If you had to pick one of these candidates for President, which would it be?

I don't know much else about him but I want him to win mainly because the entire media seems to hate him and do anything in their power to oppose him so I figure there must be something goood about him.

Wasn't the media unanimously sour on Jeffrey Dahmer as well? or Charles Manson?

Remember, there are 2 reasons to be opposed or even "hated":
because of yourself (your own sins, faults, past deeds), in which case you deserve it
and
because you belong to Christ and/or you are righteous and oppose evil(s) in some way, in which case you don't deserve it, and a saint will offer it up.

My point is that the mere fact of widespread opposition is NOT an automatic proof your own own righteousness, correctness, or sainthood. This is the mistake Fr. Pfeiffer makes all the time.


For example:
Ambrose Moran was universally opposed in the Resistance (except for Boston, KY). Not because he was a faithful follower of Christ, but because he personally was guilty of being a con artist.

With your either/or "black or white" description, you eliminate the natural virtue of pagans.

What I describe *is* black and white. Whenever a person contradicted, opposed, or hated, there are only TWO SOURCES for this opposition:

1) reasons coming from yourself, or "your own fault"
2) reasons ultimately coming from your belonging to Christ or at least the cause of Goodness, and all that flows from that: opposition to evil and error, doing good works, etc.

There are no exceptions. I defy you to produce one example that doesn't fit into these 2 categories (intrinsic reasons, extrinsic reasons).

The "natural virtue of pagans" would fall into the 2nd category. If a natural virtue pagan was opposed because he was good, it would clearly fall into "suffer persecution for justice' sake" even though strictly speaking he wouldn't "belong to Christ" -- I'm not going to get into a B.O.D. discussion here  

Trump, but not because I think he is a good man or will be a great president etc., it's because I think the rest of the candidates would be a worse president than him.

Quote from: Matto

... but now he says he is pro life except in the cases of rape or incest or if the life of the mother is in danger.

You realize this is a very liberal position, right? Exactly why does the baby who is a product of rape deserve to be killed? And, when you start talking about dangers to the mother, it's just a political line to keep us away from the fact that no baby deserves to be killed. Will there be times when a baby needs to be delivered early? Certainly. But intentionally killed? No.

Here's a doctor/lawyer explaining this concept:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ysl1tRnk-ig[/youtube]

I would not call it a liberal position though I do not support any abortion for any reason, because it is better than the position of Hillary (and uncounted millions of other Americans) which is that abortion should be allowable all the time for any reason.

None. Witnessing Catholics argue about the implications of voting for this or that candidate reminds me why the Church always recommended Monarchy. I don't believe there is a reason why women should vote so I will refrain from doing so, (I don't believe that men should either!). I am a Catholic Monarchist and despise all other forms of government, in particular Democracy as well as Republicanism.

In any case, the Jєω elite in this country have already decided who the winner will be so there is no reason to worry about it. When one of the mentioned puppets is elected, then I want them to leave the country.

With those choices right this instant, I would probably draw straws to pick between Trump, Cruz, and Kasich.

Kasich is clearly a GOP establishment/NWO schill.  But I do not think he is as much of one as Bush, Rubio, or Graham.

I have about decided that the GOP establishment/NWO had an elaborate plan to end up with any one of the three, Bush, Rubio, or Cruz, on top of the ticket.  I'm sure Bush was their first choices.  Appearances would be that Rubio was their second but not as sure about that.

Trump is unwittingly not playing ball with the NWO.  I say unwitting because I believe Trump has been so focused on multiplying his billions and his own self-importance that he knows little or nothing about what NWO is all about.  I'm sure the kikes will eventually make it abundantly clear to him what it's all about if he gets the nomination or gets elected.  He is so whimsical and worldly that he may jump on board, but maybe not.  He has come a long way in terms of the success of his previous endeavors and this campaign to not be on board.

Is he maybe fooling us into thinking he's not on board with NWO? Possibly but I doubt it.  Why do I doubt it?  We tin-foil-hatter anti-NWOers aren't a big enough of a slice of the vote for him to go that angle.  And he is not going sufficiently all-in for our slice for that to be the angle that he has calculated.

The good points of these three outweigh those of the others and their negatives are less than the others.  But I'm struggling to rank these three among themselves on that basis.  Kasich is what you see is what you get and that's more NWO than suits me; Cruz may be something very different than what he has been billed perhaps by the Jєω World Order (his wife works for Goldman Sachs and I heard she received a very nice pay raise coinciding with Ted's campaign); Trump is whimsical and subject to change his mind--it's called adaptable rather than whimsical in business--but it is rightly termed whimsical when abortion, the red button, and constitutional rights are riding on it.