Hillary Clinton Thread

[Tomdstone]

But I’m not going to participate in the conversation. That’s my right. Everyone knows where I stand.

Actually, no. No one know where you stand on what are the proportionate reasons that allow one to vote for Hillary, who is a candidate who strongly supports the expansion of abortion rights.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Yes it is true that Hillary is undoubtedly the perfect choice for those who want to expand the right to murder unborn children, for those who support same sex marriage, and for those who demand that religious beliefs be changed to support what Hillary and Bill think they should be. ““And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

What do you think should be the correct punishment for women who have abortions?

 

[Little_Sheep]

Before you do that, FORM your conscience! Form it by the teachings of the Church. And if your conscience tells you that you can vote for Clinton or Sanders, your conscience is malformed and needs to be formed to the teachings of the Church.

I’m not formally Catholic, though I consider myself more Catholic than not. That said, I wonder what the Pope thinks about primacy of conscience?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I recall a lawyer friend of mine telling me how often he gets offers of cash from clients and potential clients. Their idea is that if they pay in greenbacks, the lawyer won’t have to report to the IRS and will give a discount for it.

The trouble with that, the lawyer said, is not only that it’s immoral, but then you’re owned by every crook who ever did that, because any one of them could blackmail you, threatening to go to the IRS and report you. you can never trust one who cheats.

Hillary owes a lot of people, and will learn how many more she owes if she’s elected.

I’m actually surprised people would think an attorney would attempt to cheat the IRS. I guess I shouldn’t be, but I am. I never dreamed either of my attorneys would do such a thing. Well, one’s in Switzerland, but two are in the US, and it never dawned on me that either would commit tax fraud. They wouldn’t, and I would never think to try to bribe them with a cash discount.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Actually, no. No one know where you stand on what are the proportionate reasons that allow one to vote for Hillary, who is a candidate who strongly supports the expansion of abortion rights.

I guess that’s good.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Actually, no. No one know where you stand on what are the proportionate reasons that allow one to vote for Hillary, who is a candidate who strongly supports the expansion of abortion rights.

Same here.I have asked several posters who intend to support either BS or Hillary.The best I have gotten is a generic answer something to the effect that they will be much better for the country overall.Whatever that means

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m actually surprised people would think an attorney would attempt to cheat the IRS. I guess I shouldn’t be, but I am. I never dreamed either of my attorneys would do such a thing. Well, one’s in Switzerland, but two are in the US, and it never dawned on me that either would commit tax fraud. They wouldn’t, and I would never think to try to bribe them with a cash discount.

Stupid as it is, it’s not uncommon. Now and then you see a lawyer get nailed for it.

You take a criminal attorney for example, who defends major drug dealers. Some of those retainers are astronomical, and the dealers have the cash. I saw a very successful lawyer I knew in high school go to the pen for it. I can’t remember exactly how much it was, but it was over $100,000.

Temptation is ever at the elbow of all of us in this world. And the greater the temptation, the more takers there are. And the more flexible the conscience, the more likely one is to succumb. The guy who I knew in high school won lots of speech contests in oratory, until someone figured out that his speech was plagiarized. Then he was stripped of them all.

Flexible conscience.

 

[Monkey1976]

I guess that’s good.

Then why is it okay to vote for someone who enables a known evil that already happening because of what they might do, but not okay to vote for someone who opposes that evil because of what they might do?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Same here.I have asked several posters who intend to support either BS or Hillary.The best I have gotten is a generic answer something to the effect that they will be much better for the country overall.Whatever that means

It’s not too hard to figure out what it means, Jeanne S. Ponder on it for a bit.

 

[meltzerboy]

For perhaps the first time ever, MB, I can’t tell if you’re joking. I do know, however, that I hope you are…

Yes, I am joking. The “(North) American” is one of the indicators. Did you think I support Ted Cruz? I would rather vote for Trump than Cruz.

 

[gracepoole]

Yes, I am joking. The “(North) American” is one of the indicators. Did you think I support Ted Cruz? I would rather vote for Trump than Cruz.

No! No, I like to think I know the regulars here a bit better than that. And “North American” was my best hope that I was right.

 

[ATeNumquam]

But if I weren’t Catholic and came to this forum, I would not want to be Catholic. I would run in the other direction.

quote]

I know I’ll get berated for this because I have the cheek to comment as a non-American on this political thread. But although I am a Catholic, the CAF political threads, or rather, the comments by a number of posters, tend to make me puzzled about the nature of American Catholicism, and wonder if this is what Catholics SHOULD be like.
It’s not that I am liberal or pro-abortion - far from it. It’s the harshness that I pick up on that kind of repels me.
I don’t want to be judgemental - I’m just saying I’m puzzled more than anything. Then I ask myself if I’m masochistic even looking into the “political” forum
I guess because the US is so big and powerful that it’s inevitable that political electioneering will be nasty and cut-throat. What candidates say to and about one another appals me. Some of what their supporters say appals me.

I generally stop visiting CAF at all for a couple of years at a time after looking in every electoral cycle just to see who people are supporting (out of curiosity)!

There are other forums of course that I visit, but in many of them also I come across a kind of harsh and judgemental flavour that seems a bit un-Catholic to me. (Hear me being judgemental myself!)

Cultural differences are inevitable, but by and large I just have to accept that CAF really stands for “Catholic (American) Forums”.
Lily, I have to say I relate to you and a couple of others very closely!

And on the topic of Hillary Clinton, which I have strayed from, I can only say, she’s probably got what it takes better than anyone else as regards foreign affairs, which is hugely important. There are no doubt better people (I’d be a Sanders supporter) but they stand less chance, and Trump is toxic.

 

[JimG]

I know I’ll get berated for this because I have the cheek to comment as a non-American on this political thread. But although I am a Catholic, the CAF political threads, or rather, the comments by a number of posters, tend to make me puzzled about the nature of American Catholicism, and wonder if this is what Catholics SHOULD be like.
It’s not that I am liberal or pro-abortion - far from it. It’s the harshness that I pick up on that kind of repels me.
I don’t want to be judgemental - I’m just saying I’m puzzled more than anything. Then I ask myself if I’m masochistic even looking into the “political” forum
I guess because the US is so big and powerful that it’s inevitable that political electioneering will be nasty and cut-throat. What candidates say to and about one another appals me. Some of what their supporters say appals me.

I generally stop visiting CAF at all for a couple of years at a time after looking in every electoral cycle just to see who people are supporting (out of curiosity)!

There are other forums of course that I visit, but in many of them also I come across a kind of harsh and judgemental flavour that seems a bit un-Catholic to me. (Hear me being judgemental myself!)

Cultural differences are inevitable, but by and large I just have to accept that CAF really stands for “Catholic (American) Forums”.
Lily, I have to say I relate to you and a couple of others very closely!

And on the topic of Hillary Clinton, which I have strayed from, I can only say, she’s probably got what it takes better than anyone else as regards foreign affairs, which is hugely important. There are no doubt better people (I’d be a Sanders supporter) but they stand less chance, and Trump is toxic.

Harsh and judgmental? Or just serious disagreement? Is it that we are not conciliatory enough on moral issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, and euthanasia? (National bankruptcy we can always compromise on.)

(Things were a little calmer back when Ike was running against Stevenson, since none of those moral issues were in play.)

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Tomdstone
He is flip flopping. At one time he said she was not qualified, later he said she was. How can someone who flip flops on such a serious issue be trusted?

Interesting. Did he say that women who have abortions should be punished, and then later say that the GOP prolife plank is too conservative and needs to be changed?

 

[Peter_J]

Why do we have to call people names?

I agree with you. I’m no HRC fan (I’m sure that will come as a great shock ) but I’m not here to call her names.

Btw, I think it was Little Sheep who called Ted Cruz a “dirty dirty dog” so perhaps she can answer your question. Unless of course it only counts for the frontrunners.

 

[ATeNumquam]

Harsh and judgmental? Or just serious disagreement? Is it that we are not conciliatory enough on moral issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, and euthanasia? (National bankruptcy we can always compromise on.)

(Things were a little calmer back when Ike was running against Stevenson, since none of those moral issues were in play.)

It’s not that I think one should be conciliatory on the moral issues you mention - at all.
But do you seriously trust any of the candidates who say they are pro-life and/or against same-sex marriage to do anything, or have the power to anything, to have the whole country conform to Catholic teaching on these issues? Aren’t some/all of these things simply decided state by state?

Or is it just what they SAY they believe that determines your vote?

Are there no other important moral issues? Is it not OK to judge the candidate on their whole range of policies and choose the best person to be the president of the most powerful country in the world? If the most “moral” candidate would be incompetent in that role, can you be confident that somehow he/she will be safeguarded from making drastic mistakes on the political stage (I’m meaning globally, here). I guess the POTUS is quite powerless in many ways (seems so from looking at what Obama wanted to achieve as regards gun law reform for example) - so I guess you can see it as OK to vote for an alleged pro-life candidate without regard to anything else they might say.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Oh, I don’t think so at all. Bernie people will absolutely vote for Hillary because both candidates support the only real Democrat policy; abortion on demand. Everything else is secondary.

Never mind that Hillary Clinton was on Walmart’s board. Never mind that she aided Russian (therefore Iranian) control over America’s uranium, for money paid to Bill and their foundation. Never mind that she midwifed a terrorist takeover in Libya and (for awhile) in Egypt. She supports abortion on demand. And that’s enough. Being a Democrat is morally demanding. I know. That’s why I left the party.

It’s not morally demanding at all to me. And abortion on demand is not the only real Democratic policy. Hillary and Bernie discuss and debate over many more things.

 

[JimG]

It’s not that I think one should be conciliatory on the moral issues you mention - at all.
But do you seriously trust any of the candidates who say they are pro-life and/or against same-sex marriage to do anything, or have the power to anything, to have the whole country conform to Catholic teaching on these issues? Aren’t some/all of these things simply decided state by state?

Or is it just what they SAY they believe that determines your vote?

Are there no other important moral issues? Is it not OK to judge the candidate on their whole range of policies and choose the best person to be the president of the most powerful country in the world? If the most “moral” candidate would be incompetent in that role, can you be confident that somehow he/she will be safeguarded from making drastic mistakes on the political stage (I’m meaning globally, here). I guess the POTUS is quite powerless in many ways (seems so from looking at what Obama wanted to achieve as regards gun law reform for example) - so I guess you can see it as OK to vote for an alleged pro-life candidate without regard to anything else they might say.

Not at all. But I don’t trust an ardently pro-death candidate to be able to get anything else right. A pro-life candidate I would examine on other issues. The nation has entered into an era of decadence. I would like to vote for a candidate who would not further the decadence, for decadence ultimately leads to collapse and defeat by barbarian civilizations.

 

[Darryl1958]

When it comes down to the wire, the issue that Democrats see as a winner is
‘the war on womyn’.

Abortion is the issue that invigorates the base. It is a good strategy therefore for Democratic supporters on forums to keep alive the topic of jailing women for abortion. Even if they are the only ones pushing for such nonsense, it gives all appearance that there really is a war on women.

 

[Sy_Noe]

But not all people believe that. And truthfully, most of us don’t set a very good example for them on this forum. If I weren’t Catholic and came to this forum, I would not want to be Catholic. I would run in the other direction.

I don’t mean you. I mean all of us, in general.

Generally speaking, I agree.