I dare to dream that Donald Trump will lose the 2024 Republican nomination to someone even worse than him, like DeSatan, and then mount a third-party campaign, claiming that the primary election was rigged/stolen/whatever.
Such an event would split the Republican Party and give it four years to find its soul, heart, and brain, unless they are irretrievably lost. Even better, it would give the Democrats four more years in which to repair the damage done by Trump to the courts, every federal agency and democratic institutions.
But recently I have read several articles explaining why this is unlikely to happen.
I was not aware that many states have “sore loser laws,” which do not allow the loser of a primary campaign to run again in the general election.
These laws make it mathematically impossible for a “sore loser” to mount a winning campaign.
Google the term and you will see the implications for 2024.
Meanwhile, though I loathe Trump, he is the likely candidate in 2024. Unlike DeSantis, he has a fanatical national base. DeSantis has yet to face a withering barrage of insults by Trump, and we have seen that Little Ron has a fragile ego. That’s why he practices censorship. He can’t tolerate dissent or detractors.
With Trump as their candidate, the GOP will be saddled with a man who is likely to be under indictment in more than one state. Of course, his base loves him even more when he plays victim, so they won’t be deterred.
The next 19 months will be interesting.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane The “Star” said: “fortunately or unfortunately.” Why didn’t that lawyer ask Trump which one Trump thought was right? Instead, she let him endorse himself with the full force of the history the repression of women? CBK
How is Ron DeSantis worse than the guy who is an existential threat to democrat? Who fomented a riot at the Capitol and worked to subvert the electoral process, and who will do so again? I really don’t get this perspective.
They are both a threat to democracy. They are both fascists. I believe DeSantis is worse because he uses government power to punish his enemies. His vendetta against Disney is indicative about how he uses power. He has also taken personal control of the state police. Trump is a disgusting man of low character. DeSantis is all about aggregating power in his own hands. He boasted about turning the Democrats in Florida into roadkill. Trump makes me sick to my stomach. DeSantis frightens me.
Your profile of DeSantis is spot on, IMO. He is the worst, vindictive power monger and very dangerous. Using the lap dogs in the legislature, he is building an opaque power structure around himself so nobody can find out what he is up to. The legislature already changed the law so he does not have to resign if he runs for national office. He is all about consolidating his power and abusing it.
Your third sentence is another example of how we Americans subconsciously internalize the American Disease of ranking things that neither should, need, or can be put on any objective scale (see “standardized testing” for other real world examples). I speak only one other language, and whatever analogous examples exist are recent and imported American concepts. Over the years I’ve made a habit of asking people from other cultures and languages and none have ever been able to cite a comparable instance once they thought about it.
It doesn’t matter if DeSantis is “worse” that the Idiot. As you rightly observe, both are threats to democracy and both are fascists (although, like “woke,” they have no idea what it means; but acting on it is instinctive and doesn’t really need a playbook). That’s enough. Raking if dying by a stab to heart, a bullet, or blunt trauma is “better” or “worse” is a fool’s errand and hijacks debate from its intended purpose. Same for politics. And music. And preferences and tastes, in general.
GregB,
Thank you for this insightful comment. I can’t think of a single potential Republican candidate who isn’t an extreme danger to democracy – not sure that ranking them matters since the danger is the same.
The important thing for all of us to accept is that even with a huge Democratic victory in every state, the Democrats will be no better than Republicans and will be passing laws to disenfranchise Black and progressive voters, to make being trans a crime, to target their enemies, and to empower the far right. A huge democratic victory in 2016 would not have changed the Supreme Court at all. Republican states would still be empowered to disenfranchise and punish “enemies” because that’s what Democrats want too and a Supreme Court with a 5-4 liberal majority would have approved. Don’t be fooled into believing Dems are different.
Why even bother anymore? I read posts where people profess to be “confused” about why anyone who thinks Trump is a danger to democracy would ALSO think DeSantis is a danger. I read other posts where people want readers to believe that Democrats are just as much a danger to democracy as Republicans.
There is probably a point in Germany and Austria where most people who were being targeted realized they should get out but it was too late. There was definitely a point earlier where Germans could have corrected course but too many believed the lie that what was happening was no big deal – they normalized it – and they believed it would get better, despite the fact that more and more power was being handed over to folks with no intention of giving any of it back. They were handing over power to people who would simply demand the country bend to its will. No doubt some Nazi apologists argue that would have happened if the Nazis were roundly defeated and never got power, just like they are still claiming on this blog that empowering the far right Republicans, electing Trump, has absolutely no connection to the Supreme Court empowering the far right to end democracy. Nope. Why should any of us even bother to vote anymore since I know for an absolute fact that Florida Dems celebrate DeSantis’ victories with Florida Republicans.
GregB, if you get a chance to see Tom Stoppard’s play Leopoldstadt, I definitely recommend.
(This will probably be removed, and I respect the right of Diane to remove this “uncivil” post.)
I did not remove your post but I deleted the references to one other person. I asked for no more back and forth.
NYC public school parent I keep remembering so many people recounting Hitler and the Holocaust … over and over again, they say:
It was so bad, we couldn’t even believe it when we were going through it and it was right before our eyes. CBK
DeSantis may be worse from a policy perspective, but I’ve seen nothing from him that suggests he is as depraved as Trump when it comes to the most fundamental aspect of our democracy, the transition of government following a democratic election. Nothing is worse than Trump. Nothing.
The Orlando Sentinel wrote an editorial on April 4 titled “Don’t Give DeSantis His Own Military Machine”
Gov. Ron DeSantis already abuses so many of his powers that he should not be given any more. But naturally, that’s what Florida’s eager-to-please Legislature plans to do.
The Florida State Guard, reactivated last year despite concerns that it would become DeSantis’ private army, is to become larger, more powerful and costlier, at an increase to taxpayers of $98 million.
Its authorized strength would swell from 400 to 1,500. The adjutant general who runs the National Guard would no longer have authority over the State Guard, though it would still be housed in his department for bureaucratic reasons.
Part of it would become a police agency, with the same arrest powers as any local force that it might be assigned to assist. The budget for this volunteer, unsalaried army would swell from $10 million this budget year to $107.5 million in the next.
Where the money goes
That includes $17.3 million for training, travel, lodging and compensation for the volunteers. So much for the no-salary notion.
But that’s not the staggering part.
There’s also $49.4 million in the proposed House budget for one “large” airplane, four helicopters and all their accoutrements, and $3.9 million for vehicles and six boats.
That is mission creep morphed into a stampede — all courtesy of supposedly small government conservatives in Tallahassee.
The Florida National Guard, some 12,000 strong, isn’t having as many foreign deployments as during the height of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact that it was stretched thin last year was the pretext for reactivating the State Guard, which had last been active in 1947.
The National Guard has all the equipment and more that the Legislature wants to duplicate. It was able to provide soldiers to augment security in Florida’s understaffed prisons when DeSantis ordered that last year, and to go to the Texas border to control migrants at his command. There’s no legitimate public safety function for which it isn’t ready, willing and able, and no good reason to expand the State Guard.
The authorizing legislation, House Bill 1285, is ready for floor debate in the House. There is no companion bill in the Senate, but that means nothing because the money is in the House’s appropriation bill, which would make it an end-of-session bargaining chip.
House Bill 1285
The legislation exempts the State Guard’s rules from review under the Administrative Procedures Act, giving its director too free a hand. The jurisdiction would be overbroad: “To protect and defend the people of Florida from all threats to public safety and to augment all existing state and local agencies.”
The Adjutant General, normally a career military officer, would no longer have any authority over the State Guard whose director — presently a captain in the Navy Reserve — would need only five years’ military experience at any rank.
All members of the specialized unit would be authorized to carry weapons and to arrest people, but that provision is ambiguous in light of another that says that only members with law enforcement training and certification would have the same powers as agencies they are assisting.
The bill is so broad that the State Guard’s potential assignments are essentially unlimited. That is too much power to invest in a governor who has shown scant regard for civil liberties. Where the pretext last year was to have the State Guard assist in natural disasters, it now has the potential to break up any demonstration that displeases the governor.
No oversight but DeSantis’
Notably, it would operate not only independently of the National Guard but also of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), which is nominally and jointly controlled by the three elected Cabinet members and governor.
The appropriations bill also earmarks $750,000 for a “Digital Forensic Center of Excellence,” which the Tampa Bay Times reports is meant for an Israeli company, Cellebrite, that helps police agencies break into iPhones. According to the Times, that is meant to target human trafficking, drug and child exploitation crimes. But those areas are already within the jurisdiction of the FDLE, a professional police agency, and it is alarming to contemplate them in the hands of a paramilitary unit. The FDLE and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles already contract with Cellebrite, the newspaper said. It is absolutely wrong for budget language to steer a contract to a specific vendor.
Tampa Bay Times reports
Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, said what other legislators should be saying about the State Guard expansion.
“It’s really gross, it does not make anyone more safe, and it’s just all about DeSantis silencing dissent and trying to out-Trump Trump,” said Eskamani, who voted against the legislation in the House State Affairs Committee. It was approved there 14-5, and by a 21-7 vote in the Appropriations Committee.
These would be dubious powers even in the hands of a governor who could be trusted not to abuse them. To contemplate them in DeSantis’ grip is fearsome.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2023/04/04/dont-give-desantis-his-own-military-machine-editorial-2/
Trump is a stupid, narcissistic fool.
DeSantis is a fascist who would crush dissent, arrest people he doesn’t like, and stamp out civil liberties.
Not much of a choice.
NYCPSP, two points about your comment, “where most people who were being targeted realized they should get out but it was too late” before I forget.
One is that many could not get out. They chose inner exile, basically staying low and saying little to nothing, regardless of what was going on. We Americans know what that feels like now. Had I the means, I would have left years ago. There are no safe places in this nation anymore. That is not to say it is generally not a safe place, it is despite fear mongering by the cult. But when it comes to mass shooting, it’s a lottery. Someone reading this will be affected in some way, as a victim, perpetrator, innocent bystander, or one who knows one. I’ve been to that mall in Allen, have relations within two miles. On the other side of the freeway is an In n Out Burger I never fail to visit whenever I’m there. Actually, I’ve personally been to or near lots of places where shooting have taken place. When I lived in New Orleans, I had the 6 o’clock news all four local affiliates film in front of my house as a young man lay shot dead, half a block down in the middle of the street.
Second is that waiting too long for those who could get out was common. The novel Blood Brothers by Ernst Haffner, is a great case in point. It is a story of a Jewish businessman who realizes he waited too late, until Kristallnacht to see the truth, and the novel of is of the hours that lead from sure dreams of escape to madness. We are experiencing that as a nation now.
Here’s a way to compare Trump and DeSantis. If you had to make out in public with Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, or a bloodthirsty, wild hyena, which would it be? (You considered the hyena, didn’t you.)
LCT, you remind me of a discussion I once had years ago with someone on an airplane. “I’m sorry, but I get grossed out when I see a gay couple make out in front of me.” My answer, “I wish heterosexual couples who make out in front of others would get a life too. Decorum, after all!”
The GOP has been a force for irrationality, regression, reaction , (opposition to political or social progress or reform), and insurrection for a long time. It has long ceased to be the party of a president such as Eisenhower. But even in the 1950s, the GOP birthed the serial liar and provocateur Joe McCarthy.
The GOP stands in the way of strong gun legislation and in fact wants easier access to guns.
The latest demand from the gun lobby is legalize open carry. People will be afraid to leave their homes.
Yes. Wherever you go in public in Flor-uh-duh now, you can be certain that there are morons around with legal concealed guns. Thanks to Ron Ron and the Flor-uh-duh State Legislature and Gun Club
Now that Trump has committed the new crime of counterfeiting, one wonders where the bottom is for Trumpers. What’s next after Trump? Shall former Trumpers nominate the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer so that we can have a public debate on the virtues of cannibalism? GES Gerald E. Read my blog at: elderblogger.wordpress.com and follow me at @GeraldKnows on Twitter
I read this morning that Trump made a recording with the J6 Prisoners’ Choir. They sing the National Anthem and he recites the Pledge of Allegiance. The song is at the top of various charts. Trump says the J6 people were treated “unfairly.” These are people who led an insurrection against our democracy, assaulted police officers, and killed some.
Trump led the insurrection, ofc
If we’ve learned anything in the last 23-43 years, there is no bottom.
Whoops, lyrics here. Great poem/song for our age.
“Look out on that ever-widening money trail
And where it goes
Where does it go?”
A belief in polls may be unwise. But, a pundit this morning claimed that the loyalists who will vote only for Trump are just 14%. That segment may be one style of fanatic. The other style of fanatics voting GOP are the religious right. Trump gave them 3 religious right judges on SCOTUS. Perhaps, the label, fanatic, doesn’t do them justice.
While rank and file Democrats, mainstream media and influencers compartmentalize issues, the Catholic Church and wealthy, right wing, politicized Catholics, aiming to make their religion at the center of social, economic and legal American life, have built an international apparatus.
OursPlatform.org has a book posted, “Rights at Risk: Observatory on the Universality of Rights Trends Report.” In Chap. 1, we learn the “Vatican plays a key role in advancing an anti-rights agenda in human rights fora to which other conservatives actors may not have access.”
From other sources, we learn, the US Delegation to the UN Commission on the Status of Women included Trump appointees, one of whom works at the Koch’s Heritage Foundation in the DeVos center for …religion. She attends a Catholic Church and is on the Board of a Catholic school academy. A second delegation member was director of the Catholic Women’s Group and she led Catholic outreach at the 2008 GOP convention.
A third source of interest is the article at Vice about Ordo Iuris, “The mysterious lawyers trying to create Europe’s most ultra-conservative state.”
My prediction is that between DeSantis and Trump, the winner will be whichever the Fox-viewing Catholic bishops want (the Religion News Agency reported almost 50% of bishops prefer to get news from Fox.)
Repugnicans are caught between their own Scylla and Charybdis. If, like Romney, they denounce Trump, they lose support of the base base. If, like Lady Graham, they support Trump, he almost completely ensures that they will lose again. So they need a way out. Putting him in prison would work for seditious conspiracy, rape, unlawful possession of classified material, and fraud would work.
Better get Kraken, Pugs!
Oops. Sorry about the incomplete edit
Bob, thanks for reading what I wrote.
Pugs should ask Leonard Leo what to do. He seems to know how to get implausible wins at the expense of the 90%, women and people who are gay.
Ah, the news stories we can look forward to:
Rapist and presidential candidate Donald Trump ramped up his presidential campaign today by announcing a short list of potential running mates, including General Robert E. Lee, Bigfoot, Miss December 1952, Ivanka Trump, and Mr. Hankey the Christmas —–.
oops. Left off Vladimir the Poisoner and Defenestrator
Bob One of the most insidious outcomes of a President even being accused of rape (much more trials and convictions) is that Trump gives a kind of cover and normalcy to other rapists. Also, I see no substantial difference in Trump and DeSantis, especially regarding their willingness to punish those who even disagree with them. “Lock her up”? and his treatment of journalists? One turd may differ from another turd? but not substantially. CBK (Did I write that?)
Here’s the difference: Trump is so profoundly ignorant and stupid that he has little notion how actually to carry out his fantasies of doing egregious harm to enemies and perceived enemies.
Bob Trump missed what was so important about his manifesting his intent, and what I will not say here.
But let’s face it: By our criteria, but also by his own criteria and calculations, Trump is a Loser. CBK
Sorry, CBK. Not understanding what you mean in the first of these comments. Warm regards, Bob
Trump was in many cases foiled by his staff, some of whom knew that what he warned to do was illegal.
Yes. For example, his Secretary of Homeland Security refused to order the Border Patrol, as Trump directed her to do, to SHOOT unarmed asylum seekers. The idea was simply too awful, too crazy.
Trump is a moron. He has no idea how anything works–what is and is not possible. He has wild fantasies–sending astronauts to the sun, buying Greenland, and saner people around him have to talk him down or simply let the madness wear out, unacted upon.
The same people know he will forget about whatever he ordered them to do, then come up with another crazy idea tomorrow. Like injecting bleach to stop COVID.
To All and Linda I commonly don’t even open notes from Linda anymore; and if you have kept up with the dialogue here, you will know why.
However, I opened her last one by mistake, and AGAIN (1) she does not link her quotes or references; and (2) she STILL broad brushes All-Things-Catholic with the current swing (especially severe in the U.S.) towards right-wing-ism which she writes about . . . but as if that’s all there is to Catholicism (revealing a bias, in my view).
I won’t comment more on THAT; but if you want to see current movements of dissent and conflict in the Catholic Church as a whole, see the article below where some of what Linda says is given unbiased treatment; or tune into “Commonweal Magazine” here in the States, or just do a little Google study on your own.
But if you are already anti-Catholic or, in a larger vein, anti-religious, or just an uncritical reader, then Linda is the girl for you. For me, I’m returning to just passing over her notes. (Been there, done that.) CBK
https://religionnews.com/2022/05/25/rip-catholic-news-service-gone-too-soon-and-when-we-needed-you-most/
Catherine, just as there are varieties of opinion within the Catholic church (i.e., just as the church is “catholic” in that sense of the word), there are enormously varied opinions among those who reject Catholicism in particular or religion in general. For example, though I have NEVER referred to myself here or on my own blog as an atheist, I am sometimes accused of atheism in both places, and that reminds me of the ignorant Christian fundamentalists who refer to “the differences between Christians and Catholics,” as though the various forms of Catholicism were not instantiations of Christianity. Those people need some history instruction but aren’t very likely to get it in their voucher-supported fundy madrassas.
However, in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, there is an OFFICIAL organization with OFFICIAL doctrines and dogmas and with common practices and an actual history as an organization, and I see no reason why it should be exempt from critique BECAUSE it is a religion. Religious organizations make particular claims about the universe–put forward propositions that are true or false, and my position is that those are fair game for debate, especially if those propositions are entirely unsubstantiated except by myth or wishful thinking.
Bob I have family . . . “Those people need some history instruction.”
But I have to ask you, did I EVER say or even imply that the Catholic Church or any religious organization was not fair game for critique and debate? NOT here, NOT anywhere.
Are you maybe thinking with a straw man there? That is, in your own thinking, do you assume I cannot criticize the criticizer without implying that I think the Catholic Church is faultless and beyond critique? (OMG! pun intended.) CBK
Bob In a lighter vein, some of my best friends are atheists . . . CBK
I never leveled that accusation at you, CBK. I was referring to this comment that you made:
But if you are already anti-Catholic or, in a larger vein, anti-religious, or just an uncritical reader, then Linda is the girl for you.
And my point was that just as there are varieties of Catholic opinion, there are varieties of anti-Catholic and anti-religious opinion, and so it is simply untrue that everyone who is anti-Catholic, in some sense, or anti-religious, again in some sense, would necessarily agree with Linda about things. Having made that point, I went on to say that I don’t think that the propositions about the world made by religious people should get a pass simply because they are religious propositions and therefore should, as a matter of social decency, not be challenged. I emphatically disagree with that. Religious institutions make claims that are true or false, and I think we have not only a right but sometimes a duty to address the reasonableness or lack thereof of those claims.
I don’t think that Atheism is a defensible position. I could explain why, but that’s a long philosophical discussion. I’m game for it, but probably not in this forum because of the space it would take up.
Hello again Bob At the core of it, I think we are making the same argument . . . and as an example, the link that I referred to in an earlier note today gives ample evidence of that . . . to be clear, as you say, you don’t think “propositions about the world made by religious people should get a pass simply because they are religious propositions and therefore should, as a matter of social decency, not be challenged.” Nor do I. I’ve never said that here or elsewhere, nor do I even think it . . . again, you don’t need me for that argument.
Also, there is quite a lively and ongoing discussion everywhere in the Church about not only applications of doctrine, but also about different interpretations of doctrine itself, and about changing some fundamental meaning–that’s why Pope Francis is in such hot water all of the time . . . if you do not know, he’s on the liberal side, relatively speaking. Also, in my experience with Protestant churches (through my own attendance and that of friends), the same goes for them . . . very few monoliths left.
That doesn’t mean that there are no “hardliners” in the Church just like in any formal group; and especially NOW when the dogmatic crazies are trying to take over the country, not to mention the Churches. I have always thought it was worth discussing “issues” with others who disagree, even in my family, but that’s gone now. Now THEY get a “pass.” That is, I just pass by and leave the discussion.
As with Lloyd’s earlier note about comparing the theo-crazies’ actions with actual Christian guidance . . . drawn from the Bible itself, which is really quite clear, . . . crickets . . . they never have an answer. Real Christian doctrine (as Lloyd quoted and much much more), is a hard row to hoe. But the crazies don’t pay attention to it anyway, any more than they do the rule of law.
Finally, anyone can have an opinion, as you say, even as boring and repetitive. However, unless you espouse relativism, the use of half-truths, inuendo, outright and continuous bias, and sloppy or absent references also legitimately invite critique . . . or do you think they get a pass? CBK
There’s a fundamental issue that adherents of ancient but, of course, invented religions have, and that’s this: Their sources–their originating texts–reflect the understandings and morals of the ancient people who wrote them. Don’t suffer a witch to live. The sun is a little ball that traverses the sky and can be ordered to stop. So, when people try to cling to that ancient stuff, they have to do gymnastics to rationalize it.
And yes, I am aware of the controversies swirling around Pope Francis. Thankis be to all the gods for him.
Bob “Don’t suffer a witch to live. The sun is a little ball that traverses the sky and can be ordered to stop.”
Am I to think that you begin discussions with the assumption that the SOME who either believe “stuff” like that (or even try to rationalize especially the science of it) represent MOST, or ALL, or even just me? (Make that a rhetorical question, if you like.) But nothing good can come from conversations where parties hold such assumptions.
Also, as an aside, no one says anyone else must take up Biblical scholarship, or engage in discussions with those who people the intellectual “wing” of any religious order. Problems do crop up, however, when any of us bring faulty or one-size-fits-all assumptions to the table and expect reasonable and insightful exchanges to occur, especially when it comes to theological or even philosophical content. Such assumptions act like intellectual and psychological earplugs. They not only do no good, but they also easily do damage. CBK
Catherine, there are fundamental notions central to official Catholic teaching–to what the church itself purports to be the true–that are on that level–that are entirely superstitious, ancient, irredeemable ideas. I have made no such claims about you personally. But it either is the case or isn’t that there is a single entity who created the universe. And it either is the case or isn’t that that entity impregnated a woman, who gave birth to a child, who rose from the dead. Now, it seems pretty obvious to people with any historical knowledge of religions, that this is but one of thousands of religions from those ancient times that held that there were god men who were resurrected–that this is an ancient myth. Now, is it possible to be a Catholic and NOT to believe what the Catholic church purports to be the case, to be true? I suppose so. But that sounds like a violation of a fundamental logical principle–that something is not both a and not a.
Bob Just a brief note as I am “out the door” and will return to the blog later:
Briefly, first, you will recall Emerson’s “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
But second (ahem) and related directly to the above, and relying on my somewhat fuzzy memory of a poll they took in the Catholic Church a couple of years back about using birth control, something like: well over 60 percent of faithful Catholics used birth control (not merely abstinence) (ahem).
Third, the simple-minded person who is philosophically confused commonly fails to understand the difference between (a) the compact but highly symbolic thinking and expressions that occurred in earlier centuries (“simple” means at least: no historical or philosophical understanding); . . .
. . . and (b) the post-scientific truly revolutionary changes we and they have overtly, but also tacitly, undergone. Seeing equates to understanding, and so (wringing their mental hands) “Why can’t we have movie of the resurrection for proof?”
Also, there is no understanding of either how language works or how we and they are already involved in interpretation; which, fortunately for everyone involved, does not mean “it’s all over,” and nihilism is the only real option. . .
. . . as well as no understanding of how the use of metaphor, story, parables, etc., does not mean the resurrection was necessarily “false,” or that such ways of communicating are necessarily impoverishing rather than enriching . . . as from another view of history and language, a different understanding conveys much larger truths than their limited view will allow . . . truths that we can now apply thoughtfully to our own lives as well as to our institutions.
Briefly and for only one example, is the very idea of self-transcendence and the exploration . . . not necessarily of “hard” doctrine, . . . but of the QUESTION of our being (not yet a qualified claim to an ABSOLUTE answer where we can question no longer), but one that can meet with our inborn human limitations; and with how we can self-transcend even by our openness to undergoing further understanding and/or self-correction; and how that movement in ourselves might relate to wherever we came from and inform wherever we are going.
Bob, I have seen your blog. You are an intelligent, reasonable, and wise man and, if we lived closer, we might be able to discuss philosophy over coffee. However, on THIS issue, you may want to stretch a bit, and I have probably already said too much. I hope Diane is not cringing.
Hobgoblins aside, I’m out the door. CBK
Thanks for engaging, Catherine, and warm regards to you and yours.
So, for example, the church publishes a “Profession of Faith,” which makes a number of assertions about the universe–asserts a number of propositions that one most agree to believe in, in order to consider oneself Catholic ACCORDING TO the Catholic church:
, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith, namely:
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
So, it seems reasonable to assert that one must believe those things in order to be Catholic. Is my understanding of this faulty? Is the Catholic church not expert on the question of what is required in order to be a Catholic?
Bob,
Are you referenced as a, “boy,” by male or female commenters at the Ravitch blog ?
General comment-
Mary Jo McConahay will have zero success in getting tribalists to disconnect “faith from politics.” Religious tribalism’s design specifications include a fail safe mechanism that prevents separation between the sect’s beliefs and its public square operations. And secondly, the specs call for a lack of conscience in dealing with perceived enemies which justifies insults, threats of blood-letting and diminishing references that aim to characterize the opponent in a weaker state e.g. boy or girl labeling for adults.
Fundamentalist Christians believe that the creator of the universe WILLINGLY condemns the vast majority of persons to TORTURE, in hellfire, for ALL ETERNITY. These are not people who have a conscience in any normal sense of that term. And their model of UNIVERSAL GOVERNANCE is that of absolute autocracy.
Bob-
Saw the following quote
“Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.”
It is looking more likely that Trump may be the second candidate for the Presidency of the USA to have to campaign from a jail cell. Eugene Debs was jailed for expressing then banned political beliefs. Trump should be jailed for criminal activities, extensive fraud, attempted election fraud, and criminal conspiracy. These potential charges make Mr. Debs’ charges seem like small potatoes!
The Washington Post today said that Biden’s poll numbers have declined. If the election were held today, Trump would win. Could he be President while in jail?
Interesting thought. He would pardon himself. To tell the truth, that could be part of why he’s running again.
From the ABA:
A U.S. president has broad but not unlimited powers to pardon. For example, a president cannot pardon someone for a state crime. And constitutional experts are divided on whether a president can pardon him- or herself.
In the UK for better or for worst we have seen major parties ruin their election prospects with major feuds.
I am waiting to see if this Trump / DeSantis danse macabre will shred the Republicans’ delicate alliance of egotists, hysterics and charlatans and leave only the grown-ups to pick up the pieces and start again.
Are there grown-ups in the GOP?
George Conway showed his judgement when he selected Kellyanne. I doubt her basic essence has changed since he met her.
Judging by the accents of the more vocal and visible members of the Republican Party I suspect the grown-ups are lying low for the present.
deteremineddespitewp (and Linda): I scoured my files and could not find a reference in an article (circa two weeks ago) where the writer gave an account of a Congresswoman from one of the southeastern states (I think it was North Carolina). Apparently, she was voting on an issue that was before the House where she was experiencing a clear split between (1) what McCarthy et al wanted as her vote, and (2) what SHE KNEW her constituents “back home” wanted. She voted in the McCarthy “block.”
My guess is that the above is not a one-off experience but rather is probably fairly regular for both parties, especially when the Congressional numbers are so closely divided, and where getting “thrown under the bus” is only a matter of “by whom?” . . . the Party who will withdraw support, OR one’s own constituents who will vote otherwise next time.
When I read the article, I thought it ‘said allot’ about her constituents. But this situation is probably where many of those “grownups” are “lying low for the present.” Where they go and what they do when they are forced out into the open on the larger issues will provide the answer to the larger questions? CBK
I agree.
Many seem to have been trying to side step issues over the past few years which in early times would have resulted in swifter resolutions (for better or for worse).
The next presidential primaries and election might be the tipping point.