Can Catholics be Democrats?

[pnewton]

I am sure you have heard it before, but if one is killed in the womb, the other issues are inconsequential to him/her.

But to the rest of use, they are consequential. Just this week from the USCCB, we read:

Without mentioning Trump, Cardinal DiNardo says U.S. ‘seems more divided than ever

In a move that linked the issues of immigration to the pro-life concerns of the conference, DiNardo added: “We join our Holy Father in declaring that a pro-life immigration policy is one that does not tear families apart; it protects families. Such a policy includes an equitable path to legal protection.”

I guess I would rather listen to the teaching of the Cardinal on this, and how all life issues are related, than the limited pro-birth type of pro-life position.

 

[Indyann]

Your point is well taken, however what happened to both/and, rather than either/or? In my opinion, only convicted felons should be deported.

 

[pnewton]

Your point is well taken, however what happened to both/and, rather than either/or? In my opinion, only convicted felons should be deported.

And that is the fly in the ointment with the Democratic Party. However, the point remains, neither party is really very Catholic. The old line about if Jesus were alive today, he would be a ___________ , like its cousin, WWJD, only reflects on the person making the statement, not on the real Jesus.

Would that the Republican Party be more open to Social Justice Doctrine, or the Democrats more open to Life issues. (sigh) Of the two, it is arguable that the Republicans are more open, as the Democrats have put abortion rights as an inflexible party plank, with some even making it a litmus test of who can run. Republicans have produce a fair amount of social justice legislation in the past, with Bush Jr and Reagan be sympathetic to immigration reform, for example.

 

[upant]

josh987654321:

So yea, Catholics cannot be Democrats as they are today, only traitors, heretics and the seriously naïve can be.

Or anyone who believes in equality, environmental protection, reduction in foreign entanglements, better wages for the working class, ect…

equality only as long as you follow their belief system; anti-abortion need not apply, traditional marriage believers need not apply, believe God made man male and female not a third option need not apply, etc.

environmental protection unless they can make a ton of money in the third world with new coal plants.

reduction in foreign entanglements as long as you pay to play

better wages for the working class as long as part of those wages go to your union overlords who funnel it to the party elite. $15 min wage unless you belong to the union then you don’t need $15

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

He also said:

In one of the most pointed lines of his address, DiNardo echoed the bishops’ recent plea for a national debate on America’s gun policies.

“The time is long past due to end the madness of outrageous weapons - be they stockpiled on a > continent or in a hotel room,” he said.

At a midday press conference, DiNardo reiterated the bishops’ long-standing “common sense” approach to guns and its desire to ban “juiced up” weapons, but failed to say whether the conference would pursue new initiatives on this front.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

And it was also said:

Pierre said it was the task of bishops to make the faith more attractive for young people.

A daunting task to say the least when so many are leaving the faith after confirmation.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

and also

He also said strong leadership on behalf of bishops, such as the responses to Charlottesville, is part of offering a compelling witness to the faith.

 

[Vonsalza]

equality only as long as you follow their belief system;

You can believe anything you want. Just don’t subjugate THEM to your views.

In that way, they’re more pro-liberty than you are.

environmental protection unless they can make a ton of money in the third world with new coal plants.

I’m sure some individual politician is likely guilty of greed and graft - no surprise. But most of your progressives rail against this too.

reduction in foreign entanglements as long as you pay to play

You know “Hillary Clinton” and “Democratic Party” aren’t synonyms, right?

better wages for the working class as long as part of those wages go to your union overlords…

No. Just better wages.

 

[Vonsalza]

If you look at your maps Republicans won everywhere except the south in 1952 and 1960 and lost everywhere except the south in 1964. They then went to winning virtually everywhere in 1972. There doesn’t seem to be any pattern.

Really?

When I look at the same chart and focus exclusively on the south (which is what we’re talking about), they vote solidly dem until the 1960 election, which was split between dems and dixiecrats. After that, republicans have consistently carried the great majority of the south ever since, the only real exception being the election of democrat Jimmy Carter in the wake of the Nixon scandal when the republican party was mired in the chicanery of Tricky Dick.

As I said earlier, in the years immediately post-Watergate, even a dog wouldn’t vote republican.

As the map shows, sometimes the dems would carry Florida, Louisiana or Georgia (read: Atlanta), but after the Civil Rights Movement, the south became a republican stronghold. Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina haven’t gone to a democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter.

---

That said, it is changing. Georgia and Virginia are steadily becoming a “blue” states. And in the periphery of the south, Texas is becoming less “red”. Which, for the republicans, should be considered a crisis. If it finally flips, the reps will have tremendous difficulty ever winning another presidential election.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Which, for the republicans, should be considered a crisis. If it finally flips, the reps will have tremendous difficulty ever winning another presidential election.

California flipped in 1992. It has been blue ever since.
Oregon and Washington flipped in 1988 and have been blue ever since.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

As I said earlier, in the years immediately post-Watergate, even a dog wouldn’t vote republican.

And we might see the same in 2020. Russia-Gate might prove this a reality when all is said and done.
Or it could possibly be NK-Gate if things progress too far.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

As I said earlier, in the years immediately post-Watergate, even a dog wouldn’t vote republican.

And we might see the same in 2020. Russia-Gate might prove this a reality when all is said and done.
Or it could possibly be NK-Gate if things progress too far.

I agree.

Thanks 100% to who they picked, this republican swing is going to be very short.

 

[upant]

In that way, they’re more pro-liberty than you are.

the left wants to put limits on free speech. what ever they deem as hate speech. most catholic preaching about sin would be hate speech.

I’m sure some individual politician

you didn’t address the increased co2 output from building new coal plants in the third world while the elite cry about the co2 levels hypocrites!

You know “Hillary Clinton” and “Democratic Party” aren’t synonyms, right?

yes they were. she bought and paid for it and the dnc hasn’t really changed from her platform

No. Just better wages.

then why didn’t the LA hotel union workers get a raise to $15

 

[abucs]

Would you like to make a comment because linking to someone saying not very much seems to be a way for you not to engage. That should be a sign to you that you cannot refute the obvious history. That is, the Republicans were at the forefront of fighting slavery and other injustices. 100 years later the Democrats got on board. The Democrats instead of accepting the Republican view of law being colour blind and everyone living happily ever after, they went the other way. They started courting non white groups (and women) as a victim group and have the irrational projection of the sin of past slavery on the very group who were fighting it. I will assume your lack of comment here is that at some level, you realise this. The Republicans have always been against race based law and politics, that has not changed, nor will Republicans let it change.

Democrats see racists everywhere. This creates angry division but Democrats need to cultivate the delusion that they are the bulwark against this. No, they are still the racists unfortunately. They even have academics redefining racism to be a power construction in order to excuse their own hypocrisy.

Favouring non whites is not fighting racism, it is racism. Republicans on the other hand have not ever favoured one race over the other. They have the moral high ground and the Democrats need to brainwash people with victim politics in order to get away from that fact.

 

[Vonsalza]

the left wants to put limits on free speech. what ever they deem as hate speech. most catholic preaching about sin would be hate speech.

Recently, for some, that’s true. But 20 years ago, it was precisely the opposite. I am a member of “the left” that does not want to place limits on free speech and I am most certainly not alone among leftists. So use a more narrow brush, please.

you didn’t address the increased co2 output from building new coal plants in the third world while the elite cry about the co2 levels hypocrites!

???

My vote has no dominion abroad. Obviously.

You know “Hillary Clinton” and “Democratic Party” aren’t synonyms, right?

yes they were.

Here is a clear error in your logic. I’d advise correcting it; otherwise you give your opponents an opportunity for an easy point.

Moreover, you seem to like to put folks in big ideological boxes. People don’t work that way. I’d wager that there are very few democrats that support each individual plank of the party 100%. There’s like 20 of them last time I was on the page.

Use a more narrow brush.

No. Just better wages.

then why didn’t the LA hotel union workers get a raise to $15

Beats me. Do you think that matters as it pertains to principle?

Do you know what an “anecdote” is and why they’re not used in good rhetoric?

 

[abucs]

Anecdotes by definition are narrow brushes. You can’t argue for people to use a more narrow brush and at the same time criticise them for using anecdotes.

 

[Vonsalza]

Would you like to make a comment because linking to someone saying not very much seems to be a way for you not to engage.

Sure, even though JoshuaIsLord did an excellent job driving the point home.

The Prager U video is absolute, total garbage from an online think-tank (you didn’t think they were a REAL university, did you?).

The vote on the Civil Rights Act wasn’t split between dems and reps. It was split between north and south.

Northern Dems were 94% in support and northern reps were 84% in support.

Southern dems were only 5% in support and the only southern rep was opposed.

No surprise, given that many southern dems were previously Dixiecrats that swapped back to the dems when their racist party failed. After the northern dems “betrayed” them by overwhelmingly supporting the CRA and the democrat LBJ signed it into law, they abandoned the democratic party.

With the exception of the post-Watergate election of democrat Jimmy Carter, the south has been a republican bulwark ever since, with a few occasional defections here and there. Men and women from that region largely vote republican now; as everyone already knows. Been that way since the Civil Rights Act.

That should be a sign to you that you cannot refute the obvious history.

Given the history outlined immediately above, I have no desire to.

The Democrats instead of accepting the Republican view of law being colour blind…

No one gerrymanders (disenfranchises) blacks on an institutional level better than the republican party when they get to draw congressional seat lines.

Reps broadly “color blind”? Oh the absurdity…

The Republicans have always been against race based law and politics, that has not changed, nor will Republicans let it change.

I fully agree. Slavery firmly cemented the black man at the absolute bottom of American society and republicans don’t want to do anything to help them overcome such obvious institutional restriction. And shame on them for it.

Republicans on the other hand have not ever favoured one race over the other.

How many black republicans are in congress? 2? 3?

Your proof doesn’t seem to be “in the pudding”.

 

[Vonsalza]

Anecdotes by definition are narrow brushes. You can’t argue for people to use a more narrow brush and at the same time criticise them for using anecdotes.

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Let me help.

From Oxford;
Anecdote - 1 a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
1a an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.

From Free Dictionary;
paint with a broad brush. (idiomatic) To describe a class of objects or a kind of phenomenon in general terms, without specific details and without attention to individual variations.
(vis-a-vis, use a narrow brush instead)

 

[brian_custer]

but not anybody who treasures the pro-life cause; which is a “no-debate” amongst catholics and the democratics get an F- minus

the party couldn’t possibly be worse on the issue…

 

[Vonsalza]

but not anybody who treasures the pro-life cause; which is a “no-debate” amongst catholics and the democratics get an F- minus

As I and the other dems on the board have said ad nauseam, we don’t agree with our party on abortion. We’re part of the 1-in-5 democrats that are pro-life.

But we do agree with the dems on the vast majority of other issues. Apropos, we’re democrats.