Ted Cruz Dropping Out of Republican Presidential Race

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monkey1976
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In other words, because the fire brigade didn’t show up within 5 minutes, might as well let the house just burn down.

The point is that Republicans - at all levels - have listened to the pro-life movement, and have taken steps to at least reduce abortion. The Missouri personhood amendment? Republicans. The Texas requirement that doctors have admitting privileges? Republicans. The partial-birth ban? Republicans.

Now, do we encourage those who are at least making some progress against abortion, or do we toss it all in and hand over the reins to those who would undo every restriction while waiting for the planets to align just right so we can immediately bar all abortion at a single stroke?

Me, I don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Or even the disgruntled neighbor of the not-making-things-worse.
This isn’t about abandoning pro-life causes because they don’t go all the way, and it certainly isn’t about tarring genuinely pro-life Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter), it’s about recognizing that the Republican Party, or at least the Republican public, has presumably selected a pro-choice man as the nominee in spite of the Party platform. It can no longer be said with a straight face that a vote for the Republican Party is a vote for Life. A vote for certain Republican politicians is, and there are more pro-life Republicans than Democrats, but the Party is making it clear that the pro-life stance is optional.

How much longer before the pro-life stance becomes a liability? It happened in the Democratic Party, and if Trumps run so far is any indication then it appears that conservative social stances may become a liability in the Republican Party much sooner than we might have thought.

Peace and God bless!
 
Despite his personal peccadilloes, Bill Clinton presided over 8 good years for the USA. Most people remember his governance positively. I think this will help Hillary.
The fact that her husband was president is perhaps the closest thing to a “non negotiable” for me. I really can’t relate at all to voluntarily submitting to rule by one family. At least the Republican side had enough self respect to not nominate yet another Bush. I oppose both candidates, but I’m surprised that fewer people seem to experience the gut level revulsion I do at the prospect of seeing the most significant nation to ever defeat hereditary rule come crawling back to it by choice.
 
The fact that her husband was president is perhaps the closest thing to a “non negotiable” for me. I really can’t relate at all to voluntarily submitting to rule by one family. At least the Republican side had enough self respect to not nominate yet another Bush. I oppose both candidates, but I’m surprised that fewer people seem to experience the gut level revulsion I do at the prospect of seeing the most significant nation to ever defeat hereditary rule come crawling back to it by choice.
I’m 34 years old. In my lifetime these past few years have been the only time where a Clinton or Bush did not hold one of the top three positions of power in the country, and the break is only because Hillary is running for the top office.
 
Right now it’s impossible to know. But among some things that are not improbable could be:

-Suppose he was able to cajole or shame (and he’s not bad at shaming) congress into limiting all budgetary increases (except possibly defense, depending) to the inflation rate. That would have a huge effect on the deficit over just a few years. “Zero based budgeting plus” he could call it.

-Suppose he required that Mexican beef be grown and treated with the same standards as American beef, and tested to ensure it. In one year, the beef imports from Mexico have nearly quadrupled and the American prices have crashed. But no change in the cost at the store. Perhaps better, suppose he got congress to withdraw from NAFTA entirely and again allowed “place of origin” labels, or at least insisted on it as a condition of remaining with NAFTA. Consumers can’t now decide to buy relatively clean American beef in preference to chemical-laden Mexican beef. That would make a real difference to ranchers and grain producers.

-Suppose he simply tied American compliance with China’s “most favored nation” status to full access to Chinese markets. So, for example, Caterpillar could sell heavy machinery made in Moline to China instead of the same machinery required by China to be made in China.

-Suppose he simply ordered the EPA to back away from its restrictions on coal. Miners could go back to work. Machine manufacturers could sell mining equipment again. In my state, it would save every household $1500/year by one estimate. Probably true in others.

-Suppose he got a tariff passed by which agricultural products legally shipped here from other countries had to bear the cost of fighting illegal agricultural products shipped here from the same country. Mexico might actually have to get serious about fighting the drug cartels for once. While Mexico was getting that done, we could buy our winter strawberries from Chile. Might cost a little more, like Chilean grapes, but we could live with that.

-And he could order EPA to reverse WOTUS, which puts the army in charge of every farm pond and dry wash in the country. Want to clean out your pond? Gotta call the army first now and get its permission.

-And what about making psych, alcohol and drug treatment optional in health insurance instead of mandatory? He could do that with a stroke of the pen. And how about dismissing the suit against the Little Sisters of the Poor and making free abortifacients no longer a feature of Obamacare. It would save Americans a lot of money.

-And what if he declared a moratorium on new government buildings and ordered the sale of thousands of government buildings that are no longer in use?

-And, wonder of wonders, what if some departments’ budgets were actually cut?

-And what if he ordered the sale of all government lands the Clinton administration gobbled up?

-And with a stroke of the pen he could restore irrigation to a great deal of California, and put a lot of unemployed people back to work.

-And instead of throwing ever more money at gold-plated colleges and universities, he tied student loan amounts to the colleges’ thrift in spending money on teaching instead of lavish buildings, fountains, statuary and the like. And wonder of wonders, colleges were financially rewarded for bringing tuition down to affordable levels. That’s not absurd. At one time, most state colleges’ tuition was zero or very little.

Some of those things would require working it out with congress. Some wouldn’t. But if an unlearned person like me can come up with some things, how many more could someone effect if he had some sharp-eyed “green eyeshade boys” go through the budget?
In other words Congress would have to do things they haven’t been willing to do, New regulations would have to be passed by those nasty departments that people want to get rid of, and/or the President would have to make executive orders.

Since the last two are anathema to good Republicans, how will Trump make these things happen?
 
The fact that her husband was president is perhaps the closest thing to a “non negotiable” for me. I really can’t relate at all to voluntarily submitting to rule by one family. At least the Republican side had enough self respect to not nominate yet another Bush. I oppose both candidates, but I’m surprised that fewer people seem to experience the gut level revulsion I do at the prospect of seeing the most significant nation to ever defeat hereditary rule come crawling back to it by choice.
Eight years of Hillary and then can follow eight years of Chelsea.
 
Just a little thought: I said the other day that Clinton threads tend to go in odd directions. I guess I should modify that sentiment now, since the thread we are on was about Ted Cruz once upon a time.
 
The fact that her husband was president is perhaps the closest thing to a “non negotiable” for me. I really can’t relate at all to voluntarily submitting to rule by one family. At least the Republican side had enough self respect to not nominate yet another Bush. I oppose both candidates, but I’m surprised that fewer people seem to experience the gut level revulsion I do at the prospect of seeing the most significant nation to ever defeat hereditary rule come crawling back to it by choice.
This is a fair criticism - I was a little skeeved out myself when it seemed like we might have another Clinton-Bush contest going down.

But I have supported Hillary’s presidential aspirations for a very long time. Her life of public service and her intricate understanding of government from so many different angles has nothing to do with her last name and everything to do with her character.

I understand that it’s not popular to say in certain circles, but I trust her and she has earned that trust from me.
 
I hear a lot of folk taking about politicians who honour God. The only way any person honours God is to keep his Commandments.

1.Believe in God.
2.Do not worship anyone or anything except God; do not make, bow to, or worship an image or statue that is supposed to be God.
3.Do not take God’s name in vain.
4.Observe Sabbath, that means, rest on the seventh day.
5.Honor your parents.
6.Do not kill.
7.Do not commit adultery.
8.Do not steal.
9.Do not testify as a false witness.
10.Do not be jealous of anything someone else has.
Jesus goes on to add
11. Love God
12. Love your fellow human as much as you do yourself

Only politicians who follow these Commandments " honour God " I don’t know of a single one who does.
Execept Jesus didn’t add anything. He basically summed it up. And by the way #2 is the same as #1.
 
This is a fair criticism - I was a little skeeved out myself when it seemed like we might have another Clinton-Bush contest going down.

But I have supported Hillary’s presidential aspirations for a very long time. Her life of public service and her intricate understanding of government from so many different angles has nothing to do with her last name and everything to do with her character.

I understand that it’s not popular to say in certain circles, but I trust her and she has earned that trust from me.
I don’t trust women who set up their own private server network to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act and laws on government transparency, and then transmitted classified information on it in violation of federal law, all in the name of her own personal “convenience.”

If I had done that when I had access to classified information, I would be typing this from Fort Leavenworth.
 
No, you can’t. Legally speaking such a procedure is not an abortion, and wouldn’t be one under a “rape provision” either. That procedure is a high dose of contraceptives (which are legally available anyway) that prevent implantation of an embryo. They are not abortions under the law, regardless of what we might call them.
It depends on what law you are talking about. Are you talking about the law of man or are you talking about the .law of God. IMHO, the law of God takes precedence over the law of a man. And the law of God says that there is human life from the moment of conception. It does not say from the moment of implantation.
 
It depends on what law you are talking about. Are you talking about the law of man or are you talking about the .law of God. IMHO, the law of God takes precedence over the law of a man. And the law of God says that there is human life from the moment of conception. It does not say from the moment of implantation.
Seeing as we’re talking about U.S. law and Presidential candidates in this thread, I think it’s pretty clear that it is man’s law under consideration.

This isn’t a discussion about whether or not God’s Law should take precedence over man’s.

Peace and God bless!
 
Seeing as we’re talking about U.S. law and Presidential candidates in this thread, I think it’s pretty clear that it is man’s law under consideration.

This isn’t a discussion about whether or not God’s Law should take precedence over man’s.

Peace and God bless!
Well, IMHO, if there is a conflict between the law of God and the law of man, I personally would obey the law of God. And the law of God says that there is human life from the moment of conception. IMHO, any law of man that denies that would be in error and in conflict with the law of God and therefore is objectively null and void in reality and in truth. I don’t know why a Christian would place an erroneous law of man above the true law of God.
 
Bill was a great president. He did a lot for the country. After democrats got beat up in the midterms of 94, the man put his pride aside and became a moderate, working with Newt for the good of the people.

Bush meanwhile in 06, didn’t do that.

So I would say, Clinton was not a bad choice overall.
Bill was not a great president.

Bill Clinton did terrible damage to this country.

For example, China used to have their ICBM missiles blow up ALL THE TIME. So what did Bill do? He sent experts from Loral Corporation to go to China and fix the problems. And now … China’s ICBM missiles work perfectly. **Bill’s act put the United States in terrible danger. ** All he had to do was nothing.

For example, Bill Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden … all he had to do was to have some soldiers pick him up. Bill refused. And Bin Laden went on to destroy the World Trade Center and demolish the Pentagon building … and trigger the mess we are in now. One simple act would have prevented terrible results.

Many many examples.

Bill Clinton was a terrible President.
 
It’s not murder if it is a right in the case of rape. When someone is shot, or stabbed, or beaten, they go to the ER and receive treatment first. In some cases there is requirement to report, so the police show up and ask questions. The person is under no obligation to give clear details, or any details for that matter. It’s a fifth amendment issue as well as a patient confidentiality issue. Saying “I didn’t see their face” is a legitimate, and in fact likely scenario in a rape (in the rapes I’ve dealt with this is exactly the response the victim gave, even when it was clear that they knew who did it). It is also possible that the victim fears retaliation and doesn’t want to disclose more than vague information.

This is all in “best case scenario”. In practical reality the police are not going to be called to come every doctor’s office with a rape kit each time an abortion is requested. It is impractical and a violation of the victim to put them through more invasive procedures just to receive the treatment that is their right under the law. The first time a victim was forced or compelled against their will to testify or give a detailed statement the case would go up through the Courts and the Supreme Court, even a conservative one, would have to rule that this was a violation of their rights.

There is simply no scenario in which abortion for rape can be a right, but then also require that the rape be proven before the abortion is allowed.
Well, here’s the point which is imho wrong in your first sentence. The point isn’t contested here; “It’s not murder if it is a right in the case of rape”. Absolutely thats right but thats not my point. My point is, and right now today in many states that not reporting the rape itself is a crime. Follow now?

So you or I are raped. If we go to the hosp be it we “knew” who assaulted us or not or how emotionally difficult the situation is, which I concede, the crime was reported which then makes your first sentence correct; “It’s not murder if it is a right in the case of rape”.

Which is what the candidate contends and would absolutely be legal. But what we are saying is very different. We are suggesting anyone can walk in and claim rape which isn’t true.

So then, my point is if you or I do not go to the hosp and/or do not report the rape/assault to police then that in itself is a crime and today in many states. So in effect we would then be asking to perform a legal abortion extending from the crime of rape we never reported and cannot be verified. Thats not going to happen because the Dr would be performing an “illegal abortion” since the law would now exist and you or I already committed a crime not reporting the rape.

Thats my point. It doesn’t matter if we couldn’t ID or knew who the criminal was who committed the assault you or I already were either treated in the hosp or reported the assault already. So there is already verification when you or I show up and state we are seeking an abortion due to the reported incident. And yes the DNA is taken and on file just as today no difference really.
 
You are making the assumption that abortion will be criminalized .
Thats what the entire conversation about irishpatrick. We are discussing a rarely thought about point in this entire situation of “after” the candidate is elected and rape/incest/LotM becomes a reality meaning, abortion is illegal except for these limited exceptions. If abortion is illegal then its a crime.
 
The challenging dialogue you called a “fictional” “straw man” made up of “wild accusations”?
Not sure what your saying gracepoole in relation to…
But imho while I enjoy a challenging dialogue, which imho Ghosty presented one.
I’m sure you have a valid point but I’m not following.
 
You’re kidding here, right?

The day abortion is outlawed except in the case of rape, incest and LOM is the day those claims shoot through the roof.

I’m just going to assume you can’t imagine being a desperate pregnant woman. And if your name is really Gary Taylor, I can understand why your imagination might not extend to that situation.
Not following your thinking, I was there in the 60s and 70s. No I’m not kidding. We are talking about the very realistic concept that …
abortion is outlawed except in the case of rape, incest and LOM
From there your losing me. I don’t see what declaring my real name has to do with anything or what my verified life experience has to do with the reality of the situation we may be dealing or why you bought it up to begin with? However, you correctly state with rape/incest/LotM being the legal reasoning for abortion which we are discussing. Do I think people will have children then never intended to have? Yes I do but then again that happens today. Could there be other circumstances which lead to a legal abortion with this situation? I don’t know.

However, the entire dialogue extends from the point there is no difference in Clinton or Trump/John K with pro-choice. Obviously not true.

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top