Who Will Win The Election

[Amppax]

23 hours ago, Anomaly said:

I am so looking forward to this election being over.  Living in central Florida the political ads in TV and radio are constant, 20 to 40 robo-calls daily, and a half dozen mailed political flyers EVERY. @&$€.DAY!

The Dems have spent millions on ads that anything restricting abortions is anti-woman.  It's really disheartening to see in the polls how effective that strategy has been for them.  If Florida goes Dem, it's all because of abortion has been translated into meaning pro-women.

Same with Ohio. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

On 11/4/2016 at 10:28 AM, Gabriela said:

So you used to be Catholic. I didn't know that. May I ask why you left, and why you remain outside?

the main reasons are because i dont see enough evidence of infallibility in the early church (plenty of evidence that he should be listened to and is a head, perhaps, but not infallible), and all the reasons the orthodox and sedevacantists argue, and because there are doctrines such as "no salvation outside the church" that at least look contradictory. also little things like why st augustine didn't expand on infallibility when he wrote volumes about church authority etc.  to me it's more of an acrobatic move to say there wasn't a contradiction, but it's possible, i admit. and, the most common argument for infallibility is that it is like an acorn that wouldn't have just sprung up in full form. these are plausible, that's why i'm open to being catholic. they just dont look like the most compelling. while i'd be willing to change my views if i thought the church was right, i also disagree on things like being able to remarry if your spouse leaves you, contraception, euthanasia, just some pet issues i have that i'm sure everyone might have their own if they weren't catholic.  i recently realize that there's more evidence of infallibliity that i realized, but it's still sparse and somewhat inconclusive. id think if the church were true, there'd be more evidence.  just look at that thread i started and always add to about the authority of the ctholic church for examples and more issues i have.

edit: here is a link with most of the issues i have

having issues in editing that post, here is the link

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/130867-catholic-church39s-claims-are-weak-in-early-history-regarding-papa/

anther big issue

" The Roman Pope never presided over any of the councils recognized as ecumenical by Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, however. They recognize seven in total, and at none of those seven did the Roman Bishop even attend, let alone preside. He instead sent legates to act in his place. In all of those councils, Western bishops in general were an extreme minority; sometimes not even present at all. "

Edited November 5, 2016 by dairygirl4u2c
to add a link

[Gabriela]

26 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

the main reasons are because i dont see enough evidence of infallibility in the early church (plenty of evidence that he should be listened to and is a head, perhaps, but not infallible), and all the reasons the orthodox and sedevacantists argue, and because there are doctrines such as "no salvation outside the church" that at least look contradictory. also little things like why st augustine didn't expand on infallibility when he wrote volumes about church authority etc.  to me it's more of an acrobatic move to say there wasn't a contradiction, but it's possible, i admit. and, the most common argument for infallibility is that it is like an acorn that wouldn't have just sprung up in full form. these are plausible, that's why i'm open to being catholic. they just dont look like the most compelling. while i'd be willing to change my views if i thought the church was right, i also disagree on things like being able to remarry if your spouse leaves you, contraception, euthanasia, just some pet issues i have that i'm sure everyone might have their own if they weren't catholic.  i recently realize that there's more evidence of infallibliity that i realized, but it's still sparse and somewhat inconclusive. id think if the church were true, there'd be more evidence.  just look at that thread i started and always add to about the authority of the ctholic church for examples and more issues i have.

edit: here is a link with most of the issues i have

having issues in editing that post, here is the link

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/130867-catholic-church39s-claims-are-weak-in-early-history-regarding-papa/

anther big issue

" The Roman Pope never presided over any of the councils recognized as ecumenical by Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, however. They recognize seven in total, and at none of those seven did the Roman Bishop even attend, let alone preside. He instead sent legates to act in his place. In all of those councils, Western bishops in general were an extreme minority; sometimes not even present at all. "

Huh. And I thought you were just a troll.  

I can see why you'd take issue with those things. Is it really necessary to agree with the Church on everything, though? Can't one just accept some things out of obedience, or be inside the Church and simply quietly disagree while continuing to pray for the grace to understand and accept the truth? I mean, it seems you're already looking out for reasons to accept what the Church teaches. If you can do that on the outside, you can do it on the inside.

I wonder if any convert has ever joined the Church in 100% agreement with all that She teaches. Hell, most converts don't even know the large majority of what She teaches. I dare say even lifelong cradle Catholics on their deathbed don't know some of it. She's got a lot of teachings, you know... (I know you know!)

I was in your position once, I think, at least insofar as I understand your position, which I'm sure isn't fully. But I wanted very, very badly to believe in Christianity at one point in my life—so much so that I went ahead and got baptized. It wasn't until later that I realized I had doctrinal issues with the Church that were pretty much irreconcilable, and on account of those I left for a while. But I'm still convinced to this day that it was my first step into the Church that ultimately brought me back. That step was ignorant of a lot of things, and confused, but I made it with basically good will. I made it because I desired to believe and to belong, even though I didn't yet agree. You know what I mean?

[Credo in Deum]

Hillary will win but they will make it look like those who opposed her had a chance with Trump.   They still have to keep the facade going that voting still matters, when it doesn't in this country. Our laws and way of life have been determied by corporations. They have been for some time now.

[tinytherese]

Why can't election day be declared a national holiday so that more people can vote?

[Anomaly]

4 minutes ago, tinytherese said:

Why can't election day be declared a national holiday so that more people can vote?

I don't know how it is in other states, but Florida has early voting.  You can vote at libraries for more than the past two weeks, plus mails in voting.    I don't see an a need for a national holiday if you have accessible early voting. 

[tinytherese]

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

I don't know how it is in other states, but Florida has early voting.  You can vote at libraries for more than the past two weeks, plus mails in voting.    I don't see an a need for a national holiday if you have accessible early voting. 

My state has early voting, but some states don't. There are places where people wait in line for hours. Some people can't afford to take a personal day off work, especially if they're paid by the hour. 

[Gabriela]

16 hours ago, tinytherese said:

Why can't election day be declared a national holiday so that more people can vote?

If I'm not mistaken, there has been some national discussion of this, because a lot of other countries have this. Otherwise you get a problem where the most destitute and desperate for work don't get to vote. Which is obviously a problem.

But I agree that, with early voting, it's not as big a deal.

[little2add]

"The Dark Side clouds every thing. Impossible to see, the future is."

[dUSt]

I'm not going to vote until there's an app for it.

[Anomaly]

8 minutes ago, dUSt said:

I'm not going to vote until there's an app for it.

Lol.  Then we can let the Russian and Chinese hackers muck things up.

Just read that Florida led the nation with 6,400,000 votes cast early.  Hillsborough County (Tampa) can mail in or visit multiple locations for 14 straight days including Sundays.  If you can't do that, then you aren't trying.  

I think one Election Day is silly. We should have two weeks of voting with the same Saturday end date for all States.  A Tuesday is archaic. 

[Archaeology cat]

14 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Lol.  Then we can let the Russian and Chinese hackers muck things up.

Just read that Florida led the nation with 6,400,000 votes cast early.  Hillsborough County (Tampa) can mail in or visit multiple locations for 14 straight days including Sundays.  If you can't do that, then you aren't trying.  

I think one Election Day is silly. We should have two weeks of voting with the same Saturday end date for all States.  A Tuesday is archaic. 

If nothing else, we've had record-breaking numbers of early voters so far in FL. I voted at the library when I was taking the kids to pick up more books. 

[dUSt]

54 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Lol.  Then we can let the Russian and Chinese hackers muck things up.

Just read that Florida led the nation with 6,400,000 votes cast early.  Hillsborough County (Tampa) can mail in or visit multiple locations for 14 straight days including Sundays.  If you can't do that, then you aren't trying.  

I think one Election Day is silly. We should have two weeks of voting with the same Saturday end date for all States.  A Tuesday is archaic. 

I'd like to see a variation of this. 1 week of voting with real time results at the end of each day.

[Peace]

On 11/5/2016 at 11:44 AM, dairygirl4u2c said:

the main reasons are because i dont see enough evidence of infallibility in the early church (plenty of evidence that he should be listened to and is a head, perhaps, but not infallible), and all the reasons the orthodox and sedevacantists argue, and because there are doctrines such as "no salvation outside the church" that at least look contradictory. also little things like why st augustine didn't expand on infallibility when he wrote volumes about church authority etc.  to me it's more of an acrobatic move to say there wasn't a contradiction, but it's possible, i admit. and, the most common argument for infallibility is that it is like an acorn that wouldn't have just sprung up in full form. these are plausible, that's why i'm open to being catholic. they just dont look like the most compelling. while i'd be willing to change my views if i thought the church was right, i also disagree on things like being able to remarry if your spouse leaves you, contraception, euthanasia, just some pet issues i have that i'm sure everyone might have their own if they weren't catholic.  i recently realize that there's more evidence of infallibliity that i realized, but it's still sparse and somewhat inconclusive. id think if the church were true, there'd be more evidence.  just look at that thread i started and always add to about the authority of the ctholic church for examples and more issues i have.

edit: here is a link with most of the issues i have

having issues in editing that post, here is the link

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/130867-catholic-church39s-claims-are-weak-in-early-history-regarding-papa/

anther big issue

" The Roman Pope never presided over any of the councils recognized as ecumenical by Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, however. They recognize seven in total, and at none of those seven did the Roman Bishop even attend, let alone preside. He instead sent legates to act in his place. In all of those councils, Western bishops in general were an extreme minority; sometimes not even present at all. "

Are you sure you haven't come back because you want to keep committing the sins that the Church would ask you to stop?

Before I converted I used to come up with all kinds of reasons like you wrote above, like "how can I be certain that Jesus was REALLY speaking literally in John chapter 6? How am I supposed to be certain that Jesus REALLY was referring to Peter as the rock?" And on an on . . .

But it was all BS that I made up in my own mind to avoid admitting to myself that I did not want to follow God and that I wanted to keep on doing the same sins because I enjoyed them.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Peace

[Gabriela]

4 minutes ago, dUSt said:

I'd like to see a variation of this. 1 week of voting with real time results at the end of each day.

Can we get a gag order on the candidates during that time?

If so, I suggest we extend it to a month or two.

[Anomaly]

24 minutes ago, dUSt said:

I'd like to see a variation of this. 1 week of voting with real time results at the end of each day.

I think two weeks is optimal.  Some people work a lot but you should be able to get off at least once in two weeks.  Then there is mail in, but I prefer personally scanning my ballot. 

[4588686]

On 11/2/2016 at 3:27 PM, dominicansoul said:

 

Hilary doesn't need to work too hard to infiltrate the Catholic Church, it's already infiltrated and poisoned with this liberal mindset....

 

 

(btw, there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion.  A human being is killed each time...)

 

 

lol you're backing trump

[Ash Wednesday]

It will ultimately depend on turnout, but prior to this week, I didn't think Trump would win. But now I think he might pull it off. The reason being the race is tightening and he's actually managed to gain ground with time -- I think one reason why he might actually manage to win is his shocking inability to be affected by any of the scandals about him that have come up (audio recordings and other accusations). He's gotten away with things that would end the career of most politicians. 

"Binders of women" -- simpler times.

In the likelihood that Hillary wins, I don't think Trump will concede easily and it will get ugly.

Actually, if 2000 taught us anything, the Democrats wouldn't concede easily in a close race, either. Ugly.

And the tie? Going to congress? Ugly.

In fact, no matter who gets the vote, it will be ugly.

 

The winner will be: ugly.

[Gabriela]

54 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

It will ultimately depend on turnout, but prior to this week, I didn't think Trump would win. But now I think he might pull it off. The reason being the race is tightening and he's actually managed to gain ground with time -- I think one reason why he might actually manage to win is his shocking inability to be affected by any of the scandals about him that have come up (audio recordings and other accusations). He's gotten away with things that would end the career of most politicians. 

"Binders of women" -- simpler times.

In the likelihood that Hillary wins, I don't think Trump will concede easily and it will get ugly.

Actually, if 2000 taught us anything, the Democrats wouldn't concede easily in a close race, either. Ugly.

And the tie? Going to congress? Ugly.

In fact, no matter who gets the vote, it will be ugly.

 

The winner will be: ugly.

Truest post in this thread.

[Nihil Obstat]

Nice somewhat-normal distribution for responses. I am pleased. Someone make a bar graph for me. I am both lazy and demanding.