Trump v GOP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abynissa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gracepoole said:
Thanks for the compliment. :tiphat:

And of course it was a joke. But for those who’ve heard his rhetoric before from other, let’s say, world leaders, the response of those in the crowd and the visual symbolism of it is a tad on the nose.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, gracepoole, I take that back… At least we agree it was a joke.
 
Crossbones said:
In the Republican alternative universe,
Click to expand...
Anti-Republican rhetoric never gets old, does it?

😉
GaryTaylor said:
I’m exceedingly happy happy happy Mitt will be OK with this. 😉
Click to expand...
I’m happy that you’re happy. 👍 But I’d be happier if I could hear one – just one – good argument against having a thread about “Mitt”.

For crying out loud, we have a thread about the fact that Mike Huckabee’s daughter works for Trump. We have a thread about Jeff Sessions endorsing Donald Trump (God’s honest truth: I did not even know who Jeff Sessions was before he endorsed Trump). We have a thread about Donald Trump “musing” about Marco Rubio’s eligibility to run for president.
 
Thorolfr said:
In case you’ve forgotten, the agreement between the US and the Iraqi government which specified the date by which US troops were to withdraw from Iraq was negotiated by the Bush administration:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

It was the Iraqi government, the one we put in place, which refused to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement allowing US troops to stay longer.
Click to expand...
So, Obama’s own advisors and the General in charge of Iraqi operations, Lloyd Austin recommended against this.

So what are we doing in Afghanistan still? Weren’t we scheduled to leave there as well?
You don’t think they changed the agreement? Say it isn’t so!

So in one case, “oh, the agreement was done” but forget this other! Right!
 
Crossbones said:
In the Republican alternative universe, President Bush made that agreement knowing that it couldn’t be kept; the Iraq government really wanted us to stay which and the only reason they refused to give US troops immunity was to save face because they knew President Obama wanted them out and it was President Obama who single-handedly made the decision to cut and run.
Click to expand...
Seems were still in Afghanistan? So why was one agreement changed but not the other?
and it was President Obama who single-handedly made the decision to cut and run
Click to expand...
We have this right and the dire aftermath of that pull out.
 
Path_Finder said:
So, Obama’s own advisors and the General in charge of Iraqi operations, Lloyd Austin recommended against this.

So what are we doing in Afghanistan still? Weren’t we scheduled to leave there as well?
You don’t think they changed the agreement? Say it isn’t so!

So in one case, “oh, the agreement was done” but forget this other! Right!
Click to expand...
The Iraqi government refused to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement. Specifically, they refused to give US troops immunity from prosecution by Iraqi authorities. The US had no legal basis for remaining without a new agreement.

As for Afghanistan, they have agreed to let us stay. A new bilateral agreement was signed in 2014.
 
Tomdstone said:
Here’s exactly what it says:
“2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:”
It states that it is** morally obligatory to exercise the right to vote**.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the link I provided? The obligation to exercise the right to vote does not mean you are obligated to vote in every single race. Please read that link in my posting.
 
Thorolfr said:
If someone claims to be “pro-life” but allows abortion in cases not only of rape or incest or the health of the mother but also during the first five months of pregnancy, that’s not much different from the “pro-choice” position.
Click to expand...
But that’s not Trump, so what’s your point?
 
No president has the power under the Constitution to ban abortion after Roe v Wade.
It is the law of the land.
 
Thorolfr said:
Roe could be overturned if the right people were appointed to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
That is right. That is the role that a passionate pro-life president potentially could play.
And, it is why it is important that Republicans hold all potential presidential candidates feet to the fire and insist that they state that they are on board with the agenda.

But banning abortion is simply a non-starter for a president. It is a vacant promise.
 
Darryl1958 said:
That is right. That is the role that a passionate pro-life president potentially could play.
Click to expand...
But based on his statements so far, Trump doesn’t strike me as passionate pro-life candidate. That’s why I don’t understand why so many supposedly pro-life conservatives seem to be so enthusiastic about him.
 
Thorolfr said:
But based on his statements so far, Trump doesn’t strike me as passionate pro-life candidate. That’s why I don’t understand why so many supposedly pro-life conservatives seem to be so enthusiastic about him.
Click to expand...
How many “passionate” and “enthusiastic” Republicans have overturned Roe vs Wade. That would be exactly, none? Is this where the, “but” is injected into the conversation? I think its been all bs. Lies and bs. How about that… but? Isn’t that how the story goes that everything after but is bs? In 50 years exactly nothing has been done about Roe vs Wade. But lets be clear there is no better plan than this…
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said last month that Congress could “absolutely” criminalize all abortion by passing a law giving 14th Amendment protections to fetuses and zygotes, thus bypassing a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...
This represents the Republican presidential candidate’s strongest endorsement yet of the radical anti-choice “personhood” strategy, which, based on a questionable interpretation of Roe, holds that Congress can simply outlaw abortion by classifying fertilized eggs as persons under the law. If successful, personhood would outlaw nearly all abortions and could even criminalize certain types of birth control.
Click to expand...
Cruz made the comments in a November 25 interview with influential social conservative commentator Robert George as part of a series of candidate interviews that George is hosting on the the Catholic television network EWTN.
Click to expand...
After outlining the personhood strategy, George asked Cruz, “Do you believe that unborn babies are persons within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and, if so, will you call on Congress to use its authority under the 14th Amendment pursuant to Section Five, to protect the unborn? Or do you take the view, as some do, that we can’t do that until Roe v. Wade is overturned either by the court itself or by constitutional amendment? Where do you stand on that?”
Click to expand...
“Listen, absolutely yes,” Cruz responded.
Click to expand...
“I very much agree with the pope’s longstanding and prior popes’ before him longstanding call to protect every human life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death,” he added.
Click to expand...
“And we can do that by Congressional action without waiting for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade?” George asked.
Click to expand...
“Absolutely yes, under the 14th Amendment,” Cruz responded.
Click to expand...
rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-we-can-absolutely-outlaw-abortion-without-overturning-roe

First off whats not going to happen without exception is this…
that Congress could “absolutely” criminalize all abortion by passing a law giving 14th Amendment protections to fetuses and zygotes,
Click to expand...
See where it states “all”? Thats not going to happen. Thats a pipe dream and also the idea of reverting to pre Roe vs Wade status of illegal abortion butcher centers is abominable, so abortion cannot be completely outlawed. And thats the conversation Trump is indeed having.

Yes is can be mitigated, but not to the degree Ted is talking on EWTN and we certainly are not building a theocracy here though the Pope and Church stance is absolutely correct. There’s a path to be taken that extends to a higher ground and its not instant gratification in this period or social transition we are in today. You would talking about fundamentally changing America overnight. Would I personally agree with it? Of course in fact I’m good with a Theocracy also. But would we say the same if that theocracy was Islam. And further is that what we are all about and how realistic is the immediate installation of such a path? Thus enters Trump into the conversation who imho sees the complexity of the issue without the empty promises to appease you.
 
Darryl1958 said:
That is right. That is the role that a passionate pro-life president potentially could play.
And, it is why it is important that Republicans hold all potential presidential candidates feet to the fire and insist that they state that they are on board with the agenda.

But banning abortion is simply a non-starter for a president. It is a vacant promise.
Click to expand...
Right, and Trump is not a passionate pro-life candidate. He says himself he loves to negotiate. When someone negotiates do they bend on something they are passionate about or on something they really don’t care that much about?

This is why I doubt Trump would nominate a judge to the SC who believes in the sanctity of life.

It doesn’t seem so hard to connect the dots IMO.
 
Thorolfr said:
But based on his statements so far, Trump doesn’t strike me as passionate pro-life candidate. That’s why I don’t understand why so many supposedly pro-life conservatives seem to be so enthusiastic about him.
Click to expand...
👍
 
You know your quite welcome to honestly address ANY of my points right above. At this point I have to believe your not capable and simply have a illogical emotional conversation. Not rooted in factual reality at all. In fact I would suggest that would make you no different than the democrats. We are gonna have to work together out here for the good of the land.
 
GaryTaylor said:
How many “passionate” and “enthusiastic” Republicans have overturned Roe vs Wade. That would be exactly, none? Is this where the, “but” is injected into the conversation? I think its been all bs. Lies and bs. How about that… but? Isn’t that how the story goes that everything after but is bs? In 50 years exactly nothing has been done about Roe vs Wade. But lets be clear there is no better plan than this…

rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-we-can-absolutely-outlaw-abortion-without-overturning-roe

First off whats not going to happen without exception is this…

See where it states “all”? Thats not going to happen. Thats a pipe dream and also the idea of reverting to pre Roe vs Wade status of illegal abortion butcher centers is abominable, so abortion cannot be completely outlawed. And thats the conversation Trump is indeed having.

Yes is can be mitigated, but not to the degree Ted is talking on EWTN and we certainly are not building a theocracy here though the Pope and Church stance is absolutely correct. There’s a path to be taken that extends to a higher ground and its not instant gratification in this period or social transition we are in today. You would talking about fundamentally changing America overnight. Would I personally agree with it? Of course in fact I’m good with a Theocracy also. But would we say the same if that theocracy was Islam. And further is that what we are all about and how realistic is the immediate installation of such a path? Thus enters Trump into the conversation who imho sees the complexity of the issue without the empty promises to appease you.
Click to expand...
Can you give me the name of the passionate, enthusiastic pro-life president that we have ever had?
 
10gr8kids said:
Can you give me the name of the passionate, enthusiastic pro-life president that we have ever had?
Click to expand...
A question with a question doesn’t interest me. 😉 All my points stand, and do you know why? Because I was here BEFORE Roe vs Wade and AFTER Roe vs Wade and my thinking is rooted in factual reality.
 
Your not going to dictate theocracy to democrats overnight, thats not going to happen. What could happen is by large massive mitigation of hundreds of thousands of innocents via abortion and the unborn.

You would be no different than the democrats with that dictation of thinking. No different at all. Listen these are not bad people and we could mitigate this issue and work with these people while addressing the issues realistically. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top