TexasCHLforum.com

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Those who state that Ted Cruz has no experience seem to forget that the current loser in chief has not ever produced anything worthwhile in his entire life.

Yep both he and Cruz are one term Senators.

Ted Cruz beats most if not all other candidates hands down in just his intellectual ability and his love for the Constitution.

The guy was on the floor of the Senate reciting Green Eggs and Ham? Isn't Obama cited for his intellectual ability?
You're not helping your case here.

Sometimes you amaze me. When you filibuster, you are reduced to reading something eventually. He could have read the Constitution, the Bible, 1984 or anything else. Reading Green Eggs and Ham says ZERO about his intellect, and you know it. Why engage in such sophism?

Because thats the only thing that will be remembered.

That's not what I remember. I remember a guy trying to stop a bad law.

People want to blame Cruz for getting nothing done but they refuse to acknowledge the gridlock that existed and the lion share of it was due to Harry Reid not letting anything get to a vote except his and Obama's choice legislation.

Anything can be taken out of context and spun to make someone look bad. Just how productive is it to keep fighting amongst ourselves. Instead of tearing down the other candidate, it would be much more productive to buildup and promote one's preferred candidate.

I remember him reading his DAUGHTERS a bedtime story

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Because thats the only thing that will be remembered.

Baloney. That's what the media emphasized. If you're a big enough fool to take what the media says at face value, then a reasonable conversation with you cannot be had. You need to learn to look past all the lies that are flung at you constantly.

For example, recently the news broke that the Obama administration has decided not to respond to FOIA requests to their Office of Administration. Lots of people got hyperventilated over this yet-another-example of his lies about transparency. Very few noticed that Bush did exactly the same thing. ALL the politicians (with precious few exceptions) are working against our interests. If you fall for party lines and group think, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

baldeagle wrote: ALL the politicians (with precious few exceptions) are working against our interests.

Thats pretty an interesting viewpoint. All those politicians you elected are working against your interest?

To the rest, fine, whatever. I am sure all the voters will have watched his filibuster throughout, on whatever it was, or whatever it achieved.

Its weird. Despite saying I look forward to him being in the race, I'm getting attacked. Did I miss a memo about some sort of party line I'm supposed to have here?

As a one term senator without other experience I don't feel he's qualified yet. Bomb throwing tactics are ok in the Senate. We need a few of those, and his stance on the Second Amendment is good. But that doesn't help with being a President. If you disagree thats fine. Everyone is free to disagree here.

People, this is page 7 so far of what is becoming a nasty debate in an early campaign. We have a long way to go before the election. For those that support Cruz send money and for those that don't - well don't send money. It will certainly be interesting. I just don't think I can stand another Bush or Clinton in office. I like people who say what they mean and don't back down.

We don't need an experienced "Electable Politician" driving the bus. We need the Constitution in the seat with the pedal mashed to the floor. I think many Americans are cowards afraid of the dangers of Liberty and will have to be dragged towards it kicking and screaming. We are voting for "things" and have been for decades. The producers keep producing and the takers continue taking and look at the people of these United States now, barely able to sustain themselves and there stands Washington in all it's history, traditions and glory, stealing from unborn generations and destroying the greatest Nation ever built with every Act.

This grand experiment in self-governance was initiated based on core principles, rather than material things or the money to buy them. It has devolved due to the base nature of man (particularly politically-minded men of ambition and avarice). Unless serious steps are taken to move back to core principles as stated plainly in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- specifically limited government and individual Liberty with its attendant responsibilities and risks -- the United States as it was envisioned will be lost entirely in a morass of collectivist bureaucracy, regulation and stagnation. The shining beacon of Liberty has grown weak and only the energy of citizens who care can take steps to replenish it. Being involved in politics at least by learning about the character of candidates and voting our conscience is not just the right of a citizen, but the duty of one who recognizes the privilege to participate. If you don't support your values and vote your conscience in the primaries, you shouldn't complain about the choices in the general election. If you don't vote your conscience in the general election, you shouldn't complain about the actions of the government thus empowered.

rotor wrote:People, this is page 7 so far of what is becoming a nasty debate in an early campaign. We have a long way to go before the election. For those that support Cruz send money and for those that don't - well don't send money. It will certainly be interesting. I just don't think I can stand another Bush or Clinton in office. I like people who say what they mean and don't back down.

Agreed on all counts.
If you really like a candidate I suggest volunteering time as well (if able). That can be fun.

It is not my intent to be mean spirited, create dissension among republicans or demean anyone else. I for one am excited about the potential of having several good candidates from which to chose from in the primary. It's been quite a while since I can remember having several good potential candidates to choose from without an obvious candidate that is a foregone conclusion to be the nominee.

I am also excited about the opportunity to bring in the"new guard" of republicans as I see the old guard (GOP) has changed and morphed into a party not much different that the progressive liberals. I know some will take offense to this and want to debate my premise. All I can say is, look at where we are at this very moment. It is not all the fault of the progressive liberals.

Let's all get excited and passionate about promoting our preferred candidate and leave the bashing to the progressive liberals. We all know they will do plenty of it and we do not need to eat our own. I also think determining today who is or isn't electable is unfounded nonsense. Let's let this play out and do our parts so the cream will rise to the top.

mojo84 wrote:It is not my intent to be mean spirited, create dissension among republicans or demean anyone else. I for one am excited about the potential of having several good candidates from which to chose from in the primary. It's been quite a while since I can remember having several good potential candidates to choose from without an obvious candidate that is a foregone conclusion to be the nominee.

I am also excited about the opportunity to bring in the"new guard" of republicans as I see the old guard (GOP) has changed and morphed into a party not much different that the progressive liberals. I know some will take offense to this and want to debate my premise. All I can say is, look at where we are at this very moment. It is not all the fault of the progressive liberals.

Let's all get excited and passionate about promoting our preferred candidate and leave the bashing to the progressive liberals. We all know they will do plenty of it and we do not need to eat our own. I also think determining today who is or isn't electable is unfounded nonsense. Let's let this play out and do our parts so the cream will rise to the top.

Cedar Park Dad wrote: All those politicians you elected are working against your interest?

Do you not hold open the possibility that the folks he voted for didn't get elected?

I'm not sure why your bile is bubbling so intensely here.... something you're passionate about seems to be driving some really off-the-mark assumptions. At least that's how it appears to me. I hope you'll stop and do some reflective thinking. I typically find your insights thoughtful, even when I disagree, but I'm having a hard time finding constructive debate in many of your posts in this thread.

rotor wrote:People, this is page 7 so far of what is becoming a nasty debate in an early campaign. We have a long way to go before the election. For those that support Cruz send money and for those that don't - well don't send money. It will certainly be interesting. I just don't think I can stand another Bush or Clinton in office. I like people who say what they mean and don't back down.

mojo84 wrote: Let's all get excited and passionate about promoting our preferred candidate and leave the bashing to the progressive liberals. We all know they will do plenty of it and we do not need to eat our own. I also think determining today who is or isn't electable is unfounded nonsense. Let's let this play out and do our parts so the cream will rise to the top.

Y'all have no idea how the Internet works.....If it wasn't for nasty debates and bashing, we'd all be forced to look at cat pictures. Besides, we still haven't settled the whole "9mm vs. .45ACP" argument yet....why do you think this one is going to end amicably?

Y'all have no idea how the Internet works.....If it wasn't for nasty debates and bashing, we'd all be forced to look at cat pictures. Besides, we still haven't settled the whole "9mm vs. .45ACP" argument yet....why do you think this one is going to end amicably?

True that. And for the record...9mm.

OldGrumpy wrote:Electing a president is somewhat like the constitutional carry issue. You can't get to a Cruz without an intermediate stop. Meaning, the President is always elected by the true independents who tend to be the moderates of the nation. If we want to lose to another Democrat the Republicans will nominate someone like Cruz or Paul. By the time the Democratic News Media gets through with them they will be viewed as lunatics. I am in favor with someone like Jeb Bush, who though I do not agree with his some of his positions is a vast improvement over the current President and any potential Democrat. I believe he would be electable. Good article on his strategy in Sunday's Dallas Morning News.

I disagree. We tried the "acceptable moderate" route the last two elections. It didn't work.

mgood wrote:

Jason K wrote:If Rand Paul announced his candidacy tomorrow, I would have a tough choice b/t the two.

Those are my two favorites, and have been for a couple years. Cruz and Paul, I'd take either, or both.
Unelectable? Maybe.
But a ho-hum progressive republican is what lost the race the last two times. Lots of people on the right won't even care enough to go to the polls.
Put in a firebrand, let the media do their worst, and see who wins.
It's a coin toss, but the other way is surrender.

rbwhatever1 wrote:Cruz / Paul....either order sounds good to me.

Please no Jeb Bush.
Lots of people have mentioned Walker. I don't know much about him. Need to find out, I guess.
Condi Rice would be awesome. I don't think she's interested though.

You've expressed my view, across the board.

I remember when Reagan ran against Carter. He was "unelectable" as well. The press also hated him. He was also called a lunatic and an extremist; yet he somehow managed to beat a sitting president, even with a Republican third candidate (running as an independent).

TVGuy wrote:

Jason K wrote:
....or those who better relate to Cruz would find anyone willing to vote for Bush, Romney, or Christie to be a lunatic.....what's that saying about doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?

I'll eat my hat if a Tea Party Republican carries a national electoral map in the next 10 years. Just not going to happen unless their tactics change and by definition of the party they won't.

Please expand on those "definitions' of the Tea Party, and make sure you use their definitions, not those afforded them by the opposition press and Democratic party.

TVGuy wrote:Not even trying to say my feelings on the guy one way or the other, but he barely won in TX. This state is far more conservative than most. Do you really think there is a reasonable chance for that winning on a national stage?

"Barely won in Texas"???? He beat the establishment Republican candidate by 14 points, in spite of being outspent almost 3 to 1. He beat the Democratic candidate by 16 points.