Ted Cruz Announces

[delldude]

So a Washington outsider (Senator) uses tried and true old school political maneuvers while talking out of both sides of his mouth, all while taking donations from the biggest Washington lobby firms.

Yep, that is not establishment.

News flash. They are all "establishment" or they would never have been elected to the Senate or have become a governor.

 
Vote Trump, he pays his own way.

 

[CMH_GSE]

News flash. They are all "establishment" or they would never have been elected to the Senate or have become a governor.

Wrong again.
Reagan was Governor, the establishment Republicans, to this day, have distain for the man.

Trump has thrown a monkey wrench into the primary because the establishment can't usher their boy Jeb in with all the Social issue garbage that he's great on for their tastes.
None of that matters because Trump put immigration at the front and Jeb has been marginalized .

 

[777 fixer]

Wrong again.
Reagan was Governor, the establishment Republicans, to this day, have distain for the man.

Exactly which establishment republicans have disdain for Reagan?

 

[777 fixer]

777fixer is the one that made the claim Cruz is somehow not well read.

Did you read what I said?

 

[CMH_GSE]

Grenada 1982, Lebanon 1982, Libya 1986.You know this how? If he is so well read in history then why does he think carpet bombing and/or droping nukes on people who have nothing to do with ISIS other than they happen to live in areas they control will make us safe?

I hadn't realized that Grenada, Lebanon and Libya were part of the Soviet Union, thanks for pointing that out.

This guy agrees with me , btw , on Reagan not firing a shot, and apparently, Cruz has adopted the Reagan doctrine, another winning strategery.
http://spectator.org/articles/64975/ted-cruzs-foreign-policy-triumph

 

[KCFlyer]

I hadn't realized that Grenada, Lebanon and Libya were part of the Soviet Union, thanks for pointing that out.

This guy agrees with me , btw , on Reagan not firing a shot, and apparently, Cruz has adopted the Reagan doctrine, another winning strategery.
http://spectator.org/articles/64975/ted-cruzs-foreign-policy-triumph

 
Yep...Reagan never fired a shot.  He was only dealing with a single aytollah...and he had his buddy Saddam helping.  But Cruz talks big....you guys have bitched about Obama drawing a line in the sand....seems that if you want a tough talker...you'll want someone who will back it up.   But I've looked all over the map and I can't find a country called "terrorist".  So who the hell do we bomb?  

 

[Ifly2]

To be historically fair, we couldn't find a country named "Nazi" or "Bushido" either.

We waged total war. The bombings of Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo and others were horrifically destructive and killed (tens and hundreds of...) thousands of "noncombatants", as did the bombings of London.

Then we employed the Atomic Bombs.

Winning "The Last World War" required total committment, and a willingness to wage war against everyone. The residents of Daesh controlled areas and other "locals" might think again before supporting ISIL if faced with that kind of war.

Yes, it takes armies on the ground to secure the territory. That is a function that can be reserved for the Iraqis and other Arab, Muslim countries. They have much greater interest in defeating ISIL and removing them from their landscape than we do.

 

[777 fixer]

This guy agrees with me , btw , on Reagan not firing a shot, and apparently, Cruz has adopted the Reagan doctrine, another winning strategery.
http://spectator.org/articles/64975/ted-cruzs-foreign-policy-triumph

That article is nothing more than complete and utter clap trap. It ignores so very important points. First point is that this is not the USSR were dealing with so it's a completely different situation. It also ignores Cruz's very own words. Words like “We will utterly destroy ISIS. We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out.”

Doesn't sound very Reaganesq to me.

http://warisboring.com/articles/ted-cruz-wants-to-nuke-the-middle-east/

 

[delldude]

 
Yep...Reagan never fired a shot.  He was only dealing with a single aytollah...and he had his buddy Saddam helping.  But Cruz talks big....you guys have bitched about Obama drawing a line in the sand....seems that if you want a tough talker...you'll want someone who will back it up.   But I've looked all over the map and I can't find a country called "terrorist".  So who the hell do we bomb?  

 
So who you like?

 

[KCFlyer]

 
So who you like?

 
Who would I like to run?  On the democratic side, Bernie.  The one republican who MIGHT get me to consider voting for them is one that has already been dismissed by the 'base' of the GOP...Kaisich.  BUT.....from what I read on other boards, republicans are tired of the same old same old....they want "raw meat", and Kaisich is way too "mainstream" for them.  So they will most likely put an extremist like Trump or Cruz on the ticket.  And when that happens, in the very remote chance that they would win (which I seriously doubt they would), they will be called RINO's by March 2017 when they see that Obamacare is still intact, the debt is still rising, and we haven't bombed anybody in the middle east yet. 

 

[Kev3188]

+1

Are there any "Eisenhower Republicans" left?

 

[Ifly2]

+1Are there any "Eisenhower Republicans" left?

There are

They are intelligent enough to know that it would be an utter waste of their time and talent and their supporters' money to attempt to "save" the GOP and real conservatism, with Ailes & Co and the reat of the Radical Right media pulling the puppet strings.

That is unfortunate, for all of us

 

[townpete]

There are

They are intelligent enough to know that it would be an utter waste of their time and talent and their supporters' money to attempt to "save" the GOP and real conservatism, with Ailes & Co and the reat of the Radical Right media pulling the puppet strings.

That is unfortunate, for all of us

 
Huh?
 
Where are these "Eisenhower Republicans" you speak of?
 
All we have squishy, feckless french-republican establishment and conservatives.

 

[Traymark]

Obviously, you're not keeping up with current events.
The Establishment is. attacking him from all sides, to no effect I might add.

Totally agree.
There have been a number of hit pieces on Cruz this month on his immigration stance, trying to paint him in the same corner Rubio is in, all to give Rubio cover.

It's not only not working, it seemingly has educated the voters on what the truth is and they are responding favorably to Cruz.
The most disturbing thing for the establishment Rubio fanbois is Rubios numbers are going in the polar opposite direction of Cruz' numbers.

Cruz has had a great month in the heat of repeated attacks.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428948/ted-cruz-iowa-new-hampshire-polls-rubio

 

[Dog Wonder]

There have been a number of hit pieces on Cruz this month on his immigration stance.
 

The only good immigrant is Cruz?