Posted on 12/08/2015 8:56:22 AM PST by VinL
GOP presidential contender Ted Cruz said Tuesday that he disagrees with rival Donald J. Trump's plan to ban Muslims from coming into the United States until the federal government can ensure that those coming into the nation do not pose a threat to the country.
"I do not agree with his proposal," the Texas senator said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “I do not think it is the right solution.â€
Mr. Cruz said that some have encouraged him to criticize Mr. Trump, but said he will not to so. Instead, he said he is pushing solutions aimed at putting a three year moratorium on refugees from Syria and Iraq, and giving governors more power to stop refugees from being resettled in their states.
Mr. Trump has tangled with most of the candidates in the GOP field ..with the exception of Mr. Cruz .. though he warned at a rally in South Carolina that he will respond in kind if Mr. Cruz attacks him.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Well there you have it, the super pacs and lobbyists and other handlers of Cruz’s have spoken....to bad, Cruz just lost the election....
Then again, maybe in a few days after the dirt has settled, he’ll be back to ‘me to Ted’.....
“Ted Cruz may have just lost Iowa.”
Hmm. I can see that. Not sold on it just yet, but it sure has that potential.
It doesn’t but it can be amended. I see no problem with banning people from problem countries...and probably much more doable than an all out ban on religion. I am not against Trump’s proposal and he’s on the right track with this. I’d extend a country ban to everyone in the middle east and African trouble spots. The problem will be catching radicals coming through Europe. It’s happening. For that reason, Trump’s approach is not far off. A counter argument is that we can fairly easily add more scrutiny to a small number of Europeans trying to get here. It’s a numbers game in the end.
Same with me.
Hopefully, Amercia will wake up to the threat short of going through another 9-11 ... which of course will be blamed on American patriots for daring to confront the reality.
I no longer trust him, but I've been heading in that direction since the TPA mess.
Looking forward to the next polls. He should hit 40%.
When another attack occurs here by Muslim immigrants (God forbid), guess whose poll numbers will skyrocket.
“I disagree with that proposal,” Cruz said during a press conference on Capitol Hill Tuesday. “I believe we need a plan that is focused on the direct threat.”
He wants to stop refugees.
He wants to vet refugees.
He thinks profiling is smart.
But he wants to let unvetted terrorists into the country so long as they are not from Syria.
Stupid, Ted. Stupid.
Cruz had to fall in line with all his corrupt insider professional politician associates.
So there ya have it.
Sorry Cruz, but you just lost my vote. Trump it is.
Ahhh, the old nuanced approach. However, in this case, I like Trumps bold strokes: ban all mooslims from entering, deport the ones already here and demolish all the mosques.
Bold strokes, Ted. Gonna have to depart ways with you on this one.
And how would anyone know if they were from Syria?
There are fake passports out the wazoo being handed out like candy.
C'mon, Ted, you're smarter than that.
Islam is a polotical and religious philosophy.
When you find a difference, please let us know.
We know that Cruz is a strict constitutionalist, so I'm guessing that he's misapplying the principle that underlies the First Amendment, which is religious freedom.
Ted needs to realize that it*s impossible to tolerate a religion that doesn't tolerate other religions, without ending religious tolerance for all but the intolerant group, in this case, Mohammedans.
Acknowledging this fact is problematic for Cruz, for whom the Constitution is a hallowed document. The framers of the Constitution should have qualified the First Amendment with regard to intolerant, militant, and seditious religions.
I don*t think Trump has worked through this either; he has simply observed that all terrorists are Mohammedans, so we should keep them out of the country (**until we figure out what*s going on**). He is right, even if he can*t articulate the principles involved.
It WOULD HAVE kept, at least, the wife out, San Bernidino is the example we use of what will happen if this action is not taken. Nobody can do anything about San Bernidino ... So you are asking an impossible question, you cannot fix the past. But can such action keep it from happening again...yes...except for the thousands already here welcomed by the regressives and low IQ conservatives.
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.