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.
But, there was enough care to get interested enough, to make a post in this thread on the subject.
The actions tell a different story, in the "I don't care" theory.
I said "I didn't care enough to ask him to change his name". you want me to rate it on a scale of one to ten.
You may want to note that legitimate democracy is not made up of "yes" men. We don't have a two party system to have "yes" men.
True but when one party is led by individuals that are obstructionist and don't believe in compromise, the two party system don't work either. BOTH parties need to compromise in someway to be a real democracy.
Also that is forgetting that corporate interests from lobbyists don't play a role in creating the yes men...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
How much more of the US Constitution should we compromise? A little more, or a lot more?
What it takes for a person's right to be treated as an equal under the law be treated equal. The state can pass laws so long as they aren't unconstitutional. This is why so many gay marriage laws are becoming supreme court cases and getting struck down right and left. The state determine marriage law but it can't go against the 14th amendment that states that everyone has equal protection under the law and separate but equal is illegal
4.. We are all going to learn over the next year (if we haven't already) just how ugly the left can be.
But first we are all going to learn just how ugly the Walker, Paul, and Carson campaigns can be.
Each of them has fervent supporters in the right wing of the GOP, so Cruz supporters are going to have to come up with compelling reasons why they should switch to their candidate.
True but when one party is led by individuals that are obstructionist and don't believe in compromise, the two party system don't work either. BOTH parties need to compromise in someway to be a real democracy.
Also that is forgetting that corporate interests from lobbyists don't play a role in creating the yes men...
What it takes for a person's right to be treated as an equal under the law be treated equal. The state can pass laws so long as they aren't unconstitutional. This is why so many gay marriage laws are becoming supreme court cases and getting struck down right and left. The state determine marriage law but it can't go against the 14th amendment that states that everyone has equal protection under the law and separate but equal is illegal
That doesn't answer or come remotely close to my question, replied to.
How much more of the US Constitution should we compromise? A little more, or a lot more?
This is why I don't make the Rafeal comments and I am not a Cruz backer. Personally, the guy is a bolstering extremist idiot who can't compromise (a trait that successful leaders have and know when to use) and also is to much of a conservative to truly be in the hunt for the nomination and the win. I didn't like the whole Obama birther issue and the same goes fir Cruz. My disagreement with both were on policy and not the person or their heritage.
Fair enough--I'm going to guess that you probably don't have a substance abuse problem and are not brain damaged unlike some of the other posters seem to be. You have not lost the capacity to make an intelligent point, and to follow logic.
Even most opponents of Cruz concede that he is anything but an 'idiot.' Just look at his track record in arguing cases before the SCOTUS. I'm not quite sure what is meant by 'bolstering extremist idiot.'
His reputation for not compromising largely stems from the debate over Obamacare as far as I can tell. Do you have any other examples?
It was actually Pres. Obama and Democrats who set up the 'no compromise' scenario regarding Obamacare. They rammed through the ACA with zero GOP input and zero GOP votes in March 2010. Then in Nov 2010 they lost the US House and the ability to tweak it. They own it 100%. If they wanted compromise, the time for that was March 2010. GOP is left with two choices: scrap the whole thing, or let Dems lie in the bed they have made. Cruz tried and failed to get the former, so now we are stuck w/ the latter until 2017, although the SCOTUS may toss in a monkey wrench in June 2015 when King vs Burwell is announced.
Cruz is going to have to demonstrate that he is Ronald Reagan 2.0 rather than Barry Goldwater 2.0. Time will tell if he can do that.
Fair enough--I'm going to guess that you probably don't have a substance abuse problem and are not brain damaged unlike some of the other posters seem to be. You have not lost the capacity to make an intelligent point, and to follow logic.
Even most opponents of Cruz concede that he is anything but an 'idiot.' Just look at his track record in arguing cases before the SCOTUS. I'm not quite sure what is meant by 'bolstering extremist idiot.'
His reputation for not compromising largely stems from the debate over Obamacare as far as I can tell. Do you have any other examples?
It was actually Pres. Obama and Democrats who set up the 'no compromise' scenario regarding Obamacare. They rammed through the ACA with zero GOP input and zero GOP votes in March 2010. Then in Nov 2010 they lost the US House and the ability to tweak it. They own it 100%. If they wanted compromise, the time for that was March 2010. GOP is left with two choices: scrap the whole thing, or let Dems lie in the bed they have made. Cruz tried and failed to get the former, so now we are stuck w/ the latter until 2017, although the SCOTUS may toss in a monkey wrench in June 2015 when King vs Burwell is announced.
Cruz is going to have to demonstrate that he is Ronald Reagan 2.0 rather than Barry Goldwater 2.0. Time will tell if he can do that.
It's going to be hard to do this last part. Goldwater was a legislator rather than an executive, not saying that is a bad thing but it isn't as common to be a legislator alone (sure there is Obama) but many people don't want a legislator president in 2016 compared to Reagan who was governor of California. Cruz has really only done clerk work and court work before taking his Senate seat, nothing really executive based. Reagan was also able to create a big tent while Goldwater didn't and lost pretty decisively. With what Cruz is saying, will he connect enough with a big tent or is he just trying to connect with the far right with his no compromise (as of right now on Obamacare only, but you'll know he'll have to compromise on other things like taxes and the IRS as well as in foreign policy.)
It's going to be hard to do this last part. Goldwater was a legislator rather than an executive, not saying that is a bad thing but it isn't as common to be a legislator alone (sure there is Obama) but many people don't want a legislator president in 2016 compared to Reagan who was governor of California. Cruz has really only done clerk work and court work before taking his Senate seat, nothing really executive based. Reagan was also able to create a big tent while Goldwater didn't and lost pretty decisively. With what Cruz is saying, will he connect enough with a big tent or is he just trying to connect with the far right with his no compromise (as of right now on Obamacare only, but you'll know he'll have to compromise on other things like taxes and the IRS as well as in foreign policy.)
He's going to have to make the case that he can be an effective exec, including the ability to compromise. If he can't then I'll probably support either Walker or Rubio. He has a lot of time to do that.
I think the 'executive experience' angle tends to get overplayed these days. Lincoln was only a legislator and lawyer. So was LBJ who beat Goldwater for that matter (granted he had 4 years as VP, but under a guy (JFK) who also had only legislative experience. Carter and W Bush both were governors, and yet both were regarded as ineffective presidents.
This is why I don't make the Rafeal comments and I am not a Cruz backer. Personally, the guy is a bolstering extremist idiot who can't compromise (a trait that successful leaders have and know when to use) and also is to much of a conservative to truly be in the hunt for the nomination and the win. I didn't like the whole Obama birther issue and the same goes fir Cruz. My disagreement with both were on policy and not the person or their heritage.
He describes how Reid and Obama would not compromise, so the government got shutdown.
Pretty accurate if you ask me.
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.
