12

Ted Cruz: "By Far the Best Viable Candidate"

Posted by $ bigjim 9 years ago to Politics
233 comments | Share | Flag

This is an excellent analysis of Ted Cruz's positions.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I believe abortion fell under the right of privacy, but I'm sure attny's here in the gulch could clarify better than I. But even Ginsberg is apparently on record (as are many legal scholars) that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision from a legal perspective and is widely considered judicial activism. Many feel it should be, and remain, a state's issue to decide.

    As to gays in the military, I would suggest that it is not a stupid issue - if you are in the military. Unit cohesion is not a "stupid issue" and gays and females in active combat roles have a significant impact on that cohesion, as I'm told by those who have walked in combat boots, so I take them at their word.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    My wife doesn't love guns and is quite philanthropic. She could easily be found quoting that we should support the less needy, or that we should limit the 2nd Ammendment. However, I do not. I understand seeing ones spouse as an indication of ones views, but not as "the" measure of them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Mike, are you talking to me? Maybe I can't see this correctly on my iPhone, but I agree Cruz is the right candidate for his fiscal positions, even though I don't agree with his religious biases. Why? Because his religious biases cannot really precipitate a change or consequence. If he could stand up the inquisition, I'd support someone else.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    How does her opinion ....let me back up. She says therefore he is to be faulted? She can't have an opinion without him paying a price? Strange....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    In this we completely agree. It constrains the government from enacting legislation that institutionalizes religion, because that eliminates freedom of religion (or non-religion).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    During our previous discussion, I admitted my big dissatisfaction with Trump, realizing that he is basically a socialist mob boss, and looked at Johnson as at least a token effort to save whatever liberties may still be left in America. With the debate/discussion, when he made the statement showing his contempt for the fundamental libertarian position, the little hope that I had for America's future is evaporating. If the country's leaders are so empty in their philosophy, or rather, have none at all, then the possibility of any constructive change based on reason is practically nil. The system, and the country, will need to completely collapse before enough people can even begin questioning their premises, let alone making the right conclusions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    BG a breath of fresh air. Stating what you know in that fashion was setting a good example and keep ing up our standards
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Cite the portion of the Constitution, which was dealt with by The Congress and the Supreme Court to back your wishful thinking.....

    What is a Vattel and like a Kardashian why should I care if it was only a reference and not included.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Now as to Mr. Johnson. He is so far the only decent candidate but faces a huge uphill battle. I see one good chance and that is...if.....Cruz plays it smart and goes after the 46% disenfranchised vote and the best way to prove himself to us is Johnson for VP candidate. The way to do that is a Coalition of like minded Constitutionalists but not the petty what's in it for me and my narrow myopic opinion crowd.

    The rest just follows.....Trump aside he'll go back to his Demo roots...like all good socialists. Keeping things above the belt they make the left look like the fools they are....and that's the route that will attract a lot of votes from that hitherto not mined source.

    If nothing else they form a viable replacement for the failed Republicans In Name Only Party... and a place for those who don't want to vote for evil . Now the socialist roaders and Constitutional wreckers can thave their say. Since they already look foolish enough on the eligibility question which we here at GG have already thrashed more than once it should be good for a laugh then back to business
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Further more the preponderance of Constitutionally derived legal opinion makes people such as Cruz and myself completely legal. Too bad you didn't bother to do a little fact checking. About a 15 minute exercise for any decent researcher with a $200 computer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Incomplete description Cherry picking as well as blathering false hoods reminds me of rear echelon types...In the combat arms we called them REMFs
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    What part of US law or where in US Law is Law of Nations by Mr. Vattel to be found. You should have studied US LAW on the subject. Are you a foreigner per chance?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    He , Johnson is likely to get my vote. As for the public at large taking notice maybe for 36 seconds until a kardashian farts and all attention is diverted.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    It would be if the effort was united but it's not.....Cruz maybe viable but Trump and his two left wing buddies Sanders and Clinton are in the drivers seat.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Yet you don't mind violating the Constitution when it suits you. You should have done your due diligence and researched a bit more thoroughly. And you probably know it... which makes you a what?

    The first question is WHAT constitution. You didn't give a damn on December 31st when it got dumped....Why should I believe you care now?

    The rest just follows .....you didn't care enough when something might have been done....too busy arguing what are now meaningless fine points and now it's too late.

    We have an internal war on our hands and do they send troops. Not one. Just the same tired old do nothings....

    Thank God for the infantry at least those that support their oath of office.,
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo