Story: "Prominent clergy are duking it out on social media over Joe Biden calling himself Catholic."

[CaptainPrudeman]

Neither of them were American presidents. The checks and balances on American presidential power (and that of the other branches) are designed specifically to stop people like them from attaining too much power. Presidents with more radical agendas are pretty much always countered by a more moderate congress, since the president has absolutely no power to make laws anyway. One president won’t ruin America. A series of failures at every level of government might.

 

[otjm]

Neither of them were American presidents.

I don’t recall saying they were; but they sure as all get out rode that country from the wealthiest in South America to one not able to keep anything reasonably afloat.

Presidents with more radical agendas are pretty much always countered by a more moderate congress,

The House has not shown itself to be moderate, and the Senate has a slim majority. Agenda- wise, Kamala’s record in her current term has been one of the most radical of ll her colleagues, and given the conversations currently afoot in and across America on the left, I fear for the country. A democratic sweep scares the snot out of me.

 

[Buzzard3]

Buzzard3:

Can someone be Catholic AND a Democrat? The mind boggles!

Obviously the answer is yes. Consider that the only priest who served in Congress was a liberal Democrat.

That figures.

 

[whatistrue]

why? so the mob can attack them like they do to other doxxed people?

So that the person being detained can be sure that the person that is putting them under restraint is actually authorized to do so, and so that any violations of law or procedure can be properly investigated. Short version: Accountability.

both Joe and Don have been known to lie, where does that leave us?

If character is equal, then you go by competence. Or stay out of it entirely and keep quiet until the next opportunity to vote. But I submit that there is a big difference between an occasional liar and someone who seems to think that reality bends to his opinion.

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

Those who are pro-tyrrany or pro-life often have their own emotional blocks that keep them from considering the implications of their position.

Why make distinctions?

Pro-tyranny. Lovely. Psychologically analyzing an opponent in a political debate is often a sign that the analyser doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

By the way are you an anarchist? Because your positions on things reeks of anarchism.

Pro-tyrrany was chosen as analogous to pro-abortion. If @otjm can’t be bothered distinguishing between pro-choice and pro-abortion, why should I distinguish between pro-life and pro-tyrrany?

Would you have preferred anti-freedom? or anti-choice?

I do not think that pro-tyrrany is a good description of pro-life people. But I do not think pro-abortion is a good description of pro-choice people either. My point was that making distinctions is important, not that we should make outrageous claims about the positions others take.

 

[christofirst]

Franciscan theologian Daniel Horan weighs in on the dispute over Joe Biden’s faith, and more, such as single-issue voting, in this article. Since his article appears in the National Catholic Reporter, that will likely be enough to discredit his views for many here on CAF, but I think he makes some good points. I for one do not question the sincerity or validity of Biden’s Catholic faith, nor would I presume to do so.

The heresy of oversimplified Christianity | National Catholic Reporter

 

[Ender]

And, of course, you once again repeat the self-fulfilling prophecy.

I’m not prophesying what will be, I am explaining what is.

There has, but they’re kept down because a large group of Americans takes it upon themselves to tell others that voting third party is a waste and it won’t matter.

There have actually been some (modestly) serious third party candidates (e.g. Ross Perot), and some states have viable third and fourth parties (Conservative & Liberal in NY), but nothing has endured nationally. The lack of a national third party has nothing whatever to do with the people who don’t support the idea, and everything to do with those who do being unable or unwilling to establish one.

 

[whatistrue]

The lack of a national third party has nothing whatever to do with the people who don’t support the idea,

I completely disagree with this. It is exactly because the idea is ignored at best or ridiculed at worst that so many people refuse to even consider it. Many people have dome a lot of work to try and establish additional parties only to see them marginalized and ignored by default.

 

[Ender]

I completely disagree with this. It is exactly because the idea is ignored at best or ridiculed at worst that so many people refuse to even consider it. Many people have dome a lot of work to try and establish additional parties only to see them marginalized and ignored by default.

If there is massive support for a third party why hasn’t one arisen? There have been attempts to create one, but they have never gone anywhere, and it seems to me the reason is not because of those who don’t support the idea, but because there is no common platform which a large number of people would endorse.

What positions would a third party take on abortion, immigration, healthcare, taxes, regulation, energy, gun control etc that would make it more attractive than the positions taken by the two existing parties? What would your third party stand for that would distinguish it from the other two such that it would appeal to a third of the country? “Third party” is pretty generic; how about being a little more specific?

 

[whatistrue]

If there is massive support for a third party why hasn’t one arisen?

Several have, and several still exist, albeit very small at the moment. The issue you seem to be dismissing is that less nay-saying on the part of those beholden to or mesmerized by the current two-party system could allow for more support, perhaps approaching the “massive” level that you seem to want as a prerequisite. And it is not up to me to decide what platform a given party should have; that is up to the organizers. But there are many to choose from already and each has some level of support today, but many who might support one of them even more than their current limited choice are scared off by people touting the so-called fact that no one else can possibly win.

 

[upant]

Accountability.

normally I would agree, but, times have changed.

the left is using individual names to harass police and their families. the political leaders of the cities are allowing this behavior so the cops need to protect themselves.

someone who seems to think that reality bends to his opinion.

Joe wants to take you outside because you don’t agree with him, they are very similar

.

 

[whatistrue]

times have changed.

Not nearly to the extent that some would have us believe. And there is also the advice that has been given related to teachers who do not wish to be exposed to children who may have been exposed to the virus du jour; that same advice could apply to law enforcement officers who feel threatened by some nebulous group. But the real issue is that law enforcement officers are and should be held to a higher standard of behavior than Joe or Jane Citizen and having their identities known is one way to do that.

the left is using individual names to harass police and their families

Anyone doing that should be investigated and possibly arrested. But I don’t think that it is all that common, nor is it exclusive to “the left”, whoever that is.

Joe wants to take you outside because you don’t agree with him, they are very similar

Why would Joe want to take me outside? If it is to “discuss” the situation with fists, that is still very different than actually believing that one’s saying something makes it true.

 

[Ender]

The issue you seem to be dismissing is that less nay-saying on the part of those beholden to or mesmerized by the current two-party system could allow for more support…

The absence of a viable third party is not caused by those who dismiss the idea, but by a lack of support from those who approve of it. If there was something offered that appealed to people they would flock to it, but so far nothing has been offered that has generated much enthusiasm.

…perhaps approaching the “massive” level that you seem to want as a prerequisite.

What I want is irrelevant. If a third party is to be taken seriously it has to appeal to millions of people; that’s the nature of political parties: they have to have a lot of supporters.

And it is not up to me to decide what platform a given party should have…

Why would you want a third party without even knowing what you would want it to support? In fact we have a multitude of parties already:

As of September 2019, there were 224 state-level ballot-qualified political party affiliates in the United States.

The Libertarian Party exists in 37 states, the Green Party in 26, and the Constitution Party in 14. Why don’t you find the one most appealing to your political views and support it? It seems that you’re not asking for a third party but for a 225th one.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

If there was something offered that appealed to people they would flock to it,

They don’t, because, once again, we’re told by people like you that there’s no point and we’ll lose anyway.

 

[whatistrue]

It seems that you’re not asking for a third party but for a 225th one.

As far as I am concerned, the more the merrier. Ties in with “let the market decide”, except that the current system is a pair of effective monopolies, held up in part by people who opine that voting for other parties is “wasting your vote”. A point that has yet to be successfully addressed here.

Why don’t you find the one most appealing to your political views and support it?

And just what did I say to make you think that I don’t already? More assuming?

 

[BornInMarch]

That type of sniping isn’t appropriate for a Priest, let alone for a Bishop.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:

One of American society’s greatest failures is the continued shaming of third party voters. Our nation will forever be sick until we learn to not shame and suppress others for voting their conscience.

Voting for a third party candidate is only sensible if one sees no effective difference between the offerings of the two major parties, an exceedingly rare occurrence. As a practical matter either a Democrat or a Republican will win except in special circumstances, and a choice between bad and worse is still a choice we should be willing to make. There is nothing particularly noble in abandoning an opportunity to minimize the damage because we were hoping for better.

There is another reason for voting for a third party, and that is the long view. That is the view that this will not be the last election ever. There will be more elections in the future. And if we want a better party to play a role in future elections we need to raise the credibility of that party by giving votes today. That is how parties are assigned the right to be on a ballot. That is how people become aware of the growing popularity of a new party. That is how a new party gets publicity and donations. It has happened many times already in US history. There is no reason to think it can’t happen again. But if everyone treats each election as if it is last one ever, this can never happen.

 

[Dovekin]

Third parties, or actually the two parties, work a little differently. The most successful recent third party candidate is Bernie Sanders, the Socialist from Vermont. He is not a member of the Democratic party, but has run on the Democratic ticket in other states.

You could probably make a case that Trump did something similar. But he never worked within a local political organization the way Sanders did. He instead took advantage of weaknesses in the Republican Party that allowed him to take control.

Building a third party to compete with the two dominant parties is probably impractical. Using a local party as a base for changing one of the two. At some point, the new party will have to overtake one of the larger parties, either by replacing it or by taking control.

 

[upant]

having their identities known is one way to do that.

not when these people come for your family, there is no excuse for such behavior.

Anyone doing that should be investigated and possibly arrested. But I don’t think that it is all that common, nor is it exclusive to “the left”, whoever that is

the DA’s are letting rioters off scot-free

Why would Joe want to take me outside? If it is to “discuss” the situation with fists, that is still very different than actually believing that one’s saying something makes it true.

Joe actually believes what he says is true and if you call him on it he wants to take you outside as if that would prove it.

 

[whatistrue]

when these people come for your family, there is no excuse for such behavior

I never disputed that. I do not believe that the issue is as widespread and pervasive as you claim though. I need better verification for that claim before I can accept it.

the DA’s are letting rioters off scot-free

Citation needed. ETA: And we were talking about Federal agents concealing their identities - local DAs don’t handle Federal cases, so what a DA does or doesn’t do about a local matter isn’t the point.

Joe actually believes what he says is true

And DT appears to believe that his saying something makes it become true regardless of objective reality, and he will initiate personal attacks and try to use the power of his office to crush anyone who dares to question him. Far cry from being willing to back up your words on a personal level.

And how about we just let it be there and not go even father off topic? You have your opinion and I have mine, and each of us believe that reality backs us up. Time will tell, but there is no reason to hijack the platform to go over it yet again.