Cruz Admits to Spreading Ben Carson Rumor

[roo_ster]

On the immigration issue, I guess you may be right. I don't know much about that issue. I also don't see Trump being especially trustworthy in general, so I don't put much stock in his position.

Just to clear the air, I view Israel as a secular state allied with us; nothing more.

On the issues of ME Christians and marriage, what do you expect from Trump that will be better than what you expect from Cruz? I don't understand what would make Trump better on these issues.

Call it a rant if you want.  I am also the guy who knocked down the usual "Republican so-con so-stupid" accusation WRT Cruz with similar objective evidence.  I did not see any "roo_rant" derision from you then when I had Cruz's back.  Funny how that works.

WRT ME Christians and marriage it is evidence that Cruz is of the same cloth as all the rest of the usual GOP candidates and establishment.  Cruz, GOPe, and the rest will talktalktalk about some socon issue, but they end up doing the next best thing to nothing.  Even when they have the power of the purse.  Even when they have both houses of congress, the POTUS, and a working majority on SCOTUS.  That regarding Christian/socon issues, Cruz truly is a Judas, taking money in return for betraying Christian interests is demonstrated by his own words and actions, not baseless allegation.  If you take Cruz's socon spiel seriously (from either side: pro or con), you are mistaken.  There was one socon who might have been counted on to follow through, but he is out of the running, now.

I don't expect Trump to act from a consistent ideological basis on any topic.  His approach is nationalist, not ideological.  There is a small chance he will be better on Life issues than Cruz.  Small.  On other socon issues, I see him working issues only at the intersection of socon and nationalist interests. 

Let's post exactly what Cruz said regarding Gay Marriage:
 - http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/23/report-cruz-tells-new-york-donors-at-fundraiser-that-gay-marriage-isnt-a-top-three-priority/
 - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/politics/at-new-york-reception-ted-cruz-is-said-to-strike-different-tone-toward-gays.html

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-cruz-gay-marriage-not-priority  Simply re-quotes the same as #1 above.

And from the little I know of Christianity, I don't recall Jesus stoning gays.  I do recall loving your neighbor, forgiving the sinner. 

And I know that Ted Cruz is a Constitutionalist.  Marriage as he has repeatedly stated is a matter for the states and not the Feds.   He's almost smart enough to realize that we lost that battle.  Perhaps, just for now, maybe later we can come back and begin to fight it again.  But right now, with the Supreme Court ruling the ONLY way to change it is an Amendment.  And there's not enough people to push that through the states, much less Congress.

That does not contradict what I wrote and most of it is a non-sequitur if written in response to what I wrote.

[Perd Hapley]

I didn't "deride" you. I called it a rant, because that is a term commonly used for a long, polemical post. I thought I was being fairly collegial. I'm not trying to put you down or start a fight.

[roo_ster]

I didn't "deride" you. I called it a rant, because that is a term commonly used for a long, polemical post. I thought I was being fairly collegial. I'm not trying to put you down or start a fight.

Okey dokey.  No big whoop.

[41magsnub]

Honestly...   roo_rant was hilarious.

[AJ Dual]

And I know that Ted Cruz is a Constitutionalist.  Marriage as he has repeatedly stated is a matter for the states and not the Feds.   He's almost smart enough to realize that we lost that battle.  Perhaps, just for now, maybe later we can come back and begin to fight it again.  But right now, with the Supreme Court ruling the ONLY way to change it is an Amendment.  And there's not enough people to push that through the states, much less Congress.

Amen. There is zero point in cutting off our nose to spite our face, and jeopardizing RKBA, fiscal sanity, SCOTUS appointments etc. And truth be told, there is nothing the President can do about "Gay Marriage", if the President actually "acts like the President" as defined within the Constitution anyway.

And as a Libertarian, I've always thought the "Gay Marriage Fight" was wrong. When we should have been fighting the "Christian Baker Gay Wedding Cake" fight all along anyway, and before the "Gay Marriage Fight" was even settled. And fighting the first, lost all of us credibility on the second, which is actually the important one, from a standpoint of inalienable rights, freedom of (and from) association etc.

[Perd Hapley]

IIRC, Jesus did a stint of flipping over tables and chasing people with a whip. 

No candidate is perfect. 

Um, uh, actually Jesus is perfect. There was certainly nothing wrong with his flipping over His own tables in His own house. Most likely He used the whip to drive out the animals, but He certainly had a right to whip people, had he felt like it. Being God and all...

I now return you to your regularly-scheduled political thread.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Amen. There is zero point in cutting off our nose to spite our face, and jeopardizing RKBA, fiscal sanity, SCOTUS appointments etc. And truth be told, there is nothing the President can do about "Gay Marriage", if the President actually "acts like the President" as defined within the Constitution anyway.

And as a Libertarian, I've always thought the "Gay Marriage Fight" was wrong. When we should have been fighting the "Christian Baker Gay Wedding Cake" fight all along anyway, and before the "Gay Marriage Fight" was even settled. And fighting the first, lost all of us credibility on the second, which is actually the important one, from a standpoint of inalienable rights, freedom of (and from) association etc.

*ding ding ding* we have a winner.

regarding the roo_rant (love that BTW!) and specifically the "christian" points... rooster, you do realize that fact that Cruz *is* christian actually counts AGAINST him with a lot of us we do think he might be the best, by far, of a really rotten lot.
The GOP has lost more political rounds in the socon issues than won. They will continue to loose on the socon issues if they want to press the issue. In fact, I partially blame the complete decline of our government system of the past twenty years on the Republicans REFUSAL to let it go. This isn't a moral christian majority country anymore. Get used to it or start figuring out what else you'd like to loose.

[Perd Hapley]

*ding ding ding* we have a winner.

regarding the roo_rant (love that BTW!) and specifically the "christian" points... rooster, you do realize that fact that Cruz *is* christian actually counts AGAINST him with a lot of us we do think he might be the best, by far, of a really rotten lot.
The GOP has lost more political rounds in the socon issues than won. They will continue to loose on the socon issues if they want to press the issue. In fact, I partially blame the complete decline of our government system of the past twenty years on the Republicans REFUSAL to let it go. This isn't a moral christian majority country anymore. Get used to it or start figuring out what else you'd like to loose.

Citations needed. People keep making such claims, but the evidence points elsewhere.

On the marriage issue, why bother telling us we shouldn't have fought, when you're on the other side? Of course you didn't want us to fight something that you supported.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Citations needed. People keep making such claims, but the evidence points elsewhere.

On the marriage issue, why bother telling us we shouldn't have fought, when you're on the other side? Of course you didn't want us to fight something that you supported.

The evidence?

YOU LOST! That's the evidence. Can please just shut about it already?

and here is the thing, how many people, just on this board, don't support or give only half and half or here and there support on socon issues? How many of those people will not support candidates on those basis? Hell, it's a sign of how bad it really is that I am willing to support Cruz even though I swore I'd never vote for a pro lifer. Those are all VOTES. Votes that the GOP could have IF THEY DROP THOSE ISSUES. Socon issues are truly the biggest divide between the left and the right and they alienate the middle. Right now, the social message of the left is what is keeping them afloat, along with "free stuff". This is the stuff people fight about. This is the stuff that turns FB into a war zone. If you guys could just politically drop everything that is based on your biblical background and console yourself in knowing us miserable heathens will just have to end up in hell without your assistance to better things, you'll get a lot more of those middle votes than the streamline "new york values" types that are basically democrats with bibles.

[dogmush]

I confess I haven't really started the research portion of the election cycle.

Assuming for a second that I don't really give a damn if Arabs kill other Arabs, regardless of their prayers, does Cruz have the lurking "I like to make the government bigger" mentality that everyone else does?

[charby]

Citations needed. People keep making such claims, but the evidence points elsewhere.

On the marriage issue, why bother telling us we shouldn't have fought, when you're on the other side? Of course you didn't want us to fight something that you supported.

Expand your social circle outside your church and sock monkey club, you will see it.

[Hawkmoon]

Sometimes it's really difficult to hold your nose while you vote.

Some people are pro-RKBA and are also pro-life and anti-same-sex "marriage." That's just three parameters.

Who should someone vote for who is pro-RKBA, pro-abortion (or at least not anti-abortion), and pro- or neutral on same-sex "marriage"?

How about the person who is anti-RKBA, pro-life, and anti-same-sex "marriage"?

Toss a couple of other issues into the pot and it becomes complicated. Whatever your combination of views on a mix of three or four or five key issues, it's probably impossible to find any candidate who supports all your views. So ... which one or ones are you willing to compromise in order to vote for a candidate who has a decent chance of beating Hillary or Bernie?

Or, what if you do find a candidate who is in lock step with your beliefs and positions on all the issues? And his name is Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, and he's polling in the low single digits. Dilemma: Do you vote for the guy who best matches your views but who is guaranteed to lose against ANY Democratic candidate, or do you hold your nose and vote for the Republican who at least supports some of your views (maybe) and who has a realistic chance of beating the Democratic candidate?

As I get older, I try to be more pragmatic than I have been in the past. My overwhelming desire at this point is to take the White House away from the Democrats. If they win, they'll stack the Supreme Court, and that's going to negatively affect any number of issues I care about, so that's what is going to drive my vote this election. I don't like Cruz, I don't trust Cruz, and I don't want Cruz to be President (or even dog catcher). But ... he's not a Democrat, so if he wins the Republican nomination, I'll hold my nose and vote for him.

(And this is a big step for me, because a number of years ago I vowed that I was done voting against people, and that I would henceforth vote only for the person I felt was best for the office. Which, in at least two presidential elections, saw me doing write-in votes for myself. I still don't like the fact that we are so often reduced to voting for the lesser of two evils -- which, by definition, means still voting for evil -- but pragmatism tells me this is not the election in which to stand on principle.)

[Perd Hapley]

Expand your social circle outside your church and sock monkey club, you will see it.

Please describe my "social circle," and the viewpoints held by the people I speak with on a regular basis. To which sorts of people, and to what viewpoints, do I come into regular contact?

What's that? You have no idea? 

It's just as likely that your view is the product of your own constrained vision.

The evidence?

YOU LOST! That's the evidence. Can please just shut about it already?

You're the one who wanted to talk about it. I'm just responding to you. We can quit talking about it if you like.

The evidence I'm asking for is the evidence that social conservatism hurts the GOP more than it helps, and that it would have better electoral success by abandoning it. Where's the evidence for this? The issues of abortion and homosexual unions were decided by the courts. Same-sex "marriage" was voted down in state after state. Abortion faces new regulations in the states every day. Just ask NARAL. Meanwhile, Republican candidates have won elections and re-elections by paying lip service to so-con goals. Isn't that what Cruz just did? 

and here is the thing, how many people, just on this board, don't support or give only half and half or here and there support on socon issues? How many of those people will not support candidates on those basis? Hell, it's a sign of how bad it really is that I am willing to support Cruz even though I swore I'd never vote for a pro lifer. Those are all VOTES. Votes that the GOP could have IF THEY DROP THOSE ISSUES.

People keep saying that, but it requires them to ignore the larger group of voters that will be alienated by a candidate that is wobbly on social issues.

Socon issues are truly the biggest divide between the left and the right and they alienate the middle. Right now, the social message of the left is what is keeping them afloat, along with "free stuff". This is the stuff people fight about. This is the stuff that turns FB into a war zone.

If that's true, it's because people think they are important issues. You can't very well argue that the GOP should seek to gain voters by refusing to take a position on what the voters find important.

If you guys could just politically drop everything that is based on your biblical background...

That's a silly thing to say. It doesn't take a Bible or a Sunday School upbringing to understand that murdering children should be illegal, and that marriage can't exclude the opposite sex. These are common sense issues everyone ought to understand. I'm not interested in having a winning political party that embraces your kind of madness. The Communist Party won elections, after all.

[just Warren]

your sock monkey club,

Oddly enough, despite there being dozens of members of the online forum, Fistful is the only one who attends the meet-ups.

[zxcvbob]

Or, what if you do find a candidate who is in lock step with your beliefs and positions on all the issues? And his name is Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, and he's polling in the low single digits. Dilemma: Do you vote for the guy who best matches your views but who is guaranteed to lose against ANY Democratic candidate, or do you hold your nose and vote for the Republican who at least supports some of your views (maybe) and who has a realistic chance of beating the Democratic candidate?

I held my nose and caucused with the Republicans, and got myself elected as a delegate.

[charby]

Please describe my "social circle," and the viewpoints held by the people I speak with on a regular basis. To which sorts of people, and to what viewpoints, do I come into regular contact?

What's that? You have no idea? 

If it smells like a fish...

It's just as likely that your view is the product of your own constrained vision.

My pet rock is more pragmatic than you'll ever be sport.

[Perd Hapley]

Oddly enough, despite there being dozens of members of the online forum, Fistful is the only one who attends the meet-ups.

 

My pet rock is more pragmatic than you'll ever be sport.

OK, what do you think "pragmatic" means?

[charby]

OK, what do you think "pragmatic" means?

dealing with things sensibly and realistically.

[Perd Hapley]

dealing with things sensibly and realistically.

Oh, so changing the subject. OK. You think you're more sensible and realistic than someone with whom you disagree. I hear that's common.

Also an interesting sentiment from someone who evaluates presidential candidates according to whether they give off a creepy vibe.

You know the feeling of i can't trust that person you get from random strangers? I've had that same feeling from the first time I heard Cruz speak. I can't get rid of it.

I met Santorum at a funeral of a friend, my friend was a member of his 2008 Election team. Santorum gave me the heebee jeebees when he was talking to me.

I just realized who Cruz reminds me of, a less animated version of the disgraced televangelist Robert Tilton.

[Ron]

As a general rule when the gay "marriage" issue is put before the people they vote against it, almost universally.

Black robed tyrants foisted the perversion upon the majority culture who overwhelmingly view marriage as between male and female.

The House of Representatives is held by Republicans because of so cons, much to our shame. We voted in a bunch of liars and thieves who have done the exact opposite of their mandate.  

It may be time for social conservatives to abandon the system and stop giving any legitimacy to a system that doesn't represent us. We've been played as useful idiots for too long.

Cruz is probably the least stinky turd out of the bunch but he is still a turd.

I'm nearly done with The Art of the Deal by Trump. IMHO he will support "our" causes only as far as they support his cause. His cause is Trump Inc.  

With Cruz we'll get more of the same at a slower pace or possibly he'll whip the congress into being more "conservative" (whatever that means, there is little to conserve any more). I don't think he can win the presidency though.

With Trump the right will get some wins and some unforeseen losses. He may be able to win as a lot of D's will cross over to vote for him.

[charby]

Oh, so changing the subject. OK. You think you're more sensible and realistic than someone with whom you disagree. I hear that's common.

Also an interesting sentiment from someone who evaluates presidential candidates according to whether they give off a creepy vibe.

Sorry that you can't feel distrust in people, let me sign you up for a AMWAY seminar.

[Hawkmoon]

That's a silly thing to say. It doesn't take a Bible or a Sunday School upbringing to understand that murdering children should be illegal, and that marriage can't exclude the opposite sex. These are common sense issues everyone ought to understand.

Defining the abortion of a first- or second-term fetus as a "child" is a function of your belief structure. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that human life (in the context of having a human soul) begins at the moment of conception. You have to hold that moment-of-conception belief (that's what it is, a belief -- it's not a scientifically proven or demonstrable fact) in order to define an early term abortion as "murdering a child."

Your position that this is (1) a "common sense" issue, and (2) that everyone "ought to" understand it should be sufficient indication that it represents your belief structure rather than demonstrable fact. As I have commented before, there are other Christians who don't share your views on either abortion or same-sex marriage. The fact that they don't agree with you (or me) doesn't mean that they aren't Christians, and it doesn't mean that their beliefs aren't fully as sincere as yours.

What if they're right and you're wrong? What if you're BOTH wrong?

It happens that I agree with your position on marriage. I am also (in general) opposed to abortion, but I don't accept your reasoning as the basis for my opposition.

[Ron]

Charby:

dealing with things sensibly and realistically.

Sensible and reasonable according to your definition of the terms correct?

Personally voting for another Republican who doesn't even really slow the growth of the progressive movement in government let alone reverse policies doesn't seem very "sensible" or "reasonable". I voted for Sen. Mark Kirk because it was sensible and reasonable, what good did it do us?

Thinking that voting for an establishment guy like Rubio or et al. is going to make a difference is more a sign of being delusional than sensible or reasonable IMHO.

Would he be better than Obama? Marginally.

The ratchet only moves left unless you break the ratchet into pieces and burn it with fire.

 

[charby]

Charby:
Sensible and reasonable according to your definition of the terms correct?

Personally voting for another Republican who doesn't even really slow the growth of the progressive movement in government let alone reverse policies doesn't seem very "sensible" or "reasonable". I voted for Sen. Mark Kirk because it was sensible and reasonable, what good did it do us?

Thinking that voting for an establishment guy like Rubio or et al. is going to make a difference is more a sign of being delusional than sensible or reasonable IMHO.

Would he be better than Obama? Marginally.

The ratchet only moves left unless you break the ratchet into pieces and burn it with fire.

 

Times are changing, it's a snowball rolling down a long mountain slope, things aren't going to go backwards. We are only kidding ourselves if it is. Politicians only say things to appease enough people to vote them into office, barely do enough to keep those votes and when backlash occurs, they blame the other side.

Cruz gets the nomination, the next president will be a Democrat. More than likely any of the surviving GOP hopefuls gets the nod, the next president will be a Democrat. We all might as well get used to Hillary in the White House for at least the next four years.

I'm no fan of Trump, but maybe he would keep a democrat out of the White House, probably better odds than the rest of them.

I picked Rubio because I could be neighbors with that guy and enjoy it. No candidate is prefect in my mind, I also like Kaisch but he ain't going nowhere, so I picked Rubio, mostly for the reasons a few others have pointed out. The hope that the next couple supreme court justices picks won't be radical left or right. Rubio did finish a strong third, so that doesn't mean his goose is cooked.

Let's see where the top three out of Iowa end up Tuesday when the polls close.

[MillCreek]

There are a number of members here, as evidenced by various threads, who believe that if you are not against abortion and gay marriage, you cannot be a Christian.  If you claim to be one, you are committing apostasy of the worst kind.