Ted Cruz citizenship fiasco continues...

[Dot Com]

"If Jake sees Ted Cruz as putting political agenda before the Constitution, then at least have the equality of judgment to see Obama comes across"

Immaterial if true, because BHO can't run again and is a lame duck.

The American people as an electorate will not give Cruz the same chance.

^ that

How could anyone trust him given that he's prone to discard long-held allegiances at the drop of a hat.

 

[HenryBHough]

Who?

Cruz or ShakeyJakey?

 

[Dot Com]

Henry want to run on Cruz-control"? Not me

 

[Yurt]

"If Jake sees Ted Cruz as putting political agenda before the Constitution, then at least have the equality of judgment to see Obama comes across"

Immaterial if true, because BHO can't run again and is a lame duck.

The American people as an electorate will not give Cruz the same chance.

^ that

How could anyone trust him given that he's prone to discard long-held allegiances at the drop of a hat.

more people will trust anthony weiner though...right? because you indicated that earlier.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Weiner or Cruz are more trustworthy in what they say than Yurt.

The point is that Cruz's chances for the presidency ended in October and November of last year with the congressional votes.

Congress and America rejected him.

 

[emilynghiem]

"If Jake sees Ted Cruz as putting political agenda before the Constitution, then at least have the equality of judgment to see Obama comes across"

Immaterial if true, because BHO can't run again and is a lame duck.

The American people as an electorate will not give Cruz the same chance.

From your response, it appears we are talking about two different things/contexts.

You appear to be concerned only inasmuch as someone can run "again" for the same political office?

I am talking about "in general" that for every person who views Obama as abusing federal govt/office to violate Constitutional duty/principles, then on the other hand, others from the opposing view could see Cruz as putting political posturing or statements above the Constitution if you don't think he represents the American public either.

This is independent of where either Cruz or Obama are in terms of their office or next move politically.

For whatever positions they are standing for IN THIS POINT IN TIME
people could view either one or the other as pushing political agenda instead of
defending Constitutional principles that include all views and interests equally.

If you are going to blame Cruz, then I would also blame Obama.
If you are going to blame Republicans, then I would also blame Democrats.

But as for the contested ACA bill that held up Congress, the Democrats supporters
who passed it knew going into the vote that they did not have the support of
Republicans and conservative constituents who did NOT agree to the way it was
written and were NOT represented by it. For them to pass it as written (and for
Roberts to retract his dissenting opinion and change to be in support of ACA)
was clearly defying responsibility to Constitutional laws representing the whole public.

Politics is the reason, but not an excuse; the conflicts with the bill should have been resolved BEFORE passing it, not waiting until afterwards with the same politics going on,
if not made worse.

If you are going to see one side as being biased "as being Antichrist in going against public law or conscience" at least see the other as equally so, and fault BOTH equally for not resolving or setting aside conflicting points BEFORE passing the bill or making a ruling on it.

if we have really lost all sense of objectivity and Constitutional inclusion in the democratic process, I see no hope for America recovering from its political infighting and backbiting.
It's bad enough when the media takes sides and only paints things all one way or the other; but when individual people can only think in polarized terms, then we're all brainwashed with political sidetaking, and I don't see how we can resolve any conflicts if we only project "our view of the opposition" back and forth endlessly.

I have honestly tried to point out the problems and solutions that ALL sides, all parties have to offer. I thought this was enough to encourage inclusion among other people; but apparently the bullying attitude of opposing one side to the death is stronger, and will oppress and override any attempts to solve problems rationally by including equal input.

So sad, that people would rather make their political points, instead of solving the problems that caused people to take sides and project blame in the first place.

Thank you, Jake and also Luddly
for trying your best to include me in the political discussion and process.

When I am done feeling completely left out, I will try something else.

I guess I need to give up for now, and wallow in feeling hopeless,
completely overridden by opponents on the left and the right who
hate each other so much, that takes precedent and priority over any
solutions that could possibly come from working together.

Somehow that is not as important as making political statements denouncing each other.

I will try to accept that as the process people are going through now.
Even though I resent having to pay for the mistakes and expenses incurred
from this political infighting that is basically censoring solutions from people
coming from a cooperative, inclusive approach to governing by consent of the people.

So sad to feel left out, but I guess I need to go through this, to appreciate what is lost. In the end I will value even more the people and solutions I find that DO include and respect people of all views equally, instead of taking one side and demonizing the other at all costs.

Thanks for the dose of reality I still have trouble accepting due to my Constitutional standards that tell me this is completely abusive, unethical, and unsustainable.
But it is what the political process is right now, like it or not. And I do not consent to this.

 

[emilynghiem]

Weiner or Cruz are more trustworthy in what they say than Yurt.

The point is that Cruz's chances for the presidency ended in October and November of last year with the congressional votes.

Congress and America rejected him.

Regardless if people hold office or not, what concerns me is whether people (inside or outside office) recognize that it is wrongful to push political agenda above Constitutional duty to represent and include all views and interests equally in public policy.

Since I am in a conversation with you (Jake) and Luddly, I am more concerned that WE personally agree what constitutes a religious/political belief protected by Constitutional law from exclusion, discrimination or penalty.

If we cannot even agree, then what hope do we have of reaching agreement on any higher level?

On the other hand, if we could agree on how to handle political diversity, the same way religious views are protected equally by law, no matter how conflicting,
couldn't we better lobby for change by being united in our diversity?
By AGREEING what the standards should be for respecting and including ALL views
so that NO ONE has to suffer this same process of bullying one party in defense of another?

What if everyone's political views were equally respected and protected?
Could we agree to stop the bullying then?

Especially since we disagree so much, that should be MORE argument not to put one view above another in terms of making a public policy biased toward or against political views.

If there was any way to reach an agreement to keep politics out of public policy, and to limit govt to only where the public agree across the board, that would liberate everyone to pursue and fund their own policies and programs. I wish!

 

[Yurt]

Obligatory: Anthony Weiner on Life Support in NYC Mayor Race - Katie Pavlich

Poll: Majority of NYC Democratic voters say Weiner should drop out - CBS News

that's just a mayor's race......yeah, more americans will certainly vote for him as president when he can't even get his home state to support him for mayor.

contrast that to ted cruz's home state:

Texas poll: Ted Cruz leads in 2016

Texas poll: Ted Cruz leads in 2016 - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com

well dot com? what say you now....

 

[jasonnfree]

Henry want to run on Cruz-control"? Not me

Cruz's dad was stupid enough to admit to bribing an official to stamp a Cuban exit permit, meaning that his citizenship is bogus, which means of course that the Cruz jr. is probably not a genuine U.S. citizen in addition to not being born in this country. Surprising that repubs aren't up in arms over this dishonesty especially after their crybaby act about Obama's citizenship.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Henry want to run on Cruz-control"? Not me

Cruz's dad was stupid enough to admit to bribing an official to stamp a Cuban exit permit, meaning that his citizenship is bogus, which means of course that the Cruz jr. is probably not a genuine U.S. citizen in addition to not being born in this country. Surprising that repubs aren't up in arms over this dishonesty especially after their crybaby act about Obama's citizenship.

One interview I saw showed him glossing over that question in his usual smarmy way. Now I see why. He seems like such a total loser that I haven't paid much attention to details. I didn't know about the bribe. Probably a mistake because it looks like the rw's will be turning a blind eye to some really obvious questions about his citizenship.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Weiner or Cruz are more trustworthy in what they say than Yurt.

The point is that Cruz's chances for the presidency ended in October and November of last year with the congressional votes.

Congress and America rejected him.

Regardless if people hold office or not, what concerns me is whether people (inside or outside office) recognize that it is wrongful to push political agenda above Constitutional duty to represent and include all views and interests equally in public policy.

Since I am in a conversation with you (Jake) and Luddly, I am more concerned that WE personally agree what constitutes a religious/political belief protected by Constitutional law from exclusion, discrimination or penalty.

If we cannot even agree, then what hope do we have of reaching agreement on any higher level?

On the other hand, if we could agree on how to handle political diversity, the same way religious views are protected equally by law, no matter how conflicting,
couldn't we better lobby for change by being united in our diversity?
By AGREEING what the standards should be for respecting and including ALL views
so that NO ONE has to suffer this same process of bullying one party in defense of another?

What if everyone's political views were equally respected and protected?
Could we agree to stop the bullying then?

Especially since we disagree so much, that should be MORE argument not to put one view above another in terms of making a public policy biased toward or against political views.

If there was any way to reach an agreement to keep politics out of public policy, and to limit govt to only where the public agree across the board, that would liberate everyone to pursue and fund their own policies and programs. I wish!

We are talking about Cruz, not your Dear Leader, so stop trying to derail the thread.

We can agree that neither BHO nor Cruz will be elected to the office in 2016.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can Chris Christie be president? Latest polls show how it could happen | NJ.com

 

[Zander]

Clearly Mr. Cruz is planing on running for President.

That's great!

The more the merrier.

 

[Dot Com]

Clearly Mr. Cruz is planing on running for President.

That's great!

The more the merrier.

yep I want the Repub Primaries to go on for a good looong time just like in 2012

 

[HenryBHough]

None of this matters.

Hillary is going to be your hilarious new president. Heck, she might even remember to run but even if she doesn't she'll still be acclaimed.

And after her eight years? Chelsea.

And after her eight years? First one of the Obama git followed, eight years later, by the other.

If it starts to look otherwise count upon the (recently purged) armed forces allegiance to the Man/Woman rather than to the constitution to put things right..

 

[Impenitent]

"The. Leader of the Pack"

Is she really voting for him?
Well, there she is, let's ask her
Betty, is that a Ted Cruz poster you're carrying? Uhm, hmm
Gee, it must be hard to carry water for him
Is he picking you up after school today? Uhm, umm

By the way, where'd you meet him?
I met him at the USMB !
I said I'd like to get small government back
He turned around and smiled at me
You get the picture? Yes, we see
That's when I fell for the leader of the pack

Rino's were always putting him down below their level
(Down, down)
They said, that clown came from the wrong side of of the 49th parallel
(Clown, clown)
(What you mean when you say that he came from the wrong side of the 49th ?)
They told me, that besides never saying anything factual
(Factual, factual)
That he wasn't even natural
(Natural, natural)
That's why I fell for the leader of the pack

One day the Rino's said, "Find someone new"
I had to tell my Teddy, we're through
(What you mean when you say that
You better go find somebody new?)
He stood there and asked me why, all I could do was cry
I'm sorry, I hurt you, the leader of the pack

He had forsaken his constitutional duties, I swear
To be a full time demagogue against Obamacare
He drove to Congress that night with the best intention
But it turned out to be a sordid mission

Though I begged him to go slow, whether he heard I'll never know
But he had to grandstand all for show
Then we heard that awful sound
Of the 24 billion dollar shutdown

Look out, look out
Look out, look out

I felt so helpless, what could I do?
Rememberin' all the things we'd been through
At the board they all stop and stare
I can't hide the tears but I don't care
I'll never forget him, the leader of the pack

(Gone, gone, gone, gone)
The leader of the pack, now he's gone
(Gone)
The leader of the pack, now he's gone
(Gone, gone, gone, gone)
The leader of the pack, now he's gone
(Gone)
The leader of the pack

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8UKf65NOzM