Then Suddenly... Ted Talked


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

It all depends on what your priorities are...

If your priority is to stop Trump then voting for Hilary is your best and most likely option.

If your priority is to stop Hilary then voting for Trump is your best and most likely option. 

I find both of these mindsets to be perfectly understandable.

I don't see it as a flip flop to have declared that one is no good... then later on as the race clarifies to realize the other option is even worst, so then openly support the one you initially declared was no good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no fan of Trump but I would have been okay with Ted Cruz endorsing Trump a couple weeks ago. However, I feel that he was pressured into it and that it wasn't really something he wanted to do. 

It doesnt bother me that he endorsed Trump. What bothers me is that he caved under the pressure of Reince Priebus and the Republican leaders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read Ted Cruz' full statement below.  Those 6 policy differences that Cruz stated below are ONLY 6 of the policies that I, myself, agree with Trump on.  There are many others.  I am not supporting Trump as a protest vote against Clinton.

 

This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history.  Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.  

In Cleveland, I urged voters “please, don’t stay home in November.  Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. 

I’ve made this decision for two reasons.  First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee.  And I intend to keep my word.

Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable – that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.

Six key policy differences inform my decision. 

First, and most important, the Supreme Court.  For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights—free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment—the Court hangs in the balance.  I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution.  We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices.  We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue.  Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”

For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees – including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice – and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list.  This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.

Second, Obamacare.  The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans.  If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare.  Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation.  Trump has said he would sign it.

Third, energy.  Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry.  Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.

Fourth, immigration.  Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty.  Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders. 

Fifth, national security.  Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism.  She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists.  Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees. 

Sixth, Internet freedom.  Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran.  Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.

These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.

If Clinton wins, we know—with 100% certainty—that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.

My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.

We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom—including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.

Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.  

The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law.  And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.

Our country is in crisis.  Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans.  And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.

A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's Scott Adams (of Gilbert comic strip fame) endorsement of Trump (he was a Hillary supporter not too long ago):

As most of you know, I had been endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety, because I live in California. It isn’t safe to be a Trump supporter where I live. And it’s bad for business too. But recently I switched my endorsement to Trump, and I owe you an explanation. So here it goes.

1. Things I Don’t Know: There are many things I don’t know. For example, I don’t know the best way to defeat ISIS. Neither do you. I don’t know the best way to negotiate trade policies. Neither do you. I don’t know the best tax policy to lift all boats. Neither do you. My opinion on abortion is that men should follow the lead of women on that topic because doing so produces the most credible laws. So on most political topics, I don’t know enough to make a decision. Neither do you, but you probably think you do. 

Given the uncertainty about each candidate – at least in my own mind – I have been saying I am not smart enough to know who would be the best president. That neutrality changed when Clinton proposed raising estate taxes. I understand that issue and I view it as robbery by government. 

I’ll say more about that, plus some other issues I do understand, below.

2. Confiscation of Property: Clinton proposed a new top Estate Tax of 65% on people with net worth over $500 million. Her website goes to great length to obscure the actual policy details, including the fact that taxes would increase on lower value estates as well. See the total lack of transparency here, where the text simply refers to going back to 2009 rates. It is clear that the intent of the page is to mislead, not inform.

So don’t fall for the claim that Clinton has plenty of policy details on her website. She does, but it is organized to mislead, not to inform. That’s far worse than having no details.

The bottom line is that under Clinton’s plan, estate taxes would be higher for anyone with estates over $5 million(ish). I call this a confiscation tax because income taxes have already been paid on this money. In my case, a dollar I earn today will be taxed at about 50% by various government entities, collectively. With Clinton’s plan, my remaining 50 cents will be taxed again at 50% when I die. So the government would take 75% of my earnings from now on.

Yes, I can do clever things with trusts to avoid estate taxes. But that is just welfare for lawyers. If the impact of the estate tax is nothing but higher fees for my attorney, and hassle for me, that isn’t good news either.

You can argue whether an estate tax is fair or unfair, but fairness is an argument for idiots and children. Fairness isn’t an objective quality of the universe. I oppose the estate tax because I was born to modest means and worked 7-days a week for most of my life to be in my current position. (I’m working today, Sunday, as per usual.) And I don’t want to give 75% of my earnings to the government. (Would you?)

3. Party or Wake: It seems to me that Trump supporters are planning for the world’s biggest party on election night whereas Clinton supporters seem to be preparing for a funeral. I want to be invited to the event that doesn’t involve crying and moving to Canada. (This issue isn’t my biggest reason.)

4. Clinton’s Health: To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn’t look sufficiently healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country. If you disagree, take a look at the now-famous “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead” video clip. Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too, and Hillary wouldn’t be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side.

5. Pacing and Leading: Trump always takes the extreme position on matters of safety and security for the country, even if those positions are unconstitutional, impractical, evil, or something that the military would refuse to do. Normal people see this as a dangerous situation. Trained persuaders like me see this as something called pacing and leading. Trump “paces” the public – meaning he matches them in their emotional state, and then some. He does that with his extreme responses on immigration, fighting ISIS, stop-and-frisk, etc. Once Trump has established himself as the biggest bad-ass on the topic, he is free to “lead,” which we see him do by softening his deportation stand, limiting his stop-and-frisk comment to Chicago, reversing his first answer on penalties for abortion, and so on. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump look scary. If you understand pacing and leading, you might see him as the safest candidate who has ever gotten this close to the presidency. That’s how I see him.

So when Clinton supporters ask me how I could support a “fascist,” the answer is that he isn’t one. Clinton’s team, with the help of Godzilla, have effectively persuaded the public to see Trump as scary. The persuasion works because Trump’s “pacing” system is not obvious to the public. They see his “first offers” as evidence of evil. They are not. They are technique.

And being chummy with Putin is more likely to keep us safe, whether you find that distasteful or not. Clinton wants to insult Putin into doing what we want. That approach seems dangerous as hell to me.

6. Persuasion: Economies are driven by psychology. If you expect things to go well tomorrow, you invest today, which causes things to go well tomorrow, as long as others are doing the same. The best kind of president for managing the psychology of citizens – and therefore the economy – is a trained persuader. You can call that persuader a con man, a snake oil salesman, a carnival barker, or full of shit. It’s all persuasion. And Trump simply does it better than I have ever seen anyone do it.

The battle with ISIS is also a persuasion problem. The entire purpose of military action against ISIS is to persuade them to stop, not to kill every single one of them. We need military-grade persuasion to get at the root of the problem. Trump understands persuasion, so he is likely to put more emphasis in that area.

Most of the job of president is persuasion. Presidents don’t need to understand policy minutia. They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public. Trump sells better than anyone you have ever seen, even if you haven’t personally bought into him yet. You can’t deny his persuasion talents that have gotten him this far.

In summary, I don’t understand the policy details and implications of most of either Trump’s or Clinton’s proposed ideas. Neither do you. But I do understand persuasion. I also understand when the government is planning to confiscate the majority of my assets. And I can also distinguish between a deeply unhealthy person and a healthy person, even though I have no medical training. (So can you.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Law school offers so few compensations in life . . .

"I don't believe in anything anymore. I'm going to law school!!!!!"-Jimbo Jones, The Simpsons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2016 at 11:39 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Methinks this is the result of a good cop/bad cop routine by Pence and Priebus.  Doesn't change my opinion on Trump, though it makes me pity Cruz more and trust him less.

Cruz pretty much had to endorse him.  All the R nominees signed a pledge, so either your honor your word or you don't. Cruz and Kasich decided to not honor the pledge; Cruz finally saw the light and decided to honor it.  I don't have much respect (if any for Cruz) but I will give him a little credit for this.

The right thing for Cruz to have done is to have initially never signed a pledge (just like Trump initially never signed a pledge-and then he did). You don't want to support the nominee, that's fine-then don't sign a pledge and repeat in front of millions that your will support whoever is the nominee. Saying you'll support whoever it is and then later changing your mind to not support them doesn't make you principled  . . .it makes you a weasel. 

Side note: (I'd personally prefer that all the candidates had just said, no I'm not going to sign a stupid pledge), but they did so and said so multiple times publicly in front of millions-so they should honor their word or they are just slimeball politicians, willing to do and say anything to get elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Cruz pretty much had to endorse him.  All the R nominees signed a pledge, so either your honor your word or you don't. Cruz and Kasich decided to not honor the pledge; Cruz finally saw the light and decided to honor it.  I don't have much respect (if any for Cruz) but I will give him a little credit for this.

The right thing for Cruz to have done is to have initially never signed a pledge (just like Trump initially never signed a pledge-and then he did). You don't want to support the nominee, that's fine-then don't sign a pledge and repeat in front of millions that your will support whoever is the nominee. Saying you'll support whoever it is and then later changing your mind to not support them doesn't make you principled  . . .it makes you a weasel. 

Side note: (I'd personally prefer that all the candidates had just said, no I'm not going to sign a stupid pledge), but they did so and said so multiple times publicly in front of millions-so they should honor their word or they are just slimeball politicians, willing to do and say anything to get elected.

I've (hesitantly) defended the idea of such pledges in the past (see, e.g., here); but I think in modern political history there has been an assumption that there would be certain Rubicons that would not be crossed during the campaign.  The 2016 Republican primary challenged a lot of those assumptions, and of course Trump released Cruz and Kasich from their pledges in March with the assurance that he neither needed nor wanted their support.  Cruz's withholding his support, in the wake of those developments, doesn't strike me as particularly dishonorable--certainly no more so than, say, a bankruptcy filing.  :itwasntme:  But he himself then sanctimoniously giving us the "I'm just keepin' my promise" schtick--to me it just makes his prior conduct look petulant, and his reversal feeble.

And yeah, given that the old expectations for what is deemed "off-limits" are pretty much dead and buried (Trump hammered the final nail in the coffin, but by no means the first one), I think anyone who takes a similar pledge in 2020 is probably taking a sucker's bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share