Hypothetical: If Rand doesn't run, would you support Ted Cruz?

[sailingaway]

Judging by the attitudes of the people on this forum, the consensus in 2035 will be No One But Ron Paul.

By 2035 Ashley Ryan might run.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

I think the GOP and a few liberty people would have a hard time supporting Cruz. Hell, Rand has a hard time.

Although, I think he is better than an Obama-clone or a Bush/Romney-clone.

Probably would not do any grassroots, but would vote for him.

 

[compromise]

Judging by the attitudes of the people on this forum, the consensus in 2035 will be No One But Ron Paul.

Why do you say that? Currently it's a 19/19 tie between the pro-Cruz an anti-Cruz people in the poll.

If Cruz or a similar candidate runs, I will support him and recommend others do too - you have a primary vote, third parties don't have primaries (you can always vote third party in the general) and no one here really wants to vote in the Democratic primaries, so why not back the most pro-liberty candidate running?

 

[ProvincialPeasant]

Why do you say that? Currently it's a 19/19 tie between the pro-Cruz an anti-Cruz people in the poll.

If Cruz or a similar candidate runs, I will support him and recommend others do too - you have a primary vote, third parties don't have primaries (you can always vote third party in the general) and no one here really wants to vote in the Democratic primaries, so why not back the most pro-liberty candidate running?

That it isn't 90%+ positive is the problem, since he is identical to Rand. The only difference is he comes across as stronger on national defense, which is actually a good thing outside of the extreme anti-war bubble.

 

[Shane Harris]

Leaning no, seeing as voting itself is more and more seeming like a waste of energy, in addition to it sort of recognizing the legitimacy of the state, yadda yadda. I'd support Rand. Cruz, maybe I'd vote for him in the Primaries, but it definitely wouldn't be an enthusiastic vote.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

That it isn't 90%+ positive is the problem, since he is identical to Rand. The only difference is he comes across as stronger on national defense, which is actually a good thing outside of the extreme anti-war bubble.

Can you at least do research before making statements such as this? I like his immigration position when compared to Rand's, but that's about it.

 

[jmdrake]

No, it's not a big court battle, because it's already been repeatedly litigated at various times and the ruling every time has been the same, that anyone born a US citizen is a "natural-born citizen." His father is and was a naturalized citizen, and in any event only one parent is necessary to confer citizenship.

Let's assume you are right. Politically the GOP can't run Ted Cruz after making such a stink over Obama need to show his birth certificate when his mother was a U.S. citizen. Anyway, the biggest threat to the U.S. is war with Iran and Cruz seems to support that. Note I did not say Iran was the biggest threat. We leave them alone and they'll leave us alone. Despite all the propaganda coming from both sides, the Iranian regime is not suicidal. But is we push them into a corner they will shut down the Straight of Hormuz and they will sink any carrier fleet we send in to try to prevent it. The Straight of Hormuz is one of the worst tactical places on earth for a carrier fleet to be.

 

[jmdrake]

That it isn't 90%+ positive is the problem, since he is identical to Rand. The only difference is he comes across as stronger on national defense, which is actually a good thing outside of the extreme anti-war bubble.

There's nothing "extreme" about being anti war. The Iraq and Afghan wars have helped bring this once great nation to the financial brink. A war with Iran would finish us.

 

[speciallyblend]

Judging by the attitudes of the people on this forum, the consensus in 2035 will be No One But Ron Paul.

haha. I LOVE RON PAUL!!!! but I would be willing to put my feet on the ground for Rand Paul in 2016 and RUN. I cannot lie. If Ron Paul said he would run again? I would be Ron Paul 2016. /i doubt Ron Paul will run in 2016 soif Rand is not the gop nominee. I will redirect all my energy for GJ. I am not sure i could trust Cruz or gop establishment especially after thelast 9 years in the gop. Trust is my major issue. The i can trust list is very short in the gop for me. Rand Paul 2016, the rest are untrustworthy.

 

[LatinsforPaul]

His parents were both US citizens, so he is eligible.

No, his dad was a Cuban citizen at the time Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

 

[wormyguy]

Let's assume you are right. Politically the GOP can't run Ted Cruz after making such a stink over Obama need to show his birth certificate when his mother was a U.S. citizen.

Well, I am right. The GOP didn't make a stink about that, the grassroots did. Most of the party leadership is on record denouncing the birthers. In any event the "birther" and "Obama is a Muslim" memes actually were initially started by the Hillary Clinton campaign (along with a few others that didn't catch on, like "Obama did cocaine with a male prostitute").

 

[ProvincialPeasant]

Can you at least do research before making statements such as this? I like his immigration position when compared to Rand's, but that's about it.

The only substantial difference in ideology is that he doesn't think the President should get his nominees. Wow, big deal. I actually prefer that to Rand's position anyway. Cruz has been a constitutionalist longer than Mike Lee and is probably more informed than either Mike Lee or Rand Paul on the constitution. Ron Paulers, sadly, are still not over 'our boy' Chuck Hagel being attacked by neocon imperialist scum sellout Cruz.

 

[ProvincialPeasant]

There's nothing "extreme" about being anti war. The Iraq and Afghan wars have helped bring this once great nation to the financial brink. A war with Iran would finish us.

I agree. I'd even support short-term appeasement of Iran and others until the debt is under control. But that's not what I'm saying. A lot of Ron Paul types who are first-and-foremost anti-war are really just from the blame America crowd and think every little conflict everywhere is blowback based on like the 10 page article they read in 2007 and a speech by Howard Zinn.

 

[jmdrake]

Well, I am right.

That's your opinion.

The GOP didn't make a stink about that, the grassroots did. Most of the party leadership is on record denouncing the birthers.

Says you. I know that Rand himself raised doubt about Obama's citizenship. Most of the GOP leadership sucks anyway.

In any event the "birther" and "Obama is a Muslim" memes actually were initially started by the Hillary Clinton campaign (along with a few others that didn't catch on, like "Obama did cocaine with a male prostitute").

Doesn't matter. In 2016 if Ted Cruz is the GOP candiate the dems will make his lack of U.S. birth and that fact that more than half of GOP primary voters didn't think Obama was a citizen.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/poll-most-republicans-think-obama-wasnt-born-in-us.php

Now I've provided a reference for my opinion rather than just pulling it out of thin air. Anyway, there are other reasons not to support Cruz.

 

[jmdrake]

I agree. I'd even support short-term appeasement of Iran and others until the debt is under control. But that's not what I'm saying. A lot of Ron Paul types who are first-and-foremost anti-war are really just from the blame America crowd and think every little conflict everywhere is blowback based on like the 10 page article they read in 2007 and a speech by Howard Zinn.

I can't think of any war post World War II that Ron Paul has spoken favorably of. So why do you disparage Ron Paul supporters who actually agree with him as "blame America firsters?" Do you at all understand his position on foreign policy? And even WW II was set up by misguided interventionism in WW I.

 

[jkob]

Maybe, I dunno. I think Rand will run tho and that Cruz won't. I also think his eligibility is questionable.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

A lot of Ron Paul types who are first-and-foremost anti-war are really just from the blame America crowd and think every little conflict everywhere is blowback based on like the 10 page article they read in 2007 and a speech by Howard Zinn.

Maybe it's because war is the single biggest detriment to liberty (health, privacy, economic)? Why are you even here?

 

[wormyguy]

That's your opinion.

No, actually it's a fact. http://www.texastribune.org/2012/08/13/texplainer-could-canadian-born-ted-cruz-be-preside/

Says you. I know that Rand himself raised doubt about Obama's citizenship. Most of the GOP leadership sucks anyway.

No, actually Rand was himself one of the GOPhers who mocked the Birthers: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/158119-rand-paul-takes-birtheresque-swipe-at-trump-

Doesn't matter. In 2016 if Ted Cruz is the GOP candiate the dems will make his lack of U.S. birth and that fact that more than half of GOP primary voters didn't think Obama was a citizen.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/poll-most-republicans-think-obama-wasnt-born-in-us.php

Now I've provided a reference for my opinion rather than just pulling it out of thin air. Anyway, there are other reasons not to support Cruz.

GOP primary voters believed all sorts of crazy things about Obama for partisan reasons, but wouldn't believe them about a Republican. Nobody but the most hard-core Democrats even cares about the Birthers anymore (or ever) and they would look extremely bad if they suddenly started questioning Cruz's eligibility (which is not in question anyway). I agree that there are other reasons not to support Cruz, but appointing yourself an immigration lawyer and denying all law and legal precedent as to who constitutes a "natural-born citizen" is a bit touched.

 

[jmdrake]

No, actually it's a fact. http://www.texastribune.org/2012/08/13/texplainer-could-canadian-born-ted-cruz-be-preside/

Finding someone else to agree with your opinion doesn't make that opinion fact. The fact is the issue is not settled. The only honest thing you can say is that it most likely won't be a problem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...0/supporters-push-for-ted-cruz-for-president/
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has even weighed in on the issue, writing in November 2011 that people born to U.S. citizens in foreign countries “most likely” qualify as natural-born citizens.

That's different from declaring it a "fact."

No, actually Rand was himself one of the GOPhers who mocked the Birthers: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/158119-rand-paul-takes-birtheresque-swipe-at-trump-

Sure he mocked Trump. But in 2010 he said he wasn't sure where Obama was born.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...n-in-America&p=2244167&viewfull=1#post2244167
At Fancy Farm, I asked Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul if President Obama was born in the United States and he said he "didn't know". Yes, Rand Paul is a birther.

FTR I don't consider Rand a birther just for saying he "wasn't sure" Obama was born in America. But he has not consistently mocked "birthers". He mocked Donald Trump. Big difference.

GOP primary voters believed all sorts of crazy things about Obama for partisan reasons, but wouldn't believe them about a Republican. Nobody but the most hard-core Democrats even cares about the Birthers anymore (or ever) and they would look extremely bad if they suddenly started questioning Cruz's eligibility (which is not in question anyway). I agree that there are other reasons not to support Cruz, but appointing yourself an immigration lawyer and denying all law and legal precedent as to who constitutes a "natural-born citizen" is a bit touched.

In this case we're aren't talking about "beliefs" but facts. It's a fact that Cruz was born in Canada. If the GOP tries to do a complete 180 on this issue it will bite them in the ass on the hypocrisy angle. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding himself.

 

[MaxPower]

I agree. I'd even support short-term appeasement of Iran and others until the debt is under control. But that's not what I'm saying. A lot of Ron Paul types who are first-and-foremost anti-war are really just from the blame America crowd and think every little conflict everywhere is blowback based on like the 10 page article they read in 2007 and a speech by Howard Zinn.

...Rudy??