The Totally Unoffical Phatmass US Presidential Election Poll

[LittleWaySoul]

7 minutes ago, Peace said:

You must not be familiar with Unofficial Phatmass Rule #367, Subsection 5:

The person who creates a thread may derail it as he pleases.

Ha! Then I ask you, o thread-creator, to keep it political for my sake, just so this doesn't get complex and confusing with multiple debates going on at once.  

[Anomaly]

Only I can try to make my life special or meaningful to me.  Or not.   Whether you believe your God threatens you with eternal as motivation, or I rationalize it.   We both have the same challenge.  To try to do what we think is best as an individual and a member of a society. 

[Socrates]

PM, Peace said:

Yes.

 

Okay . . . Alrighty then . . .

To summarize:

Clinton packing the courts with leftist rubber-stampers:  pretty much certain.

Trump launching a nuclear holocaust:  Extremely unlikely.

It seems you've concocted a fantastical "phantom menace" to justify defending the indefensible.  

(And I'm the one who's "paranoid"?  Jeez.)

 

Quote

Perhaps you are correct. Or you could just be another paranoid conservative who says the same thing anytime any Democrat is elected. Time will tell.

It's not paranoia.  It's realism and basic math.  Just to clarify, I don't think Hillary's nominations to the Supreme and federal courts would be significantly worse than Obama's or those of any similar leftist statist Democrat, but the fact is that there are now more leftists and fewer constitutionalists on these courts now than when Obama first took office, or even four years ago.

On the SCOTUS, there are now only two solid constitutionalist conservatives, Thomas and Alito; one fairly liberal Republican nominee, Kennedy; another highly unreliable  "conservative," Roberts; and the remaining four are all left-wing Dem nominees who vote as block.  One more Obama or Hillary nominated justice would tip the court's balance solidly leftist.

And the SCOTUS has already recently made a number of horrible rulings, including on Obamacare's contraceptive mandate, the enforcement of same-sex "marriage" on the states, and striking down Texas's regulations on abortion mills.  Things will only get much worse with a Dem-nominated majority on the Court.

(I know you support at least some of those, and I see no need to rehash the arguments.  I also know you and your ilk will probably approve of whatever unjust and unconstitutional decisions the SCOTUS makes in the future, and deride conservative criticism as crazy and paranoid.)

About 40% of federal judges are now Obama appointees, and this percentage could rise to as much as 80% with eight years of Hillary.

 

Quote

Do you mean besides gutting the public option from his health care bill, refusing to even hold a vote on Garland, and shutting down the government just for the hell of it?

Oooh, that awful, awful "government shut-down"!  How'd we ever survive?   But you know darn well your Dear Leader got essentially everything he wanted.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Socrates

[Peace]

21 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Only I can try to make my life special or meaningful to me.  Or not.   Whether you believe your God threatens you with eternal as motivation, or I rationalize it.   We both have the same challenge.  To try to do what we think is best as an individual and a member of a society. 

It kind of saddens me that you view Catholicism as a religion that threatens people with eternal damnation as motivation to do good. That is not really what it is about, but you seem to have gotten that impression by whomever it was that exposed you to the faith.

17 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Okay . . . Alrighty then . . .

To summarize:

Clinton packing the courts with leftist rubber-stampers:  pretty much certain.

Trump launching a nuclear holocaust:  Extremely unlikely.

Please. Trump will not be any better than Clinton when it comes to appointing conservative justices. He is not a conservative and both you and I know it. If you think that he is putting anyone on that list, which he has never even looked at, on the Supreme Court, I have some snow to sell you this winter.

17 minutes ago, Socrates said:

It seems you've concocted a fantastical "phantom menace" to justify defending the indefensible.

Please. You know very well that my comments were not limited to a "nuclear holocaust". He has openly come out and said that he advocates torture, and the killing of innocent people. Nor does he have any demonstrated knowledge of military or foreign affairs whatsoever. Go ahead and vote for him if that pleases you.

I have no intention of voting for either of them, which I already indicated at the top of page of this thread.

17 minutes ago, Socrates said:

(And I'm the one who's "paranoid"?  Jeez.)

I do not know whether you are paranoid. But if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is likely a duck.

17 minutes ago, Socrates said:

It's not paranoia.  It's realism and basic math.  Just to clarify, I don't think Hillary's nominations to the Supreme and federal courts would be significantly worse than Obama's or those of any similar leftist statist Democrat, but the fact is that there are now more leftists and fewer constitutionalists on these courts now than when Obama first took office, or even four years ago.

On the SCOTUS, there are now only two solid constitutionalist conservatives, Thomas and Alito; one fairly liberal Republican nominee, Kennedy; another highly unreliable  "conservative," Roberts; and the remaining four are all left-wing Dem nominees who vote as block.  One more Obama or Hillary nominated justice would tip the court's balance solidly leftist.

Correction: One more Obama, Hillary, or Trump nominated justice would tip the court's balance solidly leftist. Please check your math.

17 minutes ago, Socrates said:

And the SCOTUS has already recently made a number of horrible rulings, including on Obamacare's contraceptive mandate, the enforcement of same-sex "marriage" on the states, and striking down Texas's regulations on abortion mills.  Things will only get much worse with a Dem-nominated majority on the Court.

(I know you support at least some of those, and I see no need to rehash the arguments.  

I am not sure what you mean. I do not support a contraceptive mandate, the enforcement of same-sex marriage on the state, or striking down the regulations on the abortion mills.

But you should know that by now. Perhaps by support you meant, "I do not agree with those decisions"?

17 minutes ago, Socrates said:

I also know you and your ilk will probably approve of whatever unjust and unconstitutional decisions the SCOTUS makes in the future, and deride conservative criticism as crazy and paranoid.)

Who are me and my ilk? You seem to think Marc Rubio is a bleeding heart liberal. I doubt that you would even vote for Ronald Reagan if he were running today.

As for approving "whatever unjust decisions", I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not support any of the things you mention above.

And I think that Thomas is probably the best justice on the court, and has been for many years now.

As for you being crazy and paranoid, please refer to my duck comment above. You seem to be living in some kind of a conservative fantasy-land where everyone who does not agree with you lock and step on every issue must be in line with Bernie Sanders. Well, just to clarify, here in this place that we like to refer to as "the Earth", otherwise known as "reality", people need not be limited to one of two extremes. People can in fact and do exist in the middle. Please make note of it for future reference.

17 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Oooh, that awful, awful "government shut-down"!  How'd we ever survive?   But you know darn well your Dear Leader got essentially everything he wanted.

He did not get the public option, the key aspect of his Health-Care bill. Nor did he hardly get through any other major legislation during his 8 years in office. He did get some financial reform legislation through, and a stimulus package at the beginning of his term that basically built off of what Bush proposed, from what I recall. What exactly is this "everything he wanted"?

[Ice_nine]

I find it really irritating that people keep going on about how horrible abortion is. WE PRETTY MUCH ALL AGREE THERE. I mean unless Hassan or SilverPhinx walks in here . . .

And actually, I take that back. That's not what I find irritating. What I find irritating is the insinuation that just because someone doesn't agree that Trump might be worse than Hillary, must NOT realize what an epic travesty abortion is.

It is one of the most important issues I consider when voting. But it is among other human rights issues. The suffering of post-born people matter to me too. I guess that makes me a horrible Christian. I am genuinely concerned about what Trump would do to people. I honestly don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Trump would resort to nuclear warfare if given the opportunity. He has been on the record as saying we should kill the families of terrorists. It makes me think he doesn't really give a you know what about slaughtering innocents outside of the country, whether some of they are out of the womb or still in it.

I think nuclear war is worse than abortion. You're all welcome to disagree, but I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable or unchristian thing to say. You're also welcome to say that you don't think there is a considerably higher risk that Trump will push the big red button, but since none of us are clairvoyant, our opinions on that are not verifiable.

We don't hear the cries of the unborn, but often I don't think we hear the cries of people who live thousands of miles away. They can feel pain too. And lots of them don't deserve to be blown up. God have mercy.

[little2add]

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I think nuclear war is worse than abortion.

Aha! You support abortion, you vile and sick human being. . .

[Anomaly]

"Please. Trump will not be any better than Clinton when it comes to appointing conservative justices. He is not a conservative and both you and I know it. If you think that he is putting anyone on that list, which he has never even looked at, on the Supreme Court, I have some snow to sell you this winter."

Trump and Hillary can't help but cooperate with their Party's political machine.  There are some checks to what they can do.   Yes, Trump can (and may have to) have to nominate relatively more conservative persons for the SC to appease the voter base. 

Hillary cannot afford to (and ostensibly not want to) do anything that restricts a "women's right" to expell a cyst.

And yes, living in Florida, I'd be happy to purchase snow if delivered in good snow condition at a reasonable rate. 

7 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I find it really irritating that people keep going on about how horrible abortion is. WE PRETTY MUCH ALL AGREE THERE. I mean unless Hassan or SilverPhinx walks in here . . .

And actually, I take that back. That's not what I find irritating. What I find irritating is the insinuation that just because someone doesn't agree that Trump might be worse than Hillary, must NOT realize what an epic travesty abortion is.

It is one of the most important issues I consider when voting. But it is among other human rights issues. The suffering of post-born people matter to me too. I guess that makes me a horrible Christian. I am genuinely concerned about what Trump would do to people. I honestly don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Trump would resort to nuclear warfare if given the opportunity. He has been on the record as saying we should kill the families of terrorists. It makes me think he doesn't really give a you know what about slaughtering innocents outside of the country, whether some of they are out of the womb or still in it.

I think nuclear war is worse than abortion. You're all welcome to disagree, but I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable or unchristian thing to say. You're also welcome to say that you don't think there is a considerably higher risk that Trump will push the big red button, but since none of us are clairvoyant, our opinions on that are not verifiable.

We don't hear the cries of the unborn, but often I don't think we hear the cries of people who live thousands of miles away. They can feel pain too. And lots of them don't deserve to be blown up. God have mercy.

I disagree that killing less people is worse than killing more infants.  I'm certainly not judging your quality of Catholicism as much as I'm judging your quality of rationalism.

[MIKolbe]

29 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

And yes, living in Florida, I'd be happy to purchase snow if delivered in good snow condition at a reasonable rate. 

We need to talk.

[Peace]

36 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

"Please. Trump will not be any better than Clinton when it comes to appointing conservative justices. He is not a conservative and both you and I know it. If you think that he is putting anyone on that list, which he has never even looked at, on the Supreme Court, I have some snow to sell you this winter."

Trump and Hillary can't help but cooperate with their Party's political machine.  There are some checks to what they can do.   Yes, Trump can (and may have to) have to nominate relatively more conservative persons for the SC to appease the voter base. 

Hillary cannot afford to (and ostensibly not want to) do anything that restricts a "women's right" to expell a cyst.

That's fine. You put more faith in Mr. Trump than I do.

I will concede you, for the sake of argument, that there is a 2% better chance that Supreme Court justices appointed under Trump will be better than Clinton. None of you folks can say with any confidence that Trump will put good justices on the Supreme Court, or do anything positive to limit abortion. The best that you folks have said is "Well hey. I know that he is terrible, but at least there is some slight possibility that he might do something good." This is really what would lead you to vote for one person over another?

The point, which I have made before, is that that although Trump may be slightly better than Clinton on abortion, one need not vote based on the issue of abortion ONLY because both candidates are terrible on the issue (which everyone here concedes). Because they are both terrible on that issue, it is acceptable for a voter to take into account Trump's various forms of racism, xenophobia, advocacy of torture, violence and killing of innocent people, blatant sexism, making fun of people with disabilities, complete lack of experience or knowledge of anything relating to foreign policy or military affairs, constantly changing opinions, etc., when deciding who to vote for. I do not see what is so difficult to understand about this.

If someone concludes that overall Trump is the lesser of two evils because of the things mentioned above, it does not mean that the person desires the mass murder of thousands of babies. Just like if you conclude that Trump is the lesser of two evils because he (in your opinion) is better concerning abortion, does not mean that you are a racist xenophobe that advocates torture.

That is the point.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Peace

[Anomaly]

I'll suggest a hypothetical to provide an analogy for the three choices:

You are pushed off the observation deck outside the Wiilis/Sears Tower and are speeding towards two groups of tourists below. Group 1 is 10 football players, Group 2 is a twenty kindergarten kids. 

Do you: A-wriggle and flap trying to avoid both but pass over the team?  B-w & f to try to avoid both and pass over the kids? Or C-Close your eyes and pray God turns you into a mini-marshmallow.

C is certainly faith filled and trusting God. S Plain it to St Peter. Choosing A or B is practical and pro-active, neither outcome is fantastic, but certainly indicative of practical values of who you try to hurt the least (or hate the most).

So really, we're only debating the best action to attempt.  Nobody here wants to intentionally aim for anyone, would prefer to miss them all, and certainly would rather not have to flap.   But here we go...

 

(Weird, but I feel like I'm channeling dairy girl)

Edited September 14, 2016 by Anomaly

[PhuturePriest]

Stuff like this makes it difficult for me to justify a vote for Trump: http://wlos.com/news/local/69-year-old-woman-punched-in-face-outside-rally-by-trump-supporter

If this were a rare thing, that would be a different matter. But as there are montages of videos showing Trump instigating, supporting, and defending violence at his rallies, he has shown me he does not have the temperament, morals, and disposition I want in a president. He doesn't deserve my vote just because he has an (R) after his name. It was his job to earn my vote, and all he's done is reinforce the misgivings I had about him during the primaries.

Hillary Clinton is pro-abortion, corrupt, and just spews whatever the Left's platform is. Trump is a demagogue who acts as a political messiah, actively instigates fights at his rallies, said we should kill the families of terrorists, get into another war in the Middle East, has never even asked for forgiveness from God for any wrongdoing in his life, and has zero concrete plans to substantiate "Making America Great Again!". In fact, he has zero concrete plans whatsoever. Consequently, I will not vote for him.

[Anomaly]

So you're hoping for marshmallows. 

[dUSt]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/14/ivanka-trump-us-must-catch-up-with-times-on-guaranteed-maternity-leave.html

Practical ideas to strengthen the family with the potential to decrease abortions.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

So you're hoping for marshmallows. 

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf

Quote

36. When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.