Ted Cruz does not endorse Trump Based on Principles

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 year, 4 months ago to Politics
355 comments | Share | Flag

Aside from the issues and facts that Mark presents; what about the constitutional values we expect our presidents, our presidential candidates and our representatives to pledge unswerving dedication to...their fortunes, their most sacred honor or their lives to. Isn't that much more important than the "Party"?

I have to laugh even though it's a bit sicking, they booed when Cruz said: "Vote your conscience" "Vote for the candidate you trust and a candidate that will adhere to the constitution.
Kind of makes one think. By the way...that pledge?...was discarded March 29th by the Don himself...

We find ourselves here in these times because we haven't adhered to the constitution...have we not?

SOURCE URL: https://www.levintv.com/videos/ep-94--ted-cruz-does-not-endorse-trump--rnc-convention


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  TomB666 1 year, 3 months ago
    Cruz (and the rest of them) were stupid to promise to endorse the nominee without knowing who it would be.
    2. Once you have given your word, if you have any integrity at all, you keep it.
    3. Kasich is as guilty as Cruz.
    I should have said STUPID a bit louder ;-)

    That said, the real stupidity is going on right now at the D convention. Not one of them know TANSTAAFL and they all promise it!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mslauterbach 1 year, 3 months ago
    The Republican Convention is essentially a pep rally. If Ted Cruz wants to be a part of the Republican team, he should have respected the nature of the gathering and stayed home.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 year, 3 months ago
      1, he was asked to speak with no requirement for endorsement. 2, the party is now progressive in majority...it's probably too late to save the party from within...but I think the first party to collapse will be the demon's.
      There should never be more than One ideology in America...the constitution as intended. Period.
      The only differences should be how the government will defend us...the only valid reason and constitutionally enumerated for a Federal government.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If he intended to keep his pledge, Cruz could have easily made a minimalist statement such as “I don’t like Donald Trump and I disagree with many of his policies, but I will vote for him because he will make a better President than Hillary Clinton.” This would be support, but would not constitute an endorsement of Trump’s behavior or his views. Cruz chose to go back on his word instead.

    Regarding marriage, I agree with everything that you said in your last paragraph. I also agree with your earlier statement that state marriage licensing is “a usurpation of authority they never had.” Based on these statements, how in the world can you defend Cruz’s siding with Kim Davis “asserting the role of arbiter over which marriages are valid and which are invalid”?? What you’re saying is that her actions violate the First Amendment. What I’m saying is that they violate the 14th Amendment. Either way they violate the Constitution that Ted Cruz claims to uphold.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
      What is more important? Retaining one's loyalty to the Constitution or playing the party line? To me, that's a no-brainer. I've already layed out a dozen instances where Donald Trump has openly acted or proclaimed actions he would take in contravention to the Constitution. To me Donald Trump disqualified himself from Ted Cruz endorsement and gave as much support as he could (he could have chosen not to speak at the convention at all).

      " how in the world can you defend Cruz’s siding with Kim Davis..."

      If you agree that the Federal government has no business in marriage, then you void the Supreme Court ruling that started coercing States like Kentucky, forcing them to issue marriage licenses. It's that simple. And just in case you don't understand the legality of the case, I'll lay it out for you. Kim Davis was a duly elected representative of the State of Kentucky as a County Clerk. And in Kentucky, marriage licenses held the signature of the County Clerk at the bottom. Now to me and to her, if you put your signature on something it means that you agree with it. She didn't. So she refused to issue marriage licenses. And BTW - she was taken to the Supreme Court of Kentucky and they acquitted her - recognizing that she was obeying State law AND the law of her own conscience and that the voters could certainly petition for a recall election - something that never happened. The Kim Davis case is all about the heavy hand of the Federal Government intervening where it had no Constitutional authority solely to push an agenda. You may agree with the agenda, but the method should have been for Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment - ratified by the States - granting explicit authority over the definition of marriage to the Federal Government and not to use the Courts to do an end-run around the will of the people.

      Furthermore, as I have already shown, the Fourteenth Amendment is a red herring even if the Federal Government were to have jurisdiction. In order to show its applicability, you must demonstrate that there is no difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. To do that, you must deny that sex/gender exists in total violation of chromosomal and physiological reality. Ergo: there is no demonstration of equivalency and therefore it is entirely non-discriminatory to treat the two circumstances (actually at least three as a gay marriage is certainly different than a lesbian one) differently.

      And I beg to differ with you that the Fourteenth overrides the Tenth. That's nonsense. The Amendments work in conjunction with each other unless they explicitly cite otherwise as in the case of the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments. Or would you claim that the Fourteenth overrides the First Amendment as well? Or the Second?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
        First you say that state marriage licensing is “a usurpation of authority they never had,” that by (state) government "asserting the role of arbiter over which marriages are valid and which are invalid, they are in effect establishing a governmentally-sponsored and -imposed religion which tramples over the First Amendment rights of ALL Americans." Then you say the federal government has no business intervening to protect those Constitutional rights. These positions are mutually contradictory. Which one are you defending?

        The Supreme Court did not force Kentucky or any other state to issue marriage licenses. They were already doing so, just as states were already providing public schools in the 1950s when the Supreme Court ruled that they could not be segregated by race. Kentucky could have quit issuing marriage licenses altogether, but chose not to do so.

        Your “no equivalency” argument does not apply to same-sex marriage any more than it applies to interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court properly overturned state bans on decades ago. Going by your logic, states should have the power to ban interracial marriages because there is “no equivalency” between same-race and mixed-race marriage, because to say otherwise would deny that racial differences exist “in total violation of chromosomal and physiological reality” – ergo: there is no demonstration of equivalency and therefore it is entirely non-discriminatory to treat the two circumstances (actually at least three as a black man-white woman marriage is certainly different than a white man-black woman one) differently. Does this argument make any sense from a Constitution standpoint?

        Furthermore, the bulk of the privileges conferred by states to married couples (such as tax status, inheritance rights, immunity from testifying against spouse) are unrelated to the gender of the participants, so the “no equivalency” argument is meaningless. It would be like saying there is “no equivalency” between a sales contract for a car and a sales contract for a truck, because cars and trucks are different from each other.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
          Look at my arguments again. The first thing I established is the lack of Federal authority over marriage. Then I pointed out that the only reason States got involved in marriage licensing was to prevent interracial marriages (an unconstitutional move) and collect money in so doing. What I established is that in the first place neither the Federal nor State government have legitimate authority to police marriage. What would that mean if it were practiced? It would mean that homosexuals would be just as free as heterosexuals to declare their own unions - it would just mean that the arbiter of validity would no longer be government. Businesses would be free - as would religious organizations - to view marriage within the realm of their own beliefs as per the First Amendment. Government would not be forcing the majority of Americans to adopt a stance which directly contradicts their religious values.

          The rest of your first paragraph is a misstatement of everything else I wrote. Please go back and read it again. I did not say that the Federal government has no business protecting Constitutional rights. You are inferring that there exists a right to marry which does not and never has existed. Rights are individual and inherent - never granted by contract or expressed as groups.

          "The Supreme Court did not force Kentucky..."

          They forced upon them the issuance of licenses which were illegal according to existing State law and popular vote. And they did it by asserting authority they did not have.

          "Kentucky could have quit issuing marriage licenses altogether, but chose not to do so."

          Yes, they could have. And to me that would have solved the entire problem right there. The Federal Government used an existing overreach to justify their own overreach. Neither was acceptable, but at least the State governments can fall back on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to try to claim legitimacy. The Federal Government is specifically excluded on the basis of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and has no legitimacy whatsoever.

          "Your “no equivalency” argument does not apply to same-sex marriage any more than it applies to interracial marriage"

          You don't want it to, but it does nonetheless. The whole purpose behind marriage was a pairing of complementary (i.e. opposite) sexes for the purpose of procreation. It is not marriage without this complementary pairing. Skin color doesn't prevent procreation. Having non-complementary sexes does. The attempts by homosexual advocacy groups to make the issue of gay marriage equivalent to the civil rights movement is wholly fallacious. It is only the redefinition of marriage AFTER THE FACT which enables one to attempt to employ the equivalency of gay marriage to interracial marriage at all! That's a tremendous logical fallacy because it asserts an altered definition as its own proof!

          "Furthermore, the bulk of the privileges conferred by states to married couples (such as tax status, inheritance rights, immunity from testifying against spouse) are unrelated to the gender of the participants..."

          I won't go into the fact that you are arguing the supremacy of government vs the supremacy of the individual, but I will point out that you ignore the basic fact about why society cares about the formation of the family in the first place! Society does not continue without procreation first of all. Homosexuality is self-defeating and destructive to society in that regard. Next we deal with the quality of society and study after study affirms that children who grow up in a home comprised of their biological parents (mother and father) become the most productive citizens statistically. So society has a very vested self-interest in promulgating and encouraging traditional family formation in pursuance of its own prosperity!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
            Please re-read your last paragraph and tell me if there is any part of your argument that is not based on the supremacy of “society” over the individual.

            Regarding lack of federal authority over marriage, there is an equal lack of federal authority over education. So by your logic, states would have the perfect right to segregate their schools by race and the federal government would have no power or responsibility to intervene.

            The feds are not “forcing the majority of Americans to adopt a stance which directly contradicts their religious values.” Individual Americans can adopt any “stance” they please. What the feds are doing, properly, is prohibiting states from forcing the religious values of the majority on the rest of their citizens. The states are free at any time to get out of the marriage license business entirely.

            I am not inferring that there is a “right to marry.” I am saying that there is a Constitutional right for citizens of each state to be given equal treatment under the law by their state and local governments. That pesky 14th Amendment again.

            Re: “The whole purpose behind marriage was a pairing of complementary (i.e. opposite) sexes for the purpose of procreation.” Sounds like what I heard from the church during my Catholic upbringing; it certainly has no Constitutional relevance. Pairing for procreation can take place with or without marriage. And I guess your statement means that marriage is not an option for infertile or elderly couples. Maybe states should require fertility tests for marriage. Would you would consider such a test to be Constitutional?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 3 months ago
              Societies are formed by groups of like-minded individuals who get together to establish rules which benefit them all.

              "Regarding lack of federal authority over marriage, there is an equal lack of federal authority over education."

              I agree. The federal government has no authority over education and shouldn't be involved whatsoever. No "No Child Left Behind". No education subsidies. No school lunch (and now breakfast) programs. No Department of Education - unless solely as a voluntary advisory board to gather and promulgate best practices and success stories.

              "So by your logic, states would have the perfect right to segregate their schools by race and the federal government would have no power or responsibility to intervene."

              One can only legally "intervene" where one has authority to do so. It doesn't make it right for the States to engage in racism in public schooling, but one wrong doesn't justify another. Does the United States have any right to tell China how to run its country even though they have nothing even close to a First Amendment? No. Why? Because we lack authority. Does the United States have the authority to depose Syrian President Bashar Assad? No. We can demonstrate a good example, but the second you allow one entity to usurp authority over another even for an ostensibly good cause you create the monster our Federal Government has become. The Welfare State is another perfect example of this.

              "What the feds are doing, properly, is prohibiting states from forcing the religious values of the majority on the rest of their citizens."

              Um, no. What they are doing is forcing a religious value (one which promotes homosexual unions) on the rest of us in direct violation of the First Amendment. They are establishing a State religion or religious philosophy. Why anyone on this site would advocate for greater Governmental control is beyond me.

              Don't believe me? Look at Canada, who very recently published laws which would violate our First Amendment saying that not even pastors or religious authorities can speak about their beliefs if they contradict homosexual unions on pain of "hate crimes" penalties. That should cause any free thinking person who values individual rights to pause, because that very notion has already been brought up as legislation in our own House and Senate (it was voted down in Committee).

              "I am saying that there is a Constitutional right for citizens of each state to be given equal treatment under the law."

              I agree with you. What I demonstrated is that the Fourteenth does not apply - and for several reasons.

              Infertility is the sign of a defective bodily system - not a legal precedent. Nor does it preclude couples from adopting. Marriage deals with the possibility - not the guarantee. Marriage is all about a lifelong commitment to one's spouse and children. Sex is only a part of that. Too many people - especially homosexuals - want to make it about the act rather than recognize that the act is an act of commitment. Why are STD's such a huge - and growing - problem? Because marriage has been deemed irrelevant.

              Again, my position is to do away with marriage licenses entirely and let people police themselves. That gives greatest latitude to the First Amendment and properly restricts government's role in something they shouldn't be involved with in the first place. That was precisely the case Ted Cruz laid out and I find that case to be on very solid Constitutional grounds.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 3 months ago
                Re: “What they are doing is forcing a religious value (one which promotes homosexual unions) on the rest of us in direct violation of the First Amendment. They are establishing a State religion or religious philosophy.”

                Issuing a marriage license to a gay couple is not an initiation of force, even if it offends the religious sensibilities of certain social conservatives. It does not “promote” anything; if it did, then issuing marriage licenses to heterosexual couples would likewise establish a State religion and “force a religious value on the rest of us in direct violation of the First Amendment.”

                Re: “Why anyone on this site would advocate for greater Governmental control is beyond me.”

                Why anyone on this site would be okay with state and local governments violating the rights of their citizens is beyond me. The issue is not greater government control, the issue is whether a higher level of government should intervene to protect its citizens from violations of their individual rights by lower levels of government. Do you really believe that members of racial minorities should have no recourse if their state or local governments practice racial discrimination? This site is about individual rights, not the “rights” of states to do just about anything they please because the Constitution allegedly allows them to do so.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 3 months ago
                  "Issuing a marriage license to a gay couple is not an initiation of force"

                  It is an initiation of force and usurpation of power to mandate the need of a marriage license and to impose one's self as the arbiter of such claims. Again, my policy suggestion is to do away with marriage licensing altogether.

                  "Why anyone on this site would be okay with state and local governments violating the rights of their citizens is beyond me."

                  Show me the right you are talking about and I'll agree with you. Again: rights are individual - not collective. Furthermore, one person's engagement in a contract can not impose conditions on a third party without their consent. THAT is coercion. And that is precisely what is happening in Europe and Canada as the right to free speech and free association is being trampled upon by proponents of gay marriage.

                  "Do you really believe that members of racial minorities should have no recourse"

                  No. You invented those words and put them in my mouth. I did not say them. You were the one who tried to bring up and impose a false analogy to support your position. I simply pointed out that the analogy was false.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 3 months ago
                    Re my question: “Do you really believe that members of racial minorities should have no recourse if their state or local governments practice racial discrimination?”

                    You claim I “invented” those words and put them in your mouth, and that it’s a false analogy. I intended it not as an analogy, but rather as an actual example based on your earlier statements. Earlier you said, “One can only legally ‘intervene’ where one has authority to do so. It doesn't make it right for the States to engage in racism in public schooling, but one wrong doesn't justify another.” I interpret these statements to mean that you believe the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision outlawing segregation in public schools was wrong – please let me know if I am incorrect. If the Supreme Court decision had gone the other way, African-Americans would have had no recourse to rectify this injustice. African-American children would have been compelled to continue attending inferior schools (private as well as public schools, thanks to “Jim Crow” laws mandating segregation in private as well as public businesses).

                    Re my statement: "Why anyone on this site would be okay with state and local governments violating the rights of their citizens is beyond me."

                    You replied: “Show me the right you are talking about and I'll agree with you. Again: rights are individual - not collective.” The “Jim Crow” laws across the South and elsewhere are a perfect example of the violation of individual rights by state governments. They mandated racial segregation in both public and private schools within their jurisdiction, as well as most other private businesses, thus violating the rights of private individuals to engage in certain activities, associations and contracts with private individuals of other races.

                    Re my statement: "Issuing a marriage license to a gay couple is not an initiation of force . . ."

                    You replied: “It is an initiation of force and usurpation of power to mandate the need of a marriage license and to impose one's self as the arbiter of such claims.” The state of Kentucky mandated the need of a marriage license, and Kim Davis imposed herself as the arbiter of whether or not a couple could obtain one. So by this standard, both the state of Kentucky and Kim Davis initiated force. Ted Cruz supported her alleged Constitutional right to do so. What is your position on this issue? Should state governments be free to initiate force until a majority of their citizens vote to cease doing so?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 3 months ago
                      "I intended it not as an analogy, but rather as an actual example based on your earlier statements."

                      It is irrelevant to the question you originally brought up, being gay marriage. You tried to bring up the racial argument as an analogy for gay marriage. The ONLY thing I did was to point out that such an analogy was false. The rest of the discussion was a red herring you don't want to seem to put to bed.

                      But since you want to go there, again ...

                      The premise you are (perhaps unknowingly supporting) is the notion that government should control and run education in the first place! I thought I made myself pretty clear that I reject such a notion. To be crystal clear: I reject treating anyone differently because of the color of their skin. I do not justify either the segregation which happened NOR the usurpation of power which enabled it in the first place. But neither do I justify the use of force by one governmental entity to force change in another without proper authority.

                      If you want to accept the flawed premise that State governments have the authority to run education, then they absolutely do have a duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to extend the same privileges to all citizens and that the Federal Government as arbiter of Constitutional questions remains the last bastion of protection for these rights. I never argued contrary to that. The problem is that it is a bandaid - not a remedy.

                      "The “Jim Crow” laws across the South and elsewhere are a perfect example of the violation of individual rights by state governments."

                      Yes. They were. 100% in agreement. Next point.

                      "So by this standard, both the state of Kentucky and Kim Davis initiated force. Ted Cruz supported her alleged Constitutional right to do so. "

                      You are grossly misrepresenting not only the facts of the case, but impugning Cruz for something he did not do. Just because the Supreme Court declared something does not make it law. Only the Legislative Branch can craft law. The only real power of the Judicial is to declare a law null and void. Kim Davis opposed signing her name to a certificate authorizing the practice of something she opposed - something which also was declared illegal under State Law. She had two Constitutional reasons not to sign those certificates. Cruz upheld her right to object AND went further by noting that the Federal Government had no authority under the Constitution to tell Kentucky what to do in such a case. Cruz objected to the heavy hand of the Federal Government. He wasn't forcing anything else on anyone else.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 3 months ago
                        To be crystal clear: I do not think that government at any level should control or run education or marriage. We agree on that.

                        Re: “If you want to accept the flawed premise that State governments have the authority to run education, then they absolutely do have a duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to extend the same privileges to all citizens and that the Federal Government as arbiter of Constitutional questions remains the last bastion of protection for these rights. I never argued contrary to that.”

                        Yes you did. You stated previously that “One can only legally ‘intervene’ where one has authority to do so. It doesn't make it right for the States to engage in racism in public schooling, but one wrong doesn't justify another.” So previously you said it was “wrong” for the Federal government to intervene to prevent racial segregation in schools. Now you are saying that the Feds have a duty to do so – and under the 14th Amendment, no less! This has been my point all along – it is wrong for states to interfere in (education/marriage), but if they do, “they absolutely do have a duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to extend the same privileges to all citizens and that the Federal Government as arbiter of Constitutional questions remains the last bastion of protection for these rights.”
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 3 months ago
                          "So previously you said it was “wrong” ... Now you are saying that the Feds have a duty to do so..."

                          They are completely different circumstances! I will repeat to you again, the problem lies in your claim that the two situations are equivalent. They are not. I reject it for what it is: a deliberate and calculated lie. There is no equivalency between the black rights movement and the gay marriage movement.

                          Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the plaintiff must demonstrate BOTH that A) a right has been violated AND B) that the plaintiff received disparate treatment under the law.

                          A) Contracts are not rights. Therefore the Fourteenth Amendment test fails the first prong. The Court can summarily declare the plaintiff as without standing right there and dismiss the suit.
                          B) There can be no disparate treatment without an equality of material circumstances. The conditions of a heterosexual marriage and that of a homosexual "marriage" are very different and in the most material ways. Therefore the Fourteenth Amendment test fails the second prong as well!

                          So to recap:
                          #1. It is a gross violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution for the Federal Government to be involved in marriage.
                          #2. It is a violation of authority for the States to assume the right to control marriage through the issuance of marriage licenses.
                          #3. Both prongs of the Fourteenth Amendment test fail to make this an issue for the Courts to consider under that statute even if one ignores #1 and #2 above.

                          ...which is exactly what Constitutional attorney Ted Cruz said.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 3 months ago
                            Re-read your earlier statement: “One can only legally ‘intervene’ where one has authority to do so. It doesn't make it right for the States to engage in racism in public schooling, but one wrong doesn't justify another.” You were talking specifically about segregated schools, not gay marriage, and you specifically said it was “wrong” for the Federal government to intervene because they had no authority to do so. Now you appear to have changed your position on the issue, based on the 14th Amendment.

                            Re: “There is no equivalency between the black rights movement and the gay marriage movement.” Sure there is. For starters there is your statement that states “absolutely do have a duty under the Fourteenth Amendment (emphasis yours) to extend the same privileges to all citizens and that the Federal Government as arbiter of Constitutional questions remains the last bastion of protection for these rights.” This applies as much to marriage as to schools. Several states attempted to create a privileged class – “married couples” – that deliberately excludes gay couples. Many states attempted to shoehorn gay couples into a separate legal category, “civil unions”, equivalent to the bogus “separate but equal” schools that were established in the South. Some gay couples protested, and the U.S. Supreme Court, as “as arbiter of Constitutional questions” and the “the last bastion of protection” against overreach by the states, correctly ruled in the gay couples’ favor.

                            Not only is there “equivalency between the black rights movement and the gay marriage movement,” that equivalency is glaringly obvious. In both cases, states are attempting to create a privileged class of citizens, one based on race and the other based on sexual orientation, in disregard of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. In both cases, the Supreme Court has correctly ruled that states cannot do this.

                            As you say, contracts are not rights, but there is certainly a right to make a contract, and if the state grants special privileges to those who enter into certain types of contracts, it does not have the right to discriminate among those who wish to do so. And while “the conditions of a heterosexual marriage and that of a homosexual ‘marriage’ are very different and in the most material ways”, the privileges conferred by state recognition of a marriage contract are identical, including those that relate to inheritance, social security, immunity from testimony against a spouse, joint tax returns, eligibility for a spouse’s employer-based health insurance, decision-making if a spouse is incapacitated, and many others.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 3 months ago
                              Your statements attempting to turn my own words on their heads presupposes an applicability of logic which I have not only expressly rejected on premise alone, but demonstrated through logic to be patently false. You can't even argue on the merits of homosexuality itself - instead being forced to rely solely on a false equivalency. I will say to you what I have said ad nauseum: the Fourteenth Amendment is not applicable in the case of gay marriage because it fails not just one, but both of the necessary prongs of the test. Deny this at your own logical peril.

                              To answer your question: yes, heterosexual couples do enjoy privileges homosexual couples do not. Differences - material differences - exist which can be denied only by a denier of reality itself: potential for natural children, complementary sex organs, and participants' gender just to name three MAJOR ones! In order to equate heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage, you must choose to ignore all of this - and more.

                              Discrimination is only unjust when there is a false evaluation of non-equivalency. You have chosen to ignore all the differences and focus on only the minor similarities, claiming that because there are similarities the differences are irrelevant. This is simply self-deception. That you are so willing to set aside these very blatant and obvious differences in pursuit of claiming equivalency tells me that this is an ideological issue to you - rather than a logical one. You aren't arguing to come to a logical outcome, you want to argue to justify your position in your own mind. That's a battle you must fight with yourself but also a battle in which I refuse to act as proxy any longer.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 3 months ago
                                You’re being logical while I’m being ideological? I’m not the one trying to analyze your motives. I’m not the one trying to argue the merits or drawbacks of anyone’s sexual orientation, I’m arguing whether government has the right to set up a privileged class based on factors that are irrelevant to the privileges being conferred. To the extent that this is ideological, it is the ideology of individual rights and equal treatment under the law, a core principle of Objectivism.

                                And I notice that you did not attempt to refute a single thing I said in my previous post.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 3 months ago
                                  What have I demonstrated time and time again that you ignore time and time again: that before one may argue discrimination, one MUST prove equality of circumstance. You can't do that with a comparison of heterosexuality to homosexuality and you can't do it in a comparison of the homosexual movement and the black rights movement and I've demonstrated precisely why time and time again. The only arguments you have made have been based on the false premises of equality. In a logical debate, premises are key - if they do not hold, neither does any other argument which relies on them.

                                  Objectivism recognizes reality. Reality includes both similarities AND differences and sidelines neither in its considerations. Rights absolutely are important, but even you admitted marriage is not a right. Equal treatment is also important, but only in equivalent circumstances - a condition I have shown does not exist.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wmiranda 1 year, 4 months ago
    Cruz did not stand by his pledge for personal and political reasons. Principles were not involved or were confused. Cruz could have said something to the effect that I stand by my pledge to support the nominee, as a matter of principle. The same as he claimed so many times to reporters that his word was his bond. He didn't have to endorse or even mention Trump. Remember, at the time of the pledge, Trump was expected to have dropped out along the primary and Cruz as well as others were expecting to be the last man standing. That's why they all were eager to make the pledge. But, against all odds, Trump is the last man standing. Cruz could have stayed home. Or could have done what Rubio did on video. Trump already knew Cruz was not going to endorse him, but didn't un-invite Cruz. But Trump still let him say his peace. As it turned out, Cruz didn't keep his word as pledged and Trump kept his by letting him speak.
    From the beginning, I was for last man standing and had a field of top 5 which included Cruz. Trump turned out to be the last man standing. The alternative to Trump is a lifelong corrupt, dishonest career politician with more baggage than Air Force One could carry and Globalist visions. That is unacceptable to me.
    By the way, Pence seems to be an outstanding balance to Trump. I'm glad Trump picked him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 year, 4 months ago
      Trump negated the so-called "pledge" himself several months ago.

      Before that, it was a pledge to the party, not to Trump, and previous to Trump's own subsequent inexcusable and dishonest personal behavior employed in his campaign.

      No pledge to the party pertaining to a simple count of votes is an out of context absolute regardless of what else happens. "Principle" does not mean regardless of facts and context.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
    I value individual liberty more than Ted Cruz's interpretation of the Constitution, thank you very much. Cruz lost me when he supported Kim Davis' refusal, as a public official, to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because of her religious beliefs. Fortunately, Cruz is toast after last night's performance, and good riddance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 year, 4 months ago
      I think, we'll all too late,.. realize Cruz was right.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
        I think in 20 years or less, Cruz will be an historical footnote. In 50 years, maybe not even that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by fosterj717 1 year, 4 months ago
          I disagree! If you remember, Reagan did a similary gambit in 1976 with a 7 minute speech that set the stage for his successful win in 1980. Besides, the way I see it, who cares if he committed political suicide for speaking a simple Truth about voting one's conscience? If the public is going to hold that against him, then we as a nation are already lost.

          My guess is that regardless of what people think of him, he has actually created a benchmark showing a difference between politicians and statesmen and women. Politicians care about getting theirs in the future, statesmen don't.....
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by bsudell 1 year, 4 months ago
            Very true about Reagan. And, Reagan NEVER endorsed Ford. Amazing. And, Paul Manafort was instrumental in getting Ford the election over Reagan. Yes he was involved in that, too. Hmm... Is history repeating itself?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
            Reagan supported Ford after losing to him in 1976.
            http://www.breitbart.com/2016-preside...
            And if Cruz was so concerned about "voting one's conscience," then why did he pledge to support the Republican nominee in the first place? (A pledge that he very publicly broke) I don't consider him a "statesman" at all.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
              Support and endorse are two separate things. Endorse means you agree with the person's policies and personality. To endorse Trump after he went after Cruz' family personally?

              And who was it who after getting shellacked in one week was crying on both Sean Hannity and Anderson Cooper about the huge conspiracy against him and how he was going to abandon his pledge and run third-party? Oh, right. That was Donald Trump. Pot calling kettle black much?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
                From dictionary . com :

                Endorse, verb (used with object)
                1. to approve, support, or sustain:
                to endorse a political candidate.

                I don’t see “agree with the person's policies and personality” anywhere. And if “supporting” and “endorsing” are two separate things, then Cruz could have supported Trump without endorsing him, as Reagan did with Ford. Cruz did neither.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
                  Endorse in political terms means much more than a dictionary definition. It means campaign for, vote for, monetarily support via fundraisers, appear with in public, etc. To expect that from Cruz after Trumps vicious and despicable attacks on Cruz' family is patently offensive and no sane or logical person would hold someone to such a standard.

                  Cruz congratulated Trump for winning, then reminded him that what was important wasn't Trump himself, but adherence to Constitutional values. That Trump and his cadre took that as an insult of any kind tells me that Trump doesn't care about anything but himself - let alone the Constitution.

                  What I find incredibly ironic is that it is those very Constitutional values which made America great in the beginning and our slide has been the result of abandoning those principles! When Donald Trump talks about "make America great again" he should be applauding Cruz' call to remember those values. That he takes a very different stance speaks volumes to me about the way he will actually govern if he wins.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
                    “Cruz: I Will Support GOP Nominee, Even If It's Trump”
                    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ted-c...
                    This interview took place several days after the spat about Cruz’s wife.
                    And here’s an earlier exchange in an interview with Chuck Todd:
                    TODD: Given everything you've just said about him in this interview, you still will support him if that is what the Republican party does?
                    CRUZ: You know, Chuck, I'm a very simple man and when I give my word for something, I follow through and do what I said.
                    http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/...
                    No one forced Cruz to sign the pledge, and if he had the slightest reservations about keeping it, he should not have signed.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
                      And your point is what? That Trump shouldn't be called on his positions or his below-the-belt tactics? That one person should be held to one standard while another is given a pass simply because he wins?

                      I notice that you chose to ignore my points about the Constitution seeming to matter to only one person - that person not being Donald Trump. That tells me you aren't nearly as interested in Trump's position as merely denigrating Cruz. That's all I need to know, really.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
                        1) My point is that, based on what I brought up in my previous post, Cruz is not the man of character that many here are claiming him to be.
                        2) My point had nothing to do with Trump. I was totally on topic as defined by the title of this thread, “Ted Cruz does not endorse Trump Based on Principles | RNC Convention”.
                        3) Cruz is not a defender of the Constitution in my book. His support of his “Christian faith” is manifested in such activities as defending Texas' "10 Commandments" monument on public property, and his support of County Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on religious grounds. If Cruz thinks that the First Amendment entitles politicians to display the Ten Commandments on public property and deny marriage licenses to couples not approved of by the “Christian Right,” I don’t think much of his ability or willingness to separate his religious beliefs from his alleged Constitutionalism.
                        4) I’m supporting Gary Johnson for President, as I’ve made clear in other posts. I do, however, consider Trump to be much preferable to Hillary.
                        5) Finally, to mirror your last paragraph, I notice that you chose to ignore my points about Cruz not being a man of his word. That tells me you aren't nearly as interested in Cruz’s character as merely denigrating Trump. That's all I need to know, really.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
                          So despite the malignment and personal attacks, you feel Cruz should still endorse Trump. That's your opinion. I differ. I don't have any problem with Cruz refusing to endorse a man who attacked not only his wife, but his father, with open lies while chanting "lyin' Ted" - especially when that man has taken openly anti-Constitutional stances, such as on the use of Executive Orders and calls for limitations on freedom of speech. To endorse a candidate who espouses such ideals would be a repudiation of Cruz' own Constitutional values.
                          2. Cruz endorsed political candidates who were Constitutionalists. If Trump were such, Cruz' comments would have been the very endorsement you claim he held back.
                          3. The Constitution specifically reserves ALL powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government to the States. Please show me where in the Constitution the Federal Government is given power over marriage, because I can't find it. Cruz' defense was precisely in favor of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments - not religion as some make it out to be. Go read his own statements on the matter.
                          4. Good for you, and I mean that in all seriousness. I won't be voting for either Donald or Hillary either.
                          5. See point #1 above. It has everything to do with Donald Trump. Cruz was invited to speak at the convention by Donald Trump. Cruz' speech was known and read by Donald Trump in advance. Trump's own people were whipping up anti-Cruz sentiment even before Cruz gave the speech. I didn't ignore your words about Cruz - I pointed out the double standard you were applying and how Trump was the first to break the very pledge you accuse Cruz of not holding to.

                          Yes, I see huge character flaws in Donald Trump. His past support for the Brady Bill is a red flag. His past financial support for Hillary Clinton is a red flag. The judgments of his unfitness for executive office from at least four bankruptcy proceedings are not lost on me. His abuse of eminent domain in order to build golf courses and hotels offends me. His constant whining about getting attacked by political opponents despite first not holding himself to his own standards disgusts me. His narcissistic insistence that his opinions are the ones which truly matter is the sign of someone so caught up in themselves they can't see reality - a stark reminder of our current Commander-in-Chief.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
                            Re: “So despite the malignment and personal attacks, you feel Cruz should still endorse Trump.” No I don’t. As you said yourself earlier, “Support and endorse are two separate things.” He voluntarily signed a pledge to support Trump, reiterated that he would do so several days after the spat regarding his wife, and then very publicly reneged. Before he ever voluntarily signed the pledge, Cruz must have been aware that he might be handing Trump a blank check. If Cruz believed that Trump “has taken openly anti-Constitutional stances”, but signed the pledge anyway, was he doing so with fingers crossed behind his back? Once Cruz committed to a course of action, he was honor-bound to follow through. Cruz could have easily made a minimalist statement such as “I don’t like Donald Trump and I disagree with many of his policies, but I support him because he will make a better President than Hillary Clinton.” He chose to go back on his word instead.

                            Re your point 3, “The Constitution specifically reserves ALL powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government to the States.” Firstly, you left out the concluding phrase, “or to the people.” Secondly, the 14th Amendment supersedes the 10th, guarantees citizens equal protection of the laws, and applies to state and local governments. I would never support a “Constitutional” interpretation that allows state and local governments to make some citizens more “equal” than others. I saw too much of that growing up in Georgia in the 1950’s.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
                              Cruz did support Trump, however - he just didn't endorse him. He congratulated him on winning. But as I mentioned earlier, endorse in the political word is a much bigger thing. And what exactly did Cruz say? He DID say that having Hillary Clinton as President would be a disaster. And he told people to vote for Constitutionalists! The President's first and foremost duty is to uphold the Constitution. If Trump and his bots are more interested in popularity than the Constitution, I need no further justification than that.

                              Read the author's own statements on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment: it was to cover the freed slaves and extend to them all the privileges they should have been able to exercise already. It, however, did not give the Federal Government power to regulate marriage in any form.

                              And even the States themselves only started "regulating" marriage when they instituted marriage licenses - which were an excuse to extort money and to give the government control to prevent interracial marriages - a usurpation of authority they never had. The issue of gay marriage never was about equal protection. If you believe that you believe one of the great lies of our times.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
                                Re: “Cruz did support Trump, however - he just didn't endorse him. He congratulated him on winning.” That does not constitute support. A losing candidate congratulating the winner – say, Romney congratulating Obama in 2012 – does not imply any level of support for that candidate or his policies.

                                Re: “The issue of gay marriage never was about equal protection. If you believe that you believe one of the great lies of our times.” Maybe it wasn’t about equal protection at the time the 14th Amendment was enacted, but it certainly is about equal protection now. The Constitution and its amendments were not enacted simply to cover the political issues of their time – they also were intended to serve as a guide to resolving future political conflicts whose nature they could not foresee. The 9th Amendment is a good example of this, and is also very relevant to the gay marriage issue.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
                                  Then please quantify what you consider to be support vs what I have laid out as endorsement. Clearly there is a disagreement over what you envision to be "support" vs what I am including in the "endorsement" bucket.

                                  Regarding the 14th Amendment, the problem is that there is no equality of condition between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one in the first place. Without an equality of condition, there can be no violation of equality in the first place. And such an argument still presupposes the notion that even State governments have the ability to interfere in what was a religious event in the first place. As I pointed out, their intentions were those of interference and coercion - not the establishment of freedom.

                                  I would further point out that marriage is a contract - not a right. The real sticking point with any contractual arrangement is enforcement. By government asserting the role of arbiter over which marriages are valid and which are invalid, they are in effect establishing a governmentally-sponsored and -imposed religion which tramples over the First Amendment rights of ALL Americans.
                                  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 1 year, 4 months ago
      the left has spoken
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
        Individual liberty is a "leftist" position? For the record, I have been a Libertarian Party member since 1972. The LP exists outside any conventional political paradigm. Individual liberty is the highest political value. The left/right dichotomy is bogus.
        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 1 year, 4 months ago
          Your last sentence is correct. However anyone or any group that puts government over people is left of center. That includes far as I can see all three candidates . Left is government over citizens, Center is the Constitutional Republic and the Constitution and right is where you find the divine right which is not kings anymore but citizens over government. i don't accept the center of the left as valid nor their definitions much less yours. Saying one thing and doing another by my definitions are what counts. My system works. Yours doesn't
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
            My "system" is protection of individual rights by a limited government, as spelled out by the Objectivist philosophy. I think Gary Johnson would be a much better protector of individual rights than Ted Cruz. You're saying that my system doesn't work? What "system" do you propose instead?
            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 1 year, 4 months ago
              One operating under the principle of citizens as the source of power over government as employees. Libertarians may espouse that principle the two candidates do not They are by far the best choice objectively but for the moment helping Trump take over and destroy or take over and remake the Republican party is a more important step. Once they and the extreme leftists are seen to be of the same recipe the truth of a one party system in power at present and the myth of the Republicans as separate party will become self evident to all but the most dim witted. The enemy of my enemy is my friend....temporarily. Simply following the same path will get you ..will make you a target for as it did the Populists. The establishment Republicans will not disappear they will just don a new set of clothing and along with their buddies in the extreme left figure out a way to restrict the system even more

              You have to follow what will inevitably happen through objectively and plan for it. Trump like Perot could afford to skip a lot of the roadblocks. Can you do the same? All I see is your still focused on marijuana as a primary http://objective.No one to speak of is hanging on your every word. Nothing of importance has been stated in terms strong enough to make a dent.

              Meanwhile opportunity after opportunity is passed up or frittered away including getting to 15% what's happening to that all important step? Close will only get the bar raised to 20% the next time.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
                Win or lose, Trump has already taken over the Republican Party and has the opportunity between now and November to reshape it to his liking. His supporters will not go away and, combined with Tea Partiers and the libertarian wing, will act as an effective brake on any attempt by “establishment” Republicans to reassert control. Even if Trump loses, can you imagine a majority of Republicans saying “Oops, we goofed, Jeb in 2020”?

                Meanwhile, Gary Johnson is working very hard to reach the 15% goal and is still rising in the polls. After the events of the last few days he may pick up several more percentage points as protest votes from both establishment Republicans and Cruz supporters.
                http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/...
                http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
                http://www.post-gazette.com/local/reg...
                http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/op...

                The bottom line: Voters, especially those in non-swing states, can safely support Gary Johnson without helping Hillary win and without derailing Trump’s makeover of the Republican Party.
                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 1 year, 4 months ago
              And you can't read. Objectivism is largely a system for individual choices and beliefs to be validated or not validated. I reject a system that can't use understand plain English for starters Since it's in the preceding post I suggest you find a better reason than playing stupid. Rejected by the words out of your own keyboard.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 year, 4 months ago
                Personal insults are not arguments. Objectivism is not a “system for individual choices and beliefs to be validated or not validated,” it is a comprehensive philosophy, laid out in plain English by Ayn Rand. I will continue to keep my arguments on point without insulting you, and I don’t think it’s too much to ask that you do the same.
                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 Hot_Black_Desiato 1 year, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry for this. Glenn is not partisan.

    BAHAHahahahahahaBHAHAhahahahahaBahahahahaah
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 year, 3 months ago
      He's had demoncraps, socialcraps and homocraps on his show...even a couple of lessies...not to mention Gary Johnson will be on next week and he is No Fan of the party of established republicans...see what you've missed?
      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 Hot_Black_Desiato 1 year, 3 months ago
        Your point having them on his show does not mean anything. His blatant partisan commentary is evidence of his partisanship.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 year, 3 months ago
          You simply got him wrong, you haven't watched in the past year or so or your listening to the wrong people.
          If your worried about the demoncraps and partisanship then you are refusing to acknowledge the problem of how we got here and how it has effected republicans..ie, big government establishment and fear of telling it like it is.
          Progressiveism, socialism, communism and establishmentism is the problem, failing to go by the constitution is the problem, having the ethical and moral guts to address the problems they created is the problem.
          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 Hot_Black_Desiato 1 year, 3 months ago
            You sound like Trump. He is telling it like it is with NO apologies. He is using the existing political system to get in a position to fix it. Or at least that is the hope. He has said he wants to abolish the Dept. of Education...that is a good first start...every state has there own anyhow.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 year, 3 months ago
              I tried, but couldn't...the only bright light is Pence but that probably won't be enough...being a liberal all his life, I don't think his progressive tendencies, his tyrannical tendencies will give way to the constitution.
              Like I said, he chooses the worst of friends and confidants...most, the very people most of us want to see go and would never do business with. It just doesn't feel right, and I try and listen to my gut feelings. (not emotions).
              No convincing ah ha moment to speak of an awakening on his part, no humility, no self inspection.
              If I had to guess, and it's just a guess, he is more self interested in global contacts than about saving the republic.

              I'm not even that impressed with Johnson.
              The only promising but in all probability not, is hiltery goes to jail.
              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 Hot_Black_Desiato 1 year, 3 months ago
                Trump already has the global contacts. Have you seen his real estate portfolio of what he has actually built?

                I am looking at a tale of two Trumps. the one I have seen in interviews and his track record over 40years, and the Politician trump who is doing what is necessary to beat Hillary to put his talents to use for the people.

                George Foreman is reported as being one of the nicest guys you would ever want to meet. Put him in the ring as a boxer and god help you. Two George Forman's.

                I am convinced the "Politician Trump" is doing the mean ruthless thing only out of necessity, not out of his desire to actually be that way.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by KnowledgeisaBurden 1 year, 3 months ago
    Gonna' use bullet points- Cruz made a derogatory statement about Trumps wife FIRST, Cruz, Rubio and Jendle are as Constitutionally eligable as B.O. THEY Are NOT, thus Cruz is no Constitutionalist, he's a plant to subvert the document. Cruz was NOT born of both parent citizens, period. To have any of them supports ALL of barry's actions, to have a authentic citizen and clairification of Constitution can earase barrys illegal laws. Use facts Not emotions...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  fivedollargold 1 year, 4 months ago
    Cruz cares about Cruz. If he was really interested in principles, he would have stayed home. He cemented his rep as a jagoff.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  edweaver 1 year, 4 months ago
      Curious, shouldn't Cruz care about himself? Isn't that an Objectivist principal? Doesn't one have to stand for their own beliefs rather than stand for someone else's? I respectfully ask these questions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  fivedollargold 1 year, 4 months ago
        It was Cruz' choice to speak at the Convention in front of mostly Trump supporters. Everyone who heard his speech is free to render an opinion. Fivedollargold is of the opinion Cruz made an ass of himself. Just his opinion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  edweaver 1 year, 4 months ago
          I don't understand how there could only be Trump supports at the convention. Weren't these the same people that may have supported any of the 17 candidates? If not maybe the system is really rigged. Just saying.
          Personally I thought his message was very positive, just without an endorsement and I respect anyone who stand on their values.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 year, 4 months ago
    My problem with Cruz is that he acted like a low class spoiled brat taking his marbles and going home.
    He didnt have to endorse Trump, BUT he shouldnt have gone to the convention to try and upset what the people had selected.
    It was obvious that his hidden agenda was to have Trump lose the election, and then he sets himself up to run in 2020. The problem is that he stiffed the very party he would run under, and they are NOT going to support him next time.
    He is a sore loser, thats all.
    His "constitutional" mantra just isnt resonating with the mob rule voters. Socialism is resonating more than what he is promoting right now in this culture.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by fosterj717 1 year, 4 months ago
      Oh! I see....you let someone attack you wife, calling her ugly and denigrating your politics calling him "Lying Ted", refuse to extend an olive branch and then act like a spoiled brat when you don't get an endorsement?

      From where I sit, leadership is knowing when to extend an olive branch instead of just taking it for granted Cruz would just jump on the bandwagon. If he did, I would have lost all respect for him. It is Trump who should have made the move (showing real leadership ability and wisdom) instead he sat on his hands and let to the folks who became his surrogates do the name calling.

      That convention showed me absolutely nothing, no real platform and no managing the Republican party to provide total support through the election and more importantly, through his presidency if he is elected.

      Without real committments from the Establishment, Trumps election means nothing! For what its worth!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  edweaver 1 year, 4 months ago
        I agree!

        IMHO, Trump showed his colors last night. Well written speech, sure, but a speech just the same. The underlying message I got is he is the person (dictator) to solve everyone's problems. He is the man of law and order. And he will rule with an iron fist. I never once heard anything about getting government out of people's way so the country can be fixed naturally, by Capitalism.

        Of course my impression may be wrong. We will see if he is elected.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 4 months ago
          I agree, ed. The GOP has always been the party of corporate welfare and repression of liberty. They have lied for generations about it. Trump will not change anything except to greater centralize power and increase repression of individual liberty. He is a monarchist just as Hamilton was, except that Trump thinks only he is a worthy monarch.
          I think we are all sovereigns with power limited to our own lives and activities.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  fivedollargold 1 year, 4 months ago
            Wasn't Lincoln a Republican? Wasn't the KKK a Dem subgroup? Wasn't Ike a Republican? Didn't the Dem Party make an ex-Klan Grand Dragon their Senate leader? Didn't LBJ have to get GOP support to pass the Civil Rights Act? Didn't Nixon sign the Affirmative Action law? Didn't the Dems try to pass a law censoring free speech?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by fosterj717 1 year, 4 months ago
              All of that is true however let's parse those events:
              1) Yes, Lincoln was an R however his real mark on the country besides the slavery issue was killing Federalism, trumping (pardon the pun) states rights.

              2) Yes, the KKK was populated by Democrats

              3) Yes, Ike was an R however he was also a mediocre soldier and no fireball of a president. He was handpicked for no apparent reason to become General and Supreme Allied Commander...the rest is history.

              4) Yes, Byrd was a Democrat and Grand Dragon of the KKK.

              5) Yes, LBJ got support from the R's for his Great Society scam (guns and butter to get the hawks onboard - shame on them too).

              6) Yes, Nixon did sign the Affirmative Action law (and a host of other "Progressive" bills as well. He was a conservative up to his loss to JFK and after a stint at George Schultz' law firm he comes back, well financed and a total Progressive/Liberal - go figure!!!!

              7) And yes, the Democrats did pass law(s) restricting free speech and a host of other Constitutional rights - and they continue their assault (with quiet support from the R's) on the rest of our Bill of Rights (1st 10 amendments).

              So! There you have it......The ugly Truth!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -2
        Posted by term2 1 year, 4 months ago
        First of all, it was Cruz who attacked Trump's wife on his own, and first. Romney was right in there with him too. That wasnt cool. Trump reacted, although I would have advised him to let it slide and not say anything about Cruz's wife. We arent electing a wife as president.

        I would have felt better about Cruz if he simply said how important it is to stick to constitutional principles and that he hoped the republican party and its candidates would be successful in doing just that.
        That said, he should have said that the people have spoken and the choice in november was Hillary or Trump, and that although he has a tough time with Trump, voting for Hillary would NOT be a good thing to do. Therefore, he was voting for Trump this time and hoped that his constitutional influence would be taken seriously.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
          No it wasn't, and that's been debunked ad nauseum. The billboard in Utah you are referring to was created and run there by an unaffiliated local PAC in a state Cruz was going to win already. No one outside of Utah would have known about it or cared until Trump made a big deal about it.

          "Trump reacted, although I would have advised him to let it slide and not say anything about Cruz's wife."

          Yes, that would have been the high road. But that's not what Donald did. And unless I have my timeline mistaken, that all happened after the start of the whole "Lyin' Ted" mantra, which was started and fueled entirely by Donald Trump. Remember, in the very first debate the moderators gave Cruz a chance to go after Donald Trump. He didn't. He said "I'm wearing a Trump tie". He further went on to excoriate the moderators for trying to get the candidates to fight with each other. Cruz took the high road then. And even after the despicable attacks on his wife and his father - both of which came straight from the official Trump campaign - Cruz acted like the gentleman and asked Trump to apologize, but refrained from calling Trump similar names. Stop pretending Trump is the victim here. He's proven time and time again he's a victimizer.

          "I would have felt better about Cruz if he simply said how important it is to stick to constitutional principles and that he hoped the republican party and its candidates would be successful in doing just that..."

          Did you listen to or read the speech? That's precisely what he said! The problem is that you're focusing entirely on the reaction and attributing Cruz' words to ginned-up crowd reactions. Quote me from his speech what he said that was so controversial and you'll have something to talk about.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by term2 1 year, 4 months ago
            Cruz did say things about the constitution, but he told people to vote their conscience. Unfortunately, he was at the REPUBLICAN convention and Trump had already won the primary and was the candidate. So he was hoping people would NOT vote for Trump, and therefore NOT for the republican candidate. Its not cool that he go to the republican convention and then encourage people to NOT vote republican. He was just hoping Trump would lose the election to Hillary, and then HE would rise from the ashes in 2020 and run as a republican presidential candidate. This wasnt the time or place to promote himself like that. He basically told the republican party he wasnt interested in being a member. Which is fine.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
              You just keep choosing to interpret what he actually said for what you wanted him to say. Cruz told voters to vote for people who would uphold the Constitution and Constitutional values. If Trump was a Constitutionalist, that would be an explicit statement of support, wouldn't it? The only way you can read it as a dis on Trump is if you acknowledge that Trump isn't a Constitutionalist!

              "He was just hoping Trump would lose the election to Hillary..."

              Then why did he explicitly go on to say that a Hillary presidency would be a disaster for our nation?

              "This wasnt the time or place to promote himself like that."

              Where in his speech did Cruz mention himself - even once? Again - you're projecting your own biases - not what Cruz actually said.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  1 year, 4 months ago
                Man oh man...I gota learn to leave the can opener in the draw when faced with a can of worms...

                Holly crap, we here are just as divided as the nation is.
                I thought we were better than that.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by term2 1 year, 4 months ago
                So why did he get booed? I think most people took from it what I did. I am not chastising him for his thoughts, but he was encouraging people to vote against trump which will help hillary
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  1 year, 4 months ago
                  Exactly the point!...trumpet is Not someone for whom you can trust and will not uphold the constitution...plus!!!...this was a set up from the beginning.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -2
                    Posted by term2 1 year, 4 months ago
                    People do hate Trump. Its visceral. Hopefully they will hate Hillary more (who really deserves the hatred). Cruz was just a distraction. He couldnt succeed in his NEVER TRUMP campaign, so he tried to continue the campaign at the convention. Cruz is a low class brat, who took his marbles and went home where he should stay.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
                  He got booed because the people in the crowd were told to boo him by Trump's own people. Reporters talked before the speech with several people on Trump's payroll who were whips being paid to incite specific feelings to speakers' comments! Trump had Cruz' speech days in advance. Cruz wasn't even going to speak until Trump specifically asked him to. It doesn't take a genius to see that this was a setup.

                  "he was encouraging people to vote against trump "

                  Quote me line and verse where Cruz did any such thing. He didn't. Good grief - its clear you didn't listen to Cruz' remarks nor even bother to read a transcript. It's beyond pathetic.

                  I understand you're a Trumpster. You've been one from the beginning. You're anti-Cruz. That's your choice. But at least be objective. Do your homework. READ about things before commenting. You'd end up having your shoes at the end of these conversations.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -1
                    Posted by term2 1 year, 4 months ago
                    I did listen to Cruz's speech on TV, and I formed my opinion as stated before there was any negative reaction to him. I just thought it was in poor taste.

                    I wasnt anti-cruz really. He is a real conservative and constitutionalist, which I actually like. I do think that his manner alienates people somewhat., and apparently makes him sort of hated within the government.

                    When he started in and concentrated on the never Trump campaign, that DID turn me off. If he wanted to do a "never campaign", I would have thought a "never Hillary" campaign would have been better.

                    I knew then that he would never get enough support to win the republican nomination or the election himself. He didnt give up though, which is admirable.

                    I would like to see a more open election where non traditional party candidates actually had some chance of succeeding. That would require primary selection based on actual votes with no "delegates" or "super delegates", and national election selection also based on actual votes instead of the electoral college At that point, perhaps Cruz or Johnson would actually have a chance and it would make more sense to vote for them.

                    Right now, its either Trump or Hillary. I just cant believe Hillary is the better choice that we will have to live with for at least 4 years. Look what Obama has done in 8 years. We cant have more of THAT.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
                      Poor taste to tell people to vote for Constitutionalists? [shakes head]

                      The whole problem with our current system is that politics has devolved from being about principles - like the Constitution - into cults of personality - like Barack Obama or Donald Trump. It is no wonder that our nation has devolved and slid into malaise. Until we again embrace the values which made our nation successful, it won't matter which spray-painted face is on the cameras every night.

                      And the problem is in making the Presidential election popular in the first place. The Constitution calls for the President to be elected by the Electoral College, whose delegations were supposed to be selected by State Executives - not John Q. Public.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 1 year, 4 months ago
                        Well, that might have been the original idea, but the electoral college now prevents a third party candidate from having any chance at all to be elected. Ross Perot got 19% of the vote and got ZERO electoral college votes. It guarantees that the two major parties have a monopoly on the process.

                        Add to that the crooked delegate system, and you have what we seen in the democratic party- Sanders was nearly as popular as Hildebeast, but got nowhere. If it wasnt for Trump's popular support that let him hijack the republican party, we would be stuck with another Bush. It really is time for change. I hope that Trump can open up the process and make it more competitive for all
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
                          I don't deny that the entire system has been steeped in party-ism. But you're still focusing on it being a party system. The original Constitution was a-political. Too idealistic perhaps: it didn't ensconce political parties until the Twelfth Amendment which I still contend was a mistake of colossal proportions. Getting stuck with an Executive of all one Party began this whole snowball.

                          Bush was pushed out of the running a long time ago. He was never in serious contention, even in his home state. Rubio had him beat even without Trump. And I would be very careful in citing Trump's popular support. Remember, Trump's Primary wins came in open-voting states where one could vote for a candidate regardless of one's own political affiliation. Trump will need those voters who crossed the aisle to pull the lever again for him in the Generals to have a chance. And remember that Republicans already start pretty much needing to run the table on Ohio, Florida, and several other swing states. That's a tall order - especially with all the evidence of vote-manipulation from Obama's win over Romney.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by term2 1 year, 4 months ago
                            I watched cnn the road to the White House. Episodes covered past elections. Kind of revealing that American elections are not so pristine as we are led to believe. They are nasty vicious endeavors and quite crooked. I don't know if trump will survive the attacks by hildebeast. We will see. There is so much money and influence and hatred wielded by Hillary and the establishment to maintain its power. I am in the process of preparing for $15/hr and plan on major reduction in hiring of American workers in favor of automation and Chinese workers. It's a replay of atlas shrugged coming to us all
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by fosterj717 1 year, 4 months ago
              What's most important? Being a Republican or Democrat or, being an American first?

              Both parties have become total tools of the elites. That is the sad fact for those who care to face the Truth! The powers that be keep feeding us this fluff as if there is any real difference between these two major (orchestrated) parties when in reality they are still two sides of the same coin marching to their puppet masters orders!

              In Russia, the Communist party gave you one candidate and mandated that everyone "exercise" their duty to vote! In this country, they put lipstick on the pig giving us supposedly two different parties however, the power elite still orchestrate who we will get to vote for, one way or the other. Either candidate will fall in line and being that Congress and the Judiciary are already "co-opted" it becomes a fait' accompli' and we are told "move along citizen, nothing to see here!".

              For what its worth!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 1 year, 4 months ago
                Good analysis. I think there is a large number of people who are upset at the control the parties have over the election process in terms of limiting the candidates and the whole voting process as well as the economy in general.

                Trump took advantage of this upset and basically hijacked a dead-in-the-water republican party. They hated him, but they realized no matter what they did, his hijacking was going to happen through popular support.

                The Repub darling was Jeb Bush, who spent 200 million and got NOWHERE. Then they tried for Marco Rubio, who didnt get anywhere either. They hated Cruz already but I think they preferred him to Trump. But the people spoke and Trump just had too much support. The establishment tried everything to stop him, but they couldnt. I kind of loved that part.

                I want the delegate system to be dumped, along with the electoral college. The establishment will fight those things tooth and nail, but it would be good I think for us the voters. More choices will be out there with a real chance to win.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by fosterj717 1 year, 4 months ago
                  I agree with all you say in analysis however I do not like the idea of 1 man 1 vote (pure democracy) because it leads to decadence (like we are experiencing now with the Democrat party buying votes by giving away free stuff. Doing away with Republicanism is a sure fire way to a dictatorship because that's what you always get. Rome did not heed Cicero's warnings and ended up with its first dictator, Julius Caesar thus marking the beginning of the end of the Republic of Cinccinatus). The rest is history and as they say, history repeats itself and that is where we are today with this upcoming election......
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 1 year, 4 months ago
                    I would like to see a constitutional amendment that said something like "no law shall be passed which takes from one citizen and gives to another".

                    Then the presidency might even be limited to those people who are efficient administrators of the constitutionally mandated programs, with no ability to take from me and give to others. That would eliminate the lobbyists, the $2billion dollar elections, the cronyism, etc.
                    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
  • -2
    Posted by jtrikakis 1 year, 4 months ago
    Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs. He needed a loan to further his campaign. He claims to be a christian, but uses the constitution as his bible. Hun looter?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by KnowledgeisaBurden 1 year, 3 months ago
      Yep' forgot that, Cruz wife worked at CFR hence a member, she worked hard on the TPP and cruz lectured at CFR. CFR is a group to control government actions in America, like the Club of Rome is the same for Europe. Billery has publicly thanked CFR for their directions and location close to DC so she doesn't have far to go'
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 year, 3 months ago
        Did you bother to find out what her job was? Did you bother to read her commentary which was the opposite of the organization's mantra? It's already been vetted out months ago.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo