Ted Cruz: If You Want Someone To Cut Deals, With Reid, Pelosi and Schumer Then Trump Is Your Guy

The Right Scoop ^ | 1/21/2016 | Right Scoop

[conservativejoy]

Ted Cruz hit back at Donald Trump today for his attack on Cruz, that he won't go along to get along to curry favor in Washington.

Of course Cruz accepts this criticism and in turn says that if you want someone who will go along to get along and cut deals with the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer, then Donald Trump is your guy.

Couldn't have said it better myself. It's clear Trump puts a high priority on his ability to cut deals with people and that's just not something I'm looking for in a candidate. I'm looking for someone who will push back against the DC establishment and push them to the right through solid leadership, so when they do end up cutting a deal, it's better for America.

That's not Donald Trump. He'll kowtow to the media and the establishment like all the other sellouts in Washington. Just look at his position on ethanol in Iowa for the most recent example

[RoosterRedux]

Yeah. I'm not too bright.

First in my B-school class and the investment group I built on Wall St was number one in the country (and the world) in its industry specialty for the whole of my career. Was in Who's Who In Finance in the U.S. before I was 40...but I'm not too bright.

I guess I am a very lucky not too bright guy.

[AustinBill]

Correct. This country has major problems that need to be solved (the $20+ trillion dollar debt being one of the biggest), kickstarting the "onshoring" movement to bring jobs back to the US and repatriate those trillions in overseas capital, meaningful budgeting, tax, and immigration action, etc.

None of that is going to happen without a lot of smart deal making, which is Trump's forte. So of course Trump will be negotiating with the opposition. But he'll be negotiating from a position of strength with a clear vision of the restoration of American greatness as his guide.

So yes, please. Thanks for pointing that out, Ted.

[Manic_Episode]

Gridlock is far better than going the wrong way.

[lovesdogs]

Exactly. I imagine a Cruz administration would be a lot of “well I tried but congress wouldn’t budge” and “let me tell you what the constitution says about this subject”

[RKBA Democrat]

The comment was directed at St. Rafael of TPA, not you.

[i_robot73]

A stalemate on the road to serfdom is a path I would happily take; over and over and over.

I have yet to see any ‘progress’ made, let alone any ‘cut deals’, in giving the People back their Rights, Liberty and/or Freedoms.

[RoosterRedux]

And going the right way is better than gridlock.

[vbmoneyspender]

I guess I am a very lucky not too bright guy.

You're making the assumption that being good in one field makes you a genius in all fields. I see that a lot with finance guys.

[Duchess47]

Well, yes, I want someone who can cut deals with Washington. I want someone who can get Congress on board with building the wall, I want someone who will get Congress to write legislation to defund Planned Parenthood, someone who can get legislation passed to end anchor babies. As a matter of fact, there are a whole lot of deals I want made.

I do not want another person in Washington who thinks writing EO’s is better than working with Congress.

[libbylu]

.. A refusal to cut deals leaves a stalemate wherein there is no progress.
No progress is MUCH PREFERRED. So now that your guy is the establishment guy it is okay to rubber stamp what the leftists want?

[RKBA Democrat]

....then check how his holdings at Goldman are doing.

Cruz/Blankfein 2016

[WVKayaker]

Yes Ted, believe it or not the president will have to cut deals with the opposition to get things done. Just like Reagan did.

The worst thing that Ronald Reagan did, IMHO, was to cave on the Democrap demand for the Earned Income Tax Credit. People who NEVER PAID TAXES, can get thousands from the Fedrool Gum't (which translates to those who pay taxes).

We now see headlines like: "FRAUD & ABUSE: EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT BY UNLAWFUL IMMIGRANTS".

...“More than one in four immigrant households received the EITC in 2000-nearly twice the 13.2 percent rate of houuseholds headed by Native Americans. And because immigrant households are larger via higher fertility, their EITC payments are larger than those received by native households.

"Bottom line: Immigrants accounted for about 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2008 but receive an estimated 26 percent of EITC benefits- about $12 billion."

The most distressing aspect of EITC stems from unlawful immigrants tapping into the program on a massive scale. For example, in Greeley, Colorado this year, district attorney Buck Young raided a tax filing agency to find over 1,000 fraudulent returns by unlawful workers. While they paid little or nothing in taxes, they received hundreds of thousands in bogus returns. That same scam multiplies all over the country.

"Tax relief" goes to people who never paid a cent in taxes, and may have already defrauded the government of huge sums each year. "EITC scams are common, well-organized, and massive," Rubenstein writes in the report. EITC ranks second out of 57 government programs in fraudulent payments.

"But enthusiasm for the credit has blinded policy makers to its problems. The EITC program is dominated by fraud. Year after year about one-third of all EITC returns are based on illegal multiple returns, phony Social Security numbers, or claims of non-existent children or spouses. A disproportionate share of illegal alien households receives the benefit.

Disclaimer: I voted for Reagan twice!

[Cboldt]

Trump: Obama setting precedent on executive orders | TheHill | January 03, 2016

The Republican primary front-runner [Trump] also said he would rescind several of the executive orders issued by Obama.

"I mean, he just - the one thing good about executive orders: The new president, if he comes in - boom, first day, first hour, first minute, you can rescind that," he said.

Not any detail beyond that, as far as I know.

[RoosterRedux]

LIbbylu...I apologized this morning for calling you "stupid."

But you never accepted my apology...or denied it.

Don't you think a response is in order?

[RKBA Democrat]

Big difference between a good deal and a crappy one. If my choice is a crappy deal or no deal, then no deal is of course preferable. Donald Trump brings the possibility of a good deal into the mix. Something we haven’t seen in about 30 years.

[I-ambush]

I’m a Cruz supporter, so please educate another dullard: what is the basis of your trust in Trump? If he wins the nomination, what will he do to convince skeptics like myself that he really intends to keep his word once he has the “deal” sewn up?

[EQAndyBuzz]

I don’t care who any of the candidates negotiate with as long as the ultimate winner is the American people.

[jeffersondem]

“Yes Ted, believe it or not the president will have to cut deals with the opposition to get things done. Just like Reagan did.”

Problem is, Trump has no enduring core values other than materialism and combing his hair to look like a head of cabbage.

Trump is a wheeler-dealer deal cutter. Does anyone have an idea what the dims will have to give up in exchange for Trump negotiating away the second amendment?

[heights]

The Republicans we have now just capitulate, Donald won’t, that’s the difference.

[KGeorge]

Omigosh, he’s STILL cockeyed! His parents worked in the oil industry. They weren’t poor. Why didn’t they get that fixed?