[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[DK]

Sure thing, pal. The inquisition was hundreds of years ago. No such thing as a fundamentalist catholic. Actually, maybe that's called a Santorum.

Perhaps "hardline Catholic", like the Society of St. Pius X and Opus Dei, would be a more apt description?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Perhaps "hardline Catholic", like the Society of St. Pius X and Opus Dei, would be a more apt description?

The "fundamental option" is part of the "state of grace", one of the core tenets of the catholic church.

 

[squadops]

Please explain?

 

[Omnis]

Could you elaborate on this a little?

Perhaps "hardline Catholic", like the Society of St. Pius X and Opus Dei, would be a more apt description?

Yeah, but they're not in line with the mother church. "Fundamentalist" Catholic is like a contradiction in terms. Of course, Fundamentalism as it's practiced is a protestant form of religion.

I've been over this back in the Islam thread a while ago. Deus Vult is not valid.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I don't see a single thing on the left side of that chart that is a fundamental, constitutionally-protected right. But by all means, don't let a minor detail like that get in the way of your argument.

Fair enough, but I think you are missing the point here. over five countries, including Canada, require voters to present identification when going to the polls. I don't see any of our democratically elected officials complaining about "wide spread fraud" at the polls at their countries. Heck, even the first democratically elected president of Afghanistan was elected through the use of Indelible ink, or the purple ink that voters dip their finger into to prove that they have voted.

In one form or another, the elections in those countries was protected from wide spread fraud because they have a system in place to prevent it from happening in the first place. In 17 states, such a system is not in place beyond voter registration cards, which (at least in Texas) do not provide a photo to prove you are who you say you are.

 

[huskeR32]

Fair enough, but I think you are missing the point here.

I don't think I am. Anytime a barrier is added between people and something as fundamental as the right to vote, extreme caution should be exercised.

over five countries, including Canada, require voters to present identification when going to the polls.

If that's all it takes, then I assume you're in favor of single-payer healthcare? After all, five countries including Canada have it.

I don't see any of our democratically elected officials complaining about "wide spread fraud" at the polls at their countries.

Why should they? They don't represent Canadian citizens.

Heck, even the first democratically elected president of Afghanistan was elected through the use of Indelible ink,

Did Afghani citizens have to pay for the ink? Or was it provided free of charge at the same place they normally would have went to vote anyways, and with no other changes to the process they normally followed?

In one form or another, the elections in those countries was protected from wide spread fraud because they have a system in place to prevent it from happening in the first place.

Are you implying that voter fraud in the US is "wide spread?" If so, that's just as ludicrous of a claim as the on you attributed to Democrats earlier (that no fraud happens at all). If you have evidence of "wide spread" fraud, I'd love to see it. And if there isn't "wide spread" voter fraud, then this is an irrelevant comparison.

In 17 states, such a system is not in place beyond voter registration cards, which (at least in Texas) do not provide a photo to prove you are who you say you are.

And? Is there any evidence that those 17 states have a higher incidence of voter fraud?

 

[huskeR32]

"Fundamentalist" Catholic is like a contradiction in terms.

I'm still not following you here. Isn't any religion open to a fundamentalist interpretation?

--

EDIT: Apologies for the double-post. I just followed my alerts to reply to two different people, and didn't stop to realize it was in the same thread.

 

[Liquid]

Clinton should be embarrassed that Sanders is even running her this close. And don't get me wrong, I think Hillary Clinton is as insidious as any other cabinet minister (whatever the equivalent US term is) and most career politicians but really, with the money she has "acquired" and "spent" she should be walking away with it. I'd be very worried if I was her.

 

[DK]

She still holds a massive lead over Sanders among racial minorities (67% vs 28%), and that's a huge advantage in the Deep South, where in some states (e.g. South Carolina), minorities make up the majority of Democrat voters.

 

[Adamgp]

She still holds a lead in the national polls as well (13%+ RCP average). Bernie may win a couple states but I don't see him winning the nomination. He does seem like a good guy, even though I don't agree with much he says.

 

[Omnis]

I'm still not following you here. Isn't any religion open to a fundamentalist interpretation?

Sure, but do you still consider it a snickers bar if there's no nuts or caramel? It's by definition no longer a snickers. Just like anything not in communion with the church wouldn't be catholic.

I feel like this has been stretched way too far over a comment made in passing. Lol.

 

[Tornado]

I think Omnis' point is that Catholics are supposed to align themselves directly with whatever the Catholic Church happens to be saying at the time, which precludes a Catholic from being fundamentalist while remaining Catholic unless the Catholic Church is also doing fundamentalist things (ie. Crusades).

 

[huskeR32]

Just like anything not in communion with the church wouldn't be catholic.

I think Omnis' point is that Catholics are supposed to align themselves directly with whatever the Catholic Church happens to be saying at the time, which precludes a Catholic from being fundamentalist while remaining Catholic unless the Catholic Church is also doing fundamentalist things (ie. Crusades).

Fair enough, thanks.

 

[Biggles]

I think Omnis' point is that Catholics are supposed to align themselves directly with whatever the Catholic Church happens to be saying at the time, which precludes a Catholic from being fundamentalist while remaining Catholic

Precisely.

The fundamentalism in evangelical Protestantism comes mostly from adhering rigorously to "fundamental" religious texts. This has never been a primary concern of Roman Catholicism where the church has the authority to "interpret" scripture for the (sic) flock.

 

[squadops]

Which has been long gone, since prohibition days...

 

[Brutaka]

As of now i'm leaning towards Sanders, I'm not really feeling Clinton as she seems kinda shady. I had liked O'Malley for a second until I found out that his own state of Maryland doesn't like him that much, it gave me Bruce Rauner vibes.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Breaking News: Errors were found in the Democratic Iowa Caucus results after an internal review. The result of that review could swing the delegate count by as much as four delegates, the exact margin of victory for Hillary.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st.../79877898/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

 

[Pupik]

because, to some people, they are racists.

Yes, there's a massive amount of irony, but what caused the fraud is still under investigation.

I think the only odor of "racism" with the Voter ID laws is that very poor folks may not have a photo ID; i.e. those without a driver's license. There are ways to get an Election Identification Certificate (at no cost), which seems to completely left off by anyone affiliated with the media in any capacity, because they're simply sponsored watchdogs with no eyes and no teeth. But of course, you have to endure the same bit of rigmarole by appearing at a driver's license office, which is about as appealing as seeing your grandparents naked.

Also, based on the amount of media coverage for New Hampshire's primary, there must be absolutely nothing wrong anywhere in America nor in the world to report, so why would we even need another leader? Everything's great!...well, except that pesky Zika Virus and the 22nd Amendment.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Also, based on the amount of media coverage for New Hampshire's primary, there must be absolutely nothing wrong anywhere in America nor in the world to report, so why would we even need another leader?

Obviously, you need another leader to cause problems, because then what would the media report on?

The result of that review could swing the delegate count by as much as four delegates, the exact margin of victory for Hillary.

I'm absolutely, positively almost certain that you're not implying wrongdoing on Clinton's part.

 

[squadops]

Obviously, you need another leader to cause problems, because then what would the media report on?

We've become bored with Obama, besides, there is that pesky little thing called the law.

 

[Rich S]

Perhaps "hardline Catholic", like the Society of St. Pius X and Opus Dei, would be a more apt description?

I think Rick Santorum acts like an eastern orthodox member in some ways. The southern strategy used by GOP hurt his nomination chances I think as hes not a baptist. If I were a gop runner I'd be a born again evangelical tonque talker, a self described no government libertarian, and abortion and gay =death penalty, (2 divorces minimum for image purposes too)

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm absolutely, positively almost certain that you're not implying wrongdoing on Clinton's part.

No. Just saying that any shift in the results could have a significant impact on who ultimately wins the Iowa Caucuses.

Endorsement Alert: Former candidate Bobby Jindal endorses Marco Rubio. OP updated.

 

[ukfan758]

Well that was embarrassing for Trump and Carson .

 

[Swagger897]

Well that was embarrassing for Trump and Carson .

Haven't been watching, WVU V Baylor right now... What exactly happened?

 

[ukfan758]

Haven't been watching, WVU V Baylor right now... What exactly happened?

Both didn't hear their names being called (but the other candidates did) so they just awkwardly stood.



Other than that, I would say that this was the best debate yet. The moderators actually let them talk even if they went over, most of the questions were issue related (unlike Faux News, CNBC, and CNN). Lastly, ABC News fairly treated all of the canidates and didn't try to get them to attack each other. Their news department became a joke after Peter Jennings died, but it appears to be slowing coming back .

 

[A2K78]

Not a fan of Christie but I like the way he made Rubio look like an idiot(which he already is)

Overall this was just another clown show like the other debates(gop and democratic) but thankfully the NFL Honors Awards saved me.

 

[Pupik]

Both didn't hear their names being called (but the other candidates did) so they just awkwardly stood.

Jeb had that look of "guys, this isn't your first rodeo".

 

[Biggles]

Overall this was just another clown show like the other debates(gop and democratic)

A clown show? I don't see the Democratic debates as a "clown show". There are now only 2 candidates, with pretty distinct personalities, backgrounds & policy positions.

The Republican situation is completely different. The GOP has torn itself apart in the last couple of decades with the growth of the Tea Party, Christian conservatives, right-wing talk-shows & blogging, all disrupting the traditional GOP establishment. This has created the rise (& fall) of such figures as Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina & many others. Into this already volatile mix has stepped the incomparable Donald - a celebrity/businessman/reality TV personality - with an ego the size of ... well ... Trump. With so many candidates jostling for attention, the possibility of putting forward any kind of coherent policy statement, assuming that some of the candidates actually had coherent policy ideas to offer, has been lost in the barrage of personal attacks & strategic maneuvering. It will be interesting to see what effect the NH primaries will have on thinning out the herd.

 

[FoolKiller]

If by clown show you mean like PT Barnum, then yeah. They're putting on a show to get what they want from people, but none of it is real.

That's just politics in general.

 

[Quakebass]

A clown show? I don't see the Democratic debates as a "clown show". There are now only 2 candidates, with pretty distinct personalities, backgrounds & policy positions.

The Republican situation is completely different. The GOP has torn itself apart in the last couple of decades with the growth of the Tea Party, Christian conservatives, right-wing talk-shows & blogging, all disrupting the traditional GOP establishment. This has created the rise (& fall) of such figures as Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina & many others. Into this already volatile mix has stepped the incomparable Donald - a celebrity/businessman/reality TV personality - with an ego the size of ... well ... Trump. With so many candidates jostling for attention, the possibility of putting forward any kind of coherent policy statement, assuming that some of the candidates actually had coherent policy ideas to offer, has been lost in the barrage of personal attacks & strategic maneuvering. It will be interesting to see what effect the NH primaries will have on thinning out the herd.

You've basically summarized all of my issues with politics. 👍