Any thoughts on the debates?

Status
Not open for further replies.
because in Catholic theology you’re allowed to do harm if good may come of it.
No, not do harm, but do something that is morally neutral in and of itself, that will have both harmful and good consequences, as long as the good outweighs the bad enough to permit the unwilled harm. This is the principle of double effect. Needless to say you should seek a solution that is not harmful if you can.
You’re not allowed to vote Democrat because they’re not pro-life, so there’s no point in watching any debates at all.
Not all Democrats are pro-choice, especially at the state and local level.
Just fall in line and vote straight ticket R without exercise of conscience.
Are you serious? We should take each individual candidate, and each individual electoral race, on their own merits. Some Republicans are pro-choice as well.
 
Last edited:
Yes. I was. Because I’m sick and tired of the hypocrisy of people who support “pro-life” politicians who are poor examples of humans in so many other areas.
 
Last edited:
OK, the second night has concluded. I already have picked the Democratic ticket, and it is Bernie Sanders for President and Kamala Harris for Vice-President, or Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker. Either of these two teams would best represent the progressive party which the Democrats are today. I’m not saying they will be the winning ticket in the election, nor that they are the “right” ticket, only that they would be the most representative ticket. Joe Biden is more from the past, attractive perhaps to older Democratic voters, maybe also some Republicans, and perhaps even better for defeating Trump, but still not representative of where the Democratic party is today.

What was Marianne Williamson doing there? I have nothing against her personally, but she was certainly out of her element.
 
Last edited:
Too bad there isn’t a well rounded candidate.
A middle-of-the-road candidate, who gave both sides some of what they want (for example, opposing abortion after the first trimester, continuing the Affordable Care Act, “catch and release” for undocumented aliens coupled with a more secure border, etc.), might be a plan. But it seems as though that can’t happen anymore. Interesting scenario for a third-party moderate.
 
She’s not ready yet. Maybe next election cycle if she doesn’t burn out before then.
 
Last edited:
AOC is too young to be president until Oct 2025, so the 2028 would be her earliest opportunity to run.
 
Great documents from the U.S. Bishops!

And I also like their frequent public condemnations for those politicians who strongly advocate for abortions! (Crickets)
 
Yes, a moderate position on abortion would be perfectly acceptable. Don’t kill the baby entirely; just yank off a couple of limbs. Or don’t kill 500,000 this year; just kill 250,000.
 
Not all Democrats are pro-choice, especially at the state and local level.
Lol…the platform of the liberal left political ideology is extreme pro abortion. Not only that but they lay waste to all the life teachings of Jesus as depicted in the five Catholic non negotiables …now six with their support of infanticide.

If Catholics truly believe that life begins at conception and ending abortion is saving lives then yes Catholics should vote Republican.
 
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.
Here’s the deal–be careful what “teachings of the Catholic Church” you are referring to.

The Catholic Church does NOT teach that 'war spending is wrong." It does allow for war when necessary. The CC is not a “pacifist” church.

The Catholic Church does not mandate that governments must spend a certain amount of money on “social ills” and “family-friendly programs.” It is supportive of government spending on social issues and families, but…

…the Catholic Church is not stopped in their good work by a lack of government spending! At this point in American history, nothing stops Catholics from doing good works in their communities and providing help and sustenance to the poor and disenfranchised!

There are laws that regrettably have closed down Catholic adoption agencies (because we refuse to put children into “gay” and other non-traditional families). But there are no laws stopping organizations like St. Vincent de Paul and Catholic Social Services from providing help for those who need it.

And even more importantly, there are no laws stopping individual Catholics from helping their needy fellow citizens through not only giving time and money to their charitable organizations of their choice, but also through hands-on involvement.

In all likelihood, privately-funded organizations and individuals probably accomplish a lot more successful intervention with the needy than a government-funded program that puts as much money into running the charity as it does into the actual charity. So, there are actually plenty of good reasons to OPPOSE more of our taxes going to “government social work.” It does not have a very successful track record compared to good, old-fashioned church work and individual involvement in the lives of the poor and downtrodden.

HOWEVER—there ARE laws making abortion totally legal, and there is NOTHING Catholics can do to stop a woman from making that dreadful choice other than much praying and a limited amount of sidewalk counselling and protesting at the clinics. WE NEED LAWS to be passed to make abortion illegal! The unborn child has NO protection at the moment.

How can any Christian can TRUST any politician who supports abortion, even if that politician has a track record of voting for “social programs?” If they can justify calling abortion “good,” then what is to stop them growing weary of trying to “eliminate poverty” and eventually turn to “eliminating the poor”?

I wouldn’t trust them. Someone who can promote the killing of unborn humans has rejected science (so they can’t be trusted on issues like "climate chance, either), and rejected “natural law” that is known to all humans.

Stick with people who stand firm against evil, even if you disagree with their “personality” or their stand on issues that the Catholic Church has not declared evil.
 
Last edited:
For the first no hablo Espanol
For the second it was a little more serious I don’t like her but kamala Harris was quite professional most of them were.
Overall the first debate was a joke o’rouke the fake Latino was speaking Spanish the fake Indian Elizabeth Warren was spewing the same top .1% stuff while she lives on the nicest street in America making millions and not doing anything for her state. Then Booker started speaking spainish o well if Trump gets reelected its there fault because they have all made fools of themselves
 
His first speaking event had only 9 people come to it most of them reporters he doesn’t stand a chance
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top