With Trump Behind, Things Will Get Nasty

[Annie]

Are you against mandatory seat belt laws?

Actually, a better case can be made for mandatory masks than for mandatory seatbelts. Seatbelts primarily protect the wearer, but masks primarily protect everyone else from the wearer.

I think that the two laws are more different than generally thought.

Because driving is a privelege rather than a right, the government can put more restrictions on issues related to driving on public roads, hence seat belt laws fall under a different category than do face masks.

Moreover, a person injured in an accident can affect the other driver’s insurance and insurance rates in general, not to mention the effect on the others involved in the accident.

Those who oppose the use of face masks probably feel that a freedom of theirs has been taken away without a corresponding finding which would allow that to happen. These people would possibly argue that it is like civil forfeiture, and that it can serve as the beginning of a slippery slope.

I myself have never really thought about having a position on either topic*. I wear a mask in stores, etc., but do not freak out if I see someone not wearing a mask.

Some people do; for instance, a friend told me there was a notice on a neighborhood sort of FB page–like thing on which a patron complained that the local store had not forbidden entry to an unmasked couple and the patron/writer hoped others would complain to the store.

*ETA : seatbelts or facemasks. I am heartily against civil forfeiture and cannot believe it has not been ruled unConstitutional by the SC.

 

[Nepperhan]

Like it or not, Trump will be with us another four years.

Not as president, I hope.

The left treated George W. Bush horribly.

Horribly? There’s such a thing as political inquiry and criticism.

And then there is the planned negativity (and falseness!) of a ‘Willie Horton’ project. Republicans got past negative to highly inappropriate.

 

[Motherwit]

FrankFletcher:

You felt condescended to previously? And you see this as justification for abdication of civility?

Dude, civility is a cloak when discussing power relationships that are inherently economic and ruthless.

The left constantly condescends to those they don’t think are worth talking to. An extreme example is Kronstadt. Centrists are guilty of this as well.

All well and good for those who get off on nastiness but it isn’t a Catholic principle.

In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility. - Dignitatis humanae

Too many Catholics today are on a high horse for piety in Church but happy to participate in the nastiness of the world.

 

[Nepperhan]

Ah! A civil bigot. I think Strom Thurmond was one too. Well, for that matter, so is Barack Obama.

You really need to stop the name-calling. Neither Kamala Harris nor Barack Obama is a bigot. Don’t ascribe that to folks who differ from you politically. Both of them had good reason to be bigoted, also but did not stoop to their detractors’ level. When folks went low, they went high.

 

[RuthAnne]

Not as president, I hope.

Trump isn’t behind and he’s going to be reelected.

 

[Annie]

All well and good for those who get off on nastiness but it isn’t a Catholic principle.

@LeafByNiggle @FrankFletcher @EmilyAlexandra @Nepperhan @Feanor @RidgeSprinter

One of the odd things I notice is the ability of left-leaning Catholics to justify voting for pro-abortion pols while criticizing pols on the right for divisiveness and now nastiness.

Yes, Trump’s behavior does go too far too often, but so what? Way too many Dems, even Catholic ones!, have 100% ratings with NARAL, accrued over many years.

This election is a dichotomy: a guy who is nasty or a guy with a 100% NARAL rating.

I have to say, I just do not understand this. I mean, admit you’re holding your nose as you vote for a D for reasons other than abortion, but don’t try to say that just because he “speaks well” that he is a better person.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

All well and good for those who get off on nastiness but it isn’t a Catholic principle.

@LeafByNiggle @FrankFletcher @EmilyAlexandra @Nepperhan @Feanor @RidgeSprinter

One of the odd things I notice is the ability of left-leaning Catholics to justify voting for pro-abortion pols while criticizing pols on the right for divisiveness and now nastiness.

Yes, Trump’s behavior does go too far too often, but so what? Way too many Dems, even Catholic ones!, have 100% ratings with NARAL, accrued over many years.

This election is a dichotomy: a guy who is nasty or a guy with a 100% NARAL rating.

I have to say, I just do not understand this. I mean, admit you’re holding your nose as you vote for a D for reasons other than abortion, but don’t try to say that just because he “speaks well” that he is a better person.

I vote third party.

 

[Annie]

I vote third party.

I hope soon to be able to vote 3rd party, and am sad that it is the Supreme Court that determines my vote

 

[Ridgerunner]

Horribly? There’s such a thing as political inquiry and criticism.

And then there is the planned negativity (and falseness!) of a ‘Willie Horton’ project. Republicans got past negative to highly inappropriate.

It wasn’t just “political inquiry and criticism”. It was disdain, ridicule and outright lying about his acitons.

The “Willie Horton” ads didn’t seem “racist” to me. Why did they to you?

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Use the Pope Francis’ encyclical “Gaudete et Exsultate.”

1. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.[84] We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

 

[Annie]

As I said, “admit you’re holding your nose as you vote for a D for reasons other than abortion, but don’t try to say that just because he “speaks well” that he is a better person.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

One of the odd things I notice is the ability of left-leaning Catholics to justify voting for pro-abortion pols while criticizing pols on the right for divisiveness and now nastiness.

While it is true that Trump is both divisive and “nasty”, these factors by themselves are not the main reason why so many people are voting against him. So it is not “odd” that they are mentioned. Why shouldn’t they be mentioned if people believe them to be true? That does not mean they are central to people’s reason to vote against him.

I have to say, I just do not understand this. I mean, admit you’re holding your nose as you vote for a D for reasons other than abortion, but don’t try to say that just because he “speaks well” that he is a better person.

If by “holding your nose” you mean believing there are other candidates you would rather see running, then I admit it. In today’s political climate, the candidates who would make the best President either cannot make it past the primaries, or, what is more likely, they do not want to run. There are many people I would rather see running on both the Republican and the Democratic tickets. But I will never see them on the ballot for the reasons mentioned.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

I consider all the issues as being "Equally Sacred". All issues are weighed

One does not trump the other. Biblically speaking there is only one Sin that TRUMPs all others, and that is Blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

 

[Nepperhan]

It wasn’t just “political inquiry and criticism”. It was disdain, ridicule and outright lying about his acitons.

Well, actually he deserved disdain and ridicule. Any lying about his actions would have been called out by the opposition. Your post is softball comments – Trump, from his rhetoric and and actions, merited the coverage he received from his blanket condemnation of immigrants through his scamming students in his school, slamming a judge on ethnic grounds and nasty remarks about women, to just state some obvious examples. What you fail to consider is that Trump has a long history as a somewhat shady businessman starting out discriminating against minorities to multiple bankruptcies to legions of lawsuits from unpaid creditors.

The “Willie Horton” ads didn’t seem “racist” to me. Why did they to you?

1. Lee Atwater before he died admitted it was a racist campaign.
2. His name is ‘William’ not Willie. Republicans used a different name to sound more ethnic.
3. There was a not-too-subtle notion conveyed that black folks were coming to violently attack white people.
4. The ads only ran in majority white districts
5. The picture of Horton was darkened so he would look more sinister
6. A Republican newspaper censured the Bush campaign for race-baiting

Those are facts. Now you can stand on your view of the ads if you want but your opinion has no basis.

We’ve been over this before.

 

[FrankFletcher]

Motherwit:

I vote third party.

I hope soon to be able to vote 3rd party, and am sad that it is the Supreme Court that determines my vote

It shouldn’t. SCOTUS isn’t going to do anything to reverse Roe v. Wade, and even if it did, abortion would simply revert back to the states. And in the meantime, administrations that violate most planks of Catholic social teaching will be enabled.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, actually he deserved disdain and ridicule.

And the Democrats sure gave it to him. Thanks for admitting it.

Any lying about his actions would have been called out by the opposition.

It was. But not by the liberal media.

The rest of your comments are just more of the same.

Lee Atwater before he died admitted it was a racist campaign.

You still haven’t provided the source for this assertion.

We’ve been over this before.

Yes, and you haven’t proved a single assertion of it.

 

[Nepperhan]

It was. But not by the liberal media.

What lies about Trump were refuted but not in the mainstream media? You need to verify your statements.

 

[Annie]

It shouldn’t. SCOTUS isn’t going to do anything to reverse Roe v. Wade, and even if it did, abortion would simply revert back to the states

With the right case and the right arguments, Roe v Wade could be overturned. I would like to see constructionist judges in place to do that, because activist judges allow too much of their own ideas in.

And if the issue were reverted to the states, then we could work on a state-by-state basis to get it outlawed altogether. Or the federal government could do something.

Either way, we would be in a better position than we are now with Roe v Wade still the last ruling.

And in the meantime, administrations that violate most planks of Catholic social teaching will be enabled.

I consider all the issues as being "Equally Sacred ". All issues are weighed

I do not see Republicans aiming to dismantle the welfare policies we have in place, nor committing many of the other evils people accuse them of.

But I do see Dems using this every election as an excuse to vote for those whose party platform advocates for the continued legality of abortion.

 

[Nepperhan]

With the right case and the right arguments, Roe v Wade could be overturned. I would like to see constructionist judges in place to do that, because activist judges allow too much of their own ideas in.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would be obvious judicial activism. Conservatives support activist judges who rule according to the conservative viewpoints.

 

[Victoria33]

I do not see Republicans aiming to dismantle the welfare policies we have in place, nor committing many of the other evils people accuse them of.

But I do see Dems using this every election as an excuse to vote for those whose party platform advocates for the continued legality of abortion.

We’ve had 55 years of mostly one party rule in some cities. Has it helped them any? Are things getting worse?

What we don’t hear about is the Trump administration has probably taken the most positive steps to help the inner city than any other.

https://greensboro.com/opinion/columns/clarence-henderson-president-donald-trump-has-ended-the-era-of-broken-promises-by-delivering-real/article_956d48ba-829a-5f4a-a5a9-9b6e9f94d634.html