Conservatives call on GOP leaders to step down

[_Abyssinia]

Exit poll: gop made slight inroads with young Black voters

Republicans did terribly across the board among all minority groups in the 2012 election, but there was a very small silver lining among young black voters. Republicans still lost African American voters aged 18-29 by 83 points, but this represented a net swing of eight percentage points in their favor from 2008.

In 2008, Obama won black voters 18-29 years of age by 91 points (95%-4%) over John McCain.

In 2012, Obama won African Americans 18-29 years of age by 83 points (91%-8%) over Romney.

Even though young Hispanic and Asian voters, many of whom voting for the first time, went dramatically for Obama, these numbers show there may be some room in the future for Republicans to make inroads among the next generation of black voters.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Although one can still be in good shape at that age, for the job of President you may be right. And she may very well decide to retire from politics permanently. Still, a Hillary Clinton-Jeb Bush race would be glorious, and we would have two very qualified candidates, for a change.

People will perceive Jeb Bush as a moderate, as another Romney, McCain, Dole or Ford, and moderates have a track record of failing to win the presidency when nominated. Marco Rubio has the conservative appeal and the Hispanic outreach

 

[Lapey]

Hi Lapey, I’m not sure you do. This has nothing to do with me. I haven’t been inside a Catholic Church for 7 mos. This has to do with those Catholics who voted in a manner in which, if I read you right, you say they shouldn’t have voted. Their votes were among those which has caused the topic of this thread. You’re a deacon so I know you are aware of who the Catholic Church teaches is a Catholic. I’ve concluded you say if they leave after rejecting what you tell them, it is their choice. Ironically this reminded me of the same young priest I previously spoke of. Perhaps it was in the same homily in which he gave his answer to the poor. I’m not sure because I heard him preach on a few different occasions before I exited that parish. But I recall him saying people meet with him and leave the meeting because they don’t like what he said. Anyway now that I understand your viewpoint is that they choose to leave, my question is since we both know the answer to who is considered a Catholic according to the answer given by the Catholic Church, how do the 50% of those Baptized and confirmed Catholics who voted for Barack Obama and against Mitt Romney and the conservatives or those who don’t otherwise listen to what you and others teach them, leave? Doesn’t OCAC still apply? It no longer works that way that a Baptized, confirrmed Catholic is considered to be a Catholic? I thought you previously said in another thread once that it did. I’m wondering now if maybe you’re confusing leaving the practice of the faith with not being a Catholic.

I’m not quite sure where you are heading with this post, but I’ll try. If you haven’t been in a Catholic Church in 7 months this is what I am talking about. You left because you didn’t like what you heard; I don’t by the “terrible priest” story that is what you used as your excuse to physically leave what you had already left spiritually. There are bad priests, deacons, and bishops. There is no bad Catholic Church.

If they all were Catholics with properly formed consciences, 50% of Catholics would not have voted for Obama; I would bet most of those Catholics haven’t heard the truth preached about abortion and HHS mandates etc., I would bet most don’t even know about the duties of following one’s conscience and the responsibility which comes with that to form it properly.

You have concluded something but not sure what. You take my words and express opinions of them to compare me to the “terrible” priest you mention repeatedly. If my preaching the truth of divorce and remarriage causes someone to leave and not try to be reconciled with the Church, how can I fix that? Do I not preach Jesus’ teaching on divorce and marriage? What good would that do? Do you want to hear a homily that is just sweet and nice? What good is that? We are in a spiritual battle for souls, this is not a pass time which you and I participate in, and this is real. Hell is real! Sin is real!

A person can choose to stay in their sin without trying to reconcile, or they can learn, discern and conform as Jesus asks every one of us to do. There are many issues which are hard to preach, that’s why the past preachers for the most part have left them alone. I preached a homily about a month ago about the evils of contraception, and the fact that it is mortal sin to use ABC for the purpose they are intended. There are legitimate medical reasons to use them; birth control is not one of them. I was direct and passionate; can you guess how many negative comments I got? You’re right, none. I had many women of child bearing years send me emails or tell me face to face, thank you for that message I’ve never heard that before; what a shame.

As far as meeting with the priest and the people leaving, if people don’t get the answers they like, often times they leave. Imagine a couple married civilly after the wife was divorced from Catholic marriage come in for that meeting after in his homily he tells them they should not present themselves for Communion if they are in this state. Do you think it will be a good meeting when the priest tells them that they are wrong? To leave that couple in the state of mortal sin, and not correct them in itself is sinful, that would be my sin and I’m not willing to take on sins of others. They must learn and discern then conform to the truth. Now what must come with this is love and charity to help them understand, and ways of preparing themselves to “fix” the situation. However, sometimes they just leave, unfortunate but true. I cannot lie to them in order to keep them in the pew, that would not do me or them any good.

Doesn’t OCAC still apply? Yes, and if anyone ever tells you differently let them know they are not truth full. If this is not true then the Church lies when She teaches of the indelible mark placed on the soul at baptism; and I don’t buy that. But that doesn’t mean you are a Catholic in good standing, one may also be excommunicated, but still Catholic. People will say you are not Catholic, but what they mean is not in good standing.

By the way, the trend in this generation has been to be baptized then never be brought to Mass anymore. Many of the younger generation will not be confirmed, many of the last generation have not been confirmed, and so to think that the 50% Catholic vote for Obama were confirmed Catholics is just wrong. If we did a better job catechizing and bringing people to the truth of the sacraments, I would bet 50% of Catholics would not have voted the way they did.

 

[BroomWagon]

People will perceive Jeb Bush as a moderate, as another Romney, McCain, Dole or Ford, and moderates have a track record of failing to win the presidency when nominated. Marco Rubio has the conservative appeal and the Hispanic outreach

Rubio may have some Hispanic outreach but indeed within that community are divisions, it wouldn’t suprise me if the Democrats had a Hispanic on the ticket next time, Mayor Villaraigosa or someone. One of these politicians I believe made the point “why would any Hispanic be a Republican”, I forget which. So we will see if this will really be a cure all.

Romney in the past did compromise on the abortion issue and others actually and in some ways, on an individual basis, it does seem a bit like Karma though I think he was always personally against abortion, politically, it may not have been that way. It takes courage to have this stance as Santorum had in 2012. That said, Romney’s stance in 2012 was palatable.

 

[BroomWagon]

Jindall, Hailey, they were elected on merit not because they are some minority. In 4 years, in 2016, just because someone is a minority may not be a litmus test. We may have a country that will cave in that we simply need someone in there that knows what they are doing. We had that this time but we had a lot of people on entitlements. Let’s see what the view is if austerity measures have to ever be put in place. Let’s see what the view is if ACA turns out to be a disaster. Obama Biden have just kicked the can down the road.

 

[Lapey]

Unfortunately, CMatt, this is not about what the Church really says, but about what some people would like it to say.

I agree Seekerz, it’s not about what the Church teaches, it’s about what others mistakenly teach in error. Proportionate reasons do not exist to choose abortion defenders over abortion limiters/eliminators.

The democrat platform speaks for itself, a well formed conscience cannot for it and you cannot choose the candidate without choosing the platform.

 

[Lapey]

The commandment to love.

True love corrects when needed. It is not charitable to leave someone you claim to love in sin because it’s easier that way. That is not charity.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Do you think if we, as Catholic laity, first change hearts and minds on the issue of abortion that the law will simply follow?

 

[Lapey]

I agree. She gives guidelines on how to participate in the democratic process. She does not dictate every detail of adults’ lives. Historically, the Church has sought to educate her children, provide them with teaching and guidance, and trust them to apply all of that to real life. Nowhere does she expect adults to function like they’re plugged in to a huge, common hard drive.

Historically the faithful have followed Her teachings. It has been the last 50 or so years where the dissent has increased, humm, rejection of Humana Vitea by many members of the clergy maybe helped this?

 

[Lapey]

My views have always been the same: multifaceted and based on personal experience.

You would be better served if your views were based on sound doctrines of the Church, even though they may go against what you’ve come to believe from your personal experiences.

 

[Lapey]

I understand this single issue is primarily if not entirely what determines how some Catholics vote. But in regard to overturning Roe, if Justice Ginsburg retires and President Obama makes an appointment to replace her, how do you expect that to change the make up of the Court? At worst for anti choice folks, the same split as now would remain. Or are you expecting one of the conservative judges to step down in the next 4 yrs? Also do conservatives ever consider that the majority of the American people are not with them on this single issue and perhaps other issues?

What choice is there in killing a child? Does the child have a choice? Isn’t it a choice to choose life that both mother and child could agree upon?

It’s easy to dehumanize when we think of others as non-thinking people. You call me anti-choice, I am anti-abortion. I am pro-life, call me as such.

 

[Lapey]

That so many Catholics voted for Obama shows that human beings are not robots, period. Blindness? How about the ‘new religion’ where the only and supreme sin is abortion? What kind of vision is that?

Supreme, yes…only, not in the least. Humans are not robots, but humans are often wrong.

 

[Lapey]

or moderates

No such thing as a moderate.

 

[Lapey]

Wasn’t that program started to provide land line phones for indigents? I’m surprised it has evolved into a program which gives recipients 4g cell phones. Sounds a little generous to me.

Yep, thats how it started.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If you can’t see a link between marriage and poverty,…

If you can’t understand the difference between a correlative link and a causative link (which is apparent so far) , then you do not understand data (not anecdotes) well enough to interpret them. The connection being talked about (even by you) was between poverty and abortion.

Poor married women in the U.S. abort much less frequently than poor unmarried women.
Rich married women in the U.S. abort much less freqently than rich unmarried women.

The “link” is MARRIAGE.

If I “talk to” only poor unmarried women and assume that “the link” (to abortion) is poverty, I need a science or statistics class, not more conversations with poor unmarried women.

(And so do you, obviously.)

 

[CMatt25]

What was McConnel able to “obstruct” when the Democrats had 60 seats in the senate and a House majority, Cmatt?

What did West say, Cmatt? If it was so bad and made the news, then you shouldn’t have to tell me to google it.
Ishii

The 60 vote majority was always a fallacy because the Democratic Party has people of varying views on things. Democrats do not walk in lockstep. Take healthcare for instance. Not all Democrats in the Senate at the time or who caucused with the Democrats were in favor of a strong public option. I don’t recall much support on any parts of healthcare though from the other side.

To give you a start how about Mr West calling Congressional members of the Democratic Party, Communists. Of course he said Democrat Party. But I realize though a certain segment of the electorate likes the tone of Mr West, Ishii. They seem to be the ones who challenge more moderate Republicans in primaries.

 

[CMatt25]

I think the easiest way to answer your question would be by asking another question: Is Richard Dawkins an Anglican?

Now, according to your logic of OCAC, CMatt25, the answer would seem to be “yes” Richard Dawkins is an Anglican. But the assertion “Richard Dawkins is an Anglican” is absurd. Of course Richard Dawkins is not an Anglican. He is an Atheist (perhaps non-theist is the more politically correct term). How do we know? By his words and actions. If Richard Dawkins was to one day say “I am an Anglican” well then, we would have to take him on his word. But if he continued to live and speak like an Atheist then we would know that his words were empty.

I was baptized as a Catholic. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. But during a sinful, rebellious time in my life I would not have presumed to think of myself as member of the Body of Christ. I may have identified myself as a Catholic, but that was just semantics. In fact, the opposite could be said: I was living like an anti-christ and had rejected Christ’s Mystical Body. It was only after reconciling myself through the Sacrament of Confession that I again considered myself a Catholic.

I think Father William Most summed it up best when he said:

Speaking of full membership in the Church, Pius XII, in his Encyclical on the Mystical Body, said it is the society of those who have been baptized, and who profess the faith of Christ,** and **who are governed by their bishops under the visible head, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.

I have no clue what the Anglican belief is on their membership. It’s fine that you did not consider yourself a member. But it’s not my logic whether you were or not. Even your quote of Fr Most uses the qualifier “full”.

 

[ringil]

Wow! Cory Brooker is the future of the Democrat party? I’m quaking in my boots at the prospect of Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal going up against such a political heavyweight as the mayor of Newark in 2016. Then again, don’t underestimate the power of the Democrat party to “groom” teleprompter readers to become president. The sad thing is given the state of our country, Cory Brooker could indeed become president in 4 years. Of course he’ll have to toe the line: pro-abortion, pro-gay rights. And the usual liberal Catholics will fawn over him. Its all about winning, after all.

Ishii

I stated that Cory Booker would not be ready in 4 years.

Perhaps you haven’t watched his story or heard him speak. A very impressive young fellow.

I understand you are upset with how the election turned out but no need for the sharpness of your posts, at least with me. Bombastic expressions are more Rush Limbaugh like and not worthy of CAF, I am thinking.

Plus, you don’t normally respond like that- at least to me anyway. I put forumites in certain categories based on the tone they take in posts and I have found you to be generally level-headed, despite our political differences.

 

[ringil]

I’m not at all saying I expect her to run. But I wouldn’t mind seeing another Clinton - Bush race. Democratic female vs another GOP white male. I have doubts she would be denied her party’s nomination a 2nd time. The 1st time was largely due to her original support for the Iraq war I think and Obama’s oppositon to it from the get go. It was my primary reason for supporting Obama over her at the time.

Hillary would be a tad old by then, especially when taken societal sexism/ageism into account. I am not sure she could take it. Biden- no way, and I like the guy- still he wouldn’t be a great choice.

I’m just glad we dodged the bullet this time.

 

[ringil]

Jerome Corsi, the guy who has been on Obama over the fraudulent birth certificate, has promised to also go after Rubio and Jindal should they decide to run for higher office. He claims that they are not natural-born citizens either (here: youtube.com/watch?v=OwIU1XN0pz8).

How silly.