College professors are mostly left , you didn't help your case at all

Catholic Church isn’t “right wing”

And if it is, it shouldn’t be.. I’d imagine a lot of Catholics voted for Hillary Clinton.

Evangelicals on the other hand... Are not raping kids I hope.

This catholic voted trump

because he actually talked about god and Clinton flat out ignored everything related to Christianity. Buuuut she'll tweet happy Ramadan.

Anything to refute what I said? He talked about god, she didn't. I wonder why he got the catholics votes?

Catholics voted for Trump 52/45 with white Catholics voting Trump 60/37. Source

That's a pretty even split which proves the person your replying to's point....

If his point was, the Catholic Church, particularly white Catholics are primarily Republican, then yes. It proves his point.

Voting for Trump isn't indicative of whether you are a democrat or a republican - and in fact Pew put out data that definitively proves you wrong:

Catholics are divided politically in our survey, just as they were in the 2012 election. While 37% say they favor the GOP, 44% identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (and 19% say they do not lean either way). In the 2012 election, 50% of Catholics said they voted for Obama, while 48% voted for Romney.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/

Also, the only person who has mentioned race is you, so that was never part of OP's original argument at all.

I’m not sure why you’re using 2012 numbers when 2016 numbers are available. I’ll concede that not every Trump voter identifies as Republican. However, the more faithful, the more likely they voted for him:

Most weekly churchgoers backed Trump over Clinton, 56% to 40%. Those who said they attend religious services more sporadically (i.e., somewhere between a few times a month and a few times a year) were closely divided. And, those who said they don’t attend religious services at all backed Clinton over Trump by a 31-point margin (62% to 31%). There is one caveat, however; while exit polling from previous elections shows similarities, direct comparisons between 2016 and previous years are not possible because the wording of the question about religious attendance changed in 2016.

That data I used was out out in February of 2016. The data you just quoted is referring to "church goers" not catholics, which is who we are discussing, you know that right? Data your citing has nothing to do with the argument, which is about catholics.

The quote pertains to Catholics. Read the source I previously provided.

You didn't provide a source...?

The excerpt you used never mentions catholics, it only mentions churchgoers, which is not the same thing as catholics at all.

I’ll link it again: Source

We’re talking about Catholics. I didn’t include the full quote since I assumed you’d understand the context and/or take the time to research a bit. Sorry, that’s my fault.

Copy and paste the specific text you are referring to, I have read your article and don't know what you're talking about, nothing in there proves your arguments.

You can lead a horse to water..

For the third time, I have read your article, you are lying about what you claim is in it. If you are not, simply copy and paste the text you're referring to. It's incredibly simple.

I already gave you this information.....

Most weekly churchgoers backed Trump over Clinton, 56% to 40%. Those who said they attend religious services more sporadically (i.e., somewhere between a few times a month and a few times a year) were closely divided. And, those who said they don’t attend religious services at all backed Clinton over Trump by a 31-point margin (62% to 31%). There is one caveat, however; while exit polling from previous elections shows similarities, direct comparisons between 2016 and previous years are not possible because the wording of the question about religious attendance changed in 2016.

You do realize they are talking about Catholics? God I hope you realize this.

Fuck it. I’ll spell it out for you:

The majority of Catholics voted for Trump. The more likely you attend service, the more likely you voted for Trump. The more faithful the catholic, the more faithful the Trump voter.

This is very clearly spelt out in the study I linked. I’m not sure where your disconnect is.

We already went over this, voting for Trump isn't a quantitative measure of whether Catholics identify as republican or democrat. And from the data I linked to you from pew, most Catholics identify as democrats, 44% to 37%, proving you wrong.

You’re using a 2014 study, when a 2016 study is available.

What part of this do you contend: The majority of Catholics voted for Trump and the more regularly a Catholic attended church, the more likely they voted for Trump?

The majority of Catholics voted for Trump

I don't contend that because it's not relevant to the argument.

and the more regularly a Catholic attended church, the more likely they voted for Trump?

I don't contend that because it's not relevant to the argument.

The argument is whether catholics are primary republican or democrat, and I'm the only one who has cited data that directly answers that question, and that data shows 44% of catholics are democrats or lean democrat and 37% for republicans. If you have data that answers that exact question that proves me wrong, than show it. But you haven't, because you don't.

I don’t contend.

Great. Now, do you contend that the more devoted the Catholic, the more likely the Republican?

Can you tell me what that has to do with the original argument? Like why do you think this is an important question? It's irrelevant to the argument.

A couple things. First, it appears Catholics are split between Democrat and Republican: Source.

Catholics are split in their partisan preferences: About as many affiliate with the GOP (47%) as the Democratic Party (46%). The Democratic Party has traditionally enjoyed an advantaged in leaned party affiliation among all Catholics, but the GOP has made gains in recent years: 2013 marked the first time in about two decades that Catholics were no more likely to affiliate with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.

Second, my point being that more devout Catholics are more likely to be further right (as my previous post indicated). Most Catholics don’t practice, the ones who do are more likely to be conservative. When talking about priests (the original comment), they are obviously very devout and more likely conservative.

Regardless, it is a stupid argument that devolved into a partisan bicker. I apologize and would like to say that sexual predators are not a party issue. It happens everywhere.

He’s illustrating that this isn’t a left/right issue. The fact that you missed the point shows your colors. Wake up.

Ben Affleck is that you?

you're the first person on /r/conspiracy claiming this today

congrats you're the one pushing propaganda :D

Haha, whatever. Hollywood is the source that all of the elites go to to feed their perversions. Don't kid yourself.

I agree with you.

I think the left and right as yin and yang have more sex crimes and more violent non-sex crimes respectively though. Of course both rampant both sides. Just tendencies I think. I'm not partisan

You know what they psyop is? Making it look like it was ever partisan in the first place. Shills made it look partisan and then post shit like "oh noes! divide and conquer!" There was no divide before they made a facade of one. Everyone knows there are some folks that need to be locked up For Sure.

The probem people have is not only are a huge amount of peoplease not the left pedos and rapists, they're hypocrites to match. That's why the fall out against them is like this. You cant go preaching against all this type of thing when you're doing the same.

Wait, aren't people on the right preaching against rape and pedophilia also?

Well using the same standards as the left do, I don't need evidence. I just need to claim it then its true right?

I love people claiming "psyop". This term blew up the past couple of months. If Democrat elite are getting called out by the left-wing media, I don't see how it is a psyops.

Why would they attack their own? No other reason then the lid as been blown off and the cover-up will be extremely hard.

I don't see this as a left or right issue. All of the old stuff happened and was news when it did.

This is Hollywood, and yes the vast majority are Democrats, as are members of the media.

It's just how it is.

Lets find a rapists/pedophile Hollywood actor to balance the narrative.

I get that it's a conspiracy, everyone has known all along that this behavior exists. Nothing has been done about it. And few people recognize its legitimacy. But those who withhold information due to fear or any other reasoning are implicit to these crimes. In the immortal words of G.C. "fuck the fucking fuckers" they did it to themselves. Victims are only victims if they allow themselves to be so.

The conservative circle jerk here has been heavy since Weinstein went down. I don't remember seeing shit on here when Eric billing went down. Didn't see shit when O'Reilly went down. But apparently it's much more important when a democrat goes down.

This place is full of partisan hacks and pro-bono Trump shills.

this whole comment section turns into a massive circle jerk about left and right. what the fuck? the point of the post isn't to start a party was. republican, democrat, whatever you are shut the fuck up. the elite are evil and pedophiles. who gives a fuck what their political alignment is if they are raping children?

Left or right...a predator is a predator

Seems HW got himself a Reddit account

People need to stop shackling themselves to a political party and stop fueling the artificial divide that the MSM started. There are the elite and then theres us; stick together.

If the majority of elites in hollywood are leftists. Probably the majority of cases involved in sexual predator behavious will also come from the left. no ?

Thanks you completely destroyed my comment. :)

Got it, thanks for explaining.

For the third time, I have read your article, you are lying about what you claim is in it. If you are not, simply copy and paste the text you're referring to. It's incredibly simple.