If all US politicians agreed on the 5 non-negotiables, who would you elect?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lily628
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jim orr:
My question to Richardols, or any Catholic Democrat, concerns the source for his confidence in the Democrat Party’s willingness to “follow” Church principles in any areas given its history of the past 40 years.
Click to expand...
I believe that pro-lifers working within the party can change the party just as pro-choicers working within the party over the last few decades changed it for the worse.

The Democrats, I’d note, “follow” Church principles regarding social justice far more closely than do the Republicans. (One recent example is the change in the bankruptcy laws to favor banks and credit card companies over people who have no way to get from under oppressive debts. A Republican initiative, and hardly consistent with the Church’s concern for the poor. I’m not going to debate the subject with fans of big banking, but it is just one example of the Republicans’ disassociation from middle and lower class working Americans and a confirmation of their “primary option for the rich” beliefs.)
 
40.png
Richardols:
I believe that pro-lifers working within the party can change the party just as pro-choicers working within the party over the last few decades changed it for the worse.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate your positive outlook, here, but are there specific measures that pro-life democrats are taking in order to change party thinking?

Fiat
 
Republican, because less government is better government.
No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.
– Gideon J. Tucker
 
40.png
Fiat:
I can appreciate your positive outlook, here, but are there specific measures that pro-life democrats are taking in order to change party thinking?
Click to expand...
I don’t know any specifics about now. I know that pro-life Democrats are making themselves more visible to the party at large and letting them know that we haven’t gone away. I intend to follow more what Democrats For Life are doing.

The results of the last election were salutary. The party leadership was given a dramatic example of the results of presuming that moral values aren’t a part of a candidates’s electability. Some Pro-life candidates were elected (E.g., CA Forum poster and Republican candidate Vern Humphrey lost here in Arkansas’ 1st District to a Democrat who was also pro-life.) I don’t claim that the party will be turned around by '08. The pro-choicers didn’t change the party in a day, neither will we.
 
40.png
Richardols:
I believe that pro-lifers working within the party can change the party just as pro-choicers working within the party over the last few decades changed it for the worse.

The Democrats, I’d note, “follow” Church principles regarding social justice far more closely than do the Republicans. (One recent example is the change in the bankruptcy laws to favor banks and credit card companies over people who have no way to get from under oppressive debts. A Republican initiative, and hardly consistent with the Church’s concern for the poor. I’m not going to debate the subject with fans of big banking, but it is just one example of the Republicans’ disassociation from middle and lower class working Americans and a confirmation of their “primary option for the rich” beliefs.)
Click to expand...
All of us using credit pay more for it because of fraud just like we do insurance because of people who run insurance scams. Making it more difficult for crooks to defraud banks and insurance companies helps ALL the people economically. The defrauders used the leniecy you seem to prefer to cheat and we all pay for their cheating. There is nothing “Christian” about that example you gave. It is thinking like that that is so misguided and frightening. To associate protecting crooks with being “Christian” is insanity.

You got any other examples?
 
Republican

Too many of the democrats believe it is the role of government to look after the individual, to the point of letting someone not do their fair share.
 
LOL…nice to talk to you again…I have been around…I have just been AWOL from the general Politics section…God Bless
40.png
Trelow:
Was wondering when you were going to chime in brother!
Click to expand...
 
jim orr:
All of us using credit pay more for it because of fraud just like we do insurance because of people who run insurance scams. Making it more difficult for crooks to defraud banks and insurance companies helps ALL the people economically. The defrauders used the leniecy you seem to prefer to cheat and we all pay for their cheating. There is nothing “Christian” about that example you gave.
Click to expand...
The law passed was not proposed to combat fraud. It was intended to minimize the use of the bankruptcy laws. And who suffers? The poor and middle class who are too often burdened with huge medical bills or who cannot get from under their other debts.
It is thinking like that that is so misguided and frightening. To associate protecting crooks with being “Christian” is insanity.
Click to expand...
Who associates protecting crooks with being “Christian”? I agree that insurance scammers (your example) should be prosecuted. But, there are already laws against fraud in every state.

This law is solely for the benefit of the big banks and the credit card industry. And it is, in my opinion, another example of the Republican “preferential option for the rich.”
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Republican

Too many of the democrats believe it is the role of government to look after the individual, to the point of letting someone not do their fair share.
Click to expand...
As for me, Democrat!

Too many of the Republicans believe it is the role of government to look after the rich, to the point of abandoning the poor. IMO.
 
40.png
Richardols:
The law passed was not proposed to combat fraud. It was intended to minimize the use of the bankruptcy laws. And who suffers? The poor and middle class who are too often burdened with huge medical bills or who cannot get from under their other debts.
Click to expand...
Richard, the fraud is perpetrated by people who intentionally over extend themselves and simply said if they can’t pay they will file for bankruptcy. That is a well known behavior that the current law created. This law was passed to close the door to people who used the “generosity” of business, society, and the law for their own selfish ends, which up to now had to be paid by all the rest of us.
40.png
Richardols:
Who associates protecting crooks with being “Christian”? I agree that insurance scammers (your example) should be prosecuted. But, there are already laws against fraud in every state.
Click to expand...
This law now makes it more difficult for bums to use the “Christian kindness” to their advantage.
40.png
Richardols:
This law is solely for the benefit of the big banks and the credit card industry. And it is, in my opinion, another example of the Republican “preferential option for the rich.”
Click to expand...
And this exposes your ignorance of what Republicans are all about. “Ignorance” not meant in a disrespectful way, but in the sense that you are going on Democrat propaganda, not real life perspective. I’d be embarrassed to call myself a Catholic and hold such bigotry.
 
One of the posters said that the Republican party is only out for the rich! That is rediculous and just buying into a line that keeps being said over and over so people will buy into it…i am amazed how many have. Just because the Republican party does not favor heavy taxes and gives equitable breaks across the board does not make the party one to favor the rich. In fact, as proof that republicans favor the poor, lets go to the child in the womb…the poorest and most defenseless of human lives. Democrats do not want to protect these children whereas republicans do! I will go with the party that first supports such life, only then will i look at LESSER issues!
 
jim orr:
This law was passed to close the door to people who used the “generosity” of business, society, and the law for their own selfish ends, which up to now had to be paid by all the rest of us.
Click to expand...
All the current law did was raise the threshold of where a person can file which version of bankruptcy. It made it so people are more likely to be Chapter 13 than Chapter 7 if they have assets or have a decent income.
 
If the Democratic party supported the “5 non-negotiables,” it wouldn’t be the Democratic party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top