Posted on 01/05/2016 7:30:56 AM PST by Zenjitsuman
Singing to the choir brother - far too many “evangelicals” aren’t what they purport to be while insisting that others follow in their “holy tracks”...
You're aware that persecute Bible-believing Christians in a lot of places in Mexico, right?
Curious isn’t it?
I read a lot of silliness on this board. Congratulations on the dumbest post of the day.
But it's early....
You progressives recoil at the prospect of a Christian candidate, don't you? No doubt you agree with the recent description here of Cruz as the "Christian Taliban."
As Cruz said last night on Fox, a few weeks ago they were all attacking Trump, and now they're all over him, which indicates something has changed.
I love it.
I don’t dispute what you say, but I will make the observation that it doesn’t seem to be generating much excitement in the South. Perhaps I’m not seeing it, but the only people I hear discussed are Trump, Hillary, Sanders, and somewhat surprisingly - Paul. Jindal on the rare occasions when he was mentioned only got eyerolls. Now he isn’t discussed at all. None of the pygmy horde is discussed at all. Not even Yeb.
Perhaps it is the circles I run in.
Cruz is much easier to make this issue than Trump.Abortion, abortion, abortion...With little more than lip service for decades it's politically beginning to wear a little thin.
I mean Muslims. But illegals in general are lawless, dishonest people.
Early in the primary season I see Cruz specifically targeting these two groups because they are large blocks of guaranteed primary voters. Cruz also successfully went after the Rand Paul libertarians, another block, just not as much as a sure thing as the evangelical and very conservative blocks.
Moving into the general, all of these groups automatically vote for Cruz over Clinton as well as the traditional Republican voters. Then it is a difference in strategies between Trump and Cruz.
Trump attempts to steal Democrats which, as a liberal on many issues, he will do as well as picking up disaffected Dems while having many on the right sitting out because Trump causes a deep hatred among many of his detractors. Cruz’ strategy will be more traditional and will seek to have a more energized base than the Democrats. Cruz voters show up and Hillary voters do not.
Both paths lead to a Republican victory. The far left will not turn out for Hillary. They despise her. Black and Hispanic men, as another poster pointed out to me a few days ago, will not vote for a woman. Another assertion I buy into.
Cruz needs the traditional battleground states to win against Hillary. Hillary needs the traditional battleground states to win against Trump.
I saw an article recently saying that at this point, Christians will settle for a President who does not HATE them. Trump at least tries to woo Christians. He speaks out against the persecution of Christians. We've had seven years of a President who never speaks positively of Christianity, but speaks positively of Islam. I don't think Christians have to have a President who preaches the gospel in every speech, but we'd like one who at least is on our side, doesn't downright insult us, and wants our votes. That's why it doesn't bother us that Trump has been married three times, etc.
Now I have some reasons to help explain my gut feeling.
Doesn't answer my Cruz Question, but it points to some possibilities.
ROTFLMAO! Now I've seen it all. Go ahead and review my entire post history over the past 14 years and then call me a Progressive, Newbie.
Of course I would never agree with such a detestable term. I respect Cruz immensely. But I have also worked on 6 GOP campaigns as a data guy. I can read internals, and know Cruz cannot beat Hillary. So I am backing Trump.
Goldman Sachs. (The same post Mrs Heidi Cruz holds)>>>>
she did resign i beleive but this is bad news to me. these are the people (including Corzine) that caused the meltdown to take over lehman and stearns.
LOL
Thanks for the best laugh of the day in rainy Wino Country.
Thanks for the info re the 7 Dayers. That background made Carson a no go for me.
Well, all the candidates are Christians (except Bernie Sanders), and montag and I are hardly what you would call progressives.
The problem is that the practice of ostentatiously quoting scripture and otherwise dog-whistling "true Christians" is poison at the ballot box.
I would ask you (and others) who will not vote for anyone who does not meet your somewhat idiosyncratic definition of being a Christian to point to one single statewide or national election where this has brought success. You are numerous enough to beat any Republican not to your liking in a close race, but you are nowhere near numerous enough to elect a dog catcher, much less a President.
And if your position is that voting for a "true Christian", win or lose, is a duty you owe the Lord, OK, I get that. But at least be honest and say, "Even though Ted Cruz is unelectable, I'm voting for him because the Lord commands it" so we know where you are coming from.
That's a really good effort at complete fabrication there, since I've never said anything remotely similar. I give you points for originality.
Honestly, I wouldn't expect any better from you. Your contempt for evangelical Christianity was evident with your recent "Jesusland" remark.
Go do yourself Dumb-0
You mean Mexicans???
You're aware that persecute Bible-believing Christians in a lot of places in Mexico, right?
You're aware that those Middle Eastern chrstians American conservatives support so fervently aren't "Bible-believing chrstians" either, right?
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.