Please read

[Cmc1972]

I am sorry if I am in the wrong forum for this.

Nor am I, anyway associated with Trump.

Wikileaks shows emails between Hillary top staffers bashing
Catholics.

It’s religious bigotry and unacceptable.

Sorry that I didn’t post the link.

It was on fox
News, but the email is there to read on Wikileaks.

This must be stopped.

They mad fun of Catholics for baptizing their children in the river Jordan

 

[Tomdstone]

Wikileaks shows emails between Hillary top staffers bashing
Catholics.

Sad.

 

[z_0101]

This was foretold by our Lord’s own words:

Christ’s sermon upon the mount. Matthew 5:3 - 10 (link DR)
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[11] Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: [12] Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. [13] You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. [14] You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. [15] Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.

[16] So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

and this will only get worse

We shall suffer, we shall endure and offer our suffering to the Lord for our rewards are not here, in this life, but in the next.

 

[brad90956]

I do not understand how any Catholic could vote for Hillary Clinton. Besides all the lies and national security issues pertaining to her home server, how could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate that supports abortion on demand?

 

[eamonnroma]

I agree about Clinton.

However in light of recent events, how could anyone vote for Mr Trump?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I am sorry if I am in the wrong forum for this.

Nor am I, anyway associated with Trump.

Wikileaks shows emails between Hillary top staffers bashing
Catholics.

It’s religious bigotry and unacceptable.

Sorry that I didn’t post the link.

It was on fox
News, but the email is there to read on Wikileaks.

This must be stopped.

They mad fun of Catholics for baptizing their children in the river Jordan

People have a right to express their opinions in private email. These emails were stolen. So what gives you the right to read them?
Don’t answer that. I read them too.

I thought the email was pointing out a perceived hypocrisy from Murdoch and Thompson. Not necessarily to bash Catholicism.

 

[Joe_5859]

This discussion would probably be better suited for the World News forum. There is already a thread about it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1027886

 

[Pat_Payne]

I agree about Clinton.

However in light of recent events, how could anyone vote for Mr Trump?

What other realistic choice do we have? Of the four candidates with even a ghost of a chance (Trump, Clinton, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein), Clinton is in the back pocket of Planned Parenthood and will do her dark masters’ bidding to the letter, Johnson has publicly stated that he believes “choice” to be a Libertarian position, and the Green Party as a whole is very strongly pro-abortion. Other than them, who else is there? The Constitution Party? Are you going to cast your vote with all 24 other members of the public who know or care they exist?

While Trump himself is rather noncommittal personally (or more accurately, he’s been on every point on the graph), the people he’s surrounded himself with (Mike Pence, for starters) and the names he’s thrown out for SCOTUS put him head and shoulders above the rest on a non-negotiable issue.

What he said 11 years ago in an unguarded moment when he should have known better is immaterial. Go and seek out the less favorable words of former Presidents. They’ve often said worse. Or don’t, because for some it could be a near occasion of sin…

 

[Joe_5859]

What other realistic choice do we have? Of the four candidates with even a ghost of a chance (Trump, Clinton, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein), Clinton is in the back pocket of Planned Parenthood and will do her dark masters’ bidding to the letter, Johnson has publicly stated that he believes “choice” to be a Libertarian position, and the Green Party as a whole is very strongly pro-abortion. Other than them, who else is there? The Constitution Party? Are you going to cast your vote with all 24 other members of the public who know or care they exist?

While Trump himself is rather noncommittal personally (or more accurately, he’s been on every point on the graph), the people he’s surrounded himself with (Mike Pence, for starters) and the names he’s thrown out for SCOTUS put him head and shoulders above the rest on a non-negotiable issue.

What he said 11 years ago in an unguarded moment when he should have known better is immaterial. Go and seek out the less favorable words of former Presidents. They’ve often said worse. Or don’t, because for some it could be a near occasion of sin…

I’m looking at Evan McMillan. He looks to be pro-life, though without much political experience (not that lack of political experience has hindered Trump from winning the nomination). He’s in a statistical tie with Clinton and Trump in Utah. He could actually win that state. And if winning that state results in neither Clinton or Trump winning 270 electoral votes, then the decision goes to the House to choose from the top three candidates. With the GOP in charge of the House, would they roll the dice on McMillan or roll the dice on Trump? It’s hard to say, but at least there would be a chance.

 

[Luvz2travel]

If Hillary wins it’s the end of America as we know it. Get ready to be persecuted. With the media behind her. It’s really the media that controls things…

 

[bitterhope]

I’m looking at Evan McMillan. He looks to be pro-life, though without much political experience (not that lack of political experience has hindered Trump from winning the nomination). He’s in a statistical tie with Clinton and Trump in Utah. He could actually win that state. And if winning that state results in neither Clinton or Trump winning 270 electoral votes, then the decision goes to the House to choose from the top three candidates. With the GOP in charge of the House, would they roll the dice on McMillan or roll the dice on Trump? It’s hard to say, but at least there would be a chance.

Yes, he is pro life (from conception to death), and doesn’t even have abortion listed in is “issues” list. He lists it under “Life” instead.

 

[RPRPsych]

What other realistic choice do we have? Of the four candidates with even a ghost of a chance (Trump, Clinton, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein), Clinton is in the back pocket of Planned Parenthood and will do her dark masters’ bidding to the letter, Johnson has publicly stated that he believes “choice” to be a Libertarian position, and the Green Party as a whole is very strongly pro-abortion. Other than them, who else is there? The Constitution Party? Are you going to cast your vote with all 24 other members of the public who know or care they exist?

While Trump himself is rather noncommittal personally (or more accurately, he’s been on every point on the graph), the people he’s surrounded himself with (Mike Pence, for starters) and the names he’s thrown out for SCOTUS put him head and shoulders above the rest on a non-negotiable issue.

What he said 11 years ago in an unguarded moment when he should have known better is immaterial. Go and seek out the less favorable words of former Presidents. They’ve often said worse. Or don’t, because for some it could be a near occasion of sin…

 

[z_0101]

I’m looking at Evan McMillan. He looks to be pro-life, though without much political experience (not that lack of political experience has hindered Trump from winning the nomination). He’s in a statistical tie with Clinton and Trump in Utah. He could actually win that state. And if winning that state results in neither Clinton or Trump winning 270 electoral votes, then the decision goes to the House to choose from the top three candidates. With the GOP in charge of the House, would they roll the dice on McMillan or roll the dice on Trump? It’s hard to say, but at least there would be a chance.

Joe,
McMillan will not even see a single EC vote.
Historically, the EC votes for one of the R or D candidates.
NewsWeek: Why Third-Party Candidates Are Doomed—At Least This Year (read more)
known in political science as Duverger’s law after French sociologist Maurice Duverger. That’s because a party or candidate can win a sizable chunk of the vote in a given district or state and still walk away with nothing—no seats or delegates, depending on the race—because they didn’t win the most votes among the candidates.

AFAIK: Maine and Nebraska are the only states that do not follow the “winner takes all” votes. Thus, even if McMillan has a slight statistical lead if he doesn’t have the most votes, then one of the others will get the EC for Utah (for example say only 100 people voted in Utah: HC=34, EM=33; T=33 then HC wins ALL of the Utah EC votes).

Believe it or not, learned about Duverger’s law in my PolySci class in college several decades ago… The prof used it to point out that if we voted for a third party candidate, it was as if we voted for which ever D or R was the most favored… he still advocated voting and voting one’s conscience and viewpoint, “vote as you will… just vote!”

Sabato’s Crystal Ball (See the latest here) has been very accurate
As of Oct 13 2016: Demarcate 341; Republican 197; No toss-ups
Utah’s 6 votes are predicted to go to the Republican party - and in any case are not enough to really effect the 270 rule given the east/west-coast EC votes (about 232 not counting SC and GA which tend to go to the R-party) tend to go to the D-party. Only NE and ME show split votes and with only 9 between them not enough to swing to the R party.

Too many Christians are voting D-Party ticket and they just don’t get it… that once HC is in office, we, as Americans, will lose our first amendment rights (especially Catholics - IMHO - it will be a miracle if HC doesn’t sign in to law or issue some executive order requiring all Catholic Churches to be burned to the ground!), amongst other rights.

So anyway… as my PolySci prof said: “vote as you will… just vote!”
- may God have mercy on us all