Posted on 01/03/2016 5:07:32 AM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Of course he says that now; but why did he vote for TPA, which was passed only as the mechanism to advance TPP. He is a politician; he says what his supporters want to hear.
Cruz voted for the Corker bill, a bill that Limbaugh and Levin called a disaster, and he now campaigns against it. Care to explain that away? Vows he will get rid of it if elected. Just how much confidence can you have in what he vows.
“Now who do I believe, a lying, weasel, Trumpbot fanatic troll, or my own eyes?”
Why do fools like you get on a site, that you are a guest of, that says don’t not post such things, but do so anyway? Why don’t you start your own site for perverts like yourself?
What he said about it....
‘I voted no on cloture because we should have insisted on amendments to put real teeth in this bill. Ultimately, I voted yes on final passage because it may delay, slightly, President Obama’s ability to lift the Iran sanctions and it ensures we will have a Congressional debate on the merits of the Iran deal. I will continue to lead the fight to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to protect the national security of America and our allies.’
It's standard enabling legislation for trade deals. Similar legislation has been passed routinely for 50 years.
Cruz said that he was assuming a Republican presidential victory in 2016. The agreement is good for 6-7 years, AFAIK. He thought that this was the time when it could get through Congress, with a Republican administration ultimately benefiting.
Trump continues to say ALL illegals must be deported including anchor babies. How is that amnesty for illegals?
Please show us where Trump has given a campaign promise or released a policy objective that promises amnesty. Stop the bs.
“Ultimately, I voted yes on final passage because it may delay, slightly, President Obama’s ability to lift the Iran sanctions and it ensures we will have a Congressional debate on the merits of the Iran deal.”
Only thing wrong with that is that the Corker bill ensured that the Iranian deal is now law. Why does Cruz say that he will get rid of it if he becomes president if it is not law?
The White House wrote the bill. Why would the White House author a bill that defeats its own agenda?
Thank you for your sanity.
The vote was 99-1....
The one dissenting vote was my congress critter...Tom Cotton.
It was a done deal in every way possible...Perhaps cruz could have made a better call, maybe not, but with most senate votes, there are contingencies...
Since the vote was not even close, and cruz has not changed his positions on iran as his arguments indicate during debate of his amendment, the yes vote on passage meant nothing..IMO especially since every conservative in the senate voted for it, save for one who had previously staked out his position.
This seems like another significant post. SR adds some personal testimony that colors the report about this Beth Moore mentioned in GPH’s original post. Not to mention SR also makes the point I made later which was/is: the main “damage” the OP inflicts on Cruz is via “guilt by association”.
I wouldn’t mind if you, GPH, addresses this point (that your OP relies on guilt via association to impugn Cruz) and/or the post SR made, to which this post is in reply.
I’m still reading the thread but have yet to see you address this criticism.
Back to reading.
“It was a done deal in every way possible...Perhaps cruz could have made a better call, maybe not, but with most senate votes, there are contingencies...”
True, but you must remember how Cruz supporters envision Cruz: a probably divine incarnation of honesty, the Constitution, the Ten Commandants, a consistent conservative who, as Rush even said, can be depended on in every case to do what is right. It goes on and on. He lies awake at night examining himself to see if he committed any imperfections that day. Committing a wrong is not even considered. He is perfect.
Then he has the gall to immediately turn from his vote and condemn the bill.
Who puts them there?
Again TPA is the conservative free trade way. It's not exactly New. Past Republican presidents were given lessee the same fast track trade negotiation powers. Again TPA is not law. It means ZILCH . It expressly gives congress powers to review every aspect of any trade agreement reached and reject it in totality if it's not to congress's liking. That's what TPP is there for. The only thing that counts in the end is TPP.
This is somewhat significant in that it shows Trump associations with “prosperity gospel” types, so could be useful if this issue raised by GPH continues.
However GPH did say in his OP that Trump has such ties (so it’s not that controversial, at least as far as GPH’s post is concerned) and also Trump isn’t running as a “conservative Christian” candidate, as his supporters are all too happy, maybe even gleeful, to point out. Kinda makes one wonder, actually, how important “social conservativism” is to some people. But I digress.
Thanks Catherine, it’s a useful post in among a sea of backbiting (on both sides really). Useful because it also sheds a little perspective on the “Dominionism”, the subject of the OP. Perhaps there are some shades of that movement to consider here, some of which aren’t “prosperity gospel” but merely re-emphasis on core Christian values. It’s just not “denominational”, which maybe irks some.
You also raise the criticism of “guilt by association” being used against Cruz here. The third to articulately do so, if not more in less than cooth manners.
I’d like to see you respond to it GPH. Is it, alone, a good enough reason to dismiss Cruz? If so then the further associations Catherine points out here must be considered wrt Trump. How many are too many (for Trump)?
I think I’ve read enough of the thread. I’ll await your response (if any).
Cruz voted for the Corker bill! It would have taken 2/3 vote in the Senate otherwise. Not only that, it now takes 2/3 vote to stop it.
Cruz voted for Corker. Where Corker now stands in process is completely and totally insignificant - or, are you trying to say that Cruz, as prophet, has the Godly gift of future vision in all things secular and otherwise.
You obviously did NOT read the links I gave you.
From FrontPage, a very solid conservative site:
Trump offers McCain talking points about jobs Americans won't do
We have to bring great people into this country, okay? And I want to bring — I love the idea of immigration, but it�€™s got to be legal immigration. Now, a lot of these people are helping us, whether it�€™s the grapes, or whether it�€™s jobs, and sometimes it�€™s jobs, in all fairness, I love our country, but sometimes it�€™s jobs that a citizen of the United States doesn�€™t want to do. I mean, there are jobs that a lot of people don�€™t want to do. I want to move them out, and we�€™re going to move them back in, and let them be legal,
During Friday's interview, Trump said the U.S. should take a two-step approach to the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the country.
“Well, the first thing we do is take the bad ones — of which there are, unfortunately, quite a few,” said Trump, who owns three New Jersey golf courses and once owned three Atlantic City casinos. “We take the bad ones and get ‘em the hell out. We get ‘em out.”
But he said the country should take a different approach with “the other ones” — i.e., undocumented immigrants who have “done a good job” since arriving in the U.S.
“I'm a very big believer in the merit system,” Trump said. “I have to tell you: Some of these people have been here, they've done a good job. You know, in some cases, sadly, they've been living under the shadows. ... If somebody’s been outstanding, we try and work something out.
www.frontpagemag.com/point/259589/donald-trump-endorses-amnesty-illegal-aliens-daniel-greenfield
Yup. Donald “John McCain” Amnesty Trump in action. And all this was in June, AFTER he'd announced he was running for president.
What would a no vote have meant?
He condemned the bill from the start. He filed a amendment and voted against cloture.
His amendment was not agreed to and he voted with 99% of the senate for the bill.
I will and have agreed that he (in retrospect and for clarity) should have joined Cotton and voted against the bill, but like I stated, there was something going on that I am not privy to.
Cotton, newly elected, was the only Senator to vote against the bill, yet cottons conservative creds are not half of what Cruz's are. Mike Lee also voted for the bill.
So your guess is as good as mine, and I refuse to nickel and dime Cruz on this in favor of a guy who is not only a newly minted republican, but has absolutely no political track record at all to criticize in this same way.
see tagThat’s the entire point....a no vote would have meant nothing..
I’ll see you the woo, woo and give it to the Donald..
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.