Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristopherV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gilliam said:
Dewey was separated from Truman by 5% one month before the election. Think Ron Paul can do that? He can’t. Sorry, it is just a fact of life.
Click to expand...
You’re right, if Ron Paul were against Obama in a general election paul would be up way more than just 5%.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
If we were united in prayer, and it was the will of the Father, I’m sure he could be elected…in the real world. 😉
Click to expand...
That is making the assumption that Ron Pauls views are closer in line with the teachings of the church than the other candidates. That simply is not true. In fact, once you get past his unwavering support of life issues, support that is shared by other Republican candidates, his positions on domestic issues & foreign-policy problematic. He champions a political philosophy that holds the federal government has no business stopping force segregation and racial discrimination. His isolationist foreign-policy would put all Americans at risk and his simplistic solution to all domestic problems, that is that all will be well if we merely eliminate the Federal Reserve & go back on the gold standard, would cause economic turmoil that makes the current situation look like boom times.

,The reason Ron Paul never garners more than single-digit support is not due to a vast conspiracy. It is due to the simple fact that his idea of governing is not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans.
 
estesbob said:
That is making the assumption that Ron Pauls views are closer in line with the teachings of the church than the other candidates. That simply is not true. In fact, once you get past his unwavering support of life issues, support that is shared by other Republican candidates, his positions on domestic issues & foreign-policy problematic. He champions a political philosophy that holds the federal government has no business stopping force segregation and racial discrimination. His isolationist foreign-policy would put all Americans at risk and his simplistic solution to all domestic problems, that is that all will be well if we merely eliminate the Federal Reserve & go back on the gold standard, would cause economic turmoil that makes the current situation look like boom times.

,The reason Ron Paul never garners more than single-digit support is not due to a vast conspiracy. It is due to the simple fact that his idea of governing is not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans.
Click to expand...
For reasons that are proportionate, or issues we are at liberty to disagree with the Church on? I’ve brought it up once, but haven’t seen a response. If there are issues we are at liberty to disagree on, doesn’t that lack an absolute ‘right’ and mean that either side could be right?
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
I find it very, very hard to connect religion with politics. I think they are 2 realms which mix as much as water and oil.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they don’t, but they should in the sense that our support for political candidates and policies should be grounded in our religious convictions and on the teachings of the Church. The Church actually has a lot to say about issues that are political issues, but it approaches them from a moral standpoint rather than endorsing this candidate or that legislative proposal.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
For reasons that are proportionate, or issues we are at liberty to disagree with the Church e canidsteon? I’ve brought it up once, but haven’t seen a response. If there are issues we are at liberty to disagree on, doesn’t that lack an absolute ‘right’ and mean that either side could be right?
Click to expand...
We don’t need a proportionate reason to support a pro-life canidate
 
estesbob said:
We don’t need a proportionate reason to support a pro-life canidate
Click to expand...
You over looked the point bob. If there is no absolute right, which means either side could be right, then is it possible that an issue could be proportionate? If so, it shows one’s vote as a write in does not equal supporting another candidate.
 
Indyann said:
Isn’t Ron Paul strongly pro gay marriage?
Click to expand...
Dr. Paul has never said he will pass a ‘law’ pro-gay marriages nor he’s said, he will not. I believe he will not turn America into Sodom and Gomorrah, as we are living it right now.

The definition of marriage is God’s job, not the job of any man, less a government, their job is to OBEY. Who is intruding today in the lives of the citizens, specially the Catholics, pushing their diabolic agendas to make us bite their propositions to turn the faithful into atheists? I answer, Mr Obama.

We Americans have formed this mentality the government should be our nanny; we are dependents on God but independents of the president when it comes to moral decisions. That is not in any way what God intended for His children. He gave us the Church to guide us. We trust and follow the teaching of our Church and He’ll do the rest, but the government should never intrude in our decisions because for what I’ve seen it, it has been for a detriment of society, specially since 2008. We are responsible adults, we should not let Mr. Obama or anyone else to tell us: when a mother faces the inconvenience of pregnancy, she should kill the child of God with the taxpayers money. Or if we think we have an identity crisis, marry your same sex -that is immoral and the Church condemns it.

Dr. Paul’s political agenda is most in accordance with the Teaching of Holy Mother Church. Now, no candidate will make a “perfect” president and Dr. Paul is one of the imperfects, but with a consistency with all his messages, putting LIFE at the beginning of any other right. Besides, he is too old for wishy washy agendas. HE’LL DEBUNK PLAN PARENTHOOD and for me that is enough to elect him our next president.
 
So that the discussion of ‘proportionate reasons’ does not derail this thread and some view it as off topic, I have started a thread to specifically discuss the topic at this link.
 
gilliam said:
No, it is a fact. He will not be the Republican nominee. You can bet your house on it. No one, absolutely no reliable source says he has the remotest of chances to be the nominee. Even Paul knows he won’t be. If you are holding out hope that we wake up tomorrow and the majority of Republicans all of a sudden change their fundamental beliefs in foreign policy, economics, legalizing drugs and conspiracy theories, you are going to be disappointed. Things like that don’t happen in the real world.
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiments, which is why I left the Republican Party and registered as an independent. I see the Republicans as the other side of the same political coin as the Democrats. In all reality, there is no difference between the two. They talk alot of smack about the other side, but in the end, they collude to keep themselves in power. There is no other way to explain how Congress can have a 10% approval rating and a 90% re-election rate. There is no other way that the most disasterous President (who immediately followed the second most disasterous President) in the history of the country, who has bumbled his way through 2.5 years of his administration why piling 4 trillion dollars in new debt, with 1.5 new debt every year, no approved budhet in almost 3 year could, while compiling a $1 billion dollar war chest raised from the very same people he criticizes on a daily basis, and still be thought of as being electable!!! I am not a conspiracy theorist, but something about our whole political system stinks to high heaven, and the Republican apologists have the audacity to say “Things will be different this time”. No they won’t. The same old cruddy politicians will keep getting elected to office making the same old appeasing promises that they will make excuses for not filling later. I am tired of it. Ron Paul is the only “different” politician out there that actually backs up his talk with his voting record. He never compromises on his principles, even if it means alienating the Good Old Boy network. That is why I will vote him through the primaries and write him in afterwards, if necessary. And there is nothing that anyone here that anyone can say that will make me feel guilty about it, because I have already cleared it with my confessor/spiritual mentor. You guys in the Sean Hannity “If you don’t vote for the guy who runs against Obama you should just jump off a cliff” crowd can all just take it at that.
 
Norminha said:
Dr. Paul has never said he will pass a ‘law’ pro-gay marriages nor he’s said, he will not. I believe he will not turn America into Sodom and Gomorrah, as we are living it right now.

The definition of marriage is God’s job, not the job of any man, less a government, their job is to OBEY. Who is intruding today in the lives of the citizens, specially the Catholics, pushing their diabolic agendas to make us bite their propositions to turn the faithful into atheists? I answer, Mr Obama.

We Americans have formed this mentality the government should be our nanny; we are dependents on God but independents of the president when it comes to moral decisions. That is not in any way what God intended for His children. He gave us the Church to guide us. We trust and follow the teaching of our Church and He’ll do the rest, but the government should never intrude in our decisions because for what I’ve seen it, it has been for a detriment of society, specially since 2008. We are responsible adults, we should not let Mr. Obama or anyone else to tell us: when a mother faces the inconvenience of pregnancy, she should kill the child of God with the taxpayers money. Or if we think we have an identity crisis, marry your same sex -that is immoral and the Church condemns it.

Dr. Paul’s political agenda is most in accordance with the Teaching of Holy Mother Church. Now, no candidate will make a “perfect” president and Dr. Paul is one of the imperfects, but with a consistency with all his messages, putting LIFE at the beginning of any other right. Besides, he is too old for wishy washy agendas. HE’LL DEBUNK PLAN PARENTHOOD and for me that is enough to elect him our next president.
Click to expand...
👍
 
estesbob said:
That is making the assumption that Ron Pauls views are closer in line with the teachings of the church than the other candidates. That simply is not true. In fact, once you get past his unwavering support of life issues, support that is shared by other Republican candidates, his positions on domestic issues & foreign-policy problematic. He champions a political philosophy that holds the federal government has no business stopping force segregation and racial discrimination. His isolationist foreign-policy would put all Americans at risk and his simplistic solution to all domestic problems, that is that all will be well if we merely eliminate the Federal Reserve & go back on the gold standard, would cause economic turmoil that makes the current situation look like boom times.

,The reason Ron Paul never garners more than single-digit support is not due to a vast conspiracy. It is due to the simple fact that his idea of governing is not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans.
Click to expand...
That is because most Americans are too stupid/irresponsible to live life is a morally upstanding way and need the government to make their decisions for them. I pity them.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
That is because most Americans are too stupid/irresponsible to live life is a morally upstanding way and need the government to make their decisions for them. I pity them.
Click to expand...
Ah, the old “my candidate lost because the American people weren’t smart enough to vote for him” mindset. That kind of mentality is usually found among left-wing elitists but can be found on the right as well.

Ishii
 
pnewton said:
Thank you for such a great demonstration of the misuse of the word “fact”. I could not have demonstrated the fallacy better. No, it is not hope I hold out. Rather, I understand history and how many times people who have said things like you are saying have been proven wrong.

“DEWEY WINS!”
Click to expand...
Or a more recent example: Jesse Ventura in 1998 in MN. I was active in the MN Reform Party at the time he was running and I listened to every variant of “Face it, there is a 0% chance he can win” all summer long. The political idea that someone “can’t win” is what keeps people from voting for the best candidate - the scare tactic of “don’t waste your vote on a person who can’t win; you must hold your nose and vote for a candidate you don’t like so that a candidate you hate doesn’t win”. This is one reason Instant Runoff Voting is nice: you can actually vote for the candidate you like most, with no fear of inadvertently helping elect the one you abhor.
gilliam said:
Dewey was separated from Truman by 5% one month before the election. Think Ron Paul can do that? He can’t. Sorry, it is just a fact of life.
Click to expand...
Ventura was trailing by 14% just two weeks before the election.
I am not yet sure how I feel about Ron Paul. Some here will appreciate Jon Stewart’s recent insights:

Ron Paul & the Top Tier:
thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012—corn-polled-edition—ron-paul—the-top-tier
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
No, they won’t. Make your case to the Obama supporters why they shouldn’t vote for him rather than to the people who are not going to vote for Obama in any circumstance. It is the people who vote for Obama that will put him into office, nothing else.
Click to expand...
I always hold out hope that the diehard Ron Paul supporters will respond to reason more than diehard liberal catholic supporters of Obama. After participating in this thread, I am not so sure that’s the case.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Ah, the old “my candidate lost because the American people weren’t smart enough to vote for him” mindset. That kind of mentality is usually found among left-wing elitists but can be found on the right as well.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Ummm, no, I mean it. I look at Bush and Obama and I don’t see alot of difference.
 
ishii said:
How about Sonia Sotomayer and Elena Kagan compared to John Roberts and Samuel Alito? Do you see any difference there?

Ishii
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I thought it was the Constitutional duty of Congress to make law and the Executive to enforce it. Maybe I’m just crazy. So the solution to judicial activism is by continuing to focus attention on the judiciary? And you wonder why nothing has changed in 40 years.
 
ishii said:
Do you see any difference between the picks of Bush compared to Obama?
Click to expand...
In practical application, no. Not really. I mean, yes, they are “constitutionalists”, but the Senate Democrats will never let another one on. Look what they did to Alito. And the Republicans just let Sotomeyor and Kagan through with barely a fight. So, I say again, what’s the difference?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top