About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 3:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Republican, Texan, Hispanic, 44-year-old, two-year, Senator Ted Cruz announced he was running for President of the United States yesterday at the private, selective, Christian school of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

 

I think Ted Cruz is super-intelligent, very ambitious, mostly principled, and rather crazy. He's a quasi-libertarian in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, but also a religious nut in the tradition of Sarah Palin. He advocates "a simple flat tax" so that we can "fill out [our] taxes on a postcard," and is committed to "repealing every word of ObamaCare." He wants to protect gun rights and promote private school vouchers. But he's opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

 

Cruz thinks America -- historically and currently -- is "great," "indispensable," and "a shining city on a hill." He rejects Obama's largely-successful attempt to "fundamentally transform America" into a nanny state and Big Brother of do-gooder fascism and socialism. He attacks Obama's recent immigration amnesty for 4-5 million illegal aliens as "lawless" and "unconstitutional."

 

Unfortunately he foolishly thinks "our rights don't come from man. They come from god almighty." Cruz says he wants to "protect us from radical Islamic terrorism" and to "call it by its name." But its name is "Islamic activism" or "jihadism."

 

Overall Ted Cruz seems relatively good, but Republican, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul seems better.

 

transcript: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/23/ted-cruz-announces-presidentia

 

video: http://www.c-span.org/video/?324979-1/ted-cruz-presidential-campaign-announcement



Post 1

Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 12:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Rand might be "better" but I think Cruz would have a better shot at actually winning.  How many Latin Americans would vote for Rand as opposed to Hillary.   How many would vote for Cruz instead of Hillary(or whatever dem) a lot more.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 8:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Right now, I look at it this way.  Both Paul and Cruz are not only willing to take very bold actions, but they know that nothing else will do.  And they don't care about what the GOP establishment thinks.  I'd be happy to support either of them compared to a Hillary or a Jeb Bush or a Christie.  Because the GOP establishment and the main-stream media is against both of them, they are taking their message straight to the people.  Win or lose, that is the way it should be.  I'm hoping that Elizabeth Warren is the democrat's choice since that will let the country see and choose between explicit advocates of the two opposing systems: big government bent on redistribution and control by elites or a far smaller government and free enterprise.  It would be much more an election based upon principles than opposing political machines.



Post 3

Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 11:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Agreed!



Post 4

Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 12:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

With either Wendy Davis or Alison Grimes as her running mate



Post 5

Thursday, March 26, 2015 - 12:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve Wolfer writes:

 

Both Paul and Cruz are not only willing to take very bold actions, but they know that nothing else will do.  And they don't care about what the GOP establishment thinks.  I'd be happy to support either of them compared to a Hillary or a Jeb Bush or a Christie.  Because the GOP establishment and the main-stream media is against both of them, they are taking their message straight to the people.  Win or lose, that is the way it should be.

 

I agree. Ron Paul and Ted Cruz seem like Barry Goldwater in 1964. Even if they lose the battle they may win the war, via paving the way for a new and better version of Ronald Reagan to win shortly down the line.

 

I genuinely believe Amerca is currently -- if very vaguely and weakly -- heading toward libertarianism. For all the awfulness of George Bush and Barack Obama, we really did have a recent quasi-libertarian in Bill Clinton. I think a superior one is now coming. 

 

Recently, of course, America experienced the Big Brother awfulness and fascism/socialism of Sarbanes-Oxley (2002), stunning NSA spying (2002 to present), all those bailouts and stimuluses (2009), Dodd-Frank (2010), ObamaCare (2010), amd executive amnesty for 4-5 million illegal aliens (2015). It's a simply horrific recent welfare-statist rollcall. Still...Randian philosophy continues to make progress, as does open support for capitalism and libertarianism. Free-market think tanks are everywhere. So there seems to be solid hope.

 

But politicos like Paul and Cruz are evidently way ahead of the general public and voters. So they have to be rather deceptive and slick -- and hide just how pro-freedom they really are -- in order to get elected, in my humble view. Can these heroes really educate and uplift the dull, slovenly, indifferent, mean-spirited masses during their very campaigns? In part I think they have to. But I also think they're a coming and soon-to-be established force. I think America will elect a semi-libertarian even better than Goldwater or Reagan within the next dozen years or so. 

 

(Edited by Kyrel Zantonavitch on 3/26, 12:04am)



Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.