Can a Catholic be Democrat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter saintlouisblues19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan123 said:
And how is it fair for someone to gamble that they won’t be one of the 20 somethings who get cancer and then be able to buy in only when they need the insurance? If we were prepared to let that person die poor and broken in the gutter or begging for help from charities it might be financially equitable, but it would seem a lot of us don’t want to live in such a society.
Click to expand...
fair has nothing to do with it. they didn’t make the rules. life is a gamble, they, like everyone else, are just playing the cards they were dealt.

ACA was passed on lies, was that fair?
 
upant said:
fair has nothing to do with it. they didn’t make the rules. life is a gamble, they, like everyone else, are just playing the cards they were dealt.

ACA was passed on lies, was that fair?
Click to expand...
If fairness doesn’t come into it then what’s the issue with people having to pay for insurance they don’t “want” to they don’t burden the system when they eventually need it?

The entire bill was available for months before its passage, tons of lies and misrepresentations surrounded it and to this day people spread falsehoods and mistruths. If people who voted for it felt lied to, they didn’t read it, or listened to people who hadn’t.
 
Dan123 said:
If people who voted for it felt lied to, they didn’t read it, or listened to people who hadn’t.
Click to expand...
it isn’t about feelings, one of the architects, Gruber, admitted they lied about the cost in the bill, he said he did it because of the stupidity of the American voter.
Dan123 said:
If fairness doesn’t come into it then what’s the issue with people having to pay for insurance they don’t “want” to they don’t burden the system when they eventually need it?
Click to expand...
you are projecting they will need it, most don’t at a young age.

is it really constitutional? it wasn’t as designed. it would only be constitutional if it was a tax increase. Obama said the ACA payments were not a tax.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
Click to expand...
it was Roberts’ reaching to keep a flawed plan legal that called it a tax?
 
upant said:
it isn’t about feelings, one of the architects, Gruber, admitted they lied about the cost in the bill, he said he did it because of the stupidity of the American voter.
Click to expand...
Okay. And yet CBO reviews still found it would save money and the CBO has a good trackrecord of being non-partisan. Obfuscating details is, sadly but possibly necessary, a part of passing bills. “Patriot Act”, remember that one? What’s patriotic about stripping away American’s privacy?
upant said:
you are projecting they will need it, most don’t at a young age.
Click to expand...
And the ones that do? Do we let them buy into the insurance and pay tiny premiums but immediately collect tens of thousands in benefits? Or do we slam the door in their face and tell them to hope a charity has a spare $30k for chemo?
upant said:
it was Roberts’ reaching to keep a flawed plan legal that called it a tax?
Click to expand...
So it’s legal, gotcha.
 
Dan123 said:
So it’s legal, gotcha.
Click to expand...
we will see
In February 2018, the Texas-led coalition of 19 states sued, arguing the law was without merit after Congress, in 2017, reduced the penalty for the uninsured to zero.

“Once the heart of the ACA – the individual mandate – is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the ACA must also fail,” the lawsuit argues.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed, ruling in 2018 that the individual mandate was unconstitutional now that the penalty was set at zero.

Becerra’s coalition disagreed, arguing that while the law lowers the tax penalty to zero, it did not invalidate it. They appealed, and lost, after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, in December 2019, agreed with O’Connor.

“As the court’s opinion recognized, the only reason the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare in 2012 was Congress’ taxing power, and without the individual mandate’s penalty, that justification crumbled,” Paxton said after the ruling. (Daily Journal)
Click to expand...
Dan123 said:
And the ones that do? Do we let them buy into the insurance and pay tiny premiums but immediately collect tens of thousands in benefits?
Click to expand...
of course, we do, the plan allows it. it needs to be replaced.
Dan123 said:
Obfuscating details is, sadly but possibly necessary,
Click to expand...
the architects of the ACA agree with you, even if I don’t.

I didn’t agree with the “Patriot Act” or the WMD line…
 
Look at the little sisters of the poor trying to be forced to pay for abortions or be shut down. Look at the religious adoption agencies who are being threaten to be shut down if they don’t allow adoption to gay couples. Look at the candidates calling abortion healthcare and wanting tax money towards it.
 
Dan123 said:
I was asking how you would expect or want it to work.
Click to expand...
I expect it to work the way it does because people will take the road that costs them the least.

I want it fair to everyone, under ACA the middle class suffers.
 
saintlouisblues19 said:
Well said, and that’s what I figured it would come down to, I agree with every democratic issue but that. Oh well, maybe Jesus will return and run for president, then I can vote comfortably lol
Click to expand...
Yeah, me too. I think it might be a matter of looking at the “big picture” in order to vote for a candidate who can make real change in a corrupt system.
JSRG said:
Though, if possible, I would recommend eschewing both the Republicans and Democrats and instead backing the American Solidarity Party , as I would say their platform is more compatible with Catholic ethics than either Republicans or Democrats.
Click to expand...
Yes, the ASD option is worth repeating. The platform is great.
EvangelistVictor said:
40.png
saintlouisblues19:
Idk, his views are a little too far left for me, no offense
Click to expand...
Then know most are big money sold out. It’s been like this forever.
Click to expand...
Yes, Bernie Sanders (and to some degree Elizabeth Warren) are the only candidates not beholden to the lobbies that encourage war, huge military spending, the increasing injustice concerning tax responsibility, environmental degradation, unbridled media power (campaign finance), and continued profiteering from health care.

But Bernie is a real downer on the rights of the unborn.

I look at it this way. Donald Trump, for all his negatives, did manage to (hopefully) change the makeup of the Supreme Court. The most effective way to stop abortions is to continue to educate people about the humanity of the unborn. Our efforts at the state level to honor human rights for unborn children, at increasingly younger stages of development (I think an “all at once” approach is not going to work) will eventually lead to the Truth cutting through the denial, and state laws will reach an amenable Supreme Court.

However, Trump’s aggressive pro-war approach (both in daily life and on the world scale), as well as other major injustices he has brought about and endorsed, to me add up to preferring almost anyone but him to be in office. The ASD candidate would probably be best and worth supporting (I will), but voting for Sanders in order to bring power back to the people rather than lobbies and corporations is definitely a means toward social justice.
 
Last edited:
We all pay for abortions with our tax money. The Hyde amendment allows federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions done because the father was a criminal (rape or incest) and when the health/welfare of the mother/child is in question. According to Guttmacher institute, that is around 12% of abortions, with more in the “health/welfare” when the mother will be depressed to have a child.

Federal funds pay for foreign aid packages that also cover Hyde Amendment protected abortions.

The Religious Non-Profits exemption case is about contraception. It hinges on California and Pennsylvania, two states, and it is being heard by the Supreme Court. The “abortions or be shut down” is hyperbole and repeating it only makes pro life people seem to be less than rational. They could simply choose not to provide health insurance for their employees.


www.washingtonexaminer.com

Little Sisters of the Poor get a shot at the Supreme Court - Washington Examiner

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case I’ve covered for years: the Little Sisters of the Poor, their religious objection to the Obama-era contraceptive mandate, and whether or not they should have a religious exemption from it. I’m sure it’s a relief for them to present their case to...
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
12% is better than 100%. Contraceptives are contra-life and not in line with Church teaching and it creates a contraceptive mentality. People who are only anti-abortion, you may be able to get abortions down with contraceptives. However, you are creating the mentality where people would more likely choose abortion if they unexpectedly became pregnant.
 
Last edited:
You are not allowed to support any group that has policies that are anti-Catholic (i.e. pro-choice, pro-homosexual unions, etc.) The Democratic Party has protecting homosexual unions on their official platform (not to mention their unofficial but common pro-choice stance), so, therefore, you cannot be a Democrat and a Catholic. If this official stance changes, then you can support them. But until then, it would be sinful to support them.
 
Yet, the Church has not stated this. You have an opinion.

Honestly, I cannot understand how people can support either major party. This is why I am firmly 3rd party.
 
I applaud your conviction on this issue.

Do you vote for the American Solidarity Party candidates or is there a different party with a similar position?
 
There you go makin’ me do research! 😜

I had no idea that the pelican was a symbol of charity…that’s cool!
 
An all or nothing approach is not practical. You aren’t going to get a total ban outright. Take for example democrat party’s stance on abortion, if they went to a more moderate stance that would be better than what they have right now. Likewise, many still hold exceptions for race/incest. However, getting laws passed, even with those exceptions in, is still better than them not being passed at all. Reducing number of abortions is good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top