If true, his candidacy is dead to me. It means that he buys the lies told to him by the likes of Sugar Mountain. That's one to scratch off my list for President. Let 'em be doctors and lawyers and such.
I hate to sound like one of the moron Lefties, who, when nailed with some gaping flaw in what passes for their logic, will point to some weasel word and natter at you about your reading comprehension,
But...
Cruz is an H-1B proponent who has worked to dramatically expand the program in the past.
"In the past" would be a crucial caveat, to quote Alexander Haig.
From the ontheissues website is a rundown of his positions on immigration
End Obama's illegal amnesty via Congress' checks & balances. (Nov 2014) Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded. (Nov 2014) No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas. (Oct 2012) Give police more power to ask about immigration status. (Jun 2012) Boots on the ground, plus a wall. (Apr 2012) Triple the size of the Border Patrol. (Mar 2012) Strengthen border security and increase enforcement. (Jul 2011)
The stuff on his website is the usual boilerplate.
But but Chick... all the new illegals, they are going to need doctors and lawyers and such.
I know the court of appeals slapped down Obama's DAPA today. But, that's just temporary. He's appealing to pirate Roberts to come save the day for him once again.
There is very little reason to believe Roberts wont.
Which ones DON'T support expanded H-IB? Seriously, I don't know anyone who's been skeptical about H-1B except Trump.
And Do you really think the candidates who support Amnesty and refuse to secure the border (Bush, Rubio, Carson, CF) are going to oppose expanded H-IB?
I gave you as much as I could find on Cruz' position.
You don't like it, fine.
Me, I'm still waiting to be convinced either way.
And, for the record, I know damned well I'm not going to get everything I want from any given nominee, but I can go for the one I like most on the issues that count for me.
If you want to use that as a big excuse to stay home a year from now, that is your problem because, unless the Demos come up with another James Polk, most of the top-tier Rs, aside from Rubio, would be better than any of the Democrat prospects.
I'd rather do something to help rather than nothing.
Last night my mom jettisoned Kasich, Bush, and Carson.
Carson's voice gives me the willies.
Cruz is too far right to beat Clinton. And too much of a hothead. She'd probably tie him in knots with an attitude of motherly indulgence.
I think Paul made a lot of people pause with his astute comment that a no-fly zone over Iraq would challenge Russia who was already flying over Iraq with their permission.
Fiorina was on fire. But a post-debate graphic had her fifth among both men and women. Paul was on top for men, Trump on top for women.
The question is: which reduces the number of jobs here more? As stated above these educated and motivated people don't just disappear because they can't come or stay here. They start businesses overseas, where it's often easier, and where they can usually compete even better at taking away American jobs by beating those companies with a firm that has far less regulation overseas. They may infact move more jobs overseas by not coming here than they would take by coming here, where they would at least help add new jobs for Americans at American companies. I don't know which is better, but I don't think protectionism works in the long run, especially today where info and knowledge flows freely worldwide.
no, Cruz is the real deal and he actually has ideas.
Well so does Trump. And Trump's appeal to women probably outweighs Cruz's. As I said, Cruz's candidacy is dead to me. He'd be a hell of a SCOTUS justice though.
I don't know which is better, but I don't think protectionism works in the long run, especially today where info and knowledge flows freely worldwide.
Building a wall is an act of protectionism. Crossing a border for under the table work is an act of lawlessness, but is very "free market" in essence.
Republicans have been granted near carte blanche when it comes to moving jobs and money around. This has benefited them, their stockholders, and their remaining employees. Most Americans have gone along with it because they believe that their standard of living is on the rise. They get bigger flat screens to watch movies, porn, and sports! But this can only go on for so long. Voters will always ask themselves whether their lives and livelihoods have gotten better. For illegal immigrants, the answer is a resounding yes (perhaps because they come from poverty).
"no, Cruz is the real deal and he actually has ideas.
If the Hildabeast tries a "motherly indulgence" act, it'll go over like Albert Gore the Living Redwood rolling his eyes when Dubya spoke.
You're giving her way too much credit. She's only had 2 elections and the one guy she beat was hardly ready for prime time."
He's highly intelligent, an awarded debater, has argued cases in front of the SC. But he's too far right for MOST of the country. I've read he has trouble working well with others.
She wouldn't be obvious about it. She would dodge and weave his onslaughts, while maintaining an attitude of good humor.
They're both hawks, so the MSM would concentrate on social issues. He's strongly anti gay marriage and anti abortion, and she would go to town on that.
It's possible that by next November she and her baggage will turn enough people off, men in general and some women, and it will be close, and he may win.
17 comments:
I hate to sound like one of the moron Lefties, who, when nailed with some gaping flaw in what passes for their logic, will point to some weasel word and natter at you about your reading comprehension,
But...
Cruz is an H-1B proponent who has worked to dramatically expand the program in the past.
"In the past" would be a crucial caveat, to quote Alexander Haig.
From the ontheissues website is a rundown of his positions on immigration
End Obama's illegal amnesty via Congress' checks & balances. (Nov 2014)
Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded. (Nov 2014)
No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas. (Oct 2012)
Give police more power to ask about immigration status. (Jun 2012)
Boots on the ground, plus a wall. (Apr 2012)
Triple the size of the Border Patrol. (Mar 2012)
Strengthen border security and increase enforcement. (Jul 2011)
The stuff on his website is the usual boilerplate.
He really needs to get his positions up there.
From Breitbart, He also discussed H-1B visas arguing that in the status quo, “every year US colleges and universities educate tens of thousands of foreign students who are getting masters and PhDs in engineering and math and computer science, and we’re sending them back to their countries. And as a result, they’re going back to their countries, they’re starting businesses there. They’re creating jobs there, and their companies are competing with us and taking jobs away from us. I don’t think that makes any sense. So, I’ve introduced legislation to increase the number of H-1B visas, if there are people who are educated and talented and creating jobs, the data shows for every H-1B visa holder that comes in, he or she creates 1.7 jobs for Americans here. So he's talking about people already here.
Truth in advertising: some of Cruz' votes are not exactly my dish of tea, so I'm still waiting to be convinced.
Whether this allays your fears, YMMV.
But but Chick... all the new illegals, they are going to need doctors and lawyers and such.
I know the court of appeals slapped down Obama's DAPA today. But, that's just temporary. He's appealing to pirate Roberts to come save the day for him once again.
There is very little reason to believe Roberts wont.
I'm not falling for it again.
The court of appeals gives everybody hope by applying the laws and following the constitution... only to be dashed by the Supremes in the end.
Been there, done that.
We need another Andrew Jackson.
You don't have any kids, do you edutcer.
Which ones DON'T support expanded H-IB? Seriously, I don't know anyone who's been skeptical about H-1B except Trump.
And Do you really think the candidates who support Amnesty and refuse to secure the border (Bush, Rubio, Carson, CF) are going to oppose expanded H-IB?
chickelit said...
You don't have any kids, do you edutcer.
I have nephews and nieces, so what's your point?
I gave you as much as I could find on Cruz' position.
You don't like it, fine.
Me, I'm still waiting to be convinced either way.
And, for the record, I know damned well I'm not going to get everything I want from any given nominee, but I can go for the one I like most on the issues that count for me.
If you want to use that as a big excuse to stay home a year from now, that is your problem because, unless the Demos come up with another James Polk, most of the top-tier Rs, aside from Rubio, would be better than any of the Democrat prospects.
I'd rather do something to help rather than nothing.
Dot heads are taking all the chemistry jobs.
I will scoff every time Cruz mentions "free market" in the future. By "free market," he means unlimited supply for employers.
Oh and is Ted Cruz the hardest intellect to take on among the bunch? He's a damn good lawyer, but I don't see him as president.
Yeah, Chick you'll probably end up supporting Bush or Rubio. Didn't you vote Democrat until 9-11?
chickelit said...
Oh and is Ted Cruz the hardest intellect to take on among the bunch? He's a damn good lawyer, but I don't see him as president.
A lot of people see it the same way.
Last night my mom jettisoned Kasich, Bush, and Carson.
Carson's voice gives me the willies.
Cruz is too far right to beat Clinton. And too much of a hothead. She'd probably tie him in knots with an attitude of motherly indulgence.
I think Paul made a lot of people pause with his astute comment that a no-fly zone over Iraq would challenge Russia who was already flying over Iraq with their permission.
Fiorina was on fire. But a post-debate graphic had her fifth among both men and women. Paul was on top for men, Trump on top for women.
The question is: which reduces the number of jobs here more? As stated above these educated and motivated people don't just disappear because they can't come or stay here. They start businesses overseas, where it's often easier, and where they can usually compete even better at taking away American jobs by beating those companies with a firm that has far less regulation overseas. They may infact move more jobs overseas by not coming here than they would take by coming here, where they would at least help add new jobs for Americans at American companies. I don't know which is better, but I don't think protectionism works in the long run, especially today where info and knowledge flows freely worldwide.
deborah said...
Cruz is too far right to beat Clinton. And too much of a hothead. She'd probably tie him in knots with an attitude of motherly indulgence.
no, Cruz is the real deal and he actually has ideas.
If the Hildabeast tries a "motherly indulgence" act, it'll go over like Albert Gore the Living Redwood rolling his eyes when Dubya spoke.
You're giving her way too much credit. She's only had 2 elections and the one guy she beat was hardly ready for prime time.
no, Cruz is the real deal and he actually has ideas.
Well so does Trump. And Trump's appeal to women probably outweighs Cruz's. As I said, Cruz's candidacy is dead to me. He'd be a hell of a SCOTUS justice though.
I don't know which is better, but I don't think protectionism works in the long run, especially today where info and knowledge flows freely worldwide.
Building a wall is an act of protectionism. Crossing a border for under the table work is an act of lawlessness, but is very "free market" in essence.
Republicans have been granted near carte blanche when it comes to moving jobs and money around. This has benefited them, their stockholders, and their remaining employees. Most Americans have gone along with it because they believe that their standard of living is on the rise. They get bigger flat screens to watch movies, porn, and sports! But this can only go on for so long. Voters will always ask themselves whether their lives and livelihoods have gotten better. For illegal immigrants, the answer is a resounding yes (perhaps because they come from poverty).
Ed:
"no, Cruz is the real deal and he actually has ideas.
If the Hildabeast tries a "motherly indulgence" act, it'll go over like Albert Gore the Living Redwood rolling his eyes when Dubya spoke.
You're giving her way too much credit. She's only had 2 elections and the one guy she beat was hardly ready for prime time."
He's highly intelligent, an awarded debater, has argued cases in front of the SC. But he's too far right for MOST of the country. I've read he has trouble working well with others.
She wouldn't be obvious about it. She would dodge and weave his onslaughts, while maintaining an attitude of good humor.
They're both hawks, so the MSM would concentrate on social issues. He's strongly anti gay marriage and anti abortion, and she would go to town on that.
It's possible that by next November she and her baggage will turn enough people off, men in general and some women, and it will be close, and he may win.
Post a Comment