Ted Cruz does not endorse Trump Based on Principles
Aside from the issues and facts that Mark presents; what about the constitutional values we expect our presidents, our presidential candidates and our representatives to pledge unswerving dedication to...their fortunes, their most sacred honor or their lives to. Isn't that much more important than the "Party"?
I have to laugh even though it's a bit sicking, they booed when Cruz said: "Vote your conscience" "Vote for the candidate you trust and a candidate that will adhere to the constitution.
Kind of makes one think. By the way...that pledge?...was discarded March 29th by the Don himself...
We find ourselves here in these times because we haven't adhered to the constitution...have we not?
I have to laugh even though it's a bit sicking, they booed when Cruz said: "Vote your conscience" "Vote for the candidate you trust and a candidate that will adhere to the constitution.
Kind of makes one think. By the way...that pledge?...was discarded March 29th by the Don himself...
We find ourselves here in these times because we haven't adhered to the constitution...have we not?
If the idiots see there are 150 million voters? out there and not just 50 million, they will be more afraid of being watched and exposed.
It's likely neither T or H will get to 270 unless one cheats better than the other.
The GOP Shot themselves and all of us in the feet with their arrogance. Hillary and Obama won't beat us...we gave up the fight ourselves.
Next time, if ever, pay attention.
What to me is so telling is that Cruz was booed for standing up for Constitutional principles by those there in attendance. Tells me all I need to know about the Republican Party right there.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/politic...
All they want to do is cling to soundbites and mesmerized by personalities with little regard to the substance and realities of politics in this country.
Presidential elections are now almost exclusively about the "attractiveness" of Fric & Frac with little about the meaning and substance of what they say other than one is not the other.
We think that we are given choices however, in reality, the choices we are given only ensure the outcome wanted by an overarching oligarchy that is truly what runs our world.
This tried and true approach is similar to the approach wise parents take when they give their young children choices however the choices are always the one's that the parents can live with.
The same can be said about our choices we have between R's and D's. We "seem" to have clear-cut choices however when push comes to shove, we end up with exactly what these shadowy overlords want and that is an never-ending slide towards a totalitarian society ruled by a NWO under the auspices of Socialism and the tagline "Law and Order".
This seems to be very similar if you ask me to the Fabian-esque world envisioned by George Orwell and as attempted in Nazis Germany and Stalinist Russia! Gramsci, Allinsky and Hegel - Perfect together!
Cruz chose to lie with swine and got dirty. What did he expect. Bernie knew he was dirty when he jumped in the slop trough. Smalll insignificant difference. What? Cruz thought he'd be treated special.
There is more to leadership than just bullying those who don't agree with you or leveraging the fact that if you pay someone, you can be a tyrant to get things done.
The leadership that I am looking for (and didn't get) was to see a man wise enough to reach out to those with whom he had differences with (I.e., Cruz) and go the mile to make things right. Instead what we get from him and his strident followers is "we don't need your vote" and as with Cruz, giving him absolutely no reason to jump on board.
I will always (at least from this date forward) vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may! Without "real" leadership from the presidency, we are doomed no matter which clown wins. Congress will continue on its merry way ignoring the electorate and the Judiciary will continue legislating from the bench.
Where is our Cicero???!!!
Hate has nothing to do with my view. Reality does. DT helped make this problem what it is by funding all the politicians he's against now. But hey, lets put all that aside because today he says he's conservative, he's republican (his kids aren't) and he's upset with DC (even though he profited from sinking millions into their pockets and pal'ed around with them).
He's going to flip on everything an anything he promised within a year if elected. Why? Hope and change...errr make America great again.
With this election, one can say that the chickens are coming home to roost and we are getting exactly what we deserve. This is what happens when you now have generations of brainwashed people who vote by soundbite alone or on the promise of getting something for nothing! What a country!!!
Ayn must be spinning in her grave to see how far we have fallen!!!!! They who live by the 30 second soundbite will suffer by the 30 second soundbite as well. Just like this "Law and Order" garbage (remind you of Adolf Hitler's Nazis Germany??). That and the willingness of people to toss away their freedoms based upon some vague promise of security and/or justice. Ben Franklin warned us of that trap so, beware that "soundbite" that sounds so good!
Will people ever learn or, are we doomed to keep making these same idiotic mistakes!?
"When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”
Adolf Hitler
Speech November 1933, quoted in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer
and here we are...to what end?
It is obvious that you do not fully understand what a President can do and what they cannot on their own volition!
You should realize that Obama had both the House and Senate under Progressive Democrat control. They did his bidding because they were of the same mind as he was!
The Republicans on the other hand can't even figure out what they believe in let alone be willing to unite behind Trump. Most Rs that he will have to deal with hate him for various reasons....you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out now do you?
The only way he will be able to get much of what he is "promising" the unwashed masses are beyond his capability (and wealth). He will have to wait for the electorate to provide him "like-minded" Congressman and women in both the House and the Senate in order to ramrod through his "stated" agenda!
Correct me if I am wrong about the lawful process including the advise and consent of congress and the sad fact that the other leg of the triad being the judiciary will not just roll over for his bluster. That! Is the sad fact of life! Unless that is you know of some other way (legal of course)......
The only thing that I have been doing is pointing out the obvious based upon reality and not wishful thinking. I have decided that I will not! put on any rose colored glasses for this election specifically.
So there you have it. I am NOT a hater, but that doesn't mean that I have to hide my head in the sand either! For what its worth!
Except for maybe 15 in the Senate. We'll see what happens when Trump takes over and reshapes the Republicans in his image chuckle chuckle.
No matter what it will be an improvement.
That's Stylin' Hard for this week. Look for our guest article-er in just seven days.
This is the decision point
to laugh or not to laugh
That is the question.
http://www.3pipe.net/2010/02/marcus-t...
Those people at the convention were not booing what Cruz said about the Constitution.
They were booing Cruz not for endorsing Trump.
That is what they wanted to hear.
It is as simple as that.
I now suddenly recall an editorial cartoon I think drawn by Branco ~
The GOP elephant stands on a folding chair terrified by Obama and a tiny mouse labeled "Government shutdown."
"Pledge" was disregarded by donny boy himself on Mar. 29...no one pays attention to the vial idiotic attack on Cruz's wife and Cruz's Dad...And the ignorant creatons expected him to bow down after That?
Trumpet asked Cruz to speak and speak about the principles the party should endorse, Knowing full well he wasn't going to endorse. They all knew! and so did Fox!
The Fix is in...the establishment wins and we lose again...
He should have known that Trump is someone who hits back.
Trump would have welcomed tickedf-off Ted's endorsement.
I found myself nodding in agreement when I heard Bill O'Reilly say if Cruz was not going to endorse Trump he should have stayed home like Kasich.
Also previously yesterday I heard some minor pundit on talk radio opine that Cruz was with that speech trying to set himself up for a run against a President Shillary but instead committed political suicide.
I'd hate to see how all that "setting up" plays out with a Supreme Court stacked with libtard judges who will be thinking, "Constitution? What Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!"
Good luck with that run, Ted.
Cruz had every right to speak at the convention. He had an enormous number of delegates there. It was not Trump's convention, it was the Republican Party convention of delegates to select the nominee.
Believe I do recall reading that Cruz was playing up to the evangelical Christians at the time.
It was all, "Hey, Brother Believer, see how naughty Trump's wife is?"
Yeah, I'll grant Trump was more vicious. Hit Trump? Trump hits back harder. That is the way he is.
Yeah, he had every right to speak at the convention. Shoulda? .
Go back to the original RNC debate. Cruz was asked at that time to say what he disliked about Trump. Cruz's response "I'm wearing a Trump tie." Then he chastised the moderator for trying to get the candidates to attack each other.
The political attacks started with Trump. He initiated them. He pushed them - especially through his media buddies like the National Enquirer. You support him if you want. I'm writing in someone else.
But now I'm taking a new tack. It is that unaffiliated PAC who started the spouse attack mess, perhaps managing to manipulate the fiery Trump into reacting as he did so he'd still be taking shots about it as he is up until today.
Reminds me a lot of Trump freaking out right after Rubio's comments the debate right before he lost Florida. Trump went ballistic when he should have just ignored it. Instead, he was on the talk shows for days insisting on the one hand that he was a bigger man (pun intended) but that he was just going to blow it off because it didn't matter. Walking contradiction. How is he going to react when he meets with Putin? Or with Kim Jong-Il?
I've complained here before about the choice between the loose cannon or the crook but that's all we got.
No, there ain't gonna be a Gary on any serious rise.
I'd think it more likely for the sun to rise in the west.
I still remember when they said earth was supposed to end. I caught tower duty at the prison
and went home.
Does that mean we're being grandly recycled?
DT is hope and change revisited, this time for those who think they align on the Right. Scary times.
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/07/22...
I suggest signing up (free) and looking around. Everything there is sanction and approved by the moderators. Disgusting propaganda outlet. Deliberately spreading lies.
After what I experienced, I will never support the Tea Party again.
Update: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Par...
It still doesn't change my view of the Tea Party, trhey allow their brand to be used in this obnoxious capacity.
The (T)axed (E)nough (A)lready Party was never an official entity. Anyone who has set themselves up as such should be looked at with an extremely jaundiced eye.
You guys can take all the points you want, the medicine still tastes as disagreeable. The folks on that link are the Tea Party, confirmed by me through association with them. While they aren't a political party they do weigh in on every election seeking to influence. Through facebook a bunch of them who followed my exodus from TPC invited me to their "conservative" page. I lost confidence in those tea party castoffs because they don't really understand Constitutional Conservative.
If the Tea Party is anything more than the worthless disingenuous sh*theads I've seen then they need to acknowledge the 5 emails I sent when I cared (talking about integrity, the message, and the principles of Conservatism) and protect their brand.
Don't shoot the messenger. The Tea Party is far from the answer and I don't see it ever being so.
Those with whom you are trying to converse are obviously not Constitutionalists. I think we both agree on that. And I agree with you that it isn't in a name where we will find those to properly represent our Nation through original Constitutional values. I applaud you for looking beyond the appellation into the reality of principle!
Hildebeast is a terrible administrator- look at Benghazi and her email server, not to mention her time as Sec of State.
Hildebeast wants to raise taxes everywhere to feed more socialist programs
Hildebeast wants to keep Obamacare and make it stronger
Hildebeast cant open her mouth without getting a reading from her political weathervane.
Hildebeast cares more about her career's security than the country's security.
What is it that you fear from Trump?
Trump is an efficient administrator and will cut government waste.
Trump raised really cool children- that speaks to his character a lot
Trump has picked and hired the best employees he can find, and doesnt care if they are women or men.
Trump tells it like he sees it without political correctness.
Trump will use his negotiating skills to deal more effectively with foreign countries.
I did not serve this nation for what its become. Let it burn if thats what the morons want, I'll manage.
I'm not sure why the contemporary Tea Party chose the name (except maybe to emulate the name spoken by some irate stock broker on TV) but recent experience shows most I encountered have no sense of history and feed off of hype.
That's why they hate Cruz.
We probably won't agree at the end of the day. Everyone has the right to their own opinion. My belief is that ultimately the truth/reality of the matter will be known.
I do not know how anything will ever change without individuals running for office that have no interest in political favors.
I personally believe that all problems stem from the moochers within political corruption rather than the groups fighting for social justice. In many ways they are closely tied at their roots but if you end political corruption, you can allow the system to correct to better benefit everyone.
In the General Election your vote in most states will go to the top vote getter.
That includes write ins.
If youi write in Mickey Mouse the ballots are in many states discarded or the vote given to the top vote getter.
In some areas if you leave Prez and Veep blank but vote onlly on other issues on the ballot - same deal.
At present the only way not to give your vote to Trump or Hillary is the same as don't play cards in a crooked game. The only way to win is 'don't play.' For all I know those rules may have been extended to not voting at all. I don't think that steps been taken...yet.
So absent the military exercising it's sworn duty there is one thing you can do. But if they do support them.
Don't vote and don't register as a Show of No Confidence or a refusal to participate in a rigged election. Right now 46% in Presidential races and 50% plus in off year elections have chosen the only way to vote for None Of The Above. And that is by not voting.
In Political Science crossing lines to vote for another candidate is called 'raiding.' Used in primaries to get weak weak candidate on the General ballot. Not voting at all is called 'undervote.' Those who have no representation in the system and so vote for None Of the Above. Each two year cycle that percentage grows as people realize they have no skin in the game.
So the first thing is decide. Are you being represented or will you be represented? If the answer is No. - None of the above is accomplished by Not Voting until we can get it listed on each and every ballot.
Those who choose the lesser of two evils as they put it are publically announcing their willingness to support evil. Ergo Sum they are supporters of evil. Their choice not yours not mine.They chose evil you didn't They decided on their own to join a secular devil's congregation. You didn't.
Three answers to any question. Right, Wrong, Compromise. Adds up to two wrong and one right answer. Evil is matter of degree. Fighting evil is a simple matter of turning your back and walking away.
Voting for None Of The Above is the same as not sitting down in a rigged game,by nor playing stupid and expecting a miracle.
HOWEVER there is time to think about it. Maybe Trump will change for the better. No evidence of that yet. and no chance at all with the Secular Progressive Socialist candidate. But if you are not sure there is no need to rush to judgement.
No need to decide until the last minute. At that time think about the choices. Evil One, Evil Two. Those you have already assigned that designation or No Evil I'm not going to support you.
Think about who is really flushing their vote down a public toilet.
Then turn your back on them and walk away. Just like not playing in a rigged card game.
Responsibile Citizen or Sucker.
I really wish the Libertarian was stronger.
Couldn't help it.
Curious, are you an alter ego for someone else here?
Volition, not violation. my bad.
However, the objectivist principals, of rational self-interest would apply equally regardless of your role in society be it a businessman, cop or POTUS.
You stated clearly and definitively POTUS and I quote you, "If he's elected and If he serves the people of this nation he will do good things, BUT if he has a choice between serving the nation or serving himself we're screwed."
Now please explain to me how rational self-interest, and "selfishness" is a bad thing and would be detrimental to this country as leader? Or it POTUS the only one who is supposed to sacrifice himself to others...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrJCH...
I can go on and on. Trump is a Democrat. Hillary is a Progressive. And the American People are going to get screwed come November no matter which one we vote for.
Now if you want to compare parties, the GOP today is no different than the Democrats of 25 years ago, and the Democrats of today are no different that the socialists of 25 years ago. So the GOP are really Democrats if you want to really get down to it.
But under a two party system, Trump appropriately runs under GOP. Next you probably have not watched many Trump interviews over the years. Trump attended and supported the 1988 GOP convention, and back then was considered conservative. Trump endorsed, supported and was responsible for millions to the Romney campaign....Trump also raise millions and millions for McCain...so where you get off thinking he is a Democrat I am not sure because I never recall him taking that much of an active part in any Democrat campaign short of some verbal sound bites while he was speaking as a businessman with his business and the success of his business in mind.
1980 Rona Barrett and Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5VEj...
1988 GOP Convention:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usb0i...
Trump endorsing Romney 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wepQa...
I am not sure which Donald Trump you are actually referring to.
A Conservative would never have supported the Brady Bill. Trump did.
A Conservative never would have used his political connections to enjoy the fruits of eminent domain. Trump did - several times.
A Conservative never would have supported Hillary Clinton. Trump did.
A Conservative would have been able to cite actual powers relegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Trump only managed one of three (defense) while failing miserably on the other two (education and health).
A Conservative would support defunding Planned Parenthood. Trump won't.
A Conservative would stand for traditional marriage. Trump doesn't.
A Conservative wouldn't advocate continued use of Executive Orders. Trump does.
A Conservative would have taken the call to elect Constitutionalists in a campaign speech as an endorsement. Trump instead bristled.
"So the GOP are really Democrats if you want to really get down to it."
And finally you say something with which I agree 100%. Trump is a Democrat, now running against a Progressive (Clinton). There aren't any Conservatives to pick from.
And if you still want to stay on that "must endorse train", I'd agree with Cruz that before that ever happened Trump would have to apologize - not only for going after his wife, but for his father and the whole "lyin' Ted" mantra. That was way beyond politics. That was "nasty" - another word Trump used often against his opponents but which applies to him in spades.
but your next paragraph is exactly correct ending with there are not any Constiutionalist to choose and I don't believe they are allowed. Progressive instead of liberal was exactly correct.
Don't ask me? I asked the question to begin with and asking me is not giving me an answer?
The original one said those in power entrenched themselves built a sort of fort and made changes slowly if at all using any and all means to forestall change. Purpose stay in power. They were conservative in their approach and atttude.
Liberals want change and they want it all and they want it now for the pragmatic needs of the moment. hang the cost and the side effects. Mostlythey want to be the one's in power so they use any means to get that status.
And then one day the change places. The rest is just slanted propaganda and meaningless crap. A catch all to describe anyone who doesn't lockstep without question vote my way.
And most evident in Lakoff's writings it keeps him from having to describe the enemy has Constitutional Republic supporters and those folk don't have to call Lakoffs suck progs or Communmists or Nazis'
So everything is 'nice' swept under the carpet but 'nice.'
Lots of nice guesses from approved sources and some original thinking but in the end the purpose is to depict life as a reality show aka a lie.
So when I hear conservative and liberal I think of the used car sales man saaying pre owned or read the sign in the store that says 99.99 and right away i know they think i'm stupid. most are.
A conservative is both a social and a fiscal conservative. A conservative believes in the principles of self-determination, personal responsibility, personal choice and freedom, self-defense, and in allowing all men to speak their minds about all issues (democracy). A conservative believes in not spending more than one takes in - either personally or in government. A conservative believes in limited government, enumerated powers, and checks and balances. A conservative believes in the importance of the traditional family and marriage. A conservative believes in universal law - and a universal lawgiver. Conservatives consider tomorrow.
In one sentence, a conservative believes that actions have consequences not of their choosing.
A liberal is both a social and a fiscal liberal. A liberal believes in the the principle of might-makes-right, deception-for-gain, living-off-others (both slavery and mooching), and seeks power. A liberal believes that he (or she) is their own god and that rules only apply to others. A liberal believes in social classes and feudalism - of the "haves" and the "have-nots" and of leveraging that system to their own gain because they are inherently part of the class of "haves". A liberal eschews family (because of the necessary sacrifices) instead opting to justify consensual sex, abortion, etc. A liberal has no problem taking out a loan he/she never intends to pay back. Liberals' only concern is for today.
In one sentence, a liberal believes that consequences are malleable things.
DT is an opportunist and he's a businessman. He lacks principles and is entirely in anything for himself. This is fine in business, not as POTUS when you have 320 million people counting on you. If he's elected and If he serves the people of this nation he will do good things, BUT if he has a choice between serving the nation or serving himself we're screwed.
He has to give up his 757 Jet that is much nicer than AF1, he has to give up his helicopter which is way nicer than Marine one, he has to move out of his Gold plated Penthouse,, he gives up all the personal privacy and freedom he had to go where and when he wants without Government documentation around him. Before this run he was able to get on the phone and call any world leader he wanted to and probably get answered faster than Obama.
And before you say he gains for his ego how is that bad? Do you think a person with that level of ego would not work his damndest just to look at you and say TOLD YOU SO!!!
Not a big stretch.
DT doesn't need help with is ego.I do think DT would have the audacity to stand on the temple mount and tell the Jews they can thank/praise him for their peace. Yeah, I think he's that kind of megalomaniac.
Don't know about you but I hope We're wrong and everything won't be as bad as we project...I know, I know...dreaming again...
PS...I got the damn "sight" thing too...always gets me in hot water but never get credit for seeing.
I would think you would be praising Trump then for his selfishness.
I never see you provide any proof, or examples with verifiable evidence, only Democratic talking points and name calling.
You can vet these out yourself, most is public knowledge.
There is much that can't be substantiated therefore is not even worth our time.
Next Trump NEVER used eminent domain, that would be the case of the Casino redevelopment authority of which Trump was NOT a member. Next the woman you are referring to won the process IN the 5th amendment, and her house is still standing. Also documented was Trump who personally offered the woman (Coking) 4 million dollars for her house that was only appraised at $250,000.00 just to help avoid any litigation. Long and short she won, then got pissed off when real estate values tanked due to Democrats, and could not sell her house for 93k. That was not Trump's fault that was hers. Buy low sell High.
Next Bankruptcy. Trump has started and runs over 600 businesses, and only 4 have been filed under any bankruptcy. The 4 ONLY 4 were filed under Chapter 11. that was to reorganize the debt that needed done to SAVE JOBS and the business, again due to Democratic policies that tanked Atlantic city. Trump later sold those casinos and paid off the debt in the Chapter 11.
Chapter 11 is not illegal, no unethical under the circumstances, and yes this is well documented and I am guess you have not done much REAL research on these topics.
Regarding Russia. dost thou forget during WWII Russia and he USA were close allies? Not as close as Britain but still close allies. It was a Democrat that screwed over Russia and started the Cold War, and a Republican that won the cold war.
I am curious why you think maintaining Russia as an enemy is a good thing? Trump never said he admired Putin, he said Putin was a strong leader, unlike Obama. This is a FACT.
I realize that your reasoning on these things is 100% emotional and illogical, but I have presented FACTS to you regarding your democratic whining points that are total misrepresentations of the story.
There is a lot more going on with putin and russia...trump seems always to associate with many shady characters.
Shady characters? He's as freaking politician of course he associates with shady characters. On the other hand his opponent IS a shady character. .
One was 1980 with Rona Barrett, and one was 1988 with Opra.
The one in 1980, Trump in his 30's at the time was asked about running for President and he was very clear he would not be interested, because and I quote "It is a mean life." In 1988 he told Opra he would never rule out a run for President but things would have to be and I quote" So bad."
Now, if you want to WIN in politics you need to be mean, ruthless, and have a mind for strategy on how to destroy your opponents. Trump's history is never give in and never give up, so when he announced I told everyone this will be a wild ride because he was going to do what he KNOWS he has to do to win.
Is he is displaying to you a lack of character he is fighting fire with fire, and taking on the competition with their own rules or lack thereof.
What "shady" characters are you referring to specifically? Union Boss's? Well if you want to build in New York you better learn how to deal with them. I will refer you to Rodney Dangerfield and "Back to School" in the professors classroom.
You do not build a 10+ billion dollar empire being childish. He is doing what is required to beat his opponents in a MEAN LIFE.
Next, trumps trusted advisers: Paul Manafort (sp) was an adviser to the pres of Ukraine...you know, the guy that was removed...he's still a fan of putin.
Carter Page, trumps foreign adviser is a major investor of Gazprom, which is run by putin.
Richard Burt (sp) is on the board of directors of Alpha Bank (russia's bank of America).
Upon advice of these creatures trump requested the GOP ease it's stance on russia and it's ambitions.
Now, it doesn't appear that trump is aware of the corrupt influence of his advising creatures but you also must realize that putin and his adviser, Alexander Dugan wants to create chaos by influencing elections all over the world. He wants a weak Europe and America; he, like the isis creatures, wants to collapse the West and to create his own version of the New World Order.
Now, do you still think trump has great taste in advisers...he doesn't appear to be as smart as you believe...he is vulnerable in his ignorance.
https://www.alpha.gr/page/default.asp...
I do not see Putin listed in any management role either...
I do not see any Richard Burt. Alpha Bank in Russia, of course the government runs the bank really? You are seriously reaching, even to the point of making things up. So sad.
No one is saying trump is complicit...just not a good judge of Advisors. The question to ask is why do his advisors have or had connections and investments in russia...seems to me, he himself, didn't do a very good job of vetting.
You won't see putin listed at gazprom...he's an oligarch...they run everything.
http://maglobal.com/about-us/our-team...
Ambassador Burt serves on the board of Deutsche Bank’s closed-end fund group and is also a trustee of the UBS family of mutual funds (New York board). In addition, he is an Advisor to EADS North America’s board and a member of the Alfa Bank’s Senior Advisory Board in Moscow.
Now you are changing the subject to Deutsche Bank. Again your credibility is totally gone. You apparently do not do your own research and only listen to and take the word of the people who tickle your ears.
Your claim Putin runs the bank, They are in Russia, Government runs most everything...they are communist. Your point is totally invalid, coupled with your complete loss of credibility now.
Oh and you missed this: and a member of the Alfa Bank’s Senior Advisory Board in Moscow. From his own dossier page.
Where was Cruz, Rubio and Graham on the Audit the Fed vote? MISSING!!!.
Cruz made an oath when he took office, and like Rubio and Graham, never bother showing up for work to vote on the bills that they claim were so important. Cruz never wanted Audit the Fed to go through because if his and his wife's DIRECT financial debt to Goldman Sachs and several other banks.
I think you need to really open your eyes and look at the actual actions of Cruz and his duplicitous actions, and total failure as a Senator.
There are other virtues in Ayn Rand's moral objectivism code. One such virtue is 'integrity.'
If the POTUS agrees to fill a job that requires improving the US, s/he is under the spotlight to fulfill his promise. If he then acts contrary to this "to line his pockets," he should be at risk of breaching contract, and is certainly at risk of losing his reputation and self-respect. Ayn Rand's paramour Nathaniel Brandon explains the link between integrity and self-respect.
My point is that a person who agrees to become president and take the presidential vows has a self-interest to act in the best interest of the country, at least as far as his job description is concerned.
Do you really think you won't be effected?
I would doubt that they could honestly answer those questions because they are not capable of thinking nor accounting for their decisions...if we were to call it that...not sure how not having a mind, nevermind a brain works in practice.
"This is fine in business, not as POTUS when you have 320 million people counting on you. If he's elected and If he serves the people of this nation he will do good things, BUT if he has a choice between serving the nation or serving himself we're screwed."
I am entirely for self-interest, thats Objectivist, thats Conservative, AND thats entirely American. POTUS is not a job for self interests its a service job for the people of the US.
If this is true, and the Virtue of Selfishness does not apply to a Leader i.e. POTUS then you would by default indicate a major massive philosophical flaw in objectivism.
Oboo me on the other hand is an egotist. He cares nothing about doing the best he can unless this is his best in which case he should never have been elected. Then you would be saying he got elected not by virtue of ability but by virtue of shoe polish.
He wants a legacy that goes far beyond his abilty and is egotistical enough to demand it with no evidence of any quality of accomplishment.
Your point though isd valid. One should be blind to self interest and telescopic in the public interest while never forgetting the Prez is one member of the public. That's part of 'best of my abilities.'
Hillary stated this week she and Bill had retired heavily in debt so much she tried to steal the nation's china - but forgot a few thingsl. Book Deals, Speech deals etc. were just around the corner. Then too thereare the hidden assets.
What did Ayn say about Altruism? I am surprised at your reasoning course on that.
I suspect you understood this.
Isn't any self-sacrifice bad according to Ayn Rand.
Seems to me rational self-interest should be a primary focus of an elected leader. ANYTHING they do should be beneficial to themselves, and by extension everyone else too.
Rational Self-Interest does not imply ONLY for me, but if I benefit today, I am not harmed tomorrow.
Bad policies harm the POTUS and his family just as much in the end. Seems to me based on some of your replies that you betray the objectivist principals that you hammer other people with.
So Objectivist self-interest is only applicable to "some people?"
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
Altruism is evil in itself..voluntary or not. Altruism in any form is a direct violation of the oath, and the value of one's own life.
VOLUNTARY
That in no way says you must do or should do anything for anyone else. Voluntary is individual choice.
Those who start by saying: “It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others”—end up by saying: “It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others.”
*******
Voluntary or not...
Next Trump is being selected by the People based on what he is saying. there is no wool being pulled over. Gary Johnson however by his VP pick is betraying what he claims are Libertarian principals.
If things got bad enough that would threaten HIS way of life, and "fixing" the problems would not only solve HIS issues but by extension, everyone else's too.
As POTUS, if you want your own family to not lose the freedoms in this country you do something about it. Seems to me that "selfishness" might be the BEST quality for a POTUS, not a POTUS that is being altruistic.
I will leave the altruistic bullshit to Democrats and Hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuBO...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g6Ba...
“Cruz: I Will Support GOP Nominee, Even If It's Trump”
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ted-c...
It's not about reason or logic...they obviously don't fit in that category.
“Cruz: I Will Support GOP Nominee, Even If It's Trump”
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ted-c...
If Cruz thought he could run a campaign against the liberals without facing blistering criticism and insults he was vastly ignorant of modern politics.
I see several people that credit Trump with discrediting the pledge. but does anyone forget that each candidate made the pledge as individuals? I say that each candidate who refused to honor his personal pledge is dishonored and unworthy of any further consideration for the office. That includes Jeb Bush, whose petty, pouty interview explaining why he wasn't going to attend or endorse made him another politician who delivered a public career suicide note, joining Cruz in the club.
If he really wanted to argue for the Constitution, he should've said "I support the Constitution and a free America. Although we've had our differences, I believe a Trump presidency will support this goal better than Hillary's totalitarian, state-decided and enforced fascism."
Although I was a Cruz supporter for his fiscal policy and Constitutional position, I see that others were right about his lack of charisma and aggressive, spiteful behavior.
Do you use a computer from a company that pays taxes to an evil institution? Do you receive a pension from an institution supporting evil? Do you benefit from the military stability offered by an evil institution?
If one makes no exceptions, one exists almost alone, and almost no one does that. Rather, almost everyone, puts up with some compromise (evil if you like). I choose to vote and voice in a manner to convert others and try to reform the system. This process is a path from "here" to "there", and the only sterling, no-compromise step is the last. "No compromise", is not an effective strategy in winning any fight or argument, unless you hold all the cards.
I support Gary Johnson, because my vote doesn't really count. If it did, I would vote from Trump over Hillary, because that is on the path to "there". If Cruz really believed in the Constitution, he would also support Johnson and try that path, or throw in with Trump. All he did was throw a childish temper tantrum, and hand the advantage to Hillary.
This is simple. I live in a country, and like most, benefit from this country. Choices can be orthogonalized into 1) improving the country, or 2) making it worse, with an irrelevant neutral fine line. "Better" and "worse" is of course one's own definition. I assert, one must participate in this set of choices, or decide to live aside and be agnostic (move on, Go Gulch, etc).
If one chooses to remain in the system, all decisions have the aforementioned "better" or "worse" consequences. In my opinion, Hillary is the "worst" potential presidential outcome, Constitution included. Therefore, any vote of action which supports Hillary is "worse". Simple...so simple. Do not think the "better/worse" argument can be defeated.
Now, one can make the argument that the path is non-monotonic, and a step in the "wrong" direction may precipitate a larger trend in the better direction. Martyrdom might be an example. If you are making that argument, fine. However, the "better/worse" consequences is an axiom.
I have no idea what you are talking about WRT to repentance excuses, or spouting evil. A good man dying of thirst in the desert does no one a favor by refusing a drink from an "evil" totalitarian muslim. The good man can do much more good, continuing to be good than by making a point no one sees.
I was a Ted supporter, but what he did yesterday was politically stupid. He should have stayed home. The other option is to meet privately with Trump and come to an accommodation so he can endorse him. Perhaps a Trump apology could be made What he did will make it hard for him to return to the arena, and might even send him to the dustbin. Except for the religion part, he would have made a supportable candidate.
If that's a gamble, I'm taking those odds.
I was hoping for Cruz to get a second bite of the apple, in 4 or 8 years. He is a good candidate and a basically good man. I was hoping he would stay away and then he'd have until November to comment or if Trump wins and I think he will, he could be a balancing force in the senate. As it stands, he may just become disregarded.
If you or I were Senators...Nobody would like our asses either...think about that...would You Kiss their asses???
Must one really? I’m finding very little in Constitutional law or case law that relates to this phrase. The little that I have found is mostly concerned with racial issues such as affirmative action. Ideologically, the phrase typically is used in support of socialism and the welfare state.
In all the legal cases I have been able to find that deal with this issue, there was a direct relationship between the laws in question and the circumstances alleged to be unequal. In addition, the validity of such laws hinged on whether they mitigated the inequality or created and maintained it. In the case of school segregation, the issue was equal access to education, and the segregation laws created the inequality that denied equal access to African-Americans. In the case of affirmative action, the law was defended as an effort to mitigate the inequality of circumstance allegedly created by past discrimination. One may agree or disagree with affirmative action (I disagree with it), but there was a tight connection between the affirmative action laws themselves and the inequalities of circumstance they were designed to rectify.
This connection is totally missing in the marriage laws of Kentucky and several other states. In multiple ways, the issuance of marriage licenses by these states confers a privileged legal status on married couples in areas that have nothing to do with anatomy, sexual orientation, personal commitment or any of the other issues you bring up. As I pointed out earlier, these include tax status, inheritance, spousal social security benefits, immunity from testimony against a spouse, eligibility for a spouse’s employer-based health insurance, and decision-making if a spouse is incapacitated.
The following quotation is on point:
“The law is plainly part of people’s circumstances, and circumstances are plainly unequal when the law forbids some to lead the lives they think best for them only because others disagree.” – Equal Freedom, edited by Stephan Darwall, University of Michigan Press, 1995.
If marriage licenses did not fundamentally alter the legal status of married couples, it would be relatively trivial whether or not gay couples had access to them. However, in today’s legal, social and cultural environment, the ability to obtain such a license is a vital means of securing their equality of circumstance.
I agree, and I have stated so elsewhere on this thread. You didn't suggest that in your previous post, so I had no way of knowing your position on the issue. My position is that until such special circumstances are eliminated, they should be available to all couples.
Re: "My point wasn't to engage in an argument "
Your post was in response to my post, and since this is a forum for discussion and debate, I assumed you wished to participate in the online conversation and were open to responses.
The vote was 54. Cruz, Rubio and Graham, would have made 57, and if they were any kind of leader, and even half the politician Harry Reed is, they would have managed the 3 remaining vote.
Ried got crap done because he was able to lead people by negotiation or arm twisting to get things done.
Cruz cannot get anything done because he is not now, nor has ever been a leader.
Reid had a vision and Reid got it done through his leadership, and or arm twisting. Cruz has gotten NOTHING done, and takes no initiative to either arm twist or build a consensus to get the RIGHT thing done.
I am positive he did not want an audit the fed because he and his wife would have been exposed with major conflicts of interest.
As for arm twisting...not a fan of that kind of politics. That's how we got into this mess...mob tactics. That's what marxist do.
Absent winner take all which was a complaint lodged and the dumbos ignored their own rules on the subject but absent those votes Cruz would have been on top. Doesn't matter
The system has been in place for 240 years no one cares enough to change it.
General election is majority only if a plurality results goes to Congress. Same deal no one in 240 years has worked to change it.
Load more comments...