Category Archives: Electorate

Caliexit Dreaming

Standard

This is a bit silly, but I thought I’d comment on it anyway.   California is mad.    Why?   because the rest of the country is not like them.   Without California (and really a few counties in California) Hillary Clinton does not win the popular vote.   And while we know that this doesn’t actually matter with respect to the Electoral College, it matters to some people.

As an aside, I saw some headline today of some article that said something along the lines of how the rest of the country is being held hostage by flyover country.    This couldn’t be a more asinine view of things.   When there are 3,141 total counties in the U.S. and one candidate wins 3,084 of them, it is not the people in the 3,084 counties that are holding the other 57 counties hostage.   That defies all logic.   No, if the Electoral College were discarded altogether, it would be a few large counties holding the rest of the country hostage.    And this is why the Electoral College makes sense.

Anyway, back to the wonderful folks in California.    There is a movement afoot to secede from the Union.   Now, this is probably never going to happen, because it’s not like a state can just decide on its own to pick up and leave.   Once part of the Union, you’re part of the Union.   To dissolve that, the state needs to initiate it, then the people of that state need to agree it’s a good idea, and then they can only leave if Congress grants them permission to do so and then the states ratify it.

None of that will happen, but as a non-Californian, I’m openly going to question whether or not we should stand in their way.   California claims to pay more into revenues than it receives.    That may or may not be true, and there’d be a mess trying to figure out how to transfer any future payment obligations to citizens in a seceded state.   My guess is we could get that all figured out, if not simply, at least in a manageable way that may span over a couple decades.

Personally, I’m not the least bit convinced that this would be a net loss in the fiscal sense.   Even if the math points in that direction today, I think in the future California will be a larger and larger drain.   They openly encourage a welfare state, sanctuary for illegal immigrants, etc.    Imagine what they’d do as their own country.    You want to see a grand socialist experiment?   I say, let ’em give it a shot.

For the rest of us, I think we would agree that the values of the West Coast are simply not aligned with the majority of the rest of the country.    So, take Oregon and Washington with you.   In terms of the future of politics, that is 73 Electoral votes for all three states (55 for California alone) that are for the foreseeable future going to go blue.   So, for those of us who want a more conservative bent, this only helps.    Further, I suspect there may be some self-selection happen between the Socialist Republic of the American West Coast and the rest of the country as well.    Some liberals in otherwise “purple” states may flock there to bask in the joy of their utopian dream, while the few remaining conservatives will emigrate to Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico, helping those states turn or stay red.

It’s all a pipe dream, I know.   Pointless musing.    I know I am not supposed to root for this kind of secession or division, but then again I don’t really want them influencing my life either.   So, see ya.

Advertisements

Electoral Meanderings

Standard

As a Catholic, I have a lot of thoughts about the Electoral College vs. Popular vote, etc.

OK, so being Catholic has little or nothing to do with that, but since this is called Catholic Diatribes I figured I’d remind everyone that I’m Catholic.

In no particular order of points, here we go:

  • The debate about whether or not the Popular Vote should be the determining factor in deciding the winner of the Presidential Election is understandable if viewed from a high-level perspective without a lot of deeper thought. Sure, it’s simple enough to think in terms of the democratic process – one person, one vote, most votes win.    But actually, this is not at all how our country is constructed.    And to view it in this way completely dismantles the way our citizens are represented, and the way our country actually operates.   We are not simply one country as a singular unit.   We never have been.    We are a country formed of fifty states plus the District of Columbia, joined together to form a country, but with each of those units having a say.   As I discuss some of the other points, this is the underlying issue that must be considered.    We are not, never have been, and barring a rewrite of the Constitution never will be a pure democracy.   We are a Republic.    Each unit in that Republic engages in a democratic process, but only to elect those who will then represent us.    We don’t vote on every law or regulation or issue – we elect someone who will on our behalf.   So we are not a pure democracy.
  • Making the argument that the Electoral College is unfair because it doesn’t amount to perfectly proportional weight of each individual’s vote can be extended to representation. Right now, every state, no matter how big or small, gets equal representation in the Senate.    Because of this, the folks who live in the least populous state actually have the largest voice in Congress on a per capita basis.    And even though the House of Representatives is proportional representation, there is still a minimum of 1 representative for the smallest states.    So, even in the House, the smallest state has the weightiest representation per person.   Our entire system is designed to make sure that the most populous states have a lower overall weight so that a small area of the country that has a high population density is less able to dictate policy to the rest of the country, potentially extending to large geographical regions.
  • Making the argument that the Electoral College is unfair is arguing that the states do not matter, and that – for this exercise, anyway – the country is a singular entity. This is simply not how we operate on anything.    Yes, there are federal laws and regulations, but those layer on top of state laws and regulation.    In this case, we are saying that we need to replace state elections with a federal one.    Maybe this is reasonable, maybe it isn’t, but it is a very fundamental difference from how we operate today.
  • There are some fun facts around the latest results that help demonstrate the wisdom of the Electoral College. Probably the most amazing statistic is this:   There are 3,151 counties in the United States.   Donald Trump won 3,084 of those counties.    And yet, Hillary Clinton is going to win the official Popular Vote.     That is actually really amazing.    And while I can sort of understand this whole “popular vote” argument, I simply cannot fathom how someone can’t see the wisdom in having a system that allows for the case where the candidate that wins 97.9% of the counties really deserves to be the President, even if he/she loses the total popular vote.
  • Another thing that needs to be considered as well is whether or not the actual results of the Popular Vote would have been the actual result if the winner was determined by Popular Vote. People are suggesting – either correctly or incorrectly – that the results of the election would be the same regardless of how the winner is determined.    This is far from certain.    Think about the fact that Donald Trump spent ALL of his time campaigning in the swing states.   California?   New York?    Almost no time at all, even though they have the highest two populations.    Illinois?    Since that state is driven by the results of Chicago, very little time was spent there.     The reason is simple strategy and resources.    Donald Trump may well have been able to get an extra million votes or two had he needed to spend money and time in those popular areas.    But he didn’t.   Why?    Because it made no sense with the Electoral College.    Losing California by 100 votes is no different than losing California by 3 million votes.     While this may not seem fair, because it means the candidates don’t go to fight for votes in those states, that’s just the flip side of what would happen if elections were driven by popular vote.    In that case, it wouldn’t just be a particular state getting ignored, it would be most of the United States.    The vast majority of campaigning would be in all the most populous areas.   Not necessarily the states, but just those zip codes or counties.    There are 45 counties in the United States that have 1.0 million or more people living in them.    Those 45 counties represent about 25% of the total population of the US.    County #100 has over 600,000 residents.    The top 100 counties represent just over 3% of total counties in the US, but you can bet that the majority of campaigning would be in those counties.    If ALL campaigning was centered on urban areas, the President would end up being even more out of touch with ordinary Americans than they already are.
  • Another fun map to look at is a red/blue map of who won which counties and overlay that with a red/blue map of highest crime rates. Just sayin’.
  • If you still need to be convinced about this, suppose we don’t talk about counties but we talk about a single state that has 51% of the population and all other states having an equal 1% share of the remaining population (for this exercise ignore Washington DC). Theoretically speaking, that one state could dictate who the President would be for the remaining 49 states.    While it may be a stretch to think that everyone in that state would vote similarly, it certainly isn’t a stretch that the difference in popular vote could be gigantic – all one need to do is look at the fact that 4 counties in NYC contributed over a 1.5 million vote advantage for Hillary Clinton – nearly 75% of the total popular vote gap.    California alone is going to have a 3 million vote difference.
  • The reason the Electoral College works is because it is a balance of Popular Vote and equal representation of the states in selecting the President of the entire U.S. – not just a few counties. The Electoral College count is 538, which is the total of Representatives and Senators (plus 3 for Washington DC, which in my opinion was unnecessarily overstated – I’m not sure why they felt it was necessary to treat that like a full state – but whatever).  The House generally represents the states in proportion to population, while the Senate does not.   So, the Electoral College lands in between the two – balancing geography and population.    Quite frankly, it’s genius.

 

Post-Election Thoughts

Standard

OK, I won’t overdo this.   There are literally millions of articles on the election, and I doubt anything I have to say is a unique insight.   So I’ll just do some quick hits on the things about this that most interest me.

  • During the Primaries, it became clear to me that the media gave Donald Trump all sorts of air time to, in a roundabout way, promote him to the top of the ticket on the Republican side.   The reason for this was to be able to give Hillary the best chance of winning – a near certainty in their minds – and to tie all other Republicans to Trump by association.   The goal was not just to help effect a Hillary win, but to tip the Senate – and even possibly the House – to the Democrats.   It is entirely sweet irony that this backfired entirely.  Trump wins, and the GOP holds both the House and Senate in a year where the GOP had to defend a lot of seats.   The left is apoplectic now that the GOP controls the Presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1928.
  • The left will want to make this all about bigotry, racism, and misogyny.    This election had little or nothing to do with that.   If anything, Trump could have done even better had he held his tongue in a number of instances.    But this was about a relative of that.    The overzealous approach of the left to silence all opinion and criticism of anyone on anything not white or not Christian was pure bullying.   Trump brought the disease of political correctness to the forefront and emboldened people to call BS on the PC left.    Instead of tiptoeing and apologizing for every little bit of harshness and claims of hurt feelings, he basically told us we need to grow up and toughen up, and that this is killing us.    Now, he may have gone too far in some cases – he will still be the President – but people were willing to get behind a guy who stands up against the PC culture even if at times we all recognized that there is still a balance.
  • All the people claiming that they have the moral high ground and that it’s now “love” against all of us mean Trump-voters..   you’re simply wrong.    Just because your sense of morality differs from mine does not by default give you the moral high ground.   And your consistent claims of the moral high ground is one of the very reasons why we tire of you and the policies you support and the cultural and moral change you support.
  • Ultimately, despite how anyone else wants to paint this, Trump proved to us that there are rich folks who are entirely out of touch with every day Americans (political and leftist elites, celebrities) and that there are rich people who are in tune with every day Americans (Trump, in this case).    The demonization of the rich has to stop.   The demonization of corruption and crony capitalism is appropriate.

New Release: Election 2016 (Rated R)

Standard

OK, in honor of the politics of 2016, I’ll start my entry today in a crass manner:  Anyone who has previously questioned whether or not our entire culture is a floater in the toilet has since just thrown up their hands and accepted it by now.

I find it difficult to believe anyone witnessing the debacle of today’s politics and the morally bankrupt candidates we’ve selected to run for the highest office in the land to be emblematic of anything other than a complete reduction of all standards to the basest of levels.

So, I won’t really get into the contents of the Trump Video from 2005, and whether or not he’s said other disturbing things during the off-TV moments of The Apprentice.   I mean, if we’re all being honest, does it actually really surprise anyone?   It’s shocking and disgusting, but is there really anyone out there that didn’t already know the guy we’re talking about wasn’t an f-bomb dropper and more than willing to engage in the crudest of what has now been labeled “locker room talk?”   (And, unfortunately having been a jock in my younger years, I can attest to the fact that he’s not wrong.   Yes, the words are about what is legally assault, which is horrible, and is still plenty of what you might hear in a locker room on any given day.   It’s not excusing it and it doesn’t speak well of anyone speaking that way, but it is reality.)

I won’t list the litany of counter-examples of Hillary being a completely disgusting human being in her own right, by dropping every curse word in the book at those charged to protect her, in talking about the American flag, in talking about mentally disabled children.   Again, if anyone is really honest does any of this really surprise us?   It’s always shocking to actually read and hear, but we long accepted that our two nominees are morally bankrupt human beings.

Mainly, the whole thing is just sad.   As a coworker of mine phrased it, “I think we all can agree that this whole thing is just one big garbage fire.”   He will vote Hillary.   I will vote Trump.   But on that statement, we have agreement.    And neither of us will vote for our selected candidates because we like them.    We just dislike the other one more.

I have written of my intent to vote Trump, and I have stated that, in my opinion, it is the clear moral choice to vote Trump.   I do not retract these words, I still feel strongly about that, and I will have no issue with voting Trump.    None of that means I like the man, and none of that means that I don’t wish I had another reasonable option.    The fact is, there is no viable alternative for me.   Even if I embraced the fantasy that voting for the next best viable option (Gary Johnson) I cannot do it anyway, because on the issues where I am hopeful that Trump will actually handle correctly Gary Johnson is as bad – if not worse – than Hillary.   Even the fourth best option, Jill Stein, is left of left on moral and cultural issues.    In order to find any person that remotely appeases my conscience I need to find someone that 99.99% of the population has not even heard of.   And that means it is an utterly wasted vote.   No, I need to settle on Trump.    I don’t think I even need to point out why it can never be Hillary, but briefly stated:  she’s every bit as morally bankrupt (and I even think more so) than Trump is.   And even if some disagree with me on that, it’s like arguing whether the mold on the side of the cheese is more edible than the mold on the top of the cheese.   So, we’ve long moved past the character issue as something us Christians can rely on.   I don’t say this glibly.   It really sucks to not be able to respect either candidate in any way.    But that’s the reality we’re in.     So, I simply need to find any light I can to separate the two of them.    And in the end, there was one question at the second debate that provides that separation.  When questioned on the Supreme Court Appointments, Clinton proudly said she would appoint justices that upheld Roe vs. Wade,  Marriage Equality, and a litany of other litmus tests.    She even claimed Trump would appoint justices that would not uphold these rulings (which she presented negatively).   Trump did not argue with her, and instead doubled down on appointing justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia.

Now, many have claimed that Trump is liberal on social issues and is not a “real” pro-lifer.  And it’s true he doesn’t often openly address the issue if not asked about it.   He has responded in a pro-life manner when asked, and I agree that it’s a bit iffy just how committed to the cause he personally is.    But here’s the thing:   even if the impetus for appointing justices in the mold of Scalia are because of 2nd Amendment Rights, Freedom of Speech, etc.  then the byproduct of that is that those justices are FAR MORE likely to also favor freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and challenge Roe vs. Wade, among other things.    They will be FAR MORE willing to rule in favor of state’s rights than to allow federal government infringement when unnecessary.

If there is no other issue that separates them, this is still a clear moral choice.   Perhaps not with respect to the person, but with respect to how that person will govern.

As I have stated elsewhere, “I know with certainty the evil the one will do.   I hope with uncertainty the good that the other will do.   And to me, that makes it an obvious choice.”

Really, I can’t say it enough:  This election sucks.

If Charlie Johnson is correct about things to come, the whole thing actually doesn’t even matter.   But I still feel called to fight and care anyway.   Maybe I shouldn’t worry about it, but I think it behooves us all to fight the fight until there is no more fight to win or lose, either way.

Us Catholics – and all Christians – seem to be in a bit of a tight spot be being forced to support a guy who has said the things he’s said.   I don’t think we need to feel that way if we keep our wits about us.   There really can be nobody of any repute that can call us hypocritical of voting for Trump.   Anyone who claims that is being disingenuous.   I think the balancing act we need to work out is making it clear why we “support” him, and also making it clear why we’re not necessarily thrilled with it.   There is no reason to defend his wrongdoings, and yet we can also support his election based on everything I wrote about here.  Also, it’s important to note that regardless of what happens, we ultimately must accept that God’s plan is playing itself out.   God’s plan may seem either obvious or utterly ridiculous, but we really have nobody to blame but ourselves for Him doing what He needs to do.   Had we stood up against the cultural rot we’re soaking in long ago, we wouldn’t have the choice between these two candidates, who are not just flawed but grossly so.

One wonders, though…  if THIS is the Year of Mercy, what in the world is in store for us when the year ends on November 20?    Egad.

Responding to Actors Speaking Politics

Standard

 

This has nothing to do with Catholic anything.   I just thought this was not only hilarious, but pretty much says it all as far as my opinion on all those holier-than-thou entertainers who decide they need to help inform us unthinking underlings on politics.   Or, really, anything.

It’s worth the view, even if you’re not a Trump fan.   (Which, to be honest, I’m getting sick of people saying as an obligatory addendum to nearly everything.)

Quick Note

Standard

This doesn’t really have to do with anything, really.   Just wanted to say that anyone at all who believes Donald Trump was openly advocating for the assassination of Hillary Clinton is an unhinged, unthinking idiot.

Even if some morons took it that way, or his point that the voting block of gun owners can lead the way to defeating Clinton in November was made clumsily, to make that extrapolation just means you have no wits about you.

Period.

That is all.

Following Your Conscience

Standard

Hello, everyone.   OK, so I could write a series of a half-dozen posts on why I will post in a flurry for a while, and then stop entirely for an extended period.    But simply put, this is an outlet for me.   So many other things take priority over this, and if this needs to fall by the wayside as an obligation, then so be it.   Some are called to write a blog for a higher purpose, some of us mainly like to vent and if others happen to follow us along the way for whenever we vent, then I guess that’s fun.

Today’s diatribe is about conscience.   Somewhat intriguing to me is the word itself:  “con” and “science.”   Depending on how you read that, it is either “with science” or “against science.”   Or, put otherwise, it’s a mystery within a puzzle, wrapped in an enigma.   Or something like that.

I must admit, I have long been frustrated and irritated by the use (or misuse) of the application of conscience.   We have boiled this wonderful gift from God down to an utterly perverted version of its intent, and it is now used as a determinant to take whatever action makes us feel good about ourselves, with nary a critical examination of whatever it is we are (or aren’t) doing.

It seems we have long forgotten the precursor to following our conscience:   that it be well formed.    This is not just a nicety, it is absolutely critical.   A malformed conscience is quite easily perfected.   First of all, we know from the wisdom of the catechism that sin darkens the intellect.   When the intellect is darkened, many things follow.   Among those things is a suppression of feelings of guilt.   Everyone hates guilt, it seems.   It’s been placed alongside “shame”,”sin” and “fault” as archaic religious relics of the past.    This is unfortunate.   Guilt is a gift from God to pull us back into a right relationship with Him.   Sure, it’s true that overly scrupulous individuals can overdo it on the guilt.   We need to guard against feeling as if God doesn’t love us anymore, or that we cannot be forgiven.    While that needs correction, the answer is not to swing entirely to idea that guilt is a bad thing, and that we should just feel good about everything we are and everything we do.   Which is mostly where we tend to find ourselves today.

When my wife an I were undergoing marital instruction, our Priest at the time (an otherwise good many and good priest, from what I can remember about him), informed us that the use of contraception was essentially something left up to us – whatever our conscience dictated.    The effect of that was no different than had he just handed us condoms.    First, allow me to openly confess that (a) I should have known the teachings of my faith better, and (b) I certainly had no thoughts to look into the matter further – we had been given the green light and that was good enough for me.   At least, that’s how I read it.   As a result, I used contraception entirely guilt free for the first few years of marriage.

But then we ran into these pesky super-Catholics who informed us that this wasn’t quite right.   Thankfully, to cut a long story short, we discussed, learned, and followed our much more informed conscience and now I have 9 kids.    There are days when the kids are being really annoying that I jokingly ask God why He had to let me in on this teaching of the Church.   I hope He knows that I’m joking…   sort of…

But today’s rant is more about this idea of conscience as a Catholic in a public matter, such as voting.   We’ve seen key GOP leaders step away from Donald Trump and make a general statement about people voting their conscience.    I know very good and well-meaning Catholics and other Christians who are saying they can’t vote for either major candidate based on their conscience, and that they will instead vote for some third party candidate.   I’ve even seen some men of the cloth make such statements.

This may sound blunt, but here’s my response:   Get real.

Listen, I get the reality of the situation.   I was very vocal during the primaries that Trump was NOT my guy.   I had numerous reasons for this opinion, which didn’t come down to feelings and emotions nearly as much as a general assessment of abilities and character, and from a strict standpoint of moral positioning I thought many other candidates were stronger.    But whether or not it was because the way the system is set up or Trump was intended to be the nominee all along and others don’t see it as I do, the situation has now changed.

Once the primaries are done, you need to do a complete and honest reset.    Trump was not my guy.   Now he is.    Am I utterly enthusiastic?   No, not really.   Am I committed?   Absolutely.   There is a difference.

So, let me talk about this whole “conscience” issue with respect to Trump.   It is one thing to say that you desire someone who is more upright, Christian, etc.    It is another thing to play a part in delivering the country to an even worse fate because of a (I believe) misinformed idea of what applying your conscience really means.    Voting your conscience is an act of will, not an emotional response.   One can, at once, understand the imperfection of someone they are going to vote for – and even feel not that great emotionally about doing so – while still feeling good about the decision to do so based on the given choice.

Frankly, I know we all wish it would be different that there were viable third party candidates so that a vote for one  wasn’t the equivalent of a vote, or at least a half-vote, for the major candidate you oppose more.    But wishing it won’t make it reality.  And no reasonable person can honestly assess that there is enough of a groundswell of support for a third party candidate to make that person viable.   By all means, give it a shot in the next few months, but if it becomes plain and obvious by election day that there is zero shot that your third party candidate has a chance, then in my harsh opinion, you are using your conscience as an excuse to avoid responsibility for electing the very person you are helping to elect by your choice to not vote for the stronger (even if still weak) candidate.   It is an irresponsible choice to make, and you are washing your hands of all responsibility because of your “conscience.”  Not only do I believe this is wrong and problematic, but I honestly think you may even be held to account.

I guess there is a potential caveat here.   If you really, honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe that the two are equally evil and this determination has been made not just on the character of the people, but an honest reflection on what you think they will actually do, then I guess that’s fine.   I think you’re bonkers if that is the judgment in this particular case, but that’s just my opinion.

Even worse, in my opinion, are the Catholics and Christians who have utterly convinced themselves through what can only truly be an improperly formed conscience that it is preferable to vote for politicians who hold pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage positions because they have somehow convinced themselves that the issues of education, union rights, and failed welfare state programs are morally equivalent to or even superior to those other issues.   The former are disqualifying issues with no moral ambiguity.   The other issues are differences of opinion on the right way to go about things.   It is not intrinsically moral or immoral to have an opinion on either side of the appropriate level of taxation, or the right level of funding for social programs.   It is not intrinsically moral or immoral to have an opinion that the state is inefficient and charity is best left to family, friends, churches and private organizations that specialize in these matters.   It is, however, intrinsically immoral to support policy that allows us to kill an infant in the womb.   Period.

So, where does that leave us?    I argue that:

  1. Given a well-formed conscience, and
  2. Given no realistic chance of a viable third party candidate
  3. And the existence of any difference in moral equivalence between the two major party candidates
  4. Voting for anyone other than Trump of Clinton is a shirking of responsibility and a perverted sense of what it means to follow one’s conscience

 

Given that conclusion, I present the following as evidence that a well formed conscience must lead one to support Donald Trump – even if reluctantly and purely as a matter of will. Let’s accept as given that each have many character flaws, that neither are as upstanding or moral as I’d like, and that this is in no way a suggestion that I expect Trump will make the world’s greatest President:

  1. Trump has repeatedly referenced state’s rights.   Even if he personally doesn’t take a stand on an issue to my liking (e.g. transgender law in NC) he at the same time does acknowledge the right of NC to pass such a law and I do not believe he would interfere in any way with their right to do so.   Barack Obama, and I also believe Hillary Clinton, uses the threats of the Justice Department and the withdrawal of federal funding to bully states.   Further, they broaden the issue at hand in almost every circumstance, doubling down and demanding all public institutions accept whatever the next level of societal degradation is at hand.
  2. Trump has released a list of what he considers to be a representative sample of the kinds of Supreme Court justices he would appoint.   Whatever you might think of Trump personally, what matters much more is what he will actually do as President.   His list is impressive, and is very promising.    Could he disappoint?   of course he could.   But all we can go on is what he has said, and what he has said is that he would literally plug the hole in the dam preventing an utterly progressive and left-leaning activist court.   There is zero question about the kinds of justices Clinton would appoint.    This issue is of such utter importance that if no other issue at all matters to you, or if you are concerned about other aspects of a Trump Presidency, this should override it.    That is because this is the once decision that impacts the next entire generation.    All other faux pas can be addressed and corrected in the relative near-term.   This cannot.
  3. Trump may not be convincingly pro-life, but he publicly makes the claim that he is.    He may be willing to live with exceptions that many of us find problematic.    He may have a history of flip-flopping on the issue.   All of which isn’t great, but it’s also relative.   Compared to Clinton, he is much more favorable to at least giving consideration to pro-life voices.    Further, the main impact a President will have on this issue is in the appointment of Supreme Court justices (see #3).   I find it simply frustrating that good and well-meaning pro-life people say they can’t vote for a candidate who doesn’t see things as they do without thinking through what that person can actually do about it in the first place.   Yes, there is the bully pulpit and there is the face of the country perspective, but in practical reality there are only a handful of things the President can impact through executive order or through the signing of legislation.    Do you really think Trump will veto pro-life legislation that makes progress?   I doubt he will.    I certainly do not think he will take the Little Sisters of the Poor to court to require they cover abortion and contraception.   I do not think he will issue Executive Orders expanding abortion rights.   He may or may not issue EOs to restrict them.   Now contrast in your mind what you think Hillary will do…  certain vetoes, likely executive orders, and continued use of HHS and Justice.    Trump may or may not defund Planned Parenthood, but I’ll bet if Congress passes a budget without funding Trump will not veto on that basis.   You know Hillary will.

 

The intellect needs to inform the conscience.   The conscience cannot simply be a feeling.

Go forth and apply a well-formed conscience to your decision-making.