Posted on 01/11/2016 5:16:00 AM PST by TBBT
You’re upset because Cruz won’t be a monkey boy for Putin and Trump is pouring praise on Putin the way he used to do for the Clintons. LOL
And Cruz supporters have built up such a shrine to him that he has literally no room to move without him “betraying” his base.
The moment one non constitutional budget item gets signed into law, what will his supporters say then?
For those that don’t know, “mac_truck” is one of FR’s most loyal (and despicable) defenders and apologists for KGB Putin. He and most of the others support Putin on EVERYTHING, including their invasion and intimidating of their former satellite states in Eastern Europe. And I would guess also their continuing to this day (2015-2016) to arm and support leftist regimes throughout Latin America hostile to the US.
Re: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3382197/posts?page=23#23
Hahaha. Another angry little Cruz supporter. What a rarity on FR. It’s only 9:20 and you’re already having convulsions. Take a pill and relax. Go back to your job if you have one and remember, together, we are going to Make America Great Again!!!
What’s with all of these cut/pastes and bold/unbold thing going on???
Can you just passive-aggressively post the overplayed Cruz Twister board like the other programmed Cruzbots??
You said...
“The moment one non constitutional budget item gets signed into law, what will his supporters say then?”
Well, speaking for myself, I wouldn’t make excuses for him. I have no shrine built around Cruz. I expect Cruz to have to answer for certain votes he has taken while Senator and he should be scrutinized and questioned.
Just because some of us don’t do the “Hope and Change” thing with the Donald doesn’t mean we believe Cruz is the second coming of Christ.
I support Cruz because I believe he is the closest to being a true conservative. Nothing more than that
Getting “what job” done?
This is actually amazing to me in a way.
First of all, if Trump is still trailing and in fact loses in Iowa, I guess he doesn’t know how to win there. As a matter of fact, we don’t even know if he knows how to win an election. He didn’t want to spend any money on advertising. Which granted, he got free advertising from the media. We’re told he doesn’t have the ground game of Ted Cruz and some of the others.
But yeah, he may win the nomination. He may win the election.
But here we have conservatives not advocating for conservatism at all, but rather advocating for a guy who has questionable instincts and a liberal past because he can “get the job done.”
I understand that people are concerned with illegals. I respect that. But I guess if he does win, we’ll find out how much buyer’s remorse conservatives have.
Just an aside here. I have always supported a requirement to vote. Knowledge of the Constitution, proof of citizenship, proof that you pay taxes. For a long time I supported having to be a property owner to vote but I realize in this economy that is unrealistic.
If you knew how to read and comprehend what you read, you know-nothing dope, you would understand for yourself the relevance of the information.
Time to DUMP the ‘RUMP !!!
Do not believe a single word Ted Cruz says.
Sorry... some of us aren’t afforded as much free time to sit and read through jumbled formatting.
I’m convinced that people who still support Trump, especially on FR who should know better, are incapable of the kind of reflection required to have buyer’s remorse.
Not Cruz!
Boy! the old ‘was for it before he was against’ political scam. Some of you need to really get a grip on this. Cruz voted for the real hurdle of cloture on TPA. Now he is against TPP because he knows it will pass... get it. It is like the political game of loading up a spending bill for your district and then voting against it knowing it will pass!! (p>You’re being duped. If Cruz were against TPP he never... ever would have voted for cloture on TPA. TPA is fast track authority. Ask yourself who in their right conservative mind would give Obama fast track authority. I mean really, really ask yourself that.
Jumbled formatting? It's laid out as clear as can possibly be. I even highlighted the more important bits for you. In any case, you really should somehow find time to actually read and get the significance of these things.
Trump is not spreading lies or rumors about Cruz.
______________________________
Bingo.
Compare the two statements:
1. “Marco Rubio is a very skilled liar” says Cruz.
2. Trump says “Cruz changed his stance on Ethanol, and that’s OK, but you shouldn’t do it 3 weeks before the caucus” (Meet the Press)
Which attack is vicious?
TPA. TPP. Compare/contrast.
Extra credit: Answer these 21 Questions for Trump
Texas Senator and GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) argued Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) "is not giving the president more authority" and that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is "not accurate" in some of his claims regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Friday's broadcast of "The Kuhner Report" on Boston's WRKO.
Cruz argued that he had been the staunchest opponent of President Barack Obama in Congress. He then separated TPA (Trade Promotion Authority) and the TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership). He touched on TPA first, stating that "history has demonstrated, the only way to get a trade agreement adopted is with fast-track. Since FDR, consistently, for 80 years, presidents in both parties have had fast-track. Anytime fast-track has lapsed, trade agreements don't get negotiated."
He later added that it was a "misunderstanding" to say TPA gave away the Senate's treaty power. Cruz stated that "Under the Constitution, there are two ways to make binding law. Number one, you can pass a treaty ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate. Or number two, you can pass legislation passed by a majority of both of houses of Congress and signed by the president. ... TPA uses the second constitutional path."
And "it's been long recognized that the Constitution's Origination Clause applies to trade bills, which means the House of Representatives has to be involved. There's a reason why trade bills have historically not been done as treaties, because the Constitution says that anything concerning the raising of revenues, and trade bills concern tariffs, which are the raising of revenues, has to originate in the House of Representatives. So, the process of approving a trade agreement through both houses of Congress has been the way it has been done for roughly a century. And it is not giving the president more authority."
Regarding TPP, Cruz said he was undecided because there was no "actual agreement" regarding TPP.
He later blasted classification of the text of TPP as "idiotic." He continued that claims made by Senator Jeff Sessions were "not accurate"... this trade agreement, now, at least the current draft... does not impact, change, alter, or effect US immigration law. There is a brief section in the TPP that concerns issues of immigration, but explicitly, the United States doesn't join that section."
He further pointed to his amendment to prevent trade agreements from impacting immigration that the House agreed to include. Cruz continued, "Beyond that, the notion of giving up sovereignty and an international body that can alter US law, Jeff, I have spent 20 years fighting to defend United States sovereignty. There is no one in the Senate who has been a stronger opponent of international bodies taking away our authority. ... And it is simply false that the TPP trade agreement gives up our sovereignty. There is nothing in TPA or TPP that can give a foreign body the ability to make binding law in the United States of America under our Constitution." Although, he stated that it was natural and understandable people would be suspicious of a secret agreement.
He added that "if this president tried to slip something in, it would have to be approved by Congress, and by the way, under the terms of fast-track, TPA, any trade agreement, including the TPP, must be public at least 60 days, the text of it, before it's voted on."
Later, Cruz conceded that while he hasn't "studied" TPP "the way one would for weeks and weeks on end, the way one would during the 60 days when it is public. In a six, seven-hundred page agreement can there be things buried in a footnote that one doesn't see? Sure," Sessions' claims that TPP would undermine US law are "not accurate."
He concluded that the Obama administration would like people to blame job losses on free trade, but that free trade is not to blame for job losses.
(h/t The Right Scoop)
Do you mean more Supremes like Roberts, an old friend and mentor of Cruz?
The Texas Tribune
Cruz, Justice Roberts Have History
by Aman Batheja July 9, 2012 5Comments
Within two hours of the U.S. Supreme Court releasing its opinion on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last month, former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz spoke out about the decision.
Cruz, a Republican competing against Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in a July 31 primary runoff for an open U.S. Senate seat, called the decision “shameful†and described it as a “sad day for the court.†He accused the court’s justices of being motivated by politics rather than upholding the U.S. Constitution.
It was a harsh assessment considering that Chief Justice John Roberts, a man whom Cruz has described as a mentor and friend, played a pivotal role in the law being upheld.
Roberts has drawn scorn from conservatives for his decision to side with the court’s more liberal wing and uphold the controversial law’s individual mandate as a tax. Subsequent reports have suggested that Roberts may have been influenced by issues other than the constitutionality of the law in making his decision.
When asked last week about his thoughts on Roberts’ role in the decision, Cruz said, “It was heartbreaking and it was shocking.â€
Both Cruz and Roberts clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist early in their careers, Roberts from 1980 to 1981, Cruz in the mid-1990s.
After Election Day in 2000, Cruz was a lawyer working on the legal battle over the Florida recount for the Bush/Cheney presidential campaign. Cruz told the Miami Herald that Roberts’ name was the first that came to mind when he was asked to help find lawyers to work on the litigation. Roberts reportedly helped with legal briefs and participated in a mock hearing to prepare Bush’s legal team.
“We needed the very best lawyers in the country, and I called John and asked him to help,†Cruz later wrote in the National Review. “Within hours, he was on a plane to Florida.â€
When President George W. Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005, Cruz was an outspoken advocate for his confirmation, calling him “brilliant†and a “lawyer’s lawyer.”
“As an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative, as is the president who appointed him,†Cruz wrote. “He clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, worked in the Reagan White House, and served as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush’s Justice Department.
“But, as a jurist, Judge Roberts’s approach will be that of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent.â€
Since the ruling, Cruz has kept his criticisms mostly focused on the court as a whole.
Dewhurst, though, has not shied from singling out Roberts.
“When Supreme Court Justice John Roberts sold constitutional conservatives down the river and held up the worst parts of the disaster called Obamacare, we knew we were in for a problem,” Dewhurst said at a press conference Friday at The Health Museum in Houston.
Both Dewhurst and Cruz are trying to convince Republican primary voters that they are best suited to lead the fight in Congress to repeal the federal health care law. The Supreme Court decision makes the issue an even more important one in their runoff, both said.
“In my first day in the United States Senate, I’m going to lead the effort to repeal Obamacare, every single word of it, and replace it with permissive free-market reforms,” Dewhurst said Friday.
Cruz likewise vowed to work to overturn the law.
“I’ll throw my body in front of a train to stop anything short of its complete and total repeal,” Cruz said at a recent event in Willis.
http://www.texastribune.org/2012/07/09/cruz-and-roberts-go-way-back/
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.