So much for Ted Cruz as President

[Guest TankerHC]

Cruz has become a major liability as a potential nominee. He made a promise that he would renounce his Canadian citizenship before 2014. Well he hasnt, and the press has jumped all over it. Just on Yahoo news, in their article on the subject there is now over 6000 responses in less than 24 hours, which is saying something for Yahoo news. Liberals are giving the old "coming home to roost" and people claiming to be Conservative say he shouldn't run, because of this, he will be taken apart faster than Santorum. It is also being pointed out that his father is a reformed Communist and entered the Country on forged papers and did not become a Citizen until 2005 followed by Cruz's comment that anyone entering the United States illegally (Without documentation) should never be allowed to attain citizenship before moving to the middle on immigration. Stick a fork in Cruz, he's done.When Cruz used the McCain rule, the same as Obama, to file election paperwork 6 or 7 months ago, I knew that was it for him.

 

Meanwhile, Alan West launched a book on Megyn Kelly a month ago. She pretty much startled West when she said "normally at this point, someone in your position launching and promoting a book is a lead up to a Political run, are you running for President". He didn't say yes, and he didnt say no. If he would have said yes, under Campaign Finance Rules he would have become a Candidate and his finances would be under scrutiny. No Presidential hopeful is dumb enough to do that. West has going what is the equivalent of 3 major PAC's. West has been running for President for at least 8 months. Last week on Allen West's website, he made a comment referring to Hillary Clinton and Benghazi. It went something like this "What America needs is a President who comes from a long line of Veterans (His father is a WWII Vet, his older brother is a Vietnam Vet, his nephew is a West Point Graduate and was recently promoted to Major, and he has others in his family), a President who has seen battle and felt the sting of an Ak47. (Clearly referring to himself) and something along the lines of someone who can and has made the hard decisions. The very next day we were introduced to his wife. Since then she has been doing interviews, blogging, writing news articles, all in favor of pro national defense, ultra conservative's who support and defend the Constitution. 

 

Anyone who cannot see the writing on the wall is blind as a bat. Cruz doesnt stand a chance. The left now has their anti Republican platform, Hillary is all American. West, what are clearly PAC's, a new Book out, comments describing a person exactly like him for President, introduction to mass media of the wife, the nephew, and others in his family. He is going to run, and if nominated he will take Hillary apart. The gun near the terrorist ear incident is nothing more than a liability for Clinton, she brings it up, its "sacrificing his career for his troops vs leaving 4 Americans to die in Benghazi.

 

Then there is Dr. Benjamin Carson. A man who has a clear understanding of the ACA. Not afraid to show his Conservatism, not even in the face of Obama. He has mentioned the possibility of a run, "I didnt want to go into Politics, but it appears God has other plans for me". He and West have been complimenting each other quite a bit lately. Read the Liberal Blogs and Editorials, they are terrified of Dr. Carson. 

 

This is interesting to watch on a daily basis. Cruz is already on the defense about being a Canadian, West is clearly in the execution phase of a well prepared plan.

 

 

 

 

[Oh Shoot]

....Stick a fork in Cruz, he's done.

 
Good. Had he gotten the nomination by some miracle, would have been a lopsided defeat indeed.

West, maybe a shot, but I doubt it.

Ben Carson. Seems would be super, from what we seem to know at this point.

If I had to be the farm this far out, still Christie, though. Though I still see Hildebeest winning going away (and still haven't ruled out Christie even being her Veep if he fails in the primaries).

- OS

[TripleDigitRide]

As bad as Obama has been, I don't see a republican winning the presidency anytime soon. I think the country as a whole is drifting more and more to the liberal side (especially socially), and those who are more socially liberal view almost all republicans as ubber-conservative. Gay marriage and abortion are going to be the death of the republican party.  

Edited January 5, 2014 by TripleDigitRide

[Guest TankerHC]

 
Good. Had he gotten the nomination by some miracle, would have been a lopsided defeat indeed.

West, maybe a shot, but I doubt it.

Ben Carson. Seems would be super, from what we seem to know at this point.

If I had to be the farm this far out, still Christie, though. Though I still see Hildebeest winning going away (and still haven't ruled out Christie even being her Veep if he fails in the primaries).

- OS

 

If it ends up between Hillary and Christie, it wont matter who you vote for. 

Edited January 5, 2014 by TankerHC

[Oh Shoot]

If it ends up between Hillary and Christie, it wont matter who you vote for. 

 

Oh, if you mean just guns, even though Christie would probably just as soon have all US gun laws like NJ, (which he calls "about right") he wouldn't kick the whole GOP in the balls to do it. And he'd be as good a player in the fiscal/entitlement mess as Mitt would have been, maybe even better. Not to mention he's as likely to call 'em as he sees 'em as any pol in many a year. Might be a quite refreshing change in the areas of military and foreign policy, too.

 

Hillary gets in, you'd see a lot of the stuff BHO would like to do actually done, and more that he hasn't even thought of. Because she's actually smarter and more ruthless. And between her and Slick Willy, know where the skeletons are, and can call in favors from more powerful people, too.

 

I see quite a significant diff in the admins of the two, myself. The only reason I mention Christie still as possibly changing parties is that his ego and ambition might possibly override any semblance of actual conservative ideology.

 

At any rate, you'll not see what anyone here calls a "true conservative" in the White House in 2017, you can bet the farm on that.

 

- OS

Edited January 5, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[mikegideon]

As bad as Obama has been, I don't see a republican winning the presidency anytime soon. I think the country as a whole is drifting more and more to the liberal side (especially socially), and those who are more socially liberal view almost all republicans as ubber-conservative. Gay marriage and abortion are going to be the death of the republican party.

 

Yep.

[RED333]

As bad as Obama has been, I don't see a republican winning the presidency anytime soon. I think the country as a whole is drifting more and more to the liberal side (especially socially), and those who are more socially liberal view almost all republicans as ubber-conservative. Gay marriage and abortion are going to be the death of the republican party.  

 

Yep.

and immigration.

Edited January 5, 2014 by RED333

[greenego]

For a Republican to win in 2016, the first thing he or she will have to do is appeal to all sides of a very divided party. I don't see any of the currently mentioned candidates doing that. Hopefully there is someone out there that can.   

[mikegideon]

and immigration.

 

Immigration is a joke. Let's write some new laws, so we can fail to fund or enforce them too.

[frankmako]

at this time we (republican parts) do not have anybody to run.  the news has beat down everybody that can run and could beat hillary.  the republican party is split and that is what the other side wants.  no matter whom runs, they will find something bad, i.e., like they said something bad/the bad word, 40 years ago and/or had a made up affair 50 years ago while in high school.  then the person running will get off track and lose.  we need a person that has back bone, a person to stand up a call a spade a spade.  can i say that now?  a person that has a simple plan and tell his plan to the 50% of the people that are paying the bills for the other 50% freeloaders.  the low information voter will vote for the person that gives them free stuff and don't ask them to work. 

[RobertNashville]

I completely reject the notion that Cruz is done - the only thing Cruz really has against him is the party elite who hate his guts for doing exactly what he said he would do when he got elected.  He is one of a very very few Republicans I would actually vote for; in fact, I see only one or two others I would vote for if Cruz or either of the other two were to get the nomination.

 

However, I don't see any reason to think that Hillary won't be the next president regardless of who the Republicans put up and except for the two or three republicans I'm willing to vote for I may vote for her myself (or not bother to vote in the presidential race at all).

[zeke4351]

Watch Rand Paul. Sent from my iPad using [URL=http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1]Tapatalk[/URL]

[LowBb]

I'm freakin tired of paying for others.

[Guest TankerHC]

Oh, if you mean just guns, even though Christie would probably just as soon have all US gun laws like NJ, (which he calls "about right") he wouldn't kick the whole GOP in the balls to do it. And he'd be as good a player in the fiscal/entitlement mess as Mitt would have been, maybe even better. Not to mention he's as likely to call 'em as he sees 'em as any pol in many a year. Might be a quite refreshing change in the areas of military and foreign policy, too.

 

Hillary gets in, you'd see a lot of the stuff BHO would like to do actually done, and more that he hasn't even thought of. Because she's actually smarter and more ruthless. And between her and Slick Willy, know where the skeletons are, and can call in favors from more powerful people, too.

 

I see quite a significant diff in the admins of the two, myself. The only reason I mention Christie still as possibly changing parties is that his ego and ambition might possibly override any semblance of actual conservative ideology.

 

At any rate, you'll not see what anyone here calls a "true conservative" in the White House in 2017, you can bet the farm on that.

 

- OS

 

Stance on gun control is well known.

 

Attempted to give illegal aliens taxpayer funded financial aid, couldn't get it done so instead they pay in state tuition rates. While AMERICANS who live there but are legal resudents of other States pay out of State tuition. I don't care how many years you went to HS in any State, illegal is illegal. Changed his position and took a "Conciliatory View" on illagel aliens 2 days before Christmas.

 

Pro choice and donated to Planned Parenthood until 1996 when he found it more Politically expedient.

 

Plenty more Hillary will use to take him apart as well but the big one came out last year. Something that gives him ZERO chance of beating Hillary Clinton. Before running for office he was Bernie Madoff's lobbyist. It was pointed out last year, by the left, "Do the Republicans REALLY want to nominate a man who helped a scam artist rip off thousands of people of their life saving?". The left does. 

Edited January 5, 2014 by TankerHC

[Sam1]

I completely reject the notion that Cruz is done

 

+1

 

 

the "expected candidate" will change a dozen times between now and the election, just as it does every time.  Him renouncing his Canadian citizenship is nothing compared to West's military record coming up when he discharged a pistol next to a prisoner to scare him into talking.

 

How far do you think someone will go once the ads start running discussing how he was found guilty of assault by a military court?  People seem to forget about that little gem on his record because he is good at diverting attention.

[Chucktshoes]

Mmmmmn! Do you want mustard or mayo on that turd sandwich?

[Guest TankerHC]

+1

 

 

the "expected candidate" will change a dozen times between now and the election, just as it does every time.  Him renouncing his Canadian citizenship is nothing compared to West's military record coming up when he discharged a pistol next to a prisoner to scare him into talking.

 

How far do you think someone will go once the ads start running discussing how he was found guilty of assault by a military court?  People seem to forget about that little gem on his record because he is good at diverting attention.

 

 

VERY far. As I have said a thousand times, when it is pointed out what he did, he did to get information from a non co-operative terrorist to save his troops lives (According to West, his troops had been comiing under an unusually high number of attacks, with his troops informing him that information was coming from the locals" versus "Hillary Clinton and Obama leaving four Americans to die in Libya, and with the backup of General Carter Ham going to send troops anyway and being relieved.

 

Here are a couple of choices, which ones would you take.

 

Suppose you have a family member stuck in a foriegn country in a hostile fire zone and they come under sttack.

 

Do you:

 

Hope that whoever is in charge put's a stop to it by any means necessary to get your loved one home in one piece.

 

or

 

Say "What difference does it make, its only a handful and we cant get to them anyway"

 

That would be Hillary Clinton (Or anyone running on the left's) dilemma. 

 

Those people are not that stupid, I doubt they would even bring it up. West will preemptively. That is my prediction. 

 

Most of the American people who have responded to the Green on Blue attacks in the news and military articles, even on the left, have made it perfectly clear where they stand. West has nothing to worry about.  

Edited January 5, 2014 by TankerHC

[Guest TankerHC]

Here is what actually happened concerning LTC West

 

"In early August, soldiers received a tip that West and one of his subordinate battery commanders were to be the subject of an assassination attempt. The informant offered the names of three people involved in the planning of the assassination, including an Iraqi policeman, Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi.

Hamoodi was apprehended and brought in for questioning.

What happened next comes from accounts provided by West and the other soldiers involved in the interrogation through sworn statements they gave during a subsequent military investigation.

West joined the interrogation in progress after soldiers were unable to get useful information from Hamoodi. West said soldiers told him Hamoodi was being evasive and belligerent.

That's when the interrogation got more physical. Soldiers punched and shoved Hamoodi when he wouldn't answer interrogators' questions. At some point, West sat down across from Hamoodi, took out his 9mm pistol and placed it on his thigh pointing in Hamoodi's direction.

"I'm here for a reason," West said, according to a soldier. "You are going to tell me who wants to kill me, or I am going to kill you."

Then they took Hamoodi outside and placed his head over a clearing barrel -- a barrel filled with sand where people can unload firearms safely. West showed Hamoodi the gun and told him he had five seconds to talk. "I brought his head down toward the barrel using my left hand to shield him away from any sand or blast," West told investigators.

Then West fired into the sand, at least once, maybe three times, inches from Hamoodi's head.

Then West fired into the sky.

Hamoodi was alive and ready to talk.

West headed back to the operations center and let the interrogation conclude.

West’s actions drew criticism, but he became a cause celebre among some in the military and conservatives -- and that brought him the fame that would lead to his congressional career."

 

Doubtful that is going to hurt him.

 

West was also NOT "tried and convicted on 3 counts of anything". That is a leftist bold faced lie that came from the Communist Patrick Murphy, whom West has put in his place on the subject more than 40 times.  West accepted responsibility for his actions, which any good sldier does, and recieved an Article 15, non judicial punnishemt.

 

Soon after the incident, the Army launched a criminal investigation into charges of aggravated assault and communicating a threat. A statement from West -- in which he confessed -- and other soldiers were taken in September 2003. The case started as an Article 32, a preliminary hearing required under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

"I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers," West testified, adding later: "If it's about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can."

An investigating officer recommended that the case be handled through Article 15/nonjudicial proceedings, which the general commander and West accepted. (Article 15 is a noncriminal process.)

The Boston Globe wrote that during a closed-door tribunal in the town of Tikrit, "West was found guilty of three counts of aggravated assault and a single count of communicating a threat. The ruling was issued after West pleaded guilty to misconduct."

West’s lawyer Puckett, who did not attend that tribunal, told us in an interview that West "was adjudicated to having committed those offenses -- in a broad sense he was found guilty of those offenses."

But what the ad omits is that once the case became an Article 15, it was no longer a criminal proceeding, and that point isn’t in dispute.

In December, the commander reprimanded West and fined him $5,000. West then retired.

So West "performed illegal acts," but they were resolved through a nonjudicial, or noncriminal punishment.

 

Did you get the part where West told the hearing officer  ""If it's about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can."

[RobertNashville]

Watch Rand Paul.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What for?

[Sam1]

Being a vet I understand why he done what he done, but my understanding is not what would be used in the media blitz against him.

 

Most people don't know anything about him so the media will fill the void with "Military officer recklessly endangers POW protected under international law by shooting a gun off next to his head and was convicted of multiple counts of assault by a military tribunal"

 

They're not going to say "This excellent military officer saved American lives by coercing information from a violent jihadist"

 

You know how the game is played, and someone convicted of a crime involving guns will be mince meat via the MSM.

[RobertNashville]

Here is what actually happened concerning LTC West...

 

Respectfully, Tanker; you seem to be putting forth a lot of effort to support West. I've nothing against the man at all and actually, there is much to admire; at least based on what I know of him so far. But how you can be so hot for West and so cold toward Cruz is a bit puzzling to me...there are NO potential Republican candidates without blemishes that the liberal press will not exploit to the Republican's deficit. Whether any of them have a real chance of winning the gen election seems doubtful to me but if they don't win I don't believe it will be because we can't find a prefect, unblemished candidate.  :)

Edited January 5, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest Lester Weevils]

You guys are depressing me.

[seez52]

We're talking preseason here folks. There's not thing one any of us can do at this point about any of it. They're all politicians they all lie, period. We're screwed and we might as well get used to it.

I say we go on strike. Deal in barter or cash only. Open a flea market booth and choke the beast to death by not paying any taxes.

Where is Ragnar Danneskjöld when you need him?

Who is John Galt?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, way too early to forecast anything political for 2016. You can have your pets all you want, but ,politically, the gal ain't even pregnant.

 

Has anyone thought any more on how this will play on 2016? It appears it has been all but forgotten.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/the_roberts_trap_is_sprung.html

 

If you think everything is normal, think again. Most people still haven't seen the sticker shock of Obamacare and Democrats are already

scrambling to survive in 2014. I have no idea who will be prez in 2016, but Hillary, Christie, nope. Too much baggage.

 

That article about Cruz's dad being a reformed commie is probably someone's wishful thinking, or just plain propaganda. Don't know.

Obama has destroyed the Democrat Party. The GOP has ruined the Republican Party. Maybe Libertarians will get their poop together.

[mikegideon]

Yeh, way too early to forecast anything political for 2016. You can have your pets all you want, but ,politically, the gal ain't even pregnant.

 

Has anyone thought any more on how this will play on 2016? It appears it has been all but forgotten.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/the_roberts_trap_is_sprung.html

 

If you think everything is normal, think again. Most people still haven't seen the sticker shock of Obamacare and Democrats are already

scrambling to survive in 2014. I have no idea who will be prez in 2016, but Hillary, Christie, nope. Too much baggage.

 

That article about Cruz's dad being a reformed commie is probably someone's wishful thinking, or just plain propaganda. Don't know.

Obama has destroyed the Democrat Party. The GOP has ruined the Republican Party. Maybe Libertarians will get their poop together.

 

The Republicans couldn't beat Fidel Castro in a national election. With that said, Obamacare really is a dog with fleas. Everybody will know that by 2016. The economy isn't going anywhere either. So, the Democrats may have beaten themselves.

 

I don't think the Libertarians can grow fast enough to win anything. These elections are bought. They don't swing a big enough bat yet, and won't by 2016. I would be just fine with a Libertarian president. It just ain't gonna happen.