Sanders Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter SuperLuigi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lily_Bernans said:
Teachers, for example, get them automatically instead of earning merit raises. I’m a great believer is merit raises, but I do think every worker should earn a living wage.
Click to expand...
Agree wholeheartedly with your statements. Just wanted to clarify one thing, not all teachers receive automatic merit pay raises or even merit based pay raises.
 
InigoMontoya said:
Agree wholeheartedly with your statements. Just wanted to clarify one thing, not all teachers receive automatic merit pay raises or even merit based pay raises.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.
 
estesbob said:
Your pastor does not have the Authority to tell you to disobey church teachings. As we have pointed out in numerous threads in this forum a Catholic simply cannot vote for poor pro abortion candidate Unless their opponent is more pro abortion than they are. We have posted direct quote from pope’s, Cardinals, Vatican documents, church fathers, etc. and all we get in Return is “my Priest told me it was ok”
Click to expand...
If you are referencing the Vatican letter from Pope Benedict to Cardinal McCarrick from 2004, for the position that a Catholic may not vote for a pro abortion candidate, keep in mind the disclaimer of the vote being allowable in the presence of proportionate reasons. Certainly proportionate reasons would be a contentious debate, but it is it not fair to acknowledge that in our current political climate they may be arguable? :confused:
 
InigoMontoya said:
Higher taxes are not necessarily a bad thing, depending on what services are provided on in return. Granted, many will have differing views on that and at the end of the day it is a personal matter of opinion. However it doesn’t necessarily hurt the working poor.

On an aggregate basis, there’s often little correlation between how hard someone works and the pay they receive. A $15 hourly minimum wage isn’t necessarily a bad thing either, although granted it also is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Consider this, any company which is paying less than $15 an hour to their employees, is being subsidized by the government.
Click to expand...
Is a job flipping hamburger at McDonald’s worth $15/hr vs. an EMT that helps save lives? One thinks he deserves it vs one that does, but does not receive it.

And less take home pay is bad…especially for those with one income whom pay tuition for good Catholic education or need extra $$ for emergency situations.
 
InigoMontoya said:
If you are referencing the Vatican letter from Pope Benedict to Cardinal McCarrick from 2004, for the position that a Catholic may not vote for a pro abortion candidate, keep in mind the disclaimer of the vote being allowable in the presence of proportionate reasons. Certainly proportionate reasons would be a contentious debate, but it is it not fair to acknowledge that in our current political climate they may be arguable? :confused:
Click to expand...
In this presidential election, those proportionate reasons certainly are arguable. You are right. And, voting in a candidate who supports abortion will not increase the number of abortions just as voting in one who does not support it will not halt abortion.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
In this presidential election, those proportionate reasons certainly are arguable. You are right. And, voting in a candidate who supports abortion will not increase the number of abortions just as voting in one who does not support it will not halt abortion.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, a lot of people get their moral compass from government. We have seen that many times historically.

And if government makes excuses for abortion and promotes the idea that an unborn child is not a human being, and particularly if a leader vehemently endorses a group that’s involved in the body parts trade, it is corrupting to the society generally.

And I, for one, do not accept the philosophy of moral despair in which one maintains that one’s actions have no moral content based on the assumption that nothing one does can have a positive impact.
 
InigoMontoya said:
If you are referencing the Vatican letter from Pope Benedict to Cardinal McCarrick from 2004, for the position that a Catholic may not vote for a pro abortion candidate, keep in mind the disclaimer of the vote being allowable in the presence of proportionate reasons. Certainly proportionate reasons would be a contentious debate, but it is it not fair to acknowledge that in our current political climate they may be arguable? :confused:
Click to expand...
What issues do you consider proportionate to the annual murder of a million children? “Proportionate reasons” might well be the subject of a contentious debate and undoubtedly will be, just as it was in the last two presidential elections. It will be so because of the widespread acceptance of subjective morality; “A” is proportionate to “B” because I think so".

Objectively, there is nothing in the current political debate that is remotely near proportionate to abortion on demand and government support of it.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I certainly respect your feelings, but abortion is legal in the US now, so it’s not really a political issue, it’s a religious one. Parents need to teach their children to respect the sanctity of life so they don’t seek an abortion.

I will vote for Hillary or Bernie, whoever wins the nomination, and have already the “okay” of my pastor to do so.
Click to expand...
Didn’t you already make a false claim about Fr. Frank Pavone, claiming he was okay with you voting for Sanders?
 
Lily_Bernans said:
In this presidential election, those proportionate reasons certainly are arguable. You are right. And, voting in a candidate who supports abortion will not increase the number of abortions just as voting in one who does not support it will not halt abortion.
Click to expand...
So it’s okay to support evil, as long as there are no blatant consequences of it?
 
Ridgerunner said:
What issues do you consider proportionate to the annual murder of a million children? “Proportionate reasons” might well be the subject of a contentious debate and undoubtedly will be, just as it was in the last two presidential elections. It will be so because of the widespread acceptance of subjective morality; “A” is proportionate to “B” because I think so".

Objectively, there is nothing in the current political debate that is remotely near proportionate to abortion on demand and government support of it.
Click to expand...
While one can never accuse me of supporting democrats, since I find the republican party way too liberal, I think the whole issue of “proportionate reasons” is very vaguely defined. We know that proportionate reasons must exist, otherwise the Church would have never allowed for them. On the other hand, there is no definitive case as to what those proportionate reasons are.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
While one can never accuse me of supporting democrats, since I find the republican party way too liberal, I think the whole issue of “proportionate reasons” is very vaguely defined. We know that proportionate reasons must exist, otherwise the Church would have never allowed for them. On the other hand, there is no definitive case as to what those proportionate reasons are.
Click to expand...
You find the Republican Party more liberal than the Democratic?
 
InigoMontoya said:
If you are referencing the Vatican letter from Pope Benedict to Cardinal McCarrick from 2004, for the position that a Catholic may not vote for a pro abortion candidate, keep in mind the disclaimer of the vote being allowable in the presence of proportionate reasons. Certainly proportionate reasons would be a contentious debate, but it is it not fair to acknowledge that in our current political climate they may be arguable? :confused:
Click to expand...
As has been imade clear by the statements of numerous members of the magisterium and Vatican documents the only proportionate reason is if a candidates opponent is more pro-abortion than they are or they are equally proabortion .
*
No,You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion."You "may in some circumstances, where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country. But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone.

Cardinal Burke*
 
estesbob said:
Think Sandy Weiner. Think New York
Click to expand...
Never heard of him or her, only the Weiner who was having an affair, and he’s not a “Sandy.” He’s an “Anthony,” and he actually did a lot of good for NYC, but his sex scandal was ludicrous, to say the least. He shouldn’t have destroyed his political career like that. He probably could have gone far.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
While one can never accuse me of supporting democrats, since I find the republican party way too liberal, I think the whole issue of “proportionate reasons” is very vaguely defined. We know that proportionate reasons must exist, otherwise the Church would have never allowed for them. On the other hand, there is no definitive case as to what those proportionate reasons are.
Click to expand...
Certainly, proportionate reasons could imaginably exist, which is probably why the Church allows of the possibility. But that’s not to say they do in this country at present.

Imaginably, some liberal on here will posit his idea of specific “proportionate reasons”, but I have yet to see it in this election cycle anyway. They talk about it generally, but don’t offer specifics.

Perhaps eventually one will.
 
estesbob said:
As has been imade clear by the statements of numerous members of the magisterium and Vatican documents the only proportionate reason is if a candidates opponent is more pro-abortion than they are or they are equally proabortion .
*
No,You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion."You "may in some circumstances, where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country. But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone.

Cardinal Burke*
Click to expand...
With all due respect to Cardinal Burke, and I do respect him, of course, I’m still going to go with the Holy Father.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I certainly respect your feelings, but abortion is legal in the US now, so it’s not really a political issue, it’s a religious one.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly backwards: abortion is a political issue, it is not a religious issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top