Can Catholics be Democrats?

[Vonsalza]

Come to think of it, the last election was interesting.

On one side, you had dems that were upset with the super-delegate system because it unnecessarily forced an institutional candidate upon the voters.

On the other, there were quite a few reps that wished they had a super-delegate system in order to prevent the rise of a radical candidate like Trump.

Politics…

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

I just wonder if a Rep will run against Trump in 2020.

 

[pnewton]

If not, the Democrats will have a golden opportunity. I wonder if they will blow it again.

 

[Vonsalza]

I just wonder if a Rep will run against Trump in 2020.

Absolutely.

The question will be who the GOP supports. If they want to keep a rep in the White House they must.

You can’t be *this unpopular and expect a reelection. If the dems go with pretty much anyone other than Hillary and they’re running against Trump, they’ll win. Period.

It’s like the post-Watergate presidential election. We may not know who it will be 3 years out, but we know the next president isn’t going to be Trump.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Still waiting for your better numbers than I used. You said mine were not accurate.

 

[Vonsalza]

Still waiting for your better numbers than I used. You said mine were not accurate.

Oh I’m not going to spend any time trying to revive your still-born argument. That’s YOUR job.
I’m not going to read any books you want me to read. I’m not going to revise your sloppy napkin-research for you.
The onus to make your argument lies on you. No one else. And if your argument is obviously flawed, then back to the drawing board with you.

This goes for everyone… Absolutely including me.

But because I’m feeling generous; You tried to make some cockamayme argument that 99% of PPs funding pertained to abortion using client data for only 360k or their over 2.5 million clients annually. That’s problem numero uno. You indirectly claim that apparently the other 80-some-odd percent of their clientele cost literally nothing to serve. Impossible.

Numero dos is that almost half of their revenue is from the gov and Hyde forbids using that for abortions.

Numero tres is that in their own annual report, medical services (which includes abortion) make up roughly 2/3 of their budget.

In all cases, some absurd number like 99% is mathematically impossible.

 

[TheLittleLady]

beyond the moment of birth?

This is my second request for you to provide me a link to the Democrat Party Platform that endorses infanticide.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The issues matter more than party affiliation. But the problem I have is that politicians tend to follow the party platform and Democrats elect more radical leaders.

I don’t think it is sufficient to say “well, I’m a Democrat, and I disagree with abortion, but oh well”. I think more pro-life Democrats need to have their voices heard, AND pro-life independents AND republicans need to support them. I don’t think I have to tell you that Democratic Party in general has headed for breakneck speed toward a fantasy universe and it’s gotten so bad they’ve even carried independents like Bernie and the establishment GOP with them.

 

[Vonsalza]

The issues matter more than party affiliation. But the problem I have is that politicians tend to follow the party platform and Democrats elect more radical leaders.

This is a problem with most caucuses. The number of pro-choice republicans is defensibly a third of the electorate. Yet Very few Rockefeller Republicans make it through these days.

Power structures, as it were. They fight to preserve themselves.

I don’t think I have to tell you that Democratic Party in general has headed for breakneck speed toward a fantasy…

And I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that I think the republican utopia is equally fantastical.

it’s gotten so bad they’ve even carried independents like Bernie and the establishment GOP with them.

I forget the Islamic Caliph that said it, but we dream of a world where all men are cared for, and the man that wants to better himself can. I don’t think that’s an awful goal and many of the cries against social programs are mindless “Thatcher-isms” that lack objective proof.

Again, YVVM.

 

[SuperLuigi]

And I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that I think the republican utopia is equally fantastical.

I have yet to meet a republican who wants or thinks there can be a utopia. It is impossible to be a conservative and think there is one.

I forget the Islamic Caliph that said it, but we dream of a world where all men are cared for, and the man that wants to better himself can.

And if you don’t agree, we’ll execute you for blashemy. Such is the way of big government: My way is so pristine and pure and kindhearted, that you must a madman (or racist supremacist poor-hating bigot who attacks the Pope in CAF vernacular) to disagree.

The operative word is arrogance.

I don’t think that’s an awful goal

Jordan Peterson said it best: even if you want it and get the crown, there’s always that one disgruntled guy or girl in the royal court who is one day going to catch you on the balcony without your bodyguards or poison your food for that instant promotion.

l and many of the cries against social programs are mindless “Thatcher-isms” that lack objective proof.

I have found most of the criticism against social programs to be spot on. Big government leftists and even some folks on the right want them. Then folks like me point out the corruption and scandal and that it really doesn’t good results. Then the people who want it have to check their logic at the door to defend big government, whether its the college atheist or the experienced bishop.

 

[Vonsalza]

I have yet to meet a republican who wants or thinks there can be a utopia. It is impossible to be a conservative and think there is one.

That wasn’t the idea forwarded.

“Republican utopia” was. The Republican ideal. You know, the fever dream where there is limited government, the market is unfettered and yet, somehow, social mobility exists and a caste system hasn’t formed.

And if you don’t agree, we’ll execute you for blashemy.

Sounds a lot like our faith during the middle ages, don’t you agree?

The operative word is arrogance.

And you think it’s limited to one side?!?

Jordan Peterson said it best: even if you want it and get the crown, there’s always that one disgruntled guy or girl in the royal court who is one day going to catch you on the balcony without your bodyguards or poison your food for that instant promotion.

The sword of Damocles doesn’t offset the fact.

Big government leftists and even some folks on the right want them.

No one actually wants limited government. The most spend-thrift President in American History is Barack Obama. The second and third spots are occupied by Bush 2 and Reagan - republicans both.

The dems want to send the money to the poor via social programs, the reps want to send the money to their golf buddies through absurd cost-plus federal contracts.

SNAP and “Obama-phone” don’t persist because poor people have the votes to keep them in place. They persist because Coca-Cola and T-Mobile make a lot of money off those programs and fund lobbyists to maintain them.

Then folks like me point out the corruption and scandal and that it really doesn’t good results. Then the people who want it have to check their logic at the door to defend big government, whether its the college atheist or the experienced bishop.

“My opposition is wrong before I’ve even heard their argument” indicates that you have willfully crippled your own logical faculties. This paradigm is the paradigm of “cult”, in all its faces.

I beg you reconsider this stance.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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

Ad hominem attack

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

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

Ad hominem attack

It’s factual. It’s not a real university and lots of people cite them like it is because they don’t know any better.

Frankly, I think that’s exactly what happened there.

 

[SuperLuigi]

That wasn’t the idea forwarded.

This demonstrates a lack of perception of how republicans and especially conservatives think. We don’t think like the left.

As such:

“Republican utopia” was. The Republican ideal. You know, the fever dream where there is limited government, the market is unfettered and yet, somehow, social mobility exists and a caste system hasn’t formed.

That’s not a utopia…

and yet, somehow, social mobility exists and a caste system hasn’t formed.

Which occurs in societies that don’t have an advanced free market nation-wide and who have big government. Imagine that.

Oh, and try and sell that the caste system to the multi-culturalists in your own party and those they admire abroad.

Sounds a lot like our faith during the middle ages, don’t you agree?

In case you haven’t noticed, we’re trying not to go back. Seems like your side of the aisle is fine with it, just as long as straight, white Chrisitan men aren’t running the show.

And you think it’s limited to one side?!?

No, but then again, that’s why we have the TEA PARTY and why Trump got elected. I can guess how you feel about that…

The sword of Damocles doesn’t offset the fact.

Not the best comparison.

No one actually wants limited government. The most spend-thrift President in American History is Barack Obama. The second and third spots are occupied by Bush 2 and Reagan - republicans both.

This is why the grassroots conservatives have been rebelling against the establishment for decades. Yet when we do, the Democrats do their best to cast the Bushes, McCains and McConnells of the world as heroes who are under siege.

The dems want to send the money to the poor via social programs, the reps want to send the money to their golf buddies through absurd cost-plus federal contracts.

The Democrats want a permanent voting base of poor people so they don’t have to be pestered by surburban soccer moms angry at high property taxes or farming Co-ops and unions. They, by and large, want to enjoy the sunset of what we now call the First World. A lot of the political establishment in general does.

If you think Democrat policies help the poor, just look at Native reservations or cities where Democrats get 75%+ of the vote. Everything they touch withers and decays, not because they are Democrats, but because they take the easy way out with big government. It’s nothing more than an exercise in virtue-signaling where people don’t care about results.

Oh and speaking of golf buddies----most of the rich people today are democrats.

 

[SuperLuigi]

SNAP and “Obama-phone” don’t persist because poor people have the votes to keep them in place. They persist because Coca-Cola and T-Mobile make a lot of money off those programs and fund lobbyists to maintain them.

It’s all about the entitlement mentality that has plagued both parties.

But a lot of these corporate execs you seem to be upset about are actually Democrats. The Democrats are now the party of the rich.

“My opposition is wrong before I’ve even heard their argument” indicates that you have willfully crippled your own logical faculties. This paradigm is the paradigm of “cult”, in all its faces.

No, it doesn’t. It’s the same bloody argument over and over and over whether its big left or right or secular or religious government:

Our way is so great for everyone and works so well that if you don’t believe us, we’ll use the power the of state to make you believe.

It will ALWAYS come down to that, and it’s just an admission of the ultimate insecurity and that one’s philosophy cannot stand on its own merit.

That is why up and down the Catholic Church and this forum how everytime someone who has to defend big government to “help” people end up checking their logic, Catholicism, Protestantism or skepticism at the door and revert to emotional arguments and classic logical fallacies.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It’s factual. It’s not a real university and lots of people cite them like it is because they don’t know any better.

People cite them because they have sound, logical arguments and these “real” universities are hostile to their POV.

If you cannot refute on substance, the debate is over and you have lost.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

It’s factual. It’s not a real university and lots of people cite them like it is because they don’t know any better.

People cite them because they have sound, logical arguments and these “real” universities are hostile to their POV.

If you cannot refute on substance, the debate is over and you have lost.

I can see from the immediate rant (above this and on other pages) that I must have struck a nerve.

All apologies, but you’re the one who absolutely admitted to having a closed mind on the issue. This is irrational and lies at the heart of any blind belief.

And I called you on it. Correctly.

If you cannot refute on substance, the debate is over and you have lost.

Lets talk about this.

In addition to having a closed mind, you also don’t seem to grasp how arguments work. You’re not “right” by default if the other guy doesn’t provide a critique that you’re willing to accept - particularly in the context that you’ve admitted that there are some critiques you simply will not consider.

Your inability to accept refutation has nothing to do with creating a successful argument. You must have valid and sound premises and your conclusion must flow from them. This generally means that the best way to kill an argument is to attack the premises, which is what I generally do.

As a final caveat, if there are some arguments that you’re fully unwilling to consider, then I very much recommend you refrain from engaging in vigorous debate with folks who think differently from you; particularly in those ways.

 

[Entwhistler]

It’s like the post-Watergate presidential election. We may not know who it will be 3 years out, but we know the next president isn’t going to be Trump.

I don’t know. No one was able to see Trump being President. I wouldn’t bet any money against The Donald.

 

[upant]

It’s factual. It’s not a real university and lots of people cite them like it is because they don’t know any better.

Frankly, I think that’s exactly what happened there.

PragerU states in their FAQ that they are not a university. they tell you in their mission statement that their videos are conservative sound bites

PragerU is not hiding anything. people cite them because they make sense compared to what is taught in a lot of colleges today.

Are you an accredited university?

No. PragerU is not a university and we do not offer degrees. But we are the most influential online resource for explaining the concepts that have made America great.

Our five-minute videos are conservative sound bites that clarify profoundly significant and uniquely American concepts

 

[pnewton]

This is my second request for you to provide me a link to the Democrat Party Platform that endorses infanticide.

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm