Ted Cruz 2016

[jamil]

And again...

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GPIA7R again."

 

[RMC]

At the end of the day, the candidate you support should be the result of an objective comparison of what all the candidates support for all the issues important to you. It's okay to acknowledge when a candidate you don't like has a better policy. It's okay to acknowledge when your candidate is in the wrong. It's okay to believe our favorite sports team is infallible. But we're not in high school, and this isn't a gymnasium, and the people we're shouting down aren't the fans of the visiting team on the other side of the gym. Choosing a candidate should be a more objective task than choosing which sports team to support.

What "Should Be" isn't even close to "What Is" when it comes to politics.

 

[RMC]

And again...

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GPIA7R again."

Please explain. I am not a forum guru so if I am acting out of line please let me know.

 

[jamil]

I think every candidate is doing little more than playing a part. You are not saying anything about Trump that couldn't be said about the others so I fail to understand your agenda. There is seldom anything good that comes out of discussions about politics, religion, or caliber choice.

I understand his agenda because it is similar to mine even if we draw different conclusions. Intellectual honestly. Signs of intellectual honesty is a willingness to admit when your side is objectively wrong on a particular thing.

It's hard to say you think Trump is the most "real" person in the race and also acknowledge what the Trump campaign itself has said about Trump playing a part to achieve a goal, and then shifting that goal and playing a different part as he pivots towards campaigning against Hillary. If I were supporting Trump with a healthy skepticism, the question I'd be asking myself is, which if any of the parts Trump plays is the real Trump?

I'm not trying to get you or anyone to stop supporting Trump. At this point, he's probably the only choice left that isn't Hillary and a sure leftward shift of power in the SCOTUS for at least the next generation. I've said before that I'm voting for Trump in the general election.

My agenda is to help Trumpers not be fiercely loyal. I am unwilling to cede that kind of power to any single person. I'm just asking that when we post stuff that should make you disagree with Trump to admit you disagree with him instead of saying, "well at least Trump...."

When Trump misappropriates his pandering, it's okay to say, "Hey Trump, we say "second Corinthians, not two Corinthians. Please stop pretending you're religious. If we cared most about that we'd all be voting for Carson still. " It's okay to say, "no, we don't want to punish the women who get abortions if they were made illigal, because it would be the doctors performing the abortions who would be breaking the law." It's okay to say, "No, Trump, c'mon, man. We don't need to make special arrangements to let people use whichever gender bathroom they identify with. Use the one you're plumbed for."

 

[1775usmarine]

All I know is I got my 2 tickets to see Cruz at the Laporte Civic Center on Sunday at 7pm.

 

[jamil]

What "Should Be" isn't even close to "What Is" when it comes to politics.

It can be more than it's demonstrated by Trumpers. There is objective truth. Acknowledge it to the extent possible. That's it.

Please explain. I am not a forum guru so if I am acting out of line please let me know.

People can give Reputation points for posts. You do it by clicking the star at the bottom of their post. You can choose how many points you want to give, but posters without many posts start out with no reputation points to give. You can still rep, but you can only give zero points. It's the thought that counts though, so if you find yourself in agreement with someone, or they've said something that really resonates with you, go ahead and give them some positive feedback even if it's worth zero rep. Let them know you appreciate what they had to say.

INGO puts a limit on how many times you can "Rep" someone without repping others. When you click the star icon to rep someone, if you've recently repped that person you get the message "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to <screen name> again." We joke about that being kinda socialist. I don't want to be forced to redistribute my rep.

 

[jamil]

All I know is I got my 2 tickets to see Cruz at the Laporte Civic Center on Sunday at 7pm.

I don't know if Cruz will be anywhere near me. I'd like to see him in person to judge whether he comes off as smarmy in person as he does on TV. I've seen him talk "with his shoes off" so to speak. He seems less smarmy then.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I think every candidate is doing little more than playing a part. You are not saying anything about Trump that couldn't be said about the others so I fail to understand your agenda. There is seldom anything good that comes out of discussions about politics, religion, or caliber choice.

Actually, as I said before, my involvement with candidates in this race is done. I've no agenda, just questions. I really, really hate seeing... as others have mentioned... "cult like" behavior when it comes to a candidate. That bothers me more than anything else... but I think it's more of a personality thing. Some people are more apt to doing it, and others are more skeptical.

We've seen this behavior with Obama for 8 years now... how he gets a pass to do and say what he likes. Now we're seeing it again with Trump and it's awful.

 

[chipbennett]

Actually, as I said before, my involvement with candidates in this race is done. I've no agenda, just questions. I really, really hate seeing... as others have mentioned... "cult like" behavior when it comes to a candidate. That bothers me more than anything else... but I think it's more of a personality thing. Some people are more apt to doing it, and others are more skeptical.

We've seen this behavior with Obama for 8 years now... how he gets a pass to do and say what he likes. Now we're seeing it again with Trump and it's awful.

The same is true of Cruz.

We're probably not all that far apart on our approach to this election. I have made an informed decision, but I am not emotionally invested in that decision.

 

[1775usmarine]

I don't know if Cruz will be anywhere near me. I'd like to see him in person to judge whether he comes off as smarmy in person as he does on TV. I've seen him talk "with his shoes off" so to speak. He seems less smarmy then.

I'd like to hear straight from the horses mouth instead of the media twisting words like they are prone to do.

 

[Thor]

The same is true of Cruz.

I have not seen that. The only thing I'm giving a pass on is the constitution. I don't want a preacher for president, but the constitution is a shield he carries that would allow me to ignore whatever other message he has that I'm not interested in. I like that he has defended constitutional principles before the SC.

I like his consistency, in that he did what he told his constituents he was going to do. I like his 5 for Freedom plan to shut down the IRS, Dept's of Ed, Energy, Commerce & HUD. If he is consistent in keeping his word that's all I want.

On the other hand, I only count on the Donald to say s##t and do what he wants, as long as it's a deal he doesn't seem to care. When this election 'deal' is done he'll be as consistent as he feels like it that day.

 

[chipbennett]

I have not seen that. The only thing I'm giving a pass on is the constitution. I don't want a preacher for president, but the constitution is a shield he carries that would allow me to ignore whatever other message he has that I'm not interested in. I like that he has defended constitutional principles before the SC.

I like his consistency, in that he did what he told his constituents he was going to do. I like his 5 for Freedom plan to shut down the IRS, Dept's of Ed, Energy, Commerce & HUD. If he is consistent in keeping his word that's all I want.

On the other hand, I only count on the Donald to say s##t and do what he wants, as long as it's a deal he doesn't seem to care. When this election 'deal' is done he'll be as consistent as he feels like it that day.

We're talking about the attitude/behavior/response of the supporters, not of the candidates themselves.

I readily admit that Obama is the Supreme Personality Cult example, and that Trump has within his supporters a contingent of cult-like followers. But I've not seen many Cruz supporters here admit that Cruz, as well, has a similar contingent of cult-like followers, who exhibit all of the traits GPIA7R described above.

The real problem is when we project the behaviors of those contingents upon the supporters as a whole. It's not true of Cruz, and it's likewise not true of Trump.

 

[nate77]

Those blinders seem to be working really good for you.

Speaking of blinders, take a few minutes to look through Trump's policy positions.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

It might take a few minutes since they are all a bit more than a "catch phrase deep".

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Speaking of blinders, take a few minutes to look through Trump's policy positions.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

It might take a few minutes since they are all a bit more than a "catch phrase deep".

A skeptical person would weigh those positions against what they were before he ran for President.

A gullible person would buy them at face value from the salesman.

We should not get in the habit of linking a candidate's website as truthful information from a candidate. It's a marketplace to sell words to people.

 

[nate77]

I like his 5 for Freedom plan to shut down the IRS, Dept's of Ed, Energy, Commerce & HUD.

Great red meat for conservatives, why didn't Bush 2, Bush 1, or Ronald Reagan think of that?

Unfortunately it will never happen.

 

[nate77]

A skeptical person would weigh those positions against what they were before he ran for President.

A gullible person would buy them at face value from the salesman.

We should not get in the habit of linking a candidate's website as truthful information from a candidate. It's a marketplace to sell words to people.

Speaking of gullible, you really think Cruz could shut down the IRS, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, and HUD?

https://www.tedcruz.org/five-for-freedom/

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Speaking of gullible, you really think Cruz could shut down the IRS, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, and HUD?

https://www.tedcruz.org/five-for-freedom/

Again, this dance, I'm not doing it.

I'm not talking about Cruz. I'm not a Cruz backer. Address what I said about Trump, or don't... either way. But let's not "But Bush!" this to death.

 

[Jludo]

Speaking of blinders, take a few minutes to look through Trump's policy positions.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

It might take a few minutes since they are all a bit more than a "catch phrase deep".

I'd be interested to see how much Trump actually knows about the 'positions' portion of his webpage.
My favorite when politicians say things like "The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:" We aren't paying for government programs, the government is paying us in the form of tax cuts, how generous.

 

[MisterChester]

Great red meat for conservatives, why didn't Bush 2, Bush 1, or Ronald Reagan think of that?

Too busy supporting assault weapon bans.

 

[jamil]

The same is true of Cruz.

We're probably not all that far apart on our approach to this election. I have made an informed decision, but I am not emotionally invested in that decision.

I think that's a false equivalence. I do think people have bought into the whole, "I'll abolish the IRS", and everyone knows he won't/can't do that. But in that sense he's like every politician who's ever run for office. They've all promised things they know their base wants that they know they can't deliver.

Trump is orders of magnitude beyond that. Cruz has never said that he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and not lose any voters. That's because it wouldn't be true. But Trumpers were actually proud to stand up and agree with Trump! That's just not normal candidate support. That's way beyond. I have voted in every general election since Reagan and I've never seen anything like the "fierce loyalty" that Trump gets.

So you can say Cruz also has some unreasoned support. But it's not cultlike in the same sense as Trump supporters.

We're talking about the attitude/behavior/response of the supporters, not of the candidates themselves.

I readily admit that Obama is the Supreme Personality Cult example, and that Trump has within his supporters a contingent of cult-like followers. But I've not seen many Cruz supporters here admit that Cruz, as well, has a similar contingent of cult-like followers, who exhibit all of the traits GPIA7R described above.

The real problem is when we project the behaviors of those contingents upon the supporters as a whole. It's not true of Cruz, and it's likewise not true of Trump.

Speaking of gullible, you really think Cruz could shut down the IRS, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, and HUD?

https://www.tedcruz.org/five-for-freedom/

I guess what I'd really like to know from you Trump supporters, will you stand up and complain at Trump when he goes against what he promised you, or will you go along with it to avoid the dissonance of buyer's remorse? I've seen people who've been very conservative in their comments shift along with Trump. That just scares the **** out of me.

I'd be interested to see how much Trump actually knows about the 'positions' portion of his webpage.
My favorite when politicians say things like "The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:" We aren't paying for government programs, the government is paying us in the form of tax cuts, how generous.

That has been a pet peeve. I first started hearing this nonsense several years ago. It's the democrats way of demonizing tax cuts. The Democrats would complain about Republicans reducing taxes without "paying" for them. Of course it's not that the Republicans didn't want to cut spending. It's that they wanted to cut social spending while democrats wanted to cut military spending. Neither side could agree on what and how much to cut. So the compromise was always not to cut any spending and still do the tax cuts. And this is partly why so many people are pissed off. Yes. DO cut taxes. But Yes. DO cut spending too.

I still think the way to fix all that nonsense is make it illegal for the government to spend more than it takes in. Also make it illegal to spend money brought in from mandatory taxes on anything but non-discretionary spending. If they want to spend outside of that they need to beg the public for voluntary taxes. Kinda like a gofundme. You want cow fart studies, you can donate to that fund. If no one donates, well I guess we didn't need to study cow farts.