Should we expect someone with self-control and an even, level-headed temperament too? Or is that "beyond the pale" and asking too much?
Posted on 02/03/2016 6:40:56 PM PST by Helicondelta
Don’t matter, the corrupt Cruz ethics and morals strategy were already played by the deeply religious Cruz campaign.
And the whole country was watching.
They ARE the progressives. CRUZ is in bed with the bNWO in more ways than one!
I haven’t put the Rove piece up side by side with the fact check piece also posted on FR, BUT the Rove piece seems to be a lot more opinion than the fact check piece and it also leaves out much that is included in the fact check piece.
Here is fact check or timeline of where Cruz people got their info and also that the Rubio people were also involved although no one mentions that. ??
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3392804/posts
Here, let me type it slowly so you GET IT...
G o v e r n m e n t p a y i n g f o r e v e r y o n e ‘ s h e a l t h c a r e d o e s N O T m a k e i t “ p r i v a t e “.
What don’t you get about that? Ugh....you can change the definition of words to fit your narrative, but it won’t change the facts.
How so? Got links?
I heard nothing of this until after I was home. And I was on my Iphone at the caucus.
Steve King admitted he jumped the gun releasing what he did.
They should have waited for confirmation; however it was a highly charged environment.
Carson ran a poor campaign. He was a nice guy; but not ready for President.
Should we expect someone with self-control and an even, level-headed temperament too? Or is that "beyond the pale" and asking too much?
Agreed. It is becoming more and more obvious that few have the interest to THINK about things and come to a conclusion all on their own. Sad state of affairs, isn’t it.
Oh, so now we’re going to believe Karl Rove?
“It started when the world’s richest moron filed papers to run for president.”
Tagline for sale!
Do some research! What does TPA do? Why did Cruz vote for it?
Why did Cruz vote for stripping the Senate of their Constitutionally given right to ADVISE and CONSENT on Treaties? That means being able to amend treaties and set conditions. He voted to give Obama what he wanted yet again.
He was for open borders but now says he is against it, nevertheless his wife helped write the doctrine for the NWO to make America part only of the open borders North American pact. That means Mexicans can go to Canada thrugh the USA without anybody checking them or approving their passage, or stay as long as hey please or the Canadians do the same., In any disagreement as just happened, Mexico and Canada cn gng up on America and e are fined for protecting our (FORMER) rights, because we are only 1/3 of the pact and are outvoted 2 to 1. Start there and slowly the fog my begin to rise on what Cruz really is...just another slick tongued politician out to line his own pockets and he’s playing the “Conservative” sound bite for ll it is worth.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM Jeb’s meat puppet stokes Trump’s idiotic accusation? Gee, I wonder what possible motive he might have, can’t think of one. Der. Damage Cruz and keep Donnie focused on nonsense that makes him look silly? Nah.
Delegate count to date: Cruz 8, Trump 7, Rubio 7, Carson 3, Bush 1, Paul 1
Wow.
Over 500 responses for foolishness by Carson.
Many many people concluded Carson was giving up. That’s why he sent out another statement
Therein lies the actual problem. Releasing a new statement at 8 does not establish some absolute line in the interpretive sand. Just going to get more clothes is a dumb rationalization for why he appears to be ignoring the next major legs of the campaign
Still not buying the malice by Cruz or victim age of Carson.
I would be very surprised if anyone in charge would pressure any candidates representaives to not be allowed to speak.
Not saying it didn’t; but I would be surprised if it actually happened.
People had a sense that getting things right was really important; no one wants to be looked at as screwing up the process with so many eyes on things.
If I see evidence this did happen; I for one will be making calls.
The process has to have integrity; otherwise we are just a 3rd world laughingstock.
There's no conspiracy, explicitly no proposal for a North American Union in the source document, and it's not even clear that Heidi Cruz was all that supportive of the conclusions of the report. It's all a patchwork of irrational fear and ignorant assumptions with no substance to it whatever. Yet I still see many conservatives who might otherwise support Ted Cruz' run for the Senate repeating this story at face value without ever having looked into the utter lack of truth behind it.
Although the proposals in the paper are a mild call for general hemispheric economic cooperation with no formal structure, the conspiracy-inclined have interpreted it as a sinister conspiracy to destroy American sovereignty and combine us into a single union with Canada and Mexico. They are inherently suspicious of the Council on Foreign Relations, despite its repeated claims to be politically neutral and solely interested in studying issues objectively. It has become a lynchpin in globalist conspiracy theories and anything associated with it immediately looks more sinister in some eyes.
The paper is basically benign, pointing to ways that the nations of North America could work together through free markets and reducing trade barriers to spread more success and raise up the economies of the poorer countries. In its concluding section it says:
"North America is different from other regions of the world and must find its own cooperative route forward. A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or union, such as those in Europe. We must maintain respect for each other's national sovereignty."
Which certainly doesn't sound all that terrible, what with acknowledging how different North America is from Europe, promoting market solutions instead of government and explicitly rejecting the idea of a "confederation or union" while promoting respect for national sovereignty. It's almost like the conspiracy theorists never read the document, or gave up after the title and wrote a fantasy version in their heads based solely on the title and their obsession with the CFR.
Admittedly, there are plenty of bad ideas in the report. It's full of proposals for government managed trade and incentive programs and inter-governmental cooperation for regulation and security. It's all stuff which makes sense if you think government is the way to solve problems, but not something which would resonate with true conservatives. Yet the big irony here is that it appears that Heidi Cruz doesn't even agree with those aspects of the report for which she is being blamed.
Heidi Cruz' role in all of this was as one of a large panel of readers and her sole identifiable contribution to the project is a one-paragraph response in the final appendix in which she says:
"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 fundsand financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants."
The whole idea that Heidi Cruz is part of some grand conspiracy is patently ridiculous. It's guilt by association and by innuendo from people who don’t understand the CFR or the report which they so revile and who assume that anyone who may have been in a room with Robert Pastor or William Weld must be some sort of globalist stooge. The reality is that the CFR draws on a diverse pool of experts, most of whom have very little involvement in the organization and that its output, like this paper, tends to be in the form of general suggestions with no force behind them which no one ever really acts on. We certainly aren't plunging headlong into any kind of regional union on the basis of one paper which no one seems to have read.
He never said that. lie, lie, lie... add about twenty more of those.
See, you bought into the Cruz narrative that allows him to cover his butt. Cruz voted for TPA cloture, that is the big vote. If he didn't want TPP he would not have voted for TPA. The comparison is when a politician loads up a spending bill with pork then, knowing it will pass, votes against the bill. This is exactly the same thing.
he is for free trade and thought it would open the doors to grow the economy and create jobs
A total joke. He voted for cloture!! The trade deal is done. All they needed to do was weasel the package for the donor class and once again we lose everything. Ask yourself why anybody would give Obama fast track authority. That is the only question you need to ask. Cruz voted for cloture. End of story.
Thank you for sharing that experience. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you experienced did not reflect what happened throughout Iowa. No voters have come forward to say that anything to do with this had any effect on their voting decisions.
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.