Posted on 09/07/2015 3:51:28 PM PDT by EveningStar
Our 3rd Quarter FReepathon is about to go into its 70th Day with $5.3k still to go.
I'd love to be able to post my opinions and correct “some others” ... lol ... but I'm honestly too damn tired.
I'm particularly tired of the “broken records” here, who rush to each TRUMP thread to slash, bash and re-post their same tired opinions. If I've read them once, I've read them OVER 100 times.
The anti-Trump groupies are not going to change any minds.
I like TRUMP on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and that's my number one (#1) issue.
I don't give a rip what he said 2, 5, 10, 20 or 30 years ago, when he was a private citizen, NOT a GOP candidate for POTUS!
Maybe Trump will falter during the CNN debate next week. All the Trump haters can then celebrate. Until that happens, Mr. Trump is running away with the nomination and that's "Jim Dandy, A-OKay" with me!
God bless.
Again that is a subjective, and frankly ridiculous, opinion. It has nothing to do with the qualifications for the Presidency.
There are just as many people who think Donald trump looks ridiculous with his extravagant hair. Again, not a reason to vote or not vote for someone.
Video makes ridiculous “friend of friend” assumptions and uses Goldman Sachs as the boogeyman for all that is wrong with immigration and banking in America. No where in the video are direct quotes from Heidi Cruz used.
Then the video goes right off the rails with the “Cruz is not a natural born citizen” argument. It also erroneously states the qualifications for running for President.
The article you posted clearly states that they are basing their disbelief in Cruz’s immigration credentials on an substantiated NYT quote. If you prefer to pick your candidates based on the reporting of the NY Slimes, please go right ahead.
There’s a reason you’ve always been one of my favorite FReepers!
I have a friend who knows Jimmy. He is a drug addled imbecile. You have gone over to the dark side.
This document from the CFR is co-authored by Heidi Cruz:
http://www.cfr.org/competitiveness/task-force-urges-measures-strengthen-north-american-competitiveness-expand-trade-ensure-border-security/p8104
She is no silent resister as a member of this group, but an advocate with them. See here for an interview Cruz had on the topic of his wife, and square what you know with what he says:
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/03/28/never-before-seen-footage-ted-cruz-speaks-about-his-wifes-connection-to-the-council-on-foreign-relations/
The article you posted clearly states that they are basing their disbelief in Cruz’s immigration credentials on an substantiated NYT quote.
Entirely false statement. You didn't read the article or are misrepresenting it. There can be no debate that Cruz's position is to define amnesty solely as a pathway to citizenship-- as established by multiple quotations directly from him-- while still supporting granting legal status. This is, in fact, the position of the entire GOPe and all the other candidates but Trump.
The most vile characterizations of Trump work to his benefit. They marginalize his detractors to positions of idiocy.
By the way, the “friend of a friend” thing was BS on your part too. Not sure why you would even bother to say that.
“Again that is a subjective, and frankly ridiculous, opinion. It has nothing to do with the qualifications for the Presidency.”
Read my comments again. I said we humans are a petty lot, and that it was superficial thinking, but so are a whole lot of people everywhere in the world that judge not only on intellect but on beauty or handsomeness as well.
You may not like it, and yes it has nothing to do with one’s qualifications to be President, and yes it’s subjective. However there have been a multitude of studies over many years time on beauty and the lack thereof, and you know it has an effect on outcomes of all sorts. You don’t see ugly faces gracing beauty magazines do you. Just those we as a society deem to be beautiful.
Beautiful women “win” the handsome men as mates. There are standards of beauty. In our media driven culture the best looking folks have a leg up on others when competing for jobs, mates, friends, pay, etc., in all aspects of life. It’s just the way it is. And that includes how those competing as candidates for the Presidency look.
I never said it was the only quality one looks at; however, as I said, all things being equal, degree of beauty and/or handsomeness will factor in. I believe Cruz’s looks and voice work against him as a candidate. This is my opinion and you may agree or disagree as you wish. As you say, it’s all subjective.
“There are just as many people who think Donald trump looks ridiculous with his extravagant hair. Again, not a reason to vote or not vote for someone.”
See, you think Trump’s hair looks ridiculous, so you are judging him on a standard of beauty (or in Donald’s case, handsomeness). I suspect some people will indeed factor in Trump’s looks as to whether they will vote for him or not. I maintain though that many more folks won’t vote for Cruz based on his facial features and the sound of his voice. Call it a gut instinct, but I bet I’m not that far off the mark.
Sorry that was supposed to say “unsubstantiated quote from the NYT.”
As for the CFR document, no where in there does it say that Heidi Cruz co-authored it. She served on the committee dealing with North America with specifics on trade. So, again, you’re judging based on association and with no clear evidence of Mrs. Cruz’s feelings one way or the other. She very well may have supported the document whole-heartedly. She might also, however, have been very vocal in opposition to the open borders parts of the report. We don’t know!
I think this is a good time to point out that you’ve turned from discounting Cruz’s conservative record on immigration to discussing his wife’s influence. Cruz is a proven Constitutional conservative with a proven record of arguing against government over-reach. Do you really believe that the man who argued against President Bush in the Supreme Court (after working on his 2000 campaign no less) is going to let his wife engage in the kind of extra-governmental nonsense that Mrs. Obama has been up to?
Also: amnesty does refer to removing a pathway to citizenship. By saying “We are not going to allow illegal aliens to apply for citizenship” Cruz is stating that there will be no ability for illegal aliens to remain in the country. I know you support Trump and his call for mass deportations, but the “no path to citizenship” does the exact same thing. Especially when combined with Cruz’s “enforce existing laws and pass stronger regulations to aid enforcement”.
Even if Cruz was arguing to give green cards to every person in the US illegally (which he is NOT), green cards still have to be renewed. Those who seek renewal and are not meeting the standards of employment— OR those who came here illegally— are supposed to be deported under current law.
WOW! Thank you from my heart. Thank you for making my entire day! Flattery works with me. :)
God bless and keep you, dearest Nacho Bidnith.
Not at all, what's going on here is that you are not longer disputing Cruz's position on mass legalization. It's not the same thing.
Cruz is a proven Constitutional conservative with a proven record of arguing against government over-reach.
His support for TPPA so now Obama will only need a simple majority to get his crap pashed, as well as his position in immigration, would argue that he isn't as pure as you claim!
As for the CFR document, no where in there does it say that Heidi Cruz co-authored it. Her name is on it at the very bottom!
She might also, however, have been very vocal in opposition to the open borders parts of the report. We don’t know!
Why be a member of globalist organizations, making money with entities determined to see through a north American EU, and sign your name to documents that are-- even in their most moderate incarnation-- entirely destructive to this country? And when her leftist professor vouches that she wouldn't be "in those kinds of circles" if not for Ted, how is that not evidence of anything? Why is it that Ted Cruz himself still supports legalization of aliens in this country?
Not at all, what's going on here is that you are not longer disputing Cruz's position on mass legalization. It's not the same thing.
Cruz is a proven Constitutional conservative with a proven record of arguing against government over-reach.
His support for TPPA so now Obama will only need a simple majority to get his crap pashed, as well as his position in immigration, would argue that he isn't as pure as you claim!
As for the CFR document, no where in there does it say that Heidi Cruz co-authored it. .
Her name is on it at the very bottom!
She might also, however, have been very vocal in opposition to the open borders parts of the report. We don’t know!
Why be a member of globalist organizations, making money with entities determined to see through a north American EU, and sign your name to documents that are-- even in their most moderate incarnation-- entirely destructive to this country? And when her leftist professor vouches that she wouldn't be "in those kinds of circles" if not for Ted, how is that not evidence of anything? Why is it that Ted Cruz himself still supports legalization of aliens in this country?
Her name is listed as a member of the council. Not as a co-author of the position paper. Trust me, you can serve on a committee and not co-author a position paper.
I DID address your claims about mass legalization.
TPA and TPP needed to be passed by both the House and the Senate because they are revenue/tarriff bills and that is a Constitutional mandate (that such bills originate in the House). TPA is not presidential over-reach.
AGAIN: ONE of Mrs. Cruz’s lefty professors stating that she would “not be in these circles without Ted” is HIS opinion. They met while working on the Bush campaign in 2000. She’s worked with Bolton. She might not be the fire-brand conservative that Ted is, but she’s certainly no closet Hillary.
So let's look into the report and see what she specifically wrote under her name. This is officially her "dissenting" view:
“I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us—truly the measure of our success. As such, investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.” http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
No opposition to anything in the report of any substantial weight, aside from recommending a more "free market approach" to some of the report's recommendations. She still favors these measures that allegedly "make us safer":
“Harmonize visa and asylum regulations, including convergence of the list of “visa waiver’’ countries; Harmonize entry screening and tracking procedures for people, goods, and vessels (including integration of name-based and biometric watch lists); By 2010, “Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be . . . the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.“
Among other things.
I DID address your claims about mass legalization.
You did no such thing. You falsely claimed that my explanation of Cruz's immigration plan was based on one "unattributed NYtimes quote." The article only makes that reference to Cruz's shyness for self-deportation. Cruz's position on mass legalization is absolutely proved by that article.
TPA and TPP needed to be passed by both the House and the Senate because they are revenue/tarriff bills and that is a Constitutional mandate (that such bills originate in the House). TPA is not presidential over-reach.
Surrendering the need for a super majority on two horrible bills that will only hasten the destruction of this country is definitely overreach.
Also: amnesty does refer to removing a pathway to citizenship. By saying “We are not going to allow illegal aliens to apply for citizenship” Cruz is stating that there will be no ability for illegal aliens to remain in the country.
Amnesty is any attempt to keep illegals in this country instead of deporting them. And as for what you claim is Cruz's intention to deport everyone: That's clearly not what the article states, which demonstrates that Cruz is in favor of giving legal status to aliens.
but the “no path to citizenship” does the exact same thing.
No, in Cruz's view, you can grant legal status without granting naturalization. Of course, that's completely ridiculous, because you cannot create a second tier of residents who cannot naturalize forever.
This is also the position of Walker, Rand, and apparently Carson, who view granting legal status as favorable instead of deportation, with the false promise that they will be "kept from citizenship".
Especially when combined with Cruz’s “enforce existing laws and pass stronger regulations to aid enforcement”.
And yet in that interview with Chuck Todd, Cruz wouldn't remove granting legal status off the table. Clearly Cruz's promise is only to "enforce the border" and the laws relating to stopping-- allegedly-- further incursions. He has never stated he favors any attempt at mass deportation or even to encourage self-deportation. On the contrary, he clearly favors granting legal status. He simply has not been open or honest in discussing this in every venue.
Even if Cruz was arguing to give green cards to every person in the US illegally (which he is NOT), green cards still have to be renewed. Those who seek renewal and are not meeting the standards of employment— OR those who came here illegally— are supposed to be deported under current law.
But here's the problem: They want to grant legal status because they believe deportation to be undesirable and impossible.
Why would an illegal alien who has been granted legal status be seriously afraid about having the law enforced on him at another date? He'll just stay until he is granted legal status a second time.
I’m recanting that. PWI is not a smart thing to do.
Yes sir. Well done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.