Galt's Gulch
12

Ted Cruz: "By Far the Best Viable Candidate"

Posted by $ bigjim 8 years, 8 months ago to Politics
233 comments | Share | Flag

This is an excellent analysis of Ted Cruz's positions.
SOURCE URL: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/04/ted-cruz-for-president/

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • -1
    Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 8 years, 8 months ago
    Cruz IS a politician and one of "the good ole boys" of DC.AND he is Canadian because that is where he was born. If you use the argument his mother is American then EVERY anchor baby needs to go by YOUR decision of mothers birth country. Divide and conquer is why they do.
    Vote veteran someone that puts America B4 any party, we come from all backgrounds.
    End the double standards,put DC politician on Obama care,SS. mrpresident2016.com
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 8 months ago
      No the "good ole boys" don't like him cause he threatens their status and he stands up for the rule of law as defined in the constitution.
      We got into this mess cause we allowed government to break those laws.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 8 years, 8 months ago
        As a public servant, Cruz received government sponsored health insurance coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. But for Cruz, that privilege only highlighted the inequality of America’s health care system. If he is OK with this I am not OK with him.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
          Incomplete description Cherry picking as well as blathering false hoods reminds me of rear echelon types...In the combat arms we called them REMFs
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 8 years, 8 months ago
            The DC politicians get a full salary retirement after one term, 6 or 4 years depending on whether they are Senator or Representative. Not to mention all the bribes, oh sorry, lobbyist paying them, oh sorry again, giving them gifts. I don't spread false hoods. Can you tell me that the DC politicians are not on a different retirement or healthcare?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 8 months ago
      I'd strongly suggest you review several of his filibuster efforts. He was joined only by Mike Lee and Rand Paul in condemning both Republicans and Democrats alike on both the budgets and TPA/TPP. Yes, Cruz is a Senator and therefore by definition a politician. But I think his support (or pointed lack thereof) in the Washington, D.C. balloting for President is a particular indicator of how he fits as an "establishment" candidate. In point of fact, he doesn't fit in with the Republican Party elites - they haven't back his Presidential campaign, preferring instead Jeb Bush and then Marco Rubio. Even now, the only reason Kasich remains in and he has even admitted it is in hopes of a brokered convention. Both Trump and Cruz (remarkable for the candidate in second place) have decried the brokered convention.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • -1
        Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 8 years, 8 months ago
        As a public servant, Cruz received government sponsored health insurance coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. But for Cruz, that privilege only highlighted the inequality of America’s health care system. AND non of them are veterans so are not qualified to be Commander in Chief.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 8 months ago
          So you're going to base your entire position on Ted Cruz not on whether or not he opposed the ACA (he did) neither on whether or not he filibustered it (he did), but on whether or not he was affected by it after it passed? Really?

          The only esconced requirements to be President are that one be a "natural born citizen" and one be 40 years of age. There is no requirement for military service and a religious test is specifically forbidden - not just for President but all political offices. One doesn't even have to have held any other political office.

          None of the candidates were veterans. So what? There have been good CinC's who were from military backgrounds (Washington, Eisenhower), and terrible ones (Grant). What I care more about is whether or not that person is going to respect our service men and women. I want a President who is going to defer to his military commanders to run a war - not armchair quarterback - and one who is not going to jeopardize either operational security (see Bin Laden) or the safety of the soldiers (engagement policies).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
            Further more the preponderance of Constitutionally derived legal opinion makes people such as Cruz and myself completely legal. Too bad you didn't bother to do a little fact checking. About a 15 minute exercise for any decent researcher with a $200 computer.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • -2
    Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 8 months ago
    I would vote for Sanders before I would vote for a person who us such a liar and underhanded as Cruz. If he is this way now, wait until this establishment guy makes dictator.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 8 months ago
      You are talking about all the statist party candidates. None of them are worthy of wiping your shoes.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 8 months ago
        Johnson
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 8 months ago
          For me, Johnson blew it when he said the Jewish baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Nazis. I switched to MaAfee.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 8 months ago
            Glad you brought this up. I wasn't aware and looked it up. This one item clearly indicates that Johnson has not clue about libertarian philosophy or the concept of free market and personal property. I suppose that just like the Republicans who have their RINO's, Libertarians have their LINO's.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 8 months ago
              I agree that this was a very odd answer by Johnson. I doubt that he didn't know this was inconsistent with libertarian thought since he ran in 2012 as a Libertarian and seems a pretty bright guy, so I am at loss to explain it. I can only guess that he was forced by logic to take this position after he staked out a position against anti-gay bakers in hopes of currying favor with gay rights voters. A mistake in any event. Not as big of a howler as McAfee's support of free taxpayer funded college for all, however.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 8 months ago
                If Johnson felt that he was pressured to make a choice between gays and free market, from the Libertarian point of view, he made the wrong choice.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  -
                • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 8 months ago
                  While I don't agree with his answer, I understand it. He was speaking his personal opinion, and he did not make that separate from public policy as it must be.
                  It is not the job of the federal government to dictate and force businesses or individuals who they must work for or who they serve.
                  Johnson's experience is in state government where such policies could be experimented with if the people of the state so decide.
                  This is my opinion but I think the constitution supports it..
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    -
                  • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 8 months ago
                    Even as a personal opinion, I am appalled that anyone claiming any understanding of liberty, freedom, free markets and personal property, can even picture a scenario where an individual can be forced to perform any kind of a service against his will for the "benefit of the society" and especially for the benefit of "equality."
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      -
                    • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 8 months ago
                      I agree. Johnson needs to make a concise statement for the record if he wants more than 5%.
                      OTOH, it probably won't matter until he is banging on the door of the presidency. Then the media will use it against him.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 8 months ago
                        During our previous discussion, I admitted my big dissatisfaction with Trump, realizing that he is basically a socialist mob boss, and looked at Johnson as at least a token effort to save whatever liberties may still be left in America. With the debate/discussion, when he made the statement showing his contempt for the fundamental libertarian position, the little hope that I had for America's future is evaporating. If the country's leaders are so empty in their philosophy, or rather, have none at all, then the possibility of any constructive change based on reason is practically nil. The system, and the country, will need to completely collapse before enough people can even begin questioning their premises, let alone making the right conclusions.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo