Donald Trump or Ted Cruz? Republicans Argue Over Who Is Greater Threat
Interesting read.
Trump needs to be stopped cold. The republican establishment is coming out in support of him big time now, they hate Cruz which is all more reason to vote for him.
Trump needs to be stopped cold. The republican establishment is coming out in support of him big time now, they hate Cruz which is all more reason to vote for him.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 8.
"They consider the deal-maker to be more pliable." The principled Cruz "is hated so much."
Rush sounded very much like the linked article.
Trump, Cruz, and the GOP establishment are only human, so dial it back a notch. The GOP leadership are a pathetic lot, having pushed Bob Dole, McCain, and Romney as credible candidates, so to credit them with the ability to control the wily billionaire is an unrealistic reach.
I can appreciate Ted Cruz as a passionate ideologue, but that's his worst skill. If he became President, would we be trading a narcissistic liberal, with nothing but contempt for conservatives, for a narcissistic conservative, with nothing but contempt for liberals? The country can't handle another eight years of a logjam and increasing oppositional rage.
An Executive branch that can exercise intergovernmental diplomacy would be a novel change, instead of one seeking to increase the power of an imperial President. Trump may seem a potential tyrant, due to his bigger than life, bombastic persona, but his mastery is in making deals through skillful negotiation. I don't see the same capability in Cruz, who prides himself in his refusal to compromise.
Do I like Trump? I can't stand his self aggrandizement, but then I had to work with many people I didn't like who had admirable skills during my military and government service. I'm looking for ability, not the winner of a popularity contest. Isn't that what being objective is supposed to be about?
The civil war in the country has been going on since the civil war. The states have been loosing slowly but surly to the power of the fed.
there is a civil war within the party as there soon will be in the whole country...
I think if Cruz wins the presidency you will see:
A revival of the Tea Party
A restructure of the GOP leadership.
* A changed Tax code that lightens the burden on business, reduces freeloading and simplifies the return process.
If the first two were cemented in during a 4 year term, we would have many good candidates come forward, and real progress towards a smaller government would start to happen.
If the 3rd is done the economy would explode in a positive way. 80k pages of tax code reduced to 20k and then two years later (once you have support due to the success of 20k pages) to 2k would make a huge difference. The devil however is in the details of the changes.
Not only would Trump compromize, but more imporatantly to them, he would leave teh current leadership of the GOP intact. They are his friend who have done favors for him over the years, he will not eject them from there seats of power.
Cruz may or may not eject them as president. I think there is a chance that as president Cruz would shake the GOP to its core, putting people like Rand Paul and Mike Lee in decision making roles within the party, or Supreme Cort.
I do not think Cruz will be successful in slowing the train down much, its going so fast and the breaks will only slow so much without a total crash. I do think Cruz would change, radically and forever, the republican party in the right direction and its why the GOP are running scared to Trump, he at least will leave them with there power. With Cruz who knows.
If those that gain power under a Cruz leadership can keep from having the power corrupt them (thats is a big if) then we may actually see some change in the right direction. I still doubt it but if the party does not change, if we do not have a leading party that stands for smaller government, nothing else ever will change.
I see Cruz as someone that might be able to change the party, which might open the door to having a choice that does not suck in the future. I may be being overly optimistic, but I am certain that this is the reason the GOP are jumping on the Trump band wagon.
If Trump is such an outsider why are the party insiders backing the guy up?
It has nothing to do with the location your born in, and everything to do with the parents you have.
No cherry picking going on here, just law, rather consistent law. Its all ready been challenged twice that I know of and the supreme court has stated twice that "natural born citizen" is about parentage not location.
Due to this the legal definition was updated to include a requirement to live in the country ( in regards to the presidency) for 5 years (may be wrong on the number of years but I think it was 5).
In the time of the constitution the term "Natural Born Citizen" was based on British law, which specifically was used for a baby born outside the country but by a father who is a citizen, was and is a natural born citizen. That term exists to state that someone like Cruz is a citizen.
Over time it was adjusted and the supreme court has ruled on similar cases in the past, both outside the country and in a territory. If someone chooses to waste time with it on Cruz we will for the 3rd time see that a natural born citizen is anyone born of a US citizen regardless of location of birth.
I did not agree that Cruz is no better than Obama, do not put words in my mouth. I did not compare the two at all. I used Obama as an example that if he had been born in Kenya as people stated (falsely) he still would be a natural born citizen.
I have now used the definition of the time of the constitution twice. I have explained its evolution to include both parents and then either parent. Regardless of the legal definition of 1870, 2015 or anywhere in between a natural born citizen is one born to a US citizen, the only thing that changes overtime is you had to have a US born father in 1870, later a US born father and Mother, later either a US born father or mother. This is the definition that was in use at the time of Cruz's birth.
There is a restriction in the legal definition for a requirement to have lived in the US for a period of time. 5 years if I recall correctly, but that is it.
I learned this when investigating the Obama birther claims. Since I looked at the law, the history of it and what is required to be a "Natural Born Citizen" birthers drive me nuts.
However you are the first to admit that Cruz is no better than Obama.
Show me in the Constitution AND using the definitions of the time the document was written IN the thirteen colonies, the subsequent conferation AND specifically when it became the United States upon ratification.
If you can't do that all the rest and many other opinions are nice ya da ya da yada but they are not law.
Obama has a Certificate of Live Birth for Hawaii. He's eminently more qualified than Cruz.
But since no gives a shit about the Constitution any more its a moot point especially after New Years Eve.
Just don't come whining the next time some says the Constitution doesn't count....and it's something you don't support.
You cherry pickers and revisionists want in both ways... that's why you have same sex and why you have money as free speech but free speech has no value.
Congratulations you and obama just gave the military free rein to take over the country per their oath of office. That is Constitutional your opinions are not but your opinions now have done away with the Bill of rights and brought us arrests with nothing more than 'suspicion of''
Cherry picking is a two edge sword and now you have to live in a police state Congratulations.
Cruz is completely qualified to run. He is a natural born citizen.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/o...
With the evolution of how that is defined a person need only have one parent who is from the US, and could be born anywhere in the world. He does have to have lived for several years (5 if I remember correctly) in the US as well.
Those taht took this route with Obama had no legal leg to stand on. Even if he was born in Kenya he is still able to be president because his mother is a US citizen and he had met the other requirement of living in the US for the required time.
It has nothing to do with the location of birth. In fact the term comes from British law that was put in place to keep those born outside the empire to a British father from being considered non-citizens.
I am likely not getting it exactly right but the basic message was:
We [republicans] can live with Trump for a couple of months, but the whole party will change if we have to live with Cruz for 4 years.
I think he is right. Trump wont win the general election because to many republicans (just over a third based of polls) wont vote for him period, making the Democrat, even Clinton a win. They only have to deal with Trump for a couple of months, but Cruz they would have to deal with for 4 years.
I do think they use to "hate trump" but the fact that he cant win and thereby goes away after a few months makes him attractive to them. They would rather loose the election than put anyone in who may win that is not going to be on board with the established party. Especially someone who has shown he will call a liar a liar on the floor of congress.
Load more comments...