F
FollowChrist34
Guest
This is a really interesting article about the fate of the prolife Catholic Democrat. If you are interested in this topic, it is worth a read.
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
I like the sound of that.
V
Vanny
Guest
Well I will never vote for Sanders or Clinton. period.
I am increasingly finding it hard to even think about holding my nose and voting for Trump, should he be the nominee. I don’t think he is who he says he is, in a nutshell. And someone like that in the Whitehouse scares me.
I am praying with all my heart right now, for either Ted Cruz, who I am solidly supporting, or failing that, John Kasich to be the nominee.
Otherwise I may be writing someone in in the general election.
I am increasingly finding it hard to even think about holding my nose and voting for Trump, should he be the nominee. I don’t think he is who he says he is, in a nutshell. And someone like that in the Whitehouse scares me.
I am praying with all my heart right now, for either Ted Cruz, who I am solidly supporting, or failing that, John Kasich to be the nominee.
Otherwise I may be writing someone in in the general election.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
A write-in is “not voting”. I confess that I do like Kasich. I’m not a Trump supporter or a Cruz supporter. But I will vote for any one of the three before I’ll vote for abortion on demand. Cruz and Kasich will never be for abortion on demand. Trump might be in his heart, but he can’t do much of anything without a Repub party that doesn’t approve of it. So whatever he thinks, he’ll go along with the party position or never get re-elected.
So, I’ll admit that I’ll be an “aginner” if I have to be. I’ll vote against Hillary Clinton if I have to walk through ten feet of snow to do it. And doing a write-in is not a vote against abortion on demand. It’s going along with it.
No offense here, but you need to think about that. Lots of Repubs stayed home in 2012 and got four more years of abortion on demand and the lawsuit against the Little Sisters of the Poor for it. Enough is enough.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Yes, I am back to liking Cruz. My only really big problem with him is the environment, but I am hoping he would be hemmed in there by the Democrats. And he keeps talking about abolishing the IRA, Dept of Education, pretty heady stuff. And I am not on board with the wall. I think (hope) a lot of this talk is hyperbole.
Kasich is quite a moderate on issues like gay marriage - he waffles on that one a lot. I thought it was very interesting that the below “on the issues” link identifies Kasich as a Libertarian Leaning Conservative. (!) First I’ve heard of that term used on him. I am not big on Libertarianism be it the left or right version of it. I’ll take Cruz over that. I was watching some senator who supports Kasich on CNN last night; he sounded just like a Democrat to me. (he really disliked Cruz as “absolutist” out of touch with the country, etc.) Sometimes I wonder about these moderate Democrats - why are they in the GOP, what is wrong with the Democrats? It is very odd. It must be about money - country club types, social liberals. Frankly, I understand the Tea Party rebellion more and more as I get into GOP politics this election. (I was supporting Obama pretty strongly until about 2013 so I kind of sat out the Tea Party.)
ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Cruz.htm
ontheissues.org/John_Kasich.htm
P
Peter_J
Guest
Or we could remember that Trump hasn’t won the primary yet. (My state is voting in two weeks.)
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
“Prolife Catholic Democrat” is an impossible combination. If you look at the lists of NARAL and National Right to Life, you’ll see there is almost no such thing as a prolife Democrat, nor are there enough pro-abortion Republicans to fill a teacup.
Nowadays the Dem part stands for nothing but abortion on demand. Yes, Obama is for retreating from the world no matter how bad it gets as a result. But that’s him, not necessarily all Democrats.
So abortion on demand is it, the sum and total of what the Dem party stands for. A Catholic cannot simultaneously be dedicated to the teachings of the Church and the Dem party.
I have sometimes thought the best thing that could happen to that party is two lose two national elections resoundingly, and for the exit polls to show that abortion was a big part of the reason why. Then, and only then, might it change.
Catholics could do that all by ourselves, but we don’t. And more’s the shame.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Not yet, and that’s true.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Oh, I did read it. I agree with some of it, but not all. In particular I don’t agree with two things:
- I am not persuaded that a lot of Catholics turned Repub because of moving to the suburbs and getting wealthier. There are plenty of lefties in the suburbs. Lots of limousine liberals. There is no particular reason to ascribe it to that. The percentage of Catholics who voted Repub in the last two races is almost the same as the percentage that goes to Mass regularly. So it simply could be that they were turned off by the inconsistency between the Dem policies and the Church teachings. And, in the face of a declining economy, the percentage of Catholics voting for Obama dropped in 2012 from what it was in 2008. Wealth didn’t cause that.
- I absolutely don’t think prolife people can change the Dem party from the inside, which the article at least suggests. Look up the NARAL and the NRL lists. If anything, the Dem party is getting more anti-life all the time.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
I liked the part about how the traditional prolife Catholic Democrat does not fit comfortably into either the Democrat or Republican party of today. I would argue this is because they voted their faith which is impossible given the platforms of the two parties as they stand today. I am very encouraged by prolife millennials who are open to Democratic positions on the environment, social programs, etc.
THIS is what we need - that would be a Catholic party. And I have no problem with the suggestion of pushing these ideas within the parties. I understand the stranglehold Planned Parenthood has on the Democrats; but abortion is acceptable to a little over half the people in the country, many of whom are Republicans. A prochoice Republican is about as far from me as anyone could get…they throw out social and economic common good, never saw a moral value they could stand
.
V
Vanny
Guest
Cruz is and has been my guy. Yes Kasich is too liberal for me-but he’d be better than Trump, whom I believe to be a charleton. I don’t he believes half of what he says.
V
Vanny
Guest
I have always made your exact argument. I chastised those who sat home because they didn’t like Mitt Romney. Trump scares the heck out of me. He’s a charleton, in my opinion. I don’t think he even believes half of what he says.
But yes, I keep telling myself that he’ll get a cabinet of Republicans and advisors who will hopefully restrain him should he win the Whitehouse.
But he won’t beat Hillary , if he’s the nominee. Hillary will win(or Sanders if it goes that way)
His negatives are too high.
I honestly believe Cruz has a far better chance of beating Hillary, than Trump.
does.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
I am with you - I can’t stand Trump. He will probably lose. But I might vote for him over Hillary. I am almost there. It is a vote against the Democrats, not for Trump. I think all of us need to vote for the GOP nominee - that means the Trumpers need to vote for Cruz or Kasich if they are nominated too. Stop messing around. I am realizing more and more how much I don’t want a Democrat.
V
Vanny
Guest
Yes, you are exactly right.
I hope Trump doesn’t go third party or threaten to do so if things don’t go his way, peeling off voters with him.
G
grotto
Guest
Party of death is more descriptive of what the Democrats support. Claiming your posts are worth more to be read and suggesting if one disagrees with them - well then, just block. is not the way to exchange the Catholic work of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.
Most Catholic people are willing to endure pointing the truth out and continuing to contradict the lies of abortion supporters - it is necessary to suffer through this because every little victory means a defeat of pure evil and another beautiful life is spared. The mother receives the beautiful gift of a child and the joy that has no comparison. Her soul is enriched through love and coming to feel God’s presence in their lives - how can anyone support the black despair of a woman’s soul that suffers from the killing of her baby. Fulfilling the role God has created, she will be drawn to love, know and serve God. This is the foundation of a beautiful life. All things are possible through God.
Perhaps this post will not irritate or invite negative response of further support for abortion, sincerely I hope it helps.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It’s awful to realize we would now be looking at Romney’s run for a second term if some Repubs hadn’t stayed home in a snit because he wasn’t conservative enough to suit them. Likely Romney would have changed the Supreme Court in two terms. The price of a snit could be pretty high.
I’m not as afraid of Trump as some are. My impression of him is that he really doesn’t have an ideology. He’s pure function, like a lot of business people are. People like that don’t have broad policies, they fix things that aren’t running right and look around for opportunities. He’ll concentrate on the economy and the bureaucracy and the budget, and leave foreign policy to others. He knows how to hire experts or he wouldn’t be where he is. He doesn’t build those buildings himself.
Cruz might have a better chance of beating Clinton, but he’ll have a mighty uphill battle. Not everyone agrees with this, but I think his personality is very unattractive, and all this Constitutional talk is designed for just a few. He will have to do a lot better than he has to win the general.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
I keep hoping he will realize a head for business is not a head for the White House and he’ll back out gracefully and help the GOP, maybe after losing on the first ballot. I can’t see him getting all that into a life of reading from teleprompters, you know? Kind of cramps his style.
But I predict he will clean up in the upcoming Eastern primaries and be on a huge ego high as a result. We will be back to the inevitable narrative going into California and the convention. If he is close to 1237 (and he probably will be), look out.
I still think we have the GOP numbers to win in the general, if we all get on the same page. But that has to be all of us…no question there.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There isn’t a Catholic Party, and there won’t be. We have what we have.I liked the part about how the traditional prolife Catholic Democrat does not fit comfortably into either the Democrat or Republican party of today. I would argue this is because they voted their faith which is impossible given the platforms of the two parties as they stand today. I am very encouraged by prolife millennials who are open to Democratic positions on the environment, social programs, etc.
THIS is what we need - that would be a Catholic party. And I have no problem with the suggestion of pushing these ideas within the parties. I understand the stranglehold Planned Parenthood has on the Democrats; but abortion is acceptable to a little over half the people in the country, many of whom are Republicans. A prochoice Republican is about as far from me as anyone could get…they throw out social and economic common good, never saw a moral value they could stand
Democratic positions on social programs? What social programs? Did you read the post by the disabled guy who gets by on $800/month. The democrats had an unbeatable majority, but did they do anything for him? Noooooo. But they did do “cash for clunkers”, a totally middle class welfare program that gave subsidies to people who could afford new cars anyway.
Truth is, neither party has done anything for the poor since the Earned Income Credit, and that was Reagan’s. Call the Repubs insensitive to the poor if you want, and you would have a point, but the Dems are not one iota better when it comes to social stuff, and haven’t been for decades.
And the environment? I’m sorry, but I disagree with you. The ever-increasing federal lands are desertifying because of mismanagement. Obama has put every farm pond and puddle under army authority, even every dry wash. Check it out. It’s called WOTUS. Those who live on the land know how to take care of it. But the army?
And it was Obama’s EPA that poured toxic mine water into the Colorado River. Couldn’t leave well enough alone, and blew it. And if you really want to worry, watch what happens to the abandoned coal mines in West Virginia in the next ten years. Without mining, some will flood and explode like that mine the EPA blew trying to clean it up. As mines, they’re pumped out constantly. Some will catch fire and burn for decades. Obama’s “war on coal” sounds good unless your electric power plant is coal fired. But it will be an environmental disaster, and for no good reason at all. Wait and see.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Do we know that, though? The U.S. government is a gigantic “business” that isn’t run well. Maybe a business person could do better than the ideologues who never seem to improve anything.
- Status