And 13% off Black Men 'voted for drumpf.' And 53% of White Women 'voted for drumpf.'

See the pattern?

It's bull hockey, spun to explain the repugs' election theft. Like how the National Election Pool's Exit polling data said that little bush won in 2004 with a 153% increase in big city voters who backed him, compared to his 2000 election numbers. In order to make the final election results make sense, the NEP's weighting process claimed li'l bush went from 2.3 million big city voters supporting him in '00, up to 5.4 million, in '04. Despite having done nothing for big cities or big city dwellers, not campaigning in big cities, not advertising to target big city dwellers, not having big city GOTV efforts, not having major big city campaign events, not making campaign promises about high profile federal projects for big cities. None of the Black Latino or Jewish voting blocs in big cities changed their preferences between '00 and '04, so his support came from millions of White ghost voters.

And 41% of registered voters did not bother to vote. That is registered voters, not merely eligible voters. 41% of registered voters saw no reason to vote.
And many people voted for one of two vanity candidates, Stein and Johnson. Candidates who, like Nader, had no chance of winning anywhere.

traditions. We need less infighting now. We have a hell of a big juicy enemy target to focus on.

I wasn't impressed with Stein, but she didn't steal the election. The tubby bald orange nazi's flunkies did.

Now the media is spinning yarns to explain how that theft didn't happen. No religion is involved, though there are some fuckheads in the American Bishops who backed that nazi swine.

True indeed. How do you think we can counter that in the next election?

He, like many conservative US bishops, chose to ignore or even defy the edicts of Pope Francis in favor of the typical RW obsession with abortion and pushed that on the parishoners, with RW groups passing out "voter guides" which read like RW talking points disguised as faith issues.

Right-wing Catholics have their priorities screwed up. Even the Pope mentioned that. Someone needs to tell him that sex-related issues are not "non-negotiable", but issues relating to protecting the poor, vulnerable, and weak from the whims of the rich, strong, and powerful is. Christ never imposed oppressive burdens on his flock the way some authoritarian, legalistic clergy seem to do now; he dealt with sinners gently. Many, if not most, US bishops, seem to have forgotten that lesson and have been living like princes, expecting the laity to bow down before them no matter what.

I do have an idea to counter this RW creep: in the Catholic faith, it's known as the consistent life ethic and we should organize to counter RW activist nuts.
Remind them that Jesus died and left Peter--and his successors--in charge, not them! They have no right to judge people and condemn them to hell because of outward behavior, and that their hypocrisy, coldness and proclivity to judge is putting them far closer to hell than any gay couple or a desperate woman seeking an abortion. Jesus told off the Pharisees, the Jewish authorities of his time, for their hypocrisy, double standards, tendency to look down on "sinners" (read: social outcasts), etc. and even called them out as liars.
(more to come)

Last week, before the election, I went to a church uptown, by Duquesne University. (I bounce from parish to parish). The priest there is a new one, transferred over here from east central PA. He gave a sermon where he told a story about an experience he shared with a group of nuns in his parish there. Those women revered a Jesuit priest that had been imprisoned for 28 years by Stalin. The priest had been jugged up in '41, and after release was stationed in the parish where the convent was. The nuns thought he was saintly, and kept a small cross of his after he died. The priest who gave the sermon to me in Pgh related that the nuns used that cross to pray over one of their sick and elderly members, and she recovered from the deathbed, extrodinarily.

The priest who told the story was illustrating some of the themes from the 1st 2nd and gospel readings, but here's where I shine in. After mass, the priest often waits by the door to greet people. When I went by him, I shook his hand and told him 'have a good week father'. Then I stopped about 10' away, watched to make sure nobody else was coming up to him, and went back and had a private word with him. I said "that jesuit priest who's a saint..", and he said "he's not a saint", and I said "ok, he should be a saint", and he agreed. So I started over and said "that priest who got jugged up by Stalin -- what do you think he'd make of all those ties between Putin and dRumpf?" He said, in a voice that was a bit miffed "well I don't know." I said "Oh. Have a good week father."

I do what I can, when I can. I do it while knowing and observing the rituals of the church's religious ceremonies. I didn't do it to stick it to this new priest. He knows exactly what that saintly Jesuit would think of drumpf and Putin. I just pushed the point home.

I could tell you a very byzantine and interesting story about that church (epiphany), why it's there, the felony arson committed by Mellon underling Henry Frick, the bizarre cabalistic group the church used to reach out to mason Frick, the arcane symbology in the church's ornamentation, with a tie in to Guy Ritchie's first Sherlock Holmes movie, with Robert Downey, Jude Law, and Mark Strong starring. But it would be a bit long winded, so I'll spare you unless you want it.

The media must insist that the election was free and fair. To do otherwise is to detract from the myth of free and fair elections.

definitely want a nazi in charge. Good for business, and hitler never hurt one rich industrialist despite being an all powerful maniac.

that "some people think the only problem is religion."

You've been repeatedly demonstrated to be completely wrong with virtually everything you claim. Your streak of errors continues unabated.

Why do you think Trump won the Catholic vote?

Do you think we should be concerned about it for the next election?

Please answer my questions instead of engaging in personal attacks.

But prior to the election, some DUers fiercely objected to the notion that Trump might win the Catholic vote. Yet he did. Should we not analyze why this was?

or 13% of black men. Similarly, li'l bush did not win a 153% increase in big city white voters like me, in '04. Weighted exit poll results had to make that false statement to explain the election theft.

So there's no reason to believe he did win the majority of catholics like me, either.

It's a polite statement of disagreement, not meant to get into a fight over pro and anti catholic viewpoints.

The 52% comes from exit polling. So I'm not sure what you are considering evidence. Were the votes AND the exit polling rigged?

You know, most of those Hispanics are among that catholic 52% you cite. I'm a non-spanish catholic, but don't believe they backed him in those numbers. So yes, I believe there was election fraud.

It's an unfortunate part of human nature that a lot of people want to "pull the ladder up" after they've reached a certain status. There were commentators who appeared on various TV programs prior to the election spouting exactly that attitude - remember the taco truck guy? They made it to the US and got citizenship; they didn't want more immigrants to follow and get what they did.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/hillary-clinton-wins-latino-vote-but-falls-below-2012-support-for-obama/

BEFORE all the repug batista cubans in FL got to hear how dRumpf was violating the trade embargo, to go into business with Castro. Before he alienated the only bloc of voting hispanics who consistently back the repugs. All Romney did was say hispanics should self deport, and he got 27%. This guy made a year and a half vendetta out of attacking hispanics, and he got that same %? Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

So exactly what hispanic outreach did he perform to make the polls swing 10 to 20% points? Mebbe it was the wise words of his 'you gonna have taco trucks every corner' guy.

You and I just disagree.

Flagrantly, blatantly, the pre-election, post-election, and in precinct polls are not true. The repugs are saying to you and me 'who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?'

And I don't believe them when they say that.

But I have evidence to back my claims up.

You do not. You are simply asserting that every single poll is wrong.

I think it's much more interesting than your desire to dislike and argue with fellow dems, based on believing outrageous lies from repug corporations.

Your answer is, evidently, "Nothing. It was stolen and we actually won."

I don't think that helps us win next time.

Abortion is the hierarchy's #1 issue. They made that clear in the run-up to this election. You can think you're planting all these wonderful seeds of doubt, but it's not going to change that fact.

Our party stands for reproductive rights. That is never, ever going to be acceptable to the RCC.

"Of course, that didn't end the controversy over Catholics and abortion. Bishops would continue to say that Catholics couldn't vote for pro-choice policymakers and Catholics would continue to make up their own minds, supporting pro-choice candidates like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But the movement did more than create a vibrant space for pro-choice Catholics in public life. It empowered Catholics to think for themselves on abortion. Today, a majority of Catholics support abortion rights and fewer than 20 percent recognize church leaders as the final moral authority on the issue.

And pro-choice people of faith matter more than ever, as debates over reproductive rights are increasingly fused with religious rhetoric and claims of religious freedom, as evidenced by the Hobby Lobby case. Pro-choice Catholics offer an effective counter-narrative to the idea that all people of faith oppose abortion. As Jon O'Brien, the current head of Catholics for Choice notes, "We are pro-choice because of our faith, not despite it." "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-miller/pro-choice-catholics_b_6526314.html

You apparently are unconsolable, and the fact that we have 'irreconcilable differences' comes from your end, only.

I've been saying and doing what's right, not just 'thinking I'm planting all these wonderful seeds of doubt', for nearly 40 years. None of the many crimes the righties in my church pull are going to occur unopposed while I'm in the area, and I'm there every week.

Feel free to reply, it's your o.p.. But I'm done with your constant low key hostility and your crusading bent. Dems need unity, not fractious enmity.

I'm very sorry that my perspective and observations differ from yours. Don't think I deserved your snide personal attacks, but whatever. You have all the answers, you know how and why people really voted, you go do your thing I guess. Unity is OK as long as everyone accepts what you have to say, huh?

And this has been typical since 2000, at least. They vote for Republicans far more than the non-religious, or Jewish or people of other faiths do. Their enthusiasm for Trump was larger than ever.

It's always been a problem, and to stick your head in the sand and say "ooohh, it was all a huge conspiracy - Catholic shit doesn't smell" is a pointless attempt to deflect from the profound moral problems that lie at the heart of Catholicism as practiced in the USA.

60-37 in favour of Trump? That's not just shameful, that's immoral. The White Catholic number is worse than the simple 'White' number. And that's with the 26% of the voters being "white, born again or evangelical Christians" who voted 81%-16% for Trump. The white mainline protestant must look far better in comparison.

Catholicism helped Trump. The numbers are straightforward. The denial by Catholics desperate to not face this inconvenient truth is just going to slow down the repentance the Catholic community needs to make. Confess your wrongs, and then you can make atonement.

So, I'll ask you again: who are you trying to single out? White people or Catholics?

No, you don't see the pattern. No, I don't 'stick my head in the sand'. No, I never said "ooooh it was all a huge conspiracy, catholic shit doesn't smell". No, I didn't make a pointless attempt to deflect from the profound moral problems at the heart of Catholicism.

So you're wrong on all counts. I've seen your name floating around the site before, don't remember being particularly opposed to anything you posted. Can't say I'm too impressed by actual interaction with you, though.

When you see that I fail to reply to your ridiculous and super unfriendly posts directed my way in the future, it won't be because I'm "ignoring" you. I'm just ignoring you.

Bush won the Catholic vote by a wider margin over Kerry than the overall population. Go figure.

He got 52% of the Catholic vote? At 53% white women's vote. (Both my demographics. and Both extraordinarily upsetting to me.)

The same kind of exit polling that showed Obama winning the Catholic vote in '08 and '12.

Like I said above, two demographics of which I am apart, have both let us all down. It's not my place to apologize for them, as I did my part. But it disgusts me.

The best showing among Catholics since before 2000:



Largest Republican winning margin in all that time among White Catholics (Romney was next highest), but Bush did better with Hispanic Catholics (he lost them by 32 points each time, and Trump lost them by 39 points).

The trend in Republican winning margin for White Catholics: 7, 13, 5, 19, 23. Looks bad.

I have many Catholics in my family, and I am angry at them all. They all voted for this racist, sexist hater.

They are Catholic but except for one or two I think it had nothing to do with religion.

Really pisses me off because both sides of my family were all Democrats and now so many of them vote GOP. At least my younger generation of cousins have dome brain cells and voted HRC but not all of them.

I am Episcopalian and no one in my church has admitted to voting for him.

We really can't be surprised.

I know it depends on the particular priest and the particular bishop, but there are many sins out there, and I know plenty who vote for democrats and justify it just fine despite the "life/choice" debate.

I think it's another thing where wealthy white voters were looking for their own bottom line and vaguely voting for racist reasons and used their catholic morality as a justifiable reason to do so.

I'm so disillusioned right now, though.

But it is a fact that your church classifies abortion as a significantly more serious sin than others.

and I have family members who also said it was all about the supreme court. I argued some of them out of it. Some of them not. I said that the nobody will ever be able to force abortions and it's truly the choice of the woman involved. My morality isn't the same as someone else's.

I don't respect people who are one issue voters. It's short sighted.

Having said that, I don't think Podesta helped sway Catholic voters.

Up the prayer BIGLY .