Cruz 2016?

I've seen conflicting reports on Cruz's eligibility. He needs to be a "natural born citizen" to qualify.

As for supporting him, he'd get the tea party jazzed up. I'm for it even if he bows out early in favor of Rand. What I really don't want is more of the same old moss covered neocons and social conservatives.
 
If Rand doesn't run I'm ok with Cruz.

Based on recent history and events his birth won't be an issue and we would look like nutters to make it one.

The primaries anymore are a game of early attrition and if Rand was to win IA and NH, Cruz would likely drop and endorse.
 
No one is concerned that he will split the primary vote with Rand?

I don't think a 50/50 split, but it is a concern that he could take enough if Rand doesn't continue to frame the message in a way that republican voters can accept (or perhaps even if he does, the media smear machine is already gearing up for it).

Cruz has been pretty good about talking the talk, but after the closed door meetings with the likes of Rove and other concerns, I'm still skeptical that he's just going which way the wind is blowing.

Now before anyone says that you could say similar things about Rand, I have more concerns that he will water down our ideals too much to make a real difference (though it's undeniable he is still having some real influence in a positive direction), but I do not think there's any way he's a neocon in disguise. I hate to resort to nepotism, but I'm sorry, Ron Paul's son isn't just going to stab us in the back. Let us down, maybe, but I just refuse to believe that he's just another one in this for personal gain like Cruz may be.

(BTW, I'm not trying to suggest that you're saying this, but I think there are far more reasons to think Rand is genuine than is Cruz)
 
Last edited:
I don't think a 50/50 split, but it is a concern that he could take enough if Rand doesn't continue to frame the message in a way that republican voters can accept (or perhaps even if he does, the media smear machine is already gearing up for it).

Cruz has been pretty good about talking the talk, but after the closed door meetings with the likes of Rove and other concerns, I'm still skeptical that he's just going which way the wind is blowing.

Now before anyone says that you could say similar things about Rand,
I have more concerns that he will water down our ideals too much to make a real difference (though it's undeniable he is still having some real influence in a positive direction), but I do not think there's any way he's a neocon in disguise. I hate to resort to nepotism, but I'm sorry, Ron Paul's son isn't just going to stab us in the back. Let us down, maybe, but I just refuse to believe that he's just another one in this for personal gain like Cruz may be.

(BTW, I'm not trying to suggest that you're saying this, but I think there are far more reasons to think Rand is genuine than is Cruz)
As much as I've voiced concerns about Rand, I trust Rand a lot more than I would trust Cruz!!
 
As much as I've voiced concerns about Rand, I trust Rand a lot more than I would trust Cruz!!

And as much as we've been pushed towards the opposing "hold his feet to the fire" and "let's not overreact" camps, I know that you've been one of the first to give Rand kudos when he does well. I think it's a great thing that we have a good mix of those who will defend him and those who will demand he doesn't stray too far from the message (and these don't have to be mutually exclusive of course, one can do both). Both are needed, so long as it doesn't devolve into needless infighting and drama.

It's also great that the majority here aren't just ready to fall for any politician who says the right things to get elected. It's a tough standard to meet, but he's gonig to have to do more than just go with which way the wind is blowing. He's gonna have to do a lot of making it blow harder before this "grassroots" they claim is behind him is actually ready to stand behind him.
 
Last edited:
I don't think a 50/50 split, but it is a concern that he could take enough if Rand doesn't continue to frame the message in a way that republican voters can accept (or perhaps even if he does, the media smear machine is already gearing up for it).

Cruz has been pretty good about talking the talk, but after the closed door meetings with the likes of Rove and other concerns, I'm still skeptical that he's just going which way the wind is blowing.

Now before anyone says that you could say similar things about Rand, I have more concerns that he will water down our ideals too much to make a real difference (though it's undeniable he is still having some real influence in a positive direction), but I do not think there's any way he's a neocon in disguise. I hate to resort to nepotism, but I'm sorry, Ron Paul's son isn't just going to stab us in the back. Let us down, maybe, but I just refuse to believe that he's just another one in this for personal gain like Cruz may be.

(BTW, I'm not trying to suggest that you're saying this, but I think there are far more reasons to think Rand is genuine than is Cruz)

My concern with Rand is basically that he'll moderate too much. I'm not afraid to not vote for him if he does, although knowing who his dad is and what he said recently, I am now considering the possibility that the things he says that are anti-liberty are just lies. Ron would probably know, one way or another. And I trust Ron with my life, even though he doesn't actually know I exist...

I wonder what Ron would have done if his son actually WAS a neocon? I'd think at the very least a man with as much integrity as Ron has wouldn't have said anything. He wouldn't have openly supported him.

So yeah, that he's Ron Paul's son probably does matter, if only that Ron Paul no doubt knows he has good reason to trust him. I don't trust Cruz at all.

On the other hand, it is POSSIBLE that Rand has deceived Ron about his real nature as well. I'm not saying that that's likely but the possibility shouldn't be 100% ignored. Nor should the possibility that anyone who actually wants to be President (Ron Paul didn't) might get corrupted once he gets in be 100% ignored.
I appreciate what Cruz has done with regards to the filibuster and grilling Feinstein over the 2nd Amendment but I'd never vote for him.

Yep, this...

As much as I've voiced concerns about Rand, I trust Rand a lot more than I would trust Cruz!!

This as well...
 
I contend that there is a 0% chance that Cruz doesn't talk to Paul about running and that there is a 0% chance that Cruz runs to hurt Rand's chances. Rand is running in '16 that's clear enough. Cruz would only be floating this out there to help bring the discussion towards conservative ideas.
 
Am I the only one who thinks Cruz running would be good for Rand?

He will be another voice for liberty in the debates and then when he falls he will throw his support behind Rand (most likely)...

I don't think he has the power to out-spend Rand... The best he could do at that point is hope for a VP nod.
 
Am I the only one who thinks Cruz running would be good for Rand?

He will be another voice for liberty in the debates and then when he falls he will throw his support behind Rand (most likely)...

I don't think he has the power to out-spend Rand... The best he could do at that point is hope for a VP nod.

It is not that he needs a powerful voice to be heard, it's the fact the powers to be let you have your voice heard. MSM is controlled and lets losers become the winners overnight. Never underestimate your opponents.
 
I contend that there is a 0% chance that Cruz doesn't talk to Paul about running and that there is a 0% chance that Cruz runs to hurt Rand's chances. Rand is running in '16 that's clear enough. Cruz would only be floating this out there to help bring the discussion towards conservative ideas.

I have no idea how you can be so sure about this. He has far more to do to even give us an 80% confidence that he's not just another politician doing what he has to do to get elected for personal gain.

As we see from Me-too-bio Rubio, there will be plenty who will windsail with the way the wind is blowing, just to change direction when they get into a real position of change. Hell, even though most of us have near 100% confidence that Rand is running for the right reasons, even he may not be immune from this... Ron might not have even been...

I mean, for all we know, Obama might have even been honest with his "hope and change" rhetoric before finding out that the president may have very little say in TPTB's direction for the country.
 
Last edited:
Heidi Cruz

Region Head
Goldman Sachs & Co.

Heidi S. Cruz is the Region Head for the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. She leads 40 professionals responsible for over $14 billion in investments for clients throughout Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Colorado.

In the 1990s, Heidi worked as an investment banker in New York, focusing on Latin America mergers and acquisitions and structured finance. In that capacity, Heidi was involved in advisory engagements and capital markets transactions for some of the largest energy companies in the Americas.

In the public sector, Heidi served in the White House as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, under then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice; as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department; and as Special Policy Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, then-U.S. Trade Representative.

Her publications include a book chapter entitled "Expanding Opportunity Through Free Trade," a book chapter in EXCHANGE RATE POLICIES FOR EMERGING MARKET ECONOMIES, and a Harvard Case Study, "American International Group".

Heidi received an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, a Masters of European Business from Universite Libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, Belgium, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in Economics and International Relations from Claremont McKenna College. She is currently a member of the Texas Business Leadership Council and serves on the board of the Greater Houston Partnership, Houston's Museum of Fine Arts European Art Sub-Committee, the Advancement Board of the Yes Prep Public Schools of Houston, the Advisory Board of Living Water International, and on the Advisory Board of the Robert Day School of Economics and Finance at Claremont McKenna College in California.

She lives in Houston with her husband and her two daughters, Caroline Camille and Catherine Christiane.
 
Heidi Cruz

Region Head
Goldman Sachs & Co.

Heidi S. Cruz is the Region Head for the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. She leads 40 professionals responsible for over $14 billion in investments for clients throughout Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Colorado.

In the 1990s, Heidi worked as an investment banker in New York, focusing on Latin America mergers and acquisitions and structured finance. In that capacity, Heidi was involved in advisory engagements and capital markets transactions for some of the largest energy companies in the Americas.

In the public sector, Heidi served in the White House as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, under then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice; as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department; and as Special Policy Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, then-U.S. Trade Representative.

Her publications include a book chapter entitled "Expanding Opportunity Through Free Trade," a book chapter in EXCHANGE RATE POLICIES FOR EMERGING MARKET ECONOMIES, and a Harvard Case Study, "American International Group".

Heidi received an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, a Masters of European Business from Universite Libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, Belgium, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in Economics and International Relations from Claremont McKenna College. She is currently a member of the Texas Business Leadership Council and serves on the board of the Greater Houston Partnership, Houston's Museum of Fine Arts European Art Sub-Committee, the Advancement Board of the Yes Prep Public Schools of Houston, the Advisory Board of Living Water International, and on the Advisory Board of the Robert Day School of Economics and Finance at Claremont McKenna College in California.

She lives in Houston with her husband and her two daughters, Caroline Camille and Catherine Christiane.

Yeah I have brought that up in the past, yet many seem to overlook it.
 
Isn't Ted a warmongerer? Not to mention that he already voted to give medical data to the Feds. Rand Paul voted no. Mike Lee voted no. But Cruz caved.

We shouldn't have anything to do with him. I'm not going to vote for him.

Why shouldn't we have anything to do with Rand's 2nd closest ally in the Senate? Yes, he voted in favor of that. So what? He's made dozens of excellent votes so far and I expect him to continue through to 2016.

"Warmonger" Cruz is opposed to treating the United States as a battlefield and opposed intervention in Libya.

You're being overly purist. Realistically, if Cruz became president, he'd be the best one since Coolidge. He's not perfect, but his strong opposition to the erosion of civil liberties and his principled stance on fiscal issues definitely puts him in "Team liberty" IMO and makes him a true friend of limited government. He's with us far more so than guys like Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney, whom many consider to be part of the Democratic wing of "Team liberty".

If Rand is running, however, Cruz definitely shouldn't run. Cruz is weaker in a general election as he can come off as overly partisan, while Rand can talk about working with Democrats on reforming drug laws. He'd also split the Tea Party primary vote. I doubt he will, considering his close friendship with Rand.
 
Last edited:
You're being overly purist. Realistically, if Cruz became president, he'd be the best one since Coolidge.

Bullshit. You have no way of knowing this, and we have indications that he could be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I'm willing to wait and see on how serious he is, but the way some of you claim unequivocally we can trust him, well I think most here are too smart to just throw their concerns out the window just because he talks the talk.

As is shown with the vast majority supporting Rand even despite concerns, this has nothing to do with purism, and everything to do with trust. The jury is still out on that.
 
Why shouldn't we have anything to do with Rand's 2nd closest ally in the Senate? Yes, he voted in favor of that. So what? He's made dozens of excellent votes so far and I expect him to continue through to 2016.

"Warmonger" Cruz is opposed to treating the United States as a battlefield and opposed intervention in Libya.

You're being overly purist. Realistically, if Cruz became president, he'd be the best one since Coolidge. He's not perfect, but his strong opposition to the erosion of civil liberties and his principled stance on fiscal issues definitely puts him in "Team liberty" IMO and makes him a true friend of limited government. He's with us far more so than guys like Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney, whom many consider to be part of the Democratic wing of "Team liberty".

If Rand is running, however, Cruz definitely shouldn't run. Cruz is weaker in a general election as he can come off as overly partisan, while Rand can talk about working with Democrats on reforming drug laws. He'd also split the Tea Party primary vote. I doubt he will, considering his close friendship with Rand.

Having a second liberty candidate in the debates can help Rand in the long run. They can't just gang up on him and call him the crazy one.
 
When did it stop being common knowledge that persons born in another country cannot be president of the U.S. even though they may have been born American citizens? Is there anyone over 25 that didn't learn this as a child?

This isn't remotely true.
 
Back
Top