2020 elections and current politics

A place to discuss religious, political and any other serious issues. Those who are easily offended are asked to steer clear.

Moderator: The Slider

User avatar
DeathScythe
Antiquated Ska fan
Posts: 85
Location: Texas

Re: 2020 elections and current politics

Post#11 » Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:40 am

Driving an hour hour or more each way is something of a badge of honor. The one in Dallas, is that in Irving? FSSP is in group three. Its founders broke away from SSPX and reaffirmed their communion with Rome. Their church in Irving is their oldest outpost in the US, dating back to 1991.


That it is! Mater Dei Latin Mass Perish. I'd be interested in attending knowing that, but one of the reasons I left Catholic out during my church experimentation phase, was because I felt like they would be the least cool with non-member casual visitors. That probably goes double in this case.

I have thought about attending church again, though, for community purposes. Not catholic; probably UU.

The United Methodist Church at a recent meeting reaffirmed narrowly the definition of marriage as between men and women. The SJWs were not happy and have gone forward with efforts to undermine things locally. I read somewhere an opinion piece about how the Methodists should look at what happened to the Episcopal Church and the Lutherans and realize separating peacefully is better than fighting it out for control.


I can tell you my Methodist church felt liberal at the time, considering it was a mainstream Christian church. That was most likely why I liked it; so this doesn't surprise me. I would have reccomended to them to simply maintain status quo. It really is only a matter of time before homosexuals are welcomed in the majority of Christiandom, maybe in the same way other sinners are, perhaps more so.

Mainstream Catholic churches run the gamut of stuff like this based on the preferences of the parish priest and the local bishop. In one place, heaven and hell and sin could be on the menu in a sermon, and across the river in a different diocese, it could be all feel-good "Jesus loves us" talk with little substance. Traditional groups stick to heaven and hell and sin sermons. The SSPX and the fringe groups have freedom of course to criticize the institutional Church's progressive tilt as they don't have any oversight. FSSP and groups like it operate under the local bishops, so they have to toe the line.


Well, Catholicism probably was never for me then. I'd prefer the "Jesus loves us" talk, and I think the substance depends on the minister. The problem with the focus on sin, is the inherent judgement involved. Also, the shift from commandments to individual pieces of scripture when discussing it, because then you subject whatever it is to a plethora if interpretations. "Hell" also has a lot of problems.

Truth be told, I'm burnt out on Abrahamic religions in general. Buddhism changed my life. I've always found branches of Christianity and Judaism to be alluring, but I think that's mostly historical interest and my draw towards that. I see the same thing with me and Paganism. If I think Christian society can be draconian, man, what would I think of Pagan ones?

I've always been firmly Catholic, so have never gone around to check out other groups, aside from when i was a kid and went to church with my Lutheran grandparents. My shift to traditional thinking happened after I graduated from university and discovered stuff on the Web to go along with my already-present disillusionment with the mainstream Church. I always perceived something was wrong, but after university, I learned specifics about the loss of Catholic identity in the wake of Vatican II.


What about you SOLDIER? Same? I'm curious.

I might convert to Catharism if that was a thing that still existed. I also like the Paulicians: my favorite heresy. I love a good counter-culture. Unfortunately, and I know you don't like this word Seph, I feel like it's a more conservative version of a religion that is already too conservative for me. I do respect though, that such an action represents thinking for yourself and not simply taking what's handed to you.

Do you have a favorite Catholic heresy?

It spends our money horribly. The feds are raking in more tax revenue than ever before and we still have public debt north of twenty trillion and a budget deficit that only grows with each omnibus spending package. The GOP establishment in Congress, despite all the talk of small government, has done absolutely nothing. It has instead aided and abetted the debt spiral. Trump has never made the budget and the debt an issue, so I can't hold it against him, but if he is so big on economic matters, he has to realize he's going to have to do something eventually. My Catholic friends and I agree that regardless, it will be too little, too late.
...
I have seen a commercial or two and looked at his website since you mentioned him here. You're explaining him fine. As he tells it, if it were to all come off in an ideal world, it would be great, I'm sure. But it's not an ideal world and I just don't think government could ever pull off such things in an efficient manner that didn't end up screwing things up even more.


I agree; the government does not effectively spend our money. This is why it's even more essential that we start taking it back. (I understand you would just do tax cuts; UBI prepares us for the future.)

One thing the government does well, is write checks to large amounts of people. I would say that's actually a core competency of the U.S. government that we would be leaning into.

I don't know that anyone, other than a total outsider like Yang, cares to do something about the deficit. Trump might have, but it seems pretty clear that he's been co-opted now by the GOP as a whole.

I read a headline the other day about how Biden is the pupular choice among world leaders due to his foreign policy connections from the Senate and as VP. They are looking for someone who will push back against Trump's nationalist economic policies. That won't help him with grassroots voters, but I bet the big donors pay attention.


I just can't imagine progressive fervor for Biden. I'm seeing it now this way: the primary mainstream candidates are O'Rourke, Biden, Harris, I think in that order. The primary progressive candidates are Sanders, Gabbard, Yang/Warren.

I say Warren is the compromise candidate, because she burned us in 2016, when she didn't endorse Bernie even though we all knew she agreed with him more, and then later endorsed Hillary. And so she's viewed as a fundamental progressive by us, but low on integrity.

I think Bernie sits atop a ticket with Tulsi, if the progressives win. Yang's a total offshoot, I know that in my heart-of-hearts. And no one wants to compromise.
Last edited by DeathScythe on Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sephiroth9611
Of Hidden Rank
Posts: 231
Location: Off-world colonies
Contact:

Re: 2020 elections and current politics

Post#12 » Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:07 am

DeathScythe wrote:That it is! Mater Dei Latin Mass Perish. I'd be interested in attending knowing that, but one of the reasons I left Catholic out during my church experimentation phase, was because I felt like they would be the least cool with non-member casual visitors. That probably goes double in this case.

I'm sure they'd have no problem with you showing up and sitting in the back to watch. Latin Mass communities are interested in bringing in the uninitiated. Mater Dei is growing by leaps and bounds in the DFW area.

I can tell you my Methodist church felt liberal at the time, considering it was a mainstream Christian church. That was most likely why I liked it; so this doesn't surprise me. I would have reccomended to them to simply maintain status quo. It really is only a matter of time before homosexuals are welcomed in the majority of Christiandom, maybe in the same way other sinners are, perhaps more so.

And...

Well, Catholicism probably was never for me then. I'd prefer the "Jesus loves us" talk, and I think the substance depends on the minister. The problem with the focus on sin, is the inherent judgement involved. Also, the shift from commandments to individual pieces of scripture when discussing it, because then you subject whatever it is to a plethora if interpretations. "Hell" also has a lot of problems.

Catholicism and its version of Jesus Christ don't hate and turn away the sinner. I went to confession today and the priest was happy to see me and didn't frown when i related my sins. The Church just doesn't let sin slide.

Do you have a favorite Catholic heresy?

I find the Fraticelli interesting. I first learned about them in _The Name of the Rose_. Lots of different factions running around doing their thing. :)

I agree; the government does not effectively spend our money. This is why it's even more essential that we start taking it back. (I understand you would just do tax cuts; UBI prepares us for the future.)

Nah. Economic debates is a popular past time among traditional Catholics. There are proponents of Capitalism with various changes to fix this or that, mainly to do with eliminating fractional banking. There are proponents of distributism. Tax cuts aren't a component of either economic program. The important thing is ending usury and the dominance of the "banksters" over the economy and the government in general.

Trump might have, but it seems pretty clear that he's been co-opted now by the GOP as a whole.

How do you think he's been co-opted vs. simply being stymied by the establishment? Bolton and the neocons seem to have his attention in the Mideast, but otherwise, the globalist uniparty, Dems and Repubs, despite him and his economic agenda.

I just can't imagine progressive fervor for Biden. I'm seeing it now this way: the primary mainstream candidates are O'Rourke, Biden, Harris, I think in that order. The primary progressive candidates are Sanders, Gabbard, Yang/Warren.

I say Warren is the compromise candidate, because she burned us in 2016, when she didn't endorse Bernie even though we all knew she agreed with him more, and then later endorsed Hillary. And so she's viewed as a fundamental progressive by us, but low on integrity.

I think Bernie sits atop a ticket with Tulsi, if the progressives win. Yang's a total offshoot, I know that in my heart-of-hearts. And no one wants to compromise.

I think Warren's "Pocahontas" problem is too much of a liability for her to overcome. Trump would keep up with that endlessly and Native Americans distrust her.
Since October 3rd, 2000 | "Quite a thing to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."

User avatar
Sephiroth9611
Of Hidden Rank
Posts: 231
Location: Off-world colonies
Contact:

Re: 2020 elections and current politics

Post#13 » Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:13 am

Double post!

Two things for Deathscythe:

Why Biden has no real shot at the nomination: An Awkward Kiss Changed How I Saw Joe Biden

Being Catholic: check out the links under A Few Things First... and then the Attire and Etiquette link under Sacrifice of the Mass, scroll down and read the section on not being judgmental. People who are rude or unwelcoming are not the norm.
Since October 3rd, 2000 | "Quite a thing to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."

User avatar
DeathScythe
Antiquated Ska fan
Posts: 85
Location: Texas

Re: 2020 elections and current politics

Post#14 » Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:18 am

Hello, sorry for the delay again. Please remember that I do not intend to offend you in any way Seph!

I'm sure they'd have no problem with you showing up and sitting in the back to watch. Latin Mass communities are interested in bringing in the uninitiated. Mater Dei is growing by leaps and bounds in the DFW area.


It would be something I would do out of pure curiosity. I would have to feign interest as well, which I was fine with as a teenager, but now it feels disingenuous. "I just want to see what y'all do..." seems rude, although it would be the truth.

I would imagine they do most of their recruiting from Roman Catholics though, and Roman Catholics tend to bring in the non-religious like me. I would be surprised if it's the opposite, and there is in fact significant recruitment from non-Catholics?

Are the Latin Mass communities growing at a faster rate than Roman Catholicism as a whole? I know you mentioned the situation in France, but is that the only example?

Catholicism and its version of Jesus Christ don't hate and turn away the sinner. I went to confession today and the priest was happy to see me and didn't frown when i related my sins. The Church just doesn't let sin slide.


Well, there are a lot of sins and the bible is a long book. So, do homosexual members, if they exist, occupy a position within the church community where they can be open about it and still welcomed? Let's be real, you probably have rich people attending your church and the bible is clearer about greed than homosexuality.

And how do you feel about the condom thing, specifically as it relates to African Catholics?

Which version of Catholicism, yours or the mainstream, is more likely to embrace a homosexual Christian? Either? How do you feel personally? Can you envision any form of Catholicism, revisionist or not, that embraces homosexuality?

What happens if new scientific evidence comes to light regarding the "choice" part of the equation for homosexuals? Catholics have a good scientific reputation, generally speaking. Does new scientific evidence change anything regarding your view, or are you forced to deny it? Very curious about this.

I find the Fraticelli interesting. I first learned about them in _The Name of the Rose_. Lots of different factions running around doing their thing. :)


I know of them from CK2, and have read more now. It's interesting. They were roughly the same era as the Cathars but didn't get crusaded against. Just intellectually opposed. I'm guessing they were deemed as less of a threat, or less pervasive. They were also slightly later, like maybe the whole Cathar thing was a bunch of bad press the century prior. And their theology didn't start with the Roman Catholic church being evil.

Fun fact: from what I can tell, "Kill em' all and let God sort them out" originated from the Cathar crusade. (Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.) I only recently learned this, maybe you knew already?

I figured there are so many Catholic heresies that there has to be at least one compatible with your world view. I find all of them very interesting, especially considering most of them ended with destruction. I guess Paulician is more of an Orthodox heresy (it is in CK2 anyway) although it does pre-date Schism which makes it hard to categorize. All modern Paulicians, which would only be in Bulgaria, seem to have converted to Roman Catholicism in the 18th(?) century, though. So, eventually, they fell in line.

Nah. Economic debates is a popular past time among traditional Catholics. There are proponents of Capitalism with various changes to fix this or that, mainly to do with eliminating fractional banking. There are proponents of distributism. Tax cuts aren't a component of either economic program. The important thing is ending usury and the dominance of the "banksters" over the economy and the government in general.


So, anti-corruption? I think that's good. More importantly, diverse thinking is embraced.

I've always seen socialism as justified by Matthew. You might remember my "Christian Communist" theme form 2004-2005. Really, a mixed economy is both the present and future. No one wants government video games. I think the

How do you think he's been co-opted vs. simply being stymied by the establishment? Bolton and the neocons seem to have his attention in the Mideast, but otherwise, the globalist uniparty, Dems and Repubs, despite him and his economic agenda.


That comment was more speculative than how I said it. It's equally possible he decided the left just wouldn't support him either way, so he went right since they were the only ones playing the game.

I expected a non-interventionist policy in general, and I sort of got that, if you consider relativity, but there are also plenty of interventionist decisions that I would not have thought he would make based on his campaigning. I also questioned if maybe he would support national health care in a surprise move... obviously not.

Long story short, he has governed more in line with the traditional GOP than one might have expected while he was on the campaign trail.

I think Warren's "Pocahontas" problem is too much of a liability for her to overcome. Trump would keep up with that endlessly and Native Americans distrust her.


Do you really think it's that big of a deal? Lots of Americans have family stories regarding their ancestry that aren't true. In the south, "Native American" ancestry often times means "Black" ancestry: it was once a very popular lie. In Warren's case, it's not so much a lie as it is a greatly embellished truth, if I understand everything correctly.

Not that I think Warren has integrity.

Why Biden has no real shot at the nomination: An Awkward Kiss Changed How I Saw Joe Biden


Interesting read. I've seen the various YouTube montages of his discretions. Maybe it is enough to sink him, considering the "me too" environment, although it is losing steam. I thought the pussy-grabbing thing would sink Trump, though. I'm no longer sure how the American public is going to gauge a moral issue. Covington is a perfect example. Many liberals are digging in their heels on how these were "bad, racist kids". Facts don't seem to matter anymore.

Being Catholic: check out the links under A Few Things First... and then the Attire and Etiquette link under Sacrifice of the Mass, scroll down and read the section on not being judgmental. People who are rude or unwelcoming are not the norm.


Are you proselytizing to me right now? LOL. I did read these.

Regarding attire, it's more liberal and inclusive than I would have thought, but I don't like the differences for men and women and I just don't see why it should matter if the goal is enlightenment. I get the idea of wearing the best thing you have to show reverence, and the hem-hawing over jeans, but some people might not even have that. Shorts and sweats, "Just say no", but why not just have no rules and not judge? How does it ultimately have any bearing on what's happening?

Protestants tend to have no such rules but they too expect you in something better than athleisure. This is in my opinion one of the worst things about modern churches. And yes, they're way more liberal than they once were, but the few rules still in place just should not exist.

Now, regarding the rest of the content I read there, and it was very interesting, I wanted to comment on the below:

For many non-Catholic "Christians," it's just "the individual, the Bible, and Jesus,"....


This is 100% true. Many protestant churches basically preach that you don't even really need them, and you could just do it on your own time in your own home. Or at least, this is the belief of many individual protestants.

The site then makes some assumptions, such as protestants not delving into biblical/Christian history, which especially now in the internet age is not always true and depends on the protestant. In then says what I interpret to mean that they are saying that protestants don't believe in the value of what, in the protestant world would be called "works". That is sometimes true, but individually, protestants do believe in the value of works and do try to accomplish them to assist in their own salvation.

The same protestant churches that don't value works also rely on volunteer-ism. Huh...

A problem with stereotyping protestants is that it does vary greatly from individual to individual, by it's design. While that might be something you think degrades those beliefs, I think it makes it stronger and more susceptible to remaining relevant as time progresses. We are entering an age that will be rife with "textual criticism", another as-far-as-I-know protestant term. It doesn't mean Christianity can't adapt.

Also, they're putting "Christian" in quotations here, which is what protestants like to do to you. I always defend Catholics being Christian when this comes up and start showing off my history. (Socratic method works best; "Why don't you think Catholics are Christian?") It's juvenile thinking IMO, in both camps.

The philosophy seen in some brands of Protestantism ignores Scripture like the above and overlooks obvious anthropological Truths: we are born in time, in space, of flesh, and totally dependent on a myriad of things -- social structures, our families, culture and language, etc. The Catholic Church isn't so radically individualistic, and it doesn't deny the roles we, as Christians, play in salvation -- both our own and others'.


Protestants do value those social truths which is why their church communities exist. It doesn't outright advocate worshiping on your own, and in fact would advise against it; they have a financial interest in you continuing to attend. It just doesn't exclude that possibility, or require attendance for specific reasons.

This verse is important to protestants, even my mom (raised a form of traditional Baptist) would cite this to me as a child, it's right before the lord's prayer in Matthew, but this was why we didn't have to go to church:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Methodists hold two sacraments, baptism and communion. The latter is given in at least one service a week and you can do it as often as you like (they do "open communion", so anyone can partake) and it was mostly about solidarity with the congregation and Christ. It's supposed to help your faith but isn't ultimately necessary. The former happens once and then never requires your attendance again.

Anyway. Interesting reads, especially the 101 article.

User avatar
SOLDIERofficer81
Posts: 208
Location: 7th Heaven

Re: 2020 elections and current politics

Post#15 » Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:16 pm

Have you seen the news that Warren's cash haul isn't what it should be and her fundraising guy has quit? And I read an article earlier this year that talked about how Warren missed her chance four years ago.
"Let us never miss a step. May we never lose our friends. This is our home, our haven, our Citadel."
Citadel denizen since October 5, 2000 | SOLDIER's Final Fantasy VII Messageboard

User avatar
Sephiroth9611
Of Hidden Rank
Posts: 231
Location: Off-world colonies
Contact:

Re: 2020 elections and current politics

Post#16 » Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:47 pm

DeathScythe wrote:It would be something I would do out of pure curiosity. I would have to feign interest as well, which I was fine with as a teenager, but now it feels disingenuous. "I just want to see what y'all do..." seems rude, although it would be the truth.

Every church has a busybody or two. If you sat in back and just watched, I doubt most would bat an eye.

I would imagine they do most of their recruiting from Roman Catholics though, and Roman Catholics tend to bring in the non-religious like me. I would be surprised if it's the opposite, and there is in fact significant recruitment from non-Catholics?

Certainly the main stream of new traditionalists is made up of Catholics who are realizing the new Mass and all that surrounds it isn't working like promised and the old ways are better. I think the only reason there wouldn't be significant recruitment from non-Catholics would be just the small footprint of traditionalists. Easier to recruit friends and relatives. But I have read a lot about how converts to Catholicism join up at regular parishes, become disillusioned, and then find their way to more traditional settings.

Are the Latin Mass communities growing at a faster rate than Roman Catholicism as a whole? I know you mentioned the situation in France, but is that the only example?

There are differing opinions. Some people say their Masses are overflowing each Sunday, full of young adults with babies and toddlers and lots of newcomers. Others say their Masses are shrinking. In developed countries like the US, there is a lot of population movement and for sure certain centers are growing. There is a town in Kansas that is very popular and the Tulsa area is also very attractive.

Well, there are a lot of sins and the bible is a long book. So, do homosexual members, if they exist, occupy a position within the church community where they can be open about it and still welcomed? Let's be real, you probably have rich people attending your church and the bible is clearer about greed than homosexuality.

Which version of Catholicism, yours or the mainstream, is more likely to embrace a homosexual Christian? Either? How do you feel personally? Can you envision any form of Catholicism, revisionist or not, that embraces homosexuality?

Open in what way though? "I'm attracted to men, but I don't act on it." That person is going to be welcomed. "I am attracted to men. This is my partner Jim." That person is will be welcomed too, but his lifestyle is not going to be condoned. How a homosexual is going to be welcomed in the mainstream depends the local bishop and what he is willing to tolerate or openly encourage. In large, liberal dioceses, there are plenty of "Gay" parishes where everyone is welcome and Jesus' love is preached for everyone. Traditionalists hold firmly to what the Church teaches, sex is between a man and a woman in marriage and anything else is sinful.

And how do you feel about the condom thing, specifically as it relates to African Catholics?

Contraception, whether it's the pill or a condom, is bad.

What happens if new scientific evidence comes to light regarding the "choice" part of the equation for homosexuals? Catholics have a good scientific reputation, generally speaking. Does new scientific evidence change anything regarding your view, or are you forced to deny it? Very curious about this.

I would think it would depend on the context. Already there is a lot of discussion out there on why so many of these things are coming up now, people with same sex attraction, gender dysphoria, etc. Does it have to do with modern society? Chemicals in the water?

I expected a non-interventionist policy in general, and I sort of got that, if you consider relativity, but there are also plenty of interventionist decisions that I would not have thought he would make based on his campaigning. I also questioned if maybe he would support national health care in a surprise move... obviously not.

Long story short, he has governed more in line with the traditional GOP than one might have expected while he was on the campaign trail.

We'll see how things go.

Do you really think it's that big of a deal? Lots of Americans have family stories regarding their ancestry that aren't true. In the south, "Native American" ancestry often times means "Black" ancestry: it was once a very popular lie. In Warren's case, it's not so much a lie as it is a greatly embellished truth, if I understand everything correctly.

Having stories of a great grandma who was an Indian is one thing, but marking one's self down as a Native American is not so innocent. I have read at least one article about how Native Americans upset, not just with her claiming it at first, but her ham handed response since. Hardcore Dems may overlook it, but the public in general will see her for what Trump does so well in creating: a punchline along the lines of Low Energy Jeb.

Interesting read. I've seen the various YouTube montages of his discretions. Maybe it is enough to sink him, considering the "me too" environment, although it is losing steam. I thought the pussy-grabbing thing would sink Trump, though. I'm no longer sure how the American public is going to gauge a moral issue. Covington is a perfect example. Many liberals are digging in their heels on how these were "bad, racist kids". Facts don't seem to matter anymore.

Joe's problem is it's too well documented. A picture is better than a thousand words and multiple pictures of women looking at the very least uncomfortable with Joe feeling them up, not so good.

Are you proselytizing to me right now? LOL. I did read these.

Heh. I was looking at that site for something and thought I'd post the links here. A lot of info all in one place on some of the questions you're wondering about on visiting and how one would be received.

Regarding attire, it's more liberal and inclusive than I would have thought, but I don't like the differences for men and women and I just don't see why it should matter if the goal is enlightenment. I get the idea of wearing the best thing you have to show reverence, and the hem-hawing over jeans, but some people might not even have that. Shorts and sweats, "Just say no", but why not just have no rules and not judge? How does it ultimately have any bearing on what's happening?

I once read something about how in the 19th century, the Catholic Church was frowned upon by WASPy types not only for the usual reasons documented in history, but also because the Catholic Church attracted and in fact welcomed the lower classes and the criminal element. WASPs didn't want to go to church and sit with the riffraff. One should do one's best to present one's self in the presence of the Almighty and not turn up one's nose at the other guy doing his best. Of course, that site is directed towards a certain audience that has access to the Web. Getting dressed in halfway decent clothing shouldn't be too much of a struggle.

Interesting thoughts on the Protestant stuff. I wasn't looking to engage you on all that. Good reading your thoughts on all of it though. I didn't mean to steer this off into talk about Catholic questions.
Since October 3rd, 2000 | "Quite a thing to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."

User avatar
DeathScythe
Antiquated Ska fan
Posts: 85
Location: Texas

Re: 2020 elections and current politics

Post#17 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:09 pm

Have you seen the news that Warren's cash haul isn't what it should be and her fundraising guy has quit? And I read an article earlier this year that talked about how Warren missed her chance four years ago.


That, plus the stolen valor thing Seph mentioned, doesn't bode well for her.

Tulsi is being smeared for being too much of a non-interventionist (in the Democratic Party!). Also, she used to work for an anti-gay organization her father ran a long time ago. Later, she apologized for it, and then proceeded to vote with the LGBT agenda 100% of the time. But, she once did the thing.... >_<

I just saw my guy, Andrew Yang get attacked in an interview by a progressive YouTuber that I actually like (Jimmy Dore) because Yang doesn't necessarily support raising the minimum wage. Yang did his best to explain the idea that with all Americans receiving UBI of $1000, and implementing national health care, means you don't necessarily need to raise the minimum wage anymore. Whats more, UBI benefits everyone, including housewives and retirees, while raising the minimum wage does not... Dore called this idea "right-wing".

It's like, they're incapable of supporting anything other than Bernie Sanders' message. Everyone's a socialist, but somehow they don't get how UBI is better for us than making McDonalds pay factory worker wages and a free 2 year degree for everyone?

Which now brings us to the likely scenario. Progressive rally around Bernie. And this time he has name recognition. Mainstream probably supporting Beto, but maybe split with Kamala.

I think it's going to Bernie v Trump. Super early still, of course.

Certainly the main stream of new traditionalists is made up of Catholics who are realizing the new Mass and all that surrounds it isn't working like promised and the old ways are better. I think the only reason there wouldn't be significant recruitment from non-Catholics would be just the small footprint of traditionalists. Easier to recruit friends and relatives. But I have read a lot about how converts to Catholicism join up at regular parishes, become disillusioned, and then find their way to more traditional settings.


Do think this is something that continues on forever as a separate thing, or can changes in the vatican end the whole thing?

Regarding the homosexuality stuff, it just kind of confirms what I would expect. A UU church really is where I belong. I'm too heterodox, a word I learned today from Ben Shapiro. If I wanted to focus on my previous faith, I could just attend a Christian Chalice Circle within the UU organization.

I would think it would depend on the context. Already there is a lot of discussion out there on why so many of these things are coming up now, people with same sex attraction, gender dysphoria, etc. Does it have to do with modern society? Chemicals in the water?


Well, protestants think that apocalypse is coming and all this sin is just according to plan. The Israelis just need to hurry up with that temple. Trump is King Cyrus. Jokes aside, homosexuality is well documented throughout the ages. Gender dysphoria though is a product of modern society.

I had a thought today I wanted to run by you. If everyone gets $1000 a month for UBI, what do you do with that exactly? It's a run-down apartment and a bunch of ramen.... However, me and my partner, living together.....that's $2000, which we can make work, employment or not.

It encourages monogamous relationships, is my point. :)

User avatar
Sephiroth9611
Of Hidden Rank
Posts: 231
Location: Off-world colonies
Contact:

Re: 2020 elections and current politics

Post#18 » Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:14 am

DeathScythe wrote:Tulsi is being smeared for being too much of a non-interventionist (in the Democratic Party!).

Where do Dems want to intervene these days? :P

I just saw my guy, Andrew Yang get attacked in an interview by a progressive YouTuber that I actually like (Jimmy Dore) because Yang doesn't necessarily support raising the minimum wage. Yang did his best to explain the idea that with all Americans receiving UBI of $1000, and implementing national health care, means you don't necessarily need to raise the minimum wage anymore. Whats more, UBI benefits everyone, including housewives and retirees, while raising the minimum wage does not... Dore called this idea "right-wing".

It's like, they're incapable of supporting anything other than Bernie Sanders' message. Everyone's a socialist, but somehow they don't get how UBI is better for us than making McDonalds pay factory worker wages and a free 2 year degree for everyone?

All they can think about maybe is screwing Big Business maybe? How old are you anyway? Gen X? Millennial? Somewhere in between? Do you have much experience with young people today and what their attitudes are? i don't have much contact with them, but from what I have seen through blogs and the news, it's a pretty twisted world out there these days.

Which now brings us to the likely scenario. Progressive rally around Bernie. And this time he has name recognition. Mainstream probably supporting Beto, but maybe split with Kamala.

I think it's going to Bernie v Trump. Super early still, of course.

Do you know anything about the mayor from South Bend? I have read he has been getting some traction among the Hollywood types.

Do think this is something that continues on forever as a separate thing, or can changes in the vatican end the whole thing?

Traditionalists are pretty apocalyptic on this. Words like chastisement get thrown around as some kind of big reset is thought to be needed before things work themselves out. There is a rift right now that is growing between those who think Francis is the pope and those who think he isn't. I just keep my head down and worry about my own business.

Well, protestants think that apocalypse is coming and all this sin is just according to plan. The Israelis just need to hurry up with that temple. Trump is King Cyrus.

This is a major reason why traditional Catholics were and continue to be distrustful of Trump. Mainstream Catholics mostly don't know any better, but traditionalists are aware of Israel's influence and are hostile to the whole "Christian Zionist" mentality in the US. I myself have come a long way from my support of the GWOT. The destruction of Christian communities in the Mideast is a big deal.

Gender dysphoria though is a product of modern society.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

I had a thought today I wanted to run by you. If everyone gets $1000 a month for UBI, what do you do with that exactly? It's a run-down apartment and a bunch of ramen.... However, me and my partner, living together.....that's $2000, which we can make work, employment or not.

I live in a city-owned apartment building. $1000 is actually more than i get per month through Social Security, so my rent would probably go up with UBI. It does every time I get a cost of living increase in my SSI.
Since October 3rd, 2000 | "Quite a thing to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."

User avatar
SOLDIERofficer81
Posts: 208
Location: 7th Heaven

Re: 2020 elections and current politics

Post#19 » Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:47 am

I agree about some Dems misrepresenting the Cause. I was a reading an article about some process/device that sucks up CO2 out of the atmosphere and is getting backing from Big Oil, not just because it helps fight global warming, but because the CO2 can be used for different things. Towards the end of the article, they were quoting a sceptic who was against this process/device because it would prolong the era of fossil fuel usage. Message recieved. You don't give a damn about global warming. You just hate Big Oil, period.
Last edited by SOLDIERofficer81 on Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Let us never miss a step. May we never lose our friends. This is our home, our haven, our Citadel."
Citadel denizen since October 5, 2000 | SOLDIER's Final Fantasy VII Messageboard

User avatar
DeathScythe
Antiquated Ska fan
Posts: 85
Location: Texas

Re: 2020 elections and current politics

Post#20 » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:03 am

Where do Dems want to intervene these days? :P


Wherever Trump wants to withdraw from, and Venezuela. I hate this party.

All they can think about maybe is screwing Big Business maybe? How old are you anyway? Gen X? Millennial? Somewhere in between? Do you have much experience with young people today and what their attitudes are? i don't have much contact with them, but from what I have seen through blogs and the news, it's a pretty twisted world out there these days.


I was born in 1986, so I am an "older millenial", although not the oldest possible millenial.

I guess you could say "in between" but I only missed turning 18 in 2000 by 4 years. We know generational theory is bullshit though. Yes I share an affinity for electronics with 90s babies, but ultimately I have more in common with the 82-89 crowd than with the rest of my generation.

I live with a Gen Z dude, my partner's bother. Born in 98. He's a factory worker, likes video games and pro wrestling. Zero interest in politics. Not unlike other millenials I know.

I'm a team lead and interact with multiple Gen Z people, but I can't gauge the differences between us really because of human nature. Meaning, I focus on similarities, and talk about shared interests, like gaming or Linux.

I'd say the primary generational differences are pop culture. So I don't talk to them about it. Yes, those college campus YouTube videos ("SJW owned") make you think they're lunatics. But that is a very specific type of young person, and not the type you encounter in the working world.

People are diverse. It won't be long until you find Gen Z conservatives, or Gen Z Catholics, that you like and respect.

Do you know anything about the mayor from South Bend? I have read he has been getting some traction among the Hollywood types.


Not much at this point. Seems a bit vanilla. He looks to be more on the progressive side than the mainstream side though. He doesn't get me excited in the way Bernie or Tulsi does.

I must say I would take Tulsi over Bernie now, but I accept her best bet is for VP. She's the only candidate who has stood up for Assange.

Traditionalists are pretty apocalyptic on this. Words like chastisement get thrown around as some kind of big reset is thought to be needed before things work themselves out. There is a rift right now that is growing between those who think Francis is the pope and those who think he isn't. I just keep my head down and worry about my own business.


I can see the thought of a reset being necessary, for Rome to come more into line with your thinking. I think I would just think of my beliefs as a seperate "denomination" of Catholic until that occured. But, I would want it to occur.

Mainstream Catholics mostly don't know any better, but traditionalists are aware of Israel's influence and are hostile to the whole "Christian Zionist" mentality in the US. I myself have come a long way from my support of the GWOT. The destruction of Christian communities in the Mideast is a big deal.


Good to know you're aware of it. It's pretty common here, in the land of mega-churches and associates television. I agree with you about the Christian communities.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?


Probably bad, considering the suicide rate of post-operation Trans people, and our private healthcare system that is more than happy to take that money.

There are key differences in the LGBT community (I am gay, did I say that?) regarding the concept of "trans kids" and pre-puberty hormone blockers, and whether that's okay. It's not, IMO, and should be an affront to gay men. How many of us, especially if we had far-left parents, would have been "transitioned" as children, based on our pecuiliarities? Same thing applies to teens and other minors transitioning. It's an adult decision.

Some gay pride parades have eliminated drag, because it's offensive to Trans people. There's about to be a throwdown I think, in the LGBT community. Don't get excited though: PC culture will prevail and gay men will be called the privileged group. This already occurs.

I live in a city-owned apartment building. $1000 is actually more than i get per month through Social Security, so my rent would probably go up with UBI. It does every time I get a cost of living increase in my SSI.


While true, because property owners will be aware of everyone receiving UBI and will price accordingly, there will still be those that cater to that, and that should only grow as UBI-only Americans become the majority versus working Americans, something I think is inevitable.

I agree about some Dems misrepresenting the Cause. I was a reading an article about some process/device that sucks up CO2 out of the atmosphere and is getting backing from Big Oil, not just because it helps fight global warming, but because the CO2 can be used for different things. Towards the end of the article, they were quoting a sceptic who was against this process/device because it would prolong the era of fossil fuel usage. Message recieved. You don't give a damn about global warming. You just hate Big Oil, period.
[/quote]

Without the pollution I see no problem with the use of fossil fuels, outside of them being non-renewable and therefore short-term.

This solution also enables the pollution to get into the atmosphere in the first place, and while we might be sucking it out later, are there still consequences from that? How is that ultimately better than developing electric cars and trucks to where they can be used more functionally?

Regardless, the thing is still good because we should still repair the damage we've done. This is like the cotton gin prolonging American slavery. Yes, it absolutely did do that, but do we think it would have been better to not invent it at all? I would think not.
Last edited by DeathScythe on Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “Serious Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron