Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Cruz throwing in the towel?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
    Did you even read the article?
    First, it makes the following summarizations of Trump and Rubio:
    Then, it states that fundamentally there is no difference between Rubio and Cruz
    In other words, the problem with Cruz, is that he may have no cachet outside of the Republican primaries. In other words, that he may be unelectable in an actual presidential race - just like I said. And - like I stated - he's all rhetoric and hot air.
    .
    I agree with the article that Rubio is more electable than Cruz, at least at a superficial level.

    However, this is the key quote...
    The party may actually be deciding that Trump is a man it can do business with.

    This would hold true for President Trump, just as much as it does for candidate Trump.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      I agree with the article that Rubio is more electable than Cruz, at least at a superficial level.

      However, this is the key quote...
      The party may actually be deciding that Trump is a man it can do business with.
      This would hold true for President Trump, just as much as it does for candidate Trump.
      It also states that there is fundamentally no difference between Cruz and Rubio, and that Rubio is an establishment candidate, ergo, so is Cruz, except that Cruz is less electable.
      The party is simply recognizing that Trump has the momentum and it is in their best interests not to burn their bridges with him.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        McCain is textbook GOP establishment. The "Maverick" only bucked against anti-Establishment Republicans who were to his right. He is politically indistinguishable from Mitch McConnell.
        No such creature. Pure imaginary construct.
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
          It also states that there is fundamentally no difference between Cruz and Rubio, and that Rubio is an establishment candidate, ergo, so is Cruz, except that Cruz is less electable.
          The party is simply recognizing that Trump has the momentum and it is in their best interests not to burn their bridges with him.
          It definitely is not in the GOP's interest to burn bridges with Trump. They need his supporters to win.

          The differences between Cruz and Rubio have been in the willingness to cooperate with Establishment Republicans and Democrats on core issues and adherence to a constructionist view of the Constitution.

          On specific issues, there are few differences.

          The difference between Establishment and Anti-Establishment isn't so much in the degree of conservativism. It's in adherence to the original intent of the US Constitution.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            The differences between Cruz and Rubio have been in the willingness to cooperate with Establishment Republicans and Democrats on core issues and adherence to a constructionist view of the Constitution.
            And from your own article it is clear that many Republicans regard Cruz's stance as nothing more than mere opportunistic demagoguery.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
              "Terrified" of Cruz? Do you actually believe this malarkey? Anybody running for either of the two established parties is part of the establishment in one sense or another. His wife works for Goldman Sachs and he obtained a loan from Goldman Sachs to fund his first senate bid. Not part of the establishment? Ha Ha Ha. The only thing they are terrified about is that he may be too closely connected with the religious right to get elected. If elected, he'll be like all the other establishment candidates trying to act anti-establishment, ergo, lots of rhetoric and nothing more. As for locking the federal government back into its constitutional box as envisioned James Madison - ridiculous. That ship sailed long ago, and anything he tries to get passed through Congress will either be watered down so much as to be unrecognizable or will contain so many loopholes and concessions as to be meaningless. It amazes me that people still expect fundamental change from candidates running for the two dominant political parties which obtain direct benefit leaving the system exactly as it is.
              See, you don't grasp what Americans mean when we say 'change'. We do not want to change the system, we just want the policies we don't like done away with.

              And no, its not malarkey. Terrified is a strong word, but the fact is the GOP feels it can deal with Trump much easier than Cruz.

              Cruz is not an Establishment man. Your examples above mean nothing, because they have nothing to do with being part of the Establishment.

              Cruz is not seen as a man who will stand fast on the party line. Back when the Dems held both sides of Congress the GOP was able to cripple their agenda because even though the Dems had a sizeable majority, the Dems had mavericks who would cross the aisle while the GOP stayed unified (especially after the Tea Party winnowed out some RINOs).

              The party (either one) doesn't care how much a member postures-they all have their own unique district to cater to. What matters is whether they will hold their position in the ranks and load, present, and fire on command when the votes are cast.

              Cruz is not a team player. Apparently Trump is convincing the GOP leadership that he is.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                And from your own article it is clear that many Republicans regard Cruz's stance as nothing more than mere opportunistic demagoguery.
                That clearly is the GOP Establishment's view.
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I was under the impression that Cruz was born in Canada, and thus not eligible for the presidency to begin with.

                  Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz (born December 22, 1970)...Born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to an American mother and Cuban father...
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    I was under the impression that Cruz was born in Canada, and thus not eligible for the presidency to begin with.
                    First part is correct, the second is not.
                    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                    “To talk of many things:
                    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                    Of cabbages—and kings—
                    And why the sea is boiling hot—
                    And whether pigs have wings.”
                    ― Lewis Carroll

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                      First part is correct, the second is not.
                      How did you do that without using profanity?

                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        How did you do that without using profanity?

                        Years and Years of discussing it on a political board with the 'original' birthers. MM always danced around the Presidential Birther fringe, always pulling back and saying it was a joke.....
                        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                        “To talk of many things:
                        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                        Of cabbages—and kings—
                        And why the sea is boiling hot—
                        And whether pigs have wings.”
                        ― Lewis Carroll

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                          See, you don't grasp what Americans mean when we say 'change'. We do not want to change the system, we just want the policies we don't like done away with.
                          If you had paid close attention, it was Doc who was suggesting Cruz would mean a change in the system, to wit, a return to Madisonian constitutional principles. Nothing of the sort will happen. There will be change in some policies. That's about it.
                          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                          Terrified is a strong word.
                          Yes it is. That's why it is simply hyperbole in the present case.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                            "Terrified" of Cruz? Do you actually believe this malarkey? Anybody running for either of the two established parties is part of the establishment in one sense or another. His wife works for Goldman Sachs and he obtained a loan from Goldman Sachs to fund his first senate bid. Not part of the establishment? Ha Ha Ha. The only thing they are terrified about is that he may be too closely connected with the religious right to get elected. If elected, he'll be like all the other establishment candidates trying to act anti-establishment, ergo, lots of rhetoric and nothing more. As for locking the federal government back into its constitutional box as envisioned James Madison - ridiculous. That ship sailed long ago, and anything he tries to get passed through Congress will either be watered down so much as to be unrecognizable or will contain so many loopholes and concessions as to be meaningless. It amazes me that people still expect fundamental change from candidates running for the two dominant political parties which obtain direct benefit leaving the system exactly as it is.
                            That's because establishment / anti-establishment is being used (and abused) for political reasons, in the same way one might call someone else a socialist, a RINO, etc. It has much to do with the political views of the user, rather than an accurate or objective description of the individual in question.

                            The most common usage of the word establishment I have seen (and probably the most accurate) is that establishment has to do with their relationship to the GOP / party leadership.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                              That's because establishment / anti-establishment is being used (and abused) for political reasons
                              Of course. It's called rhetoric. I'm just surprised that otherwise intelligent people actually believe the rhetoric.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                This isn't telling me anything about Trump or Cruz.

                                If true, it tells me about the GOP itself.
                                That tone-deaf cabal of establishment hacks has... perhaps, begun to realize just how irrelevant and out of touch they are, and that the American people are not so ignorant or stupid as they had believed.

                                The GOP is incapable of representing the bulk of the people they claim to. Thier sabotage and hostility towards the most popular candidate has proven this, and like any dying man they want to repent... buy a few more years.
                                It won't change the fact that the GOP is headed for dissolution, or reduced status as the Centrist Party in the US.
                                Its just a matter of time.
                                "Why is the Rum gone?"

                                -Captain Jack

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X