Ted Cruz: My foreign policy views are between McCain’s and Paul’s

[JCDenton0451]

This thread is dedicated to compromise and other Ted Cruz apologists.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/08/why-ted-cruz-thinks-the-media-gets-conservatism-wrong/

How would you characterize your foreign policy views?



Right now there is a divide, say, between the views of John McCain on the one hand and the views of Rand Paul on the other. I like and respect both men, and I would say that my views are somewhere in the middle. The person whose views on foreign policy mine are closest to is Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s views on foreign policy, and how I would characterize my views, are that I think the United States should be a clarion voice for liberty, that we should speak against oppression, against tyranny and for freedom.

Is this a veiled attack on Rand? His comments can be interpreted that way. We all know that Rand tried to claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan on foreign policy. Now Cruz sort of blows the wind out of his sails, positioning himself as a true Reagan conservative standing in between the two crazy guys: Paul and McCain.

[Brett85]

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/08/why-ted-cruz-thinks-the-media-gets-conservatism-wrong/

[Brett85]

I'm not starting this thread either to bash Cruz or to praise him. I just thought what he said in this interview was interesting.

[AuH20]

Isn't this what we've been saying for awhile? This isn't exactly a revelation.

[Anti-Neocon]

I don't really see much new here, but for those who somehow think Cruz would make an effective commander-in-chief, this can be a wake-up call.

[69360]

Isn't this what we've been saying for awhile? This isn't exactly a revelation.

Yes and it's fine. There is a large contingent on RPF who vilify anyone who doesn't pass their purity tests. Cruz is good on most issues and a valuable ally for Rand Paul even if they are not in total agreement.

[Neil Desmond]

If he wants to impress me, he'll have to place himself so that Rand is between him and McCain on foreign policy issues. Same goes for all other politicians.

[JCDenton0451]

Isn't this what we've been saying for awhile? This isn't exactly a revelation.

What do you mean?

Cruz may well be telling the truth, but he isn't exactly helping Rand, who is trying to legitimise non-interventist foreign policy in the GOP. He explicitly stated that Rand isn't like Reagan.

[69360]

I don't really see much new here, but for those who somehow think Cruz would make an effective commander-in-chief, this can be a wake-up call.

Whatever. I wouldn't vote Cruz in the primary, but if he was the GOP nominee I would pick him over billary or biden.

[ObiRandKenobi]

yeah i kinda figured.

[pcosmar]

"I'm somewhere in between Rand Paul and John McCain on foreign policy issues"

I'm not starting this thread either to bash Cruz or to praise him. I just thought what he said in this interview was interesting.
That does give a pretty large aperture to wander through..


as in so vague as to be completely useless.

[anaconda]

If I were Cruz I would say exactly the same thing, for a plethora of reasons.

[Anti-Neocon]

Whatever. I wouldn't vote Cruz in the primary, but if he was the GOP nominee I would pick him over billary or biden.
He has numerous times made the distinction that he is more hawkish/Israel-firster than Obama (and likewise would do the same with Biden and Hillary). As a whole, I think Cruz/neoliberals are indistinguishable on foreign policy apart from rhetoric, so you could logically justify voting for Cruz based on other issues. I'd be hard-pressed to pull the lever for such a vocal Israel-firster, but to each his own.

[jkob]

I think you read too much into it, all he says is that there is a divide in the GOP between McCain and Paul on foreign policy and that his views fall somewhere in between. He's not a foaming at the mouth neoconservative and he isn't a non-interventionist, so where would that put him?

As for the Reagan part, I dunno why but I just zone out whenever any Republican starts talking about Reagan. It means absolutely nothing.

[Anti-Neocon]

If I were Cruz I would say exactly the same thing, for a plethora of reasons.
So you'd help yourself and stab Rand in the back? Great.

What Cruz is basically telling people is that even though him and Rand are seen as allies, Rand is too extreme in foreign policy. This pushes Rand more to the fringe, which makes me dislike Cruz a bit more than I already did.

[Brett85]

"I'm somewhere in between Rand Paul and John McCain on foreign policy issues"

That does give a pretty large aperture to wander through..


as in so vague as to be completely useless.

He explains his foreign policy views in a little more detail in the article.

[Brett85]

So you'd help yourself and stab Rand in the back? Great.

What Cruz is basically telling people is that even though him and Rand are seen as allies, Rand is too extreme in foreign policy. This pushes Rand more to the fringe, which makes me dislike Cruz a bit more than I already did.

Well, in that case he's also calling McCain "extreme" as well. I don't think he actually meant to criticize Rand in this interview. He was just being completely honest, which is to say that he's somewhere in between Rand and McCain on foreign policy issues. I had already guessed that he was less interventionist than McCain but more interventionist than Rand by looking at his votes and his public statements and speeches on foreign policy.

[anaconda]

So you'd help yourself and stab Rand in the back? Great.

What Cruz is basically telling people is that even though him and Rand are seen as allies, Rand is too extreme in foreign policy. This pushes Rand more to the fringe, which makes me dislike Cruz a bit more than I already did.

I think you may have missed the "IF" part of my comment. I am speculating only about Cruz's point of view and what might motivate his positioning of himself at present. And, as I mentioned, I can think of a zillion strategic reasons for Cruz to say this. Some of which stand to benefit Rand down the road. Having said this, I also don't think Cruz is obligated to be Rand's wind-up doll at the moment.

[jkob]

copy and pasting from other post

I think you read too much into it, all he says is that there is a divide in the GOP between McCain and Paul on foreign policy and that his views fall somewhere in between. He's not a foaming at the mouth neoconservative and he isn't a non-interventionist, so where would that put him?

As for the Reagan part, I dunno why but I just zone out whenever any Republican starts talking about Reagan. It means absolutely nothing.

[JCDenton0451]

You zone out, but lots of old people, Republican voters actually worship the dude. Obviously, Rand doesn't want to be seen as a fringe candidate on foreign policy, that's why he keeps comparing his foreign policy views to Reagan's (and Eisenhower's).

[Anti-Neocon]

I think you may have missed the "IF" part of my comment. And, as I mentioned, I can think of a zillion strategic reasons for Cruz to say this. Some of which stand to benefit Rand. Having said this, I don't think Cruz is obligated to be Rand's wind-up doll at the moment.
Rand doesn't benefit from this. People gravitate toward strength in numbers, and Cruz is leaving Rand's foreign policy alone to die on Isolationist Island, so to speak. Cruz is a self-serving douchebag who is no part of the liberty movement. He's too smart to be a useful idiot, and when push comes to shove, he will be nowhere to be found on the side of liberty. He's allied himself with Rand in certain situations in order to pit himself against Democrats, but he's much more a leech than a true friend.

And nowhere am I saying he has to stand with Rand. But he's going to be doing it without my support, and hopefully yours too.

[Brett85]

Actually, to me it seems like Rand's foreign policy views are already sort of in the middle. He's somewhere in between Ron and McCain on foreign policy, although obviously closer to Ron than to McCain. But I don't really like that Rand's foreign policy views are being seen as basically being "strictly non interventionist," because that means that anyone who gets into Congress who's more non interventionist than Rand will basically be seen as an anarchist or something.

[Keith and stuff]

If I were Cruz I would say exactly the same thing, for a plethora of reasons.
Yeah, seemed like a smart thing for him to save to help himself. I don't see it as a dis to Rand. Paul seems to be more sane when it comes to foreign policy than Reagan. Reagan was all about breaking federal law to destroy people and countries he didn't like. Plus he tried to bankrupt the federal government via military spending.

I'd never vote for him for President but I'd be willing to vote for him for other offices. I can only vote for people I think are actually qualified to be President, for President. I'd have to vote 3rd party if Cruz somehow won the GOP nomination.

He does seem like the 3rd best/least bad Senator and I've been thinking that way since about the time he was elected.

[Anti Federalist]

The person whose views on foreign policy mine are closest to is Ronald Reagan

When 238 Marines were killed by a suicide bomber in Lebanon, Reagan said, essentially:

"You people are all nuts, and I will not shed any more American blood here."

And recalled them all.

You plan to follow the approach Mr. Cruz?

I hope so...

[Occam's Banana]

Now that is what you call "wiggle room" ...

I read the piece and I don't know any more about Cruz's foreign policy than I did before.
(And what little I already knew about it does not enthuse me in the slightest.)
His entire answer is nothing but a continuous stream of empty platitudes and jingoistic euphemisms.

The closest he ever comes to saying anything even remotely substantive is at the end - when he lauds the drawing of "redlines" and sneers at (Obama-esque) "negotiation." (And I am using the term "substantive" very loosely here.)


But I don't really like that Rand's foreign policy views are being seen as basically being "strictly non interventionist," because that means that anyone who gets into Congress who's more non interventionist than Rand will basically be seen as an anarchist or something.

Oh, HORRORS!!! :rolleyes:

[Anti-Neocon]

Actually, to me it seems like Rand's foreign policy views are already sort of in the middle. He's somewhere in between Ron and McCain on foreign policy, although obviously closer to Ron than to McCain. But I don't really like that Rand's foreign policy views are being seen as basically being "strictly non interventionist," because that means that anyone who gets into Congress who's more non interventionist than Rand will basically be seen as an anarchist or something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

It's pretty much Politics 101. Cruz sets up the window as between Rand and McCain, with the acceptable policy lying between them. The only one who comes out of that looking good is Cruz, and those less interventionist than Rand are cast way out into fringe-kooky-quixotic-RonPaul2008 land. If that actually happens, then it'd be perhaps our biggest loss yet, as it would mean we lost all the ground that we've gained in the last 4 years. We've got to ensure that Rand and those with actual non-interventionist policy are considered within the reasonable realm of foreign policy. If we do, then the political battle is won.

What does winning look like? When the average Republican establishment sleazeballs start taking on Rand Paul's issues. Example: http://www.dickmorris.com/nsa-wants-your-password-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

[Antischism]

When 238 Marines were killed by a suicide bomber in Lebanon, Reagan said, essentially:

"You people are all nuts, and I will not shed any more American blood here."

And recalled them all.

You plan to follow the approach Mr. Cruz?

I hope so...

Reagan's foreign policy is nothing to strive for.

[Brett85]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

It's pretty much Politics 101. Cruz sets up the window as between Rand and McCain, with the acceptable policy lying between them. The only one who comes out of that looking good is Cruz, and those less interventionist than Rand are cast way out into fringe-kooky-quixotic-RonPaul2008 land. If that actually happens, then it'd be perhaps our biggest loss yet, as it would mean we lost all the ground that we've gained in the last 4 years. We've got to ensure that Rand and those with actual non-interventionist policy are considered within the reasonable realm of foreign policy. If we do, then the political battle is won.

What does winning look like? When the average Republican establishment sleazeballs start taking on Rand Paul's issues. Example: http://www.dickmorris.com/nsa-wants-your-password-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

I hope that Cruz doesn't run for President in 2016. I think he would be the biggest obstacle to Rand winning the Iowa caucus.

[Anti-Neocon]

Reagan's foreign policy is nothing to strive for.
The thing is when people say "Reagan's foreign policy" they don't actually mean it. They just are trying to demonstrate their conservative bona fides, because Reagan obviously is Mr. Conservative who is loved by the GOP base. I doubt most of the base even can name more than 3 of his policies, but they just associate Reagan with positive feelings, and smart politicians play on those positive feelings, especially when they can get away without naming any specific policies.

[AuH20]

I hope that Cruz doesn't run for President in 2016. I think he would be the biggest obstacle to Rand winning the Iowa caucus.

He won't. He's been there less than a year and has no organization to speak of. Unlike Rand, he no foreign policy experience whatsoever. He has to accumulate some before even thinking about running.

[jkob]

Now that is what you call "wiggle room" ...

I read the piece and I don't know any more about Cruz's foreign policy than I did before.
(And what little I already knew about it does not enthuse me in the slightest.)
His entire answer is nothing but a continuous stream of empty platitudes and jingoistic euphemisms.

The closest he ever comes to saying anything even remotely substantive is at the end - when he lauds the drawing of "redlines" and sneers at (Obama-esque) "negotiation." (And I am using the term "substantive" very loosely here.)



Oh, HORRORS!!! :rolleyes:

Pretty much. He really doesn't say anything that interesting, he places himself in between McCain and Rand on foreign policy which makes sense I guess but everything else is completely meaningless.

[Keith and stuff]

The thing is when people say "Reagan's foreign policy" they don't actually mean it. They just are trying to demonstrate their conservative bona fides, because Reagan obviously is Mr. Conservative who is loved by the GOP base. I doubt most of the base even can name more than 3 of his policies, but they just associate Reagan with positive feelings, and smart politicians play on those positive feelings, especially when they can get away without naming any specific policies.

Exactly. + Rep.

[torchbearer]

My opinion of Cruz is somewhere between here and alpha centauri.

[anaconda]

Rand doesn't benefit from this.

The possible benefits are countless. Let me suggest one of a thousand possibilities. Down the road on some key foreign policy issue, Cruz, by virtue of his comment, has the room to "move toward" Rand Paul and present the image of being persuaded and compelled, and bring many of the interventionist part of the base following him along in this direction. It's a big chess game. Rand is doing fine at making his case and defining his brand. Rand's current foreign policy platform positions himself better for a general election. Cruz is arguably holding down the fort in the side of the "Tea Party" that is still more "interventionist." They are working hard to sell a product to the entirety of this group and beyond. It is far savvier to spread themselves across this coalition with the appearance of "some disagreements" yet with "solidarity" against the stale and moss covered "national security" party elites. Rand would probably want Cruz to say exactly what he said if he could script it himself. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts they've talked about it. They're presenting Pepsi and Coke to the base, and it's brilliant, in my opinion.

[cajuncocoa]

I'm picturing one of those horizontal lines that go to infinity on both ends...kinda like this:

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t270/cajuncocoa/Line.jpg

Finding a spot in-between those two covers A LOT of ground.

[Kotin]

I was not sure about him but this makes me like him a lot less.. What a fucking coward and politician douche..


Saying that when asked a question about his views on foreign policy?? Saying your like Reagan?? Reagan wasn't around for 9/11 or the NSA shit so please don't act like that is any answer except a dodge and even more so, a fucking politician answer.

Cruz loses so many points for this one.

[AngryCanadian]

I knew Ted Cruz was a bad idea after the comment by an user on about the Free Market.


The free market? Can you give us an example of this free market working where it hasn't blown up in our face and created the need for billions in tax payer bailouts?

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/08/why-ted-cruz-thinks-the-media-gets-conservatism-wrong/#ixzz2bQOg0o4n


If you want another John McCain then go ahead vote for Ted if in case he runs that is.

[CPUd]

inb4 page 20

[69360]

I hope that Cruz doesn't run for President in 2016. I think he would be the biggest obstacle to Rand winning the Iowa caucus.

I don't think so barring another last minute smear job by MSM. They have a strong organization in place from last time around and that's what wins it there.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand will be making a huge mistake if he picks a Hillary Clinton clone on foreign policy like Ted Cruz for VP. He should be bold and pick Amash.

[Sola_Fide]

I was not sure about him but this makes me like him a lot less.. What a fucking coward and politician douche..


Saying that when asked a question about his views on foreign policy?? Saying your like Reagan?? Reagan wasn't around for 9/11 or the NSA shit so please don't act like that is any answer except a dodge and even more so, a fucking politician answer.

Cruz loses so many points for this one.

Yeah. Ted Cruz sucks.

[Brett85]

I knew Ted Cruz was a bad idea after the comment by an user on about the Free Market.

What exactly does that have to do with Cruz?

[AuH20]

Rand will be making a huge mistake if he picks a Hillary Clinton clone on foreign policy like Ted Cruz for VP. He should be bold and pick Amash.

Amash provides him with very little votes. Bad choice. You need someone to compliment the ticket and I'm not sure Cruz does that either.

[Sola_Fide]

Amash provides him with very little votes. Bad choice. You need someone to compliment the ticket and I'm not sure Cruz does that either.

The biggest mistake Rand can make is to have a ticket that is indistinguishable from Hillary's ticket on foreign policy.

[Brett85]

The biggest mistake Rand can make is to have a ticket that is indistinguishable from Hillary's ticket on foreign policy.

If that's the case, then he could do a lot worse than Cruz. Cruz, although far from perfect on foreign policy issues, would still be better than anyone else that Rand could pick as VP except for Amash and possibly Lee. I'm not sure if Rand could realistically pick Amash or not if Amash is only a house member by then.

[TaftFan]

Rand should really leave Ted, Amash, and Lee to spearhead his legislation. I favor him picking Raul Labrador if he runs for governor, possibly even if he doesn't.

[JCDenton0451]

Amash provides him with very little votes. Bad choice. You need someone to compliment the ticket and I'm not sure Cruz does that either.

How many extra votes do you think Joe Biden provided for Obama?...McCain and Romney needed their running mates to give them conservative credentials. This won't be an issue with Rand.

Also, when Reagan chose Bush as his VP, he made one greatest mistakes of his life.

[JCDenton0451]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

It's pretty much Politics 101. Cruz sets up the window as between Rand and McCain, with the acceptable policy lying between them. The only one who comes out of that looking good is Cruz, and those less interventionist than Rand are cast way out into fringe-kooky-quixotic-RonPaul2008 land. If that actually happens, then it'd be perhaps our biggest loss yet, as it would mean we lost all the ground that we've gained in the last 4 years. We've got to ensure that Rand and those with actual non-interventionist policy are considered within the reasonable realm of foreign policy. If we do, then the political battle is won.

What does winning look like? When the average Republican establishment sleazeballs start taking on Rand Paul's issues. Example: http://www.dickmorris.com/nsa-wants-your-password-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

Excellent post! I couldn't have said it better myself.

[paulbot24]

Regardless of your opinion on Ted Cruz, I think we can all agree he is smart, but this comment says absolutely nothing. "Somewhere between two and a yottabyte." Come on Cruz. Make sure you have your coffee first next time.

[AngryCanadian]

What exactly does that have to do with Cruz?


If you read the comment's section further i think you would get my point. Including when i saw posts such as.

(I saw people hanging out post signs with Romney/Cruz)

[Christian Liberty]

He has numerous times made the distinction that he is more hawkish/Israel-firster than Obama (and likewise would do the same with Biden and Hillary). As a whole, I think Cruz/neoliberals are indistinguishable on foreign policy apart from rhetoric, so you could logically justify voting for Cruz based on other issues. I'd be hard-pressed to pull the lever for such a vocal Israel-firster, but to each his own.

I wouldn't vote for him.

@Traditional Conservative- You tried to say earlier on that he was between RON Paul and Lindsey Graham on foreign policy issues, but Ted Cruz is saying he's between RAND Paul and Ted Cruz. So I think he's more hawkish than you thought he was. Not to mention, Cruz actually compared Rand Paul to John McCain. I mean, I get that most liberty people aren't going to outright bash the establishment Republicans, but this seems like more than political posturing. I think he really does fill a middle ground between Rand and McCain. I'm not OK with that.

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

You zone out, but lots of old people, Republican voters actually worship the dude. Obviously, Rand doesn't want to be seen as a fringe candidate on foreign policy, that's why he keeps comparing his foreign policy views to Reagan's (and Eisenhower's).
I feel like you hate old white people. You have a good poiunt about cruz, but why do you want to oust people out of your big tent.

[JCDenton0451]

I feel like you hate old white people. You have a good poiunt about cruz, but why do you want to oust people out of your big tent.

Reagan is overrated. And the old Republicans who worship him tend to be naive and superficial. They focus on personality, not on policies. It's high time Republican party moved past Reagan-Bush. Can't always live in the 1980s.

[Brett85]

I wouldn't vote for him.

@Traditional Conservative- You tried to say earlier on that he was between RON Paul and Lindsey Graham on foreign policy issues, but Ted Cruz is saying he's between RAND Paul and Ted Cruz.

No, I was saying that Rand is somewhere in between Ron and McCain on foreign policy issues. (Although closer to Ron than to McCain obviously.)

[Smart3]

If Ted Cruz is in the middle of McCain (intervene always) and Paul (rarely intervene), then he has the same foreign policy as any other self-identified Conservative GOP Senator, like John Thune.

"War Sometimes Party" is still better than "War Party"

[Brett85]

If Ted Cruz is in the middle of McCain (intervene always) and Paul (rarely intervene), then he has the same foreign policy as any other self-identified Conservative GOP Senator, like John Thune.

It seems like he's at least better than someone like Thune and most other Republicans in the Senate since he at least votes to cut foreign aid.

[Christian Liberty]

No, I was saying that Rand is somewhere in between Ron and McCain on foreign policy issues. (Although closer to Ron than to McCain obviously.)

Actually, it wasn't McCain. You said awhile ago that Ted Cruz believed in a foreign policy that was essentially equidistant from Ron Paul and Lindsey Graham. Although Graham pretty much = McCain anyways.

Rand is definitely closer to Ron than McCain or Graham, but not by as much as people think. I'd say Rand is more like 70-80% of Ron Paul's foreign policy, not in the high 90's, if that makes sense.

[Lucille]

Cruz’s Foreign Policy: Possibly Even More Aggressive Than McCain’s
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/cruzs-foreign-policy-possibly-even-more-aggressive-than-mccains/


...Cruz’s remarks on foreign policy are politically very clever. He doesn’t pick a fight with McCain or Paul, and positions himself in between them and identifies himself with Reagan, whom all conservative foreign policy factions have sought to claim as their own for decades. It appears that Cruz doesn’t want to openly take sides in factional quarrels, and instead wants to be perceived as a Republican hawk who isn’t preoccupied with starting new wars. A closer look at his record to date shows that this isn’t the position that Cruz truly holds. On Syria, Cruz is arguably the most hawkish Republican in the Senate. Even McCain claims (for now) not to want to send ground forces into Syria, but Cruz goes so far as to demand that the U.S. send in forces to secure the chemical weapons there. Cruz’s exact words on this point were these:


We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.

Since the Pentagon estimates that up to 75,000 soldiers would be needed to achieve that, Cruz is effectively calling for a large-scale invasion of Syria on the dubious grounds that securing the Syrian government’s chemical weapons arsenal is imperative for U.S. security. It’s worth noting that Cruz doesn’t mention his own Syria position in the interview, and he isn’t asked about it when he brings up Syria later on. He is smart not to talk about it, because it reveals that Cruz is not “exceedingly reluctant” to send Americans into war zones, and that he is, in fact, even more aggressive on Syria than McCain.

[Sola_Fide]

This guy is to the liberty movement what George Bush Jr was to conservatism. He is going to tarnish and stain the liberty movement for decades if we don't call him out and separate ourselves from him.

[Christian Liberty]

My opinion of Cruz is somewhere between here and alpha centauri.

Pluto?


This guy is to the liberty movement what George Bush Jr was to conservatism. He is going to tarnish and stain the liberty movement for decades if we don't call him out and separate ourselves from him.

Yep.

For curiosity, do you trust Rand Paul? Mike Lee?

[Sola_Fide]

Pluto?



Yep.

For curiosity, do you trust Rand Paul? Mike Lee?


The more they open their mouths, the less there is to like. I will say though, the more the establishment attacks Rand, the more the liberty people will get behind him. Its only natural.

[Working Poor]

Sorry, I just see Bush cartel written all over him and I don't trust him. Does that make me an appoligist?

[Christian Liberty]

The more they open their mouths, the less there is to like. I will say though, the more the establishment attacks Rand, the more the liberty people will get behind him. Its only natural.

The bitterness of the establishment attacks is part of why I trust Rand. With Cruz, the neocons seem mostly comfortable with him, the attack seem to be coming from the more liberal conservatives. Heck, it could be argued that Ted Cruz just attacked Rand in the OP, although I don't know what his intent is.

I guess I'm still hoping for the best with Rand.

[compromise]

The bitterness of the establishment attacks is part of why I trust Rand. With Cruz, the neocons seem mostly comfortable with him, the attack seem to be coming from the more liberal conservatives. Heck, it could be argued that Ted Cruz just attacked Rand in the OP, although I don't know what his intent is.

I guess I'm still hoping for the best with Rand.

Would you consider Tom Cotton, who confronted Cruz at the AEI summit about Cruz's opposition to domestic drones, to be a liberal conservative?

[Christian Liberty]

Would you consider Tom Cotton, who confronted Cruz at the AEI summit about Cruz's opposition to domestic drones, to be a liberal conservative?

On fiscal issues he very likely is, though I haven't checked.

But yeah, there are some idiots who are calling Ted Cruz an "isolationist" as well. Which is... a lot like calling G.W.B. Jr. an "isolationist" if you ask me.

[compromise]

On fiscal issues he very likely is, though I haven't checked.

Cotton's Senate run was just endorsed by the Club for Growth.

[Brett85]

The bitterness of the establishment attacks is part of why I trust Rand. With Cruz, the neocons seem mostly comfortable with him,

Not really. Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin have attacked Cruz pretty viciously.

[thoughtomator]

This is like saying that the value you place on life is somewhere between Hitler and Ghandi.

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Is anyone surprised? Cruz is a Goldman Sachs boy. In the Senate, only Rand is a defender of liberty, Cruz is an ally only on some issues. But he's gone on foreign policy. Anyone remember how he mercilessly attacked Chuck Hagel during the confirmation hearings? He's a die-hard Israel-firster.

[Brett85]

I still think that Cruz is the third best Senator we have and an ally on most issues, but his position on Iran is really a tough pill to swallow. It seems clear that Rand is still head and shoulders above Cruz on foreign policy issues, and on the issues in general.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/11/ted-cruz-im-somewhere-in-between-mccain-and-paul-on-foreign-policy/

But, Cruz added, he also agrees "with John McCain that if Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons that we should intervene militarily to prevent it from acquiring those weapons. Why? Because it is in the vital national security interest of the United States."

[Christian Liberty]

To support and defend Ted Cruz is to whore the liberty movement. That's the bottom line, at this point.

I absolutely do not have any patience for it anymore.

[Christian Liberty]

@TC- You KNOW that supporting him is immoral. I think you should come to terms with it. Stop pretending he's the third best senator. At best, he's the 98th least evil senator. But he's still supporting warmongering.

[Brett85]

To support and defend Ted Cruz is to whore the liberty movement. That's the bottom line, at this point.

I absolutely do not have any patience for it anymore.

Well, I'll support him when I think he's right and criticize him when I think he's wrong, just like I do with Rand. But, some of his foreign policy stances are very disappointing considering that the main reason I became a Ron Paul supporter in the first place is because of his opposition to the war in Iraq.

[Christian Liberty]

Have you guys seen his twitter tweets?

[Christian Liberty]

Well, I'll support him when I think he's right and criticize him when I think he's wrong, just like I do with Rand. But, some of his foreign policy stances are very disappointing considering that the main reason I became a Ron Paul supporter in the first place is because of his opposition to the war in Iraq.

I'll praise anyone when they're right, but that's not the same thing as "Supporting" them. If a murderer gave 20 bucks to a homeless person, we'd praise his action but we'd still charge him with murder.

Ted Cruz is Israel's whore.

[Brett85]

I'll praise anyone when they're right, but that's not the same thing as "Supporting" them. If a murderer gave 20 bucks to a homeless person, we'd praise his action but we'd still charge him with murder.

Ted Cruz is Israel's whore.

I don't even know what "supporting him" means. I support Rand for President in 2016.

[american.swan]

If I were Cruz I would say exactly the same thing, for a plethora of reasons.

Right. Good point.


"I'm somewhere in between Rand Paul and John McCain on foreign policy issues"

That does give a pretty large aperture to wander through.. as in so vague as to be completely useless.

Right. If Rand is 0 and McCain a 10, where is Cruz? One would be great, but maybe he's a nine.

[Christian Liberty]

For much the same reason that I usually hate big government Republicans more than big government democrats (Namely, that nobody pretends the Dems are God's Own Party or that they support small government), I think I hate Ted Cruz even more than I hate any other senator at this point.

The man is a snake, and I'm distressed that so many of my brothers in liberty, especially those who are my brothers in liberty AND in Christ, falling for it.

Some days, I even have a hard time supporting Rand. Let me be clear here, he could lose my support if he makes the wrong choices between now and 2016. Rand Paul seems much better in "The Tea Party goes to Washington" than he does now.

Ultimately, I don't know if there's any point in political activism as we know it now. Ultimately, the higher you get, the more certain it is that you get corrupted, and what's sad is that so much of the liberty movement doesn't even care.

Education, civil disobedience and, when necessary, defensive violence, seem infinitely more useful to me than trying to get anyone elected to anything.

All that said, at least Rand SOMETIMES stands up for what's right. His biggest problem is that he's trying to sell liberty to a bunch of Israel-first, flag-waving neocon five year olds.

But Ted Cruz NEVER stands up on foreign policy issues. He constantly, CONSTANTLY whores himself to Israel and the neocon MIC.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't even know what "supporting him" means. I support Rand for President in 2016.

I don't know. I'm absolutely ticked right now. Not to mention I've basically evolved into a full blown anarchist at this point, and I'm almost politically nihilistic.

I don't place you with the hardcore Cruz supporters. At least you criticize the man. That said, you've stated you would vote for him for senate or for a general election. That, to me, says you don't quite "Get it" (Although of course, its possible that I simply don't get it.)


Right. Good point.



Right. If Rand is 0 and McCain a 10, where is Cruz? One would be great, but maybe he's a nine.

11.

[brushfire]

One would have to grade that response somewhere between an "A" and an "F".

Cruz is the new Rubio - all fresh and ready to go... They're buttering that b!tch up, and getting ready to toss him in. You can see it a mile away.

[Brett85]

But Ted Cruz NEVER stands up on foreign policy issues. He constantly, CONSTANTLY whores himself to Israel and the neocon MIC.

Well, I don't agree with that either. He's opposed to Obama's proposed military intervention in Syria. It's unfortunate that he doesn't take the same position in regards to Iran.

[Christian Liberty]

If Rand is a 0, Ron Paul is at least a negative five.

[Brett85]

I don't place you with the hardcore Cruz supporters. At least you criticize the man. That said, you've stated you would vote for him for senate or for a general election. That, to me, says you don't quite "Get it" (Although of course, its possible that I simply don't get it.)

Well sure, in a general election against Hillary Clinton I would vote for him. Hillary would bomb or invade Iran without getting any authorization from Congress, and Cruz at least believes that Congress has to approve a war before we go in. So even on that Cruz would be better than Hillary. We would at least have the opportunity to make the case to members of Congress to vote against military action in Iran.

[Christian Liberty]

Well sure, in a general election against Hillary Clinton I would vote for him. Hillary would bomb or invade Iran without getting any authorization from Congress, and Cruz at least believes that Congress has to approve a war before we go in. So even on that Cruz would be better than Hillary. We would at least have the opportunity to make the case to members of Congress to vote against military action in Iran.

This is the very same "Lesser of two evils" doctrine that keeps this country from moving forward.

I'd rather just shoot myself:rolleyes:

[Christian Liberty]

Also, do you seriously believe that Ted Cruz would stand by his stance that he needs congressional permission? Really?

I'm not even 100% convinced that Rand Paul would. I'm absolutely convinced Ted Cruz would not.

And even if he did, the idiots of America still vote for radical neocons who will vote "Yes", in both parties.

[enhanced_deficit]

Cruz really differentiates himself from the competition. Some are calling for no military intervention in Syria, some are calling for long war with Syria with regime change objectives, others are calling for remote control air strikes.
Ted Cruz is the only politician who has called for a quick war with Syria with US military led boots on the ground to search and destroy WMDs. A unique voice with a vision of future and freedom for Syrian/Iranian civilians.




“We know Assad has used these weapons, and there is good reason to suspect the al Qaida-affiliated rebels would use them as well if they could get their hands on them. This poses an intolerable threat not only to our friends in the region, but also to the United States. We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.”- Rafael Cruz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rx83YwkLAp0#t=39

CNN.com - 'Old Europe' hits back at Rumsfeld - Jan. 24, 2003
Jan 24, 2003 - The U.S. defence minister calls France and Germany 'old', the rest of Europe 'young' and wants a quick war with Iraq. ...

He cares for security of our close allies Saudi Arabia/Israel while caring for security of Americans at the same time. A genius.

[devil21]

People really should see Brian4Liberty's thread here about Cruz' recent tweets about Syria. No idea why he posted it in Hot Topics....

Ted Cruz finally comes out as neocon on foreign policy
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427491-Ted-Cruz-finally-comes-out-as-neo-conservative-on-foreign-policy

[Christian Liberty]

Well, I don't agree with that either. He's opposed to Obama's proposed military intervention in Syria. It's unfortunate that he doesn't take the same position in regards to Iran.

I forget the article, but I saw one that argued that his position was even more hawkish than McCain's.

But it doesn't matter.

I'm open to some level of debate regarding a lot of social issues, or even economic issues, but foreign policy is black or white for me. There's only three options with foreign policy: you're with Ron Paul, you're completely brainwashed, or you're an evil satanist. If you managed to get elected to the senate, option 2 does not exist:p


Cruz really differentiates himself from the competition. Some are calling for no military intervention in Syria, some are calling for long war with Syria with regime change objectives, others are calling for remote control air strikes.
Ted Cruz is the only politician who has called for a quick war with Syria with US military led boots on the ground to search and destroy WMDs. A unique voice with a vision of future and freedom for Syrian/Iranian civilians.




He cares for security of our close allies Saudi Arabia/Israel while caring for security of Americans at the same time. A genius.

LOL!

[Brett85]

And even if he did, the idiots of America still vote for radical neocons who will vote "Yes", in both parties.

The American people are opposed to war in Syria and convinced their members of Congress to vote against it, which is why Reid was forced to postpone the vote in the Senate. The Senate didn't have the votes to pass the AUMF. Grayson said that the AUMF wouldn't even get 100 votes in the house.

And so far I haven't seen Cruz flip flop on any issue. He's wrong on some issues like Iran, but it doesn't seem to me like he's ever been inconsistent or lied about his positions.

[Christian Liberty]

People really should see Brian4Liberty's thread here about Cruz' recent tweets about Syria. No idea why he posted it in Hot Topics....

Ted Cruz finally comes out as neocon on foreign policy
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427491-Ted-Cruz-finally-comes-out-as-neo-conservative-on-foreign-policy

Yeah, you've got to remember I've had this in the back of my mind the whole time, every time I've made a post here.

I don't even think I'd prefer Cruz over Hillary. They're both the same. Rand Paul is barely even radical enough to make me want to vote.

[Christian Liberty]

The American people are opposed to war in Syria and convinced their members of Congress to vote against it, which is why Reid was forced to postpone the vote in the Senate. The Senate didn't have the votes to pass the AUMF. Grayson said that the AUMF wouldn't even get 100 votes in the house.

And so far I haven't seen Cruz flip flop on any issue. He's wrong on some issues like Iran, but it doesn't seem to me like he's ever been inconsistent or lied about his positions.

He's also only been in for 4 months.

[Brett85]

I'm open to some level of debate regarding a lot of social issues, or even economic issues, but foreign policy is black or white for me. There's only three options with foreign policy: you're with Ron Paul, you're completely brainwashed, or you're an evil satanist. If you managed to get elected to the senate, option 2 does not exist:p

Then under your own criteria for who you can vote for, you shouldn't even be able to vote for Rand. Rand has already advocated a watered down version of Ron's foreign policy views.

[Christian Liberty]

Then under your own criteria for who you can vote for, you shouldn't even be able to vote for Rand. Rand has already advocated a watered down version of Ron's foreign policy views.

OK, I realize that I'm contradicting myself here, but I do see a distinction between actual defense of allies, and outright invading another country.

All that said, it may well be the case that by 2016 I can't vote for Rand. Ultimately I don't think it matters much because he won't be the GOP nominee.

All that said, I still see a HUGE difference between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. HUGE.

[Brett85]

All that said, I still see a HUGE difference between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. HUGE.

I see a significant difference as well. I don't really understand why the media always ties Cruz to Rand and states that Cruz is some kind of libertarian and non interventionist. That simply isn't the case.

[Rudeman]

I don't know. I'm absolutely ticked right now. Not to mention I've basically evolved into a full blown anarchist at this point, and I'm almost politically nihilistic.

I don't place you with the hardcore Cruz supporters. At least you criticize the man. That said, you've stated you would vote for him for senate or for a general election. That, to me, says you don't quite "Get it" (Although of course, its possible that I simply don't get it.)



11.

??

Are you saying Cruz is worse than McCain? I'm sorry but that's just silly.

[Christian Liberty]

I see a significant difference as well. I don't really understand why the media always ties Cruz to Rand and states that Cruz is some kind of libertarian and non interventionist. That simply isn't the case.

I wish Rand Paul would actually rebuke Ted Cruz, but then, I don't expect such. I'm still annoyed that Ron Paul endorsed him though. Especially considering he clearly didn't have to at the time. Why the HECK did Ron Paul do that?

??

Are you saying Cruz is worse than McCain? I'm sorry but that's just silly.

In terms of actual policy? No.

When you take into account the fact that Ted Cruz is pretending to represent non-interventionism and the liberty movement? Yes, yes VERY much so, yes.

EDIT: In all seriousness, if Rand is a 0, and McCain a 10, Ted Cruz is probably at least an 8.

[Snew]

Not to mention I've basically evolved into a full blown anarchist at this point,

We all do eventually :cool:

[Rudeman]

I wish Rand Paul would actually rebuke Ted Cruz, but then, I don't expect such. I'm still annoyed that Ron Paul endorsed him though. Especially considering he clearly didn't have to at the time. Why the HECK did Ron Paul do that?


In terms of actual policy? No.

When you take into account the fact that Ted Cruz is pretending to represent non-interventionism and the liberty movement? Yes, yes VERY much so, yes.

EDIT: In all seriousness, if Rand is a 0, and McCain a 10, Ted Cruz is probably at least an 8.

I disagree with that, if I had to put them on a scale with Ron being a 0 and McCain being a 10:

Rand would be a 2 or 3
Rubio would be an 8
Cruz would be a 6

On a Rand is 0 and McCain is 10 scale, Cruz would be a 4 or 5 with Rubio a 7.


Not sure why Rand would rebuke Cruz, I know you hate him (your litmus test is a lot more extreme than most) but he's one of the better Senators. Until he's considered one of the worst (or even one of the worst Republicans) then I think you embrace the parts he's good at (studied Austrian Economics when he was young) and hope he adapts on parts he isn't as good.

[devil21]

Goldman Sachs

CUFI

GWB

Condaleeza Rice

Guess what these all have in common? Ted Cruz.

[Christian Liberty]

Not sure why Rand would rebuke Cruz, I know you hate him (your litmus test is a lot more extreme than most) but he's one of the better Senators. Until he's considered one of the worst (or even one of the worst Republicans) then I think you embrace the parts he's good at (studied Austrian Economics when he was young) and hope he adapts on parts he isn't as good.

I don't believe that just because he's studied Austrian Economics that he actually supports them. Ultimately, the war machine is incompatible with economic or personal freedom. I think if he became President he'd go the way of GWB, who, if you remember, was quite noninterventionist as well.

Of course I hope he sticks with the stuff he's good on, but I'd say that for anybody.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I can live with this. Dewhurst would've likely been joining McCain, Graham, and Ayotte at those White House dinners with Obama. Remember it was either Dewhurst or Cruz who was going to be the next Senator, Murray Rothbard wasn't a choice. There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

Cruz might not move the liberty football down the field as much as Amash or Rand, but hell, I'll take all the positive yards at this juncture. And guys like Cruz will indirectly help us grow the liberty movement even stronger. He has a big voice as a Senator and talks to lots of voters, he's actually "softening up" voters to our ideals. You have to remember many of these people, upwards of some 62 million voted for George W. Bush in 2004. Next time a great candidate like a Amash, Massie, Paul come on the scene the ears of voters will already be attuned to what they preach. These voters won't view our liberty candidates like they're from another planet, and that is definitely a good thing, and made possible by those intermediaries like Cruz and Mike Lee.

[Brett85]

I can live with this. Dewhurst would've likely been joining McCain, Graham, and Ayotte at those White House dinners with Obama. Remember it was either Dewhurst or Cruz who was going to be the next Senator, Murray Rothbard wasn't a choice. There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

Cruz might not move the liberty football down the field as much as Amash or Rand, but hell, I'll take all the positive yards at this juncture. And guys like Cruz will indirectly help us grow the liberty movement even stronger. He has a big voice as a Senator and talks to lots of voters, he's actually "softening up" voters to our ideals. You have to remember many of these people, upwards of some 62 million voted for George W. Bush in 2004. Next time a great candidate like a Amash, Massie, Paul come on the scene the ears of voters will already be attuned to what they preach. These voters won't view our liberty candidates like they're from another planet, and that is definitely a good thing, and made possible by those intermediaries like Cruz and Mike Lee.

I generally agree, and I never expected Cruz to be some sort of hardcore libertarian. But, I still think his position on Iran is really bad and is a tough pill to swallow. Preemptive wars like the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam have done more damage to our country than just about any other government policy.

[Matthew5]

So does this mean that Cruz is out as a Veep candidate? McCain is toxic.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I generally agree, and I never expected Cruz to be some sort of hardcore libertarian. But, I still think his position on Iran is really bad and is a tough pill to swallow. Preemptive wars like the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam have done more damage to our country than just about any other government policy.

I don't think anyone viewed him that way. He's just a transitional figure. The future of the liberty movement is bright and we have much better candidates on the way. Cruz is just a stepping stone to getting to that future.

[Christian Liberty]

Nevermind the possibility that Cruz could co-opt the movement. Heck, there are people here who actually prefer Cruz over Rand Paul. I'd rather have Dewhurst actually. Our people wouldn't be falling for him like many are for Cruz.

Ted Cruz is a snake in so many ways. He'll trick some into thinking that he's Rand Paul, when he's really GWB...

[Bastiat's The Law]

Nevermind the possibility that Cruz could co-opt the movement. Heck, there are people here who actually prefer Cruz over Rand Paul. I'd rather have Dewhurst actually. Our people wouldn't be falling for him like many are for Cruz.

Ted Cruz is a snake in so many ways. He'll trick some into thinking that he's Rand Paul, when he's really GWB...

Stop being such a scared housewife. Nobody is "co-opting" anything.

[MaxPower]

Cruz's statements are pretty accurate. There is a divide in the Republican party with McCain on the one end and Rand on the other, and Cruz falls in between them-- not reflexively pro-war like McCain, but significantly more interventionist than Rand. I think his claim to being the heir to Reagan's foreign policy is actually about right; he is more Reagan-like than Rand is. Rand is much better than Reagan.

[Christian Liberty]

Cruz's statements are pretty accurate. There is a divide in the Republican party with McCain on the one end and Rand on the other, and Cruz falls in between them-- not reflexively pro-war like McCain, but significantly more interventionist than Rand. I think his claim to being the heir to Reagan's foreign policy is actually about right; he is more Reagan-like than Rand is. Rand is much better than Reagan.

And why are we, as libertarians, pretending like people who support this kind of intervention are somehow on our side?

[Keith and stuff]

And why are we, as libertarians, pretending like people who support this kind of intervention are somehow on our side?
It was established (in the minds of some people) several years ago that foreign policy and libertarianism aren't 100% directly related. I love how the younger generation is challenging this. Keep it up.

[TaftFan]

Cruz never claimed to be part of the liberty movement. He never said he was representing non-interventionism. Once you Cruz haters get that out of your heads, maybe you can start attacking some bad politicians, or better yet promote good politicians.

We don't need thought police telling us who we can and cannot like, I don't give a crap if people think I shouldn't like someone.

[Keith and stuff]

Cruz never claimed to be part of the liberty movement. He never said he was representing non-interventionism. Once you Cruz haters get that out of your heads, maybe you can start attacking some bad politicians, or better yet promote good politicians.

We don't need thought police telling us who we can and cannot like, I don't give a crap if people think I shouldn't like someone.
How dare you! It's all about hate. Hate, hate and hate! Stop you useful stuff! Activism? Hell no! I want to sit around and complain!

[Christian Liberty]

It was established (in the minds of some people) several years ago that foreign policy and libertarianism aren't 100% directly related. I love how the younger generation is challenging this. Keep it up.

I used to be in that boat too, but I recognize now that I wasn't really a part of the liberty movement at all when I took those positions. Thankfully, Ron Paul woke me up.


Cruz never claimed to be part of the liberty movement. He never said he was representing non-interventionism. Once you Cruz haters get that out of your heads, maybe you can start attacking some bad politicians, or better yet promote good politicians.

We don't need thought police telling us who we can and cannot like, I don't give a crap if people think I shouldn't like someone.

Ted Cruz is evil. I couldn't care less what he labels himself. And any libertarian who supports him, whether Ron Paul or otherwise, is not helping.

[surf]

again, Cruz is a cancer to the liberty movement.

he is not one of us.

[TaftFan]

Ted Cruz is evil. I couldn't care less what he labels himself. And any libertarian who supports him, whether Ron Paul or otherwise, is not helping.
When you call people "evil", it sounds ridiculous, and isn't convincing anybody.

[Christian Liberty]

When you call people "evil", it sounds ridiculous, and isn't convincing anybody.

Convincing the sheep isn't really my goal of posting on the forum. I try to do that face to face. Here is my place to tell it how it is.

[Rudeman]

It is all about priorities, not everyone has foreign policy has their number 1 priority. Clearly it is yours. That doesn't make you anymore right than anyone else. Is supporting Ted Cruz any worse than some people supporting liberal socialists like Kucinich, Grayson, Nader etc.? Does it mean they endorse all of their positions?

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

Rand should really leave Ted, Amash, and Lee to spearhead his legislation. I favor him picking Raul Labrador if he runs for governor, possibly even if he doesn't.
Yoho or Labrador are probably the best.

[Brett85]

It is all about priorities, not everyone has foreign policy has their number 1 priority. Clearly it is yours. That doesn't make you anymore right than anyone else. Is supporting Ted Cruz any worse than some people supporting liberal socialists like Kucinich, Grayson, Nader etc.? Does it mean they endorse all of their positions?

Exactly. I read comments from Ron Paul supporters back in 2008 who were calling for a Paul/Kucinich ticket for President.

[Christian Liberty]

It is all about priorities, not everyone has foreign policy has their number 1 priority. Clearly it is yours. That doesn't make you anymore right than anyone else. Is supporting Ted Cruz any worse than some people supporting liberal socialists like Kucinich, Grayson, Nader etc.? Does it mean they endorse all of their positions?


Exactly. I read comments from Ron Paul supporters back in 2008 who were calling for a Paul/Kucinich ticket for President.

OK, I don't agree with those people either. Kucinich is still evil (And yes, I've said before that I respect him, and I still do, for sticking to his positions, but he still supports evil at a mass scale and as such, he's still evil) and I wouldn't vote for him. But murder is still far more evil than theft. A social democrat like Kucinich is the lesser evil compared to a warmonger like Cruz.

[surf]

OK, But murder is still far more evil than theft. A social democrat like Kucinich is the lesser evil compared to a warmonger like Cruz.
I agree with this sentiment entirely, and when you put it into context the military expenditures...

[Brett85]

OK, I don't agree with those people either. Kucinich is still evil (And yes, I've said before that I respect him, and I still do, for sticking to his positions, but he still supports evil at a mass scale and as such, he's still evil) and I wouldn't vote for him. But murder is still far more evil than theft. A social democrat like Kucinich is the lesser evil compared to a warmonger like Cruz.

So every politician who you don't agree with 100% is "evil" in your view? Do you apply that standard to private citizens as well? Would you call your parents "evil" since your political views are different from theirs?

[Christian Liberty]

So every politician who you don't agree with 100% is "evil" in your view? Do you apply that standard to private citizens as well? Would you call your parents "evil" since your political views are different from theirs?
No. I'll explain why later tonight.

[Rudeman]

OK, I don't agree with those people either. Kucinich is still evil (And yes, I've said before that I respect him, and I still do, for sticking to his positions, but he still supports evil at a mass scale and as such, he's still evil) and I wouldn't vote for him. But murder is still far more evil than theft. A social democrat like Kucinich is the lesser evil compared to a warmonger like Cruz.

Would you respect a warmonger like Peter King for sticking to his positions?

I'm also not sure how you can respect someone you also consider evil.

[Christian Liberty]

So every politician who you don't agree with 100% is "evil" in your view? Do you apply that standard to private citizens as well? Would you call your parents "evil" since your political views are different from theirs?

Yikes. This is a complicated question, and there are a number of things that go into it.

Yes, it can apply to private citizens, but it often doesn't. For me to call someone evil because of their political views (And to be clear, I'm saying their views are evil, I'm not judging their standing before God, just to be clear) two things would have to hold true:

1. The violation of principle would have to be a grave violation of liberty. Now, I get that this is subjective, but to give you an example of something that would not apply: Cajuncocoa and I had a disagreement recently with regards to whether Michael Vick could justifiably be punished for animal cruelty in a libertarian society. That's a side issue. I would never judge someone to be evil because they held a different stance as I did on that (And to be clear, lest anyone wonder, I was the one arguing that Vick did not violate the NAP, although we both agreed that what he did was highly immoral). That's the kind of thing where if someone was being divisive over that, I would consider them to be "Applying libertarian purity tests." Or debates over private roads. Or legalizing incest. Or a whole host of other issues that libertarians don't agree with each other on (I won't address abortion, and the thoughts I have on how this applies to it, since it would be another topic in and of itself, but I will say that that one issue has the unique position of being disputable even among principled libertarians AND being a serious moral issue. I'm not talking about that issue one way or the other here.) Or even issues where, even if I'd say the libertarian stance is pretty clear, its also a side issue. So no, I wouldn't call someone evil just because they took a different position on a few minor issues than me.

Now, as far as serious issues go, there's degrees of that, yes. But murdering innocent people in a foreign war is one of the most clear cases of this to me. Even in wars like WWII. If atomic bombing Hiroshima was justified, than 9/11 was justified. Not to mention the fact that our wars today aren't even debatably (Yes, I know people will debate it, but they're either ignorant or stupid. In WWII I'll at least admit the facts are a little unclear, although I personally believe that the public schools exagerate the evil of the Axis and undermine the evil of the Soviets) anything to do with "National Security." So yes, I'd say, at least under criteria #1, supporters of any kind of intervention in Syria and Iran are evil. I'd say the same thing for massive redistribution of wealth at gunpoint. Socialists are evil, again, at least under this criteria, because they advocate threatening deadly force against me to make me their slave.

The second criterion is that the person in question has to actually know and understand what they are supporting. In general, I would presume a person who is actively trying to convince others of their viewpoint that they know better, although there could be exceptions to this. The larger the scale at which they are spreading their evil ideas, the less mercy I'd give in this regard.

So no, I wouldn't necessarily call a lay-Israel-firster on the street evil. One of my best friends, and basically his entire family, has basically fallen into this line of thinking. I think they are ignorant (Both of the Bible and of politics), not evil. But I do think that whoever propagandized them into this kind of crap is evil.

Now, in the case of Ted Cruz, he obviously hangs around Rand Paul, and he's a senator. Ultimately, if you're in the government, I hold you responsible. Both because I think you know better at that point, and that even if they don't, they're still responsible because they are actually utilizing aggression against us.

So yes, I see a difference between Ted Cruz and the average Israel-firster on the street. But that's ONLY because the person on the street is probably ignorant. If that isn't the case, I'd no longer see the distinction (Morally, at any rate. Under libertarian nuremberg trials, only those who actually utilized aggression should be held accountable.)

Now, as for my parents, no I don't think either of them are evil. My mom more disagrees with my focus than my actual views anyway (I'm not really sure that she really agrees with me, but she doesn't actively disagree either. She's mostly apolitical.) My mom loves Jesus Christ a lot, and she mostly has the right focus. Ultimately, I'd absolutely support people like her not being allowed to vote, and I don't think they should vote (Although I'd have no shame using them to vote for our people if I had the opportunity) but I don't think she's evil. My dad is more informed, but still not exceptionally informed. And even still, he agrees with me a lot. He's not opposed to all statism like I am (And yes, I am opposed to all of it now, I have evolved somewhat in that regard) and he's not quite Ron Paul, but I'd say he's politically on par with Rand Paul (In terms of positions, not knowledge level. Rand definitely knows more about politics than my dad does). So no, I don't think he's evil either, I think he's on the right track, and moving in the right direction. I'm definitely patient with people that are actually moving in our direction, this takes time. I know I sometimes act like I was born a libertarian, but I had a lot of neocon tendencies a few years ago. I was a little smarter than they are (I actually probably fell into more doublethink after I started evolving than before), but my viewpoints were similar in many respects.

At the end of the day, I usually wouldn't call someone evil to their face. Not that I would never ever do that on principle, but in real life relationships, its not the right way to persuade someone to your cause. And I'd agree that most of them are more "Sheep" than evil. But the politicians are a different story in that regard.

To be clear, I'm not using "Evil" in the theological sense here.

[Christian Liberty]

Would you respect a warmonger like Peter King for sticking to his positions?

I'm also not sure how you can respect someone you also consider evil.

I guess I should be more clear.

I "respect" Kucinich in the sense that he is, at least sometimes, willing to criticize his own party. So my respect for him is limited in that sense. He doesn't usually just bow to the DNC.

But I still think the policies he advocates are evil.

I don't think this is analogous to Peter King in any respect, Peter King is basically a mainstream Republican.

[Keith and stuff]

I guess I should be more clear.

I "respect" Kucinich in the sense that he is, at least sometimes, willing to criticize his own party. So my respect for him is limited in that sense. He doesn't usually just bow to the DNC.

But I still think the policies he advocates are evil.

I don't think this is analogous to Peter King in any respect, Peter King is basically a mainstream Republican.

Peter King is a mainstream Republican in NY/NJ but is part of the fringe where I live (in NH). I cannot speak for every state but Peter King is pretty far out there in his crazy thoughts...

[Christian Liberty]

Peter King is a mainstream Republican in NY/NJ but is part of the fringe where I live (in NH). I cannot speak for every state but Peter King is pretty far out there in is crazy thoughts...

Well, he's in NYS so:p

All that said, crazy or not, Peter King is absolutely evil, and no I do not have any respect for him whatsoever. And that goes further for me than it does most if not all others here.

[Brett85]

For me to call someone evil because of their political views (And to be clear, I'm saying their views are evil, I'm not judging their standing before God, just to be clear) two things would have to hold true:

Ok, to me that seems completely different and makes more sense. For example, I have uncles who I debate politics with who are liberals. I've argued with them about abortion, as they support abortion rights. I think their position on that issue is evil, as I believe they're supporting a policy that has led to the deaths of millions of innocent human beings. But, I wouldn't say that they're personally "evil." I mean, they're nice enough people in real life, and I generally get along with them. So yeah, I think that someone can have evil positions without being an evil person.

[Brett85]

I don't think this is analogous to Peter King in any respect, Peter King is basically a mainstream Republican.

I wouldn't even say that he's a mainstream Republican as he's a huge supporter of gun control and fiscally liberal. Even mainstream Republicans generally don't support gun control.

[Christian Liberty]

Ok, to me that seems completely different and makes more sense. For example, I have uncles who I debate politics with who are liberals. I've argued with them about abortion, as they support abortion rights. I think their position on that issue is evil, as I believe they're supporting a policy that has led to the deaths of millions of innocent human beings. But, I wouldn't say that they're personally "evil." I mean, they're nice enough people in real life, and I generally get along with them. So yeah, I think that someone can have evil positions without being an evil person.

I may not have articulated my position very well. My attitude in real life is a little more tame than on the internet, since I don't care AT ALL what people think on the internet. I actually do care to some extent what at least some people think in real life. Although, that does depend to some extent who they are. If I met a rabid Israel-firster who I didn't know, and I was alone (not with my parents) I might call them evil, depending on the situation. If I were ever alone in a church with a pastor who did something like that "Most blasphemous thing I've ever seen" thread, I would definitely walk up to the pulpit and call him evil to his face, and tell him to repent.

But yes, I absolutely agree that its possible to hold evil positions without being evil. It all depends. (Again, not in the theological sense.)


I wouldn't even say that he's a mainstream Republican as he's a huge supporter of gun control and fiscally liberal. Even mainstream Republicans generally don't support gun control.

Didn't/doesn't McCain?

[Brett85]

Didn't/doesn't McCain?

Not to the extent that King is. King is even in favor of a federal ban on "assault weapons," while McCain voted against that.

[Christian Liberty]

Not to the extent that King is. King is even in favor of a federal ban on "assault weapons," while McCain voted against that.

OK, didn't know either of those things. Thanks.

[Bastiat's The Law]

And why are we, as libertarians, pretending like people who support this kind of intervention are somehow on our side?

Because on net they are when you take all issues besides just foreign policy into account. Do you want Dewhurst who would basically be the next Kelly Ayotte sitting in the Senate for the next 20 years undermining liberty on every front? I would rather have Cruz who has been great in some areas. Would David fucking Dewhurst be up there reading tweets to energize the Stand With Rand filibuster? Chances are he would've been at that dinner with Obama undermining our liberty.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Exactly. I read comments from Ron Paul supporters back in 2008 who were calling for a Paul/Kucinich ticket for President.

A substantial portion of the population don't live in reality.

[Christian Liberty]

Because on net they are when you take all issues besides just foreign policy into account. Do you want Dewhurst who would basically be the next Kelly Ayotte sitting in the Senate for the next 20 years undermining liberty on every front? I would rather have Cruz who has been great in some areas. Would David fucking Dewhurst be up there reading tweets to energize the Stand With Rand filibuster? Chances are he would've been at that dinner with Obama undermining our liberty.

So, you essentially hold to the same lesser of two evils stance that we have rightfully opposed in the past. Got it.

Let me be very clear here, at the risk of offending some of the fluffy "libertarians" murder is murder, whether you do it behind a statist desk or not. Murderers deserve to die. I will never support any of them. I don't care if its between the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler and Ted Cruz, I'll vote for someone who is actually in line with my principles. Lesser of two evils can screw it. If I'm ever actually the deciding vote, then we'll talk.

[PaleoPaul]

Rand will be making a huge mistake if he picks a Hillary Clinton clone on foreign policy like Ted Cruz for VP. He should be bold and pick Amash.
After Ted Cruz's Jesse Helms statement, Rand would be wise to STAY AWAY from Ted Cruz, especially considering he will have to deal with the Rachel Maddow interview! He doesn't need ANOTHER albatross around his neck!

[Christian Liberty]

Rand will be making a huge mistake if he picks a Hillary Clinton clone on foreign policy like Ted Cruz for VP. He should be bold and pick Amash.

I might not even go to the polls if Cruz was the VP. There was a time when I wouldn't have said that, but the more I see of him, the more he terrifies me.

I could be convinced NOT to vote for a Paul/Cruz ticket.

Honestly, I think in that scenario, if Rand Paul wins the Presidency, he'd end up getting assassinated within a year or two. And we'd be stuck with President Ted Cruz. Which wouldn't help much.

I absolutely agree Rand should pick Amash.

[Brett85]

I might not even go to the polls if Cruz was the VP. There was a time when I wouldn't have said that, but the more I see of him, the more he terrifies me.

I could be convinced NOT to vote for a Paul/Cruz ticket.

Honestly, I think in that scenario, if Rand Paul wins the Presidency, he'd end up getting assassinated within a year or two. And we'd be stuck with President Ted Cruz. Which wouldn't help much.

I absolutely agree Rand should pick Amash.

Would you vote for a Rand Paul/Marco Rubio ticket? There would be much worse VP picks for Rand than Cruz.

[Bastiat's The Law]

So, you essentially hold to the same lesser of two evils stance that we have rightfully opposed in the past. Got it.

Let me be very clear here, at the risk of offending some of the fluffy "libertarians" murder is murder, whether you do it behind a statist desk or not. Murderers deserve to die. I will never support any of them. I don't care if its between the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler and Ted Cruz, I'll vote for someone who is actually in line with my principles. Lesser of two evils can screw it. If I'm ever actually the deciding vote, then we'll talk.

Would you rather have Ted Cruz as President or Adolf Hitler as Führer?