Ted Cruz Just Proved Why He Is 100% More Capable of the Presidency Than …

Clash Daily ^ | November 27, 2015 | Thomas Holmes

[Isara]

Did everyone get all the turkey and mashed potatoes they could handle? Maybe a little more than they could handle? Super. Now, is everyone ready to vomit them back up? Never one to follow generally well-respected chestnuts like avoid talking about religion and politics over Thanksgiving, our tone deaf Commander in Chief steam rolled through that rule of thumb during his Thursday Thanksgiving radio address. What's even more insane is just how completely condescending and pretentious it sounds compared to Ted Cruz's. It's kind of a nicely wrapped contrast present between the Parties complete with a bow on top -to complete the holiday metaphor.

Sliding ever so smoothly into his real reason for Thanksgiving, President Obama transitioned from a Thanksgiving greeting into, "Nearly four centuries after the Mayflower set sail, the world is still full of pilgrims - men and women who want nothing more than the chance for a safer, better future for themselves and their families."

Contrast that with Senator Cruz directly connecting America's greatness and liberty with the source of our rights and eventually quoting George Washington in his acknowledgement of Thanksgiving,

"On this Thanksgiving, as we gather with family and loved ones, we celebrate the blessings the Lord has bestowed upon us and this great nation. Particularly this year, as we face many uncertainties - from the threats of terror to economic hardships - let us take time to thank God for all that He has given us and ask for His provision in our lives and our country."

So, let's see. On one hand you've got a leader using the Thanksgiving holiday to guilt people into falling in line with his policy by insisting that Muslim immigrants are just like the original Pilgrims. On the other hand you've got another leader encouraging people to be thankful, even in difficult times, that we have much to appreciate and enjoy. I wonder if the President even knows or cares that his nonstop shoehorning only servers to embolden the people who are sick of him and annoy all the others who are on the fence.

Let's make sure he doesn't find out.

[FreeReign]

Yeah, Donald Trump, who has lived and breathed Free Markets all of his life...

Kelo, the 2009 Obama Stimulus, TARP and the 2008 Auto Bailout are all supported by Trump.

[EDINVA]

same here!

[Nuc 1.1]

Can he launch a first strike?

[American Constitutionalist]

So is Bill Gates, so what is your point ?

[Balding_Eagle]

Both Trump and Cruz have Kelo, and Kelo-like positions that I strongly disagree with.

Trumps position, which was rejected by the court, enables developers to seize parcels of land for ‘the good of the community’. That is dangerous.

Cruz’s position is even worse, his is deadly. He is proposing giving the country to the illegals.

[Patton@Bastogne]

sure he could ...

[Isara]

Trump supported TARP, auto bailout and Porkulus bill, i.e., Trump is for big government and big businesses.

Trump's Record on Free-market Issue: (from the Conservative Review)

Trump has a terrible record on free market issues. The only bright spot is the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing, but this glimmer is countermanded by his repeated support for bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry, and increased stimulus spending. Of particular concern is Trump's belief that the government can use eminent domain powers to seize private property in the name of private economic development. This comes as no surprise, given his support for using eminent domain to profit his own company.

Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of London, allowing public authorities to seize private land for economic development by private investors; Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review)  This is no surprise given Trump’s attempt to use eminent domain in his own line of work. (Institute for Justice)

Trump supported President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, saying: “The word stimulus is probably not used in its fullest…you know, certain of the things that were given weren't really stimulus. They were pork, as we call it, or they were gifts to certain people. But overall, I think he's [President Obama] doing very well. You do need stimulus and you do have to keep the banks alive.” (CNN) 

Trump supported TARP, saying, "You had to do something to shore up the banks, because ... you would have had a run on every bank." (CNN) 

Trump supported the 2008 auto bailout, saying, “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent. You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.” He also said that the federal government could “easily save the companies.” (Daily Caller) 

Trump criticized the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the debt market, saying quantitative easing creates “phony numbers” that mislead the marketplace and “will not ultimately benefit the economy. The dollar will go down in value and inflation will start rearing its ugly head.” (CNBC) 

Donald Trump has a history of using eminent domain to complete business deals. Multiple times Trump has supported the use of government agencies to take possession of homes and businesses for use in his private business plans. Eminent domain seizures are reserved only for public use of property rather than abuse by the government taking property from one individual and giving to another. (Washington Post) 

Donald Trump has sought and received crony capitalist tax breaks for his commercial properties in New York. These tax breaks, and even an abatement, force the property taxes of other property owners to rise at the expense of the connected. Special treatment for one business or industry over another with the tax code conflicts with free market principles. (National Review) 

In 2009, Trump supported Barack Obama's call for limits on the pay of executives. (CNN)

[Pearls Before Swine]

Obama is “No-Limits-Traitah”.

[Balding_Eagle]

I thought I was clear with my point, evidently not.

I’ll be much more through.

Ted Cruz is a very smart man, I’m sure he understands the Free Market theory as thoroughly as any other Senator, and arguably much better. At best, however, he has actually experienced it only on a limited scale.

Donald, on the other hand, has lived his whole life in ‘the free market’. Obviously, we now longer have true free markets, and to participate in what we do have, barriers erected by various governments have to be circumvented.

That takes money. Money to buy (bribe really) the politicians who have the power to doom even the most desirable project.

You mentioned Bill Gates. He built a very desirable project, and openly voiced his opposition to government interference. He refused to buy anyone, and Big Government not only resented that, they decided it was dangerous to their existence. The end result was a declaration of war on high tech by the Clinton administration. Janet Reno made that declaration in April of (1996 or 1997?). The result crippled or destroyed many a tech company, including crippling Gate’s Microsoft.

Donald, in a whole different industry, was able to avoid those crushing defeats by spreading money and favors around to his enemies in the political world, the world which could tie his company down like the Lilliputians did in Gulliver’s travels.

Gates eventually capitulated completely, and now parrots the far left meme that only socialism can save the world.

Trump, on the other hand continues to live the life of a free market capitalist as best he can.

Yes, the price for that privilege is still to have enough money, and knowledge, to buy the right politicians.

[FourPeas]

[FourPeas]

Meanwhile, Cruz who has only read about Free Markets, gets a midpoint grade, Yellow.

Apparently you're unaware of Cruz's work at the Federal Trade Commission (source)(emphasis mine):

In his first major leadership role, however, he developed economic policy as the director of the Federal Trade Commission's Office of Policy Planning.

At the FTC, Cruz's agenda could have been written by Milton Friedman.

Cruz promoted economic liberty and fought government efforts to rig the marketplace in favor of special interests. Most notably, Cruz launched an initiative to study the governmen's role in conspiring with established businesses to suppress e-commerce. This initiative ultimately led the U.S. Supreme Court to open up an entire industry to small e-tailers. Based on his early support of disruptive online companies, Cruz has some grounds to call himself the "Uber of American politics."

Moreover, and perhaps surprising to some, Cruz sought and secured a broad, bipartisan consensus for his agenda. Almost all of Cruz's initiatives received unanimous support among both Republicans and Democrats.

Ted Cruz a consensus-builder? He was, at the FTC.

From the start of his tenure in 2001, Cruz strategically reoriented the FTC to focus on ways in which government restricts competition. To lay a foundation, Cruz organized a conference on regulatory barriers to e-commerce. Large online companies, such as Amazon and eBay, explained that government regulation and legacy laws threatened the growth of e-commerce. For example: funeral licensing laws meant online retailers could not legally sell caskets into certain states, even though they typically offered much lower prices. Other laws hampered online sales of cars, contact lenses, and legal and medical services.

In response, no brick-and-mortar company defended the government's role … in regulating other industries.

Instead, like taxi cab drivers in New York or "green" energy companies demanding subsidies, every special interest argued that his particular industry uniquely required protection from competition.

The auto dealers complained that cars were too "sophisticated" for e-commerce, the funeral dealers explained that caskets were a product for "a very sensitive and specific time," and the lawyers expounded that "we're talking about something very different when we’re talking about access to the justice system."

Cruz had little patience for anyone who sought to use the government to limit competition.

After the conference, Cruz testified at a hearing supporting the online sales of contact lenses and pushed the FTC to file an amicus brief supporting online casket vendors. Cruz also initiated a comprehensive study of the wine industry, which found that online competition lowered prices without increasing underage drinking. The study's findings were ultimately embraced by the Supreme Court and by state legislatures around the country, who opened an entire industry to online competition and new small businesses.

Beyond the e-commerce initiative, Cruz also reoriented the FTC's use of antitrust laws. For most of its history, the FTC has focused on private conduct that harms competition, such as (allegedly) anticompetitive mergers. Under Cruz's leadership, the FTC instead targeted governmental conduct that harms competition. For example, the FTC successfully sued a state dental board to open the dental market to competition from non-dentists. This type of lawsuit primarily helped lower-income individuals, who would get more and cheaper options for basic health care.

Cruz also sent dozens of letters to states to fight new efforts to enshrine crony capitalism. Cruz sent a letter to New York to challenge a legislative attempt to impose a "minimum markup" on the sale of gasoline. This bill was a naked attempt to force gas stations to raise prices, but was couched as helping consumers. Cruz also sent letters to promote competition in financial services and energy markets. Through it all, Cruz kept his focus on the ultimate little guy -- the consumer.

Perhaps surprisingly, Cruz secured a high degree of consensus in pursuing his agenda.

As an independent agency, the FTC has five commissioners, and during Cruz's tenure, two of them had served in President Clinton's administration. All five commissioners voted to support almost all of Cruz's proposals.

Cruz is hardly inexperienced in free markets. He's worked to create, protect and foster them. People who disagree on candidates must, in good conscience, agree that when it comes to free markets Cruz has shown he promotes them.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

You could have gotten at least ten posts out of that.

Didn’t read a word of it.

[Duchess47]

Every time I see it I am reminded that Cruz’s campaign is based on lies.

[ColdSteelTalon]

And this is why I an voting for Cruz. Oh I will vote for Trump over Hillary or the Communist Bernie Sanders.

I am just glad that Bush is essentially out of the race. I promised I would never vote for a Bush again.

[FourPeas]

Not surprising. It’s information.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

So is “War and Peace” but I wouldn’t post the whole thing.

[FourPeas]

Ah, you missed information that's germane to the discussion. If you bother to follow the threading of my comments you'll see that

1. The comments were posted to a particular poster regarding a claim she'd made
2. The comments were not posted as irrelevant information to clutter the thread

Furthermore, if you didn't want to read them, that's fine. Please feel free to bypass letting me know every time you don't read a post I didn't send to you.

[Balding_Eagle]

I’m not disagreeing that Cruz understands them, or that he doesn’t promote them. Of course he does, I would expect no less from him.

I’m saying, among other things, that his livelihood has never been directly dependent on them.

Trump’s whole life has been dependent on them, and he has mastered the art of free markets (see my above post for more detail about free markets as they exist today) in a way that very few have.

Trump has ‘the golden touch’, something a country on the verge of bankruptcy and racing towards it, desperately needs.

If you had read my lengthy post as thoroughly as I worked to put it together you would have realized that.

[FourPeas]

I did read it very carefully. Trump’s admitted he gave money to politicians on both sides of the aisle to get business done — that it was just the way to operate in New York, etc. That’s not my idea of free markets. Trump has succeeded because he started out with money and knew/learned how to play the game. He’s been successful. That’s not a knock against him, but it’s also not a argument in favor of his strong support of free enterprise.

[kygolfman]

Trump’s whole life has been dependent on them, and he has mastered the art of free markets (see my above post for more detail about free markets as they exist today) in a way that very few have.

“Mastered the art of free markets”

---

You know Trump and almost every supporter of Trump here on Free Republic proclaim that Trump had to donate money to democrats because he had to get things done in NYC.

Quotes from Trump...
72. “When you need zone changes, you’re political. ...You know, I’ll support the Democrats, the Republicans, whatever the hell I have to support.” (BuzzFeed, Feb. 13, 2014)
73. “ I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people. Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them—they are there for me.” (Republican presidential debate, Aug. 6, 2015

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/the-absolute-trumpest-121328?o=1

In a country like the USA where words, deeds, laws, and actions are supposed to mean something....
It sounds like Trump has mastered the “art of bribery” also!!!!

Bribery is the act of giving money, goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior (to the benefit/interest of the giver) that the recipient would otherwise not alter. Bribery is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.[1]