Definitely some odd choices here. Condemns the main abuser to a life-time of penance and prayer and then totally dismisses any claims that the abuser’s protege may have seen the abuse.

It does seem he eventually changed his tune, but not before seriously harming his credibility on the issue.

In April, the pope publicly acknowledged that he had erred in handling the situation, saying he had made “serious mistakes” — and summoning Chile’s bishops to an emergency meeting in Rome. Francis said he had misjudged Barros and the events in Chile because he hadn’t been given “truthful and balanced information.”

In May, all of Chile’s 31 active bishops offered to resign their posts, issuing a statement in which they asked forgiveness and apologized for “the grave errors and omissions that we committed.”

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/11/618825779/pope-francis-accepts-resignations-of-3-bishops-over-chilean-abuse-scandal

Grand Qanon Party - aka Trumplicans

No, that is called having an adult conversation where we acknowledge reality and then discuss how to fix it, or in this case how it is already being worked on.

Sexual abuse happens in virtually every organization. The main issue is how it is dealt with. The catholic church has a long issue of dealing with issues internally, but this was definitely one that was not being handled correctly. Francis has made it clear that he is willing to face the issue head-on now that he has the power.

We do not have to turn a blind eye to their past mistakes, but we should also acknowledge what they are actually doing to work on those mistakes instead of spreading misinformation about them still hiding from it.

top ignoring and turning away the victims of your priest’s rape and abuse

Same list as I dropped on your other post. Took like 30 seconds in a web-search to call that claim into serious doubt. Also, I searched for him turning away sexual abuse victims and found nothing.

Monday’s meeting between Francis and the six victims of church sexual abuse was not the first such meeting between a pontiff and survivors, but it was the first of Francis’ papacy.

2014 - https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/world/pope-clerical-sex-abuse/

“God weeps” for the sexual abuse of children, Pope Francis said Sunday in Philadelphia, after meeting with victims of sexual abuse.

2015 - https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/pope-francis-sex-abuse-victims/index.html

Pope Francis said he regularly meets with victims of sexual abuse on Fridays, and that while the percentage of priests who abuse is relatively low, even one is too many.

2018 - https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/37774/pope-francis-regularly-meets-with-abuse-victims-on-fridays

In the evening of the same day, Pope Francis held an audience with Portugese victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church.

2023 - https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-francis-holds-private-meetings-sex-abuse-victims-ukrainian-pilgrims

Every time the pope has turned them away and refused to even acknowledge their existence

Where did you hear that? These articles seem to say the opposite.

Monday’s meeting between Francis and the six victims of church sexual abuse was not the first such meeting between a pontiff and survivors, but it was the first of Francis’ papacy.

2014 - https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/world/pope-clerical-sex-abuse/

“God weeps” for the sexual abuse of children, Pope Francis said Sunday in Philadelphia, after meeting with victims of sexual abuse.

2015 - https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/pope-francis-sex-abuse-victims/index.html

Pope Francis said he regularly meets with victims of sexual abuse on Fridays, and that while the percentage of priests who abuse is relatively low, even one is too many.

2018 - https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/37774/pope-francis-regularly-meets-with-abuse-victims-on-fridays

In the evening of the same day, Pope Francis held an audience with Portugese victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church.

2023 - https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-francis-holds-private-meetings-sex-abuse-victims-ukrainian-pilgrims

More strawmen, more name-calling.

Just find a mirror, then the conversation will be the same as the one in your head.

Yeah, party affiliation is way more important than who a person is or how they live their life!

You are putting words in my mouth and then knocking your own words down like it means something.

Why not try actually arguing against what I said, instead setting up strawmen and then engaging in name-calling?

I could not care less what skin color she has.

I care that for political gain Newsom singled out her sex and skin color like they were the most defining factors about her.

I care because some people buy into it so thoroughly that they think someone pointing it out makes them a fascist.

The issue I take with this meritocracy take is it assumes that the best candidate wouldn’t be a black woman.

That is odd. I see this exactly the opposite. To me it looks like Newsom assumed that the best candidate wouldn’t be a black woman so he had to eliminate 97% of the field before choosing.

The best candidate very well could have been Butler, but unfortunately we do not know that because Newsom discounted all of her skills and experience and chose race and sex as the most important qualifiers for the position.

Even if he planned to choose based off of race and sex, all he had to do to not undermine his future pick was keep his mouth closed about it.

It should be very obvious what I am saying.

In choosing Butler on Sunday, Newsom fulfilled his pledge to appoint a Black woman if Feinstein’s seat became open.

I am saying that it is morally wrong to choose a someone primarily based on their skin color and genitals.

I am further saying that if you are going to do it anyways, then you denigrate the person you are choosing by announcing it publicly.

Additionally, I will point out that, Asian, Hispanic, White, and mixed race peoples all significantly out number black people in California. It is bad enough to choose a Senator based on race and sex, but it is even worse to eliminate 97% of his state’s population before even considering their qualifications for the job.

They are definitely something, but they were not the main qualities that Newsom repeatedly stated that he was searching for.

While I agree in the lesser of two evils kind of way, meaning its better than they are in the House rather than Senate or President, I still think it is pretty shameful. If they just can’t let go of politics it is time to go back home to city and state legislative bodies.

Still, it is wonderful to read an actually well-stated view point in this post. Seems that most of the thread has devolved to name calling and verbal diarrhea.

Have an upvote for some quality content!

She seems like a good appointee

Hard to tell, but she does meet the only two qualifications that Newsom thought were important enough to mention.

Thank you for clarifying. Could not remember for the life of me.

McCarthy finally put on his big boy pants and is proposing a 45 day clean spending bill

While I was definitely a proponent of this, I will easily admit that I was a bit surprised that he actually did it. There are far too many “non-starters” for both parties right now, and it seems to be getting worse not better. Even identifying as a moderate or centrist is pretty well derided at every turn. It is a bit crazy, but the most heated arguments I get into are with people that I agree 80% or more with.

and then their constituents buy into the “fiscal conservatism” ploy

I am sure that the fiscally conservative Republicans are just as frustrated by this issue as you and I are. Over and over we hear the talk and then they come back with even more spending and less taxes, which is definitely the opposite of what is needed. The problem I see, is that I can’t even remember the last time I heard a Democrat in office pushing for a balanced budget. I am not sure what is worse, not mentioning it or talking about it then doing the opposite; probably the latter but clearly not everyone agrees.

The worst thing in all this, is that we have some how taken on all this excess debt during during a virtual golden age. It is a bit scary to think about what the future would look like if we had a long-term recession.

No one is willing to take on our defense spending issues

I fully agree that this is an issue, and with most of your related points, but I really don’t have any kind of a solution for it. The idea of creating or propping up an additional military company indefinitely frustrates me even when just thinking about it.

I keep teetering on an isolationist bent, where we would pull back from a lot of our military bases and make it clear that some old commitments are about to be updated, but I think it is pretty clear that some of our world adversaries would take that as a sign of weakness and start pushing their boundaries immediately.

I think it is time that some of our allies that rely on our military take on some of their own responsibility, but most of them are nowhere near ready. Also, I am pretty sure it will just create more world level chaos and likely lead to a new great war.

I think we likely have gotten ourselves into a bit of a pickle. Doubly so, since we are having such a cultural and political division issue at home. When its nearly impossible to handle simple issues, deeply complex issues like these are almost laughable, in the Joaquin Phoenix as Joker kind of way.

Are they in session while walking the halls?

You seem to be misunderstanding the Hastert Rule. The rule does not say that the bill has to be passable without bipartisan support. It says that the Republican portion has to represent a majority of their party. I didn’t say it had to be so friendly to Democrats that most Republicans wouldn’t vote for it.

Also, McCarthy’s Speakership won’t survive turning his back on the Freedom Caucus anyways, unless the Democrats decide to back him. So there is no reason he has to follow that rule at all, if he’s going to cross the aisle. Hastert himself broke the rule a dozen times according to your link.

In this case there are 221 Republicans, they would only 111 to have a majority of the party on board. Sure a true bipartisan bill would be great, but they only really need 18 democrats willing to vote along with 200 Republicans or as many Democrats as 107 with only 111 Republicans. There is a lot of wiggle room if both sides have members willing to cross the aisle.

The real problem is finding enough Side A-ers that would be willing to have their names alongside them crazy Side B-ers.

Shouldn’t be too hard to ignore the freedom caucus and reach across the aisle. The only thing it would cost him is the Speakership.

Many of them are professional politicians that support their families with those paychecks. It is one thing to convince someone to take an extremist route when it keeps the money flowing, it is another thing altogether when that same action would leave them jobless.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

― Upton Sinclair

Wait, tell me again why it is so important to not pass a budget?