Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then Rafael Cruz Jr. should KNOW prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
You Would think. I find Cruz to be a fake obstructionist. I ain't biting for him in primaries or the general election if he gets the nomination (I doubt he will.)
You Would think. I find Cruz to be a fake obstructionist. I ain't biting for him in primaries or the general election if he gets the nomination (I doubt he will.)
I have decided that (in the unlikely event) that Cruz gets the nomination I will leave the president part of the ballot blank on Election Day. I cannot vote for Hillary, and voting third party is basically the same as voting for Hillary.
I don't understand why these so called "conservatives" keep trying to propose a ban on gay marriage. A government (the Federal government in particular) has no business regulating marriage between adults who love eachother, there's nothing "conservative" about regulating who can marry who.
I have decided that (in the unlikely event) that Cruz gets the nomination I will leave the president part of the ballot blank on Election Day. I cannot vote for Hillary, and voting third party is basically the same as voting for Hillary.
I don't understand why these so called "conservatives" keep trying to propose a ban on gay marriage. A government (the Federal government in particular) has no business regulating marriage between adults who love eachother, there's nothing "conservative" about regulating who can marry who.
The only thing is socially based on religious dogma like Cruz is. You can see from Cruz's speech, it was more of a sermon than a speech which was unique BUT the issue is what he called for and not how he was saying it. As a platform, it seems he wants to be a bridge between the fringe parts of the Republican party with the tea party, social conservatives and the libertarians but he will only get social and the tea party at best. The libertarians will go with Paul because most libertarians aren't war hawks like Cruz is. Paul can also be a problem with the tea party vote too.
He's president of Ted Cruz Enterprises, whichis the only presidency that clown will ever hold.
He'll join Sarah Palin as another traveling political act, using juvenile name-calling and unsupported allegations to stir up an angry but ignorant audience who'll pay for the privilege.
This.
A few fat, old, angry old men from Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi and other rural areas will watch him on his show on FOX after the election. He and Palin might tag-team up for yet another "no spin" type program featuring losing pols 'exposing' serious issues. lolz
Three very interesting statements from his speech
I want to ask each of you to imagine, imagine millions of courageous conservatives, all across America, rising up together to say in unison “we demand our liberty.”
I believe in you. I believe in the power of millions of courageous conservatives rising up to reignite the promise of America, and that is why today I am announcing that I’m running for president of the United States.
I am honored to stand with each and every one of you courageous conservatives as we come together to reclaim the promise of America, to reclaim the mandate, the hope and opportunity for our children and our children’s children. We stand together for liberty.
Depends on if he gets the nomination and who his financial backers are.
King makers Koch and Adelson combined are likey to contribute directly or indirectly a quarter of $ 1 billion to whomever they give the nod to.
Same deal/ different backers for Hillary.
Some big $ interests back whomever they figure will win, regardless of party to ensure they get a seat at the table.
Anyone who thinks their $100 carries the same weight as someone else's $100 million is naive.
I don't understand why these so called "conservatives" keep trying to propose a ban on gay marriage. A government (the Federal government in particular) has no business regulating marriage between adults who love eachother, there's nothing "conservative" about regulating who can marry who.
Politics is the art of building coalitions, and the social agenda is an important part of building a Republican coalition that can actually win nationwide.
The GOP has nominated candidates in the past- guys like McCain and Romney- who tried to run strictly on economic issues and ignore religious conservatives. It didn't work out well for them.
The Republicans might as well just mail it in if they decide to tell 30 million or so Christian conservatives to get lost- no sense in spending good money on a campaign doomed to failure. I don't see where the votes will come from to make up for the lost votes from people who don't understand "quantitative easing" or have a particular devotion to lower tax rates.
In answer to your question, Ted Cruz said in a recent interview:
"Look, I think part of it is, the basic values of this country are commonsense conservative values - live within your means, don't bankrupt your kids and grandkids, follow the Constitution. It's only in Washington that those are viewed as radical or extreme propositions, and most of America - you get people, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians who come together and say, 'Look, that just makes commonsense.
It sure does!!!!
Most households, no matter how they vote, if they vote, don't live within their means.
Most have consumer ( non mortgage) debt. Depending on who is counting, 62-76% live paycheck to paycheck.
56% have sub prime credit scores.
This is a 45 year trend.
Toss the people a tax cut bone and they don't care about Federal Debt.
He seems to be preaching from the Palin book, attempting to absolve people of their lousy choices and failure to take personal responsibility for themselves by blaming big bad government.
Cut Social Security/ Medicare of the base and they will collectively stick a hot poker in your eye.
Nope, not mine. I am going to use the NEW version of the Constitution enacted by the GOP when Obama was elected. He doesn't have to be your President, nor do you have to recognize him as such. We also do not have too respect the Bum either.
Ummm, this "new constitution" you cite would seem to be enacted by Obama, by his disregard and actions when confronted by it.
As usual, obamabots are trying to pass the blame to others for the actions of Dear Leader.
Politics is the art of building coalitions, and the social agenda is an important part of building a Republican coalition that can actually win nationwide.
The GOP has nominated candidates in the past- guys like McCain and Romney- who tried to run strictly on economic issues and ignore religious conservatives. It didn't work out well for them.
The Republicans might as well just mail it in if they decide to tell 30 million or so Christian conservatives to get lost- no sense in spending good money on a campaign doomed to failure. I don't see where the votes will come from to make up for the lost votes from people who don't understand "quantitative easing" or have a particular devotion to lower tax rates.
The problem is what religious conservatives want ie: bans on gay marriage and making abortion illegal are not what the public want especially when you get out of the white male vote. The reason why the moral majority worked in 1980 is due to the backlash of 20 years of sexual freedom, drug related violence as well as failed policy from Nixon/Ford and Carter. Bush policies failed pretty much everyone but the Obama years isn't as bad as Carter years were. If they were, Obama wouldn't have soundly been re-elected in 2012(even though I didn't trust his track record from 2009-11 to actually vote for him in 2012.)
I don't see the Christian conservatives being the problem, the issue is with the republicans is there is no true united front candidate. We saw the same in 1860 with the Democratic party being split between the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats. Combined, they still wouldn't have beat Lincoln electorally but would have done so with a popular vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
