Originally Posted By EighthDwarf I was in DC a few weeks back during the CPAC conference and my driver was also a regular driver of Cruz. He told me that Cruz is actually a nice, reasonable guy and that what you see on TV is merely him performing to his base for money and popularity. That made me like him even less.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It must be incredibly frustrating to be a thinking conservative these days. Limiting government growth and expansion is a legitimate concern. But hitched to that wagon are an assortment of nonsensical add-ons like climate change denying, war hawk foreign policy, and more. There is nothing "conservative" about staking out a political position on the extreme fringe. So normal conservatives are forced into choosing from an assortment of nuts.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<... nonsensical add-ons like climate change denying...>> Roll the tape! <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/25/ted-cruz-global-warming_n_6940188.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...188.html</a> Ted Cruz: 'Global Warming Alarmists Are The Equivalent Of The Flat-Earthers' Posted: 03/25/2015 1:12 pm EDT <> Ted Cruz, the junior U.S. senator from Texas and first official contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, compared people who think that the climate is warming to "flat-Earthers" and described himself as a modern-day Galileo in an interview with the Texas Tribune. "On the global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don't engage in reasoned debate," Cruz said in an interview with reporter Jay Root on Tuesday. "What do they do? They scream, 'You're a denier.' They brand you a heretic. Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier." Root noted that Cruz's disbelief that the planet is warming puts him out of step with younger voters. But Cruz dug in. "I'm a big believer that we should follow the science, and follow the evidence. If you look at global warming alarmists, they don't like to look at the actual facts and the data. The satellite data demonstrate that there has been no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years," said Cruz. "Now that's a real problem for the global warming alarmists. Because all those computer models on which this whole issue is based predicted significant warming, and yet the satellite data show it ain't happening." While the argument that the satellite data does not show temperatures rising is a favorite among climate deniers, it represents a skewed view on what we know about temperatures conditions on Earth. Average global temperatures are still increasing, just not as quickly as they did in previous years, largely due to ocean cycles. And claiming that a pause disputes that warming is occurring ignores the preceding decades of temperature records that show them rapidly increasing when compared with historical averages. Cruz also brought up another favorite denier talking point: that the world was worried about "global cooling" in the 1970s. "I read this morning a Newsweek article from the 1970s talking about global cooling. And it said the science is clear, it is overwhelming, we are in a major cooling period, and it's going to cause enormous problems worldwide. And the solution for all the advocates in the '70s of global cooling was massive government control of the energy sector, of our economy, and aspects of our lives," he said. "Now, the data proved to be not backing up that theory. So then all the advocates of global cooling suddenly shifted to global warming, and they advocated it's warming, and the solution interestingly enough was the exact same solution -- government control of the energy sector and every aspect of our lives." But while this argument is often repeated, it's also not quite true. A few articles in the popular press, like the Newsweek example he cited, did discuss the idea of global cooling. But it was far from a widely held or well-tested theory in the scientific community at the time. And the author of that 1975 Newsweek piece has come out and said that it should not be used to try to debunk today's climate science. Nevertheless, Cruz argued that he's a champion of the science on the issue. "I am the child of two mathematicians and scientists," he said. "I believe in following evidence and data." <> No, you believe in pandering to a bunch of bigoted idiots in order to win your party's nomination. Un-effn-real.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The above is pretty much textbook Orwellian. Deny the overwhelming scientific consensus while claiming "I'm a big believer that we should follow the science, and follow the evidence." It muddies the water among those not paying much attention to what science is saying (so that a lot of mostly apolitical people can throw up their hands and say "Well, who knows who's right here? I've heard both sides claim they had the science right") and allows Cruz fans to feel good about themselves and that they actually have the science on their side. Textbook Orwellian.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>and if there's any place that likes a shyster, it's Nevada.<< Significantly LOL'd at this.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"I am the child of two mathematicians and scientists,"<< Frankenstein's monster can make pretty much the same claim.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<-- cannot wait for the birthers to go after Cruz about lack of evidence for mom being born in Delaware, because Canadian law did not require said proof for Teddy's birth certificate. And Teddy's parents waited several days to register his birth with the US consulate, which is required for him to claim US citizenship. Hmm... I wonder if Ma and Pa Cruz deliberately had Teddy in Canada because of the Vietnam draft? You know, get him dual citizenship so he could dodge a future draft once he grew up?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip << cannot wait for the birthers to go after Cruz about lack of evidence for mom being born in Delaware, because Canadian law did not require said proof for Teddy's birth certificate. And Teddy's parents waited several days to register his birth with the US consulate, which is required for him to claim US citizenship.>> Trump has already gone there. He has to stay in the news somehow...
Originally Posted By dshyates So, Ted has entered the race. And while I like Hillary, I would pay good money to see a Ted Cruz vs Elizabeth Warren debate.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I was in DC a few weeks back during the CPAC conference and my driver was also a regular driver of Cruz. He told me that Cruz is actually a nice, reasonable guy and that what you see on TV is merely him performing to his base for money and popularity. >>> If true, that's very interesting. For one, isn't it a sad indictment as to what's happened to the GOP and conservatism in recent years, if it's become such that a politician trying to win favor on the Right decides that acting crazy and extreme is the best way to go about it? Then, there's the next question: if his stated craziness is not his actual self, then just what is his real agenda?
Originally Posted By Tikiduck His real agenda is money. Look what being crazy has done for Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, and so on. Lucrative stuff. As long as the minions keep buying their books and supporting their brand, there will be a market for these people. Yes, Democrats sell books too, but they seem to be held to a higher standard...You know...reality! There seems to be no limit to what these twits can throw out there and get away with.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Heck, the party is only allowing this to happen because no matter who is nominated will look good by comparison. "Oh, you don't like that one, well, of the two which do you like the best?"
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Josh Marshall, the founder of Talking Points Memo, has resurrected an article from 2013 about he and his wife attending Princeton when Cruz was also a student there: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/me-ted">http://talkingpointsmemo.com/e...g/me-ted</a> From the article: <> Well, it turns out Ted and I went to college together. And not just we happened to be at the same place at the same time. We were both at a pretty small part of a relatively small university. We both went to Princeton. I was one year ahead of him. But we were both in the same residential college, which basically meant a small cluster of dorms of freshmen and sophomores numbering four or five hundred students who all ate in the same dining hall. My wife meanwhile was also in the same residential college and she was actually Ted's year - Class of 92. [In case you're wondering, no, my wife and I haven't been together for 25 years. We knew each other in college but only got together as a couple a dozen years later.] She totally remembered Ted and basically as a conceited and fairly nerdy jerk. But the weird thing was I didn't remember him. And the context here is that I have a really good memory. If we meet after twenty years, I'm far more likely to remember you than vice versa and I'll probably remember little details about you too. I don't forget a lot of stuff, especially people. But I didn't remember the name or the guy I was seeing on TV. As it turned out, though, almost everyone I knew well in college remembered him really well. Vividly. And I knew a number of his friends. But for whatever reason I just didn't remember him. When I saw college pictures of him, I thought okay, yeah, I remember that guy but sort of in the way where you're not 100% sure you're not manufacturing the recollection. I was curious. Was this just my wife who tends to be a get-along and go-along kind of person? So I started getting in touch with a lot of old friends and asking whether they remembered Ted. It was an experience really unlike I've ever had. Everybody I talked to - men and women, cool kids and nerds, conservative and liberal - started the conversation pretty much the same. "Ted? Oh yeah, immense a*#hole." Sometimes "total raging a#%hole." Sometimes other variations on the theme. But you get the idea. Very common reaction. But that wasn't all. Before retelling this or that anecdote, there was one other thing that everybody said, "A really, really smart dude." <> More of the story at the link. Yeah, a very smart guy. Graduated from Harvard Law as well. So... does he actually believe the crap coming out of his mouth? No way. Someone that smart fully understands that climate change is real. Cruz is saying this stuff to con the conservative base comprised of ignorant fools who choose to remain ignorant. Cruz knows he needs to win over this bunch in order to get the nomination. As Dabob posted earlier, it's very much Orwellian. Cruz is telling these low information voters exactly what they want to hear, even though his life experience is far, far removed from anything they ever hope to accomplish for themselves. Cruz is not a "common man" nor has ever desired to be one.
Originally Posted By SuperDry << Cruz is saying this stuff to con the conservative base comprised of ignorant fools who choose to remain ignorant. Cruz knows he needs to win over this bunch in order to get the nomination. >> That brings me back to the question I asked before: if Cruz's stated positions aren't his real ones, just what *are* his real positions? What is it that he's trying to accomplish by getting into power (US Senate) and gaining more power (President)? Goofyernmost suggested that the only reason he's being put out there by the party is to make other candidates look more reasonable later on in the primary season. This assumes that the powers that be within the party are supportive of him at this point. Let's assume for the sake of argument that they are, and that Goofyernmost is correct. That STILL does not answer the question of what Cruz himself is up to. I find it implausible that his multi-year plan to get into the Senate and then eventually run for President was all for the purpose of making another GOP candidate look relatively better. What are Cruz's true goals?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox If you're a college student at an Ivy League school, and your fellow students routinely describe you as a major arsehat... it's most likely because you only care about yourself and your accomplishments, probably at the expense of your fellow classmates. This type of personality deficit was also witnessed firsthand by Mitt Romney's classmates in prep school. Physically restraining another student and cutting off his hair isn't exactly the kind of thing that wins over many peers. I believe RT nailed it. Cruz is running mostly for his ego. The added increase in income is the cherry on the parfait.
Originally Posted By Kusin_It "Why does anyone run for president? Ego and money." not very admirable reasons are they. it would be refreshing to finally have a person who is not driven by ego and money but for pure altruistic intent. we should try green party and i bet we will be one step closer to sweeden, a good thing if you ask me. people are happy, educated and healthier there. canada ain't so bad either.
Originally Posted By utahjosh < it would be refreshing to finally have a person who is not driven by ego and money but for pure altruistic intent. > Even if someone is that way, they will be painted by the opposition as greedy or egocentric, and most would believe.
