The authority of the Roman Pontiff is vicarious of Christ’s authority and derives legitimacy from its conformity with this ontological reality.
Conversely, Bergoglio’s authority openly proclaims itself to be independent and self-referential: he thinks he can use and abuse his own power and the authority (and authoritativeness) of the Catholic Church simply because he knows that the clergy and the Christian people have been accustomed, in the last sixty years, to accept any change imposed on them by the Authority of the Church.
Oh so true!
In civil society, laws are written by legislators in some cases decades before a court case occurs. The exact circumstances of a case may not have been foreseen by the legislators, for example because a certain technology did not exist at the time or perhaps for other reasons. The point being that in a good and proper justice system lawyers argue by reference to other cases and by analogy why this or that particular action in question fell under that particular law. The point is they don't pull shit out of their ass, they look at the case in context of other similar cases.
The Catholic Church is supposed to function like that too. Popes are not supposed to be pulling shit out of their ass, but by making references to similar circumstances in history, making references to other papal teachings in similar circumstances, and obviously making references to the Bible, they are supposed to bring Christ's wisdom to bear on present questions of the day as needed and only as needed.
As Pope Francis, he sometimes (arguably even "often") does actually say true things. But as Abp. Vigano rightly points out, the same man often pulls shit out of his ass. There is no possible way you can trace Bergoglio's teachings on (say) the morality of using air conditioning or the requirement to accept random invaders into your country to any context in past Church teachings or the Bible.
This is the basic strategy of the Left, as described by the late great Anne Roche Muggeridge in her books "The Gates of Hell" and "The Desolate City" about the revolutionary forces within the Catholic Church and how the pattern of revolutions in the political sphere was being followed in the Catholic Church after Vatican II.
It's the process IowaHawk David Burge on Twitter pithily described as:
- Identify a respected institution.
- Kill it.
- Gut it.
- Wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
Indeed, very important. One of the reasons the leftist have gutted the curriculum with particular focus on history is to actively prevent people from knowing background, context, and origins of present problems.
Good point; I'd not considered that.
And native black population too (though I don't know how many blacks there are there). That was Trump's point with the "black jobs" thing, which was spun in a wildly different direciton.
That total volume of immigrants would still be an issue even if they were all Scottish or Ukranian.
It is not so much the sudden increase in population but, a huge culture shock because, most all the new people popping up know or care NOTHING about culture of the USA.
I agree it's twofold: quantity and quality. I just fear that focussing on the quality is losing sight of the quantity, and brings the potential criticism of "you just raciss".
Even if all the refugees were from, say, Scotland (with a compatible culture and shared language) it would still be a problem.
You can't suddenly dump an extra 25% of the population on a small town without serious fallout.
It would still be an issue, regardless of culture of the newcomers.
But this means people are talking about the invaders! And we needn't worry about the people who won't begin to ask themselves "why are there so many invaders?"
Fair point. It could well be the entry point to normies seeing the bigger picture.
It's certainly an attention grabber!
It may well be; I wouldn't doubt it, but I don't know and it would be difficult to prove. But arguing about cats vs. no cats is a distraction from the gross overall numbers, which is far the more significant point. IMHO.
My brother, for example, doesn't see MAGA as distinct from Bush-era Republicans simply because they share the same "R" label. To him, it's all the same. And that’s the real problem—many "normies" can’t differentiate between Trump and figures like Lindsey Graham, especially when Trump publicly aligns with them from time to time.
I see the same phenomenon, but mostly amongst the over-65 crowd. They have long memories, and hold opinions they formed decades ago, oblivious to new information that circumstances have changed.
What does it mean to "win" this sort of debate, really?
Normally, "to debate" is to dispute accuracy of basic facts, to provide counter-arguments to a proposal, and so forth. But that takes time, and 2 minutes with a 1 minute rebuttal is not a proper forum for that sort of thing. None of that really happened, but then given the time constraints it could not have happened.
Rather, this type of debate is primarily to generate short clips for insertion into "analysis" videos, by both sides. And there was sufficient fodder for that. Both of them got in good "zingers" in that would play well to their own audiences.
It's also a bit of "image management" for a low-information, low-engagement, audience who probably didn't watch the whole thing. For that, I think Harris came off a bit better: she looked more aggressive and had a more of a rhetorical style that looked like she was making points ("We need X, and we need Y, and we need Z.") If you came in randomly and watched 5 minutes of it, Harris probably came off slightly better than Trump, who was pretty much on the defensive for most of it.
That could be one reason why Trump kept coming back to the migrant crisis over and over--you never know which 5 minutes those people are going to be watching, and it is a pretty important problem and key to many other problems. That is is key to many other problems--crime obviously, but also the economy--is another good reason to keep returning to it.
Currently (Sept 11, 10:30 AM EDT):
- Donald Trump 50.29% (25,854 votes)
- Kamala Harris 44.61% (22,934 votes)
- Neither, it was a tie 2.64% (1,358 votes)
- I don't know 2.46% (1,264 votes)
👉They are risking nuclear war rather than negotiating peace -- truth bomb
Highly important point that doesn't get enough consideration.
The military-industrial complex is a huge beneficiary of all the ongoing conflicts, and there is zero appetite on their part--and hence on the Democrats' part--for it to end. Bad for business, you see.
He didn't answer questions (this isn't an interview where you can go off script, it annoys people in the center, looks evasive)
He didn't complete sentences and that made him sound like biden
Good points.
She was very aggressive, forcing him to be on the defensive most of the time.
Kamala usually spoke first and got in, like, a dozen whoppers to which Trump had to choose what to respond. Most of them would take a long time to explain and give context to--"fine people", "disrespecting veterans", "project 25"--but he only had 1 minute in which to respond. Trying to debunk all of that in 60 seconds is going to be disjointed.
He thinks too fast for his mouth to keep up!
Yes, we know what he is saying because we can fill in the blanks, knowing him well. But for people not that used to him, it can indeed come off as disjointed.
Exactly. Big Corps that want the low-wage labour and the Government wants Democrat voters. Big Corps are JUST AS GUILTY as anyone in Government for this crazy situation.
Just wait. Soon, it will be Arabic,
If Ashkenazi Jews are supposedly not susceptible to Covid, why very high Covid deaths in Israel?
It's predominantly university academics and large unions (upper levels thereof, anyway) that support the NDP, though many others may well hitch their horses to that wagon.
Sikhs are not a monolithic voting block by a long shot. There are Sikh MPs amongst the Libs and CPC caucuses as well. (Not sure about Bloc Québécois though....)
I'm going to cut him some slack for that. He's up to his ears in crap, and is just blowing off some steam about all of it. Yeah, perhaps not 100% appropriate. But certainly 100% understandable.
I think it was a counter to the "believe all women" thing from the other side. Does not impress us, but it is a countermove to them.
Someone painted a nude of Stephen Harper back when he was Canadian PM. He was reclining on a couch, with a small dog at his feet. Everyone expected him to freak out, but Harper merely commented "You know, I'm really more of a cat person."
Also Dr. Demetre Daskalakis
and
https://marksking.com/my-fabulous-disease/cdcs-daskalakis-on-monkeypox/
Former Director of the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, he was recently appointed as the White House National Monkeypox Response Deputy Coordinator
Mind you, he is merely wildly "out and proud", which nowadays kinda passes as conservative.
Nitrates and nitrites also bad--they're in most commercial lunchmeats.
That was a great interview, incidentally!