Another bad week for Trump

[thegreekdog]

Lol- sure it isn't... Sorry mate, but you'll need to do a lot of hard work if you want to convince anyone on that line. Arresting people for looking like they might be immigrants? Purging voter roles of Hispanic sounding names? You're making it difficult to take you seriously.

What government policies are these you are referring to? I'm also certain you don't know what identity politics means. But we've had that discussion before and we know how it ends so not sure we need to do it again.

Not really, the people who want to abolish ICE want to see the people reassigned to other immigration forces. Ones that aren't about locking up kids, for example. That doesn't seem like the same thing as abolishing the ATF. Did anyone even ask for the ATF to be abolished?

No, no one wants ATF abolished; that's my point. Supporters of gun rights aren't asking for less federal gun laws. They are asking either (a) don't pass any more and/or (b) what exactly do you want passed. Supporters of immigration (although, let's call them what they are - Trump detractors and/or political opportunists) are actually trying to stop enforcement of existing immigration laws. And that's fine; I'm not arguing with the policy position. I'm arguing with the reaction of the media to these situations.

[Symmetry]

Lol- sure it isn't... Sorry mate, but you'll need to do a lot of hard work if you want to convince anyone on that line. Arresting people for looking like they might be immigrants? Purging voter roles of Hispanic sounding names? You're making it difficult to take you seriously.

What government policies are these you are referring to? I'm also certain you don't know what identity politics means. But we've had that discussion before and we know how it ends so not sure we need to do it again.

Not really, the people who want to abolish ICE want to see the people reassigned to other immigration forces. Ones that aren't about locking up kids, for example. That doesn't seem like the same thing as abolishing the ATF. Did anyone even ask for the ATF to be abolished?

No, no one wants ATF abolished; that's my point. Supporters of gun rights aren't asking for less federal gun laws. They are asking either (a) don't pass any more and/or (b) what exactly do you want passed. Supporters of immigration (although, let's call them what they are - Trump detractors and/or political opportunists) are actually trying to stop enforcement of existing immigration laws. And that's fine; I'm not arguing with the policy position. I'm arguing with the reaction of the media to these situations.

You and the media. You're always arguing with your TV...

This just came up, and it's a legal thing so might be more of interest:

North Carolina gerrymandered districts to benefit Republicans, court rules

Money quote:

The North Carolina dispute centered on a congressional redistricting plan adopted by the Republican-led legislature in 2016 after a court found that Republican lawmakers improperly used race as a factor when redrawing certain US House districts after the 2010 census.

Oh dear, TGD. Would you prefer a Fox News version? It probably won'y mention Identity Politics at all.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/28/court-ruling-against-north-carolina-districts-could-leave-house-control-in-limbo-until%202019.html

[thegreekdog]

Lol- sure it isn't... Sorry mate, but you'll need to do a lot of hard work if you want to convince anyone on that line. Arresting people for looking like they might be immigrants? Purging voter roles of Hispanic sounding names? You're making it difficult to take you seriously.

What government policies are these you are referring to? I'm also certain you don't know what identity politics means. But we've had that discussion before and we know how it ends so not sure we need to do it again.

Not really, the people who want to abolish ICE want to see the people reassigned to other immigration forces. Ones that aren't about locking up kids, for example. That doesn't seem like the same thing as abolishing the ATF. Did anyone even ask for the ATF to be abolished?

No, no one wants ATF abolished; that's my point. Supporters of gun rights aren't asking for less federal gun laws. They are asking either (a) don't pass any more and/or (b) what exactly do you want passed. Supporters of immigration (although, let's call them what they are - Trump detractors and/or political opportunists) are actually trying to stop enforcement of existing immigration laws. And that's fine; I'm not arguing with the policy position. I'm arguing with the reaction of the media to these situations.

You and the media. You're always arguing with your TV...

This just came up, and it's a legal thing so might be more of interest:

North Carolina gerrymandered districts to benefit Republicans, court rules

Money quote:

The North Carolina dispute centered on a congressional redistricting plan adopted by the Republican-led legislature in 2016 after a court found that Republican lawmakers improperly used race as a factor when redrawing certain US House districts after the 2010 census.

Oh dear, TGD. Would you prefer a Fox News version? It probably won'y mention Identity Politics at all.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/28/court-ruling-against-north-carolina-districts-could-leave-house-control-in-limbo-until%202019.html

What does this have to do with immigration?

[Symmetry]

Lol- sure it isn't... Sorry mate, but you'll need to do a lot of hard work if you want to convince anyone on that line. Arresting people for looking like they might be immigrants? Purging voter roles of Hispanic sounding names? You're making it difficult to take you seriously.

What government policies are these you are referring to? I'm also certain you don't know what identity politics means. But we've had that discussion before and we know how it ends so not sure we need to do it again.

Not really, the people who want to abolish ICE want to see the people reassigned to other immigration forces. Ones that aren't about locking up kids, for example. That doesn't seem like the same thing as abolishing the ATF. Did anyone even ask for the ATF to be abolished?

No, no one wants ATF abolished; that's my point. Supporters of gun rights aren't asking for less federal gun laws. They are asking either (a) don't pass any more and/or (b) what exactly do you want passed. Supporters of immigration (although, let's call them what they are - Trump detractors and/or political opportunists) are actually trying to stop enforcement of existing immigration laws. And that's fine; I'm not arguing with the policy position. I'm arguing with the reaction of the media to these situations.

You and the media. You're always arguing with your TV...

This just came up, and it's a legal thing so might be more of interest:

North Carolina gerrymandered districts to benefit Republicans, court rules

Money quote:

The North Carolina dispute centered on a congressional redistricting plan adopted by the Republican-led legislature in 2016 after a court found that Republican lawmakers improperly used race as a factor when redrawing certain US House districts after the 2010 census.

Oh dear, TGD. Would you prefer a Fox News version? It probably won'y mention Identity Politics at all.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/28/court-ruling-against-north-carolina-districts-could-leave-house-control-in-limbo-until%202019.html

What does this have to do with immigration?

Oh, I thought you were still off on a rant about the right wing not being involved in identity politics.

Immigration, is it now? I don't think you've really addressed my previous points.

Back on topic? Worth getting there? What do you say?

[thegreekdog]

As I indicated a couple of posts ago, a discussion between you and me on identity politics will devolve as it did in the other thread. In fact, as you've shown in your last post, it's going that way already. To get back on topic...

My assertion is that the way the media reported on two topics is fairly significant evidence that the media is biased. Those two topics (to sum up):

(1) Mollie Tibbetts is murdered
Conservative media - Mollie Tibbetts is murdered by an allegedly illegal immigrant.
Conservative opinion - This proves we need better border security, etc.
Liberal media - Conservative/Trump focuses on Mollie Tibbetts's murder to increase border security.
Liberal opinion - Conservatives are scumbag opportunists.

(2) Mass shooting
Conservative media - Person kills other people; X dead.
Conservative opinion - It was ineffective enforcement of existing gun laws; ineffective psychiatry/medication; this person should never have had a gun; what gun control could have stopped this
Liberal media - Person kills other people; X dead; he obtained gun legally and we need better gun laws
Liberal opinion - We need better gun laws; this the NRA's and [insert conservative politician's] fault.

Put aside whether you agree with the liberal or conservative media in either situation. Does this not demonstrate a media bias?

[mookiemcgee]

As I indicated a couple of posts ago, a discussion between you and me on identity politics will devolve as it did in the other thread. In fact, as you've shown in your last post, it's going that way already. To get back on topic...

My assertion is that the way the media reported on two topics is fairly significant evidence that the media is biased. Those two topics (to sum up):

(1) Mollie Tibbetts is murdered
Conservative media - Mollie Tibbetts is murdered by an allegedly illegal immigrant.
Conservative opinion - This proves we need better border security, etc.
Liberal media - Conservative/Trump focuses on Mollie Tibbetts's murder to increase border security.
Liberal opinion - Conservatives are scumbag opportunists.

(2) Mass shooting
Conservative media - Person kills other people; X dead.
Conservative opinion - It was ineffective enforcement of existing gun laws; ineffective psychiatry/medication; this person should never have had a gun; what gun control could have stopped this
Liberal media - Person kills other people; X dead; he obtained gun legally and we need better gun laws
Liberal opinion - We need better gun laws; this the NRA's and [insert conservative politician's] fault.

Put aside whether you agree with the liberal or conservative media in either situation. Does this not demonstrate a media bias?

I dunno about this one man, seems like you are comparing far left media to center right media... I guess maybe you could sort of try an hint towards which outlets you considered? Personally both sides are just so biased at this point that trying to say one side shows more bias is going to be impossible. So I'm agreeing that the left is far too quick to go to the 'Lack of Gun Control is to blame' argument, but it's also a situation where the left is trying to push the change. I think if you looked at abortion or some other issue where the left is effectively 'winning' in terms of what laws are currently in place, and the right is trying to push for a change you would see a similar bias or push toward action in the right wing articles.

Here's a ann coulter breitbart article proposing a outright ban an LEGAL immigration to stop mass shootings. She also references some pretty dubious facts and figures along the way.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/21/ann-coulter-amazing-new-breakthrough-reduce-mass-shootings/
After reading this one could contend the 'conservative opinion' is not as you said "This proves we need better border security, etc.", but rather "we need to stop all immigration legal or otherwise cus the brown people gonna kill our babies."

[thegreekdog]

As I indicated a couple of posts ago, a discussion between you and me on identity politics will devolve as it did in the other thread. In fact, as you've shown in your last post, it's going that way already. To get back on topic...

My assertion is that the way the media reported on two topics is fairly significant evidence that the media is biased. Those two topics (to sum up):

(1) Mollie Tibbetts is murdered
Conservative media - Mollie Tibbetts is murdered by an allegedly illegal immigrant.
Conservative opinion - This proves we need better border security, etc.
Liberal media - Conservative/Trump focuses on Mollie Tibbetts's murder to increase border security.
Liberal opinion - Conservatives are scumbag opportunists.

(2) Mass shooting
Conservative media - Person kills other people; X dead.
Conservative opinion - It was ineffective enforcement of existing gun laws; ineffective psychiatry/medication; this person should never have had a gun; what gun control could have stopped this
Liberal media - Person kills other people; X dead; he obtained gun legally and we need better gun laws
Liberal opinion - We need better gun laws; this the NRA's and [insert conservative politician's] fault.

Put aside whether you agree with the liberal or conservative media in either situation. Does this not demonstrate a media bias?

I dunno about this one man, seems like you are comparing far left media to center right media... I guess maybe you could sort of try an hint towards which outlets you considered? Personally both sides are just so biased at this point that trying to say one side shows more bias is going to be impossible. So I'm agreeing that the left is far too quick to go to the 'Lack of Gun Control is to blame' argument, but it's also a situation where the left is trying to push the change. I think if you looked at abortion or some other issue where the left is effectively 'winning' in terms of what laws are currently in place, and the right is trying to push for a change you would see a similar bias or push toward action in the right wing articles.

Here's a ann coulter breitbart article proposing a outright ban an LEGAL immigration to stop mass shootings. She also references some pretty dubious facts and figures along the way.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/21/ann-coulter-amazing-new-breakthrough-reduce-mass-shootings/
After reading this one could contend the 'conservative opinion' is not as you said "This proves we need better border security, etc.", but rather "we need to stop all immigration legal or otherwise cus the brown people gonna kill our babies."

I agree with you in theory. In practice, Fox is not considered to be "center right" (for example). I've never heard any serious consideration given to lumping CNN and Vox together. I've heard lots of serious consideration lumping Fox and Breitbart together.

[mookiemcgee]

As I indicated a couple of posts ago, a discussion between you and me on identity politics will devolve as it did in the other thread. In fact, as you've shown in your last post, it's going that way already. To get back on topic...

My assertion is that the way the media reported on two topics is fairly significant evidence that the media is biased. Those two topics (to sum up):

(1) Mollie Tibbetts is murdered
Conservative media - Mollie Tibbetts is murdered by an allegedly illegal immigrant.
Conservative opinion - This proves we need better border security, etc.
Liberal media - Conservative/Trump focuses on Mollie Tibbetts's murder to increase border security.
Liberal opinion - Conservatives are scumbag opportunists.

(2) Mass shooting
Conservative media - Person kills other people; X dead.
Conservative opinion - It was ineffective enforcement of existing gun laws; ineffective psychiatry/medication; this person should never have had a gun; what gun control could have stopped this
Liberal media - Person kills other people; X dead; he obtained gun legally and we need better gun laws
Liberal opinion - We need better gun laws; this the NRA's and [insert conservative politician's] fault.

Put aside whether you agree with the liberal or conservative media in either situation. Does this not demonstrate a media bias?

I dunno about this one man, seems like you are comparing far left media to center right media... I guess maybe you could sort of try an hint towards which outlets you considered? Personally both sides are just so biased at this point that trying to say one side shows more bias is going to be impossible. So I'm agreeing that the left is far too quick to go to the 'Lack of Gun Control is to blame' argument, but it's also a situation where the left is trying to push the change. I think if you looked at abortion or some other issue where the left is effectively 'winning' in terms of what laws are currently in place, and the right is trying to push for a change you would see a similar bias or push toward action in the right wing articles.

Here's a ann coulter breitbart article proposing a outright ban an LEGAL immigration to stop mass shootings. She also references some pretty dubious facts and figures along the way.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/21/ann-coulter-amazing-new-breakthrough-reduce-mass-shootings/
After reading this one could contend the 'conservative opinion' is not as you said "This proves we need better border security, etc.", but rather "we need to stop all immigration legal or otherwise cus the brown people gonna kill our babies."

I agree with you in theory. In practice, Fox is not considered to be "center right" (for example). I've never heard any serious consideration given to lumping CNN and Vox together. I've heard lots of serious consideration lumping Fox and Breitbart together.

Maybe it's just my personal contention then... but to me Vox or Mother Jones is to CNN, exactly as Breitbart is to Fox News. 5-10 years ago I would have said that the only true centrist news seem to come from PBS, but even that has moved squarely into the center left category. If I want to hear whats going on in the world in a way that isn't spun with left or right US slant I have to listen/read news from Canada.

[thegreekdog]

I just read both (typically some combination Vox, WSJ, CNN, and NPR). To be fair, I mostly read Vox to laugh.

[Symmetry]

Gotta be honest, TGD, you seem like you're wrong on this. I get that it's a bit of a bugbear for you, but maybe you should take a step back and rethink.

[Symmetry]

Hmm, so another lawyer down for Trump-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/29/don-mcgahn-resign-trump-white-house-counsel

[thegreekdog]

Gotta be honest, TGD, you seem like you're wrong on this. I get that it's a bit of a bugbear for you, but maybe you should take a step back and rethink.

A few examples:

AP Politics - "At Yale, Kavanaugh stayed out of debates"

It was the 1980s at Yale University, and Brett Kavanaugh’s classmates were protesting South Africa’s apartheid system, rallying for gay rights and backing dining hall workers in a labor dispute.

But friends and acquaintances say the future Supreme Court nominee seemed more interested in battles on the basketball court than politically charged debates.

https://apnews.com/ce93f04d0594441ebe14 ... ssion=true

CNN Twitter -

Fresh off his victory in the Florida Republican gubernatorial primary, Rep. Ron DeSantis says voters would "monkey this up" if they elected his African-American opponent, Andrew Gillum, to be governor because of his "socialist agenda"

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1034830554766745600

New York Times

Vatican Power Struggle Bursts Into Open as Conservatives Pounce

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/worl ... ounce.html

[thegreekdog]

Gotta be honest, TGD, you seem like you're wrong on this. I get that it's a bit of a bugbear for you, but maybe you should take a step back and rethink.

A few examples:

AP Politics - "At Yale, Kavanaugh stayed out of debates"

It was the 1980s at Yale University, and Brett Kavanaugh’s classmates were protesting South Africa’s apartheid system, rallying for gay rights and backing dining hall workers in a labor dispute.

But friends and acquaintances say the future Supreme Court nominee seemed more interested in battles on the basketball court than politically charged debates.

https://apnews.com/ce93f04d0594441ebe14 ... ssion=true

CNN Twitter -

Fresh off his victory in the Florida Republican gubernatorial primary, Rep. Ron DeSantis says voters would "monkey this up" if they elected his African-American opponent, Andrew Gillum, to be governor because of his "socialist agenda"

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1034830554766745600

New York Times

Vatican Power Struggle Bursts Into Open as Conservatives Pounce

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/worl ... ounce.html

What the headlines say:
(1) Kavanaugh cares more about basketball than issues.
(2) Ron DeSantis is racist.
(3) Conservatives are attacking the Pope because of a power struggle.

Realty:
(1) Kavanaugh was in college.
(2) Here's what DeSantis said - "Let's build off the success we've had on Governor Scott. The last thing we need to do is monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases bankrupting the state. That is not going to work."
(3) People are attacking the Pope because he's allegedly protecting priests that abused children.

[Symmetry]

Meh- 1) Who cares?
2) Kinda bored of people making excuses for professional pols using the dog whistle.
3) Anybody who doubts that hierarchy of the Catholic Church isn't protecting paedophiles is constantly proved to be a fool. Pope Francis' half-arsed apologies about how the Church let them down, or weren't there for them, elide the fact that the Church actively persecuted abused kids when they brought forth allegations.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/pennsylvania-catholic-church-grand-jury/index.html

Here's the full report, it's long and brutally damning:

http://media-downloads.pacourts.us/InterimRedactedReportandResponses.pdf?cb=22148

300 priests. And that's just in Pennsylvania. And the Church went after the kids they abused in court. I know you're Catholic, but at this point, you're a better Catholic supporting the church, rather than the Church.

Anyway, let's get back to Trump.

[thegreekdog]

1) Who cares?

Fair point. He's going to get confirmed anyway.

2) Kinda bored of people making excuses for professional pols using the dog whistle.

Stop monkeying around.

3) Anybody who doubts that hierarchy of the Catholic Church isn't protecting paedophiles is constantly proved to be a fool. Pope Francis' half-arsed apologies about how the Church let them down, or weren't there for them, elide the fact that the Church actively persecuted abused kids when they brought forth allegations.

Sure. But the New York Times says it's conservatives (in the church by the way) trying to bring down Pope Francis because they don't like him. I'm pretty sure it's conservatives in the church trying to bring down Pope Francis because he's defending child molestors.

I know you're Catholic, but at this point, you're a better Catholic supporting the church, rather than the Church.

They are good Catholics and bad Catholics. The good Catholics need to get the bad Catholics out. That's pretty much been the homily in my church for two weeks running.

[Symmetry]

1) Who cares?

Fair point. He's going to get confirmed anyway.

2) Kinda bored of people making excuses for professional pols using the dog whistle.

Stop monkeying around.

3) Anybody who doubts that hierarchy of the Catholic Church isn't protecting paedophiles is constantly proved to be a fool. Pope Francis' half-arsed apologies about how the Church let them down, or weren't there for them, elide the fact that the Church actively persecuted abused kids when they brought forth allegations.

Sure. But the New York Times says it's conservatives (in the church by the way) trying to bring down Pope Francis because they don't like him. I'm pretty sure it's conservatives in the church trying to bring down Pope Francis because he's defending child molestors.

I know you're Catholic, but at this point, you're a better Catholic supporting the church, rather than the Church.

They are good Catholics and bad Catholics. The good Catholics need to get the bad Catholics out. That's pretty much been the homily in my church for two weeks running.

So now you think Francis is defending the rapists?

[Dukasaur]

3) Anybody who doubts that hierarchy of the Catholic Church isn't protecting paedophiles is constantly proved to be a fool. Pope Francis' half-arsed apologies about how the Church let them down, or weren't there for them, elide the fact that the Church actively persecuted abused kids when they brought forth allegations.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/pennsylvania-catholic-church-grand-jury/index.html

An important point from the above report:

DiNardo and Doherty noted that the grand jury's report spans 70 years, and many of the abuse accusations were made before 2002, when the bishops adopted new policies.

For the last two decades the Church has been trying very hard to clean up its act. It seems the harder it tries to change, the more vociferously it gets attacked by people who don't want to see it change, only destroyed.

Pope Francis kind of puts me in mind of Gorbachev. He's opening doors to reforms, and people are walking through those doors and trying to set fire to the place.

[Symmetry]

3) Anybody who doubts that hierarchy of the Catholic Church isn't protecting paedophiles is constantly proved to be a fool. Pope Francis' half-arsed apologies about how the Church let them down, or weren't there for them, elide the fact that the Church actively persecuted abused kids when they brought forth allegations.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/pennsylvania-catholic-church-grand-jury/index.html

An important point from the above report:

DiNardo and Doherty noted that the grand jury's report spans 70 years, and many of the abuse accusations were made before 2002, when the bishops adopted new policies.

For the last two decades the Church has been trying very hard to clean up its act. It seems the harder it tries to change, the more vociferously it gets attacked by people who don't want to see it change, only destroyed.

Pope Francis kind of puts me in mind of Gorbachev. He's opening doors to reforms, and people are walking through those doors and trying to set fire to the place.

I don't think the report should be dismissed because many of the accusations are old. If anything, it should support the case that this was a systematic problem.

Let's not pretend that whomever is currently Pope is a saint though. They're career politicians heading an organisation that's weirdly secretive and nobody gets to the top without being aware of the child abuse.

[Symmetry]

Also, I guess this thread is pretty thoroughly derailed, unless someone wants to start a new one about the crisis in the Catholic Church.

[Dukasaur]

3) Anybody who doubts that hierarchy of the Catholic Church isn't protecting paedophiles is constantly proved to be a fool. Pope Francis' half-arsed apologies about how the Church let them down, or weren't there for them, elide the fact that the Church actively persecuted abused kids when they brought forth allegations.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/pennsylvania-catholic-church-grand-jury/index.html

An important point from the above report:

DiNardo and Doherty noted that the grand jury's report spans 70 years, and many of the abuse accusations were made before 2002, when the bishops adopted new policies.

For the last two decades the Church has been trying very hard to clean up its act. It seems the harder it tries to change, the more vociferously it gets attacked by people who don't want to see it change, only destroyed.

Pope Francis kind of puts me in mind of Gorbachev. He's opening doors to reforms, and people are walking through those doors and trying to set fire to the place.

I don't think the report should be dismissed because many of the accusations are old. If anything, it should support the case that this was a systematic problem.

Let's not pretend that whomever is currently Pope is a saint though. They're career politicians heading an organisation that's weirdly secretive and nobody gets to the top without being aware of the child abuse.

I don't disagree with any of those statements. The report should not be dismissed. It was very much a systematic problem. And the current Pope is not a saint.

Nonetheless, I think the fact that the Church has been actively trying to change needs to be recognized. It's especially important that the new generation of bishops not be tarred with the same brush as the older generation. They are vigorously trying to stamp out the abuse and need support.

Also, I guess this thread is pretty thoroughly derailed, unless someone wants to start a new one about the crisis in the Catholic Church.

The thread was pretty much done anyway. Teflon Trump had a bad week and laughed it off. At this point I think he could beat the shit out of Melania on the front lawn of the White House and his supporters would say, "meh."

[Symmetry]

3) Anybody who doubts that hierarchy of the Catholic Church isn't protecting paedophiles is constantly proved to be a fool. Pope Francis' half-arsed apologies about how the Church let them down, or weren't there for them, elide the fact that the Church actively persecuted abused kids when they brought forth allegations.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/pennsylvania-catholic-church-grand-jury/index.html

An important point from the above report:

DiNardo and Doherty noted that the grand jury's report spans 70 years, and many of the abuse accusations were made before 2002, when the bishops adopted new policies.

For the last two decades the Church has been trying very hard to clean up its act. It seems the harder it tries to change, the more vociferously it gets attacked by people who don't want to see it change, only destroyed.

Pope Francis kind of puts me in mind of Gorbachev. He's opening doors to reforms, and people are walking through those doors and trying to set fire to the place.

I don't think the report should be dismissed because many of the accusations are old. If anything, it should support the case that this was a systematic problem.

Let's not pretend that whomever is currently Pope is a saint though. They're career politicians heading an organisation that's weirdly secretive and nobody gets to the top without being aware of the child abuse.

I don't disagree with any of those statements. The report should not be dismissed. It was very much a systematic problem. And the current Pope is not a saint.

Nonetheless, I think the fact that the Church has been actively trying to change needs to be recognized. It's especially important that the new generation of bishops not be tarred with the same brush as the older generation. They are vigorously trying to stamp out the abuse and need support.

Also, I guess this thread is pretty thoroughly derailed, unless someone wants to start a new one about the crisis in the Catholic Church.

The thread was pretty much done anyway. Teflon Trump had a bad week and laughed it off. At this point I think he could beat the shit out of Melania on the front lawn of the White House and his supporters would say, "meh."

Sadly, yes, although I don't think that Trump is exactly a teflon president. On CC, he appears to be.

I'd like to recognise Francis' efforts to reform, but his statements are outright insulting on the issue of sexual abuse. They try to protect the Church from harm, rather than acknowledge guilt. A bunch of statements that say "We weren't good enough", don't quite an apology make,

[thegreekdog]

1) Who cares?

Fair point. He's going to get confirmed anyway.

2) Kinda bored of people making excuses for professional pols using the dog whistle.

Stop monkeying around.

3) Anybody who doubts that hierarchy of the Catholic Church isn't protecting paedophiles is constantly proved to be a fool. Pope Francis' half-arsed apologies about how the Church let them down, or weren't there for them, elide the fact that the Church actively persecuted abused kids when they brought forth allegations.

Sure. But the New York Times says it's conservatives (in the church by the way) trying to bring down Pope Francis because they don't like him. I'm pretty sure it's conservatives in the church trying to bring down Pope Francis because he's defending child molestors.

I know you're Catholic, but at this point, you're a better Catholic supporting the church, rather than the Church.

They are good Catholics and bad Catholics. The good Catholics need to get the bad Catholics out. That's pretty much been the homily in my church for two weeks running.

So now you think Francis is defending the rapists?

I don't know what you mean by "now." It seems like there is a significant amount of public evidence that has come out recently indicating he has defended various priests engaged in wrongdoing; he has not responded in an appropriate fashion and certainly no one in church leadership (excepting some in the US) have done it either.

[Symmetry]

1) Who cares?

Fair point. He's going to get confirmed anyway.

2) Kinda bored of people making excuses for professional pols using the dog whistle.

Stop monkeying around.

3) Anybody who doubts that hierarchy of the Catholic Church isn't protecting paedophiles is constantly proved to be a fool. Pope Francis' half-arsed apologies about how the Church let them down, or weren't there for them, elide the fact that the Church actively persecuted abused kids when they brought forth allegations.

Sure. But the New York Times says it's conservatives (in the church by the way) trying to bring down Pope Francis because they don't like him. I'm pretty sure it's conservatives in the church trying to bring down Pope Francis because he's defending child molestors.

I know you're Catholic, but at this point, you're a better Catholic supporting the church, rather than the Church.

They are good Catholics and bad Catholics. The good Catholics need to get the bad Catholics out. That's pretty much been the homily in my church for two weeks running.

So now you think Francis is defending the rapists?

I don't know what you mean by "now." It seems like there is a significant amount of public evidence that has come out recently indicating he has defended various priests engaged in wrongdoing; he has not responded in an appropriate fashion and certainly no one in church leadership (excepting some in the US) have done it either.

Just your old point a few posts ago made me think that you were kinda sceptical of Pope Francis' involvement.

Reality{...] People are attacking the Pope because he's allegedly protecting priests that abused children.

[thegreekdog]

Ah... okay. I have no idea how involved, if at all, the pope was. Or to put it another way, I was using what I thought was legally appropriate language (i.e. "alleged"). Regardless of the pope's involvement, there is clearly an organized effort to hide the abuse, shame the victims, etc... so problematic for the pope regardless of whether he took any direct action.

[Symmetry]

Ah... okay. I have no idea how involved, if at all, the pope was. Or to put it another way, I was using what I thought was legally appropriate language (i.e. "alleged"). Regardless of the pope's involvement, there is clearly an organized effort to hide the abuse, shame the victims, etc... so problematic for the pope regardless of whether he took any direct action.

I'm not sure how he could possibly have gotten to his position as Pope without a a degree of complicity in the scandal.

[ur=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-42745170]Pope Francis 'slander' comment angers Chile abuse victims[/url]

Rooting out the corruption will never start from the head.