A Few Comments about Cruz and Rubio

[TyroneSlothrop]

the last thing America needs is people like you who HATE America!!

The Constitution does not allow us to Genocide the conservatives...

Did Trump University Scam Low-Income Students Who Are Now Suing the GOP Front-Runner?
Amy Goodman, Jose Antonio Vargas / Democracy Now!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Tyrone the meme, lol.

Suck on this ...

 

[Wildman]

RED is reserved for the USMB Mods.

SINCE WHEN?????

 

[Wildman]

...the narrative that "Cruz is a liar."

i have asked repeatedly for specifics of Cruz's "lies", no liberliar has replied to this question, "WHAT LIES"??

 

[Wildman]

FUCKIN COMMIE !!!!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

@FrankthorpNBC
Sen Graham at the #WPCFDinner: "If you kill Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial is at the Senate, no one will convict you."

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

FUCKIN COMMIE !!!!

The Politburo of Tea Billy Mockery will be on you like "white on Rice", Condoleeza

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

Tyrone the meme, lol.

Suck on this ...

 

[Rustic]

 

[the_human_being]

Don Knotts has died. I really enjoyed that guy. Mayberry and the Shakiest Gun In the West. Barney Fyfe.

 

[Tom Horn]

Neither cruz or rubio has a chance against clinton, though rubio can pull in some gay votes and some bill clinton votes from people who like men who sleep with lots of women.

So Rubio is "gay" and "sleeps with lots of women" at the same time?

 

[ZackB]

There is definitely the perception by many (including me) that Rubio has peanut sized balls. He would probably be ok as President, but you never know. He does little to inspire confidence.

I am still supporting Cruz. He is very intelligent and stands on principle. I like that he is ideological and opposed to being a populist who sways with the breeze. As an ideologue you can predict how he will act on a variety of thing last and can hold him accountable. Of all the candidates, Republicans and Democrats, he is the most logical and analytical in his positions. He can explain what he wants to do, why he wants to do it, how he is going to do it, and what the results will be. He is very lawyerly in his approach. To me, he employs a rational and well thought out approach that none of the other candidates seem to have. The rest appear to merely stake out their positions based on what they perceive will garner the most popular support.

Cruz is indeed ideological. The problem is that he's on the far right. Let's say that he gets the nomination. It's difficult to imagine anybody from the left or a vast majority of the independent supporting Cruz. Are you concerned that he might not be able to defeat Clinton or Sanders in the general election?

Sure. But Hillary is so damaged and Sanders is such a whack job it could be that enthusiasm on the Dem side is low and the turnout for them will be so low that Cruz will win. Personally, I think that we need a real conservative now. When we start worrying about electability we get RINOS who lose anyway (Romney, McCain, Dole). Now is the perfect time for someone like Cruz to be elected.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I dont care if Rubio is gay and has lots of women for sex. I stick to the issues and he is pro illegal anti american.

OK, so now you have repeated the falsehood like Donald Trump, what else have you got?

 

[ZackB]

"conservative values"

An oxymoron if there ever was one.

Unfortunately what conservatives 'value' is intolerance, contempt for sound, responsible governance, and implementing their failed, wrongheaded dogma hostile to the rule of law.

Seeking to criminalize homosexuality is not a 'value,' seeking to deny women their right to privacy is not a 'value,' and seeking to conjoin church and state in violation of the First Amendment is clearly not a 'value.'

The last thing America needs is conservative 'values.'

Right, you prefer relativistic, situational ethics and values. In other words, you want a lack of consequences; a lack of responsibility. Typical leftist zombie coont.

 

[ZackB]

It must be a conservative value to continually misrepresent the facts in an attempt to gain primary votes.

Like Hillary and Bernie do? Nope, that is a Dem trait.

 

[ptbw forever]

There should be a jackass' carcass under them.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong, I believe it means exactly what it says, as amended, no interpretation required. The law doesn't change based on opinion, that's why they write them down and not just pass them down person to person.

Also 85% of Americans consider themselves religious, and hold values consistent with their religions, Cruz is no different.

Wrong, I believe it means exactly what it says, as amended, no interpretation required. The law doesn't change based on opinion, that's why they write them down and not just pass them down person to person.
If only we can unify our interpretation of the Constitution by writing it on paper... I know you didn't mean it, lol.
Also 85% of Americans consider themselves religious, and hold values consistent with their religions, Cruz is no different.
Really? Then why do we have so many liberals even on this forum?

It's already been written, the words mean exactly what they did when they were written, regardless if it's the original document or the more modern amendments. The founders said the Constitution was written so the lowliest farmer could understand it. There was never a question as to it's meaning until lawyers started parsing words and engaging in games of semantics.

If I knew why people act in the opposite manner from the values they claim to hold and try to force those false values on the rest of us, I could be a very rich man. All I can do is revert to the Bible, where it says to beware of false prophets. Most major religions have similar warnings.

Sadly, once the "evil" lawyers started "parsing words and engaging in games of semantics", there is no way for a peasant to "understand" the constitution any more! Even the most experienced experts in laws (e.g. the Justices) do not agree on the meanings of our constitution...

The thing you have to understand, is the job of a judge is to apply the Constitution and laws, not interpret them, when they engage in interpretations their own biases come into play. Words on a piece of paper have a set meaning, all they need do is read. If you read Article 1, Section 8, it is one continuous sentence, it's not a thrown together bunch of independent words or phrases the way the lawyers try to read it. It is also the most important section in the Constitution, it's defines 90+% of the federal governments powers.

Here's a debate between Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer. Hope you like it!

Thanks for the video, it pretty well shows the difference between judicial activism and originalism.

Breyer unintentionally defined himself as an activist judge early on in the discussion. Let me explain how, in his Article 3 roll they were reviewing the applicability of a law which contained language he found ambiguous. This is totally within his Article 3 powers, where he strayed from his duties was when he said it was his job to look a the purpose of the law, which he already stated was ambiguous. Then he thought it appropriate to interpret the ambiguous law to fit his perceived purpose, that's where he left objectivity in the dust. In doing so he left the realm of his powers of Article 3 and assumed the Article 1 powers of the legislature. His response should have been to find the law unenforceable as written and informed the legislature it had to be changed to remove the ambiguity. Judges have no authority to fix laws, that is a legislative responsibility.

Scalia said it pretty well, constitutional concepts are not bottles that judges can drain and refill with new contents at will, they are filled and sealed by the society that made them in the first place and the only instrument that can alter their contents is the amendment process.

 

[OKTexas]

RED is reserved for the USMB Mods.

SINCE WHEN?????

Since I've been here, don't believe me pm one and ask.