Posted on 01/28/2016 8:17:16 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
According to Donald, that’s “mean-spirited”.
Rick Perry didn’t call me heartless for nothing.
Do you have sourced material that has Ted Cruz talking about his amendments being 'poison pill' amendments at the time the legislation was being worked on?
If you don't, then Ted Cruz supported amnesty. No other way to classify it.
Trump is great at serving red-meat rhetoric, but it is still just rhetoric. When you look at the actual content of what he says in terms of policy, it's a lot more ambiguous. And by skipping the debate, he couldn't be pinned down on those ambiguities.
So people are going to continue hearing what they want to hear rather than getting those ambiguities addressed.
But if you come right at at the time and say "I'm offering this amendment to kill the bill", you've given everyone an easy out to vote "no" because they'll just cite your statwment.
There are a lot of reasons to dislike Cruz, but this isn't one of them.
None of them really say anything.
Except for Marco Rubio.
Like when he said when I’m elected president, the 21st Century will be a new American century.
Now that is some solid substance right there!
I'm not trying to be difficult here, but after seeing the videos from 2013 where Cruz wanted the bill to pass and now Cruz telling Brett Baier and others today that he didn't want it to pass just doesn't square up.
In 2013, Cruz SAID he wanted the bill to pass. His amendments were to strip citizenship from it but still allowed the illegals to stay in the country. Amnesty.
It's obviously possible to pretend ignorance of that reality and call out Cruz for being soft on immigration, but that is simply dishonest.
The really sad part about this is that we're essentially jeating one of our own. And the message we're sending to conservatives is "don't offer poison pill amendments in the future, or it will be used against you.". That just stinks.
I'm not even a Cruz guy, but on this issue, the criticism is unfair.
When he says he wants a wall but with a "big fat door" in the middle, and that the "good ones" who are deported will be permitted to return "expeditiously", what does he mean?
Aren't you even curious about that?
Honestly, just consider this for a bit. Not only did he call Romney's self-deport plan "mean-spirited", but he also said it was "crazy" because it alienated Latino voters.
If Trump got elected and built his wall, and then ordered deportations but with an immediate turnaround at the border just for filling out a piece of paper, nobody could accuse him of going back on a campaign promise. That would be completely consistent with the ambiguous statements he's made to date.
So, let's say he gets the nomination, and then says "sure, they have to leave, but I'm going to let them come right back in just as soon as they fill out the required paperwork so they're here 'LEGALLY'". That "legally" is the word he keeps saying so slowly and carefully, but it could be waved away simply by meeting a basic paperwork requirement.
And before you say "he's not going to do that", recall his 2012 comment that Romney couldn't win because he alienated Latino voters.
All I'm saying is that folks should be examining his specific statements on immigration as closely as they examine everyone else's, else a whole lot of people might end up with the world's biggest case of buyer's remorse after he's nominated.
I'm not saying to assume the worst. I'm saying to get specifics from him now, before he's nominated.
Megan Kelly admitted after the debate to Cruz that she was wrong about the allegation she brought against Cruz in the debate.
Cruz handled the matter well as a debater and explained that the audience could view the larger context of the skewed media video online at his website. He further explained that he was not pushing for legalization.
More importantly, and this goes to a range of FALSE arguments that Trumpeters make against Cruz. This was a historic example of getting something done but Cruz in the Senate.
As Cruz pointed out in the the debate, had he not added these poisoned amendments to the Gang of 8 proposal, the democrats and Rubio led RINOS would have successfully passed the amnesty bill. Bush called Rubio out directly on this last night as well.
Jeff Sessions and Congresmman King have endorsed Cruz and agree that had Cruz not been in the senate and done what he did, the bill would have passed. Cruz’s rhetorical and legal skills defeated immigration reform on the floor of the Senate. He is the primary cause for the defeat of this legislation.
That is a huge accomplishment.
To pretend the contrary is to essentially argue for Amnesty and legalization. By forcing the issue legislatively against Rubio and Schumer, Cruz accomplished the success of conservative values which prior to his presence was largely impossible.
Feigning ignorance of these parliamentary poison pill processes does not make someone like Trump more Cosnserviatve. It makes him ignorant of how legislation is passed in the US. It means Trump has no reasonable prospects of passing legislation because his only proposal is to cooperate with democrats and Mitch MCconnell.
He has NEVER proposed cooperating with Cruz or other conservatives in the Senate. This means that 99% of what people on FR want with regard to immigration would not only not happen, the opposite would happen and Trump would be fine with “good workers” from Mexico taking the jobs of everyone on this board.
its foolish to pretend that this blue values plutocrat is coming to your rescue.
He will help his and his fellow billionaires bottom line. Every caucus goer and Iowa needs to seriously think about this matter.
If I am wrong, why did Megan Kelly admit she was wrong after the debate to Cruz?
Its not too late to admit Cruz was right and is right for our nation.
I see your point.
“They gotta go.”
Works for me.
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.