Posted on 04/22/2016 7:42:39 AM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
The fate of the unborn is inextricably caught up in the fate of the born.
Do not thumb your nose at the latter and expect any effort at the former to be taken seriously.
Growing vegetables is pointless if you’re going to water them with Brawndo.
Then why are you here? Wouldn’t you be happier at another site? Because it is going to be Trump vs Hillary.
The Church (all of Christianity - Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) has opposed the killing of the unborn since it’s birth. It has taught against this evil doctrine since the beginning of the Church. This includes influencing politicians and voters to establish laws against the murder of the innocent.
It has only been recently that the evil has become so wide spread that it now allows for and even promotes the murder.
Nothing, since he said - just yesterday - he’d change the R platform on the issue.
> The difference between us is that I recognize the unborn as being alive.
There is no difference between us on that point.
The real difference between us is that I do not look to government to be their savior.
Sounds like justification to do nothing and that is not a position I am willing to take. Again, wickedness is seeing evil and doing nothing to stop it.
I don’t look to the government to be the savior either. I just want to stop the laws enacted by the government that enable evil by murdering the unborn.
In other words, you have to have a FIGHTER who WILL take the fight to his opponent. The Donald can do it.
Grammar police: ‘Intellectual’ and ‘Trump’ don’t belong in the same sentence.
No politician is going to stop abortion. That includes Ted.
Those two statements contradict each other.
Either you are looking for a government-based solution or you are not. Pick one.
My father: Total patriot, WWII vet, &TRUE t ithing Christian (yet owning only one suit with holes in the soles of his church shoes would say:
“You cannot legislate morality. I am NOT voting for a minister. God is the judge over each one of us. I votre for the person I can trust”
I trust Trump. Also, Trump’s naughty language does not bother me as my blue-collar principled father also used salty language. :D
The people that know him well are family, employees, or sychophants. That aside, when are we to assume he's true to his word?
Was it the time he said he was for universal healthcare, or repeal Obamacare?
How about when he criticized Romney's immigration plan in 2012, or should we believe his now?
Perhaps we should take his word when he said he identified as Democrat in 2004, or should we believe him now that he filed as a Republican candidate.
See if you can answer that without, "well, Cruz said....." because that's irrelevant.
You cannot answer rhetoric (name calling) with dialectics (fact-based search for the truth).
Rhetoric (”sexist, racist, anti-gay”) is just a punch in the face. The only productive response is to punch back twice as hard.
If you fall into dialectics (”democrats are the real racists”), you inspire only contempt, and your defeat is certain.
I fail to see how that addresses the question you asked.
“Because it is going to be Trump vs Hillary”
Nope. It’s Biden/Warren. A little bird told me.
You have a nasty streak of dishonesty.
It was a Townhall. The viewer/audience question was:
“Mr. Trump, please be specific. Tell us your views on LGBT, how you plan to be inclusive as president. Speak about North Carolina bathroom law in particular,"
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.