# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Justin Amash: Why I Trust Ted Cruz

## Erazer

> As a libertarian Republican, I have spent several months promoting the candidacy of my friend Senator Rand Paul, who is, in my view, the most passionate defender of our rights on the national stage today. Since his departure from the presidential race, Ive been asked many times: what now?
> Its easy to withdraw from politics when the positions and priorities of the candidates do not precisely mirror our own. But we owe it to our beliefs to find constitutional conservative political allies who not only respect our philosophy but also fight for our views to be heard.
> We have found such an ally in Senator Ted Cruz.


Read more: http://opinion.injo.com/2016/02/253437-trust-ted-cruz/

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

While I will not vilify Amash for this, I will note that things like this are why I made the decision to go back to work rather than pursue politics professionally.

----------


## Petar

Autism prevails.

----------


## sparebulb

Washington DC changes a person.

There is no path to liberty through a Ted Goldman presidency.

----------


## EBounding

This should be posted in the Donald Trump forum too. 

I get why he did this.  I'm sure he means what he says, but I doubt he would do this if he was in a safe position like Massie or Rand.  He needs the grassroots conservative supporters to ward off a primary opponent and this will go a long way.

I guess I'll give Cruz my all important primary vote too...if I get around to it.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't think it has to do with embracing an authoritarian for some people. Donald Trump is largely correct  on illegal immigration, exploitative managed trade deals and foreign policy.  These are not superficial issues but rather core policies. I laugh when I hear the word 'liberty' carelessly thrown around, when liberty can mean multiples of different things to different individuals.


A mass deportation of all 12-20 million illegal immigrants is clearly an authoritarian and anti liberty position.

----------


## AuH20

> A mass deportation of all 12-20 million illegal immigrants is clearly an authoritarian and anti liberty position.


No one is realistically deporting any large numbers of people. The gap will be closed however, so this nonsense will cease. The days of Mexico exporting their social ills will come to an end if DJT arrives.

----------


## EBounding

The endorsement helps Amash more than it helps Cruz.

----------


## phill4paul

> I consider this equivalent to Rand endorsing McConnell.
> 
> A select few uneducated loudmouth will claim that Amash somehow abandoned his own principles with an endorsement. In reality, Amash is gaining a powerful ally who can be very useful in the future.
> 
> I respect Amash for this...just as I respected Rand for his endorsement.
> 
> I can't personally endorse Cruz, but I completely agree that if I had to pick someone to be closest to the Liberty movement....it would be Cruz (even with his Transgressions against the Liberty Movement)


  I'm sure a select few party apparatchiks will chime in to say "this is just how it is done, ya got to go along to get along, this'll make him a powerful ally (which we know damn well it won't) who will help us in the future. Just like Cruz has done in the past like when he stood up for liberty during the Audit the Fed vote.

----------


## Gh34

> It's not even the same as that.  Cruz is far from ideal but is a lot closer to us on the issues than Romney and McConnell.


That is the exact argument neocons use vis-a-vis democrats, vote for them vs. democrats, and cruz only postured to be similar to Rand for votes, just like with Huckabee, and now Trump, etc. which has also caused the contradictions in his policies which he advertises as 'pure'.

----------


## Cabal

Predictably shameful and disappointing.

This is what happens when you play politics, as we have seen time and again, to no benefit whatsoever.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

This is some traitorous unConstitutional bull$#@!, backing an ineligible Canadian for the Presidency.

----------


## phill4paul

> Rand considered voting for both of those up until the last minute.  At one point he was in favor of the TPP.  Your comment seems pretty absurd, both because issues like the TPA and TPP aren't clear at all from a liberty perspective, but also because it's *beyond ridiculous to advocate throwing people in prison just because they vote differently than you want them to vote.*


  Beyond ridiculous? Hell, we wouldn't be in this mess if we had started doing this with Alexander Hamilton.

----------


## Brett85

> Predictably shameful and disappointing.
> 
> This is what happens when you play politics, as we have seen time and again, to no benefit whatsoever.
> 
> *The lesser of two evils is still evil.*


I don't know whether you're a Christian or not, but from a Christian theological perspective every candidate is evil.  Every person and every candidate running for office is evil to some extent, since everyone has sinned against God and broken his commandments.  Thus, unless Jesus Christ comes down to earth and runs for President, we'll always be voting for the lesser of two or more evils.  So then it just comes down to how much evil you're willing to put up with.  And it may be the case for some people that Ted Cruz is too evil for people to support.  But apparently for Amash, Cruz wasn't so evil that he can't support him.  But, it just doesn't make sense logically that you "can never vote for the lesser evil," since every candidate who runs is evil by Biblical standards.  Of course, if you aren't a Christian then you can disregard all of that, but at least for those of us who are Christians it doesn't make sense logically or theologically to say that we should never vote for the lesser evil.

----------


## Cabal

> I don't know whether you're a Christian or not


I'm not.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

This is some traitorous unConstitutional bull$#@!, backing an ineligible Canadian for the Presidency.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm not.


Then how do you define evil?

----------


## Isaac Bickerstaff

Anything I have to say on the subject has already been said by Andy Kaufman

https://youtu.be/Fdp7pzhJAIM?list=RDFdp7pzhJAIM

----------


## Matt Collins

Ron has endorsed a lot of people worse than Ted Cruz:

----------


## SilentBull

Not surprising. I don't like Cruz but the fact is that out of everyone still running, he's still the best. Can you picture Trump responding to minimum wage questions in a general election debate? At least there is a small chance that Cruz understands basic economics. This isn't true for Trump.

There is also a small chance that Cruz went full neocon to infiltrate; that he did what Rand was doing at first, but did it more aggressively and decided to go all in. I did say "small" chance. With anyone else, there is no chance at all.

----------


## Gh34

> Not surprising. I don't like Cruz but the fact is that out of everyone still running, he's still the best. Can you picture Trump responding to minimum wage questions in a general election debate? At least there is a small chance that Cruz understands basic economics. This isn't true for Trump.
> 
> There is also a small chance that Cruz went full neocon to infiltrate; that he did what Rand was doing at first, but did it more aggressively and decided to go all in. I did say "small" chance. With anyone else, there is no chance at all.


Backwards, Cruz was a neocon from the start working for Bush. Bush also pretended to be semi-non-interventionist in his 2000 campaign.




For Trump. His position in economics is closer to Perot, but he does have an ideology.

----------


## Libertas Aut Mortis

> I'm sure a select few party apparatchiks will chime in to say "this is just how it is done, ya got to go along to get along, this'll make him a powerful ally (which we know damn well it won't) who will help us in the future. Just like Cruz has done in the past like when he stood up for liberty during the Audit the Fed vote.


To be fair...Cruz did co-sponsor it. Cruz has spoken, very loudly for it. And he knew that it wasn't going to pass ahead of time. Now, he should have showed up for his job, especially for a vote like that....but we know where he stands on the issue. He was on the campaign trail, and he considered that more important than attending a vote that was going to lose. 

I'll rip on him all day for it....but him being slimey doesn't make him against the bill that he co-sponsored, and then abandoned when it was showed no chance of passing.

----------


## phill4paul

> To be fair...Cruz did co-sponsor it. Cruz has spoken, very loudly for it. And he knew that it wasn't going to pass ahead of time. Now, he should have showed up for his job, especially for a vote like that....but we know where he stands on the issue. He was on the campaign trail, and he considered that more important than attending a vote that was going to lose. 
> 
> I'll rip on him all day for it....but him being slimey doesn't make him against the bill that he co-sponsored, *and then abandoned* when it was showed no chance of passing.


  Those. Three. Words.

----------


## Libertas Aut Mortis

> Those. Three. Words.


Yea.....I'm not apologizing for him dude. I'm just being real. Ted has been a pretty strong ally in pursuit of Audit the Fed. He failed to show up for the vote...but that causation doesn't equate to the correlation that you would like to make to score political hit points against him. 

Him not showing up means....that he didn't show up. It doesn't mean his position has changed.

----------


## Cleaner44

> If Ron Paul or Rand Paul had been born in Canada, would that have prevented you from supporting them for President?


Yes. I would support the message, but I am not going against the Constitution and voting for a foreigner for my president.

----------


## JK/SEA

i'm sure this is some kind of strategy move we have yet to figure out....

----------


## dannno

> If Ron Paul or Rand Paul had been born in Canada, would that have prevented you from supporting them for President?


I would support them and vote for them, but I would also want them to go through the process of ensuring that they could actually become President.. it's better to find out earlier than later, after all the effort has been made.

I see the avoidance as a character flaw... It's the type of person who is like, "oh, well if I just get the votes we can worry about eligibility later..." ... or "Oh, well if we just go in and attack Iraq now we can worry about all of fallout later.." .. or "Oh, well if I just get really drunk now, I'll find out how to get home later.."

It's very r (vs. K)

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Dumb move and bit surprised that JA fell for swctool Ted Goldman.  Seems like this crop of libertarians need more political training/maturity.

----------


## phill4paul

> Yea.....I'm not apologizing for him dude. I'm just being real. Ted has been a pretty strong ally in pursuit of Audit the Fed. He failed to show up for the vote...but that causation doesn't equate to the correlation that you would like to make to score political hit points against him. 
> 
> Him not showing up means....that he didn't show up. It doesn't mean his position has changed.


   Political hit points? Lol. He had one job. To Senator. Running for the presidential nomination does not, should not, preclude ones elected position. As you pointed out, he co-sponsored the bill. If he cannot take the time to be present for a vote on a bill that he co-sponsored, representing his constituents, because he believes it will fail, is a signal to me that he really didn't stand behind it. His personal interest, running for POTUS, outweighed his elected position. And that only leaves me with the conviction that once he achieved POTUS that he would look to personal interest over his elected position.

----------


## Rudeman

First of all people are acting like he just endorsed Lindsay Graham or Marco Rubio. He endorsed Rand first and now that Rand is out he endorsed Cruz. Sorry he didn't support the glorious leader (Trump).

Justin Amash is allowed to have an opinion of who he thinks is better and I don't fault him for it because there isn't a clear best candidate available (like Ron or Rand).

----------


## Matt Collins

Remember Ron has endorsed some bad people too:

----------


## Feelgood

Du Fuq?

----------


## EBounding

> First of all people are acting like he just endorsed Lindsay Graham or Marco Rubio. He endorsed Rand first and now that Rand is out he endorsed Cruz. Sorry he didn't support the glorious leader (Trump).
> 
> Justin Amash is allowed to have an opinion of who he thinks is better and I don't fault him for it because there isn't a clear best candidate available (like Ron or Rand).


Cruz also helped Justin when he was primaried in 2014.  That's politics I guess.

----------


## wmmonk

> Remember Ron has endorsed some bad people too:


Remember, Ron Paul didn't endorse John McCain or Mitt Romney.
Remember, two wrongs don't make a right.

----------


## sparebulb

> Remember Ron has endorsed some bad people too:


While this may be true,

It is more irritating coming from you.

_A poem for Collinz_

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Remember Ron has endorsed some bad people too:





> Do you ever have anything else to say?


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/yeah-yeah-whatever-Teh-Collinz-is-busy-winning-elections-and-doesn't-have-time-for-your-penny-ante-bull$#@!

----------


## JSBach

Is this a fake Cruz generated endorsement? Do we have Amash speaking to this endorsement?

On the other hand, there are moves to make sure there is a brokered convention! www.StillRanding.com is one site preparing and talking about plans to still nominate Rand, which has certain merits! Maybe Cruz will capitulate in the convention to the constitutional eligibility and ask all his delegates to go with Rand Paul!?

No doubt the Trumpet Buffoon is planning on throwing to Jeb and making the phone call on the floor to get Jeb the nomination, similar to the Perot plan to throw to King George or to Bill! Trumpet is up to the same strategy!

It is of the deepest strategy only when what??? WHEN THE FED EXISTENCE HANGS IN THE BALANCE! Then it is FED vs. Anti-FED!

Paul vs. un-Paul!

Never forget the biggest picture of all!

----------


## Fivezeroes

> Is this a fake Cruz generated endorsement? Do we have Amash speaking to this endorsement?
> 
> On the other hand, there are moves to make sure there is a brokered convention! www.StillRanding.com is one site preparing and talking about plans to still nominate Rand, which has certain merits! Maybe Cruz will capitulate in the convention to the constitutional eligibility and ask all his delegates to go with Rand Paul!?
> 
> No doubt the Trumpet Buffoon is planning on throwing to Jeb and making the phone call on the floor to get Jeb the nomination, similar to the Perot plan to throw to King George or to Bill! Trumpet is up to the same strategy!
> 
> It is of the deepest strategy only when what??? WHEN THE FED EXISTENCE HANGS IN THE BALANCE! Then it is FED vs. Anti-FED!
> 
> Paul vs. un-Paul!
> ...



There's not going to be a brokered convention, not the way the votes are currently going. No front runner that has won both SC and NH has ever went on to lose the nomination and even if there were a brokered convention, the establishment hacks would just give the nod to Bush, Cruz or Rubot.

----------


## Rudeman

> Who has said anything about him not being allowed an opinion? 
> 
> Some people just happen to have the opinion that his opinion on this is bad.


That's fine but insulating that he's a traitor, supports carpet bombing or has been in Washington too long is a bit far, but that's just my opinion.

----------


## Erazer

> Remember Ron has endorsed some bad people too:


This is nothing like the "incumbent protection plan" and you know it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Rand considered voting for both of those up until the last minute.  At one point he was in favor of the TPP.  Your comment seems pretty absurd, both because issues like the TPA and TPP aren't clear at all from a liberty perspective, but also because it's beyond ridiculous to advocate throwing people in prison just because they vote differently than you want them to vote.


Sounds like you have some homework to do.  Go do your research and come back and tell me that after you do.  Until then,  pffftt.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I think it's simple. Ted endorsed Justin in 2014 and made ads and Justin's returning the favor.


Too simple.

----------


## JSBach

All it takes is a less than majority on first vote. That is the course the race is currently on unless one of the top, soon drops and allows voters to alter the course. The least control from the top down is precisely when there is no majority on first vote. It is then that the actual delegates realize their power and can either vote their personal choice or start pimping for big time perks... a real headache and complicated for the party and convention. There are not enough mafia types on the floor at the end of a delegate election process to carry out a good top down control. That is the nightmare scenario for the party!
See: StillRanding.com

----------


## specsaregood

I guess there is little harm at this point in endorsing somebody that isn't going to win the nomination anyways.

----------


## TommyJeff

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-endorses-cruz

I'm a fan of his on many things.   He said he is voting republican even over a libertarian party candidate.  A shame. But I guess he thinks this is the best scenario for his future/national future

----------


## Brett85

He is a Republican.  Why would he vote for a Libertarian Party candidate?

----------


## presence

Cruz is going to lose and Amash probably knows that.   In the past 60 days Cruz has gone from 10:1 to 100:1 at the betting sites. 


 This is one of those "I endorsed you, so will you endorse me later?" gestures that just induces face palm for me.

----------


## erowe1

> He said he is voting republican even over a libertarian party candidate.


I agree with Brett that I don't see any reason for Amash to support an LP candidate. But I don't see any mention of the LP anywhere in the article. Did you have a quote of him saying that from some other source?

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## erowe1

> This is one of those "I endorsed you, so will you endorse me later?" gestures that just induces face palm for me.


Why does it induce face palm?

Looking at it the way you describe makes it a lot more palatable to me.

I don't want Cruz to be president. But I do want him to continue to be as much of an ally to Rand and Amash in the Senate as possible. He's been one so far and stands to continue to be one. That alliance should be cultivated.

In fact, if it's really clear that Cruz can't win, maybe Rand should endorse him too.

----------


## presence

> Why does it induce face palm?


because endorsements should mean "I believe in your policy perspective" not "I believe I can change your policy perspective".  

I don't think Amash and Cruz really have too much in common.  

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...sement-2-24-16

I give you that ted is strong on monetary policy and the second amendment from a libertarian perspective.   

understated:



> On civil liberties and foreign policy, Ted and I don’t always agree.
> 
> -Amash





Amash is essentially endorsing Cruz because "everyone else sucks" but  "maybe I could influence Ted a little" because Ted a debating constitutional philosopher and "Maybe Ted will owe me a political favor".   Albeit fed audit would be an accomplishment, its still a lesser of evils endorsement, I just find that shallow.   Ted has a brand.  I don't believe we'll ever win over him over on bombing the suicidal sand people or letting up on the drug war prison state.   As "constitutionalist" as he may be he has no concept of NAP.

----------


## erowe1

> because endorsements should mean "I believe in your policy perspective"


Why?

----------


## Dianne

Have no fear.   They have brought Mittens in to be the extrumpinator.

----------


## presence

> Why?


Because if you need someone to paint your house and you ask me for an endorsement;
Even if I know some guy that that cuts nice lines, can get the job done cheap, with great products;
I'm not going to recommend him to you if he splattered carpet bombs on my persian rugs.

----------


## Aratus

> Have no fear.   They have brought Mittens in to be the extrumpinator.


THE ARNOLD is literally taking over Donald Trump's MC role on THE APPRENTICE! Is this a coincidence?

----------


## thoughtomator

Guess we have to scratch Amash off the list of hoped-for future leaders unless he becomes a LOT more cynical between now and then.

----------


## Aratus

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to thoughtomator again.

----------


## thoughtomator

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to thoughtomator again.


Don't worry about it. I got a pile of rep so high that Snoop Dogg is jealous of it.

----------


## erowe1

> Because if you need someone to paint your house and you ask me for an endorsement;
> Even if I know some guy that that cuts nice lines, can get the job done cheap, with great products;
> I'm not going to recommend him to you if he splattered carpet bombs on my persian rugs.


This isn't the same though. This is a political calculation. I think it makes sense for Amash to do it. All the more so if there's really no risk of Cruz winning.

----------


## TommyJeff

> He is a Republican.  Why would he vote for a Libertarian Party candidate?


Would you suggest that Ron Paul voted republican the years he was in congress and not running for president?

----------


## Brett85

> Would you suggest that Ron Paul voted republican the years he was in congress and not running for president?


Ron Paul was an enigma.  We shouldn't expect other liberty candidates to take the same stance.  You have to work within the party if you want to have any success at changing the party.

----------


## TommyJeff

> I agree with Brett that I don't see any reason for Amash to support an LP candidate. But I don't see any mention of the LP anywhere in the article. Did you have a quote of him saying that from some other source?


I was watching Kennedy on fox last night (maybe the night before) because Gary Johnson was going to be on.  She asked Amash a specific question, something like "would you support Gary Johnson if he decides to run" and Amash said he's a republican and will be backing Cruz because none of the other candidates work with the liberty group and while Cruz isn't the best, he's better than the rest.  (Paraphrasing based on memory).   I don't have the quote but it was when he was on Kennedy this week, shouldn't be too hard to find the interview.

----------


## TommyJeff

> Ron Paul was an enigma.  We shouldn't expect other liberty candidates to take the same stance.  You have to work within the party if you want to have any success at changing the party.


A unicorn is better than enigma.    But do you have a thought on my question?  he might have voted for republicans, yes?

----------


## Brett85

> A unicorn is better than enigma.    But do you have a thought on my question?  he might have voted for republicans, yes?


I don't think Ron ever endorsed or voted for the GOP nominee.  He did however vote for Gingrich for speaker of the house and also endorsed all of the incumbents in Texas.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

My initial reaction to this news was to start rethinking my support for Amash, as it seemed like an unforced show of support at a time when it could actually effect the outcome (as opposed to the usual pro forma endorsement). So I have, and I've come to the conclusion that I trust Amash enough to assume that he had some good practical reason for doing this; that he reasonably expects this move to advance the cause in some way (helping him get reelected, giving him more influence on the House, etc).

----------


## erowe1

> My initial reaction to this news was to start rethinking my support for Amash, as it seemed like an unforced show of support at a time when it could actually effect the outcome (as opposed to the usual pro forma endorsement). So I have, and I've come to the conclusion that I trust Amash enough to assume that he had some good practical reason for doing this; that he reasonably expects this move to advance the cause in some way (helping him get reelected, giving him more influence on the House, etc).


Unless Rand or some other preferable candidate were still in the race, I don't see even a potential downside to endorsing Cruz against Trump and Rubio. When Rand was in the race, Amash endorsed and wholeheartedly supported him.

----------


## EBounding

No one else in Congress helped Justin out more than Cruz did in 2014.  Rand endorsed him too of course, but Cruz has wider appeal with regular grassroots conservatives and he made ads for him.  That doesn't mean everyone here should vote for Cruz.  It just means Justin has a very good reason for returning the endorsement favor to Cruz.

----------

