|
Post by Raymond306 on Apr 30, 2016 9:35:12 GMT -6
Hey Ray! ... Tell us just why you think Ted Cruz can beat Hillary Clinton. Aha! A challenge. Well, not much of one, but I'll pick up the gauntlet. There are actually two main reasons I think Senator Ted Cruz can beat Hillary Clinton or any other candidate the Democrats care to put up. The first reason is Ted Cruz is a "constitutional conservative" at heart. He believes in conservatism and in those principles which were the basis for the United States going from backwater start-up country to the world's preeminent super power in just 200 years. And he doesn't just call himself a conservative like (ahem, cough) other Republican candidates have done this election season. He is one. Has been a conservative all his life and is quite capable of explaining his beliefs, which brings up to the second reason. Ted Cruz can articulate conservatism with conviction and understanding. I remember in the 2012 race when Mitt Romney was asked about what conservatism was he paused. You could almost see the gears grinding as he thought, "Oh my! What is correct answer? What am I supposed to say?" Cruz has no such problem. You ask him about conservatism and he can reel off several minutes worth of coherent answer. He's an excellent debater who would demolish Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders with devastating precision without have to resort to name-calling or base insults. He could simple explain his positions and give the voters a clear choice of what they want for the future. And here is where I shall stop for now. I can go on forever, too, but I'll give others a chance to jump in and have a go at it.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Apr 30, 2016 12:07:28 GMT -6
Well I had a nice reply written, but since this forum doesn't save drafts, it was lost.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Apr 30, 2016 12:55:30 GMT -6
Well I had a nice reply written, but since this forum doesn't save drafts, it was lost. I know what you mean. Life's a bitch and then you die. I never trust any forum to save a draft. If what I wrote was just a couple of lines or so I take my chances knowing I can quickly rewrite it if need be. But if I've done a major treatise I always save it to a file before I click any publish buttons. I've lost two many Nobel Prize winning efforts in the past. However, I know that if you try to back out of a reply screen the draft is saved because you have to decided if you want to save the draft or not.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Apr 30, 2016 13:42:59 GMT -6
you have to decided if you want to save the draft or not. Ah, your right, that is a setting on my end. I will have to go find it.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Apr 30, 2016 13:46:12 GMT -6
Ok, I’m writing this in Word.
I have no doubt Cruz is a true conservative to the core. He is the real deal. But I fear that will be his undoing in the general election.
He will lose because of social issues.
There’s no ambiguity about his feelings on abortion. This is a man will likely pick the next four Supreme Court justices. Make no mistake, this will not be lost on the activist pro choice mob. They will use fear to bring out throngs of pro choice voters who would have otherwise stayed home, because of the stench of Hillary Clinton.
There’s also no ambiguity on his feelings about gays. Gay activists are not going to sit idly by and see their newly won gay marriage lost. There will be a call to arms like you’ve never seen. This will bring out many moderates and millennials who also would have stayed home. They will hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two “evils”. Lucifer in the flesh* will be in trouble.
The press is going to treat him like a right wing extremist and ask him every gotcha question they can. Ted Cruz does not possess the charm that Ronald Reagan had. There will be no “well, there he goes again”, moment.
While fiscal conservatism is alive and well, social conservatism is all but dead. Bruce Jenner may support him, but it will not be enough.
Come November 9th, I do not want to feel miserable. I fear that if this miserable son of a bitch* is our candidate, I will be.
*John Boehner hyperbole added for extra effect. Dictated to Microsoft Word by Chrunch. This speech recognition works better than I thought it would.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Apr 30, 2016 14:27:33 GMT -6
A problem we conservatives have is that it has been a long, long time since the voters in a general election have had the opportunity to vote for a true conservative. The last one of those to run for the presidency won two landslide elections. The second election saw him win 49 out of 50 states failing to win only the home state of his presidential opponent. Yet even that state he lost only be about 3,000. A switch of 1500 votes would have seen a 50-state sweep of the Electoral College.
I don't worry so much about Ted Cruz in a national debate because of his performances in the primary debates. He isn't one to let himself be bullied by left-wing debate moderators nor does he tend to accept the false premises upon with they base their questions. I believe Ted Cruz is just as apt as anything to ignore the "gotcha" questions and talk about what HE wants to talk about.
I don't think moral issues are the downfall of conservatives today. They simply need a champion to articulate the issues properly. I don't know if Cruz would go so far as to do it, but one thing that would help conservatives would be for them to stop meekly accepting the Abortion Debate nomenclature of the left. Those who frame the debate end up winning. Image if the debate suddenly goes from being Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice to Pro-Life vs. Pro-Death, or even better, Pro-Killing. Now you've changed the premise.
After 8-years of the Obama Administration allowing the Rainbow Jihad (as well as the Cop-Haters) to run roughshod over those who don't share their opinions I think someone who can believably promise to restore law and order as well as Constitutional protections for individual liberty and property rights will gain huge support from those voters who are (in the words of Howard Beal) "Mad as hell and not going to take it any more."
One advantage that hasn't gotten a full measure of review is how much Carly Fiorina can help Cruz on the campaign trail between now and the nominating convention. Hillary Clinton's "Vote-for-me-'cuz-I-sit-down-to-pee" talking point can only go just so far. Carly Fiorina has already shown during her own campaign she's not going to let Clinton get away with that bull shit.
Of course, all this discussion will take a drastic turn if Ted Cruz does not have a convincing win in the Indiana preferential primary this coming Tuesday. But if he can sweep the delegates in Indiana then it's game-still-on as we move toward the Western states and the convention in July.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on May 1, 2016 2:58:10 GMT -6
I want to address just one thing in this post, where I think the religious right has steered Ted Cruz and the republican party into the wrong path about homosexuality.Ray, you bring up the last time a true conservative was elected. Well*, Ronald Reagan was a Hollywood insider. I am sure he knew about Rock Hudson and others, probably friends of his, that were gay. I do not ever recall Reagan ever speaking out against gays. Of course when AIDS broke out he was accused by the left of ignoring the issue and I'm sure the gay activist mob would have loved to have been able to wrap the White house in a giant condom. But even Reagan's own daughter doesn't think he would have opposed gay marriage. But more to public opinion. At the time (1980) my mother would not allow me to watch Three's Company. Jack Tripper was either gay or living in sin, while neither was true, it did not stop that from being a controversial show at the time. Today you have family shows on a Disney owned network, ABC, like Modern Family (hilarious) and The Real O'Neals (kind of funny). Both have openly gay and accepted characters. Yes times have changed. I have always thought that the Republican Party needed to take a more libertarian view of the social issues. The more freedom for the individual the better. I was shocked in 2003 when the Supremes ruled on Lawrence v. Texas and legalized sodomy. Why was I shocked? Because I had no idea it was illegal in the first place. What in the hell made the government ever think they could tell a person, who, or how, they could do someone as long as there was consent? Ted Cruz won't argue against the Supreme Court's recent ruling on gay marriage because he knows what equal protection under the law means. He tries to put it off as a state's rights issue. Which it is, but under the Commerce clause of the constitution, it is up to the congress if one state's legal agreement must be accepted by another. I have a feeling, given current public sentiment, they won't be touching that any time soon. Like I said in the room, that genie in never going back into the bottle. But again, none of this matters to the left. To the left, Ted Cruz is the guy that is going to undo all of the freedoms that gays have fought so hard for since Stonewall. No more gay marriage, and go to jail if you bugger your boyfriend in the bum. * as spoken in my best Reagan impersonation.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on May 1, 2016 7:45:26 GMT -6
Wow! So Ronald Reagan's left-wing daughter thinks Daddy would have been OK with same sex marriage. Well, I guess that settles that. (sigh) I think a thread about same-sex marriage would be OK with me. You start it.
You are right about Ted Cruz not arguing against the Supreme Court's recent rulings, but "equal protection" is not the reason. I dislike the term "State's Rights" because it conjures images of Democrats standing in school doorways blocking black students from entering, Democrats creating all those "Jim Crow" laws, and Dixiecrats running for president on a segregation platform. I would prefer to use the term "Federalism" which rightfully describes the Constitutionally recognized sovereignty of the various states.
The problem with the "equal protection" clause is that it's used by the political left in ways never intended by the framers. Just because you really, really want something doesn't mean it is you "right" to it. Same sex marriage falls into that category.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on May 2, 2016 15:41:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on May 2, 2016 16:10:44 GMT -6
Not me. I'm already convinced. I don't need to go through any cosmetic ascetic routines to bring myself to the right way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on May 2, 2016 21:20:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on May 3, 2016 9:13:00 GMT -6
I think having President Cruz being able to nominate up to 4 Supreme Court Justices would be the better option.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on May 3, 2016 14:55:35 GMT -6
I think having President Cruz being able to nominate up to 4 Supreme Court Justices would be the better option. @raymond306, If Cruz loses Indiana, do you want him to suspend his campaign, or do you want a contested convention? edit:^ ^ ^ Hey how come your site doesn't tag people like CCR does? I only quoted you because the tag didn't work, and I'm not sure if you get some kind of notification of a message. You seem to answer pretty quick. Also, "LIKE" the back to top button you added.
|
|
|
Post by Jab1362 on May 3, 2016 18:24:22 GMT -6
Hi Ray, Like your site. I'm a Ron/Rand Paul leaning kind of guy. I agree with both you and Crunch on most things in this thread. Ted Cruz is toast tonight because he picked the queen of out sourcing for his vp just in time for the indiana primary. She killed Lucent and offshored about 30,000 jobs to china at HP. I believe that the Colorado non vote also has hurt him badly.
I'm not sure but didn't the reagans have a son that is gay? Might explain why his half sister thinks the way she does. Best regards, Joe
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on May 3, 2016 18:32:42 GMT -6
If Cruz loses Indiana, do you want him to suspend his campaign, or do you want a contested convention? The rules require the winner of the nomination to attain 50% of the delegate votes +1. This year that equals 1237 delegate votes AT THE CONVENTION. Until that happens the Republican Party does not have an official presidential nominee. I believe Ted Cruz represents our best chance of returning this country to Constitutional rule. Hey how come your site doesn't tag people like CCR does? I only quoted you because the tag didn't work, and I'm not sure if you get some kind of notification of a message. You seem to answer pretty quick. Also, "LIKE" the back to top button you added. I answer quickly because I'm interested in what goes on here and check in periodically. It's easy to do with a smart phone. By the way, the back-to-the-top button has been there since the beginning. But I'm glad you discovered it.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on May 3, 2016 18:34:48 GMT -6
I'm not sure but didn't the reagans have a son that is gay? Your thinking of Ron Reagan Jr. I don't think he is gay. He is the one on the left.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on May 3, 2016 18:44:07 GMT -6
The rules require the winner of the nomination to attain 50% of the delegate votes +1. This year that equals 1237 delegate votes AT THE CONVENTION. Until that happens the Republican Party does not have an official presidential nominee. Fair enough. I guess he can stay in for a few more primaries. I think Trump will make the 1237 delegates before the convention anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on May 3, 2016 18:49:18 GMT -6
SHIT!
|
|
|
Post by jab1362 on May 3, 2016 20:03:31 GMT -6
Yes that is who I was thinking about I guess I'm wrong about that. Look I don't disagree that Cruz is the true constitutional conservative but he just dropped out. Things and people change. On our side of the ledger we've had Goldwater, Reagen, and now Trump as change agents. The problem has been GHWB, Bob Dole, 43,John McCain, Mittens. We all now have a big choice Trump or Clinton. I don't care for Trump as he is as big a crony capitalist as Warren Buffet is on the other side. I will vote for Trump in the general, no way I stay home this time to let the Hildabeast win.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on May 3, 2016 21:19:55 GMT -6
WOW!
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on May 3, 2016 21:27:06 GMT -6
Trump - Rubio, 2016 Rudy Giuliani, Attorney General Ted Cruz, SCOTUS Hillary Clinton, inmate # 726789
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on May 3, 2016 23:32:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on May 4, 2016 9:08:42 GMT -6
Even after getting a good night's sleep, I am still very disappointed for I fear our choices for president have become much less distinct. Every election cycle we get to choose between having more government OR gaining more liberty, more individual freedom. You cannot have both; as one side of the ledger increases the other side decreases.
I hope I am wrong, sincerely hope so, but from what I've heard so far from Hillary and Bernie and Donald I fear our choice is going to be either for more government or much more government. In my lifetime I've had the opportunity to vote for one true constitutional conservative for president, Ronald Reagan. And I did, twice. After last night I would imagine I may not the opportunity to do it again.
I'm not sure a Trump-Rubio ticket would be practical. Although it might represent Marco Rubio's ONLY chance for the future to remain in politics the reason for that is why he might not bring much to the table as Donald Trump's running mate. You see, Marco violated, probably the most important rule of politics: Never abandon your base. That's precisely what he did the moment he got to the Senate. He joined in with Gang of Eight and chummied up to Democrats like Chuck Shumer and Republicrats like John McCain and Lindsey Graham. He became the "Conservative" Latino junior mascot of the illegal alien amnesty crowd in Congress and in doing do completely betrayed the voters who sent him to Washington.
Don't believe me? How'd Marco do in the Florida primary? The smart money would say (barring a political miracle) Marco Rubio, once the up-and-coming conservative star, the fresh-faced darling of the Republican Party, no longer has a future in elective office. However, after being kicked to the gutter in the 1962 California gubernatorial contest, Richard Nixon came back to win the presidency in '68. So miracles can happen. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Jun 13, 2016 18:24:44 GMT -6
"If you can't take [lobbyists] money, drink their booze, screw their women, and look them in the eye and still vote against them, you don't belong [in politics]." ~ Jesse Unruh So the truth finally comes out Ray. Trump won't do any of those things and that just rubs you the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jun 13, 2016 18:41:01 GMT -6
"If you can't take [lobbyists] money, drink their booze, screw their women, and look them in the eye and still vote against them, you don't belong [in politics]." ~ Jesse Unruh So the truth finally comes out Ray. Trump won't do any of those things and that just rubs you the wrong way. So are you saying Donald Trump quoted Jesse Unruh, prominent Democrat politician and California State Treasurer? I just thought it was an interesting quote and quite representative of the establishment style politicians which I strongly oppose.
|
|
|
Post by jab1362 on Jun 13, 2016 18:43:56 GMT -6
After Orlando I think we now have a clear choice. I'm no big fan of the Donald but I'm not for four years more of transforming the country.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Jun 13, 2016 22:17:08 GMT -6
So are you saying Donald Trump quoted Jesse Unruh No Ray, I quoted you quoting him. Since Mr. Trump is nothing like Unruh, I just assumed that is why you didn't like him.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Jun 13, 2016 23:39:27 GMT -6
I don't care for Trump as he is as big a crony capitalist as Warren Buffet is on the other side. I don't think Trump is a crony capitalist at all. I think he played the game with rules that were already there. I think if he had his way there would be no special treatment for any business. On the Federal level it is the tax code that creates crony capitalism. He wants to eliminate the tax brakes that "complaint" businesses now enjoy, and just cut taxes for all businesses. More info here www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jun 14, 2016 12:16:45 GMT -6
So are you saying Donald Trump quoted Jesse Unruh No Ray, I quoted you quoting him. Since Mr. Trump is nothing like Unruh, I just assumed that is why you didn't like him. Ahhhh, so you conclude that because I post a humorous quote from an establishment Democrat that somehow that means I find him admirable and anyone who isn't like him earns my scorn? Let me point out that in the past I've quoted the likes of Joseph Goebbles and even Adolf Hitler. Does that make me a neo-Nazi? Trust me, I have plenty of reasons to look askance at Donald Trump that have nothing to do with what some despicable Democrat has ever had to say.
|
|
|
Post by jab1362 on Jun 14, 2016 18:48:02 GMT -6
Guys we are at a turning point for the republic and we are arguing about small points. We need to figure out who can win and create some change going forward. Big picture is we figure out how to embrace Trump for all his faults and hope for the best or except that the Hilderbeast will be the next president. If that happens the republic is doomed. Thats our choice.
|
|