Carville: 'Ted Cruz Is the Most Talented, Fearless Republican Politician I’ve Seen in 30 Years'

Yes... of course.

Ted Cruz is many things, including brilliant, and savvy. However, he does not come across as sincere and that is why he will never be President without complete and utter chaos...... Ted Cruz knows that. His beliefs are to extreme and his mannerisms and personality are too unpopular to ever be elected President without all out dire circumstances.

Cruz knew exactly what he was doing when he was heckled off stage recently. He wants the Middle East situation to reach a boiling point so that he can have a chance at winning.

Yet I bet you voted for Bush twice and defended his policies and Presidency in 2000-2008.

 

Great. Now that you read the definition lets see if you can apply it to the real world. When the government takes over a sector of the economy that may be 20% of GDP, replaces a free market with thousands of pages of mandates and regulations that they had to pass to find out what was in it and then take away money from people (young people who are healthy and don't need full blown coverage) to pay for old people, wealth redistribution, that is a move on the continuum away from free markets and capitalism toward government control, aka socialism. In addition you have a move away from insurance principles, poor risk pays more toward socialist principles of community rating, everyone pays the same rate. I could go on. But given you don't understand this, perhaps you should digest in small bites as you probably already have indigestion.

 

I bet he's not old enough to have done so.

 

More projection, you're the one refusing to apply the definition to the real world.

Of course, government didn't "take over" anything, it required people to purchase a product from private companies.

A regulated market is still a free market.

You really seem hung up on Pelosi's poor choice of words. This seems to conflict with your decrying the "word police" who criticize your poor choice of words. Perhaps another word you could look up is "hypocrisy," you exhibit evidence of it.

You do realize this is EXACTLY what insurance is meant to do, right?

So, we're going from your claim being that the ACA IS socialism to the ACA being a "move on the continuum" towards socialism. At least you are beginning to recognize that your arguments don't hold water. Continue to look at facts and evidence and you will find that a great many of the things you have said here are similarly errant.

You do realize that, under the ACA, poor risks DO pay more while the young and relatively healthy pay less, right?

I know, there is likely no end to your ability to spout off unfounded parroting of pundits.

Given that I'm the one answering you point by point, it would appear that this one is yet more projection.

Try again, rookie.

 

I stand with houcartreuakhkjdkj in hoping that Ted Cruz is the GOP nominee for president in 2016.

 

I hope so, would likely guarantee another 4 years of GOP irrelevance.

 

Yeah...... that is playing with fire.

The only way I see him as the nominee is if the **** really hits the fan. It seems absurd that this country could suddenly suffer severe turmoil but we are only one really bad terrorist attack away from it. You have extremists using social media to mobilize young impressionable people, misfits and religious extremists to act in a terroristic manner. You now have Australia, England, France and the United States populations and governments all galvanized on the issue of Muslim extremism. You have Russia and Ukraine drifting towards an inevitable war. You have extreme disfunction in the Middle East and wealthy organizations and individuals.

On top of that, you have Israel and Palestine locked into their usual pissing contest.

Just imagine the US response to beheadings IN the USA in public places..

Imagine the US response to a terrorist attack that kills hundreds or thousands of Americans.

Anything like that happens and Ted Cruz all of a sudden becomes a serious, viable Presidential candidate... especially with a sitting Democrat President.

Imagine what the US and it's

 

Cornyn, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, voted with other Senate leaders in favor of Obama's plan to arm and train Syrian rebels, despite his doubts about a White House strategy heavily dependent on air strikes with no American "boots on the ground."

Cruz, a potential White House contender and champion of the tea party right, cast a vote against the measure, citing dissatisfaction with the war plan as well as a host of accompanying budget and immigration provisions. "I cannot vote to empower our lawless president to continue his plans that threaten the economy and our national security," he said.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...al-partisan-divide-in-5765469.php?cmpid=btfpm

 

NO to this President at all cost. It's the TEA way.

 

Cruz is dangerous.

 

What you fail to realize or what you realize and just choose to ignore is that you don't need a court determination for USCIS to conclude that a marriage is invalid:

HI Rev Stat § 572-1 (2013)

You are welcome to look up the existing Hawaii Family Code at the time of Obama's birth if you want and you will get the same result.

If Obama Sr. had a prior marriage and engaged in polygamy by marrying Obama's mother, which it seems he did and which you even acknowledged in your earlier posts:

Then the subsequent marriage was invalid and therefore Obama, even if born outside of the United States or its territories, would acquire citizenship at birth because his mother would only need 1 year of continuous presence for him to acquire citizenship as an individual born out of wed-lock to a United State Citizen mother. Sorry man, you applied the wrong law and reached the wrong conclusion. But by all means keep asserting otherwise - your ongoing embarrassment of yourself is pretty enjoyable to watch.

 

Ted Cruz's chance of getting the Republican nomination is zero.

 

I don't know, the GOP knows they won't win the Presidency but they might use the Presidential campaign to continue to move the middle to the right. A centrist candidate like Ms. Clinton could run pretty far right of center against Cruz so the GOP gets the corporate friendly, warhawk they want anyway. She would never have to even mention labor unions, teachers, smaller military budgets or civil rights to get the left vote against someone so whacked out.

And Cruz gets to be the martyr for Real Americans and would make millions as a pundit after the election.

 

Wow! Such a patience take down. I doubt he learned. Probably watched Fox a few hrs since yesterday.

 

Ok, clearly you had trouble digesting the knowledge I tried to impart on you. I only wish I could use smaller words and hand puppets to help you out.

The government did "take over" in a very real sense. Not only did they mandate that people buy insurance, they regulated what the insurance needed to cover and how in great detail. The ACA was thousands of pages long. And, in addition, it gave authority to the IRS, HHS, DOL, CMS and the whole alphabet soup of regulatory agencies to expound with guidance and regulations on a whole host of things not spelled out in the original thousands of pages. The coverage must cover essential benefits. Religious organizations lose religious freedom and must cover abortive birth control drugs. Employers can not offer rich coverage or else pay a 40% excise tax. Thousands and thousands of mandates and regulations from various bureaucracies.

Maybe you heard about the fiasco of healthcare.gov the government enrollment site which despite three years to get ready was not ready and is still trying to fix back end reporting issues as well as security issues as it likely disclosed personal identity data to a host of criminals.

And the purpose of insurance is not to make young people pay for sicker older people. That's like saying a person with 5 DUI's should pay the same for car insurance as a person who never had a ticket and doesn't drink. Old people should pay more, and young people should pay less. The ACA squashed age rating factors to not follow actuarial expected cost. You probably don't even know what you are talking about and probably don't even know the first thing about actuarial rating factors or principles of insurance.

As for your cries of hypocrisy, they ring quite hallow. I never mentioned "word police". We had a slight tangent about capitalization, punctuation and grammar and their relevance on an internet message board. Given my remarks on Pelosi have nothing to do with grammar, punctuation or capitalization but on the content of what she said, which by the way, was not found in her posts on the clutch fans board, your charges of hypocrisy miss the target by a wide margin. In fact, your aim doesn't appear to be able to hit the side of a barn from 10 feet away, yet you continue to throw rocks and insults that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. You want to talk about my punctuation in your attempts to defend Pelosi? LOL

Despite my attempts to hold your hand, and walk you through the issues using small words, it's clear you have no desire to learn much less the capacity to think in any terms but the lowest common denominator of white house democratic party talking points. Good luck to you. I hope you do well in middle school although you appear to have not yet mastered your grade school reasoning ability. Too bad schools resort to social promotion.

 

The problem is that Ted Cruz is a pariah. His own party hates him. The public, outside of Texas, hates him even more.

 

As do we all.

 

powerful people hating him is a mark in his favor

 

humm, how would that work for Obama?

 

I see Rand Paul having a great chance to get the Republican nomination. He has his father's libertarian politics, except with more of an edge. I think that he appeals more to younger voters than many of the other candidates. Of the two senators with Cuban roots, I see Rubio having more of a chance than Cruz.