Posted on 01/06/2016 11:23:15 AM PST by springwater13
Nice flip flop Teddy. You must have been reading my FR comments yesterday. LOL!
Of course, his critics are now saying that Cruz is pandering, that he’s gone soft, even flip flopped on ethanol in order to get the Iowa vote. But this is simply not the case.
Once again, Amanda Carpenter steps in to explain that Cruz’s support for a 5-year phase out is simply nothing new:
“I just listened to the Cruz audio. He said what he’s always said. RFS should be a 5 year phase out. It’s what his legislation said in 2014”
Even liberal reporter Dave Weigel is flummoxed by those alleging that Cruz is flip-flopping
“Don’t understand the “Cruz flip flopped on RFS” charge. He’s always been for a 5 year phase out. If he takes office in 2017, that ends 2022. It honestly feels like a pressure group trolled Cruz and asked reporters who don’t cover ethanol (uh, hi) to fall for it.”
Furthermore, I have never justified all of Trumps actions and I certainly don't allow someone to change the subject on me simply because they cannot explain away a position they personally champion about their own candidate. Good luck with that.
Of course, his critics are now saying that Cruz is pandering, that he’s gone soft, even flip flopped on ethanol in order to get the Iowa vote. But this is simply not the case.
Once again, Amanda Carpenter steps in to explain that Cruz’s support for a 5-year phase out is simply nothing new:
“I just listened to the Cruz audio. He said what he’s always said. RFS should be a 5 year phase out. It’s what his legislation said in 2014”
Even liberal reporter Dave Weigel is flummoxed by those alleging that Cruz is flip-flopping
“Don’t understand the “Cruz flip flopped on RFS” charge. He’s always been for a 5 year phase out. If he takes office in 2017, that ends 2022. It honestly feels like a pressure group trolled Cruz and asked reporters who don’t cover ethanol (uh, hi) to fall for it.”
Food isn’t fuel you nitwits!
Of course, his critics are now saying that Cruz is pandering, that he’s gone soft, even flip flopped on ethanol in order to get the Iowa vote. But this is simply not the case.
Once again, Amanda Carpenter steps in to explain that Cruz’s support for a 5-year phase out is simply nothing new:
“I just listened to the Cruz audio. He said what he’s always said. RFS should be a 5 year phase out. It’s what his legislation said in 2014”
Even liberal reporter Dave Weigel is flummoxed by those alleging that Cruz is flip-flopping
“Don’t understand the “Cruz flip flopped on RFS” charge. He’s always been for a 5 year phase out. If he takes office in 2017, that ends 2022. It honestly feels like a pressure group trolled Cruz and asked reporters who don’t cover ethanol (uh, hi) to fall for it.”
The current mandate is not a percentage, but a total volume of ethanol to be included. If more E85 is sold, less E10 is needed.
The reason it was recently adjusted was because it was not percentage based, but ethanol volume per year based. And it was exceeding what the market would accept, due to the limitations of E10.
http://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/renewable-fuel-annual-standards
This is from 2011. There is at least sufficient documentation that he has been saying something different in IA. Why are you trying to eliminate comments? Usually that means you have lost the argument.
Don't get too excited yet.
But Cruz, who has called for phasing out the RFS program over five years, said Americans are fed up with "career politicians" who pander to voters, especially in places like Iowa, with its outsized role in the presidential nominating process.MARCH 2015
And don't worry. Trump is still solidly behind the ethanol mandates.
Are you saying that God can’t be invoked nor Scripture read or quoted in a campaign?
If so, why?
Ethanol subsidies were eliminated a few years ago. There is, however, a mandate (the RFS), which is the subject of this story. The RFS needs to be eliminated, and I am disappointed in Cruz's statements here, but we need to base our views and arguments on facts.
Also - I find it rich that people who back Trump, of all people, are accusing Cruz of not being a principled conservative. Good lord.
(Full disclosure - I prefer Cruz or Rubio. Flame away.)
I’m well documented as a Cruz supporter. I still am.
But I hate non-conservatism whenever and wherever it raises its head. Geez. I thought I could trust Ted to always be the most conservative guy in the room. I think he still is, but bending over for the Corn Lobby is dispiriting.
How long ago was that?
Now he is for 6 years, until 2022.
Hatin' on Trump supporters takes a hit on your credibility.
It's Bush's Trump's fault!
I'm Cruz/Trump
Rubio cooked his goose trying to endear himself to the GOPe and Washington Establishment with this Gang-of-Eight Amnesty.
He would not become president until 2017.
I may have left out some things, but wait a day or two and the "consistent" flipper will change another position.
Yet Trump changed his mind about a few things MANY years ago, and the wrath of the "PURISTS" come down on him and us.
The question is, pick a subject, was he lying then or is he lying now?
No one will ever know now when he's NOT lying.
True, I was just differentiating between subsidies and the RFS.
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.