Catholic.com presidential poll

[CHRISTINE77]

I agree that Clinton is a flawed candidate, but the Republicans put up Trump which will be a similar turn off for many voters.

I think that, if the Republicans had picked a good candidate, they could be in good shape to win the White House, but I’m unsure who out of the 17 that ran that it might have been.

Well Clinton was the ONLY Democratic candidate and she stole all the super delegate votes, and Bernie Sanders is the one who should win as the candidate but he won’t, because the party is rigged that’s why.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It is difficult for me to fathom that Jesus would be pro-abortion, that Jesus would consider that as a part of his plan for peace would include giving a mother the right to have her child ripped from her womb directly causing that child’s death. That is counter to Jesus’ moral character. But like you said, that does take faith to comprehend. Hillary Clinton wants to expand public funding of abortion. That isn’t a Christian position - it’s an anti-Christian position.

I also don’t pretend that Donald Trump is a friend of Christianity. His comments inciting people and bringing out some of their worst passions is disturbing. His comments about Mexicans and what he would do to the families of terrorists deeply concern me and I can say without a doubt (again because of my faith) that Jesus would not say such things.

It is a difficult election cycle for any Christian because there isn’t a major candidate who shares much of any kind of Christian mindset. I’m merely leaning towards the one who hasn’t proven to enforce anti-Christian intiatives.

I don’t see pro choice equating to being personally in favor of, or pro abortion when in a nation of many views and beliefs. But when seeking our own religious liberty, regardless of what our own religion or faith is, I can see a conflict in telling a woman whose faith teaches something different about abortion, that she can not make the choice that her own faith allows. Just as a Catholic woman has the right to follow her faith and to choose not to have an abortion based on the dictates of her faith.

But not everyone has the same faith in the CC and ECFs nor in their interpretations as do faithful Catholics. Nor do all Christians believe that our human understanding, finite as it is, must remain stagnant and can not grow and evolve over time, as we walk by faith not by sight in seeking to understand an infinite God along the journey.

There are many Christians who believe all life is sacred and that equally includes the woman’s and her family members’ lives. And who believe God has given us the responsibility to make decisions which reflect this when conflicting realities are present and lives are affected. And that these are not always easy black and white decisions. And that therefore a woman should have the legal right to make her decision based on the dictates of her own faith. And that women of limited means should be able to receive public funding to assure they have the same legal right to make their decisions on the issue following the dictates of their own faith as well.

Now of course I understand you do not consider it Christian based on the dictates of your faith. But many people in good faith who do not share yours, do consider it so. They understand there are many religious and theological perspectives on when life and personhood begin and respect this diversity. And believe this is not a pro abortion position but a pro-faith, pro-family, pro-woman position. There simply is no other issue comparable today. Which is why comparisons to slavery for instance fall short. Because while there may someday come a time when there is, there is today simply no consensus on the abortion issue that there is on other issues. Far from it even among people of faith and good will.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t see pro choice equating to being personally in favor of, or pro abortion when in a nation of many views and beliefs. But when seeking our own religious liberty, regardless of what our own religion or faith is, I can see a conflict in telling a woman whose faith teaches something different about abortion, that she can not make the choice that her own faith allows. Just as a Catholic woman has the right to follow her faith and to not choose an abortion based on the dictates of her faith.

But not everyone has the same faith in the CC and ECFs nor in their interpretations as do faithful Catholics. Nor do all Christians believe that our human understanding, finite as it is, must remain stagnant and can not grow and evolve over time, as we walk by faith not by sight in seeking to understand an infinite God along the journey.

There are many Christians who believe all life is sacred and that equally includes the woman’s and her family members’ lives. And who believe God has given us the responsibility to make decisions which reflect this when conflicting realities are present and lives are affected. And that these are not always easy black and white decisions. And that therefore a woman should have the legal right to make her decision based on the dictates of her own faith. And that women of limited means should be able to receive public funding to assure they have the same legal right to make their decisions on the issue following the dictates of their own faith as well.

Now of course I understand you do not consider it Christian based on the dictates of your faith. But many people in good faith who do not share yours, do consider it so. They understand there are many religious and theological perspectives on when life and personhood begin and respect this diversity. And believe this is not a pro abortion position but a pro-faith, pro-family, pro-woman position. There simply is no other issue comparable today. Which is why comparisons to slavery for instance fall short. Because while there may someday come a time when there is, there is today simply no consensus on the abortion issue that there is on other issues. Far from it even among people of faith and good will.

The right to life is not a religious issue. It is the fundamental right without which all other rights are meaningless.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It is difficult for me to fathom that Jesus would be pro-abortion, that Jesus would consider that as a part of his plan for peace would include giving a mother the right to have her child ripped from her womb directly causing that child’s death. That is counter to Jesus’ moral character. But like you said, that does take faith to comprehend. Hillary Clinton wants to expand public funding of abortion. That isn’t a Christian position - it’s an anti-Christian position.

I also don’t pretend that Donald Trump is a friend of Christianity. His comments inciting people and bringing out some of their worst passions is disturbing. His comments about Mexicans and what he would do to the families of terrorists deeply concern me and I can say without a doubt (again because of my faith) that Jesus would not say such things.

It is a difficult election cycle for any Christian because there isn’t a major candidate who shares much of any kind of Christian mindset. I’m merely leaning towards the one who hasn’t proven to enforce anti-Christian intiatives.

I don’t find pro choice equating to being personally in favor of, or pro abortion when in a nation of many views and beliefs. And when we seek our own religious liberty, regardless of what our own religion or faith is, I can see a conflict in telling a woman whose faith teaches something different about abortion, that she can not make the choice that her own faith allows. Just as a Catholic woman has the right to follow her faith and to not choose an abortion based on the dictates of her faith.

There are many Christians who believe all life is sacred and that equally includes the woman’s and her family members’ lives. And who believe God has given us the responsibility to make decisions which reflect this when conflicting realities are present and lives are affected. That these are not easy decisions. And that therefore a woman should have the legal right to make her decision based on the dictates of her own faith. And that women of limited means should be able to receive public funding to assure they have the same legal right to make their decisions on the issue following the dictates of their own faith as well.

Now of course I understand you do not consider it Christian based on the dictates of your faith. But many people in good faith who do not share yours, do consider it so. They understand there are many religious and theological perspectives on when life and personhood begin and respect this diversity. And believe this is not a pro abortion position but a pro-faith, pro-family, pro-woman position. There simply is no other issue comparable today. Which is why comparisons to slavery for instance fall short. Because while there may someday come a time when there is, there is today simply no consensus on the abortion issue that there is on other issues. Far from it even among people of faith and food will.

Having taken some of this from the United Church of Christ which I always have found helpful in understanding a different Christian perspective of the issue, allow me to link to that source.

d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/unitedchurchofchrist/legacy_url/455/reproductive-health-and-justice.pdf?1418423872

God bless and peace.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The right to life is not a religious issue. It is the fundamental right without which all other rights are meaningless.

I understand your view. But for many others I find it to be a much more difficult issue for them as they perhaps don’t view rights as so easily, neatly and perfectly balanced as do you. They may see the sacredness of the lives of others beyond the unborn fetus’s life and how these lives… of women and their family members… could be affected as well. Many simply don’t see the matter in the same light as do faithful Catholics. They see not everything as necessarily in black and white but instead view some grey. But it certainly remains a divisive issue politically and religiously no doubt.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Hard to believe that so many can apparently ignore the swirls of dishonesty around her. Either they are “only a Democrat” voter or they are not aware of what is going on. I think they are the same ones who gave us Obama for two terms.

I’m pretty sure they see what swirls and what is going on. They would have had to be living on Mars to not know the microscope that Hillary Clinton has been subjected to over the past 2 decades. They may even wonder why someone like Donald Trump gets a pass on so many things. Likely they consider many more issues when they vote.

 

[Crossbones]

Well Clinton was the ONLY Democratic candidate and she stole all the super delegate votes, and Bernie Sanders is the one who should win as the candidate but he won’t, because the party is rigged that’s why.

She has majority of the delegates selected directly by voters and that isn’t going to change, so, while the system of superdelegates is flawed, they are simply supporting what the Democratic electorate has chosen.

 

[Theo520]

She has majority of the delegates selected directly by voters and that isn’t going to change, so, while the system of superdelegates is flawed, they are simply supporting what the Democratic electorate has chosen.

If Hillary has more bad weeks, it’s possible she can lose in spite of having more pledged delegates. The superdelegates could give it to Bernie or throw it into a contested convention.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well Clinton was the ONLY Democratic candidate and she stole all the super delegate votes, and Bernie Sanders is the one who should win as the candidate but he won’t, because the party is rigged that’s why.

Incorrect.

In addition to what Crossbones said, she also has won 3 million more votes. The system is not rigged against Sanders and I’m a Sanders backer. Clinton’s winning because more Democrats want her to be the nominee.

It’s all explained here.

fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

 

[Crossbones]

If Hillary has more bad weeks, it’s possible she can lose in spite of having more pledged delegates. The superdelegates could give it to Bernie or throw it into a contested convention.

Not gonna happen.

Sanders is a recent Democrat. The Clintons have worked for years within the party and probably have done things to support a lot of the superdelegates (maybe Bill made an ad on behalf of a Congressman or came to a fundraiser). Sanders hasn’t. Clinton is a woman. Sanders isn’t. There is absolutely NO WAY that the superdelegates will turn their back on Hillary for Sanders. Even if she losses the general election, she will be more powerful in the party than Sanders.

The excuse of following the will of the electorate makes the choice easy.

What would have been interesting is what would have happened if Hillary were done 100 delegates for those selected by the normal direct election process.

 

[Sy_Noe]

If Hillary has more bad weeks, it’s possible she can lose in spite of having more pledged delegates. The superdelegates could give it to Bernie or throw it into a contested convention.

A lot of people here sure seem to me to be rooting and hoping for Hillary not to be the nominee. If she is so easy to defeat, I’d think you would want her to be the Democratic nominee.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I wouldn’t use the word “rigged” because we knew what the rules were — but what is really dumb is that you have closed primaries, like in New York State, where three million people who were not Democrats or Republicans could not participate. You have a situation where over 400 super delegates came on board Clinton’s campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast. That’s not rigged, I think it’s just a dumb process, which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign.

trofire.com/2016/05/19/hillary-clintons-claim-3-million-votes-sanders-lie/

May 19, 2016
In an article posted to the New York Daily News, Activist and writer Shaun King made a startling revelation which could change the way we view the entire Democratic primary race.

Since the tide has turned in the direction of Hillary Clinton, the candidate has put much emphasis on her apparent lead in the popular vote. According to Hillary Clinton, she leads Sanders by more than 3 million votes nationwide. This is the number that we hear cited commonly at events and in corporate media. This number helps to give legitimacy to Clinton’s campaign in the face of Sanders’ populist message. Though Sanders may complain about how the system is rigged and wonder why Superdelegates aren’t more loyal to their constituency, Clinton has always had the power of the popular vote behind her.

But what King revealed in his groundbreaking article is that the 3 million vote advantage Clinton holds is a lie.

This is due to the fact that primary races don’t just feature voters going out and casting a ballot. Instead, several states opt to hold caucuses where a group of representatives vouch for their candidate. The candidate with the most representatives in the room wins in that district, and the candidate which wins the most districts is the winner of the state.

One interesting feature of this alternate method of primary choosing is that actual individual votes are not gathered, thus, no votes go to the winning candidate. Bernie Sanders has tended to win most caucusing states. Though Sanders may sweep a state, sometimes taking more than 70 percent of the caucus vote, these numbers do not translate to individual popular votes, thus adding nothing to the overall tally. These are states with millions of Sanders supporters, who, due to the system in their state, are not counted among the millions in competition with Clinton’s big number advantage.

time.com/4351525/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-emails-superdelegates/

“It was not a good report for Secretary Clinton,” Sanders said. “That is something that the American people, Democrats and delegates are going to have to take a hard look at.” Bernie

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

A lot of people here sure seem to me to be rooting and hoping for Hillary not to be the nominee. If she is so easy to defeat, I’d think you would want her to be the Democratic nominee.

I’m more concerned about Bernie being the nominee. The anti-establishment fervor is very strong in this country. There just isn’t much enthusiasm for Clinton. The old-timers certainly like her, but the younger generation just isn’t that impressed with her.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m more concerned about Bernie being the nominee. The anti-establishment fervor is very strong in this country. There just isn’t much enthusiasm for Clinton. The old-timers certainly like her, but the younger generation just isn’t that impressed with her.

Or Biden + Warren, Hillary may be the weakest candidate in recent memory. If she continues to drop in the polls its plausible there will be another candidate. Bernie isn’t leaving either so CA should be interesting.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Incorrect.

In addition to what Crossbones said, she also has won 3 million more votes. The system is not rigged against Sanders and I’m a Sanders backer. Clinton’s winning because more Democrats want her to be the nominee.

It’s all explained here.

fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

The system is totally rigged. Party people have all the power while the populace is impotent. Bernie certainly is the one most Democrats want, I know no one except party people who have a vested interest in party politics who want Hillary (including huge corporations with tons of donated money in her campaign). The party system is a machine, and Trump and Bernie are breaking that machine. Go Trump! Go Bernie! I’m just enjoying watching this political machine crumble. I don’t really care who wins as long as it isn’t the witch.

 

[Crossbones]

The system is totally rigged. Party people have all the power while the populace is impotent. Bernie certainly is the one most Democrats want, I know no one except party people who have a vested interest in party politics who want Hillary (including huge corporations with tons of donated money in her campaign). The party system is a machine, and Trump and Bernie are breaking that machine. Go Trump! Go Bernie! I’m just enjoying watching this political machine crumble. I don’t really care who wins as long as it isn’t the witch.

Well, except that more people are voting for Clinton.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, except that more people are voting for Clinton.

How can that be determined according to post #506 or for example the state of Alaska?

 

[Crossbones]

How can that be determined according to post #506 or for example the state of Alaska?

I agree that caucuses and primaries are apples and oranges, so it is difficult to come up with an exact number that is representative, BUT if you look at just the primaries, which are easy to count, it is clear that Clinton is getting the majority of those votes.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well, except that more people are voting for Clinton.

I know. Right.

 

[Theo520]

A lot of people here sure seem to me to be rooting and hoping for Hillary not to be the nominee. If she is so easy to defeat, I’d think you would want her to be the Democratic nominee.

I didn’t root one way or another on whom I wanted to win. Here’s a comparison though

• I think Hillary is beatable because she is so damaged (self inflected wounds)
• I think Bernie is beatable because he’s too left, the establishment will put their money on state races. Bernie could do more long term harm than Trump and four yrs of Trump would give them someone to blame for problems (instead of Obama)
• I think Biden/Pocahontas would be the hard one for Trump to beat. They are unscathed and could unite the Dem party.