The Totally Unoffical Phatmass US Presidential Election Poll

[dominicansoul]

at least I can take breaths...some of our citizens aren't given that right.  

https://www.catholicvote.org/yes-bishop-olmsted-really-just-said-this-to-pro-choice-catholic-politicians

Thank you Bishop Olmstead and thank you CatholicVote!  

[Peace]

22 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

at least I can take breaths...some of our citizens aren't given that right.  

https://www.catholicvote.org/yes-bishop-olmsted-really-just-said-this-to-pro-choice-catholic-politicians

Thank you Bishop Olmstead and thank you CatholicVote!  

Should pro-choice politicians be denied communion? That sounds like an interesting thread topic to me. Why don't you go somewhere and create it?

[Archaeology cat]

On 9/23/2016 at 1:15 AM, BarbaraTherese said:

Wondering ...........

How far do USA voters trust pre-election promises? Trump might promise pre-election he is against abortion and pro-life, can voters trust that that is absolutely assured if he is elected?  Or is Trump merely casting his net into a certain component of the American population.......i.e. saying what they want to hear to hopefully win their vote?  It does seem to me that in the course of the campaign, Trump has changed lanes more than once if a statement of his is not a good political move.

I'm an Aussie.  Donald Trump as President of the most powerful nation on earth is really scary to me.  If he should be elected, I am hoping and praying that I am very wrong indeed.

 

I do not trust pre-election promises. The people running give me no reason to believe them. I will not vote for either Trump or Clinton. 

[Nihil Obstat]

22 minutes ago, Peace said:

Should pro-choice politicians be denied communion? That sounds like an interesting thread topic to me. Why don't you go somewhere and create it?

Yes they should, and that has been done to death on this forum in previous years. Canon 950 is abundantly clear.

[dominicansoul]

1 hour ago, Archaeology cat said:

I do not trust pre-election promises. The people running give me no reason to believe them. I will not vote for either Trump or Clinton. 

I trust only hillarys pre election promises...get rid of the Hyde amendment, more taxpayer money for planned parenthood, more attacks on religious liberty through the "healthcare mandate" and stacking the Supreme Court with liberal activist judges.  

I also see a continued weakened military sabotaged by political correct social experiments and strengthening of ISIS, more instability in the Middle East, more radical terrorist attacks blamed on videos or some other asinine thing, more divisive race wars in our country, more unemployment, more and more people on welfare, more security leaks, higher taxes  and immigration laws booted.  I see an administration like the current one with no transparency whatsoever. 

Thats why I will effectively vote against her.  

Edited September 24, 2016 by dominicansoul

[dominicansoul]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

Should pro-choice politicians be denied communion? That sounds like an interesting thread topic to me. Why don't you go somewhere and create it?

That's not entirely what the article is about.  I'd like to point this out from the article:

 

Quote

17) Are all political and social issues equal when it comes to choosing a political candidate?

Absolutely not! The Catholic Church is actively engaged in a wide variety of important public policy issues including immigration, education, affordable housing, health, and welfare, to name just a few. On each of these issues we should do our best to be informed and to support those proposed solutions that seem most likely to be effective. However, when it comes to direct attacks on innocent human life, being right on all the other issues can never justify a wrong choice on this most serious matter.

As Pope John Paul II has written, “Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with the maximum determination” (Christifideles Laici, 38).

 

Thank you Pope John Paul!

[Peace]

20 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

That's not entirely what the article is about.  I'd like to point this out from the article:

 

 

Thank you Pope John Paul!

Somehow I doubt that he would be voting for Trump in this election, but perhaps one day we can ask him.

4 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Yes they should, and that has been done to death on this forum in previous years. Canon 950 is abundantly clear.

It has been done to death before? Well, that is something that we can agree upon.

[dominicansoul]

18 minutes ago, Peace said:

Somehow I doubt that he would be voting for Trump in this election, but perhaps one day we can ask him.

 

We can wonder about that.  But I can guarantee he would DEFINITELY NOT be voting for hilary.  

[Guest]

Catholic Answers:

http://www.catholic.com/sites/default/files/voters_guide_for_serious_catholics.pdf

[Socrates]

On 9/19/2016 at 2:54 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

I think Trump's success so far has been based on the insecurities of modern conservatism. Conservatives today are typically going to be labelled as racist, misogynist, xenophobic, 'fat cats', uncompassionate, etc.. It is the stereotype that has developed. It is a trope now, a stock character. Whether or not it is accurate, whatever truth or lack of truth there is in the stereotype, it has taken hold in the modern American consciousness. And I think to a large extent it has been internalized even by conservatives themselves.

. . . . 

That's a nice bit of psychobabble, but I'm afraid not particularly accurate, as Trump's chief base of support has never really been with actual conservatives.  Trump and his followers have been more "nationalist" and "populist" than conservative.  Most serious movement conservatives I know (both in "real life" and and those I've read or listened to in media) supported Ted Cruz, rather than Trump, back when he was in the race.  Now many of us support Trump as the lesser evil against Hillary Clinton, but are still not thrilled he got the nomination.  Some other conservatives remain die-hard "NeverTrump" (though any "conservative" who would actually vote for Hillary is either phony or deranged, imo).  And, of course, some politicians and media figures opportunistically jumped aboard the Trump bandwagon.

I think the reality is that Trump's appeal is more personality than ideological, and his supporters are not ideologically monolithic.  He's popular because many people (rightly) feel betrayed by the Washington political establishment and are fed up with two-faced mealy-mouthed pc politicians.  They (whether rightly or wrongly) see Mr. Trump as "not a politician" and a straight-shooter who calls things as they are, and who can fix things rather than just play politics.

 

On 9/20/2016 at 3:38 PM, Peace said:

The only reedeming quality that I can really come up with concernig Clinton is that she has "some kind of relevant experience"

 

On 9/21/2016 at 2:59 AM, <3 PopeFrancis said:

I would vote for her based off her credentials as a politician.  That small "abortion" issue will not allow me to

I don't think "political experience" is that great a credential if the history of that experience is an absolute disaster from top to bottom.  Hillary accomplished nothing positive as Secretary of State, and imo her handling of Benghazi alone is reason enough to disqualify her from being Commander-in-Chief.

On issues of character and honesty, she's worse than Trump, though it's sad and speaks poorly of our country that it comes down to a choice between these two.

[Nihil Obstat]

34 minutes ago, Socrates said:

That's a nice bit of psychobabble, but I'm afraid not particularly accurate, as Trump's chief base of support has never really been with actual conservatives.  Trump and his followers have been more "nationalist" and "populist" than conservative.  Most serious movement conservatives I know (both in "real life" and and those I've read or listened to in media) supported Ted Cruz, rather than Trump, back when he was in the race.  Now many of us support Trump as the lesser evil against Hillary Clinton, but are still not thrilled he got the nomination.  Some other conservatives remain die-hard "NeverTrump" (though any "conservative" who would actually vote for Hillary is either phony or deranged, imo).  And, of course, some politicians and media figures opportunistically jumped aboard the Trump bandwagon.

I think the reality is that Trump's appeal is more personality than ideological, and his supporters are not ideologically monolithic.  He's popular because many people (rightly) feel betrayed by the Washington political establishment and are fed up with two-faced mealy-mouthed pc politicians.  They (whether rightly or wrongly) see Mr. Trump as "not a politician" and a straight-shooter who calls things as they are, and who can fix things rather than just play politics.

 

 

 

Obviously I am not American, so my experience is different from yours, but being married to an American I do see a lot of the same sorts of things on Facebook. To be honest I am seeing quite a lot of the kind of 'down to earth conservative folk' who are enthusiastically pro-Trump. The sort of NASCAR watching Bud drinking redneck sorts. And I do not mean that negatively (heck, they are usually proud of it, so more power to them), just a characterization.

Although I agree that his support has broadened with the lesser of two evils approach. No argument from me there.

I think it is fair to say that the populist support that carried Trump so far has, up until now, generally been lumped together with conservatism. Maybe in hindsight we can subdivide them and see where the finer demarcation was, but I think even say four years ago Trump's populist supporters and the movement conservatives you are referring to were by and large supporting the same people, or at least the same handful of people.

[Peace]

39 minutes ago, Socrates said:

On issues of character and honesty, she's worse than Trump

Is there any living Democrat that you would not say that about? My guess is that your conclusion is based more on ideology, than actual personality traits.

2 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Obviously I am not American, so my experience is different from yours, but being married to an American I do see a lot of the same sorts of things on Facebook. To be honest I am seeing quite a lot of the kind of 'down to earth conservative folk' who are enthusiastically pro-Trump. The sort of NASCAR watching Bud drinking redneck sorts. And I do not mean that negatively (heck, they are usually proud of it, so more power to them), just a characterization.

The Republican party is fractured pretty bad. The folks you describe (the ones who have taken on the stereotype) are Republican, but not necessarily conservatives. Many Republicans would vote Democrat, except for religious reasons. But they are not what I would call "conservative". They are conservative only w.r.t. certain religious issues like abortion.  Many other Republicans would vote Democrat, except that they are racist and the Republican party (rightly or wrongly) is perceived as the "white" party while the Democratic party is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as the "pro-minority" party. This is where Trump finds most of his support (IMHO). Then you have a small group of Republicans (maybe 10 to 20% or so) who are "conservatives" along the lines of Ted Cruz or Socrates.

So your comments might apply to "Republicans" but not necessarily to "conservatives".

[Amppax]

16 minutes ago, Peace said:

Is there any living Democrat that you would not say that about? My guess is that your conclusion is based more on ideology, than actual personality traits.

 

We haven't found any yet. 

[Guest]

Re "lesser of two evils". Being an Aussie and not understanding really the way American democracy works in your government, if a person rejects both presidential candidates, is there on opportunity to vote for neither (protest vote) and concentrate on your upper house (I think it is what you call your congress) and getting in someone in congress who is totally against abortion etc.  Or is it a case that the presidency can always bypass or veto congress?  I don't think the president can because of the financial crisis when congress refused to pass something or other (forgotten what - "supply"?)and stopped the country functioning more or less.   But then I think too that to not vote for either candidate might be shirking responsibility.

If I was an American, I would find it scary with either Trump or Clinton in the Whitehouse, while Trump is really the lesser of two evils at face value only at this point - what he might bring about in the presidency could be another story.  I read that Trump has brought into his campaign 33 Catholic advisors and while in campaign and pre-election mode, it might look good -  I still don't trust the man : http://cathnews.com/cathnews/26970-trump-names-33-conservative-catholics-as-new-advisers

I just can't make myself convinced that Trump will prove to be in the presidency what he is at pains to try to appear to be to gain the votes - especially in this last stage of the election campaign. 

Perhaps the best just might be to vote where mind and conscience states......and then pray and keep praying.

Come Holy Spirit and enlighten the minds of the citizens of the USA as they consider their vote in the coming USA elections.

 

Edited September 26, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[<3 PopeFrancis]

16 hours ago, Socrates said:

On issues of character and honesty, she's worse than Trump, though it's sad and speaks poorly of our country that it comes down to a choice between these two.

This thread has actually been enlightening.  Not voting for neither.