Donald Trump or Ted Cruz? Republicans Argue Over Who Is Greater Threat
Interesting read.
Trump needs to be stopped cold. The republican establishment is coming out in support of him big time now, they hate Cruz which is all more reason to vote for him.
Trump needs to be stopped cold. The republican establishment is coming out in support of him big time now, they hate Cruz which is all more reason to vote for him.
It is the nature of Pragmatists to not acknowledge their own statist ideology underlying their system of "tools" of government coercion for "what works". Pragmatism is a parasitical philosophy claiming to have no principles as a matter of principle and not acknowledging the implicit principles employed for deciding goals and the criteria for what "works".
Trump is the kind who won't acknowledge his Pragmatist ideology either, he just "acts" in accordance with it. And that is how we get a national socialist of the fascist variety who denies being anything but the Great Man on the White Horse who is the Great Man of Action.
I do not understand how anyone can support a thief who had built his money up by first taking tax dollars to rebuild a blighted area, then shifting funds to protect himself and then pull out bankruptcy. It is legalized theft on both the start, and ending of each of his cycles.
Bob Dole in his announced support of Trump "We can put up with Trump for a few months far better than we can put up with Cruz for 4 years"
He knows Cruz wins, trump looses in a general election. They do not want Cruz because he removed them (the GOP party elect) from power. None of the establishment people who are now comming out in support of trump would have there power any longer should Cruz win.
A vote for Trump is a vote for a socialist (Think Boyle from atlas shrugged) who has been in bed with the establishment democrats and republicans his whole career. Its a vote to continue down a road towards totalitarianism.
You are overlooking Cruz because he believes in a god and you do not. The only policy he has that would push that on anyone is in regards to abortion. You are really going to let one minor policy get in the way of a whole mess of history that shows he is a constitutionalism with principles who will stand by his principles when the going gets tough? If so I second DBHalling, you are blind both on who Trump is and (Me only) the potential opportunity we have in Cruz
I know people on this forum fasten on bankruptcy and eminent domain to really land on Trump. Really, in the same scheme of things, are they such big obstacles in whats going to happen for the next 4 years? The supreme court said eminent domain is OK, so thats off the table. As to bankruptcy, a LOT of people take advantage of those laws. Without them, I think peoples' private property rights would most likely be the same. The people who do BK wouldnt have the money, and probably never have it to repay their debts anyway.
I dont get that Boyle was a socialist; he was more like Hillary who makes deals behind the scenes to get what she wants (in exchange for political contributions).
I had to buy off a building inspector to get my house plans passed. They put themselves in the position of telling you what you can build and cannot build with your own money. I had to buy him a skil saw. I didnt like it, but even Dagny Taggart and crew had to buy people off to get them off their backs.
You condemn Hillary for making deals behind the scenes and bless Trump for doing the same. Trump and Hillary are from the same class of people, thieves. Its just a mater of if society recognizes it or not.
“I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me.” He added, “And that’s a broken system.”
That is not to get them off his back, that is to get a favor from them. Now he uses it to state its a broken system, but the problem is giving 50k to one person at one time is illegal and you can find where he has done it more than once.
His own words prove you wrong.
https://theintercept.com/2015/08/07/d...
There is a bit more for you. If your going to back a guy you may want to know something about him.
I hear the echoes of goose-stepping boots and paranoid rants.
Trump's followers are deaf to history, recent or otherwise, and accept his shallow bromides on faith. That is why they still support him even when faced with his history on individual rights and cronyism.
Their message to us is, "don't worry; he'll be a good dictator."
In NYC, everything is regulated, even the size of soft drinks. If you want to make it in NYC, you have to feed money to the powers that be or you get nowhere with all the regulations.
While you are waiting for an Objectivist president, get ready to be lorded over by Hillary or Sanders
Cruz has a brilliant mind, is a threat to the old-liners but is a politician at heart.
Apparently this is the cream of the crap...er, crop.
Its ok for gulchers to hate trump. I understand that. I am voting for him anyway, as I must make my own choice and live with the results. I dont want to spend my time under Hillary or Sanders, and that is the choice this election.
Neocons hate Cruz.
NY Times hates both.
Why read an article from a source that will always slant things to put a bad light on everyone who favors individual liberty? To look for the techniques used to slant the facts into propaganda?
I would also disagree with the comment that GOP insiders hate trump. They seem to be comming out in droves now to back him. They may not like him, but they like him better than Cruz and it shows, particularly when you read what they are stating. Many have given Trump there support in the last week. The very title of this article shows NY Times hates them both so totally agree with that statement. However they want trump, all of there guys have lost and trump is the lessor of the two evils, has even started to play nice with them. I do not even think they see him as evil since most of the GOP insiders and democrat insiders have taken multiple hits of the trump drugs (money) when they needed it.
I am likely not getting it exactly right but the basic message was:
We [republicans] can live with Trump for a couple of months, but the whole party will change if we have to live with Cruz for 4 years.
I think he is right. Trump wont win the general election because to many republicans (just over a third based of polls) wont vote for him period, making the Democrat, even Clinton a win. They only have to deal with Trump for a couple of months, but Cruz they would have to deal with for 4 years.
I do think they use to "hate trump" but the fact that he cant win and thereby goes away after a few months makes him attractive to them. They would rather loose the election than put anyone in who may win that is not going to be on board with the established party. Especially someone who has shown he will call a liar a liar on the floor of congress.
If Trump is such an outsider why are the party insiders backing the guy up?
Not only would Trump compromize, but more imporatantly to them, he would leave teh current leadership of the GOP intact. They are his friend who have done favors for him over the years, he will not eject them from there seats of power.
Cruz may or may not eject them as president. I think there is a chance that as president Cruz would shake the GOP to its core, putting people like Rand Paul and Mike Lee in decision making roles within the party, or Supreme Cort.
I do not think Cruz will be successful in slowing the train down much, its going so fast and the breaks will only slow so much without a total crash. I do think Cruz would change, radically and forever, the republican party in the right direction and its why the GOP are running scared to Trump, he at least will leave them with there power. With Cruz who knows.
If those that gain power under a Cruz leadership can keep from having the power corrupt them (thats is a big if) then we may actually see some change in the right direction. I still doubt it but if the party does not change, if we do not have a leading party that stands for smaller government, nothing else ever will change.
I see Cruz as someone that might be able to change the party, which might open the door to having a choice that does not suck in the future. I may be being overly optimistic, but I am certain that this is the reason the GOP are jumping on the Trump band wagon.
I think if Cruz wins the presidency you will see:
A revival of the Tea Party
A restructure of the GOP leadership.
* A changed Tax code that lightens the burden on business, reduces freeloading and simplifies the return process.
If the first two were cemented in during a 4 year term, we would have many good candidates come forward, and real progress towards a smaller government would start to happen.
If the 3rd is done the economy would explode in a positive way. 80k pages of tax code reduced to 20k and then two years later (once you have support due to the success of 20k pages) to 2k would make a huge difference. The devil however is in the details of the changes.
Why not do it all at once? It would not pass.
It has gradually gotten to where we are law by law, precept by precept. If you attempt to tear it all away, no one will go for it. It will have to be undone much the way it was done.
Over the weekend this is a qoute from trump
" I could 'shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters"
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politic...
The sad thing is he is likely right. About 1/3 of republicans love him and love him regardless of the stupid crap like this he says. They are lemmings who would, and will follow him to there deaths. The problem is about 1/3 of republican voters say they will not vote if he is the nominee. So while he has a third that are idiot lemmings its good to see that about the same number have a brain and would not vote for him no matter what.
A statement like this one is just plain stupid. You really want this guy being the top ambassador of our country, head over feign relations? It shows he has 0 statesmanship.
Would I rather have Sanders than Trump, yes. I would rather have someone that I know what I am getting that a person who will change what he says based on what he thinks we want to here.
Trump and Hillary both say whatever they think expedient or best for them at the moment. I will agree Trump is not PC, but he speaks not to what he will do, but to what he believes people want to hear. He is fairly skilled at identifying what peopel want to hear.
I would greatly prefer a person who says what they believe and is principled, even if I disagree with there principles (sanders). I would greatly prefer someone that has principles that I agree with 90% or more (Cruz) than someone whom I disagree with.
Trump or Hillary? Given that choice the winner would make no difference. They would both be tyrants like the one we have now.
Trump is a politician-buying, eminent domain opportunistic narcissist, not really different than the progressives, just more blatant about his power grabs.
Cruz is the only viable candidate for small government and the constitution (unfortunately also for fantasy-inspired morals, but irrelevant).
Please Bloomberg, run as and independent and wipe out Hillary and Bernie-Hood.
there is a civil war within the party as there soon will be in the whole country...
sorry for the delay in replying...new x-files...loving it..
According to polls he is the least likely of all the leading candidates (top 5) to win in a general election.
Look at the polls and think again. A vote for Trump is almost a guarantee that we get them democrat as president again.
Catch 22 created by the statist GOP.
Stop wasting your vote on evil and the third party suddenly has a chance to win.
headed to Hawaii for last half of Feb...then a week in the wine country north of San Fran in April...
What this did was leave all these others out in the cold. Since there are only two parties (Independent really doesn't mean much) and with the consolidation of the Progressives into a cohesive unit, it kind of forced the Republicans to try to cater to a whole new set of voters that historically they had ignored. As such, it has effectively split the party along ideological lines and divided them against themselves.
What we really need are new political parties to participate in representative government. I think this is one of the reasons there are so many Republican nominees for President on the Republican side. If they were split into different parties, here's how I see them breaking out:
Tea Party: Ted Cruz (social conservative, fiscal conservative, foreign policy conservative)
Libertarian: Rand Paul (fiscal conservative, social centrist, foreign policy isolationist)
Big Business: Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina (fiscal conservative, foreign policy free-trade advocate, don't care much about the rest)
Establishment Republican: Kasich, Bush, Rubio(?) (in it for power and money after leaving office - don't really stand for anything)
Evangelical: Huckabee, Santorum, Carson(?) (social conservative, focus on Biblical source of law)
On the Progressive side, you do have their pet issues: environmentalism, gun control, population control, but they generally fit within the larger Progressive mantra.
democracy leads to oligarchy which leads to fascism
we were founded as a republic...we need that as a base with a restricted right to vote based on productivity...
that will not happen till after the collapse that is coming...
Religion requires a tremendous amount of effort, because the only way to understand it is to live it. Those of a religious persuasion are very easy to criticize from an intellectual standpoint, but it should be noted that these critical intellectuals all start from an anti-religious standpoint: the denial of existence of a supreme being (or more than one). It's an inherently biased position to start from no matter which side you grew up on, and there are no fence-sitters. All philosophy must start from either the existence (and characteristics) of god or deny such entirely.
One of the things I'm profoundly grateful for is that the Founders of our nation recognized the need for diversity of thought and sought to protect it. They rejected calls to institutionalize any particular brand of thought and instead specifically protected it as an individual decision and right.
All that being said, at least with the social conservatives there is a common base for fiscal responsibility and the furtherance of sound economic policy. It hasn't been the social conservatives who have been leading this country down the path to ruin.
The founders of the country did "institutionalize" a "brand of thought": the Enlightenment emphasis on reason and individualism. The political philosophy of the Enlightenment was to allow the individual to follow his reason in his own life. It did not embrace a politics of anything goes for "diversity", based on an intellectual vacuum "therefore" political freedom. Anti-reason leads to dictatorship. Faith leads to force.
The "social conservatives" are part of the contemporary ruin. Their demands for sacrifice are the false and entrenched moral basis of welfare statism and socialism. Their demands for sacrifice to religious dogma compound that with the theocracy they want to impose. Their package dealing of religion with individualism concedes rationality to the left and drives people away from the pro-freedom movement they pollute with religious nonsense.
I was reading "The Hot Gate" by John Ringo (Sci-Fi) and he was talking about the South American cultures and how their cultural mores are disastrous not only to business, but to any kind of space-faring they might engage in simply due to one reason: maintenance. Those from Latin American who could afford to get into space were the wealthy who considered themselves above everyone else due to family and station. And as a result, their spaceships were hopelessly grounded because they thought themselves above the basic routine maintenance necessary to keep them flying. It was only when they were confronted with the reality of invading aliens and the vacuum of space that they even began to really think about how their culture was self-destructive solely due to the class-centric nature of their thinking. It was only when they started realizing the falsehood in their own notions of superiority that they became successful in working in space and contributing to the defense of the entire planet. Prior to this revelation, they had been consumed with their envy of the Americans and their class rankings yet willfully ignorant of the fact that without those Americans, their entire nations would have been eradicated.
It was an interesting read, and I'd recommend the series to everyone. The author is obviously a libertarian, but lays things out well, including choice and consequence, market vs government, and invention and problem-solving. It was one of the more enjoyable yet thought-provoking works of fiction I've read in quite some time.
Thanks for that. One of the things that interested me in Objectivism, probably the most import to me, was that Rand was not going around staying "this sucks" or "that sucks." She was not so much arguing against something. She knew what she was for, and argued for that.
As a result of arguing for her philosophy rather than against opposition views she did not come off as arrogant.
I am no fan of Trump because I see beyond his redirect because of his past actions. If I were judging him solely on his words durring the campaign I would likely like him more, until he started to talk about how he would use executive orders to do good things. Obama thinks what he is using them for is good things. The other thing that turned me off to him is his constant attacks on what others wish to do, or on others themselves. that shows arrogance. Even referring to himself as "The Donald" is arrogant. We have a guy in the Whitehorse that is sure he knows best, and is willing to use executive order to make good things happen (from his perspective). The last thing we need is another arrogant person willing to use executive power to make what he or she thinks is good happen, even if everyone else thinks they are wrong. Arrogance does come to mind.
The civil war in the country has been going on since the civil war. The states have been loosing slowly but surly to the power of the fed.
Trump is as dangerous as bama or hiltery.
Cruz will be good for America...My take at the present time and could change my mind at anytime.
While that sounds wonderful in theory it is an avoidance of reality. There is no real world place to go to, you either deal with the mess and attempt to fix it or you do a declaration of independence and, unless you have sufficient support, go to Jail and change nothing.
How do you propose to go on strike?
When did advertising for looters become fashion?
Talk about brainwashing!
I have this conversation at some point with my kids, every one of them, in there teens so far.
The good thing about the clothing is it gives a real chance for an educational conversation.
So now the question is what happens to the remaining 29% which is the far lefts share at present. Subtract a reduced near left share by 30% it still leaves the far left with 29% to 71% No mandate, no landslide and over half the country opting out of rigged elections And that's how you form the basis for making change. Not by giving in and quitting.
His "Library" all ready has 1 billion raised. Without the constraints of pleasing to some degree the public he will be able to use that money, and what comes in later, to do more damage than he did in office. He is now a monster machine that can sway public opinion through 1500 new "charities" that he creates, or 1000 media outlets on the web.... to push an idea or concept.
In the future he will effect change without us knowing its him behind it, that is far more powerful than a president and it will be who Obama becomes.
Instead, I applaud his rhetoric (whether he believes it or not) because it is helping shape the argument! Even if he is only (as a politician is want to do) telling us what 65% of us wants to hear, he is at least keeping that out there for all to see (and digest), even the Establishment RINOs!
I suggest that before anyone get's wacky with their "unbridled" support for Trump that they make him truly earn it by promising without qualifications, even signing a contract with America, that he will in fact stand behind his rhetoric if he is elected.
If he does that and he continues (showing that this is not just a vanity run) his unbridled quest for the WH, then I might also throw my vote to him!!! For what its worth!
While I can understand your viewpoint, I could not ever vote for the man. He has stated repeatedly that he will use executive orders as well, his will just be for good things.
He makes it clear that he has no respect for the constitution, or the law. He wants, like obama, a society of men, a king. Not a society of the people through law.
I too like much of his rhetoric but there are bits of truth that come out as well that make clear he is another constitution burning tyrant.
I said, I might support him down the road when he proved that he is being true to his words. Furthermore, in order to prove that since he doesn't have any past history proving it from his actions, he might want to form a "Contract with America" where he lays it out like the one that the Republicans did against Clinton when they took control of the House and Senate.
That is probably the only way I would believe him enough to perhaps vote for him. Hope that clears it up a bit!
"They consider the deal-maker to be more pliable." The principled Cruz "is hated so much."
Rush sounded very much like the linked article.
Those in charge of the GOP are indeed part of the left. At least maybe they are beginning to stop lying about it. .
The real ground truth is we need a second party ...
Cruz is completely qualified to run. He is a natural born citizen.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/o...
With the evolution of how that is defined a person need only have one parent who is from the US, and could be born anywhere in the world. He does have to have lived for several years (5 if I remember correctly) in the US as well.
Those taht took this route with Obama had no legal leg to stand on. Even if he was born in Kenya he is still able to be president because his mother is a US citizen and he had met the other requirement of living in the US for the required time.
It has nothing to do with the location of birth. In fact the term comes from British law that was put in place to keep those born outside the empire to a British father from being considered non-citizens.
It has nothing to do with the location your born in, and everything to do with the parents you have.
No cherry picking going on here, just law, rather consistent law. Its all ready been challenged twice that I know of and the supreme court has stated twice that "natural born citizen" is about parentage not location.
Due to this the legal definition was updated to include a requirement to live in the country ( in regards to the presidency) for 5 years (may be wrong on the number of years but I think it was 5).
However you are the first to admit that Cruz is no better than Obama.
Show me in the Constitution AND using the definitions of the time the document was written IN the thirteen colonies, the subsequent conferation AND specifically when it became the United States upon ratification.
If you can't do that all the rest and many other opinions are nice ya da ya da yada but they are not law.
Obama has a Certificate of Live Birth for Hawaii. He's eminently more qualified than Cruz.
But since no gives a shit about the Constitution any more its a moot point especially after New Years Eve.
Just don't come whining the next time some says the Constitution doesn't count....and it's something you don't support.
You cherry pickers and revisionists want in both ways... that's why you have same sex and why you have money as free speech but free speech has no value.
Congratulations you and obama just gave the military free rein to take over the country per their oath of office. That is Constitutional your opinions are not but your opinions now have done away with the Bill of rights and brought us arrests with nothing more than 'suspicion of''
Cherry picking is a two edge sword and now you have to live in a police state Congratulations.
In the time of the constitution the term "Natural Born Citizen" was based on British law, which specifically was used for a baby born outside the country but by a father who is a citizen, was and is a natural born citizen. That term exists to state that someone like Cruz is a citizen.
Over time it was adjusted and the supreme court has ruled on similar cases in the past, both outside the country and in a territory. If someone chooses to waste time with it on Cruz we will for the 3rd time see that a natural born citizen is anyone born of a US citizen regardless of location of birth.
I did not agree that Cruz is no better than Obama, do not put words in my mouth. I did not compare the two at all. I used Obama as an example that if he had been born in Kenya as people stated (falsely) he still would be a natural born citizen.
I have now used the definition of the time of the constitution twice. I have explained its evolution to include both parents and then either parent. Regardless of the legal definition of 1870, 2015 or anywhere in between a natural born citizen is one born to a US citizen, the only thing that changes overtime is you had to have a US born father in 1870, later a US born father and Mother, later either a US born father or mother. This is the definition that was in use at the time of Cruz's birth.
There is a restriction in the legal definition for a requirement to have lived in the US for a period of time. 5 years if I recall correctly, but that is it.
I learned this when investigating the Obama birther claims. Since I looked at the law, the history of it and what is required to be a "Natural Born Citizen" birthers drive me nuts.
Move the republican party towards a small government party.
revitalize the tea party
While I do not see any of them making huge headway, these two things are critical to get things shifting in the right direction. I do not think any of the others could do it, or would do what is needed to cause such a shift, like call a liar a liar on the floor of the senate.
Looks like Nothing is going to win again and by the way NO One took my bet on the percentage of votes for the winner next fall. So I'm going to spend the hundred on house improvements in FNA.
Ergo sum....that includes Cruz and the enabler Republicans.
I don't have to please anybody but myself but in reading all the posts I'll bet my system carries more weight than does that of the fascist left.
I guess from what you have posted, you are not participating in any of the upcoming elections.....I also imagine that is why you can take a somewhat holier than thou attitude although, you will probably be suffering the same fate as the rest of us poor mortals for whatever outcome of so many of ignored election(s) it turns out to be.
Not sure how that works out for you however, I defer to your perspective, it is yours after all. BTW, which way to the Gulch?
Holier? Nay it's the difference between saying and doing ...Along with a few others from this forum we've long since been gulch residents
Some look at my boat and say when are you going to go somewhere? Strange thing; to ask as I've been there, returned and been again but now retired. My answer to them is When are you going to go the first time. The gulch can be a physical place but it' always a state of mind. Once you accept that it's yours to enjoy.
Yes he is religious. They only thing I have seen a position on that would enforce it on anyone is abortion.
According to polling Cruz will beat Hillary or Sanders, Trump wont so the data disagrees with you there as well.
I have trouble with the polls, in that they are so subject to manipulation. I can tell you unscientifically in my experience that Trump has more support at least in other places than this forum !!
I just dont want Hillary or Sanders or some religious zealot. I would have liked Carson, until he showed that painting of him and Jesus. God only knows what position he would take on things if in a position of power.
Frankly I dont care about abortion. Thats not one of our really important issues today. I think getting out of useless wars and fiscal responsibility are far more important things. Freedom is inversely proportional to the square of the amount of money the government gets.
The RP has worked so hard to divide itself into this camp or the other camp, while the left is rubbing their hands together and cackling with glee, as they prepare to put either an avowed socialist with communistic leanings or a socialist with a penchant for entitlement and dishonesty on the throne because the RP has divided itself.
And Cruz? Not eligible. Sorry, he was born in Canada. Same reason my other half is ineligible - even tho born to US citizens dating back some 300+ years the birth happened in Trinidad. It's not even the "McCain Exemption" where it was the Panama Zone, or the "Obama exemption" because Hawaii was a US territory in 1959... it was a FOREIGN COUNTRY. Ya know, Maple leaf national flag, Former British Commonwealth, etc. And I won't even bring up his Cuban father...
And still he runs, and somehow that's OK. Why not let Schwarzenegger run for PotUS? Hmmm???
Why they keep bringing this guy up, well, I just don't get it. HOW can he be eligible?
If you look up the law concerning "Natural Born Citizen" you will find that it actually is to include those born to citizens outside the US as "Natural Born Citizens" to make it so that those kids do not have to go through the naturalization process to become a citizen. This means the Cruz is eligible.
At the time the constitution was put into place, this would have legally meant that a child born to a father who was a US citizen in another country wuold be a US citizen by birth, or a "Natural Born Citizen." Over the years since that time it has evolved some. First to require both parents be citizens, and then to require only one parent, mother of father, be a citizen. It is this last (one parent) that was applicable at the time of Cruz's birth.
This has been challenged before, the challenged caused an addition to the legal definition which requires that you have lived 15 years in the US as well as having one parent that was a citizen at the time of your birth.
Never at any time has the location of birth had anything to do with being a "Natural Born Citizen" or not.
Just FYI
Right now she's dragging down his State Department as they come under fire. (see latest post on Hillary in "NEW"
The Hillary Left is not the Obama Left that much is clear as she moves to the establishment Left and the third segment is her old poster princess stomping grouond the Secular Progressive Left.
Three divisions in the extreme left for Bernie to exploit. Chip Chip Chip.......
Cruz is a left wing socialist who IS a member of the Right Wing.....of the left.
The Republican Establishment like the Democrat Establishment are straight up hands down left sing socialist statists or corporatists or both.
So why is one left wing socialist cause to vote for another left wing socialist? Well One could be a National Socialist and the other an International Socialist.
But since they are both left of center and so is their party ....who cares? Left is Left
I do not even have that for Trump. He is a socialist and states otherwise. He has made his money off government handouts and then more government protections. He even says so, he contributes to election funds because he needs favors. Thats what he has said, yet you seem to see him as a conservative, or a business man. he is a thief and nothing more.
I for one am not a "Social Conservative" per se, however I do admire anyone that has core values and is willing to stand for something! Unfortunately, today people have little core values and their actions and beliefs reflect that in daily living!
Perhaps if you explained what your core values are we might understand your damning statement above. BTW, look at those souls who call themselves "Progressives" and perhaps for the sake of balance, comment on their extreme "Coercion"!
Lets see, force doctors to perform abortions, or force women not to get them. BOTH are the identical threat, just different results. You can do this on nearly any topic on the two dominate sides. BOTH push a progressive control agenda for their respective talk boxes. BOTH are equal in the threat they pose on most issues.
Social conservatives generally do not take your money to give it to someone else. On issues such as welfare, medicare and social security they tend to be less of a threat. These are some of the major threats of our time.
BOTH of these groups pale in comparison to the American Exceptionalism haters. That wish to fundamental change America into a EU socialist state. That group is more dangerous than the social conservatives or the social liberals. Neither of the other groups propose fundamental change away from freedom and the constitution, but these nut jobs (like Obama) do. Far greater threat.
Others like the Isis fundamental Islamist are also a bigger threat as they wish to force there values on us all, and kill any who will not accept their values. A bit more extreme and determined than either the social conservatives or the social liberals, also a much larger threat.
I would also hasten to note that the Republican Party divorced themselves from conservatives a long time ago. I agree that establishment Republicans are a problem, but not because they are conservative...
.
As for the philosophical arguments of each, they merit their own discussions. What I would point out, however, is that each of the cases you have cited are not rights-based. Rights are individual, while the actions you cite involve the interactions of two or more parties. Once the conversation turns to interactions, it becomes a matter of debate over social contract and norms. Government at its base is all about defining accepted behaviors and social norms - especially the legality of each.
Trump, Cruz, and the GOP establishment are only human, so dial it back a notch. The GOP leadership are a pathetic lot, having pushed Bob Dole, McCain, and Romney as credible candidates, so to credit them with the ability to control the wily billionaire is an unrealistic reach.
I can appreciate Ted Cruz as a passionate ideologue, but that's his worst skill. If he became President, would we be trading a narcissistic liberal, with nothing but contempt for conservatives, for a narcissistic conservative, with nothing but contempt for liberals? The country can't handle another eight years of a logjam and increasing oppositional rage.
An Executive branch that can exercise intergovernmental diplomacy would be a novel change, instead of one seeking to increase the power of an imperial President. Trump may seem a potential tyrant, due to his bigger than life, bombastic persona, but his mastery is in making deals through skillful negotiation. I don't see the same capability in Cruz, who prides himself in his refusal to compromise.
Do I like Trump? I can't stand his self aggrandizement, but then I had to work with many people I didn't like who had admirable skills during my military and government service. I'm looking for ability, not the winner of a popularity contest. Isn't that what being objective is supposed to be about?
So, what you want is someone to say everything you want to hear, then not follow through because his word means something but rather that would somehow make him (or her) not narcissistic?
I have some bad news for you, I would say without hyperbole that Trump very easily fulfills that description himself! So, why is it ok for Trump to be a bit of a narcissistic but not Cruz (although I don't see you argument there)?
As for Trumps business acumen, the same argument was made in NJ when it erroneously elected Jon Corzine (a deal-maker himself) who went down as one of the worst governors or senators this state has ever had however he was worth 1/2 billion dollars!
I for one takes a person by their actions as opposed to their words!!! I suggest others perhaps try that as well.
And everyone who runs for President is going to be passionate. It's one of the reasons Romney lost: he showed the passion in the first debate, then lost it (and the race) afterward. I don't fault Cruz for his passion - nor Trump. I admire Trump for being willing to buck the establishment and be politically incorrect, I just see a few major holes in his stances that are a serious concern for me.
What you list as Trump's strength is exactly what I view as his greatest weakness. He makes deals that seem good in the moment.
I had the same problem with Romney. He is a man who has made a life, and millions by making deals.
Obama is a deal maker as well, not with the other side, but with the unions, selectively some rich business guys as well, and terrorist countries that state while in negoriation that they want to kill the great Satan. He makes deals.
A deal maker is not what we need, its not what the world needs. Highly destructive is what these deal makers have been.
We need someone with some principles that wont make a bad deal. Clinton handled Milosevic and Kosovo with the kind of deals we need. They were based on the interests of America and the people in the effected countries. It was handled well. II am not a huge Clinton fan overall, but he did handle this situation well.
How is Trump going to handle a negotiation with a person who does not need or want his money. When he cant buy them off through donations, move them behind him as a competitor through government favor how will he deal with that? Those are the two goto strategies for this guy through his life. What kinda deal will he make with those strategies behind him? I would rather not ever find out.
Any competent national leader will engage in dealmaking. The question has to be whether or not such deals are within the bounds of principle, or whether the deal maker is abdicating the national trust. The Iran deal was such an abdication.
Have you read Trump's book? It deals with how to gain a person's trust, and make them feel you understand their needs. It also points out when to play hardball with someone not willing to compromise, when to accede to less than your original goal, and when to walk away. Sounds like he understands more than you think.
We can't live with extreme socialistic liberals, and we can't shoot them, so we need someone who has a grasp of how to influence them to give ground, at least when it's important. The alternative is an immobile government, given the near equal balance between left and right, and that's what many of the people are fed up with.
The Tea Party spent a lot of energy and resources getting conservatives elected, and to what end? It may be admirable to stand on principle, to no effect, but it doesn't serve the people who elected you. Like it or not, populism and a desire to see real economic recovery is what's driving the Trump supporters.
Obama is a huge deal maker, perhaps the largest in history. Just not with the other side in the US. You recognize this right after saying he is not a deal maker by stating he is making a deal with Iran.
Trump may make a good president however I don't see it as being for the art of the deal, but rather sticking to principles and fighting where and when the fight is needed.
Deal making means that you are trading one thing for another and as we have seen, the Republican Establishment Leadership have been deal making with Obama only they have nothing to show for it other than the thought that Americans will like to see them be collaborative with this president.
The deal here is that the suckers will think R's are nice guys (and girls) and deserve their votes because of the "Cocktail party or Country Club etiquette", after all, isn't that where the deals are all cut?
He has said repeatedly that he would use executive order. He wants to be king. He want to rule by pen and phone, not by negotiation through constitutional laws and processes.
I personally prefer not to have a king. To steal a line from a movie I rather like "Why trade 3000 tyrants 1 mile away for 1 tyrant 3000 miles away?" because 3000 tyrants must have a majority agreement in order to steal your work from you. 1 can do it on a whim. Trump will do it on a whim, he has said so.
If you want someone who makes decisions on principle and not negotiation, you wish a tyrant. And we all rather like tyrants when we agree with them.
The second the President becomes involved in deciding what needs to be law, he is becoming a legislator, not an executor. According to my read of the Constitution, the President is only authorized as executive. He is also prohibited from meddling with the judicial - as has been the case with the Department of Justice.
And I might add... done so with an "in your face" attitude.
This has historically been the case. Washington proposed legislation for lighthouses which was passed by the legislature and signed. All the Presidents, including the ones who helped with the constitution have proposed legislation.
Where we get into trouble is when the President decides to act on his own because congress disagrees with him. That's right out.
The agencies do report to the President, yes, but they should never be asking for additional duties beyond what Congress has authorized. This has been a real problem under this administration.
I want someone that will do things based on the constitution. Separation of powers would say that the president has to work with congress, and that the members of congress have to work out with one and other a "deal". Its not the presidents role, unless he is a tyrant, to work out what the laws will be.
Trump has no respect for the separation of powers. He will deal right and left with executive order (from his own mouth) just as Obama has. Guarantee another tyrant here. An autocrat as you put it.
I do not want a Tyrant, that is why I do not want Trump and do not like Obama. They are both Tyrants.
I want a president that will adhere to the constitution and provide executive leadership while enforcing and behaving based on the laws that have been passed. Its the only way not to get a tyrant, and the only people a president is authorized to make deals with are in the role of an ambassador and executive.
It is the failure of congress to say "What the %$#@" and stop the crap. Congress has for at least 100 years failed to call the executive branch to the carpet over and over again. Its not a failure of the constitution, but of the people in congress to uphold the constitution.