Sanders Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter SuperLuigi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lily_Bernans said:
You’re welcome, Sy.

What do you think of Sanders’ momentum? Do you think he can pull off the nomination?

He raised four million in the last 48 hours! I’d take one million in a month! LOL
Click to expand...
I think Bernie has been doing phenomenally! I don’t think many, even Bernie, when he began this campaign, quite expected what has transpired. I backed him from the start but I know I sure didn’t expect this! That said, my head is still telling me to think the road leading to the nomination, while yet an end still reachable, is still a difficult task ahead. If he were to continue winning WI, PA, NY, CA… then a case could be made. But at the same time, a case can be made that Hillary won FL, OH, VA, NV… and all 4 of those are important swing states. I could put IA in there but that was a virtual tie. But whether he is the nominee or not, Bernie has been an asset, don’t you think? And I am so proud of both him and Hillary for the campaign they have run in comparison to the other side!
 
Crossbones said:
What?
Click to expand...
I looked up the desert originally made in response to my post.

Hasn’t been discussed since Dec 2015 according to left-wing blogs.

That’s hardly carrying on a long-winded conversation, as was implied…
 
SuperLuigi said:
I looked up the desert originally made in response to my post.

Hasn’t been discussed since Dec 2015 according to left-wing blogs.

That’s hardly carrying on a long-winded conversation, as was implied…
Click to expand...
Well, then, I guess it isn’t a big deal.
 
Sy_Noe said:
I think Bernie has been doing phenomenally! I don’t think many, even Bernie, when he began this campaign, quite expected what has transpired. I backed him from the start but I know I sure didn’t expect this! That said, my head is still telling me to think the road leading to the nomination, while yet an end still reachable, is still a difficult task ahead. If he were to continue winning WI, PA, NY, CA… then a case could be made. But at the same time, a case can be made that Hillary won FL, OH, VA, NV… and all 4 of those are important swing states. I could put IA in there but that was a virtual tie. But whether he is the nominee or not, Bernie has been an asset, don’t you think? And I am so proud of both him and Hillary for the campaign they have run in comparison to the other side!
Click to expand...
It really is amazing at how far Hillary Clinton has fallen. She was supposed to be the unbeatable candidate and no one should have even bothered to run against her. I know Nate Silver said her numbers could only go down, but this is something else.

First Obama, now Sanders.

But it seems clear to me (ever more so seeing DWS’s expression being forced to not take her side and talk nicely about Bernie) is that this is going to SOS Clinton short of her going to prison, and then expect Biden or Bloomberg to save the day.

The Republicans aren’t the only ones who’d parachute someone in…
 
lily bernans said:
the fact that republican appointed justices upheld roe v. Wade and planned parenthood v. Casey are not rationalizations, they are historical facts.

From a pro-life democrat:

"first, neither major political party is consistent with catholic teachings. I joined the democratic party in 1987 because i agreed with a majority of the issues. The democratic party is consistent with catholic social teaching on a lot of issues. The 2012 platform called for “reclaiming the economic security of the middle class,” ensuring high quality and affordable health care, affordable housing and a “secure, healthy and dignified retirement.” those are all positions that catholics should support.

"i disagreed with the democratic position on abortion, but i also made a vow to change it and leaving the party would almost be going against my vocation. Our catholic teachings encourage us to not “abandon your beliefs” to join a political party, but to stay and try to change that party. I was called into this fight and i will not stop until the sanctity of all human life is protected by the democratic party platform.

Catholic teaching does not fit neatly into either party. We have to make the best decision we can when aligning with our joining a party.

When you compare the republican and democratic party platforms overall, the democratic party platform is superior when you look at support for lifting families out of poverty. The united states conference of catholic bishops calls a living wage a “fundamental right of workers and a moral imperative of employers because it provides workers with a means and resources to form and support a family.” they estimate that raising the minimum wage would benefit 30 million workers. When many poor women seek an abortion because of poverty, a living wage can also contribute to protecting human life."

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/pro-life-democrats-and-catholic-church-21-questions-kristen-day

for me, as for this woman, the democratic party more closely adheres to catholic moral teaching. Catholic moral teaching revolves around two principles: The dignity of the human person and the common good. I find none of the republican candidates support the common good, but both of the democratic candidates do. As i said previously, there are republicans i admire; they just aren’t running for president.
Click to expand...
7,8 & 9
 
SuperLuigi said:
I did not say any particular account was a feminist.

Missing the point. Good policies don’t need to be defended with excuses but stand firm in the realm of reason and natural law.

Progressive policies do not do that, which is why the Democrats need to focus on identity politics in every single election cycle.
Click to expand...
This is a blindingly lopsided statement. Both Democrats and Republicans defend and discuss what they perceive to be good policies - on this board and elsewhere. Both Democrats and Republicans focus on identity politics every single election cycle.

You say that good policies “stand firm in the realm of reason and natural law,” so they don’t need to be defended. But good and wise people interpret what is reasonable and rational and natural in different ways - no one person or one party has cornered the market on absolute Truth.

Both parties believe that they have the policies and wisdom to best guide our country; both parties defend their positions; both parties use rhetoric and reason to engage supporters and critics. As far as identity goes, the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is negligible - they are truly two heads of the same beast.

Realizing this is important, I think. Anytime I want to criticize “how” a particular Republican is behaving, I really can’t, because I don’t ever have to look very far to find a Democrat behaving in the exact same way. That’s why, for me at least, it’s more important to focus on the ideas and policies of each side and not on their uniformly questionable behavior in their never-ending quest for power.

And I do think that good policies and ideas should be discussed and debated and defended. Doing that doesn’t mean they don’t stand on their own merits (though clearly, not all do) - it simply means that many of the challenges we face are complex and we all have different ideas regarding what policies are best for our nation as a whole.

For me, a conversation that begins with, “I just don’t know if I think building a gigantic wall on our Southern border will be a good thing for our country to do” is much more likely to lead to a rich discussion about immigration and its effects on our nation face with it than a conversation that begins with “Donald Trump is a xenophobic narcissist and possibly the next Hitler!!!”

Too much of the latter junks up our political discussions these days and most all of us are guilty of it.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
We never really know.

It was a Republican Supreme court that voted to uphold Roe v. Wade and ushered in legal abortion in the US in 1973.

It was also a Republican appointed Supreme Court that did not take a chance to curb abortion in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

So, I don’t have a lot of faith that Republican appointed justices are going to do a thing to overturn abortion. They aren’t the puppets of those who appoint them, and so far, their record at ending abortion isn’t good.
Click to expand...
That is excuse #7 for ignoring Church teaching.

EXCUSES FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS
  1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
  5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  10. We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  13. We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  16. The Pro-Life movement is in the tank for the Republican party (even though all pro-life legislation has had the overwhelming support of Republicans and overwhelming opposition from Democrats), so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  17. All people sin, so we’re all really “Cafeteria Catholics”, so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  18. Dominionists attend GOP rallies so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
  19. The Pope believes in Global warming, the Pro-life candidate does not so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
 
Lily_Bernans said:
The fact that Republican appointed justices upheld Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are not rationalizations, they are historical facts.

From a pro-life Democrat:

"First, neither major political party is consistent with Catholic teachings. I joined the Democratic Party in 1987 because I agreed with a majority of the issues. The Democratic Party is consistent with Catholic social teaching on a lot of issues. The 2012 platform called for “reclaiming the economic security of the middle class,” ensuring high quality and affordable health care, affordable housing and a “secure, healthy and dignified retirement.” Those are all positions that Catholics should support.

"I disagreed with the Democratic position on abortion, but I also made a vow to change it and leaving the party would almost be going against my vocation. Our Catholic teachings encourage us to not “abandon your beliefs” to join a political party, but to stay and try to change that party. I was called into this fight and I will not stop until the sanctity of all human life is protected by the Democratic Party platform.

Catholic teaching does not fit neatly into either party. We have to make the best decision we can when aligning with our joining a party.

When you compare the Republican and Democratic Party platforms overall, the Democratic Party platform is superior when you look at support for lifting families out of poverty. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops calls a living wage a “fundamental right of workers and a moral imperative of employers because it provides workers with a means and resources to form and support a family.” They estimate that raising the minimum wage would benefit 30 million workers. When many poor women seek an abortion because of poverty, a living wage can also contribute to protecting human life."

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/pro-life-democrats-and-catholic-church-21-questions-kristen-day

For me, as for this woman, the Democratic Party more closely adheres to Catholic moral teaching. Catholic moral teaching revolves around two principles: the dignity of the human person and the common good. I find none of the Republican candidates support the common good, but both of the Democratic candidates do. As I said previously, there are Republicans I admire; they just aren’t running for president.
Click to expand...
Thank you for admitting that you blatantly ignore the Church teaching on the dignity of the human person when you ignore a politician’s support for abortion and same-sex "marriage.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I don’t think anyone needs an “excuse” to vote Democratic. I know I don’t. I carefully weighed everything, looked at the candidates, and decided that, in good conscience, I could support only Sanders or Clinton.

I need no “excuses” for that decision, and I would be proud to have either as my president.
Click to expand...
You have to find some justification for ignoring Church teaching on abortion, same-sex “marriage”, euthanasia, etc.
 
I don’t know about any mandates, but I’m increasingly disturbed by the tangled webs that Trump promoters use to justify their position.
 
Peter_J said:
What does that mean exactly?
Click to expand...
He said that it is all about the five non-negotiables and religious liberty. Since religious liberty is not included in the 5 non-negotiables it must be negotiable.

I admit it was pure snark but it echoes the words of Pope Francis:
“I have never understood the expression non-negotiable values,” responded the Pope. “Values are values, and that is it. I can’t say that, of the fingers of a hand, there is one less useful than the rest. Whereby I do not understand in what sense there may be negotiable values.”
Click to expand...
Catholic Answers came up with the idea of the non-negotiables. It is not Catholic teaching.
 
Peter_J said:
I don’t know about any mandates, but I’m increasingly disturbed by the tangled webs that Trump promoters use to justify their position.
Click to expand...
I have had the same problem with Catholic Democrats for years
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top