Ohhh, Mr. “gotcha question” showed up.

Feel free to complain that I didn’t answer your question like you deserve one

Peaceful does not mean lawful. You can peacefully break the law.

Sure… But…

The law is not always right - that is why it has the facility to be changed - and when laws are wrong it is a good citizen’s duty to break them, as that is the first step to changing them.

Don’t be vague. We’re talking about trespassing. Somebody peaceably trespassing in your living room would be a pretty big deal.

It’s fine that they protested, but expect to be arrested when you refuse to vacate a building you’re trespassing in.

I specifically didn’t say they were being violent. When asked to leave their presence becomes trespass. Being somewhere you aren’t supposed to be gets to the far side of “peaceful”. You’re not violent, maybe, but you’re not lawful either. At that point the police are within their right to remove you.

Taking over a building is on the far end of “peaceful”.

Progressive implies in comparison to what came before. This dude is not progressive in what comes from before. It is regressive behavior. The church took 3 steps forward and 2 back. This is called regression.

You’re using your definition of “progressive” and applying it to the way other people are using the same word though. That’s not how communication works. It’s like you’re trying to misunderstand.

My whole point is that this dude isn’t progressive but, if anything, regressive.

Your whole point is wrong. That’s why you’re confused.

Compared to the “conservative wing” of the Catholic church he’s quite progressive. That’s why I said “it’s relative”. But that doesn’t mean he’s going to be smoking a joint at a pride parade while distributing condoms.

You then talk about how progress is needed for the church but then how the progress from Francis was too much?

You’re very “black and white” with your reasoning. You will find it hard to understand with that attitude. For some conservatives in the Catholic church it was definitely “too much”. But for others it was not. And there will be some in the middle who will be potentially swayed. For yet others it will be a welcome recognition of their point of view. What did you expect?

People are more easily convinced of a point of view by people they know and trust. If you’re a middle-of-the-road Catholic who now sees The Pope blessing homosexuals then maybe you start to accept the idea. “Guess it’s not so bad if the Pope even does it.” To the Fox News I-went-to-Sunday-school-once-as-a-kid-and-now-I’m-Catholic crowd that will be a bridge too far.

The pope leads the church - but no man rules alone.

An institution like the catholic church doesn’t change overnight. It couldn’t or it would lose its legitimacy and therefore its followers. Many US catholics have already started to push back. Some things take time. Frankly the pope being at least “comfortable” with gays probably did more to help change some minds than any amount of protesting has.

That said - protecting pedos was and is horrific. it’s not “progressive” one way or the other to condemn that.

“progressive” is a relative term.

Christ he needs to explain it to Trump like he’s a child.

“So you have your toys and your sister has her toys. And no matter how much you offer her she’ll never sell you her toys.”

“I don’t know. I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know,” Trump said, adding that such a requirement would mean “we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials”.

People voted for this. 🤬

“slightly” 🤣🤣

“I couldn’t vote against Hitler because the opposition wasn’t great”

Hmm, all that stuff on the line, and the DNC decided that it was more important to protect Israel and idolize Dick Cheney than to defeat Donald Trump.

I love how liberals pretend like it’s not their fault for not voting.

Get used to it. I will repeat it until democrats realizes that not voting has consequences.

I’m not saying they shouldn’t.

there’s no reason for you to soapbox about the damn lefties drawing the line at genocide.

Looks around

Yeah mate, there is.

Ah, that’s very interesting. Thanks!

That’s a way of defining it - but is that a legal standard?

Yeah, you all only give a shit about exactly one thing. We know. Let everything else burn because you have a one track mind.

Frankly we didn’t get the chance to know what limits Kamala would have had. But we do know that behind the scenes Biden was trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to moderate Israel. Kamala would likely have at least applied some pressure as well.

Trump wants to turn Gaza into a trump hotel.

You at least had some fucking hope with Kamala.

An anti democratic party has no right to be elected democratically.

True. But who decides what is an anti-democratic party? And by what guidelines?