B
Billy76
Guest
So a Catholic can not vote for Joe Biden then because he promotes abortion?
- Status
V
Victoria33
Guest
Please name that “right-wing” organization, the article you linked to mentions none. Your assertion is false.
These are just thought crimes, what your media checker is doing. Yes, Lifenews may be conservative generally speaking and Salon for comparison, may be liberal. So what?
The NY Times would probably be called liberal, CNN too. Left wing organizations? Hmmn?
There is nothing to support your statement. Many news sources have editorial views.
G
godisgood77
Guest
But Trump supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest and a mothers health… so by your logic you can not vote for Trump because he promotes abortion? Or are there other considerations?
Trump is less bad than Biden on abortion… to be sure.
Last edited:
B
Billy76
Guest
Yes, like the amount of children Biden wants to be allowed murdered compared to Trump. Of which Biden is much lower. So you agree Catholics cannot vote for Biden?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You may want to revisit your “no plan. At all.” conclusion. Pay attention to #5 and #6, especially.HarryStotle:
And he has no plan. At all.
If he does, please provide a link to it.
Moreover, a plan is not actually a law. If SCOTUS strikes down ACA, then there are no protections until another law replaces it. Executive orders are not laws and cannot act in place of a law.
He has already in his first term initiated a number of policies to improve health care.
- Expanded “…access to more affordable coverage, returned regulatory oversight from Washington to the states and increased options for employers to offer health insurance to their workers…”
- “Made it easier for small businesses to band together and obtain the same regulatory advantages that large employers receive when they offer insurance.”
- "Eliminating the individual-mandate penalty — Americans benefit by nearly $50 billion each year…
- “Starting Jan. 1, 2020, a new rule permits employers to offer health reimbursement arrangements (HRA) to pay premiums for plans that employees select in the individual market. Employees do not need to pay federal income or payroll tax on HRA contributions.” “…the Trump administration’s HRA rule will give workers greater control and choice. It will also make it easier for workers to keep their plans when they change jobs.”
- “… also has changed tax policy to help the chronically ill, making it easier for them to save for future expenses. For example, current IRS rules prevent diabetics from putting money in health savings accounts (HSAs) if they have a plan that covers insulin before the plan deductible is met.”
- “…the Trump administration improved ObamaCare’s market. The current administration reduced the ability of people to game the program and increase others’ costs by waiting until they were sick to purchase coverage. It also approved waivers in seven states in 2017 and 2018 for programs to subsidize the cost of people with high claims.”
D
Dracarys
Guest
Well here is another leftist zinger. In Philadelphia police were charged with an assailant armed with a knife so the police had no option but to shoot him. Did the “protesters” in Philadelphia wait for the facts to come out? No of course not. They immediately began to burn and loot buildings. This led to many police officers protecting the property to be injured from thrown objects.
Did the politicians wait for the facts? No of course not. Bernie Sanders who is a leader in the Democrat party called for the prosecution of the police for murder.
Those of you who value life and safety for your friends and family must imagine a world without police because police are resigning in record numbers, and those who remain admit they are slow to react because when they do their jobs they may get fired and/or prosecuted.
Deadly encounters with police account to a mere fraction of incidents. Of those deadly encounters there may be .001% where the police are at fault.
Why is it that there are no police organizations that support Biden Harris? So what do any of you think will happen to life and liberty without police? Under Democrat administrations the cities of New York and Chicago have sharply escalating rates of murder. Things will only get worse with Biden Harris in charge and you all know I am right even if you won’t admit it.
Did the politicians wait for the facts? No of course not. Bernie Sanders who is a leader in the Democrat party called for the prosecution of the police for murder.
Those of you who value life and safety for your friends and family must imagine a world without police because police are resigning in record numbers, and those who remain admit they are slow to react because when they do their jobs they may get fired and/or prosecuted.
Deadly encounters with police account to a mere fraction of incidents. Of those deadly encounters there may be .001% where the police are at fault.
Why is it that there are no police organizations that support Biden Harris? So what do any of you think will happen to life and liberty without police? Under Democrat administrations the cities of New York and Chicago have sharply escalating rates of murder. Things will only get worse with Biden Harris in charge and you all know I am right even if you won’t admit it.
G
godisgood77
Guest
No, I do not agree with that… I think we have two very bad candidates and it takes more than a single issue to determine who to vote for. A thorough examination of conscience is required across a range of issues
Here are a few decent reads on the topic.
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
Democrats definitely have infanticide on the table, that may not be that different than abortion but I do believe the concept of letting a born baby die is totally unacceptable.
And there is a lot more of this.
Obama, Cuomo, Northram, one can’t even be in polite company and discuss this now, let alone Christians.
Truly diabolical. It’s beyond abortion now.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
And the majority of the media are extreme left wing political organizations who provide cover for the Democrats. And the centrist types have a centrist political bias.
You are assuming that “right wing” is equivalent to “mistaken,” “wrong,” “evil’” or “biased.” That merely assumes or question-begs the issue by presuming that ~right wing is the correct position by default.
That certainly saves you the effort of showing how their claims are false, but it isn’t particularly fair or honest.
The technical logical fault for your “argument” is called the genetic fallacy, i.e., that the source of the claim itself invalidates the claim.
D
Dracarys
Guest
Why because you in your infinite wisdom have deemed them “right wing”?
V
Victoria33
Guest
All that media checker says is they are conservative or rightwing in views. You think so?
I’d like to think I’m open-minded but can not reconcile voting for a party that apparently does consider infanticide. That’s where I draw the line, why not let the kid live?
Vatican teaching seems to advise us to vote for the most pro-life not perfect pro-life.
I’d like to think I’m open-minded but can not reconcile voting for a party that apparently does consider infanticide. That’s where I draw the line, why not let the kid live?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Check my list of things he has already done upthread. Especially #5 and #6.Dracarys:
No, I’ve got it right. Trump is the one claiming he’s got a unicorn that will protect preexisting conditions. It is not up to me to prove that unicorns don’t exist. It is up to Trump to show us his unicorn (or health plan). He’s not laid out anything the least bit specific on how he is going to do something I think he has no intention of doing if he is elected.LeafByNiggle:
You have it backwards.
Clearly he hasn’t done what you want him to do, but neither have you shown that what you want him to do is what is best for everyone.
Pre-existing conditions are certainly a difficult issue to work out solutions that do not unfairly burden someone. Kind of like life itself - there is always someone who is unfairly burdened by circumstance. Life will not be perfect for everyone, which is why accepting our own crosses is the recommended course. Trying to take them off our own shoulders and place them on others likely won’t help in the long run. However, persuading others to freely and of their own accord take on the burden of those around them does have a chance.
Like forced conversion, forcing others to care by unduly burdening them won’t work.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Say what you want. There is no such thing as a “prolife Democrat organization” of any consequence. I’m not the one who implied that Rerum Novarum promotet anything. You are the one who brought it up, suggesting that the Dem party is consistent with it. I then asked whether it supported abortion (which it doesn’t)
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
OK, now we see what’s really going on. Trump says he will protect preexisting conditions, but when push comes to shove, preexisting conditions is a “difficult issue to work out”. We can’t really protect people with preexisting conditions without “unfairly burdening someone”. That someone usually turns out to be the rich, the well-connected, the ones with jobs, the ones who are young and healthy and perceive they have little need for health insurance, the ones who have good health insurance already. Essentially what this comes down to is an admission that “we can’t provide health insurance for everyone with pre-existing conditions”. Yet most other developed nations managed to do just that. Yes, they have higher taxes, or they have an individual mandate, and that’s how they do it. And I know that higher taxes is a deal-breaker for conservatives. So let’s drop the pretense that Trump is somehow going to protect people with preexisting conditions and allow them to get health care regardless of anything. Trump has no intention of doing it, and you have just helped confirm that.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
or even what he said he would do, which was to protect people with preexisting conditions.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Agreed. This is how Cale Clarke, radio show host described his view.
“If one lived in 1860 and was voting, I’d be a single issue voter as well, I’d be voting against slavery” (paraphrasing).
That was pretty profound actually I thought.
What if we did live in 1860, “I’m voting for Lincoln, I want to see slavery abolished” to be answered with, “well, I’m not a single issue voter”.
V
Victoria33
Guest
But that is too, your opinion. You never have anything that backs up your views. It seems to just speak negatively of Trump.
One also said they don’t consider Trump pro-life. I don’t consider those in favor of lenient border policies which end up killing Americans to be pro-life.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The connection between border enforcement and murder is speculation at best. One could also argue that many would-be immigrants died in Mexico because they could not enter the US. That, too, is just speculation, but I put it out there just for balance.
1
1ke
Guest
I think it’s demonstrable— you can literally read all the posts on this thread.
I didn’t make that argument.
Well, there could be many reasons. Having no access to the actual data, I’ll have to speculate. First, I question the Pew data because as we know many times people who ID as Catholic are culturally Catholic and not practicing. Secondly, CAF over represents practicing Catholics and particularly those who would identify as orthodox, traditional, faithful, practicing, etc. you do see threads with people who are pro-choice or pro-abortion. It’s just rare.
I don’t think that is true. It isn’t true for me, for sure.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you did live in 1860 you would have heard that Lincoln was campaigning on a platform of non-interference in the slave states. He only opposed the expansion of slavery into the non-slave states. So, perhaps you should pick another analogy.
- Status