Gyroscopic Investing

Reub wrote: MT, I really don't care that he is a freshman and hasn't passed a bill yet, to be honest. He is 100% correct about Obamacare. The Republican Party needs a Ted Cruz type now.

So it doesn't matter that he hasn't done anything yet as long as he's passionate and sincere, and you agree with his opinions?

I remember an awful lot of liberals saying things like that about this up-and-comer named Barack Obama in 2007! Myself included.

Pointedstick wrote:

Reub wrote: MT, I really don't care that he is a freshman and hasn't passed a bill yet, to be honest. He is 100% correct about Obamacare. The Republican Party needs a Ted Cruz type now.

So it doesn't matter that he hasn't done anything yet as long as he's passionate and sincere, and you agree with his opinions?

I remember an awful lot of liberals saying things like that about this up-and-comer named Barack Obama in 2007! Myself included.

Please do not equate Ted Cruz with Barack Obama. It is a ridiculous comparison. They are diametrically opposed ideologically. The fact that you could not see what Obama really was does not in any way diminish what Cruz is today.

Reub wrote: Please do not equate Ted Cruz with Barack Obama. It is a ridiculous comparison. They are diametrically opposed ideologically.

Obviously they believe different things and have different visions for the country. What I'm saying is that the details of their personalities, backgrounds, career trajectories, and records of accomplishment are very similar. I get that you like Cruz a lot, but try to have a bit of perspective. You sound like a starstruck teenager!

Reub wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Reub wrote: MT, I really don't care that he is a freshman and hasn't passed a bill yet, to be honest. He is 100% correct about Obamacare. The Republican Party needs a Ted Cruz type now.

So it doesn't matter that he hasn't done anything yet as long as he's passionate and sincere, and you agree with his opinions?

I remember an awful lot of liberals saying things like that about this up-and-comer named Barack Obama in 2007! Myself included.

Please do not equate Ted Cruz with Barack Obama. It is a ridiculous comparison. They are diametrically opposed ideologically.

I think the point is that people should be cautious about getting too excited about backing an unknown quantity based upon impressive sounding rhetoric.

Give Ted Cruz time to develop a record and a following.  That's all I'm saying.  IMHO, many of the people who are excited about Cruz now are like Justin Bieber fans and Cruz is just their flavor of the week (Reub, I'm not saying this about you).  These same people in recent years have been excited about Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rand Paul and now Ted Cruz.

To build a loyal base you need more than the Drudge Report stoking the fire for you.

However good Cruz is today, won't he be even better after he has some accomplishments under his belt?  I say let him get some seasoning before sending him to the White House.

MediumTex wrote:

Reub wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: So it doesn't matter that he hasn't done anything yet as long as he's passionate and sincere, and you agree with his opinions?

I remember an awful lot of liberals saying things like that about this up-and-comer named Barack Obama in 2007! Myself included.

Please do not equate Ted Cruz with Barack Obama. It is a ridiculous comparison. They are diametrically opposed ideologically.

I think the point is that people should be cautious about getting too excited about backing an unknown quantity based upon impressive sounding rhetoric.

Give Ted Cruz time to develop a record and a following.  That's all I'm saying.  IMHO, many of the people who are excited about Cruz now are like Justin Bieber fans and Cruz is just their flavor of the week (Reub, I'm not saying this about you).  These same people in recent years have been excited about Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rand Paul and now Ted Cruz.

To build a loyal base you need more than the Drudge Report stoking the fire for you.

However good Cruz is today, won't he be even better after he has some accomplishments under his belt?  I say let him get some seasoning before sending him to the White House.

Which of these is not like the others? Hint, he has been in politics for decades and has run for President several times.

MediumTex wrote: Give Ted Cruz time to develop a record and a following. 

That would be preferred, and certainly Cruz is far from perfect.  However the reality, is that there are only a relatively few interested in running, and several of those (Ryan and Rubio) have disqualified themselves by being in favor of immigration reform. 

Rand Paul does seem like a good choice (though I would like to learn more).  IF ELECTED, he might very well make a good president.  I'm not sure who stands a better chance of being elected Paul or Cruz. 

And yes, a qualified governor would be a good choice if one can find one.

There is a big difference between Cruz and Palin.  Cruz has the mental horsepower, Palin does not.  I admire Palin's convictions and a lot of her positions.  I think her heart is in the right place.  But she simply doesn't have the mental horsepower.  It's like comparing Sean Hannity to Rush Limbaugh.  Hannity is a parrot.  Rush actually has his own insights and goes against the Republican party when he thinks they are too soft.

I'm a tea party guy, and I wouldn't even vote for Palin unless she was running for governor again.

Your point about Cruz not having "accomplished" anything is not a big deal.  If he had a history of compromising with the RINOS and the Dems, he wouldn't be the ideological candidate that he is.  Your argument is like saying, "He has no history of fucking things up yet, so he's unelectable."

He may be unelectable because he comes across as mean spirited, though.  Needs to work on that, IMHO.

craigr wrote:I don't think his speaking out against ObamaCare is to rally any elected republicans. He's completely playing for the wider electorate at this point...

I'd say mission accomplished for Sen. Cruz:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/meltdown-gop ... unplugged/

I guess that I'm not the only starstruck teenager who likes Justin Bieber these days, craigr.



"WASHINGTON — Following the epic, 21-hour speech by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, supporting the defunding of Obamacare, either voters made so many calls to establishment Republicans that their phone lines melted, or those GOP leaders took their phones off the hook."

Ted Cruz is red hot right now.

It will be interesting to see where he is in six months.

My thinking is that Cruz and Paul are going to keep jabbing sticks in the eyes of the GOP establishment for the next few years. I get the feeling they both know how unpopular the core GOP leadership is and are going to milk it for everything. We'll just have to see if the enthusiasm lasts from the press and public...

They are each going after a different constituency. Cruz is after the disgruntled Tea Party types. Paul is courting the quasi-libertarians and is also targeting the under 25 libertarian leaning Democrats. Together they could take over the GOP.

I don't think that Paul has what is necessary to become President.

Reub wrote: I don't think that Paul has what is necessary to become President.

He's not criminally inclined enough?

Bland and boring and will not appeal to the masses.

Reub wrote: Bland and boring and will not appeal to the masses.

Someone had better tell the pollsters that:
(from http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... .html#more)

Q14 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rand
Paul, who would you vote for?
Hillary Clinton.................................................. 39%
Rand Paul ....................................................... 49%
Not sure .......................................................... 12%

"Rand Paul ....................................................... 49%"
Wow.  The masses discover sanity?  Perhaps a community  organizer can really teach people important things.

I just watched part of an interview of Paul on the daily show and he might be the best president (of the choices).  He is articulate, can explain his views, and even got in a zinger again John Oliver. 

He is mild mannered and I wonder if electable (vs someone more charismatic), but perhaps the country is now ready for sanity. 

He doesn't come across as genuine on certain issues, but rather as someone who holds the same beliefs as his father but discovered how to more deftly say what will appeal to a more traditional Republican voter on those issues.  Namely, foreign policy and immigration.

OOps:

By SEN. RAND PAUL | 6/25/13

I will be voting no on the Senate’s Gang of Eight immigration bill for one simple reason: because the legislation does not secure the border first.

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 7/11/13 1:35 PM EDT

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul still believes the GOP would benefit from enacting a version of immigration reform before the 2016 elections, even though he voted against the comprehensive overhaul passed in the Senate at the end of June.

So Ryan, Rubio and Rand all want immigration reform.

Simonjester wrote: i don't know exactly what he means by reform.... with the laws going unenforced, the border going unsecured, the rules and bureaucracy promoting all manner of unnecessary cost and unintended consequences, it seems to me major reform is called for! but my definition of reform is not likely matching up with what any politician defines it as.
I suspect it wouldn't match rand Paul's either, but given his views on other issues he might be closer to wanting a step in the direction i would take than any other politician out there

Simonjester wrote:...the border going unsecured,...

Isn't the Border Patrol at an all-time high with number of agents? Plus that fence?

Or do you mean the Canadian border?

Simonjester wrote: it is largely border control theater/government boondoggle , a random and not terribly large percentage of immigrants and drug smugglers get stopped, the rest don't.

as long as the war on drugs creates a financial intensive to figure out ways to beat the border security (usually as simple as walking across ) and the cost and bureaucratic nightmare makes legal immigration more trouble than its worth, and the welfare, assistance and plentiful under the table/off the book jobs exist, and their baby's become anchors that let them chain immigrate entire extended families, there wont be any real progress at sorting out immigration, its a very interconnected multifaceted issue...

There is also the fact that illegal immigrants are all potential democrats.

The democrats don't want border control for the same reason they don't want people to need an ID to vote.

Simonjester wrote: yes... and this too...

Simonjester wrote:

jan van mourik wrote:

Simonjester wrote:...the border going unsecured,...

Isn't the Border Patrol at an all-time high with number of agents? Plus that fence?

Or do you mean the Canadian border?

it is largely border control theater/government boondoggle , a random and not terribly large percentage of immigrants and drug smugglers get stopped, the rest don't.

as long as the war on drugs creates a financial intensive to figure out ways to beat the border security (usually as simple as walking across ) and the cost and bureaucratic nightmare makes legal immigration more trouble than its worth, and the welfare, assistance and plentiful under the table/off the book jobs exist, and their baby's become anchors that let them chain immigrate entire extended families, there wont be any real progress at sorting out immigration, its a very interconnected multifaceted issue...

If you've ever driven along the Texas/Mexico border, you might have a more nuanced view.

It's not an unsecure border at all.  There are tons of Border Patrol officers, cameras, sensors, and fences.  Importantly, there also a series of checkpoints along the highways that are used to travel away from the border so that even if you get across the border, unless you want to walk hundreds of miles, you've got to figure out how to get past those checkpoints as well.

I guess it might be more secure with a Great Wall of China-style wall with gun turrets along the Mexican border, but what's going on now isn't bad.

Simonjester wrote: 1,954 mi total border length, a large percentage of those who get turned back on any given day will try again until they do make it, the drug traffic has even better incentives to get stuff across..

i actually don't buy the big fence argument. i think a combination of some fence, some technology and some manpower and letting the guys working on the border make decisions about what works best and where, based on first hand knowledge is the best approach, but even that wont work until you sort out all the other interconnected issues...

what we really have is border that cant be secured with manpower or fences or money alone, that doesn't mean the guys in border-patrol aren't trying, or that money isn't being spent, or mean all the effort you see expended in Texas is doing much good....

The same cannot be said for the wide open Arizona border

Mdraf wrote: The same cannot be said for the wide open Arizona border

I don't know anything about things out there.  What about the sheriff out there who is always in the news?  Is he actually doing anything helpful in stemming the flow of illegals?

MediumTex wrote: I guess it might be more secure with a Great Wall of China-style wall with gun turrets along the Mexican border, but what's going on now isn't bad.

1. Would a home defense system for your house that "wasn't bad" be sufficient?

http://www.khou.com/news/The-high-cost- ... 38759.html
AUSTIN, Texas -- As Washington refuses to agree on a federal immigration policy, violent illegal immigrants from around the world are committing crimes in Texas. They are putting a strain on both the criminal justice system and the state budget...

Over the past year, Bradley has prosecuted two murders in Cedar Park involving illegal Hondurans. In one case, a man raped and murdered a nine-year-old girl. The second killed his wife.

2. Keep in mind that at least some terrorists aren't stupid and a not bad US southern border is an open invitation to smuggling whatever weapon into the US terrorists can obtain e.g. biological, dirty bomb, etc.