Who's surrendering?
Not Ted Cruz, not until Trump gets 1,237 delegates.
I'm sure that aggravates you but I can't help that.
Posted on 03/14/2016 6:37:48 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom
Candidates have been surveyed and rated by Illinois Citizens for Life with respect to pro-life issues (Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell research and related issues). [...] U = Unknown (Did not complete a survey [...] U - DONALD J. TRUMP (R)
(Excerpt) Read more at icl-life.com ...
"I am Pro-Choice"
"Even partial-birth Abortion?"
"Very Pro-Choice"
I know him better than I know you.
Trump has said he is pro-life. That’s good enough for me.
Even if somebody like Cruz were elected, and that’s a big if since he’s burned himself badly with the center of the party — he could never overturn Roe v. Wade, and he won’t be able to defund PP. That’s how weak Cruz is.
So you keep going single issue on a subject that is unlikely to be addressed in any presidency.
True.
But then again, so was Reagan.
Already two votes for Trump from this household.
L
The white flag of the PLINO flies again.
Single-Issue? ...where'd you get that from?
I will keep going single thread to defend Ted Cruz till it's time to defend Donald Trump.
Win the nomination and I'm all onboard.
That is a grossly misleading oversimplification. Reagan was staunchly pro-life for over a decade before becoming President.
From "Revisionist History: Misrepresenting President Ronald Reagan’s Abortion Record", LifeNews.com:
'In the 2005 book "Essential Ronald Reagan," writer Lee Edwards points out that Reagan felt duped into signing the measure because his legal advisors told him it would leave the vast majority of abortions illegal.
'He writes that Reagan came to "deeply" regret signing the bill.
'In a period before Roe v. Wade, Reagan didn’t have the advantage of knowing that abortion advocates and courts would misuse the health exception in the bill to allow virtually all abortions to become legal. That wasn’t Reagan’s intent at all, despite Creswell’s presentation of Reagan as an abortion advocate whom pro-life voters would distrust.
'Reagan’s most able biographer, Lou Cannon, writes that Reagan have never really grappled with the issue of abortion, but that he experienced regret as soon as 1968 over signing the bill.
'Reagan said that "those were awful weeks" when he realized the fallout from the legislation and that he would never have signed the bill if he had "been a more experienced governor."'
It's the cry of the PLINOs as they rally around the white flag of surrender.
He’s for Planned Parenthood (aka Baby Butcherhood). That’s why I voted for Cruz.
Who's surrendering?
Not Ted Cruz, not until Trump gets 1,237 delegates.
I'm sure that aggravates you but I can't help that.
It's up to Congress to defund PP. A Republican Congress will. All Cruz has to do is sign the bill. And he will.
A stupid comment. No president can overturn Roe v. Wade because it is a Supreme Court decision, not a congressional law. The only effect one could have is put pro-life people on the Supreme Court and Trump has already signaled he will put pro-abortion judges on the Supreme Court like his sister.
This and his backing of Planned Parenthood are enough to conclude he is no friend to pro-lifers on the issue.
Single-Issue? ...where'd you get that from?
It's the cry of the PLINOs as they rally around the white flag of surrender.
I've been around a while, but I don't know what PLINO is?
Pro-Life In Name Only (cf. RINO) - it's my own newly-minted coinage.
Who's surrendering?
Fhios.
Not Ted Cruz, not until Trump gets 1,237 delegates.
I'm sure that aggravates you
Opposite - it heartens me in my support for the only real conservative in the race: Cruz.
...pointing out Trumps "evolving" stance on abortion.
I thought I had made it clear by now that I'm harping only on Fhios and suchlike 'pro-life' surrenderists.
A stupid comment.
Such stupid comments are the stock in trade of the Pro-Life In Name Only surrenderists (along with gross distortions of Reagan's record, as has been shown in this thread).
There are dozens of examples where Trump demonstrated during this campaign that he does not think or approach problems in conservative terms let alone understand them and is unable to bring them up..
But views challanges in a very personal way that could reveal any core convictions he could have but clearly does not have. Nor any precongnition of issues what they are or how to deal with them. Which is why his campaign rhetoric and strategy and tactics has been based on personality not on problems and solutions or approaches to the direction the US must take.
From the campaign begining with the first debate. His legitimate battles with Fox and Kelly, and her misogyny complaint. Trump goes on CNN following the debate to complain about his treatment .Alas where he could have cited how the press abused Palin as well as other conservatives. Instead must personaly attack Kelly and brings up Kellys body functions thus confirms her assertions .
His prima donna style announcement to skip the debate because he’s the star of the show amd will not perform with second rate actors did not set well with Iowans or Americans generally. He lost Iowa.
Because the purposes of a debate is to advance discussions on the future of this country. Not some entertainment comedy venue. He viewed those debates as some sort of WWF match. He dragged them into the sewer.
Policy wise Trumps revealing exchange with campaign disrupter and un official spokesman for the Mexican government Jorge Ramos (Univision). who has dual citizenship, which should have but did not. Show any conviction about his pronouuncements about Mexico and its relationship with US.
Here Trump could have demanded to know from Ramos If he believes Mexico has legitimate claim to American territory. Then bring up Mexican treatment of illegals. Finally ask Jorge should the US permit land ownership when legal American retirees cannot own land in their own name or vote there. Then boot his buttocks out of there as has done to other campaign disrupters.Instead what does he do ? Kisses up to him and lets him go .
The way the Mexicans are treating Americans reciprocity should be the issue and would dump the quote hispanic unquote krap being passed on as a generic hispanic issue. When actually it is problemes created by the Mexican government which have gone unchallanged.
Then there is the issue where some UK politicians along with Islamists wanted to prevent Donald Trump from even visiting Britan . Here he would have been saluted if he did this.
Used the Brits expression to those phoneys; To Piss off, and WISE UP, pointing out the problems they are having there and chiding them for refusing to face reality.
Instead what did he do ? Threatens economic retailiation on a project golf course he has in Scotland.
What really sealed it for me was when Businessman deal maker Trump who also owns Goldman Sachs stock
http://www.freerepublic.com/focua/f-news/3386879/posts
While promoting a misrepresentarion of an opponents loan from a source he has investments in.
Here he sides with the GOPES, to get their endorsements and even advocates expanded mandated Ethanol. Because he thinks dumping this government mandated junk inro your gas tank will help him carry IOWA . Which also begs the question of Just how heavily invested is he in Ethanol ?
Apparently those prefering a candidate who marches away from key conservative principles that supports and wants more government mandates and subsidies especially for a product like enthanol which is a boon doggle means nothing to them. Well it does to me....and it should to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.