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

Well?

  • No, I'd prefer someone like Rubio/Christie/Ryan/a Democrat etc.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    98
Maybe it's because war is the single biggest detriment to liberty (health, privacy, economic)? Why are you even here?

That's constantly trumpeted but it's not true. Sustained big government was born prior to WWI, the 30s and the 60s. But of course many here consider a minor erosion of civil liberties equivalent to 17 trillion in debt and an enormous welfare population.
 
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").

In part, you are right and there is reason why the GOP said anything.

Remember the quote of FDR: "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

As in the election of Obama was meant to happen and was a coordinated effort by both parties to change a part of the constitution, that failed before in congress.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 16,
that the American people are “the natural guardians of the
Constitution” and should take whatever action is necessary when their
representatives in the federal government concur with the usurpations of
another Branch – and thereby violate their oaths to defend the
Constitution. (Link)

[TABLE="align: right"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
In Federalist No. 33, Hamilton

says:
“If the federal government should overpass the just
bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the
people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have
formed [the Constitution], and take such measures to redress the injury
done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence
justify.”
The Founding Fathers warned us to preserve a government of laws, and not of men.


Arrogant, lawless and lusting for power, government officials have
abrogated their responsibility to the Constitution, the country and its
citizens.

[TABLE="align: right"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
It was a backroom deal among Congressional Democrats and Republicans, which created our current Constitutional crisis.



Congress and our political leadership always knew that Barack Obama
was not a natural born citizen and, therefore, he was never eligible for
the Presidency.



Over the last twenty to thirty years, members of Congress, for both
personal and partisan reasons, have unsuccessfully attempted to water
down the natural born citizen clause
by offering potential Amendments to
the Constitution.


Political coup d’etat of the Constitution

In the Spring of 2008, however, politicians found an opportunity to
create a precedent, whereby they could change the eligibility
requirements
for the Presidency without an Amendment.



At that time, John McCain’s eligibility according to the natural born
clause was being questioned. So, a deal was struck and the bogus and
non-binding Senate resolution 511 was passed, which provided cover for
both McCain and Obama.



It was a political coup d’etat of the Constitution. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37929
 
Last edited:
There's so much wrong with this post.
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.
First of all, you still haven't done your research. If you did, you'd see numerous differences in ideologies between the two, many much more substantial than the President choosing his own cabinet. While we're on that topic though, Cruz believed that Obama shouldn't be allowed to choose Hagel because he didn't love Israel enough. He also has implicitly supported the concept of pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Cruz has been a constitutionalist longer than Mike Lee and is probably more informed than either Mike Lee or Rand Paul on the constitution.
Saying something doesn't make it true.
Ron Paulers, sadly, are still not over 'our boy' Chuck Hagel being attacked by neocon imperialist scum sellout Cruz.
Yeah, that's totally it (btw Hagel is many things but definitely not a neocon). Or maybe it's because Cruz is an Israelophile warmongerer. He also supports government-defined marriage, has shown anti-free speech and anti-privacy leanings, and seems to support both the military-industrial complex and the prison-industrial complex. Why don't you do some research, or maybe those things don't matter to you?

I will admit that Ted Cruz is useful on the Senate (he's my 4th favorite member) because he is a dedicated Obama attack dog, and he'll side with seemingly anyone's concerns when it comes to taking on Obama. However, if you think he is anything more than a "Mark Levin conservative" then you're sadly mistaken. As with Levin, I trust him about as far as I can throw him.
 
Last edited:
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.

That is not true, and is inflamatory, and attacks large swaths of this forum. I suggest you cut it out.
 
Most irrelevant thread on here. Rand is running and Cruz isn't. Cruz and Lee should stay in the Senate where we need them and hopefully we can get Amash and Massie to join them in the near future.
 
the poll is missing a plain and simple - I dont know response. Im not leaning any direction on it. I would simply look and see who is actually running, and most likely not support any of them unless there was a true liberty candidate up there. Anything else would be a waste of my money to support. I dont know if Ted Cruz is liberty enough. But thats because I am 99% uninformed about his positions.
 
Wait, people are actually saying RAND isn't strong enough on national defense? The CRAP?

Rand is too much of an interventionist. I still like him, but I wish he'd stick to his guns MORE on that issue. Saying "Cruz is stronger on 'national defense'" just shows he's not worth my time.

As for 2035, I'll be eligible by then:)
 
That's constantly trumpeted but it's not true. Sustained big government was born prior to WWI, the 30s and the 60s. But of course many here consider a minor erosion of civil liberties equivalent to 17 trillion in debt and an enormous welfare population.

Wow, where do I start?

Although the size of government has only increased since 1789, the largest increase in federal oversight coincided with the Civil War (creation of the first standing army, conscription in both the north and south, suspension of habeus corpus and free speech, the loss of 600,000 + American citizens, and increased debt). And what do you know, every war that has proceeded 1865 has encountered similar violations in rights and liberties.

If this is your attempt at trying to sell Cruz, you are failing miserably.
 
Last edited:
What's funny to me is this poll was a really good tactic to warm some people up to Rand Paul on this forum...
 
Looking at the poll results, why would anyone support Cruz over Rand if they were both candidates? I seem to recall people here flipping out over Gary Johnson's brief 2012 GOP bid because he was going to pull 200 votes away from Ron Paul.
 
Where's the option for 'If he doesn't run, the GOP candidate will have their butt thoroughly handed to them by Hillary Clinton'?
 
I didn't vote.

Based on what I see so far I wouldn't go out of my way to support him like I would Rand or Ron. I wouldnt work to tear him down though either like I will for whichever establishment hacks decide to take a shot. Call it ambivalence.
 
My opinion is only based on what I have seen. Certainly it is subject to change. But I would campaign for him.

Slutter McGee
 
Looking at the poll results, why would anyone support Cruz over Rand if they were both candidates? I seem to recall people here flipping out over Gary Johnson's brief 2012 GOP bid because he was going to pull 200 votes away from Ron Paul.

Gary is more on par with Rand, Cruz is worse than either one of them. I don't understand why anyone here likes Cruz at all. He's already been identified as a traitor to the country. Granted, that's not really anything new in congress, but the Ron Paul movement should be better than that. Cruz violated his constitutional oath. AND he's a warmongerer. No thanks.
 
It's a shame really. I haven't been here that long, but I bet 2 years ago a warmonger like Cruz would get maybe 10% support in a poll like this. I guess that is what happens when the movement plays the game instead of educating by dishing out harsh truth.

If you can do better then run for Senate. If you're an anarchist, go create your utopia then.
 
Back
Top