Posted on 04/22/2016 11:51:18 AM PDT by Mariner
Ted Cruz's campaign produced and released this attack ad overnight, after Donald Trump came out in favor of allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice, rather than the bathroom corresponding to their birth. The Cruz campaign has seized on this issue as a clear indicator that Donald Trump is "not a conservative."
"Leave it the way it is," Trump said. "There have been very few problems."
"Should a grown man pretending to be a woman be allowed to use the women's restroom?" asks the Cruz campaign, calling the bathroom issue "PC Nonsense that is destroying America."
"North Carolina, what they're going through with all the business that's leaving, all of the strife -- and this is on both sides. Leave it the way it is," Trump said at a town hall on NBC's 'Today Show' Thursday. "People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate."
Cruz has launched an extended media attack campaign against Trump on this issue, doing interviews with his two biggest media backers -- Glenn Beck and Mark Levin -- about the transgender issue Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
This is actually a winning issue for social conservatives legislatively, but it's too insignificant to change anyone's mind in the primary. Not when immigration policy, counterterrorism, gun rights and taxes are in play.
Unfortunately we're probably going to lose this one in the courts, which have proven utterly subservient to the gay agenda.
I’m sorry that I responded rudely too you, Bob. I’ve been a bit tense about this particular issue, and the primary in general.
I see that you and I have spoken in UFC threads, and I failed to realize that while talking with you in this thread.
I try to be extra respectful and courteous to fellow MMA fans always, so I have fallen short of my own standard in our conversation here. I’m sorry, I regret my bad manners to you.
“I think the whole thing is sick.”
“Transgender people should be able to use whatever bathroom they want, Donald Trump said Thursday.”
Do you agree with him?
So you don’t want to answer the question, yes of no?
no worries I res[ponded badly too- We’re just going to have to fundamentally disagree on this issue of bathrooms- which is fine-
Did you see the henderson fight the other night against the russian? Wow! Henderson was owned- But in henderson’s defense, the reason was due solely to the russian’s reach and take down defense- Was a pretty good fight- The russian rocked Henderson a few times-
I’m really kind of neutral on the matter. I support NC’s right to pass the law that they did, and I also support the spirit of the law.
I believe a state should be able to pass a law that it believes best serves its citizens. If a bunch of entertainers and sports organizations disagree with the law, screw ‘em, none of their business.
But I also believe another state should be able to pass a law that it believes best serves it citizens. if they think its best to let transgenders in, okay. Maybe that is the wrong decision to make, I’m not really sure, time will tell. I just don’t like the idea of outside forces dictating to people in a state hey you gotta do it like this or you’re a pariah.
Far as Benson goes, yep I saw it, the fight blew my mind.
I used to hate Benson. I though he was a boring decision fighter who always won a decision against fighters who I hoped would beat him.
But then after watching him in a number of fights, especially after he lost his belt, I began to see the heart the man has. That guys wings he has tattooed on his back have meaning. He is really something special. I have become a Smooth fan.
So I was hoping to see him win last night, but Dear God, he really picked one heck of a tough opponent.
That Russian totally outclassed Benson skill wise and physically. Just too big, too strong, too fast, and too good.
Nonetheless, Benson’s heart was right there to see. Can’t believe he went 5 rounds with the champ. That was impressive, even though he lost. I enjoyed watching.
I think Benson is going to be headed to lightweight. No way he can earn that WW title from the Russian I don’t think.
[[But then after watching him in a number of fights, especially after he lost his belt, I began to see the heart the man has.]]
Exactly- he reminds me a bit of Diaz- tremendous heart- (although diaz was more of a maDMan lol)
[[Nonetheless, Benson’s heart was right there to see. Can’t believe he went 5 rounds with the champ.]]
It was a pretty good fight- and i think lots of fans appreciated his heart in the match
[[No way he can earn that WW title from the Russian I don’t think.]]
He woudl defiantely need to get more aggressive- in the 4’th round I think it was, Ben began more agressive, and was scorign better- but then got too hesitant again, and htat’s when the Russian capitalized
When Ben did that kick toward the head while he was on the ground, even the russian appreciated the skill of that lol- gave him a high five- that was cool to see-
So DONALD TRUMP has no problem with making it easier for men to walk into bathrooms where there are females, including little girls?
Now that it’s evident that TRUMP is a politically-correct supporter of perversion, Trump supporters will make all kinds of weak excuses why it’s OK.
Yes... just like murder, rape, larceny, child abuse, etc., were all happening, despite the existence of laws against them. Amazing, I know... [/sarcasm]
Are you suggesting that any law which doesn't magically enact 100% compliance should be abolished? Quite the anarchist view, if so...
When abortion was illegal was is happening?
See above. Anarchy is a *bad* thing, by the way.
Like Apostle Paul said the law doesn’t contain the power to live it - and never will.
Oh, good grief! The most basic understanding of Scripture would tell anyone that St. Paul is talking about the MOSAIC LAW, in the context of what gains a person ETERNAL SALVATION. Apples and oranges, when comparing it to civil law and its attempts to regulate society. Surely you already know this?
“civil law and its attempts to regulate society”
Attempts. See, Paul is right.
St. Paul is talking about the MOSAIC LAW, regarding what can SAVE US. This topic is talking about CIVIL LAW, and how it's used for an ordered society. I'm not sure why you'd be confusing those two radically different things.
The end result is the same, because the principles at work are the same. You won’t live what’s not in your heart to live.
That’s why God said he would write his law in the hearts and minds of his people.
The end result is NOT the same, in the least. First of all, we're talking the idea that "works alone" (c.f. the Old Covenant) will not gain Heaven for anyone, not whether some political scheme will be honored. Secondly, civil law is for EVERYONE--believers and unbelievers, notorious sinners and great Saints. No sane person thinks that civil laws should be abolished because "we're now under grace"; St. Paul certainly didn't think that (read Romans 13--so long as a law is just, those who resist that law are defying God), and neither should you.
Think about it: are you seriously proposing that NO ONE follows the law due to threat of punishment (i.e. the law isn't "in their hearts", but they fear punishment)? If so, I'll have to ask what planet you're on, because Earth is quite different. Plenty of people follow civil laws because they dread punishment if they're caught breaking it. Yes, of course, one whose heart is converted doesn't NEED the law, since he will have no desire to BREAK the law... but then again: that's the very person who doesn't MIND the law being there (especially for the sake of the unbelievers, backsliders, and other poor sinners who fall out of weakness). You won’t live what’s not in your heart to live.
That's a generalization which, when applied to the civic arena as a whole, isn't true. Plenty of people obey civil law for non-altruistic reasons... and removal of those laws would be INSANE.
You are not getting the point and I’m not sure it’s worth the time to explain any more.
I stand by my comments.
Well, let me try again:
1) DO you believe that men (if they “identify” as women) should be allowed to use the public restrooms, locker rooms, saunas, and other undressing-places with women and girls? You obviously think that Cruz’s criticism of Trump on this point is “dumb”, but your only reasons have to do with enforceability... not with moral principles.
2) Given that you seem to be arguing in favor of “let them do what they want, since they’ll do it anyway, and it’s difficult to enforce”, are you in favor of ANY laws WHATSOEVER? I can’t think of any law that’s 100% effective or enforceable, so it can’t be simply that. If not, then do you realize that you’re an anarchist?
3) Don’t you see that laws have more purpose than just “catching every last offender”? They also DETER many people from breaking the law in the first place, and they also TEACH some otherwise clueless people that there might be something wrong with the illegal action in the first place.
4) You dodged my point re: sodomy, completely. Here’s my point, as another question: has the striking down of sodomy laws by SCOTUS in 2003 ENCOURAGED or DISCOURAGED sodomy? Do we have MORE of it in 2016, or LESS? Is it MORE openly encouraged and portrayed positively in the media and taught in the schools, or LESS?
You’re always free to beg off the conversation, of course...
Forgive me, but this is simply a stupid (and rather slimy) attempt to divide and conquer. Jim has gone on record REPEATEDLY as being willing to support either Cruz or Trump; in no way, shape or form did he ever suggest that he's blase about men using bathrooms with little girls, or that he approves of Trump giving it the green light. This sort of "we're a united front with Jim, and you're the outsider, so leave if you can't take it" is just a silly tantrum.
Honestly: why is it so very hard for some people to tell the difference between supporting/rejecting a CANDIDATE and supporting/rejecting something that candidate SAYS or DOES? The idea that we need to support and defend anything and everything that our favorite candidate says and does, for fear of "giving the other camp ammunition" is INSANE. I'm a Cruz supporter, but (for example) I was disgusted by the "voter shaming" approach that his campaign took in Iowa (with no disavowal by Cruz). I can't fathom why some Trump supporters can't still support Trump, while still saying that Trump's support of trans-whatevers using a public restroom of their choice is absolutely and phenomenally stupid, in addition to being morally bankrupt.
1)Enforceability is the problem.
2)I’m in favor of getting rid of the minimum drinking age.
3)Better to inspire morality than try to force through laws.
4)I don’t know if there is more or less sodomy.
Always better to deal with the true root cause problem instead of symptoms of the root cause problem.
So... how low a percentage of enforceability should a law have, before it's taken from the books? 50%? 10%? Anything less than 100%? It really sounds as if you're advocating a Jean-Jacques Rousseau-ian type of "remove all laws, and everything will be idyllic". Please tell me I'm mistaken!
2)I’m in favor of getting rid of the minimum drinking age.
With all due respect to LDS and other teetotalers, the drinking age is a matter for prudential judgment, not a moral absolute (like the prohibition against sodomy is, for example). Apples and oranges. The topic here is sexual perversion, and Trump's consent to allow it in public places where women once felt free to expect reasonable privacy from voyeurism of men (e.g. bathrooms, showers and locker rooms, etc.)
Better to inspire morality than try to force through laws. Those are the only two options? A police state, or else no laws at all? I don't think so. Why can't we have BOTH... and keep the laws on the books, at least for the sake of those who don't feel "sufficiently inspired" to avoid the immoral behavior, just yet?
I don’t know if there is more or less sodomy.
My point is that laws have a tendency to discourage that which they forbid (and punish), and encourage things which they permit. In this case, a public announcement that "the US Government allows anyone and everyone to marry whatever sex they like" (or to use whatever bathroom they like... I expect that's coming soon, especially with Scalia gone) really does have a tendency to encourage that behavior, since those who were previously wary of doing so out of fear of punishment, public shame, etc., have now gotten a pat on the back and a big, "Go get 'em, tiger!"
If you don't think that a public and official "green light to indulge in [x] which was previously forbidden", then I really don't know what to tell you... other than to ask you to look at (for example) the NUMBER of abortions in 1970, compared to 2016. Those who think that Roe v. Wade didn't affect things for the worse are simply delusional. The same principle applies, here... and we have ringside seats. It'd be great if Trump could recognize that... or care, or... something.
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.