Kinda like an inverse, double whammy, inside out God win.
No oneâs claiming that as popes go, this one isnât âa bit weird.â Mostly in good ways, far as Iâm concerned.
The Catholic church has been deeply concerned with all aspects of buggery for a very long time.
This is evidence for the mantra that âBernie is only the beginning.â Heâs the Obi-Wan Kenobi, bringing the wisdom of the past into a benighted age that has lost its way. The Pope is part of this rebellion, though a distant and mostly inspirational one.
(This makes Hilary maybe Han Solo - profiting from the old system, and deeply in bed with problematic elements, but perhaps able to be won over. Trump is clearly Jabba the Hutt, and Cruz is that sanctimonious dick that blows up Alderaan).
Cruz is Grand Moff Tarkin.
It pisses me off the way the media reports superdelegates in the totals. They havenât voted yet, they vote last. May as well put up numbers for California for all the significance it actually has.
Maybe he thinks the Pope has a (D) after his name or something.
Hope not, since thatâs not a safe bet anymore:
Today the Catholic vote is divided into two major parts, white Catholics and Hispanic Catholics. Traditionally, white Catholics voted Democratic beginning in 1928 when Al Smith was pilloried by anti-Catholic bigots supporting the Republican candidate. The Great Depression and the New Deal solidified their support for the Democratic Party.
Today, however, the children and grandchildren of these working-class white Catholics are just as likely to vote Republican. Thanks to their parents, the GI Bill, and a prosperous economy, these children went to college and joined the professional and business classes. Their taxes went up with their incomes and they forgot their roots.
As a result, when politicians look at the Catholic vote they see two groups: the Hispanics, who are solidly Democratic because of the Republican demonization of immigrants, and white Catholics, made up of college-educated Catholics and a declining number of alienated blue-collar workers (the so-called Reagan Democrats).
This, exactly. Recall when Francis gave an address to Congress, and it was basically like a Sandersâ stump speech. It was widely commented on at the time. And Sanders is not afraid to talk to people he disagrees with on some things if he thinks he can make some progress on issues important to him.
But yeah, if you had said even a few years ago, the Pope will be asking an old Jewish guy running for president to give a talk at the Vatican, I would have said, what are you smoking.
Really getting the impression that Politico doesnât like Sanders.
Hillary supporters are already in overdrive trying to turn this into a gaffe. Jewish guy gets a formal invite from the Pontifical Academy, doesnât understand byzantine Catholic church divisions and couldnât wait to share the news. Iâm not really seeing anything that reflects poorly on him here. At worst it was a miscommunication. But thatâs currently the strategy in the Hillary camp: Disqualify him. (Though I donât clutch my pearls at this like itâs some bizarre and unexpected affront, itâs just politics. I expect Bernie to have his big boy pants on.)
Bad reporting: the Pope did no such thing, apparently:
I wouldâve suggested Admiral Motti. Not because of anything either one of them has done, only because their speaking tones are similar.
Shut the front doorâŚ
Open all the side doors?
I love it.
Whoâs Rey? And Fin? And Poe? ⌠Dammit, Iâm hooked! Please finish!!
â. . . Itâs The Resistance!â
Yeah, plus a person who got all sniffy because (as I understand it) she wasnât asked to do the invite. The Pope didnât invite Sanders, but I donât know whether Sanders actually claimed the Pope did. Anyway, it looks like âthe Vaticanâ basically did, a long time ago. The actual invite, and several updates, appear here:
Why is the moose wearing high heels?
Iâm hoping Bernie can help the Pope on respecting trans people. Who he compares to nuclear weapons.
Youâd think people wouldnât screw so much with a nuclear powerâŚ