View Full Version : Ted Cruz signs up for Obamacare
Bilge_Rat
03-25-15, 03:31 PM
Ted Cruz — one of the Affordable Care Act’s harshest critics — announced Tuesday that he would be signing up for health insurance under President Barack Obama’s signature legislation.
The Texas Republican senator, who declared his candidacy for president in 2016 on Monday, previously received a very generous health insurance package through his wife Heidi Cruz’s employer, the investment bank Goldman Sachs.
Now that Mrs. Cruz is reportedly (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-23/cruz-s-wife-heidi-said-to-take-unpaid-leave-from-goldman)taking an unpaid leave from work to help her husband’s campaign, the family has decided to obtain its insurance on federal exchanges.
Cruz told (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/24/ted-cruz-health-insurance-obamacare/70384334/)the Des Moines Register Tuesday, “We will presumably go on the exchange and sign up for health care.” He then confirmed that he would sign up in an interview (https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/580458306407428096)with CNN’s Dana Bash.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ted-cruz-enroll-obamacare-116363.html?ml=po
Can you spell I-R-O-N-Y?
mr. "let's-shut-down-the-govt-to-kill-Obamacare" is now signing up for it, because he lost his wife's health plan?
WTF!?!?
:rotfl2:
And just after announcing his intent to run too. :hmmm:
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/files/8213/7598/8426/8-7-13-Ted-Cruz-blog.jpg
The GOP really need to try harder, what's Christie up to these days? He was about the only one who looked like he had a good shot at presidency.
Platapus
03-25-15, 04:45 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ted-cruz-enroll-obamacare-116363.html?ml=po
Can you spell I-R-O-N-Y?
mr. "let's-shut-down-the-govt-to-kill-Obamacare" is now signing up for it, because he lost his wife's health plan?
WTF!?!?
:rotfl2:
Just because I am *that* type of annoying person who has no friends, it is not irony, but hypocrisy.
As an added question, is Cruz paying "full freight" or did he qualify for a government subsidy?... :hmmm:
<O>
Guess someone will say he have seen the light
Then some will say-he has lost his mind.
Markus
He might find that he likes it after spending so long fighting against it.
Hey, that would make a good theme for a children's book.
Guess someone will say he have seen the light
Then some will say-he has lost his mind.
Markus
Cruz is a Tea Party Republican; the latter applies...
<O>
em2nought
03-25-15, 06:30 PM
Cruz is a Tea Party Republican; the latter applies...
<O>
If US politics was a "hand" the democrats would be an index finger and the republicans would be a middle finger, there are no Tea Party republicans. The powers that be are both BIG gov't parties, Libertarians are closer to the Tea Party than republicans. The Tea Party should ban any reference to religion by it's members(should have always been about fiscal responsibility) in order to succeed. :up:
CaptainHaplo
03-25-15, 07:00 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ted-cruz-enroll-obamacare-116363.html?ml=po
Can you spell I-R-O-N-Y?
mr. "let's-shut-down-the-govt-to-kill-Obamacare" is now signing up for it, because he lost his wife's health plan?
WTF!?!?
:rotfl2:
From the same article you posted...
Because of an amendment to the Affordable Care Act championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), members of Congress not covered by Medicare must receive their government-funded health care via exchanges like millions of other Americans who are not afforded insurance directly by their employers.
Emphasis added....
So to answer your "WTF!?!?" question - its called following the law.
Perhaps you would rather him be like a certain Democrat President who continually ignores the law? Would that make it better?
The fact that a politician actually follows the law and does what is required (regardless of whether he agrees with the whole fiasco) is somehow something to be mocked just goes to show how partisan some people are.
Any other silly questions?
Interesting...
So, he follows a law he wishes to abolish...
I guess taking a solid stand is something he is not inclined to do?...
<O>
Platapus
03-25-15, 07:12 PM
Interesting...
So, he follows a law he wishes to abolish...
I guess taking a solid stand is something he is not inclined to do?...
<O>
Well there is a name for a person who would not follow a law they wish to abolish -- criminal.
CaptainHaplo
03-25-15, 07:15 PM
Vienna - from the same article....
Cruz still vehemently opposes the Affordable Care Act. I am vehemently opposed to income taxes. I still have to pay it. I often don't agree with speed limits that are posted. I still am expected to follow those laws regardless of my opposition to them. The list goes on and on.
Cruz still has his stand - he is and will continue to try to have the ACA repealed. Until then - he is bound by law to conform and abide by the requirements of the ACA.
So I will put it this way:
Should he abide by the law and fight against it - or should he break the law and be no better than the lawless president who he continually opposes?
I know which I would prefer from a leader. I want one who respects law - even the ones he doesn't like. Otherwise - what is to stop him from ignoring the laws he doesn't like - like Obama currently does?
Vienna - from the same article....
I am vehemently opposed to income taxes. I still have to pay it. I often don't agree with speed limits that are posted. I still am expected to follow those laws regardless of my opposition to them. The list goes on and on.
Cruz still has his stand - he is and will continue to try to have the ACA repealed. Until then - he is bound by law to conform and abide by the requirements of the ACA.
So I will put it this way:
Should he abide by the law and fight against it - or should he break the law and be no better than the lawless president who he continually opposes?
I know which I would prefer from a leader. I want one who respects law - even the ones he doesn't like. Otherwise - what is to stop him from ignoring the laws he doesn't like - like Obama currently does?
The only problem with your defense of Cruz is, like any other opportunistic politician, he's presenting himself in a way that, shall we say, skirts the truth for his own advantage:
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/03/25/3638697/ted-cruz-wants-believe-hes-legally-required-sign-obamacare-hes-totally-wrong/
Based on the options open to Cruz, his "having" to accept "Obama Care" is either a self-known lie or a complete ignorance of the very law he wishes to abolish...
It causes one to wonder: is he a liar or grossly incompetent? Either is scarcely a selling point for his candidacy...
<O>
Platapus
03-25-15, 07:45 PM
It causes one to wonder: is he a liar or grossly incompetent? Either is scarcely a selling point for his candidacy...
<O>
You mention liar and incompetent like it was something unusual in politics. :D
I have to ask, have we had any politician recently that was not a slimy POS? It is part of the job and for all I know, it may actually be a realistic qualification for being a politician.
You mention liar and incompetent like it was something unusual in politics. :D
I have to ask, have we had any politician recently that was not a slimy POS? It is part of the job and for all I know, it may actually be a realistic qualification for being a politician.
I agree with your assessment of politicians. Since I am of neither Party, nor any party, for that matter, I look at the whole matter as, basically, a choice of the lesser of given evils...
The so-called "honest" politician really doesn't stand a chance in politics. Look at the last President elected on the basis he was an honest breath of fresh air after the stench of Nixon/Ford, Jimmy Carter. He was eaten alive by DC. He was a person who never should have even been nominated, let alone elected. I do admire and appreciate what he has done since leaving office. His humanitarian work makes him the most productive post-White House-occupant, probably ever in the history of the Presidency. But, he was a disaster as a President, scarcely more effectual than Ford who preceded him. Except for the Israel-Egypt Accord, there really is not much to say about the Carter years...
The sorry, sad, truth is we can only choose the one who will be the least detrimental to the interests of the US citizenry. Bill O'Reilly was on letterman last night and the candidacy of Cruz was discussed. O'Reilly said he did not believe Cruz would win the nomination. I also tend to think Cruz will function as the circus sideshow until they roll out the real circus acts. I further believe Cruz will most likely find himself having to fend off some very serious attacks on his personal dealing, generated not by the Dems, but by the members of his very own GOP. The GOP leadership (two words that evoke an oxymoron) is going to try to systematically excise the Tea Party influence from its final campaign since so much of the TP's policies are politically toxic when the GOP is trying to lure away voters from the Dems...
<O>
VipertheSniper
03-26-15, 05:54 AM
From the same article you posted...
Emphasis added....
So to answer your "WTF!?!?" question - its called following the law.
Perhaps you would rather him be like a certain Democrat President who continually ignores the law? Would that make it better?
The fact that a politician actually follows the law and does what is required (regardless of whether he agrees with the whole fiasco) is somehow something to be mocked just goes to show how partisan some people are.
Any other silly questions?
That's what he wants you to believe, but it's bull...
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/03/25/3638697/ted-cruz-wants-believe-hes-legally-required-sign-obamacare-hes-totally-wrong/
Edit: guess vienna beat me to it.
Armistead
03-26-15, 06:49 AM
i hate obummer care, he said i could keep my insurance, but i lost it because it didn't meet the standards of obummer care, so i had to find an obummer care insurance policy........so i hate it, but because of the law must partake in it....oh and i lost my specialist neurologist and now have to drive 2 hours to see another one....
http://img.pandawhale.com/post-58317-thanks-Obama-cookie-milk-gif-I-79yU.gif
Tchocky
03-26-15, 07:13 AM
i hate obummer care, he said i could keep my insurance, but i lost it because it didn't meet the standards of obummer care, so i had to find an obummer care insurance policy........so i hate it, but because of the law must partake in it....oh and i lost my specialist neurologist and now have to drive 2 hours to see another one....
OBUMMER! HILARIOUS!
Bilge_Rat
03-26-15, 08:27 AM
From the same article you posted...
Emphasis added....
So to answer your "WTF!?!?" question - its called following the law.
Perhaps you would rather him be like a certain Democrat President who continually ignores the law? Would that make it better?
The fact that a politician actually follows the law and does what is required (regardless of whether he agrees with the whole fiasco) is somehow something to be mocked just goes to show how partisan some people are.
Any other silly questions?
hahemmm....
But this isn’t a case of following the law or not. The law does not require Cruz to get health insurance on the exchanges. Instead of going through the exchanges, he could have paid the tax penalty for not having insurance, “likely cheaper than buying an insurance plan,” (http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8285875/ted-cruz-obamacare-enrollment) but at the cost of being uninsured. Or his wife could have applied to COBRA (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-consumer-cobra.html) and extended her benefits from Goldman Sachs for up to 18 months, though she would have to pay all of the premium. Or he could bypass the exchanges and buy insurance directly from a private insurer. Sure, he’d have to spend time navigating the market himself, but I’m sure the Princeton graduate can figure it out.
Each of these options would cost Cruz time, money or both. But several Republican representatives already have purchased insurance without going through the exchanges (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/12/09/whats-congress-doing-about-its-own-health-care/), so it is clearly possible. Yes, Cruz would have to purchase a plan that meets minimum standards established under Obamacare (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/qualified-health-plan/), but anyone who thinks that someone with his resources would otherwise buy a plan with excessive co-pays or skimpy coverage is fooling themselves. And Cruz is rejecting the government’s employer contribution, even though he is entitled to it as a member of Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/16/did-obama-exempt-1200-groups-including-congress-from-obamacare/). That is thousands of dollars a year, and accepting it would still be following the law. So Cruz clearly has already made the decision to spend lots of money to make a symbolic stand. Why not follow through on that and avoid the Obamacare exchanges?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/25/yes-ted-cruz-is-a-hypocrite-for-going-on-obamacare/
emphasis added...any other silly comment? :ping:
Cruz's excuse is the lamest I have seen in a long time.
Typical case of do what I say, not what I do. Cruz was perfectly happy to remove insurance coverage from millions of poor americans as long as he had his wife's gold plated Goldman Sachs plan.
BTW, this is not a partisan issue, Cruz has broad bi-partisan support, a lot of Democrats really hope he will be the GOP nominee. :D
Wolferz
03-26-15, 09:25 AM
Just what we need...
A preachy president.:down:
The guy sounds like he's preaching from a pulpit every time he speaks.:nope:
AVGWarhawk
03-26-15, 11:16 AM
No worries. Soon it will be Hillarycare. :doh:
No worries. Soon it will be Hillarycare. :doh:
Hillarycare or Clintoncare? The last sound very weird or creepy! :D
GoldenRivet
03-26-15, 11:53 AM
guys, his reason for signing up for it is very specific
when he fights it - it cant be used against him that: "Easy for you to shut it down because you wont be one of those affected by losing it."
except yes.... yes he will be one of those affected by losing it.
:salute:
this is a preemptive move on his part
CaptainHaplo
03-26-15, 01:01 PM
hahemmm....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/25/yes-ted-cruz-is-a-hypocrite-for-going-on-obamacare/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/25/yes-ted-cruz-is-a-hypocrite-for-going-on-obamacare/)
Again - emphasis added.
Quoting a news source is good. Quoting a political blog - not so much... A blog is an opinion - not fact.
Cruz's excuse is the lamest I have seen in a long time. Again - an opinion. Your welcome to it - but it still isn't fact. Try arguing facts and you might get somewhere.
Typical case of do what I say, not what I do. Cruz was perfectly happy to remove insurance coverage from millions of poor americans as long as he had his wife's gold plated Goldman Sachs plan.
Ahh - you mean the gold plated plan that he and his family PAY for? As compared to the "millions of poor americans" that expect insurance coverage paid for by everyone else through tax dollars? You don't get more "gold plated" than getting something and having others pay for it.
BTW, this is not a partisan issue, Cruz has broad bi-partisan support, a lot of Democrats really hope he will be the GOP nominee. :D
And that would be why you refer specifically to a clearly partisan website, partisan opinion blogs and why you spew left wing talking points about "millions of poor" who are freeloading off of the government, right? Cuz you are clearly non-partisan on this topic.
Also - note GR's response - he is dead on. Being able to point to personal experience of his own on how screwball the entire thing is simply bolsters his credentials to fight it.
If a lot of the left hoped he would be the GOP nominee - you wouldn't see the left leaning press trying so hard to use this issue to discredit him. So go ahead - pull our other leg....
Onkel Neal
03-26-15, 01:32 PM
Halpo, I would vote for you.:up:
Bilge_Rat
03-26-15, 01:46 PM
Haplo, your personal opinion about Obamacare is irrelevant to this topic.
Ted Cruz is a clown.
Now, if you want a clown for President, that is of course your constitutional right...:ping:
nikimcbee
03-26-15, 02:01 PM
We already have the job filled. CiC.
http://tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com/images/various_uploads/Clown_Shirts_Models_Hats.jpg
CaptainHaplo
03-26-15, 02:24 PM
Ted Cruz is a clown.
Spoken as fact, but you didn't include a source for said fact. Do you have non-photoshopped pictures of him in costume? Perhaps you have filed a FOIA request for his clown college grades? Or are you simply spewing more "I can't argue with the policies because I will lose, so I simply will go for route of personal denigration and destruction"?
Yea... I thought so.
I think I've finally figured it out.
http://cdn5.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ted-cruz-tea-party-star-senator-elect-and-white-house-hopeful.jpg
Joseph McCarthy
http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/joseph_mccarthy1.jpg
Ted Cruz
Bilge_Rat
03-26-15, 04:02 PM
Spoken as fact, but you didn't include a source for said fact.
since you asked...
http://i60.tinypic.com/14mt8qb.jpg
:ping:
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/03/25/3638697/ted-cruz-wants-believe-hes-legally-required-sign-obamacare-hes-totally-wrong/
The Affordable Care Act does not compel members of Congress to enroll in DC’s health care exchange; it simply cuts off the government contribution to their insurance plans if they buy their policies elsewhere. “The final rule extends a Government contribution towards health benefits plans for Members of Congress and designated congressional staff so long as the health benefits plans are purchased via the appropriate SHOP as determined by the Director,” a summary of the final rule says.
So, since Cruz is apparently using an "Obama Care" insurance plan, and is also apparently enjoying a government 'contribution' (our tax dollars, for those who aren't fully aware of where the 'contribution' originates), does this make him one of those persons leeching off government entitlements the Far Right so reviles? I rather expect him to sign up for Food Stamps next... :haha:
BTW, it should be noted in a prior post attribution for the amendment to the Health Care Act putting Cruz in his present position was championed by Sen. Grassley of Iowa, a fellow GOP Senate member. Perhaps his ire should be vented at the person really responsible for his 'dilemma'...
<O>
CaptainHaplo
03-26-15, 04:59 PM
since you asked...
Ahh a photoshopped internet picture... Well you saw it on the interwebz so it must be twue - unless its not.
Again - instead of debating the issues, your all about mocking an individual. No wonder the left lost so badly last election and is going to get clobbered in the presidential election IF the "right" actually puts a conservative up for president.
Don't worry - the establishment doesn't want a conservative running so cruz has to fight a headwind.
Platapus
03-26-15, 07:09 PM
It has been a very long time since I was able to vote for a candidate. It always seems more like voting against the opponent.
The lessor of two evils is a cruddy way to elect our representatives. :nope:
Tally Ho
03-26-15, 11:35 PM
So the law now compels us to purchase health insurance compliant with byzantine and sometimes nonsensical government standards, and because Senator Cruz chooses to comply with the law he is a 'hypocrite'. Right, got it.
If he'd paid the fine instead, he'd be accused by the 'progressives' of being a heartless bastard who puts his wife's health at risk.
If he'd bought a non-O-care plan, he'd be accused by the 'progressives' of being a rich bastard who can afford to rail against Obamacare since he can clearly afford a non-O-care plan.
If he self-insured... oh wait... we're not allowed to do that any more in this 'free' country....
So he gets an O-care plan, complies with the law, and is ridiculed for that, too.
Let's face it, the so-called progressives would criticize him regardless of what he did simply because Senator Cruz challenges their ruling class and their state-centric orthodoxy.
AngusJS
03-27-15, 01:55 AM
Leave Cruz alone! He's being persecuted just like Galileo was when he said that the world was round!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/26/ted-cruz-invokes-galileo-to-defend-his-climate-skepticism-and-historians-arent-happy/
VipertheSniper
03-27-15, 05:08 AM
So the law now compels us to purchase health insurance compliant with byzantine and sometimes nonsensical government standards, and because Senator Cruz chooses to comply with the law he is a 'hypocrite'. Right, got it.
If he'd paid the fine instead, he'd be accused by the 'progressives' of being a heartless bastard who puts his wife's health at risk.
If he'd bought a non-O-care plan, he'd be accused by the 'progressives' of being a rich bastard who can afford to rail against Obamacare since he can clearly afford a non-O-care plan.
If he self-insured... oh wait... we're not allowed to do that any more in this 'free' country....
So he gets an O-care plan, complies with the law, and is ridiculed for that, too.
Let's face it, the so-called progressives would criticize him regardless of what he did simply because Senator Cruz challenges their ruling class and their state-centric orthodoxy.
Way to miss the point...
Cruz made it out like he had no other choice but to go get Obamacare, which simply isn't true. That's where most of the criticism is coming from.
I think most here couldn't care less where or how he's insured.
He has a whole lot of other options, where he would not be breaking the law either.
Bilge_Rat
03-27-15, 06:14 AM
Again - instead of debating the issues, your all about mocking an individual.
I am debating the issue, the issue being whether Cruz is a hypocrite. I say that Cruz is a hypocrite.
Do you think a GOP politician from Texas who campaigns against a law as immoral and unjust who then turns around and announces he will use its benefits when it is to his financial benefit when he has no obligation to do so is a Hypocrite? Yes or No.
Certainly, it is a dumb and stupid political move, so at the very least Cruz is a dumb and stupid politician - but pretty much everyone other than his supporters already knew that. :ping:
As to Cruz, some people are so easy to mock, he sets himself up all on his own, you just have to report the facts - Beauty. :arrgh!:
Wolferz
03-27-15, 07:58 AM
Invoke the HIPPA.:haha:
http://new4.fjcdn.com/gifs/Obama_aef20a_5452092.gif
Onkel Neal
03-27-15, 08:35 AM
I think I've finally figured it out.
Man, you sure get a lot of mileage out of Joseph McCarthy :haha:
Man, you sure get a lot of mileage out of Joseph McCarthy :haha:
Well, someone has to! :O:
Subnuts
03-27-15, 09:23 AM
Hey, if your face was half as punchable as Ted Cruz's, you'd want health insurance, too. :woot:
Perhaps he's insuring himself on the GOP sending out hit-squads? :haha:
One thing going for Cruz , is that after he loses the election, he will get a job with Fox news as the new authority on politics here in the states. From the losers perspective that is!:D
CaptainHaplo
03-27-15, 12:04 PM
I am debating the issue, the issue being whether Cruz is a hypocrite. I say that Cruz is a hypocrite.
You have spent more time mocking the man than dealing with that issue. But since you asked this question:
Do you think a GOP politician from Texas who campaigns against a law as immoral and unjust who then turns around and announces he will use its benefits when it is to his financial benefit when he has no obligation to do so is a Hypocrite? Yes or No.
No.
Since a debate is more than yes or no - here is why I disagree with you.
He is making a political calculation to use a system he believes is flawed so he is better placed to point out its internal shortcomings. As GR pointed out, having used the system he will be speaking from experience which is something other many other critics will not have. Note he wants to get rid of the system still - meaning that while you point out he gets a financial benefit - its a benefit he is ENTITLED to due to his job as a Senator and he is willing to risk losing it to get rid of the ACA.
When a man has skin in the game and is willing to risk losing that interest to change a flawed system - it gives him more credibility with people who are not already set against him politically.
Certainly, it is a dumb and stupid political move, so at the very least Cruz is a dumb and stupid politician - but pretty much everyone other than his supporters already knew that. :ping:
It is a calculated move and one that time will show whether it was "dumb and stupid" or not. So is Hillary a "dumb and stupid" politician since she has made multiple dumb and stupid decisions? How about Obama?
Again you are attacking the man - not his policies. If you think his decisions are dumb and stupid - list them and debate them - instead of simply calling the man pejoratives....
Let me show you the difference:
A) I disagree with Obama on the ACA, lifting sanctions on Iran and letting them get a nuke, his executive amnesty and a number of other of his actions, failures and policies. Because of this, I am not a political supporter of Obama.
vs.
B) Obamacare is stoopid. Obama has big ears and looks like a clown. He picked Joe Biden for VP and Joe Biden is stoopid. That must mean Obama is stoopid. Obama is a clown.
Option A is a substantive argument that can be debated, whereas option B is mere rhetorical claptrap. Which brings us to...
As to Cruz, some people are so easy to mock, he sets himself up all on his own, you just have to report the facts - Beauty. :arrgh!:
Yet when you mocked - and were challenged for a source, all you could do was post a photo-shopped picture from the interwebz. You say some people are so easy to mock - but you can't resist going for the low hanging fruit of "option B". Is that because in general the Left can't win debates using option A?
Sure seems like it.
Tchocky
03-27-15, 12:21 PM
Is that because in general the Left can't win debates using option A?
Sure seems like it.
Damn lefties are all the same. They can't argue so they use insults instead.
Betonov
03-27-15, 12:29 PM
He is making a political calculation to use a system he believes is flawed so he is better placed to point out its internal shortcomings. As GR pointed out, having used the system he will be speaking from experience which is something other many other critics will not have.
So how certain are you he will actually make a critisism based on experience and not just go in to nitpick, quote mine and isolate shortcomings and ignore anything positive.
He's calculating to have the ''I've been there...'' argument which won't convince anyone that's not already dead stuborn about the issue.
I can go to the US for 3 months, ignore the hospitality, openess of the people and food and return to Europe talking about how Americans are all dumb and fat and I'll be right because ''I've been there...''
AngusJS
03-27-15, 02:32 PM
Cruz was against Net Neutrality, saying it's "Obamacare for the internet." He doesn't think anthropogenic climate change is real, contrary to the vast majority of scientists studying it. This opposition he likens to the stand Galileo took against the Flat Earther majority of the time when he said the world was round. :doh: He advocates prayer in the defense of traditional marriage. Oh, and according to him, "detente" means surrender in French.
He's a clown.
He's a clown.
The sad thing is that a great swathe of America doesn't seem to think so.
Bodes well. :dead:
Man, you sure get a lot of mileage out of Joseph McCarthy :haha:
As I recall, so did Joe...
...and Dick Nixon...
<O>
Torplexed
03-27-15, 10:02 PM
The sad thing is that a great swathe of America doesn't seem to think so.
Bodes well. :dead:
Hey, this great suave of America thinks so. :D gocruz4clownprez.com
Oh, wait you said great swathe. :dead: Well, if you want the jackrabbit vote.
More seriously, I think few can dismiss the attraction Cruz has to the red-meat base of the GOP. He is Hispanic, a lawyer and legal eagle, and speaks to the most visceral of Republican fears regarding Obamacare, the deficit and social issues. But while that might be enough to get Cruz through Iowa it would likely cost him down the road in New Hampshire and perhaps South Carolina, where a sizable business wing of the GOP views him with hostility.
Cruz may not even be able to hold his largest constituency if Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum get in the race. If they do the evangelical wing of the party would split four ways in Iowa (Cruz, Huckabee, Walker, Santorum) and likely still be split in South Carolina. Without that vote there just does not seem to be a plausible route for Cruz to win the GOP nomination.
Assuming geographic swathes trump all, Cruz would certainly win some of the Southern primaries but lose heavily elsewhere.
One thing going for Cruz , is that after he loses the election, he will get a job with Fox news as the new authority on politics here in the states. From the losers perspective that is!:D
Yeah. I think that's the real plan. cruzfoxjob4life.com :dead:
CaptainHaplo
03-27-15, 10:24 PM
But while that might be enough to get Cruz through Iowa it would likely cost him down the road in New Hampshire and perhaps South Carolina, where a sizable business wing of the GOP views him with hostility.
Cruz may not even be able to hold his largest constituency if Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum get in the race. If they do the evangelical wing of the party would split four ways in Iowa (Cruz, Huckabee, Walker, Santorum) and likely still be split in South Carolina.
Assuming geographic swathes trump all, Cruz would certainly win some of the Southern primaries but lose heavily elsewhere.
Walker really is the biggest challenge to Cruz when it comes to the politicians getting into the race. Huckabee has been shown to actually be a progressive republican - read "establishment" - much more than he claims. He won't get anywhere with the base. Santorum is a nice guy, and probably could pull some of the "evangelical" vote - but I don't think he will run and if he does he won't be a major factor. The evangelical wing of the party isn't as focused on social issues as they are the reality that government has gotten out of hand on almost every issue.
The only other challenge to Cruz from the conservative side of the house other than Walker - will be Dr. Carson. Rand Paul will get some interest but he just isn't the communicator that Carson, Walker and Cruz are.
Any other folks jumping in are going to be a whole lot more "establishment" types, like Jeb Bush. They will have the money and the press on their side, but it will still be an uphill battle for them to get the conservative core to back them. Mainly because of their records and the continuing failures of establishment politicians like Boehner and McConnell.
Bilge_Rat
03-28-15, 07:57 AM
You have spent more time mocking the man than dealing with that issue.
yes, because he is a clown.
He is making a political calculation to use a system he believes is flawed so he is better placed to point out its internal shortcomings. As GR pointed out, having used the system he will be speaking from experience which is something other many other critics will not have. Note he wants to get rid of the system still - meaning that while you point out he gets a financial benefit - its a benefit he is ENTITLED to due to his job as a Senator and he is willing to risk losing it to get rid of the ACA.
When a man has skin in the game and is willing to risk losing that interest to change a flawed system - it gives him more credibility with people who are not already set against him politically. That has to be lamest excuse I have ever heard. Is that his "official" position now that everyone realizes he was lying when he said he was "forced" to sign on to "Obamacare" or the "Right" grasping at straws now that you realize his previous position was a lie.
Do you really think that as a Senator, he does not already have access to all the oppo research pointing out the flaws/problems with "Obamacare" all distilled and memoed by his aides?
Do you really think Senator Ted Cruz is going to shop for his health insurance personally?
If signing up for "Obamacare" was so important to his "credibility", why did he not do it two years ago when the law went into effect?
Why did he only realize it was 'important" for him to sign up for "Obamacare" after he lost his wife's gold plated Goldman, Sachs health plan?
The guy is an even bigger idiot than I thought.
So if I understand your new line of excuses:
-only women are qualified to rule on abortion rights, because they are the only ones that have "skin in the game"?
-only gays are qualified to rule on same-sex marriage rights, because they are the only ones that have "skin in the game"?
Yet when you mocked - and were challenged for a source, all you could do was post a photo-shopped picture from the interwebz. . Yes, I have many. Here is another one:
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRP0w8PnOkMTBCgw5TBUnIHx4T7N9spJ EFbH27t_OQoRDtwd9l90Q
want to see more? I have hundreds on that idiot.
CaptainHaplo
03-28-15, 10:10 AM
So if I understand your new line of excuses:
-only women are qualified to rule on abortion rights, because they are the only ones that have "skin in the game"?
-only gays are qualified to rule on same-sex marriage rights, because they are the only ones that have "skin in the game"?
This is where you prove you don't want to debate. Your too busy making huge leaps of illogic and trying to divert from the subject. You (and everyone else know what I stated. Here it is again:
it gives him more credibility with people who are not already set against him politically. To try and twist that into "ONLY" gays or women can discuss other issues (which bringing up other issues is your way of diverting attention from the topic itself) just shows how desperate you are to discredit anyone politically opposed to you.
yes, because he is a clown.
The guy is an even bigger idiot than I thought.
Yes, I have many. Here is another one:
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRP0w8PnOkMTBCgw5TBUnIHx4T7N9spJ EFbH27t_OQoRDtwd9l90Q
want to see more? I have hundreds on that idiot.
And so you continue with the photo-shopped images from the interwebz to "prove" your point. Especially when they make "quotes" attributed to people who didn't say them. I guess you are one of those that believe that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her back porch too - don't you? *Hint - she didn't. It was a skit on SNL and a quote by Tina Fey playing a Palin character..... *
When you are ready to debate ISSUES and FACTS instead of interwebz images and personal attacks, come back and perhaps a discussion can occur. Until then, you continue to prove the reality that you - like so many others on the left - are reduced to purely "Option B". Why else would you have "hundreds" of mocking interwebz images of someone you are politically opposed to? If you could debate the issues and facts - you wouldn't need those now would you?
Bilge_Rat
03-28-15, 12:48 PM
This is where you prove you don't want to debate. Your too busy making huge leaps of illogic and trying to divert from the subject. You (and everyone else know what I stated. Here it is again:
so you are not even able to counter my argument why that excuse, "he needs to buy Obamacare so he has skin in the game" is so lame?
To try and twist that into "ONLY" gays or women can discuss other issues (which bringing up other issues is your way of diverting attention from the topic itself) just shows how desperate you are to discredit anyone politically opposed to you. That is the logical conclusion to your line of reasoning, if he can only attack Obamacare if it affects him personally, then there are many issues from abortion rights to same sex marriage that will be off limit.
Again it shows what a feeble and desperate excuse it is.
I also see that again you are unable to logically counter my argument and instead throw up irrelevant factors.
And so you continue with the photo-shopped images from the interwebz to "prove" your point. Especially when they make "quotes" attributed to people who didn't say them. I guess you are one of those that believe that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her back porch too - don't you? *Hint - she didn't. It was a skit on SNL and a quote by Tina Fey playing a Palin character..... * yup, plenty of those around on that idiot, will be glad to put them up whenever you request one, i.e.:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2015/03/CRUZohman.gif
When you are ready to debate ISSUES and FACTS instead of interwebz images and personal attacks, come back and perhaps a discussion can occur. Until then, you continue to prove the reality that you - like so many others on the left - are reduced to purely "Option B". Why else would you have "hundreds" of mocking interwebz images of someone you are politically opposed to? If you could debate the issues and facts - you wouldn't need those now would you? I would be glad to debate issues if you actually had an argument that was not so easy to demolish. As it is, this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but most debates against you are like that anyway.
CaptainHaplo
03-28-15, 01:28 PM
so you are not even able to counter my argument why that excuse, "he needs to buy Obamacare so he has skin in the game" is so lame?
He doesn't need to - at least not for MOST people. It does provide credibility with people that are not like you and me - you know - people who are still not convinced either way. The reality that you can't fathom that shows how closed minded you have become to any position other than your own.
That is the logical conclusion to your line of reasoning, if he can only attack Obamacare if it affects him personally, then there are many issues from abortion rights to same sex marriage that will be off limit. Ok - I can play this game purely as a demonstration of how you are twisting the logic. No - using the same twisting you are trying to do, for example: The only people who are qualified to address marriage equality issues are people who have been married.
Again it shows what a feeble and desperate excuse it is. No - it shows how you are out of touch with others who are not in lockstep with you.
I also see that again you are unable to logically counter my argument and instead throw up irrelevant factors. If you had an argument that consisted of more than insulting people and posting interwebz images with false quotes, perhaps it would be worth addressing them. As for irrelevant factors - you are the one posting perjoratives and insults that do not add to a discussion or debate. Case in point:
yup, plenty of those around on that idiot, will be glad to put them up whenever you request one, i.e.: And after you spew yet more inanity, you just can't resist continuing "Option B" by laying out an personal insult aimed at me....
I would be glad to debate issues if you actually had an argument that was not so easy to demolish. As it is, this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but most debates against you are like that anyway.Every post you do more and more proving who the left really is. Twist words, divert from the issue, and when all else fails, personally attack whomever you disagree with. And yes - I am laughing at you. :haha:
Well, well, it seems the depths of chicanery of the Cruz campaign is deep indeed. That "enthusiastic" full house of students at Liberty University where Cruz announced his candidacy was there under duress in the form of a US$10.00 fine if they did not choose to attend:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/03/27/liberty-university-students-say-they-were-required-to-attend-ted-cruz-speech/
Mandatory attendance or fines at a place named "Liberty"; ironic, no?...
<O>
CaptainHaplo
03-29-15, 03:45 PM
Well, well, it seems the depths of chicanery of the Cruz campaign is deep indeed. That "enthusiastic" full house of students at Liberty University where Cruz announced his candidacy was there under duress in the form of a US$10.00 fine if they did not choose to attend:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/03/27/liberty-university-students-say-they-were-required-to-attend-ted-cruz-speech/
Do any leftists ever read more than a sensationalized title? It doesn't appear so, or they would have noticed the following in the article quoted:
Convocation is mandatory to students living on campus at risk of a $10 fine for failing to attend and
he was sternly reminded of school policy. He was required to attend a morning gathering that he is required to attend every morning - and the fine is there every morning. A long established school policy - not some dastardly "depths of chicanery" by Cruz.
Did you happen to miss this part of your article, or are you simply ignoring facts?
Many students wore political t-shirts in support of someone other than Cruz, Do you really think that if Cruz's campaign orchestrated this that would have been allowed?
Mandatory attendance or fines at a place named "Liberty"; ironic, no?... <O> No - and let's quote the article as to why.....
“they know coming into Liberty that they’re going to have to attend Convocation,” said Grace Hargraves, another sophomore. Liberty is a CHRISTIAN, PRIVATE university. Students are aware what Liberty stands for when they decide to attend.
Bilge_Rat
03-30-15, 06:23 AM
. And yes - I am laughing at you. :haha:
I've been laughing at you since the beginning of this thread. :har:
The argument about credibility is just as lame as the one about skin in the game.
First, no one has ever claimed he had no credibility to speak out against Obamacare because he was not a participant, people just claimed he has no credibility period. :ping:
Second, if he needs to sign up for Obamacare to have "credibility", why does he only realize that now, 2 years after the law has gone into effect and only when he loses his wife's gold plated Goldman Sachs health plan? Is he so dumb that it took him two years to realise "Duh! I've got to sign up for the plan" or is it just an excuse to cover up the fact that he decided to sign up for Obamacare once he realised it was a good financial move.
So which is it, is he a Hypocrite or an Idiot? :arrgh!:
Onkel Neal
03-30-15, 08:46 AM
Ok, this is getting too personal.
Bilge_Rat
03-30-15, 03:26 PM
Ok, this is getting too personal.
sorry Neal, got carried away..
..and CaptainHaplo too...
..and Ted Cruz, should he become president. :ping:
I think it is unrealistic to think that once the Republicans are back in charge, they will just remove the changes in the health care system in the US by the Democrats. The new health care system once it comes to full effect won't go away anymore.
Onkel Neal
03-30-15, 05:13 PM
sorry Neal, got carried away..
..and CaptainHaplo too...
..and Ted Cruz, should he become president. :ping:
Thanks, mate, very classy of you. :salute:
CaptainHaplo
03-30-15, 09:45 PM
The argument about credibility is just as lame as the one about skin in the game.
First, no one has ever claimed he had no credibility to speak out against Obamacare because he was not a participant, people just claimed he has no credibility period.
Some people. To state it more accurately, people who oppose his political positions are the most likely to claim he has no credibility. Given that they have a vested interest in opposing him, is that so surprising? That comment continues to indicate an out of touch with anyone other than those that agree mindset...
Second, if he needs to sign up for Obamacare to have "credibility", why does he only realize that now, 2 years after the law has gone into effect and only when he loses his wife's gold plated Goldman Sachs health plan? Mutliple reasons.
First, 2 years ago he already HAD insurance - that which you call "gold plated" (though I noticed you ignored the pointed reality that the poor are getting gold plated health care because it is paid for by others), which you should realize he and his family paid for. Something the poor don't do with the ACA. So for 2 years he had no REASON to change insurance.
Second - 2 years ago he was not actively running for PotUS.
Is he so dumb that it took him two years to realise "Duh! I've got to sign up for the plan" or is it just an excuse to cover up the fact that he decided to sign up for Obamacare once he realised it was a good financial move. Again - 2 points in rebuttal.
1) He is a politician - so he is taking advantage of having to change insurance coverage in such a way that he can claim direct experience with what he (and most of Americans) see as a broken and flawed system.
2) He, like many of us blessed to actually be employed in this crappy economy, has as a benefit that his employer will pay for part of his insurance premium. To gain that benefit - he must, BY LAW, use Obamacare.
So which is it, is he a Hypocrite or an Idiot? :arrgh!: He is a politician - which in some cases means both - but in this case - means neither.
For everyone that supports the ACA and wants to blast those that oppose it - just remember that since 2010, Americans have not once supported the ACA by any majority percentage.
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.