PDA

View Full Version : Cruz 2016?




FSP-Rebel
05-01-2013, 11:12 AM
Freshman senator Ted Cruz is considering a presidential run, according to his friends and confidants.

Cruz won’t talk about it publicly, and even privately he’s cagey about revealing too much of his thought process or intentions. But his interest is undeniable.

“If you don’t think this is real, then you’re not paying attention,” says a Republican insider. “Cruz already has grassroots on his side, and in this climate, that’s all he may need.”

“There’s not a lot of hesitation there,” adds a Cruz donor who has known the Texan for decades. “He’s fearless.”
more: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347052/cruz-2016 The comment section seems about half and half

PSYOP
05-01-2013, 11:12 AM
no

Brown Sapper
05-01-2013, 11:18 AM
I would only like to see him in the debates so that he can keep a balance between the real conservatives and the neocons. If it is just Rand up there it will be easier for them to paint him as fringe. Hopefully he will bow out before he start diluting our votes though.

tttppp
05-01-2013, 11:19 AM
I think he can stir up more excitement than Rand when he speaks, but he has a long way to go to catch up to Rand's support.

Uriel999
05-01-2013, 11:20 AM
He should run, I'd support him.

Darguth
05-01-2013, 11:20 AM
no

Cruz is certainly not ideal but I'd strongly prefer him over pretty much any other plausible contender besides Rand.

RonPaulFanInGA
05-01-2013, 11:22 AM
He's been in the U.S. Senate for a few months. He's kind of getting a fat head pretty quickly, ala Bachmann.

Not sure people would want to follow up Obama with another woefully inexperienced U.S. Senator.

AuH20
05-01-2013, 11:26 AM
He would be a legitimate contender. Great debater. Well-informed. Charismatic. Though I think he should wait until he completes his first term.

Valli6
05-01-2013, 11:27 AM
When did it stop being common knowledge that persons born in another country cannot be president of the U.S. even though they may have been born American citizens? Is there anyone over 25 that didn't learn this as a child?

tsai3904
05-01-2013, 11:28 AM
I would only like to see him in the debates so that he can keep a balance between the real conservatives and the neocons. If it is just Rand up there it will be easier for them to paint him as fringe. Hopefully he will bow out before he start diluting our votes though.

He seems solid on civil liberty issues but his foreign policy is still unknown.

Darguth
05-01-2013, 11:42 AM
When did it stop being common knowledge that persons born in another country cannot be president of the U.S. even though they may have been born American citizens? Is there anyone over 25 that didn't learn this as a child?

I honestly didn't know he was foreign born. I particularly didn't expect him to be born in Canada.

Though didn't this all go out the window with Obama's election anyway? /sarcasm

FSP-Rebel
05-01-2013, 11:45 AM
I honestly didn't know he was foreign born. I particularly didn't expect him to be born in Canada.

Though didn't this all go out the window with Obama's election anyway? /sarcasm
In the piece, it talks about how Team Cruz thinks they can handle that in court if it were to go there since his mom was natural born here. My only issue to him is what he talks to these Wall st folks in the NYGOP about. He seems like a decent conservative alternate to Rand unlike there was no alt to Ron last time and we were stuck with pure establishment dirt.

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 12:02 PM
Isn't Ted a warmongerer? Not to mention that he already voted to give medical data to the Feds. Rand Paul voted no. Mike Lee voted no. But Cruz caved.

We shouldn't have anything to do with him. I'm not going to vote for him.

speciallyblend
05-01-2013, 12:12 PM
I do not trust the gop, hence i cannot trust Cruz. If the gop wants me to . I will vote GJ before i vote for their bs establishment assholes. The gop is a virus that needs to be put down.

jkob
05-01-2013, 12:16 PM
Still think his eligibility is questionable with being born in Canada to Cuban parents. Guess that doesn't matter anymore after Obama...

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 12:26 PM
Obama was born in the US. I hate Obama even morre than the people I know who think he's Kenyan do, but he was still born in the US.

cajuncocoa
05-01-2013, 12:27 PM
No one is concerned that he will split the primary vote with Rand?

kcchiefs6465
05-01-2013, 12:28 PM
When did it stop being common knowledge that persons born in another country cannot be president of the U.S. even though they may have been born American citizens? Is there anyone over 25 that didn't learn this as a child?
John McCain.

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 12:28 PM
Yeah, I find that surprising. I didn't even consider it because I don't consider Cruz to be on "Team liberty" at all. Rand isn't perfect but at least he isn't a traitor. If Cruz is the nomineee I'll vote LP just like I would if Bush, Rubio, or anyone else was the nominee.

cajuncocoa
05-01-2013, 12:30 PM
Yeah, I find that surprising. I didn't even consider it because I don't consider Cruz to be on "Team liberty" at all. Rand isn't perfect but at least he isn't a traitor. If Cruz is the nomineee I'll vote LP just like I would if Bush, Rubio, or anyone else was the nominee.
I don't either, but I know some here do.

jbauer
05-01-2013, 12:33 PM
I've seen conflicting reports on Cruz's eligibility. He needs to be a "natural born citizen" to qualify.

As for supporting him, he'd get the tea party jazzed up. I'm for it even if he bows out early in favor of Rand. What I really don't want is more of the same old moss covered neocons and social conservatives.

69360
05-01-2013, 12:38 PM
If Rand doesn't run I'm ok with Cruz.

Based on recent history and events his birth won't be an issue and we would look like nutters to make it one.

The primaries anymore are a game of early attrition and if Rand was to win IA and NH, Cruz would likely drop and endorse.

TheGrinch
05-01-2013, 12:39 PM
No one is concerned that he will split the primary vote with Rand?

I don't think a 50/50 split, but it is a concern that he could take enough if Rand doesn't continue to frame the message in a way that republican voters can accept (or perhaps even if he does, the media smear machine is already gearing up for it).

Cruz has been pretty good about talking the talk, but after the closed door meetings with the likes of Rove and other concerns, I'm still skeptical that he's just going which way the wind is blowing.

Now before anyone says that you could say similar things about Rand, I have more concerns that he will water down our ideals too much to make a real difference (though it's undeniable he is still having some real influence in a positive direction), but I do not think there's any way he's a neocon in disguise. I hate to resort to nepotism, but I'm sorry, Ron Paul's son isn't just going to stab us in the back. Let us down, maybe, but I just refuse to believe that he's just another one in this for personal gain like Cruz may be.

(BTW, I'm not trying to suggest that you're saying this, but I think there are far more reasons to think Rand is genuine than is Cruz)

kcchiefs6465
05-01-2013, 12:39 PM
I appreciate what Cruz has done with regards to the filibuster and grilling Feinstein over the 2nd Amendment but I'd never vote for him.

cajuncocoa
05-01-2013, 12:43 PM
I don't think a 50/50 split, but it is a concern that he could take enough if Rand doesn't continue to frame the message in a way that republican voters can accept (or perhaps even if he does, the media smear machine is already gearing up for it).

Cruz has been pretty good about talking the talk, but after the closed door meetings with the likes of Rove and other concerns, I'm still skeptical that he's just going which way the wind is blowing.

Now before anyone says that you could say similar things about Rand, I have more concerns that he will water down our ideals too much to make a real difference (though it's undeniable he is still having some real influence in a positive direction), but I do not think there's any way he's a neocon in disguise. I hate to resort to nepotism, but I'm sorry, Ron Paul's son isn't just going to stab us in the back. Let us down, maybe, but I just refuse to believe that he's just another one in this for personal gain like Cruz may be.

(BTW, I'm not trying to suggest that you're saying this, but I think there are far more reasons to think Rand is genuine than is Cruz)
As much as I've voiced concerns about Rand, I trust Rand a lot more than I would trust Cruz!!

QuickZ06
05-01-2013, 12:47 PM
I appreciate what Cruz has done with regards to the filibuster and grilling Feinstein over the 2nd Amendment but I'd never vote for him.

I concur.

TheGrinch
05-01-2013, 12:54 PM
As much as I've voiced concerns about Rand, I trust Rand a lot more than I would trust Cruz!!

And as much as we've been pushed towards the opposing "hold his feet to the fire" and "let's not overreact" camps, I know that you've been one of the first to give Rand kudos when he does well. I think it's a great thing that we have a good mix of those who will defend him and those who will demand he doesn't stray too far from the message (and these don't have to be mutually exclusive of course, one can do both). Both are needed, so long as it doesn't devolve into needless infighting and drama.

It's also great that the majority here aren't just ready to fall for any politician who says the right things to get elected. It's a tough standard to meet, but he's gonig to have to do more than just go with which way the wind is blowing. He's gonna have to do a lot of making it blow harder before this "grassroots" they claim is behind him is actually ready to stand behind him.

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 12:58 PM
I don't think a 50/50 split, but it is a concern that he could take enough if Rand doesn't continue to frame the message in a way that republican voters can accept (or perhaps even if he does, the media smear machine is already gearing up for it).

Cruz has been pretty good about talking the talk, but after the closed door meetings with the likes of Rove and other concerns, I'm still skeptical that he's just going which way the wind is blowing.

Now before anyone says that you could say similar things about Rand, I have more concerns that he will water down our ideals too much to make a real difference (though it's undeniable he is still having some real influence in a positive direction), but I do not think there's any way he's a neocon in disguise. I hate to resort to nepotism, but I'm sorry, Ron Paul's son isn't just going to stab us in the back. Let us down, maybe, but I just refuse to believe that he's just another one in this for personal gain like Cruz may be.

(BTW, I'm not trying to suggest that you're saying this, but I think there are far more reasons to think Rand is genuine than is Cruz)

My concern with Rand is basically that he'll moderate too much. I'm not afraid to not vote for him if he does, although knowing who his dad is and what he said recently, I am now considering the possibility that the things he says that are anti-liberty are just lies. Ron would probably know, one way or another. And I trust Ron with my life, even though he doesn't actually know I exist...

I wonder what Ron would have done if his son actually WAS a neocon? I'd think at the very least a man with as much integrity as Ron has wouldn't have said anything. He wouldn't have openly supported him.

So yeah, that he's Ron Paul's son probably does matter, if only that Ron Paul no doubt knows he has good reason to trust him. I don't trust Cruz at all.

On the other hand, it is POSSIBLE that Rand has deceived Ron about his real nature as well. I'm not saying that that's likely but the possibility shouldn't be 100% ignored. Nor should the possibility that anyone who actually wants to be President (Ron Paul didn't) might get corrupted once he gets in be 100% ignored.

I appreciate what Cruz has done with regards to the filibuster and grilling Feinstein over the 2nd Amendment but I'd never vote for him.

Yep, this...


As much as I've voiced concerns about Rand, I trust Rand a lot more than I would trust Cruz!!

This as well...

jbauer
05-01-2013, 01:06 PM
I contend that there is a 0% chance that Cruz doesn't talk to Paul about running and that there is a 0% chance that Cruz runs to hurt Rand's chances. Rand is running in '16 that's clear enough. Cruz would only be floating this out there to help bring the discussion towards conservative ideas.

VoluntaryAmerican
05-01-2013, 01:09 PM
Am I the only one who thinks Cruz running would be good for Rand?

He will be another voice for liberty in the debates and then when he falls he will throw his support behind Rand (most likely)...

I don't think he has the power to out-spend Rand... The best he could do at that point is hope for a VP nod.

QuickZ06
05-01-2013, 01:13 PM
Am I the only one who thinks Cruz running would be good for Rand?

He will be another voice for liberty in the debates and then when he falls he will throw his support behind Rand (most likely)...

I don't think he has the power to out-spend Rand... The best he could do at that point is hope for a VP nod.

It is not that he needs a powerful voice to be heard, it's the fact the powers to be let you have your voice heard. MSM is controlled and lets losers become the winners overnight. Never underestimate your opponents.

TheGrinch
05-01-2013, 01:14 PM
I contend that there is a 0% chance that Cruz doesn't talk to Paul about running and that there is a 0% chance that Cruz runs to hurt Rand's chances. Rand is running in '16 that's clear enough. Cruz would only be floating this out there to help bring the discussion towards conservative ideas.

I have no idea how you can be so sure about this. He has far more to do to even give us an 80% confidence that he's not just another politician doing what he has to do to get elected for personal gain.

As we see from Me-too-bio Rubio, there will be plenty who will windsail with the way the wind is blowing, just to change direction when they get into a real position of change. Hell, even though most of us have near 100% confidence that Rand is running for the right reasons, even he may not be immune from this... Ron might not have even been...

I mean, for all we know, Obama might have even been honest with his "hope and change" rhetoric before finding out that the president may have very little say in TPTB's direction for the country.

PatriotOne
05-01-2013, 01:21 PM
Heidi Cruz

Region Head
Goldman Sachs & Co.

Heidi S. Cruz is the Region Head for the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. She leads 40 professionals responsible for over $14 billion in investments for clients throughout Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Colorado.

In the 1990s, Heidi worked as an investment banker in New York, focusing on Latin America mergers and acquisitions and structured finance. In that capacity, Heidi was involved in advisory engagements and capital markets transactions for some of the largest energy companies in the Americas.

In the public sector, Heidi served in the White House as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, under then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice; as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department; and as Special Policy Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, then-U.S. Trade Representative.

Her publications include a book chapter entitled "Expanding Opportunity Through Free Trade," a book chapter in EXCHANGE RATE POLICIES FOR EMERGING MARKET ECONOMIES, and a Harvard Case Study, "American International Group".

Heidi received an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, a Masters of European Business from Universite Libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, Belgium, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in Economics and International Relations from Claremont McKenna College. She is currently a member of the Texas Business Leadership Council and serves on the board of the Greater Houston Partnership, Houston's Museum of Fine Arts European Art Sub-Committee, the Advancement Board of the Yes Prep Public Schools of Houston, the Advisory Board of Living Water International, and on the Advisory Board of the Robert Day School of Economics and Finance at Claremont McKenna College in California.

She lives in Houston with her husband and her two daughters, Caroline Camille and Catherine Christiane.

QuickZ06
05-01-2013, 01:22 PM
Heidi Cruz

Region Head
Goldman Sachs & Co.

Heidi S. Cruz is the Region Head for the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. She leads 40 professionals responsible for over $14 billion in investments for clients throughout Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Colorado.

In the 1990s, Heidi worked as an investment banker in New York, focusing on Latin America mergers and acquisitions and structured finance. In that capacity, Heidi was involved in advisory engagements and capital markets transactions for some of the largest energy companies in the Americas.

In the public sector, Heidi served in the White House as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, under then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice; as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department; and as Special Policy Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, then-U.S. Trade Representative.

Her publications include a book chapter entitled "Expanding Opportunity Through Free Trade," a book chapter in EXCHANGE RATE POLICIES FOR EMERGING MARKET ECONOMIES, and a Harvard Case Study, "American International Group".

Heidi received an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, a Masters of European Business from Universite Libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, Belgium, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in Economics and International Relations from Claremont McKenna College. She is currently a member of the Texas Business Leadership Council and serves on the board of the Greater Houston Partnership, Houston's Museum of Fine Arts European Art Sub-Committee, the Advancement Board of the Yes Prep Public Schools of Houston, the Advisory Board of Living Water International, and on the Advisory Board of the Robert Day School of Economics and Finance at Claremont McKenna College in California.

She lives in Houston with her husband and her two daughters, Caroline Camille and Catherine Christiane.

Yeah I have brought that up in the past, yet many seem to overlook it.

compromise
05-01-2013, 01:37 PM
Isn't Ted a warmongerer? Not to mention that he already voted to give medical data to the Feds. Rand Paul voted no. Mike Lee voted no. But Cruz caved.

We shouldn't have anything to do with him. I'm not going to vote for him.

Why shouldn't we have anything to do with Rand's 2nd closest ally in the Senate? Yes, he voted in favor of that. So what? He's made dozens of excellent votes so far and I expect him to continue through to 2016.

"Warmonger" Cruz is opposed to treating the United States as a battlefield and opposed intervention in Libya.

You're being overly purist. Realistically, if Cruz became president, he'd be the best one since Coolidge. He's not perfect, but his strong opposition to the erosion of civil liberties and his principled stance on fiscal issues definitely puts him in "Team liberty" IMO and makes him a true friend of limited government. He's with us far more so than guys like Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney, whom many consider to be part of the Democratic wing of "Team liberty".

If Rand is running, however, Cruz definitely shouldn't run. Cruz is weaker in a general election as he can come off as overly partisan, while Rand can talk about working with Democrats on reforming drug laws. He'd also split the Tea Party primary vote. I doubt he will, considering his close friendship with Rand.

TheGrinch
05-01-2013, 01:40 PM
You're being overly purist. Realistically, if Cruz became president, he'd be the best one since Coolidge.


Bullshit. You have no way of knowing this, and we have indications that he could be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I'm willing to wait and see on how serious he is, but the way some of you claim unequivocally we can trust him, well I think most here are too smart to just throw their concerns out the window just because he talks the talk.

As is shown with the vast majority supporting Rand even despite concerns, this has nothing to do with purism, and everything to do with trust. The jury is still out on that.

Michael Landon
05-01-2013, 01:45 PM
He was born in Canada, he's not eligible.

- ML

tttppp
05-01-2013, 01:48 PM
Why shouldn't we have anything to do with Rand's 2nd closest ally in the Senate? Yes, he voted in favor of that. So what? He's made dozens of excellent votes so far and I expect him to continue through to 2016.

"Warmonger" Cruz is opposed to treating the United States as a battlefield and opposed intervention in Libya.

You're being overly purist. Realistically, if Cruz became president, he'd be the best one since Coolidge. He's not perfect, but his strong opposition to the erosion of civil liberties and his principled stance on fiscal issues definitely puts him in "Team liberty" IMO and makes him a true friend of limited government. He's with us far more so than guys like Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney, whom many consider to be part of the Democratic wing of "Team liberty".

If Rand is running, however, Cruz definitely shouldn't run. Cruz is weaker in a general election as he can come off as overly partisan, while Rand can talk about working with Democrats on reforming drug laws. He'd also split the Tea Party primary vote. I doubt he will, considering his close friendship with Rand.

Having a second liberty candidate in the debates can help Rand in the long run. They can't just gang up on him and call him the crazy one.

KingNothing
05-01-2013, 01:52 PM
When did it stop being common knowledge that persons born in another country cannot be president of the U.S. even though they may have been born American citizens? Is there anyone over 25 that didn't learn this as a child?

This isn't remotely true.

KingNothing
05-01-2013, 01:55 PM
Bullshit. You have no way of knowing this

But look at the list of presidents he'd be competing with. He'd have a hard time NOT being better than any of them.

PatriotOne
05-01-2013, 01:56 PM
Yeah I have brought that up in the past, yet many seem to overlook it.

Can't be brought up enough. There's enough connections between him and his wife to many globalists that it should concern everybody about Cruz's true intentions here. I had truly hoped I was just being paranoid and Cruz wouldn't compete with Rand but with this news, I know if he runs for Pres he's being put there as an obstructionist to Rand.

She worked for Robert Zoellick. President of the World Bank FFS. I've studied how these people work for a decade now. I know how they position people as "pretenders" to get them in office.

PatriotOne
05-01-2013, 01:58 PM
If ya all can't understand what this means then you have not been paying close enough attention.


Goldman Sachs & Co.

LatinsforPaul
05-01-2013, 02:03 PM
Can someone please explain to me how a Canadian born citizen with an American mother and a Cuban father at the time of his birth is considered to be a "natural born citizen" and is eligible to be President of the United States? :rolleyes:

TheGrinch
05-01-2013, 02:08 PM
But look at the list of presidents he'd be competing with. He'd have a hard time NOT being better than any of them.

There is a huge difference between incrementalism (which I think can work) and voting for the lesser of evils. That's how they shove crappy candidates down our throats.

Plus I have no idea how you can claim at this early stage that he'd be better and not just more of the same. Does that Goldman Sachs connection make you feel all warm and fuzzy about him?

supermario21
05-01-2013, 02:11 PM
I like Cruz A LOT, he's right behind Lee, but when looking at the types that would vote for Rand, people who might be warm to Rand but maybe slightly skeptical of his FB would go to Cruz. Cruz would spoil Rand's "soft" support.

Brown Sapper
05-01-2013, 02:14 PM
Looks like people are still watching the conversation here.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/01/yes-ted-cruz-can-legally-become-president.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

KingNothing
05-01-2013, 02:15 PM
Plus I have no idea how you can claim at this early stage that he'd be better and not just more of the same. Does that Goldman Sachs connection make you feel all warm and fuzzy about him?

It gives me no feeling whatsoever.

He couldn't be worse than Obama, LBJ, Hoover, FDR, Nixon, Truman or Bush. He'd have a hard time being worse than Clinton, Elder Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Ford. JFK and Ike were just "bad" and not "OH MY GOD, WHAT ARE THESE GUYS DOING TO US ALL" awful, so there's a chance he'd be worse than them. Did I miss anyone?

PatriotOne
05-01-2013, 02:33 PM
It gives me no feeling whatsoever.

He couldn't be worse than Obama, LBJ, Hoover, FDR, Nixon, Truman or Bush. He'd have a hard time being worse than Clinton, Elder Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Ford. JFK and Ike were just "bad" and not "OH MY GOD, WHAT ARE THESE GUYS DOING TO US ALL" awful, so there's a chance he'd be worse than them. Did I miss anyone?

Yes he could because he would be being run by the same people, with the same agenda, who ran most of the ones you listed. You do know about the One World Government agenda right?

RDM
05-01-2013, 02:35 PM
Yeah I have brought that up in the past, yet many seem to overlook it.

...just like the "Natural Born Citizen" clause.

TaftFan
05-01-2013, 03:05 PM
Not in 2016. I still want Rand to run and he will.

I would support Ted as VP if we could get someone like Steve Stockman to replace him in the Senate, or Debra Medina for that matter.

He is only 42. He has time.

But if he did run, my honest opinion is that he would wipe the floor with everybody. He brings in the Gingrich aspect of debating and the Romney aspect of being presidential, and the Paul aspect of the grassroots.

Antischism
05-01-2013, 03:14 PM
Just adding to the sentiment that Cruz would not get my vote.

Valli6
05-01-2013, 04:47 PM
When did it stop being common knowledge that persons born in another country cannot be president of the U.S. even though they may have been born American citizens? Is there anyone over 25 that didn't learn this as a child?


This isn't remotely true.
You must be a "youth".
This was absolutely common knowledge until very recently. You'll occasionally hear it referred to in old movies and TV shows. Comedians liked to bring it up. I suppose there's some chance it's more a notion made popular by the WWs or the "Red Scare", but everyone - our parents, our grandparents, everyone grew up learning that in order to be president of US, you had to be born on American soil. Nothing less is acceptable until the Supreme Court finally rules on it once and for all - (though I have little confidence that the Supreme Court is concerned with what's good for American citizens).

The Gold Standard
05-01-2013, 04:56 PM
I don't care who the choices are, I will never in my life vote for Ted Cruz for anything.

Keith and stuff
05-01-2013, 05:12 PM
Can someone please explain to me how a Canadian born citizen with an American mother and a Cuban father at the time of his birth is considered to be a "natural born citizen" and is eligible to be President of the United States? :rolleyes:

I think it kicks in when he turns 19. Up until 19, he was a naturalized citizen. After 19, he became a natural born citizen due to the way the law is written.

trey4sports
05-01-2013, 05:14 PM
meh, He will end up sounding like George W Bush by the time the primary is over...

cajuncocoa
05-01-2013, 05:43 PM
Can someone please explain to me how a Canadian born citizen with an American mother and a Cuban father at the time of his birth is considered to be a "natural born citizen" and is eligible to be President of the United States? :rolleyes:
The law on what constitutes "natural born citizen" is not very clear....but it would almost be fun to watch the Left turn into "birthers" :D

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 05:54 PM
@Cajuncocoa- LOL! +1.

They had a case with Mccain, yet they didn't use it. The right had absolutely no case with Obama, yet they made one up anyway (Which, BTW, they got from Hillary.) This is strange...

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 05:55 PM
"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Cajuncocoa again."

Sorry...

TheGrinch
05-01-2013, 07:56 PM
It gives me no feeling whatsoever.


If that doesn't at least cause you to take a closer look at the guy in the future, and give pause to your undying confidence of him being the best man next to Rand for the job, then I don't know what will.


He couldn't be worse than Obama, LBJ, Hoover, FDR, Nixon, Truman or Bush. He'd have a hard time being worse than Clinton, Elder Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Ford. JFK and Ike were just "bad" and not "OH MY GOD, WHAT ARE THESE GUYS DOING TO US ALL" awful, so there's a chance he'd be worse than them. Did I miss anyone?
Again, this is not a matter of purism, this is a matter of trust. Hell, I might have even considered voting for Obama (after Dr. Paul was out of course) if I thought he was being honest about taking the trash out of Washington, closing gitmo, decriminalizing medical marijuana, etc., because hey, like you said he'd sure be much better than all the presidents before him if he did those things. But as the democrats found out what most of us knew all along, "hope and change" just meant more of the same.

Trust is not given, it's earned. I am not just going to go with the flow of whoever is the "best" of the silver-tongued hacks they shove down our throats. It's the problem, not the solution, that we only demand the best of the crappiest options that's not as crappy as the crappiest guy the other party could shove down our throats.

Cruz may get that respect if he continues to give us reason to believe in him, but not when he's given us enough reasons to wait and see what his true motivations and allegiances are. I don't know how any reasonable human being can have such trust in any politician to go ahead and act like you know their intentions.

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 08:05 PM
Obama is STILL better than trash like Mccain and Graham. Obama at least hasn't OPENLY used NDAA2012 yet. Mccain and Graham have already asked for it.

I'm no friend of Obama of course, but if the best argument the Republicans can muster against voting for Libertarians is "But that's a vote for Obama" and they keep giving us Mccain type candidates, all they're doing me is enocouraging me to keep backing the LP...

Elder Bush was THE NWO guy. Truman was bad but I don't know that he's THAT bad, granted there's Hiroshima and Nagasaki but other than Ron Paul himself who WOULDN'T have done that, and he did have enough self-control to avoid full out war with China. Granted, that doesn't make him "Good" but I don't know if he's truly among the worst. I'd swap Elder Bush and Truman.

As for finding a "Good" President, you aren't going back far enough. The New Deal totally destroyed America and everyone since then has been some degree of "Trash." I'm not saying he was perfect, but Calvin Coolidge was our last "Good" President. I don't quite expect Rand Paul to live up to that ideal, but I expect him to be better than anyone since Calvin. Considering how bad the trash from Hoover-Obama were, if Rand Paul doesn't handily do better than all of those guys, he won't get my support again in the second election. Even with my doubts, I think that's a standard Rand Paul can definitely meet. I wouldn't even consider voting for someone that "Might" beat out those guys.

Keith and stuff
05-01-2013, 08:47 PM
Obama is STILL better than trash like Mccain and Graham.
Are you trolling? Obama is substantially worse than them. It's no contest. Obama is the worst President in US history. Both McCain and Graham, based on their voting records, are above average US Senators. The worst Republican in the Senate is from Maine. Even she is about as good as the best Democrat or Independent Senator.

Every politician in a high places does lots of bad things. Like at Ron Paul. Even he endorsed dozens of bad folks. Still, I think you have to look at the history of a politician. Look at the voting record. Not 1 or 5 votes. Look at dozens. Look at a bunch of stuff. Obama is complete trash.

TheGrinch
05-01-2013, 08:50 PM
Are you trolling? Obama is substantially worse than them. It's no contest. Obama is the worst President in US history. Both McCain and Graham, based on their voting records, are above average US Senators. The worst Republican in the Senate is from Maine. Even she is about as good as the best Democrat or Independent Senator.

Every politician in a high places does lots of bad things. Like at Ron Paul. Even he endorsed dozens of bad folks. Still, I think you have to look at the history of a politician. Look at the voting record. Not 1 or 5 votes. Look at dozens. Look at a bunch of stuff. Obama is complete trash.

Worst for us maybe, but I think the Arabs are probably still voting GWB as their #1.

Brett85
05-01-2013, 08:55 PM
I don't like this at all. I think that Cruz would just take away votes from Rand and make it harder for him to win Iowa.

Antischism
05-01-2013, 09:08 PM
Are you trolling? Obama is substantially worse than them. It's no contest. Obama is the worst President in US history. Both McCain and Graham, based on their voting records, are above average US Senators. The worst Republican in the Senate is from Maine. Even she is about as good as the best Democrat or Independent Senator.

Every politician in a high places does lots of bad things. Like at Ron Paul. Even he endorsed dozens of bad folks. Still, I think you have to look at the history of a politician. Look at the voting record. Not 1 or 5 votes. Look at dozens. Look at a bunch of stuff. Obama is complete trash.

Substantially? That's... quite a bit of a stretch. Substantially better based on what issues?
For example, I still view the Bush era as the absolute worst in my lifetime, but I wouldn't say Obama is substantially better.

Champuckett
05-01-2013, 09:14 PM
I liked what both Ted Cruz and Mike Lee did to help out Rand on the floor during the filibuster and am thankful for what they did. That felt like an important moment where you were beginning to see some kind of union of liberty fighters banding together on the national stage for the first time in a long time. But that's as far as my support for Ted Cruz goes as of now. He speaks and behaves like a standard politician, albeit with a liberty minded angle. Time will tell where this guy's heart is at, so unless something drastically changes about him, I'm not going to get too enthusiastic about supporting someone like him unless he shows us something we haven't seen from him yet.

Professor8000
05-01-2013, 10:04 PM
Cruz is still untested in my opinion.

cindy25
05-01-2013, 10:07 PM
it might take more votes from Rubio than Rand

RonPaulFanInGA
05-01-2013, 10:27 PM
If nothing else, it'll be funny to see how many people on FreeRepublic.com and HotAir.com who think Obama was born in a foreign country, and is thus disqualified from being President, will still support Cruz even though it is an undisputed fact that he was born in a foreign country.

Maybe the birthers will finally admit that the whole thing was more about hating Obama than anything else?

jbauer
05-03-2013, 02:58 PM
Obama's only the worst because he's the latest. The president has been grabbing powers not given to them by the constitution for decades. Obama's worst qualities is he continued the presidential power grabs of Bush 2.0. Bush took presidential powers to a new level. Obama has continued to use the same playbook.


Are you trolling? Obama is substantially worse than them. It's no contest. Obama is the worst President in US history. Both McCain and Graham, based on their voting records, are above average US Senators. The worst Republican in the Senate is from Maine. Even she is about as good as the best Democrat or Independent Senator.

Every politician in a high places does lots of bad things. Like at Ron Paul. Even he endorsed dozens of bad folks. Still, I think you have to look at the history of a politician. Look at the voting record. Not 1 or 5 votes. Look at dozens. Look at a bunch of stuff. Obama is complete trash.

paulbot24
05-03-2013, 03:29 PM
it might take more votes from Rubio than Rand This is an interesting thought. It might also help to have two people in the GOP primaries discussing the erosion of our liberties to further illustrate what the GOP establishment is really facing. Evolve or die. It would be polite of him to bow out if his presence is negatively affecting the Rand vote and then publicly endorse Rand. Could be a watershed moment. Hey, I can be positive once in a while.:cool:

compromise
05-03-2013, 04:08 PM
Cruz and Rand are friends and they will discuss both of their presidential aspirations at some point, if they haven't already. Cruz has 2 years less experience in the Senate than Rand and is 8 years younger than Rand. His time is yet to come.

If Rand announces he is running for president, Cruz will not run. Even less likely if some of Cruz's other 2012 supporters like Santorum run. The issue is that if Santorum does run, Cruz may not endorse Rand and stay out of the race to avoid ruining his relationship with Santorum.

paulbot24
05-03-2013, 04:15 PM
The issue is that if Santorum does run, Cruz may not endorse Rand and stay out of the race to avoid ruining his relationship with Santorum.

I'd hate to see him lose his "special relationship" with Santorum.:rolleyes:

SkepticalMetal
05-03-2013, 04:38 PM
I'd hate to see him lose his "special relationship" with Santorum.:rolleyes:
That could be interpreted in another way, seeing as how Santorum seems to mean something else...

supermario21
05-03-2013, 07:03 PM
Cruz must be having a busy day. I don't think he'll run against Rand. Rather, he'll be Rand's biggest endorsement (after Ron of course!)



Tom Davis ‏@senatortomdavis 1m
Ted Cruz, giving SCGOP banquet keynote on dais 15 feet from Lindsey Graham, says Rand Paul showing leadership, praises filibuster. Ouch.

supermario21
05-03-2013, 07:41 PM
By the way, Lindsey Graham apparently mentioned Israel bombing Syria and making the push for war...at this dinner.

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 08:06 PM
I made a detailed reply but lost it and don't feel like rewriting it, so the short version is this. While Obama did sign NDAA, he hasn't called for it to be used yet. Meanwhile, Mccain and Graham have. Foreign policy: Mccain and Graham are even more aggressive than Obama is. Foreign policy and civil liberties are more important to me than economic or social issues.

TaftFan
05-03-2013, 08:58 PM
Cruz has no "relationship" with Santorum that I know of.

Keith and stuff
05-03-2013, 09:24 PM
Cruz has no "relationship" with Santorum that I know of.
He isn't that type of Republican. He is a fiscal conservative (even libertarian) on national fiscal issues and hawk on war issues. He is mixed on civil rights/liberties issues.

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 09:27 PM
He isn't that type of Republican. He is a fiscal conservative (even libertarian) on national fiscal issues and hawk on war issues. He is mixed on civil rights/liberties issues.

I don't think this mixture is really tenable. I can understand fiscally and socially conservative, but national security "Conservatism" is incompatible with fiscal conservatism.

Thanks for clearing up for me and putting any doubt out of my mind. I want nothing to do with Cruz. Heck, if he's the nominee, I wouldn't even vote for him. The LP is still a thing.

No hawks. I can deal with Rand's semi-interventionist "Realism" because at least he's better than anyone who's around on those issues, but I won't support anyone who agrees with the GOP mainstream on foreign policy. We can't sustain any of our freedom with the Empire.

Keith and stuff
05-03-2013, 09:39 PM
I don't think this mixture is really tenable. I can understand fiscally and socially conservative, but national security "Conservatism" is incompatible with fiscal conservatism.

Thanks for clearing up for me and putting any doubt out of my mind. I want nothing to do with Cruz. Heck, if he's the nominee, I wouldn't even vote for him. The LP is still a thing.
It is tenable. He is like Kelly Ayotte except he is better on civil rights/liberties issues. She is also fiscally conservative on national fiscal issues but hawkish on war issues. It isn't out of the ordinary for Republicans. Look at former Rep Frank Gunita of NH-1. He was similar to Kelly Ayotte.

TaftFan
05-03-2013, 09:41 PM
Cruz is hawkish but I'm not sure how interventionist he really is. I have no problem with hawkishness in itself.

Brett85
05-03-2013, 09:52 PM
Cruz is hawkish but I'm not sure how interventionist he really is. I have no problem with hawkishness in itself.

How exactly can you be a hawk and not be an interventionist? :confused:

wormyguy
05-03-2013, 10:14 PM
How exactly can you be a hawk and not be an interventionist? :confused:

All talk and no action; for example, Reagan was quite hawkish but not very interventionist by 20th-century presidential standards (admittedly not a high bar).

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 10:32 PM
Cruz is hawkish but I'm not sure how interventionist he really is. I have no problem with hawkishness in itself.

How does that fit?


How exactly can you be a hawk and not be an interventionist? :confused:

Yeah, that.


It is tenable. He is like Kelly Ayotte except he is better on civil rights/liberties issues. She is also fiscally conservative on national fiscal issues but hawkish on war issues. It isn't out of the ordinary for Republicans. Look at former Rep Frank Gunita of NH-1. He was similar to Kelly Ayotte.

What's a fiscal conservative? To me, its someone who believes in a low tax rate and a balanced budget. Even if you stretch the definitions of "Low" and "Balanced" a little bit, its still a bit hard to be a hawk while actually maintaining the low tax rate and balanced budget. To me the people that want a flat tax rate, but don't actually want to reduce the percentage of revenue taken by government, are not actually fiscal conservatives, they're just neo-progressives that happen to support a flat tax rate, but still support much of the rest of the progressive agenda.

Besides the fact, I don't think you CAN have a warfare state like ours without the civil liberties abuses. In theory you can support one without the other (Heck, in 2010 I did) but I think that's even more utopian than expecting Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism to just work.

I think you can be a fiscal conservative to some extent without being Ron Paul on foreign issues, but I don't think any genuine conservative would emulate a Bush or a Mccain on foreign issues either. I believe Rand Paul is a genuine fiscal conservative. I can't say the same about Michelle Bachmann. Although both are "Tea Party", Bachmann's policy toward Iran alone would prevent any kind of actual fiscal conservatism from happening.

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 10:34 PM
And BTW: anyone who gets foreign policy seriously wrong is NOT part of the liberty movement. There are plenty of issues I think its acceptable to compromise on but this isn't one of them. Granted, Cruz may be better than the alternatives and I understand passive endorsements from guys like Ron "Because the other guy is worse" but we shouldn't be actively supporting people like this, voting for them, and certainly not raising money for them or associating them with libertarianism.

supermario21
05-03-2013, 10:35 PM
Is Cruz really a hawk though? The guy hasn't made any bad votes yet on FP. I think he was doing more grandstanding than anything. If McCain is worried he's not a hawk, then he probably isn't one.

TaftFan
05-03-2013, 10:37 PM
Cruz can also be differentiated from the McCain group in terms of their views of international groups like the U.N.

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 10:39 PM
Is Cruz really a hawk though? The guy hasn't made any bad votes yet on FP. I think he was doing more grandstanding than anything. If McCain is worried he's not a hawk, then he probably isn't one.

Mccain is probably worried that he isn't hawkish enough. There are different degrees of hawk, of course. Rand Paul is more hawkish than Ron Paul, but less so than pretty much anyone else in the senate. Marco Rubio is pretty obviously a hawk, but from what I've seen, Mccain and Graham leave even Rubio in the dust when it comes to being a hawk. There isn't really a hard and fast line between hawks and doves.

Personally, anyone who supports more intervention than Rand Paul I would consider a hawk. I say that because although Rand has endorsed passive intervention through sanctions and other similar techniques, he has yet to actually propose a preemptive war (While I disagree with Afghanistan, I think that one is at least actually debatable by libertarians because Bin Laden was allegedly there at the time, so due to the fact that some would argue that that war was in fact defensive, it doesn't totally count, even though I believe the people who defend Afghanistan are wrong). Proposing sanctions, while annoying, doesn't make you a hawk. Supporting war does.

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 10:41 PM
Cruz can also be differentiated from the McCain group in terms of their views of international groups like the U.N.

I never compared Cruz directly with Mccain. I have no doubt Cruz is one of the least bad senators. He's still a traitor though, for the reason I described, and hee's a hawk. I've got no problem with someone preferring Cruz over an alternative, but I don't believe they should vote for him, send him money, or do anything else to encourage him or help him along, because frankly, sucking less than the other guy doesn't mean you don't suck.

TaftFan
05-03-2013, 10:42 PM
I never compared Cruz directly with Mccain. I have no doubt Cruz is one of the least bad senators. He's still a traitor though, for the reason I described, and hee's a hawk. I've got no problem with someone preferring Cruz over an alternative, but I don't believe they should vote for him, send him money, or do anything else to encourage him or help him along, because frankly, sucking less than the other guy doesn't mean you don't suck.

Wait, how is he a traitor?

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 10:45 PM
Wait, how is he a traitor?

There was a bill being proposed to give medical data to the Feds. Rand Paul and Mike Lee courageously voted it down. Cruz voted yes. As such he has violated his oath of office and should be counted among those who are traitors to the constitution when the glorious Nuremberg Trials begin:cool:

TaftFan
05-03-2013, 10:54 PM
There was a bill being proposed to give medical data to the Feds. Rand Paul and Mike Lee courageously voted it down. Cruz voted yes. As such he has violated his oath of office and should be counted among those who are traitors to the constitution when the glorious Nuremberg Trials begin:cool:

The Harkin amendment? http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00105

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 10:55 PM
Yes, I think that one was it...