|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 18 2015 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 07:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Meanwhile, Sanders has recently passed 2,000,000 contributions. More than any candidate ever in history and is polling better than Obama was at this point nationally.
If the DNC and DWS didn't rig the debate schedule so hard, Sanders would probably be leading before the new year. The media basically ignoring Sanders (something like 50:1 Trump coverage) doesn't help either.
Unfortunately, with the current ways news have been trending, I think the only thing that will get Bernie in the headlines (and cement him name recognition in the demos he needs to beat Clinton) would be an Obama endorsement. And Obama is not going to do that. I don't think it's quite as much the fault of the debate schedule, since none of them has really helped Sanders all that much. It's just that defeating the Clinton juggernaut machine requires more for an elderly white man from Vermont than it did for Obama...and I'm not sure that the stars will align for him. I'm still crossing my fingers for a Clinton implosion, though. Winning New Hampshire will help, winning Iowa too would do it for sure. Of course then the media would talk about how they don't matter (if they don't provide pro Hillary results). Pretty much the only people who don't think the media and the DNC are in the bag for Clinton are Clinton supporters.
If Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire then I think his odds improve tremendously, but I think it *needs* to be both or his campaign will be stifled because there are so many states where Clinton can claim a default victory. I'm really skeptical of an Iowa win at this point unless he's really that much more organized than Clinton which is a tough order.
Ever since Biden formally removed his glove from the ring the Iowa gap has been pretty steady at +10-15% for Hillary as more people have become decided.
We'll see though. Unlike how Trump is doing far worse in states where campaigning has started in earnest than he is nationally and is doing worse in likely voter polls than partisan polls, Sanders is doing far better. There's hope for him there.
As for the Cruz vs. Rubio "controversy," I'm pretty inclined to side with Cruz on it. He's a sociopathic power-hungry dude whose policies I wholeheartedly disagree with (probably disagree with him more often than Trump to be honest) but I don't buy Rubio's version of events here. It's just not that coherent.
|
On December 18 2015 08:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +As the battle rages over whether Sen. Ted Cruz has flip-flopped on immigration, key figures involved in the 2013 reform movement -- including a Republican senator -- expressed skepticism of the account Cruz is giving now.
"It's total bullshit," Frank Sharry, the executive director of the immigrant-rights group America's Voice, said of Cruz's current version of events.
The Rubio-Cruz tussle over immigration has been ongoing throughout the GOP primary campaign but flared up during Tuesday's GOP debate on CNN. Rubio is politically vulnerable among conservatives because he supported comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the country. Cruz has long dismissed that as "amnesty". The Rubio counter-strategy -- which he used again during the debate -- has been to try to turn the tables by suggesting that Cruz was much closer to his own position than Cruz is willing to admit, including having sponsored an amendment in 2013 to let undocumented immigrants receive legal status but not citizenship.
Over the ensuing 48 hours, Cruz has largely been on the defensive. He claims the amendment Rubio is chiding him for was a "poison pill" meant to smoke out Democrats and kill the overall bill.
In interviews with TPM Thursday, Sharry and other reformers said they did not believe Cruz's amendment to the so-called Gang of Eight bill was the "poison pill" Cruz is making it out to be now. They suggested that, at the time, it seemed Cruz was seeking to position himself as a conservative still open to reform and has since moved to the right in order to court the anti-immigrant vote.
"He was getting to the right of Rubio and trying to set himself as a reformer to the right of the others," Sharry said, rejecting the notion that Cruz was aligned with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and other hardliners whose opposition to immigration Cruz is embracing now.
"Cruz got to Rubio's right but didn't want to be in the rejectionist camp," Sharry said. He pointed to Cruz's vote against an amendment offered by Sessions at the time that would restrict legal immigration, an approach Cruz favors now.
"Ted Cruz voted against the vision of immigration reform that he now embraces," Sharry said.
Key to making sense of Cruz's political calculus is to remember the landscape of immigration reform at the time. Republicans had taken a shellacking in the 2012 election, where their unpopularity with Hispanics was a major factor. Immigration reform was viewed as inevitable and crucial to the GOP's future electoral viability. The major question for the party was how conservative that reform effort was going to be. Source Rubio wishing his version of events would take. It's not.
To hear the Rubio supporters tell it — unsurprisingly the same people who supported Romney and McCain and Cochran and McConnell and (insert list of Republican white beards here) — Ted Cruz opposed the Gang of Eight bill because there just wasn’t enough liberal policy in it.
Yes, the likes of Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Michael Bennet (D-C), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John S. McCain III (R-AZ), and Marco Rubio (R-FL) just couldn’t insert enough liberal, “open border” policy into the Gang of Eight bill, they needed Ted Cruz R-TX to show them the way.
Charles Cooke of National Review asks you to believe that Cruz is lying to his supporters by claiming he was never for legalization. After parsing out what legalization means, Cooke used as proof of his assertions, a New York Times piece from September 12, 2013, as well as a YouTube video of Cruz on the Senate Judiciary Committee stating Cruz’s now-famous alleged support for legalization, massive increases in H1B visas, and doubling of legal immigration caps.
Brit Hume’s garbled intrigue via Twitter claims time and again that Cruz wanted an amendment that supported these provisions to pass, and in fact, thought it would pass overwhelmingly. Brit said on Tuesday, that in trying to take a pathway to citizenship out of the bill, Cruz supported legalization! CR
At the CNN Las Vegas debate Tuesday night, an important distinction was reintroduced to Republican politics. During the debate, Texas Senator Ted Cruz presented a well-thought out, foreign and national defense policy based on the original, Reagan conservatism. One that focuses on advancing America’s security interests around the world, not on sacrificing American lives and treasure on replacing foreign dictators with human rights, birthing new democracies, or building jobs and prosperity in foreign lands.
The Cruz and Reagan doctrine goes all the way back to America’s Founding Fathers. They wanted America to stay out of endless European wars, and foreign “entangling alliances.” They wanted America to stand for human rights, democracy, and prosperity for all. But they envisioned America advancing those goals by its own example, not at the point of a gun.
At the debate last Tuesday, Florida Senator Marco Rubio took the lead in advancing a different, more recent policy — the neoconservatism of George Bush, which committed America to replacing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with a modern democracy and economy, based on a culture of Western civil rights. Ohio Governor John Kasich and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham also appeared in supporting roles for Rubio’s vision. Cruz enjoyed the vocal, reasoned support of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.
Cruz explained his foreign policy vision in his opening statement, saying, “We need a President who understands the first obligation of the Commander-in-Chief is to keep America safe. If I am elected President, we will hunt down and kill the terrorists. We will utterly destroy ISIS. We will stop the terrorist acts before they occur because we will not be prisoners to political correctness. Rather we will speak the truth. Border security is national security and we will not be admitting jihadists as refugees.”
When Wolf Blitzer asked Cruz whether his policy would be “to preserve dictatorships, rather than promoting democracy in the Middle East?” Cruz answered by explaining, “I believe in an America first foreign policy, that far too often President Obama and Hillary Clinton — and unfortunately more than a few Republicans — have gotten distracted from the central focus of keeping this country safe…. We need to focus on American interests, not on global aspirations.”
Cruz later added, in supporting Rand Paul’s well-articulated opposition to regime change, “The question of whether we should be toppling dictatorships is asking the wrong question. The focus should be on defeating our enemies. So, for example, a regime we should change is Iran because Iran has declared war on us. But we shouldn’t be toppling regimes that are fighting radical Islamic terrorists….”
Cruz explained the roots of his foreign and defense policies in Reagan, saying “We need a Commander in Chief who does what Ronald Reagan did with communism, which is he set out a global strategy to defeat Soviet communism. And he directed all of his forces to defeating communism.” Cruz added, “We need a President who stands up, number one, and says, we will defeat ISIS. And number two, says the greatest national security threat facing America is a nuclear Iran. And we need to be focused on defeating radical Islamic terrorists.” Spectator
Cruz's conservative cred is deep. The only reason that line is being pounded is the urgency to get some life in the Rubio campaign. RINOs and their aligned media outlets are grasping at straws, but that's all they've got right now with solid mostly gaffe-free debate performances and Cruz's senate record. Just like Trump is the only one that can hurt Trump now, Cruz can only hurt Cruz. Trump nearly shook some support coming at Cruz from the left (Ethanol, remarks on Scalia), but he walked it back at the debate.
|
On December 18 2015 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 08:22 Deathstar wrote:
Democrats, a long time ago, already made up their mind. Women. Men. Minorities. All made up their mind that their person is Hillary. A lapdop of corporations like Obama except more hawkish.
Of all the shit talking that's given to Republicans as "ignorant" and "bigoted," democrats are voting for Hillary purely for her gender and her party and DGAF about her policies. Not 30-40% of them so far. We'll see how many people actually show up to vote for her (or just stay home because the presumption is she's already won). If we do end up with Hillary vs Trump we'll deserve every minute of it. Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 08:30 Introvert wrote:
Many, including Rubio, are purposely twisting Cruz's words and amendments. They were meant to smoke out the amnesty part of the Gang of 8 bill. This is well known now, and it was well known at the time. In the end, Cruz voted against the bill, Rubio for it. This spin he is putting out is ridiculous. Jeff Sessions just said today that Cruz was on his side in the debate.
So yes, at the time he was "lying" but he knew those amendments would never pass, as they removed amnesty but kept everything else. So why not just come out and say "I was lying I didn't want it to pass and intentionally supported something I knew would fail" and just own it instead of acting like he is?
For the same reason I put "lying" in quotes. Everyone knew, even then, that Cruz's amendments gave everything the Gang of 8 wanted (and more!) but he explicitly removed a path to citizenship. And they were defeated- thus demonstrating the true purpose of the bill. This isn't a new technique.
One only has to read the stories from that time to know that Cruz was always against the bill, and helped to defeat it.
There are numerous opinion columns on this Cruz thing if want to go looking, wit anti-Cruz writers pointing to the video, and more pro-Cruz ones pointing to, well, everything else.
Edit: See Danglars post above.
|
Cruz wants a 10% flat tax on income over $36k. And people think Trump is stupid.
|
On December 18 2015 08:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:22 Deathstar wrote:
Democrats, a long time ago, already made up their mind. Women. Men. Minorities. All made up their mind that their person is Hillary. A lapdop of corporations like Obama except more hawkish.
Of all the shit talking that's given to Republicans as "ignorant" and "bigoted," democrats are voting for Hillary purely for her gender and her party and DGAF about her policies. Not 30-40% of them so far. We'll see how many people actually show up to vote for her (or just stay home because the presumption is she's already won). If we do end up with Hillary vs Trump we'll deserve every minute of it. On December 18 2015 08:30 Introvert wrote:
Many, including Rubio, are purposely twisting Cruz's words and amendments. They were meant to smoke out the amnesty part of the Gang of 8 bill. This is well known now, and it was well known at the time. In the end, Cruz voted against the bill, Rubio for it. This spin he is putting out is ridiculous. Jeff Sessions just said today that Cruz was on his side in the debate.
So yes, at the time he was "lying" but he knew those amendments would never pass, as they removed amnesty but kept everything else. So why not just come out and say "I was lying I didn't want it to pass and intentionally supported something I knew would fail" and just own it instead of acting like he is? For the same reason I put "lying" in quotes. Everyone knew, even then, that Cruz's amendments gave everything the Gang of 8 wanted (and more!) but he explicitly removed a path to citizenship. And they were defeated- thus demonstrating the true purpose of the bill. This isn't a new technique. One only has to read the stories from that time to know that Cruz was always against the bill, and helped to defeat it. There are numerous opinion columns on this Cruz thing if want to go looking, wit anti-Cruz writers pointing to the video, and more pro-Cruz ones pointing to, well, everything else. Edit: See Danglars post above.
So is it safe to assume when Cruz says stuff like that, that he is just lying for political purposes and not serious about it happening?
|
On December 18 2015 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 08:39 Introvert wrote:On December 18 2015 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:22 Deathstar wrote:
Democrats, a long time ago, already made up their mind. Women. Men. Minorities. All made up their mind that their person is Hillary. A lapdop of corporations like Obama except more hawkish.
Of all the shit talking that's given to Republicans as "ignorant" and "bigoted," democrats are voting for Hillary purely for her gender and her party and DGAF about her policies. Not 30-40% of them so far. We'll see how many people actually show up to vote for her (or just stay home because the presumption is she's already won). If we do end up with Hillary vs Trump we'll deserve every minute of it. On December 18 2015 08:30 Introvert wrote:
Many, including Rubio, are purposely twisting Cruz's words and amendments. They were meant to smoke out the amnesty part of the Gang of 8 bill. This is well known now, and it was well known at the time. In the end, Cruz voted against the bill, Rubio for it. This spin he is putting out is ridiculous. Jeff Sessions just said today that Cruz was on his side in the debate.
So yes, at the time he was "lying" but he knew those amendments would never pass, as they removed amnesty but kept everything else. So why not just come out and say "I was lying I didn't want it to pass and intentionally supported something I knew would fail" and just own it instead of acting like he is? For the same reason I put "lying" in quotes. Everyone knew, even then, that Cruz's amendments gave everything the Gang of 8 wanted (and more!) but he explicitly removed a path to citizenship. And they were defeated- thus demonstrating the true purpose of the bill. This isn't a new technique. One only has to read the stories from that time to know that Cruz was always against the bill, and helped to defeat it. There are numerous opinion columns on this Cruz thing if want to go looking, wit anti-Cruz writers pointing to the video, and more pro-Cruz ones pointing to, well, everything else. Edit: See Danglars post above. So is it safe to assume when Cruz says stuff like that, that he is just lying for political purposes and not serious about it happening?
The point of the amendments was quite serious. To show the deceit of the bill's writers. If you care enough, I would encourage you to read some of the writing that has come out the past two days. It was only lying in as much as people like yourself who weren't really watching at the time would be confused by Rubio and his operators current spin. Context, context!
|
On December 18 2015 08:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:39 Introvert wrote:On December 18 2015 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:22 Deathstar wrote:
Democrats, a long time ago, already made up their mind. Women. Men. Minorities. All made up their mind that their person is Hillary. A lapdop of corporations like Obama except more hawkish.
Of all the shit talking that's given to Republicans as "ignorant" and "bigoted," democrats are voting for Hillary purely for her gender and her party and DGAF about her policies. Not 30-40% of them so far. We'll see how many people actually show up to vote for her (or just stay home because the presumption is she's already won). If we do end up with Hillary vs Trump we'll deserve every minute of it. On December 18 2015 08:30 Introvert wrote:
Many, including Rubio, are purposely twisting Cruz's words and amendments. They were meant to smoke out the amnesty part of the Gang of 8 bill. This is well known now, and it was well known at the time. In the end, Cruz voted against the bill, Rubio for it. This spin he is putting out is ridiculous. Jeff Sessions just said today that Cruz was on his side in the debate.
So yes, at the time he was "lying" but he knew those amendments would never pass, as they removed amnesty but kept everything else. So why not just come out and say "I was lying I didn't want it to pass and intentionally supported something I knew would fail" and just own it instead of acting like he is? For the same reason I put "lying" in quotes. Everyone knew, even then, that Cruz's amendments gave everything the Gang of 8 wanted (and more!) but he explicitly removed a path to citizenship. And they were defeated- thus demonstrating the true purpose of the bill. This isn't a new technique. One only has to read the stories from that time to know that Cruz was always against the bill, and helped to defeat it. There are numerous opinion columns on this Cruz thing if want to go looking, wit anti-Cruz writers pointing to the video, and more pro-Cruz ones pointing to, well, everything else. Edit: See Danglars post above. So is it safe to assume when Cruz says stuff like that, that he is just lying for political purposes and not serious about it happening? The point of the amendments was quite serious. To show the deceit of the bill's writers. If you care enough, I would encourage you to read some of the writing that has come out the past two days. It was only lying in as much as people like yourself who weren't really watching at the time would be confused by Rubio and his operators current spin. Context, context!
He said he wanted it to pass, he didn't want it to pass, he lied. Pretty simple, doesn't take a lot of spin to arrive at such a conclusion. He never wanted it to pass and should of had the balls to say so outright and consistently in the first place instead of trying to manipulate the situation with deceit and false statements because he thought he might score some Hispanic votes by falsely appearing to be reasonable.
|
How popular is Cruz among people who are undecided and fall in the middle of the political spectrum? Let's say Hillary gets nominated and Bernie doesn't go rogue, would he seriously have a chance?
|
On December 18 2015 09:01 Nyxisto wrote:
How popular is Cruz among people who are undecided and fall in the middle of the political spectrum? Let's say Hillary gets nominated and Bernie doesn't go rogue, would he seriously have a chance?
Not good. That whole trying to shut down the government several times because without ever having a plan thing really bites him in the ass. Especially when the majority of Americans disapproved of doing so each time.
|
On December 18 2015 09:01 Nyxisto wrote:
How popular is Cruz among people who are undecided and fall in the middle of the political spectrum? Let's say Hillary gets nominated and Bernie doesn't go rogue, would he seriously have a chance?
Well Sanders beats him by more than Hillary, but he loses to both at the moment.
|
On December 18 2015 08:45 Soap wrote:
Cruz wants a 10% flat tax on income over $36k. And people think Trump is stupid.
It's pretty mainstream in conservative thought. Flat tax or fair tax. Help struggling families easily prepare their income tax returns, stimulate the economy with the effective tax rate cut. It's about as surprising a policy position for him as Clinton coming out for more pro-choice legislation.
|
On December 18 2015 09:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 08:53 Introvert wrote:On December 18 2015 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:39 Introvert wrote:On December 18 2015 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:22 Deathstar wrote:
Democrats, a long time ago, already made up their mind. Women. Men. Minorities. All made up their mind that their person is Hillary. A lapdop of corporations like Obama except more hawkish.
Of all the shit talking that's given to Republicans as "ignorant" and "bigoted," democrats are voting for Hillary purely for her gender and her party and DGAF about her policies. Not 30-40% of them so far. We'll see how many people actually show up to vote for her (or just stay home because the presumption is she's already won). If we do end up with Hillary vs Trump we'll deserve every minute of it. On December 18 2015 08:30 Introvert wrote:
Many, including Rubio, are purposely twisting Cruz's words and amendments. They were meant to smoke out the amnesty part of the Gang of 8 bill. This is well known now, and it was well known at the time. In the end, Cruz voted against the bill, Rubio for it. This spin he is putting out is ridiculous. Jeff Sessions just said today that Cruz was on his side in the debate.
So yes, at the time he was "lying" but he knew those amendments would never pass, as they removed amnesty but kept everything else. So why not just come out and say "I was lying I didn't want it to pass and intentionally supported something I knew would fail" and just own it instead of acting like he is? For the same reason I put "lying" in quotes. Everyone knew, even then, that Cruz's amendments gave everything the Gang of 8 wanted (and more!) but he explicitly removed a path to citizenship. And they were defeated- thus demonstrating the true purpose of the bill. This isn't a new technique. One only has to read the stories from that time to know that Cruz was always against the bill, and helped to defeat it. There are numerous opinion columns on this Cruz thing if want to go looking, wit anti-Cruz writers pointing to the video, and more pro-Cruz ones pointing to, well, everything else. Edit: See Danglars post above. So is it safe to assume when Cruz says stuff like that, that he is just lying for political purposes and not serious about it happening? The point of the amendments was quite serious. To show the deceit of the bill's writers. If you care enough, I would encourage you to read some of the writing that has come out the past two days. It was only lying in as much as people like yourself who weren't really watching at the time would be confused by Rubio and his operators current spin. Context, context! He said he wanted it to pass, he didn't want it to pass, he lied. Pretty simple, doesn't take a lot of spin to arrive at such a conclusion. He never wanted it to pass and should of had the balls to say so outright and consistently in the first place instead of trying to manipulate the situation with deceit and false statements because he thought he might score some Hispanic votes by falsely appearing to be reasonable.
You are quite confused. He always was vocal in his opposition to the Go8 bill, and was instrumental in stopping it. He didn't say he wanted that bill to pass, then went back on it. Rubio is the one attempting the Hispanic appeal.
Good job falling for the spin though, while simultaneously claiming to ignore it. I remember at the time this was happening, that people knew what Cruz was up to. It was no secret, and Jeff Sessions knew it as well, and has claimed Cruz to be on his side about the Go8 bill.
His amendments were maneuvers to expose the Gang of Eight and what they really wanted from the bill.
|
On December 18 2015 09:08 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 09:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:53 Introvert wrote:On December 18 2015 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:39 Introvert wrote:On December 18 2015 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:22 Deathstar wrote:
Democrats, a long time ago, already made up their mind. Women. Men. Minorities. All made up their mind that their person is Hillary. A lapdop of corporations like Obama except more hawkish.
Of all the shit talking that's given to Republicans as "ignorant" and "bigoted," democrats are voting for Hillary purely for her gender and her party and DGAF about her policies. Not 30-40% of them so far. We'll see how many people actually show up to vote for her (or just stay home because the presumption is she's already won). If we do end up with Hillary vs Trump we'll deserve every minute of it. On December 18 2015 08:30 Introvert wrote:
Many, including Rubio, are purposely twisting Cruz's words and amendments. They were meant to smoke out the amnesty part of the Gang of 8 bill. This is well known now, and it was well known at the time. In the end, Cruz voted against the bill, Rubio for it. This spin he is putting out is ridiculous. Jeff Sessions just said today that Cruz was on his side in the debate.
So yes, at the time he was "lying" but he knew those amendments would never pass, as they removed amnesty but kept everything else. So why not just come out and say "I was lying I didn't want it to pass and intentionally supported something I knew would fail" and just own it instead of acting like he is? For the same reason I put "lying" in quotes. Everyone knew, even then, that Cruz's amendments gave everything the Gang of 8 wanted (and more!) but he explicitly removed a path to citizenship. And they were defeated- thus demonstrating the true purpose of the bill. This isn't a new technique. One only has to read the stories from that time to know that Cruz was always against the bill, and helped to defeat it. There are numerous opinion columns on this Cruz thing if want to go looking, wit anti-Cruz writers pointing to the video, and more pro-Cruz ones pointing to, well, everything else. Edit: See Danglars post above. So is it safe to assume when Cruz says stuff like that, that he is just lying for political purposes and not serious about it happening? The point of the amendments was quite serious. To show the deceit of the bill's writers. If you care enough, I would encourage you to read some of the writing that has come out the past two days. It was only lying in as much as people like yourself who weren't really watching at the time would be confused by Rubio and his operators current spin. Context, context! He said he wanted it to pass, he didn't want it to pass, he lied. Pretty simple, doesn't take a lot of spin to arrive at such a conclusion. He never wanted it to pass and should of had the balls to say so outright and consistently in the first place instead of trying to manipulate the situation with deceit and false statements because he thought he might score some Hispanic votes by falsely appearing to be reasonable. You are quite confused. He always was vocal in his opposition to the Go8 bill, and was instrumental in stopping it. He didn't say he wanted that bill to pass, then went back on it. Rubio is the one attempting the Hispanic appeal. Good job falling for the spin though, while simultaneously claiming to ignore it. I remember at the time this was happening, that people knew what Cruz was up to. It was no secret, and Jeff Sessions knew it as well, and has claimed Cruz to be on his side about the Go8 bill.
Uhm... You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. He proposed amendments he claimed he wanted to pass that were purely intended to not pass. He claimed he wanted to make the bill better knowing full well he was trying to kill it. He was bullshitting in every sense of the word, that people were wise to it at the time doesn't really change what he was saying or that they were lies.
But I suppose when a notorious liar is crushing the competition in the Republican field, Cruz's lies are small potatoes
|
On December 18 2015 09:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 08:45 Soap wrote:
Cruz wants a 10% flat tax on income over $36k. And people think Trump is stupid. It's pretty mainstream in conservative thought. Flat tax or fair tax. Help struggling families easily prepare their income tax returns, stimulate the economy with the effective tax rate cut. It's about as surprising a policy position for him as Clinton coming out for more pro-choice legislation.
Wouldn't this remove like three quarters of the government's budget or something? Who's going to run social services or even the military with this?
|
On December 18 2015 09:13 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 09:05 Danglars wrote:On December 18 2015 08:45 Soap wrote:
Cruz wants a 10% flat tax on income over $36k. And people think Trump is stupid. It's pretty mainstream in conservative thought. Flat tax or fair tax. Help struggling families easily prepare their income tax returns, stimulate the economy with the effective tax rate cut. It's about as surprising a policy position for him as Clinton coming out for more pro-choice legislation. Wouldn't this remove like three quarters of the government's budget or something? Who's going to run social services or even the military with this?
When was the last time a useful economic solution was presented by the Republicans?
Nothing new here, just more voodoo economics.
Oh and you don't have to run social services if you plan abolish all of them.
|
On December 18 2015 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 09:08 Introvert wrote:On December 18 2015 09:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:53 Introvert wrote:On December 18 2015 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:39 Introvert wrote:On December 18 2015 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:22 Deathstar wrote:
Democrats, a long time ago, already made up their mind. Women. Men. Minorities. All made up their mind that their person is Hillary. A lapdop of corporations like Obama except more hawkish.
Of all the shit talking that's given to Republicans as "ignorant" and "bigoted," democrats are voting for Hillary purely for her gender and her party and DGAF about her policies. Not 30-40% of them so far. We'll see how many people actually show up to vote for her (or just stay home because the presumption is she's already won). If we do end up with Hillary vs Trump we'll deserve every minute of it. On December 18 2015 08:30 Introvert wrote:
Many, including Rubio, are purposely twisting Cruz's words and amendments. They were meant to smoke out the amnesty part of the Gang of 8 bill. This is well known now, and it was well known at the time. In the end, Cruz voted against the bill, Rubio for it. This spin he is putting out is ridiculous. Jeff Sessions just said today that Cruz was on his side in the debate.
So yes, at the time he was "lying" but he knew those amendments would never pass, as they removed amnesty but kept everything else. So why not just come out and say "I was lying I didn't want it to pass and intentionally supported something I knew would fail" and just own it instead of acting like he is? For the same reason I put "lying" in quotes. Everyone knew, even then, that Cruz's amendments gave everything the Gang of 8 wanted (and more!) but he explicitly removed a path to citizenship. And they were defeated- thus demonstrating the true purpose of the bill. This isn't a new technique. One only has to read the stories from that time to know that Cruz was always against the bill, and helped to defeat it. There are numerous opinion columns on this Cruz thing if want to go looking, wit anti-Cruz writers pointing to the video, and more pro-Cruz ones pointing to, well, everything else. Edit: See Danglars post above. So is it safe to assume when Cruz says stuff like that, that he is just lying for political purposes and not serious about it happening? The point of the amendments was quite serious. To show the deceit of the bill's writers. If you care enough, I would encourage you to read some of the writing that has come out the past two days. It was only lying in as much as people like yourself who weren't really watching at the time would be confused by Rubio and his operators current spin. Context, context! He said he wanted it to pass, he didn't want it to pass, he lied. Pretty simple, doesn't take a lot of spin to arrive at such a conclusion. He never wanted it to pass and should of had the balls to say so outright and consistently in the first place instead of trying to manipulate the situation with deceit and false statements because he thought he might score some Hispanic votes by falsely appearing to be reasonable. You are quite confused. He always was vocal in his opposition to the Go8 bill, and was instrumental in stopping it. He didn't say he wanted that bill to pass, then went back on it. Rubio is the one attempting the Hispanic appeal. Good job falling for the spin though, while simultaneously claiming to ignore it. I remember at the time this was happening, that people knew what Cruz was up to. It was no secret, and Jeff Sessions knew it as well, and has claimed Cruz to be on his side about the Go8 bill. Uhm... You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. He proposed amendments he claimed he wanted to pass that were purely intended to not pass. He claimed he wanted to make the bill better knowing full well he was trying to kill it. He was bullshitting in every sense of the word, that people were wise to it at the time doesn't really change what he was saying or that they were lies. But I suppose when a notorious liar is crushing the competition in the Republican field, Cruz's lies are small potatoes
I take it you've never seen this before, even in your own life.
The Democrats claimed the bill had border security, when Cruz put an amendment up for border security it was voted down.
The go8 claimed there was no welfare for illegals in the bill. So Cruz put that up explicitly. It was rejected.
Same of the other amendments.
Don't you see what the point of that is?
As Cruz points out in the clip, the bill was already dead in the house if it wasn't amended (which is exactly what happened). The irony is that Cruz's amendments might have made it so it would pass (at least the House!).
And again, Sessions knew which side Cruz was on. It's only lying when you try to turn his amendments into something were not. They were serious, but doomed to fail. Like so many amendments and bills. Submitting an amendment you know won't pass isn't new, and it doesn't constitute lying.
Edit: and the end point, that Rubio and co. are trying to make, is that the two Senators have the same immigration position (essentially). This is quite obviously false, as Rubio voted for the final bill, and Cruz against.
|
United States43539 Posts
On December 18 2015 09:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 08:45 Soap wrote:
Cruz wants a 10% flat tax on income over $36k. And people think Trump is stupid. It's pretty mainstream in conservative thought. Flat tax or fair tax. Help struggling families easily prepare their income tax returns, stimulate the economy with the effective tax rate cut. It's about as surprising a policy position for him as Clinton coming out for more pro-choice legislation.
It doesn't help struggling families though because they rely on the government services that would have to be slashed under such a proposal. It's straight back to the trickle down argument where you tell the unemployed and those in poverty that the reason they're fucked is because you haven't let the rich keep enough of their income.
Essential government services take money and that money has to come from somewhere and the people who have it are the rich. Any plan which involves colossal tax cuts on the rich, and this plan does, has to have equally huge cuts elsewhere. A 10% flat tax proposal could only work coupled with the abolition of the American military and a return to volunteer militias providing their own arms.
The rich aren't taxed under democratic plans because democrats hate success, or America, or people with money or anything else. The rich are taxed because they're in a position to pay the tax without starving.
|
On December 18 2015 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On December 18 2015 07:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Meanwhile, Sanders has recently passed 2,000,000 contributions. More than any candidate ever in history and is polling better than Obama was at this point nationally.
If the DNC and DWS didn't rig the debate schedule so hard, Sanders would probably be leading before the new year. The media basically ignoring Sanders (something like 50:1 Trump coverage) doesn't help either.
I'm still crossing my fingers for a Clinton implosion, though. I think Clinton could just not say a single word between now and the primary. She'd likely win 55%+ in almost all states. I won't be surprised if Sanders wins a couple states, though. Honestly, I don't think it's so bad. I think Sanders will be the VP. Clinton is just going to pimp out Sanders so all his meme fans show up to vote. I don't think Sanders would take a VP role, especially under Clinton. Clinton is a corporate shill, looking to feed the MIC. Even with Sanders as VP many of his supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton. Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On December 18 2015 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On December 18 2015 07:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Meanwhile, Sanders has recently passed 2,000,000 contributions. More than any candidate ever in history and is polling better than Obama was at this point nationally.
If the DNC and DWS didn't rig the debate schedule so hard, Sanders would probably be leading before the new year. The media basically ignoring Sanders (something like 50:1 Trump coverage) doesn't help either.
I'm still crossing my fingers for a Clinton implosion, though. I think Clinton could just not say a single word between now and the primary. She'd likely win 55%+ in almost all states. I won't be surprised if Sanders wins a couple states, though. Honestly, I don't think it's so bad. I think Sanders will be the VP. Clinton is just going to pimp out Sanders so all his meme fans show up to vote. I think there is a decent chance Sanders would say no to a token VP ticket and run 3e party instead which could hurt the Democrats. Sanders wont run 3rd party save for some brokered convention type game where supedelegates take away the nomination the people gave. If Hillary wins the votes Sanders won't run. Doesn't mean millions of Democrats won't write him in though. Democrats (especially black democrats) are done voting for "the lesser of two evils". If someone doesn't earn those votes they won't get them and they will lose nationally. Hillary doesn't seem to give a shit, so expect remarkably low turnout for her among black folks as the process rolls on.
Isn't this a similar logic to what inspired the government shut down? Better to damage the whole and send a message than to be compliant and help move things forward? I am assuming that writing in Sanders would be intended as a protest and that doing so, you would expect a GOP victory. Are you comfortable with a GOP victory if it means sending a message?
|
On December 18 2015 10:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On December 18 2015 07:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Meanwhile, Sanders has recently passed 2,000,000 contributions. More than any candidate ever in history and is polling better than Obama was at this point nationally.
If the DNC and DWS didn't rig the debate schedule so hard, Sanders would probably be leading before the new year. The media basically ignoring Sanders (something like 50:1 Trump coverage) doesn't help either.
I'm still crossing my fingers for a Clinton implosion, though. I think Clinton could just not say a single word between now and the primary. She'd likely win 55%+ in almost all states. I won't be surprised if Sanders wins a couple states, though. Honestly, I don't think it's so bad. I think Sanders will be the VP. Clinton is just going to pimp out Sanders so all his meme fans show up to vote. I don't think Sanders would take a VP role, especially under Clinton. Clinton is a corporate shill, looking to feed the MIC. Even with Sanders as VP many of his supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton. On December 18 2015 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On December 18 2015 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On December 18 2015 07:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Meanwhile, Sanders has recently passed 2,000,000 contributions. More than any candidate ever in history and is polling better than Obama was at this point nationally.
If the DNC and DWS didn't rig the debate schedule so hard, Sanders would probably be leading before the new year. The media basically ignoring Sanders (something like 50:1 Trump coverage) doesn't help either.
I'm still crossing my fingers for a Clinton implosion, though. I think Clinton could just not say a single word between now and the primary. She'd likely win 55%+ in almost all states. I won't be surprised if Sanders wins a couple states, though. Honestly, I don't think it's so bad. I think Sanders will be the VP. Clinton is just going to pimp out Sanders so all his meme fans show up to vote. I think there is a decent chance Sanders would say no to a token VP ticket and run 3e party instead which could hurt the Democrats. Sanders wont run 3rd party save for some brokered convention type game where supedelegates take away the nomination the people gave. If Hillary wins the votes Sanders won't run. Doesn't mean millions of Democrats won't write him in though. Democrats (especially black democrats) are done voting for "the lesser of two evils". If someone doesn't earn those votes they won't get them and they will lose nationally. Hillary doesn't seem to give a shit, so expect remarkably low turnout for her among black folks as the process rolls on. Isn't this a similar logic to what inspired the government shut down? Better to damage the whole and send a message than to be compliant and help move things forward? I am assuming that writing in Sanders would be intended as a protest and that doing so, you would expect a GOP victory. Are you comfortable with a GOP victory if it means sending a message?
I'd probably just vote Trump and move to a remote part of Canada and prepare for the end.
If Sanders loses it wont matter who wins, it's going to hit the fan.
|
On December 18 2015 10:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2015 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On December 18 2015 07:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Meanwhile, Sanders has recently passed 2,000,000 contributions. More than any candidate ever in history and is polling better than Obama was at this point nationally.
If the DNC and DWS didn't rig the debate schedule so hard, Sanders would probably be leading before the new year. The media basically ignoring Sanders (something like 50:1 Trump coverage) doesn't help either.
I'm still crossing my fingers for a Clinton implosion, though. I think Clinton could just not say a single word between now and the primary. She'd likely win 55%+ in almost all states. I won't be surprised if Sanders wins a couple states, though. Honestly, I don't think it's so bad. I think Sanders will be the VP. Clinton is just going to pimp out Sanders so all his meme fans show up to vote. I don't think Sanders would take a VP role, especially under Clinton. Clinton is a corporate shill, looking to feed the MIC. Even with Sanders as VP many of his supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton. On December 18 2015 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On December 18 2015 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On December 18 2015 07:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Meanwhile, Sanders has recently passed 2,000,000 contributions. More than any candidate ever in history and is polling better than Obama was at this point nationally.
If the DNC and DWS didn't rig the debate schedule so hard, Sanders would probably be leading before the new year. The media basically ignoring Sanders (something like 50:1 Trump coverage) doesn't help either.
I'm still crossing my fingers for a Clinton implosion, though. I think Clinton could just not say a single word between now and the primary. She'd likely win 55%+ in almost all states. I won't be surprised if Sanders wins a couple states, though. Honestly, I don't think it's so bad. I think Sanders will be the VP. Clinton is just going to pimp out Sanders so all his meme fans show up to vote. I think there is a decent chance Sanders would say no to a token VP ticket and run 3e party instead which could hurt the Democrats. Sanders wont run 3rd party save for some brokered convention type game where supedelegates take away the nomination the people gave. If Hillary wins the votes Sanders won't run. Doesn't mean millions of Democrats won't write him in though. Democrats (especially black democrats) are done voting for "the lesser of two evils". If someone doesn't earn those votes they won't get them and they will lose nationally. Hillary doesn't seem to give a shit, so expect remarkably low turnout for her among black folks as the process rolls on. Isn't this a similar logic to what inspired the government shut down? Better to damage the whole and send a message than to be compliant and help move things forward? I am assuming that writing in Sanders would be intended as a protest and that doing so, you would expect a GOP victory. Are you comfortable with a GOP victory if it means sending a message?
Sanders is only a protest vote because the general atmosphere in the US is quite extraordinary. Everywhere else he would pass as a completely average Social Democrat. The GOP on the other hand, as Kwark pointed out, would have to dismantle the American military if they'd stop taxing people over 40k in income.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
