2016 Election

[gcbvol]

1) Who did he associate with that called for killing gays?

2) When did this person call for this?

3) When did Cruz associate with said perpetrator?

4) What was the extent of Cruz's association with said person?

5) Did Cruz say that he agreed with person's statements?


Now, did you vote for Obama knowing of his 20 year close association with Rev. Wright? I would assume that you know of Sen. Byrd of W.Va. being in the KKK, and I assume doing whatever it is that they do.

I also assume that you know that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Mike Dukakis , etc. all associated with him. Do you have a problem with those close associations? If not, you are being hypocritical at best.

I'm not going to engage in a lengthy argument with you on this topic. You like him. I do not. My opinion will not change just as I suspect of yours.

Last month Cruz spoke at the National Religious Liberties Conference in Iowa. The conference organizer is Kevin Swanson. He's a beauty of a human being; feel free to Google his quotes on gays - there are plenty.

 

[Herman Hickman]

Let's get back to Hillary Rodham Clinton...remember this?

Most importantly I never sent classified material on my email and I never received any that was marked classified,” Clinton said at one point in her press conference.

The State Department has confirmed that I did not send nor receive material marked classified or send material marked classified.

I am repeating the facts and the facts are I did not send nor did I receive material marked classified.

Facing court order, we continue to see the release of emails from the Secretary of State's private server. How many have been judged to be classified or to contain classified information? The facts...

7,800 Pages of Hillary Clinton Emails Released - ABC News

A State Department official tells ABC News that in this release alone 328 documents were upgraded to a classified level, meaning that they were redacted and are unavailable for public review. So far 999 have been graded as classified.

Never sent classified email and never received it. Yet nearly 1000 emails have been found to contain it on the type of unsecured private server she expressly banned her employees at DoS from using.

How on earth can you trust someone with the nation's security who was so profoundly paranoid that she would endanger that security merely for the sake of hiding her work from Congressional and public scrutiny?

In advance of the routine "what difference does it make" defense from the well-known apologists for any and all forms of Democratic Party corruption, I submit 18 U.S. Code 793:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793#

Check out Section F:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

We'll see if the laws of the nation apply to Democrat Party royalty. I have my doubts, as these laws only ever seem to apply to Republicans, Conservatives, or those deemed by the Democrat Party to be a threat to their power.

 

[1972 Grad]

I'm not going to engage in a lengthy argument with you on this topic. You like him. I do not. My opinion will not change just as I suspect of yours.

Last month Cruz spoke at the National Religious Liberties Conference in Iowa. The conference organizer is Kevin Swanson. He's a beauty of a human being; feel free to Google his quotes on gays - there are plenty.

I do like Cruz. I watched 2 of his Texas Senate debates on C Span, and found him to be very intelligent. I never heard him call for burning gays at the stake. Kevin Swanson , or whoever he is, isn't on the ballot.

You are a drama queen if you think mass killing of gays ( supported by any President ) has a remote possibility of ever happening in this country. Now, if the Muslims take over some day, all bets are off. You need to support someone who will keep them at arm's length.

Once again, did you vote for Obama after learning of his association with Rev. Wright? P.S. I know that you won't vote for Cruz, and I am not trying to get you to agree with my point of view.

 

[1972 Grad]

Let's get back to Hillary Rodham Clinton...remember this?







Facing court order, we continue to see the release of emails from the Secretary of State's private server. How many have been judged to be classified or to contain classified information? The facts...

7,800 Pages of Hillary Clinton Emails Released - ABC News



Never sent classified email and never received it. Yet nearly 1000 emails have been found to contain it on the type of unsecured private server she expressly banned her employees at DoS from using.

How on earth can you trust someone with the nation's security who was so profoundly paranoid that she would endanger that security merely for the sake of hiding her work from Congressional and public scrutiny?

She was trying to hide Clinton Foundation illegal donations sent to Canada, laundered, and then sent on to the Clintons, without having to divulge the sender(foreign governments and other entities).

 

[PKT_VOL]

Cruz has been smart enough to court the social conservative vote instead of running from it. He's done the same thing with the pissed-off Trump voter and the pissed-off libertarian voter. He's assiduously managed to keep in touch with all segments of the anti-establishment vote...and that is the majority of Republican voters in this election.

The only people really against him are the ones who want to see things stay the way they are right now: Socialists, Crony Capitalists, and Bush/Rockefeller Republicans.

Tall order to go up against that. I have no doubt that the McConnell/Boehner types in the Republican Party will work for a Hillary Clinton victory if Cruz, Paul, Trump, or any of the other non-Country Club type wins the primaries.

They were going to throw the election for Carter back in 1980 until Reagan named Bush 41 as his running mate. This is how the "Governing Wing" of the GOP operates.

If he were to win, then Cruz will probably have to nominate a squish to appease this Surrender Wing of the GOP.

He has not courted the Libertarian vote. His social conservatism runs counter to Libertarianism.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Cruz has been smart enough to court the social conservative vote instead of running from it. He's done the same thing with the pissed-off Trump voter and the pissed-off libertarian voter. He's assiduously managed to keep in touch with all segments of the anti-establishment vote...and that is the majority of Republican voters in this election.

The only people really against him are the ones who want to see things stay the way they are right now: Socialists, Crony Capitalists, and Bush/Rockefeller Republicans.

Tall order to go up against that. I have no doubt that the McConnell/Boehner types in the Republican Party will work for a Hillary Clinton victory if Cruz, Paul, Trump, or any of the other non-Country Club type wins the primaries.

They were going to throw the election for Carter back in 1980 until Reagan named Bush 41 as his running mate. This is how the "Governing Wing" of the GOP operates.

If he were to win, then Cruz will probably have to nominate a squish to appease this Surrender Wing of the GOP.

Your analysis of his strategy is off. It has consisted of three things:

1) A strong ground game/grassroots campaign.
2) Focusing on Super Tuesday rather the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire; particularly in the South.
3) Wait for Trump to blow up and then step into his coalition as the reasonable/winnable version of Trump.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I think Cruz is much more intelligent than Trump. I get the impulse concern, but I just don't know how much is snake oil salesman versus crazy with Cruz. He's smart enough and has enough salesman in him to be dangerous, imo.

He is the Obama of the GOP. He smart, an idealogue, and considered an insufferable ass by those who deal with him.

Like Obama, the first is a good quality for POTUS; the latter two, as the Obama Presidency shows, is toxic for governing.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I'm not going to engage in a lengthy argument with you on this topic. You like him. I do not. My opinion will not change just as I suspect of yours.

Last month Cruz spoke at the National Religious Liberties Conference in Iowa. The conference organizer is Kevin Swanson. He's a beauty of a human being; feel free to Google his quotes on gays - there are plenty.

Politicians generally have to "associate" with many individuals of which they may not fully agree with their views. It's the nature of the beast for someone running for an elective office.

However, Obama took the "association" to a whole new level considering he attended Rev. Wright's church for over 20 years, chose him to perform his and Michelle's wedding service, and also asked him to baptize both of his daughters. All of this "association" with a man who said this after 9/11...

blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "damn America."

and also this regarding blacks who choose to get an education...

Wright blasted people who he described as “biscuits” and “sheep dogs” — African Americans raised in the white world.

“Take that baby, him or her away, from the African mother, away from the African community, away from the African experience … and put them Africans over at the breasts of Yale, Harvard, University of Chicago … UCLA or UC-Berkeley,” he said. “Turn them into biscuits. Let them get that alien DNA all up inside their brain and they will turn on their own people in defense of the ones who are keeping their own people under oppression. Sheep dogs.”

“There’s white racist DNA running through the synapses of his or her brain tissue. They will kill their own kind, defend the enemies of their kind or anyone who is perceived to be the enemy of the milky white way of life.”

 

[Herman Hickman]

He has not courted the Libertarian vote. His social conservatism runs counter to Libertarianism.

If your primary concern is social conservatism, then he hasn't courted your vote.

If your primary concern is the abuse of government power, the rise of domestic surveillance (without warrant) of American citizens, crony capitalism as represented by Obamacare and the EX-IM Bank, and the unfettered growth of the regulatory state to the detriment of individual liberty, then he has definitely courted your vote through his actions as a Senator.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Politicians generally have to "associate" with many individuals of which they may not fully agree with their views. It's the nature of the beast for someone running for an elective office.

However, Obama took the "association" to a whole new level considering he attended Rev. Wright's church for over 20 years, chose him to perform his and Michelle's wedding service, and also asked him to baptize both of his daughters. All of this "association" with a man who said this after 9/11...



and also this regarding blacks who choose to get an education...

That must be dat new biochemistry...

If there is DNA, particularly white racist DNA, running through the synapses of brain tissue in whites, I need to get a refund from UT. My BCMB degree would officially be worthless.

 

[PKT_VOL]

If your primary concern is social conservatism, then he hasn't courted your vote.

If your primary concern is the abuse of government power, the rise of domestic surveillance (without warrant) of American citizens, crony capitalism as represented by Obamacare and the EX-IM Bank, and the unfettered growth of the regulatory state to the detriment of individual liberty, then he has definitely courted your vote through his actions as a Senator.

You do realize Libertarianism entails a rejection of social conservatism? If it didn't, it would just be conservatism.

 

[Herman Hickman]

Your analysis of his strategy is off. It has consisted of three things:

1) A strong ground game/grassroots campaign.
2) Focusing on Super Tuesday rather the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire; particularly in the South.
3) Wait for Trump to blow up and then step into his coalition as the reasonable/winnable version of Trump.

Point 1. Agreed. Careful management of campaign funds will also serve him well in 2016.

Point 2. You ignore the work he's done in Iowa. He's organized in all the counties. This fact is proven by the gains he has made in that particular state over the last month. You make headway in Iowa by being there and making yourself known among the residents. Cruz has done that several times now. You don't win or finish strongly in Iowa by ignoring it.

Point 3. It goes beyond the Trump voters to the other segments of the anti-establishment vote. Cruz is gaining because he has consistently been fighting the establishment while others sought to compromise with it. He's made that point better than others in the debates. His rise is directly connected to that.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Point 1. Agreed. Careful management of campaign funds will also serve him well in 2016.

Yes, but that's not saying much given his opponents dumb burn rates and his late primary strategy.

Point 2. You ignore the work he's done in Iowa. He's organized in all the counties. This fact is proven by the gains he has made in that particular state over the last month. You make headway in Iowa by being there and making yourself known among the residents. Cruz has done that several times now. You don't win or finish strongly in Iowa by ignoring it.

I didn't say he totally ignored Iowa. Relatively speaking, he has focused more on Super Tuesday (particularly in the South).

Point 3. It goes beyond the Trump voters to the other segments of the anti-establishment vote. Cruz is gaining because he has consistently been fighting the establishment while others sought to compromise with it. He's made that point better than others in the debates. His rise is directly connected to that.

He has went out of his way to stay out of Trump's way. He knows Trump's coalition and the coalition he needs to build are one in the same. He is banking on Trump fading/making a catastrophic mistake. Then, he steps up as the reasonable torchbearer.

 

[Herman Hickman]

You do realize Libertarianism entails a rejection of social conservatism? If it didn't, it would just be conservatism.

For some, indeed it does.

For others, it is far more complex. In my way of seeing it (not all will agree), libertarianism is a belief that government operates best when it operates least. It is not merely a rejection of those who would use government authority to advance a conservative social agenda, but also an argument against those who routinely abuse federal authority to advance liberal social agendas. It is a fervent defense of individual freedom as related to government authority. That defense is not merely social, as you seem to believe; it is also economic in nature.

Mises does not simply address social freedom; he also addresses in profound ways the economic failure of policies largely advanced by social liberals in the name of the common good at the expense of individual rights. Most of his criticisms are addressed not at social conservatives, but rather at socialists. That speaks volumes as to where he believed the actual threat to freedom existed.

In general, libertarianism is deeply suspicious of wars on poverty, wars on sin, or wars to make the world safe for democracy. Foreign aid is generally as repugnant as domestic aid. Both are threats to freedom.

To reject a man simply because he tries to win votes from those who are religious conservatives strikes me as profoundly simplistic. You reject aspects where you may find agreement with him merely because he may not agree with you on your particular set of pet social issues.

You may want to see another Bush, another Romney, or another McCain who will only advance the growth and power of the Federal Government.

I prefer someone who has fought against it.

 

[Herman Hickman]

He has went out of his way to stay out of Trump's way. He knows Trump's coalition and the coalition he needs to build are one in the same. He is banking on Trump fading/making a catastrophic mistake. Then, he steps up as the reasonable torchbearer.

Not just Trump. He's been careful with Carson and Paul. These individuals carry key aspects of the anti-establishment vote. As they fall by the wayside, Cruz wants to be the alternative. Nothing wrong with that and it will not work with everyone. But considering the opposition contains people who have aided and abetted the abuse of government power, Cruz's positions related to that government power will appeal to the majority of anti-establishment voters.

 

[PKT_VOL]

For some, indeed it does.

For others, it is far more complex. In my way of seeing it (not all will agree), libertarianism is a belief that government operates best when it operates least. It is not merely a rejection of those who would use government authority to advance a conservative social agenda, but also an argument against those who routinely abuse federal authority to advance liberal social agendas. It is a fervent defense of individual freedom as related to government authority. That defense is not merely social, as you seem to believe; it is also economic in nature.

Mises does not simply address social freedom; he also addresses in profound ways the economic failure of policies largely advanced by social liberals in the name of the common good at the expense of individual rights. Most of his criticisms are addressed not at social conservatives, but rather at socialists. That speaks volumes as to where he believed the actual threat to freedom existed.

In general, libertarianism is deeply suspicious of wars on poverty, wars on sin, or wars to make the world safe for democracy. Foreign aid is generally as repugnant as domestic aid. Both are threats to freedom.

To reject a man simply because he tries to win votes from those who are religious conservatives strikes me as profoundly simplistic. You reject aspects where you may find agreement with him merely because he may not agree with you on your particular set of pet social issues.

You may want to see another Bush, another Romney, or another McCain who will only advance the growth and power of the Federal Government.

I prefer someone who has fought against it.

Nowhere did I remotely posit the bold. Straight strawman.

My goodness. You are making this way more complicated than it has to be.

Conservatism = fiscal conservatism + socal conservatism

Libertarianism= fiscal conservatism + socially liberal/rejection of social conservatism/government noninterference in social matters.

One's rejection of social conservatism in no way rejects fiscal conservatism. If a libertarian agreed with conservatives on social issues, he would be a conservative, not a libertarian.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Not just Trump. He's been careful with Carson and Paul. These individuals carry key aspects of the anti-establishment vote. As they fall by the wayside, Cruz wants to be the alternative. Nothing wrong with that and it will not work with everyone. But considering the opposition contains people who have aided and abetted the abuse of government power, Cruz's positions related to that government power will appeal to the majority of anti-establishment voters.

Once the other choices are gone, yes.

Trump supporters are most likely to join the Cruz camp if Trump stumbles. The Carson and Paul coalition are much more fractured.

The Cruz campaign is very cognizant of this.

 

[Gramps]

Nowhere did I remotely posit the bold. Straight strawman.

My goodness. You are making this way more complicated than it has to be.

Conservatism = fiscal conservatism + socal conservatism

Libertarianism= fiscal conservatism + socially liberal/rejection of social conservatism/government noninterference in social matters.

One's rejection of social conservatism in no way rejects fiscal conservatism. If a libertarian agreed with conservatives on social issues, he would be a conservative, not a libertarian.

:rock:

Excellent Post PKT.

 

[hog88]

You do realize Libertarianism entails a rejection of social conservatism? If it didn't, it would just be conservatism.

Would you rather deal with a small amount of social conservatism coupled with sound fiscal policies and reduced regulation. Or a social liberalism coupled with the current status quo?

 

[lawgator1]

Re Rand, you guys are leaving out the obvious problem which is that, regardless of what you think of his views on social issues, his views on military activism, especially right now, render him utterly unelectable. He's the Bernie Sanders of the GOP -- its only a few idealistic college kids really toting the campaign.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

He hasn't to my knowledge, 72. He has, however, willingly associated with people who have. That is plenty enough for me.

Two words. Jeremiah Wright. How do you "feel" about that?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I'm not going to engage in a lengthy argument with you on this topic. You like him. I do not. My opinion will not change just as I suspect of yours.

Last month Cruz spoke at the National Religious Liberties Conference in Iowa. The conference organizer is Kevin Swanson. He's a beauty of a human being; feel free to Google his quotes on gays - there are plenty.

Not engaging his questions because you have no retort. You have no evidence, no smoking gun. Just a feeling. At least be honest.

 

[Obsessed]

...

 

[Panthro]

I'm truly stumped on who to support for this election. I wasn't completely behind him, but I did like Ron Paul enough to dub him as "my guy" last time. Then I ended up voting for Gary Johnson in the election. The libertarian candidates this time seem too bad to even be an SNL sketch and the GOP candidates are worse. I feel like I'm getting punked every time I see how Trump is going up in popularity. Bernie Sanders, too. Is Hilary going to be the next President?
I just can't decide who to support at all.

 

[gcbvol]

Not engaging his questions because you have no retort. You have no evidence, no smoking gun. Just a feeling. At least be honest.

No. I've stated from the beginning this is my opinion. I've never claimed Cruz said anything about killing anyone. However, I have claimed and provided information around his association with people who do.

I have no desire to venture into this rabbit hole because we're talking about politicians, who are typically self-serving, low character people. We could likely find objectionable associations for most all of them - we already know this. Ultimately that leads us to personal rankings of these associations so, yes, it comes down to personal opinions (right where I started).

There are multiple examples of bad associations. I happen to find associations with pastors who feel gays should be executed a wee less palatable than associations with a racist pastor; you guys apparently feel the opposite. That's okay. We're all entitled to our opinions.