Posted on 12/11/2015 7:58:22 PM PST by ConservativeTeen
Real-estate mogul Donald Trump contrasted his own "evangelical" beliefs with US Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) religious beliefs at a Friday-night campaign rally.
"I am an evangelical. I'm a Christian. I'm a Presbyterian," Trump said, speaking in Des Moines, Iowa.
The Republican presidential front-runner then highlighted the fact that Cruz's father is Cuban.
"We're doing really well with the evangelicals," he continued. "And by the way, and again, I do like Ted Cruz, but not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba, in all fairness. It's true. Not a lot come out. But I like him nevertheless."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Is Trump supporting subsidies, or is he supporting the development and increased production of alternative fuels? I could be mistaken, but I heard no mention of “subsidies” in his response to the question of Ethanol.
I think his point was to take a swipe at Cruz’s evangelical strategy. It’s like, “hey, look at me, I’m an evangelical too,” albeit one who apparently hasn’t yet come to the foot of the cross in recognition of his sins.
The Cuba angle is, IMHO, to play on what he thinks is evangelical prejudice against Cuba. To me, it seems like he is someone who thinks like a liberal who plays up to what he thinks are conservative prejudices, throws out the red meat, threatens to run 3rd party, all calculated, again IMHO, to thwart a genuine conservative candidate from ever having a shot at the nomination. Kelo tells me who he really is. That so many professing conservatives here at FR do not seem the least bit interested in this and other revelations of his true character, blows me away.
[insert Picard face palm here]
Peace,
SR
Good choice. A fine state. Never been there, but they make some good AR’s.
As I said, you just don’t seem to be able to get off that movie. What is your fascination with that movie?
Did you see something in there that reminded you of yourself?
Tell us what it is and quit beating around the bush.
Was there a great sex scene you enjoyed or what?
Very strange...
Obama clearly stated he would stand with Muslims in time of crises and was a member of a black theologian community of marxism headed by jeremiah wright.
You are a nut.
At least Ted Cruz can speak coherently in English.
I thought Cruz was a Baptist? Enlighten me on this, please - Is there not a difference between Evangelicals and Baptists? And, also, is there not various denominations of Baptists?
You Protestants have so many divisions that I have lost count, and it is just confusing as all hell to know who is what and when!
Why make such a stupid statement, Donald?
I understand.
Yes, he barely made a comment but he did make a comment.
Please. I support Trump but that was a petty and stupid thing to say... cannot you even admit that?
I agree. But it could be the other way because the info was veiled. You don’t know nor do I, nor does it matter. Donald warned two weeks ago at rallies that he might have to go to war with Ted Cruz and this is Iowa we are speaking of, where Ted is doing well. So it’s not surprising that Donald would respond in a way that is more gentle than other responses.
Whether Cruz attacked or not, the information is out there and the Iowan evangelicals have the information whether it is good info or not.
Cruz questions Trump’s ‘judgment’. This is likely a false statement, but it doesn’t matter because it’s out there. If it is falsely attributed to Cruz, then Ted needs to step up and say it’s false. He did not do so and he refused to address it when asked. So it’s out there among the evangelical groups. Donald must address it in some fastion because he is talking to these evangelicals directly. So he draws a small distinction over an alleged attack.
In law, when allegations are made in declarations, they must be responded to. Whether the declaration substance is true, valid, relevant or not, it matters not. What matters is to respond to each and every allegation no matter what quality the allegation holds. That’s what you’re seeing here. Each allegation is viewed as an attack. It matters not if there is proof of the allegation, it must be responded to as if it was a genuine attack.
Trump knows what he’s doing. He could have tore into Cruz but he fired only warning shots. He announced in the press to Ted to tell him to his face that his judgment was suspect. Ted did not do so. The challenge in the press was not directed so much to Cruz as it was to the press who raised the issue. But Donald had to respond.
And when you think of it, Trump handled it masterfully. Here’s a press attack on Donald’s character that is attributed to Ted Cruz. Donald knows that Ted did not say it publically so the analysis is simple:
Either Ted said it.
Or Ted didn’t say it.
TELL ME TO MY FACE is the answer to the sneak attack. Come out in the open and show yourself, whether that ‘self’ is the press or Ted.
And then promote to the Iowans that your evangelical background is more traditionally arranged than that of Ted’s father, not because Ted is not a genuine evangelical (he is) but to impress upon the evangelicals a small distinction that reinforces your shared background with them.
All of the above is perfectly logical, masterful and appropriate. Ted is not damaged unless he damages himself, but he’s too smart for that. So the issue fades, Trump’s judgment is cleared, and a memory of his evangelical roots is created for Iowan evangelical caucus goers.
Have you see Ted’s immigraton plans from just two years ago.
That is a dangerous game for a Trump supporter to play. Look at Trump’s statements over the years on every topic under the sun and he has been on the liberal side every time at some point (barring the military, which he has always supported).
I don’t trust Trump the evangelical any more than I trust Trump the Republican or Trump the liberal Democrat, or Trump the independent. He has no convictions that he stands by. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have to change them so often.
Since you said that, I'm guessing that you have being lying all along. Figures a Trump supporter.
More importantly - Did Reagan kick the living crap out of the Musloids after they blew up the Marine barracks and killed 241 American soldiers in Beirut (1983)? We know the answer ... but, then, I guess Reagan was not “perfect” either (sigh).
“Protestant” was actually a term hung on the German evangelicals who were trying to preserve religious liberty in their cities. When an underling of the Holy Roman Empire reneged on a promise to stop persecuting the evangelicals, they protested. Their enemies started calling them the “Protestants,” and the name stuck. Now you know ... the rest of the story. :)
Peace,
SR
Your TDS is showing. Wear a slip next time, it really isn’t decent.
Dangerous game? LMAO
You folks have non-stop talked about the fact you can’t support a flip-flopper for over six months now.
And yet, that’s what you’re backing.
How does it fell to back a guy that is comfortable with McCain/Kennedy and the Gang of 8 plan just two years ago?
As I said, there was no plan for a pathway in there, but La Raza, MEChLa, the ACLU will be on that like white on rice.
There’s no way the SCOTUS will allow those green card holders to be treated differently.
“but not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba, in all fairness.”
I don’t think that’s incorrect, it’s a communist country. Stupid would be ‘none’ or ‘never’. ‘Not a lot’ is accurate and far from stupid unless you’re a Cruz diehard that can’t take it.
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.