Posted on 03/05/2016 6:44:16 AM PST by CapitalistCrusader
I was thinking about the republican primary and asking myself, "if conservatism is the answer and Ted Cruz is an exemplar of conservatism, why is he not doing much better at the ballot box so far?" Or, why is Donald Trump doing so much better? In my opinion, Trump is doing better because he is proposing solutions to our country's problems that are derived from common sense thinking.
For example, there are thousands of illegal aliens crossing the border with Mexico on a monthly basis. Trump's solution? Build a wall. This is not a new idea so Trump adds that he'll get Mexico to pay for it. Whether he can actually get Mexico to pay for it is not really relevant to his campaign. Politicians routinely make bold predictions of what they will do once elected and then never deliver. The point is that he mixes the common sense solutions with a degree of bravado that adds an air of the traditional rugged American. This theme of common sense solutions mixed with a little New York moxy has been pattern in his campaign thus far. This is what he has branded "Common Sense Conservatism."
Putting all the name calling aside, Trump and Cruz want to accomplish many of the same goals as POTUS. Secure the border, replace ObamaCare. reduce the size of the federal government, etc. So why is Trump resonating with more voters than Cruz? Because Ted Cruz is an elitist conservative. What is an elitist? An elitist is a person who believes that a society or system should be lead by an elite. Only a "true" conservative is able to select a proper justice for the supreme court. Only a "true" conservative can come up with the right plan to rein in the federal bureaucracy. Only a "true" conservative can fix the health care system. The list goes on and on. His demeanor suggests that only he, a "true" conservative, can properly lead, or is fit to lead our country out of the problems we currently face.
This is why a Ted Cruz campaign rally is reminiscent of a revival meeting. Ted Cruz is an elitist conservative. He is as much an elitist as Mitt Romney, as Jeb Bush, as Mitch McConnell, as Harry Reid, as Nancy Pelosi. He is simply a member of different elitist cabal.
But here's a new flash for Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. Conservatism comes in many flavors, not just the true, doctrinaire, orthodox variety. There are many conservatives out here who are secualr, or gay, or lesbian, or even atheist. And we don't like to be preached to and proselytized.
I am a Trump supporter but I will vote for whomever wins the nomination legitimately. But all you elitists out there, of both the Republican and Conservative variety, should be aware that if you destroy Trump by invective you will be alienating a large swath of voters. If that happens I would expect turnout in the general to reach historic lows and Clinton to be the next POTUS. Is destroying Trump worth it?
So anyone who comes to a different conclusion than you did must be driven by emotion?
You are the one insinuating others are not making rational choices. You have repeated it multiple times. Then you complain when someone pushes back.
Cruz is merely a flavor of lifetime government employee.
Has no private sector work experience at all.
Only in the last couple of weeks, did he even mention jobs during his sermons.
Wrong! Cruz did a lousy job while in private practice. He lost repeatedly. He even represented a Chinese Company.
<[>While at Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, Cruz represented Pfizer in a lawsuit brought by a group of public hospitals and community health centers who accused the drug manufacturer of overcharging. The Supreme Court eventually threw the case out.[70] Shandong Linglong Rubber Company was found guilty of marketing versions of tires that were based on blueprints stolen by a former employee of a Florida businessman and ordered to pay $26 million to the Floridian. Cruz worked on the Chinese company’s appellant brief. The appeals court denied the appeal and affirmed the jury’s award.[71] Cruz represented drug manufacturer B. Braun Medical Inc. in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit after the company was found guilty of wrongfully discharging a former employee. Cruz asserted that she had failed to prove that B. Braun had directed her to violate the law and that she had not presented sufficient evidence that her refusal to violate the law was why she had been fired. The appeals court rejected Cruz’s argument and affirmed the $880,000 award.[71] Cruz represented Toyota in an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court in an statute of limitations case, where a judge wanted to investigate Toyota for contempt after a former Toyota in-house lawyer accused Toyota of unlawfully withholding documents in a product liability case.[72] Cruz unsuccessfully argued the judge’s jurisdiction expired thirty days after the case was dismissed following an out-of-court settlement, but later won on a second appeal using the same argument.[73] -wiki
“Well NOOB.............”
I am not a noob, and the article makes some good points.
Why don’t you argue the point, not the person?
Let’s hope they can get together. We got a country to save!
No. You have said it yourself. You repeatedly claim that your reading of Trump’s past leads you to believe he is not telling the truth. You do not accept him at his word because you are concerned he will not keep his word.
You interpret his prior actions and prior words as of greater importance than his current actions and words. By insisting he is not to be trusted, that he is fraudulent, you are expressing personal animosity and apprehension leading you to a negative opinion about him.
I do not get that you are pushing back, simply that you are trapped in a negative viewpoint that you cannot escape long enough to seriously consider that you are wrong.
You do not like Trump because you do not like him. Fine. I do not like him either. I do believe, however, that he is our best chance to break the chains of statism and corruption that engulf us.
Is Trump a risk? Absolutely. Is he worth the risk? I believe he is. He offers a way out of the destruction of our nation, guaranteed by the Democrats.
Can he defeat Hillary. I am absolutely confident he can.
The past is used to predict the future all the time. It is a valid analytical technique. Science, law, finance - many disciplines accept it.
Of course, and it is always tempered and directed by the present. You deny the reality on the ground for the sake of your prejudices.
I am not denying the present. I am not talking about his views from 20 years ago. I would consider 2014 to be representative of his present.
In 2014, McConnell’s primary made national news since Bevin’s challenge was viewed as a microchasim of the “throw the bums out” sentiment. Trump made the choice to support McConnell, the establishment candidate.
Then 6-8 months later, Trump announces his candidacy, positioning himself as the anti-establishment candidate. Less than a year before, he had backed the face of the establishment in McConnell.
How do you reconcile the drastic difference between his actions and his campaign slogans in that timeframe and conclude he is obviously anti-establishment?
Trump was acting in his business’ best interests as he saw it. The man is a consummate pragmatist tactician. He is also a man of his word. He says he will do something then moves heaven and earth to get it done.
As a businessman he is in the same boat as most Americans. He experiences the corruption of government daily. He has played ball with it in order to stay in business. He is now prepared to surrender control of his business interests in order to change that same government.
He may need to reminded of some of the reasons he was elected but that is a far cry from acting out of some ideology. I have not seen conservatives or liberals bring about the kind of change that builds our nation. There was a time when that was true, when business and culture ran things, not government.
How did injecting himself in a Kentucy US Senate primary help his business interests? Does he even have any business interests in Kentucky?
If it was about the national implications of that race, how did supporting the establishment candidate help his business interests? And if it did, why is he runing against the establishment and those same business interests now?
I really do not know. Why don’t you ask his campaign?
This has become completely argumentative. I am not looking for an argument, only understanding.
As am I. I am simply troubled with the plausible explanations.
Well now you have jumped the shark. “Troubled with the plausible explanation” means you are suspicious. That is an emotional response. All I am saying is that opposition to Trump is based on a reaction to the guy and not to his platform, ideas or presumed ability.
So only blind faith is an unemotional response. And I have jumped the shark....
“Blind faith.” Stop insulting me.
I didn’t take “jump the shark” or “emotional response” as compliments. But I guess that level of disagreement is a one-way street with you.
In the final analysis, Trump – like Reagan and Lincoln before him – loves America and welcomes the challenge to return this country to the glory our forefathers intended to bequeath to future generations. In the final analysis, Trump can embrace this challenge in this age because he is, after all, an entrepreneur.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/understanding-trump-as-a-principled-politician/#PuT5HXDJYMszhY84.99
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.