Record High- 42% of Americans Identify as Independents" Republican identification lowest in at least 25 years

  • Thread starter Thread starter ringil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LisaA said:
You know that statement is really disappointing. The only “message” you send is that if the Left discourages you about the real and significant progress regarding our shared pro life concerns you will not vote. I guess that works for THEM…but it sure doesn’t help move the ball forward even on a local basis. In this bluest of blue, most abortion promoting states, it was local effort that beat back five state bills expanding abortion services and state funding of same. I get discouraged too but I know if I stay home the evil being pushed by the Left continues to make advances.

Please rethink this position of sitting back and letting evil prevail. We do and we can make a difference

Lisa
Click to expand...
God Bless Lisa. I don’t think I’m sitting back and letting evil prevail. I’m on here talking to fellow pro-lifers about a total frustration I have with the non-declining baby killing death toll. That has to be the target. Measures that don’t address that directly are a complete waste of good, pro-life energy. And they let politicians pose as “pro-life” when really they’re just posing…we need to raise our expectations of these people…one way to do that is by holding back our vote until we’re convinced they’re really listening. That will get their attention more than just voting for them no matter what. That’s my hope.
 
miguel said:
God Bless Lisa. I don’t think I’m sitting back and letting evil prevail. I’m on here talking to fellow pro-lifers about a total frustration I have with the non-declining baby killing death toll. That has to be the target. Measures that don’t address that directly are a complete waste of good, pro-life energy. And they let politicians pose as “pro-life” when really they’re just posing…we need to raise our expectations of these people…one way to do that is by holding back our vote until we’re convinced they’re really listening. That will get their attention more than just voting for them no matter what. That’s my hope.
Click to expand...
I think some of that has to do with issues in the pro-life community. I’m wondering just how well run some of their charities are and I think some of their strategies are totally ineffective.

I mean, they were really shocked that New Mexico rejected a popular ballot on restricting abortions because lots of Hispanics live there? That’s their logic?!? :rolleyes: :eek:

That’s how progressive pro-abortion advocates think!

Furthermore, why is that Roe v Wade is still around when it’s such an abomination to the Tenth Amendment? Maybe there is considerable truth that conservative politicians think it would hurt them, even though they almost lose unmarried women handily anyways.

Do they mean to tell me that in the last four decades they just haven’t found a lawyer who can concentrate on the issue and make the argument? :ouch:

If anyone really wants to know why America has the current leaders it does, why abortion is still legal—or not really a state question and why so-called gay “marriage” is cool now, just look at the effort that conservatives and the religious orthodox put into these issues in the election cycle.
 
miguel said:
God Bless Lisa. I don’t think I’m sitting back and letting evil prevail. I’m on here talking to fellow pro-lifers about a total frustration I have with the non-declining baby killing death toll. That has to be the target. Measures that don’t address that directly are a complete waste of good, pro-life energy. And they let politicians pose as “pro-life” when really they’re just posing…we need to raise our expectations of these people…one way to do that is by holding back our vote until we’re convinced they’re really listening. That will get their attention more than just voting for them no matter what. That’s my hope.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reply. I think of the verse, don’t put your faith in princes. I don’t expect much of anything from politicians, especially on a national basis so in those elections I just try to vote for the one who will do the least damage. I know we went through this during the last election and many were critical of “the lesser of two evils” but in fact I didn’t think my choice WAS evil, just not as good as I would have wanted. That being said I will never stay home if there is any kind of POSSIBLE choice. I was fine with Romney, really liked Ryan as a truly pro-life advocate. His story in the debate about seeing his daugther in the womb and that she looked like a little bean stayed with me. I think he was able to touch many hearts and I know he’s co sponsored bills to restrict abortion.

As to pro-life focus I think we can do a LOT in our local areas and so that’s where I put my energy rather than hoping for or working for a candidate. I think of Mother Teresa who says if you can’t feed 100 people, feed one. So if we can’t save thousands or even hundreds of babies, maybe we can save one or two or ten! I think we have to get beyond the idea we can legislate Roe away. I am hoping for a better court case but it takes something in the pipeline rather than telling the court to redecide Roe and Doe. There is an abortion related case right now, based on restricting sidewalk counselling. Maybe if the court decides on supporting free speech more women will be told of the options they have rather than aborting. Of course the abortion clinics don’t want women to hear about real choices…there’s only one for them. But realize their numbers are dwindling! How man clinics have been closed down this year alone. We are winning!

Lisa
 
SuperLuigi said:
Furthermore, why is that Roe v Wade is still around when it’s such an abomination to the Tenth Amendment? Maybe there is considerable truth that conservative politicians think it would hurt them, even though they almost lose unmarried women handily anyways.

Do they mean to tell me that in the last four decades they just haven’t found a lawyer who can concentrate on the issue and make the argument? :ouch:
Click to expand...
Violation of the 10th Amendment has been the main argument so far against RvsW. So far only the states are testing it with imposing restrictions. Seems like only a constitutional amendment can effectively take SCOTUS out of the picture altogether. Need 3/4 of the states to approve the language of this amendment. Can be done without Congress and without the President.
 
LisaA said:
Thank you for the reply. I think of the verse, don’t put your faith in princes. I don’t expect much of anything from politicians, especially on a national basis so in those elections I just try to vote for the one who will do the least damage. I know we went through this during the last election and many were critical of “the lesser of two evils” but in fact I didn’t think my choice WAS evil, just not as good as I would have wanted. That being said I will never stay home if there is any kind of POSSIBLE choice. I was fine with Romney, really liked Ryan as a truly pro-life advocate. His story in the debate about seeing his daugther in the womb and that she looked like a little bean stayed with me. I think he was able to touch many hearts and I know he’s co sponsored bills to restrict abortion.

As to pro-life focus I think we can do a LOT in our local areas and so that’s where I put my energy rather than hoping for or working for a candidate. I think of Mother Teresa who says if you can’t feed 100 people, feed one. So if we can’t save thousands or even hundreds of babies, maybe we can save one or two or ten! I think we have to get beyond the idea we can legislate Roe away. I am hoping for a better court case but it takes something in the pipeline rather than telling the court to redecide Roe and Doe. There is an abortion related case right now, based on restricting sidewalk counselling. Maybe if the court decides on supporting free speech more women will be told of the options they have rather than aborting. Of course the abortion clinics don’t want women to hear about real choices…there’s only one for them. But realize their numbers are dwindling! How man clinics have been closed down this year alone. We are winning!

Lisa
Click to expand...
If God is on our side (and he is), who can be against us. We also have to think clearly about what Roe did. The Constitution is the Law. The 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection of the laws to any person in their jurisdiction. All of these politicians who hold office along with the judges take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. When it was challenged, Texas defended its anti-abortion statute by claiming it was required by the 14th Amendment. This was correct. Blackmun opened the door to baby killing in his majority ruling that the unborn are not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. He didn’t support and defend the Constitution as his oath required him to do. Restoring these Constitutional protections to the unborn has been in the GOP platform going back to Reagan. They don’t do it as their oath and their platform requires them to do. I’m holding these people accountable with my vote. We’ve been watching this for 41 years.
 
miguel said:
If God is on our side (and he is), who can be against us. We also have to think clearly about what Roe did. The Constitution is the Law. The 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection of the laws to any person in their jurisdiction. All of these politicians who hold office along with the judges take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. When it was challenged, Texas defended its anti-abortion statute by claiming it was required by the 14th Amendment. This was correct. Blackmun opened the door to baby killing in his majority ruling that the unborn are not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. He didn’t support and defend the Constitution as his oath required him to do. Restoring these Constitutional protections to the unborn has been in the GOP platform going back to Reagan. They don’t do it as their oath and their platform requires them to do. I’m holding these people accountable with my vote. We’ve been watching this for 41 years.
Click to expand...
To be fair, though, the Roe vs Wade ruling had nothing to do with Congress per se. Or the Presidents, although they did appoint those justices who ruled on the matter. As Rand Paul claims, SCOTUS left it to Congress to decide certain stipulations, such as defining viability. To this day Congress has only determined that government not provide the funding of abortions. But then, given enough push, SCOTUS could overrule that if they wish. SCOTUS needs to be removed from making rulings overturning states’ decisions on legality, restrictions, and penalties. An amendment needs to pass to reinforce the 10th amendment. It’s only common sense.
 
miguel said:
If God is on our side (and he is), who can be against us. We also have to think clearly about what Roe did. The Constitution is the Law. The 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection of the laws to any person in their jurisdiction. All of these politicians who hold office along with the judges take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. When it was challenged, Texas defended its anti-abortion statute by claiming it was required by the 14th Amendment. This was correct. Blackmun opened the door to baby killing in his majority ruling that the unborn are not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. He didn’t support and defend the Constitution as his oath required him to do. Restoring these Constitutional protections to the unborn has been in the GOP platform going back to Reagan. They don’t do it as their oath and their platform requires them to do. I’m holding these people accountable with my vote. We’ve been watching this for 41 years.
Click to expand...
Well obviously this gets back to the analysis of the politics of the Supreme Court nominations over the past 35 years. Of course I would focus on Democrat smearing of GOP nominated justices and the impact it had on the failure of the GOP to nominate the kind of justices who would override r v w I’m sure you would place the blame with the GOP. I would blame democrat smear tactics - many of whom are Catholics like Biden, Kennedy etc.

Ishii
 
ProVobis said:
To be fair, though, the Roe vs Wade ruling had nothing to do with Congress per se. Or the Presidents, although they did appoint those justices who ruled on the matter. As Rand Paul claims, SCOTUS left it to Congress to decide certain stipulations, such as defining viability. To this day Congress has only determined that government not provide the funding of abortions. But then, given enough push, SCOTUS could overrule that if they wish. SCOTUS needs to be removed from making rulings overturning states’ decisions on legality, restrictions, and penalties. An amendment needs to pass to reinforce the 10th amendment. It’s only common sense.
Click to expand...
Common sense in Washington…surely you jest!

Agree that SCOTUS needs to stay out of the state’s decisions regarding restrictions on abortions. This is where real progress is being made.

Sadly the theory that the feds do not pay for abortions is more theory than fact. By using accounting tricks, by sending federal funds back to states for Medicaid, in effect we are paying for abortions with our tax dollars

Lisa
 
ishii said:
Of course I would focus on Democrat smearing of GOP nominated justices
Click to expand...
I think it depends on which Supreme Court nominee you are talking about. For example, I can see good reason to reject Robert Bork for the position. Mr. Bork was the one who was responsible for the firing and resignation of two truly great men, Archibald Cox and Elliot Richardson.
 
LisaA said:
Common sense in Washington…surely you jest!

Agree that SCOTUS needs to stay out of the state’s decisions regarding restrictions on abortions. This is where real progress is being made.

Sadly the theory that the feds do not pay for abortions is more theory than fact. By using accounting tricks, by sending federal funds back to states for Medicaid, in effect we are paying for abortions with our tax dollars

Lisa
Click to expand...
You know if abortion is left to the states it will just lead to another weird North/South divide.
 
Judas_The_Rock said:
You know if abortion is left to the states it will just lead to another weird North/South divide.
Click to expand...
We certainly wouldn’t go to war over it though. I would love to see far more differentiation among the states and less of the federal government in our lives. It amazes me that our beautiful Catholic teachings have been ignored by our secular governments because they make such good sense. Subsidiarity is a word that needs to be emblazoned across their foreheads.

Further and getting back to the thread, if there are states where people are more independent, Libertarian or other party, they can have far more impact locally this way. We should all strive to get the Feds out of our lives. I can pick my own lightbulbs, my own doctor and my insurance policy thank you very much

Lisa
 
Tomdstone said:
I think it depends on which Supreme Court nominee you are talking about. For example, I can see good reason to reject Robert Bork for the position. Mr. Bork was the one who was responsible for the firing and resignation of two truly great men, Archibald Cox and Elliot Richardson.
Click to expand...
As I recall, the opposition to Bork was based on Kennedy’s “Robert Borks America” speech which is one of the most shameful, unfair smears in history. According to Kennedy, Bork was going to bring back segregation and force women to have back alley abortions. The opposition to Bork wasn’t based on reality - it was a smear. His defeated nomination is a big reason why abortion on demand is still the law of the land today. Don’t blame the republicans for that, blame the democrats (many of whom are catholic). When the democrat left sees its agenda threatened it resorts To smear campaigns. Watch them accuse republicans of a war on women and the middle class in the upcoming election.

Ishii
 
LisaA said:
We certainly wouldn’t go to war over it though. I would love to see far more differentiation among the states and less of the federal government in our lives. It amazes me that our beautiful Catholic teachings have been ignored by our secular governments because they make such good sense. Subsidiarity is a word that needs to be emblazoned across their foreheads.

Further and getting back to the thread, if there are states where people are more independent, Libertarian or other party, they can have far more impact locally this way. We should all strive to get the Feds out of our lives. I can pick my own lightbulbs, my own doctor and my insurance policy thank you very much

Lisa
Click to expand...
Obviously there won’t be war over it, but sectionalism over hot button issues is rarely a good thing.
 
Judas_The_Rock said:
Obviously there won’t be war over it, but sectionalism over hot button issues is rarely a good thing.
Click to expand...
I COMPLETELY disagree. The beauty of this system of 50 states that have at least a certain amount of control over their citizens lives. Thus if you don’t want to be in a high tax, high regulation stagnant economy state (like those run by Democrats;) you can MOVE). So we see literally millions of people voting with their feet to states where the economies are booming as the Envro-nazis are not putting the kabosh on vibrant economic engines like the energy sector. Those who want a very secular life can move to the godless 😉 New England states or California. If you want states that are more conservative and reject gay “marriage” or abortion in the third trimester you can find that.

We are not going to war, not even a war of words although it’s amusing to see Rick Perry taunting Democrat governors as he attracts business and great jobs to Texas. I might move there myself. I’m in a horrible blue state, land of the crunchy granola people. I hate that part of the experience and will get outta here as soon as I can. I just hope the people who ruined California don’t destroy Texas while I’m waiting
Lisa
 
LisaA said:
I COMPLETELY disagree. The beauty of this system of 50 states that have at least a certain amount of control over their citizens lives. Thus if you don’t want to be in a high tax, high regulation stagnant economy state (like those run by Democrats;) you can MOVE). So we see literally millions of people voting with their feet to states where the economies are booming as the Envro-nazis are not putting the kabosh on vibrant economic engines like the energy sector. Those who want a very secular life can move to the godless 😉 New England states or California. If you want states that are more conservative and reject gay “marriage” or abortion in the third trimester you can find that.

We are not going to war, not even a war of words although it’s amusing to see Rick Perry taunting Democrat governors as he attracts business and great jobs to Texas. I might move there myself. I’m in a horrible blue state, land of the crunchy granola people. I hate that part of the experience and will get outta here as soon as I can. I just hope the people who ruined California don’t destroy Texas while I’m waiting
Lisa
Click to expand...
Very well thought out and rational opinion right there.
 
ishii said:
unity and solidarity while ignoring important differences is phony.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, all though abortion really doesn’t strike me as an “important difference”. Especially considering the last major divide was slavery, a far more important issue.
 
Judas_The_Rock said:
You know if abortion is left to the states it will just lead to another weird North/South divide.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I’m sure there could be some language in which 3/4 of the states could agree on, even if to strengthen the 10th amendment. And you don’t need Congress or the President to do it. In fact, you don’t want them IN the way. GIven the current approval rates of all branches of the federal government, how hard can this be?

There seems to be some presumption that given the right justice on SCOTUS, the RvsW issue will be settled once and for all. Given the many precedents already set, this is not going to happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top