by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,2002,2012,2022,2032,2042,2052,206. . .2,5072,508»

United massachusetts

Update: Biden's new campaign platform is, apparently, "the wholesale destruction of Christianity and Western Civilization."

I don't get why everyone makes Joe Biden out to be this awful, terrible human being ready to destroy America as we know it. Like, the guy took the Amtrak four hours every day to DC and back so he could be there to tuck his kids in at night. His life has been so shaped by his loss and his grief, and it shows. Even if he doesn't adhere to Church orthodoxy on abortion, I don't think there's denying that Joe Biden is an honest guy and a genuine family man. All this isn't to say that you should vote for him because of that, but I think it's patently obvious that Joe Biden isn't advocating "the wholesale destruction of Christianity and Western Civilization."

La france bonapartiste wrote:Ask the people who, despite being Catholic, are still going to vote for Biden anyway, despite his pro-abortion, pro-riot, pro-woke, anti-police position. He will be "the most progressive" candidate since FDR! That's their tagline, and people will still vote for him because he isn't Trump, who says mean things on Twitter and cheated on his wives. But that's more important than the wholesale destruction of Christianity and Western civilization.

And before you say Biden is against the riots, he isn't. He engages in performative politispeak about going too far and damaging businesses, then adopts their agenda anyway. All from the comfort of his basement, where he's free from being asked pesky questions like what day of the week it is or who that woman he's married to is.

Okay. A couple questions here:

  • What "agenda of the rioters" has Biden adopted? And when he says that he's against the riots, what makes you believe he is "engaging in performative politispeak?" Most Democrats don't support rioting, and most protesters aren't rioters. I went to a BLM protest. I did not, in fact, burn down a building. The conflation of the two doesn't bear out given that the vast majority of protests were peaceful.

  • How is Biden anti-police, when his platform calls for more police funding? (https://theintercept.com/2020/06/11/defund-the-police-joe-biden-cops/)

  • Do you think that's the only reason we're not supporting Trump? I could give you a list of like 100 reasons. But I really do want to focus in here on your lines about Joe Biden wanting to destroy Western Civilization. I find them interesting, given Trump's repeated exaltation of dictators and autocrats. In fact, we found out recently that Trump literally told Xi Jinping that China's attempts to wipe out the culture of the Uygher Muslims was "the right thing to do." But here are some examples of Trump's thoughts on the enemies of Western Civilization:

    • "Kim Jong Un has been, really, somebody that I've gotten to know very well and respect, and hopefully -- and I really believe that, over a period of time, a lot of tremendous things will happen."

    • "Chairman Kim has been really very open and terrific, frankly. And I think he wants to see something happen. So we have done -- I think, mutually, we've done very well with respect to North Korea."

    • "[Kim] wrote me beautiful letters and they're great letters. We fell in love."

    • "President Erdogan. He's tough, but I get along with him. And maybe that's a bad thing, but I think it's a really good thing."

    • "Thank you very much. It's a great honor and privilege -- because he's become a friend of mine -- to introduce President Erdogan of Turkey. He's running a very difficult part of the world. He's involved very, very strongly and, frankly, he's getting very high marks."

    • "President Xi, who is a strong man, I call him King, he said, 'But I am not King, I am president.' I said, 'No, you're president for life and therefore, you're King.' He said, 'Huh. Huh.' He liked that."

    • "And I like President Xi a lot. I consider him a friend, and -- but I like him a lot. I've gotten to know him very well. He's a strong gentleman, right? Anybody that -- he's a strong guy, tough guy."

    • "I had President Xi, who's a friend of mine, who's a very, very good man."

    • "He (Xi) certainly doesn't want to see turmoil and death. He doesn't want to see it. He is a good man. He is a very good man and I got to know him very well."

    • I just want to let everybody know, in case there was any doubt, that we are very much behind President al-Sisi. He's done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation. We are very much behind Egypt and the people of Egypt. And the United States has, believe me, backing, and we have strong backing. ... And I just want to say to you, Mr. President, that you have a great friend and ally in the United States and in me.

    These are only a few quotes. For relevance's sake, I have only included his praise of leaders directly involved in the persecution of Christians.

United massachusetts

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:I don't actually support prohibition of alcohol, and, oddly enough, the Prohibition Party it its present-day form only sort-of does: their platform labels alcohol a drug and calls for more education and regulation, starting on the local level and eventually leading, maybe, to the reinstatement of Prohibition. I did actually consider voting for their candidate in 2016, along with all the other 22 candidates on my state ballot. As you note, their platform is actually good on many points and is actually basically an American version of a Christian Democrat party in many ways.

https://www.prohibitionparty.org/platform

I will note that I do absolutely support the prohibition of tobacco sales. 1000%.

La france bonapartiste

Payancik wrote:Well, I don’t like either admittedly. Both are extremely flawed. I do have a question however, it kinda seems when it comes to questioning Trumps line of power or his morality as a human being, it has flipped to “removing him, it will destroy morals” or “removing him will encourage the destruction of morals” I question why a bunch of people who hold up religious morality as a thing which should be encouraged also follow him. His character falls in line with the things many major religions including Christianity oppose (even if I don’t know everything about religion as said before, it’s clear religions protest what actions he has done) he is selfish, he is at times unable to show actual empathy,admit he’s wrong, or show remorse and that’s why people look at those aspects. it has at times ruined actual progress with opposition at times, has caused situations to worsen, or has caused mass divisions among lots of people. He isn’t exactly a message of holding up morals. I get people like him because he is an outsider, something different from the establishment but why hold him as this person who helps keep up morals? That if you dare really criticize or don’t want to vote for, you’re part of this problem.

I'm not sure if you're responding to me or just building off my post, since I never said Trump does or should uphold morality, nor did I say I desire to do that either. In my opinion, Trump is the only one willing to defend our culture. Democrats seek to destroy it, Republicans hide from it. They're all weak.

La france bonapartiste wrote:I'm not sure if you're responding to me or just building off my post, since I never said Trump does or should uphold morality, nor did I say I desire to do that either. In my opinion, Trump is the only one willing to defend our culture. Democrats seek to destroy it, Republicans hide from it. They're all weak.

It’s a response. You said “ people will still vote for him because he isn't Trump, who says mean things on Twitter and cheated on his wives. But that's more important than the wholesale destruction of Christianity and Western civilization.” I assumed you meant the destruction of Christianity in the West, that Trump was a person who was helping hold back the destruction of Christianity, that he was helping hold western values, that’s kinda the way how you were pinning the situation in the post. I said if a person doesn’t see him as a good option due to valid complaints of his flaws which some go against religious teaching, how is it immoral or against the culture?

Slavic lechia

La france bonapartiste

Payancik wrote:I assumed you meant the destruction of Christianity in the West, that Trump was a person who was helping hold back the destruction of Christianity, that he was helping hold western values, that’s kinda the way how you were pinning the situation in the post.

I am talking about the literal, physical destruction of Christianity and Western civilization. Not the decay of Christian values, which are inconsequential to me.

From the Pacific coast of the United States to Western Europe and beyond, a motley coalition of anarchists and atheists are vandalizing churches and religious monuments, pilfering religious relics, and calling for the disestablishment of government, religion, and culture. Just like during the French Revolution. Democrats support these people out of a combination of fear and opportunism, Republicans are too afraid to criticize them for fear of what the media might say about them afterwards, and only Trump is willing to stand up and talk about it, much less the only one willing to fight it.

Federal buildings are under attack, and Trump's critics (even Republicans!) are actually going after him for sending in federal agents to stop the violence. We are standing on the precipice of total societal collapse. If there is no government with the stomach to uphold the law, if there are no police, then the law and society themselves become nothing more than theoretical concepts.

And United massachusetts, I'm not ignoring your post, it's just too difficult to respond to your post in depth on mobile.

Sad there aren’t any brothers joining me on the Kanye express :( (or he’s my protest vote because the ASP isn’t an option, you decide)

New sequoyah, United massachusetts, The Catholic State of Eire, and Lagrodia

Aawia wrote:Sad there aren’t any brothers joining me on the Kanye express :( (or he’s my protest vote because the ASP isn’t an option, you decide)

The ASP is by far my most favorite American party!

Horatius Cocles, United massachusetts, Clear Bay, and Lagrodia

La france bonapartiste wrote:Ask the people who, despite being Catholic, are still going to vote for Biden anyway, despite his pro-abortion, pro-riot, pro-woke, anti-police position. He will be "the most progressive" candidate since FDR! That's their tagline, and people will still vote for him because he isn't Trump, who says mean things on Twitter and cheated on his wives. But that's more important than the wholesale destruction of Christianity and Western civilization.

[And before you say Biden is against the riots, he isn't. He engages in performative politispeak about going too far and damaging businesses, then adopts their agenda anyway. All from the comfort of his basement, where he's free from being asked pesky questions like what day of the week it is or who that woman he's married to is.]

In general terms, I had given my personal views on this subject awhile ago. You may not have been here at the time. I'm posting it in a spoiler below:

Answer from a pro-lifer: I cannot vote for either party in 100 percent good conscience. My Catholic faith informs my vote and as such, I can and do feel politically homeless at times. Neither party holds consistently pro-life views. I won't vote for the death penalty. I don't believe family separation is pro-life. Not expanding Medicaid, as my state sadly chose to do, is not pro-life.

Why am I voting Democrat this election cycle? Because I read Texas Republican Party platform and disagreed with the vast majority of it. I found myself in fundamental disagreement with so many planks that I could not vote for Republicans in my state. And with the GOP captured by Trump, the conservative party I once knew seems to have vanished. That said, I do look at individual candidates, but the GOP as it stands is not a party that I will give my vote to. Trump's campaign manager said his idea is that the Trump family will be a dynasty that re-shapes the GOP permanently. For many of us, that's a repugnant idea. Personally, my views on economics and foreign policy are not even on the GOP map, and my more moderate social views are looked down on in a state where the most "conservative" candidate is the only "true" GOPer. Between the two platforms, I am a much better fit, though not in everything, with the Dem party in Texas

Lastly, what about third parties? I feel even less represented there and some parties aren't even on the ballot in all 50 states. The fact that 3rd parties will not be in power due to our system makes it even less appealing. Anyway, this is just my personal post, I wont try to speak for others out there.

When Biden entered the Democratic primary, I didn't pay him any attention. I thought he'd lose and just fly away into the night. Throughout the primaries, I didn't support him, feeling better represented in other candidates at the time. Is he a "gaffe machine?" - Yes. Does he say things that make me cringe? Yes. Do I support him 100 percent? No. However, as mentioned in the above post, on two out of three topics (foreign policy and economic issues), I'm not in any alignment with the Republican Party whatsoever, and not in with most "mainstream" Democrats. I won't presume to speak for my fellow Catholics and Biden voters New Dolgaria and United massachusetts, they have their own reasons for not supporting Trump. UM's post in particular highlighted some of the reasons I cannot give my vote to the Republican Party in general and Trump in particular. The "Never-Trumper's" and "Intellectual conservatives" are totally sidelined and ignored, traditional Republican "orthodoxy" has been steamrolled under Trumpism, and the Party seems very glad to continue working in a Trumpist position. I simply cannot find myself in agreement with such a Party. Unfortunately, the USA doesn't have any tradition of "Christian Democrat" parties the way Europe does. And this is not surprising, considering that these parties are usually informed in some way by catholic social teaching. To the extent that America has/had any religious foundation, it was in deism and Protestantism, which is way far away from any social teaching conception. Biden is a flawed candidate to be sure, but I'm willing to vote for him over another candidate whom I find reprehensible on both a political and personal level. To think that anyone will buy the morality preaching of the pastors that have allied themselves with Trump, outside of a dedicated few who were already bought into it, is ridiculous. But for me personally, I'm interested in the policy and issues, and as I've mentioned, I cannot vote for Republican policies in my state or on the national level.

I would argue that both parties are functionally pro-abortion. Republicans refuse to acknowledge the manifold contradictions of pure free market capitalism and the effect it has on both poverty and abortion rates. Make the price of adoptions down, enabling some of the social safety net policies of Europe, helping women and families have some semblance of financial security etc. would be a much better move than "Defund PP" slogans that go nowhere. Let's remember that it was Republican judges that gave us Roe, that gave us Casey. The idea that you must vote for a Republican candidate in order to save the Court bench is a futile argument that hasn't worked in decades.

I'm voting for Biden, not simply against Trump. And this is from someone that voted for Trump in 2016, which I most sincerely regret. I want to see a form of social democracy come to the US, and it's not without historical precedent since both this country and Europe pursued such policies after the World Wars, except the US didn't go far enough and we're paying the price for it in sky high premiums, out of control Big Pharma, drug prices way out of affordability range, etc. etc.

United massachusetts

Slavic lechia

La france bonapartiste wrote:I am talking about the literal, physical destruction of Christianity and Western civilization. Not the decay of Christian values, which are inconsequential to me.

When it comes to christian values look more to the east... Putin, most of Poland (hopefully) and Eire are the best bets... I don't count Vatican for they can't do much...

Tag: Payancik, The Catholic State of Eire, United massachusetts

La france bonapartiste

United massachusetts:

United massachusetts wrote:I don't get why everyone makes Joe Biden out to be this awful, terrible human being ready to destroy America as we know it. Like, the guy took the Amtrak four hours every day to DC and back so he could be there to tuck his kids in at night. His life has been so shaped by his loss and his grief, and it shows. Even if he doesn't adhere to Church orthodoxy on abortion, I don't think there's denying that Joe Biden is an honest guy and a genuine family man. All this isn't to say that you should vote for him because of that, but I think it's patently obvious that Joe Biden isn't advocating "the wholesale destruction of Christianity and Western Civilization."

There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start, but I'll try my best.

1. "the guy took the Amtrak every day[. . .]"

Assuming this is true, I could list dozens if not hundreds of little endearing anecdotes about Trump; I tried to go that route a few weeks ago and no one bought it.

2. "I don't think there's denying that Joe Biden is an honest guy[. . .]

Oh boy...
a. Cancelled his 1988 presidential campaign due to revelations about extensive plagiarism allegations.
b. Pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor investigating a company with ties to his son.
c. Has persistently engaged in falsehoods surrounding the assault allegations against him by one of his former staffers, including whether documents pertinent to it even exist, where they were, and whether or not he had access to them. And of course, given the long chain of witnesses and corroborating evidence over 30 years lending substantial weight to the allegations, his denial of them, or even knowledge of who his accuser is, rings especially false.
d. Was involved in the set-up of the Russian hoax investigation and denied involvement, despite the fact he is on record of having been one of the few officials at the time to be on the briefing list.
e. Was involved in the fraudulent and politically motivated unmasking of American citizens in foreign intelligence that then leaked to the media, essentially amounting to the warrantless spying on American citizens for political reasons.

3. "a genuine family man"

a. Will touch any women with a pulse, or sniff her hair, all of course without permission.
b. Can't tell his wife apart from his sister (more a sign of mental decline than anything, but there you have it).

4. "I think it's patently obvious that Joe Biden isn't advocating "the wholesale destruction of Christianity and Western Civilization."

a. I never said he was advocating for it; but I do thing that's what will happen if he gets into office. He is a senile old man who has no mental ability to lead the country. Trump may be a narcissist and morally flexible (to say the least), and he has the honesty of a used car salesman (which I say with utmost respect, as I don't think people expect used car salesmen to be 100% honest), but he's still physically and mentally fit. People may not like his temperament, but you cannot, in good conscience, say he is mentally unfit (i.e. mentally handicapped). The man eats chocolate cake and steak for almost every meal, yet he still has more energy and physical ability than most other men at his age, especially politicians--I mean he only needs to sleep 4 hours a night, and still has the stamina to go into attack helicopter mode against the media and his critics. But Biden? Biden has only the feeblest grasp on reality, and if he gets in office, he will not be a leader, he will be a figurehead who sits at a desk and signs papers that are put in front of him. His advisers will be in control, and he is surrounding himself with some of the most hardened leftists in his party, cozying up to Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, who, as The Catholic State of Eire pointed out, is trying to rip down the statues of saints under some misguided, ludicrous notion of racism. He will be a puppet of the most progressive groups in the country, and will not at all be who you think he will be. Even if Biden was a good man (which is highly debatable), he isn't that same person any more, he's a ghost of his former self. And I don't say this because he is a Democrat; Bernie is even older, but he's still in much better shape than Biden, and Bernie just recently had a heart-attack! And I would still trust Bernie more than Biden, both health-wise and politically, because at least I know Bernie actually means what he says. Biden is a dyed-in-the-wool politician, and will say whatever he needs to to get elected; but now, it's even worse because he has no mental ties to this reality. He is literally just a wind-up toy at this point, who is programmed to say whatever his advisers think he should say.

United massachusetts wrote:What "agenda of the rioters" has Biden adopted?

He has agreed the police should be defunded and less police should be sent to answer calls. He also says he plans to "rip up the roots of systemic racism" from America, which, as anyone who has been watching TV for the past few months knows, means to destroy the foundational history, culture, and wisdom of the Founding Fathers ("they owned slaves!"), the Constitution ("written by white slaveowners!"), the Electoral College ("mechanism of white racism!"), the Flag ("it's used by racist groups! and has a problematic history of racism, slavery and genocide!"), the National Anthem ("written by a slaveowner!"), and any and all monuments to anyone who has even the slightest connection to the past, whether they are white or not (Gandhi, Frederick Douglass, etc.)

United massachusetts wrote:And when he says that he's against the riots, what makes you believe he is "engaging in performative politispeak?"

Because he says one thing, but only lip service. He still supports their ideology, is doing nothing to support the police or the communities they protect, does not consistently or convincingly condemn the violence ("rioting isn't right, but...!"), and continues to engage in the gaslighting of the American people by assuring everyone that they are peaceful protests.

United massachusetts wrote:Most Democrats don't support rioting, and most protesters aren't rioters.

All evidence to the contrary. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) recently played during a House committee hearing a video which highlighted all of the violence, including a journalist who claimed that the protests were peaceful while a building burned behind her. Hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage, and dozens if not hundreds of people who have died, including police and business owners, across the country, is not the result of a few random people who co-opted the movement. This is an organized assault on society itself; the people behind the protests are against private ownership, against government, against the law. They are race-obsessed, Marxist-inspired anarchists. If you read any of these organizations' platforms as closely as you read the GOP platforms, you would know what you're supporting when you go to their rallies.

United massachusetts wrote:How is Biden anti-police, when his platform calls for more police funding?

Firstly, anyone who goes by platforms for politicians or parties is really being naive. The vast majority of people, including politicians, don't even read their own platforms, which is why so many of them get plagiarized.

Secondly, he has absolutely expressed support for the Defund movement. On July 8, during an interview with a left-wing activist, Biden agreed that funding should be taken away from police departments and redirected to other places.

United massachusetts wrote:I find them interesting, given Trump's repeated exaltation of dictators and autocrats.

It's called diplomacy; you don't get much done working with other countries (most of which are dictatorships), by insulting their leaders. I would note that two of the countries you pointed out are having a tough time with sanctions under Trump, and they don't like him. He tried a charm offensive, and when that didn't work, he switched to a more confrontational approach, completely negating your argument.

United massachusetts wrote:In fact, we found out recently that Trump literally told Xi Jinping that China's attempts to wipe out the culture of the Uygher Muslims was "the right thing to do."

I debunked this some weeks ago already; there is no evidence Trump actually said that, and he signed Uygher Human Rights Policy Act into law a year before he is alleged to have said that.

United massachusetts wrote:
  • "President Erdogan. He's tough, but I get along with him. And maybe that's a bad thing, but I think it's a really good thing."

  • "Thank you very much. It's a great honor and privilege -- because he's become a friend of mine -- to introduce President Erdogan of Turkey. He's running a very difficult part of the world. He's involved very, very strongly and, frankly, he's getting very high marks."

  • Again, it's called diplomacy. For better or worse, Turkey is still a NATO ally, and no other politican is standing up to Turkey either. It is, in fact, one of the greatest blind spots of American foreign policy. I will add, though, that Trump supported Russia and Egypt against Turkey in Libya, before his State Department reversed him.

    United massachusetts wrote:
  • "I just want to let everybody know, in case there was any doubt, that we are very much behind President al-Sisi. He's done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation. We are very much behind Egypt and the people of Egypt. And the United States has, believe me, backing, and we have strong backing. ... And I just want to say to you, Mr. President, that you have a great friend and ally in the United States and in me."

  • Trump working with al-Sisi is arguably one of his greatest foreign policy accomplishments, and the United States' alliance with Egypt is extremely important. Al-Sisi's involvement in the persecution of Christians is speculative and lacking in any evidence. True, Coptic Christians are having a very hard time in Egypt right now, but from private groups, not the central government. And Trump and his administration has been leaning hard on Egypt to do more to protect its minority Christian population. And I'm not sure if insulting al-Sisi, as you recommend, is the way to obtain progress on that front.

    Biden is completely in the pocket of China, claims they are not a threat to US interests or even an economic rival ("Come on man!", he proclaims in exasperation), and will not be tough on anyone, to the extent he will even be lucid to engage in foreign policy at all. The Obama administration's track record is perhaps the worst foreign policy of the post-war era, and it faces tough competition from Kennedy and Clinton.

    Lagrodia

    Horatius Cocles wrote:I want to see a form of social democracy come to the US, and it's not without historical precedent since both this country and Europe pursued such policies after the World Wars, except the US didn't go far enough and we're paying the price for it in sky high premiums, out of control Big Pharma, drug prices way out of affordability range, etc. etc.

    So you’re voting for the VP of the administration that, let’s see, passed a halfway measure that made healthcare far more expensive for the vast majority, sided with banks in the housing crisis, bailing them out left and right and overseeing the greatest destruction of black wealth in history, and showed little respect for due process, preferring to just drone people and wiretap them.

    A man with a mixed record on civil rights, who fought for cutting medicare and for the greatest expansion of the death penalty in history.

    This is not the resume of a social democrat. This is the resume of an out-of-touch elite.

    United massachusetts wrote:I don't get why everyone makes Joe Biden out to be this awful, terrible human being ready to destroy America as we know it. Like, the guy took the Amtrak four hours every day to DC and back so he could be there to tuck his kids in at night.

    Not many people have really attacked his personal life. His platform is the problem. I would never call Donald Trump a role model. I would never want my children (should I ever have them) to look up to him as a person. But that is not very important in the politics of a country that fundamentally disagrees with me on a number of moral issues. Donald Trump is a product of a culture the vast majority of the Democratic Party stirs on. Joe Biden’s politics create Donald Trump’s personal life, regardless of Biden’s personal life.

    United massachusetts wrote: His life has been so shaped by his loss and his grief, and it shows. Even if he doesn't adhere to Church orthodoxy on abortion, I don't think there's denying that Joe Biden is an honest guy and a genuine family man.

    Nothing on the family bit, but he’s flip-flopped according to his donors’ needs and has lied about the car accident that was undeniably a great tragedy in his life for years - he has slandered the truck driver as a drunk driver, when in fact it was determined Biden’s wife was responsible.

    United massachusetts wrote: All this isn't to say that you should vote for him because of that, but I think it's patently obvious that Joe Biden isn't advocating "the wholesale destruction of Christianity and Western Civilization."

    Regardless of his personality, I do not believe in his current intellectual state he has the agency to resist his party if he ever disagrees with it. That’s why they lined up to keep Bernie out.

    United massachusetts wrote: Okay. A couple questions here:
      But I really do want to focus in here on your lines about Joe Biden wanting to destroy Western Civilization. I find them interesting, given Trump's repeated exaltation of dictators and autocrats. In fact, we found out recently that Trump literally told Xi Jinping that China's attempts to wipe out the culture of the Uygher Muslims was "the right thing to do." But here are some examples of Trump's thoughts on the enemies of Western Civilization:
      • "Kim Jong Un has been, really, somebody that I've gotten to know very well and respect, and hopefully -- and I really believe that, over a period of time, a lot of tremendous things will happen."

      • "Chairman Kim has been really very open and terrific, frankly. And I think he wants to see something happen. So we have done -- I think, mutually, we've done very well with respect to North Korea."

      • "[Kim] wrote me beautiful letters and they're great letters. We fell in love."

      • "President Erdogan. He's tough, but I get along with him. And maybe that's a bad thing, but I think it's a really good thing."

      • "Thank you very much. It's a great honor and privilege -- because he's become a friend of mine -- to introduce President Erdogan of Turkey. He's running a very difficult part of the world. He's involved very, very strongly and, frankly, he's getting very high marks."

      • "President Xi, who is a strong man, I call him King, he said, 'But I am not King, I am president.' I said, 'No, you're president for life and therefore, you're King.' He said, 'Huh. Huh.' He liked that."

      • "And I like President Xi a lot. I consider him a friend, and -- but I like him a lot. I've gotten to know him very well. He's a strong gentleman, right? Anybody that -- he's a strong guy, tough guy."

      • "I had President Xi, who's a friend of mine, who's a very, very good man."

      • "He (Xi) certainly doesn't want to see turmoil and death. He doesn't want to see it. He is a good man. He is a very good man and I got to know him very well."

      • I just want to let everybody know, in case there was any doubt, that we are very much behind President al-Sisi. He's done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation. We are very much behind Egypt and the people of Egypt. And the United States has, believe me, backing, and we have strong backing. ... And I just want to say to you, Mr. President, that you have a great friend and ally in the United States and in me.
        These are only a few quotes. For relevance's sake, I have only included his praise of leaders directly involved in the persecution of Christians.

    This is all rhetoric. With the possible concerning exception of the Uyghurs quote, this is entirely sweet talking foreign leaders. Sometimes flattery is necessary, and Trump is just trying to stay in people’s good books so certain egomaniacs in that list don’t refuse to negotiate. If you want to say Trump is the one destroying American Christianity, fine, but show me what he has done or not done, not what he has said or not said.

    Slavic lechia wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo53amqybX8 <- Let's discuss the Nicene Creed.

    If you are christian say if you agree, or not and which part if not the entire thing.

    If not, then ask questions and question it.

    Do not use any form of condemnation. Do not attempt conversion. No straw-man arguments. I actually want just a thoughtful discussion between christians, other christians and non-christians... I want to start the discussion with something most christians agree on (I am aware of the Filioque controversy and I want this to be a part of this discussion), but open the discussion to everyone. Try to tag me in every post related ti this topic. I want to read your posts ;)

    I fully support the Creed, and everything contained in it. The Filioque controversy is a translation issue more than any real doctrinal difference; the Greek ekporeuomenon signifies the the ultimate source from which the proceeding occurs, while the Latin procedit which is a more general procession and can signify a source of mediation. The more general Greek Proienai would be much closer to Procedit in terms of meaning. Latin does not have a verb to distinguish in the way that Greek does. For this reason, in the Catholic Church does not add καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ to the Greek text, as it would not work with ekporeuomenon; however, it works with Procedit. The Catholic Church still "recognize[s] that the 'Monarchy of the Father' implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (αἰτία) or Principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

    La france bonapartiste

    I know I'm going to get a lot of push back for this, especially since I am not a Catholic myself, but I do not see how someone can, in-good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion candidate and still call themselves a Catholic. The sort of pretzel logic necessary to get to that decision would seemingly open up the possibility of voting for anyone, completely absolving an individual Catholic's political decisions from being informed to any significant, honest extent by their religious beliefs.

    Horatius Cocles wrote:Neither party holds consistently pro-life views.

    Republcians do.

    Horatius Cocles wrote:I won't vote for the death penalty.

    Funny how all the Catholics on here have been harping on me about the importance of dogma and tradition, yet won't back the death penalty, which was fully compatible with Catholic theology until at least the mid-1990s.

    Horatius Cocles wrote:I don't believe family separation is pro-life.

    So if a man robs a bank, you would not arrest or incarcerate him, because then that would separate him from his family? Also keep in mind that it is liberal, Democrat-appointed judges who created the Flores standard which necessitates separation.

    Horatius Cocles wrote:Not expanding Medicaid, as my state sadly chose to do, is not pro-life.

    Pro-life is anti-abortion; extending the definition beyond that issue is deceptive twaddlespeak. Not to mention that Trump has defended entitlements, much to the consternation of Republicans.

    Horatius Cocles wrote:Why am I voting Democrat this election cycle? Because I read Texas Republican Party platform and disagreed with the vast majority of it.

    So you won't vote for Trump because of an unrelated aspirational document from Texas?

    Horatius Cocles wrote:And with the GOP captured by Trump, the conservative party I once knew seems to have vanished.

    Why would you want it back? Most of the things you have an issue with conservatives on has disappeared under Trump. You ought to be celebrating not decrying it.

    Horatius Cocles wrote:Trump's campaign manager said his idea is that the Trump family will be a dynasty that re-shapes the GOP permanently. For many of us, that's a repugnant idea.

    Better a dynasty of competent people unfettered by political machines than any simple-minded, empty-headed, programmable Tom, Dick, or Harry the Democrats or Republicans can dig out of the woodwork.

    Horatius Cocles wrote:The "Never-Trumper's" and "Intellectual conservatives" are totally sidelined and ignored, traditional Republican "orthodoxy" has been steamrolled under Trumpism, and the Party seems very glad to continue working in a Trumpist position.

    Good; they're responsible for much of the horrible policies you dislike about Republicans. Trump has gotten Republicans away from reckless idealism and interventionism, defended entitlements and worker's rights, and boosted wages, in ways that are making the corporate drone conservatives rip their hair out in sorrow.

    Horatius Cocles wrote:To think that anyone will buy the morality preaching of the pastors that have allied themselves with Trump, outside of a dedicated few who were already bought into it, is ridiculous.

    Considering that Trump is defending Christianity and Judaism from attack, and Biden is contributing to their destruction, it's small wonder that Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews are rallying to Trump.

    Horatius Cocles wrote:I would argue that both parties are functionally pro-abortion. Republicans refuse to acknowledge the manifold contradictions of pure free market capitalism and the effect it has on both poverty and abortion rates. Make the price of adoptions down, enabling some of the social safety net policies of Europe, helping women and families have some semblance of financial security etc. would be a much better move than "Defund PP" slogans that go nowhere. Let's remember that it was Republican judges that gave us Roe, that gave us Casey. The idea that you must vote for a Republican candidate in order to save the Court bench is a futile argument that hasn't worked in decades.

    Trump has effectively dismantled the US's financial support for overseas aboritions, and has successfully cut Planned Parenthood off from federal funds. "Defund PP" isn't just a slogan, it's a promise kept. Furthermore, considering judges as Republicans or Democrats is intellectually dishonest. They're unelected officials, so their official party allegiance is meaningless. And so far, Gorsuch and Kavanaguh have turned out much better than O'Connor, Roberts, or the ones in the Roe decision. Nixon's picks actively revolted against and betrayed him, it was an accident on his part, and a deeply unpleasant one. No one could have predicted that the most liberal court in US history would have been put in place by Nixon, not even Nixon. But if Trump has a second term and gets Amy Coney Barret onto the Supreme Court, I would bet you anything that Roe is gone.

    Lastly, Republicans across the country are actively doing everything in their power to restrict abortions as much as possible. Democrats are trying to make it legal to commit infanticide on a fetus even if it is born, all the way up until the due date. You cannot get a more drastic binary choice than that. And how you, as a Catholic, can support a party that not only hates your religion and actively persecutes it, but advocates for infanticide, is completely beyond my ability to comprehend. It just seems like you prioritize economic issues like welfare more than your religious beliefs. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate that supports abortion. I don't care what their other platforms are, they could even advocate for the installation of a Bonaparte as emperor, and I'd still vote against them based solely on their abortion stance. I will not vote for anyone who thinks infanticide is acceptable in a modern, civilized society. It is fundamentally anathema.

    Phydios, The Rouge Christmas State, New waldensia, and Lagrodia

    La france bonapartiste

    Slavic lechia wrote:If you are christian say if you agree, or not and which part if not the entire thing.

    Define "Christian".

    I would never call Biden an "honest" guy, something I used to think. Besides the old plagiarism charges and the newer assault charges, he was decidedly complicit in Borking. His nice guy moderate Democrat act was precisely what allowed the judiciary committee to act so awful. That and he has shown himself increasingly dishonest to himself, accepting and pushing whatever positions he thinks will gain him victory. I'm not saying he's alone in these things but he is definatly as guilty as an other politician.

    Also: the death penalty is fully compatible with Catholic teaching. Obviously the particulars matter for a given law or case. The current status of the death penalty in the US is certainly absurd however.

    Imperii Ecclesia and Lagrodia

    Aawia wrote:Sad there aren’t any brothers joining me on the Kanye express :( (or he’s my protest vote because the ASP isn’t an option, you decide)

    Kanye is on the ballot in my state (legit), so I'm definitely keeping him as a viable protest option. 👍

    Also, in other news... li'l Waldy #3, set to make an appearance in December, is a girl! Thanks to the Marvel of modern technology, we got to watch her yawn and give a thumbs-up during her ultrasound the other day.

    Aawia, The Gallant Old Republic, Phydios, United massachusetts, and 4 othersRoborian, Lutheran Commonwealth, Lagrodia, and La france bonapartiste

    Slavic lechia

    Imperii Ecclesia wrote:I fully support the Creed, and everything contained in it. The Filioque controversy is a translation issue more than any real doctrinal difference; the Greek ekporeuomenon signifies the the ultimate source from which the proceeding occurs, while the Latin procedit which is a more general procession and can signify a source of mediation. The more general Greek Proienai would be much closer to Procedit in terms of meaning. Latin does not have a verb to distinguish in the way that Greek does. For this reason, in the Catholic Church does not add καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ to the Greek text, as it would not work with ekporeuomenon; however, it works with Procedit. The Catholic Church still "recognize[s] that the 'Monarchy of the Father' implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (αἰτία) or Principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

    I also learned from Orthodox Clergy that the reason "Filioque" was ever treated as more than translation issue, was because of Charlemage who wanted to form The Roman Empire, but there was already a Roman Empire in the east... Basilica Rhomanon. So he did all he could to make the east seem heretical, so he can be the protector of Christianity. Even The Popes used the original Creed, without the filioque for most of the time.

    I started reading up on the history of the church again and all popes all the way up to Gregory believed Autocephaly to be important and one of them even said that if a pope assumes complete authority in the church he will be a heretic.

    On the other hand the entire east agreed and even officially proclaimed honorary authority and nobody had any problem with that, as the entire catholic orthodox prawowierny church was built upon Peter's faith, thus giving His descendants (not blood descendants, but faith descendants) keys of heaven.

    Those things paint the great schism in a completely different light... Now I agree with most catholics that it was a great mistake...

    La france bonapartiste wrote:Define "Christian".

    I won't. That would be against my original post. I wanted anyone who identifies as Christian, or under their own definition fall under "christian" to take a stance on the creed, as this creed is itself a proclamation of Christian faith.

    La france bonapartiste

    If you search the message board, you’ll find this isn’t the first time this topic has come up, albeit without any denigration or attack of personal religious belief. The Catholics in the region who do not vote Republican have stated many times why they felt led in that direction, and a civil back and forth would ensue. You’re welcome to check the message board for those answers, including on the death penalty which I don’t have time to touch upon right now. The teaching of Pope Benedict on the issue:

    "A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

    As you can see, no one chains Catholics at the ballot box, we have options and must use our reason and prayerful discernment when making political choices. As stated above, I do not endorse either Party 100 percent, not by a long shot. My opening lines stated that as a Catholic, I feel politically homeless in this country, being forced to choose between two Parties that each deny Catholic teaching in many ways. There isn’t a formidable Christian Democratic Party to choose as the American Solidarity Party isn’t even on the ballot in all 50 states, plus the lack of proportional representation in this country means that third parties almost never make it. I do not fit in the Republican Party when I hold views in opposition to them on so many/majority issues, yet I’m supposed to hold my nose and vote for them on one issue? I did that in 2016, and other members have do so before then as well, yet we now cannot in good conscience do so again. The fact that a Catholic has to spend this much time on defending himself for this action is ridiculous.

    Catholics do not vote in the US as one monolithic entity, there’s not a bloc Catholic vote that a political leader can lock down. As with the positions of the Catholic religion itself, voters must look at the whole agenda of a political leader or Party. In other words, we’re not single issue voters, we must take into account the whole without forgetting the particular. If someone thinks that voting for a Democratic political is easy or comfortable, I assure you its not. Given that I only have two choices, from a functional perspective, I must look into the platforms of each Party and see where I most fit. Regardless of Trump, the views of the Republican Party are not views I support, by and large. I mentioned why in the detailed post above, which you’ve seen fit to tear apart. Moving from a more conservative position, which I originally held in this region (including on the death penalty), to critiquing a Party that I had been raised with wasn’t an organic, natural move. It was not some slipshod decision taken in haste and under ill-advice.

    If you think the Texas Republican Party’s platform is no more than an “aspirational document” then you’re welcome to that interpretation, however I would guide you to the portion of the document which says:

    Enforcing the Platform: Every Republican is responsible for implementing this platform. Party candidates should indicate their positions on platform planks before their acceptance on the ticket, and such information should be available on the Party website.

    Furthermore, I see that I need to clarify what I mean when I say, “consistent pro-life views.” While strictly correct that being against abortion is pro-life, I personally hold to a more expansive view. I hold to a “seamless garment” or what has been referred to as a “consistent ethic of life” by the late Cardinal Joseph L. Bernardin. Cardinal Bernardin argued, in those years following Roe v. Wade, that human life always is valuable, and it must be respected consistently from conception to natural death. Being pro-life is not only about abortion. It must encompass war, poverty, access to health care, education and anything that threatens a human life or human well-being. The seamless garment metaphor he proposed was meant to demonstrate that there is no easy way to tear one concern away from another. I doubt you are familiar with the late Cardinal’s views, so I’ll paste a link to his full speech.

    https://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bernardingannon.html#one

    A fuller treatment of his views can be found here:

    https://www.chausa.org/publications/health-progress/article/november-december-2008/twenty-five-years-later-cardinal-bernardin%27s-consistent-ethic-of-life

    If you can read both and still dismiss it all as “twaddlespeak” then obviously we have no point on which to agree. You may disagree with these views, but to call it “twaddlespeak” is to undermine the seriousness of the views presented here.

    Your temerity and sheer audacity to questions someone’s deeply held religious convictions based on their political views is astounding. While I and my fellow Catholics have had many discussions and debates on this message board regarding serious differences of opinion on both political and theological matters with our staunch Protestant members (Phydios, Roborian, The RCS, etc), at no point did they assail our religious standing or malign the seriousness/soundness of our belief due to political views. Frankly, you’re calling United massachusetts, Eire, New Dolgaria and myself “fake Catholics” is unimaginable hubris and would make only those Catholics in the region who do not vote Democratic (Culture of Life, Imperii Ecclesia, etc.) the “true Catholics.” And this in the context of a Catholic being “fake” due to non-right-leaning political views while you denounce the Trinity, which is a core and essential tenet of the Christian faith, if not the core and essential element because it touches on the nature and personhood of the Godhead. As a newcomer to our region, I would advise a little humility here. Fundamentally, we must agree to disagree since it is incomprehensible to you that “any true Catholic” would not vote for the Republican Party or its international counterparts. While I do not use such strong language to call out another member of the region, I feel compelled to do as your post was nothing more than a scathing attack on the integrity of the Catholic members of the region that entertain non-conservative views.

    United massachusetts, Clear Bay, Slavic lechia, and Roborian

    Lagrodia wrote:So you’re voting for the VP of the administration that, let’s see, passed a halfway measure that made healthcare far more expensive for the vast majority, sided with banks in the housing crisis, bailing them out left and right and overseeing the greatest destruction of black wealth in history, and showed little respect for due process, preferring to just drone people and wiretap them.

    A man with a mixed record on civil rights, who fought for cutting medicare and for the greatest expansion of the death penalty in history.

    This is not the resume of a social democrat. This is the resume of an out-of-touch elite.

    If you want to criticize the Obama administration, I'll join you. The difference lies in the fact that I dissent from some of Obama's policies from a "further left" position. There are many members of the Democratic Party that don't see the Obama legacy as some perfect can't be touched entity and are willing to accept that there were many shortfalls in that era that the Party needs to learn from. As with any president, I believe he made mistakes and didn't go far enough on some issues. In many ways, the Democratic Party of the Obama years isn't the same Party that's standing for election now. I don't think a Democratic administration of today would make some of the errors Obama made, although they'd make their own as well. Also note that social democracy isn't yet a position of either Party, let alone a majority of the Democratic Party. It will take time for that to happen.

    Slavic lechia

    It's a bit hypocritical that John Lewis and the Democrats can have a packed out funeral service but many people around US can't even have a funeral.

    The Gallant Old Republic, Phydios, Slavic lechia, New waldensia, and 2 othersRoborian, and Lagrodia

    The Rouge Christmas State wrote:It's a bit hypocritical that John Lewis and the Democrats can have a packed out funeral service but many people around US can't even have a funeral.

    Average funeral costs in the USA are unaffordable to many, leaving others with no choice but to go with the "lower-cost" cremation process. There really needs to be a way to bring funeral costs down, it's simply too expensive for people that would otherwise prefer to be buried than burned to a crisp in a furnace. I really don't see why this is being referred to in partisan terms.

    United massachusetts and Slavic lechia

    Horatius Cocles wrote:Average funeral costs in the USA are unaffordable to many, leaving others with no choice but to go with the "lower-cost" cremation process. There really needs to be a way to bring funeral costs down, it's simply too expensive for people that would otherwise prefer to be buried than burned to a crisp in a furnace. I really don't see why this is being referred to in partisan terms.

    It's not even that HC, they literally can't have in person funerals in some places. I agree though funeral costs are insane.

    «12. . .2,2002,2012,2022,2032,2042,2052,206. . .2,5072,508»

    Advertisement