Yeah, that is why the UK parliament just held a televised debate on permanently banning Ted Cruz from the country. Oh, wait. That's not right, is it? It was Donald Trump they held that televised debate over. And other countries and politicians around the world find Trump to be similarly offensive.
The debate about Donald Trump wasn't because they personally disliked him (though they do). It was because they felt his rhetoric was dangerous.
Here is a great article on the Republican establishment's irrational level of hatred towards the candidacy of Ted Cruz and why supporting him for President (in a two-man race with Donald Trump) is clearly in the best interests of the Republican party: To be fair, I do not believe that elected Republican establishment officeholders have formally or finally made any such decision, but some of them they are currently making gestures in that direction, which deserve to be addressed in a serious way.
Uhh what needs to be addressed is Cruz' hilariously impossible comments about Iran shooting a nuclear missile straight into the air in the Atlantic and causing Electromagnetic Impulses that will kill millions of Americans. The guy is laughable and hasn't done anything to show he should be taken seriously.
While everyone coos at how cute Baby Godzilla is, Ted Cruz is the only politician warning us of the existential danger posed by allowing him to live unfettered in our oceans. America needs a politician willing to say NO to radioactive Lizards and Iranian EMPs.
I'm saying there is everything right with it, but I'm not a supporter of Cruz. I think it's as insane as Doc Carson talking about the pyramids as grain storage. It's just if I was a supporter for Cruz, I would think I would want to be able to explain it. But believe me, I love that he's spouting off that kind of stuff. I bet if Carson and Cruz were both children playing together, their games of make-believe would better than all the other kids.
My intuition is that there is a fear that Cruz will be so dogmatically and stridently and overbearingly conservative in the presidency that voters will react negatively and Republicans will lose seats in the House and Senate at midterms. President Cruz would want to play hardball, ramming reforms through detested by Democrats and bullying congressmen in his own party to go along.
If you are supportive of the business as usual status quo in Washington, as it clearly appears that you are, then it is probably best for us to agree to disagree about that. In order for there to be even a sliver of hope at any reform of that cesspool, we are going to first have to elect a president who cares about this enough to expend enough effort and political capital to make it a priority to the people of this country and therefore to Congress as well. Clearly or current president is not either willing, or able or at all interested in taking on a task like that.Ted Cruz would be though and we desperately need a president who is at least wiling to try to fix this mess. But apparently that would be a bad thing in you view. Better to just continue with the business as usual den of corruption so as to not upset any of those people or ruffle any feathers. I disagree, but I think I understand where you are coming from.
Ahh.... the commonly pulled out "status quo in Washington" quip.... used by T Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton and losers such as Anderson, Landon, McGovern, Perot, Nader.... and now Trump, Sanders AND Cruz....... so original and ground breaking.
You can almost said the same thing about Bernie Sanders. People don't support Cruz because he's extreme, not because they don't like business as usual.
Just because Cruz might be a break from "business as usual," it doesn't mean in a good way or in the way Americans seek. Shutting the government down to grandstand was a change from the status quo, and it accomplished nothing positive.
There is a difference between Cam Newton style of breaking from the status quo, and the fat kid that takes his ball and goes home style of breaking from the status quo. Ted Cruz is no Cam Newton.
You're right about that. Change is good, but change needs to be managed or you're going to break things. The status quo is slow, managed change. And in any case, even slow, managed change under Cruz is change in the wrong direction, imo. I respect Cruz's shrewdness, but I think his value set is all messed up and pretty much diametrically opposite to what I want.
There would be no change under Hillary Clinton, except for an increase in the corruption and the lawlessness, even over what we have now, as hard as that might be to imagine.
Have you been following her investigation by the FBI? Seriously, feel free to read what you write before you post.
<iframe width="754" height="468" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vt-vG_TdOT4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
