challenge, isn’t it futile to demand that our political system force morality on us?
I struggle with this, and I do see your point.. as strong as my socialist leanings are. Dorothy Day went from being a political activist for justice and mercy to being a spiritual one, and she left politics and capitalism out of it, although I do believe she preferred distributism as an ideal economic system, as did Peter Maurin and Chesterton.
The problem is, can capitalism survive without exploitation and consumption for the sake of consumption? I think it is fundamentally at loggerheads with environmental and human rights issues. I've read Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken and I think there are probably ways around the pitfalls of capitalism, but I don't think many true capitalists see the pitfalls as pitfalls.
Ultralight
2-19-16, 5:14pm
I struggle with this, and I do see your point.. as strong as my socialist leanings are. Dorothy Day went from being a political activist for justice and mercy to being a spiritual one, and she left politics and capitalism out of it, although I do believe she preferred distributism as an ideal economic system, as did Peter Maurin and Chesterton.
The problem is that that capitalism can't survive without exploitation and consumption for the sake of consumption, and so it is at loggerheads with environmental and human rights issues fundamentally. I've read Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken and I think there are probably ways around the pitfalls of capitalism, but I don't think many true capitalists see the pitfalls as pitfalls.
Do you ever just wish the Big Guy would come down and sort it out?
Do you ever just wish the Big Guy would come down and sort it out?
No. Anyway, he's not "up there."
Ultralight
2-19-16, 5:18pm
No. Anyway, he's not "up there."
So you never think: "Hey, Mr. Omnipotent, how's about you cure all the cancer kids?"
I ask this seriously.
Well, I do pray to be cured of my own blindness.
Do you ever just wish the Big Guy would come down and sort it out?
You mean Warren Buffet?
Ultralight
2-19-16, 5:26pm
Well, I do pray to be cured of my own blindness.
I can't blame you for doing that.
Ultralight
2-19-16, 5:27pm
You mean Warren Buffet?
LOL
So you never think: "Hey, Mr. Omnipotent, how's about you cure all the cancer kids?"
The response would probably be something like:
"Hey Mr. Fallible, I gave you intellect, I gave you free will. Put down the xbox and figure it out for yourself. You think automatons are happy? You want it all handed to you on a velvet cushion with no effort on your part? What am I, Bernie Sanders?
iris lilies
2-19-16, 6:31pm
My take on what the Pope said was that Trump's attitude towards illegal immigrants was not Christian.
As for the Vatican not allowing immigrants--they don't allow any immigrants, whereas Trump wants to discriminate against a particular group of immigrants. There's a difference.
Well i did learn that the Varican took in two Syrian families. So theyve done their token share. Bless their hearts.
Ultralight
2-19-16, 6:33pm
The response would probably be something like:
"Hey Mr. Fallible, I gave you intellect, I gave you free will. Put down the xbox and figure it out for yourself. You think automatons are happy? You want it all handed to you on a velvet cushion with no effort on your part? What am I, Bernie Sanders?
And that, good sir, is why I am voting for Bernie!
rodeosweetheart
2-20-16, 7:50am
IL, to respond to one of your original points about sound bites, here is the film clip of the sound bite, at the New York Times website:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/us/politics/donald-trump-fires-back-at-sharp-rebuke-by-pope-francis.html?emc=edit_th_20160219&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=68050367&_r=0
I don't know if you had seen him responding directly to the pope. Do you think he scores points here? What do you think his strategy is?
Williamsmith
2-20-16, 8:20am
I think he scored double points. His first rebuke of the pope scored big win his followers and may have kept some from leaving the fold for Cruz. Then he takes advantage of the Christian penchant to forgive when since that time he walks back his statement and appears to embrace the pope. Score twice. He managed to act aggressively and still come out on top with one of the worlds top religious figures. His voters really could care less about what the pope does or says. And most Christians in the south think Catholics dont need a pope to have a relationship with God. The angry white working class isn't worried about stepping on the popes toes and ruffling his robes a little.
If Trump wins South Carolina by any significant margin over Cruz or Rubio......and I think those two are closer than the polls show.......Trump will be hard to stop. He can say anything he wants.
Every time this happens Trump get air time on the media. Sometimes I wonder if he makes his audacious statements as a part of his plan. It's free advertising. Last night's news first had his response to the pope and then his idea to boycott Apple and then his statements about the war in Iraq.
catherine
2-20-16, 12:26pm
I found the latest RealClearPolitics poll numbers to be provocative:
You see that on February 15 something happened that caused Trump to shoot up across national polls and Rubio to shoot down--presumably Rubio voters defected to Trump? Wasn't that the date of the Pope thing? Looks like a few Cruz voters were collateral damage, too. No wonder Trump was a little more solicitous toward the Pope yesterday. He should get on his knees and kiss his ring for all the votes he got!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
iris lilies
2-20-16, 12:47pm
IL, to respond to one of your original points about sound bites, here is the film clip of the sound bite, at the New York Times website:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/us/politics/donald-trump-fires-back-at-sharp-rebuke-by-pope-francis.html?emc=edit_th_20160219&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=68050367&_r=0
I don't know if you had seen him responding directly to the pope. Do you think he scores points here? What do you think his strategy is?
i dont watch tv news, i hear it on radio and I skim written reports. . My opinion stands that The Donald scores from negative attention, especially from the Pope. The media features him front and center, who else gets that kind of coverage? As a secondary point, and not that it matters, his "firing back" to the Pope that I heard wasnt that hard on the Pope. I disnt watch the link.
But I am not a supporter of Trump, so it doesnt matter what I think about his treatment of the Pope.. It seems he got a bump in the polls from all of this. good job, Donald.
Trump strategyis to attract controversy, fire back, and make sound bites. Seems to be working for him.
But does the "Trump approach" make for a good President and legislative leader? Does that not enter into the thoughts of those polled?
But does the "Trump approach" make for a good President and legislative leader? Does that not enter into the thoughts of those polled?
I doubt it. People don't make rational decisions without being heavily influenced by their emotions, whether they know it or not. Trump is probably the world's best salesman, and people are buying.
ApatheticNoMore
2-20-16, 3:28pm
People aren't "irrational" because they don't see the same aspect of something as you. I'm not defending voting Trump. But whether one is a good legislative leader isn't what everyone is voting on, some may be focused on "hiring someone who can work with others" as it were, and some might be more focused on issues (although then Trump is probably not their guy on most things either, as he doesn't take consistent positions).
People can make rational enough decisions, just on voting for someone it's pretty much a great deal of unknowable, like how they will actually govern, versus how they promise etc.. Of course Trump is not even consistent from day to day ... so it's an extreme unknowable.
ToomuchStuff
2-20-16, 4:18pm
But now this thread has gone off on a Spirituality path, maybe I should move it back? haha.nope.
I thought it was appropriate where it was, it doesn't belong here at all IMHO.
Ah, so we're comparing the "country" of Vatican City, which has an area of 109 acres and a population of 450 (and isn't completely surrounded by walls (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/world/europe/in-defense-of-trump-some-point-wrongly-to-vatican-walls.html?_r=0)), to the US, which has an area of 3.8 million square miles and a population of 330 million.
We should check on Monaco--they're probably not pulling their weight either.
I didn't say anything about the wall, so your mixing posters together.
I do think if the leader of Monaco, made the statements that the Pope did, then judge accordingly. Since I am not a believer, but an agnostic, I am surprised I remember Mathew 7, that the Pope should have read first:
Judge not, that he be judged.
Every time this happens Trump get air time on the media. Sometimes I wonder if he makes his audacious statements as a part of his plan. It's free advertising.
In all honesty, I think they are. If he wins, he can try to do what he wants. He can resign if he gets fed up with it, and I think he still ends up with a lot of the benefits of former presidents. If he loses, he has gained countless $$$ of publicity to put towards some other moneymaking venture (bigger "your fired" show), etc.
Im a practicing Catholic and an Immigrant. I would like to share that I came through the "front door",now a citizen I vote.I follow the rules. No sneaking in. It's not good for the Pope to get involved in politics yet Pope John Paul II was adamant about tearing down Communism. So indirectly yes vatican has big influence. I thing the Pope is a good person and lives way more simply than any Pope before him. How can you still take the bus as Cardinal and ride in a small Fiat and expect other Cardinals to do the same? He even doesnt live in the luxurious papal apartments. It seems Trump is the scapegoat here. Trump is simply trying to enforce immigration laws that may help ultimately immigrants. Number one issue =with a wall; Government of Mexico will have to deal with the reason why people leave in the first place. People should stand up and demand a reform, (Start with your country) Many immigrants love their native countries and families but are forced to leave to care for their families because there are no jobs.They would come through the front door checked for criminal history, blood drawn for HIV and other dieases(sorry had to jump through those hoops in the 90's). Many people in my family applied for visas and waited years for an answer. Secondly, it would stop the drugs and cartels if people stopped buying them and other reasons.Yes i guess all drugs should be legal then there would be protection and more control.Lets make drugs a mental health issue addressing depression and bi polar etc.not a criminal issue. It's the drug pushers that exploit certain people. Trump calls it the beautiful golden front door of America. What's the crime for following the rules. What the Pope saw in Mexico is a result of no wall/ no immigration enforcement. I wonder how people can officially even mention that they are undocumented? It mind boggles me. Also I think that hiring illegals and exploiting these people is plainly exploitation of people who have no rights. If they came in through the front door they would have rights and you wouldnt pay them dirt under the table. Maybe our own economy might just improve. That's my view coming from that. Im disappointed about the Pope saying Trump is not a Christian yet Trump has mentioned that "Christians are dying in the middle east and being killed by ISIS".He has mentioned that in his speeches over and over.The threat is real.Yea it's nice to build bridges and not walls but frankly Europe is on it's way to building bigger was to keep out refugees. Again it's immigration policy. I was horrified visiting Europe that there were no "borders" you just drive through yea if you are a nice person but the smugglers, drug pushers and human traffickers go waltzing through.Borders are good they keep you safe.
.... Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, who believe that infanticide within one day of delivery is OK....
Wow! Pulling things straight from our behind now, Alan? Not even giving it the courtesy of "some say...."?
I know it's tough to actually come up with real examples of horrible policy/thought/action but I think you could do better than this. :(
Wow! Pulling things straight from our behind now, Alan?
No, out of their documented statements. Pelosi has gone on record referring to late term abortions as "sacred ground" and Clinton has stated that she doesn't want to see governmental restrictions on late term abortions. Should I not take them at their word?
I doubt it. People don't make rational decisions without being heavily influenced by their emotions, whether they know it or not. Trump is probably the world's best salesman, and people are buying.
+1. And if we were a rational electorate it would make sense to ask WHY so many people are buying? Unfortunately that gets back to the same old problem of having to actually fix things rather than simply treating the symptoms. I would tweak your statement to say that Trump is probably the world's best bandaid salesman. So good, in fact, that he can sell us bandaids when we really need a tourniquet and a couple of sessions of chemo.
Late term abortion is inconceivable!
Although I am a pro-lifer myself I cannot take the right away for other women to decide. These decisions are deeply personal and to do with your conscience. I was in a situation where I began thinking of the possibility due to my medical situation during pregnancy taking a turn for the worse but I am glad I didnt since I am so happy with my baby, and everything turned out just fine. Yea Hillary is a woman but dont empower nor encourage abortion to be like a facelift because you can. I cannot judge but this is another life we are talking about here. Late term abortion is inconceivable.
Late term abortion is inconceivable!
No. It's a distinct possibility, even if you are "pro-life". There are cases where either the baby or the mother is going to survive the end of pregnancy, but not both of them. And sometimes neither of them, without some intervention. (*)
Who gets to pick who lives and who dies?
(*) I've been trained in a form of delivery that may save the baby, but that will almost certainly, considering the circumstances, kill the mother, if she's not in fact already dead. It's a tricky thing to decide to do...
No. It's a distinct possibility, even if you are "pro-life". There are cases where either the baby or the mother is going to survive the end of pregnancy, but not both of them. And sometimes neither of them, without some intervention. (*)
Who gets to pick who lives and who dies?
(*) I've been trained in a form of delivery that may save the baby, but that will almost certainly, considering the circumstances, kill the mother, if she's not in fact already dead. It's a tricky thing to decide to do...
Absolutely! To equate these women's positions on the fact that a 'late term' abortion should be left up to the doctor and the mother to infanticide is deplorable, arrogant, and the height of ignorance.
I know Alan knows better, and if he maintains he doesn't, then i have no respect for him or anyone who follows this disingenuous path for political/ideological reasons.
Women DON'T carry a baby for 7/8 months then just out of the blue decide they don't want a kid and get an abortion. This does NOT happen. A late term abortion is usually a dire situation, as bae pointed out, or a final agonizing decision for the family who must come to terms of the need for the termination of the pregnancy. This is a horrible situation for any family to be caught in and for some (on the right) to take advantage of this awful, gut wrenching time to shame/vilify these families is despicable.
The complete lack of compassion shown by these ideologues only leaves me wondering how they treat their own daughters and wives. But we know the answer to that. They are more than happy to inject themselves and their twisted morality into other people's lives but demand privacy when it's their own families.
We may not agree politically on a lot of things bae, but you have been consistent in your respect and understanding and compassion for women. The way you speak of, and support your wife and daughter shows that you 'get' it. And now that you are in service to your community, that understanding seems to carry on to your community. I hope you never need to make that decision/choice between a woman and the fetus. I can't imagine having to do that, but I suppose it would be a triage of sorts, deciding who has the better chance of living.
To equate these women's positions on the fact that a 'late term' abortion should be left up to the doctor and the mother to infanticide is deplorable, arrogant, and the height of ignorance.
I know Alan knows better, and if he maintains he doesn't, then i have no respect for him or anyone who follows this disingenuous path for political/ideological reasons.
Yes, it is deplorable that anyone standing up for the rights of the unborn are designated as arrogant and ignorant. I realize as much as anyone that words matter and those that imply that an unborn baby is human must be countered. We saw it recently when NARAL condemned a Doritos advertisement for "humanizing" a very late term fetus. We see it in the language everyday people have been forced to use when describing the unborn lest their friends and neighbors think that they too are arrogant and ignorant.
The cool thing is, your side is winning the battle to ensure that a baby is not considered a baby until the mother says it is, regardless of the science. Please remember that the next time you have the urge to condemn anyone ideologically opposed to your beliefs as 'anti-science'. Plus, for those who become enraged and feel un-safe by being forced to read the words 'pro-life' on the internet, there is a new Google app which will automatically replace any written instance of the phrase with 'anti-choice', which will further ensure that the second life in the equation is forgotten. http://www.ijreview.com/2016/02/542551-google-safe-space/ I'm sure it will be popular with many.
Wow Alan, this is so much BS I don't even know where to begin.
What is arrogant and ignorant is your assertion that somehow 'only' you and your crusaders are 'standing up' for the fetus/baby. (and by the way, calling it a fetus is proper, to distinguish it from a born baby.) No one is denying this life, certainly near the end where viability is almost assured outside the womb, EXCEPT IN MOST LATE TERM ABORTION CASES. Yeah, no viability. Either for the fetus or the mother, or as bae pointed out, sometimes both. How cruel to insert ideology and ignorance into these situations.
The arrogance comes in when you pass judgement on families caught up in these horrible situations where a late term abortion is necessary. Trust me Alan, these families know all too well what they are doing and it pains them beyond belief. Ignorance is piling on when you have no knowledge of this.
And it's completely absurd (and a flat out lie) to say Pelosi and Clinton think killing babies is OK.
And don't talk to me about 'pro-life.' When your candidates expand food stamps to make sure no child goes hungry, when they don't promise to take away Obamacare which enables millions to get affordable health care, when they vote to strengthen education instead of weaken it, when they vote to raise the minimum wage, or dozens of other programs that benefit children, actual living breathing children, then they can call themselves 'pro-life'. But in the abortion/birth control debate, they are no-choice. It's pro-choice and no-choice. period. No longer can they own/claim the 'pro-life' label until they actually work for it.
now, as far as abortion goes...no, it isn't a separate human being until it is viable outside the womb and yes, the woman has that call. We do put limits on this, and the vast vast majority of abortions take place before this. After that point, there is usually a very good reason which is between a woman and her doctor. Abortion is legal, and body autonomy is the reason. Let me explain it to you as it was recently explained to me.
First let's establish your rights. I don't have the right to force you to donate a kidney, right? I, or anyone else, can't force you to give blood, or a piece of your liver, or sperm. We can't force you to clip your nails if you don't want to. That is body autonomy, and your right to your own person. Even if it would save a life. Even if you are the only match found to save a life by donating your kidney. No one can force you to do that. No one.
Now let's look at the other end of life...death. Again, body autonomy comes into play here. They (hospitals) cannot harvest your bones or tissue without permission. No heart or eye donations unless permission is given by you(through a living will) or your immediate family. furthermore, if you stipulated that you didn't want any donations of organs or tissue after your death, even your family saying 'Aw, go ahead and take them", won't fly. The hospital simply won't do it.
So, to be perfectly clear on this, you, and your no-choice group, think a fetus should have MORE rights than any living breathing person. And the woman, the pregnant woman, should have LESS rights than a cadaver.
So, to be perfectly clear on this, you, and your no-choice group, think a fetus should have MORE rights than any living breathing person. And the woman, the pregnant woman, should have LESS rights than a cadaver.
Nope, just that the baby has an equal right to life. Sacrilege I know, but there it is.
Nope, just that the baby has an equal right to life. Sacrilege I know, but there it is.
But it's not equal life, is it. Or equal rights you advocate. How is it equal rights when one 'life' can enslave, and force donation (of a womb, blood, tissue, time) of the other? How is that equal? Explain it to me.
Does the kidney patient have an equal right to life just as you do? What if your kidney is the match that would save that life? Should we force you to donate because of the patients equal right? And if all people have an equal right to life, why aren't you for universal health care?
No one can force you to donate any part of your body, even to save a life. You say a fetus should be able to do this = more rights for the fetus than any living breathing person.
No one can take so much as a skin graft from a corpse without permission. You say a woman should be forced to donate life, blood, womb, months to another against her will = less rights for the woman than a cadaver.
I know people like to say, 'Your rights end where mine begins'. If that fetus is viable, capable of independent life, then that is considered. Yes, that is a baby, a person, and we have policies in place to help that life. (unless you are republican and then it's 'You're on your own kid'...ok, I'm being snarky) But those are special cases and are between a woman and her doctor. And yes, they are very rare.
I'm sorry you view women as less deserving of equality. I suppose it's a real problem when it's a girl fetus cause then how do you decide who should be 'sacrificed' for the 'equality' you envision. who should be forced to be the sacrifice. if the woman can be sacrificed for the fetus, it being a girl, should be able to be sacrificed for the mother. When you only allot 3/5ths of 'equality' to a gender, then when one of that gender is only 1/2 viable...well, we would need a politician to do the math, wouldn't we. We would need a man...a gynotician perhaps.
I think it's a personal matter and of conscience. I have been there late term pregnancy with complications. I personally would choose that my baby may live and I die. Thankfully me and my baby made it out ok.But again Im not going to judge those like my friend who against doctors suggestions waited to give birth to a stillborn baby.She chose no abortion but gave birth in dignity to greet her baby with love. Very difficult and personal. My issue is you shouldnt make abortion so casual like you are getting botox done. This is a human life you created. It's not garbage it's a human being.Agruing who is wrong or right you will never win on any side. It's always ultimately the mother's choice.Im just glad my mom decided to keep me.
Peggy, I dearly love the way you vocalize every absurd thing you can imagine. It's very entertaining ;).
But honestly, I believe it is equal life. You talk about the woman being burdened or enslaved by the fetus against her will while I think it works both ways, the fetus didn't create the woman. I believe the fetus deserves the same rights you demand solely for the mother and can't quite wrap my head around anyone thinking otherwise.
When there are words thrown around like "viability" and "pain-sensitive" when it comes to fetus rights vs mother's rights, I believe the line in the sand should be drawn before then. I am a pro-choice women who objects to late-term abortion except when it comes to medical necessity, and for me, as a lapsed Catholic with those values embedded in my DNA at this point, from a personal standpoint, I even waver on that.
For the record, I'm also against eating animals that have been cruelly-raised and the death penalty.
Peggy, I dearly love the way you vocalize every absurd thing you can imagine. It's very entertaining ;).
But honestly, I believe it is equal life. You talk about the woman being burdened or enslaved by the fetus against her will while I think it works both ways, the fetus didn't create the woman. I believe the fetus deserves the same rights you demand solely for the mother and can't quite wrap my head around anyone thinking otherwise.
Alan, again, tell me how that is equal. They can't both have equal rights to that blood, tissue, womb, time. The woman doesn't want to share her body. Period.
If it works both ways then, free that fetus. Let it go free, right? Oh, wait, it can't go free because it NEEDS someone elses blood, tissue, time, life, in order to exist.
How is that equal? it doesn't matter who created who. That has nothing to do with equal rights. And the point is, the fetus isn't created, is it. Not fully. If it were it could live outside the woman. What the woman is saying is, I don't want to create a life. Isn't that kind of her choice?
A fetus is only a potential human, much in the same way your scrambled eggs are potential chickens, but not chickens.
What the woman is saying is, I don't want to create a life. Isn't that kind of her choice?
Yeah, but that's kind of time sensitive. When you're talking late term abortions, it's way too late.
I'm perfectly fine with considering the fetus a human being at the moment of conception, and granting its interests equal consideration.
However, that leads me to the conclusion that the woman carrying the child can decide to remove it from her body.
Yeah, but that's kind of time sensitive. When you're talking late term abortions, it's way too late.
You keep going back to late term abortions, and I realize it's for emotional effect, but the truth is, no one is having a late term abortion on a whim. A late term abortion, for all truth, is giving birth. Not easy, not always safe, and not taken lightly.
It is the height of cruelty, and yes, ignorance, to vilify these women and their painful circumstances that brought them there. To you it's just a political ploy to push the emotional buttons of less informed voters, but these are real families experiencing incredible pain and loss.
I guess this has never happened in your family, and I hope it never does because then they would have someone like you shaming and condemning them at a time when they are at their greatest need of support.
But, go ahead and wave your signs and blow the dog whistles. It's certainly your right. I suppose this all does serve one purpose. It reveals you. It reveals your opinion of women, of your version of rights, and what you will say or do to push your ideology. And it reveals willful ignorance, cause I'm pretty sure you know how the vast majority of late term abortions occur. I'm pretty sure that you're smart enough to understand false impression you want to push about late term abortions and the families who have to go through that. But by golly you aren't going to give an inch to concede that these are tragic family affairs, cause compassion just doesn't fit into the right wing narrative of no abortion no how no way.
iris lilies
2-24-16, 11:29am
I'm perfectly fine with considering the fetus a human being at the moment of conception, and granting its interests equal consideration.
However, that leads me to the conclusion that the woman carrying the child can decide to remove it from her body.
bae, I'll bite.
What is the logical progress from point A to point B in your above statement? How do you you get to that conclusion, logic wise?
I'll try the answer: because the baby human is inflicting harm on the adult human by bodily occupying her space against her will, that allows the adult human to exercise force in protecting herself.
Did I get it right? Ive been reading bae-isms for quite a few years now.
I'm perfectly fine with considering the fetus a human being at the moment of conception, and granting its interests equal consideration.
However, that leads me to the conclusion that the woman carrying the child can decide to remove it from her body.
I completely agree. I wish it were a perfect world where every baby was wanted and every pregnant woman was capable physically, emotionally and financially to have a baby. I had two myself and it was the best thing I ever did.
But the reality is, this isn't a perfect world. No one is 'pro-abortion'. I wish there was no need for abortion. But we do need it. So i am pro-choice, cause it isn't any of my business what any other woman wants to do with her body. Her body.
Two entities, people if you want to call a zygote a person, in one body. One is the host and the other is, by all definition, a parasite. (No, I don't like that term but it is what it is). When the host says i don't want to host that's it.
As you say, all things being equal, the independent owner of the body has final say.
You keep going back to late term abortions,
I don't go back, it's where this conversation started.
It is the height of cruelty, and yes, ignorance, to vilify these women and their painful circumstances that brought them there. To you it's just a political ploy to push the emotional buttons of less informed voters, but these are real families experiencing incredible pain and loss.
Show me where that's happened, I'm at a loss.
I guess this has never happened in your family, and I hope it never does because then they would have someone like you shaming and condemning them at a time when they are at their greatest need of support.
As you may recall, my oldest grandson has chromosomal abnormalities which were discovered prior to his birth but past 20 or so weeks. Medical professionals and friends counseled my daughter to abort and I must admit that not knowing the limits to his health or quality of life I was prepared to accept her decision in the matter. He's now 19 years old, is happy, relatively healthy and a joy to be around.
Later, when my daughter again got pregnant, the medical community again urged her to abort early because of the first childs condition. He's now 14 (as of last Friday) and absolutely normal in every respect. So if you want to talk about shaming and condemning when they are at their greatest need of support, you're pointing at the wrong group.
But, go ahead and wave your signs and blow the dog whistles. It's certainly your right. I suppose this all does serve one purpose. It reveals you. It reveals your opinion of women, of your version of rights, and what you will say or do to push your ideology. And it reveals willful ignorance... Peggy, that's BS and you know it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.