An excellent post, jo mama. Unsurprisingly, you're getting the usual response ignoring your post and spouting this week's talking points for the Far Right. Happens to me all the time. http://n.pr/1Ol5yxN
I don't watch news on television at all, TV is for entertainment. I generally don't consume internet-based news which would tend towards name calling. Care to go for strike three?
oh it's not limited to leftists, many members of the existing power structure feel that way about him
Rick Perry endorsing Cruz after Sarah Palin endorsing Trump. SMH... Interesting to note Trump is overtaking Cruz in Iowa caucus polling. Since Cruz supporters seemed to put a lot of weight in the Iowa caucus (ignoring NH which was always strong for Trump), I wonder if the Cruz campaign is worrying?
I thought according to you guys, I was supposed to be jorge. How many jorges do you think there are around here anyway?
Name calling is a time honored tradition of American Politics, some of the most venile attacks ever were from our Founding Fathers, albeit , they were usually more clever than today. But yes we do get testy at the thought of a regressive theocracy in these United States in 2016, at the same time that a misguided theocracy is threatening the advancement of civilization on the planet. The path of exclusionary religious based government is almost always a recipe for civil discord. When dominion is given to an omnipotent voice that no one hears, only the delusional are left to decide what truth is.
And not according to this compilation of recent polls: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/ted-cruz-favorable-rating
With all due respect, you aren't remotely like Trader_J. If I'm wrong and you are, I've been fooled. He is much more erudite.
Cruz totally mis-calculated Iowa. GOP voters in Iowa ask the same question as most other voters. "What's in it for me?" Cruz's ethanol stance just screwed him.
My initial impression was that yeah, corn subsidies are bad. It's leading to not only Iowa having WAY too much political power, but it floods the food market with corn (generally bad for us and livestock), and it's generally an inefficient way to produce power that doesn't have a ton of environment merits to it. But apparently that's just the short-term. The long-term plan was never for corn to rule the landscape in energy... corn was merely a flashpoint for biofuels. It was meant to be a stepping stone for development of cellulosic ethanol. Science takes time and the biofuel opposition hasn't been doing it many favors. So in the meantime it makes corn a convenient scapegoat for conservative fundamentalist tea party nutters like Rand and Cruz who like to rage about big gubbermint while probably lining their pockets with anti-ethanol special interest money.
I don't know about that. I think he's taking a gamble on his stance on ethanol. He's betting he'll get more benefit from the position in places not so dependent on corn markets than he'll lose from corn states. Even while rural voters in Iowa and Illinois turn against him, conservatives in many other places say, "look, Cruz can't be bought!" (lol). Every other Republican can be bought, apparently, so he differentiates himself as the true free market candidate. Even I like him better for it, and I think he's a sociopath. It might cost him Iowa, but it might help him elsewhere.
Cruz GOP presidential bid aided by billionaire donors https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...urce=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
