Ted Cruz Dropping Out of Republican Presidential Race

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monkey1976
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_J said:
Darrel Castle? Yeah, it’s sad really: I’m sure more people, by far, will want to vote Constitution Party this year than ever before … but we’re on the ballot in less than half of the states. 😦
Click to expand...
I suppose I can write him in.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Well, the good news is the Rep have 6-months to have Donald clarify his position the bad news is Hillary and Bernie won’t be changing their abortion position. 😦
Click to expand...
The problem is, no unborn child has ever been saved by a pro-life “position”.
 
If he’s elected president (which I don’t think could happen) and is unpopular continuously throughout his term, I think that would still be preferable in his mind to never being president. Though I could be wrong.
 
Peter_J said:
Heh. 😃

But seriously, something that’s been on mind a lot lately: do a lot of Republicans think that Sanders would be better than Clinton?
Click to expand...
That is interesting to me also. I’m not a Republican, so I have no (name removed by moderator)ut on that.
 
President George W. Bush was very pro-life. Donald J. Trump could implement the same pro-life policies as former President Bush:

President George W. Bush was VERY pro-life, even though the Democrats fought him every step of the way.

PRO-LIFE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
  1. Appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. The appointments resulted in the upholding of the federal partial-birth abortion ban by a 5-4 decision.
  2. Reinstituted the Mexico City Policy, begun by the Reagan Administration and reversed by the Clinton Administration (when Congress tried to reinstitute the policy, Clinton vetoed the bill), that bars foreign aid funding to groups that perform or advocate for abortions. In 2003, the Bush Administration expanded the Mexico City Policy to include not just funds dispensed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), but also the State Department.
  3. Discouraged advancement of pro-abortion legislation by announcing early in his administration that he would veto legislation that threatened pro-life policy.
  4. Signed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which made it a federal crime not to treat babies who survive abortion.
  5. Signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003.
  6. Signed Unborn Victims of Violence Act, recognizing the unborn child as a separate crime victim if injured or killed during an assault.
  7. Cut off all federal funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for its involvement in China’s one-child policy which includes forced abortion and sterilization. President Bush sent a fact-finding mission to China which found that the nation’s one-child policy was indeed coercive in nature and that the UNFPA was an integral part of implementing that policy, placing the UNFPA in clear violation of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment that prohibits any aid to any program that involves forced abortion or forced sterilization. Tens of millions of dollars that otherwise would have gone to the UNFPA were redirected to maternal and child health programs.
  8. Thwarted efforts at the United Nations to promote abortion by instructing U.S. delegates to state at every appropriate opportunity that America does not regard anything in any document before the U.N. to establish any international right to abortion.
  9. Issued Executive Order banning the use of new lines of embryonic stem cells in federally funded experiments. Later vetoed legislation passed by Congress to permit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
  10. Signed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which will fund research using umbilical cord and adult stem cells. The measure provides funding to increase the inventory of cord blood units available to match and treat patients and to link cord blood banks so that doctors have a single source to search for cord blood and bone marrow matches. It also reauthorizes the National Bone Marrow Registry.
  11. Launched public awareness of adoption campaign, working with the National Council for Adoption and pregnancy help centers across the country. The campaign sponsored conferences encouraging faith based communities to promote adoption and produced public service announcements featuring the First Lady urging the adoption of foster children.
  12. Established the first federal government and national website listing and showing children available for adoption across the country (www.AdoptUSKids.org).
  13. Increased the tax credit for adoption related expenses from $5,000 to $10,000; for special needs children, the credit was raised from $5,000 for qualified adoption related expenses to $10,000 for any adoption related expenses. This was done as part of the President’s tax relief bill.
  14. Annually declared Sanctity of Human Life Day.
  15. Issued a federal regulation allowing states to include unborn children in the federal/state S-CHIP program, which provides health insurance for children in poor families. This allowed states to include pre-natal care in the health insurance they offer to poor children under the program.
  16. The Bush Administration did what it could to stop assisted suicide from taking further hold in Oregon. The state of Oregon passed an assisted suicide law that allows doctors to prescribe federally controlled drugs in lethal amounts to certain of their patients who say they want to die. Federal law holds that federally controlled drugs may only be prescribed for legitimate medical purposes. During the Clinton Administration, Attorney General Janet Reno decreed that assisted suicide was a legitimate medical purpose in those states that permit it.
During the Bush Administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft changed that ruling, saying that assisted suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose, thereby barring doctors from prescribing lethal drugs. A lawsuit was filed and ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the drugs to be used for assisted suicide.
  1. Signed legislation making it possible for a federal court to hear whether Terri Schiavo’s constitutional rights had been violated by being denied hydration and nutrition.
  2. Dramatically increased funding for abstinence education through the Department of Health and Human Services, although Congress did not approve the full amount the Bush Administration requested.
 
Peter_J said:
Darrel Castle? Yeah, it’s sad really: I’m sure more people, by far, will want to vote Constitution Party this year than ever before … but we’re on the ballot in less than half of the states. 😦
Click to expand...
I would not vote for them. I was quite interested in them several years ago, but they did nothing in between presidential elections to raise themselves up as a real party. I was very disappointed by their lack of seriousness.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
President George W. Bush was very pro-life. Donald J. Trump could implement the same pro-life policies as former President Bush:

President George W. Bush was VERY pro-life, even though the Democrats fought him every step of the way.
Click to expand...
I kind of liked Bush, and the fact that I love Texas didn’t hurt anything. Trump could be as pro-life as Bush, but I live under no illusions that he would be. Bush was probably our most pro-life president.
 
St_Francis said:
I would not vote for them. I was quite interested in them several years ago, but they did nothing in between presidential elections to raise themselves up as a real party. I was very disappointed by their lack of seriousness.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

Personally I never bothered looking into them until this election cycle. Not that I thought the two party system was perfect mind you; but I never felt like it was a matter of choosing between “two evils”, however much I heard other people framing it in those terms.
 
Monkey1976 said:
No, but if we’ve got a choice between trying to fight a house fire with a garden hose or pouring gasoline on it, which one should we choose?
Click to expand...
If that analogy is true, then the answer is obvious. However, some of us see the problem of fighting the fire with gasoline or kerosene. In this case, letting it burn is best. Maybe we can start hosing down the neighboring houses now (the next elections) to slow the spread to other houses. This is why analogies like this do nothing be draw a picture one one’s thoughts. They really support nothing.

Some of us tried using a little water earlier in the fire, but the two parties have limited us to flammable options only.
 
pnewton said:
If that analogy is true, then the answer is obvious. However, some of us see the problem of fighting the fire with gasoline or kerosene. In this case, letting it burn is best. Maybe we can start hosing down the neighboring houses now (the next elections) to slow the spread to other houses. This is why analogies like this do nothing be draw a picture one one’s thoughts. They really support nothing.

Some of us tried using a little water earlier in the fire, but the two parties have limited us to flammable options only.
Click to expand...
Remind me: Which of the two major parties explicitly and enthusiastically enshrines opposition to any restrictions whatsoever on abortion into their statement of core principles?
 
Monkey1976 said:
Remind me: Which of the two major parties explicitly and enthusiastically enshrines opposition to any restrictions whatsoever on abortion into their statement of core principles?
Click to expand...
That is not a criteria relevant to me. Opposition to abortion is important, but all that garbage about enthusiasm and enshrinement is not relevant, as is the party platform, which is not actually on* any* ballot. If the Republican Party wanted to wave the flag of moral superiority, they have failed with this nomination. The Republicans will have to live with the result of their choice to go with rhetoric, money and nationalism over moral issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top