Ted Cruz Warns Democrats Could Have ‘Massive Wins’ in Texas

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Even assuming that to be true it doesn't matter a bit because a congressman is elected to do HIS job without regard to what the Senate - of which he is not a member- may or may not do!

I completely disagree.  It is a waste of time to work on legislation without regard to whether or not it has a chance of passing.  That's not to say that you should never pass legislation based on principle.  Sometimes, it is important to force others to cast a "no" vote to get them on the record for voters.

But that doesn't imply to impeaching federal judges based on disagreement with their judicial philosophy.  It will only end up hurting politically, and essentially giving the other side more votes in Congress.

[Bigun]

I completely disagree.  It is a waste of time to work on legislation without regard to whether or not it has a chance of passing.  That's not to say that you should never pass legislation based on principle.  Sometimes, it is important to force others to cast a "no" vote to get them on the record for voters.

But that doesn't imply to impeaching federal judges based on disagreement with their judicial philosophy.  It will only end up hurting politically, and essentially giving the other side more votes in Congress.

I VEHEMENTLY disagree with you on that! Could not possibly disagree more! Impeaching federal judges for going outside the bounds of their authority!  Assuming powers not granted them as in writhing law!



 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Sway them to what @Maj. Bill Martin ?

Conservativism.

Voters don't vote solely based on the issues.  Perhaps they would in a perfect world, but that's not reality.  Both voters and other members of Congress also can be influenced by things like tone, presentation, and the arguments you advance in support of your position.

"I'm right, you're wrong, so agree with me or your an un-American idiot" is the vibe Cruz gives off to those who are not already supporters, and it is very unappealing.  Heck, I voted for the guy myself in the primary, and I still found him sanctimonious and annoying.  He needs to work on that if he ever wants to be anything more than a gadfly.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I VEHEMENTLY disagree with you on that! Could not possibly disagree more! Impeaching federal judges for going outside the bounds of their authority!  Assuming powers not granted them as in writhing law!

I don't think that's true, else you'd have capitalized "disagree" as well as "VEHEMENTLY".  So I think part of you agrees with my point.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I completely disagree.  It is a waste of time to work on legislation without regard to whether or not it has a chance of passing.  That's not to say that you should never pass legislation based on principle.  Sometimes, it is important to force others to cast a "no" vote to get them on the record for voters.

But that doesn't imply to impeaching federal judges based on disagreement with their judicial philosophy.  It will only end up hurting politically, and essentially giving the other side more votes in Congress.

Ah see but you're thinking rationally. That will get you flamed in here.

If the GOP is anything other than 100% fanatical opposition to everything Bammy proposes no matter what merits, or no matter what political costs, then they are the 'stablishment! Talk radio told me so, after all, and talk radio would never lie!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Ah see but you're thinking rationally. That will get you flamed in here.

If the GOP is anything other than 100% fanatical opposition to everything Bammy proposes no matter what merits, or no matter what political costs, then they are the 'stablishment! Talk radio told me so, after all, and talk radio would never lie!

Unfortunately, there's a lot of that going around.

Impeaching federal judges because you don't like their judicial philosophy, spending all the time on the hearings (that nobody will watch), etc., will do nothing other than tick off 80% of voters.  The other 20% will be whooping and hollering with joy, then complaining bitterly in their cups when the effort fails miserably and Democrats do better at the polls as a result.

Nothing wrong with spending political capital on important issues that you can win.  Sheer idiocy to spend it on purely symbolic issues where you are sure to lose.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

What?  The emphasis is on how he disagrees.  It could not be more emphatic.  But tell yourself whatever you want.  Cover your ears and say "lalalalalalalalalala..."

I VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE with both you and @Bigun .

If I was going to cover my ears in this thread, it would be to say "LALALALALALALALA...."

[Sanguine]

Conservativism.

Voters don't vote solely based on the issues.  Perhaps they would in a perfect world, but that's not reality.  Both voters and other members of Congress also can be influenced by things like tone, presentation, and the arguments you advance in support of your position.

"I'm right, you're wrong, so agree with me or your an un-American idiot" is the vibe Cruz gives off to those who are not already supporters, and it is very unappealing.  Heck, I voted for the guy myself in the primary, and I still found him sanctimonious and annoying.  He needs to work on that if he ever wants to be anything more than a gadfly.

I disagree.  I have no doubt you feel that way, but I don't think it is because of anything Cruz does.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I disagree.  I have no doubt you feel that way, but I don't think it is because of anything Cruz does.

Am I the only person here who has commented that Ted needs to improve his presentation, lay off the revivalist cadence when speaking, etc.?  We're all just imagining that he's doing that?

Ted liked to portray himself as the only true conservative .  That immediately raises the hackles/defenses of other candidates who consider themselves to be conservative, so he's unilaterally erected battle lines with people who should be the first ones with whom he would build alliances.  Those alliances don't get built because he's fighting with those people.  So while he represents the hard-line conservative viewpoint very well, that's not nearly enough to win a nomination -- much less a general election.

[Axel]

Am I the only person here who has commented that Ted needs to improve his presentation, lay off the revivalist cadence when speaking, etc.?  We're all just imagining that he's doing that?

Of course you're not. I was already told that my judgments of Ted Cruz are a referendum on who I am, not Ted Cruz. I'm not at all surprised you're being told your judgments of Cruz aren't "because of anything Cruz does". I guess we're making things up?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Of course you're not. I was already told that my judgments of Ted Cruz are a referendum on who I am, not Ted Cruz. I'm not at all surprised you're being told your judgments of Cruz aren't "because of anything Cruz does". I guess we're making things up?

What's so frustrating about that is that I agreed with Cruz more than with any other candidate on the issues. I desperately wanted him to be appealing to more than just arch-conservatives so that he could broaden his base of support and actually win.  But then he'd start with the preacher's cadence, and the holier than thou rhetoric, and you just knew that would not sell outside his core supporters.  And it didn't.  And it won't, unless he changes his presentation.

[Bigun]

I don't think that's true, else you'd have capitalized "disagree" as well as "VEHEMENTLY".  So I think part of you agrees with my point.

You may think whatever you like but your thinking it won't make it right.

[Doug Loss]

But that doesn't imply to impeaching federal judges based on disagreement with their judicial philosophy.  It will only end up hurting politically, and essentially giving the other side more votes in Congress.

Impeaching a judge who has ignored the text of the law to impose his own values upon the case is not "disagreeing" with his judicial philosophy.  It's impeaching him for "Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors," of which willfully disobeying his oath of office and subverting the rule of law is a clear example.  Here is the oath every federal judge swears:

“I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

[Longmire]

I don't think that's true, else you'd have capitalized "disagree" as well as "VEHEMENTLY".  So I think part of you agrees with my point.

 

[geronl]

That's true, but what does it say for Cruz's appeal that he couldn't beat the most disliked nominee in history?

A crowded field, a hostile media, 2 hostile parties and a Trump that spewed lies about Ted constantly. Remember how uninterested the media was in questioning the crap Trump said.

[geronl]

  But then he'd start with the preacher's cadence, and the holier than thou rhetoric, and you just knew that would not sell outside his core supporters.  And it didn't.  And it won't, unless he changes his presentation.

Nothing could be more holier than thou than the Trump brigades

[Longmire]

Nothing could be more holier than thou than the Trump brigades

It sucks to be you then Chumlee.

[geronl]

It sucks to be you then Chumlee.

My ignore list grows when I get personally attacked

[rodamala]

It sucks to be you then Chumlee.

@geronl

Classic case of a Vitamin R overdose.  Poor guy needs to go on Oly for 2 weeks to come down off his bad trip.  The delusions, sadly will be permanent, I fear.

[geronl]

@geronl

Classic case of a Vitamin R overdose.  Poor guy needs to go on Oly for 2 weeks to come down off his bad trip.  The delusions, sadly will be permanent, I fear.

Personally, I don't understand why Ted Cruz is trying so hard to save the Republican Party when it most obviously and vehemently does not want to be saved.

[DB]

Personally, I don't understand why Ted Cruz is trying so hard to save the Republican Party when it most obviously and vehemently does not want to be saved.

I've been saying for awhile that Cruz is going to have to decide if he's a Republican anymore. The party in terms of conservatism is pretty much dead these days. I was a Republican for about 36 years because it at least pretended to be the conservative party. No longer. When Trump is done conservative is going to be a bad word. Every leftest stereotype of conservatives is going to become true under Trump while never actually being conservative at all.

[rodamala]

One positive thing that came out of this election cycle is that I am no longer a Republican voter.  Maybe TGO is stull "an inch" away from leaving... with the nonination of the Orange Julius Caesar this summer, that was the last mile over the line it took.

[Bigun]

I've been saying for awhile that Cruz is going to have to decide if he's a Republican anymore. The party in terms of conservatism is pretty much dead these days. I was a Republican for about 36 years because it at least pretended to be the conservative party. No longer. When Trump is done conservative is going to be a bad word. Every leftest stereotype of conservatives is going to become true under Trump while never actually being conservative at all.

Right there with you!  Over forty years in my case but I am well and truly done with them now!

[GrouchoTex]

That's true, but what does it say for Cruz's appeal that he couldn't beat the most disliked nominee in history?

I saw this yesterday.
It was a twitter post with several headlines.
The same media that came out with story after story about how Cruz and Rubio would both be worse than Trump during the primaries, is now coming out saying how bad Trump worse than Hillary.
Coincidence?
No, it was a set up.
They knew Cruz and Rubio would win the general and Trump was their best chance to lose against her.
They had just enough of a plurality in a crowded field to pull it off.

[Sanguine]

I've been saying for awhile that Cruz is going to have to decide if he's a Republican anymore. The party in terms of conservatism is pretty much dead these days. I was a Republican for about 36 years because it at least pretended to be the conservative party. No longer. When Trump is done conservative is going to be a bad word. Every leftest stereotype of conservatives is going to become true under Trump while never actually being conservative at all.

Agreed, though one more factor is where can he do the most good?  Staying in or not?