You're trying to win an unwinnable argument and, whether consciously or not, are trying to change the subject. The initial point was my rather narrow one, contradicting a post asserting that Cruz and Arnold had "virtually identical" positions on the issues. I said that the men might have similar positions on "social issues," but their stated positions on taxes were hugely different -- and, thus, that the "virtually identical" language was a big overstatement.
Now you're trying to say that you get to assume Arnold will break his promise, and break it so thoroughgoingly that he will put in place a tax approach "virtually identical" to what Cruz PROMISED to do.
Sorry, you don't get to assume that. You can doubt Arnold from here to Sunday, and I'm sure you do. But there's hardly a "virtual identity" (on taxes) between a candidate who PROMISES to raise taxes and one who promises NOT to, albeit with what you surely characterize as loopholes. This lack of "virtual identity" simply is not reasonably debatable, unless your view of "virtual" is different than mine.
What you appear to want is to debate what you predict Arnold WILL do. What's to debate? You're very confident he'll cave and raise taxes. Of your confidence therein, I have no doubt. I am hoping that you're wrong, even if I can't be without fear that you may prove right. (Heck knows we'd not have "caving" to worry about with McClintock in there.)
I took your words at face value. You are putting words into my mouth.
Arnold made no promise, remember? You are therefore assuming he won't raise taxes without proof.
Sorry, you don't get to assume that. You can doubt Arnold from here to Sunday, and I'm sure you do. But there's hardly a "virtual identity" (on taxes) between a candidate who PROMISES to raise taxes and one who promises NOT to, albeit with what you surely characterize as loopholes. This lack of "virtual identity" simply is not reasonably debatable, unless your view of "virtual" is different than mine.
I'm not assuming anything. As I have said, many times including this thread, one has to judge Arnold by what he does and what he puts in writing. He has taken on many of Pete Wilson's advisors, precisely the people who raised taxes under nearly identical circumstances. He has committed to enormous spending on costly environmental programs with arguable benefit that are also very destructive to the economic base of this State.
Because those observations have that support of fact, it is you who stands upon assertion that Arnold represents anything diffent.