R
Ridgerunner
Guest
If one has to pick the mayor of a town of 4,000 people to find a Republican who made a racist comment, the Repubs sure must be a non-racists bunch! data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a0dd6/a0dd67a17ec8b6e6bcb45d7047f3d9bfe87084bb" alt="Slightly smiling face :slight_smile: đ"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a0dd6/a0dd67a17ec8b6e6bcb45d7047f3d9bfe87084bb" alt="Slightly smiling face :slight_smile: đ"
Itâs a fair position to take. I would have said the same for Britainâs first woman prime minister.You ever hear Ben Stein on Obama? He said that he was glad the nation had moved that far but said he would not vote for him. Thatâs a thought
You havenât seen the multiple threads here from questionable media about supposedly racist incidents in isolated small towns? Why donât you reply in the same manner to those threads?If one has to pick the mayor of a town of 4,000 people to find a Republican who made a racist comment, the Repubs sure must be a non-racists bunch!
You are making up your own definition of âmost affectedâ, likely to rationalize a deceptive graph.One has to note Key words and tricky phrases.
In this case "most affected"
Is she more ambitious and unprincipled than most politicians? Is she more ambitious and unprincipled than Donald Trump? Almost all politicians are ambitious and have big egos. And most of them will change their positions on issues to win elections.As a Californian, I have a poor opinion of Kamala. Her convictions shift like the wind. She is ambitious and unprincipled.
The FBI doesnât âspyâ. They conduct investigations. itâs. In. Their. Name.the politicizing of the CIA and FBI to spy on a presidential campaign - using and paying foreign nationals [Steele and Russians] for material on that campaign - by the administrationâs backed candidate [Hillary], the DNC and tax payer funds through the FBI?
See above.using the FISA court fraudulently to continue the spying on an elected president including falsification of evidence?
Please take into account the money and property that was seized as part of the guilty pleas.Needlessly spending $40 million for the Mueller Investigation of Trump Russian collusion they knew before it began was a lie, untrue and a fabrication spawned by Steele Dossier which was âforeignâ interference in our election that was bought and paid for Hillary, the DNC and our own government FBI?
Thank you for getting back to the real issue, though the last one was never a single vote issue. Unfortunately, compromise is inherent in a pluralistic society. I hope we have a president again sometime that understands that we need more unity, even at the expense of everything being perfect.Biden and Harris. Both supporters of abortion, supporters of same sex marriage, supporters of forcing Catholic nuns to pay for contraceptives. Not a Catholic values oriented ticket.
There have been good arguments for this, though not one you would consider reasonable. Your opinion does not mean that no such reasoning exists. No one who uses the Trump buzzwords as if they contained meaning would agree with them.No one has yet to provide and cogent reasons why JB would be preferable.
Not completely true. He has not followed the GOP line completely.I know you keep saying that but you have never posted anything but support- not just for rightist politicians- but rightist positions.
And you keep ignoring that we do not vote âfor abortion.â It is still not on the ballot. There is a premise that is implied in your syllogism that is not proven - that voting for a candidate must be equated to voting for abortion, or not. People are not issues. Above, you were characterized by your posts as a position, not a person. Likewise, it is most uncharitable to say, âBut I do realize almost nothing will change Catholics who have decided to support abortion,â if you refer to anyone here. You are right for those who are a part of groups like Catholics for a free choice, but quite wrong if you are referring to anyone who will not support Trump, or any other particular Republican, for office. That is no more just that saying that nothing will change for the Catholics that keep supporting racism.You keep ignoring the crucial thing. Voting for abortion is morally tolerable only when there is a proportionate reason to do it.
Two things I will never understand. One is the continued support by Catholics for a party which has embraced so many positions morally abhorrent to Catholic teaching. Second is the continued support of African Americans for a party which embraces the killing of their young; itâs just what Margaret Sanger had in mind when establishing the organization that became Planned Parenthood.But I do realize almost nothing will change Catholics who have decided to support abortion. Probably it will require the passing of a generation and the formal loss of a lot of them to protestantism before Catholics have stopped excusing themselves for participating in the murder of children.
This is nonsense, the standard changed years ago. Plants and small offices have been shutting down for a decade. The inept management didnât use the new standard and caused the debt they are now in. It isnât new but it is needed.a Postmaster General who is dismantling the infrastructure the USPS needs to deliver mail.
They were voting on making abortion the pre-eminent issue and didYet, the bishops were not voting on this
What strong point? Data is available on both sides that should make people follow the money trail. It doesnât compare to 50 million a year aborted right now.Archbishop McElroy has a very strong point that the disruption from climate change could results in a great deal more deaths than abortion
They didnât suggest, they stated as teaching.Youâre welcome to use your prudential judgement to decide how to vote.
It isnât partisan to vote your beliefs. Both sides could follow church teaching on abortion, SSM, transgender Identity, contraception, etc yet they donât.this is precisely what Archbishop McElroy spoke on when he said that declaring an issue pre-eminent would result in partisan demanding that Catholics vote a certain way.
Margaret Sanger was, as far as I can tell, against abortion. Granted, this may have been more for pragmatic reasons than actual moral ones (i.e. the fact abortion was rather unsafe at the time), but what she âhad in mindâ when establishing Planned Parenthood was an organization that would make it easier to get contraceptives so that people wouldnât have unwanted pregnancies and thus wouldnât get unsafe abortions. It was only after he death that Planned Parenthood became as vocal for âabortion rightsâ as it is nowadays. Maybe she would have changed her mind had she lived longer and seen abortion became more readily available in society, but abortion was not what she âhad in mindâ when establishing the organization.Second is the continued support of African Americans for a party which embraces the killing of their young; itâs just what Margaret Sanger had in mind when establishing the organization that became Planned Parenthood.
No true Scotsman? If investigations need to be unbiased, then opinions about investigations this more, and yours clearly assumes a lot of conjecture as fact. Here are the actual convictions:Real investigationsâŚ
Just so we are clear the issue was abortion and his speech was rejected by a significant majority. Were any of his points included in the pre-eminent letter?Yes, and so that weâre clear on that because it didnât mean a rejection of all the points Archbishop McElroy made in his speech.
Now you know that is impossible because what if you have 2 pro-choice candidates running? You would then choose based on other issues. That is the only time proportionate reason comes in to play. Otherwise vote against abortion, SSM, transgendered, contraception in healthcare, etcPlease point to me specifically where it says that a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-choice politician with no exceptions.
So why did the Popes and bishops create a priority? Should they be ignored for a lone bishop who was voted down?based on your own prudential judgement.
False judgments? Didnât I use his own words? He said what he said. The bishops rejected his position. You are trying to give his speech the legs it doesnât have.I would appreciate it if you could discuss the issue without false judgements on the intentions of Archbishop McElroy.
I am simply stating what the bishops and popes have said and shown you their words. A person can choose to follow teaching or not,Now I think most Catholics can use their prudential judgement as you seem to want to to decide who to vote for in support of those issues