Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up'

[Victoria33]

This is all just conjecture but what if I had the great opportunity to meet the Holy Father, I might say, “Here is Father Pavone, he did this on the altar” and the Holy Father might shake his head at that. Then, I might show the positives of Father Pavone’s life, “he has done this and this and this for the Pro-Life movement”, to that, the Holy Father or any of the Popes, virtually, might shake their head that that is a good thing. Make no mistake about it, Pope Francis has said a number of pro-life things and has acted. So, then, to make the argument that the good Father Pavone has done should be disregarded appears to me to be very flawed. We are human beings, we are flawed, we all wrestle with demons.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Both nominations have stated that Roe is settled law. Are they lying?

Of course not. All laws and judicial decrees are “settled law” until they aren’t.

The Dred Scott decision was 'settled law" at one time, legalizing slavery nationwide. So was “Plessy vs. Ferguson” upholding segregation. They were, indeed, “settled law” until overturned.

These nominees were just stating a fact, not their opinons as to what the law should be or could be in the future.

 

[F_Marturana]

Yes of course, as Catholics we are totally incapable of seeing something sacrilegious and calling it that. We don’t even know what torture is and calling it that. Even adultery is ambiguous. We can’t know anything.

The only thing we know is that Trump is the savior of the US and of all the unborn.

 

[abucs]

I do praise the 18th century Republicans for what they did. And of course anti-slavery is now accepted by both parties. But I doubt that you can ascribe this act in the 18th century to an underlying philosophy that not changed over the years. The only thing that has remained the same is the name.

No this is obviously wrong. Republicans were so against slavery they risked the structure of the country to fight a war to stop it. Republicans have never gone back on that. It has never changed.

The Republican advocating for black voting rights and civil rights before the law has also never changed, despite Left wing attempts to pretend otherwise.

Put a bill before the house or senate advocating slavery or the removal of black voting rights or black civil rights (equal to other citizens) and tell me you will get a majority of Republicans supporting it. No, you wouldn’t get one and if for some reason you did they would be automatically dropped from the Republican Party.

Name me a date in the history of the Republican Party where you would get a majority wanting to support slavery or wanting to stop black voting and civil rights (on an equal basis to other citizens).

The support for these values have not changed. It is to the great credit of the Republican Party that this is so and to the shame of the Democrats to want to portray it otherwise.

 

[Victoria33]

Kavanaugh said “settled law” in as far as he was a lower court judge; and if he mutineed against the higher courts, he would be out.

The tact I see, are the ones used by some who are said to be pro-life, but it’s really finding needles in the haystack.

The expression is don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the possible.

Saying this or that, does nothing to help the pro-life movement. You won’t get anything done with such absolutist views. Half a loaf of bread is better than none at all. Those who want the whole loaf more often than not get none at all.

And I wonder just how effectively pro-life they are.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You have the Republican conservatives fighting slavery…

Those were not Republican conservatives. They were Republican progressives. Even Abraham Lincoln was initially ambivalent about the wisdom of total abolition of slavery. The North did not have much slavery because their economy did not need it like Southern plantations. But initially slavery was in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New York, really just about every Northern state. Even when slavery was outlawed in some of the Northern states, they continued to tolerate and abet it by agreeing to return fleeing slaves to their Southern masters. The idea of total abolition and intolerance of slavery was a new and progressive idea for all the US at the time the Republicans were adopting that view. Good for them! I applaud their progressive courage! But is was progressive. It was not conservative.

That was then. This now. Now Republicans are conservative. In any case, what Republicans and Democrats were 150 years ago is a very poor measure of what they are today. That was my only real point.

 

[abucs]

No the culture of the Republican north was freedom, not slavery. The Party was defined as being anti slavery. Lincoln was expanding his set of values to the Democratically controlled states.

You are looking at it from the very narrow perspective of being a change to the Democratically controlled states.

Islamic State wanted to expand their values on other people’s values. Were they also Progressives?

Your definitions are extremely narrow minded and self serving.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I do praise the 18th century Republicans for what they did. And of course anti-slavery is now accepted by both parties. But I doubt that you can ascribe this act in the 18th century to an underlying philosophy that not changed over the years. The only thing that has remained the same is the name.

No this is obviously wrong. Republicans were so against slavery they risked the structure of the country to fight a war to stop it. Republicans have never gone back on that. It has never changed.

On the issue of slavery, of course they haven’t changed. They were right.

The Republican advocating for black voting rights and civil rights before the law has also never changed, despite Left wing attempts to pretend otherwise.

That may have been true pre-1980. But not today. Read about the change here.

Put a bill before the house or senate advocating slavery or the removal of black voting rights or black civil rights (equal to other citizens) and tell me you will get a majority of Republicans supporting it.

Nor would you get a single Democrat to support such a measure. So what?

The support for these values have not changed.

The Republican rejection of slavery has not changed, I’ll grant you that. It takes no great courage today to stand up against slavery. Everyone is against it. Voting rights however is another matter, as recent Gerrymandering cases have shown. Republicans allow the nominal right to vote for blacks, but do everything they can to arrange political districts so that the vote of a black person has less impact on Congress than the vote of a white person.

 

[abucs]

Nor would you get a single Democrat to support such a measure. So what?

You were saying that the only thing that has stayed the same is the name.

I pointed out slavery, civil rights and voting rights which have not changed in the philosophy of the Republican Party. You have admitted the slavery point above which negates your assertion that only the name has stayed the same.

The fact that no Republican Party would have support for the removal of civil and voting rights for blacks are also two more BIG examples of the philosophy not changing.

Your claim that only the name has stayed the same not the underlying philosophy is clearly wrong.

This thinking is a terrible slur on the Republican Party and a shame on Democratic articulations.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No the culture of the Republican north was freedom, not slavery. The Party was defined as being anti slavery. Lincoln was expanding his set of values to the Democratically controlled states.

I agree. The Republicans had an admirable progressive culture of opposing slavery. But it was progressive.

 

[abucs]

I agree. The Republicans had an admirable progressive culture of opposing slavery. But it was progressive.

It is progressive from a narrow point of view if you define progressive as change. The Third Reich was also change. Your label is a problem to defining history accurately because one group of people today have grabbed the term ‘progressive’ as a description of themselves.

It is also a problem as defining progressive against and opposing conservatism, another group defining themself that way today. By that measure the people fighting Hitler for the preservation of the old Germany were conservatives. Your definitions don’t work and are self serving.

 

[Ridgerunner]

no need to be ridiculous. There is a difference between objective and subjective evil. That has nothing to do with Trump, so there’s no reason to drag him into it.

Possibly Pavone’s intent was sacrilegious, perhaps it wasn’t. I’m inclined to think it wasn’t, though, as I said, I didn’t see it or hear what he said. It might well have been objectively evil but not sinful for Fr. Pavone. For him, it might simply have been a misjudgment.

 

[Jeanne_S]

No other candidate other than Trump could have overcome the Hillary machine. Nuff said

 

[F_Marturana]

I don’t think that’s true.

I would have voted for any other republican.

The Republican Party has shrunk since Trump has been president.

 

[Jeanne_S]

The Republican Party needs to shrink even more and reorganize.The party as it stands now doesn’t reflect the desires of its constiuency.Again this is why Trump won.He is a reaction the the dissatisfaction by the base with the status quo.

 

[F_Marturana]

If it shrinks even more, how will it win national elections?

 

[JonNC]

Actually, no. Both BLM and WLM could exist and be non-racist, as long as neither one makes the claim that their race matters more . BLM does not make that claim. It does make the claim the white lives already do matter, which is why they take the trouble to say BLM.

Well, you couldn’t tell that from the charges of racism from the left at people who simply said all lives better. I think you and I both know that WLM would be savaged by the left.

Since BLM is not a hierarchical organization, there is no one “motivation.” There are thousands of individual motivations, and some of them are racists, probably. But most of them are not.

That’s a great excuse, but I’m not buying it.

You will note that I specified “ when there are no other variables .” In the case you mentioned, there is another obvious variable. That variable is the population density. That more than anything else influences the incidence of violence.

I disagree. I believe the statistics clearly indict progressive government

You can speculate that violence has something to do with the policies of the leaders, but the statistics alone do not prove it. But in the statistics I refer to (the higher proportion of unarmed black men being shot by police) where is the “other variable” (besides racism) that can explain the statistic?

I
And population density does not alone explain it. It doesn’t explain the high incidence of black in black crime, anymore than race explains it.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, the Democratic Party used to be the party of conservatives. Slavery was, after all, the tradition. The Democrats were upholding traditional Souther

And this is factually false. When the south started turning conservative, that is when Republicans became prominent. The Democratic Party has always been the progressive party. No one claims that Wilson was a conservative. No one claims that FDR was.

Some time in the early 20th century a realignment began. The realignment culminated with the election of Ronald Reagan. The Republican Party had become the party of conservatives and the Democratic Party became the party of liberals. Keep that in mind whenever you refer to history to justify your view of today’s political parties.

This is factually false. Blacks started voting Democrat in the 1930’s for economic reasons, thinking the New Deal was a good thing. It was an alliance of convenience between blacks and the progressive Democrats that continued to defend segregation and those same progressives pushing big government.
The gradual shift in the South to Republicans was because of a gradual shift to conservatism away from the Democrats.
There is a reason why only one of the Dixiecrats turned Republican. It was because they were progressives

 

[JonNC]

But in the present day the situation is reversed. And the current voting patterns reflect that present reality.

The progressive racism against blacks. continues today, as we can see in large inner cities. It also has expanded now, using racist intersectionality and identity politics to divide people.

 

[JonNC]

Maybe. He wasn’t all that liberal. But Lyndon Johnson is, for sure. And FDR. I don’t think they’d be any happier with today’s liberalism than Barry Goldwater would be with today’s conservatism.

JFK was a liberal. He wasn’t a progressive.
Goldwater was a conservative.
The southern Democrats were progressives

If Goldwater were upset, it would be because too many so-called conservatives have bought into large central government, contrary to the constitution