Can Catholics be Democrats?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victorygirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No it’s not evidence for the racism of the Republican Party. I guess you couldn’t find a 6 year old, let me help.

Traditionally since the New deal the overwhelming proportion of blacks have voted for the Democrats, unfortunately to their detriment.

If you are black and are interested in a career in politics it makes sense to pick the Democrats because of the immersing of that population in victim politics. Do you see what the Democrats do to black Republicans?

No. Your evidence is like the feminist ‘evidence’ for the pay gap. It is what you want to see and that is called brain washing through emotional victim politics being replaced for rational thought and morality…
 
Last edited:
abucs said:
The video claimed only 23% of northern Democrats in the Congress voted to end slavery while 100% of Republicans in the congress voted to end slavery.
Click to expand...
Just looked through a few articles on the issue of the Northern Dems of 1860…

The remaining 77% of northern dems wanted it left to individual states because they believed the constitution delegated issues like those to the individual states and that a federal ban was an over-reach of the authority of the federal government. Not because they explicitly supported slavery.
 
So they didn’t vote to end slavery did they? Which is what I said. Northern Democrats when they were asked to step up and clearly say slavery was wrong, they didn’t. Northern Democrats, NORTHERN Democrats thought it was an OVEREACH of their position to outlaw slavery. Are you listening to the excuses you are making?

It is up to the courts to decide if there was an OVEREACH, not politicians, especially on such an important issue.
 
Last edited:
abucs said:
No it’s not evidence for the racism of the Republican Party.
Click to expand...
It’s perfect evidence that republicans only have blacks occupying 3 out of the 304 seats they presently hold in congress.

That’s 1%. You can’t wish that away, even if you want to.
abucs said:
So they didn’t vote to end slavery did they?
Click to expand...
Roughly a quarter did. The remainder didn’t because they felt it was an overreach of federal law into what they considered a state issue. Frankly, this sounds like a lot of present-day republican rhetoric on healthcare. “Leave it to the states!”

This is different from the southern democrats perspective of voting against it because they explicitly supported the institution of slavery.

Your inability to distinguish between these two views on the basis that they both result in a “nay” vote is inexcusably sloppy and generalist. But as we’ve seen above with your conflation of “anecdotes” with “narrow brushes”, it’s your personal (sub)par-for-the-course, I suppose.

But it still remains; the issue on slavery and civil rights was largely the south v. the non-south in both the 1860s and 1960s. In both cases, the majority of folks who explicitly supported discriminatory measures against blacks dwelt largely south of the Mason-Dixon line.

After 1964, these people shed the democratic party and became largely republican. And you can have them. 🤣

Interestingly, it wasn’t long after this that the republicans began courting evangelicals after Roe v. Wade in 1973. While the 1972 Republican Platform didn’t contain one reference to God or religious issues, the 2012 platform contained 10 references to God and 19 to faith (apropos to your claims of a victim complex).
 
Vonsalza said:
Roughly a quarter did. The remainder didn’t because they felt it was an overreach of federal law into what they considered a state issue. Frankly, this sounds like a lot of present-day republican rhetoric on healthcare. “Leave it to the states!”

This is different from the southern democrats perspective of voting against it because they explicitly supported the institution of slavery.
Click to expand...
They felt!

As mentioned above it is the judicial system that is the one who rules on breaches of authority, not politicians.

This is straight after the Republicans won the war to abolish slavery and these people that you are defending wanted to throw it back to the states, many of whom were so adamantly in support of slavery that they just succeeded from the United States and then fought a war over the very issue of their state right to have slavery.

You think it is a principled decision after the moral fight against slavery to then cave and give these states the right to enslave black people?

Their position is morally untenable as is your position in trying to find a way to defend them.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
It’s perfect evidence that republicans only have blacks occupying 3 out of the 304 seats they presently hold in congress

That’s 1%. You can’t wish that away, even if you want to.
Click to expand...
Yeah it is perfect evidence for that. Too bad that is not what we were talking about. You know oranges are $5,99 down the road. That’s perfect evidence that oranges down the road are $5.99 by the way. Geez.

The only person wanting to wish things away right now is you in the northern Democrats overwhelmingly ducking out from voting against slavery and wanting pro slave states to have the right over enslaving black people in their own regions if they so chose. Geez.

You are doing this in order to try to put the sins of one group of people on another in an irrational way.

The past sin of the Democratic Party becomes
the sin of Southern Democrats becomes
the sin of southern white people becomes
the sin of todays southern white people becomes
the sin of the majority party southern whites vote for today becomes
the sin of all who vote for this party even though it was this very party who fought the Democrats to abolish slavery in the first place.

This is nuts.

A Republican in Michigan today apparently has this sin but a Democrat in Mississippi doesn’t. That’s nuts. You have been taught to emotionalise morals in a Leftist irrational way according to victim politics designed to make good bad and bad good. That’s why you are defending northern Democrats who wanted slave states to have the right to continue to enslave black people if they wished, which they did.
 
Last edited:
How many black men/women ran for Congress? That would be more telling, than how many there are.
 
Would you choose a “trans-sexual” person to fly your airliner or perform surgery on you or operate/aim your howitzer?

If, as a “class”, trans-sexual persons have a 40% incidence of suicide, would you want a person with those characteristics to drive your car for you or direct traffic?
 
Last edited:
brian_custer said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
From factcheck: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood.

I’m happy to support the other 97%.
Click to expand...
i’m pretty sure this is not true

nearly 100% of PPs services are induced abortions of live, healthy, pre-born children
Click to expand...
Well, the 3% figure is a bit misleading, because it counts all services equally. Perhaps a more relevant figure is the revenue generated by abortions. Although counted on a per-service basis, abortions account for only 3% of the services, abortions are more expensive and bring in about 1/3 of all clinic revenue, which amounts to 10% of all income (clinic revenue plus grants). So abortions amount to much more than 3%, but still are less than half based on revenue. Read about it here.
 
Last edited:
As compared with the nearly 334,000 abortions that Planned Parenthood provided in 2011, 28,674 women received prenatal services. And 2,300 were referred to adoption agencies.
 
upant said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
From factcheck: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...
this has been proven false. pph has a funny way of counting each little item of a visit as a service and keeping some data private

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/.
Click to expand...
Note that the article you cited gives 'Three Pinocchios" to both the 3% figure and the 94% figure.
 
Last edited:
abucs said:
They felt!

As mentioned above it is the judicial system that is the one who rules on breaches of authority, not politicians.
Click to expand...
You don’t use this argument consistently, I’m afraid.

Then concerning the right to universal heathcare, the reps should then censor themselves on the issue until SCOTUS issues a ruling?

Hardly likely…
This is straight after the Republicans won the war to abolish slavery…
Click to expand...
The republicans didn’t win the war. The Union did. You also need to narrow your brush.
You think it is a principled decision after the moral fight against slavery to then cave and give these states the right to enslave black people?
Click to expand...
I resist the cheap, over-broad and fallacious temptation to argue that folks who felt that it was a state’s-rights issue were ideologically the same as folks who explicitly supported slavery. Again, narrow your brush.
 
abucs said:
The only person wanting to wish things away right now is you in the northern Democrats overwhelmingly ducking out from voting against slavery and wanting pro slave states to have the right over enslaving black people in their own regions if they so chose.
Click to expand...
I’m not wishing anything away. I’m just correctly pointing out that your equivalence of northern and southern democrats on the issue of slavery is a false one.

The northern dems didn’t explicitly support slavery, based on the literature I’ve encountered about them. But they did seek the middle-road of leaving it as a state’s rights issue; which you seem to have difficulty admitting.
You are doing this in order to try to put the sins of one group of people on another in an irrational way.
Click to expand...
To quite the contrary, it is you that is attempting to falsely conflate northern and southern dems in order to suit your misguided narrative on the history of the democratic party.
A Republican in Michigan today apparently has this sin but a Democrat in Mississippi doesn’t. That’s nuts.
Click to expand...
It is nuts, which is why that argument was never forwarded.
That’s why you are defending northern Democrats who wanted slave states to have the right to continue to enslave black people if they wished…
Click to expand...
There’s your over-broad brush again.

They didn’t explicitly want states to have the right to enslave people. They wanted to stop the federal government from assuming a power they felt the constitution explicitly left to the states.

I figured a modern-day republican would sympathize with the notion.
 
MonteRCMS said:
Would you choose a “trans-sexual” person to fly your airliner or perform surgery on you or operate/aim your howitzer?
Click to expand...
They’d be no more or less qualified to do these things on the basis of their confused gender.

The probability of suicide increases substantially when we’re rejected by our own families on the basis of deeply held views. Because of this, I’m all-for mental health monitoring of those who have responsibility over the lives of people.

From what I understand, we already do this, yes?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
upant:
40.png
Vonsalza:
From factcheck: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...
this has been proven false. pph has a funny way of counting each little item of a visit as a service and keeping some data private

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/.
Click to expand...
Note that the article you cited gives 'Three Pinocchios" to both the 3% figure and the 94% figure.
Click to expand...
Hey, if factcheck is wrong, then it’s wrong. But if the number of non-abortion services falls from 97% to 88% per your source, I’m still in support of PP doing the 88%.

They provide feminine healthcare to largely poor and minority women. That’s a good thing.

And they can’t fund abortions with federal money. They ones that do get paid for with public dollars seem to occur at the state-level through the various additions some states make to their medicaid programs.

By all means, take the issue up with those states.
 
brian_custer said:
i’ll accept that at face value

do you expect that the dem party platform will ever change w/ regard to the pro-life issue?
Click to expand...
I will answer that. Yes, I do, but I think it will be a process of decades. I value those who are Democrats but fight within their party on this point, as I know that is truly a bloody battlefield.

I personally think it is premature for that sort of work though. Until the Democrats cannot elect a dog catcher without being more flexible on this one point, they will not drop making this a litmus test for loyalty. Then, the door will be open for change. I think change will more likely come through third party pressure one day.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top