D
Dan123
Guest
I recall them being very much disputed when the last president was in office. In fact our current president suggested they meant nothing … until he took office.
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Do you have any authoritative reference for that claim?
At least it was a recovery. Not all presidents managed that.
I don’t know what this has to do with Trump and the economy. But as for the observation itself, I think you have the implied cause and effect backwards. If you are implying that Democratic policies cause homelessness and unemployment just because they are correlated, there is a much more reasonable explanation of that correlation. Those who are most in need (and therefore most likely to become homeless or unemployed) tend to elect Democrats. Those who are prosperous and need no help tend to elect Republicans. That pretty much explains why big cities are more likely to have Democratic leaders.
K
Kindnessmatters
Guest
Clearly, you want to hate this President. I and others can point out facts and explain them to you, but we cannot understand them for you.
It is a thin thread to hang onto to attempt to reconcile Democrat politics (pro gay marriage, “shout your abortion”, race baiting, anti-Christian, anti-Jew, false-witness bearing, pro-poverty, anti-employer, anti-American, pro-Iran, pro-radicalized Muslim, pro-tax…) with Catholicism. I will leave you to it. At present, I see no path for a Democrat take take the white house, nor to keep the house in November. Not only have behaviours of Democrat leadership alienated current voters, but increasing numbers have pledged to never vote for a Democrat again. I am among them.
It is a thin thread to hang onto to attempt to reconcile Democrat politics (pro gay marriage, “shout your abortion”, race baiting, anti-Christian, anti-Jew, false-witness bearing, pro-poverty, anti-employer, anti-American, pro-Iran, pro-radicalized Muslim, pro-tax…) with Catholicism. I will leave you to it. At present, I see no path for a Democrat take take the white house, nor to keep the house in November. Not only have behaviours of Democrat leadership alienated current voters, but increasing numbers have pledged to never vote for a Democrat again. I am among them.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The fact that I disagree with him does not mean I hate him. I do not.
- I do not reconcile all Democratic policies with Catholicism. Just because I vote for a person does not mean I approve of all of his or her policies.
- I reject the characterization of “race baiting, anti-Christian, anti-Jew, false-witness bearing, pro-poverty, anti-employer, anti-American, pro-Iran, pro-radicalized Muslim”. “pro-tax” I will grant you. But then I am also pro-tax, and there is nothing in Catholicism contrary to taxation per se.
You are free to speculate all you want. I choose not to engage in that activity.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Amen.
It is intriguing how there is simply no allowance for criticism, let alone questioning, of our dear leader.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I was a Democrat and a party leader. So was my wife. Ultimately, we had to admit that we could not simultaneously be true to the teachings of the Church and the policies of the Dem party. It was true then and it’s even more true now. A political party that endorses the mass murder of children is a party of dead souls and the deceived.
C
Christianbook
Guest
I already cleared my mistake so what do you want me to do now?
C
Christianbook
Guest
Because you didnt even answer or replied to the original post. . . . Cus everyone here is giving their opinion to the original post. Because the original post asked for it.
Last edited:
P
Poet
Guest
Wow! OKAY then.
People give opinions on forums and respond to others. That’s the point of forums. Feel free to set me on ignore.
But if you’re accusing someone of ‘drafting’ our young men, it’s more than fair to point that out. It’s not happening. It is unfair to let others remain angry at a group of people for supposedly doing something they aren’t actually doing.
You changed it to ‘called’ and lectured me in a rather snarky tone and accused me of knowing nothing about the military or how it works. What kind of response do you expect when you’re snarky to someone?
I stand by my comment to not make assumptions about others and if you don’t like my response, perhaps consider that your own tone might have had something to do with it.
Set me on ignore if you don’t like what I have to say.
D
DanielJohn2300
Guest
Saintlouisblues19, please give serious prayerful consideration to this reply from a registered Democrat, because years of prayer has gone into it. If you do not try to convert a ‘pro choice’ candidate to the ‘pro choices’ position between now and November, then it is definitely a mortal sin to vote for the ‘pro choice’ candidate in November; because you are no longer invincibly ignorant of the fact that there is a third position, other than ‘pro choice’ and ‘pro life’, called ‘pro choices’.
‘Pro life’ means that they’re in favor of converting the current law to the pre-1973 law, and ‘pro choice’ means that they’re opposed to converting the current law to the pre-1973 law. If those had been the only two positions, then a case could be made for the claim that voting for a ‘pro choice’ candidate is not a mortal sin. But since there are three positions, it is definitely a mortal sin to vote for a ‘pro choice’ candidate without trying to convert him or her to the ‘pro choices’ position; because ‘pro choice’ now means that they’re opposed to converting the current law to EITHER the pre-1973 law OR the future ‘law of two choices’.
The ‘law of two choices’ is made by taking the unwed couple’s choice and separating it into two choices, hers and his, where he chooses between two ways that he can pay for causing an unwanted pregnancy. This would prevent the murder of pregnant women (the leading cause of death for unwed pregnant women), and it would also make abortion rare. Once abortion is made rare, legal protection of unborn children could be added to the law, with little resistance. Hence, the two-step formula for ending abortion is this: CHOICE / 2 + LIFE = THE END OF ABORTION.
For a more detailed explanation of the ‘law of two choices’ and the ‘pro choices’ position, please go to ProChoices.us or EternalGospelSociety.com. I have spent almost a year searching for a reason to believe, that the idea to divide the choice by two, is not from God, and the more I search, the more I find things which confirm that the idea IS from God. That’s why I’m certain that if you do not try to convert a ‘pro choice’ candidate to the ‘pro choices’ position between now and November, it will definitely be a mortal sin to vote for the ‘pro choice’ candidate in November.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Yet, your statement is not the same as the guidance given to us by the USCCB.
For some 3rd party candidates, yes. The Republican party at this time supports abortions if the father was a criminal (rape/incest) or if the life/health/wellbeing of the mother or child is in question. This allows for, according the Guttmacher instituted study, more than 12% of all abortions.
The Republican party is also opposed to the pro-life stand against Capital Punishment, torture/enhanced interrogation, etc.
“Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” links have been posted innumerable times on this forum, I’d advise reading this important document.
J
jtwp5
Guest
Maybe you should watch this video:
It is ridiculous to say I have to vote for someone who lines up with Catholicism 100%, especially when there is almost no chance of anyone outside of the 2 party nominees being able to win an election. Anything else is a waste of vote and choosing to not vote is ignorance and can lead to greater evil winning. It’s sad only about 50-55% of eligible voters actually vote in presidential elections.
J
jtwp5
Guest
It would be different if both the main candidates supported abortion, I would then have to choose based on other policies. However there is a stark contrast between the 2 sides right now, one is increasingly trying to limit religious freedom and promote the destruction of innocent human life. The other is not.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
As I’ve posted over and over again, both parties allow for abortion.
This seems to be a common statement that lacks evidence. Could you point me to the plank in the Democratic Platform that talks about limiting religious freedom?
J
Jesuslover
Guest
From Democratic Party Platform https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/07/2016_DNC_Platform.pdf, page 17: “We support a progressive vision of religious freedom that respects pluralism and rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate.” Read: We will force bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings that go against their religious beliefs.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
The USA was founded as a pluralistic society. I know that Evangelical Protestantism has tried for decades to convince Americans that we are a religious state, however, they are wrong.
Religion is not a reason to discriminate in a pluralistic society.
To bake or not to bake is a sideshow stunt brought to us by politicians.
F
faustjeff4
Guest
I think I am voting for the American Solidarity Party both democrats and republicans lie and twist facts.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
I’ve not had time to read much of this ASP candidate except that he is not Catholic 
F
faustjeff4
Guest
He is an evangelical protestant but I believe in what the party stands for. I believe the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ but I believe a good Protestant who stands up for what is right and does the right thing is better off than a bad Catholic.
Last edited:
N
Nepperhan
Guest
I have found that those who live up 100% with any religion tend to be unqualified demagogues and/or opportunists. (Does this apply to ex-senator ‘sweater vest’ in PA?) Most Catholics don’t line up 100% with Church traditions so its kind of illogical to look for that in a political candidate.
- Status