Tea Party now lists Senator Cruz as a RINO

[txradioguy]

As a practical matter, that's the governing philosophy of the group I hang with, yes.  They have no use for libertines.

There are some Libertarian aspects of Conservatism I get behind.  Which is why I said the other day I can get behind my Junior Senator about 505 of the time.

It's when they venture off into Ron Paul looney territory on stuff that they lose me.

[roamer_1]

I don't think so.  The problem is, I don't know what a "real Libertarian" is.  The Libertarian Party really ruined that.  If you mean "real libertarian," then I probably have, and rarely disagree with them on fiscal matters.

As a rule, if you get past the avid potheads you will find common ground with a Libertarian Party 'true libertarian' ... They WILL be against the general hue of federal drug control, but will cede the point wrt interstate issues (in that the fed properly has jurisdiction in border and interstate issues).

They will as a rule properly lay legitimate jurisdiction wrt drug control primarily with the various states, in classic federalism.  And I can agree to that. I see clearly their complaint that federal jurisdiction in the matter has not only funded the behemoth, bit also drastically eroded liberty. They are right about that.

I am not in full agreement mind you, but there is much common ground. It is a rollicking debate that is fun as heck.

Our redheaded step-brothers, the Libertarians are close to Conservatives in their true nature. Civil-libertarianism has not rubbed off entirely.

There is a reason why Libertarians will often lend their weight to a Principled Conservative candidate.

[Hat In Ring]

What Libertarian point of view is being espoused here exactly?  Please be specific?  And if you're already predicting your own demise then does that mean all you cane to do here is troll?

Because we have certified Liberals on this forum that haven't been removed.

You come on this forum and make a beeline for this particular thread and start tossing out falsehoods and half truths about the Senator from Texas and make false statements about the general political nature of TBR.

It tends to make people...myself included...very suspicious of your intentions.

You are correct about 1 thing. I did make a beeline straight for this thread.

The 1st post by "Chosen Daughter" who created this thread with, "Was Copy/Pasted From My Blog". Yes, I wrote the "Rino List" "Chosen Daughter" got the post from declaring Ted Cruz a rino.

She left a link to my article in her post:  https://teapartymainstreet.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-2020-rino-list-begins-to-grow-as.html

Yes, I'm "Tea Party Main Street" AKA "Hat In Ring" and "Republican Party Base".

Under my avatar are little symbols. One is a "Globe". The "Globe" is a website link. I noticed this forum allows links so I entered mine and the globe appears in all my posts in the mini profile section. Click the globe!

[roamer_1]

There are some Libertarian aspects of Conservatism I get behind.  Which is why I said the other day I can get behind my Junior Senator about 505 of the time.

It's when they venture off into Ron Paul looney territory on stuff that they lose me.

Where I part with them is in Mil/FP Conservatism. I am not an interventionist militarily, But I do believe our worldwide military superstructure has a necessary benefit.

I could find much to agree with in Ron Paul on the home front.

[txradioguy]

Where I part with them is in Mil/FP Conservatism. I am not an interventionist militarily, But I do believe our worldwide military superstructure has a necessary benefit.

I could find much to agree with in Ron Paul on the home front.

They lose me on the military aspect as well.  Stopped Listening to Wilkow for a few months over his asinine take on the U.S. abandoning the Kurds to the Turks.

The far left Libertarians (my opinion) calling for a return to the Gold Standard, some of the "blame the Jews for 9/11" racism that bubbles up and their legalize everything attitude can be a turn off.

I always find it funny the people that insist Paul is the "ultimate Conservative" while he's writing screeds for the far left wing AntiWar.com website.

I was very disturbed over Rand openly courting the FM from Iran and politicking for the position of the envoy between the WH and Iran inn talking about the sanctions as well.

[roamer_1]

They lose me on the military aspect as well.  Stopped Listening to Wilkow for a few months over his asinine take on the U.S. abandoning the Kurds to the Turks.

The far left Libertarians (my opinion) calling for a return to the Gold Standard, some of the "blame the Jews for 9/11" racism that bubbles up and their legalize everything attitude can be a turn off.

I always find it funny the people that insist Paul is the "ultimate Conservative" while he's writing screeds for the far left wing AntiWar.com website.

I was very disturbed over Rand openly courting the FM from Iran and politicking for the position of the envoy between the WH and Iran inn talking about the sanctions as well.

All of that is legit in my mind @txradioguy , which will be no surprise. 

But I am loathe to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I can vote for Rand Paul.

Using the OnTheIssues' graphic as an illustration, the red dot for candidates I tend to like are deep in the Conservative pocket, leaning hard toward the Libertarian side.

[sneakypete]

I assiduously have stayed out of the Cruz wars as long as Cruz has stayed to the right of center (exactly how right of center to be determined by the voters that know him best.)

But, the glimpse I got of him in the ‘16 election showed a smart, scholarly guy, knows the constitution inside and out—probably would shine on the court. But if he’s still thinking presidency, maybe not the kind of personality to excite the mix of voters that make up the GOP and those that vote GOP.

But, listen to me, regarding Cruz, I’m Switzerland. So, leave me out of this.

@aligncare

I agree with what I highlighted. IMNSHO,Cruz and Lady Lindsey are probably the most intelligent US Senators,or right up there with the most intelligent.

Lady Lindsey can't be counted on in a pinch,most likely because of blackmail,and Cruz seems to sometimes cave when I wouldn't expect him to cave. There is nothing I can really put my finger on and then point and shout "AHAH!Untrustworthy!",but there just seems to be something about him I just can't trust.

[sneakypete]

If you ask me all this seems like an unnecessary skirmish, @Hat In Ring  I don’t understand why you would worry about Cruz right now. This is what primary season is for.

@aligncare

I agree. Seems to me we already have enough to fight about that we need to save some of it for the future.

[sneakypete]

Ted Cruz will never be president so I can't understand why these libertarians don't find and move to a new candidate instead of trying to push the Ted Cruz square peg into a round hole?

@Hat In Ring

Ok,if you really believe all that,why bother attacking him?

[txradioguy]

All of that is legit in my mind @txradioguy , which will be no surprise. 

But I am loathe to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I can vote for Rand Paul.

Using the OnTheIssues' graphic as an illustration, the red dot for candidates I tend to like are deep in the Conservative pocket, leaning hard toward the Libertarian side.

Oh make no mistake I'll vote for him too...easier than I will Turtle.  All you have to do is look towards the Governor's mansion in Frankfort to see what the alternative is.

[aligncare]

Reading this thread begs the question, that with the range of all those opinions out there, even among like-minded groups, how we manage to funnel all of that divergent, sometimes contradictory viewpoints into a two-party election, without encountering at least some friction/disagreement/lunacy/maliciousness/criminality, etc etc.

It’s a wonder we haven’t had a civil war every four years.

[sneakypete]

What Libertarian point of view is being espoused here exactly?  Please be specific?   

@txradioguy

Good question,and one I would like to see the answer to,also.

We currently have the Chinese-controlled Dim congress of assorted retards and traitors to deal with,and their threat is both real and RIGHT NOW,so WTH are we doing arguing about a potential Cruz campaign?

Enquiring minds,and all dat.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Hat In Ring

Ok,if you really believe all that,why bother attacking him?

@Hat In Ring was not here for those battles, back in '16.  He can't know we've already beaten the carp out of each other on that.   On Twitter, he's seen the bullshit being bantered all the time, even now.  I like to think we got past all that.

He's smart.  Give him some time.

[sneakypete]

Are we talking about "libertarianism" or "libertinism? 

@Cyber Liberty

I think that we are now talking about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin",and suggest we all just stop posting to this thread and let it die.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

I think that we are now talking about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin",and suggest we all just stop posting to this thread and let it die.

 

[roamer_1]

Reading this thread begs the question, that with the range of all those opinions out there, even among like-minded groups, how we manage to funnel all of that divergent, sometimes contradictory viewpoints into a two-party election, without encountering at least some friction/disagreement/lunacy/maliciousness/criminality, etc etc.

It’s a wonder we haven’t had a civil war every four years.

That unity was aforetime accomplished by one sturdy criteria:
The Principles of Conservatism.

And I would submit, that criteria is the ONLY standard that will do.

[Right_in_Virginia]

That unity was aforetime accomplished by one sturdy criteria:
The Principles of Conservatism.

What the hell are you talking about?  What unity did the "principles of conservatism" usher in?  When?  By whom?

[txradioguy]

What the hell are you talking about?  What unity did the "principles of conservatism" usher in?  When?  By whom?

Were you asleep from January of 1981 through January of 1989?

[libertybele]

[Smokin Joe]

This is very true!

Sorry, I have been keeping quiet, but as folks who have been here a while will tell you, that only lasts so long.

I can't see where you are coming from,if it isn't just to jump in with a bunch of nonsense and make a splash.

I have seen many splashes in unsavory places, and of some peculiarly nasty material, and that is what I am seeing now. Attempting to somehow divide those who supported Cruz in '16 from the rest of the GOP will do the GOP no good. It is people like Cruz who keep more from shaking the dust off their feet. Cutting down Cruz with some of the most egregious BS I have seen in a few years doesn't make points here, we've been watching him since well before the primaries back when, before the POTUS primary, and have a decent Idea who he is and where he is coming from, things you wouldn't read in the columns of the National Enquirer. Spare me the Lyin' Ted nonsense, I was watching as that went down, and know what happened. We saw the well timed and regionally targeted series of "exposes" that were used to place doubt and strip votes away, and must note that Cruz performed well in spite of a well coordinated media campaign against him. We understand the stalwarts of the 'country club' GOP thought they could wheel and deal with Trump, who appears to have disappointed them in how much he would be for sale. (Not so much a surprise for a man who has been dealing with smarmy and crooked pols his entire life)
But Cruz, relatively speaking was a Constitutional Boy Scout. Not perfect, perhaps, as none is, but far better than most. Attempting to lump Cruz in with the Party of legal pot (which was about half the Libertarian Platform, more libertine than truly libertarian) is a non starter.

So, what's your game? Nice polished attacks only get me wondering why.

[txradioguy]

Sorry, I have been keeping quiet, but as folks who have been here a while will tell you, that only lasts so long.

I can't see where you are coming from,if it isn't just to jump in with a bunch of nonsense and make a splash.

I have seen many splashes in unsavory places, and of some peculiarly nasty material, and that is what I am seeing now. Attempting to somehow divide those who supported Cruz in '16 from the rest of the GOP will do the GOP no good. It is people like Cruz who keep more from shaking the dust off their feet. Cutting down Cruz with some of the most egregious BS I have seen in a few years doesn't make points here, we've been watching him since well before the primaries back when, before the POTUS primary, and have a decent Idea who he is and where he is coming from, things you wouldn't read in the columns of the National Enquirer. Spare me the Lyin' Ted nonsense, I was watching as that went down, and know what happened. We saw the well timed and regionally targeted series of "exposes" that were used to place doubt and strip votes away, and must note that Cruz performed well in spite of a well coordinated media campaign against him. We understand the stalwarts of the 'country club' GOP thought they could wheel and deal with Trump, who appears to have disappointed them in how much he would be for sale. (Not so much a surprise for a man who has been dealing with smarmy and crooked pols his entire life)
But Cruz, relatively speaking was a Constitutional Boy Scout. Not perfect, perhaps, as none is, but far better than most. Attempting to lump Cruz in with the Party of legal pot (which was about half the Libertarian Platform, more libertine than truly libertarian) is a non starter.

So, what's your game? Nice polished attacks only get me wondering why.

^^^^

This!!!

[roamer_1]

What the hell are you talking about?  What unity did the "principles of conservatism" usher in?  When?  By whom?

The ONLY times the ball has moved away from liberalism have been Conservative movements, not Republican. Primarily Reagan and the 94 Congress.

The ONLY force to BLOCK liberalism, both from Democrats and Republicans, have been Conservative stalwarts, and not merely Republicans. See the Freedom/Liberty Caucus in the house, and a handful of recent senators... Cruz, Lee, Paul, Sasse, Sessions, etc - All summarily discredited and disowned in favor of Tumpy the WonderClown. See Gingrich back in the day. See Tom Delay.

[libertybele]

Sorry, I have been keeping quiet, but as folks who have been here a while will tell you, that only lasts so long.

I can't see where you are coming from,if it isn't just to jump in with a bunch of nonsense and make a splash.

I have seen many splashes in unsavory places, and of some peculiarly nasty material, and that is what I am seeing now. Attempting to somehow divide those who supported Cruz in '16 from the rest of the GOP will do the GOP no good. It is people like Cruz who keep more from shaking the dust off their feet. Cutting down Cruz with some of the most egregious BS I have seen in a few years doesn't make points here, we've been watching him since well before the primaries back when, before the POTUS primary, and have a decent Idea who he is and where he is coming from, things you wouldn't read in the columns of the National Enquirer. Spare me the Lyin' Ted nonsense, I was watching as that went down, and know what happened. We saw the well timed and regionally targeted series of "exposes" that were used to place doubt and strip votes away, and must note that Cruz performed well in spite of a well coordinated media campaign against him. We understand the stalwarts of the 'country club' GOP thought they could wheel and deal with Trump, who appears to have disappointed them in how much he would be for sale. (Not so much a surprise for a man who has been dealing with smarmy and crooked pols his entire life)
But Cruz, relatively speaking was a Constitutional Boy Scout. Not perfect, perhaps, as none is, but far better than most. Attempting to lump Cruz in with the Party of legal pot (which was about half the Libertarian Platform, more libertine than truly libertarian) is a non starter.

So, what's your game? Nice polished attacks only get me wondering why.

My question as well. As far as watching Cruz -- though I'm not from TX, he definitely caught my attention as he captured the Senate seat against all odds. I supported him then and have been supporting him ever since.

The real focus should be the re-election of Trump and maintaining the Senate.  All this banter back and forth over Cruz is ridiculous and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

[Smokin Joe]

My question as well. As far as watching Cruz -- though I'm not from TX, he definitely caught my attention as he captured the Senate seat against all odds. I supported him then and have been supporting him ever since.

The real focus should be the re-election of Trump and maintaining the Senate.  All this banter back and forth over Cruz is ridiculous and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Hence, my question. I see no gain for anyone but Democrats by digging up old fights. We are where we are, with the people we have, and we need more, not fragmentation at this point. That only benefits the Democrats, and this election is the GOP's to lose.

[txradioguy]

You are correct about 1 thing. I did make a beeline straight for this thread.

The 1st post by "Chosen Daughter" who created this thread with, "Was Copy/Pasted From My Blog". Yes, I wrote the "Rino List" "Chosen Daughter" got the post from declaring Ted Cruz a rino.

She left a link to my article in her post:  https://teapartymainstreet.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-2020-rino-list-begins-to-grow-as.html

Yes, I'm "Tea Party Main Street" AKA "Hat In Ring" and "Republican Party Base".

Under my avatar are little symbols. One is a "Globe". The "Globe" is a website link. I noticed this forum allows links so I entered mine and the globe appears in all my posts in the mini profile section. Click the globe!

Nope between here and what I saw before your shadow ban on Twitter...I don't need to.