Trump or Hillary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FractalFire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Convert_in_99 said:
I haven’t voted for a long time. It’s pointless. No one is moral enough. I could write in a vote or vote third party (haven’t seen anyone good there either for a while), but that just takes a vote away from the ‘Lesser of two evils’. Whoever that may be. Though I honestly can’t say who that is in this election. :confused: When someone vote-worthy runs for office, THEN I will vote. 🤷
Click to expand...
I suspect that quite a lot of Catholics have the same attitude, but just don’t admit it so candidly. I’ll try to thank you for your honesty … though I feel I can’t quite bring myself to do it.
 
Padres1969 said:
No a third party vote is a vote for whomever you’re voting for who is running for that third party. The best way to break the two party stranglehold on this country is to stop playing by it’s rules. And one of them is this fallacy.
Click to expand...
Except the last time I voted 3rd party was for governor in my state. 3% of us did. And the major party candidate who won did so by only 1%. So an argument could be made that the 3rd party voters cost the other major party candidate the election. The 2 major parties do have such a hold on the election process.
 
QuidVeritasEst said:
If this has split these forums, which, from my experience, represent the moderate to extreme conservative basis in American politics, to nearly 50:50, with many actually wanting to support a liberal over supporting Trump, then he hasn’t a hope of winning the presidency. If the Republicans use him as their presidential candidate, they lose the white-house.

Hopefully, the Republicans can use this as a wake-up call to the absurdity of their politics in the last decade - and return to a more palatable party.
Click to expand...
I agree. From searches of previous polls, I’ve found this forum tends to run about 70% Republican. And based on the past 2 POTUS elections, I can’t really be all that certain that it is representative of the American electorate. Although I know Catholic Republicans here believe they are more representative of the Catholic faith than are those Catholics who vote Democratic.
 
Convert_in_99 said:
I haven’t voted for a long time. It’s pointless. No one is moral enough. I could write in a vote or vote third party (haven’t seen anyone good there either for a while), but that just takes a vote away from the ‘Lesser of two evils’. Whoever that may be. Though I honestly can’t say who that is in this election. :confused: When someone vote-worthy runs for office, THEN I will vote. 🤷
Click to expand...
I hope you at least vote for your local candidates and initiatives? In these elections, your vote has a greater significance.

However, you exemplify the reason we need a third party…even more would be better in a perfect world. With our current structure, I don’t think any candidate has your best interest at heart. The fact that we are seeing non-career politicians gain so much attention is a clear indicator for the need for change.
 
I don’t have any problem with Donald Trump being president, other than the fact that he used to be an avowed liberal.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Except the last time I voted 3rd party was for governor in my state. 3% of us did. And the major party candidate who won did so by only 1%. So an argument could be made that the 3rd party voters cost the other major party candidate the election. The 2 major parties do have such a hold on the election process.
Click to expand...
You can make that argument. But that also assumes that the major party candidate that lost would have received enough of those 3rd party votes if the 3rd party hadn’t run, and that the losing candidate (or either major candidate) did enough to earn those votes. Clearly the loser did not. If he or she had been worthy of those votes, they’d have earned them. No one from either major party is entitled to assume any votes for a third party “should have gone to them.” Clearly they didn’t earn them due to some deficiency in their character, campaign, etc… or by virtue of simply being a major party candidate.
 
I’ll say this first: I find it a little amusing that people are getting their pants in a twist on whatever Trump says.

As for voting, neither. I like Trump better than Hillary but that does not mean I’d vote for him to lead the US.
 
I would vote for Donald Trump for sure. I like him. I could not, in good conscience, vote for Hillary anyway.
 
Vanny said:
Third party means a vote for Hillary.
Not voting means a vote for Hillary.
Click to expand...
Not to state the obvious, but that is not literally true. Not voting or voting for a third party is equivalent to giving half of your vote to Clinton and the other half to the Republican nominee. (Admittedly, I’m speaking a bit loosely myself.)
 
Sy_Noe said:
I agree. From searches of previous polls, I’ve found this forum tends to run about 70% Republican. And based on the past 2 POTUS elections, I can’t really be all that certain that it is representative of the American electorate. Although I know Catholic Republicans here believe they are more representative of the Catholic faith than are those Catholics who vote Democratic.
Click to expand...
Indeed - it’s very hard to judge who is the ‘party of the Catholics’, or indeed if religious conviction is, by and large, a significant factor in elections, even in the United States. It can at least be said that, as with all other belief systems open to personal interpretation (not that everyone having their own Catholic orthodoxy is desirable or allowed), there is the possibility for a wide range of political views to be justified by religion.

For instance, here in the UK, in modern elections, where all major parties are socially liberal (even the conservatives), it has been noticed in the past that quite a large proportion of Catholics, even though Catholics comprise a disproportionately affluent group, vote for the Labour Party, who are centre-left to left-of-centre, and most priests below the age of 60 I know are quite openly left wing in their sermons.
 
Crossbones said:
Or maybe Mr. Trump best represents the Republican voters and maybe he is leading because he best represents their views.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I’m sure he does represent Republican voters. The more he says outrageous things, the higher the poll numbers. It’s as simple as that.
 
Good_Tidings said:
Unfortunately, I’m sure he does represent Republican voters. The more he says outrageous things, the higher the poll numbers. It’s as simple as that.
Click to expand...
I think he represents those voters who base their choices on sound bites and hysterical rantings about how bad things are. Don’t think they are necessarily Republicans. I think they are people swayed by what they hear on the media and certainly not by common sense or deep thinking.
 
Once all the lower polling guys drop out, we will see who is truly winning. If all of their votes go towards Rubio/Cruz, I could see one of them taking the lead eventually.

This being said, Trump or Cruz will probably take Iowa. Can’t see that being Rubio.
 
AFerri48 said:
Once all the lower polling guys drop out, we will see who is truly winning. If all of their votes go towards Rubio/Cruz, I could see one of them taking the lead eventually.

This being said, Trump or Cruz will probably take Iowa. Can’t see that being Rubio.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t bet the farm on it but I’m thinking Cruz will end up taking Iowa. Seems to be gaining at just the right time leading up to the caucus and he would appear to be a candidate whom Iowa’s evangelical Republicans could latch onto over Trump and they make up a large portion of the GOP base in Iowa. Santorum and Huckabee were the 2 previous winners in the Republican caucuses there.
 
If it were Trump v. Satan I would abstain, against anybody else I would vote against Trump.

For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would listen to such an amoral, egotistical demagogue. This piece from National Review sums up my feelings pretty well.
 
Padres1969 said:
You can make that argument. But that also assumes that the major party candidate that lost would have received enough of those 3rd party votes if the 3rd party hadn’t run, and that the losing candidate (or either major candidate) did enough to earn those votes. Clearly the loser did not. If he or she had been worthy of those votes, they’d have earned them. No one from either major party is entitled to assume any votes for a third party “should have gone to them.” Clearly they didn’t earn them due to some deficiency in their character, campaign, etc… or by virtue of simply being a major party candidate.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. The 3rd party candidate I voted for was more liberal than the Democrat. But if I had to do it over again, I’d have voted for the Democrat over the Republican between the 2 who had a chance. I knew at the time I was casting a protest vote. But it’s why even though I support Bernie Sanders, I will be right on board with Hillary the moment she wins her party’s nomination.
 
mary_bobo said:
I think he represents those voters who base their choices on sound bites and hysterical rantings about how bad things are. Don’t think they are necessarily Republicans. I think they are people swayed by what they hear on the media and certainly not by common sense or deep thinking.
Click to expand...
Wow…but you are a “Deep Thinker”.

Americans truly have a right to be concern. There are those that cling to partisan politics or listen too much those with an agenda. But the truth is that there are reason to be concern and rather than finding ourselves closer to solutions; we find ourselves drifting in the opposite direction.

You would have to elaborate on “common sense” or “deep thinking”? That is usually administered by someone making their best effort to insult their interlocutor which is truly not a Socratic approach to debating.
 
Perhaps what we all can agree on is the Obama-Clinton failure is driving the Trump success? What do you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top