Ted Cruz undecided on Rand's hemp amendment

[eduardo89]

He's married to Goldman Sachs (literally) so do you think it is even possible for him to do such a thing?

Yes because every single person who works for GS is evil. Way to collectively condemn 32,400+ people.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Ted Cruz is nothing like Bush.

You win idiotic comment of the year. Second year in a row, I think.

George Bush in 2000 was less interventionist than Ted Cruz is now. Bush in 2000 never would have said we should invade Syria or Iran. In fact, he was arguing against foreign entanglements. Bush sounded all of the "conservative fundamentals" like free market, second amendment, marriage, etc.

 

[eduardo89]

George Bush in 2000 was less interventionist than Ted Cruz is now. Bush sounded all of the "conservative fundamentals" like free market, second amendment, marriage, etc.

Bush was running for president campaigning against Bill Clinton's intervention in the Balkans. Most Americans opposed American involvement, with a large majority opposing the possibility of sending ground troops.

Ted Cruz has fought against intervention in Libya and Syria. He's for ending the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Democrats have gone on record saying they don't want to bring up AUMF because Cruz and Rand would make them look bad for supporting perpetual war. Cruz might be a little hawkish on Iran, but his stance is identical to Mike Lee's and pretty damn close to Rand's.

Ted Cruz also doesn't just sound conservative on free markets, Second Amendment, and marriage. He actually is, whereas Bush was just rhetoric.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Bush was running for president campaigning against Bill Clinton's intervention in the Balkans. Most Americans opposed American involvement, with a large majority opposing the possibility of sending ground troops.

Ted Cruz has fought against intervention in Libya and Syria. He's for ending the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Democrats have gone on record saying they don't want to bring up AUMF because Cruz and Rand would make them look bad for supporting perpetual war. Cruz might be a little hawkish on Iran, but his stance is identical to Mike Lee's and pretty damn close to Rand's.

Ted Cruz also doesn't just sound conservative on free markets, Second Amendment, and marriage. He actually is, whereas Bush was just rhetoric.

Are you kidding me? Ted Cruz wants to invade Syria:



Ted Cruz sucks. He is not a liberty candidate at all.

 

[eduardo89]

I agree with him. If there are chemical weapons the US should destroy them if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda and used against America. He also says that if they do go in to take those weapons out if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda that that should be the sole mission and once that is achieved that the US should leave immediately. Eliminate the threat (or potential threat) and get out. That was Ron Paul's position on Afghanistan and it is the correct position.

Notice also how he says we should not be arming the rebels? I've seen Cruz also say we should not take sides in the civil war.

Ted Cruz sucks. He is not a liberty candidate at all.

Ted Cruz is a solid constitutional conservative with an America-first mentality. He, Rand and Mike Lee are the three best senators the US has seen in decades.

 

[Brett85]

Ted Cruz is a solid constitutional conservative with an America-first mentality. He, Rand and Mike Lee are the three best senators the US has seen in decades.

He still needs to understand that the states have jurisdiction over the drug issue and not the federal government if he wants to call himself a "Constitutional Conservative."

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I agree with him. If there are chemical weapons the US should destroy them if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda and used against America. He also says that if they do go in to take those weapons out if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda that that should be the sole mission and once that is achieved that the US should leave immediately. Eliminate the threat (or potential threat) and get out. That was Ron Paul's position on Afghanistan and it is the correct position.

Notice also how he says we should not be arming the rebels? I've seen Cruz also say we should not take sides in the civil war.



Ted Cruz is a solid constitutional conservative with an America-first mentality. He, Rand and Mike Lee are the three best senators the US has seen in decades.

But how could they get into the wrong hands? Because the west, including the U.S., is arming the rebels, and AQ, which reduces the ability of the Syrian government to keep them secure. Create problem, create solution? Ron Paul would certainly not support these combined efforts.

 

[Warlord]

Eduardo in full meltdown. You can't just invade a country with hundreds of special ops forces to secure weapons. It would require a massive ground invasion and regime change. Otherwise anyone you send in is as good as dead unless you use shock and awe, blah blah which is just another Iraq.

 

[Warlord]

Nothing like Bush other than home state.

He's worked for Bush and he and his wife have kissed their ass numerous times.

 

[Warlord]

Cruz is actually far less friendly with the "neocon world" than Lee is.

You really have no idea do you? He's been there 4 months. Get back to me after 2 years at least . He's going to disappoint you.

 

[QuickZ06]

I agree with him. If there are chemical weapons the US should destroy them if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda and used against America. He also says that if they do go in to take those weapons out if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda that that should be the sole mission and once that is achieved that the US should leave immediately. Eliminate the threat (or potential threat) and get out. That was Ron Paul's position on Afghanistan and it is the correct position.

Notice also how he says we should not be arming the rebels? I've seen Cruz also say we should not take sides in the civil war.



Ted Cruz is a solid constitutional conservative with an America-first mentality. He, Rand and Mike Lee are the three best senators the US has seen in decades.

Dude, really? Look up the term war-lite then get back to us.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Are you kidding me? Ted Cruz wants to invade Syria:



Ted Cruz sucks. He is not a liberty candidate at all.

Amen. I'd never vote for him.

His foreign policy totally sucks. Apparently he doesn't even support defense cuts.

 

[Brett85]

His foreign policy isn't as good as Rand's foreign policy, but he's also not a McCain or Graham type either. For example, he supports cuts in foreign aid, opposes arming the Syrian rebels, opposes nation building in Afghanistan and wants to transition out of there, opposes humanitarian wars, etc. If there's a foreign policy that's exactly half way in between Ron Paul and Lindsey Graham, that's probably where Ted Cruz is. He's clearly not a non interventionist like Ron but also isn't someone who's going to support every intervention and support occupying countries indefinitely.

 

[Christian Liberty]

His foreign policy isn't as good as Rand's foreign policy, but he's also not a McCain or Graham type either. For example, he supports cuts in foreign aid, opposes arming the Syrian rebels, opposes nation building in Afghanistan and wants to transition out of there, opposes humanitarian wars, etc. If there's a foreign policy that's exactly half way in between Ron Paul and Lindsey Graham, that's probably where Ted Cruz is. He's clearly not a non interventionist like Ron but also isn't someone who's going to support every intervention and support occupying countries indefinitely.

Which still isn't good enough.

 

[eduardo89]

Dude, really? Look up the term war-lite then get back to us.

I'm not an isolationist. I don't agree 100% with Ron Paul on foreign policy, I honestly think he's a bit naïve on that front. I much prefer Rand and Cruz's foreign policy.

The federal governments top responsibility is national defense and I think a case in which weapons of mass destructions could fall into the hands of our enemy (al-Qaeda) and be used against us warrants destruction of those weapons. I think it makes sense for the military to have a plan in case that happens.

It wouldn't necessitate the invasion and occupation of Syria, I am completely against that, just I'm against the war/occupation of Iraq and the continued occupation of Afghanistan. It might not even necessitate troops on the ground, but air strikes might be sufficient.

I think this should be a last resort and the decision should not be taken lightly, but if the syrian government falls and the country is in anarchy and the weapons unsecured with a big chance of them falling into the hands of al-Qaeda or al-Nusrah then I think the US should destroy them.

 

[JK/SEA]

Oh yeah. Sticking our nose in every squabble, or a paranoid delusion of 'protecting' U.S. interests has served us well. Effin bullshit. Take a look around you. Can you tell the class how this current fascist foreign policy is not destroying our moral standing, and economic standing?

Anyone who advocates keeping the status quo with regards to the war machine is a traitor, and it is delusional to believe you are 'somehow' a 'good' American.

 

[T.hill]

Oh yeah. Sticking our nose in every squabble, or a paranoid delusion of 'protecting' U.S. interests has served us well. Effin bullshit. Take a look around you. Can you tell the class how this current fascist foreign policy is not destroying our moral standing, and economic standing?

Anyone who advocates keeping the status quo with regards to the war machine is a traitor, and it is delusional to believe you are 'somehow' a 'good' American.

intolerance and closed-minded views manifest themselves on these forums quite a bit, ussually reulting in ad hominem attacks.

 

[T.hill]

I'm not an isolationist. I don't agree 100% with Ron Paul on foreign policy, I honestly think he's a bit naïve on that front. I much prefer Rand and Cruz's foreign policy.

The federal governments top responsibility is national defense and I think a case in which weapons of mass destructions could fall into the hands of our enemy (al-Qaeda) and be used against us warrants destruction of those weapons. I think it makes sense for the military to have a plan in case that happens.

It wouldn't necessitate the invasion and occupation of Syria, I am completely against that, just I'm against the war/occupation of Iraq and the continued occupation of Afghanistan. It might not even necessitate troops on the ground, but air strikes might be sufficient.

I think this should be a last resort and the decision should not be taken lightly, but if the syrian government falls and the country is in anarchy and the weapons unsecured with a big chance of them falling into the hands of al-Qaeda or al-Nusrah then I think the US should destroy them.

If you're refering to Ron Paul's foreign policy as isolationist, then I'm afraid your misguided and really just wrong. Non-interventionist policy is a clear and distinct theory from isolationism, North Korea is the closest to isolationist as it gets as a self described self-reliant state. Yet even NK isnt truely isolated.

By implication your correlating Ron Pauls foreign policy with NK's own, which is obviously absurd.

 

[T.hill]

Also Rand is a 'defensive realist' which inherently is already very similar to non-interventionism. Rands own unique variation of it is essentially non intervetionism.

 

[QuickZ06]

I'm not an isolationist. I don't agree 100% with Ron Paul on foreign policy, I honestly think he's a bit naïve on that front. I much prefer Rand and Cruz's foreign policy.

The federal governments top responsibility is national defense and I think a case in which weapons of mass destructions could fall into the hands of our enemy (al-Qaeda) and be used against us warrants destruction of those weapons. I think it makes sense for the military to have a plan in case that happens.

It wouldn't necessitate the invasion and occupation of Syria, I am completely against that, just I'm against the war/occupation of Iraq and the continued occupation of Afghanistan. It might not even necessitate troops on the ground, but air strikes might be sufficient.

I think this should be a last resort and the decision should not be taken lightly, but if the syrian government falls and the country is in anarchy and the weapons unsecured with a big chance of them falling into the hands of al-Qaeda or al-Nusrah then I think the US should destroy them.

Do you understand the history of Al-Qaeda? They would have never would have came to exists if Russia had not of gone into Afghanistan. Simple logic really, go into other peoples country's and start bombing them and in return they will pick up arms and fight back. Our foreign policy is creating more and more monsters that hate us throughout the world. If we minded our own business like say the Swiss we would never be on the verge of 17 trillion dollars in debt. And like others have said, no one here is advocating isolationism, non-intervention is the key and this is what Ron Paul preached. Do you really need to go back and watch the videos you post on YT to understand that?