Trump’s liberal instincts
At the Town Hall last night, when asked what the top three functions of the US government are, Donald Trump said “security.” He added that, after that, the next function of the US government was—health care. And after that, education.
The US government. That’s the federal government.
Then Trump backtracked and—oh, instead of trying to summarize, I’ll just present the transcript of the relevant section:
QUESTION: Good evening, Mr. Trump. In your opinion, what are the top three functions of the United States government?
TRUMP: Say it again?
QUESTION: In your opinion, what are the top three functions of the United States government?
TRUMP: Well, the greatest function of all by far is security for our nation. I would also say health care, I would also say education. I mean, there are many, many things, but I would say the top three are security, security, security.
We have to have security for our country so that we can continue to exist as a country. We are in danger. Thousands and thousands of people are infiltrating our country. We don’t know who they are.
There’s a very vicious world. We’re living in a very vicious world and we’re doing something that is against a lot of very smart people’s wishes. I can tell you, it’s totally against my wishes.
COOPER: So top three, you’re saying, security.
TRUMP: Security. I say all top three are security, but health care, education, would be probably three that would be top. And then you can go on from there.
But the military and the secure country, so that we have a country. Believe me, we’ve never been in a position, in my opinion, where our country is so vulnerable. Our military is being eaten away.
When General Odierno left recently, a year ago, I was watching him on maybe your show, one of the shows, and he said that the United States Army, the United States military forces have never been so – and I think he used the word depleted. But basically he said they’re exhausted.
COOPER: So just to follow-up, though”¦
TRUMP: And that’s a pretty – that’s a pretty sad commentary. And honestly, even though he was retiring at the time – and I had a lot of respect for him, good man, but even though he was leaving at the time, people shouldn’t say that because you’re giving the enemy ideas.
But if I get in, our military will be bigger, better, stronger than ever before. It’s the cheapest thing we can do.
COOPER: So in terms of federal government role, you’re saying security, but you also say health care and education should be provided by the federal government?
TRUMP: Well, those are two of the things. Yes, sure. I mean, there are obviously many things, housing, providing great neighborhoods…
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Aren’t you against the federal government’s involvement in education? don’t you want it to devolve to states?
TRUMP: I want it to go to state, yes. Absolutely. I want – right now…
COOPER: So that’s not part of what the federal government’s…
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: The federal government, but the concept of the country is the concept that we have to have education within the country, and we have to get rid of common core and it should be brought to the state level.
COOPER: And federal health care run by the federal government?
TRUMP: Health care – we need health care for our people. We need a good – Obamacare is a disaster. It’s proven to be…
COOPER: But is that something the federal government should be doing?
TRUMP: The government can lead it, but it should be privately done. It should be privately done. So that health care – in my opinion, we should probably have – we have to have private health care. We don’t have competition in health care.
The problem that we have in our country is we don’t have competition. It’s made because the politicians – by the way, I’m self-funding. I am self-funding. So the health care companies aren’t taking care of me. But they’re taking care of everyone else.
Wait one second. We don’t have – we don’t have bidding. We don’t have competition in health care. And it’s a disaster. Obamacare, if you take a look at your premiums, they’re going up 35 percent, 45 percent, 55 percent, and the deductibles are so high, you’ll never get to use it.
Trump was asked a very very basic question. Except for his “security” answer (which seems on point, and with which I agree), last night Trump seemed to be reverting back to his big-government liberal roots (which many feel he never really left) until Anderson Cooper helped him by throwing him a lifeline with “Aren’t you against the federal government’s involvement in education? don’t you want it to devolve to states?”
That’s called cueing someone as to what their lines should be, and it seems to cause Trump to suddenly remember his role as a Republican this year and to say “I want it to go to state, yes. Absolutely…” And cued again by Cooper, he backtracks a bit on “health care” too, saying later on that “The government can lead it, but it should be privately done.”
There was plenty more, too, but that’s the part that struck me as especially odd and disjointed. Allahpundit asks:
I ask this question not to troll but in earnest: Does Trump know basic civics? I’m sure he knows the most basic basics, like the three branches of government, but would he be able to explain in a sentence or two, for instance, why someone who favors federalism believes most functions of government are best handled at the local level? Hillary Clinton is no federalist but I’m sure she at least understands the argument for it. Does Trump? When he said a few weeks ago that judges “sign bills,” was that a simple brain fart or does he really not understand the distinction between legislative bills, judicial orders, and majority opinions/dissents? I honestly don’t know. Everyone acts annoyed when reporters get pedantic with presidential candidates by quizzing them on their knowledge of baroque facts, like who the prime minister of Malaysia is, but Trump really does put out the vibe sometimes that how the basic machinery of government operates in the United States is a secondary concern to a would-be president.
I’ve been asking similar questions, both on this blog and to myself, for quite some time. In general, I’ve tended to err on the side of respect for Trump in guessing that he actually knows more than he seems to know but that he pretends not to know for his own rhetorical purposes. But over time I’ve become less and less sure of that. Trump is not a good abstract thinker; he seems very concrete, and until now most of his thinking has focused on how to make a buck in real estate and how to promote himself as a celebrity (the two are related). Also how to get into the pants of pretty women (that’s related, too). He is good at these things, but they don’t give me a lot of hope that they would make him a good or even a passable or okay president.
[NOTE: If you want a nice contrast, here’s the transcript for Ted Cruz last night.]
[ADDENDUM: Some similar thoughts to mine are expressed here.]
Security, security, security. It’s that simple. Lose the country and everything else matters not a nit. A nation secure in its identity and foundation may play all it wants with education, healthcare and all the rest of the rigamorole. What was done can be undone — see the disaster of Prohibition. Trump has been rightly indicted as no conservative. Trump, on the other hand, is the most conservative. He wishes to preserve the nation. As the philosophers are wont to say, first things first, first principles — save the nation.
SillyConWrecks:
Trump says a lot of things but most are lies. How do you know he isn’t lying about this too?
Yes, Trump is a liberal. A Jack Kennedy-Scoop Jackson-Patrick Moynihan style liberal.
There is no doubt that he would govern as one.
Which makes Ted Cruz the far better choice.
However, given the mortal danger that America faces from Muslim migration and the cultural dissolution that illegal and legal immigration present, Trump’s focus upon National Security places him far above Clinton, Sanders and Biden.
JurassiCon Rex:
Cruz wants to save the nation, too.
I want to save the nation as well, as do most conservatives who disagree with you that Trump is a good vehicle for doing so. He seems to lack a basic understanding of the function and methods of government.
In the meantime, Trump’s desire seems to be a liberal one in so many other respects.
Geoffrey Britain:
No, Trump is far to the left of “Jack Kennedy-Scoop Jackson-Patrick Moynihan style liberal.”
What’s more, they had a basic understanding of government and an ability to string words together to show and convey that understanding. They also had a basic respect for other human beings, including those who disagreed with them or crossed them.
Neo-neocon,
You may wish it to be true but Cruz has political baggage that Trump hasn’t . Cruz has a history with visa manipulation and voting to fast track TPP. Neither instance squares with trusting him to save the nation – excepting for Big Money (who’s he married to again, I mean professionally, I mean the gal with her own baggage – and its not Louis Vuitton).
JurassiCon Rex:
I have described many times that Trump has even more baggage than that—including on immigration—and more recent baggage. One of those posts is here; there are plenty of others.
And that’s just Trump’s immigration baggage. He has so much other baggage that he’d need a troop of porters to haul it around.
The problem is not whether Trump is a liberal or a conservative – the problem is that he is completely ignorant of the most basic principles of our country. And, unfortunately, most of his followers are just as ignorant. He is a boorish, bullying TV celebrity, and that’s all. And so his followers will vote for this celebrity because that’s the extent of their knowledge also.
neo,
What evidence can you offer in support of the assertion that Trump is far to the left of Jack Kennedy-Scoop Jackson-Patrick Moynihan?
I’m fairly certain that if they were still with us, they too would be further to the left, perhaps much further, than they once were… but I compared Trump to them in that, liberal though they were, they placed America’s security as their highest priority. If Trump is sincere, then he too places an equal importance upon security.
In no way did I mean to imply that Trump can even begin to match them in understanding.
Trump operates out of his gut. Understanding is at best a distant concern.
JurassiCon Rex,
When it comes to past behavior for reasons to doubt their sincerity, drawing equivalence between Cruz and Trump is insupportable. Ted Cruz certainly has his flaws but as of this date, they pale in significance, when compared to Trump’s.
Blithering isn’t really an art form, save for specialists like Sid Caeser who do it for the laughs. Entertaining, sure. A foundation of governing, not so much.
Re Trump and security — this exchange on nuclear proliferation at last night’s town hall is simply farcical, not to mention scary as all get-out:
Ann – Non-proliferation is a policy concept; weapons for our friends and no weapons for our enemies is dealing.
I’ve never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Jack Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, Pat Moynihan, Sam Nunn, or Joe Lieberman were running for President, I would unhesitatingly vote for them over the asshole. But they’re not — as Joe Lieberman was, the rest of them would have been kicked out of the Democratic Party by now — so I have to vote for the asshole. Sheesh!
Geoffrey Britain (and Neo-neocon),
It’s not merely past behavior, and its not equivalence I am contending. It’s the fact that Cruz’s inconsistencies are far more egregious for the simple fact of having been the doing of a politician in office. Cruz the conservative had been voting for and instigating policies and laws which I believe damaging to the nation. Trump had never done me (and others like me) such harm as Cruz and the rest of the Establishmentarian connivers. Trump may turn out to nothing more than the next iteration of a bad lot but I believe him to be the better bet — shorter money, i.e., odds on favorite to do some as he says he will do. The rest of them are merely more of the same – long odds in search of a payoff. In thirty years — not one had come through.
And I would no more trust any part of this nation to Goldman Sachs whispering sweet nothing into Ted’s ears than I would trust Othello’s love to Iago’s blandishments.
JurassiCon Rex:
You’d rather go with your fantasies of the person who is far more inconsistent in far more ways, and important ones at that, but who has never held office and therefore has no record as an officeholder (and no experience), and has a terrible character as well.
Boggles the mind. Boggles the mind.
Richard Saunders:
You are assuming that Trump will get the nomination of the GOP? I don’t assume that, although of course it’s most certainly possible.
Even then, you don’t “have to” anything. I understand the argument for it, though.
What a lousy rotten ethical and political and moral dilemma.
Quite frankly, it is enough to wonder how the h*ll he even got to be as rich as he is.
Oh, forgot that he basically “inherited” his money.
On closer inspection, it turns out Trump under-performed the S&P500, let alone, on a more appropriate risk vs return basis, not even close to the NASDAQ Composite.
neo…
Rex comes off as nothing more than an anti-Cruz troll.
His ‘logic’ is that adrift.
The ‘problem’ that the Left has with Cruz is that oppo research can scarcely find anything.
The best shot they’ve got is some cringe worthy utterances from evangelical preachers.
This leads some atheists to believe that Cruz is seeking to be the Pope of America — or some other such crazy notion.
&&&&
The MSM hates a Sanders or Cruz presidency — as either one is going to cut up their revenue stream.
Sanders wants to drastically limit political spending… which largely ends up in the lap of the MSM.
Cruz wants to drastically limit Federal spending … a big slice of which largely ends up in the lap of the MSM.
blert:
Actually, “Rex” is an old-timer here under another name, and started commenting here in 2010. He has morphed into a sort of highfalutin Trump troll, but I cut him some slack because of his old-timer status.
Big Maq Says:
March 30th, 2016 at 5:17 pm
Quite frankly, it is enough to wonder how the h*ll he even got to be as rich as he is.
Oh, forgot that he basically “inherited” his money.
On closer inspection, it turns out Trump under-performed the S&P500, let alone, on a more appropriate risk vs return basis, not even close to the NASDAQ Composite.
&&&&&&&
You didn’t even make it up to ‘wrong.’
1) To inherit money — daddy must have died.
2) Daddy sold third rate, rent-controlled, apartments to Donald… taking back a purchase money mortgage, IIRC.
So, Donald started his real estate career, Carlton Sheets style, no-money down.
The way forward for him was to stop New Yorkers from handing down their apartments through the generations… a game that is oft played in New York.
By the rules, once an apartment is vacated — by death or retirement to a nursing home — it can be re-rented at current market rates. This may well mean that the rent explodes from $100 per month to $800 per month.
To achieve that multiple, said apartment has to be ‘refreshed’ — ie re-habbed.
You will note that Trump ALWAYS refreshes every property he touches — or builds from scratch.
As soon as he could, Donald got rolling in properties that were largely immune to New York City’s rent control regime.
That, plus a bull market in real estate, plus hype and leverage is what put Trump on the map.
In any financial calculation, one must figure on the staggering draws that Trump has imposed upon his empire.
Stuff like his personal 757, his divorces, on and on it goes.
When this income stream is added back in, Trump has done fantastically better than the stock market averages.
Which stands to reason: look at his leverage.
It is really a short against the US dollar. That’s been a one-way bet for our entire lives.
If you post here, get your facts right.
I think there is too much anti-Trump sniping, and insufficient attention to the sensible things he has said.
Like his essentially ignored comment about the absence of (cost-based) competition in health care, and he did mean cost-based since he started with “bidding.”
It is the job of the other two branches of government to see to it that Trump is not a Ruler like Obama, should he be elected. If the Congress and the Judiciary reform themselves and actually perform their duties, that alone will make the election of Trump or the nutty Sanders worthwhile. If Hillary wins, such will not happen, not with Dems riding into Congress and her takeover of SCOTUS; and the country’s doom will be secured. Its resurrection will be impossible.
Jurassic on Rex,
Other than initially voting for and then opposing TPP, exactly what policies and laws has Cruz voted for, that you believe to be harmful to the country? Specifics please.
Stupid spell correction on android…
Frog – Don’t pass the buck. It’s up to the voters to elect people who won’t try to usurp the other branches’ authority.
Ann,
Trump’s rambling words are incoherent, but I do understand what he is trying to say, and I happen to think he is correct. Proliferation will occur. Now that Iran is only a few years away from warheads it is likely that SA will purchase nukes from Pakistan. And, I have no problem with Japan having nukes.
This is not an endorsement of Trump. But an incoherent jester can be correct once in a blue moon.
Neo-neocon,
What soothes the brain is to stop banging it against the same wall. What boggles the mind is that a person of obvious intelligence should continue to bang their head against the same wall hoping for different results.
As for my being a troll — I deny it — I think. I’m not sure what ‘troll’ alludes to in the context of a commenter on a blog. It certainly can’t be mere difference of opinion. It’d have to be something more sinister than that.
And thanks for the slack — I think.
parker Says:
March 30th, 2016 at 5:48 pm
Ann,
Trump’s rambling words are incoherent, but I do understand what he is trying to say, and I happen to think he is correct. Proliferation will occur. Now that Iran is only a few years away from warheads it is likely that SA will purchase nukes from Pakistan. And, I have no problem with Japan having nukes.
%%%%%
It’s an ill kept secret: Islamabad has ALREADY rebuffed KSA’s requests.
For to do so they’d alienate Iran — a nation in THE position to rile up Baluchistan… which is where Pakistan gets its natural gas to power up its automobile fleet.
Further, Pakistan has signed deals ( Canada, IIRC ) that prohibit such transfers.
To date no nation has ever sold nukes to other nations — exception USA sold D5 warheads to UK.
Pakistan could never hope to seal off its border from Iranian infiltration nukes.
Geoffrey Brittain,
Cruz the constitutional conservative blamed Trump for the mob riot in Chicago preventing Trump from speaking. Here he had an opportunity to soar above the fray of politics but chose instead to travel the low road of Trump’s meanderings for political gain. No thanks. I will not abide gross political grasping from a constitutional conservative lawyer. I’ll have the scoundrel for now. No-one can say he ought to know better.
JurassiCon Rex:
You are mischaracterizing Cruz’s statements. He blamed the violence on the protestors, but added that Trump has helped to create a climate of violence—which he has in fact done.
See this for Cruz’s actual statements.
Here is what I wrote on the subject of that climate of violence that Trump has helped to create (first ADDENDUM at this post).
How much Trump knows in the way of basic civics, I could not know for certain.
But his exchange with Cooper indicates that he probably could not speak extemporaneously in a cogent and coherent manner on the subject of dual Federalism, and its history.
Most citizens, meaning virtually all Democrats and the majority “independents” as well, probably know nothing or next to it, about it either. And frankly, it is precisely dual federalism, as the structural keel and ribs of limited – through divided “sovereignty” – government, that the American left and Democrat Party have been trying to dismantle and bury out of sight for so many decades now, that only vestiges of it are visible anymore and one hardly knows where to look even then.
If I am right in what I said in the second paragraph, Trump then, alarmingly, is merely a man of his time in that sense.
Commentators are not referring to us as inhabiting a post-constitutional era, for nothing. This is usually a pleasing thought to the left, until they consider that it might be they who are killed or expropriated extra-constitutionally by the devil they have summoned. Then, divided sovereignty, the separation of federal powers and the impartial rule of law becomes a big rhetorical deal to them … for a time.
Reminds me of David Brooks unctuous yammering about the decay of political civility.
He must have fallen asleep sometime around 1968 and just awoken.
Neo-neocon,
Trump has done no such a thing. The climate of violence was instituted by one Barrack Obama and his cronies. Trump had responded to it in words unmeasured and he did well to do so. Enough of Marquess of Queensbury rules. Enough of cringe inducing Establishmentarians. The contingent of rioters in Chicago were George Soros lackeys of the type MoveOn. Org and Black Lives Matter. Cruz had his chance and he’d muffed it with the usual pusillanimity we’ve come to expect from conservatives.
The conversation that’s going on in this thread is what’s blather. Trump will not win the nomination. He’s too obviously a clown, and not enough of the GOP base are fools to vote for him.
The new Marquette WI poll is telling you something.
JurassiCon Rex,
I happen to agree with neo AND you regarding the violence at Trump’s rallies.
Trump definitely encouraged a violent reaction to Soros’ agents. Neither can escape their share of responsibility. That said, a passive reaction to Soros’ ‘protesters’ is surrendering before the fight even begins and, there will be a fight.
Cruz’s statement clearly assigned primary responsibility for the violence to the protesters. The media of course, only reported Cruz’s assertion that Trump could not escape responsibility for the aggressive climate Trump encouraged among his supporters.
Finally, I am still waiting for you to specifically identify the “policies and laws” that Cruz has voted for that have in your opinion, harmed this nation.
If you cannot, I hope you will be big enough to admit that it is personal bias that motivates your animus toward Ted Cruz.
Neo – old Army expression — “Hope for the best; plan for the worst.”
blert — Somebody, I don’t recall who, said something to the effect that “Turning a hundred dollars into a million dollars is extremely difficult; turning a million dollars into a hundred million is inevitable.”
Matt_SE,
It’s becoming increasingly likely that no one is going to ‘win’ the Republican nomination. Especially now that all the candidates have rescinded their prior pledge to support whomever won the nomination.
The right is handing the Presidency to another democrat. May God have mercy on our souls, since it will be a self-inflicted injury, he’s not likely to have mercy on our lives. Actions have consequences. And our children’s children will curse our memory.
Does anyone else sense a change in momentum over the last week or so?
Two caveats apply. First of all, as they say, objects may appear larger on the internet. A shift among bloggers doesn’t mean a shift is taking place in real life. Secondly, this might only be an illusion caused by the lull in primaries. We may return to Trump bludgeoning Cruz as soon as the primary voters begin speaking again.
Still, something seems different. Anderson Cooper treating Trump with contempt. The poll that Matt_SE cited. The way that every mini-scandal news story – the next one, and the one after that, as Neo puts it – has broken against Trump lately. Ann Coulter, of all people, criticizing him. I’ve spotted 7 out of the last 0 momentum shifts against Trump, but still: this feels different. There’s a sobriety about it. The collapse of Howard Dean felt like this.
One other thing I should have added to my list, that could in itself be a turning point: the end of the pledge. It amounts to a formal acknowledgment that this race isn’t about which candidate best represents the Republican Party anymore. It faces up to the open secret that Trump was never going to support a candidate that he could claim was “unfairly” nominated.
Right about now is the time that, in a normal cycle, the party hacks would be lining up behind the inevitable candidate. Let bygones by bygones, et cetera. A couple of them lined up behind Trump, then nothing. If anything, Cruz had an increase in endorsements. I think that Walker carries a lot of weight in his home state, and his endorsement ties in nicely to his exit speech.
Geoffrey Brittain.
Ted’s wife Heidi, a Goldman Sachs investment manager served on the task force which wrote the report on “Building a North American Community,” a direct attack on American independence.
It includes, according to James Kilpatrick, a recommendation for building an EU style abolition of borders between Mexico and the United States.
Heidi Cruz, in an addendum to the report wrote:
I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. (p.33) What’s good for Goldman Sachs and North America isn’t necessarily good for the United States.
I wonder not at all that an attractive, capable woman like Heidi is not out stumping for Ted. It might engender too many questions of the sort middle class Americans would like answered- such as why North America rates greater consideration than the United States.
I’ve already stated I have no use for banksters in general and GS in particular.
Also:
Amendment Cruz 5 – “to substantially increase legal immigration”
Increase H1-b visas 500%
Mr Cruz, though sometimes ambiguous about what’s to be done with illegal immigrants, is all for more legal immigrants… some 50 million not being enough. That number passed my threshold 49 million legal immigrants ago.
Also:
Ted Cruz’ campaign chairman, Chad Sweet, is a former CIA officer; also worked for Goldman Sachs.
Cruz voted for cloture on TPA, (trans pacific partnership agreement)
Crazy Glenn Beck supports Cruz as the anointed one.
Support Cruz if you will, but he has enough uncertainties (for me anyway) to qualify as a certain Establishmentarian.
I thought Trump’s momentum began to flag when he lost Dilbert.
At this time, Scott Adams is disavowing Trump with every post — now placing the disavowal at the head of his post.
!!!
Dilbert has quite a hefty following, and he’s something of a weathervane, himself.
It was the flak that pro-Trump posts were drawing that caused Adams to pull off the throttle.
I estimate that Trump will cruise into Cleveland — considerably short of the nomination.
After the second round his delegates will bolt.
By that time the polling numbers — his — will make him poison.
On policy, it will be easy for ex-Trumpers to jump onto the Cruz bandwagon.
Hillary is so loathed that I figure her to re-unify the GOP — in the blink of an eye.
Trump is NEVER going to counter-campaign — like Perot — as that would mean that he’d lose fer sure.
I wasn’t fully satisfied with Cruz’ dialogue in that selection. He seemed to me to be a little too long-winded, a little too inclined to dance around the edges of uncomfortable brass-tacks questions (the one about policing Muslim neighborhoods in particular). I thought it was okay as such performances go, but not as amazing as I thought it would be.
GB: the right is not going to hand the election to Hillary, Trump is.
Jurassic: did you say Heidi is not campaigning with Ted? She is on the trail with him a lot.
And so what about Glenn Beck, crazier Sarah Palin supports Trump.
KLSmith,
You essentially misread the point. Mr Beck is not crazy for supporting Cruz. He’s crazy for anointing him as the anointed one. As far I know neither God nor the any of the pantheon of gods had anointed Cruz. So yes, crazier than Sarah’s mere support for Trump.
Understand?
KLSmith:
No SilyConWrecks is death on bankers, lawyers, immigrants, non-Anglo-Saxons, conservatives, liberals, Goldman Sacs employees, the Tri Lateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, … well you get the picture.
Trump and the Constitution/federalism is much like matter meeting antimatter. No thanks. 8 years of bho is enough.
OM,
I find Mr. Dinosaur a bit too much, and too much into the trump cult, and willing, if not anxious, to drink the anti Cruz kool-aid. However, I do not read him as wearing an Alex Jones aluminum foil hat.
I read him as old, cranky, p*ssed off, and desperately seeking a champion. Minus the desperately part, I can identify.
JurassiCon Rex,
Let me deal with your objections to Cruz from inconsequential to most troublesome.
“Crazy Glenn Beck supports Cruz as the anointed one.”
That’s a knock on Beck not Cruz.
“Ted Cruz’ campaign chairman, Chad Sweet, is a former CIA officer; also worked for Goldman Sachs.”
A ‘former’ CIA officer and ‘former’ employee at Goldman Sachs. Well, there you go, that proves it! (sarc off)
“Cruz voted for cloture on TPA, (trans pacific partnership agreement)”
What counts is the bottom line and Cruz reversed himself on that bill.
“Heidi Cruz, in an addendum to the report wrote:
I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. (p.33) What’s good for Goldman Sachs and North America isn’t necessarily good for the United States.”
“On pages 33-34 of CFR’s “Building a North American Community,” Heidi Cruz wrote a paragraph included under “Additional and Dissenting Views” that contended economic investment must be led by the private sector rather than government:
Nowhere in that passage is there; “What’s good for Goldman Sachs and North America isn’t necessarily good for the United States.” which means it was cut and pasted together and taken out of context. Leading the reader to a preordained conclusion.
The article contains important information that puts the lie to the charge that Cruz is unduly influenced by Goldman Sachs;
“The national spokesman for Cruz’s presidential campaign, Rick Tyler, emphasized in a response to WND that the senator has never been a member of CFR and harshly criticized the organization during his 2012 U.S. Senate campaign as a threat to U.S. sovereignty, even though his wife was a member at the time.
Tyler noted that at a campaign event in Tyler, Texas, in 2011, Cruz called CFR “a pernicious nest of snakes” that is “working to undermine our sovereignty.”
Tyler explained that Heidi Cruz, then an energy investment banker for Merrill Lynch in Houston, served as a CFR term member.
Her term expired in 2011, Tyler said, and she was one of 31 members assigned to the task force that produced the “Building a North American Community” report.
“Her contribution to the report was narrowly focused on economic issues,” Tyler told WND. “She said as much in her dissenting view included in the report.”
“In a video interview with independent journalist Derrick Broze in 2011, Cruz responded to “the opponents in this race who have taken to attacking my wife.”
He pointed out she was one among thousands of term members of the CFR for a brief period, joining it “as one of the few conservatives” after stepping down from the Bush administration, “trying to push for conservative outcomes.”
He [Cruz] mentioned former U.N. ambassador John Bolton is a member.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/ted-cruz-again-battles-globalist-charge-against-wife/#KYBXLJl0qKGopKvi.99
Given all of this, I find the evidence strongly supports the dismissal of that charge against Cruz.
We finally get to the most serious charge; Cruz’s Amendment Cruz 5 — “to substantially increase legal immigration” That proposed to increase H1-b visas 500%
In the link you provide, Cruz states that his rationale for offering the amendment is the assertion that there is a “serious shortage of stem workers in the united states”. Cruz was not alone in believing that myth. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, US News and World Report, Forbes and many others accepted that myth until it was disproved. To show how confused was the issue, US News and World Report ran two opposing articles, on the same day totally contradicting each other.
“Short on STEM Talent” (claiming the shortage to be real) and “STEM Grads Are at a Loss” “Overall, U.S. colleges produce twice the number of STEM graduates annually as find jobs in those fields.”
From Ted Cruz’s website; “CRUZ IMMIGRATION PLAN”
If after all of this, you still assume it all to be a cynical political ploy, then you’ve closed your mind to objective consideration and have raised dogmatism in its place.
“closed your mind” Is the definition of trumpians. Kool-aid 24/7.
Geoffrey:
Sterling job of refuting the few talking points against Cruz, with lots of details I was not aware of. Parker is correct, though, that facts, evidence, context will have no effect on a member of a cult of personality.
Geoffrey – JurassiCon Rex wrote:
—
Heidi Cruz, in an addendum to the report wrote:
I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. (p.33) What’s good for Goldman Sachs and North America isn’t necessarily good for the United States.
—
He didn’t include the last sentence in quotes. I made the same mistake as you did, assuming that it was being cited as a statement either she or the report made, but it was JurassiCon Rex’s editorial comment after the quote and page reference.
Nick,
It brings into question Rex’s honesty. Perhaps it was a honest error, perhaps not.
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, this time.
Yeah, I’m not his biggest fan either. I spent a few minutes trying to track down what I thought was a quote about Goldman Sachs, and I came back here with both barrels loaded, ready to call him a liar. Then I reread his statement and came up with the most favorable interpretation for him.
Nick:
Certainly not everything Trump says is wrong, or bad. Some things he says are fine.
It’s a matter of way too many things that ARE wrong, or bad, or both, and a matter of character.