nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,454
He want's the oil though, his policy on ISIS is containment, he wants to take their oil so they can't finance terrorism. Russia won't let us take control over all of the oil
Cruz is better than Trump or Rubio, due to the Rand Factor - Let's Caucus for Cruz
- Thread starter Makes Interesting Points
- Start date
He want's the oil though, his policy on ISIS is containment, he wants to take their oil so they can't finance terrorism. Russia won't let us take control over all of the oil
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
That's the problem, you believe the crap he says.
nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,454
No he chooses stuff to not believe. Like the fact that Russia will never let us control all of the oil, and thats what trump wants.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
Well if he said it, then that must mean it's true. Huh?
nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,454
There is no other pill to swallow, so swallow the one that makes you ill.
trey4sports
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,588
Yeah Cruz is the best of the 3 for sure.
nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,454
The best at stealing votes from Carson and Rand voters. The best at lying on national live TV, he blamed CNN for reporting that Carson is dropping out. Even though CNN never reported that. Trump probably destroyed him in that argument alone at the very end in his closing statement.
Origanalist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,054
Say William, I have a steal of a deal on a used car for you. You'll love it, best deal ever, interested?
Makes Interesting Points
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2015
- Messages
- 80
I'm not quite as ethically libertarian as most people here on foreign policy, though it is the issue I am most open minded on, and will keep developing on it through the years. Therefore I don't have the "man this pisses me off so much that this is a dealbreaker" reaction to Cruz's foreign policy. I am however, very fiscally conservative on the military, and believe that we can save more lives in the long term by preventing ourselves from going deep into debt today from military spending. I also see a lot of danger in things like toppling Assad, and one thing Cruz is consistent on is warning about the dangers of toppling dictators & leaving power vacuums. I still see no evidence that Trump or Rubio would be better than Cruz as President. Rubio is the most hawkish out of all the Republicans. On paper, Trump is supposed to be one of the least hawkish, but in the debate today he said he wants to "make the military stronger than ever"; Trump panders to pro-war Republicans more than anyone else by talking big on the military, while at the same time trying to be fiscally conservative. I don't trust Trump at all, and he doesn't understand freedom issues.
I think one of the reasons I perceive Cruz differently than a lot of people here is because I'm a paleocon, whereas a lot of you are pure Libertarians. You guys compromise from farther "left" to support Rand Paul, and so going from Rand to Cruz is two leaps for you guys, rather than one leap for me. I am pretty socially conservative, and agree with Rand on almost everything, though he is a bit too marijuana friendly for my traditional values, and I'm a little flexible on foreign policy for humanitarian reasons. Another difference between me and much of yourselves is that I hate Socialism much more than half-establishment foreign policy. This is because I see Socialism as a long-term threat to permanent freedom loss, and our youth may fall for it as they get sucked further and further into the follies of instant gratification. Note: Obviously none of the Republicans are Socialists, so bringing this up may seem irrelevant, but it's to further give you an idea of my mentality as a voter; it shows why I can't stand someone who tries to make being more left on the economy popular for conservatives, like Trump and Kasich do. An aggressive foreign policy however, is nowhere near the same threat to permanent freedom loss as Socialism, as there will always be those in the U.S. that want to pull out of most foreign situations (I guess we can thank the liberals for that). So the idea of non-internationalism is extremely hard to kill in this country, as opposed to conservative economics; left wing economics are a threat to kill not just conservative economics, but the passion for them; a new generation that is born into a Socialist country which only has a healthy national debt due to less military spending will not be able to realize the moral follies of the rules they live under. The biggest long term threat about an Establishment-aggressive foreign policy, like Rubio's, is that we'd get stuck in a war that we can't pull out of, and the national debt would skyrocket (like it did under George W. Bush). Ted Cruz on the other hand, does not want a war that we are helplessly chained to for a long time (e.g. a ground war). He illustrated this well in today's debate when he said "We hit them with force...and then we get the heck out." (forget exact quote).
There's little to no case that Cruz isn't the best of the three top Republicans if you take the Rand Factor I mentioned in the OP into account, under the assumption that there's no major corruption risks. However, after I made this topic, the news came out that Ron Paul warned heavily against supporting Cruz. The two aspects of Ron's warning seems to be 1. Cruz got a no-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, and 2. Cruz isn't a Libertarian. I think it's pretty arrogant for anyone with either opinion on the Goldman Sachs donation to assume he's definitely corrupted or definitely uninfluenced (I don't think Ron Paul is arrogant though, because he's just playing it safe and that's what he does). Open-mindedness should be true with any conspiracy opinion; I always say that people shouldn't think a given conspiracy is 100% certain to be a conspiracy or 100% certain not to be. For example, I believe that there's a 65% chance that 9/11 had some conspiracy involved on some level. The Goldman Sachs loan seems sketchy for sure, but you have to give Cruz the possibility that he chose Goldman Sachs as a bank simply because his wife, among many other normal citizens, works there. What we should do is, instead of thinking one possibility is definitely true or definitely not true, is factor in the odds of Cruz being corrupted with the pros of having him as President over Trump or Rubio. We're all our own person, so we all have different ingredient amounts go into our final decision when we mix all of the pros, cons, and odds together. As of now, after the Ron Paul warning has put me on my toes, Cruz is still my favorite out of the remaining candidates, but if he makes a misstep, I could drop him; I'm watching Cruz like a hawk.
This got me thinking: If Cruz does make a misstep, or corruption evidence comes out between now and March 5th when my state of Maine has its caucus, who is my backup? For the record, I do believe that it's okay to vote for people who have no chance to win. I just think that if there's a possible okay/fairly good candidate in the top 3, it makes more of a difference to support them than someone who has dropped out. So if the top dogs become a no-go, I'd have to pick from the bottom of the barrel. Despite a lot of candidates running, there is hardly any choice in terms of who is acceptable, as you all know... Perhaps I'd flip a coin between Fiorina and Carson. Fiorina would be a great Capitalist Populist, is great on economic freedom, and you can tell that her stances come from the heart. She's no sketchier on the NSA et cetera than the other people I'd have to choose from. Fiorina is like if you took Trump and made him actually acceptable. Carson actually has a very solid list of stances, even on freedom; though he has zero passion for the freedom issues he is "good" on. Finally, my last and seriously considered choice is writing in Rand Paul, even though he dropped out. Who knows, Ron is popular up here and it'd be cool if a lot of others did the same.
Edit: Fixed a grammar mistake that made part of the 2nd paragraph a little hard to understand
I think one of the reasons I perceive Cruz differently than a lot of people here is because I'm a paleocon, whereas a lot of you are pure Libertarians. You guys compromise from farther "left" to support Rand Paul, and so going from Rand to Cruz is two leaps for you guys, rather than one leap for me. I am pretty socially conservative, and agree with Rand on almost everything, though he is a bit too marijuana friendly for my traditional values, and I'm a little flexible on foreign policy for humanitarian reasons. Another difference between me and much of yourselves is that I hate Socialism much more than half-establishment foreign policy. This is because I see Socialism as a long-term threat to permanent freedom loss, and our youth may fall for it as they get sucked further and further into the follies of instant gratification. Note: Obviously none of the Republicans are Socialists, so bringing this up may seem irrelevant, but it's to further give you an idea of my mentality as a voter; it shows why I can't stand someone who tries to make being more left on the economy popular for conservatives, like Trump and Kasich do. An aggressive foreign policy however, is nowhere near the same threat to permanent freedom loss as Socialism, as there will always be those in the U.S. that want to pull out of most foreign situations (I guess we can thank the liberals for that). So the idea of non-internationalism is extremely hard to kill in this country, as opposed to conservative economics; left wing economics are a threat to kill not just conservative economics, but the passion for them; a new generation that is born into a Socialist country which only has a healthy national debt due to less military spending will not be able to realize the moral follies of the rules they live under. The biggest long term threat about an Establishment-aggressive foreign policy, like Rubio's, is that we'd get stuck in a war that we can't pull out of, and the national debt would skyrocket (like it did under George W. Bush). Ted Cruz on the other hand, does not want a war that we are helplessly chained to for a long time (e.g. a ground war). He illustrated this well in today's debate when he said "We hit them with force...and then we get the heck out." (forget exact quote).
There's little to no case that Cruz isn't the best of the three top Republicans if you take the Rand Factor I mentioned in the OP into account, under the assumption that there's no major corruption risks. However, after I made this topic, the news came out that Ron Paul warned heavily against supporting Cruz. The two aspects of Ron's warning seems to be 1. Cruz got a no-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, and 2. Cruz isn't a Libertarian. I think it's pretty arrogant for anyone with either opinion on the Goldman Sachs donation to assume he's definitely corrupted or definitely uninfluenced (I don't think Ron Paul is arrogant though, because he's just playing it safe and that's what he does). Open-mindedness should be true with any conspiracy opinion; I always say that people shouldn't think a given conspiracy is 100% certain to be a conspiracy or 100% certain not to be. For example, I believe that there's a 65% chance that 9/11 had some conspiracy involved on some level. The Goldman Sachs loan seems sketchy for sure, but you have to give Cruz the possibility that he chose Goldman Sachs as a bank simply because his wife, among many other normal citizens, works there. What we should do is, instead of thinking one possibility is definitely true or definitely not true, is factor in the odds of Cruz being corrupted with the pros of having him as President over Trump or Rubio. We're all our own person, so we all have different ingredient amounts go into our final decision when we mix all of the pros, cons, and odds together. As of now, after the Ron Paul warning has put me on my toes, Cruz is still my favorite out of the remaining candidates, but if he makes a misstep, I could drop him; I'm watching Cruz like a hawk.
This got me thinking: If Cruz does make a misstep, or corruption evidence comes out between now and March 5th when my state of Maine has its caucus, who is my backup? For the record, I do believe that it's okay to vote for people who have no chance to win. I just think that if there's a possible okay/fairly good candidate in the top 3, it makes more of a difference to support them than someone who has dropped out. So if the top dogs become a no-go, I'd have to pick from the bottom of the barrel. Despite a lot of candidates running, there is hardly any choice in terms of who is acceptable, as you all know... Perhaps I'd flip a coin between Fiorina and Carson. Fiorina would be a great Capitalist Populist, is great on economic freedom, and you can tell that her stances come from the heart. She's no sketchier on the NSA et cetera than the other people I'd have to choose from. Fiorina is like if you took Trump and made him actually acceptable. Carson actually has a very solid list of stances, even on freedom; though he has zero passion for the freedom issues he is "good" on. Finally, my last and seriously considered choice is writing in Rand Paul, even though he dropped out. Who knows, Ron is popular up here and it'd be cool if a lot of others did the same.
Edit: Fixed a grammar mistake that made part of the 2nd paragraph a little hard to understand
Last edited:
CPUd
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 22,978
And if Rand were on that stage, none of those 3 clowns would have dared come out in favor of torture (or as Ted calls it, "enhanced interrogation"), he would mop the floor with them with 0 fucks given about what the press might be saying about him today.
65fastback2+2
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2015
- Messages
- 1,396
a half liberty dude flying under the flag of liberty, when failing at liberty will merely cause the people to decry liberty.
its not smart to support that, unless you want liberty to be suppressed for decades to come.
its not smart to support that, unless you want liberty to be suppressed for decades to come.
Cruz said that he wouldn't bring back waterboarding on any widespread basis like it was used during the Bush years. He voted for McCain's amendment to ban it. He just said he would authorize it in some type of theoretical, ticking time bomb situation. That's a far cry from Trump's position that waterboarding should not only be brought back on a widespread basis, but that far worse types of torture should be introduced. To conflate the two positions as being the same is just ridiculous. But it probably is a position that will neither please libertarians or neocon hawks, as his answer has been criticized by neocon hawks for not being adequately pro torture.
Chieppa1
Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,046
Wow with these threads...
My impression of the Ron Paul Movement was always that the changing of the foreign policy (and hearts and minds) was of utmost importance. The domestic side (other than End the Fed) was a gradual fight.
Supporting Ted Cruz doesn't lead in this direct.
I don't understand where I'm suppose to see an appeal over the other guys. He missed the audit vote and is owned by Goldman Sachs. That issue will go away when he is president.
On the war, Israel first. So the ISIS situation will escalate and God-fearing Ted Cruz was get us into another holy war in Iraq/Syria (or worse).
At least Trump has a change to bring in different blood. Who are Cruz's foreign policy advisers? Exactly.
My impression of the Ron Paul Movement was always that the changing of the foreign policy (and hearts and minds) was of utmost importance. The domestic side (other than End the Fed) was a gradual fight.
Supporting Ted Cruz doesn't lead in this direct.
I don't understand where I'm suppose to see an appeal over the other guys. He missed the audit vote and is owned by Goldman Sachs. That issue will go away when he is president.
On the war, Israel first. So the ISIS situation will escalate and God-fearing Ted Cruz was get us into another holy war in Iraq/Syria (or worse).
At least Trump has a change to bring in different blood. Who are Cruz's foreign policy advisers? Exactly.
https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-a...nst-the-scourge-of-radical-islamic-terrorism/
Listen to what ImmigraTED is saying. He's saying we need to not worry about innocent civilian casualties, because the terrorists have no concern for innocent lives. Well, then what would that make manipulaTED?
Listen to what ImmigraTED is saying. He's saying we need to not worry about innocent civilian casualties, because the terrorists have no concern for innocent lives. Well, then what would that make manipulaTED?
Waterboarding was already in limited use to begin with under Bush, so he has the exact same policies as Bush. Cruz supported the Iraq War, the only 3 candidates who were against it, were Rand, Trump and Carson. Cruz is a charlatan pretending to be a liberty candidate.
Similar threads
