We do want to replace the current two party system with a new two party system, the Falconist Party and Everyone Else.
The falconist party is pretty much the same as the democrat party with the same attitude.
Multiple parties would be preferred. And the ACA was a very good start, but lacked any bipartisan support from the party that would privatize the entire government including the pentagon if they could. The Trump administration failing a trillion attempts to repeal and replace it have been about sabotaging it instead.
We depart from the Democrats on a variety of issues.
The DP is pro-choice while the FP is pro-life
The DP is for open borders, the FP isnât
The FP is tougher on crime than the DP
The FP is pro-military while the DP isnât
The FP is for laws that restore public morality
The DP calls for legalizing immoral behavior
Some few, thatâs certainly not a party wide platform.
Morality is subjective.
If morality is subjective, can it be changed to whatever the individual or the mob wishes it to be at any given time? Is sexual relations with a 9 year old girl, moral? Is owning another human being moral? Is accelerating Darwinâs theory of âsurvival of the fittestâ by exterminating inferior human beings moral?
Of course not to all of the above. Morality could never have evolved, it comes from humans being made in the image of God and He sets the standards for morality.
Does the Falconist party have an actual platform you can link to? And when will they field s candidate for president?
Thatâs cool, and the CCC while youâre at itâŚ
For example, just take a look at the modest way in which women dressed during Victorian America and the way they dress today. A woman in 1880 was much more covered up than the average woman going to church on Sunday today. Sex outside of marriage was for loose men and women only, today itâs commonplace. And on and on it goes.
Standards of dress is not a moral issue. Scheesch!?!?
Adultery and fornication are now and were then immoral.
Of course it isâŚ
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/dress.htm
CATHOLIC MORAL DRESS CODE
Please point out where infrastructure and healthcare is a responsibility of the Federal Government.
Donât even say the lame general welfare.
The Founders clearly understood the " general welfare" to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and governmentâs proper role is the protection of that freedom.
Thereâs nothing wrong with that, sooner or later the infrastructure is going to have to be properly addressed.
Infrastructureâs relationship to public safety, national security, and economic competitiveness, makes it clear why a strong infrastructure system has always played a critical role to the federal interest. In fact, infrastructure spending and the federal government have a history that dates to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that gave Congress the power to âestablish post offices and post roads.â The country has expanded significantly since that time, and with it the nation has needed to expand its infrastructure in order to maintain a modern economy.
Not really on point. An interesting topic for discussion though.
Of course itâs a point. You denied it and you were wrong.
Because one writer calls dress code a moral issue, that does not fit the definition of morality
Not just one. I also presented you with the Catholic Churchâs writing on this, and thereâs an abundance of other information. OF COURSE how one dresses has been a moral yardstick for centuries.
a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character, or the quality of being right and honest:
Yep, and Americans had a very different set of standards regarding their dress in prior times. Today, women go to church allegedly to worship Jesus with there low neck sweaters and their skirts up on their thighs showing what theyâve got because the moral values of dress have deteriorated. Read the Catholic Churchâs writings on this that I provided youâŚ