The Trump Effect & The New Democrats

[metis]

CST is a compilation of picked ideals from historical papal encyclicals and councils -ideals that the current USCCB has decided were best for Catholics today...

...But I prefer using my own conscience, and making Prudential judgements on my own. IMO, CST is 'Radical Catholicism', because it attempts to replace our conscience, where there should be neutrality. It's overwhelming to me.

I have on numerous occasions stated that one's informed conscience is viewed by the Church as being foremost, but when one simply goes against the Pope and the bishops on matters dealing with basic morality based on traditional Catholic teachings, there's a problem, and a quite serious one at that.

So much of what Trump has said and done should offend anyone with a conscience, and Trump's adulterous affairs are only the tip of the iceberg. Do you want me to go through a litany of such things, LC? Unfortunately it's all too easy to do.

 

[BSM1]

I have on numerous occasions stated that one's informed conscience is viewed by the Church as being foremost, but when one simply goes against the Pope and the bishops on matters dealing with basic morality based on traditional Catholic teachings, there's a problem, and a quite serious one at that.

So much of what Trump has said and done should offend anyone with a conscience, and Trump's adulterous affairs are only the tip of the iceberg. Do you want me to go through a litany of such things, LC? Unfortunately it's all too easy to do.

Do you apply the same standards to everyone?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you apply the same standards to everyone?

You'll notice that people who care more about a politician's personal
qualities than about actual policies always employ a double standard.
(Yes, I used the "a" word....it is always.)
They've harsh words for those on the other side of the aisle, but make
excuses for sins on their own, eg, crises of "Whataboutism", "False
equivalency!", "It was just sex", "She was standing by her man", "Male
privilege!" & the big one..."Racism!"

 

[ecco]

Hmmm....how were you when Drudge broke the scandal?
Other media did meta-coverage, ie, complaining that Drudge
either broke the old rules or wasn't credible.
(It turned out that Drudge was the only credible source in this.)

Of course, I wouldn't want anyone to infer that number of people
in the figure I cited (ie, the number of voters for Bill) were all
fully engaged news consumers. But this suggests harsh criticism
of them for being fully unaware of a major news story just because
they limited their sources to what is comfortable, eg, NPR.

Note also that Bill's illicit dalliances as governor had been out there
in news coverage for many years.

That's too bad.
Drudge aggregates news from both the left & the right....from mainstream to
loopy....from Breitbart & Infowars all the way to the NY Times & Washington Post.
One sees a picture of broad perspectives in this country.
All news is agenda laden.

So, I guess that we should all watch third rate news sources like Drudge and Breitbart to get the facts before everyone else.

Nah.

To read competing perspectives is the only to gain a full picture.
If one only consumes liberal sources, is one really informed?

Who reads? I watch the televised new shows and occasionally follow up by reading online versions of WAPO and NYT.

As far as diversity is concerned I heard Trump lie at rallies while watching them on Fox as well as the librul networks.

 

[ecco]

all emphases mine.

The operative word being "accused". What ever happened with those accusers? Were their claims valid enough to bring even civil trials? I don't remember Clinton being charged with rape.

I never said Bill was prosecuted for rape.

Revoltingest, previously

If so, would this mean that you condoned her attacking women
who accused Bill of assault & even rape?
​

As I said, The operative word being "accused". What ever
happened with those accusers? Were their claims valid enough to bring even civil trials? I don't remember Clinton being charged with rape.

Is it hard for you to keep your terminology straight?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, I guess that we should all watch third rate news sources like Drudge and Breitbart to get the facts before everyone else.

Third rate?
Your sources kept you in the dark about Clinton's sexual predation.
What are they then.....4th rate?

 

[Revoltingest]

all emphases mine.



Revoltingest, previously

If so, would this mean that you condoned her attacking women
who accused Bill of assault & even rape?
​

As I said, The operative word being "accused". What ever
happened with those accusers? Were their claims valid enough to bring even civil trials? I don't remember Clinton being charged with rape.

Is it hard for you to keep your terminology straight?

It looks pretty straight to me.
And free of double standards too.

 

[ecco]

Consider the double standard at work here.
Many lefties excuse Bill by saying that he was never convicted
or even prosecuted for sexual assault claimed by multiple women.
But we see lefties convinced that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford,
despite there being no conviction, no trial, nor even any credible
evidence.

I'm not one of them, so it doesn't apply to me. What do you mean when you use the term "many"? 5%, 10%, 80%. Don't be so vague.

Meh....is there anyone who is without bias?
Certainly, you don't claim to be bias free, eh.
What matters is having reasonable standards of judgement,
& applying them fairly & uniformly to friend & foe alike.

You keep drifting all over the place to try to make your point. Your original argument was that many people voted for Clinton after the Lewinsky affair became known. Excluding reports from a fringe Drudge, the affair was unknown to most voters, including people like me who watch a lot of news.

You gripe that people thought that Kavanaugh was guilty with little evidence but you condemn people for not believing Clinton was guilty of misdeeds with even less evidence.

That's hypocrisy. Especially in view of your self-serving statements:

Meh....is there anyone who is without bias?
Certainly, you don't claim to be bias free, eh.
What matters is having reasonable standards of judgement,
& applying them fairly & uniformly to friend & foe alike.

You obviously don't follow your own advice.

 

[ecco]

Third rate?
Your sources kept you in the dark about Clinton's sexual predation.
What are they then.....4th rate?

"kept you in the dark"! Really. You mean they took the time to do due diligence before accusing the President of the United States.

They also didn't jump on the Trump/Breitbart accusations of Obama's birthplace. They did their due diligence and found it to be BS.

It's sadly funny how your hypocritic bias works in only one direction. It's even sadder when you accuse others of bias. Can you show a single major issue where you have given the benefit of the doubt to the Democratic side?

 

[ecco]

It looks pretty straight to me.
And free of double standards too.

Besides tap dancing around issues, your other, well known, tactic is to ignore things entirely and go back to one-liners to keep your post count high.

It's your way of admitting your arguments are a lost cause.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not one of them, so it doesn't apply to me. What do you mean when you use the term "many"? 5%, 10%, 80%. Don't be so vague.

I intended to not describe anyone in particular.
When the shoe fits, they will know who they are.
Quantification is irrelevant & impossible.

You keep drifting all over the place to try to make your point. Your original argument was that many people voted for Clinton after the Lewinsky affair became known.

That was an observation, not an argument.

Excluding reports from a fringe Drudge, the affair was unknown to most voters, including people like me who watch a lot of news.

You & others should broaden their sources.
Still, it did exist in some mainstream media outside of Drudge (as I recall) in meta-coverage.

You gripe that people thought that Kavanaugh was guilty with little evidence but you condemn people for not believing Clinton was guilty of misdeeds with even less evidence.

Kavanaugh had far far less evidence against him.
But I never said he was innocent, only that there was no case against him.

Clinton was actually tried for crimes relating to his one escapade.
Have I said Clinton is guilty?

That's hypocrisy. Especially in view of your self-serving statements:
You obviously don't follow your own advice.

It seems that you're only lashing out in anger & frustration.

 

[Revoltingest]

Besides tap dancing around issues, your other, well known, tactic is to ignore things entirely and go back to one-liners to keep your post count high.

It's your way of admitting your arguments are a lost cause.

You keep trying to turn this into a critique of my faults.
This bespeaks weakness on the real issue under discussion.
(And of your getting too emotional.)
Calm down.
Try to stay on topic, & see where it goes.

 

[ecco]

ecco:

You gripe that people thought that Kavanaugh was guilty with little evidence but you condemn people for not believing Clinton was guilty of misdeeds with even less evidence.

That's hypocrisy. Especially in view of your self-serving statements:
You obviously don't follow your own advice.​

It seems that you're only lashing out in anger & frustration.

There is nothing angry or frustrating in pointing out your hypocrisy.

 

[BSM1]

ecco:

You gripe that people thought that Kavanaugh was guilty with little evidence but you condemn people for not believing Clinton was guilty of misdeeds with even less evidence.

That's hypocrisy. Especially in view of your self-serving statements:
You obviously don't follow your own advice.​

There is nothing angry or frustrating in pointing out your hypocrisy.

"...even less evidence..."??? What planet do you come from? How about time, dates, places, physical evidence, state trooper collaborations...what else do you need?

 

[ecco]

ecco previously:
Besides tap dancing around issues, your other, well known, tactic is to ignore things entirely and go back to one-liners to keep your post count high.

It's your way of admitting your arguments are a lost cause.​

You keep trying to turn this into a critique of my faults.
This bespeaks weakness on the real issue under discussion.
(And of your getting too emotional.)
Calm down.
Try to stay on topic, & see where it goes.

That's really funny.

Why do you think I felt it necessary to post:

Besides tap dancing around issues, your other, well known, tactic is to ignore things entirely and go back to one-liners to keep your post count high.

It's your way of admitting your arguments are a lost cause.​

I posted it because you were the one trying to tap dance away from your comments and assertions.

 

[Revoltingest]

ecco:

You gripe that people thought that Kavanaugh was guilty with little evidence but you condemn people for not believing Clinton was guilty of misdeeds with even less evidence.

That's hypocrisy. Especially in view of your self-serving statements:
You obviously don't follow your own advice.​

There is nothing angry or frustrating in pointing out your hypocrisy.

Bless your heart.

 

[ecco]

"...even less evidence..."??? What planet do you come from? How about time, dates, places, physical evidence, state trooper collaborations...what else do you need?

Aha! So you admit there were fraudulent collaborations on the part of the State Troopers.

 

[Revoltingest]

ecco previously:
Besides tap dancing around issues, your other, well known, tactic is to ignore things entirely and go back to one-liners to keep your post count high.

It's your way of admitting your arguments are a lost cause.​

That's really funny.

Why do you think I felt it necessary to post:

Besides tap dancing around issues, your other, well known, tactic is to ignore things entirely and go back to one-liners to keep your post count high.

It's your way of admitting your arguments are a lost cause.​

I posted it because you were the one trying to tap dance away from your comments and assertions.

You're the one ignoring the theme of the OP, your
deflection thereby justifying not only bad behavior by the
New Democrats, but also indirectly excusing Trump's.

 

[BSM1]

Aha! So you admit there were fraudulent collaborations on the part of the State Troopers.

Really?

 

[Revoltingest]

Really?

I think he's coming around to agree with us about Clinton's behavior
having been known to voters before his election & re-election.
That's gotta be it, eh.