Posted on 04/17/2016 2:02:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Look Ronaldus Maximus was a liberal Democrat for years. People change parties it happens. People tend to become more conservative as they grow older. Trump can win a general election and he wants to kick over the table and start a new game. We need to give him a chance to make something happen.
.
>> “Ronaldus Maximus was a liberal Democrat for years.” <<
Sorry, no.
He was a nominal Democrat for a while, but a conservative all of his life.
.
BS!
Heidi Cruz is in accounts, meaning serving the interest of their clientele.
>He was a nominal Democrat for a while, but a conservative all of his life.
His banning Guns and legalizing no fault divorce as California governor says otherwise.
.
What a pant-load!
Cruz is extremely popular in Colorado due to his having saved the Heller decision.
.
He didn’t ban guns.
>He didn’t ban guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
>The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill which repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill was crafted in response to members of the Black Panther party conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods while conducting what would later be termed copwatching. They garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2]
>Republicans in California supported increased gun control. California Governor Ronald Reagan was present when the protesters arrived and later commented that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” and that guns were a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.” [3]
.
No guns were banned and the carrying of loaded guns in public was ok until 3 years ago.
The second amendment is the right to bear arms (loaded guns). Reagan outlawed the exercise of that right in public. It's a massive constitutional violation. So, not entirely Conservative in as CA governor.
Not to mention signing a liberal abortion law also.
.
Sorry, no, the right to carry openly was strong in California until a group of statists forced the issue by bringing gangs carrying loaded weapons into small restaurants and coffee houses, causing the legislature to ban the open carrying of firearms.
That statute is hung up in court presently.
>Not to mention signing a liberal abortion law also.
I wasn’t aware of that.
Found a post on it if anyone’s interested:
http://www.lifenews.com/2008/03/11/nat-3790/
Thank you for taking the time to do the write up. People need the truth.
Did Sharron Angle ask Trump for money?
Then you don't understand John Galt either. Allow me to explain. I believe in a very limited federal government. Taking on responsibility for the welfare of people living in the streets should be left up to society. A society has many ways of taking responsibility for its citizens that do not involve government. And if the people of that society deem their local or even their state governments should become nanny states, then that society shall act accordingly. But a federal government should never ever take on that responsibility.
Throughout history, any attempts for a central government to take on this role have been met with abject failure. In our own country, tens of trillions of dollars have been spent to prevent people from dying in the streets, yet we have more people dying in the streets today than we did before the advent of the Great Society. And why? Because the responsibility that before was bestowed upon the members of that society have been taken away by that central government. Instead of being our brother's keeper, we now demand that the government do something to assuage our new indifference.
Charity at the point of a gun ceases to be charity. Instead it becomes something resented.
Your notion though, dies on the vine when one asks is that God's will?
Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
Matthew 25:34-36
That is Jesus' message to the individual - not to the Roman government.
That's not what I asked you. I asked you what 'two classes' you were talking about. Come on and let the dirty out.
Atlas Shrugged was a work of fiction and John Gault was a metaphor. We're not meant to be a Plutocracy -- which is the logical conclusion of it's theme. It has no place in this discussion.
But a federal government should never ever take on that responsibility.
That is not entirely correct as there is the General Welfare clause in the Constitution and there is a strong case can be made that healthcare falls within that scope.
Your argument is superficial, as superficial as an anarchist or perhaps you yearn for a plutocracy yourself? While Trumps position has a preponderance of law, philosophy and public approval.
You really need to branch out. I recommend reading up on the philosophy and modeling of society as presented by Vilfredo Pareto. Then perhaps you'll adopt a more mature opinion.
Cruz colluded with the CO RNC politicians who originally put forth a bill but then voted against it once Trump was the front runner, from all accounts, Cruz spearheaded the efforts to disenfranchise the Colorado primary voters and would not be surprised if one if not many of the disenfranchised voters filed a suit against the CO RNC and phone records, emails etc were requested in order to see if the Cruz campaign acted to disenfranchise voters.
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.