Quote:1. The authority is what ensures TPP is passed by lowering the required votes. He doesn't even have to vote for or against TPP for it to pass at this point. He supports TPP EXCEPT for the I/E banks, which is only a portion of TPP. He supports the rest. He gets his TPP without having his name on the vote for support. Good for him. Very calculating.

2. Not only gays, but Jews too apparently.

2a. http://www.christianpost.com/news/god-se...or-157697/

2b. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topofthet...story.html

3. He is against ethanol subsidies BECAUSE he is a big oil snake. Ethanol is bad for the oil and gas industries. The less efficient oil and gas is, the more it will sell. Ethanol is an enemy of big oil. I am not a supporter of Ethanol, but I am definitely not a supporter of big oil puppets.

 

Cruz's social conservative stance alone guarantees he could never win a general election.

 

2.  Backing your argument with a link to a blog with a bunch of annoying pop-ups doesn't help your case.  Linking to an OP-ED in the LA Times as you second "source" isn't exactly factual either (it's slightly above political blogs).  Also, faith should not be a part of the vetting process.  The thing is, both of your "sources" doesn't conclude that he is for or against anything.  The only thing that your "sources" kind of confirm is that certain people endorsed him and he accepted.

 

3.  Being against ethanol subsidies is not a bad thing.  Ethanol should go away since it's harmful to engines, especially 2 stroke engines (common in boat motors, weed eaters, chain saws, etc.).  Get rid of the subsidies, and the farmer is left to decide.  Grow (non-edible) corn for ethanol, or grow corn for consumption?  Ethanol is a failed "green alternative" to fossil fuels.  Why do you think that there are not as many "Flex Fuel" vehicles being manufactured today?

 

So let's take a look at some of the things that came up in the latest debate, such as Trump University and his alleged claim that the "grade" from the BBB was an A.  It looks to me like it was just a scam, and he lied about some of his "facts".  There is a class action lawsuit against him regarding this which he claims that he "could settle" right now.  If "settling" is an option, does that flag it as an honest business?  In my opinion, he is going to wait until a judgement comes out, he'll pay out the original money that many people lost, and will still be ahead because of where that money has been invested over the years.  In other words, he can "settle" and pay out the money that people wasted, and still make a profit.

 

The bottom line is, Trump is really no different in Hillary when it comes to honesty.

---