Posted on 11/21/2015 10:50:44 AM PST by PROCON
KINGSTON, New Hampshire – Nancy Buckley, a Republican from Massachusetts, drove to a packed Veterans of Foreign Wars hall here, where she and several dozen predominantly older voters waited patiently for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz to speak.
'Im looking for someone who wont approve amnesty,' Buckley told MSNBC. 'Its probably down to Cruz and Trump right now, [Im] just trying to get a feel for them both.'
Amid the graying crowd, a handful of young men in Cruz-branded vests and sweaters moved through the room collecting personal information. The candidate stood in the back of the room in front of a camera to do a satellite interview with Sean Hannity.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
[it’s not an issue for you that Cruz supported bringing in Syrian refugees, which he did just last year. I’m honestly curious how this just gets swept away.]
That is such a cheap distortion. It was syrian Christian refugees, WHO WERE AND ARE BEING BUTCHERED, NOT 200,000 YOUNG MUSLIM MEN.
Including the progressives here on Free Republic for Donald Trump fear Ted Cruz.
Some have admitted that Ted Cruz is “ to Conservative
“ that abortion and gay marriage are not important issues.
Not sure where you picked the ‘Christian’ refugee part from. The video I watched doesn’t state anything specific regarding that.
If you believe shouting at me is going to make me understand your point, you are mistaken. I asked a valid question but thanks for trying to shed some light.
It would be quite helpful if someone could explain both. The way it’s being laid out there is that he voted FOR it specifically to have the opportunity to ‘fix’ it. I understand the part of McConnell’s lie and whatnot, I’m just trying to understand the missed opportunity to kill the whole thing.
Thanks for providing the link, I’ve seen it and read comments about it.
There is no distortion. He didn’t specify Christians, and he didn’t explain how there would be a method to weeding out the ‘bad guy’s, which anyone with a brain, knows we cannot.
Sigh, I’m looking to understand and you guys get so testy.
Testy is when we start hurling profanity :-)
Sounds like they’re left to trying to use Cruz to stop Trump. Not much hope there - at this point ONLY Trump can stop Trump, and then only if he violates the promises that have gotten him to where he now is.
Your questions, esp. regarding immigration are certainly fair ones. Did you read the MSNBC post here?
Excerpt:
Take immigration. Until recently, Cruz was not just tolerant of immigration, he was a proud spokesman for its alleged social and economic benefits. Just months ago, he would name-check legislation he had introduced to increase the number of high-skilled H1B visas and would tell audiences these workers had created more jobs for native born workers.
RELATED: Cruz to Obama: ‘Insult me to my face’
Then Trump happened, along with an uptick in concern about H1B abuses, and Cruz pulled an about-face in tone and position. Last week, he announced a new plan to freeze immigration levels until the economy improves and has taken to warning in his stump speech that undocumented immigrants are stealing work from deserving Americans.
Cruz, whose father left Cuba after being beaten by agents of the Batista regime, also changed his tune on refugees (along with plenty of others in both parties) after the Paris attacks.
“Cruz’s entire strategy has been geared toward winning the primary, but there’s no thought – or at least very little thought – given to how you win the White House.â€
BRIAN WALSH, AN UNALIGNED GOP STRATEGIST
As recently as last February, when ISIS atrocities were in the news, Cruz said in a Fox News interview that America had “welcomed refugees, the tired, huddled masses, for centuries†and that it was possible to screen out possible terrorists among Syrians escaping violence. This week, he introduced legislation to block Muslim – but not Christian – U.S.-bound refugees from Syria and other Middle Eastern states. America, Cruz said, “simply cannot accept refugees from countries that have a significant terrorist presence.â€
This writer (MSNBC) apparently believes the door is open to Christian Syrians. It does show that Cruz has modified or, some might say attempted to, clarify his position. I can see how being the son of an immigrant would predispose one to be for immigration. Rush L. pointed out some time ago that in the 1920’s (can’t remember exact date) immigration was halted altogether. The reason was to give those already here time to assimilate. It seem, today, that idea is totally foreign (if you’ll excuse the pun).
1. Ted Cruz is a Reagan Republican: he believes in free trade as a powerful weapon to spread democracy and increase American influence— but he wants Congress to have a role in trade agreements. TPA has been used by every President for the past 50 years to expedite the negotiation of trade deals. Our allies, and enemies, know that the US Congress is a fickle beast that just loves to tack on poison pill amendments in order to kill a bill/treaty. TPA sets a time period and the mandate of an up or down vote— no amendments, no denial of cloture, no foot dragging. If Congress members do not like the details of the bill, they have to vote no and send it back to the drawing board. Furthermore, unlike the Constitutionally mandated treaty process, TPA allows for the House of Representatives to get a vote on a trade bill. (The Constitution says that the Senate must ratify a treaty— the House gets no vote.) Now I think we would all agree that Congressmen who have to be re-elected every 2 years are far less likely to sign onto a damaging treaty than Senators, who are only elected every 6 years— so letting the House have a vote is a good idea.
2. The TPA bill that originally hit the Senate floor was all but identical to the TPA used by the aforementioned Presidents of the past half-century. Senator Sessions was (rightly) concerned that immigration language would be added to the bill in the House, but no such language existed in the first Senate version. Conservatives were further worried that TPA would be used to re-authorize the Export-Import bank. McConnell gave assurances that the Export Import bank not only would not be added to the TPA, but that it was dead for the rest of the legislative year.
3. To end debate on any bill, that does not fall under specific budget rules, in the Senate you need unanimous consent OR 60 yes votes during what is called a cloture vote. When the cloture vote for TPA—the Senate version— was held there were 62 yes votes. Cruz did not cast the 60th, 61st, or 62nd vote. In fact, he had already voted yes to end the debate because he had been assured by House and Senate leaders that immigration codicils would not be added and that Ex/Im was dead. Then McConnell, realizing he would not get cloture (he only had 54 votes) made a deal with 8 Senators to put Ex/Im on another bill. You can read about those shenanigans here: http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/trade-promotion-authority-senate-roll-call-vote/
4. After cloture was obtained the deal McConnell made became public and Cruz was pissed as hell. To make matters worse, the House TPA bill included the very immigration language Sessions warned about. So, both Boehner and McConnell lied to conservatives (not just Cruz) in order to garner support. Because the House and Senate bills were different, they had to be combined in what is called a “Conference Committee”. That bill then had to be passed by both the House and Senate.
5. It was during the vote for cloture on the newly edited joint bill, (TPA-2 if you will) that Cruz and several others rebelled and voted no. Cruz has explained that the version of TPA that was passed was not the version supported by Reagan conservatives and he could not, in good conscience, vote for it.
6. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal has been sent to Congress to vote on under the rules outlined in TPA. This means that TPP cannot be amended or filibustered. All members of Congress will have a chance to vote and must either vote yes or no.
Please let me know if you still have questions about this.
Trump said on Sep. 9th that we SHOULD take in Syrian refugees.
Cruz said on Sep. 9th that we SHOULD NOT take in Syrian refugees.
Trump then changed his mind on Sep. 10th and agreed with Cruz that we SHOULD NOT take in Syrian refugees.
“IMHO we need a Trump/Cruz ticket to straighten this country out.”
IMHO Senator Cruz should never agree to be a running mate to Mr. Trump. Should the (IMO) unthinkable occur and Mr. Trump gets the nomination.
Senator Cruz should either get the nomination and take on Mrs. Clinton, or he should stay in the Senate where he can do more good.
Senator Cruz has “class, gravitas, and intelligence.” IMO Mr. Trump has none of these qualities plus he greatly lacks the proper mental stability (as evidenced by his deportment and behavior in public) to be trusted as POTUS (obviously I don’t find his “antics” amusing). Mr. Trump belongs in the business world where he can get away with being “him.” Or, he should start his own political talk show. However, he should not be given the keys to the military or federal law enforcement (IMO). I believe that Senator Cruz would ruin his good reputation to associate with Mr. Trump on a GOP ticket.
It’s positive about Cruz’s chances, not about Cruz.
There is only one path to success for Cruz: appeal to moderate voters.
He has the cash and skills to possibly pull that off. Though, obviously, it’s no sure thing.
Would be great for the country if he does.
Thanks! You probably saw this as well:
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2015/11/21/ted-cruz-wont-rule-out-legalization-for-illegal-immigrants/
Interesting comments at bottom of article.
Thanks for #29.
Thank you, no it wasn’t the msm thing I had read but it reflects what I had come across. I would like nothing more than to bring in the Christians who live in fear, but I just don’t believe we have the ability to vet any of these people. I personally would advocate to halt ALL immigration, as we are being swallowed up. My little neighborhood has begun to change drastically in just the past couple years. The snark in the msm on this topic alone is enough to make me ill. I just want Cruz to be very succinct in his position, too many dummies can’t follow abstract thoughts and/or ideas.
Do you have links to those dates, I’d like to read them and understand what was said. Thanks
I sincerely appreciate you taking the time and effort to explain it so clearly. I’ll follow the link to learn more. I’m quite certain there will be more questions on my end, so thank you for the open offer to ask more.
You are both welcome.
Let’s keep FR a place to exchange ideas and have rational conversations about conservative principals!
Donate to FR today!
It is more than a little frightening as we have about 20 million immigrants/illegal/whatever that have come in in a very short time. Many have little interest in naturalizing and becoming Americans. It has truly changed our demographics. You have to wonder if there’s not something a lot more sinister at work other than just creating future Democrat voters. I fear we are about to lose our sovereignty as a nation. We have a traitor in the White House and many more in the House and Senate. Trump seemed stronger on these issues than Cruz at first but he’s said some things that show his liberal side as well. I may not like everything that Cruz stands for but I do feel he is more trustworthy. I’d vote for Trump if he gets the nomination but his presidency would be a very mixed bag. With our nation so divided it’s going to be hard for anyone (even Cruz) to undo all the damage 8 yrs of Obama will have done - and many believe it’s still all wonderful. The entire Supreme Court would have to died off and Cruz select all of the new ones. ;- ) (Ok, I can dream a little can’t I?) Blessings!
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.