The Totally Unoffical Phatmass US Presidential Election Poll

[4588686]

On 10/8/2016 at 3:11 PM, KnightofChrist said:

Below is some evidence from Planned Child Butchering R Us itself that Hillary is a child butcher, and why child butchers are opposed to Trump. If you have any evidence that can prove Trump has had directly cooperated in abortion(s), I'd like to see it. Otherwise I've no time for hypothesis, theories, or conjecture.

Trump states that he has changed his views and was wrong. That's still better than Clinton who arrogantly remains an unrepentant extreme advocate for child butchering.

Clinton shut down an anti-abortion member of Congress. As secretary of state, she fiercely defended the role of the U.S. government in family planning, calling it an essential part of reproductive health care — including access to safe and legal abortion.   Clinton fought attempts to ban safe and legal abortion. As senator, she helped prevent the passage of bills that would have eliminated the ability to access abortion safely and legally. She also voted to protect access — including for military servicewomen and low-income women.   Clinton pledged to repeal the Hyde Amendment — so that a woman’s income or zip code doesn’t determine whether or not she can access abortion safely and legally.She said Hyde has harmful implications for women accessing abortion: “Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all.”

Trump said he wants to ban abortion and that the best way to do it is “by electing me president.”   Trump said if abortion is banned, there “has to be some form ofpunishment” for any woman who has one, but the man involved in the pregnancy shouldn’t be punished. After being criticized for saying that, Trump said it was “not a wrong answer” and that “a lot of people thought [his] answer was excellent.”   Trump said he would appoint anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.

Clinton has been an outspoken and frequent supporter of Planned Parenthood on and beyond the campaign trail. After anti-abortion extremists threatened Planned Parenthood health centers with funding cuts, smear videos, and violent attacks, Clinton was loud and clear about standing with Planned Parenthood, including tweeting over 50 times about her support.   When Planned Parenthood was mentioned in the Democratic debates, Clinton was the first or only candidate to stand up for Planned Parenthood, calling out the moderators for never asking about abortion rights: "We need to be talking about that and defending Planned Parenthood from these outrageous attacks."   There is no doubt that President Clinton will be a strong supporter and defender of Planned Parenthood: As she said herself, “I will always defend Planned Parenthood. And I will say, consistently and proudly: Planned Parenthood should be funded, supported, and appreciated — not undermined, misrepresented, and demonized.”

Trump has repeatedly called for “defunding” Planned Parenthood — in other words banning patients from turning to Planned Parenthood health centers for care. “I’m for defunding Planned Parenthood, very strongly,” he said. Trump said he would even support a government shutdown over Planned Parenthood funding. That’s right: He would shut down the whole government just to try and block patients who rely on federal funds from getting birth control and cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood.

Folks, if you ever find yourself wondering 'who the heck are the people out there who fall for those Nigerian Prince scams?' here's your answer

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

Not unless you do vote for Hillary.

Hillary's been quoted as saying a lot worse, many times, in private.  Of course, you can dismiss it all as hearsay, but those who have dealt with her personally are pretty much unanimous in saying that she's an extremely nasty, verbally abusive, and foul-mouthed person, who treats those under her (particularly security personnel) like absolute garbage.

 

I've known staffers of hers and I've talked with Secret Service personnel who have worked with her and this is not true. What you meant to say was 'this guy on Rush Limbaugh's show made a claim that I believed without question'

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

 

I'm not making excuses for Trump

Yes you are lmao

On 10/8/2016 at 4:29 PM, CatherineM said:

The abortion issue is obviously important, but let's also remember that if Hilary gets elected, she will gut religious liberty. Wait until your parishes start having to pay propert taxes. 

How much would you like to bet that this happens? Because I'll bet you a $100 that it won't. 

On 10/4/2016 at 11:11 PM, Socrates said:

Far enough; seems you're using a somewhat looser definition of "conservative" than I am.  Not saying his die-hard supporters are all a buncha liberals; I just don't think it's really fair to blame the rise of Trump on "conservatism" specifically, when much of the most conservative segment of GOP voters aren't that enamored of him (and many even hate his guts).

Again, I think his appeal for the most part is his personality (and the celebrity factor) and the fact that many people are sick of political correctness and mealy-mouthed politicians.

Yeah, what's conservative about the guy who pledges to cut taxes, deport illegals, trashes 'pc culture', rails against Muslims, is racist. 

 

HMMMMMMMMMM

 

Hey, who is Daddy Rush backing? How about Sean Hannity? Ann Coulter? 

 

Yeah, it's weird that everybody connects him to your garbage political views. 

On 10/5/2016 at 10:24 PM, LittleWaySoul said:

Thoughts on this video?

Does this change anyone's thoughts on the election? It gave me a new perspective, I think. 

It's 100% correct. Democrats are in big trouble and, therefore, this country is basically doomed since the Republican Party is a parade of deplorables. 

[little2add]

By most accounts, hundreds of dangerous militants have, indeed, been killed by drones, including some high-ranking Qaeda figures. But for six years, when the heavy cloak of secrecy has occasionally been breached, the results of some strikes have often turned out to be deeply troubling.

Every independent investigation of the strikes has found far more civilian casualties than administration officials admit. Gradually, it has become clear that when operators in Nevada fire missiles into remote tribal territories on the other side of the world, they often do not know who they are killing, but are making an imperfect best guess.

The proliferating mistakes have given drones a sinister reputation in Pakistan and Yemen and have provoked a powerful anti-American backlash in the Muslim world.

Edited October 10, 2016 by little2add

[Peace]

10 hours ago, Amppax said:

There's a difference between private opinions, and even public ones, and direct political action in support of legalized murder. It's the difference between different levels of cooperation in morality. Here's a handy chart that breaks it all down: http://epicpew.com/this-flowchart-will-tell-you-when-cooperation-with-evil-is-illicit/. Even if the first point of the chart in that link wasn't the case (which it is, and makes it easy in this case, as we are not to cooperate in abortion, period) Hillary's cooperation with abortion is formal cooperation, which is gravely sinful. 

It's not my intention to argue that pro-choice activity isn't sinful. I never said that.

I do not think that calling pro-choice people child butchers is warranted, or productive. A belief that certain decisions (such as answering the question as to when life begins) should be left up to the individual is not the moral equivalent of picking up a knife and chopping a child to pieces with one's own hands, or instructing others to do the same. 

That type of name calling doesn't address the substance of the pro-choice position. It's the functional equivalent of pro-choice people who accuse pro-lifers as wanting to control women's bodies. I don't think that either accomplishes anything other than than offending the other side and killing discussion.

But since you allude to the topic, let me ask you this. Let's say that Political Party A passed a law that would cause anyone who masturbated to go to jail for one month, anyone who committed adultery to go to jail for 2 years, and anyone who worshiped a golden calf to go to jail for ten years. A member of Political Party B then actively attempts to eliminate these laws, believing that these are religious questions that should be left up to each person, and successfully passes a law that guarantees each person the right to masturbate, cheat on his wife, or worship a golden calf without being thrown in jail or otherwise penalized. Does the member of Political Party B sin by doing so? Does he commit a grave sin?

[Amppax]

7 hours ago, Hasan said:

It's 100% correct. Democrats are in big trouble and, therefore, this country is basically doomed since the Republican Party is a parade of deplorables. 

That's right, 'cause the democrats are soooo much better.

[Anomaly]

Waiting until the Presidential election to seriously review your voting is stupid.   In the US political system, the president is influenced greatly by the political machine that got them there.   Just ask Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.  A HUGE area of support for Trump is voters that see him non-traditional politician but more viable than Jill or Gary.  Trump still had to (and has to) make some accommodations to the Republican political machine.  

Reps, Dems, Libertarians, and Greens derive their power from the Senators, Congressmen, Govenors, State Legislatures, local politicians, etc.  one only has to spend a day watching Florida TV to see the political ads explaining the importance of how your representatives vote.  

The big issues are abortion, the Hyde amendment (Government tax $$ for abortion), government control of healthcare, etc.. 

As Peace pointed out, it's paramount to get the issue personage and legal protection for the definition of person.  I'm already seeing Demicrat ads scaring voters that Repubicans will force women to give birth to babies with Zika, burdening mothers and the taxpayers with their care.   It is being sold as anti-women and against healthcare on the part of Republicans.  

According to Pew, more Catholics voted for Obama than Romney.  For "women's healthcare"?   Be careful and aware what the Democrat political machine requires if it's politicians, especially on the larger scale.  Is being against government paid abortion and government controlled healthcare really anti women, of anti inconvenient people? 

Edited October 10, 2016 by Anomaly

[little2add]

 this will not be the last time the Hillary campaign will commit political sabotage against Trump. Since they don’t have logical solutions, they will attempt to distract us with a negative focus on Trump.

[dominicansoul]

5 hours ago, little2add said:

 this will not be the last time the Hillary campaign will commit political sabotage against Trump. Since they don’t have logical solutions, they will attempt to distract us with a negative focus on Trump.

Sadly he really makes it all too easy for them 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

................ he really makes it all too easy for them 

 

[Amppax]

On 10/10/2016 at 10:38 AM, Peace said:

It's not my intention to argue that pro-choice activity isn't sinful. I never said that.

I do not think that calling pro-choice people child butchers is warranted, or productive. A belief that certain decisions (such as answering the question as to when life begins) should be left up to the individual is not the moral equivalent of picking up a knife and chopping a child to pieces with one's own hands, or instructing others to do the same. 

That type of name calling doesn't address the substance of the pro-choice position. It's the functional equivalent of pro-choice people who accuse pro-lifers as wanting to control women's bodies. I don't think that either accomplishes anything other than than offending the other side and killing discussion.

But since you allude to the topic, let me ask you this. Let's say that Political Party A passed a law that would cause anyone who masturbated to go to jail for one month, anyone who committed adultery to go to jail for 2 years, and anyone who worshiped a golden calf to go to jail for ten years. A member of Political Party B then actively attempts to eliminate these laws, believing that these are religious questions that should be left up to each person, and successfully passes a law that guarantees each person the right to masturbate, cheat on his wife, or worship a golden calf without being thrown in jail or otherwise penalized. Does the member of Political Party B sin by doing so? Does he commit a grave sin?

There's a spectrum to what pro-choice means; it varies. For example, I know people who really are horrified by abortion (especially following the PP videos last year) yet don't think it should be made completely illegal, that women should sometimes have a right to choose that. Then you have Hillary Clinton who says things like religions need to get with the times and abandon outdated moral opposition on topics such as abortion and gay marriage. She's said that she wants to expand access to abortion, and that it is a fundamental human right. That's not just pro-choice, that's pro-abortion. So she may not be a murderer directly, at least not in this regard, but she is one of the most vocal supporters of guaranteeing people are allowed to murder their offspring. She wants to expand funds to abortion and to force those who are opposed with the practice to pay for it. Unless I'm mistaken, she said as much in the debate. 

The Catholic position on cooperating with abortion is very clear. For the sake of argument, let's take up your scenario though. I would say probably not, and would refer to Aquinas on toleration (here's a good summary of his position: http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/tolernce.html). However, that would not apply to abortion, as the Church has repeatedly taught. See, for example http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/church-teaching/catholics-in-political-life.cfm.

[LittleWaySoul]

On 10/8/2016 at 1:30 PM, dominicansoul said:

But talking smutty and being a blowhard

I've been really alarmed at how quickly and deftly Trump and his supporters have tried to spin his words away from an admission of sexual assault to him merely "talking smutty" and making "lewd comments." As many many others have pointed out lately, it's not the vulgar terms that are problematic with what he said, it's the actions he's describing. Those actions are classified as sexual assault.

Vote how you want, but let's all at least acknowledge this plain fact. Making excuses like Trump has been doing is immature and intellectually lazy. I will still respect your decision to vote for him for the sake of being hopeful about the pro-life issue and the Supreme Court, but let's all agree that what he said goes beyond "locker room talk" and "crude language."

[little2add]

1 hour ago, LittleWaySoul said:

I've been really alarmed at how quickly and deftly Trump and his supporters have tried to spin his words away from an admission of sexual assault to him merely "talking smutty" and making "lewd comments." As many many others have pointed out lately, it's not the vulgar terms that are problematic with what he said, it's the actions he's describing. Those actions are classified as sexual assault.

Vote how you want, but let's all at least acknowledge this plain fact. Making excuses like Trump has been doing is immature and intellectually lazy. I will still respect your decision to vote for him for the sake of being hopeful about the pro-life issue and the Supreme Court, but let's all agree that what he said goes beyond "locker room talk" and "crude language."

If Trump had acted on his nasty comments someone would've come forward by now.  Trump said; he did not do anything and  apologize.  I find it hard to believe that if anyone was molested or asssulted that they would've come forward (for the money...) with details, etc.

Clinton on the other hand is dirty, in my opinion.   She seems to be getting a free pass from the national media for her crimes and the FBI for that matter.    

Edited October 12, 2016 by little2add

[Anomaly]

He still may have acted as bragged, but most people believe he is more of a braggadocio nozzle than a perverted abuser.    Though I tend to think if Trump had actually really done those things, he'd have more lawsuits than Bill Cosby or Bill Clinton

[Ice_nine]

I think you guys don't understand how sexual assault works and why people do not come forward against their assailant. Especially those who are powerful.

[KnightofChrist]

I understand how it works in the realm of politics and media. It matters when Republicans are accused of it. It does not matter when Democrats do it.

Hillary has been caught on tape laughing at a rape victim, making jokes, and bragging about getting the victim's attacker off on a technicality. 

But we will not be taking much about that in this thread. Because the media isn't reporting on it as they would if a Republican had been caught doing the same. 

Edited October 13, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[Peace]

13 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Hillary has been caught on tape laughing at a rape victim, making jokes, and bragging about getting the victim's attacker off on a technicality.

You have grossly overstated the facts, but here is the video, for anyone who wants to judge for himself:

 

Quote

But we will not be taking much about that in this thread. Because the media isn't reporting on it as they would if a Republican had been caught doing the same. 

The Clinton interview has already been reported by the media on many occasions.  The reason why the American people are talking much about the Trump tape and not so much about the Clinton tape is because they have enough plain common sense to realize that what Clinton said is not even in the same ballpark as saying that you are going to walk up to women and "grab them in the p----".