Any thoughts on the debates?

Status
Not open for further replies.
HomeschoolDad

HomeschoolDad

Moderator
Staff member
I watched the first round last night (Wednesday). We were on vacation (just got back home this afternoon) and I enjoyed it in a nice, air-conditioned hotel room with a cold Red Stripe šŸŗ:jamaica:. I am by politics as many men (and women) are by sports. Iā€™ll watch regardless of who is playing. Round 2 is tonight.
  • No way any of the Democratic candidates could depart, even just a smidgen, from the party orthodoxy on abortion. That is sad. The closest they get is Pete Buttigieg characterizing late-term abortions as horrible choices no one ever wants to have to make. He wasnā€™t on last night; Iā€™m anxious to see how he performs tonight.
  • Beto Oā€™Rourke launching into American-accented Spanish right off the bat was kind of jarring.
  • I hadnā€™t heard Julian Castro say much of anything until last night. Impressive speaker.
  • Bill DeBlasio can certainly talk, Iā€™ll give him that. Putting him and Trump head-to-head would be fun to watch.
  • Elizabeth Warren seemed subdued.
  • Tulsi Gabbard is possibly the least objectionable of all the candidates, in that she has just a tiny bit of conservative credibility, but I didnā€™t see much out of her. I really wanted to like her.
  • Cory Booker gives a good speech.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
  • Tulsi Gabbard is possibly the least objectionable of all the candidates, in that she has just a tiny bit of conservative credibility, but I didnā€™t see much out of her. I really wanted to like her.
Click to expand...
I didnā€™t get to see the debates, but this doesnā€™t surprise me. Her platform of questioning excessive military spending and intervention make her a major threat to Establishment Democrats. Hereā€™s when I knew that I liked her. Tulsi Gabbard: Religious bigotry is un-American
 
I just think itā€™s funny that someone thought you could moderate 10 politicians with microphones. And this wasnā€™t even the group with Biden! šŸ¤£
 
Debates? What debates? There is nothing to debate. They have made their choice. They have chosen their beliefs.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I donā€™t have time for any debates. Thereā€™s sleeping that needs done!
 
Oā€™Rourke is not the only one to speak Spanish with an English accent. Julian Castroā€™s Spanish is bad too.

Didnā€™t get to watch but bits and pieces, but one thing I do have to say is the hypocrisy of the Dems. Yes, the picture showing the dead child with her father is horrible and should upset everyone. The Dems showing horror at the death of that child, but when it comes to abortion: eh, let the mother decide whether to kill the child or not. Tear the child apart, limb by limb, suck out the childā€™s brain, burn its poor little body in acid and if the abortion is botched and the baby is born alive, ehā€¦ wait a while, make the baby comfortable, then go ahead and kill the child and throw it in the trash. SUCH HYPOCRISY!!!
 
I thought Tulsi Gabbard was a pleasant surprise (to me) and spoke from the heart especially with regard to the futility and sacrifice of war. Other winners were Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Julian Castro.

The losers, in my estimation, were Mayor Bill de Blasio, who sounded irritating. Although I do not support some of his policies as New York mayor, I must say heā€™s usually a better speaker than what his performance revealed last night. Another loser was Beto Oā€™Rourke, who just seems too uncertain and inexperienced; maybe heā€™s just not as comfortable on stage with so many other candidates.

Tonight should be interesting with the top candidates, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, going head to head.
 
Last edited:
U.S. Bishopsā€™ Documents

No Catholic can responsibly take a ā€œpro-choiceā€ stand when the ā€œchoiceā€ in question involves the taking of innocent human life.

----------Resolution on Abortion (1989)

We urge those Catholic officials who choose to depart from Church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life to consider the consequences for their own spiritual well being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin. We call on them to reflect on the grave contradiction of assuming public roles and presenting themselves as credible Catholics when their actions on fundamental issues of human life are not in agreement with Church teaching. No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life. [N]o appeal to policy, procedure, majority will or pluralism ever excuses a public official from defending life to the greatest extent possible. As is true of leaders in all walks of life, no political leader can evade accountability for his or her exercise of power (Evangelium Vitae, 73-4). Those who justify their inaction on the grounds that abortion is the law of the land need to recognize that there is a higher law, the law of God. No human law can validly contradict the Commandment: ā€œThou shalt not kill.ā€ (Emphasis mine)

----------Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics (1998), no. 32

What does this say to the Castroā€™s, Pelosiā€™s, Bidenā€™s, and other so called Catholic politicians who advocate pro-choice? My wife and I pray every night for their conversion as they are putting the souls in danger. A politician may have great plans regarding immigration, health care, the economy etc, but if that same person who claims to be a Catholic advocates pro-choice, when that choice involves the death of a child who will never see the light of day or benefit from the grand plan of said politician, then we MUST reject that person.

This quote from Mother Teresa ā€œThe greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.
 
I think the democratic party is pro abortion. Just a guessā€¦
 
Voting for a politician based strictly on one topic can be a dangerous thing for a Representative Government. We really only have two choices for parties in this country and there is really no room for additional parties with more nuanced platforms. I understand where the Church is coming from, but it almost automatically squares it with a number of other topics that it may not really represent Church teaching. Some of those may include increased war spending, reduced social spending, and economic policies that do not favor the average family.

I donā€™t care about your particular politics, but what would really do us best is to not have two extremely polarizing candidates like we did in 2016. We need to get out of our incredibly toxic politics ASAP.
 
Last edited:
PJH_74 said:
Voting for a politician based strictly on one topic can be a dangerous thing for a Representative Government.
Click to expand...
Ah yes the ā€˜seamless garmentā€™ā€¦otherwise known as how liberals justify voting for pro abortion politicians.
 
I think that instead of additional parties gaining traction in recent times, what we have is a morphing of the traditional parties into the Far Left and the Far Right. In this sense, we have Democratic and Republican parties way different from those of our parents and grandparents. This is unfortunate because, as it now stands, both parties have extremist views, which means bipartisanship is all but impossible (no matter what Joe Biden may say). And neither party is representative of the mainstream views of the majority of the American people. To put it more bluntly, the souls of both parties have been compromised, if not lost.
 
Last edited:
yankeesouth said:
how liberals justifyā€¦
Click to expand...
Thereā€™s more to people than two opposing sides. It might work well in sports, but it is straining our Countryā€™s institutions, which to function well, are specifically designed to require compromise. They arenā€™t designed for a winner take all mentality.
meltzerboy2 said:
what we have is a morphing of the traditional parties into the Far Left and the Far Right
Click to expand...
Partly true, but I think there are forces at play that want you to think so for their own gain. Give people the red meat they crave through their Pavlovian training and do what you will while they are distracted.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Which forces are these?
Click to expand...
A myriad of them. Some are straight up commercial, itā€™s easier to sell (advertise) in to a motivated group and anger is the best one. Obvious political forces. One other that comes to mind is reducing proper, well done journalism (of all editorial positions) to being ā€œequalā€ to well, garbage.
 
Itā€™s ok to vote Republican even if it means innocent people will die at the border because some good may come if Republicans appoint pro-life judges who maybe some far off day overturn Roe vs Wade, because in Catholic theology youā€™re allowed to do harm if good may come of it.

Youā€™re not allowed to vote Democrat because theyā€™re not pro-life, so thereā€™s no point in watching any debates at all. Just fall in line and vote straight ticket R without exercise of conscience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top