|
Post by men an tol on Apr 18, 2016 9:48:46 GMT -5
I understand that there are people who strongly dislike Ted Cruz. However, that a person who is either a self declared socialist or someone who has the record of a Hillary Clinton could win against anyone is very difficult for me to understand. If either of Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton did win the president position it will be a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Apr 18, 2016 10:34:31 GMT -5
For conversations about Cruz.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Apr 18, 2016 14:28:42 GMT -5
I understand your moving it Dex, I might have named it something like, a Thread to talk about disaster candidates.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 18, 2016 15:14:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Apr 18, 2016 18:47:44 GMT -5
Even the Daily Mail sees right through him.
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Apr 23, 2016 18:32:22 GMT -5
Why Are Evangelicals Fighting Over Ted Cruz's Religious Beliefs? The long and winding road to the Republican Party's presidential nomination is getting rockier for conservative Christian evangelical leaders as they continue to reckon with some major-league divisive issues. When Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, endorsed Donald Trump, evangelical leaders Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and Max Lucado, often described as "America's pastor," began speaking out against Trump. The editorial board at The Christian Post, so unnerved by the possibility of Trump heading the GOP's ticket, launched a major anti-Trump broadside. Now, with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) nipping at Trump's heels, another issue has surfaced: Is Cruz a "Seven Mountains Dominionist" -- the kind of Christian nationalist who thinks Christians should "take dominion" over education, media, business, government and more? Or is he a strict constitutionalist -- a person rooted in Christian values but not seeking to create a theocracy? While that may seem like a little too much inside baseball, and an obscure question for the general public to be concerned with, the kerfuffle it has caused is beginning to shine a light on Cruz's religious and political beliefs, and what a Cruz presidency might look like. Go here for the rest of a very interesting article. www.truth-out.org/news/item/35709-why-are-evangelicals-fighting-over-ted-cruz-s-religious-beliefs
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Apr 23, 2016 19:45:20 GMT -5
Why Are Evangelicals Fighting Over Ted Cruz's Religious Beliefs? The long and winding road to the Republican Party's presidential nomination is getting rockier for conservative Christian evangelical leaders as they continue to reckon with some major-league divisive issues. When Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, endorsed Donald Trump, evangelical leaders Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and Max Lucado, often described as "America's pastor," began speaking out against Trump. The editorial board at The Christian Post, so unnerved by the possibility of Trump heading the GOP's ticket, launched a major anti-Trump broadside. Now, with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) nipping at Trump's heels, another issue has surfaced: Is Cruz a "Seven Mountains Dominionist" -- the kind of Christian nationalist who thinks Christians should "take dominion" over education, media, business, government and more? Or is he a strict constitutionalist -- a person rooted in Christian values but not seeking to create a theocracy? While that may seem like a little too much inside baseball, and an obscure question for the general public to be concerned with, the kerfuffle it has caused is beginning to shine a light on Cruz's religious and political beliefs, and what a Cruz presidency might look like. Go here for the rest of a very interesting article. www.truth-out.org/news/item/35709-why-are-evangelicals-fighting-over-ted-cruz-s-religious-beliefsThank you Anna for posting this reference. The points of view expressed by the writers should be made available to all voters. We are not well served by the news media (written of electronic) as we receive only 2 dimensional, cartoonish, pictures of the candidates. Through access to articles such as this one we, the voters, can gather a broader picture of the candidates. Referring to multiple information sources we individually decide which is relating the truth and which is twisting things into a false picture. We then decide which is significant to our personal decision making.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 23, 2016 21:22:53 GMT -5
Maine's Governor is quite annoyed with trusTED for picking off Trump and Kasich's delegates from his state. Dirty politics from ::Creepy Cruz:: ... no surprise. Cruz campaign 'stabbed us in the back' at state convention Maine Gov. Paul LePage, a Donald Trump supporter, accused the Ted Cruz campaign of reneging on a deal to support a "unity slate" of the state's primary delegates, according to CNN. "We reached a deal with Cruz's national campaign to put up a unity slate that would honor the wishes of the thousands of Mainers who voted at caucus," LePage said in a statement. "But Cruz's Northeast Political Director David Sawyer lied to us and broke the deal. Sawyer stabbed us in the back, reneged on the unity slate, and betrayed the people of Maine." The Maine governor suggested that the incident was part of a larger trend of deceit from the Cruz team. "As we have seen throughout the country, Cruz's national campaign is run by greedy political hooligans," he said. "I can't stand by and watch as Cruz and the Republican Establishment forcibly overrule the votes of Mainers who chose Trump and Kasich. I call on Senator Cruz to condemn Sawyer's disrespectful and dishonest tactics in Maine." www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/maine-governor-cruz-campaign-stabbed-us-in-the-back-at-state-convention/ar-BBs9RGh?ocid=spartandhp
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Apr 24, 2016 0:04:54 GMT -5
The article that Anna posted from Truthout and the article from MSN.com that Beth posted sounds almost as if they are describing two different people.
What we need is a single investigating and above reproach news service to lay these story in some type context.
This is getting awful tiresome, with so called news agencies actually taking on a political position and having it occur from both sides.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 24, 2016 0:33:00 GMT -5
The article that Anna posted from Truthout and the article from MSN.com that Beth posted sounds almost as if they are describing two different people. What we need is a single investigating and above reproach news service to lay these story in some type context. This is getting awful tiresome, with so called news agencies actually taking on a political position and having it occur from both sides. I've said it before but may not say it again, Men an tol. Nothing is stopping you from finding articles that are complimentary of Cruz and posting them here ... or at least giving a link to them in order to improve the balance. I have a bad impression of the man, plus, I've seen very few positive articles about him. That in itself is a clue that for various reasons the impression he gives isn't the best. But, I'm a moderate and I do try to be fair. So, I've made the effort and done it for you. Here is a positive article about Ted Cruz .. granted it's from the POV of a friend of his who works for him .. but that's about as good as I can find. I have no doubt you'll believe it (as opposed to the others) and enjoy it. Just don't come quoting it to me as proof all the negative articles are wrong. Since it's the NY Times, the piece is very well done. In College Roommate David Panton, Ted Cruz Finds Unwavering Support www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/politics/ted-cruz-college-roommate.html?_r=0
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Apr 24, 2016 0:52:21 GMT -5
Beth, I wasn’t trying to complain or make any point about Ted Cruz or any other politician. I was just pointing out the difference in the articles as a point at the lack of credibility in nearly all of those who report what they assert is the truth. Their motivation makes no difference.
I don’t believe that you will find any posting of mine in support of Ted Cruz. I have no desire or need to post any of my words or those of anyone else in support of Ted Cruz.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 24, 2016 10:25:08 GMT -5
Beth, I wasn’t trying to complain or make any point about Ted Cruz or any other politician. I was just pointing out the difference in the articles as a point at the lack of credibility in nearly all of those who report what they assert is the truth. Their motivation makes no difference. I don’t believe that you will find any posting of mine in support of Ted Cruz. I have no desire or need to post any of my words or those of anyone else in support of Ted Cruz. I guess the best way I can explain it is that I regard Cruz the same way I do Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin (for different reasons) AND the way you seem to regard Obama and Hillary Clinton. Therefore, I'm much more likely to post about him (Cruz) in a negative way ... perfectly natural. Most articles about him are not flattering unless one goes to his (several) online sites set up for this campaign, so I have no trouble finding things to choose from. My main point was that if you believe the articles and comments posted here about him are unfair (and that's the impression I get), then, by all means, post something to balance it out. Our candidate choices are very poor all around this presidential election year. To me, Bernie is the best of the current field ... not a demon in spite of his far left views .. but someone who would put the people first. If he turns out to be the Democratic candidate, I'll probably vote for him. If it comes down to Hillary vs Trump, I'll probably vote for Donald. If it's Hillary vs Cruz, I'll definitely vote for Hillary.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Apr 24, 2016 12:59:54 GMT -5
I guess that I’m not explaining myself well.
My point was about those who do articles and supposed news stories about the candidates, all candidates. Those who do these stories are, by and large not neutral reporters (that is the kind of stories and reporting I respect) but are political shills promoting agendas. For most people who do not do their own research, in such an environment the best they can hope for is to get a wide range of such stories and then try to make sense from the narrow and warped view of these minimized degrees of truth.
As to the candidates . . . . . .
I begin any analysis of them from the position of being a Constitutionalist. This represents neither Left nor Right, Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative. This point of view is merely that from the Constitution. This means that those in government work within the context of the Constitution as defined in the Delegated Powers and those cases in law which have gone beyond the Legislative Color of Law and are considered as Constitutional by the decision of the Supreme Court. Moreover, such servants of government (elected, appointed or employed) take an Oath of Office and they are bound by that Oath as a sacred promise.
In that context I find few candidates meeting what I believe to be important.
Donald Trump clearly is a master of understanding public moods and has an innate ability to use those moods for his own ends. He has no real understanding of the Constitution or the relationship of the federal government to the people or the States. His understanding of foreign affairs is nearly nonexistent.
Ted Cruz, understands both the Constitution as demonstrated his arguing Constitutional law before the Supreme Court, and he has a better (relative to Donald Trump) understanding of Foreign Affairs. I do not have the confidence of understanding his goals or his ability to work with Congress.
John Kasich is preferable to both of them and he has the added advantage of a functional understanding of how an economy in the United States best works. His chance of becoming President is near zero unless the convention votes exceed two.
The Democratic candidates are beyond even talking about and their ascendancy in the Democratic Party demonstrates the loss of credibility in that Party.
Bernie Sanders is (as he calls himself) a Democratic Socialist. That is waffling on being a little bit pregnant, he is a socialist. While he seems to be a nice enough person and relatively honest, his being a socialist (of any type) with a history in his case of working within Communist circles and committees when younger, demonstrate a candidate that is alien in thought to the best parts of America. While he talks about the need to do for people, his approaches to accomplish his supposed goals have never worked and will never work and if even truly attempted within the United States would surely split the country as well as build and maintain a class of the poor.
Hillary Clinton is one of the worse candidates for President we’ve ever had. Certainly worse than President Obama (who I think actually believes his tripe), and on par or worse than Richard Nixon at his worse and would be worse than even the King Fish of the distant Louisiana Governorship. That she is dishonest and likely to be indicted before the next election is a clear possibility. Her ability in foreign affairs (her supposedly strong suit) is where she falls down in the extreme. With her as President the economy would tank and before the end of her first term we would be involved in a major war.
I understand that others will not agree with me in this analysis, but that is not my point, you were nice enough to present your preferences and I return the favor. However, I have a forlorn hope that this will also put to bed finally, that I am not a Conservative nor do I support Ted Cruz.
Our country has severe challenges which have been created by government people (of both major political parties) and the possibility of solving them is real except that it will require a leader who would be the caliber of Winston Churchill, and I see no one of the ability on the field or as a leader in either party.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 24, 2016 15:35:49 GMT -5
Very good, readable analysis, Men an tol. Thanks for the nice post. While you may not "support" Cruz, you do give him the best makes, along with Kasich. Since Kasich can't win ... from what I can tell .. it's fairly obvious Cruz is your choice. You may not be ready to go out and campaign for him, but he's the one you think is best for the office.
I'll reply when I can ... I don't think any of these people would do this country irreparable harm (we've survived several realllllly bad presidents), but I do have my opinions.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Apr 24, 2016 17:03:29 GMT -5
Very good, readable analysis, Men an tol. Thanks for the nice post. While you may not "support" Cruz, you do give him the best makes, along with Kasich. Since Kasich can't win ... from what I can tell .. it's fairly obvious Cruz is your choice. You may not be ready to go out and campaign for him, but he's the one you think is best for the office. I'll reply when I can ... I don't think any of these people would do this country irreparable harm (we've survived several realllllly bad presidents), but I do have my opinions. What I would like to see Beth is for the Congress to take up their Constitutional responsibility in a serious way. With the seemingly ever stronger control of political party this is unlikely. This is one reason I would like to see the States come together and enforce their responsibility to the Constitution by making disregarding one’s Oath of Office as an impeachable offense. They could do this by initiating a Constitutional case as the injured party. That is, the States created the Constitution. The federal government and its functions were not part of that creation but were the result of that creation and exist entirely within the words of the Constitution. Those who are elected to, or appointed to, or are employed by, that which is created by the Constitution, take an Oath to protect and defend that Constitution, in other words abide by that Constitution. Since those of the federal government, those created by the Constitution, do not abide by that Constitution (that contract among the States), that contract among the States, the States are therefore injured by that lack of adherence, that breaking of their Solemn Oath. Therefore, each State should be able to recall their elected representatives and discharge them from office. Those who have been appointed or employed would them be discharged from office by new elected representatives. Either they abide by their Oath of Office or they are in breach of their office. I realize that few in government will agree, but in this context the States hold the power. If there is no adherence to the Contract, then there is no Contract and the States are free to reform as they will. The situation we now have is not working and so something has to be done. There is no way that any new president has the Presidential Constitutional power to do any of this. That President is only an operational executive responsible to the States.
|
|