Donald Trump or Ted Cruz? Republicans Argue Over Who Is Greater Threat

Posted by XenokRoy 5 years, 1 month ago to Politics
203 comments | Share | Flag

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.
SOURCE URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/us/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-republican-establishment.html?_r=0


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by starznbarz 5 years, 1 month ago
    Trump and Obama are different sides of the same coin, both say whats popular with their uninformed base, both mock and ridicule anyone (including millions of American citizens) that disagrees with them, neither intend to govern Constitutionally. The power hungry will eat from any table, Cruz dinner invitation will come with Constitutional requirements they cannot stomach.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 5 years, 1 month ago
      Except Obama has a real agenda and Trump is just a crony socialist, most similar to Biff from Back to the Future II.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
        I dont understand this hatred for Trump. He is NOT a socialist, of all things. Sanders and Hillary ARE socialists. Cruz is a religious zealot, as is Rubio. Vote for Trump, or you are going to get Sanders with his 62% federal income tax. How about that?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 5 years, 1 month ago
          There are plenty of evil people who are not socialist hardliners - per se. Trump is a socialist, since he is not for free markets or a supporter of natural rights. He will be a disaster. If he had been elected when the country had a strong foundation in natural rights, he might have been a meaningless president
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
            Trump is a socialist of the fascist variety - private property in name only, i.e., a PPINO socialist. You keep the deed, they get the control -- until Trump takes that too by eminent domain when it suits 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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
            of all people- a socialist???? Sanders is an admitted socialist; Hillary is a hidden socialist; Obama is a muslim socialist. None of them have a done a damn thing in their lives productive. Trump is FAR more of a capitalist than any of them. He actually built up a successful business based on customer acceptance. He tells it like he sees it ( a change among politicians); he would stick up for America when it comes to foreign relations (more than we have had in the last 8 years). How could he be a disaster compared with Hillary or Sanders (which is what we WILL get if not Trump)?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 5 years, 1 month ago
              You are blind. His success in business has been as much about or more about political connections than business skill.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
                And the fact that he started with an inherited fortune upon which to build. Also didn't hurt that that fortune was protected by lawyers during FOUR bankruptcy courts. His investors lost billions of dollars and he laughed - completely insulated from his own poor decisions.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
                  Thanks, well said.

                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                Perhaps, but are you ignoring whats about to happen- a distinct fall into major socialism with much higher taxes and government regulations. Sanders will raise tax rates to unbelievable levels and surely destroy the dollar. Hillary will do many more political connection deals than Trump could ever do, and we wont even find out about them until she is out of office for a second term. She is bought and paid for by Wall Street "contributions".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
                  Every poll suggest that about 30% of the republicans wont vote if Trump wins the nomination. This means he looses.

                  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
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                    Bob Dole isnt really someone to listen to very much I think. Cruz is just kind of an odd duck. I have trouble getting behind him. I am not so sure he would be good for anyone. I dont care about abortion as it doesnt impact me and it IS a small problem in the scheme of things.

                    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.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
                      You are contradicting your self.

                      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.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                        Hillary hides it. Trump says it's currently allowed so he used it. But he buys politicians off not for gain but to get then off his back
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
                          Do you even listen to your own guy.

                          “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.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by conscious1978 5 years, 1 month ago
                            +1

                            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."
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • -1
                            Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                            I dont know what they would give him that they already had not taken away first. I never got anything from government except relief from some power that they wielded over me, or some regulation that they had imposed but then relaxed.

                            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
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 1 month ago
    Trump, a crypto dictator.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
      Cruz is a religious zealot with pretty crazy beliefs which he wants to bring to the presidency.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 1 month ago
        Did you notice Trump's visit to a church yesterday? It was as if he was saying, Oh well, I gotta do what I gotta do. It only proves that he'll do whatever he needs to do in order to win. That is not a presidential attribute. -- Or is it?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
          Interestingly enough, if Atlas Shrugged didnt get the populace here to understand the dangers of socialism, I think its a lost cause at this point. All we can do is slow it down a bit. I wouldnt want to bring a child into this world at this point.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
          There are religious people even in the Gulch (why, I dont understand actually). There are a lot of religious people in the US that will vote, and the president is obligated to represent them too.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
            The choice is not between Trump and Cackles or Sanders. There are a dozen candidates. The primaries haven't started yet.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
              So decisions don't have to be firm right now. But in this mob rule culture, the candidate with most votes (electoral) rules. If the election was today. It's trump or hillary. The other repubs are way down in polls. Sanders may overtake Hillary, but it's unlikely trump would be unseated by any of the repubs candidates. I think that's the practical reality
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by conscious1978 5 years, 1 month ago
                The "practical reality" you tirelessly repeat is support for a crony fascist that is worse than those you fear.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                  gulchers seem to think that, but they never actually say what he could do that would be worse than what hillary or sanders have promised to do and obama has already done
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by conscious1978 5 years, 1 month ago
                    Your reply speaks to your consistent disregard of the examples presented to you many times and to your agreement with Trump's disregard of the most fundamental of man's rights.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                      We are all going to get trump, Hillary, or Sanders. By casting trump as the worst, you are saying you prefer Hillary or Sanders. Good luck with that choice. Look only as far as Venezuela to see where that leads
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by conscious1978 5 years, 1 month ago
                        All three get you to the same place, at the same time. The only difference is if the "knife" is in your back or your chest. There are other choices.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                          I guess if I really believed they would all get us to the same place at the same time, I would just not vote at all. There are NO other choices that would win this time, however. I do think sanders would get us to disaster quickest, hillary a little farther out, and trump farther out yet. In the end, its the vast majority of statist oriented citizens who will get us to destruction- as this is a mob rule democracy. Eventually, only a pure socialist would be elected, but hopefully not THIS time.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 1 month ago
            If Trump wins the nomination, I will vote for him over Hillary, Sanders, Bloomberg or any lefty. Not that Trump won't cross that line. As to bringing a child into the world at present, you've got to remember that in the long run, he/she could be one more objectivist. I wouldn't Exclude religious people. If their basic premises coincide, they can indulge so long as it doesn't impeded forward progress.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
              Trump is no angel, but I think at least he is right out there and tells everyone without hiding it (as opposed to Hillary who tells us ONLY what will make her look good). Sanders is right out there, which I do respect, but his ideas are really wacko and cant work without there being a money tree with an endless supply of wealth that no one has to have worked for...). As to religious people, I dont have a problem with someone's beliefs, as long as it stays out of government policy. As to islam, I think as long as its in their "bible" that its ok to kill infidels, I dont want anything to do with them, and I certainly dont want to live around them.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 1 month ago
    GOP insiders hate Trump.
    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?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      If you only read things from your side you have only a partial picture. Can't really know the enemy you never read anything from.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 1 month ago
        You could be right about the insiders, XR, if they have reached a deal with Trump after turning up the dirt they need to control him. Didn't a Trump executive conveniently die in a plane crash some years ago? Just speculating, but trump certainly has some skeletons to control him with.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
          There was a line in an article I read that was really interesting, it was from Bob Dole. It may have even been this article but I did not look to make sure.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 1 month ago
            Yes, the GOP has a recent history of running obvious loser candidates that have no chance to win: Dole, McCain, Romney were all throw aways imo, and the current candidates are also cannon fodder.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Retfird 5 years, 1 month ago
              Didn't Dole and McCain just come out in favor of Trump over Cruz?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
                Yes they did.

                If Trump is such an outsider why are the party insiders backing the guy up?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Retfird 5 years, 1 month ago
                  Because Trump will compromise. He would negotiate with the Washington establishment to get things done. Isn't this the argument he is making?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
                    Yes it is, but I think it goes much further than that.

                    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.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Retfird 5 years, 1 month ago
                      Do you think that some of the turncoat congressmen and Senators that were put in by the Tea Party might be replaced by new Tea Party candidates over the next two election cycles?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
                        I hope so, but not if someone does not breath some life back into the Tea Party.

                        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.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by blackswan 5 years, 1 month ago
                          Why not go from 80k pages to one page in one fell swoop?!?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
                            Would love to see that. Better yet eliminate both corporate tax, and income tax. have only a sales tax and do a constitutional amendment to make it unconstittuion for any government organization to collect a tax directly from the people other than a sales tax, then there are no pages.

                            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.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
            Trump has a lot of grass roots support which isnt going away. People dont want to publicly say they will vote for Trump, but my estimate is that he has MORE support than the media give him
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
              Dream on.

              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                Would you rather Sanders speaking for you? Or perhaps the really evil Hillary? Remember that actual election brings about more seriousness on the part of candidates than when running for office. What I like about Trump is that he DOES speak whats on his mind, and isnt stopped by political correctness. We need that at this point in time.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
                  Sanders cant speak for me as he and I disagree on things.

                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                    I think trump does tell it like he sees it. Hillary is a total chameleon. Trump built a business. Hillary hasn't accomplished anything productive. Both trump and sanders are honest and forthright. Trump iisn't beholden to special interests; Hillary is. Trump isn't going to bk the country through wild spending on welfare and free college tuition and 15$ minimum wage or religious zealotry. Both Hillary and sanders will speed up our destruction as Obama has done. Cruz will never get electrd
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 1 month ago
    If R-establishment hates Cruz, then they are a bigger part of the problem than I thought. (Can't read the article. Asks for login).

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 5 years, 1 month ago
    republicans are the greatest threat to modern Republicanism...a party of nothing but "me-tooers"...lapdogs to fascism/socialism...

    there is a civil war within the party as there soon will be in the whole country...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 5 years, 1 month ago
      The democrats and republicans are morphing into the tea party and the socialist party. People from both parties will move to one of the new parties, in a philosophical shakeout that's likely to surprise many.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
        I would rather have a tea party than a socialist party. At least I get to keep more of what I earn. If Sanders gets elected, I will pretty much "shrug". I mean why work hard if you lose 62% of it to his new taxes?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
      Gulchers hate Trump. They better get over it before they are stuck with Sanders and his programs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
        If trump wins we get Sanders. Every poll I have seen shows this. Trump cannot win a general election because 1/3 of those who voted republican in the last 3 elections wont go out to vote, or will vote for a third party.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
          I know this "poll" has been floated lately. I dont trust polls, as they are easily manipulated. We will see who wins. If all the gulchers voted one way or the other, it wouldnt change the election one bit anyway.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
      I had a sudden thought the other day: the problem with the current political system is the lack of diversity caused by two parties. The Progressives basically just commandeered the Democratic Party: they ousted all the Blue Dog Democrats who could have been called libertarians in modern parlance. Then they (the Progressives) just concentrated on their base. What this did was essentially reject the compromises that had taken place in order to focus on a more radical and hard-core ideological stance. It's actually quite brilliant (and effective) from a marketing standpoint.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by blackswan 5 years, 1 month ago
        I believe the establishment republicans will move over to the progressives, while the remainder will create a new tea party that will be fiscally and socially conservative, with a smaller foreign policy footprint. The religious aspect is likely to be to turn such things over to the states.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mia767ca 5 years, 1 month ago
        Ayn Rand thought less of the conservative base and attacked them more...her main point was that they were not as consistent as the socialists upon which both bases were founded...

        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...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
          Socialism makes sense. Socialists want to go back to the glory days of fiefdoms - a ruling class and a peasant class. It's not hard to understand and therefore very easy to intellectualize and find fault with.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
            Rejecting belief in the supernatural is not a starting point. It is a consequence of rationality. Religion is "hard to live by" because it is irrational.

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
              You know, I was thinking the other day and the word arrogance came to mind. And I began thinking about what really causes arrogance. It struck me that those who are arrogant are those who are seeking to put themselves above everyone else by emphasizing the differences and attempting to ignore the similarities. They are so intent on proving to themselves their own superiority that they box themselves into a mindset that is self-reinforcing - the notion of their own superiority by virtue of the differences they see in others. They denigrate others solely because it is the only way they think they can maintain the fictional superiority they have created for themselves.

              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
                Blarman,

                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
              That's a good analysis. I visited Jefferson's house and came away. Thinking the founding fathers didn't really have a consistent philosophical base, but rather had to compromise in order to get an agreement. The resulting document was based more on getting rid of English rule and English religion and making sure THAT wouldn't happen here again. Once ratified the US government went on constant expansionist binges to take over the continent culminating in the capture and control of the South during the civil war. The statist elements ooo f our founding have expanded and now we have Obama and if we don't watch out. Himmary
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years, 1 month ago
    Trump is no threat to the GOP-(progressive or just out for themselves) establishment but Cruz is, everyone tows the line, obeys the law under Cruz and they are soiling their pants over it.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by SBilko 5 years, 1 month ago
    Trump is a buffoon and Cruz is a theocrat. The rest of the GOP pack would just give us the same as we've been getting. The system is broke and there's no fixing it. Time to go on strike, friends!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by SBilko 5 years, 1 month ago
      The fallacy of Atlas Shrugged is the supposition that a strike could be extensive enough to "stop the motor of the world". The fact is that society is too large and resilient for a small group to bring it down, even if that group is composed of the best and brightest. That said, it is still a moral imperative to withdraw support from an immoral endeavor. The proper way to strike is to refuse to participate in the system and to frustrate it where possible. Home school your kids. Opt out of the banking and financial system. Pay as few taxes as will keep you out of jail. Do not vote - voting in the present system serves only to perpetuate the illusion of individual power. Will these actions change the world? Of course not. You might as well try to stop an avalanche by standing in front of it with Captain America's shield. But such actions will allow you to seize the moral high ground.
      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 5 years, 1 month ago
        I don't know it's doing a pretty good job so far just with the wild catters. You know them? The one's that used to have their business in the USA instead of shipping to the USA. Add that back into your mix and it's thumbs up time!!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
      Trump is a master business person. He wont take crap from his advisors, in my estimation. I would love to be there in the room when some lowly bureaucrat gives him nonsense and tries to convince him of nonsense.
      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 5 years, 1 month ago
      You forgot the key element the broken and unrepairable socialists formerly known as the Democrats . Since they speak for and lead the left the error was glaring.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      How do you propose to strike?

      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?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 1 month ago
        Peaceful: Abandon the statist party. Vote for independents/libertarians. The best way to hurt powerful people is to turn them into powerless people. Don't buy products from sources that support the state. Reduce your consumption of resources as much as possible. If you can, start a business or avoid employment by any business that supports the state. Freedom isn't free or convenient.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DanShu 5 years, 1 month ago
    Like some have said here 30% of Republicans will stand down and not vote if Trumps the man. All it takes to see Cruz will win is if you look at the 2nd choice of most. Even among Trumpites they chose Cruz as second and a lot of others say 3rd. Take Trump out and Cruz probably wins because very few will stand down.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 1 month ago
      No leftist will ever get my vote. He's a Republcian that's the right wing of the left. If 30% of 24% stand down that's 7.2% and the undervote is already 44 to 46% means 51.2 to 53.2 perecent are saying. Fie upon your phony rigged election. No confidence, none of the above. No more lies, deceit and no more chances.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Danno 5 years, 1 month ago
    Remember: Obama can still make an Executive Order to suspend elections as the global economy crashes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 1 month ago
      I've mentioned this before in jest. Obama has not agreed to abdicate. Maybe that was partly in jest.....tongue in cheek?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Suzanne43 5 years, 1 month ago
        I don't think that it's tongue in cheek or in jest any longer. Many people who I talk to think that he will try to get a third term. Remember that he isn't finished "fundamentally changing the direction of the country." It isn't completely Marxist yet. Even if he doesn't get a third term, he will stick around D.C. to make life miserable for the next president.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
          I do not think he will attempt to go for a third term. This is not because he is done.

          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.
          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 5 years, 1 month ago
            And the latest I've heard is campaigning again for Secretary General of the United Nations. Many be no truth but it fits the image. He's been campaigning instead of working for the last eight years. The joke was for Pope. The reality maybe closer to home.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dacruzable 5 years, 1 month ago
    national review...where were you when they promised if you elect us, we will stop Obama Care!! and all the other things they promised. NATIONAL REVIEW PLEASE SHUT UP!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 1 month ago
    I am tired of all this Trump hype! It is as bogus as is his record in believing in anything that he now espouses! I understand the disgust with the Establishment and the direction that our country is on however I for one am not ready to blindly (with hope in my heart) throw my support behind him.

    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!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      Appreciate your comments.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 1 month ago
        You misread my thoughts. I am only saying I like his (Trump's) populist rhetoric where he is spouting what 65% of Americans feel and what they are most angry about. He has tapped into that anger, its just not clear that he really believes what he is saying.

        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!
        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 5 years, 1 month ago
      There's no such valid contract and to date what politician other than Gingrich has lived up to such a statement/ Answer? Zero. Even then the rest of the gang managed to get most of it tossed out on appeal.starting with term limits.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 1 month ago
        Ok! So what is your solution? If you have something better, be more than happy to hear it!
        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 5 years, 1 month ago
          don't you people read anything and pay attention. What other politician made a promise anywhere close to the Contract With America and put it all in place in 90 days? Answe is zero, zip, goose egg, cerro, nada. the contract referred to is unique and I see nothing about Trump to indicate it would last any longer than was convenient to Trump. If he did take that bloody oath and violated it then .....so what? What redress? None. It isn't rocket science the man doesn't know the truth from fiction nor fact from feckless. What's that got to do with any solution? or is that a diversion. Contracts Mean Nothing To Trump. That clear enough. The solution is don't vote for Trump. You won't find anything better even in the most right wing reaches of the left wing and he's a long way from there. Corporatist Statist Socialiste Looter tht fits between A Republican In Name Only and a Democrat in Name Only. How many fibs,lies, how much plagiarism, how many flip flops before you figure out he's a very expensive but very empty suit whose number one goal is Trump.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 1 month ago
    Yesterday I heard on my car radio Rush (on a weekend rerun) opine that the GOP establishment "finds Trump to be the lesser of two evils" compared to Cruz.
    "They consider the deal-maker to be more pliable." The principled Cruz "is hated so much."
    Rush sounded very much like the linked article.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 1 month ago
    Commenting on just Trump and Cruz I have been following both of them for years. Cruz while not qualified to run is acceptable as a last ditch back against the wall no other choice candidate. Trump is unacceptable by any definition.

    The real ground truth is we need a second party ...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      Michael,

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment deleted.
        • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
          Look up the legal definition of "Natural Born Citizen" and then look up the history of that definition.

          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).
          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
      • -1
        Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 1 month ago
        That is conjecture it is not law. Unless it is put out by legal authority that being the Supreme Court or an amendment it is still conjecture and opinion it is not law. British law doesn't count we are not Britain. So all of that is nice and whoopie I can now run for president but it is NOT law within our country.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
          I will repeat myself once, as perhaps I was confusing before.

          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.
          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 5 years, 1 month ago
            Never mind I found it. I wonder how many have been denied that right or made to jump through meaningless hoops over the years. It's fifteen years residency as it happens. So Cruz gets a clean bill of health and now we can be happy still having no choice but at least one of the none of the aboves is legal. that leaves Hillary
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 1 month ago
      Out of the gaggle, whom do you like?
      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 5 years, 1 month ago
        None of the Above they are all leftists and I don't vote left wing. For me it's Constitutional Centrism as a philosophy and political belief ...or nothing.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 1 month ago
          Who are all leftists? That was a broad statement and as confusing as a "Constitutional Centrist" whatever that is supposed to be. Centrist means that you sit in the middle of the road and probably get run over by traffic going in both directions! Is that a fair statement that is unless you have a different definition of Centrist......
          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 5 years, 1 month ago
            I dont use your useless definitions I use my own. Left are those who put Government Over Citizens that's everything from Republicans and Rinos to Democrats, Dinos and secular progressives etc. The center is the constitution not the center of the left and that's people who put citizens over government. Easily explains why Republicans always cave to the left. Because they are the right wing OF the left along with thei enablers. nothing confrusing about it and it replaces a useless system of meaning less definitions that are nothing more than leftist propaganda along with a one party two faced system of rigged elections. End of conversation. Nice thing about objectivism it teaches individual freedom and turning your back on the various collectives.

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 1 month ago
              Let me know when you find the Gulch....perhaps we could join you and we cab all live as pure Objectivists!

              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?
              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 5 years, 1 month ago
                Never gather that which you don't know. In Spring or fall I enjoy them all because I see choices where you see limited options dictated by others. And I see blooms where you see deserts

                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 5 years, 1 month ago
    Every dam one of them are a threat to the status qua, both sides and the middle! If it comes down to Sanders, Clinton, Biden, Bloomberg, Cruz or Trump then you have to decide which poison you can live best with. When a politician's mouth is moving you can be sure he is lying and is full of shit!.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
    Cruz is a big time religious zealot. He even wants to kick gays out of the military (again). He probably even believes the earth is flat and there is no evolution. That is a scarier than Trump by a LONG shot. Cruz would never beat Hillary or Sanders. People are tired of the big spending democrats
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      First off where do you get that Cruz wants to kick gays out. I have read much of what he says and have never seen that so would love to know where you get it from.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
        I saw a news article on Cruz about the military. I should really have the source available before I said something.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 5 years, 1 month ago
    What bothers me is this...

    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?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      Susanne,

      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
      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 5 years, 1 month ago
        For something than never was it was sure taught as gospel in the public schools for many decades. However RK is correct at present through a series of changes place of birth doesn't appliy. I'm not sure that citizenship does either. A lot of changes. Free Speech is now define as the province of the Wealthy. Money may be - is - free speech but what is the value of free speech quid pro quo? The phrase I can by virtue of my wealth take all your rights without explanation or exception. So sayeth the Supreme Court.
        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 5 years, 1 month ago
      Left has it's own huge problem WWOTL or Waddle or Wicked Witch Of The Left is hanging on by a thin thread called Obama (ha ha ha) who will turn Eric Holder Part II loose or rein her in? Who knows The question is What's In It for Obummer's Legacy.

      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.......
      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 5 years, 1 month ago
      Communist, Nazi, Socialist? Same thing. Some forms are more extreme by certain ways of measuring they are all...otherwise....the same. Failed economic system, failed social system...totalitarian to the nth fascist degree.Built in elitist ruling class with a strong man type at he helm and a Politbureau, Schutzstaffel and Waffen SS. Something Obama openly admitted to wanting.
      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 5 years, 1 month ago
    Now that's a mish mash. Trump is a left wing socialist corporatist who claims to belong to the Right Wing of tne Left.

    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
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
      Why arent you talking bad about Hillary or Sanders? THEY are the real bad guys
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
        Actually I have some respect for Sandars. He says what he is. I disagree with him, but can respect him.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
          As I said earlier, I have paid off politicians too, and as I remember that happened in Atlas Shrugged too. To get powerful political people off your back, that is what is required. I dont doubt that Trump has done that. In his business, government stands in your way constantly, and the only thing you get by buying them off is that they dont use their laws against you.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Danno 5 years, 1 month ago
    Trump is more than himself. If elected, there may be hope for Congress as insiders fail with normal tactics, like in this election.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 1 month ago
      The rigged election system guarantees the left a win no matter what - at the present - When only the left is allowed candidates and and participation they have zero worries. The rest is just a propaganda shell game that to many buy into without realizing its Rigged to Lose."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
      Trump represents a reaction against Washington which is long overdue. Politicians should be not electable, as was the desire of the founding fathers
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 5 years, 1 month ago
    Social Conservatives who regularly call for using the coercive power of government to force everyone to behave as they want have been and continue to be the biggest threat.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 1 month ago
      You're right! It should be perfectly acceptable for 16million babies to be aborted with taxpayer money. Oh! Those evil "Social Conservatives"! What else are those evil people guilty of? Not wanting to sign a document that is at variance with their core beliefs?

      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"!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      While I agree with you that they are a threat (anyone who wishes to use force is a threat) they are far from the biggest threat.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
      A bigger threat than the Progressives who want to overthrow the Constitution entirely by stealing all my money, telling me what I can buy and what I must buy and telling me how to think? You're concentrating on the molehill while the glacier is about to run you over...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by rbunce 5 years, 1 month ago
        Social conservatives prepared to toss out the Constitution as well... and the headline at least implied biggest threat to the Republican Party... which is a worthy goal... just not that way.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
          Can you point to any specifics?

          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...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by rbunce 5 years, 1 month ago
            Speech for one... support for War On Drugs and other government Wars on personal behavior including sex, gambling, even still liquor
            .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 1 month ago
              Your right! That is the definition of a "NEOCON" and that is not Conservatism or "Classical Liberalism". There is a world of difference so it is important to understand terminology and use the correct term to get your point across, otherwise everyone is confused!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
              I'm not sure I see the Constitutional protections you are talking about. Remember, the Constitution is to limit the powers of the Federal Government to specific key areas. If you want to argue that the Federal Government has no enumerated power to govern a person's sex life, I completely agree. Same for gambling or liquor or drugs. Those same prohibitions, however, do not apply to the individual States, because the Ninth and Tenth Amendment specifically relegate all powers not specifically ceded to the Federal Government to the States.

              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by rbunce 5 years, 1 month ago
                Two consenting adults engaging in sex for any reason including money for instance? No government role in that "contract".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
                  Agreed, those who do not wish to do it, do not have to. I am a religious person but I do not agree with government legislating any form of value system on its people with the exception of prevent the initiation of force.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 1 month ago
    My, my - lots of vitriol, hysteria, and apocalypse-speak here. Quite unbecoming of the Gulch, IMHO.

    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?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 1 month ago
      Well! Forget about integrity and doing exactly what you say you are going to do! Narcissistic Conservative! Does that mean that because he promised his constituents that he would be conservative and he followed through, that is a negative?! That doesn't make any sense at all!

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
      I didn't downvote you, but the one thing I would say is that at least with Cruz we have a Constitutionalist who has done his homework. Cruz actually has argued and won at the Supreme Court to protect both the First and Second Amendments under original intent arguments. That to me is pretty impressive and indicates someone who wants a return to original intent - a really good thing in my book. I'd personally love to see Mike Lee on the Supreme Court and Trey Gowdy as head of the Justice Department.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      Do you want someone who makes deals? Isn't deal making rather than principle based decision making exactly why we are where we are today?

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 1 month ago
        Obama is not a deal maker, unless you qualify him being willing to appear to agree with someone who is willing to go along with what he wishes as a "deal." Obama is a narcissistic, rigid ideologue, or from the view of the left, is one who engages in "principle based decision making," as you put it. Cruz appears to be of similar makeup, but from the other end of the ideological spectrum, and much more talented speaker.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
          I did -1 you.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 1 month ago
        I agree! Trump (as was Romney) are Crony Capitalists who have always used the government to their advantage, not necessarily to do the right thing.

        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?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
          I can see your point, but there is another part to Trumps character that has be part of any evaluation of him.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 1 month ago
            Great points! I think a lot of people like Trump's, I will use the EO to do away with all of Obama's EOs however, what is to stop him for taking the power for himself with his own EOs, as you rightly pointed out. I for one also do not like presidents that "rule" by pen and phone. We did not want kings or tyrants, now it seems that is what the job attracts!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 5 years, 1 month ago
        The President must either act autocratically, running the country via executive orders or make deals with congress to achieve his goals.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
          The problem is that the President's job is to carry out or execute the laws passed by Congress. His job is to prosecute wars duly voted on in Congress - not instigate them. The President shouldn't be presenting a budget. He shouldn't be stumping for controls on anything. He should be waiting on Congress to act and then carrying those duties out.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by JCLanier 5 years, 1 month ago
            Blarman: Your comment hits the heart of the matter and so relevant to the present day situation- a President that has from the beginning "legislated" his will with no intent of "executing" the will of the people or congress/senate.
            And I might add... done so with an "in your face" attitude.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 5 years, 1 month ago
            I think that it is entirely appropriate for the President as head of the executive branch to propose expenditures. The departments report to him not to the congress, although congress has oversight. Similarly if the agencies feel they need authority to perform acts (regulations) they can request them.

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
              I agree, but the President should never be the one writing the legislation, such as in the case of Obamacare. I support the idea of the executive bringing up needs to the Legislature, but acting of their own accord should be out of the question.

              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
          Apparently you have failed to read my other posts.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 1 month ago
          Sorry! The best is the Separation of Powers, as designed by the framers. If you want to change it, follow the prescribed methods! Either Congress follows the Constitution or we go to Article V and have the states convene a Convention of States. George Mason had it spot on correct! It is another balance to ensure the Republic endures! Do it with EOs or backroom deals with Congress and you have sealed your own fate! A vigilant electorate and Term Limits will fix what is currently ailing this once great country!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jdg 5 years, 1 month ago
            The trouble with the original Separation of Powers is that it stopped working centuries ago. When Andrew Jackson defied a Supreme Court order and went ahead and carried out the Indian Removal Act, and got away with it scot-free, that was not an example of our Constitution working -- it was a violation of it that has yet to be remedied or a remedy even enabled, all thanks to that so-called Separation of Powers.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
              The intent of the separation of powers is real. I am not so sure it has been practices. Jefferson went around it on the Luisana purchase. He signed the agreement with France and then went to congress about it after the fact, he did at least get it validated by congress after the fact, later Jackson and others just did it anyway.

              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 1 month ago
              You are spot on correct! I don't know if that is the model that Congress and the president have been using ever since but sure sounds like it might be the genesis of the erosion of the original meaning of "Separation of Powers".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo