United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Let’s Be Serious About Ted Cruz From The Start: He’s Too Extreme And Too Disliked To Win
Source:
FiveThirtyEight Politics
URL Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features ... treme-and-too-disliked-to-win/
Published: Mar 23, 2015
Author: Harry Enten
Post Date: 2015-03-23 15:57:49 by Jameson
Keywords: cruz, extreme, disliked
Views: 23260
Comments: 151
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s newly minted presidential campaign is the media equivalent of a juicy rib-eye that robbers use to distract a guard dog during a heist. He’ll get a ton of media attention, and he’ll get to spread his message — which may be all that Cruz is after — but Cruz almost certainly has no shot of winning the nomination, according to every indicator that predicts success in presidential primaries. First, Cruz doesn’t have enough support from party bigwigs. To win the Republican or Democratic nomination, you need the backing of at least some of the party apparatus. At a minimum, your fellow party members shouldn’t hate you. Otherwise, you end up getting the Newt Gingrich 2012 treatment. That is, you get pounced on the moment you’re seen as a threat to win the nomination.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Jameson (#0)
The bar for Presidential credentials was lowered by the current occupant...Obola. I will enjoy all the libs stating "he's a junior senator." "What foreign policy experience does he have?" Well they did not ask that of Obola (only lib that did was Biden in the primaries).
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Your comment is appreciated......do you have any thoughts on the content of the article?
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
I agree with the little or no support of the party 'big wigs.' You can't get far without campaign funding. On the quoted above I disagree with the reasoning. Look at how those elections worked out for the GOP with moderates. Some conservatives stayed home and it showed in the results.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
That didn't stop him from becoming a U.S. Senator. His lack of support from the crony RINOcracy is a positive feature. Cruz is a 2nd generation American whose family had direct experience with the collective cluster frack that unfolded in Cuba; and that fact undoubtedly disturbs the Oligarchic parasites who funded and benefited from that collective craftsmanship. Cruz or lose!
FiveThirtyEight is right, as usual. Though everyone except Cruz and Cruz fanboys already knows this, and even the former might and just wants something from a vanity campaign.
Cruz has already been fully pounced. He has a certain oily smoothness that reminds me a lot of LBJ. Which isn't such a warm memory.
Cruz isn't #1 on anyone's list of favorite candidates. Given Cruz vs. Huckabee, social conservatives will go for Huckabee. Given Cruz vs. Paul, libertarians will go for Paul. Given Cruz vs. Lindsey Graham, the neo- con war mongers will go for Graham. Given Cruz vs. Christie, those who want a bombastic, angry fighter will choose Christie (or at least they would have before he sucked up to Obama). On and on... BUT Cruz may be the #2 or #3 choice for several of these groups. Cruz is smart, he may be hoping that the others implode so he can be around as the #2 choice and the only person left standing for everyone who hates Bush. We'll see.
Close to 100 million people didn't vote in 2012 cause both candidates sucked. How many of them were "TRUE" conservatives??
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
And remember: "NO SLEEPING IN BEDS" err {edit} "WIF SHEETS!"
My money says the author is in the bag for Bush
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Extreme is the wrong word - he is a grifter - in his decleration he only mentioned 'conservatives' a lot rather than referring to Americans - to someone with a marketing background like I have that means he is not running for president for real but to boost his power in the conservative base which he then can exploit for money and even retire to do TV shows or what not and serve as someone who can have the power to endorse. All his actions in the senate thus far were publicity stunts to work up the base and serve as talk show radio fodder.
Permanently! And with help from the previous three presidents plus Carter, LBJ, and Kennedy.
Doubtful......FiveThirtyEight has a very good reputation for being objective...
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
A very good point......which applies to most of the Republicans who are "testing the waters"
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Ok. I'm going to ease up on you. Anyone with that slogan can't be all bad.
That is because liberals aren't real Americans. They have divorced themselves from the culture and they want to make something different. They support thievery, murder, bullying, and drinking the blood of aborted babies.
Again, it shows that Cruz is trying to grift the base like you AKA rather than appeal to a broader audience and actually have a chance to win as president.
All his actions in the senate thus far were publicity stunts to work up the base and serve as talk show radio fodder. Or more realistically, he is setting the stage for a future serious run for President. Or perhaps providing the RNC the necessary early 'lightening rod' effect. These things are usually a lot more complicated than we think, but simple to figure out:) So is Cruz serious or is he providing a 'rally the weary troops' cheerleader effect? That's my assessment. He knows in the early polling he is a minority cut of 4%. That might jump a bit in the weeks ahead, until someone else announces a run. A final point is no matter what he is establishing himself early as a power broker. This is what politicians do and why so many people hate politics. Warren is doing the same thing now but using other methods.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Let's be serious about the Established Republican Party from the Start: they are too corrupt, too tied to crony capitalism, too militarily incompetent and too disliked to be trusted with power. Most Republican politicians deserve indictment, not re-election. Ted Cruz is a breath of fresh air, but the Republican brand is so utterly toxic, Republicans as a class of people are SUCH walking, talking piles of corrupt fecal matter, that Cruz probably cannot save them. They'll reject him anyway.
He is telling the truth of who he is. You sound like one of those people who would suggest lying is a good way to "appeal to a audience". Cruz is right on about everything. To try to appeal to libfags would be to lose his appeal to REAL Americans.
Yes, I think they will.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
That's exactly what the pundits said about Reagan... I for one hope Cruz keeps on being underestimated. At a minimum, your fellow party members shouldn’t hate you. Who be that? McStain? McConnell?? The whitebeard, establishment RINOs?? Their numbers are overinflated. These turncoat "bi-partisan" whores can pound salt.
That bar is now...subterranean. As in Hades ;-) I will enjoy all the libs stating "he's a junior senator." "What foreign policy experience does he have?" (Well they did not ask that of Obola.) HA! Yup. Cruz is a man, 0bola a boy. The media will demanding to know what kind of TP Cruz uses...while rummaging through his past like a pack of proctologists. 0bola, not so much. In fact, not at all.
Know what??
Who be that? McStain? McConnell?? The whitebeard, establishment RINOs?? Their numbers are overinflated. So....do you really believe that Cruz can be the republican's presidential nominee? - and that this can happen without the support (and money) of the moderates? - please don't compare Cruz to Reagan.... most people liked RR - that is simply not the case with Cruz.... Or - do you expect him to start playing the "kinder, gentler" candidate?
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
The desperate guns of Left and Vichy RNC will pound Cruz as though he were Baghdad during the initial Iraq assault. If he survives, he will be a force to be reckoned with. He has a certain oily smoothness that reminds me a lot of LBJ. Which isn't such a warm memory. The only thing those two have in common are...the state of Texas. "Smoothness" -- I guess what you're saying is that you don't quite believe in Cruz's sincerity? "Smoothness" can at times be construed as a complete confidence. It's easy to have became jaded. But why after noting 0bola's totally disingenuous "smoothness" or Slick's?
- and that this can happen without the support (and money) of the moderates? Yes. Absolutely. I hope you, the moderate'leftist pundits and the establishment-types continue to believe Cruz is unelectable based on "likeability," and impossible to finance. There are far more patriots -- within the general populace, industry, and private sector -- who recognize Cruz is the only anecdote to 0buma's gutting of this nation in every way. THIS is a guy who is laser-focused.
- and that this can happen without the support (and money) of the moderates? I don't believe that it matters who the Republican nominee is. The Republican brand is too tainted and narrow. No matter who the Republicans run, the Democrats will win the election.
You really believe that?? The Pubbies are again running a bunch of also-ran RINOs and wishy-washy sell-out moderates. Cruz stands alone as a stud. Cruz is smart, he may be hoping that the others implode.... That's exactly what's going to happen. And the lib media will go ape-sh*t after the smoke clears. REAGAN II.
Given Cruz vs. Huckabee, social conservatives will go for Huckabee. We will do no such thing. Cruz is Number Uno on many peoples list Mr Pegler.
That's too bad because unlike the other puppets, Cruz takes no prisoners and is small gubmint. He is the literal political anecdote to 0buma, which is why you're going to immediately see Cruz pounded from every direction until he's either left standing and stronger, OR too crippled to continue.
We'll see. I think Cruz started yesterday a 15-20 year campaign for President of the USA. It took Reagan longer than that to get there.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Cruz is right on about everything. To try to appeal to libfags would be to lose his appeal to REAL Americans. That approach would be great if the USA has a parlimentary system of govt.
1. So what makes one a "patriot?" 2. If Mr. Cruz is the only "anecdote" what will the "patriots" do if he (god forbid) does not become the republican's nominee?
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
A strict Constitutionalist and America-Firster. 2. If Mr. Cruz is the only "anecdote" what will the "patriots" do if he (god forbid) does not become the republican's nominee? That dire scenario remains to be seen. I suppose....succumb to the escalated Police State and Big Gubmint, and further destruction of the US Constitution.
2020, 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036
well, yeah of course.... but in the short term....will you vote for Bush?
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
well, yeah of course.... but in the short term....will you vote for Bush?
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
And a vote for another NWO Bush is different than a Dem....HOW??
Will you vote for a Dem over a Pubbie in any case?
By then? "It's dead, Jim."
Well, I wish Cruz well. I'd like to see him become the Republican nominee. I might even vote in the primary and then come out in the general election, hold my nose, and vote Republican in the general election, if he's the guy. That'd be swell. I don't believe that the Republicans will nominate him, because he is much closer to me on many issues than Republicans are. It's their party, and they're going to nominate somebody who represents their values, not somebody who represents mine.
I won't vote for either. Democrats are exultant babykillers. Republicans are corrupt crony capitalist incompetents.
If not 2040 and later. Cruz will only be 45 in 2016, I think. 65 in 2036. 75 in 2046. Cruz could easily be giving rockribbed Republicans heart attacks until mid-century. If the GOP always nominates "the guy from last time", that is a lot of "last times" for Cruz to have a chance at.
This cult of personality is weird for me to accept belongs with Republican politics - it makes sense in the world of talk show hosts and their fans - but for politics it is weird.
Yes, of course. I have voted for republicans, democrats, libertarians, non-affiliated.....etc it all depends on the circumstances at that time... I have also chosen to not vote in some races - if none of the candidates are worthy.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
I agree - self proclaimed messiahs declaring they can cause sea levels to fall, which in turn causes spasmatic fainting spells does seem to be more a democrat thing. Maybe at the next democrat rally we can see a reprise of the Lords' first miracle - though instead of turning water into wine perhaps Zero can turn ordinary cigarettes into reefers?
It depends on one's viewpoint. The mission of the Party PTB is to (1) protect their position as the Party PTB and (2) elect one of their own as President. By nominating and electing any conservative such as Ted Cruz, the moderate Party PTB would risk being replaced by conservatives. By nominating a moderate, they ensure that no conservative has any claim to fame demonstrating the lack of merit in their moderate or liberal policies. Their primary motivation is to remain in control of the levers of power within the party. That purpose is better served by a losing Ford, Dole, McCain, Romney, or the like, than a winning conservative. The corporate donors do not care if conservatives stay home. Big business likes big government. The two parties in D.C. are in the business of selling tax breaks and government contracts. Big business are the buyers. The American taxpayer pays the bill.
Those are code words for compromising your principles. McConnell and Boehner do that consistently, along with a good sized chunk of the GOP officials. Either we turn the "ship of state" around or we follow the marxists in the Democrat party into the "hell on Earth" they always create. Ted Cruz is a chance at snatching victory from defeat, instead of the usual script of losing when a real chance at winning presents itself. Either Republicans nominate a Constitutional conservative, or all that is left of the mess will be the wiping of our collective ass after we take the dump. There are millions of conservatives waiting for a true leader. Bush won't cut it, and Huckabee can't. Unless the party stands for its stated principles, we may win an office, but we lose the country. Truly, R vs D is about who gets to dole out the trillions and who gets the rewards of the graft. We either work to support what we SAY we want, or we are no better than the progressive/liberal/marxist/totalitarian left.
It happens. I grow on people like a fungus.
Pardon the raucous laughter Pericles.... Perhaps you missed the coronation of the Der Mezziah in 2008. He came with his own assortment of temple idols as well: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Politics is about compromise - see the Founding Fathers and that compromised document called the "Constitution". You are describing a religous order not a political party.
Perhaps you missed the coronation of the Der Mezziah in 2008. He came with his own assortment of temple idols as well: I said it is odd for Republicans. Just because Democrats do it does not mean it is right or proper for Republicans to do it. I found your response weird - because the Dems fawned over Obama (I think the romance has ended between the Dems and Obama) the Repubs should do the same?
"Republican politics"?? Hey look! 0buma is a Greek god!!" Did he turn water into wine for his cultists-of-personality at this epically weird function?
Ok. I'm going to ease up on you. Anyone with that slogan can't be all bad. The Riddler ripped the slogan off.
Sorry, your wording was a bit unclear at what you were getting at...
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
That'd be swell. Glad you're somewhat encouraged. I know -- it's hard. I don't believe that the Republicans will nominate him, because he is much closer to me on many issues than Republicans are. It's their party, and they're going to nominate somebody who represents their values, not somebody who represents mine. He's closer on more issues with MORE people than any candidate out there; the media and puppet pundits won't admit that. The question is to what extent the NWO establishment whores, puppets and elites quash and sabotage Cruz's campaign. He'll roll back a lot of recent regulations, over-officiousness, Statism, and fascism if he succeeds.
Well stated. THIS is the Final and Last chance for the Republic.
Dems are also corrupt crony capitalist incompetents. BUT WORSE. Moreover, at least a good 50% of Pubbies are pro-Life, whereas, 0% of Dems are.
Actually, you are an actually incurable communicable disease.
By nominating and electing any conservative such as Ted Cruz, the moderate Party PTB would risk being replaced by conservatives. By nominating a moderate, they ensure that no conservative has any claim to fame demonstrating the lack of merit in their moderate or liberal policies. Their primary motivation is to remain in control of the levers of power within the party. That purpose is better served by a losing Ford, Dole, McCain, Romney, or the like, than a winning conservative. The corporate donors do not care if conservatives stay home. Big business likes big government. The two parties in D.C. are in the business of selling tax breaks and government contracts. Big business are the buyers. The American taxpayer pays the bill. Best explanation of the party dynamics and political reality I've seen. It would also validate the notion that the USA is indeed no longer representative, constitutional Republic, but a farce, a charade.
Atta boy! Standing on the principles of quicksand, and casting your vote on which way the wind happens to be blowing.
And hopefully roll back a lot of 'satanism.' The next GOP nominee must come out strong on protecting human life in the womb. Not just words as 'words are just wind' but with a plan of action.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Sometimes a bright light has to shine to scatter the cockroaches. Cruz gave us some of that light yesterday. More to follow to see if he throws back the entire curtain to let the light in. Also, will the comatose American electorate even comprehend such light? The very soul of this nation is at stake.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Yep. And this is exactly why the establishment RNC, DNC, PTB, Hollywood, and liberal media all fear Cruz. Also, will the comatose American electorate even comprehend such light? Depends on how effective the propaganda and character assassination is. The very soul of this nation is at stake. Definitely on the line for 2016. No one but Cruz shakes things up the way they need to be shaken.
Heh...(goes without saying. Wouldn't want to be accused of "intolerance" toward satanists.) The next GOP nominee must come out strong on protecting human life in the womb. Not just words as 'words are just wind' but with a plan of action. I agree on its merit, but I don't see that issue creating a tactical advantage during the campaign. Let's win first, then (like the Dems) start lowering the boom on moral issues, like preborn-murder by either reinforcing States' Rights, dismissing Leftist circuit court judges, and thru conservative SCOTUS appointments.
No, they're not worse. They're just different. The Republicans gave us Roe v. Wade and Casey, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter. And Kelo. And by not filibustering, they also gave us Ginsburg and Kagan and Sotomayor, etc. The Democrats would have filibustered people like that (coming in the other direction). Republicans don't. They enable. Which means they're every bit as bad. Also, Republicans lose wars.
Words are wind, and the Republicans are windbags. It's nice to have Cruz in the ring, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Heh heh....you bet. Actually I really don't care much for political parties or labels like "conservative" or "liberal" This style thinking is limiting, divisive, and antique. IMHO
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
And by not filibustering, they also gave us Ginsburg and Kagan and Sotomayor, etc. Yes, I hear ya, but you're making the mistake of confusing the RNC statist stranglehold on the GOP with the rest of the party. Do you think the Bushes, Dole, Romney, Boehner, McConnell, Lott, McCain, Graham, etal are just coincidental faces of the GOP? They run powerful committees and bury conservative Pubbies from power in the Senate/House.
I guess you don't much care for defining a person or party by their respective words, deeds, actions, life philosophy, or agendas either. That's the reason for party or labels, aka "branding." This style thinking is limiting, divisive, and antique. IMHO It's a necessary means of discernment or judgment. Is in your opinion discernment or judgement....irrelevant?
When they do, blame it on those who are in power and their corruption and loyalty to their industrial/banking/globalist Puppetmeister interests. You'll note Reagan forged ZERO wars during his eight years in office.
Outspoken Black ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith had some interesting commentary in an address at Vanderbilt University in which he opined that he would like to see Blacks, in just one election, all vote Republican. That would be a wakeup call for the liberals. The Black vote is taken for granted by the Dems. ESPN analyst Stephen A. Smith reaffirmed his view that African Americans should stop monolithically supporting Democrats in every election and instead make both major parties compete for their vote. The often flamboyant Smith is perhaps best known for his intense and some would say obnoxious back-and-forth with the equally outspoken Skip Bayless on First Take, which airs five mornings a week on ESPN. Smith, a registered independent, has been inching his way into commentary about politics and other social issues. You may also remember that ESPN suspended him last year for controversial comments about domestic violence. He recently found himself engulfed in another controversy, this time over comments made about the NFL Philadelphia Eagles. Stephen A. subsequently rejected any racial basis for his criticism of head coach Chip Kelly’s personnel decisions. Earlier this week, in a Vanderbilt University symposium, Smith proposed that every black American vote Republican in one election. In his speech, he also correctly noted that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have passed without the support of Republican U.S. senators. In fact, Republican votes in the chamber were necessary to overcome a filibuster conducted by, among others, Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, who was also a former KKK member. In an interview with CNN, Smith returned to the subject of bloc voting by blacks. He insisted that Democrats take the black vote for granted, a phenomenon which the black community has allowed, while Republicans ignore the black vote because they feel it is pointless to go after it. Democrats have successfully demonized the GOP such that “we look at the Republican party, I’m not talking about every single one of us, of course, but the vast majority of black Americans look at the Republican party as the enemy; we look at the Democratic party, even tacitly, as our support base, and as a result, we are very transparent in our support for them,” Smith declared. The typical result of this historical voting trend is that the Democrats have a license to take African Americans for granted, while the Republicans have a license to summarily dismiss that same community, Stephen A. Smith explained. Against this backdrop, the ESPN and Sirius XM host and former Philadelphia Inquirer columnist observed that both political parties are competing for the Hispanic vote, which, in contrast, is considered up for grabs. During the exchange, he also denied that he was advocating for a further balkanization of American politics. In December, 2013, Smith said that “it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever” for the black community to ostracize black conservatives.
Actually I really don't care much for political parties or labels like "conservative" or "liberal" Maybe I wasn't clear, allow me to re-phrase... I don't believe that everyone who is identified as a "republican" (or other designation) will all respond or act in the same manner in any given situation. Everyone responds differently. The label or (party label) is irrelevant.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
In 1943, there was no such thing as a "Good German".
Good find and interesting read. You have accomplished a great thing today:)
"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17)
I'm not going to let the Republicans off the hook. There are no "Good Republicans". There are some people with good ideas and values who have mistakenly aligned themselves with the Republican Party. As long as they remain aligned with that party, they will be neutered and rendered ineffective by the corrupt crony capitalist contingent that has dominated that party since 1868. It's not going to change, ever, and I see no value in lying to myself and pretending that it will. The Democrats are babykillers and the Republicans are crapweasels. There may have been "Good Germans" by somebody's definition, somewhere, but it's 1943 and I'm a pilot over Germany: they're all bad. I'm not going to be discriminating, trying to find the good, because I don't care. They're the enemy, and they're all bad. Republicans and Democrats have been so consistently bad, for so long, they have exhausted any willingness on my part to expend any further energy trying to find kernels of edible corn in their poop. Crapweasels and babykillers. They can all go die in a hole and we would be better for it.
Nah, more like Jeffersonian penicillin, Domina
If the edification of the body of Christ you put on display here is typical of the members of your "church", I'm glad I'm an infidel and not a member.
Why can't some people figure out that being a moderate (believing the lies of "BOTH" parties) is voting for your own demise??
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
One thing is for sure he pissed off the MSM and the Leftards really bad yesterday. Even Moonbeam climbed out of his grave to say Cruz was a dumbass for being a climate change denier!! LOL...
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Some people? Please, your passive-aggressive approach is boring. On the other hand, believing the lies of only one "party" is the epitome of ignorance......
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
You can compromise on policy, but NEVER on principles. The Democrats never compromise unless it advances their agenda. Republicans compromise in hopes that the next time they want something, they will get a "wink and nod".
Voters decide elections, even primaries. The MSM will mean NOTHING if 80% of those supporting conservative values turn out. The goal, turn them on and get them to turn out at the polls.
Ah poor baby... “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Which kinda person would I like to be? A person who believes everybody's lies or a person who believes some peoples lies and another who doesn't believe anybody's lies... Hmmmmm... You know I'm actually kinda surprised you didn't say that people who don't believe any of the lies are the stupidest ones!!!
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
The way I see it is that we have tried moderate party establishment types with Romney McCain ,and before that Bob Dole. Didn't work out so well. I am not sur Cruz is the best candidate . His opening salvo was brilliant . It will frame the debate throughout the primary season. My reservations are that Cruz is a conservative version of the emperor in some ways. He doesn't have executive experience ;even his legislative record is thin. He has little foreign policy experience. In this cycle I think foreign policy will be a determinant . If I were to go to the polls today and have to choose from the probable field ,I'd most likely go with a principled conservative governor (and the GOP bench has quite a few to choose from ) . So far the declared field is Cruz and Jebbabubba Bush . Between those 2 ,Cruz is the clear choice .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
How about settling for competence.
Your typical mealymouthed rhetoric on the subject. Granting even that Republicans are some "party of the rich" (when 2/3 of the billionaires in America are active Dem partisans), when did "greedy" become just as bad as "baby murderers". You say these things over and over again. It is an established pattern in your posts, not some isolated instance. And your next response will be to portray the GOP's opposition to abortion as being somehow worse or just more dishonest than the Dems' sheer bloodlust for abortion mills.
Please cite your source - thanks
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
You are putting process over substance.
Oh I know I've heard that many times. But if he believes it it is good to have one more on our side. You have any favorite candidates yet?
Killing the infection of WHAT then? The adherents of and Gospel of Jesus Christ, Deist-Riddler? Interesting admission.
Suddenly you're insulted and offended after having constantly promoted and shilled for your Jeffersonian cult, ridiculed Bible-believing Christians, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ on several threads? Rich. Here's a memo worth considering: Pretending your faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is adversely affected only by *my* ragging on you does not exonerate you from the Truth or Judgment Day. Free Will allows you to choose your own eternal fate -- whether as a Cultist of Jefferson or "member of the body of Christ." Your joy as a proud "infidel" here is duly noted. Infinitely worse than that is not what I think, but the Lord Himself. Will HE vouch for you and say he "knew" you? Or will Jefferson suffice as your Savior?
Stephen A. -- an absolute enigma. I don't really know exactly what he thinks. I get the feeling he doesn't either. Or rather he's just engaging in some damage control and theatrics.
that's ok .I begin always backing the best candidate . They are usually the ones not nominated ,and I end up voting for the last one standing . What this country cannot afford is another 4-8 years of nanny-state progressive Fabian socialism . So if a Scott Walker is selected rather than a Ted Cruz. That's who I'll vote for .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
MOST conservatives/Republicans WILL base their life philosophy and ethics on absolutes of morality, individual liberty, and self-preservation. MOST liberal/Democrats will base their life philosophy and ethics on feelings, moral relativism, and group-think "fairness." The label or (party label) is irrelevant. Is it? Don't labels define us based on either the truth or by whomever controls the political narrative based on propaganda? In our culture's case, who would deny that this arbiter is decidedly an anti-Christian, liberal-socialist philosophy?
You can't be drawing this analogy as one indicts ALL Republics/conservatives as "Good Germans" when its conservative battling for Life and Liberty EVERY day. Or are you??
There's this thing called Google. You should check it out. Politico: Blue billionaires on top Donors who gave mostly or exclusively to Democrats held down 52 of the top 100 spots, including that of the biggest by far – retired San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer, who spent $74 million helping Democratic candidates and groups. Given its reliable liberal tilt, Politico went on to portray all the secret-donor PACs as overwhelmingly Republican, based on very sketchy infomation. It's the usual they-all-do-it-but-Republicans-are-so-much-more-icky that Politico is notorious for.
Make up your mind. There is only ONE Party who possesses the political muscle and will to legislate morally and constitutionally, for better or worse -- at present, that is the GOP. Now the Party can either be taken back and reclaimed as in any other war, OR we stop fight right now and surrender. Republicans and Democrats have been so consistently bad, for so long, they have exhausted any willingness on my part to expend any further energy trying to find kernels of edible corn in their poop. Crapweasels and babykillers. They can all go die in a hole and we would be better for it. So....ALL the Republicans and conservatives who've been fighting the good fight should just...indict themselves as no different than Dem baby-killers and destroyers of the USCON?? What would YOU have done during the dark days when Christians were tossed to the lions and crucified? Suck it up, Vic.
Because these people are brainwashed into believing in the propaganda of "fairness" of bi-partisanship, and "fairness" as enumerated in the US Constitution (OH WAIT! NOT THERE!!) Being a "moderate" (half-tard) may not be the most evil political position, but is the dumbest political position possible. These people ought to know better.
Cruz is my first option. I haven't ruled out Walker. Some questions but he is ok so far. Christie, Bush, no way.
Moonbeam Jerry Brown? The guy with investments in "Fossil" fuel? Typical hypocritical nut-job fascist RAT.
Would that be the "lie" that "life" begins outside the womb? The lie that baby-killing is "CHOICE" or "Woman's Rights"? The lie that "We're here from the gubmint and only here to help."? Or the lie of "white privileged"? (I could go on ad infinitum.)
The Democrats never compromise unless it advances their agenda. Republicans compromise in hopes that the next time they want something, they will get a "wink and nod". Amen! But let it be noted that the GOP is controlled by feckless Vichy RNC elites.
Predictably disastrous with those designated moderate, pro-statist losers, but it's worse than that -- the Vichy RNC has actually actively sabotaged its own chances to win....THEN when it actually does win, the GOP yields to Dem politics and policy. Go figure. I am not sur Cruz is the best candidate . His opening salvo was brilliant . It will frame the debate throughout the primary season. Cruz puts pressure on the Left and Dems. He's GOT to sustain it and the initiative. My reservations are that Cruz is a conservative version of the emperor in some ways. He doesn't have executive experience ;even his legislative record is thin. He has little foreign policy experience. In this cycle I think foreign policy will be a determinant Well, visionaries are like that -- he's not shy about articulating his positions without the usual reservations or hedging of bets. That may come off as "emperor"-like, but make no mistake -- as we have seen, "emperors" don't usually pay much attention to the Constitution. Cruz DOES. As to policy and executive experience, 0buma's "executive experince" was as a socialist, race-baiting. "Communtah Organizer." Didn't seem to bother the GOP. Or dopey voters. The job of the President these days should be to surround themselves with like-minded, high-minded Constitutionalists and America-Firsters and be the the CEO of this nation. The Citizens are like stock-holders. If I were to go to the polls today and have to choose from the probable field ,I'd most likely go with a principled conservative governor (and the GOP bench has quite a few to choose from.) Which leaves who? Christie, Kascich, Walker, or Jindal? The first three are compromised or moderates, and Jindal -- though a good man -- isn't forceful enough (IMHO.)
Cruz. Cruz. Cruz. He's the George Patton of GOP candidates. Line up the armored division, then plow our way thru the Reich forces. Even if they win, the other guys are going to continue watering down conservative values, while refusing to reverse any of the damage and rampant statist template already created by Der Fuhrer. And you?
Cruz.
Right. You said 2/3 of the Billionaires support Democrats... The your source states otherwise. I'm sure it was just a typo
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Certainly a no-brainer were the RAT opponent either Hitlery of that Faux Neo-millionaire squaw, Lizzie Borden.
Giddy-Up!
MOST liberal/Democrats will base their life philosophy and ethics on ....Blah, Blah, Blah So....what do you think MOST "People" will base their life philosophy and ethics on ...???
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
The your source states otherwise. I'm sure it was just a typo Hung up on the minutia of style instead of substance -- typical. Have you given ANY consideration to the continued lying myth by Democrats that Republicans are the "party of the rich"? Still, TC's point is made: The MAJORITY of billionaires are indeed Dems, aren't they? And at that, even those figures are sure to be fudged and skewed. ("...according to a POLITICO analysis of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service. ) The above fedgoob agencies are under complete partisan Dem control; NOT exactly trusted sources of these or ANY "official" numbers.
No, I'm just curious if the edification of the body of Christ you put on display here is typical of the members of your "church" - and reiterate that I'm glad I'm an infidel and not a member.
The ability of Fallible and Uninspired goons to assume dominion over the faith of others without having their errors contradicted.
There are two types of people (mostly): 1) Givers, who who base their lives on a definitive standard of ethics and morality based on "The Golden Rule" or God's Laws. 2) Takers, who generally disbelieve in moral absolutes, a lack of personal responsibility, and belief that the world (and others) owe them. And your own opinion on the matter?
No I've given that claim no consideration at all. My point was simple - The 2/3 claim was false. To your point: "...The MAJORITY of billionaires are indeed Dems, aren't they?..." I believe that the MAJORITY of billionaires will support whomever promotes their particular agenda.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Your "curiosity" is disingenuous, Riddler. NEWSFLASH: members of the "body of Christ" are comprised of those who believe in Him, and of whom ask for repentance and receive redemption of their sins. Do you expect Jefferson to do the same? Btw, thanks for reiterating and re-displaying your infidel status as anti-Christ, AND re-kneeling at the edifice of Jefferson. You got called out. Plain and simple.
I believe that just about everyone will do what's best for them, in any given situation. I think that a strong majority would profess to be "givers"....and 99% of them would be lying.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
ALL men are "falible," Riddler... But tell us -- exactly who are these "goons" who "assume dominion" over your faith? Have you been coerced by someone specifically, OR, has your Free Will been stolen?? Moreover, exactly to which "errors" do you refer?
That's a pretty general statement that fails to address ANY differences in philosophy of living between say, a Christian, a Muslim, and an Atheist. If what you believe is true, then why are all the Christian-based nations and societies the leaders in technical advancements, freedom, and the concepts of equality? I think that a strong majority would profess to be "givers"....and 99% of them would be lying. Not very aware of America's bustling charitable orgs, are you? Or the Christian ethos?
Affiliation with the Republican Party is neutralizing. The GOP gave us Roe and has upheld it and extended it. They gave us Kelo, amnesty, open borders, endless wars, etc. They're corrupt, and they never do what they say on any of the core issues. They say what they need to to get elected, and then they do what their crony capitalist controllers want. It's visible. It's been this way for a long, long time. There are conservatives who want things to be better. Things can never get better if conservatives remain in the GOP. They are divided and the GOP conquers them. It gets their votes and their money, thereby diluting all of that for any sort of EFFECTIVE action. The Republican Party ITSELF is the problem, and there will be no advance as long as conservatives remain in it.
Looked in the mirror lately? Religious state-establishments never have a shortage of good-ol-goons like you. You mean like your error of being too stupid to admit that human genitalia always present female form without the effects of Androgen hormones?
But maybe you should. It's the basis of the Dems' propaganda class warfare on Republicans. My point was simple - The 2/3 claim was false. There is such a thijg as "winning" by a technicality, but losing on principle. I believe that the MAJORITY of billionaires will support whomever promotes their particular agenda. So you believe ALL agendas the same?? And IF one agenda is to pretend they support the plight of the poor and middle class while destroying the same poor and middle class? (like most Democrats?)....then what? Certain candidates indeed DO actually make a difference. Look at Der Fuehrer, Hoosane B. 0dinga and his regime.
You are correct. I think that a strong majority would profess to be "givers"....and 99% of them would be lying. Not very aware of America's bustling charitable orgs, are you? Or the Christian ethos? I believe that just about everyone will do what's best for them, in any given situation.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Now, it's just sad. Just toss in the white towel, Riddler. You've been thoroughly thrashed.
People will instinctively and pragmatically act with self-preservation in mind, yes... But that still doesn't account for a "life-philosophy" or moral code.
You mean like your error of being too stupid to admit that human genitalia always present female form without the effects of Androgen hormones? "In a fetus without a Y chromosome — without the effects of male hormones — the genitals develop as female." www.mayoclinic.org/diseases- conditions/ambiguous-genitalia/basics/causes/con-20026345 What does this mean?
There is such a thing as "winning" by a technicality, but losing on principle. There sure is...however my point, as I said, was quite simple: The 2/3 claim was false. So you believe ALL agendas the same?? No. Certain candidates indeed DO actually make a difference. Agreed.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
This is where we disagree, "...just about everyone will do what's best for them, in any given situation..." Is indeed a life-philosophy or moral code.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Because the GOP, since 1868, has been the party of capitalist stockjobbers whose profits are derived primarily from monopolistic government contracts. They produce goods and services for the government, they are given contracts without competition, and they get rich through long-term, stable feeding on the government payroll. This became the central power of the Republican Party with the wholly corrupt Administration of Ulysses S. Grant, following the Civil War, and it has never changed. What is most important to the core GOP is that the contracts remain stable. THAT is their alpha issue: very larger, permanent, non-competitive government contracts that take about a quarter of the treasury and transfer it to the contractors. For that to be stable and certain, the GOP must retain a certain level of power in Congress, as well as in the Civil Service. It was the GOP who made the Civil Service "professional" (in the Presidency of Chester Arthur), at a time when its ranks were completely Republican. As that waned with time, the GOP shifted and empowered cabinet secretaries and did other things. The Republicans don't need to control the whole government, and they don't need to control every agency. They need to control the big contracting agencies, the ones that hire the Halliburtons. And they need to have enough political clout that the Democrats in Congress and the rest of the Republicans will quietly concede the contracts to them, in exchange for everything else. That "everything else" is the game of retail politics. The GOP needs to retain sufficient popularity to get elected in sufficient numbers to keep the contract farm stable. To do that, they have to enthuse people with issues, but they're never serious about those issues, they always clutch up on the key pitches, because, in part, they don't care, and also because they don't WANT to win. For those executives and contributors who profit from the stockjobbing are not particularly conservative. They're to the left on most issues, but their bread is buttered through contracts and special tax clauses, so they use the GOP as their technical blocker and champion. Everything else doesn't matter as much, and Republicans will never die on the hills that conservatives want them to fight for. They will die for tax preferences and contract rights - THOSE things are esoteric, arranged quietly, and non-negotiable. The grand-standing issues like abortion? Conservatives care. Some Republican pols care. Other strike the pose to get the votes. The actual crony capitalists are socially liberal and will never let the GOP strike down abortion. They like the optionality for their own daughters and mistresses, and they concede this to their wives and their Harvard Club buddies. That's the way it is. It cannot change. The money and power bloc is solid, and lucrative. Politicians who protect it come through the revolving door and cash out throughout the rest of their lives. This is the REAL core GOP, and it's not going to change.
As to policy and executive experience, 0buma's "executive experince" was as a socialist, race-baiting. "Communtah Organizer." Didn't seem to bother the GOP. Or dopey voters. Let me clarify . My name for Obama is Emperor Zero and I often just say "the emperor " . In no way was I calling Cruz emperor like. I know Cruz's policies are a strict adherence to Constitutional principles.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Here's a good example of where our individual approaches don't align. I really don't care that the republicans and the democrats are in a constant state of petty conflict. It's childish, undignified, and should probably be regular feature on the Jerry Springer show.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
...strategically dialectic.
Altruistic behavior is exhibited by many animals. Got Sex, Evolution and Behavior?
People like Willie and Jameson just come here to troll. As to the actual amount of billionaires, some billionaires may give or register with one party but only donate as though they are millionaires. So they might have billions but donate only in the tens of thousands. Then you have billionaires like Adelson or the Koch network or Soros who toss in tens of millions. Or you have some like Bloomberg that has a gungrabbing fetish and that controls the direction of their political spending. So it can be hard to quantify all the activities of these various billionaires in either party. That's before you even look at the secret-donor PACs. The tycoons are happy enough to let us have the vote as long as they have the money and can use it to buy up the pols we elect by various means.
Which leaves who? Christie, Kascich, Walker, or Jindal? The first three are compromised or moderates, and Jindal -- though a good man -- isn't forceful enough (IMHO.) I fail to see where Walker is either compromised or moderate . He also has had the courage to take the best shots the Democrat storm troopers can give ,and remain standing . So he would be my first choice . Rick Perry would probably be my 2nd choice of eligible governors . He also has the advantage to being one of the few GOP candidates who served in the military . Also would like to give kudos to Susana Martinez ,and ,Nikki Haley. Yes I'm sure there are issues with each of them and they aren't as ideologically pure . Be careful of overly rigid litmus tests . There are some Founding Fathers who would fall short .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I have. Leave the Republican Party and form a new one. There are no Good Nazis. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. There are pro-life Democrat dupes too. They also believe that they can influence things in that party. They're wrong.
Name these pro-life Dems. I think they're imaginary, part of your they-all-do-it fairy tales. They don't actually exist since they have no choice but to vote Dem, no matter what.
I had a discussion with one of my customers today and that was his view, "Bi- partisanship" was the way to go. (It took all the will power I had to not laugh out loud). So I said if you know you're right about something do you back down from your decision/opinion and give into something you know is wrong??? Needless to say it got real quiet.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I hope you aren't expecting a cognitive response.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
So how many laws/executive orders have the Democraps/Obozo passed/made that benefited the rich and not the average Joe during Obozo's 2 terms?? Oh wait never mind that would blow some peoples minds if they knew the truth. Maybe they will do everybody a favor and.... “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Now is the hour to unite, long before the primary begins. If we unite behind one candidate, we can defeat the RINO du jour. Unity up front is key. It is put up or shut up time, indeed.
http://www.tedcruz.org
On this issue, I believe he has expressed what he thinks. Blacks voting 95+ percent for Dems, regardless of candidate or what the party does for them, is less productive than making political demands which, if not met, result in a group shift to the opposition. He did not so much express approval of the wonders of the GOP but disapproval of bootlicking devotion to the Dems.
According to the moderate party PTB, their way is the answer. The failing was in the campaign of the candidate getting the wonderful message out. The same corporate money fuels the Dem and GOP national organizations. Go figure. In the football season, the AFC and NFC hold primaries to choose their candidate to fight for the prize in the Super Bowl. And the winner is... the NFL. They own both conferences. Corporate money owns both parties. Regardless of who wins, they own them. Don’t forget Marco Rubio. He is an effective speaker, hispanic, and does not carry as much baggage as Bush or Cruz. It is too early to tell if he will gain any traction. I see Kasich and Walker as potentially viable GOP candidates. I have previously noted that Cruz should not be underestimated. He excels at debate. He is, however, the most polarizing of the potential GOP candidates. On the Dem side, I doubt Hillary will prevail. While Elizabeth Warren may be left of Obama, she is popular, she is a woman, and she excels at debate. She could excite a cult following like 2008 Obama did. Remember those unreal crowds? Hillary is the same polarizing figure she was in 2008.
Hillary is the same polarizing figure she was in 2008. Completely agree . Evita was not the inevitable candidate in 2008 ,and she isn't now either .....and Elizabeth Warren is no William T Sherman despite her protests about not throwing her hat in the ring.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
That's before you even look at the secret-donor PACs. I don't think you could ever figure out "Who gave how much to who", too many ways to hide "Who's" money it is.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
They exist. Up here in Connecticut the "Democrats for Life" contact me every election cycle. I challenge them on babies versus party, and they always hedge. The political animal always places party before God. I am no more persuaded by the Democrat liars than the Republicans. Both are dupes.
In a leaked propaganda directive to 50 Cent Party internet commentators, their objective was stated as:[27][28] In order to circumscribe the influence of Taiwanese democracy, in order to progress further in the work of guiding public opinion, and in accordance with the requirements established by higher authorities to “be strategic, be skilled,” we hope that internet commentators conscientiously study the mindset of netizens, grasp international developments, and better perform the work of being an internet commentator. For this purpose, this notice is promulgated as set forth below: (1) To the extent possible make America the target of criticism. Play down the existence of Taiwan. (2) Do not directly confront [the idea of] democracy; rather, frame the argument in terms of “what kind of system can truly implement democracy.” (3) To the extent possible, choose various examples in Western countries of violence and unreasonable circumstances to explain how democracy is not well-suited to capitalism. (4) Use America’s and other countries’ interference in international affairs to explain how Western democracy is actually an invasion of other countries and [how the West] is forcibly pushing [on other countries] Western values. (5) Use the bloody and tear-stained history of a [once] weak people [i.e., China] to stir up pro-Party and patriotic emotions. (6) Increase the exposure that positive developments inside China receive; further accommodate the work of maintaining [social] stability.[27][28] Change a few words here and there and you have the Democraps version. It makes me laugh to know they are expending so much energy here at LF when nobody believes what they say anyway. LOL...
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
A good beginning would be competence.
Post 9/11 Republicans. Same crap you just accused the Democraps for.
#2. To: redleghunter (#1)
#3. To: Jameson (#2)
Cruz is likely far too extreme ideologically to win the nomination. The Republican party has a habit of nominating relatively moderate candidates (see John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012). That’s especially the case when the party has been out of the White House for more than one term. A Cruz nomination wouldn’t just break this streak; it would throw it off a 100-floor balcony and drop a piano on it.
#4. To: Jameson (#0)
(Edited)
First, Cruz doesn’t have enough support from party bigwigs.
#5. To: Jameson (#0)
#6. To: Jameson (#0)
That is, you get pounced on the moment you’re seen as a threat to win the nomination.
#7. To: Jameson (#0)
(Edited)
#8. To: redleghunter (#3)
Some conservatives stayed home and it showed in the results.
#9. To: redleghunter (#1)
Well they did not ask that of Obola
#10. To: Jameson (#0)
" Let’s Be Serious About Ted Cruz From The Start: He’s Too Extreme And Too Disliked To Win "
#11. To: Jameson, redleghunter, GeorgiaConservative, TooConservative, cranko, CZ82, Stoner (#0)
(Edited)
#12. To: redleghunter (#1)
The bar for Presidential credentials was lowered by the current occupant...Obola.
#13. To: Stoner (#10)
My money says the author is in the bag for Bush
#14. To: Pericles (#11)
"... he is not running for president for real but to boost his power..."
#15. To: VxH (#4)
Cruz or lose!
#16. To: Pericles (#11)
Extreme is the wrong word - he is a grifter - in his decleration he only mentioned 'conservatives' a lot rather than referring to Americans
#17. To: A K A Stone (#16)
(Edited)
Extreme is the wrong word - he is a grifter - in his decleration he only mentioned 'conservatives' a lot rather than referring to Americans That is because liberals aren't real Americans. They have divorced themselves from the culture and they want to make something different. They support thievery, murder, bullying, and drinking the blood of aborted babies.
#18. To: Pericles, Jameson, GeorgiaConservative, TooConservative, cranko, CZ82, Stoner (#11)
Extreme is the wrong word - he is a grifter - in his decleration he only mentioned 'conservatives' a lot rather than referring to Americans - to someone with a marketing background like I have that means he is not running for president for real but to boost his power in the conservative base which he then can exploit for money and even retire to do TV shows or what not and serve as someone who can have the power to endorse.
#19. To: Jameson (#0)
Let’s Be Serious About Ted Cruz From The Start: He’s Too Extreme And Too Disliked To Win
#20. To: Pericles (#17)
Again, it shows that Cruz is trying to grift the base like you AKA rather than appeal to a broader audience and actually have a chance to win as president.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
They'll reject him anyway.
#22. To: Jameson (#0)
Cruz almost certainly has no shot of winning the nomination, according to every indicator that predicts success in presidential primaries.
#23. To: redleghunter (#1)
The bar for Presidential credentials was lowered by the current occupant...Obola.
#24. To: GeorgiaConservative (#5)
Though everyone except Cruz and Cruz fanboys already knows this, and even the former might and just wants something from a vanity campaign.
#25. To: Liberator (#22)
At a minimum, your fellow party members shouldn’t hate you.
#26. To: TooConservative (#6)
Cruz has already been fully pounced.
#27. To: Jameson (#25)
So....do you really believe that Cruz can be the republican's presidential nominee?
#28. To: Jameson (#25)
So....do you really believe that Cruz can be the republican's presidential nominee?
#29. To: cranko (#7)
Cruz isn't #1 on anyone's list of favorite candidates.
#30. To: cranko aka jwpegler (#7)
Cruz isn't #1 on anyone's list of favorite candidates.
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
I don't believe that it matters who the Republican nominee is.
#32. To: cranko (#7)
Cruz is smart, he may be hoping that the others implode so he can be around as the #2 choice and the only person left standing for everyone who hates Bush.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#20)
He is telling the truth of who he is. You sound like one of those people who would suggest lying is a good way to "appeal to a audience".
#34. To: Liberator (#27)
"...There are far more patriots -- within the general populace, industry, and private sector -- who recognize Cruz is the only anecdote to 0buma's gutting of this nation in every way...."
#35. To: Jameson (#34)
1. So what makes one a "patriot?"
#36. To: Jameson (#34)
2. If Mr. Cruz is the only "anecdote" what will the "patriots" do if he (god forbid) does not become the republican's nominee?
#37. To: Liberator (#35)
I suppose....succumb to the escalated Police State and Big Gubmint, and further destruction of the US Constitution.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#36)
2020, 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036
#39. To: Jameson (#37)
in the short term....will you vote for Bush?
#40. To: Jameson (#37)
#41. To: A K A Stone (#36)
2020, 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036
#42. To: Liberator (#31)
That's too bad because unlike the other puppets, Cruz takes no prisoners and is small gubmint. He is the literal political anecdote to 0buma, which is why you're going to immediately see Cruz pounded from every direction until he's either left standing and stronger, OR too crippled to continue.
#43. To: Liberator (#40)
Will you vote for a Dem over a Pubbie in any case?
#44. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter (#36)
2020, 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036
#45. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone, redleghunter (#44)
#46. To: Liberator (#40)
Will you vote for a Dem over a Pubbie in any case?
#47. To: Pericles (#45)
This cult of personality is weird for me to accept belongs with Republican politics
#48. To: redleghunter, Jameson (#3)
Look at how those elections worked out for the GOP with moderates. Some conservatives stayed home and it showed in the results.
#49. To: Pericles (#17)
appeal to a broader audience
#50. To: A K A Stone (#15)
Ok. I'm going to ease up on you. Anyone with that slogan can't be all bad.
#51. To: Pericles, liberator, TooConservative, A K A Stone, VxH (#45)
This cult of personality is weird for me to accept belongs with Republican politics
#52. To: jeremiad (#49)
Those are code words for compromising your principles. McConnell and Boehner do that consistently, along with a good sized chunk of the GOP officials.
#53. To: redleghunter, , liberator, TooConservative, A K A Stone (#51)
This cult of personality is weird for me to accept belongs with Republican politics Pardon the raucous laughter Pericles....
#54. To: Pericles, Rufus T Firefly, redleghunter (#45)
This cult of personality is weird for me to accept belongs with Republican politics...
#55. To: A K A Stone, VxH (#15)
("Cruz or lose!")
#56. To: Pericles (#53)
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
I wish Cruz well. I'd like to see him become the Republican nominee. I might even vote in the primary and then come out in the general election, hold my nose, and vote Republican in the general election, if he's the guy.
#58. To: jeremiad (#49)
Ted Cruz is a chance at snatching victory from defeat, instead of the usual script of losing when a real chance at winning presents itself. Either Republicans nominate a Constitutional conservative, or all that is left of the mess will be the wiping of our collective ass after we take the dump.
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
Democrats are exultant babykillers. Republicans are corrupt crony capitalist incompetents.
#60. To: VxH (#50)
I grow on people like a fungus.
#61. To: nolu chan (#48)
The mission of the Party PTB is to (1) protect their position as the Party PTB and (2) elect one of their own as President.
#62. To: Jameson (#46)
I have voted for republicans, democrats, libertarians, non-affiliated.....etc it all depends on the circumstances at that time...
#63. To: Liberator, Vicomte13 (#57)
He'll roll back a lot of recent regulations, over-officiousness, Statism, and fascism if he succeeds
#64. To: nolu chan, liberator, tomder55 (#48)
By nominating and electing any conservative such as Ted Cruz, the moderate Party PTB would risk being replaced by conservatives. By nominating a moderate, they ensure that no conservative has any claim to fame demonstrating the lack of merit in their moderate or liberal policies. Their primary motivation is to remain in control of the levers of power within the party. That purpose is better served by a losing Ford, Dole, McCain, Romney, or the like, than a winning conservative.
#65. To: redleghunter (#64)
Sometimes a bright light has to shine to scatter the cockroaches. Cruz gave us some of that light yesterday. More to follow to see if he throws back the entire curtain to let the light in.
#66. To: redleghunter (#63)
hopefully roll back a lot of 'satanism.'
#67. To: Liberator (#59)
Dems are also corrupt crony capitalist incompetents. BUT WORSE.
#68. To: redleghunter (#63)
#69. To: Liberator (#62)
Standing on the principles of quicksand, and casting your vote on which way the wind happens to be blowing.
#70. To: Vicomte13 (#67)
The Republicans gave us Roe v. Wade and Casey, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter. And Kelo.
#71. To: Jameson (#69)
(Edited)
Actually I really don't care much for political parties or labels like "conservative" or "liberal"
#72. To: Vicomte13 (#67)
Republicans lose wars.
#73. To: redleghunter (#64)
Cruz gave us some of that light yesterday.
ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith To Black Americans: Republicans Aren’t The Enemy
“Then we end up finding ourselves devoid of any representation whatsoever because nobody is competing to garner our vote and our support … let’s not be so transparent in our support for one party over another when that does not appear to be working for us. Force [politicians] to flatter us…”
#74. To: Liberator (#71)
I guess you don't much care for defining a person or party by their respective words, deeds, actions, life philosophy, or agendas either.
#75. To: Liberator (#70)
but you're making the mistake of confusing the RNC statist stranglehold on the GOP with the rest of the party.
#76. To: nolu chan (#73)
#77. To: Liberator (#71)
#78. To: Liberator (#60)
(Edited)
#79. To: Liberator (#60)
Actually, you are an actually incurable communicable disease.
#80. To: Liberator (#62)
Atta boy! Standing on the principles of quicksand, and casting your vote on which way the wind happens to be blowing.
#81. To: redleghunter (#64)
Sometimes a bright light has to shine to scatter the cockroaches. Cruz gave us some of that light yesterday. More to follow to see if he throws back the entire curtain to let the light in.
#82. To: CZ82 (#80)
Why can't some people figure out that being a moderate (believing the lies of "BOTH" parties) is voting for your own demise??
#83. To: Pericles (#52)
#84. To: Liberator (#70)
#85. To: Jameson (#82)
#86. To: Jameson (#82)
On the other hand, believing the lies of only one "party" is the epitome of ignorance......
#87. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, liberator, (#64)
#88. To: jeremiad (#83)
You can compromise on policy, but NEVER on principles. The Democrats never compromise unless it advances their agenda. Republicans compromise in hopes that the next time they want something, they will get a "wink and nod".
#89. To: Vicomte13 (#77)
The Democrats are babykillers and the Republicans are crapweasels. There may have been "Good Germans" by somebody's definition, somewhere, but it's 1943 and I'm a pilot over Germany: they're all bad. I'm not going to be discriminating, trying to find the good, because I don't care. They're the enemy, and they're all bad.
#90. To: TooConservative (#89)
(when 2/3 of the billionaires in America are active Dem partisans)
#91. To: tomder55 (#87)
I'd most likely go with a principled conservative governor
#92. To: Liberator (#55)
The Riddler ripped the slogan off.
#93. To: VxH (#78)
"[I'm] more like Jeffersonian penicillin."
#94. To: VxH (#79)
If the edification of the body of Christ you put on display here is typical of the members of your "church", I'm glad I'm an infidel and not a member.
#95. To: nolu chan (#73)
ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith To Black Americans: Republicans Aren’t The Enemy
#96. To: A K A Stone (#91)
#97. To: Jameson (#74)
I don't believe that everyone who is identified as a "republican" (or other designation) will all respond or act in the same manner in any given situation. Everyone responds differently.
#98. To: Vicomte13 (#75)
In 1943, there was no such thing as a "Good German".
#99. To: Jameson (#90)
Please cite your source - thanks
The 100 biggest donors of 2014 gave nearly $174 million to Democrats, compared to more than $140 million to Republicans, according to a POLITICO analysis of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service.
#100. To: Vicomte13 (#77)
I'm not going to let the Republicans off the hook. There are no "Good Republicans". There are some people with good ideas and values who have mistakenly aligned themselves with the Republican Party.
#101. To: CZ82 (#80)
Why can't some people figure out that being a moderate (believing the lies of "BOTH" parties) is voting for your own demise??
#102. To: tomder55 (#96)
#103. To: CZ82, redleghunter (#81)
One thing is for sure he pissed off the MSM and the Leftards really bad yesterday. Even Moonbeam climbed out of his grave to say Cruz was a dumbass for being a climate change denier!! LOL...
#104. To: Jameson, CZ82 (#82)
On the other hand, believing the lies of only one "party" is the epitome of ignorance......
#105. To: jeremiad (#83)
You can compromise on policy, but NEVER on principles.
#106. To: tomder55, redleghunter, nolu chan (#87)
(Edited)
The way I see it is that we have tried moderate party establishment types with Romney McCain ,and before that Bob Dole. Didn't work out so well.
#107. To: A K A Stone (#92)
(Edited)
You have any favorite candidates yet?
#108. To: Liberator (#107)
#109. To: TooConservative (#99)
There's this thing called Google. You should check it out.
#110. To: tomder55, A K A Stone (#96)
if a Scott Walker is selected rather than a Ted Cruz. That's who I'll vote for .
#111. To: A K A Stone (#108)
#112. To: Liberator (#97)
MOST conservatives/Republicans WILL base their life philosophy and ethics on ....Blah, Blah, Blah
#113. To: Jameson, TooConservative (#109)
(Edited)
You said 2/3 of the Billionaires support Democrats...
#114. To: Liberator (#94)
Suddenly you're insulted and offended
#115. To: Liberator (#93)
(Edited)
Killing the infection of WHAT then?
#116. To: Jameson (#112)
So....what do you think MOST "People" will base their life philosophy and ethics on ...???
#117. To: Liberator, TooConservative (#113)
Have you given ANY consideration to the continued lying myth by Democrats that Republicans are the "party of the rich"?
#118. To: VxH (#114)
I'm just curious if the edification of the body of Christ you put on display here is typical of the members of your "church"...
#119. To: Liberator (#116)
And your own opinion on the matter?
#120. To: VxH (#115)
The ability of Fallible and Uninspired goons to assume dominion over the faith of others without having their errors contradicted.
#121. To: Jameson (#119)
(Edited)
I believe that just about everyone will do what's best for them, in any given situation.
#122. To: Liberator (#98)
ALL Republics/conservatives as "Good Germans" when its conservative battling for Life and Liberty EVERY day. Or are you??
#123. To: Liberator (#120)
(Edited)
But tell us -- exactly who are these "goons" who "assume dominion" over your faith?
Moreover, exactly to which "errors" do you refer?
#124. To: Jameson (#117)
No I've given that claim no consideration at all [to the continued lying myth by Democrats that Republicans are the "party of the rich"?]
#125. To: Liberator (#121)
That's a pretty general statement that fails to address ANY differences in philosophy of living between say, a Christian, a Muslim, and an Atheist.
#126. To: VxH (#123)
#127. To: Jameson (#125)
I believe that just about everyone will do what's best for them, in any given situation.
#128. To: Liberator (#126)
(Edited)
Moreover, exactly to which "errors" do you refer?
Maybe you should just stick with "HUH?", Idiot.
#129. To: Liberator (#124)
#130. To: Liberator (#127)
But that still doesn't account for a "life-philosophy" or moral code.
#131. To: Liberator (#106)
THEN when it actually does win, the GOP yields to Dem politics and policy. Go figure.
#132. To: Liberator (#106)
Well, visionaries are like that -- he's not shy about articulating his positions without the usual reservations or hedging of bets. That may come off as "emperor"-like, but make no mistake -- as we have seen, "emperors" don't usually pay much attention to the Constitution. Cruz DOES.
#133. To: Liberator (#124)
But maybe you should. It's the basis of the Dems' propaganda class warfare on Republicans.
#134. To: Jameson (#133)
It's childish, undignified, and...
#135. To: Jameson (#130)
a life-philosophy or moral code.
#136. To: Liberator (#113)
#137. To: Liberator (#106)
If I were to go to the polls today and have to choose from the probable field ,I'd most likely go with a principled conservative governor (and the GOP bench has quite a few to choose from.)
#138. To: Liberator (#100)
(Edited)
Make up your mind.
#139. To: Vicomte13 (#138)
There are pro-life Democrat dupes too. They also believe that they can influence things in that party. They're wrong.
#140. To: Liberator (#101)
Because these people are brainwashed into believing in the propaganda of "fairness" of bi-partisanship, and "fairness" as enumerated in the US Constitution
#141. To: Liberator (#104)
#142. To: Liberator, Jameson (#124)
#143. To: jeremiad (#49)
Either we turn the "ship of state" around or we follow the marxists in the Democrat party into the "hell on Earth" they always create. Ted Cruz is a chance at snatching victory from defeat, instead of the usual script of losing when a real chance at winning presents itself.
#144. To: Liberator (#95)
I don't really know exactly what he thinks.
#145. To: Liberator, tomder55, redleghunter (#106)
[Tomder55 #87] The way I see it is that we have tried moderate party establishment types with Romney McCain ,and before that Bob Dole. Didn't work out so well.
[Liberator #106] THEN when it actually does win, the GOP yields to Dem politics and policy. Go figure.
[Liberator #106] Which leaves who? Christie, Kascich, Walker, or Jindal?
#146. To: nolu chan (#145)
On the Dem side, I doubt Hillary will prevail. While Elizabeth Warren may be left of Obama, she is popular, she is a woman, and she excels at debate. She could excite a cult following like 2008 Obama did. Remember those unreal crowds?
#147. To: TooConservative (#136)
So it can be hard to quantify all the activities of these various billionaires in either party.
#148. To: TooConservative (#139)
(Edited)
Name these pro-life Dems. I think they're imaginary, part of your they-all-do-it fairy tales. They don't actually exist
#149. To: TooConservative, Liberator (#136)
People like Willie and Jameson just come here to troll.
#150. To: Pericles (#88)
#151. To: CZ82, TooConservative, Liberator (#149)
Change a few words here and there and you have the Democraps version.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]