Ted Cruz Dropping Out of Republican Presidential Race

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monkey1976
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
On that note I want to ask: does Donald Trump, once he’s the nominee, have power to change the GOP platform?
I don’t think a nominee does, but I don’t know about a president should that come to pass. I think only the RNC can change the platform, but I’m not positive. That said:

“Trump Says He Would ‘Absolutely’ Change GOP’s Abortion Platform”

"Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump asserted he would “absolutely” change the Republican Party’s platform opposing abortion — to ensure exceptions.

“Most recent Republican presidential nominees have opposed abortion but have made exceptions of for cases when the life of the mother might be at stake or if the unborn baby was conceived through rape or incest. However, since those past nominees haven’t sought to change the platform language, abortion opponents are now concerned about Trump’s rhetoric.”

theblaze.com/stories/2016/04/21/trump-says-he-would-absolutely-change-gops-abortion-platform/

lifesitenews.com/news/donald-trump-would-change-the-republican-party-platform-on-abortion-video

Note to posters who think Trump is pro-life: See, he is NOT pro-life, and he DOES advocate killing some living human beings. (This isn’t directed at you, Peter, I know you’re not the poster who said Trump was “absolutely pro-life.”)
 
“Trump Says He Would ‘Absolutely’ Change GOP’s Abortion Platform”
Indeed, it was that headline and similar ones that led me to ask.

I think that either:
  • The Donald is being misrepresented, or
  • He himself is exaggerating his rights and powers within the GOP
 
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.
In other words: Republicans aren’t sufficiently pro-life as defined by you, so it’s okay to vote for the party that’s virulently pro-abortion.
 
wow, it’s like voting for either King Herod or Pontius Pilate now.
 
In other words: Republicans aren’t sufficiently pro-life as defined by you, so it’s okay to vote for the party that’s virulently pro-abortion.
This is a terrible paraphrase. ** Of course **this is not what I said. Intellectual dishonesty, like loaded rhetoric, is not conducive to discussion. It may make for good shock radio, and be the mainstay of Trump’s popularity.

The presidential candidate runs on his own values, not a party platform. If the Republican Party on the whole valued life, Trump, the least pro-life candidate, would not be the nominee. He will not get my vote.

By the way, my definition of “pro-life” (which is** not **my single issue) is found here:

“… human life is a precious gift from God; that each person who receives this gift has responsibilities toward God, self and others; and that society, through its laws and social institutions, must protect and nurture human life at every stage of its existence.”

wwwmigrate.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/who-we-are.cfm

I would encourage everyone to revisit this guide in preparation for the upcoming election. My opinion is strictly mine, formed by my own conscience, based on my own understanding of Catholic moral teaching and understanding of social justice. Obviously, there are many facets to this issue. However, listening to God as he speaks through people and others of faith is of more value than all the debates, false promises and partisan rhetoric.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/
 
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.
Here is another horrible example:

Look up:

The Mistress of Disaster

/sure-why-not-clinton-crime-fund-taps-mistress-of-disaster-jamie-gorelick-as-defense-counsel

beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2015/06/sure-why-not-clinton-crime-fund-taps-mistress-of-disaster-jamie-gorelick-as-defense-counsel-3019426.html

Jamie Gorelick.

Gave us 9/11

Personally.

A friend from Australia emailed me … how could I forget … they in Australia know her as the Mistress of Disaster! And when I googled Mistress of Disaster, she shows up as “The Mistress of Disaster”.

She must be the only person on the whole planet to have that title to herself.

You know the word: transparency? Yes? Well, she is the opposite.

Personally wrote regulations that prevented our intelligence agencies from sharing information.

And she is a Big Time Clintonista.
 
Here is another horrible example:

Look up:

The Mistress of Disaster

/sure-why-not-clinton-crime-fund-taps-mistress-of-disaster-jamie-gorelick-as-defense-counsel

beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2015/06/sure-why-not-clinton-crime-fund-taps-mistress-of-disaster-jamie-gorelick-as-defense-counsel-3019426.html

Jamie Gorelick.

Gave us 9/11

Personally.

A friend from Australia emailed me … how could I forget … they in Australia know her as the Mistress of Disaster! And when I googled Mistress of Disaster, she shows up as “The Mistress of Disaster”.

She must be the only person on the whole planet to have that title to herself.

You know the word: transparency? Yes? Well, she is the opposite.

Personally wrote regulations that prevented our intelligence agencies from sharing information.

And she is a Big Time Clintonista.
But like on television commercials … BUT THERE’S MORE!!!

She lied under oath and gave us the Housing Disaster. Fannie and Freddie.

AND, LIKE THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING … she had to be hired by BP to pay $20 Billion.

AND, on the wrong side of the Duke Lacrosse Case.

And … NOW … she’s baa…ack!

americanthinker.com/articles/2008/09/mistress_of_disaster_jamie_gor.html
 
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.
Bill Clinton was an awful president. Terrible.

Look this up.

the_clintons_other_truly_bodacious_mine_boondoggle.html

americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/the_clintons_other_truly_bodacious_mine_boondoggle.html

Clinton SOLD [or gave] American coal to an Indonesian coal company. In return for foreign campaign contributions — totally illegal — Clinton locked up American coal, so that it could not be used to compete with Indonesian coal.

Seriously.

Very very bad.

articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/12/news/mn-11506

***]In her memoir, Living History, Hillary does not talk about the deal. Bill gives it a paragraph in his memoir, My Life. “My action was necessary to stop a large coal mine that would have fundamentally changed the character of the area,” said Clinton. “Most of the Utah officials were against it, but the land was priceless, and I thought the monument designation would bring in tourism income that over time would more than offset the loss of the mine.”

In a stroke of the pen, Clinton had handed the Riadys a monopoly on the world’s supply of low-sulfur coal. One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to connect the dots between Utah and Indonesia. The FBI had made the connection as well. Consider the following field notes from an FBI interview with Huang:

HUANG laughed in response to questions concerning J.RIADY’s interest in Utah coal restrictions. J. RIADY’s coal interests were minimal. Indonesia had significant infrastructure problems which prohibited the development of its coal resources.

Huang was lying. The Riadys had a powerful interest, and they would exploit it for all it was worth. In fact, at the Paiton plant, the price of the coal exceeded the price of the electricity produced. Each kilowatt generated drove the plant deeper into debt. Of course, this meant there were no profits, which meant Suharto’s family members did not have to pay back their up-front $50-million loan. If this plot sounds familiar, it is because it is nearly identical to that of Mel Brooks’s play and movie, The Producers.

PLN, the state Indonesian power company, caught the drift of the plot. In 1999, the company sued the Clinton administration. Its attorneys charged that U.S. officials knew the Paiton power plant contract to be awash in “corruption, collusion, and nepotism” from the beginning. In December of that year, an Indonesian court ruled in its favor. The PLN estimated that it had lost over $18 billion in total from Suharto corruption inside U.S. government-sponsored power plant contracts.

In September 1996, even if the media had been interested, Bill Clinton made his move too close to the election to allow for serious scrutiny. In April 2015, Hillary Clinton is much more exposed, much too early. If need be, her allies will bury her before it’s too late.

Read more: americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/the_clintons_other_truly_bodacious_mine_boondoggle.html#ixzz47ykotW4s
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
 
Bill Clinton was an awful president. Terrible.

Look this up.

the_clintons_other_truly_bodacious_mine_boondoggle.html

americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/the_clintons_other_truly_bodacious_mine_boondoggle.html

Clinton SOLD [r gave] American coal to an Indonesian coal company. In return for foreign campaign contributions — totally illegal — Clinton locked up American coal, so that it could not be used to compete with Indonesian coal.

Seriously.

Very very bad.

articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/12/news/mn-11506
Yet people can have the true facts smack them right in the face and still will deny any of it happened.:eek:
 
Here is another horrible example:
Look up:
The Mistress of Disaster
/sure-why-not-clinton-crime-fund-taps-mistress-of-disaster-jamie-gorelick-as-defense-counsel
beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2015/06/sure-why-not-clinton-crime-fund-taps-mistress-of-disaster-jamie-gorelick-as-defense-counsel-3019426.html

Jamie Gorelick.
Gave us 9/11
Personally.

A friend from Australia emailed me … how could I forget … they in Australia know her as the Mistress of Disaster! And when I googled Mistress of Disaster, she shows up as “The Mistress of Disaster”.
She must be the only person on the whole planet to have that title to herself.

You know the word: transparency? Yes? Well, she is the opposite.
Personally wrote regulations that prevented our intelligence agencies from sharing information.

And she is a Big Time Clintonista.

How true! and this comes back to bite big time: “Personally wrote regulations that prevented our intelligence agencies from sharing information.” Sort of takes the stuffing out of her pretense of not knowing “how to wipe a server”. “You mean like with a cloth?”

Let’s hear it from the Gruber stupids now.
 
This is a terrible paraphrase. ** Of course **this is not what I said. Intellectual dishonesty, like loaded rhetoric, is not conducive to discussion. It may make for good shock radio, and be the mainstay of Trump’s popularity.

The presidential candidate runs on his own values, not a party platform. If the Republican Party on the whole valued life, Trump, the least pro-life candidate, would not be the nominee. He will not get my vote.

By the way, my definition of “pro-life” (which is** not **my single issue) is found here:

“… human life is a precious gift from God; that each person who receives this gift has responsibilities toward God, self and others; and that society, through its laws and social institutions, must protect and nurture human life at every stage of its existence.”

wwwmigrate.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/who-we-are.cfm

I would encourage everyone to revisit this guide in preparation for the upcoming election. My opinion is strictly mine, formed by my own conscience, based on my own understanding of Catholic moral teaching and understanding of social justice. Obviously, there are many facets to this issue. However, listening to God as he speaks through people and others of faith is of more value than all the debates, false promises and partisan rhetoric.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/
Better late than never; but I wish mor people had read it before the GOP nominated Trump and handed Clinton practically a silver platter. 😦
 
Yet people can have the true facts smack them right in the face and still will deny any of it happened.:eek:
It’s a common progressive tactic. They especially like to do it when surrounded by their “friends” and family members nearby for the buddy support system.
 
So your saying your a democrat or just agree with their abortion position? :confused:
I am not a Democrat (I used to be, now I’m unaffiliated) and I do not agree with the Democratic position on abortion rights, or marriage. I am “left” on economic issues, environmental issues, gun “rights”, foreign policy and immigration, and “right” on issues like abortion and marriage.
 
Better late than never; but I wish mor people had read it before the GOP nominated Trump and handed Clinton practically a silver platter. 😦
I don’t count Trump out, Peter, and he hasn’t even won the nomination yet, though I’ll admit it seems all but signed, sealed, and delivered.

A lot can happen between May and November, but one thing is pretty certain: We are going to have a president who is very unpopular no matter which one wins.

“If only” Cruz had won Indiana and the GOP had a contested convention, who knows what might have happened?
 
Yet people can have the true facts smack them right in the face and still will deny any of it happened.:eek:
American Thinker is very, very right wing and would vilify anything the Clintons did. I can’t trust to accurately reports the facts.
 
I don’t count Trump out, Peter, and he hasn’t even won the nomination yet, though I’ll admit it seems all but signed, sealed, and delivered.

A lot can happen between May and November, but one thing is pretty certain: We are going to have a president who is very unpopular no matter which one wins.

“If only” Cruz had won Indiana and the GOP had a contested convention, who knows what might have happened?

“We are going to have a president…” Wait - on another thread you said you were not American. So there is no “we” there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top