Gawd, I love lemmings! Trump says Quasimodo never had a hump and couldn't have rung the cathedral bell. Oh Mr. Bill/Donald, feed me more.....:
And the hat says it all!
The RNC isn't even trying to hide it
- Thread starter Ostatedchi
- Start date
Gawd, I love lemmings! Trump says Quasimodo never had a hump and couldn't have rung the cathedral bell. Oh Mr. Bill/Donald, feed me more.....:
And the hat says it all!
Here's some of his crazy religious talk from this morning:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ted-cruz-responds-gay-man-religious-freedom/story?id=38478637
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ted-cruz-responds-gay-man-religious-freedom/story?id=38478637
You guys are sounding like the Ron Paulites in your zeal to justify your crazy stances. (See, we can mock just like you)
The problem is that the RNC chose a side in the primary. That's total crap and only cements the idea that the establishment fix is in.
So Trumpesque , straight from the straw man play book; but again, so predictable.
Can you hear yourself (or read your own typing)? How has the "RNC" itself chosen a side? On the other hand, when, in the annals of history, have active members,I'm talking about the individuals, of a political party NOT taken sides in a presidential nominating contest.
More people voted this year in both the Colorado and Wyoming precinct caucuses and county caucuses than in 2012 and most other recent contests. The only difference this year from 2012 in Colorafo is that they didn't hold a NON-BINDING statewide preference vote. You know why? Because Colorado has historically not chosen it's delegates by statewide vote and because after 2012 the RNC changed the rules to say that a state couldn't hold a non-binding preference vote. If they held a statewide vote the delegates would HAVE to be bound and that isn't how they have historically selected delegates in Colorado so they elected not to have a statewide preference vote.
You sound just like those fans in the Sutton Court for 6 years tell me how wrong I was for constantly saying how bad a coach Ford was. Time proved me right. It will again.
Right about what exactly? That a bunch of folks who are understandably angry about the direction of government and have been suckered into believing Trump is really some sort of anti-establishment standard bearer are going to be upset if their guy doesn't get the nomination? No one disputes tha. No one has said another candidate will beat Hillary, just that they'd have a better chance.
There's no question that the GOP is in a bad spot, largely of its own making and also exploited by Trump. There is a pretty high degree of probability the election will go poorly for the GOP which ever way the nomination goes unless Hillary is indicted after the Democrat convention.
Last edited:
It's statements and characterizations such as this, things youve interwoven into a relatively benign post, that have me put out.
You (generally speaking meant to cast a wide net over a lot of talkers) have reduced yourselves to being on the level of Cup and Sys.
If there was more integrity in this process, and integrity in those now making certain arguments, all this would seem much more above board. As is, everybody is damaged...significantly.
How will this position affect you negatively?
Does his love of the Constitution change how you feel about him, good or bad?
The idea that the process is any less above board or that there is any change to the integrity in the process in this nominating year, vs other previous years is wholly a creation of Trump's people squawking and whining, and outright lying about it and a deliriously happy media pushing the story.
Last edited:
So you think politicians should have to put country above their faith? You do realize that runs contrary to most any religion right? What faith has ever preached country over its own deity/deities? Honestly, you sound a little alarmist. "Oh noes!!!! He believes in God and he'll try to install a theocracy with his imperial powers!!!!"
Maybe we should make anyone that serves in a public office renounce all faith. They should be "men of science." You know, because such men would never do any terrible things to his fellow men.
I'm not a Trump guy but it's silly to cite GE polls imo. What did the primary polling look like 6 months ago? I think if he got on a stage with her he would trip her up and change the discussion. But again, Johnson is looking good to me.
I think Trump would likely go after her hard. Whether that would really work to help him, I'm not sure. You can bet the Clinton machine has a lot of material ready to spring on Trump, whether all of it is 100% truthful or not. It would certainly be a spectacle.
Agreed. But that never seems to hurt him either. My point is if you are against Trump because of policy, being in over his head or simply that he is just such a dick - fine. But citing polling data after he has come from nowhere to lead the republican field is shortsighted. Polling data is for losers.
Again, the polls were NEVER cited until it was suggested by another poster that not nominating Trump was "handing the keys to the White House " to HRC.
Well they might be right because it'll negatively affect the Trump movenent's motivation to vote, and voter turnout is going to be a bigger factor then polling data.
However, solid chance Trump cannot become favorable enough to win regardless.
More and more I'm thinking Hilary wins and in doing so sets the stage to play out the final chapter of the Obama era in a way that'll prevent it from being easily romanticized by history.
Whether it gives the RNC time to restructure itself towards a leaner, more Constitutionalist states rights future, or gives them time to further insulate themselves from future outsider candidates, I don't know.
Either way, Hilary will probably win and bring shame to both parties. Sure would be a great time for a third party to rise up.
Yes, your opinion on defined process has been shared many, many times. I'm not talking about rules. That is, correctly, a negative for Trump.
If you call yourself Christian, then you should consider yourself a Christian first. Otherwise, you probably haven't looked into the Faith enough.
How would any of you feel about someone that would claim to be a muslim first, anything else after? When you are leading, or attempting to lead based off religious values, rather than the entirety of the country, I will question faith-based political decision naking. He can be whatever faith he wants, good for him, but when he is casting that iver others that are of different faith (or non-faith), i have a problem with that.
I am not gay, nor do I need to fight for myself for marriage, but I will fight for the right of others. Hell, I am a non-smoker, non-marijuana user, but I will stand up for those that do. "Because the bible says so or not so," is not a basis for laws, at least in my opinion.
I am not gay, nor do I need to fight for myself for marriage, but I will fight for the right of others. Hell, I am a non-smoker, non-marijuana user, but I will stand up for those that do. "Because the bible says so or not so," is not a basis for laws, at least in my opinion.
As long as they stay within the bounds of the constitution in regard to executing the laws of the land, I don't care what they believe in.
As long as they denounce the teachings of the Koran I'm good.
He has defended/fought in the supreme court, he has presented bills and stood for others and against others since he has been a senator (enough to piss the establishment off and they do not like him) .. Please show me your examples in any or all of those where he governed based on being a christian and not because it was constitutional/non-constitutional? I assume you have plenty of those examples since you are for sure that is how he practices.
Show an example where Ted Cruz has said "Because the bible says so or not so," in the context of working at the FTC, as Solicitor General of Texas, as Senator, or as a candidate for POTUS.
https://www.tedcruz.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Restoration-of-Marriage-Amendment.pdf - when federal taxes are involved , this is a federal issue. This amendment is based off religious dogma, not constitutional grounds.
First Amendment Defense Act - legalized discrimination. Based of religious belief.
Two quick examples. I won't even dive into his sex toy crap, mostly because of media misrepresentation on his defense, but was still on the wrong side of that. I will see what I can dig up later when I have more time. But both of those are based off faith rather than constitutional grounds.
Again, support him all you want, I will not. We can keep going back and forth, but it changes nothing for either of us. I will grant you that there are bad-faith (not really an intended pun) articles about him, such as "replacing the constitution with the bible," that are made up. I also find that crappy, even though i cannot stand the man. That said, his focus on issues like those posted bother me. Neither of those affect the economy, our safety, or creating jobs. He has claimed to be a proud civil libertarian....how about you show me where he has abided by that comment.
First Amendment Defense Act - legalized discrimination. Based of religious belief.
Two quick examples. I won't even dive into his sex toy crap, mostly because of media misrepresentation on his defense, but was still on the wrong side of that. I will see what I can dig up later when I have more time. But both of those are based off faith rather than constitutional grounds.
Again, support him all you want, I will not. We can keep going back and forth, but it changes nothing for either of us. I will grant you that there are bad-faith (not really an intended pun) articles about him, such as "replacing the constitution with the bible," that are made up. I also find that crappy, even though i cannot stand the man. That said, his focus on issues like those posted bother me. Neither of those affect the economy, our safety, or creating jobs. He has claimed to be a proud civil libertarian....how about you show me where he has abided by that comment.
A couple of points on your attachment:
- You do realize that there are abundant arguments to be made and that have been made, some even by gay individuals in favor of the view that marriage laws ought to be a state level decision (or that marriage shouldn't be a government issue at all), irrespective of any religious reasoning. In point of fact, an honest reading of the Constitution itself pretty much requires it to be a state issue, at least before the 9th and 10th amendments ceased to exist for all intents and purposes.
- You do realize that he is attempting to amend the Constitution, right; i.e. he aims to change the law through the established legal process to do so? Sort of puts paid to your contention that he'd act as a Christian over and above being an American.
Last edited:
Sounds like something Hillary would have supported a few years ago.
Once again, don't be scared. The President can't make laws. Well..... except for the current one.
N. Pap, do I really come accross as one that cares for hillary or what she supports? I always focus on the GOP, as I keep hoping that the party will come to its senses and stop playing social justice warriors (especially feom the "wrong" side). I have given up on that. Finally.
Glove ,this is more of what I think we can find common ground.
On your point 1) I do not fully disagree. Churches have not patented the term "marriage," thus trying to limit those that can get married makes this interesting. Considering the fact that people move, even after marriage, some protections need to be in place. That, for now, places that squarely at the federal level.
Point 2) I remembered reading that a while ago. I will certainly reread the background, but as I saw it, it was still attempting to use religious contexts to work around the current laws. I could be wrong.
Glove ,this is more of what I think we can find common ground.
On your point 1) I do not fully disagree. Churches have not patented the term "marriage," thus trying to limit those that can get married makes this interesting. Considering the fact that people move, even after marriage, some protections need to be in place. That, for now, places that squarely at the federal level.
Point 2) I remembered reading that a while ago. I will certainly reread the background, but as I saw it, it was still attempting to use religious contexts to work around the current laws. I could be wrong.
Re: the sex toy crap. A pretty convincing defense of Ted Cruz's involvement in the case, IYAM:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-his-job-reliable-consultants-inc-phe-v-earle
A synopsis (there's much more to the piece):
"Ugh. Cruz is a weirdo, right? A Puritan? A creep? A loser obsessed with other people’s sex lives? Not at all. Rather, Cruz was a) doing his job within the solicitor general’s office — namely, fighting for the state’s laws regardless of his personal opinion of them; b) forwarding an entirely unexceptional view of the 14th Amendment’s original public meaning; and c) appealing to a legal precedent that remained intact until the rambling mess that is Obergefell v. Hodges blew it wide open eight years later."
Good read. Though he was still on the wrong side of the aisle on it, I will grant you that it was not a dogma-driven defense. An argument can be mad against his 14th amendment use, but I will give you that one. I tried not to include that as an example because there has been a significant amount of misinformation about it. I will read more. I could not find his actual papers from the case.
Yes, you are likely to get her elected.
I'm okay with taking a stand against Trump or Bob Dole or John McCain or Mitt Romney but taking a stand against a man for his religion makes you a bigot.
I am not taking a stand against his religion. I am taking a stand for those that his religion could affect if he gets his plans in place. Just as you would do if a devout muslim were vying for the bid. I am no different with him than I am anybody else that takes the same approach. If hillary gets elected, you can look into your own mirror. Your party will be the only people to blame. Is it my fault that the GOP primaries are a complete embarrasment? Fix it from within rather than blame those that do not believe in or care for a dichotomous system. If it makes you feel better calling me a bigot, then so be it. I have stated my support for freedom of religion...i am also a believer of freedom from religion as well.
Everyone wants change for the better, yet when a guy comes along that holds everyone else's feet to the fire and thereby forces other spineless establishment whores to address the issues that are important he is lambasted as narcissistic (which of them isn't really), bombastic, an attention whore (again which of them isn't) and so on. I'm not a huge Trump fan, but he has elevated the issue discussion into the stratosphere, compared to past elections, and for that alone he should be in the discussion.
The polls say he can't win against hildabeast, but who knows.....polls are crap right now (as was previously pointed out) and regardless Trump seems to be willing to mix it up. I agree he whines to dam much and needs to go out and continue to beat the drum of what got him to where he is at present.
Lots of hardworking Americans genuinely feel disenfranchised right now because they don't see their voice being heard past election time punch lines. Couple that with the castrated GOP who doesn't seem to know how to solve one freakin problem out there and or stop the rodent in chief and you have a voting base that is willing to try something truly different, which is why Trump resonates so well now. If he weren't consider a true threat to upset the apple cart you wouldn't have the socialist bastards in Mexico and Europe whining, you wouldn't see newspapers misquoting Trump almost hourly, the libs beating up on him at every turn (when in the past he most likely gave some of them campaign cash-Clinton, Schumer and who knows who else).
Trump absolutely can't be worse than what we have destroying this country right now....and that's the eventual bottom line. Ditto for Cruz. Everyone else will be more of the same or even worse.
The polls say he can't win against hildabeast, but who knows.....polls are crap right now (as was previously pointed out) and regardless Trump seems to be willing to mix it up. I agree he whines to dam much and needs to go out and continue to beat the drum of what got him to where he is at present.
Lots of hardworking Americans genuinely feel disenfranchised right now because they don't see their voice being heard past election time punch lines. Couple that with the castrated GOP who doesn't seem to know how to solve one freakin problem out there and or stop the rodent in chief and you have a voting base that is willing to try something truly different, which is why Trump resonates so well now. If he weren't consider a true threat to upset the apple cart you wouldn't have the socialist bastards in Mexico and Europe whining, you wouldn't see newspapers misquoting Trump almost hourly, the libs beating up on him at every turn (when in the past he most likely gave some of them campaign cash-Clinton, Schumer and who knows who else).
Trump absolutely can't be worse than what we have destroying this country right now....and that's the eventual bottom line. Ditto for Cruz. Everyone else will be more of the same or even worse.
It may be another tangent, but I am absolutely floored that three of the four potential candidates are Trump, Hillary and Bernie.
Cruz still seems kind of standard to me. Bernie is just too fringe to run as the candidate for any party other than the Rent Too Damn High party, Trump comes across like a cartoon version of a rich person and Hillary is as dishonest as anyone in national politics today.
Cruz still seems kind of standard to me. Bernie is just too fringe to run as the candidate for any party other than the Rent Too Damn High party, Trump comes across like a cartoon version of a rich person and Hillary is as dishonest as anyone in national politics today.
