Cruz is better than Trump or Rubio, due to the Rand Factor - Let's Caucus for Cruz
- Thread starter Makes Interesting Points
- Start date
eleganz
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,262
I think Cruz is being attacked here because he is the one that is trying to fake himself into our movement and that causes people to get defensive and go after him too.
Rubio and Trump don't leech off our movement even though they've tried to shoutout Ron's name more than one time but they are who they are. Nobody here is supporting Rubio, so Rubio doesn't need to be attacked.
Cruz is a fucking slimy fake. Just like Ron called Santorum fake, he called Cruz a fake. He actually thinks he can trick liberty voters and convincingly tries to do it and that is the dangerous one of them all.
Dr.3D
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 30,314
Did Rand drop out? I thought he just stopped campaigning and will still have his name on the ballot.
Last edited:
J
Jan2017
Guest
Theocrat
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 9,550
What a Joke
Ted Cruz's campaign is hardly about "Voting the Bible." Cruz is more about voting for what makes Israel better than he is about voting for what is Biblical or Constitutional. His Christian supporters make me sick with that kind of ignorance.
.
Ted Cruz's campaign is hardly about "Voting the Bible." Cruz is more about voting for what makes Israel better than he is about voting for what is Biblical or Constitutional. His Christian supporters make me sick with that kind of ignorance.
Makes Interesting Points
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2015
- Messages
- 80
I'm a bit disappointed at the liberal style aggression that goes on in these forums. When civilized people have a discussion, they talk about the core points of the topic and work together to figure out the truth. The only goal of a topic should be to discover the truth, and when that happens, everybody wins. When liberals have a discussion, they use cult style aggression, put others down with personal attacks to make themselves feel better, and value quick wit & having the last word above all else. It's not a good idea to trash talk people just because you're anonymous over the internet; that's not healthy for our culture as a nation, and only feeds the liberal culture of quick wit elitism. My rule is always that I don't say things to people over the internet that I wouldn't say in a face-to-face discussion.
I already demonstrated my main points, so I'll deviate from the meat of the topic just a bit by adding some very relevant other details that support the backbone of my opinion. I've noticed for a long time that pure Libertarians never compromise or take what they can get. Before the campaigning got rolling, I even saw many around the internet, including a popular Libertarian youtuber, that said they support Ron Paul but not Rand Paul... Now the caucus dilemma we're in at the moment is quite different. I think the reason why most pure Libertarians would not support Cruz over the worse Trump and Rubio stems from what got us out of the Establishment in the first place. Most of us probably grew up in a Democrat or Republican Establishment culture. We got sucked into the two party system and found ourselves rooting for one establishment or the other. Many of us at some point became less enthusiastic about the establishment, while still rooting for an establishment nominee in the general because they are better than the other party's candidate. Then, we realized the truth about what's going on in the country and joined the liberty movement. We thought back to why we didn't join it sooner, and said "holy cow, my rooting for the lesser of two evils made me feel satisfied, like I was already doing enough, which stopped me from desiring more and discovering the liberty movement!". Then, your mind associates all compromise voting with being brainwashed by the Establishment. This is actually a well founded fear in my opinion, because willingness to fight against seduction of the mind is a very necessary trait for Americans going into the future. But there's a huge difference between a 50 year old talk radio junkie who doesn't get the point of the liberty movement voting for Ted Cruz in the primary because he planned to from the start, and a liberty voter voting for Cruz in the primary only because Paul is out. The reason why it's bad to be satisfied with a non-liberty candidate is because it makes people think they've done enough, and so they do not pursue discovery of the liberty movement. But we have already discovered the liberty movement, so that is irrelevant to us. There is also a big difference between voting in the primary for a compromise candidate and voting for a Democrat or Republican in the general election. If you vote for a Republican in the general election, you're helping the party win. If you vote for someone in a nomination primary however, it's probably not helping the party win the general because there's going to be a Republican nominee anyways. There's nothing wrong with trying to get Cruz as the Republican nominee as a compromise candidate, but then voting for Gary Johnson in the general.
Most Libertarians seem to think that the path to liberty is to go straight from Mitt Romney to Rand Paul, as if this is actually possible. It's not impossible, but it's highly unlikely to happen without an intermediate step. If the intermediate step will be inevitably necessary, why not take part in it yourself? Then there's people who think we need a third party candidate to win. By the time a third party candidate actually is able to win the general election, many liberty and conservative values in this country will likely be destroyed forever. If we took the shorter term approach by breaking up the Republican party, the Democrats would win every election and the U.S. would fall to Socialism. Therefore, the only way to have liberty be victorious before time runs out is to transform the Republican Party. If Rubio gets the nomination, we'll be right back where we were four years ago with Romney. If Cruz gets the nomination however, it will be a step in the right direction. More Republican voters will start taking the idea seriously that it's bad to get stuck in a ground war, because there's no better advertisement of ideas than someone actually winning the nomination (or becoming President). Then I'd argue that it'd benefit us the most to vote for Cruz in the general election too, for the sake of stopping a permanent fall to Socialism. But I do completely understand, if despite there being a lot of logic in voting for Cruz, if it's just too depressing for some to compromise. The emotional dread some get from having to settle on a candidate is a lot for me to expect Libertarians to put up with.
I already demonstrated my main points, so I'll deviate from the meat of the topic just a bit by adding some very relevant other details that support the backbone of my opinion. I've noticed for a long time that pure Libertarians never compromise or take what they can get. Before the campaigning got rolling, I even saw many around the internet, including a popular Libertarian youtuber, that said they support Ron Paul but not Rand Paul... Now the caucus dilemma we're in at the moment is quite different. I think the reason why most pure Libertarians would not support Cruz over the worse Trump and Rubio stems from what got us out of the Establishment in the first place. Most of us probably grew up in a Democrat or Republican Establishment culture. We got sucked into the two party system and found ourselves rooting for one establishment or the other. Many of us at some point became less enthusiastic about the establishment, while still rooting for an establishment nominee in the general because they are better than the other party's candidate. Then, we realized the truth about what's going on in the country and joined the liberty movement. We thought back to why we didn't join it sooner, and said "holy cow, my rooting for the lesser of two evils made me feel satisfied, like I was already doing enough, which stopped me from desiring more and discovering the liberty movement!". Then, your mind associates all compromise voting with being brainwashed by the Establishment. This is actually a well founded fear in my opinion, because willingness to fight against seduction of the mind is a very necessary trait for Americans going into the future. But there's a huge difference between a 50 year old talk radio junkie who doesn't get the point of the liberty movement voting for Ted Cruz in the primary because he planned to from the start, and a liberty voter voting for Cruz in the primary only because Paul is out. The reason why it's bad to be satisfied with a non-liberty candidate is because it makes people think they've done enough, and so they do not pursue discovery of the liberty movement. But we have already discovered the liberty movement, so that is irrelevant to us. There is also a big difference between voting in the primary for a compromise candidate and voting for a Democrat or Republican in the general election. If you vote for a Republican in the general election, you're helping the party win. If you vote for someone in a nomination primary however, it's probably not helping the party win the general because there's going to be a Republican nominee anyways. There's nothing wrong with trying to get Cruz as the Republican nominee as a compromise candidate, but then voting for Gary Johnson in the general.
Most Libertarians seem to think that the path to liberty is to go straight from Mitt Romney to Rand Paul, as if this is actually possible. It's not impossible, but it's highly unlikely to happen without an intermediate step. If the intermediate step will be inevitably necessary, why not take part in it yourself? Then there's people who think we need a third party candidate to win. By the time a third party candidate actually is able to win the general election, many liberty and conservative values in this country will likely be destroyed forever. If we took the shorter term approach by breaking up the Republican party, the Democrats would win every election and the U.S. would fall to Socialism. Therefore, the only way to have liberty be victorious before time runs out is to transform the Republican Party. If Rubio gets the nomination, we'll be right back where we were four years ago with Romney. If Cruz gets the nomination however, it will be a step in the right direction. More Republican voters will start taking the idea seriously that it's bad to get stuck in a ground war, because there's no better advertisement of ideas than someone actually winning the nomination (or becoming President). Then I'd argue that it'd benefit us the most to vote for Cruz in the general election too, for the sake of stopping a permanent fall to Socialism. But I do completely understand, if despite there being a lot of logic in voting for Cruz, if it's just too depressing for some to compromise. The emotional dread some get from having to settle on a candidate is a lot for me to expect Libertarians to put up with.
Origanalist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,054
Origanalist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,054
CPUd
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 22,978
I think you are confusing "liberal style aggression" with "unwilling to engage in sophstry"
Last edited:
Like the first half of the book is about creating and defending Israel and then just Judah through massive and unrestrained genocide.
The second half is what to do since y'all failed to genocide the Romans.
Like maybe the epistles are about making someplace other than Israel better. There is a reason is really easy to get it all blurred.
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
Isn't it amazing how the 'social values' conservatives are mostly slobbering after Cruz and Trump -- the two biggest liars in the entire race? I find this level of delusion....fascinating.
Badger Paul
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,718
Get. The. Hell. Out. Of. Here.
So... apparently Canada didn't have dual-citizenship in 1970. So either Cruz was born a Canadian or he has a consular certificate of birth abroad.
Not holding my breath on this one.
Also this is a problem for his current office as he claims he was never naturalized at any point.
Not holding my breath on this one.
Also this is a problem for his current office as he claims he was never naturalized at any point.
Fivezeroes
Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,021
Rafael is a Canadian only, as Canada as you said did not support dual citizenship.
fedupinmo
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,354
If he has to use Bellei to prove he was, I will ROFL for hours...
Similar threads
