Ted Cruz Lists Five Things He’ll Do On His First Day in Office
States that he is not an “election conservative”
Following last Thursday’s debate, Ted Cruz’s support has more than doubled according to an NBC poll. Matthew Burke reports:
In a new NBC News/Survey Monkey poll released on Sunday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a constitutional conservative, catapulted into second place overall, increasing by a whopping 7% over the prior poll, putting him at 13% overall, more than doubling his prior support of 6%, according to the poll.
Cruz, a former national collegiate debate champion, soared despite having his debate performance largely put on mute mode by major media outlets, including FOX News.
Although Trump still leads in this poll, this is a very nice bump for Cruz. This news comes on the tail of a debate performance, particularly involving ISIS, that Frank Luntz calls “great news for Cruz.”
Watch:
On Saturday, Cruz gave a great speech at RedState Gathering in which he was clearly relaxed and confident, displaying humor and taking jabs at what he calls “election conservatives.” Election conservatives are those we know all too well: they go on the campaign trail pandering to conservatives, promising to remain conservative once elected . . . only to break their word, sometimes doing the exact opposite of what they promised.
Watch the full speech below (an impromptu and brief Q & A begins at around the 30 minute mark):
(h/t Maggie’s Notebook)
During this speech, Cruz laid out five actions that he would take on his first day in office. The Daily Signal reports:
The first action would be to “rescind every illegal executive action taken by Barack Obama,” including his “executive amnesty.”
Next, he would “instruct the Department of Justice to open an investigation into Planned Parenthood” and to prosecute any criminal conduct uncovered.
Then he would instruct the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service to “cease persecuting” individuals seeking to practice their faith in their workplace.
The Little Sisters of the Poor, he said, “would receive a letter in the mail that their case has been dismissed.” He said they would also receive “an invitation to the White House to tell their story to the world.”
Then he would “end the catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal.”
Cruz argued that by lifting economic sanctions on Iran, the Obama administration had become “the leading global financier of radical Islamic terrorism.”
Finally, he would “begin the process to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.”
Moving the embassy to Israel’s “eternal capital,” he said, would send “a message to the world that we stand with our allies.”
Unlike promises to stop the oceans from rising and to heal the planet, these promises seem reasonable and in line with Cruz’s campaign message. Cruz assured the RedState audience, and by extension all of us, that he’s the one GOP presidential candidate who will keep his word. He doubled down on this message via Twitter:
The key difference between me & other candidates running for POTUS is I’ll ACTUALLY DO what I promised! #CruzCountry pic.twitter.com/CIAJiVu741
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 9, 2015
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Though he is not my first choice, I believe in the end he will be the nominee. I think a Cruz/Carley ticket may do very well.
I’ve always liked Cruz, but I’m not a Carly fan, not after the debate.
Rush has been reporting for months about how well she’s been resonating with people wherever she speaks. Rush went so far as to say (July 26th): “If Carly Fiorina’s on the ticket, I would be as enthusiastic as I’ve ever been.”
It’s possible Rush had built up my expectations for her. It’s not what she said but how she came across to me. She struck me as someone who is desperate to be taken seriously as a female candidate. She didn’t sound ‘tough’ to me; she sounded sniffy, and I wasn’t at all convinced she could handle being tough. I think her overriding desire to be taken seriously will trip her up.
I know I’m in the minority — maybe I’m the only one — but that’s my impression of her. And I can’t tell you how disappointed I am.
I was put off by her post-debate attack on Trump, in which she indicated that her specially attuned ears picked up what Trump was really saying, and she understood what Trump was really saying. That is Carly wanting special credibility because she is a woman, which is a turn off. On the other hand, her attacks on Hillary are more powerful in my mind because Carly is a woman and is therefore shielded from the usual retort counterattack against anyone who criticizes Hillary.
I suppose I am inconsistent in all of this.
One that bother me about the blood remark. First she tweeted that it was horrib, then when asked about it she refused to comment.
You’re not alone. Fiorina supported TARP, most of obastard’s stimulus, and the auto bail-out. She supports federal control of education. She supports the Dream Act and does not support closing the birthright loophole. She supports cap and trade and more federal involvement in housing. She’s always been pro-choice until now and doesn’t think marriage is a state’s rights issue.
I like the way she handles herself, although she’s not very warm and seems very rote. IMO, she’s basically a RINO just like Jeb, maybe worse. I wanted to support her, but I can’t. She’s off my thumbs up list.
Groan. You are the problem. A first term Senator and a former HP exec who has never been elected to anything? I like Cruz as much as anyone, but we need to nominate a governor.
Some governors have been adequate presidents, and some have not. It does not seem like a generalization works on that issue.
US presidents who were governors in immediately prior office:
James Polk, TN gov, 1 term
Rutherford Hayes, OH gov, 2 terms (separated by ‘out’ term)
Grover Cleveland, NY gov, 1 term
Wm McKinley, OH gov, 1 term
Woodrow Wilson, NJ gov, 1 term
FDR, NY gov, 1 term
Jimmy Carter, GA gov, 1 term
Ronald Reagan, CA gov, 2 terms
Bill Clinton, AR gov, multiple terms
George W Bush, TX gov, 1 term
(7 of 10 were 1 term governors before presidency)
————————————-
US presidents who were US senators in immediately prior office:
Andrew Jackson, TN senator, 1 term
Benjamin Harrison, IN senator, 1 term
Warren G Harding, OH senator, 1 term
JFK, MA senator, 1 term
Obama, IL sen, 1/2 term
(all 5 were 1 term or less senators before presidency)
————————————
Of the 15 governors and senators who then won the presidency, 12 were 1 term govs/sens. Ascendacy to the White House appears to happen quickly, that few required multiple successful terms as govs or sens.
————————————
Of the 10 presidents who were governors (the preferred executives), you get a Reagan, but also a Jimmy Carter. You get a GWB, but also a Woodrow Wilson or a Bill Clinton.
————————————
Conclusion: While this doesn’t disprove the idea that governors with executive experience generally make better presidents, the actual record does not support it. It’s a wash.
————————————
The list of presidents who were senators first isn’t exactly a sparkling list of great American presidents, though, lol.
———————————–
Though outside the ‘senator or governor’ question, when I looked at VPs who moved up to the presidency, it too was not impressive.
———————————-
I had long believed the ‘governors are best, being executives’ thing – it makes perfect sense – but when I actually looked closer, I found no particular route followed by good/great presidents. Literally anyone from anywhere (assuming constitutional eligibility) can find a pathway to the WH.
———————————
AMERICA !!!!
———————————-
Same Same – You’re forgetting about Cruz’s OTHER positions that he has held that have provided him executive experience:
1999-2003 – Director of policy planning at the Federal Trade Commission
2003-2008 – Solicitor General of Texas (writing amicus briefs represening Texas and other states in such landmark cases as Heller and Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow and successfully defending Texas in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry.
Cruz has much, much more executive experience than President Obama, and that is what would make Cruz a far better president.
Your forgetting that 2 of the worst presidents in modern history, Clinton and Carter were governors.
Like Obama?
It’s too bad he’s not a natural-born citizen.
At this point I don’t care any more. I’d rather have an ineligible president than anyone the Dems could possibly nominate. I’d rather have an ineligible president than Trump, Huckabee, Santorum, Christie, or Pataki. It’s not as if being ineligible would invalidate his presidency; once the electoral college has voted, and the house of reps has counted the votes, the declared winner is president, even if he’s a 15-year-old just off the plane from Timbuktu.
I gave you a point for your honesty, even though your sentiments are unprincipled.
Republicans gave us our first ineligible president, Arthur. He at least had the decency to destroy his personal records in an attempt to cover up the fact that his father was still an Irish citizen at the time of his birth.
The Obama NBC scam may have effectively scrapped the NBC clause, but it is still officially in place. As I hope to see the Constitutional Republic restored, I will continue to honor the law of the land.
Oh, please. Why do people keep trotting out this old chestnut? One is either natural-born (citizen at birth) or naturalized. Cruz was a citizen at birth.
What makes you think “natural born citizen” means “citizen at birth”? Before it became an issue with 0bama, what was the definition you knew? What definition were you taught at school? The term is clearly derived from the pre-revolution legal term “natural born subject”; how does Blackstone define it?
Blackstone, whom the USA’s founders regarded as the definitive authority on the common law, wrote that a person owes a natural loyalty to the sovereign whose laws protected him at birth. For pretty much anyone except diplomats and military servicemen, that means the country in which the birth took place. If someone had tried to murder Cruz in the cradle, whose police and laws would have prevented the murder, or prosecuted the offender? The answer is Alberta, not Texas. In McCain’s case, since he was born on a military base, the answer is the USA.
Both of my sons were born in Germany while I was stationed there. I was asked when I registered their birth in-country whether I wished them registered under US Law or German Law. I chose U.S. Law (interestingly…I gave up a generous stipend the German government would have given me for my children as a result). I think this is common practice with foreign births as I have had friends who have told me they went through a similar process in Spain and Mexico (they were not military).
Per Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” — the definitive book on natural law (the principle our nation is founded on), the book Geo. Washington checked out from the NYC library and never returned (until his estate returned it just recently), and the book our founders relied on heavily during the drafting of the Constitution — Arthur, Obama, Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio are not NBCs because they were not born to parents (note the plural form of the word) who were citizens. Arthur was born in the US, but his father was an Irish citizen at the time. Regardless of where Obama was born, he claims as a father one who was a citizen of the UK and Colonies at the time. Cruz was born in Canada to a US citizen mother, but his father was a Cuban citizen at the time. Jindal’s parents were Indian citizens at the time of his birth. Rubio’s parents were Cuban citizens at the time of his birth.
The Constitution gives Congress authority over naturalization; they have no authority over defining natural-born citizenship, which is nothing more than a form of citizenship that even a moron can’t question, ie, a birth on US soil to US citizens. Dual citizenship at birth is not and cannot be NBCship. How, for example, does Cruz claim US citizenship? Because of a law passed by Congress, which, by definition, is a naturalization process, because that is the only authority Congress has to grant citizenship.
raynman, Your children, despite being born in Germany, are NBCs because, assuming your wife was a US citizen at the time, because you were based overseas at the request and in service of the US. Read Vattel.
If your wife was not a US citizen at the time, your children could be (because of the choice you made) be US citizens at birth because of US law, a form of naturalization.
The issue is not that complicated. The progressives complicated it in 2008 by (1) moving the goalposts (they never claimed Obama was a NBC, but rather a born citizen, which he may be, but which is entirely irrelevant) and (2) playing the race card (they vilified anyone who brought up the issue by accusing him of being a racist, even though race is entirely irrelevant).
So you think that if your parents are on vacation in a foreign country when your born that makes you ineligible to be President?
Those of us who bother to read the Constitution, to understand the rules of construing it, and who respect the rule of law will continue to trot the controlling law, despite what the anti-Americans and their allies among the Ignoranti claim.
When it comes to matters of constitutional law, I place more stock in the opinions of our host, law professor William A Jacobson, than in an anonymous internet commenter going by the nym “Skookum”.
“Those of us who bother to read the Constitution, to understand the rules of construing it, and who respect the rule of law will continue to trot the controlling law, despite what the anti-Americans and their allies among the Ignoranti claim.”
Bothering to read the Constitution, and understanding the rules of construing it, and respecting the rule of law are incompatible with the positions you’ve stated here.
I’m struck once again by a tendency I see to refer to female candidates by their first names, and male ones by their surnames. This comment makes that incongruity blatant. Alliteration is surely not enough to justify “Cruz/Carly” rather than “Cruz/Fiorino” or “Ted/Carly”.
Carly doesn’t seem to mind being called Carly.
Her official website is https://carlyforpresident.com/ after all.
As for other candidates, I think one reason Hillary gets called Hillary is that calling her “Clinton” risks confusion with her husband. That’s probably why Jeb is going with Jeb! and not Bush!.
Are these really the kinds of issues that keep you up at night?
No, but they strike me as incongruous and a probable sign of unconscious sexism. For instance, Jeb Bush is usually referred to as Bush, no matter what his campaign material says.
It’s probably more of a preference for a moniker with one or two syllables than it is a gender-specific preference.
Like ‘Barack?’
If it was me, the first thing I’d do would be to have the White House fumigated.
Moving the embassy to Jerusalem can wait. Even the Israelis aren’t pressing that one.
I rather like Carly Fiorina’s “two telephone calls” response to the same question of what she’d do on day one.
And whoever the Pub president is, if they have a Pub House and a Pub Senate, there had better be a vote tout suite on ending Obamacare or there won’t be a Pub party to be seen at the next election.
He is impressive.
I predict that very shortly after his election, the GOP in Congress will find itself with new leadership, too.
We would be better off if the Congressional Republican leadership was changed sooner than later.
Shortly after the last election cycle would have been swell with me, but, alas…
I hope you’re right, but I would not hold my breath.
Cruz is the smartest of the Republican field, he is also the only one who has pledged to be faithful to the Constitution if elected. He obviously has a plan unlike one candidate who only seem to be seeking attention by acting out constantly. I look forward to Senator Cruz being our next president.
Cruz’ history of articulately supporting the Constitution goes back to his high-school years. I doubt anyone else can match that.
Jindal is probably the smartest of the pack, and I’d be delighted to see him president, but he doesn’t seem to be catching fire.
But Walker is still the candidate who has withstood everything that the Dems can possibly thrown at him, and come out of it strong and determined. There isn’t anything left that they can Palinize him with.
Nothing on Obamacare?
I had the same reaction. However, every action stated are Constitutional executive powers. Constitutionally, he cannot simply void a law, no matter our view.
After nearly eight years of Obama, I think people are getting confused between the role of a president in a constitutional representative republic, and that of an emperor or king.
He can’t void a law, but he can rescind 0bama’s waivers of the inconvenient bits, and he can order HHS to rewrite the regs to conform to a conservative agenda. He did say he would stop enforcing the requirement that religious employers who object to providing abortifacients must request the feds to provide them instead.
Can’t the president move all those working on ObamaCare into warehouses without computers, and phones? It would be a waste but it would prevent them from continuing their destruction of our healthcare system. He should do do the same thing for the EPA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution
the Honorable Senator Ted Cruz states he will “rescind every “ILLEGAL” executive order.
That’s constitutional, going by your definition. However,
IMHO executive orders aren’t constitutional when they override, expand, or add to the congressional laws.
Neither are legislating from the bench or by bureaucratic fiat.
I think that the next president can use the “powers” Obama created to undo everything that Obama did and to drive a stack thru the heart of progressive fascist. Elimination of all welfare for able bodied people including drunks, druggies and those pretending to be disabled. Establishing the right to work without being forced to join or pay off a union or other organization as a civil right. Changing voting procedures to prevent those ineligible to vote from voting. This should include 10 years in prison for each violation to be served consecutively.
Submitting legislation that makes being an illegal alien a felony with 3 years in prison as the penalty. First offenders would be given the alternative of pleading guilty and accepting deportation in exchange for a suspended sentence. Those that provide aid, including sanctuaries, employment and government aid to illegals would be guilty of a felony with 1 year in a federal prison for each offense. The politicians who establish sanctuaries could receive thousands of years in prison!
A few more suggestions for his “to do” list:
(1) fire every political appointee at DHS who has aided and abetted Obama’s lawlessness and refused to enforce federal immigration laws. And warn all the civil service workers who have done the same that that kind of behavior will no longer be tolerated.
(2) fire every political appointee at IRS and EPA, and warn all IRS and EPA civil service workers that they must now strictly adhere to the letter of the law, or they will be fired too.
(3) instruct Boehner and McConnell that they have 3 days to introduce a bill repealing Obamacare, in its entirety.
(4) instruct Boehner and McConnell that they have 10 days to introduce bills repealing the HUD enabling act and the Department of Education enabling act.
(5) instruct Boehner and McConnell that they have 21 days to introduce a bill that will require all federal agencies that pay any type of welfare benefits to eliminate illegal alien recipients from their rolls.
(6) instruct Boehner and McConnell that they have 30 days to introduce a bill that will streamline the deportation of illegal aliens by, for example, eliminating the current endless appeals, and also eliminating abuses like the visa “lottery” and asylum for “economic” refugees.
Boehner and McConnell represent the Legislative branch of government. A President Cruz would represent the Executive branch of government. As a constitutional conservative, I think a President Cruz would understand and respect the concepts of separation of powers, of the three separate branches acting as checks and balances on each other.
The executive shouldn’t dictate to the legislature or to the judiciary. The three are meant to be equal branches – the executive isn’t meant to be “boss of them all”. Obama started taking us down a slippery slope in that regard, and I would hope that a President Cruz would be able to help pull us back from it.
I am fully aware that the three branches of the federal government are co-equal, and that Cruz (if he were to be elected president) would not be Boehner and McConnell’s boss.
However, as president Cruz would be the titular head of the Republican party, of which Boehner and McConnell are both members. As such, Cruz could (and should) instruct Boehner and McConnell to do those acts which serve the interests of the Republican party voters, and the country at large. Of course, Boehner and McConnell, as independent legislators, could refuse Cruz’ instructions — in which case voters would be free to retaliate by voting them both out of office.
“Titular head of the Republican Party” means absolutely nothing. The congressional caucuses are not under the authority of the RNC, and it is not the place of any RNC official to “instruct” them.
You forgot about Foggy Bottom. Those people are literally in the fog all of the time.
He can’t fire 0bama’s political appointees, because they would already have resigned unless they’d specifically been asked to stay on.
Another suggestion:
Invite Boehner to the White House, drag him to the basement, and kick him repeatedly in the balls until he resigns from Congress.
Repeat with McConnell.
Repeat with Prebus.
I expect that Cruz has a LOT more things he will do Day 1 if he is elected as our next POTUS.
Why reveal them now, and let them (the left AND the Establishment Squishes) attack – or come up with a counter strategy?
The list he gave directly corresponds with things that people today are seeking, and that are within the President’s Constitutional powers to change.
Some, like Obamacare, will take Congress to eliminate: he can propose it, promise to sign it, and even propose while a Senator an alternative to replace the heinous PPACA. But as President, he can’t do more than halt implementation at the bureaucratic levels – which he may do…..but why show all your cards to your opponents – both Dems and Repubs?
Cruz is a VERY smart man. A Godly, principled, Constitutional Conservative – and the only politician I’ve ever seen who does what he promised, regardless of any personal career consequences.
Is that not statesmanlike – i.e. presidential? I say yes, it is.
Yes We Can:
-Elect the first Conservative since Ronald Reagan.
-Elect the first Latino-American President (for those ID pols who look at life that way).
-Reignite the promise of America.
-Fundamentally restore our Republic, and our Constitution.
-Re-establish our strong leadership standing around the world, and mend relations with our Allies.
-Create a vibrant, BOOMING economy with massive job growth.
-Protect our borders and our national sovereignty.
-Make Americans proud to be Americans, again.
Fiorina also attacked Cruz over his so-called”government shutdown” stand during the CR debate. She’s lost a lot of credibility with me. GO CRUZ!
I’ve been with Cruz since he announced last spring – for a lot of reasons!!!!
We should believe Cruz got a bump because Luntz says so? No thanks.
Just part of the Fox Hit Squad.
No, as I wrote in the post, the NBC poll says he got a bump. You can click on the link to read more about that poll. A Reuters poll released yesterday supports that conclusion. The Reuters poll, interestingly, also notes that Rand Paul was hurt by the debate.
I can understand what you mean about Fox News, but please don’t misrepresent what I’ve said. Choosing not to believe polls is a whole different topic. 🙂
Oops sorry. I was just objecting to using Luntz as a source/citation/reference/sorry whatever the word the I was looking for is.
No worries. I just didn’t want you thinking I’d based that statement on the Luntz video. 🙂
The establishment favorite did not fare all that well either. He dropped a couple of points in these polls.
(1) It’s an NBC poll, so how did Frank Luntz manipulate it?
(2) I thought the “Fox Hit Squad” theory was that they wanted to destroy conservative candidates and promote establishment candidate Jeb. If we are to believe your assertion that somehow Frank Luntz and Fox News are behind Cruz’s bump in the latest NBC poll, how does that fit in to the “Fox Hit Squad” theory?
(3) Are you ok?
Poor Mouse.
Obama’s statement about what he would do was way over the top, but some of Cruz’s elements are touching the top.
The first one for example, is perfectly fine,
THe instructions to the DoJ, I think he can do that, but the DoJ doesn’t have to act on them. Instead I would like see him say that he would first seat an Attorney General who would implement those policies. Same with Israel and State.
The DoJ directly answers to the Chief Executive, and then to the POTUS-appointed and Senate-approved Attorney General.
Cruz – or ANY President – can tell the DoJ what to do. That is part of his (or her) job!
Just what do you think he proposed, specifically, that is “touching the top”? Other than the DoJ of course……
So Nixon had the right to order fire the special prosecutor. ( And if you don’t know what I’m talking about look it up. )
Yes, he absolutely did have that right. The constitution is very clear: the president is the executive branch, and every employee of the federal government works for him.
To bad you didn’t follow my advice and actually real up.
If Nixon has the right to just walk in and fire the guy why not do it?
Why do it the way he did it? Oh BTW in the end the courts said even the way he did do it was illegal,
The constitution gives the executive power entirely to the president. See also Myers v US. Nixon absolutely had the power to fire Cox directly. Why he thought he needed the Attorney General to do it is a good question, but his thinking is irrelevant. The later decision that Cox’s firing violated the Pendleton Act is technically correct but irrelevant; that act itself is only constitutional because it depends on the president’s consent.
The constitution gives the executive power entirely to the president. See also Myers v US. Nixon absolutely had the power to fire Cox directly. Why he thought he needed the Attorney General to do it is a good question, but his thinking is irrelevant. The later decision that Cox’s firing violated the Pendleton Act is technically correct but irrelevant; that act itself is only constitutional because it depends on the president’s consent.
Congratulations to Ted Cruz for making this statement. Let me point out he said something similar in his closing statement. However I would have preferred to hear something about making sure that members of the cabinet are seated the first with instructions to clean house. Get rid of people who supported delaying the grant of tax exempt status to Tea Party groups, who looked the other way when PP did it’s thing, who actively pushed for this deal. I wish he has said something about beginning the process of replacing Obamacare.
Still it’s a start.
Finally. Good for Cruz, answering a question that should have been asked at the debate but wasn’t. In answer to those who ask what should the moderators ask instead of questions like: “Did you tell a woman you would like to see her on her knees?” Or “So you would let the woman die?”. ( BTW I don’t remember who she asked that question, but I wish that he had said “before I answer that please answer a question for me… if you were married to Kitty Dukakis and she was raped and murdered, would you support the death for the killer?” )
Is this a sentence? A question? An answer? A statement? A suggestion?
And it has something to do with Ted Cruz’s speech at Red State how?
Are you sure you’re okay?
Cruz works for me. Walker too. Perry, I fear, is all but out.
We’ve a wealth of choices, pairings:
Cruz/Walker
Walker/Cruz
Cruz/Fiorina
Walker/Fiorina
Walker/Rubio
Carter/Nugent
Norris/Nugent
Johnny/Walker
Baileys/Cream
Gin/Tonic
Rum/Koch
Sen Cruz, and the rest of the Republican presidential candidates who attend Eric Erickson’s little Atlanta shindig, had no business at all taking the podium after Erick’s banned from Trump appearing. If they had one ounce of real political courage among them, especially Sen Cruz, they should have all taken the podium, one by one, only to denounce Erickson’s action and demand his return before that could possibly finish with their own presentation.
If Sen Cruz, alone, would have followed this course, he would have gained the gratitude of millions of conservatives and a boatload of free media publicity.
Trump should not have been invited in the first place. He is not a Republican, not a conservative, and should not be acknowledged as a legitimate candidate.
He is a registered republican.
Maybe not. Since Ronald Reagan, other than a Bush, the R party has nominated: Dole, McCain, Romney. And they are pushing hard for another Bush, another “compassionate conservative”. So, what your point?
The leading candidate should not be acknowledged as legitimate? Because millhouse horseshit doesn’t like him.
Try using your brain.
Anyone can register their preferences as whatever they like, depending only on which primary the person wants to vote in. That doesn’t make a person what he says.
And yes, he should not be recognized as legitimate, because he isn’t. The Republicans should treat him the same way the Democrats treat Lyndon LaRouche (and the way they ought to treat Al Sharpton).
Alright millhouse.
What is a Republican?
What confers legitimacy?
How old are you?
What do you think is a Republican? Party registration is a concept that doesn’t even exist in nearly half the states. And in those states where it does exist, it’s routine for people to register with a party they don’t support or identify with, because where they live that party’s primary is the real election.
A Republican is someone who supports the principles of the Republican Party, identifies as its partisan (i.e. actually identifies, not just claims to), and supports its candidates. Based on Trump’s history it’s evident that he is not one.
Legitimacy comes from people, which is why people should not confer it on a buffoon like Trump. Just as the Democrats refuse to confer legitimacy on LaRouche, and the Republicans refused to confer it on David Duke back when he was pretending to be one, all Republicans of good will should do the same to Trump.
And I’m old enough to deserve your respect, you piece of horseshit.
“A Republican is someone who supports the principles of the Republican Party”
Like McCain for example? How about the current leaders of the senate and house? All the republican principles? Or just the ones YOU approve of?
Bonus question, which republican Presidential candidate since Reagan has supported those principles?
“Legitimacy comes from people”
Trump is leading in every single poll. But they’re not the “right kind of people” I guess. Maybe they talk loudly on trains.
“…you piece of horseshit.”
LOL, guess that answers the age question. IQ as well. Single digits I think.
Respect would be due someone that doesn’t just make up horseshit to cover up their inability to answer a simple question.
Yes, McCain is a Republican. His senate voting record shows it. The same applies to the party leadership in both houses; their voting record shows that they vote with the party almost all the time. Even Olympia Snowe’s voting record shows that. There is no way one can look at any of their records and mistake them for Democrats.
Every Republican presidential candidate has supported Republican principles; even Dole. Again, there is no way one could look at their positions and mistake them for Democrats.
Now tell me what makes Trump a Republican. How has he voted in, say, the last 5 senate elections? Did he support the Republicans who ran against Gillibrand, Schumer, and Clinton, despite their lack of any chance of winning? How did he vote in the last 2 gubernatorial elections? Did he support Cuomo’s Republican opponents?
Trump is a fraud, and his support exists in part because the idiots who say they support him see that people who know better are treating him as a legitimate candidate. If they’d treat him as they did Duke, or as the Dems treat LaRouche, he might not have this level of support.
Horseshit is your word, not mine. It seems you expect to be able to use it of others, and not have it come back at you. Sorry, sunshine, it doesn’t work that way.
“Horseshit is your word, not mine”
Apparently so.
I make no claim trump is a conservative by the way.
John McCain:
Considered changing to a democrat
rebuked by his own R party in Arizona
McCain-Feingold
Gang of eight (amnesty)
Gang of fourteen (sabotage Bush on judicial nominee’s)
Keating 5
for gay marriage, then against
pro abortion then pro life
The term RINO mean anything to you?
McCain may vote with the party on many items, but on many more important items he votes with the liberals.
He’s a republican. So are a bunch of others that I hold in less regard than trump.
Yes, it is your word. You introduced it to this conversation, and you own it. It takes a lot of hide for you to complain of having it thrown back at you.
And despite all that, his voting record clearly shows him to be a Republican. RINO only means something if you reserve it for those who deserve it; when you fling it at every Republican who disagrees with you on some issues, it loses all meaning.
millhouse, if you do not know that nearly all conservatives refer to McCain as a rino, then you’ve missed the boat on another planet in another galaxy.
Pour yourself a stiff one, settle in, calm down, and take this little quiz:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-hillary-clinton/
You really need to take this quiz:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-hillary-clinton/
I want a law that makes it a crime for federal employees to violate the law even when the president orders them to. The people who are implementing Obama’s amnesty should be fired and go to prison.