The Totally Unoffical Phatmass US Presidential Election Poll

[Papist]

2 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

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.

What does one have to do with the other?

[Peace]

1 hour ago, dUSt said:

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.

Wait a second. We are going to provide expecting mothers with paid maternity leave? That sounds like welfare Dust. God forbid. I thought that you were a conservative Republican and a defender of the Constitution.

We should leave things like that up to the charity of private citizens, instead of having the Federal government enforce it on everyone by way of taxes.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Peace

[dUSt]

7 minutes ago, Peace said:

Wait a second. We are going to provide expecting mothers with paid maternity leave? That sounds like welfare Dust. God forbid. I thought that you were a conservative Republican and a defender of the Constitution.

We should leave things like that up to the charity of private citizens, instead of having the Federal government enforce it on everyone by way of taxes.

What? What does paid maternity leave have to do with welfare and taxes? To take leave one must be employed. Also, spending accounts are not government funded. 

[Peace]

16 minutes ago, dUSt said:

What? What does paid maternity leave have to do with welfare and taxes? To take leave one must be employed. Also, spending accounts are not government funded. 

Would you be against it if it were government funded? I think that this is the way that most of these programs typically work (and would be the best way for them to work, because the employer does not have to carry the full burden of paying the salary while the person is out of the office).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

Quote

Unpaid parental or family leave is provided when an employer is required to hold an employee's job while that employee is taking leave. Paid parental or family leave provides paid time off work to care for or make arrangements for the welfare of a child or dependent family member. The three most common models of funding are social insurance/social security (where employees, employers, or taxpayers in general contribute to a specific public fund), employer liability (where the employer must pay the employee for the length of leave), and mixed policies that combine both social security and employer liability.

I am not positive, but I am pretty sure that in some countries like France the state will even provide a refund for hiring a nanny and things of that nature.

[Anomaly]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

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

 

I'm well aware that Not Voting is an EXTRORDINARY STEP.  I think the preferred step is to choose the candidate "less likely to advanced such a morally flawed position".   As your response to dUSt, you believe the Republican Party will exert some influence based on their basic principles, such as a plank in their political platform.  

Neither party has nuclear holocaust or supporting torture or slavery as a stated position.  

2008 Democratic Platform.  Direct quote:

CHOICE.

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a women's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

Edited September 14, 2016 by Anomaly

[PhuturePriest]

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

So you're hoping for marshmallows. 

No.

I hate marshmallows.

1 hour ago, Papist said:

What does one have to do with the other?

They're both (dare I say) deplorable, but let's not pretend the answer this time is black and white. If a man encourages, instigates, and defends physical harming of political opponents at his rallies, but follows it up by saying "Hey! I'm pro-life kinda-sorta-maybe-you'll just have to take my word for it!" and expect me to go "Oh, well, that makes it all okay, then!"

I don't know if Trump is truly pro-life, and considering his many flip flops, neither, it seems, does he. However, I do know that he encourages and causes violence towards those who (gasp!) dare to think differently than him, and that is a really serious and scary thing. If he didn't hide behind the (R) and alleged pro-life cause, a lot more Republicans would admit how scary that is. I can't judge him off of what he promises. I can judge him off of what he does, and what he does is create violence with both literal commands and his general rhetoric.

[Peace]

31 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

I'm well aware that Not Voting is an EXTRORDINARY STEP.  I think the preferred step is to choose the candidate "less likely to advanced such a morally flawed position".

You don't think that having to choose between Clinton and Trump is an extraordinary situation?

What exactly would qualify for you? Stalin v. Hitler perhaps? Mao v. Pol Pot? Lil Wayne v. Tupac?

Quote

Neither party has nuclear holocaust or supporting torture or slavery as a stated position.  

2008 Democratic Platform.  Direct quote:

CHOICE.

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a women's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

The vote is between Clinton and Trump. The vote is not between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. If the Republican voters had chosen a candidate that was even remotely close to the Republican Platform none of us would be in the difficult situation in which we find ourselves.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Peace

[Papist]

32 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

No.

I hate marshmallows.

They're both (dare I say) deplorable, but let's not pretend the answer this time is black and white. If a man encourages, instigates, and defends physical harming of political opponents at his rallies, but follows it up by saying "Hey! I'm pro-life kinda-sorta-maybe-you'll just have to take my word for it!" and expect me to go "Oh, well, that makes it all okay, then!"

I don't know if Trump is truly pro-life, and considering his many flip flops, neither, it seems, does he. However, I do know that he encourages and causes violence towards those who (gasp!) dare to think differently than him, and that is a really serious and scary thing. If he didn't hide behind the (R) and alleged pro-life cause, a lot more Republicans would admit how scary that is. I can't judge him off of what he promises. I can judge him off of what he does, and what he does is create violence with both literal commands and his general rhetoric.

Trump? I did not get that from the article? You sure you posted the correct article?

[PhuturePriest]

1 minute ago, Papist said:

Trump? I did not get that from the article? You sure you posted the correct article?

Watch the first one in particular.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1fyFN-rXoU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gLbN1TcgLA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqkmJpUd6qs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ8iS6mG6xo

This is merely the first few videos that popped up. There are extensive articles on this. He is violent, dangerous, and shouldn't be within 100 miles of the White House. He says we should kill families of terrorists and put Muslims in databases, and his behavior indicates he's quite serious.

[Anomaly]

29 minutes ago, Peace said:

You don't think that having to choose between Clinton and Trump is an extraordinary situation?

What exactly would qualify for you? Stalin v. Hitler perhaps? Mao v. Pol Pot? Lil Wayne v. Tupac?

The vote is between Clinton and Trump. The vote is not between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.

We are not choosing a dictator. We are choosing the leader and representative of the two most popular and powerful political parties which is why they formalize the principles that their candidates will represent with their Party Platforms.  We are empowering political organizations with our popular votes, else Gary Johnson would be a viable candidate at this point. 

Start supporting better politicians now to run for office in four years. There are many other elections besides the president.   We don't have good choices now because most of us don't pay attention and vote / voice opinions earlier.   

 

2016 Democratic Platform:

page 37: " We believe unequivocally ... Including safe and legal abortion-regardless of where..., money..., how she is insured."

They also want to overturn the Hyde amendment which tries to prevent taxpayer funding if abortion.   That is stated in the same paragraph. 

I think what a Political Party states formally in their Party Platform for years is immensely more critical than braggadocio spewings from a political personality.  Hillary is not a pathological liar intent on killing babies, Trump is not a egomaniac itching to launch nukes.  Both will be significantly limited by Congress and the political system.  

Edited September 14, 2016 by Anomaly

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

We are not choosing a dictator.

That remains to be seen.

[dUSt]

When this thread was first posted I was in a position of not voting for either candidate. 

I have now changed my position to voting for Trump.

The main reason is the irrational arguments being made by the anti-Trump folks in this thread, and how they seem to be putting abortion on the same level as Trump encouraging someone to punch a guy in the face.

It's ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same frickin' sport.

[Amppax]

14 minutes ago, dUSt said:

When this thread was first posted I was in a position of not voting for either candidate. 

I have now changed my position to voting for Trump.

The main reason is the irrational arguments being made by the anti-Trump folks in this thread, and how they seem to be putting abortion on the same level as Trump encouraging someone to punch a guy in the face.

It's ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same frickin' sport.

Way to totally misunderstood people. No one has argued that abortion is morally equivalent to "punching someone in the face." 

What is irrational, and why I'm beginning to understand more and more the frustration of people like Mark Shea, is that generally conservative Catholics are incredibly easy to hoodwink into supporting grave evils, as long as Republicans dangle the carrot of working to end abortion in front of them.  

Apologies dUSt, I missed FP's post. Still, that hasn't been the main argument against Trump in this thread. Not by a long shot.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Amppax
Forgot to read the thread before opening my big fat mouth

[Anomaly]

11 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Way to totally misunderstood people. No one has argued that abortion is morally equivalent to "punching someone in the face." 

What is irrational, and why I'm beginning to understand more and more the frustration of people like Mark Shea, is that generally conservative Catholics are incredibly easy to hoodwink into supporting grave evils, as long as Republicans dangle the carrot of working to end abortion in front of them.  

Apologies dUSt, I missed FP's post. Still, that hasn't been the main argument against Trump in this thread. Not by a long shot.

I find it impossible to understand why most Catholics continue to empower a political party who's stated goal is protected and tax funded abortion with the carrot of more tax funded government healthcare.   So we got Obamacare that Catholics cry about contributing to contraceptives, but they've also empowered the Democratic Party with control over health care when they state abortion is a health issue that should be tax funded.  

Is Guantanamo Bay closed?  Have we gotten out of the Middle East? Is the economy significantly better? Are these issues as impactful to human dignity and life as not providing infants legal personhood or legal protection?

in 2014, according to the CDC, about 700,000 legal abortions were performed in the USA.  Almost 200 a day.

Approximately180,000 were killed in all armed conflict World Wide. Most conflicts are regional civil wars, not the US and Russia imperializing. 

War is horrendous, but not always morally evil.   Abortion always is, according to the Catholic Church. I simply cannot comprehend empowering a political party that formally promotes abortion as a protected right as a trade for healthcare or perceived better welfare spending.   No wonder Pelosi can be proudly Catholic and a proudly pro-abortion Politician.  You Catholics are just cray-cray.

[dUSt]

On 9/8/2016 at 11:40 AM, EmilyAnn said:

I'm genuinely appalled by how many of you would be willing to put a racist, sexist, insane egomaniac like Trump in the presidency.

 

On 9/8/2016 at 0:56 PM, OnlySunshine said:

Trump seems like he has either early stages of dementia or another serious mental health issue.  His comments have been all over the place and extreme - it seems like he either likes someone or absolutely hates them and wants them dead...I predict more terrorist attacks will occur because of his lack of diplomacy on handling the issues.  He has no business being in office, either, since he has no experience with politics.

 

On 9/10/2016 at 6:58 PM, Peace said:

My top issue with Trump is handing him the keys to the US military. Sure, it may sound cliche, but I have serious problems with the idea of the man having nuclear war codes and things of that nature. To me at least, his unpredictability in that area is more of an immediate concern than who will be nominated to the SC. 

 

On 9/12/2016 at 6:28 AM, LittleWaySoul said:

Trump scares me because of the shocking way he's spoken of foreign action, such as when he said he'd make the military kill the families of terrorists (a war crime). He also seems to show little respect for military veterans... Not to mention that I think a Trump presidency could kill whatever respect remains for the Republican Party, pushing us all towards a more leftist system as people distance themselves from him. Then again, maybe that's a good thing. Who knows.

 

6 hours ago, Peace said:

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

 

5 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

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. 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

OK, I re-read the entire thread and was hard pressed to find any actual arguments against Trump that should be viewed at the same level as abortion. I've quoted above all the arguments against Trump I could find.

They seem to be based mostly on is personality, and a few of the statements he's made that were later clarified, ie- "go after the families of terrorists" does not necessarily mean "kill the family of terrorists". Mostly, the anti-Trump people just seem to have a fear of what he might do with power--again, based on the way he talks and his personality.

Reading back over the thread again just made me even more convinced to vote for Trump than before--based on how difficult it was to find actual concrete arguments against Trump instead of just a general dislike of his personality. Hahaha

Also, since many of you seem to be scared of Trump's "go after the terrorist families" comment, should you not also be scared of our current administration that actually did do that?

When Obama ordered a drone strike that killed 16-year old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki., who happened to be the son of a terrorist, here's what his press secretary Robert Gibbs said in response: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children.”

Don't fool yourselves.