Ted Cruz 2016

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
For your sake, I hope you are as ignorant as me 4 decades in. Since we both dislike country music, I suspect that our ignorance levels will be close (and much higher than people that like country music).

jnd
[/quote]

I’ll rather take that head trauma you mentioned over ignorance if given the choice. [/quote]

Dude, I think he’s busting your balls at this point.

If I remember correctly he is a very reasonable fellow. Whom I think works with statistics because he has a very solid grasp of polling etc.
[/quote]

I am not a big fan of country music because it is so damn literal. There is not room for interpretation/thoughtfulness when your song is called “Red Solo Cup.”

And yes, I am a very reasonable fellow… At least I think so.

jnd

202

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
For your sake, I hope you are as ignorant as me 4 decades in. Since we both dislike country music, I suspect that our ignorance levels will be close (and much higher than people that like country music).

jnd
[/quote]

I’ll rather take that head trauma you mentioned over ignorance if given the choice. [/quote]

Dude, I think he’s busting your balls at this point.

If I remember correctly he is a very reasonable fellow. Whom I think works with statistics because he has a very solid grasp of polling etc.
[/quote]

It takes my sarcasm meter until around noon boot up. Until then my, “SMH, no fucking way dude actually thinks this,” meter runs on overdrive…[/quote]

I am from NJ, my sarcasm-meter is pinned at 100 when I wake up. Living in Georgia for 4 years was a blast.

jnd

203

[quote]jnd wrote:
Cruz flip flops on his musical taste?

“I love Van Halen, Sabbath, Zep, Priest, Deep Purple, and Rush, but 9/11 happens and now I like Toby Keith”???

WTF. The only thing that could cause such a drastic change in musical taste is a closed head brain injury.

jnd[/quote]

You’ve had some good posts but this isn’t one of them. I like all of the above bands too, and I like Toby Keith. So what? That means nothing. Coincidentally, sometime after 9/11 I started liking Toby Keith. So what??? 1) the nature of hit songs is such that one might not like an artist until they hear a song that resonates with them (“Angry American” for example) and then be persuaded to go back and look at the artist in more depth and come out liking them. 2) this is also the nature of music as a whole 3) liking Toby Keith doesn’t mean you can’t like the other stuff too.

This is just dumb.

On another note, I fucking love Cruz’s music taste. Anybody who legitimately digs Priest, Sabbath, Rush, and the Led ain’t all bad.

204

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
Cruz flip flops on his musical taste?

“I love Van Halen, Sabbath, Zep, Priest, Deep Purple, and Rush, but 9/11 happens and now I like Toby Keith”???

WTF. The only thing that could cause such a drastic change in musical taste is a closed head brain injury.

jnd[/quote]

You’re the second person I’ve seen mention this.

Is this what the country has come to. A person’s musical taste is now some indication of their ability to govern?

What someone listens to now, compared to what they used to, for whatever reason, is now an “issue” that will “sway a voter”?

I’m just going to come out and say that if this is the type of dirt people are going to use to try and discredit Cruz, he has an exponentially better shot at not only POTUS, but completing the clean sweep Nixon barely missed, than I assumed prior.
[/quote]

A. It’s not “DIRT”, it is just a weird thing that someone would change their musical taste on a dime. I like all types of music- but I really like music. There is no single event that could make me all of the sudden like a type of music and abandon my previous musical tastes. Having kids meant being exposed to Raffi and all of that, it’s not like I all of the sudden fell in love with that music.[/quote]

Colossally wrong and asinine. I’ve had moments that made me suddenly start liking an artist I hated before, and that subsequently made me re-evaluate a genre or style. That has happened repeatedly to me and it would be infinitely worse indication of somebody that they never changed or broadened musical tastes. Besides, the fact that some Senator found a country song he liked and went through a country phase DOES NOT MEAN HE STOPPED LIKING THE OTHER SHIT.

This is almost exactly what happened to me…like numerous times. Trance, Country, Metal, you name it.

No. Just no. That’s retarded.

205

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
Cruz flip flops on his musical taste?

“I love Van Halen, Sabbath, Zep, Priest, Deep Purple, and Rush, but 9/11 happens and now I like Toby Keith”???

WTF. The only thing that could cause such a drastic change in musical taste is a closed head brain injury.

jnd[/quote]

You’ve had some good posts but this isn’t one of them. I like all of the above bands too, and I like Toby Keith. So what? That means nothing. Coincidentally, sometime after 9/11 I started liking Toby Keith. So what??? 1) the nature of hit songs is such that one might not like an artist until they hear a song that resonates with them (“Angry American” for example) and then be persuaded to go back and look at the artist in more depth and come out liking them. 2) this is also the nature of music as a whole 3) liking Toby Keith doesn’t mean you can’t like the other stuff too.

This is just dumb.

On another note, I fucking love Cruz’s music taste. Anybody who legitimately digs Priest, Sabbath, Rush, and the Led ain’t all bad.[/quote]

I don’t know if this is his taste, I just listed some classic rock bands that I happen to love.

jnd

206

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Exactly. Reagan was a great pragmatist, and intentionally so. Such pragmatism would be viewed as a disqualifying sin to true believers in 2016.

Think about it - imagine if Scott Walker had presided over big tax cuts as governor, only to have raised taxes after the Wisconsin legislature changed hands to Democrats.

His candidacy would be DOA for the party members insisting on a “true conservative” as the 2016 nominee.[/quote]

I wouldn’t agree that Reagan raised taxes because the legislature changed. I suspect he recognized that expenses were exceeding receipts and hoped to mitigate the situation. (if I understand the intent of your post)

207

I will tolerate some country music, just as I will tolerate some hip-hop.

It would take a hell of a lot more than a catastrophic terrorist attack to make me really like country music. Thermonuclear war comes to mind.

And something like a complete collapse of civilization would have to happen before I could really like hip-hop.

Not by choice, mind you, just that it’d probably be the only music left.

208

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I will tolerate some country music, just as I will tolerate some hip-hop.

It would take a hell of a lot more than a catastrophic terrorist attack to make me really like country music. Thermonuclear war comes to mind.

And something like a complete collapse of civilization would have to happen before I could really like hip-hop.

Not by choice, mind you, just that it’d probably be the only music left.[/quote]

On the contrary, I think the hip-hop artists would be the first to be killed off in an apocalyptic war. They can’t aim for shit and they don’t bother shooting from cover. Combine that with a mouth that won’t shut up when it’s smart and you have a recipe for mass extinction.

At least that’s what I hope for.

209

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
I like Ted Cruz. I’m interested to see if all the lefties will attack his being born in Canada if he runs for president. The same people who were calling “birthers” nut jobs for questioning Obama’s birthplace will be all over Cruz.
[/quote]

Nope. Only right winger retards do this.[/quote]

Why do the masturbation experience here? Swing by PWI, stroke one off in 4.7 seconds then off to Rate My Physique?[/quote]

Yeah, to bad SAMA no longer exists !

210

And now, with his wife on hiatus from Goldman Sachs (we can explore how that figures into Cruz’s populist appeal or not at some point), Cruz has signed up for health insurance through Obama are.

211

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And now, with his wife on hiatus from Goldman Sachs (we can explore how that figures into Cruz’s populist appeal or not at some point), Cruz has signed up for health insurance through Obama are.[/quote]

Shrewd motherfucker, lol. Lefty heads explode everywhere “oh dah irony”. Then he turns around and says “yeah, I hate the law, and am working on fixing it, but the law is the law, and I follow the law, unlike, you know, other politicians.” Dude’s playing chess. Too bad most voters couldn’t even set up a checker board…

With every given step the more I think this is a GOP plan, and those bastards are actually pulling off a mastermind tactic I never gave them the credit to be able to accomplish.

It’s too damn perfect.

212

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And now, with his wife on hiatus from Goldman Sachs (we can explore how that figures into Cruz’s populist appeal or not at some point), Cruz has signed up for health insurance through Obama are.[/quote]

Shrewd motherfucker, lol. Lefty heads explode everywhere “oh dah irony”. Then he turns around and says “yeah, I hate the law, and am working on fixing it, but the law is the law, and I follow the law, unlike, you know, other politicians.” Dude’s playing chess. Too bad most voters couldn’t even set up a checker board…

With every given step the more I think this is a GOP plan, and those bastards are actually pulling off a mastermind tactic I never gave them the credit to be able to accomplish.

It’s too damn perfect. [/quote]

While enticing, I think this theory is going to end in ruins. Given what we know about the moral character of our current political class (party affiliation unimportant), it is almost certain that Cruz is doing this because, just like everybody else (with the possible exception of Hillary, who, I suspect, has become so political and cynical that she privately scoffs at even her own bullshit), he simply thinks that he – as the political messiah the world has been anxiously awaiting – can win.

The next-most-likely option – and it’s a distant second – is that Cruz knows he has a snowball’s chance in hell of emerging victorious from both a primary and a general election, but he doesn’t care, because an utterly uncompromising far-right grandstand (which is really all he’s been good for ever since we the people learned his name) against the likes of Jeb Bush may prove useful and highly lucrative in future endeavors.

The Cruz-as-designated-GOP-flak-catcher scenario – which would be very awesome, by the way – is, in my view, further down the list of likely possibilities. And I think his overall effect on the primaries, which will almost certainly be negative, will show this to be the case.

213

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The Cruz-as-designated-GOP-flak-catcher scenario – which would be very awesome, by the way – is, in my view, further down the list of likely possibilities. .[/quote]

Stop killing my vibe.

214

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The Cruz-as-designated-GOP-flak-catcher scenario – which would be very awesome, by the way – is, in my view, further down the list of likely possibilities. .[/quote]

Stop killing my vibe. [/quote]

I’m a big Signs fan, incidentally.

215

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And now, with his wife on hiatus from Goldman Sachs (we can explore how that figures into Cruz’s populist appeal or not at some point), Cruz has signed up for health insurance through Obama are.[/quote]

Shrewd motherfucker, lol. Lefty heads explode everywhere “oh dah irony”. Then he turns around and says “yeah, I hate the law, and am working on fixing it, but the law is the law, and I follow the law, unlike, you know, other politicians.” Dude’s playing chess. Too bad most voters couldn’t even set up a checker board…

With every given step the more I think this is a GOP plan, and those bastards are actually pulling off a mastermind tactic I never gave them the credit to be able to accomplish.

It’s too damn perfect. [/quote]

I think he can use this two ways, one you already pointed out:

  1. Say, “I may abhor the law, but I’m not above it as evidenced by my actions, and that’s the kind of president I will also be, unlike the current occupant.” A little subject to caveat, though, since he doesn’t have to signup on the exchanges, but I still think he can score points with this.

  2. He looks less like a heel for repealing the ACA. The argument will be (and already is), "there are people already using and benefiting from the law, taking it away would be callous and un-American. Cruz can say he is eating his own cooking by being willing to repeal his own set of benefits. That softens the attacks on repeal some.

As for Cruz being the flak jacket (to borrow from Smh), I am less inclined to buy that. He has an enormous ego and is certain he is right. I have a hard time believing he will be a patsy in service of paving the way for the election of a sellout squish moderate.

But then again, maybe he’s just wanted us to think that all along and he’s playing an even longer game to get a Republican elected in 2016…

:slight_smile:

216

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

But then again, maybe he’s just wanted us to think that all along and he’s playing an even longer game to get a Republican elected in 2016…

:-)[/quote]

Wheels within wheels, plans within plans.

217

Regardless of what people think of Ted Cruz how sad is our current state of politics when he announces and then numerous articles come up about him not being able to compete because he might not be able to raise enough money from the usual big money donors. That’s the sound of a plutocracy.

218

[quote]H factor wrote:
Regardless of what people think of Ted Cruz how sad is our current state of politics when he announces and then numerous articles come up about him not being able to compete because he might not be able to raise enough money from the usual big money donors. That’s the sound of a plutocracy. [/quote]

I agree completely, and this is beginning to bother me a great deal.

I don’t think Cruz has the goods to get nominated or elected, but his success or failure shouldn’t be based on his ability to get funding from a group of entrenched wealthy individuals or groups.

I understand the argument that the money - even Big Money - flows and should flow to good candidates and that’s how this “market” works and this is just proof Cruz isn’t up to snuff. But in reality, far more is necessary to cultivate relationships with these Big Money entities well before you stand up at a town hall meeting and explain why people should vote for you. You have to dance to their tune first, or otherwise you come into a race with a near impossible handicap.

All of this would be better (ostensibly) if the Big Money was simply a funding mechanism that was fairly objective. But they aren’t - they have interests, important selfish interests, and if you want their resources, youd better be willing to give them what they want as well. If a guy like Cruz hasn’t kissed their ring early and often, he doesn’t stand a chance, and it has little to do with the merits of his campaign.

I don’t like it, and it is getting drastically worse.

219

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Regardless of what people think of Ted Cruz how sad is our current state of politics when he announces and then numerous articles come up about him not being able to compete because he might not be able to raise enough money from the usual big money donors. That’s the sound of a plutocracy. [/quote]

I agree completely, and this is beginning to bother me a great deal.

I don’t think Cruz has the goods to get nominated or elected, but his success or failure shouldn’t be based on his ability to get funding from a group of entrenched wealthy individuals or groups.

I understand the argument that the money - even Big Money - flows and should flow to good candidates and that’s how this “market” works and this is just proof Cruz isn’t up to snuff. But in reality, far more is necessary to cultivate relationships with these Big Money entities well before you stand up at a town hall meeting and explain why people should vote for you. You have to dance to their tune first, or otherwise you come into a race with a near impossible handicap.

All of this would be better (ostensibly) if the Big Money was simply a funding mechanism that was fairly objective. But they aren’t - they have interests, important selfish interests, and if you want their resources, youd better be willing to give them what they want as well. If a guy like Cruz hasn’t kissed their ring early and often, he doesn’t stand a chance, and it has little to do with the merits of his campaign.

I don’t like it, and it is getting drastically worse.
[/quote]

Agree with both of you. It is seriously bothersome to me and has gotten far worse in the last years since I was politically aware, hell even from college on. I posted a list of quotations from the Founders on money in the other “Conservatarian” thread, so I’ll refrain from reposting it here, but it is a damning list.

220

For myself, I am currently of the opinion that we should pay our lawmakers extremely well and then outlaw–with forfeiture of all salary received from the government during tenure as one of the consequences–receiving any lobbying gifts, money, meals, or anything else. And including investing in these companies with salary money. In other words, we’ll pay you really damned well but if you take ANYTHING from ANYBODY you will forfeit and repay everything we have paid you in the past, you will be summarily ejected from your seat in Congress, and you will still be prohibited from doing work for said companies after we eject you from service.

As with most things, if you want to make somebody listen you have to hit their pocketbook/portfolio and reputation simultaneously.

I view it as a legitimate government function to limit the perks of the SERVANTS of the public that votes for them. It’s no more than we do for people in the military: they get certain perks in the form of pensions after retirement, Housing allowances, etc. etc. but are also held to higher standards with regard to disobedience of orders/chain of command, and suffer a term of service from which they may be dishonorably discharged and/or jailed and/or forfeiture of all pay and allowances (See Bergdahl charges). And/or firing squad. I would therefore view it as appropriate to apply the same to our lawmakers.