Posted on 01/26/2016 5:36:15 AM PST by Kaslin
Trump is a vessel who says a lot of things that need saying. But as TC is proving with the “Iowans are stupid” ad there’s a treasure trove of stuff that will be used against him in the fall. And I’m still not 100 percent convinced that Trump is not working in concert with the Clintons.
How many I can find to wake fools like you up. Which will probably never happen because of your foolishness
Sounds like he was being 'conservative'.
Flip-Flopped on Legal Immigration:
Townhall’s Guy Benson: “Cruz has flip-flopped dramatically on a number of his previous immigration views.â€
“In response, Rubio charged that Cruz supported mass legalization of illegal immigrants and proposed huge increases in federal issuance of certain immigration visas and green cards. Cruz shook his head throughout Rubio’s rejoinder, but Rubio was correct on these points. Cruz has flip-flopped dramatically on a number of his previous immigration views. The Texan shot back, ‘it is not accurate, what he just said, that I supported legalization.’ Sorry, Senator. It’s on tape.†(Townhall, Guy Benson, 12/16/15)
Flip-Flopped on H-1B Visas:
In an election year, Cruz said “he would suspend the H-1B program.â€
“Cruz said he would suspend the H-1B program for 180 days while he audited the system for abuses, abandoning his prior support for a 500% increase in the high-tech program.†(CNN, 11/13/15)
“Cruz sharply distanced himself from his long-held plan to increase the number of visas for high-tech workers by 500%.â€
“A month prior, Cruz sharply distanced himself from his long-held plan to increase the number of visas for high-tech workers by 500%. Under fire from conservative talk radio hosts who said he was imperiling American workers, Cruz said he would suspend the program for 180 days until it could be reformed to his liking.†(CNN, 12/1/7/15)
In 2013, Senator Cruz offered an amendment that would increase the H-1B Visa program from 65,000 to 325,000.
“During the 2013 immigration debate, the Texas senator proposed an amendment to the comprehensive ‘gang of eight’ Senate bill that he boasted would ‘dramatically increas[e]’ the annual limit on H-1B skilled guest worker visas—from 65,000 to 325,000—a five-fold expansion.†(Bloomberg, 8/20/15)
You: Your duplicity is appalling. This thread is FULL of rebuttals. "Cherry-picking" is does not help your original, fallacious assertion.
I picked the first dozen or so responses in this thread for my examples... at which point there were no "rebuttals," only insults. Proving my point. Also, you have offered no rebuttals, only insults. Point two.
Self-awareness is not your strong point, eh?
>> The phrase “class of alien” will have to pass a legal test <<
It’s really a very interesting Constitutional question.
On the one hand, using any kind of religious test would seem to violate the First Amendment. I think Anthony Kennedy could easily be persuaded, and the four Dhims on the SCOTUS are sure votes from the git-go.
But on the other hand, who would have standing to bring suit in a Federal court? Some alien who is outside the USA? No way, IMHO. And I can’t think of anybody else.
So if you can conjure up a plausible plaintiff, I’m all ears!
You’re boring Troll!
Fair enough. It still does show a disturbing trend of attack venomously first, consider later, though. And that's the point I'm making. As my dear departed grandmother used to say, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
But I still think this post has an agenda.
I'm not sure what that means. All posts have an "agenda." The O.P. seems to have an agenda explaining why he is no longer supporting Trump as his first choice. My post has the agenda to point out the dangers of tearing down those who got you where you are now, and who you hope to support you in the future. Your post has the "agenda" of defending Trump from criticism (and originally) to cast aspersions on the motives of the author of the article. So what? None of those agendas are invalid. It's the results of the actions that matter.
hah! What a thought!
This country has become what the government wants instead of what the people can accomplish. It's absolutely horrible.
hah! What a thought!
This country has become what the government wants instead of what the people can accomplish. It's absolutely horrible.
“The problem with that is that successful though Donald Trump may be, he fails all the time. He’s had four bankruptcies.”
Does this sound like an unbiased opinion? I don’t.
To state the ‘he fails ALL the time’ is utterly ridiculous. It makes the rest of his personal opinions suspect. But, that’s just me.
Well then you’re a hater and not a real conservative and should jump off a bridge
/s
Kaslin -- if Trump loses, those folks here (a minority though they post frequently and aggressively enough, including in brief daily caucuses here, to appear otherwise) will REFUSE to be accountable for insisting on a candidate that so many here WARNED them would be rejected.
I share his concerns about Trump's temperament. The way one conducts himself in public is important in all walks of life. It is also indicative of how one will conduct himself in the future.
His tendency to belittle and demean opponents and detractors is bothersome. Nor is it new.
Is that how he will deal with anyone opposing his policies as POTUS? Christie on steroids.
What happens when the majority of us on the right oppose a policy he is trying to implement? Will he resort to calling us losers and whack jobs? After all, we are just nasty people; nobody likes us, everyone loves him.
While 90% of Freepers are at the ‘if X is the nominee, will you vote for him’ stage, I am still deciding my primary vote.
Temperament is but one consideration. Should I overlook behavior I consider beneath the dignity of the office of POTUS?
I want a President who is A-POLITICAL.
One who doesn’t care what THIS party or THAT party wants, but what is GOOD FOR AMERICANS.
I see TRUMP (as evidenced by having been associated with various parties) as being that kind of President.
It is possible CRUZ could be that way also, but I think it would be much harder for him to do.
What you ignored was this article by the author
He gives his honest opinion and you don't like it.
Well so be it. Who cares?
That's not what the UN says.
Wrong. More like someone that woke up and saw the truth. Unlike you
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.