View Full Version : Ted Cruz for President 2016
Ted Cruz just announced he's running...
At first glance, he seems to be close to an ideal candidate for many M4C members and the larger gun owning public.
How does he hold up under close scrutiny? Thoughts?
http://youtu.be/YB_4Heb47d8
http://youtu.be/YB_4Heb47d8
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-23-15, 16:51
Rush had some interesting thoughts on the GOP candidate. People always find a reason to not totally back the conservative candidate. A personality quirk, a position not totally kosher, a statement that might put in doubt the second coming of Ronald Reagan. We snipe off as 'un-pure' all the conservative candidates and end up with McCain.....
Treat conservative candidates like you would your kids. Love them all equally, admit that they aren't perfect and hope that they all succeed. Let the MSM go after them with stupid stuff.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Ted_Cruz.htm
We could do worse. He's better than the last two retards we ran.
I find it interesting that we all thought that being a junior senator with no/limited executive experience made Obama unqualified. And we were right - to speak nothing about the whole "Birther" controversy. No we have roughly the same level of experience, and a foreign born national, and yet not a peep... Sorry, I'm not voting for Hilary or Ted. I want a governor or someone with a track record and a resume that is up to the rigors of the job.
As my old man once said "the only thing that being governor of Arkansas qualified you to be is governor of Georgia". One Clinton was enough.
Eurodriver
03-23-15, 18:28
Wow, Really? Never seen someone want a Career politician before!
I don't care what kind of experience a person has. In my opinion, having as little connection to Washington or government is best.
IMO, he will better serve the conservative cause as a Senator.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-23-15, 18:40
I find it interesting that we all thought that being a junior senator with no/limited executive experience made Obama unqualified. And we were right - to speak nothing about the whole "Birther" controversy. No we have roughly the same level of experience, and a foreign born national, and yet not a peep... Sorry, I'm not voting for Hilary or Ted. I want a governor or someone with a track record and a resume that is up to the rigors of the job.
As my old man once said "the only thing that being governor of Arkansas qualified you to be is governor of Georgia". One Clinton was enough.
I'm not saying that he is the best choice, I'm just saying that he is a metric-ass-load better than what we have.
If Ol' Ted is as good advancing a true conservative agenda as BHO has been pushing his looney progressive agenda- I'm all in.
All I'm saying is let's not tear down our own real conservatives. The left is great about getting candidates, no matter how flawed personally or intellectually, and moving incrementally. Look at gay marriage- which is now leading to transgender issue. Sure the right has been good at CCW, but if we weren't so strict on purity, we could have had SBRs and suppressors and not be worried about ammo.
I find it interesting that we all thought that being a junior senator with no/limited executive experience made Obama unqualified. And we were right - to speak nothing about the whole "Birther" controversy. No we have roughly the same level of experience, and a foreign born national, and yet not a peep... Sorry, I'm not voting for Hilary or Ted. I want a governor or someone with a track record and a resume that is up to the rigors of the job.
As my old man once said "the only thing that being governor of Arkansas qualified you to be is governor of Georgia". One Clinton was enough.
And yet...we could still easily do much, much worse.
Lack of political experience isn't what makes Obama one of the worst Presidents in history. Didn't realize he was born in Canada, I should know this stuff but doesn't that make him ineligible? Isn't that why Arnold can't run?
MountainRaven
03-23-15, 19:03
Who needs John Lennon, when you can have Ted Cruz?
The Ted Cruz/John Lennon Mashup You Never Knew You Wanted - PRI (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-23/ted-cruzjohn-lennon-mashup-you-never-knew-you-wanted)
And yet...we could still easily do much, much worse.
Lack of political experience isn't what makes Obama one of the worst Presidents in history. Didn't realize he was born in Canada, I should know this stuff but doesn't that make him ineligible? Isn't that why Arnold can't run?
I believe you have to be born an American citizen, not born inside the United States.
Arnie can't run because he wasn't born a US citizen.
He won't mobilize any more people than Romney did. If the GOP does not put forth someone more people feel is in line with their beliefs, GOP will lose yet again. His overt religiosity and speaking style (being the son of a minister) will turn off enough people to keep him from winning. I'd vote for him over Hillary, but that's not saying much. Maybe enough people would feel that way (anything but Hillary) but it not enough people had a "anyone but Obama" attitude last time, so I wouldn't bet on that one.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-23-15, 19:20
Who needs John Lennon, when you can have Ted Cruz?
The Ted Cruz/John Lennon Mashup You Never Knew You Wanted - PRI (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-23/ted-cruzjohn-lennon-mashup-you-never-knew-you-wanted)
That is moronic.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-23-15, 19:22
He won't mobilize any more people than Romney did. If the GOP does not put forth someone more people feel is in line with their beliefs, GOP will lose yet again. His overt religiosity and speaking style (being the son of a minister) will turn off enough people to keep him from winning. I'd vote for him over Hillary, but that's not saying much. Maybe enough people would feel that way (anything but Hillary) but it not enough people had a "anyone but Obama" attitude last time, so I wouldn't bet on that one.
You are saying his positions are no different than Romney? He isn't more conservative than Romney?
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
He qualifies just like the current douche canoe...
Mauser KAR98K
03-23-15, 20:15
He talked on Hannity's show today and they brought up an interesting point: evangelical Christians have not really showed up to vote in the last two presidential elections, more so with Romney. If that is the GOP's presumed base (not all of it), they are not catering to it. Cruz might be that key to get them back.
I like Cruz. He has been the boulder in the raging river that is the run away progressive agenda. He is just in the wrong spot to make a difference. With that, I'm not really enthused he put his hat in the ring. I do want a conservative governor to rake the POTUS spot, and I have more confidence with Walker than Cruz. Cruz would make an excellent VP to keep congress in line via the Speaker and the Majority leader. What I fear Cruz will do is divide the base conservative field that Bush could get the nomination.
In my opinion, we will be screwed in the primary if Rand puts in his hat. All three will divide the vote so much it will be like the last two elections, or even like the Wiemar Republic that got the Nazi Party a big seat ar the table, dividing the vote were tge conservatives split and the "moderate" got the most of the majority. If you were to add the conservative candidates votes togethet, they would have beat Romney in the primary if they all went to one candidate. What we honestly should be doing amongst ourselves is choosing the best canidate and writing to the others to NOT run. Right now, we need to beat the RHINOS.
His mother is an American citizen. So that qualifies him at least according to what I have read in regards to the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
And;
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Interestingly, the issue has never been decided by SCOTUS and two different Solicitor Generals have stated he is eligible.
And yet...we could still easily do much, much worse.
Lack of political experience isn't what makes Obama one of the worst Presidents in history. Didn't realize he was born in Canada, I should know this stuff but doesn't that make him ineligible? Isn't that why Arnold can't run?
Who needs John Lennon, when you can have Ted Cruz?
The Ted Cruz/John Lennon Mashup You Never Knew You Wanted - PRI (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-23/ted-cruzjohn-lennon-mashup-you-never-knew-you-wanted)
I believe you have to be born an American citizen, not born inside the United States.
Arnie can't run because he wasn't born a US citizen.
Ok, I'm up to speed. Basically the "birth" issue brought up by KTR03 was nonsense because Cruz was born to parents who were US citizens at the time.
Cruz's father is not a U.S citizen, he was born in Cuba. He later became a U.S. resident, which is curious because it's not the same as becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Ok, I'm up to speed. Basically the "birth" issue brought up by KTR03 was nonsense because Cruz was born to parents who were US citizens at the time.
Mauser KAR98K
03-23-15, 21:21
Ok, I'm up to speed. Basically the "birth" issue brought up by KTR03 was nonsense because Cruz was born to parents who were US citizens at the time.
Right. The question that was posed about Obama was when he was born, did his mother renounce her citizenship.
sevenhelmet
03-23-15, 21:22
I want to like Ted Cruz. I just... don't. I'm not completely sure why, other than I see him as yet another deeply polarizing figure, and I'm concerned that the GOP will have too many people vying for the nod next year to get a solid majority base.
I also remember Ted reading Dr. Freaking Seuss when he had the floor a year and a half ago just prior to the government shutdown. When the predictable shutdown happened, I ended up stuck away from my family on travel, not getting paid for 3 weeks, twiddling my thumbs while all those jerks in Congress chucked spears at each other over whose fault it was. I blame Boehner and Obama more than Cruz for that ridiculous farce, but that particular memory still pisses me off. I can't even read Dr. Seuss to my kids without thinking about it.
All that said, Cruz stands for a lot I can get behind. But he also has the religious close-mindedness that will cost him votes.
He won't mobilize any more people than Romney did. If the GOP does not put forth someone more people feel is in line with their beliefs, GOP will lose yet again. His overt religiosity and speaking style (being the son of a minister) will turn off enough people to keep him from winning. I'd vote for him over Hillary, but that's not saying much. Maybe enough people would feel that way (anything but Hillary) but it not enough people had a "anyone but Obama" attitude last time, so I wouldn't bet on that one.
Trying to pander to the popular vote is a losing game. The GOP has lost twice, no matter what "popular opinion" candidate the GOP runs, the Dems will always run someone with greater novelty (first black, first woman, first gay...) aspect and they will always make greater promises of "free stuff" knowing full well that any fiscal conservative cannot possibly attempt to compete with promises of "free stuff" and remain fiscally conservative.
That means the ONLY way the GOP can win is to run a fiscal conservative and the novelty aspect has to be about "rescuing the economy" and they will need an actual plan, not just stating they will try and fix the economy.
I agree, the religious stuff is a turn off for many Americans, but as much as I don't share his beliefs...I also don't share the "Islam is never the problem" beliefs of Obama and every Democratic candidate to follow.
All a GOP candidate needs to do to be successful is leave religious stuff at church where it belongs, and get the economy under control and stop spending. I'll vote for ANYONE willing to do that.
You are saying his positions are no different than Romney? He isn't more conservative than Romney?
No, I'm saying he wont mobilize any new voters to his side than Romney did.
The issue with Obama's mother was different. As I recall it had to do with her age and the fact that she had been living outside of the U.S., etc...
Right. The question that was posed about Obama was when he was born, did his mother renounce her citizenship.
sevenhelmet
03-23-15, 21:31
Dr. Seuss aside, at least Cruz is an American and a Texan. That's 1000x better than our current POTUS.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-23-15, 21:49
I want to like Ted Cruz. I just... don't. I'm not completely sure why, other than I see him as yet another deeply polarizing figure,
He is 'polarizing' because they told you he was polarizing. I had heard a lot about Ted Cruz before I actually listened to him- I think it was taking apart Fienstien in a committee hearing. He was articulate, reasoned, calm- the opposite of the impression you'd get hearing reports on the MSM about him.
I find Rand Paul to be a bit more than mildly annoying. He seems like someone that just doesn't listen.
SilverBullet432
03-23-15, 21:54
If he qualifies hes got my vote!
As long as the Republicans don't run Christie, or Bush as their candidate, I'm at least willing to listen to what these guys have to say.. If Bush, or Christie get the nod, Then, IMO the election's already over...The last thing this country needs is another Bush as president, and we damn sure don't need a Christie either!
I find it interesting that we all thought that being a junior senator with no/limited executive experience made Obama unqualified. And we were right - to speak nothing about the whole "Birther" controversy. No we have roughly the same level of experience, and a foreign born national, and yet not a peep... Sorry, I'm not voting for Hilary or Ted. I want a governor or someone with a track record and a resume that is up to the rigors of the job.
As my old man once said "the only thing that being governor of Arkansas qualified you to be is governor of Georgia". One Clinton was enough.
+1 on the experience issue. It seems that we rate our prospective POTUS candidates based largely on their ideological purity. I'm not so sure that this is the paramount trait for an executive. Sure, there are some fundamental principles that must be met, but the ability to deliver results shrinking government is what I crave.
Unfortunately the media controls many people who are not capable of independent thought and the coming elections will be no different.
He is 'polarizing' because they told you he was polarizing. I had heard a lot about Ted Cruz before I actually listened to him- I think it was taking apart Fienstien in a committee hearing. He was articulate, reasoned, calm- the opposite of the impression you'd get hearing reports on the MSM about him.
I find Rand Paul to be a bit more than mildly annoying. He seems like someone that just doesn't listen.
Right. The question that was posed about Obama was when he was born, did his mother renounce her citizenship.
I just assumed his mother was a french whore.
I'd vote for him
This. More than once too!
Averageman
03-24-15, 06:16
It is easy to push someone to the sidelines, discount them as polarizing and never give them full access to the media. Cruz has been the King of the sound bite, the media loves to pick him apart.
I'm just guessing though that when given an open forum and when being allowed to debate on his own merit, he has the skill to appeal to many more voters than we might think. The whole idea of Christianity being a turn off for some voters may be true, but how many people actually self identify as "Christian?"
What we have here is a minority candidate who very well may appeal to a larger audience, especially a minority audience looking for a vision of how to succeed in America.
You don't need to throw away conservative values to win, you need to present them in a more appealing manner.
I think you're looking at the GOP candidate here guys.
Eurodriver
03-24-15, 06:32
but how many people actually self identify as "Christian?"
Roughly 247,000,000 Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States
Mauser KAR98K
03-24-15, 07:30
This. More than once too!
"That's the Chicago way."
I'm stuck between he and Walker. I like Cruz's conservative positions but Walker has actually put similar positions to use and battled the left 3 times in the last 2-3 years. He has defeated Dem candidates each time and done it convincingly. Both of them on the same GOP ticket against the Dems would be nice.
Cruz's political statement has been aimed at satisfying us conservative Texans. He knows which buttons to push. I don't see him as a viable presidential candidate. Nor Jeb Bush, nor Rick Perry nor the fat guy from up North.
Averageman
03-24-15, 08:16
Roughly 247,000,000 Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States
I'm just thinking he may have a lot more going on than the Liberal Media wants to admit.
A palatable presentation of conservative values with a bit of faith mixed in with the message to these 247,000,000 folks might be just the ticket.
As we watch the socialist utopia's programs rattle, clank and hum before an eventual breakdown, some people are going to be looking at Obama as the guy who made fun of folks who held on to their religion, faith and guns and be a bit unhappy (ier) with the left and who they send up to represent them.
I think he's got a heck of a chance.
Eurodriver
03-24-15, 08:20
Cruz's political statement has been aimed at satisfying us conservative Texans. He knows which buttons to push. I don't see him as a viable presidential candidate. Nor Jeb Bush, nor Rick Perry nor the fat guy from up North.
I understand the sentiment. Who else do we have, though?
I like Wisconsin Governor's Walker.
As we watch the socialist utopia's programs rattle, clank and hum before an eventual breakdown, some people are going to be looking at Obama as the guy who made fun of folks who held on to their religion, faith and guns and be a bit unhappy (ier) with the left and who they send up to represent them.
I think he's got a heck of a chance.
I sure hope you're right.
BoringGuy45
03-24-15, 10:39
If the Democrats run Hillary, and I still think they will, they'll be making the same mistake the GOP made in 2008 and 2012: Running a candidate based on it being "their turn" rather than being the most electable. Obama was elected in 2008 because he was a rising star in the party, he didn't appear to be a Washington insider, and he was a powerful speaker with a vague message of "hope and change". The GOP ran McCain because he was in 2nd place in the 2000 primary, so it was his turn. In 2012, they ran Romney because it was HIS turn and they thought he was moderate to liberal enough to steal votes from slightly-left of center undecided voters. It looks like the roles may be reversed for 2016: The GOP has a number of rising stars such as Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Rand Paul waiting in the wings whereas the Dems are contemplating running people who need their "turn" such as Hillary and Biden. While they do have some other options such as Warren, O'Malley, and Cuomo, all I think are way too leftist for a country that is getting tired of the far left.
Cruz could be a good choice though. He hasn't had any major foot-in-mouth problems as of yet, and though he has some weird antics in the Senate, at least he's doing something other than voting "present". As long as the GOP doesn't nominate a nutcase right winger like Santorum or a RINO like Christie, they have a chance.
We are for Cruz here, Walker as a second choice at this time. My choice for a running mate if he is not stepping in would be Allen West.
brickboy240
03-24-15, 11:18
Cruz is wildly popular here and for good reason.
However, the RNC biggies have shown us many times that they are not really cool in the whole Tea Party movement or those that come from it. The RNC is run by establishment types that actually love big govt, endless wars and hate abortion and homos. They are not interested in reforming or making huge changes...especially if they are changes that will ruffle any feathers of have big media calling them bad names.
Cruz has several huge hurdles to overcome and I don't know if any good candidate can do this.
One is our terrible primary process. We basically allow two pretty liberal states pick our candidate. A candiate has to go to Iowa and kiss ass to the ethanol lobby then go to NH (which is basically a suburb of Boston) and again race to the middle. This is a terrible process and until it goes away...you will never see a Tea Party/Libertarian type get the nod from the RNC. I mean...do you know ANYONE that actually WANTED McCain or Romney?
Two is the RNC and establishment GOP. Many within the GOP establishment (like Karl Rove and Bill Kristol) are actively working to defeat any and all Tea party or Libertarian types from winning primaries. Rove has a whole PAC set up to do just that.
Three is big media. Cruz stands a good chance of being put in the position we found Palin in - playing gotcha with some media head. Why these candidates cannot see this trick coming, but it is like Lucy tricking Charlie Brown with the football if you ask me.
I like Cruz and would love to see him or someone like him get the nod but I also have to be realistic.
Cruz is wildly popular here and for good reason.
However, the RNC biggies have shown us many times that they are not really cool in the whole Tea Party movement or those that come from it. The RNC is run by establishment types that actually love big govt, endless wars and hate abortion and homos. They are not interested in reforming or making huge changes...especially if they are changes that will ruffle any feathers of have big media calling them bad names.
Cruz has several huge hurdles to overcome and I don't know if any good candidate can do this.
One is our terrible primary process. We basically allow two pretty liberal states pick our candidate. A candiate has to go to Iowa and kiss ass to the ethanol lobby then go to NH (which is basically a suburb of Boston) and again race to the middle. This is a terrible process and until it goes away...you will never see a Tea Party/Libertarian type get the nod from the RNC. I mean...do you know ANYONE that actually WANTED McCain or Romney?
Two is the RNC and establishment GOP. Many within the GOP establishment (like Karl Rove and Bill Kristol) are actively working to defeat any and all Tea party or Libertarian types from winning primaries. Rove has a whole PAC set up to do just that.
Three is big media. Cruz stands a good chance of being put in the position we found Palin in - playing gotcha with some media head. Why these candidates cannot see this trick coming, but it is like Lucy tricking Charlie Brown with the football if you ask me.
I like Cruz and would love to see him or someone like him get the nod but I also have to be realistic.
NH is not a suburb of Boston and a very different culture from MA. People from MA have moved to southern NH to save on taxes and costs, and bring their MA (really Boston) political views with them, but most of NH is nothing like MA and far more conservative than MA. See also:
http://www.redstate.com/2011/11/29/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-new-hampshire/
I like Cruz as a Senator. I do know a lot of people who consider themselves conservative who believe he is a kook and wouldn't vote for him even if they were being paid to do so. Americans in general are hypocrites. Liberal or conservative is irrelevant. They are fine with anything that doesn't impact them. When shit starts impacting them they cry foul like a bitch even if it's the right thing to do. Everything is hunky dorky so long as it's other people shit being taken away.
The republicans will NEVER run a true conservative; even if they knew he/she/it would win the election. If they did they would actually have topic their money where their mouths are. Something which isn't going to happen. NOBODY is going to scale back government. It's NOT in either parties best interest.
Cruz is wildly popular here and for good reason.
However, the RNC biggies have shown us many times that they are not really cool in the whole Tea Party movement or those that come from it. The RNC is run by establishment types that actually love big govt, endless wars and hate abortion and homos. They are not interested in reforming or making huge changes...especially if they are changes that will ruffle any feathers of have big media calling them bad names.
Cruz has several huge hurdles to overcome and I don't know if any good candidate can do this.
One is our terrible primary process. We basically allow two pretty liberal states pick our candidate. A candiate has to go to Iowa and kiss ass to the ethanol lobby then go to NH (which is basically a suburb of Boston) and again race to the middle. This is a terrible process and until it goes away...you will never see a Tea Party/Libertarian type get the nod from the RNC. I mean...do you know ANYONE that actually WANTED McCain or Romney?
Two is the RNC and establishment GOP. Many within the GOP establishment (like Karl Rove and Bill Kristol) are actively working to defeat any and all Tea party or Libertarian types from winning primaries. Rove has a whole PAC set up to do just that.
Three is big media. Cruz stands a good chance of being put in the position we found Palin in - playing gotcha with some media head. Why these candidates cannot see this trick coming, but it is like Lucy tricking Charlie Brown with the football if you ask me.
I like Cruz and would love to see him or someone like him get the nod but I also have to be realistic.
The primary "system" is a complete farce. If the truly red states wanted their interests served, they'd change their primary dates to match Iowa. The two parties don't want this, because they set this system up to serve the self interests of the establishment, not America.
So, discussing potential candidates, what does everyone think of Kasich? I don't have enough info on him yet to form an opinion.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/could-john-kasich-be-the-gops-secret-weapon-in-114430626841.html
brickboy240
03-24-15, 11:57
Why should states that don't produce very much get to choose the leaders for those that do?
Texas produces almost half the private sector jobs in the last few years but has basically zero say-so in picking the presidential candidates.
sevenhelmet
03-24-15, 12:05
I agree. How did Iowa get so damn important? Not that they don't produce, but it's nothing but fields of corn and the city of Des Moines.
I agree. How did Iowa get so damn important? Not that they don't produce, but it's nothing but fields of corn and the city of Des Moines.
Malleability? No one wants to take on a strong leader. They'd rather sidle up to someone impressionable and take them for a ride…
brickboy240
03-24-15, 12:30
All candidates go to Iowa and kiss the ring of the ethanol subsidy benefactors. They have to basically promise these people that the govt goodies involved in the ethanol biz will keep on coming. Some of these candidates have the gall to speak on and on about "self rreliance" and "cutting wasteful spending" all the while, making plans to keep the corn subsidy moving along.
This is just wrong and must stop.
Cruz would make a GREAT President. He's got a great background story (have you every heard how he GOT to the senate?), He's a SKILLED orator and he knows the law inside and out. He IS a citizen his mother was a naturally born US Citizen regardless of where HE was born at. His father was Cuban but gained US citizenship later. He appears to be clean with no skelatons; a wife and two children. He's about the only one who has put his job where his mouth is and actually walked the talk.
The problem is that the GOP is as scared of him as the Dems; and he has to get the GOP's nomination...and that's why he's got to think outside the box to beat the RINO machine. What he needs to do is team up NOW with some other conservatives, and run TOGETHER. Whether that be he and/or Scott Walker, Alan West, Trey Gowdy, etc. - they need to create a conservative DREAM TEAM and campaign TOGETHER that no other single candidate could touch. He's got to do something different, outside the box or he's toast before he ever announced....otherwise they'll just cancel each other out and the 'next in line' RINO will get the nomination (and lose).
brickboy240
03-24-15, 15:05
Ted Cruz beat a VERY well funded and backed RINO here in TX in the primaries to win the candidate spot before the election. It was a true David vs. Goliath story.
Cruz has been wildly popular and he has proven that he can beat well funded RINOs.
Can he beat the ones running the RNC? That we do not know....
KalashniKEV
03-24-15, 15:08
...they brought up an interesting point: evangelical Christians have not really showed up to vote in the last two presidential elections, more so with Romney.
Cruz might be that key to get them back.
This is a false narrative that gets sold every time the RNC loses.
There is always a group of extremists who claim that the candidate was not-extreme-enough, and that there is a huge crowd of voters who are just dying to see an extremist on the ticket and are willing to withhold their vote as punishment.
It's just made up. If you run a candidate who hates the gays, thinks we should raise a generation of bastards-in-baskets, and is worried that Harry Potter will turn their kids into Satanists, that will please a few hundred thousand people in trailers with AM radios and nobody else will vote for him.
They don't lose because they fail to get votes from the base... they lose because they don't get any votes from outside the base.
Right. The question that was posed about Obama was when he was born, did his mother renounce her citizenship.
Really?
That's the first time I've ever heard that.
If that's truly what it has to do with, then when did Ted Cruz stop being a Natural Born Canadian:
A) 2 years ago
B) 10 months ago
C) 3 weeks ago
D) 1 year ago
Answer: B
I don't see him as a viable presidential candidate. Nor Jeb Bush, nor Rick Perry nor the fat guy from up North.
All duds, indeed.
I don't know of any Republican candidate that can run against Hillary and win.
Am I missing something here? He is a constitutional lawyer that is also first term Senator; sound familiar?
I compleatly agree with this piece in the Journal - http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cruz-candidacy-1427151150
Cruz is wildly popular here and for good reason.
However, the RNC biggies have shown us many times that they are not really cool in the whole Tea Party movement or those that come from it. The RNC is run by establishment types that actually love big govt, endless wars and hate abortion and homos. They are not interested in reforming or making huge changes...especially if they are changes that will ruffle any feathers of have big media calling them bad names.
Cruz has several huge hurdles to overcome and I don't know if any good candidate can do this.
One is our terrible primary process. We basically allow two pretty liberal states pick our candidate. A candiate has to go to Iowa and kiss ass to the ethanol lobby then go to NH (which is basically a suburb of Boston) and again race to the middle. This is a terrible process and until it goes away...you will never see a Tea Party/Libertarian type get the nod from the RNC. I mean...do you know ANYONE that actually WANTED McCain or Romney?
Two is the RNC and establishment GOP. Many within the GOP establishment (like Karl Rove and Bill Kristol) are actively working to defeat any and all Tea party or Libertarian types from winning primaries. Rove has a whole PAC set up to do just that.
Three is big media. Cruz stands a good chance of being put in the position we found Palin in - playing gotcha with some media head. Why these candidates cannot see this trick coming, but it is like Lucy tricking Charlie Brown with the football if you ask me.
I like Cruz and would love to see him or someone like him get the nod but I also have to be realistic.
Amen to that. Our primary process sucks. All in one night and let the chips fall where they may.......of course we can't do that 'cause we just might end up with a Cruz and not allow big $$$ and the media to shape the Republican candidate.
I don't know of any Republican candidate that can run against Hillary and win.
Are you serious? What the hell makes Hillary so invincible?
Are you serious? What the hell makes Hillary so invincible?
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads19/theresasnuke1285209543510937501319132073.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads19/theresasnuke1285209543510937501319132073.jpg
Bwahahahahahaha, good Ol Hildawg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads19/theresasnuke1285209543510937501319132073.jpg
I remember when she was running against Obongo in 2008. Rush said on his radio show that the problem with Hillary was that she reminded most men of their ex-wife! Oh so true! :lol:
KalashniKEV
03-24-15, 19:06
Are you serious? What the hell makes Hillary so invincible?
She's definitely the front runner as of now. She has experience at the highest levels of government. She is ruthless and cunning and has waited 8 years to make her move. Wall Street gives her the thumbs up, big business finds her palatable, women will vote for her (yes, some women don't like her), minorities will vote for her, unions will vote for her...
She's just the most credible candidate with the greatest appeal to the largest number of voters.
Also, in order for her not to win the presidency, the Republicans have to actually beat her. That means they have to get more votes. I don't see anyone on the list of potential candidates that doesn't alienate big chunks of the electorate other than Jeb Bush or Rand Paul.
The "true conservative" mentioned earlier in this thread is rapidly becoming extinct. For one thing, hating the gays in 2015 is simply not OK. Denying climate change is no longer possible. Government mandated transvaginal ultrasound procedures are a big NO GO with a lot of folks.
The Democrats are also able to convince their followers to practice solidarity... and they are able to forgive mistakes rather than trashing their own people and burning them at the stake.
That's just the current snapshot of things...
Since when is true conservatism comparable to hating gays? It's one thing to say one does not support gay marriage on a personal level but it is something else entirely to postulate the marriage not be the business of the federal government.
Since when is true conservatism comparable to hating gays? It's one thing to say one does not support gay marriage on a personal level but it is something else entirely to postulate the marriage not be the business of the federal government.
That's quite a can O worms you're opening there, but I also agree with it. When the GOP goes back to its socially "liberal" and fiscally "conservative" roots, vs allowing the religious right to run the party, will it make real impact with more voters. Old school GOP would be closer to modern day Libertarian, which is more in line with my beliefs. I suspect many others feel exactly that way. The Dems did not win the last election as much as the GOP lost it. It was there's to win, and they blew it.
Mentioning Hilary as president is a joke in my eyes if the woman can't function with having 2 cells phones with 2 email addresses and then wanting the same woman to run the free world is laughable.
And as for our political system as a whole, it needs to be burned down and then we rebuild a functioning system upon the ruins of the old system.
Neither the GOP or the Dems can fix all of our issues because at the end of the day they are only looking out for themselves. And not looking beyond they're own living environment.
Now saying that given the choices we have I would vote GOP, because like politicians it's what suits me best.
We do not need forced voting but what we need is more voters who care about where the politicians stand on the votes they believe in rather than voting in someone based off skin color.
That's all this country needs is people that care to vote and people who believe in getting it right for themselves and their children.
Also I this this is a good idea:
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/03/24/7e8f61f74243202fadb148683a903d67.jpg
Mauser KAR98K
03-24-15, 20:06
She's definitely the front runner as of now. She has experience at the highest levels of government. She is ruthless and cunning and has waited 8 years to make her move. Wall Street gives her the thumbs up, big business finds her palatable, women will vote for her (yes, some women don't like her), minorities will vote for her, unions will vote for her...
She's just the most credible candidate with the greatest appeal to the largest number of voters.
Also, in order for her not to win the presidency, the Republicans have to actually beat her. That means they have to get more votes. I don't see anyone on the list of potential candidates that doesn't alienate big chunks of the electorate other than Jeb Bush or Rand Paul.
The "true conservative" mentioned earlier in this thread is rapidly becoming extinct. For one thing, hating the gays in 2015 is simply not OK. Denying climate change is no longer possible. Government mandated transvaginal ultrasound procedures are a big NO GO with a lot of folks.
The Democrats are also able to convince their followers to practice solidarity... and they are able to forgive mistakes rather than trashing their own people and burning them at the stake.
That's just the current snapshot of things...
So, the GOP should nominate Al Gore?
By your rational, not only should have Romney won, but so should have McCain as neither of them really brought up those issues much, yet Romney had fewer votes than McCain did going up against Obama after all the scandals, and on the hell if 2010 beating the Dems took.
It's because a lot of conservatives stayed home.
In 2008 I voted for Palin. I know a lot of other people did the same. IN 2012, I voted for Romney as I did not want another term of Obama. My first choice was Herman Cain.
KalashniKEV
03-24-15, 20:09
It's one thing to say one does not support gay marriage on a personal level but it is something else entirely to postulate the marriage not be the business of the federal government.
I believe that only Rand Paul is in favor of ending marriage licenses. Cruz is a guy without a day of service to his name who feels the need to opine on gays in the military and called the supreme court decision that paved the way for gay marriage "a tragedy."
It's a third rail issue- they can't... resist... not... touching it (similar to Dems on guns).
They could just say nothing and go with the status quo, but instead they feel the need to make impassioned arguments on the need to protect discriminatory practices in hiring, university admissions, legal/tax/inheritace/etc...
It's not OK anymore. Freedom and justice for ALL or else GTFO.
When the GOP goes back to its socially "liberal" and fiscally "conservative" roots, vs allowing the religious right to run the party, will it make real impact with more voters.
The Dems did not win the last election as much as the GOP lost it.
Exactly correct on both.
The majority of Americans are freedom loving folks. Anyone who can run on a socially political and fiscally conservative platform will have great appeal right out of the gate (then who knows what happens from there).
BHO in 2012 was the most vulnerable incumbent in a lifetime, perhaps ever. The GOP lost because they put up a pair of duds... and they have not developed any credible candidates since then.
The majority of Americans are freedom loving folks. Anyone who can run on a socially political and fiscally conservative platform will have great appeal right out of the gate (then who knows what happens from there).
BHO in 2012 was the most vulnerable incumbent in a lifetime, perhaps ever. The GOP lost because they put up a pair of duds... and they have not developed any credible candidates since then.
I completely agree with this.
I don't see Cruz having a chance. He will turn off the young and the money wants someone who can win. I don't think any of them think Cruz is the answer.
Phillygunguy
03-24-15, 20:42
I like Ted but none of this will matter, as long as the GOP nominates JEB and unfortunately he's got the name, and money, and even worse thats how Hillary wins
Mauser KAR98K
03-24-15, 20:58
I think a lot of you all are dismissing Scott Walker.
Walker has won three times in staying in office on a conservative stance in what had once been the state for modern liberalism. He just made a big union state become a right to work state. That is huge.
This is why I'm not really happy of Ted jumping in. I was very much hoping they would see Walker as the conservative with the moment to stop the GOP power yobs and defeat Bush.
The winning keys to not only getting the primary, but the general election, is repealing Obama care, securing the boarder, cut spending and taxes (for ****ing real this time), bring back privacy, bring back liberty, support of the neclear family, and to do it all whill benching Wall Street.
The last part is going to be tough as incorporatat ions have realized that the Democrat party has more of their interests in line than the GOP.
Phillygunguy
03-24-15, 22:33
I think a lot of you all are dismissing Scott Walker.
Walker has won three times in staying in office on a conservative stance in what had once been the state for modern liberalism. He just made a big union state become a right to work state. That is huge.
This is why I'm not really happy of Ted jumping in. I was very much hoping they would see Walker as the conservative with the moment to stop the GOP power yobs and defeat Bush.
The winning keys to not only getting the primary, but the general election, is repealing Obama care, securing the boarder, cut spending and taxes (for ****ing real this time), bring back privacy, bring back liberty, support of the neclear family, and to do it all whill benching Wall Street.
The last part is going to be tough as incorporatat ions have realized that the Democrat party has more of their interests in line than the GOP.
What's his take on immigration reform? Seems like he's a flip flopper
BoringGuy45
03-24-15, 23:27
What's his take on immigration reform? Seems like he's a flip flopper
But there's the problem. Everybody on the right finds ONE THING wrong with a guy and they throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've got bad news for everyone:
Ronald Reagan is dead.
Too many good candidates are thrown out by conservatives over single issues, paving the way for the endless stream of RINOs. In my opinion, there should only be a few make-or-break issues for conservatives to vote for, and at the end of the day, it should really be two things: Upholding the Bill of Rights in its entirety and being unafraid to aggressively defend our freedom against all enemies. Maybe Walker is a flip-flopper, maybe though, he just changed his mind when new information came to light. People should be allowed to do that. Anyone who claims to have held the same beliefs from birth to death and never changed their mind about anything is either crazy or a liar.
I want to hear what all of the potential candidates have to say. I will definitely vote for Cruz, if he gets the nomination, because I feel that he is genuine and a staunch supporter of the Constitution. I would really like to see these guys support each other and more importantly the "cause" throughout the nomination process, rather than sling mud.
Phillygunguy
03-25-15, 00:50
But there's the problem. Everybody on the right finds ONE THING wrong with a guy and they throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've got bad news for everyone:
Ronald Reagan is dead.
Too many good candidates are thrown out by conservatives over single issues, paving the way for the endless stream of RINOs. In my opinion, there should only be a few make-or-break issues for conservatives to vote for, and at the end of the day, it should really be two things: Upholding the Bill of Rights in its entirety and being unafraid to aggressively defend our freedom against all enemies. Maybe Walker is a flip-flopper, maybe though, he just changed his mind when new information came to light. People should be allowed to do that. Anyone who claims to have held the same beliefs from birth to death and never changed their mind about anything is either crazy or a liar.
I get that Reagan is dead. I get we won't ever have a guy like him either times are different, it's not the 80s. But candidates can't just pander to the Latino community by promising reform and expecting they are going to vote republican. They won't. In fact its insulting to the people who came here legally. Yes we need to include them, and every one else for that matter, but we have to stick to some conservative principles. People have to feel like they're included but not by promising free shit, that's the democrats job. Republicans make the mistake thinking about giving illegal immigrants citizenship and will give Hillary or Elizabeth Warren a free trip to the white house, along with endless supply of democrats.
I believe that only Rand Paul is in favor of ending marriage licenses. Cruz is a guy without a day of service to his name who feels the need to opine on gays in the military and called the supreme court decision that paved the way for gay marriage "a tragedy."
It's a third rail issue- they can't... resist... not... touching it (similar to Dems on guns).
They could just say nothing and go with the status quo, but instead they feel the need to make impassioned arguments on the need to protect discriminatory practices in hiring, university admissions, legal/tax/inheritace/etc...
It's not OK anymore. Freedom and justice for ALL or else GTFO.
Exactly correct on both.
The majority of Americans are freedom loving folks. Anyone who can run on a socially political and fiscally conservative platform will have great appeal right out of the gate (then who knows what happens from there).
BHO in 2012 was the most vulnerable incumbent in a lifetime, perhaps ever. The GOP lost because they put up a pair of duds... and they have not developed any credible candidates since then.
We are in complete agreement sir.
KalashniKEV
03-25-15, 10:03
I think a lot of you all are dismissing Scott Walker.
Scott Walker dismissed himself when he tried to get government inside the coochie.
Not to mention he's also Governor of a state that has probably knocked more than a few people off on a "Name all 50 States" challenge.
(I always forget about Minnesota)
By your rational, not only should have Romney won, but so should have McCain as neither of them really brought up those issues much, yet Romney had fewer votes than McCain did going up against Obama after all the scandals, and on the hell if 2010 beating the Dems took.
It's because a lot of conservatives stayed home.
In 2008 I voted for Palin.
McCain lost BECAUSE of Palin not in spite of Palin.
A moron espousing the things you believe in is still a moron, I think enough folks realized she was a train wreck to derail McCain.
I also planned to vote for Herman Cain, but I felt the allegations made against him were credible. Had he continued his campaign I wouldn't have voted for him in the primaries.
Ethically and morally corrupt is ethically and morally corrupt no matter what your platform is.
JMO
Cruz is about as close to a "true conservative" as you are going to get in a presidential election. My top three for the upcoming election are #1 Rand Paul...#2 Ted Cruz...#3 Scott Walker. I would be happy with any of the three but would prefer them in that order. Cruz is a giant leap forward in quality, in terms of conservative principles, compared to what we have ran the past two elections. I also like that he sticks to his principles no matter what. I don't get a real "presidential" vibe from him but I do like that he is actually a conservative. Rand Paul will be able to draw more from the swing voters and the Libertarians; lack of Libertarian voter turnout really hurt the GOP last election.
McCain lost BECAUSE of Palin not in spite of Palin.
McCain was a dud candidate, plain and simple. When he said that Obama was a "really good guy" the election was over. You can't paint someone as a Marxist and then start talking about how great a guy he is. Game over.
Cruz is about as close to a "true conservative" as you are going to get in a presidential election. My top three for the upcoming election are #1 Rand Paul...#2 Ted Cruz...#3 Scott Walker. I would be happy with any of the three but would prefer them in that order. Cruz is a giant leap forward in quality, in terms of conservative principles, compared to what we have ran the past two elections. I also like that he sticks to his principles no matter what. I don't get a real "presidential" vibe from him but I do like that he is actually a conservative. Rand Paul will be able to draw more from the swing voters and the Libertarians; lack of Libertarian voter turnout really hurt the GOP last election.
Cruz is professional politician
brickboy240
03-25-15, 11:54
...but still tons better than Jeb Bush!
..and tons better than Hildebeast.
I still doubt he will survive the primary system (along with Walker or Paul) because it is set up to favor a mushy moderate that the RNC heads love.
I am honestly convinced that Reagan was just a total fluke. Everyone loves to go, "..but look at Reagan.." and I just think his whole path was just some sort of fluke. it should have never happened.
Could lightning strike twice? Maybe, but there are tons more checks put in place to ensure that a real small govt, conservative does NOT get the nod from the RNC.
Cruz is professional politician
Yet he takes on establishment GOP'ers despite what it might mean for his career because he knows it is the right thing to do. Being a career politician only becomes a problem when you sell your soul and your principles. Cruz doesn't appear to have done that.
Yet he takes on establishment GOP'ers despite what it might mean for his career because he knows it is the right thing to do. Being a career politician only becomes a problem when you sell your soul and your principles. Cruz doesn't appear to have done that.
Yea, but that's his schtick. Thats how he has made a name for himself. I like the guy's views, I just don't trust him. He is way too slick and answers questions far too fast without thought. My BS meter is off the charts, plus he looks like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons.
I am sick of politicians that have never owned a business or done anything meaningful with his/her life other than go to law school and work on some campaigns. At least if you are a governor you had to run something, make hard choices and get judged on those decisions. We are a nation of laws but it seems like all the professional politicians are good at is working around the current laws and constitutional structure.
BuzzinSATX
03-25-15, 12:25
NH is not a suburb of Boston and a very different culture from MA. People from MA have moved to southern NH to save on taxes and costs, and bring their MA (really Boston) political views with them, but most of NH is nothing like MA and far more conservative than MA. See also:
http://www.redstate.com/2011/11/29/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-new-hampshire/
As someone who was born and raised in NH and left in 1982 (age 19) for a 28 year military career, I can tell you from my now distant POV, that NH is very close to being a very rural MA suburb. When I was a kid, Bill Loeb and the Manchester Union Leader was a strong voice for NH being a conservative state. I remember when John Sununu was governor, but his downfall was the endless money pit that was the Seabrook nuke plant. But seeing the election of people like Jean Shaheen and Kelly Ayotte, I cannot believe people still see NH as a Red State based on the way it used to be. Sure, some things are still conservative, and the transplanted "massholes" (it's a local term of endearment used by the natives, isn't it? LOL!) have kept most of the sales tax issues under wraps even while causing property taxes to surge. While I don't live there any more, I still visit friends and family (although most of my immediate family has moved to Maine...)
Just my view from a former Granite Stater who's now happy to be a Texan.
I voted for Cruz for Senator, and I'll support him (along with Walker) for President. Folks who say Cruz does not have the background for President may have a point as far as executive experience goes, but as far as understanding the US Constitution, he has few peers in our Nation, and that's the guy I want to be the next president.
BoringGuy45
03-25-15, 13:08
...but still tons better than Jeb Bush!
..and tons better than Hildebeast.
I still doubt he will survive the primary system (along with Walker or Paul) because it is set up to favor a mushy moderate that the RNC heads love.
If either party can be trusted with anything, it's to do whatever they think will win them an election. That's why the Dems ran Al Gore in 2000: Bill Clinton's administration was pretty consistently popular due to the good economy, and they believed Gore would be seen as a continuation of the Clinton administration. The GOP saw their base longing for the days of Reagan and Bush Sr., so they ran Bush Jr. In 2004, the Dems ran John Kerry because, despite the waning support for the Iraq War, people were gung ho about the military and concerned with the threat of terrorism. The Dems had Kerry, supposedly a "war hero". In 2008, the Dems run Obama as people were excited about the then-relatively unknown IL senator who also could finally break the racial barrier in the Oval Office. The GOP that year was seeing a swing to the left, so they ran the moderate McCain but with Palin to cater to the feminists and the conservative base. In 2012, the economy was in the crapper and the country was still trended a bit to the left, so the GOP ran a businessman who was socially liberal.
It's now 2015, people are getting sick of leftists, supposed moderates, and big government types. Every week it's a new proposal to ban this, regulate that, tax this, create a trillion dollar program for that. Most Americans are getting sick of being told that white people are racist simply for having the nerve to be white. People are sick of these hipsters who spent $200,000 to go to a private liberal arts college, major in something worthless like 18th Century Gay and Lesbian Poetry, then think it's Wall Street's fault that they can't get a job and have 200k in debt. People aren't buying the argument that it's cowardly to carry a gun, but brave to beg for your life while you call for other people with guns to protect you. Even if one does not entirely agree with the conservative philosophy, most people are sick of the big government and the absolute ridiculousness from the left. Right now, I think everyone is seeing that trend. The Dems are going to run someone who is going to appear more moderate, and the GOP is going to run someone who is less moderate and more conservative. Scott Walker, I think, will end up being it. Like Obama in 2008, he's not considered a Washington insider, he's somewhat unknown, and while he's conservative, he's not Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum.
If either party can be trusted with anything, it's to do whatever they think will win them an election. That's why the Dems ran Al Gore in 2000: Bill Clinton's administration was pretty consistently popular due to the good economy, and they believed Gore would be seen as a continuation of the Clinton administration. The GOP saw their base longing for the days of Reagan and Bush Sr., so they ran Bush Jr. In 2004, the Dems ran John Kerry because, despite the waning support for the Iraq War, people were gung ho about the military and concerned with the threat of terrorism. The Dems had Kerry, supposedly a "war hero". In 2008, the Dems run Obama as people were excited about the then-relatively unknown IL senator who also could finally break the racial barrier in the Oval Office. The GOP that year was seeing a swing to the left, so they ran the moderate McCain but with Palin to cater to the feminists and the conservative base. In 2012, the economy was in the crapper and the country was still trended a bit to the left, so the GOP ran a businessman who was socially liberal.
It's now 2015, people are getting sick of leftists, supposed moderates, and big government types. Every week it's a new proposal to ban this, regulate that, tax this, create a trillion dollar program for that. Most Americans are getting sick of being told that white people are racist simply for having the nerve to be white. People are sick of these hipsters who spent $200,000 to go to a private liberal arts college, major in something worthless like 18th Century Gay and Lesbian Poetry, then think it's Wall Street's fault that they can't get a job and have 200k in debt. People aren't buying the argument that it's cowardly to carry a gun, but brave to beg for your life while you call for other people with guns to protect you. Even if one does not entirely agree with the conservative philosophy, most people are sick of the big government and the absolute ridiculousness from the left. Right now, I think everyone is seeing that trend. The Dems are going to run someone who is going to appear more moderate, and the GOP is going to run someone who is less moderate and more conservative. Scott Walker, I think, will end up being it. Like Obama in 2008, he's not considered a Washington insider, he's somewhat unknown, and while he's conservative, he's not Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum.
Very well put Sir.
She's definitely the front runner as of now. She has experience at the highest levels of government. She is ruthless and cunning and has waited 8 years to make her move. Wall Street gives her the thumbs up, big business finds her palatable, women will vote for her (yes, some women don't like her), minorities will vote for her, unions will vote for her...
She's just the most credible candidate with the greatest appeal to the largest number of voters.
Also, in order for her not to win the presidency, the Republicans have to actually beat her. That means they have to get more votes. I don't see anyone on the list of potential candidates that doesn't alienate big chunks of the electorate other than Jeb Bush or Rand Paul.
The "true conservative" mentioned earlier in this thread is rapidly becoming extinct. For one thing, hating the gays in 2015 is simply not OK. Denying climate change is no longer possible. Government mandated transvaginal ultrasound procedures are a big NO GO with a lot of folks.
The Democrats are also able to convince their followers to practice solidarity... and they are able to forgive mistakes rather than trashing their own people and burning them at the stake.
That's just the current snapshot of things...
That's horseshit. You can't allow them to frame the debate, to speak as though something is a given and common knowledge. It isn't and global warming is bunk science.
As far as Jeb Bush goes he'd lose his ass 'cause he certainly would alienate a large enough chunk of his own party to fail in the general. I for one wouldn't vote for him, Christie, or Rubio. Just about anyone else, but definitely not those three.
I'd vote for Cruz over anyone but walker and Paul.
I wrote Cruz urging him to make walker or Paul his running mate, that would be a great team in the White House either way he chose.
I also urged him to stay out of the homosexual debate, abortion debate, religious debate and to frame the debate himself on what's ACTUALLY important in this country right no- pushing for a return to our constitutions true intent by strengthening ALL of our rights, fixing the broken economy, limiting and decreasing the federal government, increasing states rights and making the tough choices for the good of the people.
I told him he really needs to be a libertarian/conservative and not play to the middle if he wants votes.
I urge you all to write him and give him your opinions as well.
Just think of what this guy could get done with a republican majority in house and senate.
The guy really knows the constitution and has done very good things for Texas.
Email him and let him know what he needs to do to earn your vote if you are one of the ones saying you wouldn't vote for him.
If we get Christie or Bush we will be bent over and raped in 2016.
No way we can let this one go democrat. Just look at the last 6 years, my god this country can't survive another term of progressive dictatorship.
That's quite a can O worms you're opening there, but I also agree with it. When the GOP goes back to its socially "liberal" and fiscally "conservative" roots, vs allowing the religious right to run the party, will it make real impact with more voters. Old school GOP would be closer to modern day Libertarian, which is more in line with my beliefs. I suspect many others feel exactly that way. The Dems did not win the last election as much as the GOP lost it. It was there's to win, and they blew it.
I basically came here to write this exact paragraph. Needless to say, I agree with it.
MountainRaven
03-25-15, 20:29
That's horseshit. You can't allow them to frame the debate, to speak as though something is a given and common knowledge. It isn't and global warming is bunk science.
As far as Jeb Bush goes he'd lose his ass 'cause he certainly would alienate a large enough chunk of his own party to fail in the general. I for one wouldn't vote for him, Christie, or Rubio. Just about anyone else, but definitely not those three.
There are three countries on earth where a significant portion of the population doesn't believe that global climate change - or whatever it's being called this week - isn't happening, and the US leads the list by an enormous margin. (The other two countries are the UK and Australia.)
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that everybody else is wrong. But chances are pretty good, that when somebody like Neil deGrasse Tyson says something like, "When you say let's debate whether or not humans are influencing the climate, you are losing time for debating what to do in the face of that fact." (http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20150323/article/150329885?p=1&tc=pg) And, "The science is not political. That's like repealing gravity because you gained 10 pounds last week." (http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20150323/article/150329885?p=1&tc=pg) Well... I'm not saying that anybody's stupid or not particularly intelligent, but I think he has a better idea of what's involved in the science behind the theory of climate change than you do - and certainly more than I do.
All a GOP candidate needs to do to be successful is leave religious stuff at church where it belongs, and get the economy under control and stop spending. I'll vote for ANYONE willing to do that.
.. AND leave our guns alone.
.. AND leave our guns alone.
Amen!
KalashniKEV
03-25-15, 21:58
That's horseshit. You can't allow them to frame the debate...
In this case, the "debate" was framed by the extremists within the GOP.
Climate change is not a political issue... what, if anything, to do about it is.
It's OK to be opposed to cap and tax/ carbon credits. I'm sure most of us here on M4C are... but somewhere in the debate, someone whispered into the ear of a fool, "It's a HOAX!" and all the sheep started to baaaah! and you could watch the credibility slowly leave the room.
It's very similar, in fact, to the TEA Party... which used to stand for "Taxed Enough Already."
At some point during the time that the movement was starting to gather great momentum, someone whispered into the ear of a fool, "Fags is gunna BURN!" and again you saw the movement transformed to support the issues of the religious right, and again all credibility was gone in an instant.
I sometimes think it has to be Democrat saboteurs having fun, while stripping legitimacy from their adversaries...
There are three countries on earth where a significant portion of the population doesn't believe that global climate change - or whatever it's being called this week - isn't happening, and the US leads the list by an enormous margin. (The other two countries are the UK and Australia.)
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that everybody else is wrong. But chances are pretty good, that when somebody like Neil deGrasse Tyson says something like, "When you say let's debate whether or not humans are influencing the climate, you are losing time for debating what to do in the face of that fact." (http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20150323/article/150329885?p=1&tc=pg) And, "The science is not political. That's like repealing gravity because you gained 10 pounds last week." (http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20150323/article/150329885?p=1&tc=pg) Well... I'm not saying that anybody's stupid or not particularly intelligent, but I think he has a better idea of what's involved in the science behind the theory of climate change than you do - and certainly more than I do.
And there are a multitude of scientists who say it's horsehit, so Neil deGrasse Tyson can pound sand. How you can give him credit while discrediting others is beyond me. It's been proven the climate isn't warming (this past winter should be a good indicator) so then it had to be called "climate change". Yeah it's cyclic and shy of global nuclear warfare to suspect humans can influence it is ludicrous. There is so much counter evidence to every cockimamy argument they make (i.e. Arctic ice receding BUT Antarctic ice is growing) that for someone to actually buy what they're selling is naive at best.
The reason why the U.S. leads that list of the hoodwinked is because it's been inundated by the left for over a decade with this crap. That doesn't mean it's off limits for debate and certainly should never be viewed as a given in an argument. I have ZERO problem with Ted Cruz or any other (hopefully) conservative candidate refuting this blatant lie.
In this case, the "debate" was framed by the extremists within the GOP.
Climate change is not a political issue... what, if anything, to do about it is.
It's OK to be opposed to cap and tax/ carbon credits. I'm sure most of us here on M4C are... but somewhere in the debate, someone whispered into the ear of a fool, "It's a HOAX!" and all the sheep started to baaaah! and you could watch the credibility slowly leave the room.
It's very similar, in fact, to the TEA Party... which used to stand for "Taxed Enough Already."
At some point during the time that the movement was starting to gather great momentum, someone whispered into the ear of a fool, "Fags is gunna BURN!" and again you saw the movement transformed to support the issues of the religious right, and again all credibility was gone in an instant.
I sometimes think it has to be Democrat saboteurs having fun, while stripping legitimacy from their adversaries...
"Climate change" is cyclic and has been occurring throughout recorded history. The fact that the Earth is NOT warming currently is why their hoax had to be changed to "climate change". As I alluded to above to assume we insignificant (in the big planetary picture) humans can "fix" it is rather arrogantly overrating our impact.
I will add that the left's "fix" for their hoax suspiciously involves a redistribution of wealth and rearward movement of time so we can all live like it was 1920. Cap and Trade, green this and green that, Third World countries (and China no less!) getting exempted from the pain, etc. If someone can't see the obvious Leftward slant to their "remedies" then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya!
MountainRaven
03-25-15, 22:13
In this case, the "debate" was framed by the extremists within the GOP.
Climate change is not a political issue... what, if anything, to do about it is.
It's OK to be opposed to cap and tax/ carbon credits. I'm sure most of us here on M4C are... but somewhere in the debate, someone whispered into the ear of a fool, "It's a HOAX!" and all the sheep started to baaaah! and you could watch the credibility slowly leave the room.
It's very similar, in fact, to the TEA Party... which used to stand for "Taxed Enough Already."
At some point during the time that the movement was starting to gather great momentum, someone whispered into the ear of a fool, "Fags is gunna BURN!" and again you saw the movement transformed to support the issues of the religious right, and again all credibility was gone in an instant.
I sometimes think it has to be Democrat saboteurs having fun, while stripping legitimacy from their adversaries...
I blame the Koch Brothers.
And there are a multitude of scientists who say it's horsehit, so Neil deGrasse Tyson can pound sand. How you can give him credit while discrediting others is beyond me. It's been proven the climate isn't warming (this past winter should be a good indicator) so then it had to be called "climate change". Yeah it's cyclic and shy of global nuclear warfare to suspect humans can influence it is ludicrous. There is so much counter evidence to every cockimamy argument they make (i.e. Arctic ice receding BUT Antarctic ice is growing) that for someone to actually buy what they're selling is naive at best.
The reason why the U.S. leads that list of the hoodwinked is because it's been inundated by the left for over a decade with this crap. That doesn't mean it's off limits for debate and certainly should never be viewed as a given in an argument. I have ZERO problem with Ted Cruz or any other (hopefully) conservative candidate refuting this blatant lie.
I'm not overly concerned about being perceived as discrediting three percent (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) of the scientific community.
The great thing about science is that it doesn't cease to operate just because you don't believe in it.
I blame the Koch Brothers.
I'm not overly concerned about being perceived as discrediting three percent (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) of the scientific community.
The great thing about science is that it doesn't cease to operate just because you don't believe in it.
It's much more than 3%. Put down the Sierra Club literature and take the blinders off. NASA is a .gov entity.....what the hell do you think they're going to say?
MountainRaven
03-25-15, 22:22
It's much more than 3%. Put down the Sierra Club literature and take the blinders off. NASA is a .gov entity.....what the hell do you think they're going to say?
Whatever Ted Cruz tells them to?
SeriousStudent
03-25-15, 22:55
Everybody calm down, please. The thread is about Ted Cruz, not global warming or the Easter Bunny or anything else.
It's a long time until the primaries, and even longer until the election. So let's just breath and relax, shall we?
Thanks muchly.
In this case, the "debate" was framed by the extremists within the GOP.
Climate change is not a political issue... what, if anything, to do about it is.
It's OK to be opposed to cap and tax/ carbon credits. I'm sure most of us here on M4C are... but somewhere in the debate, someone whispered into the ear of a fool, "It's a HOAX!" and all the sheep started to baaaah! and you could watch the credibility slowly leave the room.
It's very similar, in fact, to the TEA Party... which used to stand for "Taxed Enough Already."
At some point during the time that the movement was starting to gather great momentum, someone whispered into the ear of a fool, "Fags is gunna BURN!" and again you saw the movement transformed to support the issues of the religious right, and again all credibility was gone in an instant.
I sometimes think it has to be Democrat saboteurs having fun, while stripping legitimacy from their adversaries...
You know the problem with guys like you?
Not enough angry rhetoric and too much sensible talk.
You will ruin our Nation with that attitude.
Seriously, I think you and several others have made good points throughout this thread - if only we could keep from each others throats. LOL
Not bad at all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjicZtVystc
Cagemonkey
04-05-15, 08:59
Ted Cruz is the Conservatives/Right's Obama and I don't mean his Canadian Birth Cert. He's another Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. Look at these Associations; http://www.thedailysheeple.com/senator-ted-cruz-honored-to-hang-out-with-war-criminal-and-murderer-henry-kissinger_022015 , and http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/03/ted-cruz-wife-cfr-goldman-sachs-3127354.html . I wouldn't trust him at all. Remember the PTB load the Bases. They select who we the people will vote for. BTW, keep your Tin Foil comments to yourself.
But there's the problem. Everybody on the right finds ONE THING wrong with a guy and they throw the baby out with the bathwater.
…and you can pause right there.
This immigration issue is not just "ONE THING" – an all-out effort in curbing illegal immigration should be a non-negotiable requirement of ANY presidential candidate.
I don't really trust Cruz or Paul, but would vote for them as principled constitutional defenders over a chamber of commerce "conservative" like Walker any time.
Our criteria for the viability of politicians should be measured by their willinginess to defend our constitution.
I am sick of politicians that have never owned a business or done anything meaningful with his/her life other than go to law school and work on some campaigns.
and this....
'Cruz is a guy without a day of service to his name who feels the need to opine on gays in the military '
is really what is wrong with much of our current crop of politicians. There are entirely too many of them whose entire breadth of experience is 'helping others to govern you' or 'governing you.'
They choose a side early on, not based on their own experiences, but based on how they grew up, or what is popular at the time they received their education.
and this....
'Cruz is a guy without a day of service to his name who feels the need to opine on gays in the military '
is really what is wrong with much of our current crop of politicians. There are entirely too many of them whose entire breadth of experience is 'helping others to govern you' or 'governing you.'
They choose a side early on, not based on their own experiences, but based on how they grew up, or what is popular at the time they received their education.
Uh, Obama didn't have a day in service and felt the need to opine on and actually change the gays-in-the-military thing to his political persuasion.
So who would you like to see on the "R" ticket as POTUS candidate?
Uh, Obama didn't have a day in service and felt the need to opine on and actually change the gays-in-the-military thing to his political persuasion.
So who would you like to see on the "R" ticket as POTUS candidate?
Uh, didn't vote for him (Obama) either. :D
The portion that you bolded was posted by KKev - I thought I gave him credit, I see I didn't.
Seriously, I don't really know. At this point Rand Paul of all the ones who are on the mainstream radar.
I noticed your sig line, I'm an 11B5Y, which just means I was dumber longer LOL, got out of the reserves in 2001.
Uh, didn't vote for him (Obama) either. :D
The portion that you bolded was posted by KKev - I thought I gave him credit, I see I didn't.
Seriously, I don't really know. At this point Rand Paul of all the ones who are on the mainstream radar.
I noticed your sig line, I'm an 11B5Y, which just means I was dumber longer LOL, got out of the reserves in 2001.
I wish Cruz could be repackaged. Other than the heavy leaning on the religious side (which is fine for him personally but don't make it part and parcel of your schtick) I agree with his views 100%. He does come across as a bit smarmy, just a little too slick. Can't have perfection in a candidate but his views I'm on board with.
Paul OTOH has shown to pander to groups like Hispanics and blacks in an ill-fated effort to get their support. Blacks/Hispanics ain't gonna vote Republican en masse so give it up 'cause it makes him look no different than most other politicians. Of course when you pander to Hispanics that usually means waffling on illegal immigration and Paul has strayed off the reservation enough on that subject to make me question what he'd do if POTUS. Yeah, I'd vote for him but he isn't my first choice.
When it comes to 2016 and the Republican ticket I know who I like and more importantly I know who I don't like and will NOT vote for......that would be Christie, Bush, or Rubio. I'm at least open to discussion for others.
sevenhelmet
04-06-15, 13:02
I wanted to like him, and then he went down the seemingly inevitable road of gay bashing and climate change denial. I am not trying to start yet another debate on either subject, but it's far too predictable that conservatives will either show their true colors as being conservative in name only, or be so far to the religious right that they alienate portions of the base.
To a large extent, I will settle for a candidate whose name isn't Clinton or Bush. This political dynasty crap has to go, right now.
brickboy240
04-06-15, 15:23
I was all for him when he was railing on about the Constitution and individual liberties.
But when you announce your candidacy at Jerry Fallwell's school and go on about religious social issues....you can count me OUT!
The "we want no abortions and we hate homos" crowd has been a loser for the GOP...has it not? Examples being Huckabee, Santorum and Bachmann.
I do not want to live in a theocracy...Bible thumbers are just another type of tyrant when you get down to it.
sevenhelmet
04-06-15, 15:28
I was all for him when he was railing on about the Constitution and individual liberties.
But when you announce your candidacy at Jerry Fallwell's school and go on about religious social issues....you can count me OUT!
The "we want no abortions and we hate homos" crowd has been a loser for the GOP...has it not? Examples being Huckabee, Santorum and Bachmann.
I do not want to live in a theocracy...Bible thumbers are just another type of tyrant when you get down to it.
I'm with you there.
polydeuces
04-06-15, 16:06
It's all just the mandatory song-and-dance pre-game show distraction to entertain the media/masses until the real candidates show up. Which he isn't nor ever will be. All a big YAWN really.
Here's the hard fact: Jeb is going to be our next president.
Been saying it since the day he left office here- and EVERYTHING, I mean E-EVE-RY detail of what he's done and been doing show's it's inevitable.
So incredible very well played....."Gosh...me? President? Hmmm....didn't really consider it.....well, I guess if I must....IF you insist..."......
BRILLIANT!!!!!! Saw that one coming light-years away.
Leave all your personal preferences aside and look at this in an objective way - predicting how the majority of this great nation will (not...) vote - he's the one candidate that's actually appealing to both sides. Least polarizing, common sense and an actual track-record showing he can work both sides of the isle.
That - and going to be totally brutal and somewhat PC incorrect - not sure why so many (on either side) are presuming Hillary as a foregone conclusion.
Consider this: First an African American (yeah like well shit - here's me thinking we're all just American...silly me...) President, and now a woman?
Waaaay to much, Waaaay too soon - dude we need a break, time for exhalation....a woman..?
Simply put - America is ready for a bit of normal, even if just for a bit.
Which is why Jeb will be the man with the plan. The 'Great White Hope'....
Caveat - these are not my opinions but very careful longterm observations, on which I'd be more than willing to wager some fine fermented-carbonated/fermented-distilled-aged grains...anyone?
Cruz has already roasted his own marshmallow. Bring on the next GOP bobblehead... :(
Cruz is not my first choice, but I'm curious about these reports of gay bashing. Does anyone have a link to support this claim? I'm not looking for someone's synopsis of his position. I want actual transcripts or video links so that I can decide for myself.
Also, I do not support gay marriage or open demonstrations of homosexuality in the military. Does that mean that I just bashed gays by typing that? I also do not support women in an 11 series MOS. Did I just bash women?
Cruz is not my first choice, but I'm curious about these reports of gay bashing. Does anyone have a link to support this claim? I'm not looking for someone's synopsis of his position. I want actual transcripts or video links so that I can decide for myself.
Also, I do not support gay marriage or open demonstrations of homosexuality in the military. Does that mean that I just bashed gays by typing that? I also do not support women in an 11 series MOS. Did I just bash women?
I don't think you will find anyone who can back up these claims – these are just left-wing talking points that have been repeated so often even sensible people believe it's true. It's like the gay activist who called Bush cutting AIDS funding, "genocide". Overblown rhetoric and fear mongering.
The left has done a great job of convincing everyone about how scary evangelical as are. As someone who is very far from identifying as "Christian", the vast majority of evangelicals I've met are extremely decent people. I guess cutting off people's taxpayer-funded progressive gravy train, which is about the worst I could imagine someone like Cruz doing, now constitutes tyranny. Uh, ok.
morbidbattlecry
04-06-15, 20:57
Cruz is not my first choice, but I'm curious about these reports of gay bashing. Does anyone have a link to support this claim? I'm not looking for someone's synopsis of his position. I want actual transcripts or video links so that I can decide for myself.
Also, I do not support gay marriage or open demonstrations of homosexuality in the military. Does that mean that I just bashed gays by typing that? I also do not support women in an 11 series MOS. Did I just bash women?
I googled it and came up with a few things but it's hard to separate the chaff from the wheat on something like that. I if he isn't anti gay i feel certain he would pander to said people to get votes like any politician does.
Ok, we've gone from Ted Cruz The Gay Basher to he might be anti-gay. Or better yet, he might try to get anti-gay voters to vote for him. So, what exactly does anti-gay mean? Is being anti-gay a bad thing? On the other hand, who is pro-gay? Is there perhaps something in between; something called: whogivesashit?
I'm a guy. I like women. Does that make me anti-gay? Pro straight? Perhaps I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body?
The GOP has no intention of running Cruz imo. He is just the first goat to be sacrificed, setting the stage for Bush to seem like the mature and sensible choice...wait and see. Neither party wants to fix things, in their eyes, they are not broken.
I wanted to like him, and then he went down the seemingly inevitable road of gay bashing and climate change denial. I am not trying to start yet another debate on either subject, but it's far too predictable that conservatives will either show their true colors as being conservative in name only, or be so far to the religious right that they alienate portions of the base.
To a large extent, I will settle for a candidate whose name isn't Clinton or Bush. This political dynasty crap has to go, right now.
And how is that a non-conservative issue? It is primarily the Left pushing that agenda. I'll never vote for a candidate who buys into that, so your idea of "being conservative in name only" is vastly different than mine, and dare I say most on the Right.
As far as "gay bashing" goes, just because you don't support gay marriage doesn't mean you're "gay bashing". Suggesting that they could be terminated from a job or denied a place to live based on their sexual orientation would be "gay bashing" in my book. You don't have to fully embrace the issue in order to be a good candidate. That is the problem with today's society: if you don't embrace it, rejoice in it, revel in it, you're anti-this or anti-that.
Here's the hard fact: Jeb is going to be our next president.
Not by any vote I cast.
As far as "gay bashing" goes, just because you don't support gay marriage doesn't mean you're "gay bashing". Suggesting that they could be terminated from a job or denied a place to live based on their sexual orientation would be "gay bashing" in my book. You don't have to fully embrace the issue in order to be a good candidate. That is the problem with today's society: if you don't embrace it, rejoice in it, revel in it, you're anti-this or anti-that.
Given the challenges facing this nation, we still have brain trusts refusing to vote for a candidate unless they embrace the social agenda of a whopping 2% of the population? 100 million sperm and this geniuses were the fastest...
Ah yes, praise two boys kissing but shame Cruz for having the moral fortitude to stand up and say that it is wrong. Of course the MSM will make sure that everyone is aware of this and some will hang up on it all on their own. The "Cruz-bashing" will be ignored. It's almost funny that in 2015 America, people are more worried about who is more electable than who may do the best job executing the duties of the Executive Branch. I look forward to the debates. They are going to be interesting.
The republican party and its members are in such disarray.
Looking through this thread just shows how splintered conservatives are right now.
BuzzinSATX
04-07-15, 08:08
Lots of folks seem to take issue with Cruz's religious beliefs, but think about this logically. Cruz is looking to grab a large segment of the Republican base who stayed home last two pres elections. Cruz knows this can help him a lot. Does anyone really think Cruz would even attempt to try and push religion at you, and even were he elected, do you actually believe he could based n the current media bias and messaging against pretty much ANYTHING Christian?
If you are so anti religion that you hate the idea Cruz is open with his beliefs (assuming they are genuine, which I do to an extent), does that not make you somewhat intolerant? Guess I fit that category myself when it comes to Islam...I probably would not vote for anyone who is Muslim...but last I checked, here in 2015, Christians aren't the ones out there killing hundreds and thousands for their beliefs or to convert them. Yeah, crusades...bad....slaughter...but just like slavery in the US, it's pretty much ancient history and behind us, wouldn't you say?
Look, I'm fully aware Internet forums are probably the last place I could convert anyone to my religious beliefs. You don't believe? That's your choice...but to NOT vote for someone who supports the founding principles of our Nation (assuming you believe in these principles too) just because he's a professed Christian is kind of dumb.
Consider this fact...the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and founding principles were established by men who used the foundations of Christianity as their foundation. Like it or not, it's where we came from way more than where the Democrats want to take us to...
Not looking to offend anyone here. Just trying to add another view to this discussion. Free speech and all....
brickboy240
04-07-15, 10:38
Once again...the left is going to trip up the GOP with ...surprise...the homo issue!
Congrats! They do this because they know damn well that the Bible thumpers just will not let this go. Most don't even know and gay people nor do gays have any effect on their daily lives. But oh how they will be tripped up by them every election cycle.
just as some libs get all frothy at the mouth over guns....many on the right have the same reaction to anything to do with gay people.
Let me know when you're tired of this crap....I just could care less about hating homos.
Once again...the left is going to trip up the GOP with ...surprise...the homo issue!
Congrats! They do this because they know damn well that the Bible thumpers just will not let this go. Most don't even know and gay people nor do gays have any effect on their daily lives. But oh how they will be tripped up by them every election cycle.
just as some libs get all frothy at the mouth over guns....many on the right have the same reaction to anything to do with gay people.
Let me know when you're tired of this crap....I just could care less about hating homos.
I can see that this whole gay thing is very important to you. That's good - it is nice that somebody on this forum cares about the issue. I will say that it is a bit perplexing why someone who holds the issue so dear would refer to gays as "homos."
Just so you know, I don't think that anybody else on this forum cares about the candidate's views on homosexuality. Hillary could marry Janet Reno and Ted Cruz could star in gay porn and I'd find plenty of good reasons to not vote for either of them before their sexuality became an issue. In fact, nobody that I know on the right or left (except perhaps for that 2% of the population who is gay) lists the issue in their top 5 hot topics for 2016. We all have much bigger fish to fry. So, stop playing the gay card and then acting like the issue is more important to conservatives than it is to you.
KalashniKEV
04-07-15, 11:32
Cruz is looking to grab a large segment of the Republican base who stayed home last two pres elections. Cruz knows this can help him a lot.
Don't fall into the trap of believing in the phantom electorate.
Those people simply do not exist.
It's a trick employed by the radicals to get a more extreme candidate on the ballot. An American Ayatollah would appeal to maybe a few hundred thousand folks in trailers and cabins with AM radios, and get zero other votes from outside of that demographic.
I do believe, as polydeuces suggests, that Cruz is simply a red herring to scare us into thinking they don't have anyone credible to run. The timing suggests that this is the case. The fact that Cruz is a natural born Canadian, and ineligible to hold the presidency is another big clue.
When they roll out Jeb and the big money gets behind him, he will win the Republican nomination.
Ah yes, praise two boys kissing but shame Cruz for having the moral fortitude to stand up and say that it is wrong.
There's nothing wrong with kissing people, frogs, or the Blarney Stone.
I'm this close to taking someone up on this bet that Jeb will be the candidate. It will never happen, at least half the GOP "base" along with the entire Left hates him.
I'm not doubting some suck-ass RINO will be the candidate but I'm willing to take the actual bet that it won't be ol' Jebster.
Don't fall into the trap of believing in the phantom electorate.
Those people simply do not exist.
It's a trick employed by the radicals to get a more extreme candidate on the ballot. An American Ayatollah would appeal to maybe a few hundred thousand folks in trailers and cabins with AM radios, and get zero other votes from outside of that demographic.
I do believe, as polydeuces suggests, that Cruz is simply a red herring to scare us into thinking they don't have anyone credible to run. The timing suggests that this is the case. The fact that Cruz is a natural born Canadian, and ineligible to hold the presidency is another big clue.
When they roll out Jeb and the big money gets behind him, he will win the Republican nomination, then lose the general election decisively.
There's nothing wrong with kissing people, frogs, or the Blarney Stone.
Completed it for you. :rolleyes:
I'm this close to taking someone up on this bet that Jeb will be the candidate. It will never happen, at least half the GOP "base" along with the entire Left hates him.
I'm not doubting some suck-ass RINO will be the candidate but I'm willing to take the actual bet that it won't be ol' Jebster.
Why does a large % of the GOP base hate him?
Why does a large % of the GOP base hate him?
Because Bush fatigue / terminal RINOitis? Who wants or needs a country club, chamber-of-commerce republican candidate in 2016?
Why does a large % of the GOP base hate him?
Hate is a strong word. I consider myself part of the GOP base. I have concerns about his commitment to limited government. His stances on immigration, Common Core, and domestic spying give me pause. I also do not hear many bold ideas from his corner on income tax reform, healthcare reform, and welfare/entitlement reform.
Do I see him as a white version of Obama like many libertarians? No. Would I vote for him over Hillary? Hell yes.
brickboy240
04-07-15, 13:48
Bush will get the nod because he is the RNC favorite. Bush does carry tons of baggage and not much appeal but the RNC is not serious about winning, leading or reforming a damn thing. After Dole, McCain and Romney, if this is not obvious to you, you need serious help.
Up against Hillary and the media (...because lets face it - the prez race is the GOP vs both), Jeb loses and loses big time. Big media and Hollywood will pull out all the stops to ensure Jeb goes down in flames and Hillary waltzes right into office with little discomfort or effort.
You don't actually think that because Jeb is married to a Latino, the GOP will win the Latino vote and claim victory do you? If you do, again, you need serious help.
You think their Romney attacks about putting the family dog carrier on top of the station wagon were crazy or maybe debate moderators actually helping the Democrat out during the debate...you wait. The smear campaign on Jeb Bush will be ground breaking and the craziest thing you have ever seen.
We can jump up and down and cheer on Rand or Ted's kick off speeches all day long but by the time the Iowa primary begins...the RNC establishment will have picked their guy and unless something really bizarre happens - that will be Jeb Bush.
I would like to paint you a better picture but I don't deal in "what ifs" but with what I see happening and what has happened in past election cycles.
Because Bush fatigue / terminal RINOitis? Who wants or needs a country club, chamber-of-commerce republican candidate in 2016?
Good reasons to prefer another candidate for sure (and I'd agree), not one good reason to "hate" him per se.
Good reasons to prefer another candidate for sure (and I'd agree), not one good reason to "hate" him per se.
I think some of us are more tired of these politicians than others are.
brickboy240
04-07-15, 14:14
Jeb Bush has been iffy and sort of all over the place on his views of Common Core education standards for public schools as well as iffy on dealing with illegal immigration issues.
Throw that in with his views on govt. spying on us and he is less appealing than Mitt Romney when you get down to it.
If Hillary supports Common Core, open borders and is cool with the spying...what is the difference in the two...really?
Jeb Bush has been iffy and sort of all over the place on his views of Common Core education standards for public schools as well as iffy on dealing with illegal immigration issues.
Throw that in with his views on govt. spying on us and he is less appealing than Mitt Romney when you get down to it.
If Hillary supports Common Core, open borders and is cool with the spying...what is the difference in the two...really?
Oh he's waaayyy more than "iffy" on illegal immigration. Remember the "...it's an act of love" comment he made a while back?
brickboy240
04-08-15, 10:03
Yep...and that "iffy" remark was sort of meant in jest.
Jeb is the establishment choice and Fox News Channel is making it more than obvious that they are in the can for Jeb already.
skijunkie55
04-08-15, 10:17
"Here's another truth: Social Security is dying. Now in its 80th year, it must give way to a new, younger, stronger plan for the future. That plan is America Works."
-This ad paid for by the committee to re-elect Frank Underwood.
Yep...and that "iffy" remark was sort of meant in jest.
Jeb is the establishment choice and Fox News Channel is making it more than obvious that they are in the can for Jeb already.
Due you have any examples of FNC being in the can for Jeb. Up until yesterday, Walker and Cruz have dominated their air time.
brickboy240
04-08-15, 15:19
Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol are on the FNC talker shows quite often. They are always talking up Jeb and putting down Cruz and Paul.
Rove and Kristol also have PACs that are set up to specifically take out Tea Party/Libertarian types in GOP primaries.
FNC has also let Ann Coulter ramble on in several appearances against Rand and Ron Paul and libertarians in general.
FNC is very much a house organ for the RNC...don't doubt it.
TacMedic556
04-08-15, 15:36
So far I am really liking RAND PAUL.
"Here's another truth: Social Security is dying. Now in its 80th year, it must give way to a new, younger, stronger plan for the future. That plan is America Works."
-This ad paid for by the committee to re-elect Frank Underwood.
Ha, I see what you did there.
Bush will get the nod because he is the RNC favorite. Bush does carry tons of baggage and not much appeal but the RNC is not serious about winning, leading or reforming a damn thing. After Dole, McCain and Romney, if this is not obvious to you, you need serious help.
Up against Hillary and the media (...because lets face it - the prez race is the GOP vs both), Jeb loses and loses big time. Big media and Hollywood will pull out all the stops to ensure Jeb goes down in flames and Hillary waltzes right into office with little discomfort or effort.
You don't actually think that because Jeb is married to a Latino, the GOP will win the Latino vote and claim victory do you? If you do, again, you need serious help.
You think their Romney attacks about putting the family dog carrier on top of the station wagon were crazy or maybe debate moderators actually helping the Democrat out during the debate...you wait. The smear campaign on Jeb Bush will be ground breaking and the craziest thing you have ever seen.
We can jump up and down and cheer on Rand or Ted's kick off speeches all day long but by the time the Iowa primary begins...the RNC establishment will have picked their guy and unless something really bizarre happens - that will be Jeb Bush.
I would like to paint you a better picture but I don't deal in "what ifs" but with what I see happening and what has happened in past election cycles.
Exactly. The term electable will be shoved down our throats.. Rand is already being attacked subtly in article after article.
Exactly. The term electable will be shoved down our throats.. Rand is already being attacked subtly in article after article.
In that case you will see Hitlery as our next POTUS.
Oh he's waaayyy more than "iffy" on illegal immigration. Remember the "...it's an act of love" comment he made a while back?
I don't believe many realize that Jeb Bush married a Mexican woman. It certainly would affect most people's views. On the other hand, it would provide support from the growing Hispanic voting block.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columba_Bush
brickboy240
04-10-15, 11:23
There is no guarantee that Jeb's Latino wife will sway Hispanic voters. Besides, his establishment support and views on illegal immigration and other issues is enough to not vote for him...sorry.
Ted Cruz stands a better chance at swaying Hispanics (if that is your goal....I don't think we need to do this because as a group...Hispanics really don't turn out to vote).
I don't believe many realize that Jeb Bush married a Mexican woman. It certainly would affect most people's views. On the other hand, it would provide support from the growing Hispanic voting block.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columba_Bush
No, it wouldn't. They're not going to vote Republican en masse. Since the Carter era they have voted on average 2 out of 3 for Democrat POTUS candidates. That "growing" block is primarily second gen illegals (or ones who still are and shouldn't be voting in the first place) and they will vote for the freebies, just like our own homegrown leeches. The only ones who *somewhat* reliably vote Republican (and it has lessened the last few elections) is the Cuban community but they are a fraction of the total Hispanic population.
I don't really care who a candidate is married to. Jeb is a friggin' RINO and he's one of my "Big Three" I won't ever vote for: him, Christie, or Rubio.
polydeuces
04-10-15, 18:48
I'm this close to taking someone up on this bet that Jeb will be the candidate. It will never happen, at least half the GOP "base" along with the entire Left hates him.
I'm not doubting some suck-ass RINO will be the candidate but I'm willing to take the actual bet that it won't be ol' Jebster.
Evan Williams Single Barrel.
Great for sippin neat and shockingly affordable - it beats most 2-3 times more expensive by a longshot
What say ye..we on..? :cool:
I honestly think he'll win BECAUSE he appeals to the average voter, I truly believe people have had enough 'change' and need something they feel they can settle down to.
Jeb's got a nice clean record just isn't controversial (other than being Bush...), he radiates that calm people like. Even the left. Especially the left that just doesn't like that whole Hillary thing.....
(disclosure - I know a LOT of liberals...;))
Evan Williams Single Barrel.
Great for sippin neat and shockingly affordable - it beats most 2-3 times more expensive by a longshot
What say ye..we on..? :cool:
I honestly think he'll win BECAUSE he appeals to the average voter, I truly believe people have had enough 'change' and need something they feel they can settle down to.
Jeb's got a nice clean record just isn't controversial (other than being Bush...), he radiates that calm people like. Even the left. Especially the left that just doesn't like that whole Hillary thing.....
(disclosure - I know a LOT of liberals...;))
You got it.
ETA: Jeb's record is entirely controversial – a big gov / big money conservative with extreme disregard for our national sovereignty. Add to the fact the weight of his last name (no Bush is that well-regarded by conservatives, and certainly not by the left) and I don't see him getting anywhere without some serious RNC monkey business going on.
We've had establishment picks like Giuliani get left in the dust. It's not an impossibility.
Evan Williams Single Barrel.
Great for sippin neat and shockingly affordable - it beats most 2-3 times more expensive by a longshot
What say ye..we on..? :cool:
I honestly think he'll win BECAUSE he appeals to the average voter, I truly believe people have had enough 'change' and need something they feel they can settle down to.
Jeb's got a nice clean record just isn't controversial (other than being Bush...), he radiates that calm people like. Even the left. Especially the left that just doesn't like that whole Hillary thing.....
(disclosure - I know a LOT of liberals...;))
Remember your primary vote [for Jeb] will help determine "blame" for Hitlery taking office in 2017.
Just sayin'........it will be well-placed blame at that.
I will for the hundredth time again state that the primaries are for voting your "conscience", i.e. voting for who you truly think is representative of your views. If a RINO is that person, I will forever disagree with you. However, if you go into the primary booth and instead of voting on your principles let the losing and loathsome aspect of supposed electability guide your hand YOU AND YOUR ILK will SOLELY be responsible for Hitlery swearing in on Jan. 21, 2017 (from any prospective conservative vote anyway, libs will vote lib every time).
Or the GOP can run someone who can actually win. But yea..
SilverBullet432
04-13-15, 14:10
Marco rubio in on GOP ballot now, thoughts? Cruz?
Ted's response to Rubio's announcement is another demonstration of why Cruz ought to be President...
Marco rubio in on GOP ballot now, thoughts? Cruz?
Rubio is a (young) establishment RINO and he is an illegal-lover. Nope.
CleverNickname
04-13-15, 21:06
Marco rubio in on GOP ballot now, thoughts? Cruz?
There are no issues where Rubio is better than Cruz, and there are issues where Cruz is better than Rubio.
SilverBullet432
04-14-15, 10:20
Rubio is a (young) establishment RINO and he is an illegal-lover. Nope.
When immigration and illegal immigration run in your blood. Its hard not to sympathize for your people. At the same time, the new generation of "my people" are freeloading scum who want it handed to them, not the hard-working generation who came here to work and better themselves. Hardest part of being a hispanic republican.... Until i learn more about this rubio card, my money is on Cruz. Not just because he's Texan, but because he has been fighting for the christian faith.
Was Rubio the one that drank water during the gop response to a state of the union?
When immigration and illegal immigration run in your blood. Its hard not to sympathize for your people. At the same time, the new generation of "my people" are freeloading scum who want it handed to them, not the hard-working generation who came here to work and better themselves. Hardest part of being a hispanic republican.... Until i learn more about this rubio card, my money is on Cruz. Not just because he's Texan, but because he has been fighting for the christian faith.
That "your people" mentality is not one I want as POTUS. He wouldn't be a leader of Hispanics, or blacks, or whites, or Asians, etc. He'd be a leader of ALL of this country's inhabitants. Don't need anyone winking at their amigos or homeboys.
Was Rubio the one that drank water during the gop response to a state of the union?
Yes, I believe he was.
This should maybe become a general election 2016 thread?
Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs. Enough said. No thanks.
When immigration and illegal immigration run in your blood. Its hard not to sympathize for your people. At the same time, the new generation of "my people" are freeloading scum who want it handed to them, not the hard-working generation who came here to work and better themselves. Hardest part of being a hispanic republican.... Until i learn more about this rubio card, my money is on Cruz. Not just because he's Texan, but because he has been fighting for the christian faith.
That "your people" mentality is not one I want as POTUS. He wouldn't be a leader of Hispanics, or blacks, or whites, or Asians, etc. He'd be a leader of ALL of this country's inhabitants. Don't need anyone winking at their amigos or homeboys.
Which means in theory he would also support those who either don't practice any religion or a non Christian religion. Freedom of religion also means a freedom to not practice any religion or a religion other than Christian. That Const. reality seems to be lost on many, just as the "shall not infringe" seems lost on so many.
I want POTUS to fight for the Right (capital R) of all people to practice their religion*, or practice non at all. When they are "fighting" for any one faith or making it known they think others are less equal for not following their flavor of religion, than I feel just as ABNAK above, and that POTUS is not inclusive to the bolded above and not strictly following Const. intent in my view.
I have no issue of POTUS being a religious person, and will support his Right to his faith, as long as he (and anyone else) is able to differentiate between his personal faith and actual Const. Intent.
Seems many simply can't manage that mentally.
* = As long as is does not infringe on my or your "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Nailed it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNRc9mJKYa4
Nailed it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNRc9mJKYa4
"Private and consensual..."
If he and others could continue that line of thought, that what's "Private and consensual" is none of the governments business nor does have any authority to dictate such matters, he'd essentially be a Libertarian.
The issue I have is, so many seem to cherry pick where "Private and consensual" apply (and of course I agree with him on the matter of fire arms) applies, and turn away from other areas that don't fit their personal beliefs vs what's Constitutionally supported.
"What matter is what the Bill Of Rights says..."
Agreed, but it applies to everyone. End do the day, I give him an A- to this one and he obviously "gets it" when it comes to the nature and intent of the 2A. It does not have a damn thing to do with hunting, plinking, or sports applications. I'm glad he said it as many will dance around that fact.
PatrioticDisorder
04-16-15, 14:40
http://youtu.be/Myd8sc320Hg
Cruz firing an M249....
skijunkie55
04-16-15, 14:42
http://youtu.be/Myd8sc320Hg
Cruz firing an M249....
Because 'Merica!
I could have posted this in either this or the Rand thread as it applies to both. I am hearing that both Cruz and Paul are endorsing the fast tracking of TPP and TPIP, what are your thoughts?
Cruz wouldn't be my choice for the nomination...I don't think he can win against Hillary. But if he does get the nomination (unlikely IMHO), you bet I'll vote for him.
And yes, things could change between now and then that might make me change my mind.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.