Can Catholics be Democrats?

[MonteRCMS]

So you said Luigi has a “closed mind”.

What a terrible accusation to make!!!

 

[TheLittleLady]

That is a 3rd party link, and does not say one word about infanticide known colloquially as “post-birth abortion”.

 

[pnewton]

and does not say one word about infanticide known colloquially as “post-birth abortion”.

I was speaking from a Catholic perspective. I did not know you wanted something only on infanticide after birth. I agree. That does not exist.

 

[TheLittleLady]

That was my point to the poster. It is easy to recite things one heard on a political broadcast or read in a bumper sticker, but, a wise person researches those things before parroting them around.

 

[upant]

That is a 3rd party link, and does not say one word about infanticide known colloquially as “post-birth abortion”.

give it time.

a paper was written in 2011 on it and it needs time for the idea to mature.

from the news we see reports of some of our young choosing such an option.

What’s Wrong With “After-Birth Abortion”?

Just when you thought the religious right couldn’t get any crazier, with its personhood amendments and its attacks on contraception, here comes the...

slate.com

 

[Annie]

And Obama spoke against, worked against, and voted against the Babies Born Alive Act as an Illinois State senator not once, but twice! The second time was when the bill had been re!-written to follow the federal version, which even NARAL approved.

 

[TheLittleLady]

A blog article is HARDLY a party platform plank. Hyperbole will not win you any converts.

 

[upant]

A blog article is HARDLY a party platform plank. Hyperbole will not win you any converts.

did you read what i wrote?

I said give it time. the idea needs to mature

where do i say it is a party platform. i just expect it to be on the democrat platform in the future. it is not an overstatement imho and only time will tell who is right!.

 

[TheLittleLady]

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?

i am not attempting to antagonize

i just wonder if you are willing to accept your party being perpetually 111% pro-abortion up to & beyond the moment of birth?

you’re ok w/ that 'cause social-justice-wise the limousine liberals are groovy w/ your social agenda?

@upant My apologies, it was Brian_custer who claimed the Democrat party was pro-infanticide

 

[upant]

@TheLittleLady

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

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.

During the primaries, that would also include Trump himself!

 

[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.

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

PragerU states in their FAQ that they are not a university…

Oh I’m sure there are attorneys and governmental bodies that have absolutely required a non-university with “university” in their name to post that very thing!

And maybe I’m wrong, but I’d wager that 90% of the folks who cite Prager on anything just cited the first thing their search engine spat out that supported their views (especially if it contained the legitimizing word “university” in the source) without checking the FAQ page you cite.

If we were two guys casually chatting about this on a street corner with no standing animosity or posturing, I bet you’d agree with me.

 

[Vonsalza]

So you said Luigi has a “closed mind”.

What a terrible accusation to make!!!

No accusation! Roll back through the posts. He said as much. Honest.

Fact check me on this!

 

[on_the_hill]

Yes, Catholics can. Provided they want to spend eternity in Hell.

 

[upant]

upant:

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.

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

PragerU states in their FAQ that they are not a university…

Oh I’m sure there are attorneys and governmental bodies that have absolutely required a non-university with “university” in their name to post that very thing!

And maybe I’m wrong, but I’d wager that 90% of the folks who cite Prager on anything just cited the first thing their search engine spat out that supported their views (especially if it contained the legitimizing word “university” in the source) without checking the FAQ page you cite.

If we were two guys casually chatting about this on a street corner with no standing animosity or posturing, I bet you’d agree with me.

i don’t entirely disagree. people are sheep. i just don’t believe the number is so high.

what i have seen is that when i toss a prageru video to someone they usually look for more. i know this from the feedback i get. when you google them the first hit tells you they are not…

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

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That is, the Republicans were at the forefront of fighting slavery and other injustices.

Yes, they fought against slavery. But after that, what did they do? Racism was not the exclusive problem of the South. There was and is racism in the North too. It is just expressed differently.

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.

I watched this video very carefully, then I looked into the facts the video did not mention.

The video talks about who won elections in the South and the in the North, assuming that South=racist and North=pure as the driven snow. They try desperately to show the Republicans as standing for non-racist values and the Democrats being consistently racist. But the real question is, what do Democrats and Republicans believe?

To answer this question it is instructive to look at the vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As this history shows, be vote went like this:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

As we see, the few Republicans in the South voted unanimously against the bill. And in the North the support among Democrats was slightly stronger than the support among Republicans. Both parties in the North were generally supportive. So if Republicans had always been on the forefront of fighting racism, they did not show it any more than the Democrats.

 

[Vonsalza]

Excellent post.

The racist members of the south are more or less encapsulated by the career of late senator Strom Thurmond.

Democrat. Then Dixiecrat. Then Republican. And the views never changed; only the party affiliation.

 

[abucs]

Yes, they fought against slavery. But after that, what did they do? Racism was not the exclusive problem of the South. There was and is racism in the North too. It is just expressed differently.

I am really not sure what you mean by the question ‘what did they do?’ I know they introduced and backed legislation leading to the 14th and 15th amendments giving blacks equal rights before the law and also voting rights. I know the Democrats opposed both using state rights to disenfranchise black voters, introduce Jim Crow laws and create the Ku Klux Klan.

Breitbart gives a timeline of what Republicans did leading up to 1964 :

Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act"

www.breitbart.com

 

[abucs]

So if Republicans had always been on the forefront of fighting racism, they did not show it any more than the Democrats.

This is sophistry. Properly you mean to say that Republicans “did not show it” anymore than the Democrats IN THE 1964 VOTE YOU REFERENCED.

This is really a back-handed way of saying the Democrats finally caught up to the Republicans in advocating for the black citizens after 100 years of racism.

Republicans backed the bill by over 80% and Democrats also backed the bill by a little under 70%. Both parties finally backed the civil rights that Republicans had tried to implement 100 years previously. The Democratic Party in their 1948 party conference started moving towards the Republican position and good on them.

Here are details of two politicians partly responsible for 1960’s civil rights -

(Democrat) Hubert Humphrey led an internal war within the Democratic party to adopt a change in party policy. The historical fight FOR civil rights in the Democratic party was within the Democratic Party not with Republicans.

Hubert Humphrey - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and from Politico - Bill McCulloch (Republican)

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...hind-the-civil-rights-act-105216#.U0XVK1eUjN8

Both parties also supported the 1965 vote regarding safeguarding blacks right to vote. Again (from memory) this was supported by over 90% of Republicans and nearly 70% of Democrats. This is especially complimentary to the Republicans not just because of their high support but because at this stage most blacks were voting for Democrats and so it went against their own political interest.

At the time of these votes the Republicans had won the argument and neither party favoured state unfairness based on race until the Democrats then later started race based quotas and race based preferences for things like university entrances and of course their victim politics in promoting the racist rhetoric of white privilege.

In short, the Democrats are again stirring up racial grievance to gain political power and it is a worrying development. They are simply doing it to a different audience today.

 

[abucs]

You mean the one and only Democrat that both voted against civil rights and then joined the Republican party?

In your mind this is the Republican party. That is being brainwashed.

How about Tim Scott, also a Republican from South Carolina, or do you shut your mind to that?

This is one of the really negative things about the Democrats that they need to see racism everywhere and block their minds to reality. It poisons society even to the point in defending people who wanted slave states to have the power to enslave black people and not admitting how morally reprehensible that is.