I know there’s been some back and forth on the subject but I want to make two points, here.
That’s horseshit. Voting patterns for Catholics inside the United States are very split. In the most recent election Catholics split almost down the middle on the Presidential vote and have presented a majority of their vote to the D candidate since 1984, for heaven’s sake. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. It shows.
I want you to think hard about your statements. Branding all catholics, about whom you seem willfully ignorant, as belonging to ‘the religion of anti-abortion, anti-contraception, sexism-enabling, child molester protectors’ is foolish. It’s just as foolish and offensive as any idiot who claims that ‘blacks all steal’ or ‘any jew will cheat you’. According to a wiki cite, 64% of American Catholics disagree with the idea that all abortions are morally wrong.
The are, by last count, 57 million catholics. If they split 50-50 by party vote and O’Malley, or any Roman Catholic candidate, could swing that to 52-48 then that person has moved move than 1.1 million votes into his or her column. That can be enough to make a difference and you should know that.
Honestly, it’s this sort of statement that tells people who actually watch politics (and not just as an outrage factor) that you are either and amateur, more in love with his views that anything related to data, or an extremist, with whom no real discussion can occur.
According to a 2009 Gallup poll, American Roman Catholics are not only more socially liberal than the average Protestant they are, on some topics, more socially liberal than the average American as a whole.
“Go sell all your possessions and give to the poor.” - Jesus
That is one of the main themes jesus promotes, and goes completely against the GOP establisment. Why the fuck can’t democrats just say this and put them in their place.
Agreed. I’m a cafeteria Catholic and believe the Church is absolutely wrong about contraception. I think they picked a fight with Obama over contraception coverage because the hierarchy are single-issue voters regarding abortion and they wanted to hurt a pro-choice candidate. I personally know zero Catholics who do not or did not practice birth control and while a great many pay lip service to the anti-abortion movement, not that many are single-issue voters regarding it.
They don’t need to and there’s nothing to be gained from it. The Democrats are already widely viewed as the party more for assisting the poor, economic/social justice and all that. If your view on religion, any religion, is that this is the most important aspect then you’re not likely confused on who is putting it foremost. What’s to be gained from a public war over theology with the GOP?
As I said above, this view of Catholicism is closer in line to what many Latino Catholics practice as opposed to knuckle-rapping over condoms. Which is why I think the “Latino Catholics are just dying to become Republicans once we fix this immigration thing” mindset is one destined for disappointment.
Between “not ignoring” and “allowing to take over” is a pretty big gulf. And I don’t think the progressives are nearly as allied with the Dems as the hard RW is with the Pubbies. And you see how THAT is turning out.
You’re right. I don’t even know what I’m saying, I’m an atheist. I wish the Dem’s would stand up for our constitutional rights here but I won’t hold my breath.
Still, it seems as if the GOP has a stranglehold on the “Christian Value” voter. That’s the GOP base. The Dem’s let them carry on with this without the slightest bit of criticism at all the hypocrisy taking place. Perhaps, bringing this up may help to reveal what absolute liars the GOP is made up of and then maybe people will start to question if they actually have their best interests in mind.
That’s just one example. There’s lots of other things that could happen, that could both benefit or hurt the Dem’s. I’ll admit it’s probably a gamble. But we don’t knowwhat would happen because the Dem’s don’t have the balls to ever say anything about it.
I’ve never voted for a tea partier. I don’t support them, but their economic policies support the people more than the corporatist establishment. Your example makes my point. In this scenario, tea partiers are attempting to gain control of the government’s education system to promote their agenda. Guess what, when they accomplish that taxpayers who want their children to learn about climate change will be supporting Koch brothers’ propoganda instead because the tea partiers are controlling the curriculum. One class (politically connected business) using government (schools) to subjugate another class (students, taxpayers).
And lol at “suckers” being " duped" by “messaging”. You are familiar with politics, right? Obama voters were somehow duped into thinking that he was for the common man while Goldman Sachs was writing his ticket to the White House.
There continues to be self-righteous “exploitation” talk floating around here. Not a single person has been able to show how the evil capitalists will extort hundreds of billions of dollars from the people without the aid of government.
That’s not true. For example, the new deal was a program designed to capitalize on popular appeals for government action in order to a) solidify power behind the Roosevelt/ Rockefeller regime b) exercise unprecedented control over the economy of the United States.
The only way they get into power is by being elected. Responsible government relies as much on the politician as it does the voting public. How is your example a symptom of a broken system and not due to the ignorance of the voter that put them in there?
In Libertarianism, at one point or another it stops becoming about profit and instead becomes slavery. Human history has proved this scenario countless times. Business puts a bottom line on everything - including people. There’s your exploitation.
Don’t even say that slaves aren’t motivated either. You put a gun to someone’s head and they’ll work.
I think you could do a little better job of connecting the dots, there. As I understand it, the Koch brothers and Tea Partiers are in agreement on denying climate change (though perhaps not for the same reasons) and would favor a school curriculum which also denies its validity. What do you think would happen such that taxpayers who favor teaching climate change will be supporting the Koch brothers?
If you support the GOP, then by default you are supporting the Tea Party. I think that is the nub of this whole thread- GOP voters these days are starting to find either the Tea Party or the ‘Establishment Republicans’ abhorrent and it is tearing the party apart. Reminds me of the best description of the GOP side of the election I’ve seen- the primaries presented the public with a ‘Star Wars barroom’ of candidates, each representing their own sub-faction. Each in turn rose to prominence for awhile, but once the whole party got a look at them it was overall turned off by each. In the end Romney ran as a kind of blank slate- he hardly took a stand on anything, offered no specifics, basically he ran on the “R” after his name on the ballot.
Anyway, it isn’t just the Tea Party AFAICT that promotes the very dumbest ideas coming out of the GOP these days. They come out of the science committee, loser Senate candidates… just pay attention for a few days and another example will come along. And this is the problem I’m concerned about- as far as the GOP succeeds in hijacking the government with stupid ideas, the government fails to work. Turning on government isn’t the solution- that is what the corporatists want you to do. The thing to do is turn on the GOP. Take the example of California. They got rid of their pubbies at the state level, and suddenly their budget is running a surplus. Go figure.
Please don’t infer from this that the GOP is the only problem with government however.
Well, I don’t think you are without a point here. OTOH, Obama has promoted plenty of things that ought to be good for the general population. There’s the ACA. The consumer protection agency. His work on gay rights. That is just the start. All that the GOP, and especially the Tea Party, want, is lower taxes for the wealthy. And to gut social programs- take a look at what the Ryan Budget would do to Medicare, Mr. I’ve Never Voted For A Tea Partier (I’d scroll down to the graphs on page 16 for the quick takeaway). See the difference?
What you’re getting at is becoming clearer. Because the Tea Party and the GOP in general intends to drive the government into the ditch, the resulting crash will be the fault of the government’s very existence in the first place, is that right?
Anyway, look at the example of the GOP wanting to hold the debt ceiling hostage to force a default on Treasury bonds (or at least raise their rates in the subsequent downgrade) if they don’t get their way. Corporations are losing billions in pension charges due to the low rates, and stand to benefit from whatever causes these rates to rise. At the same time they are sitting on trillions in cash, which they would probably love to stash in Treasury bonds if the yields were higher. I can’t say for sure that these effects are the motive of the GOP in threatening to hold the debt ceiling hostage, but it certainly is a curious combination of phenomena, no? So tell me, if the GOP succeeds in forcing a hike in rates this way, which will cost the public billions in interest (not sure ‘extort’ is the proper word though), is that the fault of the government for existing in the first place or is it the fault of a corrupt GOP for abusing the system?
They are forced to pay taxes. If this group is successful, their tax money will be going towards teaching climate change denial. Therefore the Koch Bros will be using government force to extort money from taxpayers to fund their education scheme.
I gather you meant “support” in the sense of paying for, rather than agreeing with, the Koch brothers’ stand on climate change. Is that correct?
If that is what you meant, it seems hardly worth pointing out. I expect that nearly every person in the country could find some line item in the federal budget that they disagree with. We come together as a country to debate things and find the best solutions we can, but it’s not perfect for anybody. Somehow, we deal with it.
I’m not necessarily talking just about Roman Catholic voters, I am talking about liberal/progressive/moderate voters who have read about all the Catholic Church’s attempts to block abortion/contraception. They WILL have questions for any Catholic candidate for president.
I understand that not all Catholics agree with their church leadership on this issue, even if they do tithe to promote the church leadership’s efforts along these lines, making them morally culpable in my eyes. But my POINT was that any Catholic candidate MUST distance himself from his church’s stand on abortion/contraception before he will be acceptable to moderate–>progressive non-Catholics. And FIRMLY distance himself, I believe some Church leaders have been known to threaten excommunication to Catholic politicians who take a pro-choice stand.
I think my point of view is quite reasonable. You seem to think you can handwave all the things the Catholic leadership has been up to in the last few years away. Sorry, don’t work that way, son.