The Totally Unoffical Phatmass US Presidential Election Poll

[Anomaly]

8 minutes ago, Peace said:

The poll at the top of this thread has more people voting for Trump than Hillary, so you obviously aren't basing your conclusion on that. 

Do you have any reliable data about how Catholics vote today? I would be interested in looking at it.

An easy topical analysis is Catholic Church and Poitics in the USA in Wikipedia.  As far as your previous post thinking that the Catholic vote doesn't make a difference, about 25% of the National voters are Catholics is noted in the article. 

And as far as taking Catholics seriously if they support Trump, that ship sailed when most Catholic voters supported pro abortion Pelosi, Biden, Sebelius, Kerry...

[Amppax]

39 minutes ago, Peace said:

The poll at the top of this thread has more people voting for Trump than Hillary, so you obviously aren't basing your conclusion on that. 

Do you have any reliable data about how Catholics vote today? I would be interested in looking at it.

I've read before that over half of American Catholics who voted voted for Obama. 

[Peace]

9 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The Washington Post also has an obvious bias to protect Clinton. You can try to discredit the victim using "facts" from a newspaper that supports Clinton if you wish, but readers have a choice, believe the victim or believe Clinton's defenders. That's the only reason I really posted the link. I knew you'd have no use for it. Others however may care more about what she has to say than the Pro-Clinton Washington Post.

The facts I mentioned were the tape and the affidavit. If you don't trust the WP, please feel free to go down to the courthouse and make a copy of the affidavit for yourself. The tape is online.

A copy of the very same affidavit and the very same tape are also contained in the UK article, since you apparently believe that the UK article is the source of all sources.

And anyone reading the WP article would have been made well aware of the article you posted, because the article you posted is cited in the WP article, and the WP article contains a link to the article you posted.

[dominicansoul]

23 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

And as far as taking Catholics seriously if they support Trump, that ship sailed when most Catholic voters supported pro abortion Pelosi, Biden, Sebelius, Kerry...

My point exactly.  Where is the Catholic outrage over what this Democrat Party Administration is doing right now at this very minute?  Where is the outrage over the babies dying right now?   All this faux outrage from the Left over Trump's words when their darlings at Planned Parenthood are actually aiding rapists!  Where is the outrage over Planned Parenthood helping rapists who rape minors?  Where is the outrage over the plotting and planning of how to dismember an unborn in order to save tissues that will be sold to the highest bidders?  

All that this Democrat Party administration did with those undercover videos was to scoff at them and then put the poor messenger in jail for breaking their imaginary laws.  The guy who did the undercover job, David Daleiden was the villain.  He was indicted.   Then Democrats went on the propaganda campaign of saying the videos had been tampered with and they were lies and it was all false.  

If Catholics want men to stop saying such evil outrageous things, they should help diminish the maliciousness toward women in our society that is perpetuated by organizations like Planned Parenthood!!!  Planned Parenthood thrives on this attitude towards women! 

As a devout Catholic, I'm much more outraged over the promise from Hilary to continue to aide and support Planned Parenthood  in all it's evil endeavors than I am from the disgusting pig-headed words coming from loud-mouth Trump that were spoken 11 years ago... 

  

[Peace]

53 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

An easy topical analysis is Catholic Church and Poitics in the USA in Wikipedia.  As far as your previous post thinking that the Catholic vote doesn't make a difference, about 25% of the National voters are Catholics is noted in the article. 

I wrote practing Catholics. Not cultural Catholics or CINO.

53 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

And as far as taking Catholics seriously if they support Trump, that ship sailed when most Catholic voters supported pro abortion Pelosi, Biden, Sebelius, Kerry...

Again - where is your data? Catholics as a whole (including CINO and cultural Catholics) split the vote during the 2012 election. One would think that practing Catholics are more likely to vote R (as evidenced by the poll in this thread, for example). 

[KnightofChrist]

57 minutes ago, Peace said:

The facts I mentioned were the tape and the affidavit. If you don't trust the WP, please feel free to go down to the courthouse and make a copy of the affidavit for yourself. The tape is online.

A copy of the very same affidavit and the very same tape are also contained in the UK article, since you apparently believe that the UK article is the source of all sources.

And anyone reading the WP article would have been made well aware of the article you posted, because the article you posted is cited in the WP article, and the WP article contains a link to the article you posted.

I'm just not going to discredit the victim and her account of what happened as quickly has you have done. I've not attempted to discredit Trump's accusers, nor I don't think they should be as easily dismissed. Again others can decide whether or not to believe her. Your defense, but 'not defending' Hillary was predictable.

=====

In other news...

WikiLeaks Email: Clinton Spokesman Mocks Catholics and Evangelicals

In the Podesta E-mails from WikiLeaks: Catholic Church a ‘Middle Ages Dictatorship' (Calls for 'Catholic Spring')

 

Democrats planned to fool ‘self-righteous’ Sanders backers at convention

 

Wikileaks: CNN Gave Hillary Death Penalty Debate Question in Advance
 

WikiLeaks List: Most Damaging Emails About DNC, Clinton, and Bernie

 

 

[Anomaly]

22 minutes ago, Peace said:

I wrote practing Catholics. Not cultural Catholics or CINO.

Again - where is your data? Catholics as a whole (including CINO and cultural Catholics) split the vote during the 2012 election. One would think that practing Catholics are more likely to vote R (as evidenced by the poll in this thread, for example). 

Where is your data to define and delineate "practicing Catholic " vs CINOs.   The article stated 85% said their Catholic faith was of importance.  Read the article, check out the links.

It is clear from the statistics and posts here, that for most Catholic voters, it's okay to support pro-abortion politicians if they're nice, call it woman's healthcare, are against torture, say they're going to tax the evil rich, or appear to be nicer people.  I don't see what you can disagree with?

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Where is your data to define and delineate "practicing Catholic " vs CINOs.   The article stated 85% said their Catholic faith was of importance.  Read the article, check out the links.

Donald Trump has also stated that his faith is important to him. Would you consider Trump to be a practicing Christian? Or do you realize that what people call themselves is irrelevant?

You can define a practicing Catholic in different ways. A good starting point might be the Wikipedia article "Cafeteria Catholics".  It states the following:

Quote

The term cafeteria Catholic is applied to those who assert their Catholic identity yet dissent from one or more Catholic doctrinal or moral teachings, or who are viewed as dissenting by those using the term. Examples include Catholics who are accused of dissenting from any or all of the Church teachings on human sexuality and things related (the so-called "pelvic issues")—i.e., what it has to say about abortion, birth control, divorce, premarital sex, masturbation, pornography, prostitution, and/or the moral status of homosexual acts.

I would go a bit further and define a practicing Catholic as a person who:

(1) Mentally assents to all of the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church;

(2) Attends Mass once a week or more;

(3) Goes to confession at least once a year;

(4) Is not in an ongoing unrepented state of objectively grave sin (e.g. a married person who uses artificial birth control).

(5) Is actively involved in his or her parish in some fashion.

So let's take the "Catholic Church and politics in the United States" Wikipedia article that you so graciously pointed me to.  You can use that article to disqualify 76% as non-practicing based on (1) alone:

Quote

While the pope and the bishops have opposed birth control, the majority of American Catholics disagree with them, and believe the church should change its teaching on birth control. A Pew Research poll conducted in 2013 found that three-quarters of U.S. Catholics (76%) say the church should permit birth control.

48% of them are pro-choice:

Quote

Polling shows a majority of Catholics classify themselves as pro-life; a 2009 poll showed a 52% majority identifying as pro-life.[53] Pew Research, combining polls from 2011 and 2013, notes that over half (53%) of white Catholics believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, with 41% saying it should be illegal in all or most cases. Among Hispanic Catholics, 43% say it should be legal in all or most cases, while 52% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.[54]

So if 48% of US "Catholics" are pro-choice, should it surprise you that 50% of "Catholics" voted for the pro-choice candidate in the 2012 election? You are not talking about people who assent to the truth of the Catholic faith. They don't even agree with what the Catholic Church teaches in the first place. Would it surprise you that Catholics who believe the Church's teaching on abortion are more likely to vote for candidates that are pro-life? This is not exactly rocket science.

As for data concerning Catholics who satisfy the 5 criteria above (or satisfy even only the 1st criteria), I do not know of any hard data, but I will try to search for some if time permits. I only have anecdotal evidence as it stands now. For example, I do not know of anyone in the men's group in my home parish who is voting for Hillary. As another example, I did not notice any Catholics participating in this thread who indicate that they will vote for Hillary. I have seen some practicing Catholics in the media who have said that they will vote for Hillary, not because they are pro-choice, but rather, because they view her as the lesser of two evils. I have not seen any data that suggests that a majority (or even many) practicing Catholics typically vote for pro-choice candidates in normal election years.

5 hours ago, Anomaly said:

It is clear from the statistics and posts here, that for most Catholic voters, it's okay to support pro-abortion politicians if they're nice, call it woman's healthcare, are against torture, say they're going to tax the evil rich, or appear to be nicer people.  

Posters here? Who specifically are you talking about? What Catholic posters in this thread have said that they will vote for Hillary Clinton? To my knowledge, most of the people who have posted here have said that they will vote for Trump, or that they will vote for some alternative 3rd party candidate. I do not recall anyone saying that they will vote for Hillary, but perhaps I missed those statements.

As for the substance of your statement - that is simply your own private, conclusory opinion, for which you have provided neither evidence nor reason in support of it. I consider it to be a figment of your imagination until you prove otherwise.

5 hours ago, Anomaly said:

I don't see what you can disagree with?

Please refer to what I wrote above. If you have trouble understanding it please let me know and I will be happy to explain it to you further.

[Peace]

6 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I'm just not going to discredit the victim and her account of what happened as quickly has you have done.

The victim does not have an account of what happened during the course of the criminal proceedings. In the UK article she says very little about what happened during the course of the criminal proceedings. And the one substantive statement that she made about Clinton's conduct during the criminal proceedings is illogical on its face. But I will allow you to figure out why this is the case for yourself. Please let me know if you would like an explanation.

6 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I've not attempted to discredit Trump's accusers, nor I don't think they should be as easily dismissed.

Well then just think about the logical implication of that. You can't have it both ways.

You either (1) doubt the truth of Trump's accusers or (2) choose to vote for someone who you believe is guilty of sexual assault.

Which is it?

6 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Your defense, but 'not defending' Hillary was predictable.

Predictable huh? Well. Perhaps if you took the log out of your own eye you would be able to see the reason why a Catholic should not vote for a man who brags about sexually assaulting women.

As for my "defense" or "non-defense" of Hillary, I think that Clinton’s laughter in the interview lacked sensitivity for the victim of the crime, and that she should apologize for that if she has not already. I do not think that Clinton laughed at the fact that the victim was raped. In the interview Clinton seems to express that the outcome of the case was sad, and laughed at flaws within the criminal justice system. But I posted the actual video from the actual interview so that people can judge for themselves.

As for the affidavit that requested that the victim be subjected to a psychological exam, I have no problem with that. All people are innocent until proven guilty, and are entitled to a zealous defense when charged with a crime. Clinton was appointed by a judge to represent the defendant, and the job of a criminal lawyer is to pursue all legal means that may shed doubt on his client’s guilt. At the time of this crime it was legal to file the affidavit and request the exam, so Clinton was right to pursue this to attempt to obtain a reduced sentence for her client. This is the way that the legal system in the United States works, and you should be glad to have a lawyer that will zealously defend you should you ever be charged with a crime yourself.

But again, the reason why the Trump tape has gotten so much press, and that the Clinton tape has not, is because most people are smart enough to realize the clear difference between the two. Clinton did not do anything in those proceedings that approaches bragging about walking up to women and “grabbing them by the p----”. The difference in treatment has nothing to do with a conspiracy that the media has against Republicans. Almost anyone can play the tapes side by side and tell you which tape is worse.

And the only thing that is predictable is that you will continue to attempt to divert attention away from Trump, so that you do not have to deal with the valid criticism you face for supporting someone who is morally reprehensible and contrary to the Catholic faith. I will vote for someone who is pro-life and for someone who is not morally reprehensible, as you have chosen not to do.

6 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

=====

In other news...

WikiLeaks Email: Clinton Spokesman Mocks Catholics and Evangelicals

In the Podesta E-mails from WikiLeaks: Catholic Church a ‘Middle Ages Dictatorship' (Calls for 'Catholic Spring')

 

Democrats planned to fool ‘self-righteous’ Sanders backers at convention

 

Wikileaks: CNN Gave Hillary Death Penalty Debate Question in Advance
 

WikiLeaks List: Most Damaging Emails About DNC, Clinton, and Bernie

Well what do you know? It appears that my prediction has come true already.

I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, but please feel free to inform anyone who plans to do so of the above information, and encourage him to vote for a pro-life candidate who is not morally reprehensible and who does not brag about assaulting women.

Good night.

[dominicansoul]

Quote

I think the most vile and lewd comment that has been said or could be said in this dysfunctional election cycle was said by Secretary Clinton when she said "the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights." That she said it politely and on national television does not take away the horror of what she said. The right to life cannot be one political issue among others. The likelihood that she would appoint supreme court judges who share this unjust belief is frightening.

This is from Bishop Konderla.  God bless him for standing up for the unborn!  I'm sure he'll receive backlash from the LEFT and from Catholics, sadly...

[dUSt]

22 hours ago, Amppax said:

I've read before that over half of American Catholics who voted voted for Obama. 

Yeah, but what is "Catholic".

[KnightofChrist]

15 hours ago, Peace said:

The victim does not have an account of what happened during the course of the criminal proceedings. In the UK article she says very little about what happened during the course of the criminal proceedings. And the one substantive statement that she made about Clinton's conduct during the criminal proceedings is illogical on its face. But I will allow you to figure out why this is the case for yourself. Please let me know if you would like an explanation.

Well then just think about the logical implication of that. You can't have it both ways.

You either (1) doubt the truth of Trump's accusers or (2) choose to vote for someone who you believe is guilty of sexual assault.

Which is it?

 

Predictable huh? Well. Perhaps if you took the log out of your own eye you would be able to see the reason why a Catholic should not vote for a man who brags about sexually assaulting women.

As for my "defense" or "non-defense" of Hillary, I think that Clinton’s laughter in the interview lacked sensitivity for the victim of the crime, and that she should apologize for that if she has not already. I do not think that Clinton laughed at the fact that the victim was raped. In the interview Clinton seems to express that the outcome of the case was sad, and laughed at flaws within the criminal justice system. But I posted the actual video from the actual interview so that people can judge for themselves.

As for the affidavit that requested that the victim be subjected to a psychological exam, I have no problem with that. All people are innocent until proven guilty, and are entitled to a zealous defense when charged with a crime. Clinton was appointed by a judge to represent the defendant, and the job of a criminal lawyer is to pursue all legal means that may shed doubt on his client’s guilt. At the time of this crime it was legal to file the affidavit and request the exam, so Clinton was right to pursue this to attempt to obtain a reduced sentence for her client. This is the way that the legal system in the United States works, and you should be glad to have a lawyer that will zealously defend you should you ever be charged with a crime yourself.

But again, the reason why the Trump tape has gotten so much press, and that the Clinton tape has not, is because most people are smart enough to realize the clear difference between the two. Clinton did not do anything in those proceedings that approaches bragging about walking up to women and “grabbing them by the p----”. The difference in treatment has nothing to do with a conspiracy that the media has against Republicans. Almost anyone can play the tapes side by side and tell you which tape is worse.

And the only thing that is predictable is that you will continue to attempt to divert attention away from Trump, so that you do not have to deal with the valid criticism you face for supporting someone who is morally reprehensible and contrary to the Catholic faith. I will vote for someone who is pro-life and for someone who is not morally reprehensible, as you have chosen not to do.

Well what do you know? It appears that my prediction has come true already.

I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, but please feel free to inform anyone who plans to do so of the above information, and encourage him to vote for a pro-life candidate who is not morally reprehensible and who does not brag about assaulting women.

Good night.

I don't know whether or not I doubt or believe Trump's victims and/or accusers. I do know they should not be easily dismissed. What I haven't done is cased doubt upon their testimony/accusations. The only one here casting doubts on a victim/accuser is yourself. I don't deny Trump is a vulgar barbarian, he is a vulgar barbarian. I'm merely trying to point out Hillary's evils, which are greater. Since most others, including yourself, don't seem to want to talk about her evils. You and others have the attacks/accusations on Trump covered. I'm attempting to bring at least balance to the thread. And yes, I find it interesting that whenever someone does mention Hillary's evils you down play it or try to lessen it in some manner. That's a defense of but not defending Hillary. 

And as a side note Obama was caught on camera saying you "Gotta have them ribs and p###y too!" and apparently showing off his ugh sports car to women on a plane when he was running for President the first time, not the same way as Trump used the P word, but the media still sat on that, they didn't use it to judge his character or call him vulgar. Had Trump used it in the same manner as Obama did it is still likely that the media would be reminding us all 24/7 about it and his vulgarity.

Anyway, what I'm saying is victims/accusers have a right to be believed, as Hillary would say (except for Bill's victims/accusers of course). You wish to cast doubt on the victim's beliefs, that's fine and that's your choice. It is not a choice I care to take and it's not a choice I have much respect for. But as I stated repeatedly now. It's up to others to decide. You're not going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you.

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[dominicansoul]

36 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

And as a side note Obama was caught on camera saying you "Gotta have them ribs and p###y too!" and apparently showing off his ugh sports car to women on a plane when he was running for President the first time, not the same way as Trump used the P word, but the media still sat on that, they didn't use it to judge his character or call him vulgar. Had Trump used it in the same manner as Obama did it is still likely that the media would be reminding us all 24/7 about it and his vulgarity.

I was convinced Barrack didn't have one...

(oops, there goes my vulgar self...)

[Anomaly]

17 hours ago, Peace said:

Donald Trump has also stated that his faith is important to him. Would you consider Trump to be a practicing Christian? Or do you realize that what people call themselves is irrelevant?

You can define a practicing Catholic in different ways. A good starting point might be the Wikipedia article "Cafeteria Catholics".  It states the following:

I would go a bit further and define a practicing Catholic as a person who:

(1) Mentally assents to all of the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church;

(2) Attends Mass once a week or more;

(3) Goes to confession at least once a year;

(4) Is not in an ongoing unrepented state of objectively grave sin (e.g. a married person who uses artificial birth control).

(5) Is actively involved in his or her parish in some fashion.

So let's take the "Catholic Church and politics in the United States" Wikipedia article that you so graciously pointed me to.  You can use that article to disqualify 76% as non-practicing based on (1) alone:

48% of them are pro-choice:

So if 48% of US "Catholics" are pro-choice, should it surprise you that 50% of "Catholics" voted for the pro-choice candidate in the 2012 election? You are not talking about people who assent to the truth of the Catholic faith. They don't even agree with what the Catholic Church teaches in the first place. Would it surprise you that Catholics who believe the Church's teaching on abortion are more likely to vote for candidates that are pro-life? This is not exactly rocket science.

As for data concerning Catholics who satisfy the 5 criteria above (or satisfy even only the 1st criteria), I do not know of any hard data, but I will try to search for some if time permits. I only have anecdotal evidence as it stands now. For example, I do not know of anyone in the men's group in my home parish who is voting for Hillary. As another example, I did not notice any Catholics participating in this thread who indicate that they will vote for Hillary. I have seen some practicing Catholics in the media who have said that they will vote for Hillary, not because they are pro-choice, but rather, because they view her as the lesser of two evils. I have not seen any data that suggests that a majority (or even many) practicing Catholics typically vote for pro-choice candidates in normal election years.

Posters here? Who specifically are you talking about? What Catholic posters in this thread have said that they will vote for Hillary Clinton? To my knowledge, most of the people who have posted here have said that they will vote for Trump, or that they will vote for some alternative 3rd party candidate. I do not recall anyone saying that they will vote for Hillary, but perhaps I missed those statements.

As for the substance of your statement - that is simply your own private, conclusory opinion, for which you have provided neither evidence nor reason in support of it. I consider it to be a figment of your imagination until you prove otherwise.   THOUGH YOU ARE GENERALLY INCITEFUL AND CORRECT, Anomaly!  RESPECT  

Please refer to what I wrote above. If you have trouble understanding it please let me know and I will be happy to explain it to you further.

Dude.   That is a ridiculous rebuttal.  Redefine "Catholic " as used in the article and the majority understanding and use that smaller subset as disqualification for the general stats.   

So, most Catholics aren't really Catholic, or are they just not Catholicing right?  

Edited October 14, 2016 by Anomaly

[Amppax]

Catholic: "only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

This is the magisterial definition of one who is a Catholic, given in Pius XII's Mystici Corporis. I'll let y'all fight over what that means. 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Amppax