Posted on 05/07/2015 3:55:30 PM PDT by gwgn02
He voted with McConnell to turn the Constitution “on it’s head” in regards to ratifying treaties. Twist it anyway you choose it doesn’t change that fact.
Who cares, if he votes no it would have passed 97-2 instead of 98-1.
At this point, I don't think anything less than politicians with new neckties decorating the lampposts of DC would get the political elite's attention.
[/cynic]
You’re against Cruz, I and anyone reading can see that.
> He didn’t need to stay for the Lynch vote. He voted NO on the Cloture vote that preceded the Lynch vote.
>
> The Cloture vote was the more important vote. Once Cloture was passed, the deal was a done deal. No need to hang around. And Ted Cruz had important campaign meetings to attend. He was smart to do exactly what he did.
But that’s a world away from voting FOR something, which he did here.
IOW, it’s one thing to get up and leave in disgust or because you’re powerless, it’s a whole different thing to join in with the crowd.
Thank you for taking the time to explain this. He (Cruz) said he voted for it to delay as long as possible a bad deal. Your explanation makes sense (especially the part about Israel).
The problem is that the explanation (procedural rules exc...) is complicated and the trolls will use any excuse to attack - They are absolutely desperate to take Ted Cruz out of the running. Why? Because HE CAN WIN. He's the only one who even has a chance at winning IMO.
"McConell is the problem here"
Yes, that's what everyone should be looking at. McConnell is helping Obama give Iran-Iran-who is still holding our people hostage- McConnell is working to GIVE THEM NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
McConnell is responsible for putting every single American in danger, and for putting everyone in Israel in danger. Why aren't we talking about that?
You’re creating a narrative of your own choosing.
Ted Cruz is not “joining” in with McConnell and all the others over this bad deal.
He voted NO on the Cloture vote. That is the important vote. After Cloture was passed, the deal was a done deal.
There are a few reasons why voting Yes is of benefit:
It allows the Review to be delayed so in effect Obama will be delayed in moving forward with the ‘Plan’ as well.
It allows direct examination of the ‘Iran Deal’ plan that Obama has been hiding from everyone. Now Ted Cruz will be able to campaign on this issue and be able to say he has seen the plan himself.
> You’re creating a narrative of your own choosing.
> Ted Cruz is not “joining” in with McConnell and all the others over this bad deal.
Did he vote “Yes” along with McConnell?
If so, then it is indeed correct to say that Mr. Cruz joined with Mr. McConnell.
> He voted NO on the Cloture vote. That is the important vote. After Cloture was passed, the deal was a done deal.
So why give your consent to a “done deal” it you’re against it?
That is, after all, what a “Yes” vote is: consent.
> There are a few reasons why voting Yes is of benefit:
> It allows the Review to be delayed so in effect Obama will be delayed in moving forward with the ‘Plan’ as well.
> It allows direct examination of the ‘Iran Deal’ plan that Obama has been hiding from everyone. Now Ted Cruz will be able to campaign on this issue and be able to say he has seen the plan himself.
And any dissenting Senator would be unable to do these?
I don’t think that’s how it works...
> “Did he vote “Yes” along with McConnell?
If so, then it is indeed correct to say that Mr. Cruz joined with Mr. McConnell.”
They have entirely different motive and intent; their motive and intent are by no means “joined”.
> “So why give your consent to a “done deal” it you’re against it?
That is, after all, what a “Yes” vote is: consent.”
I’ve already written several times why it is of benefit to vote YES on the Bill.
1. It allows the member to work on the Review and cause maximum delay to completing the Review. And as long as the Bill is under review, Obama cannot move forward with his Iran deal.
2. It gives the member access to the secret Iran Deal plan. Obama has been keeping the details secret. The facts known about the deal are from Iranian media and informants inside Tehran.
3. It gives the member credibility when the member campaigns against the Iran Deal issue because they will be able to say they have seen the details directly.
All the above benefits do not by any means imply consent.
Where is your commentary on McConnell? Is he a paragon of virtue in your world? Why are you not focused on him?
Everyone please read FReeper Hostage’s post #147 and #154.
You need to watch C-Span. There are all kinds of rules for how they do things.
Anyway I've seen many of your posts on different threads- You are no Ted Cruz supporter-Be gone troll and take all the other trolls with you.
Perhaps, perhaps not — the fact is that both voted YES
to ignoring the Constitution's sue process regarding the adoption of treaties.
In light of that, I find myself disinterested in motive and intent — everyone there swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and everyone there, with the exception of Mr. Cotton, failed it with their assent of this.
I’ve already written several times why it is of benefit to vote YES on the Bill.
And why should a senator be barred from further proceedings if he voted NAY
?
Where is your commentary on McConnell? Is he a paragon of virtue in your world? Why are you not focused on him?
I covered him in November and December — ultimately I view him (and Boehner) as proof that the vote the lesser of two evils
crowd is full of shit: there was little chance that he (or Boehner) would have been better than a brand-new Democrat, but they won their districts despite this... and now the rest of us have been privileged to be pissed on by them and being told it's rain.
Besides that, nobody's pushing the idea that McConnel is a good guy and our hope for restoring the republic.
That would be Senator Boxer.
I was only ever a marginal supporter — and certainly not for President, especially as I believe that he is not Constitutionally qualified.
You see, I have a bit of a cynical view: any time people are fawning over a person in power, making excuses for them, that's the time those people aren't thinking — and that's the time that person can get away with much that those fawners wouldn't otherwise allow. — Moreover, I believe that those in power tend to view themselves as beyond/above the law, that they are somehow excepted and exempted from it, but that they may use it as a rod of iron to smite those who oppose them.
In short, I think there is a lot of truth to the old saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely
.
I think that many are foolish for thinking that our guys
are somehow exempt from that rule.
How is being against higher taxes getting in bed with Norquist?
Ted Cruz is a good guy and our hope for restoring the republic.
Ok Freepers
Excuse this one
Some here brook no dissent on chosen
Nobody is perfect
Not him or Sarah Palin
This is my third beef with Ted so far
Ted Cruz talks to the Israel’s Netanyahu nearly everyday.....
U got a link to prove that....
I hate to break it to you heretic but your faggots await the match here...
/s
It’s so silly every election many Freepers form the cult of personality thing about their favorite....well really lets be honest....only Palin Cain and now Ted
Bush was eviscerated here till he got elected and miraculously became untouchable.....Till TARP basically....well and Meirs.....
And anyone criticizes them is a wife beater or child molestor troll by comparison
It’s really juvenile and high schoolish
I’ve never had a perfect candidate in 57 years ...
Cruz or Walker
After that it gets harder
But they are none pure....
Save that for when the primaries come around ;)
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.