Can Catholics be Democrats?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victorygirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Annie said:
Why do you consider abortion an irrelvant issue? Once upon a time, slavery was “settled law” in the US, as were segregated schools.
Click to expand...
Quite right. This is more evidence that politically standing against the tide of progressivism is eventually a losing battle. This is how culture changes over time, whether we like it or not.

On this issue, Democrats are becoming more and more pro-choice and Republicans are too. As this battle is lost, I want to cast my vote in arenas where I can win.

The British are not coming back. The South will not rise again. Legal abortion is here to stay.

The culture is accepting of it and increasingly so. Because of that, it’s here to stay. Fight your battles in arenas where you can actually win.
 
And the situation for the poor in many inner cities also remains bleak, despite their continued votes for Democrats.
 
Annie said:
And the situation for the poor in many inner cities also remains bleak, despite their continued votes for Democrats.
Click to expand...
I’m sure that and not the loss of industry is certainly the underlying factor.
 
Loss of industry has been a huge problem, but in many places it was a done deal long ago. What has been done to help the victims of deindustrialization and their children and now grandchildren? Any move to proven better education? Oh, no, because Dems are beholden to the NEA. Any moves to bring in jobs? No, just moves to reduce the number of jobs available by sky-high minimum wages. When the Democrats had both houses and the presidency, did they do anything about disparate sentencing? That wasn’t even on their radar.
 
So are you ok with the time of progressivism

ETA: TiDe off progressivism …?
 
Last edited:
JoshuaIsLord said:
You know; things that actually change.
Click to expand...
hillary wanted to change the abortion issue she wants abortion to be allowed after 20 weeks.

she would have put judges on the bench that would have allowed for unlimited abortion on demand. imho!

these same judges would push the envelope on other social issues that the church is against
 
read the whole thread, as painful as it is

so the progressives here say we should vote for dems because they have a nice, squeaky clean record on social issues (lol) except where the protection of human life in the womb is concerned;

and the pro-life agenda should be abandoned " 'cause we can’t win" on that one

got news; pro-lifers are winning
 
Last edited:
upant said:
hillary wanted to change the abortion issue she wants abortion to be allowed after 20 weeks.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but even partial birth. As in born all but the head and then shove a pair of scissors through their neck, and crush the skull to bring the rest of the child out dead. cold blooded murder.

Then she wanted to not only permit this, but spend tax payer dollars toward it and subsidize it, now nobody does that unless they want to increase the number of abortions, which shows how folly some of these arguments in support of her and the Democrats are.

The media sure have done a good job at suppressing Kermit Gosnell’s House of Horrors.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading.
 
Last edited:
brian_custer said:
read the whole thread, as painful as it is

so the progressives here say we should vote for dems because they have a nice, squeaky clean record on social issues (lol) except where the protection of human life in the womb is concerned;

and the pro-life agenda should be abandoned " 'cause we can’t win" on that one

got news; pro-lifers are winning
Click to expand...
I super-duper wish you were right, but you’re not - at least according to the more objective sources of information out there. According to this year’s Pew data, dems AND reps are becoming more pro-choice.

And another thing you may not realize, overturning Roe doesn’t ban abortion. It just removes constitutional protection of the “right”. States are then free to pass their own laws as to whether it will be legal in their state or not. Given the wide support across all parties for the pro-life view, a federal ban simply will never happen.

I say it again; a vote cast solely on the basis to make the horror of abortion illegal is an absolutely wasted vote. It will never happen.

I cast my vote on things that CAN and DO happen, like trade and tax policies. Which is why I’m a Democrat. When you remove social issues like abortion, I have very little in common with the Republican party. I suspect that’s the truth for many single-issue Republican voters who tragically waste their vote on things that won’t ever come to pass.
 
Annie said:
So are you ok with the time of progressivism

ETA: TiDe off progressivism …?
Click to expand...
That’s pretty vague, so I’m not going to answer a flat “yes”.

As I’m an actual person, I probably don’t completely support the full plank of any party or movement. I have to pick who comes closest, overall, to my views.

Between the two parties, that’s unambiguously the Democrats.
 
What do you like about the Democrats?what do you dislike about the Republicans?
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
What do you like about the Democrats?
Click to expand...
Exceptions withstanding, the Dems tend to be less globalist in their military and trade policies. They think folks like Warren Buffet should probably pay more than 17% taxes (I paid 24% last year). They support universal healthcare. They support actual social programs that support the poor rather than trying to do it all through the tax code (which only works if you have income).

Lots of reasons.

For those “in the know”, I’m best described as a 1960s-1970s Rooseveltian, blue-collar Democrat.
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it was the DEMOCRATS who got the United States into World War One and World War Two and the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

It was the Democrats who watered down our security that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to rehearse their terrorist attack. It was the Democrats who derailed every law enforcement attempt to stop them.

It was Senator Karl Levin, D - Michigan who bottled up the appointment of President Bush’s intelligence advisor.

Read up on “The Mistress of Disaster”. I never even HEARD of the title “Mistress of Disaster” until a friend in AUSTRALIA wrote to me about it.

Read, read, read: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/09/mistress_of_disaster_jamie_gor.html

Read Colleen Rowley’s letter. About what they call the Gorelick Wall:

www.democracynow.org

Two FBI Whistleblowers Accuse Bureau of Ignoring Warnings Before 9/11

We speak with FBI agent Coleen Rowley, who accused FBI headquarters in 2002 of hampering the investigation into alleged 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui and former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds who was hired shortly after 9/11 to translate intelligence related to the attacks and says the FBI had...
www.democracynow.org

FBI and CIA forbidden to compare notes.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it was the DEMOCRATS who got the United States into World War One…
Click to expand...
That’s odd. I thought it was a combination of the Zimmerman Note and the sinking of the Lusitania. 🤔
and World War Two…
Click to expand...
Heard of the bombing of Pearl Harbor?
and the Korean War and the Vietnam War.
Click to expand...
Both fought in the name of the “Domino Theory” where the democratic west was trying to slow or stop the expansion of the communist east. And Nixon, a republican, was the president during the height of the Vietnam war.
It was the Democrats who watered down our security that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to rehearse their terrorist attack. It was the Democrats who derailed every law enforcement attempt to stop them.\
Click to expand...
Nonsense. You cannot stop an attacker that is willing to die in the attack.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. If you have their training records, and you have the reports of their hijacking rehearsals, and they overstayed their visas, then you can keep them from boarding the airplane.

Americans got into a lot of trouble preventing suspicious people from boarding those airplanes and similar airplanes. UNTIL … investigation proved the Americans were right.

[And most of the Americans were women … great intuition skills.]

Passengers on Flight 93 decided to attempt to retake the airliner away from the hijackers.

en.wikipedia.org

United Airlines Flight 93 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
Nonsense. If you have their training records, and you have the reports of their hijacking rehearsals, and they overstayed their visas, then you can keep them from boarding the airplane.
Click to expand...
Wow. If it was so obviously imminent, I wonder why Bush 2, a republican who was president at the time, didn’t do exactly what you recommend?

Surely those evil democrats prevented him from exercising his executive authority as well?

:crazy_face:
 
World War I was years old by the time the United States got involved. It would have been over very quickly if we had not got involved. And our NOT getting involved would have forestalled installing Communism in Russia. President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, PROMISED to keep us out of World War I. He lied. The Zimmerman Telegram was a British intelligence manipulation … [how did a German telegram to Mexico just happen to fall into our hands?? Hmmm???] The Lusitania sinking was advertised in advance by Germany … they told everyone to stay off that ship.

World War Two started long before Pearl Harbor. Read “American Betrayal” by Diana West … she has been interviewed on television many times. Check YouTube for Diana West’s interviews. Read also “Operation Snow” by John Koster. You may disagree, but read them anyway. British Intelligence has had a large operation at 30 Rock for many decades.

The Korean War was started because President Truman’s secretary of state said we were not interested; it was outside our area of interest. Read “The Forgotten War” by Clay Blair.

The Vietnam War … could have been ended in 30 days … by blocking Haiphong Harbor … thereby denying major supply and trucks to North Vietnam and by blocking the Ho Chi Minh Trail, which Secretary of Defense McNamara denied even existed. FINALLY, after Nixon became president, we mined Haiphong Harbor, but it was years too late. We also ignored important targets and spent our forces by going after bridges made of 2x4’s.

Go here and read.
40.png
Ken Burns - Viet Nam Popular Media
Anyone else watching this on their local PBS station? It is really well done. (Of course, it’s Ken Burns) I really like that they covered the history of what went on in Viet Nam long before the United States became involved. I really did not have much knowledge in that area. Very enlightening.
Click to expand...
Refer to the sources I provide.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top