Cruz Thread

[_Abyssinia]

Most people, particularly women, believe that abortion should be neither a federal government issue nor a states-rights issue, but rather a women’s rights issue. Ted Cruz’ social conservatism is out of touch with the majority of people in the U. S. and, mark my words, he will therefore lose in the general election. The proof of the eating is in the pudding, however, so have him as the GOP candidate if you don’t believe me. Not so much his small-government ideology, but his far right social-conservative ideology will sink him.

I don’t understand what you mean. It can’t be a “women’s rights issue” detached from either being a issue of states rights which allows states to make the determination on abortion or it is issue of unelected judges uprooting the right of states to make a determination on abortion legalisation, as it is now.

How many times have conservatives settled on a more moderate candidate because they were presumed to be more electable and that candidate ended up losing? Either in the General Election or even other elections?

 

[meltzerboy]

I don’t understand what you mean. It can’t be a “women’s rights issue” detached from either being a issue of states rights which allows states to make the determination on abortion or it is issue of unelected judges uprooting the right of states to make a determination on abortion legalisation, as it is now.

How many times have conservatives settled on a more moderate candidate because they were presumed to be more electable and that candidate ended up losing? Either in the General Election or even other elections?

No, I don’t think conservatives should settle. Cruz should be the nominee of the Republican Party. Let’s test it out and see what happens.

With regard to abortion and states-rights, I mean that, for many women, abortion is a right to choose which should not require permission from either state or federal government. It is a personal, family, medical, and faith-based decision which should not be interfered with by government at all.

 

[anon67074017]

lifesitenews.com/news/ted-cruz-takes-stand-against-abortion-after-rape-go-after-the-rapist-dont-k

I totally agree with him. The rapist should be punished to the full extent of the law if he caused a pregnancy that ended in abortion.

 

[lynnvinc]

Most people, particularly women, believe that abortion should be neither a federal government issue nor a states-rights issue, but rather a women’s rights issue. Ted Cruz’ social conservatism is out of touch with the majority of people in the U. S. and, mark my words, he will therefore lose in the general election. The proof of the eating is in the pudding, however, so have him as the GOP candidate if you don’t believe me. Not so much his small-government ideology, but his far right social-conservative ideology will sink him.

And anyone who really cares about life on planet earth will vote against him, since he is for abolishing environmental regulations (he talks about that more than the abortion issue) and is a staunch climate change denialist (as per his oily backers). He is Pro-Death.

 

[_Abyssinia]

No, I don’t think conservatives should settle. Cruz should be the nominee of the Republican Party. Let’s test it out and see what happens.

With regard to abortion and states-rights, I mean that, for many women, abortion is a right to choose which should not require permission from either state or federal government. It is a personal, family, medical, and faith-based decision which should not be interfered with by government at all.

But abortion as it presently is has to be either a states rights issue or a courts issue.

And who asks permission of the child inside the women’s womb? They don’t get a say, which is why they need protection and women also deserve help and support so that they never feel they need to turn to abortion.

 

[meltzerboy]

But abortion has to be either a states rights issue or a courts issue as it presently is.

And who asks permission of the child inside the women’s womb? They don’t get a say, which is why they need protection and women also deserve help and support so that they never feel they need to turn to abortion.

I know I am biased, but whenever I hear the term “states rights,” I always associate it with the pre-Civil War issue of slavery, as well as with current conservative-activist extremists and domestic terrorists who believe the federal government is out to get them, with regard to gun-control restrictions, for example. I just don’t trust modern-day states-rights politicians.

 

[Darryl1958]

Which definition of USA sounds more totalitarian and less American- United States of America, or Unified STATE of America?

Totalitarianism is not just an unfortunate random relationship with socialism, but its inevitable consequence. As checks and balances are gradually eliminated by those who trust such centralized control, totalitarianism will always be the result.
Totalitariamism is much more oppressive, much more repressive, much more racist than states rights ever will be.

 

[Peter_J]

If an unborn baby is a human being,
…

“If it’s a human being” is little more than a Dem talking point. I believe the vast majority of politicians who say it isn’t are being driven by their desire to keep abortion legal.

 

[carpenter383]

And anyone who really cares about life on planet earth will vote against him, since he is for abolishing environmental regulations (he talks about that more than the abortion issue) and is a staunch climate change denialist (as per his oily backers). He is Pro-Death.

You’re comparing apples to oranges, while it’s true that we should all be good stewards of our environment, we can’t worship it. Global cooling/warming/climate change is all based on theory, sea levels are not rising, polar bears are doing fine, the north pole is gaining ice, florida is not under water, etc. these are scare tactics meant to increase gov’t revenue and gov’t control. There is much more to it (agenda 21) but in an effort to keep it simple here is a fact Abortion ends the life of a child and offends God. It also deeply wounds the men and women involved.
Here are the 5 things currently that faithful Catholics cannot negotiate on when at the voting booth: Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and same-sex “marriage”
In short, as a faithful Catholic, global cooling/warming/climate change is up for debate not abortion
It’s sad how Catholics can find excuses to reject pro-life politicians even when it directly opposes Holy mother church

 

[Peter_J]

Here are the 5 things currently that faithful Catholics cannot negotiate on when at the voting booth: Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and same-sex “marriage”

Can you explain a little how your negotiating would work? For example, what would you be willing to trade Israel’s security for?

 

[meltzerboy]

Can you explain a little how your negotiating would work? For example, what would you be willing to trade Israel’s security for?

I believe these are all non-negotiables for Catholics. Are you referring to other beliefs which are negotiable?

 

[Tomdstone]

Here are the 5 things currently that faithful Catholics cannot negotiate on when at the voting booth: Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and same-sex “marriage”
In short, as a faithful Catholic, global cooling/warming/climate change is up for debate not abortion
It’s sad how Catholics can find excuses to reject pro-life politicians even when it directly opposes Holy mother church

What do you mean by negotiating at the voting booth? AFAIK, Father R. Drinan was never officially or publicly excommunicated and was given a Roman Catholic funeral, but he voted in favor of keeping abortions legal, although he was morally opposed to abortion.

 

[Crossbones]

Here are the 5 things currently that faithful Catholics cannot negotiate on when at the voting booth: Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and same-sex “marriage”
In short, as a faithful Catholic, global cooling/warming/climate change is up for debate not abortion
It’s sad how Catholics can find excuses to reject pro-life politicians even when it directly opposes Holy mother church

I don’t recall reading this in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. What is your source?

 

[Peter_J]

I believe these are all non-negotiables for Catholics.

Well, alright; I certainly don’t have a problem with the idea that Israel’s security is “non-negotiable” … I’m just not really sure what you mean by that. And why do you say “for Catholics”?

Are you referring to other beliefs which are negotiable?

I’m not sure what you’re asking.

 

[Tomdstone]

I believe these are all non-negotiables for Catholics.

Being non-negotiable, how would that affect someone’s vote? There have been Roman Catholic priests who have voted for candidates who want abortion to remain legal, although they might be personally opposed to it. There is Roman Catholic professor of Catholic theology who says she could vote for Sanders or Hillary.

 

[graciew]

[Crossbones;13818848]I don’t recall reading this in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. What is your source?

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-two.cfm

/ 63. …As the descriptions below indicate, some issues involve principles that can never be abandoned, such as the fundamental right to life and marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Others reflect our judgment about the best way to apply Catholic principles to policy issues. No summary could fully reflect the depth and details of the positions taken through the work of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). While people of good will may sometimes choose different ways to apply and act on some of our principles, ***Catholics cannot ignore their inescapable moral challenges or simply dismiss the Church’s guidance or policy directions that flow from these principles. ***For a more complete review of these policy directions and their moral foundations, see the statements listed at the end of this document.

Human Life
64. Our 1998 statement, Living the Gospel of Life, declares, "Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others" (no. 5). Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed. Cloning and destruction of human embryos for research or even for potential cures are always wrong. The purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is not an act of mercy, but an unjustifiable assault on human life. Genocide, torture, and the direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants in war or terrorist attacks are always wrong.

1. Laws that legitimize any of these practices are profoundly unjust and immoral. Our Conference supports laws and policies to protect human life to the maximum degree possible, including constitutional protection for the unborn and legislative efforts to end abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. We also promote a culture of life by supporting laws and programs that encourage childbirth and adoption over abortion and by addressing poverty, providing health care, and offering other assistance to pregnant women, children, and families

 

[Cathoholic]

meltzerboy. You said:

The emotional and perhaps physical agony of a rape victim is only intensified by a woman’s being forced to carry the baby of her attacker to term and subsequently care for the baby.

Your comment (used in the context of your opposition of Senator Cruz) is a straw man argument.

Nobody (except you) is saying a woman should be “forced” to “subsequently CARE for the baby”. Adoption is one alternative.

Your quote again (emphasis mine) . . .

The emotional and perhaps physical agony . . . is . . . intensified by a woman’s being forced to . . . subsequently care for the baby.

Also I think your assertion about, “the emotional and perhaps physical agony of a rape victim is only intensified” when the woman carries her baby is a partial truth.

There is a grain of truth to it to be sure. But it is not the FULLNESS of truth.

• You are ignoring the fact that by killing an innocent person, you ADD to the “the emotional and perhaps physical agony of a rape victim". (You are making matters worse by killing an innocent person. Even the idea of sometimes “favoring” killing an innocent person is harmful because ideas have consequences)
• You are also ignoring the fact that now you ADD to the disaster not only the killing of an innocent baby, but ALSO you compound the problem even further by Government approbation of killing of a subset of INNOCENT human beings.
• Likewise you are ignoring the societal ramifications of allowing innocent people to be killed based upon someone else’s arbitrary definition of personhood (they DENY the personhood of the unborn human).
• You also ignore that some women may feel this way for a while, and LATER (after the killing is done) REGRET killing their baby.
• You ignore too, that other women WANTED to kill their baby they were carrying, decided against it and were VERY relieved and happy later that they cooperated with the LIFE of their baby.
• You ignore that there are women who AFTER they have the baby, subsequently have “emotional and perhaps physical agony” of knowing that their kid IS alive! THEN they want the child killed. There ARE mothers who say to their kids: “I wish you no longer existed!”

Using the “meltzerboy motif”, if the mother feels this way about their two year old, then what? Well if you are going to be consistent with your own theory, then you have to kill the two-year-old child!

Now you are going to deny that. You are going to say you don’t favor that.

But so what.

What if someone else (like Peter Singer) says YOU are now wrong.

The mother has the “right” to “eliminate” the memory as much as possible. “She doesn’t want the kid possibly showing up at the door 18 years from now!”

Now what?

Granted killing the two-year old will not “eliminate” the memory totally, but neither will killing of the seven-month old conceived baby still in the womb “eliminate” the memory totally either.

• And you are ignoring the whole purpose of Government.

And I am saying we as a society can do better than this.

I am saying we can strive (including in our legal system) for NON-VIOLENT solutions!

Do I want “conservatives” to “win” the election? Of course.

But I am not intimidated by the threats of losing an election, over and above doing the right thing.

And saving innocent life IS the right thing.

That’s one of the main purposes of Government.

Why does Government even exist?

If you ascribe to an American way of thinking (I do, and I hope you do too) the whole purpose of Government is instituted for the securing of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Without Life, other “pursuits” are not possible.

. . . . the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted . . . .

(See the United States Declaration of Independence here).

• **Sanders **= Kill any unborn human that the mom wants killed for any reason
• **Clinton **= Kill any unborn human that the mom wants killed for any reason
• **Trump **= Kill any unborn human that the mom wants killed for any reason but only in the case of rape and incest
• **Kasich **= Kill any unborn human that the mom wants killed for any reason but only in the case of rape and incest
• Cruz = All men are created equal. These truths are self-evident. They are endowed by their creator with unalienable Rights (That means the Government can’t give these rights and the Government therefore can’t take AWAY these rights). Governments are instituted to secure the people with LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Unless something extremely out of the ordinary occurs, I will be supporting Senator Cruz this fall. I will be supporting America.

 

[Cathoholic]

lynnvinc. Hello. I am an “oily backer” here. (I understand the double meaning you are conveying here)

You said:

And anyone who really cares about life on planet earth will vote against him, since he is for abolishing environmental regulations (he talks about that more than the abortion issue) and is a staunch climate change denialist (as per his oily backers).

If you think the Global Warming agenda is merely about saving planet earth, you have not been reading all of the relevant information of what the IPCC is saying.

 

[SuperLuigi]

That’s surprisingly optimistic of you.

I think the Republican Party will continue to exist, but it could be a while till it is again robust enough to have a chance of putting someone in the WH, or having any majorities in Congress.

Only way I see Democrats taking back the House is if they show up in droves and vote that way “just because” like many of them evidently did in 2008 and 2012 with enough GOP voters staying home. They won’t because both remaining DNC candidates would have turnout issues either way.

Despite certain media claims, their chances aren’t as great as they sound in the Senate. For one, the GOP this time has the incumbent advantage. Johnson has gained about 10 points in Wisconsin making it a race, Kirk is running as a social liberal/overall moderate in IL, Toomey and Ayotte have had consistent leads and things look good for a GOP pick-up in NV and possibly CO. Arizona may prove to be a headache if GOP turnout is low.

It’s possible the Democrats don’t even gain in the Senate but lose a seat or two. If that happens, winning the House back is absolutely out of the question.

As long as Democrats insist on destructive policies and the culture of death, they will not be pulling decisively ahead anytime soon.

There’s a reason----other than the fact that Hillary is “owed” for all that “sacrifice” she made for the party by sticking with Bill after a scandal and during his time in AR instead of working for an elite firm in Boston, DC or NYC, as Rush would say—that it’s just her and Sanders and no other ethnic minorities running in the self-proclaimed party of diversity.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Being non-negotiable, how would that affect someone’s vote? There have been Roman Catholic priests who have voted for candidates who want abortion to remain legal, although they might be personally opposed to it. There is Roman Catholic professor of Catholic theology who says she could vote for Sanders or Hillary.

I am aware that some Catholic officials do this.

But calling oneself or someone else Catholic is not enough justification; formation of proper conscience is necessary.

The Vatican has made it crystal clear, even Pope Francis who is often portrayed as some kind of Western liberal, that abortion is not the same as the issues like the environment.

I’m not sure how much more clearly they can spell it out.