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 ...
> “Iowa’s Vander Plaats and Rep. Steve King, but evangelical leaders nationally”
Iowa is not Vander whatever nor is it Steve King. McCain and Romney had such endorsements coming out their ears and they lost Iowa.
Janis Joplin f’d about 100 guys in a tent at Woodstock in 1969. Her big name did nothing to change what she was.
I don’t think notable Iowans such as Vander whoever and King mean a damn thing to what’s coming. And I don’t know what’s coming nor am I going to engage in wild hallucinations about ‘punting’ this or that.
Feel free to smoke whatever you’re smoking but please do it outside my posting sphere.
You would have a good point, IF I were a part of the “Cruz Squad.”
Check out my posting history, and you’ll find that my questions were sincere and that I have no candidate yet — just looking at all of them with a critical eye. They are running for a very powerful position, and we’ve all seen these last 7 years what harm an unvetted choice can do.
You apparently chose to jump on a bandwagon early. Fine. You’ll enjoy the ride more if you quit insulting those of us, like me, who are undecided. Your attitude doesn’t help your candidate.
His Kelo attitude really bothers me, too, as do the hateful comments from his supporters any time genuine discussion of Trump occurs. Frankly, it’s beginning to remind me of Obama supporters: if you question or disagree, you’re a racist.
I’ll be making up my mind in late February. I’ll vote for Trump if he gets the nomination, might vote for him in the primary if it seems best. I do wish he’d start acting more like the intelligent businessman he is.
I thought the insults and dumbed-down vocabulary schtick would have waned by now.
Ethanol doesn’t cost Taxpayers? BS
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/study_shows_tax_payers_subsidi.html
Iowa is not Vander whatever nor is it Steve King. McCain and Romney had such endorsements coming out their ears and they lost Iowa.
*********************
Just because I’m sure that a bright individual like yourself would want to be educated:
“Vander whatever” endorsed and campaigned for Huckabee in 2008 who beat McCain in Iowa; and “Vander whatever” endorsed and campaigned for Santorum in 2012 who beat Romney.
Incidentally, it is ironic that you should mention the troubled Janis Joplin who did have a HUGE name, poor soul committed suicide also.
Not to worry, pursuant to your request, I will certainly stay “outside your posting sphere”. Certainly, there’s nothing I could possibly share that might edify such a well informed poster as yourself.
Nitpicking.
<><><><><><><
Would it also be considered nitpicking to question Trump’s statement, and I quote, “I am an evangelical.”
If he had to explain that one he’d trip over his hair trying.
>> It seems Trump is providing the script for Hillary in the general <<
Can’t be repeated too often.
>> Some voters will think that Donald is the more traditional evangelical for whatever it’s worth <<
Trump’s religious affiliation has been with the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. -— an organization which is decidedly NOT evangelical.
But maybe he’s recently been born again into another denomination?
(Inquiring minds want to know.)
Lets put this in some prospective.
The 2012 major Republican presidential candidates who were big supporters for Iowa ethanol that many people here supported for President.
Rick Santorum
Mitt Romney
and Newt Gingrich.
There was no big whine and cry back then like now on FR when these guys were for rfs ethanol, but their names were not Donald J. Trump.
This was a very silly thing for Trump to say. I thought one of the aims of the Founders was getting rid of religious tests for public office. Certainly that was one of his two accomplishments Thomas Jefferson was proudest of.
Presbyterianism during Trump’s prime life was very evangelical. Today it is something else which in many instances is unrecognizable from its former self and perhaps from Christianity altogether.
The word evangelical has many meanings and connotations. The meaning I ascribe to it and intended in the above paragraph is found here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3371618/posts?page=154#154
I’ve been to every Iowa presidential year caucus starting 1972, mostly in the heart of farm country. Never met anyone who admitted choosing their candidate based on support for ethanol.
When you’re running for President and you find yourself in Iowa, the voters will ask you nonstop about your religious beliefs. It’s not Donald Trump that is volunteering his Christian heart, it’s the Iowa caucus that is tearing it out of him. He can’t ignore them, they are what will make or break him in Iowa.
That said, the Black Pastors who have met him several times at his offices in Manhattan have grilled him, tested him, looked at his heart. These pastors are no fools, I know a few and believe me, they can find out in a hurry if you are a real Christian or not. They spent hours in Trump’s office which tells me they tested Donald thoroughly. There was well over a hundred there to grill him. They came out very satisfied that he is the real deal. That’s enough evidence for me.
Follow the money. The ethanol subsidies were pushed and crafted by very large agricultural conglomerates many of whom operate in Iowa. You likely never had a chance to see the real power brokers behind the scenes but if you did you would see how they choose key people locally to push for others that they know will act positively on the subsidies they target.
For example, if Vander Platts or Steve King are wined and dined by such Ag representatives who offer to help create jobs in Iowa by backing certain preferred candidates, those persons and others will influence people not based on ethanol but based on other attributes such as the quality of their Christian faith and perception of benefits flowing from electing such people.
Who is the better Christian? That’s a judgment call left to the Lord. But on Earth, it can be marketed and scripted by those with the funds to penetrate the voter base. There you have it.
Ted Cruz is not backing ethanol subsidies because his oil backers don’t need it. But his Christian faith and the sincerity of it are attracting Iowa caucus goers. But if his backers said suddenly that ethanol was important to their businesses, then I think Ted would tell Iowa’s voters that ‘he would definitely look at it’ and help where he could, when asked about ethanol subsidies. And there’s nothing wrong with either approach. It’s just politics. Others, including Ted, would say it’s unprincipled for the federal government to intervene in the economy of a region, but that flies in the face of reality. Government will always use whatever tools are its disposal to promote and improve the quality of life in a region. Politics is all about deciding the order of the priority list.
Personally, I agree with Ted on ethanol but will vote for Donald because I believe Donald at age 69 and Ted at age 44 will make a fantastic ticket.
Fuel ethanol got it’s start because of the Arab oil embargoes and Peak Oil theory in the ‘70s. It was considered a matter of national security.
The closest thing to perpetual motion is a government program.
The goofy lie about it being ‘green’ was invented recently.
You’re right in that fuel ethanol is the concern of big corporations and donors, and not of typical Iowa voters.
Looks good no argument here.
Since you mentioned Steve King he has followed the money all the way to big oil trying to cut out his Iowa constituents.
Rep Steve King says this,
“The petroleum industry lobby is working towards a 100% petroleum mandate, ... Attacking the RFS is forcing Iowa farmers and the ethanol industry out of the competitive market. “
King has endorsed Cruz and I don’t see Cruz eschewing King’s endorsement. Oh no that’s not going to happen. Heh.
I hope it’s dead! Fingers crossed.
Thank you for your comments. I hadn’t looked into this one, so I was glad to read your perspective.
Yes, we see the overall picture the same way.
I was going down FR memory lane from the 2012 election. I came across this thread where you are prominently posting among others. It’s FR’s O’dark-30 article poster who we see all the time LoL, and who was pushing Ricky P. while going after Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich and lumping them all with Obama over Iowa. Can guess who? LoL. ;-)
Here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2828884/posts
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.