Jewish Vote in 2030
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:32:33 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Jewish Vote in 2030
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: How will the Jewish vote be split in 2030?
#1
50-50
 
#2
60-40 Dem
 
#3
70-30 Dem
 
#4
80-20 Dem
 
#5
Republican by any margin
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 60

Author Topic: Jewish Vote in 2030  (Read 10303 times)
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: December 19, 2004, 12:59:52 PM »

Here's the link:

http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp

Now tell me this isn't biased.  This crap was actually in print and dished out after Mass in many places.


Hello! It's what the Church believes for the 10 millionth time. What do you want the Church to change it's views to help Democrats? Give me a break!
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2004, 01:02:07 PM »

Here's a question: Do YOU care about Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey? Of course you don't. You couldn't care less. Fortunately, though, American Jews are finally beginning to realize that we are not Israelis, we are Americans.

Congratulations. I, for one, am proud to be in the 80% of Jews that cares enough about my own country to not vote based solely on Israel.

(and no, I don't support the Palestinians)

Right on, Cashcow! I am proud to be in the 80% as well.

Irish Catholics USED to be an 80% bloc for Kennedy.  Damn church duping it's members via "voters guides."

I'm proud to say my temple did not tell me how to vote one way or the other Smiley Although there is that Committee Chairman who looks exactly like Bob Ehrlich....

My temple has a female lesbian has the rabbi, I don't think they exactly want us voting on fundamental religous values.

It seems like your church cares about what its members think.  Funny, Allyson Schwartz, the lone woman in my signature, is active at her synagogue.  We had voters guides shoved down our throats coming out of Mass that heavily favored the GOP.  We also have "Generation Life" getting 15 minutes at the end of Mass as well not only making Mass longer, but shoving down stuff I don't care to listen to.  
 

And if you don't care to listen to what the Church believes, I'm sorry but maybe you should leave.

Believe me I'm thinking heavily about it.  My parents are making that thought very difficult though.  Then again, I'm glad pro-choice Catholics are standing up to the conservatives, so I may not go anywhere on my own regardless of my parents.  I generally believe what the church says on a lot of issues.  There are certain ones I will dispute though.

Please answer my question about Democratic candidates going to Protestant churches, campaigning for votes from the pulpit. Do you think that is wrong?

I do, although I don't think Kerry was going after swing voters when he went in there. Getting voters to vote against their interests based on religion is worse than having a politician speak at a church.

What don't you get? When someone bases their vote on their religious belief, it is in their interest.

And what does it matter if Kerry wasn't going after swing voters? It's still using the Church to get votes. The Catholic Church would never allow a candidate to get up on the altar and give a campaign speech, even if it was for a candidate they agreed with 100%. And if that was to ever happen for whatever reason, I would oppose it. I find no problem with the Church saying "We believe in this as Catholics and so we should vote this way." It's totally different when a candidate gets up and starts giving his stump speech.

If I were a swing voter, I'd be more impressed with a candidate if someone spent time telling me about the issues than I would listening to a stump speech. I am not defending Kerry's actions.

Basically, there were cases of unemployed people planning to vote Kerry based on economics and foriegn policy, and then the church dragged them into a back room and showed them anti-abortion propaganda. They voted Bush.

Well if you're a swing voter, you should tell the candidate to take the speech out of the place of worship.

What are you talking about the Church dragged them into a back room and showed them anti-abortion propaganda. You really get on my nerves, pal. People believe what they believe and how dare you say my Church took people into back rooms and showed them propaganda. They voted the way they voted because they BELIEVE in social issues. I know it disappoints you but not everyone ignores social issues.
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2004, 01:09:03 PM »


The language favors Santoomeys and Bushies because they agree with what the Church believes.

As for "Voting Melissa Brown would be wrong as well." That's not true at all. The Church does not favor this type of situation but if the two major candidates disagree with the Church's view on issue whatever, the Church says that members should think of the major candidate that stands closest to what we, as Catholics, believe.

First, I'll address the Santoomey issue.  The bigwigs that donate thousands of dollars to the Archdioscese want abortion brought to the forefront becuase they of course want their tax breaks.  The Catholic church has sold out to the Bob Joneses and corporate America.  Values such as opposing the Iraq War and the death penalty apparently are not on these donors agendas.  The Church has money.  They have lost touch.

Voting Melissa Brown is, according to the guide, against one of the 5 non-negotiable issues.  Keystone, you can not defend this. 
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: December 19, 2004, 01:19:28 PM »


The language favors Santoomeys and Bushies because they agree with what the Church believes.

As for "Voting Melissa Brown would be wrong as well." That's not true at all. The Church does not favor this type of situation but if the two major candidates disagree with the Church's view on issue whatever, the Church says that members should think of the major candidate that stands closest to what we, as Catholics, believe.

First, I'll address the Santoomey issue.  The bigwigs that donate thousands of dollars to the Archdioscese want abortion brought to the forefront becuase they of course want their tax breaks.  The Catholic church has sold out to the Bob Joneses and corporate America.  Values such as opposing the Iraq War and the death penalty apparently are not on these donors agendas.  The Church has money.  They have lost touch.

Voting Melissa Brown is, according to the guide, against one of the 5 non-negotiable issues.  Keystone, you can not defend this. 

No you did not read the guide, BL. It is stated that if the major candidates disagree with what the Church believes on certain issues, the voter must come to the conclusion of what would be better when it comes to their beliefs. Example: Brown vs. Schwartz. Both Pro Choice but Schwartz favors taxpayer funded abortions and partial birth abortion. Brown is opposed to both taxpayer funded and partial birth. When it comes to the Church's belief on the issue, while there is obvious disagreement on the abortion issue between the Church and Brown, voting for Brown would be seen as the better choice.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: December 19, 2004, 01:25:33 PM »

Number 4 on How To Vote in the Catholic Voter's Guide

4. Where ever candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other, lesser issues.

http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: December 19, 2004, 03:43:51 PM »

Number 4 on How To Vote in the Catholic Voter's Guide

4. Where ever candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other, lesser issues.

http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp

Are we forgetting a 3rd option here?  Jamie McDermott who is the least harmful?  You keep trying to deny the the fact the church is slanting GOP. 
Logged
Cashcow
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,843


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: December 19, 2004, 04:19:50 PM »

I think Republicans need to accept the fact that Democrats aren't leaving religion, religion is leaving them.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: December 19, 2004, 04:26:12 PM »

Number 4 on How To Vote in the Catholic Voter's Guide

4. Where ever candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other, lesser issues.

http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp

Are we forgetting a 3rd option here?  Jamie McDermott who is the least harmful?  You keep trying to deny the the fact the church is slanting GOP. 

Jamie McDermott was the City Council candidate  Tongue   I think you mean John McDermott.

While McDermott's views were the least harmful, I believe the Church has acknowledged that certain candidates do not stand a chance and feel that in order to prevent the one major candidate furthest from the Church's view from getting elected you must support the other major candidate.

Also, the Church isn't favoring the GOP and I can prove it.

Number 1 on How Not to Vote in the Catholic Voter's Guide.

1. Do not just vote based on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family's voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are often not reliable. You need to look at the stands each candidate takes. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party.

Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: December 19, 2004, 04:39:49 PM »


1. Do not just vote based on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family's voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are often not reliable. You need to look at the stands each candidate takes. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party.



Translation: I know many Catholics were previously Democrats, but "moral" issues such as abortion are better suited for the Republican party by today's standards.  Justice for the poor, the death penalty,a dn oppositiong ot the war in Iraq are not really that important and if you oppose these points of view, it's ok. 
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: December 19, 2004, 04:47:57 PM »


1. Do not just vote based on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family's voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are often not reliable. You need to look at the stands each candidate takes. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party.



Translation: I know many Catholics were previously Democrats, but "moral" issues such as abortion are better suited for the Republican party by today's standards.  Justice for the poor, the death penalty,a dn oppositiong ot the war in Iraq are not really that important and if you oppose these points of view, it's ok. 

If there was a Democratic candidate who was Pro Life and a Republican who was Pro Choice, the Church would suggest that voter support the Democrat. Your point was that the Church view is biased towards Republicans. Well, as I asked before, what do you want the Church to do? Change what it believes in just to help Dems? The Pro Life Dem and the Pro Choice Republican is a perfect example of a situation where the Democrat is favored. Church officials don't say "Oh...he's a Democrat. We can't support that candidate." They come out and stick by what they believe.

Issues like the death penalty and the war aren't ignored either. You hear about these issues in mass, in the classroom...to say that the Church no longer cares about these issues is ridiculous.
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: December 19, 2004, 04:49:07 PM »

I think Republicans need to accept the fact that Democrats aren't leaving religion, religion is leaving them.

I agree with that statement.  The Catholic Church as a whole has become a horrific corporate lackey.  From being the revered center of a neighborhood which actually cared for it's parishoners, it seems priests do more to bitch at their parishoners than include them either at the pulpit or in parish bulletins.  Most in the clergy are more concerned with their wealthy donors than their parishoners.  Then they have the nerve to turn around and tell us how poorly we dress coming into Mass or hearing a homily about why only 15% of supposed "Catholics" show up for Mass.  Then after Communion, I once had to hear a 20 minute piece of propagnada from "Generation Life" followed by a collection for it.  They further had the nerve to collect even more money as I was leaving Mass.  

Keystone, all I'm saying is the Church needs to clean up its act or it will have even more problems than it does now.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: December 19, 2004, 04:53:00 PM »

I think Republicans need to accept the fact that Democrats aren't leaving religion, religion is leaving them.

I agree with that statement.  The Catholic Church as a whole has become a horrific corporate lackey.  From being the revered center of a neighborhood which actually cared for it's parishoners, it seems priests do more to bitch at their parishoners than include them either at the pulpit or in parish bulletins.  Most in the clergy are more concerned with their wealthy donors than their parishoners.  Then they have the nerve to turn around and tell us how poorly we dress coming into Mass or hearing a homily about why only 15% of supposed "Catholics" show up for Mass.  Then after Communion, I once had to hear a 20 minute piece of propagnada from "Generation Life" followed by a collection for it.  They further had the nerve to collect even more money as I was leaving Mass.  

Keystone, all I'm saying is the Church needs to clean up its act or it will have even more problems than it does now.

Clean up it's act? Should we have the abortion right's advocates come up and speak, BL? "We are just....misunderstood..." Yeah. I swear your complaints about Generation Life are hysterical. It seems like you want the Church to just shut up about it's views on the issues. Like I said, if you don't like the Church views, leave the Church.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.237 seconds with 14 queries.