2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
What would you classify as a "religious belief"? Can the moral values underlying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be proven empirically in ways that the Catholic prohibition on abortion cannot?

Good governance is impossible without some sort of shared moral framework among the governed. Protestant Christianity provided that basis for most of our history. The current unprecedented levels of polarization and social atomization are directly correlated to the loss of that basis. We can either agree to give local communities the freedom to largely govern themselves (according to their own values), or we can continue tearing each other apart in winner-takes-all battles over the Federal government. I think the former is the only way we can hold this republic together.

Whiskey,

Do you consider that Father Jenkins and John Boehner have undermined America's shared moral framework? or that they have contributed to a "culture war" or a "war on religion" or an attack on fundamental American values?

Just asking for clarification. Thanks.

(I realize Boehner called Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh". Cruz has responded: “What Boehner is angry with is the American people holding him accountable. That’s what the anger is because the corrupt system that Boehner and Hillary have been enmeshed with for years, funded by Donald Trump.")
 
Last edited:

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
While I agree that Clinton's SCOTUS picks would be disastrous, I have zero confidence that Trump's would be any better.

to me its like pointing a gun you know has one chambered at your foot (Hillary), or putting three rounds in a revolver, and spinning it, and aiming at your foot(Trump). I'll take Trump Roulette.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Do you consider that Father Jenkins and John Boehner have undermined America's shared moral framework?

No. I don't foresee a plausible path to restoring that shared framework at a national level, which is why I keep advocating for subsidiarity/ federalism as the only workable path forward.

[H]ave [they] contributed to a "culture war" or a "war on religion" or an attack on fundamental American values?

No, but they haven't built any meaningful bridges either. American Catholics desperately need their institutions to provide bold and clear leadership, particularly when it comes to issues where the Church is calling Catholics to make difficult, counter-cultural choices. Notre Dame is failing to fill that vacuum, largely because: (1) its leadership pursues recognition from secular authorities (which are hostile to the Catholic Church in a number of ways); and (2) it doesn't want to make waves.

I think that's a major mistake, because most of ND's distinctiveness is tied up in its Catholic identity, which ensures that ND cannot attain what its pursuing without selling its soul.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
No, but they haven't built any meaningful bridges either. American Catholics desperately need their institutions to provide bold and clear leadership, particularly when it comes to issues where the Church is calling Catholics to make difficult, counter-cultural choices. Notre Dame is failing to fill that vacuum, largely because: (1) its leadership pursues recognition from secular authorities (which are hostile to the Catholic Church in a number of ways); and (2) it doesn't want to make waves.

I think that's a major mistake, because most of ND's distinctiveness is tied up in its Catholic identity, which ensures that ND cannot attain what its pursuing without selling its soul.

I appreciate the clarification.

Thinking about the Kennedy-Nixon Presidential race in 1960, Kennedy's Catholicism was politicized.

Kennedy responded:
"I believe in an America where the separation of Church and state is absolute-where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote...where religious liberty is so indivisable that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
and

"I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him by the nation or imposed by the nation on him as a condition of holding that office."
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I appreciate the clarification.

Thinking about the Kennedy-Nixon Presidential race in 1960, Kennedy's Catholicism was politicized.

Kennedy responded:
and

It was politicized. And Jack Kennedy's responses make a lot of sense when you consider that he was the first Catholic presidential nominee in a historically Protestant nation with a long history of anti-Catholic paranoia. Not to mention that Kennedy clearly didn't take his Catholicism very seriously...

The whole notion of religious liberty is a Protestant idea; it allowed for people who belonged to different Christian denominations to co-exist peacefully, despite significant theological differences, due to their underlying shared moral framework. As I mentioned before, that consensus is now gone, so the concept either has to take on a radically more central role in our politics, or it has to be discarded entirely.

And that second quote makes perfect sense for a Protestant (or a nominally Catholic politician seeking office in a Protestant-majority nation) who believes in Private Judgment. But it ain't Catholic.
 
Last edited:

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,103
Reaction score
12,936
24% opt out of Trump Clinton race

Trump is more toxic within his own party than Clinton is in hers. If Trump is the Republican nominee, 16% of GOP voters say they would choose a third-party candidate, while five percent (5%) would stay home. Sixty-six percent (66%) would vote for Trump, but 10% would vote for Clinton instead.

If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, 11% of Democrats would vote third-party, while three percent (3%) would stay home. Seventy-five percent (75%) would support the nominee, but 11% say they would vote for Trump.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, nearly one-third say they would opt out: 21% would choose a candidate other than Trump or Clinton, and 10% would stay home. Trump leads Clinton 38% to 27% among unaffiliated voters.
 

MJ12666

New member
Messages
794
Reaction score
60
CNBC - US advance Q1 GDP up 0.5% vs. 0.7% expected

There is a good chance that this number will be revised downward and if this is indicative of growth for the next two quarters there is no way HRC wins. Also watch the stock market. If there is a correction before November and it does not rebound I don't care what Trumps negatives are today, there is no way he will lose to HRC, baring a strong third party candidate.
 

NDinL.A.

New member
Messages
8,121
Reaction score
1,734
CNBC - US advance Q1 GDP up 0.5% vs. 0.7% expected

There is a good chance that this number will be revised downward and if this is indicative of growth for the next two quarters there is no way HRC wins. Also watch the stock market. If there is a correction before November and it does not rebound I don't care what Trumps negatives are today, there is no way he will lose to HRC, baring a strong third party candidate.

I disagree. The negatives he has aren't going away, unless there is another 9/11 attack (which the bastard will exploit for his own good just like he did the Brussells attack). The people that he is bringing in to vote will be ounumbered by the people he is bringing in to vote against him. He has pissed off too many people, more than he has galvanized, and is ushering Hillary into the White House. I'm sure, as a Hillary supporter for so long, Trump won't be too upset.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
It was politicized. And Jack Kennedy's responses make a lot of sense when you consider that he was the first Catholic presidential nominee in a historically Protestant nation with a long history of anti-Catholic paranoia. Not to mention that Kennedy clearly didn't take his Catholicism very seriously...

The whole notion of religious liberty is a Protestant idea; it allowed for people who belonged to different Christian denominations to co-exist peacefully, despite significant theological differences, due to their underlying shared moral framework. As I mentioned before, that consensus is now gone, so the concept either has to take on a radically more central role in our politics, or it has to be discarded entirely.

And that second quote makes perfect sense for a Protestant (or a nominally Catholic politician seeking office in a Protestant-majority nation) who believes in Private Judgment. But it ain't Catholic.


The first Catholic presidential nominee was Al Smith, Democrat, in 1928, 32 years before JFK ran.

Anti-catholicism was rampant. Rumors abounded that if Smith won, the pope would relocate to Washington DC and the President would have have to kneel and kiss his ring. The KKK underwent a revival during Smith's 1928 campaign.

Smith lost the electoral college vote in one of the worst beatings in U.S. history, 444 to 87. He lost the popular vote by 21 million to 15 million while winning only 8 states.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
What would you classify as a "religious belief"? Can the moral values underlying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be proven empirically in ways that the Catholic prohibition on abortion cannot?



What do you mean by "discriminate"? Every rational person discriminates; "Catholics believe these things, but not those things", "Democrats support these policies, but not those policies", etc. Human society wouldn't be possible without it. You of course mean the sort of discrimination targeted by the CRA; and most Christians would agree with you, both because of the Christian concept of spiritually equality before God, and because that sort of animus is simply irrational. But when you seek to extend the protections of the CRA to human behaviors, and insist that one mustn't discriminate based on what that person does with other consenting adults sexually, well then you've just placed a massively important domain of human behavior beyond the reach of ethical inquiry, and it's you who is now acting irrationally (especially given the mountain of evidence that sexual liberalism is rapidly killing the West).



There's no such thing as "freedom from religion". Secular liberalism is no less a religion than Christianity; it's just as totalizing in its truth claims. Good governance is impossible without some sort of shared moral framework among the governed. Protestant Christianity provided that basis for most of our history. The current unprecedented levels of polarization and social atomization are directly correlated to the loss of that basis. We can either agree to give local communities the freedom to largely govern themselves (according to their own values), or we can continue tearing each other apart in winner-takes-all battles over the Federal government. I think the former is the only way we can hold this republic together.

Sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to this yesterday.

IIRC, the CRA '64 doesn't extend to LGBT. The specific belief that first comes to mind comes from the "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" crowd who are openly against homosexuality per their religion and are willing to pass legislature either restricting rights of LGBT or protecting the beliefs of said crowd mentioned above (which, imo, is just a law allowing people the right to discriminate against sexual orientation and gender identity).

When I say "discriminate," I'm not referring to the bakery owner refusing a cake to a gay couple, as every private store owner reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I'm more so referring to the Kim Davis of the world who are refusing to do their job when said job is directly linked to something that is legally and rightfully owed to another citizen. If she feels uncomfortable giving out legal documents to gay couples per her religion, she should have quit her job, not outright refused to partake. I could name other examples but it's 8am on a Friday and I want to leave work early today :)

Lastly, "freedom from religion" is not a Constitutional phrase, but that doesn't mean it ceases to exist. Because every person in this country is free to practice any religion he/she chooses, I also have the freedom to not believe and not practice religion while also maintaining the right to not have another person's beliefs forced on me in the form of religious legislature. Imagine the shit storm if Tom Cruise became POTUS and somehow forced Americans to practice the beliefs of Scientology. There are already people freaking out over Shariah Law. But yet for some reason, people think it's okay to push Christianity onto others who may not be Christian. I can't handle that hypocrisy and it's why I fully believe that no religion should ever seep into our government legislature.

Sorry if that's not an adequate response. I know you are far superior to me when it comes to knowledge over these subjects. But its' how I feel and I wanted to try and explain.
 
Last edited:

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
I think people are underestimating the amount of Dem/Ind voters under the age of 45 who do not like/support HRC.

I'm not voting for her, that's for sure.

This is far from a slam drunk.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I think people are underestimating the amount of Dem/Ind voters under the age of 45 who do not like/support HRC.

I'm not voting for her, that's for sure.
Which just goes to show how comically inept the Republicans are at presidential nominating contests. In 2012, Obama was running for reelection on the heels of the very unpopular Affordable Care Act. What do the Republicans do? They nominate the one candidate who can't attack the Affordable Care Act with any credibility because he implemented the same plan as Governor of Massachusetts. Now, in 2016, they're set to counter the second most disliked nominee in the history of polling with... the most disliked nominee in the history of polling. They deserve to lose.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
Which just goes to show how comically inept the Republicans are at presidential nominating contests. In 2012, Obama was running for reelection on the heels of the very unpopular Affordable Care Act. What do the Republicans do? They nominate the one candidate who can't attack the Affordable Care Act with any credibility because he implemented the same plan as Governor of Massachusetts. Now, in 2016, they're set to counter the second most disliked nominee in the history of polling with... the most disliked nominee in the history of polling. They deserve to lose.

Yeah The Establishment and status quo in this country are pretty oblivious to reality. Both parties are out of touch. The Dems are pushing one of the most disliked candidates in history as well. The GOP at least recognizes the problem. Meanwhile the DNC and Hillary machine keep on chugging despite how a lot of people feel about it.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
I think people are underestimating the amount of Dem/Ind voters under the age of 45 who do not like/support HRC.

I'm not voting for her, that's for sure.

This is far from a slam drunk.

I think this too.

I think Trump has a decent chance to beat HRC.

- I don't think that HRC automatically gets all the Bernie votes for a couple of reasons: 1) a lot of them are fed up with the establishment and she is definitely that in the D party so I think many will stay home or pull the lever for anti-establishment Trump; 2) a lot of Bernie people are young, if they are not motivated to do it, they won't show up on election day

- To go along with the above, while I think HRC gets almost all of the African American/Black vote, I think the turnout in that group drops drastically from the last two presidential elections as it was way higher those last two than it has been in many other previous ones.

- The way it sounds, Trump is ready to go scorched earth style on HRC. A number of campaigns have been thought to be nasty in the past, but historically speaking, there used to be far worse. Trump being a true outsider, is more likely to get really down in the mud and hammer hard. While this will probably hurt him with women (even though he would do the same if she was a man), I think HRC would win a majority of them anyway. Also, what I have seen discussed in the past is that if the campaigns get down and dirty, that depresses the turnout. When turnout is depressed, it tend to favor the R's because they have a more faithful to voting voter base (again from past discussions all over the media in previous campaigns, so no links here). Also, even those who don't like Trump on the R side and might think about staying home, may turn out to be sure HRC doesn't get in.

I am not saying the Donald would win. I am not saying I want him to win. I do not like him and he gives little to no specifics on anything (HRC is not exactly the most detailed person either). I do know that I do NOT like HRC even one tiny bit. I know I am not alone. I know Trump has historically high negatives, but HRC really isn't too far behind him. Basically I think Trump has a decent shot. The biggest thing will be how well he taps into the ground game machine when the election comes
 
Last edited:

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://t.co/oCXXCLJoSU">pic.twitter.com/oCXXCLJoSU</a></p>— Bloom County (@bloomcounty) <a href="https://twitter.com/bloomcounty/status/726030032418697217">April 29, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Yeah The Establishment and status quo in this country are pretty oblivious to reality. Both parties are out of touch. The Dems are pushing one of the most disliked candidates in history as well. The GOP at least recognizes the problem. Meanwhile the DNC and Hillary machine keep on chugging despite how a lot of people feel about it.

So you would vote for Trump?
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
I don't play that game. Sorry. I vote for the person who I believe represents my values.

I don't like Jimmy and I don't like Billy. Both are about to unknowingly drive a car off of a cliff. My buddy Earl is also driving a car and is about to take a wrong turn and will be late to dinner. I can only warn one.

So I warn Earl because I like him. Jimmy and Billy's death has nothing to do with me...




That's just a silly analogy, but it goes to my point. When there are only two possible candidates that can remotely win the nomination in any statistical sense, then voting for someone else is making a vote for one of the real candidates by proxy. That isn't a "game" that people are playing. That is reality. The "game" would be absolving yourself from responsibility by voting for someone with less than zero chance of winning or taking your vote out of the pool completely. You aren't absolving yourself from responsibility of who becomes President, because your voting decision has a direct correlation with which way the pendulum leans in the end voting. That is simply a fact, whether you choose to believe it or not.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
I don't like Jimmy and I don't like Billy. Both are about to unknowingly drive a car off of a cliff. My buddy Earl is also driving a car and is about to take a wrong turn and will be late to dinner. I can only warn one.

So I warn Earl because I like him. Jimmy and Billy's death has nothing to do with me...




That's just a silly analogy, but it goes to my point. When there are only two possible candidates that can remotely win the nomination in any statistical sense, then voting for someone else is making a vote for one of the real candidates by proxy. That isn't a "game" that people are playing. That is reality. The "game" would be absolving yourself from responsibility by voting for someone with less than zero chance of winning or taking your vote out of the pool completely. You aren't absolving yourself from responsibility of who becomes President, because your voting decision has a direct correlation with which way the pendulum leans in the end voting. That is simply a fact, whether you choose to believe it or not.

You're not wrong. But I'm the one who has to live with my choice.

I will not vote for a racist, misogynistic, babbling buffoon who panders to crowds to the point that no one, not even him, knows what he believes. Eventhough there are a handful of issues where I actually agree with the man, there is zero chance I will cast a vote for him after the things he's said and done.

I will not vote for an arrogant, entitled, fake-democrat, who cries sexism every time someone puts her in her place for every wrong thing she's done. She's a liar, a panderer, and is out-flanked by Trump to the left on certain issues. She represents everything I am against in terms of keeping the status quo. I don't believe a word she says. She's the stereotypical politician that everyone has grown to hate in this country. Not happening.

Four years/Eight years from now when asked who I voted for, I will be proud to say that it was neither or these horrible candidates.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
You're not wrong. But I'm the one who has to live with my choice.

I will not vote for a racist, misogynistic, babbling buffoon who panders to crowds to the point that no one, not even him, knows what he believes. Eventhough there are a handful of issues where I actually agree with the man, there is zero chance I will cast a vote for him after the things he's said and done.

I will not vote for an arrogant, entitled, fake-democrat, who cries sexism every time someone puts her in her place for every wrong thing she's done. She's a liar, a panderer, and is out-flanked by Trump to the left on certain issues. She represents everything I am against in terms of keeping the status quo. I don't believe a word she says. She's the stereotypical politician that everyone has grown to hate in this country. Not happening.

Four years/Eight years from now when asked who I voted for, I will be proud to say that it was neither or these horrible candidates.

I understand what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree. There's nothing to be proud of in taking the easy way out and absolving yourself of responsibility. Life doesn't work that way. Your decisions, or even not making a decision, has its consequences. You can be proud of not marking the box for one of the clear options, but that doesn't absolve you of the outcome. The hard thing to do in life is making the "right" decision. You can't go through life without being faced with the decision of picking between two evils. It's hard to make a decision between two bad options, but a decision has to be made no matter what. Because at the end of the day, you are making a decision, regardless if you think you can hide behind a not taking action.

I'm not trying to call you out and respect your opinion. But I'm sick of what has become a standard in American society nowadays. Which is hiding behind non-decisions, political correctness and rhetoric. We are all better off if people take responsibility for their actions and make clear choices.
 
Top