Sanders Thread

[estesbob]

Since President Bush was that election, then we can measure how many innocent lives were saved by legislation restricting abortion on demand. What? No legislation. Well, at least we got some unjust wars and torture out of the deal.

His reinstitution of the Mexico City policy undoubtedly saved thousands and thousands of lives of unborn children in Third World countries . He also signed the partial-birth abortion law , the first restriction on abortion passed since Roe was opposed . A grand total of three terrorist were water boarded during the Bush administration . But then again if people Really think Bush supports unjust wars and torture I suggest they not vote for him in the 2016 election

 

[estesbob]

Gravis poll results for NY primary - Bernie lags Hilary by only 6% with a 2.9% margin of error. See oann.com/pollny/

Interesting. If Sanders can start gaining some of the superdelegates it could make for an interesting convention

 

[lynnvinc]

Gravis poll results for NY primary - Bernie lags Hilary by only 6% with a 2.9% margin of error. See oann.com/pollny/

Also on general election polls, Sanders does much better than Clinton against any of the Republican candidates:

For Sanders v. Trump see: realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

The general election polls for other match-ups are linked on that page.

 

[Good_Tidings]

Of course bad for the billionaires. They have to start paying taxes

What I’ve never been able to figure out is why would a person need to have so much money? How many yachts can they be sailing on at the same time?

Oh yeah, once they have the money, then they need to buy elections and politicians so they can get them to dismantle the regs – EPA, worker wages and safety, etc. So it’s either about making more money or so they can kill and harm at will with impunity. Or maybe it’s just like a game to them and they want to win…like Monopoly.

I often wonder about how much money is needed, too. I think that once they make a tremendous amount of money the thrill is gone. The next thrill comes from power. They use all that money to gain power. Nothing is ever going to make them completely happy.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I often wonder about how much money is needed, too. I think that once they make a tremendous amount of money the thrill is gone. The next thrill comes from power. They use all that money to gain power. Nothing is ever going to make them completely happy.

The way I see it, the more money I have the more I can help other people who are very needy, and animals as well. I’d buy some nice things - a house, a boat, some businesses, but I’d use the bulk of the money to help others, especially the homeless, and to help homeless animals.

 

[Good_Tidings]

The way I see it, the more money I have the more I can help other people who are very needy, and animals as well.

So many of these power brokers don’t think like that. Imagine if they did!

 

[zz912]

I think we would describe the early Christian communities as socialism

No, we wouldn’t. The early Church shared in charity their goods among themselves freely, without coercion or force. This is NOT socialism.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

So many of these power brokers don’t think like that. Imagine if they did!

I know they don’t. Sad! I’m not into power, though. The only person I’d like to control is me! LOL

 

[zz912]

Great post!

Those who are pro-choice usually don’t mind if no one ever has an abortion. They just don’t want to see women being butchered along with their child, or more likely, they feel the choice is the woman’s to make, along with her family, doctor, and faith leader.

No one has the right to “choose” to kill an innocent person. A Christian cannot support such a “choice”.

I’ve seen many so-called pro-life persons who don’t give a hoot about life once the child is born. I used to call them “pro-birth,” but that seems derogatory, so I stick to pro-choice and anti-abortion now.

More justifications you use to excuse your support of intrinsic evil. Paint those who are working to protect life as monsters, so that you can continue to oppose Church teaching.

I do not personally believe in abortion,

You PERSONALLY want it to remain legal, so YES, you DO personally believe in abortion.

I know many Catholics who contracept and feel their families are better for it.

Their feelings are wrong, and they are in mortal sin. A Christian should practice charity to such people and warn them they are putting their soul in jeopardy of damnation.

I know Catholics who say if they did not contracept, they would abort, and these are Catholics who are looked at as “good” Catholics. They are not lapsed Catholics.

They most certainly ARE lapsed Catholics. They have rejected Church teaching, so they are lapsed. They may be attending Mass, but they reject the Christian faith. And you can really see it in what they say, that if they weren’t sinning by using contraception, they would instead sin by killing their child. Shows how perverted the conscience can become when one rejects even one Church teaching.

 

[zz912]

Of course bad for the billionaires. They have to start paying taxes

What I’ve never been able to figure out is why would a person need to have so much money? How many yachts can they be sailing on at the same time?

Oh yeah, once they have the money, then they need to buy elections and politicians so they can get them to dismantle the regs – EPA, worker wages and safety, etc. So it’s either about making more money or so they can kill and harm at will with impunity. Or maybe it’s just like a game to them and they want to win…like Monopoly.

The “special” or “elite” class in socialized countries are always protected. Political leaders always promise they will punish the “evil” rich, but rarely do it.

And socialist countries are the worst polluters of the world. You’d think someone who actually cared about the planet would care about that fact.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

No one has the right to “choose” to kill an innocent person. A Christian cannot support such a “choice”.

More justifications you use to excuse your support of intrinsic evil. Paint those who are working to protect life as monsters, so that you can continue to oppose Church teaching.

You PERSONALLY want it to remain legal, so YES, you DO personally believe in abortion.

Their feelings are wrong, and they are in mortal sin. A Christian should practice charity to such people and warn them they are putting their soul in jeopardy of damnation.

They most certainly ARE lapsed Catholics. They have rejected Church teaching, so they are lapsed. They may be attending Mass, but they reject the Christian faith. And you can really see it in what they say, that if they weren’t sinning by using contraception, they would instead sin by killing their child. Shows how perverted the conscience can become when one rejects even one Church teaching.

Justice Scalia thought as I do, that abortion should be legal in the US, and it was up to the individual states to prohibit it. I trust his judgment over yours, no offense meant, and believe he was an expert in constitutional law.

Please do not tell me what I believe. I do not believe in abortion. One has to separate the moral from the legal. Blame the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution. I do not support abortion on demand.

 

[lynnvinc]

Socialism is always bad. It does not make a difference if it is democratic or not.

Sanders is for the Nordic Model of Socialism – see Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

*"The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism or Nordic social democracy) refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a “universalist” welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government; and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade."
*

However, even if Bernie were to become president, it is unlikely that he would be able to get the US to go that far. It would just be great if he could help (with our support) bring about a more just and healthy society that would reduce harms and killing of people.

Maybe, since he is such a great fan of Pope Francis and Catholic social teaching, he might even do things to help reduce abortion in a greater way than what the Republican candidates plan to do – push it into the back alleys and down to Mexico, and if the babies get born, let them fend for themselves on the streets.

 

[lynnvinc]

The “special” or “elite” class in socialized countries are always protected. Political leaders always promise they will punish the “evil” rich, but rarely do it.

And socialist countries are the worst polluters of the world. You’d think someone who actually cared about the planet would care about that fact.

My understanding is that Germany, UK, and Nordic countries are somewhat better on the environment than the US, but maybe you know something I don’t know.

However, Bernie is by far the best environmentalist candidate. Trump and Cruz are for killing us all out thru environmental harms. They are exceedingly terrible, esp Cruz (let’s face it Trump really doesn’t know much about anything, but Cruz does).

 

[estesbob]

I find it odd that Faithful Citizenship wouldn’t say that then. It seems like it could be much shorter if it said, well, we care about other issues, but there is no proportional reason not to vote for the pro-life candidate, so you should vote for the pro-life candidate. Bishop Kicalas suggests there is more to it than that.

It’s odd that that a Catholic will believe that Faithful Citizenship is the sum total of all Catholic teaching . Regardless of how many quotes from members of the magisterium or church documents we provide the reply as always " my personal interpretation of Faithful Citizenship differs with that ." Surely if it was licit for Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate when a more pro-life alternative was available somebody in the Magestrium would’ve said so directly. You know something clear and concise like this:

"No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy 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

 

[meltzerboy]

Will you be burning your social security checks later in life?

It be rather hypocritical for you to benefit monetarily from a socialist program.

Better not use Medicaid or Medicare either.

Yes, an anti-socialist is someone who doesn’t yet need some of the benefits that the government provides. When they do need any of the so-called entitlements, they magically support socialist programs.

 

[estesbob]

Justice Scalia thought as I do, that abortion should be legal in the US, and it was up to the individual states to prohibit it. I trust his judgment over yours, no offense meant, and believe he was an expert in constitutional law.

Please do not tell me what I believe. I do not believe in abortion. One has to separate the moral from the legal. Blame the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution. I do not support abortion on demand.

Do You trust his judgment over the teachings of the holy Catholic Church? We are required to oppose unjust laws
The “separation of Church and state” does not mean — and it can never mean — separating our Catholic faith from our public witness, our political choices and our political actions. That kind of separation would require Christians to deny who we are; to repudiate Jesus when he commands us to be “leaven in the world” and to “make disciples of all nations.” That kind of radical separation steals the moral content of a society. It’s the equivalent of telling a married man that he can’t act married in public. Of course, he can certainly do that, but he won’t stay married.
Archbishop CharlescChaput

 

[estesbob]

The way I see it, the more money I have the more I can help other people who are very needy, and animals as well. I’d buy some nice things - a house, a boat, some businesses, but I’d use the bulk of the money to help others, especially the homeless, and to help homeless animals.

You don’t Need money to help the poor and needy. All it takes his time and will

 

[stinkcat_14]

Yes, an anti-socialist is someone who doesn’t yet need some of the benefits that the government provides. When they do need any of the so-called entitlements, they magically support socialist programs.

It is not just needing social programs, it is wanting them. There are plenty of people who don’t need social security and medicare, but few turn them down. If fact, we see people jumping through hoops to redefine them as something other than socialist programs.

 

[Crossbones]

It’s odd that that a Catholic will believe that Faithful Citizenship is the sum total of all Catholic teaching . Regardless of how many quotes from members of the magisterium or church documents we provide the reply as always " my personal interpretation of Faithful Citizenship differs with that ." Surely if it was licit for Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate when a more pro-life alternative was available somebody in the Magestrium would’ve said so directly. You know something clear and concise like this:

"No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy 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

Again, the Faithful Citizenship guide would be much shorter than. After all, Cardinal Burke has summarized all of Catholic voting into a single issue and you could put that into a business card and hand it out.

I don’t think I am wrong to think that a majority of bishops want us to think about a variety of issues based on the guide and the comments of Bishop Kicanas who said about voters seeking Catholic guidance:

“I think they’ve been helped greatly by the bishops’ document on forming consciences. [The document is titled “Faithful Citizenship.”] I think helping people to understand the document is important, because what you hear from people is that it’s too dense, we don’t understand it, it’s too complex, you should say things more simply. The reality, of course, is that the world is complex. These issues are not easy.”

 

[oliver927]

Justice Scalia thought as I do, that abortion should be legal in the US, and it was up to the individual states to prohibit it. I trust his judgment over yours, no offense meant, and believe he was an expert in constitutional law.

What I bolded in your above statement seems to be more along the lines of Scalia thinking the Federal Government should not have any say in the abortion issue because there is nothing in the US Constitution about abortion, combined with the 10th Amendment which say unless the Constitution specifically says the Feds can or that the States can not, it is left to the States or the People. I think this is a Much more likely scenario than what you have described Scalia’s position to be.