Trump Could Win It All

[zab]

The poll question is “If the election were between Trump and Hillary, Who would you vote for?” What else is there besides Trump, Clinton, and “won’t vote”?

In other words, I won’t participate in a poll reduced to a premature selection of candidates. “If it were…” But It’s not. I don’t know for what purpose the question was polled. And I don’t want to give any aid to the selection of the wrong candidate.

 

[JonNC]

Rand Paul would be a disaster. He is nothing but a puppet of the elitist Senate Majority leader Harry Reid.

There is no doubt in my mind that Trump’s goal is to get Hillary elected.

Unless the GOP nominates a real conservative – Cruz or Rubio – voting for a third party is the only option.

Voting for a third party gets Clinton elected. Just like voting for Perot did

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Umm, remember in the 50s how we had that big commuism scare, and it was just witchcraft. Could there be some communist mentalities in those days? Without a doubt but it was proven that not everyone.

Look at our time, are there people with fascism ideas? Sure, but we the people, and this falls on us, we have the power to not vote for those caandidates. Trust me, Hillary and Donald are not the only whackos out there.

I wouldn’t agree it just witchcraft. A good part of it was true.

Clearly they are not the only whackos out there. Let’s not forget Bernie.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I voted “won’t vote.” The truth is, America only has one political party: The War Party. It’s true that The War Party has two different wings, but it’s 99% illusory. Abortion may be a factor, but I honestly can’t tell. What I do know is that it makes absolutely zero difference as far as foreign policy is concerned. I dislike Hillary intensely, but at the same time I see Donald Trump as nothing more than a mindless symbol of cheap populism and strongman appeal. I can’t tell who is worse, but I can tell that they’re both awful.

You sound like you should support Rand Paul.

Jon

 

[Pier]

Idk, I’m not a fan of Donald Trump. I hope he doesn’t win the nomination. But, can’t we agree that a Republican President would be better than a Democrat, even if it is Donald Trump?

Imo, yes…

Because whether a person votes or not, one of these two nominees WILL BE elected.

 

[Pier]

Thank you.

And you as well. †

 

[_Abyssinia]

I heard Karl Rove speak about this on The O’Reilly Factor, the number of candidates in the race is helping Donald Trump to maintain the lead he has.

There are so many candidates and they are splitting the non-Trump vote. Many of these candidates are going to have to soon make a decision, are they going to drop out and put aside their own ambition and desire to win the nomination, so that the non-Trump vote can coalesce around probably one or two candidates, probably Marco Rubio & Ted Cruz, or are they going to stay in the race because they still think they can win, but what may end up happening is Trump becomes the nominee because the non-Trump vote is then split in so many different directions?

 

[chero23]

Considering how many people died under Communism in the 50’s and 60’s, I don’t follow why you think it was fabricated.
FYI, the Korean was was in the 50’s

Yes millions of people died bc of communism, yes the Korean War happened in the 50s. But, my point is, in the 50s with senator McCarthy from Wisconsin, a republican, went on a witch hunt and stated there were a lot of US politicians associated with “communism”. He labeled them and many believed him, and it turned out to be false. Just bc I disagree with you, that doesn’t make me wrong or naive or ignorant or a bad person. What I am saying is don’t label someone bc they disagree with you. Because when the tables turn and you ( when I say you, I don’t mean you but generically) are now labeled, you won’t be able to say, I neve did that.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Voting for a pro-abortion ergo anti-life Democrat is something a Catholic shouldn’t consider doing.

Innocent lives can be lost beyond the womb when the sick do not have proper healthcare or in the wealthiest nation on the planet, choose between prescriptions and food, or the homeless freeze to death under a bridge or an innocent life is wrongly put to death by the state, or innocent lives are killed by bombs…

 

[SuperLuigi]

I voted Trump.

Easy call.

 

[JonNC]

Innocent lives can be lost beyond the womb when the sick do not have proper healthcare or in the wealthiest nation on the planet, choose between prescriptions and food, or the homeless freeze to death under a bridge or an innocent life is wrongly put to death by the state, or innocent lives are killed by bombs…

In many ways I agree. What was the wealthiest nation in the world is now the most indebted, all because of the misguided and frankly dangerous notion that government at a central level can care better for those in need than private groups at a local level.

The Catholic Principle of Subsidiarity, along with the constitutional limits on government power, would go a long way to reverse this horrible trend, that even though the central government has spent trillions upon trillions of dollars since the end of WWII on social welfare programs, we still have the situation you have mentioned. It is time to get government out of the way, stop government from causing so much harm and tragedy at such a high price.

Jon

 

[Sy_Noe]

Voting for a pro-abortion ergo anti-life Democrat is something a Catholic shouldn’t consider doing.

Should a faithful Catholic then vote at all?

I realize Pope JP2, or at least from what I have seen written, spoke about the right to life being the condition for all other personal rights such to health, a home and so forth.

But Pope Francis here further explains that he has never understood the expression non-negotiable values. The Holy Father says, “values are values, and that is it”. He says he “can’t say that, of the fingers of a hand, there is one less useful than the rest”.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/transcript-pope-francis-march-5-interview-with-corriere-della-sera/

Now I’m unclear if both Popes send the same message but Francis’s message tells me 1 issue is not more important than another.

And faithful Catholics, as I understand it, are to believe in a right to life from conception to natural death. But I just don’t see much good ahead for a life in a womb, if after birth that life does not have things such as proper healthcare, adequate food and a roof over their heads.

And I believe 1 candidate might align with the CC for instance on the abortion issue and SSM and embryonic stem cell research better. But another on many other issues including healthcare and income disparity between the rich and the poor.

And if to be a faithful Catholic means I can not consider voting for and actually vote for the candidate in a secular election whom I personally believe is better overall, even if they are not in line with the Catholic Church on abortion, which seems to be the position of the majority of this forum, then I guess it’s just one more reason why I must remain non practicing. As I was given the faith at 6 wks old when I had no idea what the faith was about and confirmed as a 5th grader at age 10 when I was more into playing 2nd base and centerfield and what Santa might bring me for Christmas, and choosing David for a Confirmation name because he slain the mighty Goliath. 10 yr olds today I realize are more mature for better or worse than they may have been in yesteryear. But I am glad the Church today seems to wait and confirm at much later ages.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Should a faithful Catholic then vote at all?

I think that a Catholic in the USA could cast a vote in most every single election. I would have to pause and refer to spiritual direction if both candidates were for abortion under any circumstances, but really, with social media, interest groups and position tracking sites, this isn’t anywhere as hard as it used to be to figure out the stances on the non-negotiable and religious freedom.

Let me just say this:

I have not seen anyone who said they voted for Vigil Goode, libertarian or who wrote in Optimus Prime in the last presidential election defend that decision in a decisive manner.

Maybe it has something to do with their rising insurance premiums, attacks on religious freedom of Catholics and/or a pink slip. Or something similar.

I wonder how the Democrats would feel if Sanders and Webb mounted independent campaigns.

 

[gracepoole]

And if to be a faithful Catholic means I can not consider voting for and actually vote for the candidate in a secular election whom I personally believe is better overall, even if they are not in line with the Catholic Church on abortion, which seems to be the position of the majority of this forum, then I guess it’s just one more reason why I must remain non practicing. As I was given the faith at 6 wks old when I had no idea what the faith was about and confirmed as a 5th grader at age 10 when I was more into playing 2nd base and centerfield and what Santa might bring me for Christmas, and choosing David for a Confirmation name because he slain the mighty Goliath. 10 yr olds today I realize are more mature for better or worse than they may have been in yesteryear. But I am glad the Church today seems to wait and confirm at much later ages.

I’m sure you already know this, Sy, but this forum is comprised largely of “Neo-Catholics” and it’s a pretty safe bet that it’s not representative of most Catholics, at least not those in the US.

 

[JonNC]

I’m sure you already know this, Sy, but this forum is comprised largely of “Neo-Catholics” and it’s a pretty safe bet that it’s not representative of most Catholics, at least not those in the US.

What is a “Neo-Catholic”?

Jon

 

[punisherthunder]

I once asked my parish priest about voting between two candidates and you can’t decide.
He told me to go with whomever is against abortion.

Trump is Pro-Life…Clinton is Pro-Choice.

Whom who the Virgin Mary want you to vote for?

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think that a Catholic in the USA could cast a vote in most every single election. I would have to pause and refer to spiritual direction if both candidates were for abortion under any circumstances, but really, with social media, interest groups and position tracking sites, this isn’t anywhere as hard as it used to be to figure out the stances on the non-negotiable and religious freedom.

Let me just say this:

I have not seen anyone who said they voted for Vigil Goode, libertarian or who wrote in Optimus Prime in the last presidential election defend that decision in a decisive manner.

Maybe it has something to do with their rising insurance premiums, attacks on religious freedom of Catholics and/or a pink slip. Or something similar.

I wonder how the Democrats would feel if Sanders and Webb mounted independent campaigns.

I’d feel Webb could cost Clinton the election if he took just enough votes away from her in VA to give Trump VA’s Electoral College votes. I think VA is an extrememly crucial state especially if the Republicans were to win FL and OH and will depend on the turnout in N VA . Sanders could do something similar elsewhere which is probably why he has said he is not running 3rd party.

But here again you brought up that term “non negotiable” that even the current Holy Father said he doesn’t understand, if it means 1 value is more important than any other. So I guess I will just feel in pretty good company if even the Pope can’t understand what it means. And leave it at that.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I’m sure you already know this, Sy, but this forum is comprised largely of “Neo-Catholics” and it’s a pretty safe bet that it’s not representative of most Catholics, at least not those in the US.

By neo ,are you saying the majority of Catholics are neophytes?How would you come to that conclusion?

 

[grotto]

The use of “neo-” whatever would mean new or modern (or something in nuclear science)!
I would hazard a guess and disagree that the majority of Catholics on this forum, CAF, are NOT new. I would like to be new (again) but that isn’t going to work out until Our Lord calls me!

 

[AFerri48]

By neo ,are you saying the majority of Catholics are neophytes?How would you come to that conclusion?

The dictionary has a weird definition, and I doubt that’s what was meant but…

dictionary.reference.com/browse/neo-catholic

“of or relating to those Anglicans who avowedly prefer the doctrines, rituals, etc., of the Roman Catholic Church to those of the Anglican communion.”