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.
Yes, the senator is pro-life, yes he is opposed to the death tax and wants to simplify the tax system, yes he is opposed to Obamacare, yes he is for a strong military.
Sure, his stands are "controversial", the Democrats passed measures like Obamacare and Dodd Frank by strict party line votes.
And if you like you can certainly stand it opposition to the stands of the Texas senator.
But he's hardly an "extremist", just a vocal advocate for very mainstream, Republican ideas that have widespread support.
The problem that Cruz has isn't his so-called "extremism", but that he is being labeled as an "extremist".
"Single payer" health care is certainly more extreme (albeit on the other end of the spectrum) than anything Cruz advocates for. The Democratic Party as a whole rejected the idea when they could have passed it in 2009-10 as a bit too much for the very liberal party. Will candidate Sanders be labeled an "extremist" for his current support of it? Will Mrs. Clinton's own health care initiative of the early 90's be cited as evidence of "extremist leanings"?
Cruz reminds me of a human version of Ronan The Accuser from Guardians of the Galaxy but instead of the way of the ancient Kree, he follows the constitution. The guy is not one for compromise at all and filibustered during the debt ceiling over the inclusion of Obamacare in the Senate-plan. Add that to his Christian Conservative values against homosexuality (even though he is pro-constitution which the 14th amendment calls for equal protections under the law for ALL citizens) and you get someone who is an extremist because he is not for modern ideals and instead clutching onto the past. The way he's gone about his fight for his "controversial ideals" makes him extremist. Calling Net Neutrality Obamacare for the internet showed his stupidity.
Yes, the senator is pro-life, yes he is opposed to the death tax and wants to simplify the tax system, yes he is opposed to Obamacare, yes he is for a strong military.
Sure, his stands are "controversial", the Democrats passed measures like Obamacare and Dodd Frank by strict party line votes.
And if you like you can certainly stand it opposition to the stands of the Texas senator.
But he's hardly an "extremist", just a vocal advocate for very mainstream, Republican ideas that have widespread support.
The problem that Cruz has isn't his so-called "extremism", but that he is being labeled as an "extremist".
"Single payer" health care is certainly more extreme (albeit on the other end of the spectrum) than anything Cruz advocates for. The Democratic Party as a whole rejected the idea when they could have passed it in 2009-10 as a bit too much for the very liberal party. Will candidate Sanders be labeled an "extremist" for his current support of it? Will Mrs. Clinton's own health care initiative of the early 90's be cited as evidence of "extremist leanings"?
The media won't do that; all they have to do is repeat "SOCIALIST SOCIALIST SOCIALIST" ad nauseum. The "extremist" label, from their point of view, is already covered by him being a "self-avowed socialist". Why attack his specific policy points when you could just fall back on one quote and cover all your bases?
Also, don't forget that a sizable proportion of the Dems in Congress in 2009 were "blue dog Democrats", a group of Dems that lean more conservative than the Democratic norm; the fears that outright single-payer wouldn't have passed were valid. Most of the blue dogs are gone, having been replaced by Tea Party Republicans in 2010 and 2014. Attempts to bring in single-payer healthcare aren't new, and haven't historically been the exclusive domain of Democrats either:
Quote:
In April 1970, Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) introduced a bill to extend Medicare to all—retaining existing Medicare cost sharing and coverage limits—developed after consultation with Governor Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY) and former Johnson administration HEW Secretary Wilbur Cohen.
Yes, the senator is pro-life, yes he is opposed to the death tax and wants to simplify the tax system, yes he is opposed to Obamacare, yes he is for a strong military.
Sure, his stands are "controversial", the Democrats passed measures like Obamacare and Dodd Frank by strict party line votes.
And if you like you can certainly stand it opposition to the stands of the Texas senator.
But he's hardly an "extremist", just a vocal advocate for very mainstream, Republican ideas that have widespread support.
The problem that Cruz has isn't his so-called "extremism", but that he is being labeled as an "extremist".
"Single payer" health care is certainly more extreme (albeit on the other end of the spectrum) than anything Cruz advocates for. The Democratic Party as a whole rejected the idea when they could have passed it in 2009-10 as a bit too much for the very liberal party. Will candidate Sanders be labeled an "extremist" for his current support of it? Will Mrs. Clinton's own health care initiative of the early 90's be cited as evidence of "extremist leanings"?
Sander's won't be labelled anything. Fox might call him a socialist, but the rest of the media will pretend he's not there so Hillary can get all the attention. The left doesn't want you to know Bernie's there because they might realize how much better he is than Hillary.
I don't like Ted Cruz. His anti-science views turn me off. His far right dogmatic thinking disturbs me. He's the opposite of what we need right now. Is he an extremist? No, but no less destructive.
Anyone who shuts down the government at the cost of $24 billion over something that is not feasible to accomplish is "extreme" for sure. I did, however, enjoyed his rendition of "Green Eggs & Ham".
Anyone who shuts down the government at the cost of $24 billion over something that is not feasible to accomplish is "extreme" for sure. I did, however, enjoyed his rendition of "Green Eggs & Ham".
Mick
Reid and Obama were pretty extreme, to shut 17% of the government down and doing it to those things that would cause the most public blowback.. They have the power. Ted Cruz, not so much.
Anyone who shuts down the government at the cost of $24 billion over something that is not feasible to accomplish is "extreme" for sure. I did, however, enjoyed his rendition of "Green Eggs & Ham".
Mick
Try facts, because you can take them to the bank.
The House started off by funding the Government and defunding Obamacare.
It next went to the Senate Democrats who said they would not negotiate, they would not compromise and voted it down.
The House then said that they would compromise by finding some middle ground. They said they wouldn't defund Obamacare, but would fund the government and this time "delay" Obamacare for one year in the manner that the President had done for big business.
Approximately a dozen Democrats had publicly called for a delay. The House voted to do that - delay Obamacare.
So, the pertinent and relevant question is - If the Democrats supported delaying Obamacare, why did THEY vote to shut down the government.
As much as the media wants to blame that on Cruz or the Republicans, it simply isn't true. The true reason for the shutdown (which actually doesn't shutdown) was simply a partisan decision made by the White House.
We all know that the President walked into the Republican meeting and said, "I am here to tell you that I will NOT negotiate and I will NOT compromise.
The White House KNEW the plan would benefit them. And it worked because you still believe it was Cruz's fault. Facts show that it wasn't.
You conservatives crack me up. You mean to tell me that all the Republicans in the house who voted for the budget proposals that defunded Obamacare would actually make the Senate floor? If anything came out from it, it was a showing to help rabble rouse the base so they would be safe come November 2014 because they "kept campaign promises." The issue here is the Republicans in the house also KNEW that if they didn't try and pass a real solution, we would just be mad at them because we voted Republicans in to fix congress and if they couldn't do that, Democrats could work just as well.
The issue with Cruz is he stalled a real proposal as oppose to the symbolic ones asking to defund or delay Obamacare. That is extremism "my friend." If you don't see it, maybe you too are extremist.
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.
If anything came out from it, it was a showing to help rabble rouse the base so they would be safe come November 2014 because they "kept campaign promises." The issue here is the Republicans in the house also KNEW that if they didn't try and pass a real solution, we would just be mad at them because we voted Republicans in to fix congress and if they couldn't do that, Democrats could work just as well. 
