Ted Cruz

[5MilesBack]

+1. I'm a fairly pragmatic guy, and one thing that amazes me every election cycle is the way Conservatives fragment themselves into warring factions.

The problem here is that they aren't all conservatives........that's why they fragment themselves. Cruz is the conservative, and everyone else is not a conservative. But they tend to vary their levels depending on the day so it gives them fodder to fight over. I have said it before and I'll say it again........I doubt that we will ever see a conservative elected as President ever again. Just not enough conservatives left to elect one.

 

[Matt Cashell]

The problem here is that they aren't all conservatives........that's why they fragment themselves. Cruz is the conservative, and everyone else is not a conservative. But they tend to vary their levels depending on the day so it gives them fodder to fight over. I have said it before and I'll say it again........I doubt that we will ever see a conservative elected as President ever again. Just not enough conservatives left to elect one.

This all-or-none divisive rhetoric is exactly why this is happening:

one thing that amazes me every election cycle is the way Conservatives fragment themselves into warring factions.

 

[elkguide]

The sad thing is that.............................................


"there is more of them....... than there is of us!!!!!!!"

 

[1hoda]

The US is racing away from a constitutional republic and toward a democracy (at BEST). Unfortunately most people don't know the difference nor why they should be concerned.

 

[5MilesBack]

This all-or-none divisive rhetoric is exactly why this is happening:

Of course it is. You are either a conservative, or you are not a conservative. All these wishy washy middle ground folks don't know whether they are coming or going.

I'd rather stick with my principles, values, and integrity 100% all the way through and lose.......than compromise any of them for the sake of winning.

Think about it........if America would have just compromised all these years, we never would have gone to war to fight for what we believe in. That's the bottom line.......are you going to fight for what you believe in at all costs, or are you going to cave in and compromise just so you can be like everyone else in the world? The choice is easy in my book. Too many people have died protecting our rights, freedoms, and liberties to compromise on them.

 

[dotman]

Of course it is. You are either a conservative, or you are not a conservative. All these wishy washy middle ground folks don't know whether they are coming or going.

I'd rather stick with my principles, values, and integrity 100% all the way through and lose.......than compromise any of them for the sake of winning.

Think about it........if America would have just compromised all these years, we never would have gone to war to fight for what we believe in. That's the bottom line.......are you going to fight for what you believe in at all costs, or are you going to cave in and compromise just so you can be like everyone else in the world? The choice is easy in my book. Too many people have died protecting our rights, freedoms, and liberties to compromise on them.

So you don't think there has been any compromise in our government over its history until lately? Pretty sure compromise to the extent your values remain has always gone on.

Fact is, Ted Cruz gets elected our country will just go further in the hole as he'll just read child's books until he gets his way, life doesn't work this way, everything is a compromise from marriage, work, hunting, to politics. If you just want to have your way as you see fit then nothing will ever get done even if you think it is.

You don't have to compromise your values to work with others and you better not be close minded or you'll never learn anything. So to me compromise is a big deal, but I don't think you have to compromise your core values to do it.

 

[5MilesBack]

So to me compromise is a big deal, but I don't think you have to compromise your core values to do it.

They do it all the time. How on earth can two sides that are SOOOOOO far apart work together at all? They can't......that's not even possible. That's like trying to mix water and oil.........it will never work. And that's what we're seeing in our country today.........the effects of compromise over all the years.

It's like a marriage. The color of the carpet or walls can be a compromise, but your core values should not be. Just like America.....the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should never be a compromise. Yet as soon as you even lean a little left of right, you're compromising it all........just as we've been seeing over the years. Every compromise has consequences.......that's what is ruining America today. We are finally seeing all the consequences.

Is this fixable? No. But I'm not going to change or compromise my values, principles, and beliefs just to fit in with this corrupted society and their mindset.

This is much like that illustration of the wild pigs being corralled. Farmer puts out some corn and the pigs come in. Then he puts out more corn and puts up one side of an enclosure. The pigs don't think anything of it.....they're getting free and easy feed. Then he puts up the second side, then the third......and they never see the fourth coming until it's too late. Sure, that first side doesn't appear to be a problem. It's just a small compromise to get something done....heck, we're getting fed. Everything is well......just keep eating.

 

[Mike7]

I find it funny that a lot of the poeple who talk about compromise, only expect comprise further away from the Constitution rather than closer to it. I can't think of a single positive statute from my perspective (maybe there are some?) added to the federal register in the past 30 yrs, other than internet safety laws for children. Yeah, so some so called "gridlock" in Washington would be a good thing as far as I am concerned if it keeps the Fed Gov't from expanding and taking away more rights and further enslaving future generations with insurmountable debt.

There is no compromise wanted by big goverment democrats or republicans (which is most from both parties). I would love to have actual comprises in an attempt to solve problems, but that is simply not what occurs. It is funny how everyone is okay with hiring an inexperienced radical Marxist who doesn't have a single ounce of compromise in his body to run the country, but everyone thinks that someone who actually believes in the Constitution is a radical who should never be elected.

Doing the same thing over and over again as we are doing is insanity...yet people have been lead to believe that it isn't so. We had some actual different choices this time with Carson, Paul, and Cruz, but as usual, people are more concerned about style over substance...and that is the people who are actually engaged. There is a whole other group of public school educated young people who would like to try socialism without any clue as to what that even means.

 

[tipsntails7]

I find it funny that a lot of the poeple who talk about compromise, only expect comprise further away from the Constitution rather than closer to it. I can't think of a single positive statute from my perspective (maybe there are some?) added to the federal register in the past 30 yrs, other than internet safety laws for children. Yeah, so some so called "gridlock" in Washington would be a good thing as far as I am concerned if it keeps the Fed Gov't from expanding and taking away more rights and further enslaving future generations with insurmountable debt.

There is no compromise wanted by big goverment democrats or republicans (which is most from both parties). I would love to have actual comprises in an attempt to solve problems, but that is simply not what occurs. It is funny how everyone is okay with hiring an inexperienced radical Marxist who doesn't have a single ounce of compromise in his body to run the country, but everyone thinks that someone who actually believes in the Constitution is a radical who should never be elected.

Doing the same thing over and over again as we are doing is insanity...yet people have been lead to believe that it isn't so. We had some actual different choices this time with Carson, Paul, and Cruz, but as usual, people are more concerned about style over substance...and that is the people who are actually engaged. There is a whole other group of public school educated young people who would like to try socialism without any clue as to what that even means.

Aside from Ted Cruz being a complete creepy dude and wanting to get rid of all fed lands, his "tax plan" is complete garbage as well.

 

[gmajor]

Just to chime in with some info on polarization...when you take away party cues (e.g. 'D', 'R'), the overwhelming majority of citizens favor centrist policy positions. There is no huge gap between two ideologically polarized bases among the general public. However, the animosity felt toward the "other" party (from both sides), has increased markedly over the past 50 years, and we've (the public) acted on this by electing officials who are absolutely ideologically polarized both in terms of rhetoric and legislative voting record.

No argument to make here, just shedding light on an interesting phenomenon in American politics.

 

[dotman]

I find it funny that a lot of the poeple who talk about compromise, only expect comprise further away from the Constitution rather than closer to it. I can't think of a single positive statute from my perspective (maybe there are some?) added to the federal register in the past 30 yrs, other than internet safety laws for children. Yeah, so some so called "gridlock" in Washington would be a good thing as far as I am concerned if it keeps the Fed Gov't from expanding and taking away more rights and further enslaving future generations with insurmountable debt.

There is no compromise wanted by big goverment democrats or republicans (which is most from both parties). I would love to have actual comprises in an attempt to solve problems, but that is simply not what occurs. It is funny how everyone is okay with hiring an inexperienced radical Marxist who doesn't have a single ounce of compromise in his body to run the country, but everyone thinks that someone who actually believes in the Constitution is a radical who should never be elected.

Doing the same thing over and over again as we are doing is insanity...yet people have been lead to believe that it isn't so. We had some actual different choices this time with Carson, Paul, and Cruz, but as usual, people are more concerned about style over substance...and that is the people who are actually engaged. There is a whole other group of public school educated young people who would like to try socialism without any clue as to what that even means.

I think that is just an assumption or fear because the far left keeps trying to take away constitutional rights. A compromise is not on the constitution. There are many many political topics I could careless about and a handful I feel really will effect my core and constitutional rights. I'll give on gay marriage, has zero to do with me. I'll give on allowing non-violent illegals the right to stay and pay taxes.

I won't give up the fight for public lands, better healthcare competition, bringing jobs back from China, Mexico etc. I think all imports should have an 80% tax and all offshore money companies have should have a one year exemption from tax.

90% of what our government does has very little to do with challenging the constitution or overruling the constitution.

I'm against illegal executive orders and people acting like the constitution is a living document. The constitution is what it is, I believe we all should stand strong to protect it but in the end the only protection it has is the Supreme Court.

 

[5MilesBack]

90% of what our government does has very little to do with challenging the constitution or overruling the constitution.

This is what people have been brainwashed into believing, but if you dig deeper you'll see that our "government" has been way outside the bounds of the Constitution for some time now.

And you could care less about gay marriage, yet the Supreme Court pretty much made it the law of the land (which isn't Constitutional for them to do), and bypassed the state's rights in allowing or disallowing it in their states. All direct violations of the Constitution.

So whether you agree with it or not, or care about it or not, the decision violated the Constitution. That's the whole point. Just about every decision has implications on the Constitution. And if you think it's bad now, wait and see what happens if Hillary gets elected and nominates a couple justices. And all progressive movements will go to the court and become the law of the land.

 

[5MilesBack]

when you take away party cues (e.g. 'D', 'R'), the overwhelming majority of citizens favor centrist policy positions.

Define "centrist policy positions".

Conservatives don't have disdain for the left and moderates (centrists I would assume) just because of some wild hair. The disdain stems from the fact that leftist and moderate policies are all positions that compromise the Constitution. All of these progressive movements are all about "me, me, me" instead of "what's good for our society and our country". The "what's in it for me" and "entitlement" mentalities that have become the rule instead of the exception.

Do people ever wonder what the left dislikes about the right? Ask the question........Why on earth would anyone want to move further away from the Constitution rather than fighting to uphold and protect it? Why?

 

[airlocksniffer]

Sure would be great if everybody in this country were 5MB's version of conservative. One single party, everything done that way only. No more silly elections. No more different opinions. Just the way the founders intended.

 

[5MilesBack]

Sure would be great if everybody in this country were 5MB's version of conservative. One single party, everything done that way only. No more silly elections. No more different opinions. Just the way the founders intended.

Way to keep the discussion in perspective. I didn't write the Constitution, but I do believe in it and will fight to defend it at all costs. Did you even try to answer my question? Since you're obviously on the opposite end of the spectrum, let's hear why. Why do you think it's a good idea to move further away from the Constitution rather than to uphold it and defend it? Answer that instead of going off the deep end with your post.

And there is no "my version" or other version, it just is what it is. You either support the Constitution or you do not support it.

 

[airlocksniffer]

And you could care less about gay marriage, yet the Supreme Court pretty much made it the law of the land (which isn't Constitutional for them to do), and bypassed the state's rights in allowing or disallowing it in their states. All direct violations of the Constitution.

Because gay marriage bans violated the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is in the Constitution. And before you blame "activist judges", Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, who happens to be a Reagan appointee. Damn justices not doing what the president appointed them do to, slant the constitution left or right.

 

[5MilesBack]

Because gay marriage bans violated the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is in the Constitution. And before you blame "activist judges", Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, who happens to be a Reagan appointee. Damn justices not doing what the president appointed them do to, slant the constitution left or right.

You really don't get it do you?

 

[airlocksniffer]

Way to keep the discussion in perspective. I didn't write the Constitution, but I do believe in it and will fight to defend it at all costs. Did you even try to answer my question? Since you're obviously on the opposite end of the spectrum, let's hear why. Why do you think it's a good idea to move further away from the Constitution rather than to uphold it and defend it? Answer that instead of going off the deep end with your post.

And there is no "my version" or other version, it just is what it is. You either support the Constitution or you do not support it.

Yep your idea of what it looks like to support the Constitution is the only way. I think anybody who reads your drivel can see that there is only room for your opinion on this subject. I would argue the framers intended debate and compromise. If not, our Constitution would not exist and we'd have a dictatorship.

 

[gmajor]

Define "centrist policy positions".

The NES survey asks a series of issue-stance questions, with anchors running from the most liberal to the most conservative. You can look at the NES guide on electionstudies.org for a code book of the actual questions asked in the past 30 years. The general pattern is centrist, with more people placing themselves near the center of the scales than at the extremes. There is little evidence of increasing polarization as well. Here's a good meta analysis by Fiorina: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836

 

[Mike7]

Airlock, I will admit that I am no Constitutional scholar, but I think that you confuse the idea of rights and privileges...and maybe this is what 5MilesBack was getting at before your insult. The 14th Ammendment doesn't give the Supreme Court the authority to create new rights and definitions or instruct the state how they will define this...and no one has a right to a "marriage" license. I would agree that there may be some standing for the Court to rule on how states offer those privileges in a fair and balanced way...i.e. require the states to offer a form of legal Civil Union to homosexual couples if they are going to offer it to another group. That Reagan chose Kennedy, has absolutely nothing to do with his judicial activism.