Biden picks Kamala Harris as running mate

  • Thread starter Thread starter RidgeSprinter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
27lw said:
Does anyone talk much about Ms. Harris’s Indian ancestry? Is she oppressed on that angle? Does she talk much about this – or are Indians too high-achieving for it to help her?
Click to expand...
She talks about it. I heard her speech and did not know the meaning of the word she used:

" s she accepted the Democratic nomination for vice president on Wednesday night, California Sen. Kamala D. Harris recounted how she had been taught to “put family first."

That includes both “the family you’re born into and the family you choose,” she said, before listing out members in both categories: Family is her husband and her two stepkids. Her sister, her sorority, her best friend, her godchildren. And then, she added, “Family is my uncles, my aunts and my chittis.”

That last word, a Tamil term of endearment for the younger sisters of one’s mother, was met with a fierce outpouring of pride across social media on Wednesday night.

For many Tamil Americans, Harris’s use of சித்தி — which can also be spelled out phonetically in English as “citti,” or “chitthi” — was more than just another word for “auntie.” It was a small but significant way for the vice-presidential candidate to say, before an audience of millions, that she is one of them, too."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/20/chittis-kamala-harris-dnc-tamil/
 
RidgeSprinter said:
A little help?
Roe vs Wade was decided Jan 1973.
Abortion Rate in 1972 was 13.
Click to expand...
Seems you need a little help as well. Abortion was started being legalized as early as 1967, with 1970 being a year many states dropped their restrictions.
All well before the SCOTUS RvsW decision.
 
nypost.com

Biden denies feeling pressured to pick black woman as running mate

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden says he didn’t feel as if he had to select a black woman as his running mate. “No, I didn’t feel pressure to select a black woman,” Biden said when a…
nypost.com nypost.com

Technically, Joe wasn’t pressured on his final pick. But that was because they only gave him a short list of all black females to choose from 😆

We should really be selecting the support staff for Biden, since they will be running things if he wins.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
We should really be selecting the support staff for Biden, since they will be running things if he wins.
Click to expand...
I’d be okay with that. Better than Trump’s support staff trying to run things and he constantly contradicts them with crazy.
 
Theo520 said:
We should really be selecting the support staff for Biden, since they will be running things if he wins.
Click to expand...
It’s probably the other way around. The swampers in the Dem party more likely selected him.
 
RuthAnne said:
I never said that. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
Please explain in what sense you mean “pro-choice” then. What choice are you referring to when you speak of “pro-choicers” also being pro-life? It’s one thing to have a nuanced position, quite another to act like your position isn’t what it is just because its horrific implications may embarrass you.
 
Last edited:
RidgeSprinter said:
40.png
jeannetherese:
The right to life undergirds all other rights
Click to expand...
Pope Francis disagrees with that opinion
Click to expand...
You’re implying here that Pope Francis disagrees with the statement you quote here? Are you claiming that (1) It is NOT Catholic teaching that the Right to Life undergirds all other individual rights; and further that (2) Pope Francis specifically denies that this right undergirds the others?

If you are, your claim on both counts is patently false/untrue/wrong/heretical. Pope St. John Paul II couldn’t have been mo explicit.
It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop. A society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized. Only respect for life can be the foundation and guarantee of the most precious and essential goods of society, such as democracy and peace.
Click to expand...
Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae (1995), no. 101

Are we claiming Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Francis somehow disagree on this??? I’d like some evidence for this bold claim, please. I’m not the current pope’s biggest fan but any claim that he disagrees on any of these points with his predecessors (on the Right to Life and its place in civil society) is a calumny against him.
 
Last edited:
RuthAnne said:
How difficult is that to understand?
Click to expand...
So you reject any ‘right’ to choose to have an abortion?
How difficult is that to understand?
Click to expand...
It’s not at all difficult. It’s just obvious you’re trying to disown supporting a so-called “right” to something vile. Which is sad because it shows you know it’s vile. So why not just reject it instead of twisting yourself in knots calling it a right and then fighting to act like you don’t support it as such?

No one has a right to evil. If you know abortion is evil, you cannot simultaneously believe in a right to commit it.
 
Last edited:
You have to read the Pope’s own words in his encyclical “Gaudete et Exsultate.”

And scroll down to item 101
  1. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.[84] We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.
Now Lets Bullet point these other Equally Sacred Items

Equally sacred, however, are
  • the lives of the poor,
  • those already born,
  • the destitute,
  • the abandoned
  • the underprivileged,
  • the vulnerable infirm
  • elderly exposed to covert euthanasia,
  • the victims of human trafficking,
  • new forms of slavery,
  • every form of rejection.
Discovered this thru this article which requires a serious reading in detail which details the exclusion of this paragraph from the Bishop’s report. Then draw your own conclusion.

 
The pope is saying poor people’s lives are equally sacred. Has there ever been any doubt in any devout Catholic’s mind that ALL human life is sacred? That is the very point we are making when we say the right to life is foundational.

You quoted someone’s statement that the right to life undergirds the rest and claimed it was wrong according to Pope Francis. That is at best a gross misrepresentation of both catholic belief and the pope.
 
Last edited:
Rubee said:
So you reject any ‘right’ to choose to have an abortion?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that abortion is a right.
Rubee said:
It’s just obvious you’re trying to disown supporting a so-called “right” to something vile.
Click to expand...
It’s not obvious. I don’t support it. Period.
Rubee said:
Which is sad because it shows you know it’s vile.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do know it’s vile. And I oppose it 100%.
Rubee said:
So why not just reject it instead of twisting yourself in knots calling it a right and then fighting to act like you don’t support it as such?
Click to expand...
Where did I call it a right? Have you read anything I’ve said?
Rubee said:
If you know abortion is evil, you cannot simultaneously believe in a right to commit it.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe in a right to abortion. But that isn’t the reason I oppose it as a right.
 
Last edited:
RidgeSprinter said:
You have to read the Pope’s own words in his encyclical “Gaudete et Exsultate.”

And scroll down to item 101
  1. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.[84] We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.
Now Lets Bullet point these other Equally Sacred Items

Equally sacred, however, are
  • the lives of the poor,
  • those already born,
  • the destitute,
  • the abandoned
  • the underprivileged,
  • the vulnerable infirm
  • elderly exposed to covert euthanasia,
  • the victims of human trafficking,
  • new forms of slavery,
  • every form of rejection.
Discovered this thru this article which requires a serious reading in detail which details the exclusion of this paragraph from the Bishop’s report. Then draw your own conclusion.

Abortion preeminent issue, global warming not urgent, say bishops | National Catholic Reporter
Click to expand...
You know the government does help all these folks. Even the evil Republicans! As I said earlier upthread (I think), the Dems pretend that they’re the only ones who help:
  • the lives of the poor
  • those already born,
  • the destitute,
  • the abandoned
  • the underprivileged,
  • the vulnerable infirm
  • elderly exposed to covert euthanasia,
  • the victims of human trafficking,
  • new forms of slavery,
  • every form of rejection.
PLUS the Republicans work against abortion.
The Dems are also WAY into allowing euthanasia and PAS, which would expose the elderly to covert euthanasia, would it not?
 
Republicans seem hell bent on cutting any assistance offered to the poor. They are better on abortion. A complete joke to act like they are not SO MUCH worse when it comes to helping poorer members of society.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top