Posted on 05/11/2016 3:21:46 AM PDT by Biggirl
Ted Cruz supporters, and I am one, have a decision to make. My story on this decision starts on May 20, 2014, the night I had the great good fortune to attend a small dinner with Sen. Ted Cruz, to talk strategy and policy. Personally, I was skeptical of him and his chances in a potential presidential bid, which fluttered over the entire conversation like a smart, subtle butterfly.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I try to do that too ... with those that seem open to hearing some truths and other evidence that Trump is the only logical choice now. Way too many have developed such a case of tunnel-vision that they cannot/will not see the truth but would rather stick to their delusions.
Pointing out that some are not acting/thinking sanely is a effective way to get them pissed enough to try to explain their side of things - when they can't they either take a look at what's going on in their heads or they flail about and go nuts - i consider my "blunt tool" approach to them to be free therapy.
Explain why the comment, "Because, at this juncture, not doing so is stupid." would upset or turn off those who aren't already a bit off-kilter in their thinking. If you can give a rational explanation of why it's not stupid/unproductive to withhold support for Trump, at this point in the Primary, I will apologize to you and every one I may have offended. Remember - I said "rational".
Your approach won’t work, just turn it around, it wouldn’t work with you in the reverse....that should give you a clue.
A better tactic would to point out that we don’t want Hillary to pick Supreme Court Replacements.
Stick to things that will bring support, not drive people away.
I told you before that Trade Promotion Authority is something that is revisited by Congress during every presidential administration.
Congress will do so again during the Trump administration.
******************************************************
I guess I am puzzled why you are condemning Cruz for the TPA support even though you admit it passes every Congress. TPP hasn’t passed and wont pass with BO in power so why are you all worked up over it? BTW, I don’t stay online all day so my posting can be sporadic.
And...she will be blackmailed.
“TPP hasn’t passed and wont pass with BO in power so why are you all worked up over it?”
You don’t know that, and neither did Ted Cruz, when he helped push through the passage of TPA, which was the vital first step to passing TPP.
The point is, he voted with the congressional left on that matter, the same as he did on the Corker bill. Neither of those votes are defensible, and millions of conservatives remain perplexed and angry at Ted for having given Obama what he wanted on both occasions.
When a man says one thing, but does another, it’s called deceit. That’s Ted in a nutshell, and it’s why he couldn’t win the primary.
Maybe somebody created a near-duplicate name?
My humblest and most sincere apologies to Mr. Bedford. I was misinformed as to his current ZOT!-status. I ask for the kindness of his forgiveness.
The real tragedy here, of course, is that I’ve just wasted a perfectly good ZOT gif. ;)
Oh, it can be recycled. That way it reduces greenhouse gases.
The US Supreme Court clearly defined “natural-born citizen” by two independent remarks:
1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class –
2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.
But the Court didn’t stop there. Because the Court was avoiding the 14th Amendment, the Court went to the second step and defined this class to be different from all other citizens. This class did not require the 14th Amendment to be US citizens.
Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.
It was held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen – as the syllabus states in point 2 – because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. This was the independent ground that springs forth precedent. (See Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 at 84 (1996)).
I will be too busy with medical matters from now through Saturday to respond at length. I expect to do so on Sunday.
Gotcha - will see how it works.
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.