Do any CAF members who lean towards the Democrat party put any kind of pressure on the Party or on Democrat candidates to change their Pro-Choice (pro

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peeps
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peeps said:
If not, why not?
Click to expand...
No. I have in the past, but it seems that they are so intractably devoted to the culture of death that it is like swimming up a waterfall.

When they contact me, I tell them to let me know when they figure out who a “person” is. They like to change the subject.

Most of my values are consistent with the democratic party, but I cannot, in good conscience, support a party that is anti-life.
 
Augustinian said:
The Democrats have basically told the white working man that they really aren’t interested in courting them.
Click to expand...
But what is the Republican Party really selling? Patriotism, “Family Values” (whatever that really is), and we’re going to reverse the clock on decades of decline in good paying blue collar jobs that capitalism has basically eliminated by itself?

I think we’re seeing the ages long divide and conquer tactic used by many ruling elite. Create a subjugated class and give them privilege over other subjugated class(es) to the dirty work. A slave becomes the boss over fellow slaves. Promise poor whites they are better than colored minorities because they are white. Now it’s the LBGTQ and rise of minorities that are being used to allow the ultra wealthy to further secure their positions.
 
godisgood77 said:
Yes… I support the Pro-Life Democrats group
Click to expand...
You then really need to get some other Pro-Life politicians to join the Democrat Party. Considering the fact that all of the presumed 2020 candidates at this time (Clinton, Sanders, Biden, Warren, etc.) are all anti-life, getting a prominent Pro Life alternative would seem paramount.

John Kasich is a moderate, Pro Life governor of Ohio, and although now a Republican - he does hate President Trump. Maybe Kasich could be recruited to join the party?
 
The problem with this idea is that there really IS a difference between the Democrat party and the Republican party, and it is not “issues” (e.g., reproductive freedom vs. protection of the lives of the unborn, or gun owner rights vs. rights of the population to be safe from gun violence).

The Democrat Party has always promoted the government, specifically the federal government, as the best method of bringing about a good and prosperous society in the United States.

Thus, they create government-managed programs, often at the federal level, to solve problems and bring about change. These programs are paid for mainly by taxes, although there are some private donations.

The Republican Party has always promoted the individual citizen or the local government, as the method of bringing about a good and prosperous society in the United States.

Thus, they dismantle government-managed programs, especially the ones at the federal level, and promote individual-managed and local government-managed programs, to solve problems and bring about change. These programs are generally paid for by a combination of private donations and local taxes (the taxes are usually voted upon by the local population).

I personally believe that the Republican philosophy of individual rights and local government is more in step with Catholicism, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches subsidiarity. The problem arises when Republicans accept Democrat solutions by voting in favor of massive federal government programs to solve problems. That’s when the two Parties look exactly alike–elected officials abandon their Party philosophies and vote as individuals for whatever they personally believe in or in some cases, in what their constituents demand…

I think it’s possible that some Catholics believe that the U.S. is a monarchy, and that the “government” is a “king” or “queen,” and should be just, loving, charitable, fair, good, unselfish, creative, etc.

Thus, the Catholic call to “help the immigrants” or “rescue all the people in the tsunami.” Those are the kinds of things a good monarch would do–appropriate funds (from taxes and donations) to help restore order and goodness.

But a “government” consists of many individuals who are each representing many more individuals, and the “government” has a responsibility to serve and protect those that they represent. Therefore, the “government” does not have the power to simply pronounce, “ALL immigrants will be welcomed in the U.S. with no tests for admittance,” or “100 billion dollars will be sent to the tsunami victims.”

Those decisions, as moral and good as they sound, may impose too heavy a burden on the people that the “government” represents. Catholics need to be careful about giving away other people’s money, time, and talents.
 
Last edited:
Augustinian said:
Trying
Click to expand...
I agree that some democrats have told white working people that they don’t matter. That’s another reason why I didn’t vote for Hillary. Trump actually cares about the working class Americans.

However he’s the only republican that does. Paul Ryan? No. Mitch McConnell? No. To me democrats are the least worst choice.
 
PJH_74 said:
Who are Democrats or Republicans other than caricatures at the moment? If you don’t meet the 5 or 7 item check list, you’re done.
Click to expand...
This is one of the flaws in our political system. The two-party system that we have, whether permanently or not, is really messed up. If a Republican breaks ranks on gun control, he is finished. If a Democrat breaks ranks on abortion, he is finished. There is no room for compromise or integrity in the political system.
 
pnewton said:
There is no room for compromise or integrity in the political system.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s not that we have 2 parties, it’s that there are two fully homogenized ones. There were, amazingly, socially liberal Republicans who were in the party because they favored smaller government and business friendly policies. My lifetime is just long enough to remember the “Moral or Silent Majority” that swept in behind President Reagan. Interestingly some of the leaders of the “Moral” majority are now under investigation for sexual misconduct and spousal abuse.
 
Peeps said:
I hope that they will stay the course and eventually we’ll see a moderation in the Pro-Choice Party Platform.
Click to expand...
Except all indications are that they are just leaning harder left, as if that will magically generate more votes.
 
godisgood77 said:
On what do you base this claim?
Click to expand...
On the basis that the President gave so many speeches to working class people in down and out cities. Cities like Youngstown and Johnstown were totally ignored by the other candidates who condemned the working class.

Paying attention and showing respect goes a lot way.
 
Peeps said:
The Republican Party has always promoted the individual citizen or the local government, as the method of bringing about a good and prosperous society in the United States.
Click to expand...
Then why do you reject allowing individual women to choose if they want to give birth? Aren’t you proposing a government solution to a personal problem?

The two issues you raised, abortion and guns, are an interesting contrast. Republicans propose regulation of abortion, and no regulation for guns; Democrats propose the opposite. Whoever reconciles the inconsistency will win the day imo. I doubt that arguments your issue is a special because childrens lives are lost will convince the opponents of abortion, or the opponents fo gun control.

The Catholic position has always been that government should interfene to curb excesses brought about by too much freedom. The common good takes precedence over individual freedoms in some cases. When you see condemnations of liberalism in Catholic documents, they are rejections of the kind of unbridled freedom demanded by gun or abortion advocates.
 
Nothing really new there, PA Sen. Casey’s father was a pro-life Democrat, and he got blackballed from the 1992 Democrat Convention and wasn’t allowed to speak
 
Good question!

The Declaration of Independence states that all men (people) are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Life is the most basic human right. No one should have the right to legally choose to destroy an innocent human life (and, yes, I’m opposed to a death penalty, and right now in my state, that issue will probably cause the current governor to lose his election–good riddance to him, IMO).

The right to bear arms is another basic human right. Humans must be allowed to defend themselves from others who would harm them (which means that if our nation is threatened by another nation, war and the inevitable deaths are justified). This basic human right is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution (specifically in the Bill of Rights).

In other words our most precious federal documents that were adopted by our Founding Fathers make it clear that life and arms are two human rights that will be guaranteed for citizens of the United States of America.

At this time in history, the 21st Century, the two “rights” seem to contradict each other, as we see children and teenagers mowed down by guns. Back when the Founding Fathers made the determination of the inalienable rights, schools shootings, gang killings, random drive by shootings–these were unknown, except when someone was insane. So the idea of denying someone the right to bear arms was incomprehensible to these wise men who framed our nation’s laws. To them, it was a basic human right that should be guaranteed in the new nation.

Some people think that times have changed and that we need to re-examine whether owning a gun is really a “right.” But really, the huge majority of gun owners never fire the weapon at another human being. You don’t take basic rights away just because a few evil people abuse that right. They tried it with Prohibition and it was a miserable failure that still continues to produce awful consequences, especially in the areas of the country where the mobs ruled the streets…
 
The DoI isn’t a legal document though, it has no bearing on US law.
 
Augustinian said:
On the basis that the President gave so many speeches to working class people in down and out cities. Cities like Youngstown and Johnstown were totally ignored by the other candidates who condemned the working class.

Paying attention and showing respect goes a lot way.
Click to expand...
Nothing substantive then… which is fine… for snowflakes 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top