Competent Republicans?

[EdEarl]

IDK if Texas has a diverse population; it is filled with religious fundamentalists and has more Tea Party legislators than any other state.

Edited February 15, 2016 by EdEarl

[Ten oz]

IDK if Texas has a diverse population; it is filled with religious fundamentalists and has more Tea Party legislators than any other state.

You could be right. However statewide level politics is a bit different than district level. George Bush and Rick Perry are former Texas Govenors and both are pro immigration reform. Current TX gov Greg Abbott is actually being criticized within Texas for not speaking out more openly against Donald Trump's hard lined immigration stance:

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/23/abbott-trump-presents-challenge-hispanics/

[neutrinosalad]

This is going to force change in the Republican party. All the entrenched political observers on bothsides undertsand that Cruz and Trump are both incompetent to run the United States. I have read RNC talk about changing the primary line up in the future so that Texas or California votes first. There more diverse populations forcing moderate positions early in the nomination process. I suspect they will be a big push to get Republicans like Marco Rubio and George P. Bush out in the media selling a Republican immigration reform policy. And the establishment will fight back against the Tea Party in the midterm and try to recruit Democrats to help them primary elected Tea Party members

 

I believe over the next 4yrs we will see competent Republicans rise campaigning on immigration reform, criminal justice reform, and they will even acknowledge climate change selling a change in energy policy as a way to create jobs.

 

Ted Cruz is intelligent. It seems that his abrasive personality and lack of agreeableness is what is holding him back.

 

Here is an article where his Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, commented on how he was one of the most brilliant students he had: http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/03/23/liberal-prof-dershowitz-cruz-charts-brilliant/

 

Rand Paul is also intelligent and it looks like he is beginning to stray from hardcore libertarian ideals that his father, Ron Paul, professed.

 

Paul Ryan comes off as reasonable to me. The hard ass front he puts on like at the State of the Union is so transparent it is almost laughable. He clearly is more of a moderate. He just seems inexperienced with corralling his own party.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

On another note, I would never ever vote for Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Why? Because they are fake conservatives. They both have strong Neocon ties and I will not vote for anyone who has Neocon ties.

 

You could be right. However statewide level politics is a bit different than district level. George Bush and Rick Perry are former Texas Govenors and both are pro immigration reform. Current TX gov Greg Abbott is actually being criticized within Texas for not speaking out more openly against Donald Trump's hard lined immigration stance:

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/23/abbott-trump-presents-challenge-hispanics/

 

My frustration with these illegal immigrants is that the "moderate" position is to essentially give 11 million people a free pass for breaking our country's laws.

 

If we cannot even enforce the rule of law, why have laws?

[Phi for All]

My frustration with these illegal immigrants is that the "moderate" position is to essentially give 11 million people a free pass for breaking our country's laws.

 

In the past, what we gave illegal immigrants was a completely mixed message. We needed the labor, those laborers bought local goods and paid into local economies, business owners were happy. Until someone bitches about losing the jobs they were doing. Then they round them up and ship them back over the borders. Now that the jobs are available, the bitchers don't take them, and so the illegals need to sneak back.

 

The "laws" are enforced with discrimination and inconsistency. The laws allow those who want cheap labor to get it, while at the same time holding a threat over them to keep quiet and stay away from the authorities. Isn't it better to find a way to make these people legal, these folks who want to live here so badly they'll play ball with such a weird system?

[EdEarl]

If we cannot even enforce the rule of law, why have laws?

Exactly, change the law or enforce it. Some laws are inane. In New Mexico, nudity is allow, provided that male genitals are covered. The legal system is responsible for enforcing the law, regardless of whether the law is just or even makes sense. Citizens have the responsibility of making informed decisions about laws, and letting law maker know if they disagree. It seems you agree with the immigration laws and want them enforced.

 

Occasionally, a law can be so bad that one is ethically compelled to disobey the law. Gandhi and Martin Luther King specialized in this kind of civil disobedience.

[overtone]

 

 

My frustration with these illegal immigrants is that the "moderate" position is to essentially give 11 million people a free pass for breaking our country's laws.

If we cannot even enforce the rule of law, why have laws?

They already got the free pass. That happened years ago, and it happened because rich people influenced the enforcement of the relevant laws in order to provide themselves with a large supply of compliant, cheap labor embedded within the lucrative US market.

The question is not whether to give them a free pass. That question was answered years ago, when Reagan (yep - him again) broke the labor unions, defunded the immigration and labor law enforcement against employers, and launched the revamping of the relevant treaties and the cutbacks in welfare and other public service requirements completed by Clinton (that prevented the influx from wrecking local communities and State budgets, which would have made trouble politically).

Here's a deal: the lefties agree to support a large increase in deportations, but after - and only after - the righties agree to hardcore, NSA capability, subpoena enabled, fully funded investigation and criminal prosecution - not just fines: jail sentences and business licenses revoked and criminal gains seized by the government and damages assessed at their real life values - of a substantial fraction (at least a third, by money involved) of the corporate malfeasance involved in the past forty years of importing illegal labor.

You know - enforce the law. The racketeering law. The anti-bribery and anti-corruption law. The labor laws that still exist. Because why have laws if you aren't going to enforce them.

Free pass my ass. The illegals earned their keep, and that's more than you can say for anyone else involved.

[neutrinosalad]

Now that the jobs are available, the bitchers don't take them, and so the illegals need to sneak back.

 

The "laws" are enforced with discrimination and inconsistency. The laws allow those who want cheap labor to get it, while at the same time holding a threat over them to keep quiet and stay away from the authorities. Isn't it better to find a way to make these people legal, these folks who want to live here so badly they'll play ball with such a weird system?

 

Well in the modern world we have things like E-Verify in order to enforce legal immigration. E-Verify essentially checks if the the social security number matches the person based on what I know about it.

 

Also, the only state that really truly enforced legal immigration over the last decade has been Arizona. The number of hit pieces against that state for enforcing the rule of law with regards to illegal immigration just shows you how partisan the mainstream media is.

 

Interestingly enough, the bitchers were actually losing out on a better paying job due to migrant workers:

 

The labor shortage has caused some wages to rise. Carlos Avelar, a placement officer at Phoenix Job Corps, a federal job-training center, says graduates now often mull two or three jobs offers from construction firms and occasionally start at $14.65 an hour instead of $10.

 

At DTR Landscape Development LLC, the firm’s president, Dick Roberts, says he has increased his starting wage by 60% to $14.50 an hour because he is having trouble finding reliable workers.

 

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-thorny-economics-of-illegal-immigration-1454984443. This was another article I saved because it was a very good read.

 

Native workers end up with a better paying job and more job options when illegal immigrants are expelled from the system.

Also, it isn't up to businesses to enforce the laws. It is up to the states and many states have failed the American people with regards to illegal immigration.

 

 

Isn't it better to find a way to make these people legal, these folks who want to live here so badly they'll play ball with such a weird system?

 

They didn't play ball when they chose to come here illegally and circumvent the laws we already have in place. We already have a legal immigration system that every other country in the world has to follow. We shouldn't be giving special privileges to people from Mexico or Central America just because they can jump a fence.

Everyone needs to be held to the same standard.

Just an idea to chew on.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: On another note, I have thought about the other side of the line.

Net migration from Mexico has been below 0 the past couple of years.

Source: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/. This is another great article.

So the whole, "Build a wall!" thing that Donald Trump has been blustering about is essentially a relic of the past. Mexico has reached industrialization levels that are almost in parity with the US, giving Mexicans little to no reason to continue migrating to the US illegally.

Also, I do think we need to continue to put the screws down on Central Americans. They have started piling into the US illegally and it is patently obvious that they are economic migrants coming here illegally to take advantage of certain aspects of our welfare system (education and health care) in addition to seeking out a better life.

Here is an article that goes over the whole list of things I just brought up: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/11/mexico-and-immigration-to-us/

The last thing, is that there is one way I see illegal immigration in a positive light. It is seen through the Cuban exodus that happened following Fidel's rise to power. When I went to Miami and saw the end result of all the illegal and legal Cuban immigration that happened, I definitely felt a little more positively about illegal immigration. Particularly when it allows the US to gain skilled and driven individuals.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Capayan

[Ten oz]

Ted Cruz is intelligent. It seems that his abrasive personality and lack of agreeableness is what is holding him back.

 

 

My frustration with these illegal immigrants is that the "moderate" position is to essentially give 11 million people a free pass for breaking our country's laws.

 

If we cannot even enforce the rule of law, why have laws?

Who is the competent Republcian on this issue and what is their proposal?

 

You say Ted Cruz is intelligent (competent?) have you reviewed his plan; Ted Cruz's plan is to build a wall, triple the agents on the border, drones, catch everyone illegal, and send them home. In your opinion that is a competent plan?

 

Build a wall that works. I will fulfill the promise Congress made to the American people almost 10 years ago by completing all 700 miles of priority fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and dedicate the resources necessary to replace all single-layer fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border to build a fence that keeps people out and that is technology-supported and law enforcement-accessible.

 

Triple the number of Border Patrol agents. Since the federal government is primarily responsible for securing the border, we must allocate sufficient human resources for the task. In 2013, I introduced legislation to triple the number of Border Patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border

 

Increase vital aerial surveillance. To truly protect our southern border, the men and women who serve in the Border Patrol need eyes in the sky.

 

End President Obama’s illegal amnesty. The Obama Administration has issued at least 20 executive memoranda over the course of his two terms in office that grant amnesty, ignore the law, and worsen our immigration problems.

 

Enforce the law: Restore our commitment to enforcement and public safety and the Rule of Law by rededicating DHS to fully enforcing the law, including through deportations and returns.

 

Add detention space for interior enforcement: Support ICE agents and their enforcement efforts by significantly increasing permanent detention capacity for illegal immigrants in the interior of the United States, and give ICE leadership the flexibility to procure additional, temporary detention space from the General Services Administration and state and local law enforcement on an as-needed basis.

 

*Edit - I forgot to link Ted Cruz's campaign site.

https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/

Edited February 15, 2016 by Ten oz

[John Cuthber]

 

Ted Cruz is intelligent.

 

Paul Ryan comes off as reasonable to me. The hard ass front he puts on like at the State of the Union is so transparent it is almost laughable. He clearly is more of a moderate. He just seems inexperienced with corralling his own party.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

On another note, I would never ever vote for Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Why? Because they are fake conservatives. They both have strong Neocon ties and I will not vote for anyone who has Neocon ties.

 

 

Ted Cruz is intelligent.

He doesn't let it show

"many of the alarmists on global warming, they've got a problem because the science doesn't back them up. And in particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years there's been zero warming, none whatsoever."

Ditto Ryan

"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.".

and also

"It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don't give me Ayn Rand."

So, he's a flip flopper of the first order.

No wonder you think he looks good- he will, it seems, say anything to keep the audience happy.

Re " will not vote for anyone who has Neocon ties"

Does that mean that, if we can show a link between the neocons and the Republicans you won't vote for any of them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)#Neoconservatives

[iNow]

If looking for competent republicans, I'd look to the highest rated GOP governors as a start: http://morningconsult.com/2015/11/how-do-voters-feel-about-your-governor/

 

Charlie Baker of Massachusetts seems well respected in an otherwise liberal state.

 

EDIT: I disagree with him on several fronts, but I'd say Mitt Romney is pretty competent. Likewise with McCain.

 

Paul Ryan, on the other hand, comes across as informed, a serious thinker all about the numbers, and he definitely enjoys focusing on policy, but most of his budget proposals rely on a lot of hand waving and magic asterisks and don't ever seem to add up. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/paul-ryans-57-trillion-magic-trick/274069/

Edited February 15, 2016 by iNow

[overtone]

"We already have a legal immigration system that every other country in the world has to follow. We shouldn't be giving special privileges to people from Mexico or Central America just because they can jump a fence.

 

Everyone needs to be held to the same standard."

 

 

 

By the standards we apply to other countries, most of the illegals in the US have a plausible claim to amnesty - fleeing death squads and political terrorism.

Edited February 15, 2016 by overtone

[neutrinosalad]

Ted Cruz is intelligent.

He doesn't let it show

"many of the alarmists on global warming, they've got a problem because the science doesn't back them up. And in particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years there's been zero warming, none whatsoever."

Ditto Ryan

"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.".

and also

"It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don't give me Ayn Rand."

So, he's a flip flopper of the first order.

No wonder you think he looks good- he will, it seems, say anything to keep the audience happy.

Re " will not vote for anyone who has Neocon ties"

Does that mean that, if we can show a link between the neocons and the Republicans you won't vote for any of them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)#Neoconservatives

 

 

Could he being saying that because he is dumb or is he saying it because he has underlying political motivations and is playing the politics game? I would suggest that it is the latter and not the former. I am not the biggest fan of Ted Cruz myself, but it's mostly because I see him as a lizard man who says things he doesn't believe in order to win votes. That doesn't mean he isn't bright and has some level of competence with regards to governing.

 

Many of the Democrats are flip floppers and full of contradictions, so you are applying a double standard to Paul Ryan. Bill Clinton, God of the Democrats, says he is for women's rights while simultaneously having a history of being an aggressive womanizer of the highest degree. There are many more Democrats that would fail this litmus test if we went through every single one.

 

Well, I will vote for alternatives to Neocons as often as I can.

 

John McCain though, I personally like him and see him as an honorable man. I accept that his military background and history of being a POW blinds him emotionally in certain ways, so I would still vote for him to stay a Senator even though I disagree with his views on foreign policy.

[Ten oz]

 

Could he being saying that because he is dumb or is he saying it because he has underlying political motivations and is playing the politics game? I would suggest that it is the latter and not the former. I am not the biggest fan of Ted Cruz myself, but it's mostly because I see him as a lizard man who says things he doesn't believe in order to win votes. That doesn't mean he isn't bright and has some level of competence with regards to governing.

 

Many of the Democrats are flip floppers and full of contradictions, so you are applying a double standard to Paul Ryan. Bill Clinton, God of the Democrats, says he is for women's rights while simultaneously having a history of being an aggressive womanizer of the highest degree. There are many more Democrats that would fail this litmus test if we went through every single one.

 

Can you provide meaningful examples where Ted Cruz has legislatied counter to his rhetoric? Something to support your suggesstion.

[iNow]

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/29/dana-bash/how-many-bills-has-ted-cruz-passed-senate/

We looked through Cruz’s legislative history on Congressional Quarterly’s database and found that since he became a senator in January 2013, he has been the main sponsor on 44 bills and a cosponsor on 187.

 

Of those on which he was the primary sponsor, only one passed, as Bash said.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/ted_cruz/412573

From Jan 2013 to Feb 2016, Cruz missed 145 of 1,019 roll call votes, which is 14.2%. This is much worse than the median of 1.7% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving. The chart below reports missed votes over time.

Here's context on the one bill he actually got passed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ted-cruz-sponsored-bill-to-bar-irans-un-envoy-from-entering-us-passes-senate/2014/04/07/fceff50e-be8e-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html

[neutrinosalad]

Can you provide meaningful examples where Ted Cruz has legislatied counter to his rhetoric? Something to support your suggesstion.

 

He flipped his view on immigration:

 

 

 

The Texas senator has long been a fierce proponent of expanding legal immigration and visas for high-skilled workers, so much so that he repeatedly broke with immigration hardliners like Sen. Jeff Sessions during Senate Judiciary Committee proceedings in 2013. Now, Cruz is advocating a tough approach that would impose a temporary halt on legal immigration -- a significant reversal for a senator who espoused more moderate positions on immigration in Congress than on the campaign trail.

 

Right here: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/ted-cruz-immigration-2016-election/

 

He reversed his position on immigration after he saw that Donald Trump's "build a wall" speech was getting votes. I don't think he believes any of the crap he has been spewing about illegal immigration over the past few months. It's purely a political choice he made.

[Ten oz]

 

He flipped his view on immigration:

 

 

Right here: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/ted-cruz-immigration-2016-election/

 

He reversed his position on immigration after he saw that Donald Trump's "build a wall" speech was getting votes. I don't think he believes any of the crap he has been spewing about illegal immigration over the past few months. It's purely a political choice he made.

In 2012 when running for the Senate Ted Cruz's message on immigration mirrored what he is running on now.

http://www.texastribune.org/2012/06/20/illegal-immigration-flashpoint-us-senate-race/

[Willie71]

Who is the competent Republcian on this issue and what is their proposal?

 

You say Ted Cruz is intelligent (competent?) have you reviewed his plan; Ted Cruz's plan is to build a wall, triple the agents on the border, drones, catch everyone illegal, and send them home. In your opinion that is a competent plan?

 

Build a wall that works. I will fulfill the promise Congress made to the American people almost 10 years ago by completing all 700 miles of priority fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and dedicate the resources necessary to replace all single-layer fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border to build a fence that keeps people out and that is technology-supported and law enforcement-accessible.

 

Triple the number of Border Patrol agents. Since the federal government is primarily responsible for securing the border, we must allocate sufficient human resources for the task. In 2013, I introduced legislation to triple the number of Border Patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border

 

Increase vital aerial surveillance. To truly protect our southern border, the men and women who serve in the Border Patrol need eyes in the sky.

 

End President Obama’s illegal amnesty. The Obama Administration has issued at least 20 executive memoranda over the course of his two terms in office that grant amnesty, ignore the law, and worsen our immigration problems.

 

Enforce the law: Restore our commitment to enforcement and public safety and the Rule of Law by rededicating DHS to fully enforcing the law, including through deportations and returns.

 

Add detention space for interior enforcement: Support ICE agents and their enforcement efforts by significantly increasing permanent detention capacity for illegal immigrants in the interior of the United States, and give ICE leadership the flexibility to procure additional, temporary detention space from the General Services Administration and state and local law enforcement on an as-needed basis.

 

*Edit - I forgot to link Ted Cruz's campaign site.

https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/

Sure sounds like big government to me.

[Ten oz]

Sure sounds like big government to me.

It won't cut cost that is for sure. It is very telling that the only poster here defending Ted Cruz is doing so by insisting that what Ted Cruz actually says isn't serious and isn't waht Ted Cruz would actually do.Ted Cruz is somehow showing his competence by pretending to be incompetent. It is an awfully convenient claim.

[Willie71]

It won't cut cost that is for sure. It is very telling that the only poster here defending Ted Cruz is doing so by insisting that what Ted Cruz actually says isn't serious and isn't waht Ted Cruz would actually do.Ted Cruz is somehow showing his competence by pretending to be incompetent. It is an awfully convenient claim.

I have heard commentary from relatives of people from Germany in the 30's, who when asked how Hitler got in, said "We didn't think he's really do what he said he would." It's frightening to me that people can explain away candidates flirting with, or outright advocating for fascism.

[Phi for All]

It won't cut cost that is for sure. It is very telling that the only poster here defending Ted Cruz is doing so by insisting that what Ted Cruz actually says isn't serious and isn't waht Ted Cruz would actually do.Ted Cruz is somehow showing his competence by pretending to be incompetent. It is an awfully convenient claim.

 

Did you ever see Penn & Teller debunk the wall idea on Bullshit? Crazy funny.

 

They went to Home Depot, hired some illegals, bought some building materials, then told the workers to build a section of wall to the specifications outlined by Republicans at the time. Afterwards, they had the illegals try to defeat the wall, one team going over, one under, and one through the middle.

 

They basically proved there's no way to build a wall people can't get through. The amount of time you can delay them getting through is completely dependent on how much you want to spend in the first place, and how much you want to spend maintaining it. The plan outlined by Trump and Cruz will not work, period. Tested, failed, end of story.

[neutrinosalad]

It won't cut cost that is for sure. It is very telling that the only poster here defending Ted Cruz is doing so by insisting that what Ted Cruz actually says isn't serious and isn't waht Ted Cruz would actually do.Ted Cruz is somehow showing his competence by pretending to be incompetent. It is an awfully convenient claim.

 

From the beginning what I have been saying is that a man who a Harvard law professor has said was "off the charts brilliant" may be smarter than what you are making him out to be.

 

"off the charts brilliant" coming from this article: http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/03/23/liberal-prof-dershowitz-cruz-charts-brilliant/

 

Focusing on the individual here, not on whatever ideological principles he espouses.

 

I have heard commentary from relatives of people from Germany in the 30's, who when asked how Hitler got in, said "We didn't think he's really do what he said he would." It's frightening to me that people can explain away candidates flirting with, or outright advocating for fascism.

 

Equating Cruz's desire to enforce legal immigration to Hitler's actions (which included the Holocaust) means that we are outside of what I would call rational discourse.

 

Also, young liberals are sidling up with fascist ideals according to recent surveys:

 

About 71 percent of freshmen surveyed in the fall said they agreed with the statement that “colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech on campus.” This question has been asked on and off for a couple of decades, and 2015 logged the highest percentage of positive responses on record. For comparison, the share in the early 1990s hovered around 60 percent; also high, but not as high as today.

What speech counts as “racist” or “sexist” is of course in the eye of the beholder, as evidenced by recent attempts to silence public discourse on racially and sexually charged topics at Wesleyan, Yale and Northwestern universities. A related survey question, which has been asked most years since 1967, inquired whether “colleges have the right to ban extreme speakers from campus.”About 43 percent of freshmen said they agreed. That’s nearly twice as high as the average share saying this in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. It was surpassed only once, just barely, in 2004. But in general, support for banning speakers from campuses has trended upward over time.

 

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberal-but-not-tolerant-on-the-nations-college-campuses/2016/02/11/0f79e8e8-d101-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

 

An increasing number of liberal students want to enforce rules on college campuses that limit free speech in order to promote a singular ideology. If that is not fascist, I don't know what is.

[iNow]

I agree that Ted Cruz is an extremely intelligent man, but remind readers not to conflate that characteristic with competence, especially in the domain of governing and/or leadership.

[overtone]

 

 

From the beginning what I have been saying is that a man who a Harvard law professor has said was "off the charts brilliant" may be smarter than what you are making him out to be.

Nobody here is making Ted Cruz out to be dumb.

 

The only reason he doesn't scare me as much as Rubio or Jeb would is that he has no real friends. The lesser of two evils is the one with the less evil friends.

 

 

An increasing number of liberal students want to enforce rules on college campuses that limit free speech in order to promote a singular ideology. If that is not fascist, I don't know what is.

Ok: You don't know what fascism is.

[Willie71]

From the beginning what I have been saying is that a man who a Harvard law professor has said was "off the charts brilliant" may be smarter than what you are making him out to be.

 

"off the charts brilliant" coming from this article: http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/03/23/liberal-prof-dershowitz-cruz-charts-brilliant/

 

Focusing on the individual here, not on whatever ideological principles he espouses.

 

 

 

Equating Cruz's desire to enforce legal immigration to Hitler's actions (which included the Holocaust) means that we are outside of what I would call rational discourse.

 

Also, young liberals are sidling up with fascist ideals according to recent surveys:

 

 

 

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberal-but-not-tolerant-on-the-nations-college-campuses/2016/02/11/0f79e8e8-d101-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

 

An increasing number of liberal students want to enforce rules on college campuses that limit free speech in order to promote a singular ideology. If that is not fascist, I don't know what is.

Religious theocracy and corporate control of government are major problems. Neither of the two democratic candidates are proposing restrictions on free speech. All of the progressives I know do not support rules to restrict free speech. Free speech is about the freedom of the press or people to criticize the government without repercussions. It's not about an individual's right to be an ass, but I don't think being an ass should be restricted.

 

To make sure we are talking about the same thing, fascism:

 

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy during World War I, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism. Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

 

Then there is the fact that Cruz is a dominionist: (reconstructionist)

 

Reconstructionism can be traced to Rushdoony's book "Institutes of Biblical Law" published in 1973, 4 and to his subsequent founding of the Chalcedon Institute in Vallecito, CA.

 

Some Reconstructionism beliefs are often found in fundamentalist non-reconstructionists including D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, Franky Schaeffer, John Whitehead, and the late Jerry Falwell. 5

 

 

 

Sponsored link:

 

 

 

 

 

Reconstructionism's political and religious program:

 

Reconstructionism represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought found in the U.S. Its followers are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to facilitate this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order.

 

One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious choice and freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the power of God's word will bring about this conversion peacefully. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it. All that needs to be done is to properly explain it to them. If, as many commentators predict, conversion of the U.S. to a theocracy is met with opposition, Dominionists may have to revert to force.

 

All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than strictly fundamentalist Christianity would be suppressed. Nonconforming evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions would no longer be allowed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs outside of their home would be tried for idolatry and executed if found guilty. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would also be executed.

 

At that time that this essay was originally written, this was the only religious movement in North America of which we were aware which advocates genocide for followers of minority religions and non-conforming members of their own religion. Since then, we have learned of two conservative Christian pastors in Texas who independently advocated the execution of all Wiccans.

This is the foundation of the religious right that us marries to the Republican Party, starting with Reagan. Rushdooney was a central figure in this movement, and Huckabee, Cruz, and Carson are all dominionists. Not sure about Rubio.

Forgot the link:

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr2.htm

Rubio is endorsed by dominionists. I need to look into this a bit more as its a serious charge, equal to being a Christian version of Isis.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/marco-rubio-david-barton_b_7070914.html

[Ten oz]

 

From the beginning what I have been saying is that a man who a Harvard law professor has said was "off the charts brilliant" may be smarter than what you are making him out to be.

 

"off the charts brilliant" coming from this article: http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/03/23/liberal-prof-dershowitz-cruz-charts-brilliant/

 

Focusing on the individual here, not on whatever ideological principles he espouses.

 

The thread is asking about competent Republicans. You are saying Ted Cruz is brillant but hedging on the issue of his competency by asking for his ideology to be ignore. Take the next step and use Ted Cruz's brilliance as part of an argument that reflects his competence. Because being brilliant doesn't cut it. Tom Cruise is brillant but he sure isn't competent to be the President of the United States.

 

Did you ever see Penn & Teller debunk the wall idea on Bullshit? Crazy funny.

 

They went to Home Depot, hired some illegals, bought some building materials, then told the workers to build a section of wall to the specifications outlined by Republicans at the time. Afterwards, they had the illegals try to defeat the wall, one team going over, one under, and one through the middle.

 

They basically proved there's no way to build a wall people can't get through. The amount of time you can delay them getting through is completely dependent on how much you want to spend in the first place, and how much you want to spend maintaining it. The plan outlined by Trump and Cruz will not work, period. Tested, failed, end of story

 

The Department of Homeland Security alone has a 65 billion dollar budget and the Department of Justice has a 27 billion dollar budget. That is just looking at some of our federal law enforcement spend. Local level: LAPD has a 1.1 billion dollar budget, Dallas P.D. 450 million dollar budget, Phoenix P.D. 570 million budget and etc. It would probably take me a year to research the numbers to even create a fair estimate for how much money gets spent all told on law enforcement in this country. Hundreds of billions probably over a trillion and what do we have; 2 million convicted in prison. How could we possibly detain and deport 11 million people?

 

Obviously we don't have the money or resources to follow through. Even if we did what would the real value be? Spend a trillion dollars to kick out 11 million people who work and contribute to our economy? It is illogical. Mention climate change and a conservative is always fast to point out that energy and the cost of goods might rise if companies have to make any accommodations. Meanwhile they pretend that trying to remove 11 million, most manual labor workers, would somehow help our economy and have no impact on the cost.