23 Oct 20
@moonbus saidAlbert Mohler said he could not vote for Trump in 2016 because it would be hypocritical for him since he told people to not vote for Clinton for a similar reason.
There is something hypocritical about condemning Trump's personal life and supporting his political position. I recall when Sen. Gary Hart's presidential campaign was terminated by a photograph of a pretty woman (not his wife) sitting on his lap. Whatever Hart's political position was, the presumed impropriety of his private life was enough to ruin his career. Why is it diffe ...[text shortened]... ut which end of the spectrum is sagging. The hypocrisy of right-wing Trump supporters is staggering.
But what you are now proposing would essentially be that nobody's personal life ever be taken into account into politics.
23 Oct 20
@bigdoggproblem saidThe evidence that the USA was built on Christian values and that the people still possess strong Christian values will be shown after the election when a man with no redeeming qualities will win the election for a second time purely on the basis of his Christian background. If he loses I will concede the point.
So you just make claims without evidence now?
Or do you actually have some.
23 Oct 20
@rajk999 saidIf nothing else, this thread is making me feel better about the fact that Americans don't have a good grasp on their own politics. Apparently, we're not alone. 😛
The evidence that the USA was built on Christian values and that the people still possess strong Christian values will be shown after the election when a man with no redeeming qualities will win the election for a second time purely on the basis of his Christian background. If he loses I will concede the point.
Trump has not the slightest bit of Christian background. The Religious Right votes for him because he promises them anti-abortion judges. It's a transactional arrangement.
23 Oct 20
@bigdoggproblem saidHe pretends well then, because he supports Christianity and Christian values, while the opposition does not.
If nothing else, this thread is making me feel better about the fact that Americans don't have a good grasp on their own politics. Apparently, we're not alone. 😛
Trump has not the slightest bit of Christian background. The Religious Right votes for him because he promises them anti-abortion judges. It's a transactional arrangement.
@philokalia saidHe uses us for votes; we use him for putting pro-life Judges on SCOTUS and representing us on a national level.
I think that there are plenty of Christians and pro-life people who think Trump is an idiot who will be casting their vote for him on Nov. 3rd.
The feeling is mutual.
He uses us for votes; we use him for putting pro-life Judges on SCOTUS and representing us on a national level.
If there is some who admire him, good for them. If Pres. Trump also does like us, good for him.
I cannot judge the heart of a man.
You do realize that putting yet another Catholic on the SC will not automatically reverse Roe. The SC cannot simply reverse a previous decision for personal, moral, or religions reasons. There must be a legal reason to do so, and there isn't one. Why, do you think, has the SC not reversed Roe until now? Because it's not the job of the court to make law; they're waiting for Congress to make the law. Congress won't because there is no national mandate for an outright ban on abortion.
Moreover, even if the SC were to overturn Roe, this would not automatically outlaw abortion nationwide. On the contrary, it would lead to a patchwork of state laws; some states would offer abortion on demand at taxpayer expense, whereas others would outlaw it completely (including in case of a 9-yr. old Downs syndrome girl accidentally impregnated by her 13-yr. old Downs syndrome cousin), and every shade of grey in between. Would you prefer that to the present situation?
27 Oct 20
@moonbus saidSure, but
He uses us for votes; we use him for putting pro-life Judges on SCOTUS and representing us on a national level.
You do realize that putting yet another Catholic on the SC will not automatically reverse Roe. The SC cannot simply reverse a previous decision for personal, moral, or religions reasons. There must be a legal reason to do so, and there isn't ...[text shortened]... yndrome cousin), and every shade of grey in between. Would you prefer that to the present situation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
and maybe most people would be happy with state level decisions on abortion, and maybe we could even shoot for a Federal ruling that provided a right to life for the unborn.
27 Oct 20
@philokalia saidGranted, few politicians lead saintly lives, but some lead much less exemplary lives than others.
Albert Mohler said he could not vote for Trump in 2016 because it would be hypocritical for him since he told people to not vote for Clinton for a similar reason.
But what you are now proposing would essentially be that nobody's personal life ever be taken into account into politics.
27 Oct 20
@philokalia saidJust don't make the mistake of thinking that a right to life for the unborn is an entitlement to be born. Not every pregnancy leads to a live birth, even in the natural course of events. Worldwide, more women die in childbirth than foetuses are aborted; anti-abortionists should investigate why that is and do something about it.
Sure, but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
and maybe most people would be happy with state level decisions on abortion, and maybe we could even shoot for a Federal ruling that provided a right to life for the unborn.
27 Oct 20
@philokalia saidI did not read through each decision, or the dissenting commentaries, but I would be willing to bet that in every case of an overturned ruling, the grounds were legal, not moral or religious.
Sure, but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
and maybe most people would be happy with state level decisions on abortion, and maybe we could even shoot for a Federal ruling that provided a right to life for the unborn.
I am confident that Justice Barrett is well aware of her duty as a judge, to render rulings based on law, and not attempt to legislate morality or implement a religious agenda.
27 Oct 20
@moonbus saidLet's hope so.
I did not read through each decision, or the dissenting commentaries, but I would be willing to bet that in every case of an overturned ruling, the grounds were legal, not moral or religious.
I am confident that Justice Barrett is well aware of her duty as a judge, to render rulings based on law, and not attempt to legislate morality or implement a religious agenda.
27 Oct 20
@suzianne saidShe's already set the cause of women back fifty years.
Let's hope so.
"Women have been the majority of voters in every national election since 1964, and we represent the majority of mail-in ballots and early votes heading into November. Over the last four years, we have shown our political force by marching for women’s rights and Black lives, volunteering for causes, and donating to campaigns. We are a supermajority, and we should have the undivided attention of every elected official in this country. But we don’t, and that’s because deliberate efforts to undermine our democracy have created a system that’s less and less responsive to the needs of the people, especially women.
"Make no mistake: the tidal wave of female voters and the record number of women elected to Congress in 2018 have been possible not thanks to our political system, but despite it. Supreme court decisions to allow unlimited corporate money in elections, gut the Voting Rights Act, and refuse to address partisan gerrymandering all make it harder for women, especially women of color, to run for office, let alone vote. Barrett, who has proudly touted herself as an “originalist” in the mold of Antonin Scalia, will cement a court that’s even more hostile to our democracy.
"If Joe Biden wins this November, he should prioritize reforms that will make our democracy fairer and more accountable to the will of the people, including women. That starts with depoliticizing the court, strengthening voting rights, and reducing the influence of money in politics.
"A single supreme court justice confirmed by a group of Senators acting against our wishes shouldn’t have this much power. We, the people – and we, the supermajority of women – should determine the direction of the country. And the best way to do that is for those of us who believe in reproductive freedom, affordable health care, LGBTQ+ rights, and voting rights to show up in droves for this election. We should vote like our lives depend on it, because they do."
-- Cecile Richards, writing for The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2020/oct/27/amy-coney-barretts-appointment-is-a-wake-up-call-for-female-voters
27 Oct 20
@suzianne saidWhile you profess faith in God with your mouth, your heart is clearly with the things of this world.
She's already set the cause of women back fifty years.
"Women have been the majority of voters in every national election since 1964, and we represent the majority of mail-in ballots and early votes heading into November. Over the last four years, we have shown our political force by marching for women’s rights and Black lives, volunteering for causes, and donating to cam ...[text shortened]... us-news/commentisfree/2020/oct/27/amy-coney-barretts-appointment-is-a-wake-up-call-for-female-voters