About Those Five Non-Negotiables, Donald Trump, Jimmy Carter, and Colossians 2:8

As I have mentioned in this space in the past, I think the five non-negotiables thing was well-intentioned. For them what don’t know, it was an attempt to prioritize abortion, euthanasia, Embryonic stem cell research, gay “marriage”, and human cloning and remind Catholic voters that these are things the Church cannot change its teaching on. Reasonable enough, but by no means Holy Writ and not without its problems, which a decades worth of politics has now thoroughly exposed.

The principal problem with the Five Non-Negotiables is that the morphed over time from Top Priorities to The Only Thing That Matters and then went on to become Shields for Justifying the Real Non-Negotiables of the GOP. Mention any of the GOP actual beloved priorities such as unjust war, torture, our 32 thousand annual human sacrifices to the NRA, or punishing the poor or criticize some beloved GOP folk hero (like Cliven “Let me tell you about the Negro, who would be better of picking cotton” Bundy) and the instant response is always “Why are we focusing on this? What about abortion?” The unborn have gone from being our top priority to being human shields for people like Mitt Romney, who obviously did not care about them one iota.

Case in point, the current leader in GOP polling: Donald Trump. Have you noticed his eloquent and passionate defense of the Five Non-Negotiables since he threw his hat in the ring?

Me neither. Rather he has surged in the polls for one reason and one reason only: he is a naked and unashamed racist (and a hypocrite who employs undocumented workers while using them as whipping boys). That’s why he’s ahead in the polls. No other reason.  Standard boiler plate reply: “People like Trump because he has the guts to tell the truth and not care how the left twist his words”.  Yeah.  Except that’s not true:

And for those obsessed with the Genetic Fallacy and unable to accept reality from Evil Liberal Jon Stewart, there is also Linda Chavez, attempting to talk conservatives out of their latest act of mass suicide. But of course, that’s not enough to get the defenders of The Donald to back off (just read the comboxes). And conservative Catholics are right in there with them. Because it’s all about the five non-negotiables.

In addition, he again distinguished himself in the field of political rhetoric by retweeting this substantive argument:

And again, conservative Catholics, burning with passion for the Five Non-Negotiables showed up on Facebook to explain that it was a joke, that I am a secret Hillary supporter for rejecting this vile junk, that I am “jealous” of Trump and that he is a gutsy truthteller who says things lesser mortals are afraid to say, and beside he took it down after impulsively retweeting it, so his impulsive finger should *definitely* be on the button of our nuclear aresenal and he deserves our support as he makes America great again.  Cuz insulting Hillary’s looks and sex life is what the Five Non-Negotiable are all about, man!

And who can argue with such insight and perception into the Eternal Values that really matter to right-thinking Catholics? No doubt he will certainly restore dignity to the office of President with not-at-all  creepy remarks like this:

Now it’s true that opposing gross incestuous winks and nods *isn’t* one of the Five Non-Negotiables, so Catholics who care about the reputation of the Church in the public square should by all means continue going to the mat for this gutsy truthteller who is not afraid to say things other, more PC, wimps won’t!  Who could doubt it?  The man is practically the apostle Paul!

Speaking of whom, here’s the deal: Paul tells us: “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.” (Col 2:8). You could hardly find a philosophy and an empty deceit, according to human tradition, more patently obvious if you tried than the torrent of mammon worship, racism, vainglory, pride, brutal vulgarity, and egoism that flows from the mouth of Donald Trump.  The spectacle of Catholics completely setting aside the Five Non-Negotiables and going to bat for *this* guy is about as anti-evangelical as you can get.  If you support him, don’t give the world any song and dance about your devotion to the five non-negotiables.  You are using the unborn as human shields on behalf of a man who could not possibly care less about the gospel.  Your lust for power has blinded you.  Repent.

The customary reply of the Party of Personal Responsibility when faced with yet another epic failure of judgment is to cry, “NO! THEM! Democrats do whatever stupid thing it is we are caught doing today!  If you don’t blame them more then you secretly support them!”

Now, while it is true that Dems are quite as able to replace the revelation of Christ with philosophies and empty deceits based on the human wisdom (as, for instance, when Jimmy Carter recently declared that Jesus would be just thrilled with gay “marriage”) what is steadfastly overlooked by the Party of Personal Responsibility are the words of Jesus: “What is that to thee?  Follow thou me!”  The penitential rite does not begin “I confess to Almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that Those Guys over there have sinned….”  The Party of Personal Responsibility should try taking some.

And it’s not too late to do that.  We can repent of trying to build the kingdom with the weapons of this world and we can still determine that we will live according to Christ and not the philosophies and empty deceits of human wisdom.

Ah, sinful nation,
a people laden with iniquity,
offspring of evildoers,
sons who deal corruptly!
They have forsaken the LORD,
they have despised the Holy One of Israel,
they are utterly estranged.

Why will you still be struck down,
that you continue to rebel?
The whole head is sick,
and the whole heart faint.
From the sole of the foot even to the head,
there is no soundness in it,
but bruises and sores
and bleeding wounds;
they are not pressed out, or bound up,
or softened with oil.

Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
defend the fatherless,
plead for the widow.

“Come now, let us reason together,
says the LORD:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land;
but if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be devoured by the sword;
for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.” (Is 1:4–6, 16-20).

Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!

Patheos Catholic LogoCLICK HERE TO "LIKE" PATHEOS CATHOLIC ON FACEBOOK

  • Laurie

    Mark, I love your posts, but your taking Donald Trump too seriously. He’s a rodeo clown. People like to watch him, but he’s not going to be President.

    • Andy

      I agree that I doubt Trump will be president. However, the fact that he i tied for lead in the republican polls shows the danger of his comments. Ted Cruz, Jan Brewer have come out to support him. AnnCoulter, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and a variety of folks on FOX News support him. He represents the angry, xenophobic side of the republican party and as such is resonating with many of the “base”. This is the frightening part of the Donald’s run.

      • W. Randolph Steele

        Exactly. The base of the Republican party, at this moment is made up of frightened,older white people, so OF COURSE, Trump is doing well. He voices their fears in clear, unmistable language that they like and understand. to everyone else, he is a wealthy bully.

        • Dan C

          There grave errors and misplaced fears are the consequence of constant catechesis that many Catholic right thinkers have advocated.

          In short, these folks are a Frankenstein’s monster, with short-sighted approaches that undermine their own futures through their political advocacy.

          • W. Randolph Steele

            Yes, I’m afraid so. As an example, my wife is African-American and a pastoral associate. While on our way to pick some things at a Catholic supply in a suburban county, we were puller over in the lily white suburb and questioned. Later, they pulled over an African-american state policeman driving through and NOW they are under a Federal compliance program.

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              There it is! You never let me down.

        • Dave G.

          I think you said more than you realize and are more right than I can imagine.

        • Na

          he was a democrat for over 20 years and gave multiple donations to hillary clinton and the clinton foundation.

          • David Naas

            Rupert Murdoch (the Godfather of Fox News) also has donated to the Clinton foundation. Among the Patrician Class, this is known as “covering your ‘bases’.” They all do it, $1.00 to the Republicans, $!.00to the Democrats. It’s just good business. (Meanwhile, they laugh at all the sorry fools who get in a hyper snit over politics.)

          • W. Randolph Steele

            Actually, Trump is whatever Trump thinks is good for Trump. It’s all about him. right now, he thinks it helps to be a Republican so he’ll say what ever their base wants to get the nomination.

        • Elaine S.

          I wonder if a lot of the apparent support Trump is getting in the polls isn’t based primarily in a desire to stick it to the, for lack of a better term, “PC police” who dominate the MSM. Surely there is a happy medium between branding ALL illegal/undocumented immigrants as violent criminals — which of course they are not — and pretending that NONE of them are and that any concerns current U.S. citizens have about the volume and nature of illegal immigration are stupid, racist and unworthy of consideration.

          As it stands right now, anyone who dares to suggest that we might be letting SOME people into this country who really shouldn’t be here (like the alleged murderer in San Francisco who was deported five times) is immediately branded a racist and eventually has to issue a gazillion apologies. Now, here is a public figure who comes out and says “I don’t care what anyone else thinks, here’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it”, and people are responding to that with “It’s about time!”. I suspect, however, that a lot of this support will fade away fairly quickly as the actual primary elections get closer and people remember who Trump is and what he actually stands for — himself.

          • W. Randolph Steele

            Trump just drew at least 4,000 people in Phoenix yesterday. Trust me, he isn’t going away any time soon. With $ 9.8 billion he can stay in as long as he wants. He’ll also make a shambles of the first debate because there is NOTHING to deter him. This is all about Donald Trump. BTW, I just read a piece this morning that shows that illegal immigration has not only peaked,but more are going home than coming. PLUS the fertility rate among Mexican women has dropped from 7.3 in 1960 to 2.4 (barely above replacement level) a year or so ago. One thing I learned about immigration doing family geneology is that jobs at home reduce emmigration. once my Germany(where my dad’s people came from) united in 1870 it industrialized so fast that, by 1900, German immigration virtually stopped and Mexico is doing the same thing. My guess is that THIS will pretty much solve the “crisis” . For ME as an “operative” on the state and local level, Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.

      • virago

        You are wrong about Laura ingraham and probably Ann counter, neither have said t hey would support him for pres.
        Laura I. admits to being a friend of his but a supporter for his presidential run

        • Andy

          Other than they came to his defense and said he was right about immigration and that he speaking for the working class and that he would be a good president – your right.

    • chezami

      I agree with you. My point is not Trump. It is the base (especially the Catholic base) that supports him. It is to them I am addressing my plea to start thinking with the Church and not with the philosophies and empty deceits of this world’s wisdom.

      • Laurie

        Are you sure that theres a plurality of conservative Catholics that support him? Where are the numbers from? FB is not a great measure. Also, are these conservatives who are occasionally Catholic, or Catholics who are occasionally conservative?

        • anna lisa

          You’re right, “rodeo clown” sums it up. He’s like a character from The Hunger Games–too exaggerated to take seriously. I also have a hard time believing that there is an actual group of Catholics that would vote for him. The racists probably secretly gloat that he says such awful things, and love how he has no filter, but they know he’s a creep and would never vote a creep like that into office. He’s a crazy side-show.

        • Rebecca Fuentes

          It’s Sean Hannity, who apparently adores Trump. I’m not sure it’s anyone else.

          • http://sorryalltheclevernamesaretaken.blogspot.com/ Robert Simms

            Hannity falls in the “conservatives who are occasionally Catholic” category.

      • Ulysses S Grant

        How does one “start thinking with the church” in voting for President?

  • Dave G.

    First, it probably would be better to find another source with the same criticisms of Trump than one of our culture’s most celebrated cheerleaders for the Moloch side of Hell in our culture. That is true. After all, there are critics of Trump who aren’t so lovingly associated with that side of darkness in our world. With that said, I sometimes wonder if Trump is a secret operative paid for by the Democrats. The fact that he would even be in the polls, much less high in them, shows the danger of party loyalty, where a man who represents almost all of the assaults on traditional values becomes the champion for those who would find someone to defend traditional values. Being scared, which is where many who support him seem to be, can bring about disastrous results. Often the very results they hope to avoid.

    • Andy

      I note that you didn’t say that John Stewart was wrong, just that we shouldn’t use what he says. Disgust as Mark wrote the other is not much of an argument. As far as his critics go – I haven’t heard them speaking from their “bully pulpits all that much – please tell me who they are and at what level of “power or authority” do they have.

      • Dave G.

        I didn’t say I disagreed because I don’t. But why appeal to Moloch to attack Mammon? We needn’t cozy up to one side or the other. That’s the problem here. Folks who are willing to throw their hat in with Mammon simply because he, in theory, would be against Moloch (though Trump seems happily to stand for both). Of course part of his poll popularity is simply because his name is in the media. In polls this early, whoever the media is focusing on will likely be high in the polls. That’s every election cycle. Which is why some are desperately trying to ignore Trump and hope he goes away despite the media’s obsession with the man. Nonetheless, it does represent a glaring problem with those on the Right that is worth discussing. But we needn’t seem to give tacit approval to the flip side of Hell just to show the problems with the other side of it.

        • Andy

          The flip side of hell – does that include ignoring the plight of the poor, championing torture, championing the death penalty, attacking Pope Francis over his statements about the economy and “climate change” or our need to be in tune with the environment? Both sides in their own way champion Mammon and MOloch – it is what keeps them in power. The problem is that you and I would most likely look for someone who does not support Mammon or Moloch. When and if you find that person let me know, cause I don’t think he or she really exists in political sphere.
          Trump disturbingly represents what I see as a wide xenophobic strand in this version of conservatism. His name helps, but his statements are resonating with many. I have seen here on this site folks rising to defend him saying that he is in essence right. THat scares the hell out of me. I means to me that it not just because it is early in the “cycle” that he has power, it is because he is representing some large issue in today’s conservative base.
          As far as Stewart goes – i don’t watch his show – I see only what clips are posted. I don’t agree with his stand about abortion etc. I do though see him as honest – he says what he believes and I don’t have to like or agree with that but at least I know what he believes. That puts him ahead of any political figure I can think of. I would also add that according to my kids who do watch him he skewers both side with relative relish.

          • Dave G.

            The flip side of ignoring the poor should not be standing on the rotting carcasses of a hundred million dead from AIDS and abortion in order to satisfy our lusts while pushing to end this laughable notion that we should be free to withstand the movement that dangles debauchery, blasphemy and tyranny on a string with the promise of better orgasms and legalized drugs as the happy side effect. Nor should it be simply shrugging our shoulders and agreeing to disagree.

            And yes, Trump shows racism that is still in some quarters of those who have not thrown their hat in with the progressive movement. Not all who support him are. Some are merely scared. Or just giving whatever name they’ve heard in the media. Likewise, what does scare the hell out of me is how such things as racism, antisemitism, sexism, censorship, and oppression are becoming common in the ranks of the movement that once promised to deliver us from just those things.

            But then, my biggest problem is that I’ve also noticed that the world isn’t quite as simple as Blue State/Red State anyway. And if it is FOX, MSNBC, or Comedy Central that continue to live on that model, I find the whole bunch to be utterly useless when trying to sift through the noise and get to the problems. Because, as you rightly say, both ‘sides’ are clearly capable of supporting both. So trying to find those who support neither would be the better source, in my opinion.

            • Andy

              I was not defending the liberals when I comments – I was pointing out that it is not a liberal issue only. Yu seem to leap to the idea that pointing out the issues that conservatives have is an attack or saying that liberals don’t have issues. ” From my comment above Both sides in their own way champion Mammon and MOloch – it is what keeps them in power.”You comment about standing on rotting carcasses – I could talk I guess about the dead in IRaq, but that seems to obvious. Instead I speak to lust – lust seems to cut across all political lines – it is not a issue only with the progressives – it is a human issue – AIDS is a human issue, not conservative, not liberal not progressive nor regressive – it is a human issue and to “blame” it on liberals is I would think beneath you. To make a comment about orgasms is absurd. The comment about legalization of drugs has adherents from both liberal and conservative camps and those who oppose it from both sides.
              You seem to have to say see he does it too, whenever anyone comments about conservatives – I find today’s conservatives and today’s liberal to be an abhorrent bunch – they want only one thing power and money. Our political process has tied itself to the the need to satisfy those who own them – much like prostitutes. They display little in the way of integrity, little in the way of morality, little in the way of compassion of those not in power.
              The media bubble – liberal and conservative that we live in causes us to loose sight of the humanity of others and their inherent dignity. We see only the “other’ – not like us. THat is one reason why I watch little TV – sports, and science fiction moves are just about – movies by the way from the 50’s-early 70’s are my favorites. This constant bombardment causes us to turn against each other instead of following the the second greatest commandment.

              • Dave G.

                Again, I’m saying that we should be picky in where we go and what we do. I don’t even think of liberals and conservatives. There are certainly things like conservatism and liberalism. But people are a mixed and complicated bag. The dead in Iraq? Go ahead and blast away, I’m not exactly a fan of that either. But I do get the impression that there are some who are beginning to act as if the sins associated with liberalism are merely those things we can respectfully disagree over while the full wrath of God is unleashed on various sins and foibles associated with more traditional, dare I say conservatives, views. For example, do I lament the thousands killed by gun violence? Sure. But no less do I lament the millions dead from AIDS and the tens of millions aborted for the mortal sins of sexual immorality. Do I hate what has happened with corporate greed and the growing ability of corporations to oppress and use the peasant class? Yes, but I notice that most in charge of such things are not down home church going types, but are cheerleaders for the same hedonism and narcissism that is the common promise of modernity.

                I know too many people who are not part of the media narrative to believe it’s as simple as the media narrative, or scoring points for this or that side. These are bad things, and we need to be careful that we don’t dismiss one while focusing on the other. In some ways, Trump is the most valuable there. For he personifies so many of the bad things associated with all of the various sides out there, he could be a great case study for what to avoid. He also reminds me that the people today aren’t simply conservatives or liberals, but increasingly are both whenever it fits. Which is why looking for those who are neither to speak to the problems is, to me, the better way.

                • Marthe Lépine

                  Getting to the end of your reply, I notice your statement that “people today aren’t simply conservatives or liberals, but increasingly are both whenever it fits.” Maybe the problem is with those labels. They are old-fashioned labels that have lost their meaning. Either, we need a new set of labels, or we should try to do without any label, since no label is good enough to describe the complexity of humans’ ways of thinking. Maybe we should get serious about looking at our human brothers and sisters as siblings with God as our father, and instead of entirely rejecting someone because of their wrong ideas, we need to search and promote the good in each of us. I think that more concentration on the good might eventually push the bad further into the background and allow the good to take precedence.

                  • Dave G.

                    Amen, and if I may, amen. People will always drift toward groups, but people never becomes just the groups. And yes, I prefer looking at the good. That which is known as liberalism has good things about it. So does that which is known as conservatism. Both also have bad. But within those groupings are some very complicated people that have a knack for stepping out of the restrictions imposed by the labels.

                  • http://newarkistheplace.com/ Thomas Mullally

                    Yes, it is ridiculous that people who consider themsleves “conservative” believe in an economy of perpetual revolution for little gain, tearing up the earth based on an Orwellian concept of “creative destruction” while railing against a socialism which has long receded. At the same time it is preposterous that far-left folks would see the Word of our Lord and the politically sidelined Christian faith as a source of oppressions, instead of embracing us as their brothers and sisters against the Trumps and Murdochs and Koch-Brothers, who are the real taskmasters of neoliberalism.

          • Hezekiah Garrett

            Hmm, relative relish! Goes great on hotdogs at family reunions!

        • chezami

          I’m glad you at least acknowledge there’s a problem. But the constant recourse you make to the Genetic Fallacy and Guilt By Association to deflect any critical evidence originating outside the Epistemic Closure Bubble of the Right is still hampering your ability to face the problem of the madhouse the GOP has become. Get it: When Stewart makes a substantive critique of Trump, that does not mean “I secret support abortions or all!!!!” It means he makes a substantive critique of Trump and lays out the fact of what he said. Face those facts and stop making appeals to the Genetic and Guilt by Association fallacies.

          • Dave G.

            Sure he does. And likewise I’d like to think I make a substantive critique of Stewart and those who admire and respect and love the guy. For me, there are better sources out there. If I were using one of those fallacies, I’d be saying ‘Trump? Why Stewart advocates evil, who cares about Trump!’ Or something like it. Not at all. Trump is a giant fingernail of the chalkboard of ethics in my opinion, and shows a million problems with those on the GOP side who, for whatever reason, are willing to tolerate him, much less support him. Nonetheless, Stewart and what he represents is no less heinous. And again, it isn’t that you appeal to Stewart only on rare occasion and with great humility and apologies for what he stands for. You praise and celebrate the man more than any visible Catholic I’m aware of, and that’s different than only rarely quoting someone when they’re right and doing so with equal condemnation for them and what they stand for. Hence my issue.

            • Na

              well said.

              I would never vote for Trump. His statement about immigration was idiotic. He is a showman and a blow hard. He was a democrat for over 20 years and made multiple donations to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton foundation.

              As a catholic and an american, I have a natural inclination to take the side of political and cultural minorities which at this point in time are conservatives and catholics. I am not going to defend Trump and I wish he would drop out of the race…but I am not going to ritualistically scourge myself for things i didn’t say and don’t believe. I am especially not going to do it publically, so that the press and culture can leverage the narrative to continue to advance their agenda. This might make me feel better about myself but it does nothing for the culture or political debate.

              Stewart is periodically sane. But for the fans that swear by him, they simply want to characterize and demonize another group in order to shut down thought and debate. In this case, they want to demonize a political and cultural minority which is the most illiberal inclination of all.

              as far as Mark, he is decent guy who wants to “help” but he needs to get out of sociologist business and just engage individual people.

          • johnnysc

            Well Stewart is not running for office. So what’s the answer?To vote for a politician from a political party whose platform pretty much lays waste to each of those non negotiables that you say once had a place but no more? You talk as if the non negotiables had any effect anyway. The last two elections showed that liberal ‘catholics’ have no problem voting for a staunch pro abortion politician who is anti Catholic to boot. Now that climate change is the new non negotiable it will just make it that much easier for liberals to perfectly form their conscience and vote their political ideology over all the teachings of Jesus.

          • antigon

            Hate to be unkind here Mr. Shea, since all that’s true, yet since it’s doubtful CAEI will be praising Mike Jones’s appreciation of Laudato Si any time soon, one can’t but suspect its opposition to the genetic fallacy imperfect.

            • Andy

              Who is Mike Jones?

              • antigon

                Somebody else who’s big on Laudato Si, but otherwise – Google him.

  • Evan

    There’s one other reason I think Trump is polling so well (in addition to his racist remarks): he has $8.7 billion. And as some facebook commenters have already pointed out, how can anyone say no to a man who has that much money?

    (Since this is the internet: that second sentence is sarcasm.)

  • http://www.pavelspoetry.com/ Pavel Chichikov

    We’re hoping for a viable Republican candidate. This is sabotage of that.

    • Marthe Lépine

      Maybe not really sabotage. Mr. Trump might be very helpful to finally bring out clearly the goats and the sheep and help people see the real differences.

  • Jamesthelast

    Well said Mark. I think this is exactly why Pope Francis said that we aren’t just all about abortion. Yes abortion is a hideous evil that must be abolished asap, but some of us I think, have lost sight of the big picture. We are supposed to be striving to love God and neighbor in our whole lives, not just focusing on a handful of things and ignoring the rest.

  • David Naas

    Liberalism died a sorry death at the hands of the Genital Liberation Front and the Victimi-dentity politics when they took over the left, and Conservatism as Tom McDonalds says is “roadkill” (evidenced by the commentariat’s response to Laudato Si.)
    Ever we allow our Outrage Porn adrenalin-fueled reactions to drive our politics, and our politics to drive our religion, and we end up totally deserving of Hell. (And go to Confession? Really? Admit error?)
    Right-wing politicos care for the Church about as much as Left-wing politicos — a useful collection of dupes and cannon fodder. But, hey, Trump has a purpose, he illuminates the bat-poop crazy which has invaded and absorbed American politics over the last 50 years.
    Isn’t there a line somewhere about that force which ever wills Evil and ever ends serving Good?

  • Sue Korlan

    As for me, as a result of his comments I know that Trump is someone I will never vote for. I don’t yet know who I will support because I only know where a few of the candidates stand. I will narrow it down until I know who I would like to see as President. Doesn’t mean they’ll win, just that I’ll support them.

  • Tweck

    My favorite part is when Trump says, “All over the world they’re coming through the southern border!” ha ha Like, y’know, from GREENLAND.

    • Marthe Lépine

      Well, of course! First they sail from Greenland to Mexico in their Viking boats, and then find a “guide” to help them through the border. Everybody knows about that!

      • Tweck

        Why of course! And let’s not forget them totally crazy Australians that are swarming over the border too! It’s completely insane! Trump for President, or we’re all just doomed!

    • Guest

      Nevertheless, it is true that the border with Mexico is not very secure and that there are people who nobody should want here who recognize this very exploitable fact.

      This doesn’t mean Trump’s right about anything other than that – if in fact he’s even getting at this point at all. It does mean that it’s not to be dismissed simply because an unsavory person says similar things.

      • Tweck

        “there are people who nobody should want here”

        Well at the very least, I think that as Catholics, we have a duty to take care of those who suffer from poverty, homelessness, human trafficking and violence in their homelands. If it means sacrificing in some fashion, then that would seem to line up with Church teaching to me.

        I read a report recently indicating that a large percentage of the people (mostly children and young people) on the border are, contrary to Mr. Trump’s hyperbole, actually victims of sex crimes and other horrible things.

        I believe that it’s our duty as compassionate people to let them in and provide them with safety, comfort, housing, food and the love, healing and hope that they desperately need.

        • Guest

          I don’t disagree. I was speaking of people like drug smugglers and murderers (both of the random and organized sort). The ugly truth is that a non-trivial number of the people crossing there aren’t simply needy but aggressively harmful. Nor are they all Latin Americans.

          • Tweck

            “I was speaking of people like drug smugglers and murderers ”

            Well, I agree, those certainly need to be dealt with properly and respectfully.

            I’m primarily concerned about the enormous crowds of refugee children we’re currently turning a blind eye to.

            • Guest

              I am also, and there is work to be done on the atrocious system we have for legal immigration, where it can take a decade just to get permission to enter. But sadly there are too many of the wrong sort to ignore, and I’d be shocked if there weren’t ISIS types here already via the same way. We probably need a “both” approach.

    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

      Heh.

      FYI: the relevant statistic minus the Trump bombastics is OTM, illegal southern border crossings from other than Mexico. People do use Mexico as an illegal entry point and it’s not just from further south latin american countries. I know people who have used that route starting in eastern europe.

      • Tweck

        All jokes aside, even if they do…

        Matthew 25:40 comes to mind:

        “And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

        (KJV)

        • falstaff77

          Which per Matthew might require the action of taking the least of these in through your front door, but not sanctioning the least breaking into your back door.

          Continuing to ignore the difference, that is, insisting others carry the burden like “those people” in the border towns and those earning wages most effected by illegal immigration is to cast your lot with the Pharisees,

          But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

          5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a]wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

          • Tweck

            I’m certainly not suggesting that I not sacrifice for the benefit of the children and refugees on the border. I’m more than happy for a large portion of my tax money go to provide basic necessities, simple pathways to citizenship, and jobs for those folks. But it is a collective effort we need to deal with on a national level.

            I’m also not suggesting we just fling the border open and let everyone stream through. Of course, common sense applies, but leaving them there to suffer is inhumane and completely at odds with concepts like mercy, love, charity, forgiveness…

            And if people don’t want to pay more taxes, we can take it out of the gigantic part of the federal budget that we use to build giant death machines and murder innocent people in foreign countries, or maybe the part that goes to further enriching corporate CEOs at the expense of the poor, tired, huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

            • falstaff77

              “But it is a collective effort we need to deal with on a national level.”

              This third person, passive voice, collective speak, viz “we need”, “we can”, and taxes, is alien to any notion I have of mercy, love, and charity found in scripture. Taxes may well be the price paid for civilization, but imagining taxes as the mechanism of love and charity smacks of the Pharisees to me, a will to power over others.

              Christ in his temptations was given such an opportunity via and offer “all the kingdoms of the world” which he rejected. I suspect the modern collectivist would jump at the chance with claims of the utopias that could be set up, immune to age old cautions about power.

        • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

          False compassion towards immigrants is rife within your position. Trump’s got no compassion at all but at least he’s coming by it honestly.

          Plan A, the plan that we should be starting with, is the end of slavery across the world and the local opportunity for people to earn a proper living in their own homelands.

          We’re making fantastic progress on ending slavery over the past 40 years. We’re not doing as well in increasing labor demand enough to put these newly freed hands to work and so we’ve got an increased migration problem and downward pressure on wages across the world.

          Immigrants are being used as a political tool to pressure the US system in a way that is leading to a downshift in the US’ capacity to create labor demand. Business formation is down. Tech was an exception for awhile but even there business formation is down and across the board it is in new businesses where net labor demand is generated. This is not by accident. We are neglecting the most basic measures necessary to manage the negative implications on labor demand that our government economic interventions are causing.

          And so we import peasants and grind down the middle class while resisting education reform that might give those peasants’ children a way out of the underclass. It’s diabolical and open borders to flood the coping systems are an integral part of the scheme.

  • http://sorryalltheclevernamesaretaken.blogspot.com/ Robert Simms

    I wish you wouldn’t post Daily Show videos. They geo block those of us outside the US.

    • Marthe Lépine

      I have the same problem I suppose yo can get those if you subscribe to some things like cable or on-line medias of some kind, but if I start doing that, my entire food budget could quickly get eaten up, and then what? One cannot live only on food for the mind… However, there might be some computer geek out there among the readers who knows how to get access to those videos… That would be really appreciated, and thank you in advance.

      • http://sorryalltheclevernamesaretaken.blogspot.com/ Robert Simms

        I’ve gotten around the restrictions in the past by getting on a VPN – where I fool the American website into believing I’m in the US. Sadly, in the area of the Philippines where I live now, my Internet doesn’t give me enough bandwidth to use a VPN. I miss that. When I first moved to Philippines I lived in an area with better Internet services. I was even able to watch current Dr Who episodes on the BBC. Oh, well.

  • Robin Warchol

    Trump’s attraction is his mouth and insults that seem to make people laugh. Martin Luther likewise had an “earthy” mouth and pen. For some reason, that sort of speaking draws attention. I agree with your article.

    • Dave G.

      I think his attraction is a variety of things. Yes, he’s a showman and knows how to grab attention. Plus, right now, the media is focusing on him, and at this stage in the cycle, whoever the media focuses on will be high in any polls. Plus, as someone below said, he says things that appeal to a group that is watching everything they held dear, as well as themselves, be more or less flushed down the sewer pipes. Always a dangerous time when people like Trump can get people to listen who, in other cases, wouldn’t get within a mile of the guy. And of course there are no doubt some who, like Mark says, actually have such racist views and are glad to support someone who may share them. Like most things, there are probably many reasons behind his support.

  • Na

    57% of Republicans have a negative view of Donald Trump… He is the most unpopular presidential candidate ever..is that good enough? Or must all 100% bow in conformity? and since I am easily led by other right wing extremist..i sourced the stat from the other liberal mecca

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/why-donald-trump-isnt-a-real-candidate-in-one-chart/

    If the wishy washy catholic middle keeps playing lets vote democrat because they “care” (despite abortion, gay marriage, failed war on poverty, rooting for destruction of two parent family, pushing cultural decay, gender theory in schools and inept foreign policy that will lead to nuclear arms race in middle east) …..you can get ready for a sixth non-negotiable….though shall not shut down catholic business, charities and churches.

    as for me, i will stick with the stupid party, they might not care but at least they are in touch with reality and periodically they actually get results (see Communism, fall of).

    • Dave G.

      True. He is near the top with a boatload of candidates while having a high negative for GOP voters. Still, it’s bothersome that anyone would support him. But back in the day, when Al Sharpton ran, he also got some to follow him. In polls representing millions of voters, probably anyone will get some support. But for those who do support Trump, that’s an issue. Yet we also shouldn’t run with the party playbook that tries to suggest since Trump polls near the top of a dozen or more candidates, therefore the GOP is racist. That’s called abusing the stats.

  • Na

    more evidence this is a complete NON-ISSUE….in Iowa, where voters are most engaged and are paying the most attention, Trumps approval rating is a measly 27% among REPUBLICANS… and of those 20% are only somewhat positive.

    everyone can stand down, the stats show this perpetual fear of close minded, conservative catholics lockstep marching behind the most hateful candidate that they can rationalize…is just a case of confirmation bias and unthinking acceptance of the prevailing narrative.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-17/how-to-tell-if-donald-trump-s-candidacy-is-getting-serious

  • virago

    It is 16 months? Or so before the election. Do we really think trump will be a nominee of any party?
    A campaign can brought down in a 30 second sound byte: plenty of time for hope and change.

    Besides, we all know Hillary will win 2016.

  • GKStudent

    I would, and am voting for Bobby Jindal. If Jindal doesn’t win, I will vote for the candidate that has, even the least, proportionate good I can vote for. That is not to say throw in the towel, give in, and vote for them as though holding your nose as though throwing away a stinky diaper. Rather, if there’s something good to which I can vote for, in good conscious, not contrary to the Church, and know the person is deeply flawed – all candidates and men, and women are all flawed in some way. I will vote for the candidate that holds to one of the non-negotiable’s. If not one of them, then if they make it possible to still uphold those non-negotiable’s.

    Suppose the candidate is not really pro-life, not outspoken and a really strong advocate of traditional marriage, and so forth. But, he or she has a good sense of private property, lowering taxes, encouraging better market and job growth, and bringing back the quality of living for all people. I will still vote for the person in good conscience. Not because I am abandoning the unborn or sacrifice them for my vote. If the candidate still upholds even the lesser and smaller values, then I will vote for them. Because, a good economy, private and economic freedom does allow people to have jobs, take care of their families and homes, and have a family. And doing so assists giving assistance through charities in firm resolve of pro-life commitment. When you have jobs, people can better take care of themselves and their children, and families. And thus gives leverage to keeping people from poverty, which is the very circumstance abortion and other sorts of evil are akin to.

    That is, namely, when jobs are stable, and the economy is stable, this still gives the opportunity to do charity and better assist people in choosing life and defending the unborn. I have been really critical of the candidates. But, they’re human, and flawed. If they are going to support something that is right and correct, even the least sense, its’ my opportunity to vote not necessarily for the best candidate, but for the menial efforts that can still be raised up to assist the pro-life culture, commitment, and resolve to protect the life of the unborn. I hope those little babies, those who have died before birth, will have pity on us and our country. I hope they will be patient with us. God is rich in kindness and slow to anger. I hope they will look on God’s mercy and loving face to which Jesus died for the Church. And in His death, His resurrection. That, namely, Christ was patient and suffered willing to be nailed to the cross. That is to say, I hope in such patience, though through our feeble and menial abilities, we may work tirelessly hard in advocating for the life of the unborn even by most remotest thing as the economy.

    I’m doing, thus, my best to vote for a candidate where at least there is the opportunity and means for the possibility for the firm resolve and commitment of the pro-life movement to work. And thus, you do so by a system of economics which supports private property. Since, the person and their affects, what properties they own, are respected, because it’s respect to the person that owns those properties. And by stealing and taking away property, you violate the person’s dignity of taking away their affects as you do when you do away with the unborn.

    There is still ample means to support a good wholesome economics in our country to which you may still keep the pro-life movement alive. I wouldn’t say the best, but like the seed of a mustard seed they may grow over time.

    • Scaevola

      As a Louisianian, Jindal has proven to be an awful governor. I don’t want him to treat our nation the way he’s treated his own state.

    • Jamesthelast

      Isn’t Jindal the guy who insisted that the UK was full of Muslim only zones despite the Brits telling him that it was ridiculous?

      It’s also funny that he denies climate change despite the fact that Louisiana will be in massive trouble from the rising oceans.

  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

    There are quite a few Republicans who will tell a pollster they want Trump just to give people like you the vapors, Mark. You poke them, they poke you, that’s how the fallen world goes around. And you are poking and have been for quite some time. So now people who are tired of a poorly engineered immigration system that is hurting them and their families see a candidate that’s at least vaguely coming out to support their interests and they react positively to it.

    Trump is, to say the least, a flawed vessel for the idea that US immigration policy is too lax. His character failures and signs that he wouldn’t make a very good president says nothing about that issue.

    • ManyMoreSpices

      A huge majority wants illegal immigration curbed, yet nothing ever gets done. The Democrats won’t turn off the tap to their flow of Undocumented Democrats, and the Republicans are simultaneously beholden to Chamber of Commerce types and petrified of being demagogued as racists.

      Trump comes along and says what (almost) everyone is thinking but won’t say. That’s the appeal.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        Well, yes, but because Trump’s a very flawed human being, the expression of that appeal needs to be nuanced. Most people are getting the balance right and the right noses are getting tweaked but somebody with an actual chance to be a good president needs to take the air out of Trump’s balloon by stealing his issues without expressing it in the poor way that Trump does.

    • falstaff77

      “Trump is, to say the least, a flawed vessel for the idea that US immigration policy is too lax. His character failures and signs that he wouldn’t make a very good president says nothing about that issue.”

      Good historical precedents exist for that model, i.e. long term malfeasance spawning demagogues. The FDR and early Truman administrations willfully ignored the infiltration of not a few but hundreds of Soviet agents into the US government. The former agent Whitaker Chambers came forward finally after the Molotov – Ribbentrop pact; meeting with FDR’s security people got him little more than a we’ll-get-back-to-you response. There’s a strong argument that McCarthyism was in part the result of that sustained negligence.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        The cure is to provide a non-demagogic way to address the problem with justice, competence, and appropriate mercy, offering a superior solution to the demagogues.

        The GOP has 17 candidates for President. Trump is only one of them. Trump is providing an opportunity to the other 16 to break from the pack by addressing immigration properly. It’s going to be educational to see who is going to make use of that opportunity.

  • Tony

    Mark, there’s no question you are right here completely about Donald Trump, but you act like in the post that you’ve always been correct in your thinking about the GOP and we have all been fools, I actually see your point, but there’s a big difference between Paul Ryan, Romney and Donald Trump. Most Catholics knew that Romney was far from perfect, but he was a lot better than Barrack Obama, that’s obvious and the reason many of your readers can’t figure out your hang up with the Republican Party

    • chezami

      The issue is not the difference between Ryan, Romney and Trump. The issue is that lots of so-called “prolife” Catholic are making clear that they could not care less about the 5NNs and are passionate The Donald because he touches on a *real* non-negotiable for them: contempt for desperate refugees.

      My point is not mysterious: lots of conservative Catholics are claiming that to be a good Catholic you *must* vote for a Republican and are even attacking the pope because he’s not being a good Republican. They care more about being a good Republican than about listening to the Church and they are using the unborn as human shields for their support of thugs like Trump who don’t care about the unborn but are *all about* spitting on respect for the poor, the alien the orphan, and the widow. For lots of conservative Catholics, the faith has become a fig leaf for their *real* priorities: priorities Trump is tapping into with a volcanic response from the GOP base.

      • Dave G.

        Are there any actual numbers to go with this? I mean, it looks like Trump is first or second among a dozen or more candidates, with majority of GOP voters saying they are against him. And of those who are supporting him, how many of those for him are, in fact, conservative Catholics? How many of those who are Conservative Catholics support him because they don’t care about refugees? I’m not saying the numbers aren’t there. And I’m sure there are those in that bad camp just like there are others in other bad camps. But ‘lots’ doesn’t really help in getting a grip on how many we’re talking about. A simple ‘Catholics who support trump: XX%’ would help.

        • ManyMoreSpices

          I’m not saying the numbers aren’t there.

          If the argument is that Trump is some sort of Pied Piper leading politically conservative faithful Catholics astray… I’m just not seeing it. Seems to me that Trump’s appeal – whatever it is – is to those whose Catholicism already was subordinate to their political affiliation.

          Then there’s the question of what it means to “support” Trump. I don’t want him anywhere near the Oval Office. But I do enjoy watching good trolling (just as Mark does when it takes the form of Greatest Catechist of the 21st Century Stephen Colbert). There’s pleasure in watching those who take themselves too seriously get worked up over Trump instead of just ignoring him. I mean, he’s making Jon Stewart waste time responding to him. I don’t care where you are politically: that’s a triumph. Trump is dominating news cycles by pillorying some of the conventional wisdom of the liberal establishment. He’s rude, brash, and obnoxious, and it’s making all the right people get the vapors. (If he’s upsetting you, that’s because you’re taking the bait). It’s the same guilty pleasure I get when I see the left get bent out of shape because some people still think that Obama’s a foreign Muslim.

          So no, I’d never vote for the man. But it is fun to watch that buffoon cause the left to shriek with indignity and rush to defend the Sacred Honor of Hillary Clinton because of something that buffoon said on Twitter.

      • http://newarkistheplace.com/ Thomas Mullally

        Right on, Shea. I can’t believe the vulgar tweet about Hilary in the bedroom! I am a person who dislikes Hilary and the corporatist/”non-traditional-woman” agenda as intensely as anyone, but this is just appalling, and a guarantee of coming electoral problems if he is not immediately chastised by party leadership!

      • Rebecca Fuentes

        I would generally identify myself as a Catholic and a conservative (in that order), and I cannot stomach Trump. No candidate on either side seems to be so thoroughly invested in nothing but himself, his bank account, and his own ego (though Hilary runs a close second). I hear a lot of talk about him, hear lots of talking heads giving him plenty of talk time, and I hate to totally dismiss how his talking points are going to affect the election long-term. Even if he drops out later (which I expect), his ideas are now out there, and have been given plenty of time by popular media. Whoever gets the nomination will have to fight against those (provided they don’t agree), and the image of what a Republican is that Trump is projecting right now.

  • Tom Beigel

    I do not see why rodeo clowns must be abused to denounce Trump. I think some apologies are in order.

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      Yes. For one, rodeo clowns have actual courage, instead of just bluster. However, the purpose of the clown is to distract–so what is Trump serving as a distraction from?

  • antigon

    Justin Raimondo at Anti-War.Com nails it.
    *
    ‘Donald Trump is a false-flag candidate. It’s all an act, one that benefits his good friend Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that, until recently, counted the reality show star among its adherents. Indeed, Trump’s pronouncements – the open racism, the demagogic appeals, the faux-populist rhetoric – sound like something out of a Democratic political consultant’s imagination, a caricature of conservatism as performed by a master actor.’

    • Dan F.

      This may be true (who could really know?) but the fact that he’s getting the support and airtime from the right is what would make that scenario actually work.

  • John Leavy

    Repeat after me: Donald Trump is NOT running for President.

    Yes, I know he announced that he is, but he isn’t. He likes the sound of his own voice and he loves being in the spotlight. But he doesn’t want to be President, or even run a real campaign.

    He’s not going to be the GOP nominee. He’s not even going to be on any primary ballots. He’ll shoot his mouth off until the moment he’d have to file real paperwork with the FEC, and then he’ll withdraw.

    He’s NOT the frontrunner for the GOP nomination. At this point, any poll that suggests he is reflects little more than name recognition (yes, that’s ALSO the reason Jeb Bush was considered a frontrunner).

    So, while it’s TRUE that Trump is a blowhard and a hypocrite with absolutely no genuine principles, it’s completely unnecessary to point that out. Even to take the time to refute his positions, or to point out how he’s flip-flopped, is to give the man more time and attention than he merits.

  • Joseph

    Hmm… I dunno. You seem to be giving too much credit to Americans. I don’t think they’ve seriously examined how presidential a president should be for a very long time. As the US becomes dumber by the day being sucked into pop culturalism, this is how I see it.
    .
    The last president elected for a *reason* was probably Bush Sr. Basically, had Dukakis not imploded, Bush Sr. would have lost. But still, it wasn’t so much a popularity contest at the time. Bring on the 90s: Clinton won because he was younger, could somewhat play the saxophone, had a nice smile, and was on MTV a lot… and a small, witty, corporate weasel split the Republican vote. Bush Jr. won because Clinton left a bad taste in the mouth of many Independents (pun intended), people couldn’t tell whether or not Algore was an alien, an artefact from a wax museum, or simply just too boring to be president. He was riding the coattails of the cool saxophone player who got BJs from his interns on the side and he just wasn’t as cool as him. Not only that, Algore’s on stage kiss with his wife was so… unnatural and awkward… ewww… nobody wants a president like that. Bush Jr. managed to win again despite his unpopularity simply because he was running against another wax museum artefact that made extraordinary claims about his time in the military (what FB people nowadays call ‘stealing honour’ or something like that). His running mate was a rather soulless travelling salesman who was banging some woman while is his wife died of cancer. Not cool. Oh, about policy? Never mind that! The Obama won. There was a large portion of the voting populace that voted for him for similar reasons as Clinton. He looked cool on MTV and Oprah. Then there was the segment that simply thought it was time to elect a black person. But we have to give credit to Sarah Palin as well. As soon as she opened her mouth, we were blessed with a perpetual source of political satire, bless her soul. The thought of putting someone who repeated the word “maverick” with a click and a wink so many times during interviews and debates that you could actually start a drinking game from it in such an important position as Vice President just was not going to happen. It’d be like electing the bimbo loudmouth that everyone hates because she thinks she’s more beautiful and important than everyone else (aka “diva”) in your high school graduating class to prom queen. Then he won again against Mitt Romney. Largely because he still had a group of roadies or loyalists, but also because hardly anyone could tell the difference between the two in thought, word, and deed. So it just came down to who looked cooler and who had more celebrity pizzazz. Because Obama is not only an Irishman from Offaly but he’s also Cheney’s long lost cousin, right?
    .
    Enter the Trump phenomenon. This is a guy made for reality TV. We’ve fallen this far. He’s a loud mouth, a hypocrite, a businessman/opportunist that used the system to make himself rich. He’s a megalomaniac, a complete narcissist. He’s annoying as hell. He put’s his foot in his mouth constantly… BUT… he’s entertaining as hell! Coming off the celebrity status of Obama (even though his policies mirrored Bush Jr., whose mirrored Clinton’s, whose mirrored Bush Sr.) we definitely need someone more entertaining that a power hungry woman whose husband preferred a plump intern over and the drab Jeb Bush. C’mon. Trump is the ideal president! He embodies everything that is modern America! We’ll get to watch him *slam* other world leaders, make hasty decisions that harm millions, we’ll get sound bites up the wazzoo!
    .
    THAT explains the Trump phenomenon. Just like the current Hilary phenomenon… it’s simply time for a woman president…
    .
    Who cares about policy!

    • Andy

      Well written – i agree America gets the “leaders” we deserve – reality politics or TV.

  • Guest

    Somewhat off-topic but here’s some of that theory Mark likes to talk about raising its head:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/ct-chipotle-minimum-wage-0709-biz-20150709-story.html

  • ManyMoreSpices

    Linda Chavez, attempting to talk conservatives out of their latest act of mass suicide.

    Take whatever position on immigration you like, but it’s not opposition to illegal immigration that’s suicide for conservatives. What is electoral suicide for conservatives is opening the border to voters who cast their ballots 2 to 1 for Democrats. And it’s electoral suicide combined with stupidity if the justification for importing more Democrats is that Hispanic voters might decide that they like the GOP a little better and only break 60-40 for Democrats.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    Trump is a clown. He will not be the nominee. He’s getting attention now because he is rich, can buy airtime, and he helps to sell more shampoo and beer on CNN and FoxNews. But he will not be the nominee. The GOP as a party can be evil, and they are often stupid, but they are not categorically insane.

    In the end, he’s only helping the other GOP candidates. All they have to do is say, “Yes, I am right wing — but hey, at least I’m not Donald Trump.” And no one can argue with that.

    And I don’t think Hillary Clinton is the strong candidate the Democrats think she is. She’s the closest thing to a Richard Nixon that the Democratic Party has produced in a long time.

  • Gunnar Thalweg

    I briefly followed you on Facebook. You seem to let it hang out more there, and I saw a missing piece of the Mark Shea puzzle. Politically, you are not remotely conservative nor Republican. You are a Catholic Democrat who dissents from Democratic orthodoxy in several social areas, but the fundamental orientation is Democratic. I was thinking you were an independent who support Catholic positions wherever they turn up, but you’re actually pretty far left.

    • chezami

      I’m a Catholic who accepts Catholic teaching in full, including the Five Non-Negotiables and I have come to realize that a huge percentage of Catholics don’t believe the Church’s teaching and only use the Five non-Negotiables as fig leaves for the *real* non-negotiables of conservatives dogmas, many of which are diametrically opposed to the Church. The Catholic defenses of Trump only highlight this. His contempt for the unborn doesn’t matter. What matters is his loathing of the alien, the orphan and the widow, which must be defended *despite* his pro-abortion position. If that’s what it now means to be “conservative”, screw it.

      • Gunnar Thalweg

        I think you are taking Trump way too seriously.

      • Dave G.

        Again, some numbers would help. How many conservative Catholics are we talking about? I know that numbers aren’t everything, but they do help when making such claims and following them with a final verdict.

      • TheHBD

        Pro-Abortion…where are you getting this? I wasn’t sure myself so I looked it up (Google:Trump on the issues)

        Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health. (Jun 2015)

        I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice. (Apr 2011)

        I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories. (Apr 2011)

        I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding. (Feb 2011)

        Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion. (Jul 2000)

        Favors abortion rights but respects opposition. (Dec 1999)

        You can see that 16 years ago he was pro-choice…but still not the militant enthusiastic pro-choice that PRESIDENT OBAMA and EVERY MEMBER OF HIS CABINET as well as 99.9% of registered Democrats are!

        • Joseph

          Being for abortions in case of rape and incest is not being opposed to abortion. This was the major inconsistency that helped McCain lose the pro-life vote.

          • TheHBD

            Technically true…but it certainly does not mean that Trump is “Pro-Abortion”

            • Joseph

              As I understand it, “pro-abortion” means “in favour of abortion”. If one is in favour of abortion in the case of rape or incest, they are in favour of abortion… thus, “pro-abortion”.

              • Guest

                That’s not entirely fair. By saying that the permissible cases are exceptional you have pretty much come out and said that you’re not in favor of it, but in such-and-such cases it should be tolerated.
                That position is wrong, but it’s not what I would call “pro abortion.”

  • Elmwood

    Trump isn’t serious about running for president, he’s just doing this for publicity. that’s why he’s saying such controversial things. people probably like him because he doesn’t seem to care about being politically correct, even when he’s being a complete ass.

    he is very entertaining as a presidential candidate, like a mix of his media bravado and populist anti-politician sentiment. probably about 75-50% of what he says is complete stupid bullsh#t.

  • Joseph

    I’m neither Republican nor Democrat, but has anyone thought of this? Bernie Sanders is a legitimate threat to a Democratic run for president. He is the Democrat’s version of Ross Perot. He threatens to split the Democrat vote running as an Independent, smoothing the way for any Republican nominee, no matter how screwed up, to win… as long as the Republican party is unified behind one character. Trump is there to disrupt the Republican party probably. He’s obviously just as nuts as Ross Perot was. Though most people are right, Trump isn’t really going to get anywhere. It made me think of Bernie Sanders role in this. It’s really the first time an Independent is running that threatens to split the Democrat vote. Hmmm… the conspiracy theorist in me tells me that another Bush will be president.

  • iamlucky13

    “Mention any of the GOP actual beloved priorities such as unjust war, torture,”

    It’s disingenuous to portray these as priorities of solely the GOP. They’re also priorities of several prominent democrats, including Obama and Pelosi.

    That said, I’m horrified that anybody in the Republican Party would even consider Trump. That egotistical clown could genuinely be the one candidate worse than Hillary. The fact that he hasn’t yet been laughed out of the country reinforces my resolve to find time to participate in the caucuses this election.

  • Sue Korlan