Sen. Ted Cruz at CPAC 2015: Stand With the People, Not Washington
(see link)
Ted Cruz: Stand With the People, Not Washington
(see link)
Ted Cruz: Stand With the People, Not Washington
CPAC 2015
- Thread starter nashvillegoldenflash
- Start date
Ben Carson CPAC 2015 Full Speech Conservatives Do Care About the Poor
(see link)
This post was edited on 2/26 10:51 PM by nashvillegoldenflash
Conservatives Do Care About the Poor
(see link)
This post was edited on 2/26 10:51 PM by nashvillegoldenflash
Conservatives Do Care About the Poor
Flash, I knew Cruz was giving his speech yesterday afternoon, and I watched it as soon as I got home. I thought it was a tremendous, inspiring speech!
This leads me to a question for you and Mike: do you think that Cruz's popularity (and poll numbers) will increase as more and more people see him and hear what he has to say? I'm hopeful that once the GOP Presidential debates begin this fall, that folks will catch on to him. I still think he'd be our best choice for President.
Your thoughts?
Mike, I like Walker as well...and would vote for him if he is our nominee. However, his past comments concerning illegal immigration and amnesty concern me. What are your thoughts concerning Walker's comments? Do you think this could be a deal breaker with many conservatives?
Mike/Flash,
Here's a good article that highlights Walker's comments regarding illigal immigrants on last night's "Hannity" on Fox News Channel. Personally, I like his answers.
Your thoughts?
Walker: 'No Amnesty' for Illegal Immigrants in US
by Ian Hanchett26 Feb 2015
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) declared "there should be no amnesty" on Thursday's "Hannity" on the Fox News Channel.
When asked what he believes should be done with illegal immigrants already in the country, he stated "there should be no amnesty. You should secure the border, not just for immigration reasons, but why would you put a fence around three sides of your home and leave the back door open? That's what we have when we guard our ports, we guard our airports, we don't guard our borders…beyond that you've got to enforce the law. We put the onus on employers to give them an E-Verify type system where they have access to enforce the law."
Regarding DHS funding and funding for the president's executive action on immigration, he said "you have got to tie the two together, and instead of playing on defense you have got to play on offense and put the pressure back on the president and his allies."
Walker also expressed his opposition to Colorado's legalization of marijuana and his opposition to same-sex marriage. He further said he supported "the legal right for legal citizens to be able to carry and arm themselves"
On ISIS, he stated, "you've got to take them out entirely…it takes a combination of building up force in terms of the United States military, which I think has fallen to woefully low levels here, it standing up with our allies like Israel, it means working with other allies around the world, but it also means making partners even in the Arab world…Jordan, certainly Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others - Egypt, for sure, of late have seen what's happened, they want a leader in America."
Commenting on the 2013 Obamacare filibuster, Walker said "part of the unique thing we bring to the table, is we don't just fight. Fighting's a good thing, and I respect people who stand up and fight on principle, but you've also got to find a way to win, not just at the ballot box but win in terms of policies."
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
This post was edited on 2/27 10:00 AM by bigbadjohn45
Here's a good article that highlights Walker's comments regarding illigal immigrants on last night's "Hannity" on Fox News Channel. Personally, I like his answers.
Your thoughts?
Walker: 'No Amnesty' for Illegal Immigrants in US
by Ian Hanchett26 Feb 2015
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) declared "there should be no amnesty" on Thursday's "Hannity" on the Fox News Channel.
When asked what he believes should be done with illegal immigrants already in the country, he stated "there should be no amnesty. You should secure the border, not just for immigration reasons, but why would you put a fence around three sides of your home and leave the back door open? That's what we have when we guard our ports, we guard our airports, we don't guard our borders…beyond that you've got to enforce the law. We put the onus on employers to give them an E-Verify type system where they have access to enforce the law."
Regarding DHS funding and funding for the president's executive action on immigration, he said "you have got to tie the two together, and instead of playing on defense you have got to play on offense and put the pressure back on the president and his allies."
Walker also expressed his opposition to Colorado's legalization of marijuana and his opposition to same-sex marriage. He further said he supported "the legal right for legal citizens to be able to carry and arm themselves"
On ISIS, he stated, "you've got to take them out entirely…it takes a combination of building up force in terms of the United States military, which I think has fallen to woefully low levels here, it standing up with our allies like Israel, it means working with other allies around the world, but it also means making partners even in the Arab world…Jordan, certainly Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others - Egypt, for sure, of late have seen what's happened, they want a leader in America."
Commenting on the 2013 Obamacare filibuster, Walker said "part of the unique thing we bring to the table, is we don't just fight. Fighting's a good thing, and I respect people who stand up and fight on principle, but you've also got to find a way to win, not just at the ballot box but win in terms of policies."
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
This post was edited on 2/27 10:00 AM by bigbadjohn45
Mike/Flash,
Here's another article that examines Walker's past and recent comments regarding illegal immigrants, amnesty, etc. You be the judge:
On the status of illegal immigrants
- Scott Walker on Sunday, February 1st, 2015 in an interview
Did Scott Walker flip-flop on a immigration and a pathway to citizenship?
By Dave Umhoefer on Wednesday, February 4th, 2015 at 12:09 p.m.
The left-wing group Media Matters for America cried flip-flop after Gov. Scott Walker bluntly told ABC News he opposed "amnesty" for illegal immigrants living in the United States.
Walker, the group said in blog post, previously had supported a pathway to citizenship advocated by lawmakers in Washington, D.C.
With Walker garnering plenty of attention amid a crowded field of potential 2016 GOP presidential candidates, let's put this one to the Flip-O-Meter.
Our standard disclaimer applies: The Flip-O-Meter is not designed to say whether any change in position is good policy or good politics. Rather, it strictly looks at whether a public official has been consistent in his or her stated views on a topic.
In this case, we have visited Walker's statements on immigration before, notably in August 2013, when we examined how Republicans were framing the issue in the wake of President Barack Obama's re-election win with strong support from Hispanics.
In the past, Walker has been hard to pin down on the question, and has made seemingly contradictory statements.
So we were struck by Walker's direct language and tone Feb. 1, 2015 in the "This Week" interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz.
Raddatz: "We know you want to fix the border and fix the immigration system, but what would you do about the 11 million undocumented who are still here?
Walker: "I think for sure, we need to secure the border. I think we need to enforce the legal system. I'm not for amnesty…"
In making the comments, did Walker change his position?
Here are some key past statements he's made, all in 2013:
-- At a February 2013 national conference hosted by Politico, Walker said fixing the legal immigration system should come first, but said the next step is we "gotta embrace" a "legal pathway" for those here unlawfully. He did not elaborate on what he meant.
-- In a July 2013 interview with Wausau (Wis.) Daily Herald staffers, Walker said "it makes sense" that people could not only stay here but get citizenship with the right mix of penalties and waiting periods and other requirements.
-- In 2013 and later, Walker didn't endorse any specific bill in Congress that would have allowed illegal immigrants to stay here. But at the Politico conference, he didn't dismiss legislative action if some "nuances" were addressed.
-- At that conference he flatly opposed deporting people who are here unlawfully, saying "you've got to find a way to make it legally possible for people moving forward."
Soon after Walker's reported comments sympathetic to some kind of path to citizenship made headlines, he started to walk back the idea he had supported such a thing.
His spokesman told us in August 2013 that Walker had endorsed no specific policy or bill. And Walker said in November 2013 on MSNBC's Morning Joe that he had not meant to back a pathway.
Now let's revisit the recent ABC interview in more depth.
In that interview, Walker also said, "I'm not an advocate of the plans that have been pushed here in Washington" to allow those here to remain.
That's arguably more dismissive than he's been before. But Walker added that he would roll out a plan of his own to address the issue.
And he tossed in what sounded like softening remarks, saying "we've got to have a healthy balance. We're a country both of immigrants and of laws. We can't ignore the laws in this country, can't ignore the people who come in, whether it's from Mexico or Central America."
Finally, Walker told Raddatz he was not advocating deporting the estimated 11 million undocumented residents in the country.
He summed up his position this way: "I am saying in the end, we need to enforce the laws in the United States, and we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that does not mean amnesty."
What to make of Walker's remarks?
Walker campaign spokesman Tom Evenson said they were consistent with his past comments on what to do with those living here illegally. Walker does not consider the penalty-laden pathway to legal status that he endorsed in 2013 "amnesty," and he's not advocating amnesty now, he said.
For help, we turned to two groups advocating on this issue.
An advocate with a group that backs a path to citizenship agreed Walker's comments were vague, but detected a change in his words and actions.
Lynn Tramonte, deputy director of America's Voice, noted Walker said nothing in the spirit of his 2013 comments on finding a way, eventually, to allow people to stay.
His goal "is to be as vague as possible so that he can court hard-right anti-immigrant voters while remaining viable in the general election," she said.
Tramonte said Walker has indirectly backed deportations by joining a lawsuit challenging President Obama's authority to issue a November 2014 executive order on immigration.
That order protected from deportation some 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years, and hundreds of thousands more young people.
We also spoke with Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The group is a leading critic of legalizing the status of people who jumped the line to get in.
Walker's description of his views as anti-amnesty doesn't necessarily mean much, Mehlman said. Republicans, even if they want to find a way to let illegal immigrants remain here, reject the "amnesty" label for political reasons, he said.
On the substance of Walker's remarks, Mehlman said that, coming in such a brief exchange, Walker's comments were too cryptic to really evaluate his position.
Mehlman's view: Walker really hasn't backed away from his 2013 statements, so in they eyes of FAIR, he still supports what some might term amnesty.
"Politicians from both parties who support granting legal status to millions of illegal aliens go to great pains to define what they support as something other than amnesty," he said.
Our rating
We don't see a Full Flop by Walker here.
Walker didn't directly disavow his 2013 remarks -- or repeat them for that matter. And the truth is that we don't really know whether he has a completely new position, because he wasn't asked to clarify his views in detail. All we know is he's not going to call his plan "amnesty" when it comes out.
We do see inconsistencies in Walker's framing of his views and the tone of his remarks as he begins to court conservative GOP primary voters -- including leaving a tough-sounding impression about handling illegal immigrants.
On the meter, inconsistent statements or a partial change of position earn a Half Flip. That fits here.
This post was edited on 2/27 10:19 AM by bigbadjohn45
Here's another article that examines Walker's past and recent comments regarding illegal immigrants, amnesty, etc. You be the judge:
On the status of illegal immigrants
- Scott Walker on Sunday, February 1st, 2015 in an interview
Did Scott Walker flip-flop on a immigration and a pathway to citizenship?
By Dave Umhoefer on Wednesday, February 4th, 2015 at 12:09 p.m.
The left-wing group Media Matters for America cried flip-flop after Gov. Scott Walker bluntly told ABC News he opposed "amnesty" for illegal immigrants living in the United States.
Walker, the group said in blog post, previously had supported a pathway to citizenship advocated by lawmakers in Washington, D.C.
With Walker garnering plenty of attention amid a crowded field of potential 2016 GOP presidential candidates, let's put this one to the Flip-O-Meter.
Our standard disclaimer applies: The Flip-O-Meter is not designed to say whether any change in position is good policy or good politics. Rather, it strictly looks at whether a public official has been consistent in his or her stated views on a topic.
In this case, we have visited Walker's statements on immigration before, notably in August 2013, when we examined how Republicans were framing the issue in the wake of President Barack Obama's re-election win with strong support from Hispanics.
In the past, Walker has been hard to pin down on the question, and has made seemingly contradictory statements.
So we were struck by Walker's direct language and tone Feb. 1, 2015 in the "This Week" interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz.
Raddatz: "We know you want to fix the border and fix the immigration system, but what would you do about the 11 million undocumented who are still here?
Walker: "I think for sure, we need to secure the border. I think we need to enforce the legal system. I'm not for amnesty…"
In making the comments, did Walker change his position?
Here are some key past statements he's made, all in 2013:
-- At a February 2013 national conference hosted by Politico, Walker said fixing the legal immigration system should come first, but said the next step is we "gotta embrace" a "legal pathway" for those here unlawfully. He did not elaborate on what he meant.
-- In a July 2013 interview with Wausau (Wis.) Daily Herald staffers, Walker said "it makes sense" that people could not only stay here but get citizenship with the right mix of penalties and waiting periods and other requirements.
-- In 2013 and later, Walker didn't endorse any specific bill in Congress that would have allowed illegal immigrants to stay here. But at the Politico conference, he didn't dismiss legislative action if some "nuances" were addressed.
-- At that conference he flatly opposed deporting people who are here unlawfully, saying "you've got to find a way to make it legally possible for people moving forward."
Soon after Walker's reported comments sympathetic to some kind of path to citizenship made headlines, he started to walk back the idea he had supported such a thing.
His spokesman told us in August 2013 that Walker had endorsed no specific policy or bill. And Walker said in November 2013 on MSNBC's Morning Joe that he had not meant to back a pathway.
Now let's revisit the recent ABC interview in more depth.
In that interview, Walker also said, "I'm not an advocate of the plans that have been pushed here in Washington" to allow those here to remain.
That's arguably more dismissive than he's been before. But Walker added that he would roll out a plan of his own to address the issue.
And he tossed in what sounded like softening remarks, saying "we've got to have a healthy balance. We're a country both of immigrants and of laws. We can't ignore the laws in this country, can't ignore the people who come in, whether it's from Mexico or Central America."
Finally, Walker told Raddatz he was not advocating deporting the estimated 11 million undocumented residents in the country.
He summed up his position this way: "I am saying in the end, we need to enforce the laws in the United States, and we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that does not mean amnesty."
What to make of Walker's remarks?
Walker campaign spokesman Tom Evenson said they were consistent with his past comments on what to do with those living here illegally. Walker does not consider the penalty-laden pathway to legal status that he endorsed in 2013 "amnesty," and he's not advocating amnesty now, he said.
For help, we turned to two groups advocating on this issue.
An advocate with a group that backs a path to citizenship agreed Walker's comments were vague, but detected a change in his words and actions.
Lynn Tramonte, deputy director of America's Voice, noted Walker said nothing in the spirit of his 2013 comments on finding a way, eventually, to allow people to stay.
His goal "is to be as vague as possible so that he can court hard-right anti-immigrant voters while remaining viable in the general election," she said.
Tramonte said Walker has indirectly backed deportations by joining a lawsuit challenging President Obama's authority to issue a November 2014 executive order on immigration.
That order protected from deportation some 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years, and hundreds of thousands more young people.
We also spoke with Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The group is a leading critic of legalizing the status of people who jumped the line to get in.
Walker's description of his views as anti-amnesty doesn't necessarily mean much, Mehlman said. Republicans, even if they want to find a way to let illegal immigrants remain here, reject the "amnesty" label for political reasons, he said.
On the substance of Walker's remarks, Mehlman said that, coming in such a brief exchange, Walker's comments were too cryptic to really evaluate his position.
Mehlman's view: Walker really hasn't backed away from his 2013 statements, so in they eyes of FAIR, he still supports what some might term amnesty.
"Politicians from both parties who support granting legal status to millions of illegal aliens go to great pains to define what they support as something other than amnesty," he said.
Our rating
We don't see a Full Flop by Walker here.
Walker didn't directly disavow his 2013 remarks -- or repeat them for that matter. And the truth is that we don't really know whether he has a completely new position, because he wasn't asked to clarify his views in detail. All we know is he's not going to call his plan "amnesty" when it comes out.
We do see inconsistencies in Walker's framing of his views and the tone of his remarks as he begins to court conservative GOP primary voters -- including leaving a tough-sounding impression about handling illegal immigrants.
On the meter, inconsistent statements or a partial change of position earn a Half Flip. That fits here.
This post was edited on 2/27 10:19 AM by bigbadjohn45
If your looking for "purity" in all areas for a candidate you will be disappointed.
The bottomline for Walker is he has run as a conservative, governed as a conservative and has beaten the left many times in a blue state.
With all due respect to Cruz (I am a native Texan) he has one an election in the reddest of states. This doesn't disqualify him. I still like him a lot. While he has demonstrated the ability to fight for what he believes (thru speeches), he hasn't accomplished a whole lot just yet.
The bottomline for Walker is he has run as a conservative, governed as a conservative and has beaten the left many times in a blue state.
With all due respect to Cruz (I am a native Texan) he has one an election in the reddest of states. This doesn't disqualify him. I still like him a lot. While he has demonstrated the ability to fight for what he believes (thru speeches), he hasn't accomplished a whole lot just yet.
Mike, I realize you're never going to find a candidate that you'll agree with all the time on every issue. That's incredibly shortsighted and ridiculous for anyone to think that way.
My view is that, especially in the primaries, you go with the candidate who most closely aligns with the issues you agree with. In the general election--especially in the past several we've had--you're usually faced with choosing the lesser of two evils. I hope this go around we can field a solid conservative as our nominee--whether it's Walker or not.
For what its worth, I always look for a candidate who will maintain a strong economy and a strong national defense. Certainly there are a lot of other issues to discuss but the economy and national defense are by far the most important issues. When the economy is strong, people's lives are significantly better. Likewise, when the economy is weak, jobs are in jeopardy, the divorce rate increases, and people's sense of economic security is threatened. Given the fact that war has existed since the beginning of time, it's pretty obvious why a strong national defense is important. It's a known fact that you cannot have a strong national defense without a strong economy. That said, I have a problem with Rand Paul because I really don't believe he would maintain a strong national defense or treat Muslim terrorism as seriously as he should if he were the POTUS. I'm afraid he would accept peace at any cost and history has shown us that that policy doesn't really bring peace to anyone..
Flash, I agree with what you said, but I would like to add another perspective.
If you'll remember, Israel's leader in the days of the judges was God Almighty. However, the people moaned and complained that they needed a king because the surrounding, pagan countries had kings. Samuel tried to warn them, but to no avail. Israel got the king they wanted (Saul), but he turned out to be a disaster.
The point I'm trying to make here is that, as the spirtual condition of a country goes, so goes the nature of their leader. As I've stated here many times, Obama represents everything that's wrong with us. Never in a million years would we have elected such a Godless, lawless, perverted individual such as Obama is if we were a nation that had its focus and attention turned toward God Almighty. And, for this reason, this is why I still believe we'll see more of the same when Mrs. Clinton becomes our next President.
BBJ, I agree with what you are saying. It's difficult to legislate morality in the absence of moral legislators. Certainly society is at a point of no return unless we do something very soon.
Getting back to a strong economy, I'm looking for a candidate who will implement pro-business policies. Conservatives understand you cannot have an employee unless you have an employer. Conversely, liberals tend to bash employers and give them the feeling they are not wanted. As a result, many companies decide to close down and take their business to where they will feel welcome.
Getting back to a strong economy, I'm looking for a candidate who will implement pro-business policies. Conservatives understand you cannot have an employee unless you have an employer. Conversely, liberals tend to bash employers and give them the feeling they are not wanted. As a result, many companies decide to close down and take their business to where they will feel welcome.
Guys, we are beyond the point of no return. Society is always going to crumble, even great countries like USA - history tells us this over and over. And its OK, cause our hope isn't in a political party or candidate, its in God Himself. I just refuse to "over-worry" about all this stuff anymore.
Leaving the south and living in New England the past 4 years has been an eye opening experience for me - you guys have no idea how cold (not talking temperature) that people can be to moral issues, much less faith. God is the only one that can cause us (nationally) to be different. Sorry to get a bit OT.
Mike, you might appreciate the article, "Why Art Thou Secular, Ye Olde New England?" (see link). Although I have never lived in New England, I know how liberal and secular New Englanders are. Despite my conservative beliefs, I always wanted to go to school at Boston College but the closest thing that I ever got to attending BC was visiting the school and buying a t-shirt in the college bookstore. While visiting Boston, I admit it seemed a little odd walking around Cambridge and Harvard Yard knowing that it is one of the bastions of liberal thought. But as liberal and quirky as Cambridge is, I found the whole experience enjoyable. Certainly, New England is a beautiful region of the United States but its level of liberalism would be difficult for most conservatives to imagine. I have never been to Maine, but I once flew over a small part of the state in a private plane going over the White Mountains. Where in Maine do you live? As liberal as Maine is, just be glad you don't live in Vermont.
We may very well be past the point of no return, I'm just not willing to concede it yet.
This post was edited on 2/28 7:25 PM by nashvillegoldenflash
Why Art Thou Secular, Ye Olde New England?
We may very well be past the point of no return, I'm just not willing to concede it yet.
This post was edited on 2/28 7:25 PM by nashvillegoldenflash
Why Art Thou Secular, Ye Olde New England?
In all fairness to liberal New Englanders, don't most lefties spew the same liberal tripe as these Harvard elites? (see link)
Seriously, if you placed our liberals under a microscope, wouldn't we see the same anti-American sentiments as you hear from these Harvard students? I admit I don't recall any poster claiming that America is a bigger threat than ISIS, but the notion of American imperialism is prevalent on our board. Of course this shouldn't come as a surprise considering they all voted for Obama (except for one) and Obama has always been critical of America's expanded global military footprint. In the film, 2016: Obama's America, Dinesh D'Souza clearly reveals Obama's anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist view of the world and we are seeing today Obama's desire to reduce the U.S. global presence to the scale of a European country.
As far as our conspiracy theorist is concerned, like Obama, he wants to end "American imperialism," close all the numerous military bases around the world and bring our troops home. In a world dominated by Islamic terrorism, such passivity would surely embolden ISIS and the other Islamic terrorists.
Suffice it to say, liberals tend to think alike.
Harvard Students Claim America Is A Bigger Threat
Seriously, if you placed our liberals under a microscope, wouldn't we see the same anti-American sentiments as you hear from these Harvard students? I admit I don't recall any poster claiming that America is a bigger threat than ISIS, but the notion of American imperialism is prevalent on our board. Of course this shouldn't come as a surprise considering they all voted for Obama (except for one) and Obama has always been critical of America's expanded global military footprint. In the film, 2016: Obama's America, Dinesh D'Souza clearly reveals Obama's anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist view of the world and we are seeing today Obama's desire to reduce the U.S. global presence to the scale of a European country.
As far as our conspiracy theorist is concerned, like Obama, he wants to end "American imperialism," close all the numerous military bases around the world and bring our troops home. In a world dominated by Islamic terrorism, such passivity would surely embolden ISIS and the other Islamic terrorists.
Suffice it to say, liberals tend to think alike.
Harvard Students Claim America Is A Bigger Threat
I live in Portland, ME. - on the southern coast of Maine. I travel all over the northeast. The people are VERY different.
Mike, I know New Englanders are different but are they really that much more different than the libs on this board? Let's face it, this forum is a microcosm of our country. As we approach the 2016 presidential election, look for even more libs to start to come out. If the truth were known, you would be surprised how many of the Water Cooler readers are secular and liberal. I find it ironic that a Kent State alum is the standard-bearer for conservatism on this forum. BBJ and you share my values and views but who else on here can you think of that has consistently voiced our political positions?
Flash, I'm of the belief that a person's spiritual condition is linked to their political views, and vice versa. Rarely will you find a born again believer in Jesus Christ who is sympathetic to liberal values. The two are simply incompatible. For example, there is no way a Christian could (or should) support abortion on demand, or homosexual marriage. To support murder (which is what abortion is in its simplest term) or, to support a lifestyle that is an abomination to God is without question contrary to God's teachings. The few people I have met who claim to be Christian and also vote for Democrats are, unfortunately, extremely ignorant of the issues and would be considered a part of the "low information" crowd.
