So we know you hate Cruz? just what policy of his do you think would destroy us?

[zelmo1234]

As you all know Walker was my Guy. And then I liked Carly but they are both Gone.

So I have really been looking into Cruz. I may have been wrong in my first assessments?

He is as consistent as any politician when it comes to his positions and for a conservative, there is very little to complain about?

Now he is a bit goofy looking, so I can understand that? But liberals and conservatives? Just what is it about his policies that you find you can't live with?

This is a TPF so keep it related to his policies please.

[Green Arrow]

I don't believe any candidate on either side has policies that will "destroy" us.

[Tahuyaman]

The liberals I know dislike Cruz because of his unapologetic religious views. They think he is going to force religion upon them. Or do they say. One guy I know said that Cruz scares him because of his views. I asked him specifically what views that would be and I got no answer.

I'm positive it's all about his outspoken religious statements.

[zelmo1234]

This is why I am really starting to like the idea of a Cruz nomination. Not one liberal can tell you what they don't like about his policies.

Makes it hard to run against.

[Green Arrow]

Well, my main problem with Cruz is that I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth, but if you want specific policy -

"Carpet-bombing" is not a strategy to defeat ISIL.

Building a wall is not legitimate and serious border security.

Opposing "amnesty" is not legitimate and serious immigration policy.

Ending "sanctuary cities" is a violation of local autonomy.

More reckless interventionism in an age where the fallout from failed interventionist policy is exploding right in front of us is not defending the nation.

Calling ISIL "radical Islamic terrorism" - while true - is not going to do anything to defeat ISIL.

"Rebuilding our military" to the levels of the WWII and pre-war era is backward thinking, which will never defeat our enemies of today.

"Ripping up" the Iran deal is not sound foreign policy.

That's enough for now. I've taken all of these directly from his issues page of his campaign website, most of it doesn't even have specific positions, just trendy words and generalities. He says he wants to "rebuild the military" but doesn't explain how he'll "rebuild" it or how he plans to pay for said rebuilding. He talks about "ripping up" and "repealing" the Iran deal but says nothing of what to do next, and "do nothing" is stupid.

He wants to pretend he's not a typical politician and yet, he has the politician talk down to a science. I don't buy it.

[zelmo1234]

Well, my main problem with Cruz is that I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth, but if you want specific policy -

"Carpet-bombing" is not a strategy to defeat ISIL.

Building a wall is not legitimate and serious border security.

Opposing "amnesty" is not legitimate and serious immigration policy.

Ending "sanctuary cities" is a violation of local autonomy.

More reckless interventionism in an age where the fallout from failed interventionist policy is exploding right in front of us is not defending the nation.

Calling ISIL "radical Islamic terrorism" - while true - is not going to do anything to defeat ISIL.

"Rebuilding our military" to the levels of the WWII and pre-war era is backward thinking, which will never defeat our enemies of today.

"Ripping up" the Iran deal is not sound foreign policy.

That's enough for now. I've taken all of these directly from his issues page of his campaign website, most of it doesn't even have specific positions, just trendy words and generalities. He says he wants to "rebuild the military" but doesn't explain how he'll "rebuild" it or how he plans to pay for said rebuilding. He talks about "ripping up" and "repealing" the Iran deal but says nothing of what to do next, and "do nothing" is stupid.

He wants to pretend he's not a typical politician and yet, he has the politician talk down to a science. I don't buy it.

Thank You. At least you are basing your dislike on something.

Actually some of the reasons that you dislike him is the reason that I like him and that is OK

Carpet Bombing or total war against ISIL is the only way that they will be defeated. Until the hell of War is brought to the people that are supporting the movement, they will continue to replace one terrorist leader with another. Appeasement is only a policy that will bring more death and destruction to the west, As we have seen in the past 8 years. It was the same with the Confederacy of the Civil War, and Nazi Germany in WWII

Until we stop the flow of illegals into the country, nothing can be done with those that are here. Democrats have lied about their intentions before and can't be trusted to deal in good faith with the people. building a wall, or smart fence is one way to really start to change the flow of illegals. I will not vote for anyone that supports any immigration plan that does not stop the flow of illegals first. And Anyone that allows a path to citizenship for those that came here illegally. Sure they should have a path to become legal and documented, but citizenship should be reserved for those that have not broken our laws.

Sanctuary Cities. I believe that cities have every right to make that decision for themselves. But they do not have the right to federal tax dollars if they choose to ignore federal immigration laws. I can think of nothing more free than that. forcing the US citizens to pay for people that have broken our laws, is criminal in itself.

What he wants to replace the path to an atomic bomb that Obama and friends signed with Iran is the crippling sanctions that were placed on them because they still hold the position of #1 sponsor of Terrorism around the world. They were finally to the point where the people of Iran were suffering so much they were considering a changing of the guard. Obama gave the old guard in Iran at least another Decade. And if the Treaty is not repealed it will lead to war in the middle east that we will not be able to sit on the sidelines.

Every time that the USA has let it's military collapse, we see the world catch fire. Look at how Russia and Putin have filled the vacuum created in the middle east and around the world. China is flexing it's muscle. This leads to much larger and more expensive conflicts. And while I don't like intervention and nation building either. A policy of total war and unconditional surrender still takes a powerful military.

[Mac-7]

Well, my main problem with Cruz is that I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth, but if you want specific policy -

"Carpet-bombing" is not a strategy to defeat ISIL.

Building a wall is not legitimate and serious border security.

Opposing "amnesty" is not legitimate and serious immigration policy.

Ending "sanctuary cities" is a violation of local autonomy.

More reckless interventionism in an age where the fallout from failed interventionist policy is exploding right in front of us is not defending the nation.

Calling ISIL "radical Islamic terrorism" - while true - is not going to do anything to defeat ISIL.

"Rebuilding our military" to the levels of the WWII and pre-war era is backward thinking, which will never defeat our enemies of today.

"Ripping up" the Iran deal is not sound foreign policy.

That's enough for now. I've taken all of these directly from his issues page of his campaign website, most of it doesn't even have specific positions, just trendy words and generalities. He says he wants to "rebuild the military" but doesn't explain how he'll "rebuild" it or how he plans to pay for said rebuilding. He talks about "ripping up" and "repealing" the Iran deal but says nothing of what to do next, and "do nothing" is stupid.

He wants to pretend he's not a typical politician and yet, he has the politician talk down to a science. I don't buy it.

Arrow is a liberal.

its no wonder he likes bernie instead of cruz

[zelmo1234]

Arrow is a liberal.

its no wonder he likes bernie instead of cruz

And that is OK! Bernie would defiantly change the USA actually he would bankrupt the country in one term if he could get his spending plan approved.

But what he understands is that the establishment of both parties is the same viper and will lead to the insolvency of the USA and If the establishment politicians get there way, total control over your life.

In the USA we are allowed to have different views, even if that view is socialism as Bernie states his belief to be.

But supporting the status quo and pretending that things are going to change? That is just foolish in my opinion

[Common]

zelmo which cruz are you asking about. The original cruz who for over two years was a totally different ted cruz that he is ACTING like now.

Aside from all that I just cant stand HIM and I dont trust him one bit.

[Mac-7]

And that is OK! Bernie would defiantly change the USA actually he would bankrupt the country in one term if he could get his spending plan approved.

But what he understands is that the establishment of both parties is the same viper and will lead to the insolvency of the USA and If the establishment politicians get there way, total control over your life.

In the USA we are allowed to have different views, even if that view is socialism as Bernie states his belief to be.

But supporting the status quo and pretending that things are going to change? That is just foolish in my opinion

You may think cruz represents the status quo but I dont.

its good that America is a stable country.

We didnt create the problem plaguing us overnight and going for the quick fix is not advisable either

[texan]

Cruz is disliked by the establishment republicans because he did what his constiuants sent him to do and didn't conform to their liking. The liberals hate him because the media and Democratic Party needed a villain. The Tea Party is the villain and he is the face. The liberals created the Tea Party because they refuse to work across the isle on Obamacare. However they continue to blame the republicans and TP because that is what they do for a living.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Rafael "Ted" Cruz
Never paid his dues

Instead of spitting out one-liners
He needs to go back to the minors

[OGIS]

As you all know Walker was my Guy. And then I liked Carly but they are both Gone.

So I have really been looking into Cruz. I may have been wrong in my first assessments?

He is as consistent as any politician when it comes to his positions and for a conservative, there is very little to complain about?

Now he is a bit goofy looking, so I can understand that? But liberals and conservatives? Just what is it about his policies that you find you can't live with?

This is a TPF so keep it related to his policies please.

He is the point man and Manchurian Candidate for a bunch of totalitarian minded Christian theocrats. If he is elected to the Presidency, it will be a major step to enacting policies that will enslave the entire nation to a Dominionist dictatorship.

As with Adolph Hitler and Mein Kampf (which almost everyone ignored), it is all there, right out in the open for anyone to see... if they have the unblinkered eyes to see with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNa5w9js48s

[del]

i've always had trouble supporting child molesters for public office

[OGIS]

This is why I am really starting to like the idea of a Cruz nomination. Not one liberal can tell you what they don't like about his policies.

Makes it hard to run against.

What I don't like about his policies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNa5w9js48s

happy?

[OGIS]

i've always had trouble supporting child molesters for public office

LOL, he DOES exude that vibe, doesn't he? And the videos of his wife's reactions to him, and videos of his daughter's reaction to even being touched by him.... damn, just damn.

We really don't need a pedophile in the White House.

[del]

LOL, he DOES exude that vibe, doesn't he? And the videos of his wife's reactions to him, and videos of his daughter's reaction to even being touched by him.... damn, just damn.

We really don't need a pedophile in the White House.

it's just a matter of time

he's got the short eyes

TBed by OP.

[OGIS]

it's just a matter of time

he's got the short eyes

Someone needs to start a "Pedophiles for Ted Cruz" movement.


TBed by OP.

[zelmo1234]

zelmo which cruz are you asking about. The original cruz who for over two years was a totally different ted cruz that he is ACTING like now.

Aside from all that I just cant stand HIM and I dont trust him one bit.

What positions has he changed?

[zelmo1234]

You may think cruz represents the status quo but I dont.

its good that America is a stable country.

We didnt create the problem plaguing us overnight and going for the quick fix is not advisable either

Actually just the opposite, I think he is the only one left that is not establishment. Trump may be an outsider but he will govern like any other progressive

[zelmo1234]

He is the point man and Manchurian Candidate for a bunch of totalitarian minded Christian theocrats. If he is elected to the Presidency, it will be a major step to enacting policies that will enslave the entire nation to a Dominionist dictatorship.

As with Adolph Hitler and Mein Kampf (which almost everyone ignored), it is all there, right out in the open for anyone to see... if they have the unblinkered eyes to see with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNa5w9js48s

Ok his father is a preacher? What policies do you think that you could not live with. I don't remember him saying that he will force you to go to church.

As for me I think we could use to move a little more back to the founding fathers idea of the first amendment.

[Truth Detector]

As you all know Walker was my Guy. And then I liked Carly but they are both Gone.

So I have really been looking into Cruz. I may have been wrong in my first assessments?

He is as consistent as any politician when it comes to his positions and for a conservative, there is very little to complain about?

Now he is a bit goofy looking, so I can understand that? But liberals and conservatives? Just what is it about his policies that you find you can't live with?

This is a TPF so keep it related to his policies please.

Why not Rubio? Cruz is a tad too creepy for me and many others who would not like to see him nominated.

[zelmo1234]

i've always had trouble supporting child molesters for public office

Going to need a link but it will not be able to come from you.

[Truth Detector]

I don't believe any candidate on either side has policies that will "destroy" us.

True; but those on the left will make things a LOT crappier and create MORE malaise.

[zelmo1234]

Ok Del and OGIS I asked in the OP to keep this to the facts. Being liberals you couldn't stick to that. So you have to go

Sorry

[Truth Detector]

He is the point man and Manchurian Candidate for a bunch of totalitarian minded Christian theocrats. If he is elected to the Presidency, it will be a major step to enacting policies that will enslave the entire nation to a Dominionist dictatorship.

As with Adolph Hitler and Mein Kampf (which almost everyone ignored), it is all there, right out in the open for anyone to see... if they have the unblinkered eyes to see with:


:biglaugh: Nothing says Mein Kampf better than the Liberal Progressive agenda.

[zelmo1234]

Why not Rubio? Cruz is a tad too creepy for me and many others who would not like to see him nominated.

For me Rubio is too progressive on Immigration and the ACA. I also think he would appoint a moderate.

Immigration we already know that Rubio Sucks on. The progressive is strong in that one. Creepy? Hillary and Bernie are creepy too.

What polices that Curz has do you not agree with?

[texan]

Rafael "Ted" Cruz
Never paid his dues

Instead of spitting out one-liners
He needs to go back to the minors

Uh huh and Obama paid his I am sure.

[Cigar]

As you all know Walker was my Guy. And then I liked Carly but they are both Gone.

So I have really been looking into Cruz. I may have been wrong in my first assessments?

He is as consistent as any politician when it comes to his positions and for a conservative, there is very little to complain about?

Now he is a bit goofy looking, so I can understand that? But liberals and conservatives? Just what is it about his policies that you find you can't live with?

This is a TPF so keep it related to his policies please.

His Religious policies

[zelmo1234]

His Religious policies

Ok which one of his positions really bothers you?

[Cigar]

Ok which one of his positions really bothers you?

Every single one of them and every times he brings up Religion ...

He's Running for the President of The UNITED STATES ... not Preacher of The United States.

[Mister D]

Every single one of them and every times he brings up Religion ...

He's Running for the President of The UNITED STATES ... not Preacher of The United States.

IOW, Cigar has no idea. He's not aware of any particular policy. His marching orders say religion = bad. He's not required to think. Just post. :laugh:

[Cigar]

IOW, Cigar has no idea. He's not aware of any particular policy. His marching orders say religion = bad. He's not required to think. Just post. :laugh:

He asked my opinion and I gave it without a single thought about what you think ... that's how it goes now, if you haven't heard.

[Mister D]

He asked my opinion and I gave it without a single thought about what you think ... that's how it goes now, if you haven't heard.

Yes, you did. Except your opinion revealed you're not thinking at all. :laugh: He asked you a specific question. You gave the same vague answer. Stop digging.

[Cigar]

Yes, you did. Except your opinion revealed you're not thinking at all. :laugh: He asked you a specific question. You gave the same vague answer. Stop digging.

I don't give a F'ck about Ted Cruz or anything he has to say .... :laugh:

I mean I really don't Give-a-F'ck :grin:

[Mister D]

Yeah, we know. You should have said that the first time. :laugh:

[OGIS]

Ok Del and OGIS I asked in the OP to keep this to the facts. Being liberals you couldn't stick to that. So you have to go

Sorry

So you don't want to hear my response to your saying his dad's a preacher?

Didn't think so.

[OGIS]

He asked my opinion and I gave it without a single thought about what you think ... that's how it goes now, if you haven't heard.

That's just nasty, dude. Almost on a par with Roark's retort to Toughy. "But I don't think of you."

[zelmo1234]

Every single one of them and every times he brings up Religion ...

He's Running for the President of The UNITED STATES ... not Preacher of The United States.

Shouldn't the First amendment protect his right to speak about God? I guess that if you are against that I can see it.

What I was getting at is I don't know of any of his policies that he has Anchored I religion.

[zelmo1234]

IOW, Cigar has no idea. He's not aware of any particular policy. His marching orders say religion = bad. He's not required to think. Just post. :laugh:


Actually I am quit proud of Cigar in this thread. I can see if Religion bothers people, that Cruz is not your guy.

I think that if that is all they have on Curz, then he is in good shape. I understand your comment, but for this thread, religion is likely enough for some people.

[Mister D]

Actually I am quit proud of Cigar in this thread. I can see if Religion bothers people, that Cruz is not your guy.

I think that if that is all they have on Curz, then he is in good shape. I understand your comment, but for this thread, religion is likely enough for some people.

zelmo, it's enough for these idiots to be told not to like someone. It's embarrassing.

[zelmo1234]

zelmo, it's enough for these idiots to be told not to like someone. It's embarrassing.

I agree that people should look into the actual facts. But at least they could give his religious beliefs as na answer. with nearly 70% of the people proclaiming to be Christian in this country, and the fact that most people that hate religion are far left already. I can live with that answer.

[Green Arrow]

zelmo1234, my internet is down so I can't give you the lengthy response I wanted to, but I don't disagree with Cruz's stated ends - strong border, strong military, defending our interests - I just disagree with his stated means of how to get there.

[zelmo1234]

@zelmo1234 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=588), my internet is down so I can't give you the lengthy response I wanted to, but I don't disagree with Cruz's stated ends - strong border, strong military, defending our interests - I just disagree with his stated means of how to get there.

I can see that. I am not a real beat around the Bush Guy, so that style appeals to me. But I can see how it is offensive to others. Good post.

[Green Arrow]

Now I can use my laptop, so I'll go a little more in-depth.

Rubio and Cruz have both sounded the same tune about how our Navy, Army, and Air Force are all smaller today than they were before WWII. They express a desire to dramatically increase the size of our military to meet or exceed the pre-WWII numbers.

The problem I have with that is as time passes, people change, and as people change, so too do our ways of fighting wars. The simple fact of the matter is we are no longer in a position where such massive ship, troop, and plane numbers are necessary. We could dramatically scale back the number of all of those things we have and still have the strongest and best military on the planet.

Our enemies are changing the way they fight. If we don't change with them, we will be unprepared to face them.

[Cletus]

Well, my main problem with Cruz is that I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth, but if you want specific policy -

"Carpet-bombing" is not a strategy to defeat ISIL.

Strategic, intense aerial bombing would be a major tool in weakening ISIS, so although it is not a strategy in and of itself, it is a key component an effective strategy to defeat the.


Building a wall is not legitimate and serious border security.

It could and probably should be a component of the overall strategy to control the invasion of illegal immigrants from the South.


Opposing "amnesty" is not legitimate and serious immigration policy.

Why not?


Ending "sanctuary cities" is a violation of local autonomy.

There is no such thing as "local autonomy" in any legal sense. Cities are bound to the law of their respective states and the federal government.


"Rebuilding our military" to the levels of the WWII and pre-war era is backward thinking, which will never defeat our enemies of today.

I skipped a couple of your "points" because they were silly. Rebuilding our military is the only to defend the security of this nation and our interests. Talking nice to our enemies has never worked very well.


"Ripping up" the Iran deal is not sound foreign policy.

Why not?

[zelmo1234]

Now I can use my laptop, so I'll go a little more in-depth.

Rubio and Cruz have both sounded the same tune about how our Navy, Army, and Air Force are all smaller today than they were before WWII. They express a desire to dramatically increase the size of our military to meet or exceed the pre-WWII numbers.

The problem I have with that is as time passes, people change, and as people change, so too do our ways of fighting wars. The simple fact of the matter is we are no longer in a position where such massive ship, troop, and plane numbers are necessary. We could dramatically scale back the number of all of those things we have and still have the strongest and best military on the planet.

Our enemies are changing the way they fight. If we don't change with them, we will be unprepared to face them.

I think that there are many people that believe this way, maybe most of the people.

Historically when the nations that are not interested in controlling others, or Good nations if you will regress, then the nations that do want to expand and control others, of evil if you will tend to fill that void.

Historically this leads to massive conflicts with nations playing catch up.

As for expanding to a new way of fighting? I think that we should actually return to some old tactics, Total War for one. If any nation or group attacks the USA or our citizens, then I believe that total war is called for, and until they are willing to unconditionally surrender, then they will reap the full strength of the US military.

I see the entitlements as a larger threat to National security that return out military to former levels

[Green Arrow]

Strategic, intense aerial bombing would be a major tool in weakening ISIS, so although it is not a strategy in and of itself, it is a key component an effective strategy to defeat the.

I don't disagree, but he hasn't really offered much else in the way of an actual strategy for defeating ISIL. In fairness to him, though, nobody really has.


It could and probably should be a component of the overall strategy to control the invasion of illegal immigrants from the South.

I disagree. There are cheaper and more effective means of securing the border.


Why not?

Because you'll never realistically deport 11 million (and counting) people and there's really no reason to if they aren't violent criminals.


There is no such thing as "local autonomy" in any legal sense. Cities are bound to the law of their respective states and the federal government.

I recognize that and I disagree with it. I think the solution to (most of) our problems is more decentralization and less centralization.


I skipped a couple of your "points" because they were silly. Rebuilding our military is the only to defend the security of this nation and our interests. Talking nice to our enemies has never worked very well.

I never said we should "talk nice" to our enemies and I never said rebuilding our military was a bad idea. I just said Cruz's concept of "rebuilding" our military is backward thinking and does nothing to address the very unique threats of the present.


Why not?

Because the simple fact of the matter is you have to make room for diplomacy. The Iran deal is a bad deal, sure, but that doesn't mean you just have no deals, it means you negotiate a better deal.

[Green Arrow]

I think that there are many people that believe this way, maybe most of the people.

Historically when the nations that are not interested in controlling others, or Good nations if you will regress, then the nations that do want to expand and control others, of evil if you will tend to fill that void.

Historically this leads to massive conflicts with nations playing catch up.

None of that is relevant to what I'm saying. I'm not talking about weakening the U.S. military and our global influence, I'm talking about strengthening it and reordering it. I do not believe that modifying our approach to fit the times will weaken us. I think refusing to modify our approach to fit the times is what will weaken us.


As for expanding to a new way of fighting? I think that we should actually return to some old tactics, Total War for one. If any nation or group attacks the USA or our citizens, then I believe that total war is called for, and until they are willing to unconditionally surrender, then they will reap the full strength of the US military.

That doesn't work when the enemy isn't a nation-state. You're really just proving my point. Our real enemies are no longer nation-states, they are groups bound by ideology rather than borders and they exist in every nation on the planet, including in the U.S. You can't use total war on Canada or Nebraska.


I see the entitlements as a larger threat to National security that return out military to former levels

"Entitlements" are as much a threat to our national security as climate change.

[Mac-7]

"Entitlements" are as much a threat to our national security as climate change.

climate change is natural

entitlements are a man-made diaster

[zelmo1234]

None of that is relevant to what I'm saying. I'm not talking about weakening the U.S. military and our global influence, I'm talking about strengthening it and reordering it. I do not believe that modifying our approach to fit the times will weaken us. I think refusing to modify our approach to fit the times is what will weaken us.



That doesn't work when the enemy isn't a nation-state. You're really just proving my point. Our real enemies are no longer nation-states, they are groups bound by ideology rather than borders and they exist in every nation on the planet, including in the U.S. You can't use total war on Canada or Nebraska.



"Entitlements" are as much a threat to our national security as climate change.

Actually I one of the things that is imperative in this new world order is mobility. the Navy provides that mobility, and you need ships and protection to do that. You need spec ops to preform those small surgical raids. and we need to restore the ability to supply a military so companies like Halliburton can't charge 5 times the price to do so.

Actually, you can use total war against a group of people because their is a nation harboring those terrorists. Using the policy of you can live in peace or you can't live at all, will cause 2 things to happen. #1 either the harboring nations and people will make sure that these people have no safe haven or they will suffer the consequences. And #2 those that are financing the terrorist, likely Iran will be in the cross hairs as well, the people of those nations will rise up and over through their evil leaders, of they will die.

Iran is not coming back to the table with milk and cookies. the sanctions were really starting to cause suffering in the population, now we are a decade from that happening because of Obama and Kerry. Long before then Israel will be forced to take out their ability to launch an atomic bomb into their nation, which may cause a WW. What is needed is a big stick and a naval blockade so the people will be force to address the issue of their evil leaders.

[zelmo1234]

I thought I would address the Climate change issue in a separate thread?

Would you agree that Climate change is a Global Problem, or is the pollution created in the USA special and causes more of an effect than pollution form Mexico, or India, or China?

[Mac-7]

I thought I would address the Climate change issue in a separate thread?

Would you agree that Climate change is a Global Problem, or is the pollution created in the USA special and causes more of an effect than pollution form Mexico, or India, or China?

I don't consider CO2 to be pollution

That is just liberal nonsense

[Truth Detector]

zelmo1234, my internet is down so I can't give you the lengthy response I wanted to, but I don't disagree with Cruz's stated ends - strong border, strong military, defending our interests - I just disagree with his stated means of how to get there.

How is he going to get to the policies YOU agree with? I'm betting he can't get there without Congress. ;)

[Truth Detector]

Now I can use my laptop, so I'll go a little more in-depth.

Rubio and Cruz have both sounded the same tune about how our Navy, Army, and Air Force are all smaller today than they were before WWII. They express a desire to dramatically increase the size of our military to meet or exceed the pre-WWII numbers.

The problem I have with that is as time passes, people change, and as people change, so too do our ways of fighting wars. The simple fact of the matter is we are no longer in a position where such massive ship, troop, and plane numbers are necessary. We could dramatically scale back the number of all of those things we have and still have the strongest and best military on the planet.

Our enemies are changing the way they fight. If we don't change with them, we will be unprepared to face them.

I guess we could go on pretending China and Russia are our allies. :biglaugh:

[Green Arrow]

I guess we could go on pretending China and Russia are our allies. :biglaugh:

Who said that? Are you talking to yourself again?

[PNW]

Other than cruz's out and out constant lies, distortions and falsehoods?
Well his flat tax, his doubling down on saint ronnies voodoo 'trickle down' failure, his tax cuts for the rich, his plans to more than double the debt and start another war?
Other than that I have no problem with him.

[Don]

Thank You. At least you are basing your dislike on something.

Actually some of the reasons that you dislike him is the reason that I like him and that is OK

Carpet Bombing or total war against ISIL is the only way that they will be defeated. Until the hell of War is brought to the people that are supporting the movement, they will continue to replace one terrorist leader with another. Appeasement is only a policy that will bring more death and destruction to the west, As we have seen in the past 8 years. It was the same with the Confederacy of the Civil War, and Nazi Germany in WWII

Until we stop the flow of illegals into the country, nothing can be done with those that are here. Democrats have lied about their intentions before and can't be trusted to deal in good faith with the people. building a wall, or smart fence is one way to really start to change the flow of illegals. I will not vote for anyone that supports any immigration plan that does not stop the flow of illegals first. And Anyone that allows a path to citizenship for those that came here illegally. Sure they should have a path to become legal and documented, but citizenship should be reserved for those that have not broken our laws.

Sanctuary Cities. I believe that cities have every right to make that decision for themselves. But they do not have the right to federal tax dollars if they choose to ignore federal immigration laws. I can think of nothing more free than that. forcing the US citizens to pay for people that have broken our laws, is criminal in itself.

What he wants to replace the path to an atomic bomb that Obama and friends signed with Iran is the crippling sanctions that were placed on them because they still hold the position of #1 sponsor of Terrorism around the world. They were finally to the point where the people of Iran were suffering so much they were considering a changing of the guard. Obama gave the old guard in Iran at least another Decade. And if the Treaty is not repealed it will lead to war in the middle east that we will not be able to sit on the sidelines.

Every time that the USA has let it's military collapse, we see the world catch fire. Look at how Russia and Putin have filled the vacuum created in the middle east and around the world. China is flexing it's muscle. This leads to much larger and more expensive conflicts. And while I don't like intervention and nation building either. A policy of total war and unconditional surrender still takes a powerful military.

The federal government has been using the "federal tax dollars" hammer on cities and states since Nixon helped set up that monster with his "revenue sharing." Anytime they want compliance on anything they threaten states and cities with it and often they have withheld funding.

[Peter1469]

Other than cruz's out and out constant lies, distortions and falsehoods?
Well his flat tax, his doubling down on saint ronnies voodoo 'trickle down' failure, his tax cuts for the rich, his plans to more than double the debt and start another war?
Other than that I have no problem with him.
What voodoo trickle down? You know that all of the predictions about that failed. Utterly. I have posted an article on that several times. Look it up.

[PNW]

What voodoo trickle down? You know that all of the predictions about that failed. Utterly. I have posted an article on that several times. Look it up.

You're not honestly trying to say that saint ronnies voodoo economics, AKA trickle down, supply side or whatever the rights latest attempt to rename it, worked are you?
Good lord, the koolaid has really worked on some of you hasn't it?

[zelmo1234]

Other than cruz's out and out constant lies, distortions and falsehoods?
Well his flat tax, his doubling down on saint ronnies voodoo 'trickle down' failure, his tax cuts for the rich, his plans to more than double the debt and start another war?
Other than that I have no problem with him.

I guess that I am going to need some links on that, because you have just listed all of the propaganda, which is based in falsehood.

[zelmo1234]

What voodoo trickle down? You know that all of the predictions about that failed. Utterly. I have posted an article on that several times. Look it up.

Now you are not going to go ruining some good propaganda by requesting facts are you :)

[Leonthecat]

War.

[zelmo1234]

You're not honestly trying to say that saint ronnies voodoo economics, AKA trickle down, supply side or whatever the rights latest attempt to rename it, worked are you?
Good lord, the koolaid has really worked on some of you hasn't it?

Well being the Clinton used the same Economic plan, and it was the longest peace time period of economic growth in US history? I am thinking that they were OK. Now having President Obama return the work force to the numbers of the Jimmy Carter Era? Now you have to work really hard to fail that big?

[PNW]

I guess that I am going to need some links on that, because you have just listed all of the propaganda, which is based in falsehood.

Here you are,
https://www.tedcruz.org/

It's all right there, of course you have to have open eyes to see it.
The lies, distortions the damaging economic policies, the lust for blood.
And I haven't touched on his need to turn the nation into his version of a theocracy.
It's on the front page there, if and when you open your eyes.

[PNW]

Well being the Clinton used the same Economic plan, and it was the longest peace time period of economic growth in US history? I am thinking that they were OK. Now having President Obama return the work force to the numbers of the Jimmy Carter Era? Now you have to work really hard to fail that big?

I see now why you like Calgary cruz so much, total lack of truth.

[PNW]

Now you are not going to go ruining some good propaganda by requesting facts are you :)

I see no evidence that either of you would recognize a fact if you saw it.

[zelmo1234]

I see no evidence that either of you would recognize a fact if you saw it.

It is very simple you can look up the statistics on the federal government sites and you will see that Reagan and Clinton grew the economy dramatically, Go back to JFK and you can see another dramatic jump. and they all used the same tactics and Ideas to get the job done.

PS Clintons96 tax cut was far more of a tax cut for the rich than Reagans ever dreamed of.

[zelmo1234]

I see now why you like Calgary cruz so much, total lack of truth.

I went to his web page but did not see any of the things that you were taking about? You and Exotix are going to get along great! Reality will never slow either one of you down.

but this is a TPF thread and I am going to have to ask you to start linking specific evidence to your claims. It would be appreciated.

[PNW]

It is very simple you can look up the statistics on the federal government sites and you will see that Reagan and Clinton grew the economy dramatically, Go back to JFK and you can see another dramatic jump. and they all used the same tactics and Ideas to get the job done.

PS Clintons96 tax cut was far more of a tax cut for the rich than Reagans ever dreamed of.

Like I said, total lack of truth and unable to recognize a fact.

[PNW]

I went to his web page but did not see any of the things that you were taking about? You and Exotix are going to get along great! Reality will never slow either one of you down.

but this is a TPF thread and I am going to have to ask you to start linking specific evidence to your claims. It would be appreciated.
I see, your eyes are closed to the facts and that is somehow my fault. I figured as much, the very premise of this thread is for you cheer-lead for the Canadian.
Somehow being blocked from one of your threads for suck slight cause would in fact be a badge of honor.
But if you can't handle a real debate and can't handle a differing opinion, go ahead, it says more about you than me.

[zelmo1234]

I am sorry PNW but unsupported talking points and linking the web page of the candidate which actually you did not read or you would have seen that it did not support your facts, is not engaging in dialog but only propaganda. Please be more careful in other serious threads.

[silvereyes]

Good grief, hes not even seated in reality.

http://www.thenation.com/article/ted-cruzs-trouble-truth-his-biggest-liability/

[zelmo1234]

Good grief, hes not even seated in reality.

http://www.thenation.com/article/ted-cruzs-trouble-truth-his-biggest-liability/

I think that you pointed out some good points. And you are correct there can't be `114 thousand agents at the IRS. But these are king of small on the on the scale of political lies. especially when compared to Hillary.

But there are 2 items of concern in here. The statement about the Catholic Church. His numbers on gun violence are correct if you don't enter in suicide numbers so that is left wing talking points, to some extent But a Senator should be more informed on the IRS.

[Dr. Who]

PNW thread banned at the request of the OP.