Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Looks like Trump/Cruz 2016 to Me!
I think Ted Cruz has a sense of humor.
I have not observed him meticulously throughout the campaign. Mostly because I just can’t. It’s too excruciating. I can’t listen to his preacher-speak (and, my God, the pauses!) for more than two minutes at a time. But occasionally in some of the quieter on-camera interviews Cruz conveys the image of a man who is able to step away to a distance and appreciate the humor in life. Because, let’s face it, when he signed up for this presidential campaign gig he was not expecting Donald Trump. No one expects … Donald Trump!
But while Jeb Bush sputtered in outrage and Marco Rubio seemed on the verge of tears, Ted Cruz, at some level, seems to find the whole Trump thing amusing. So in spite of the suffocating phoniness of Cruz’ delivery, in those moments when he reflects on the campaign and gives his wry smile at the absurdity of it all, Cruz shines in a way that Albert Camus would appreciate.
And those are the times that I like Ted Cruz the best.
What does that suggest about what Ted Cruz thinks of Donald Trump? Early in the campaign you will remember that Ted and Donald had a pretty intense bromance going. When Cruz organized an anti-Iran rally in DC last summer he asked Donald to attend and explained that where Donald goes, so too go a hundred cameras. “Why would I not invite him?”
Since those days, of course, things have gotten a little testy. The whole Heidi-Melania thing was not pretty. And the “Lyin’ Ted” thing is going to be tough to get past.
But nevertheless, I’m inclined to think that Cruz retains his perspective.
And any reasonable perspective on the situation looks something like this: Trump 1,150, Cruz 850.
So if I am Ted Cruz, I’m thinking: “this Trump guy is really out of control.” But then I’m thinking: “but on policy we agree on just about everything.” And I’m thinking: “together we can turn this Cleveland convention into one giant, anti-establishment love-fest.” And I’m thinking: “Cruz 2024.”
Tell me, my Ricochetti friends, is there any good reason to believe that we do not, now, have our Trump/Cruz 2016 ticket already printed? I realize that if that happens the #NeverTrump people are going to find themselves looking a little holier than the Pope. But honestly that will be good for a chuckle too.
Published in General
How is that different than “rapid deportation of those caught trying to cross illegally?”
They disagree as to why. Both accuse the other of being a part of the establishment they decry.
They’d be released on the other side of the border. What we’ve got now is they’re being released on our side of the border.
Source, please?
From today’s washtimes via drudge.
I don’t know how to determine the truth in a he-said, he-said contest between the Border Patrol agency and a union official representing border agents. Frankly, I am inclined to disbelieve both the Obama Administration and union officials. Maybe the President gave a stand-down order, and maybe he didn’t.
Here’s what I do know. Border enforcement is under the control of the President. Blaming Congressional Republicans for the President’s refusal to enforce the law is uninformed and wrong. I’m sure that the blind-rage crowd will yell that if the President refuses to enforce the law then he should be impeached, and that Congress’ failure to impeach him is a “betrayal.” That’s wrong. In fact, that’s just plain stupid. Impeachment would never work, and would only help to elect more Democrats. Indeed, everything that the blind-rage crowd does, or wants to do, seems to be designed to elect more Democrats.
Any one of the 16 GOP candidates who ran this year would have increased border security enforcement. I don’t know what Trump would do, but that doesn’t matter since Trump is just a free pass to the White House for Hillary. And Hillary will lay out a red carpet over the Rio Grande. Stupid, stupid strategy.
Any policy which allows line jumpers to have their legal status expedited, especially those who otherwise wouldn’t qualify for legal status, is amnesty. I was with you for most of this thread, but your attempt to define amnesty so narrowly that not even the typical Democrat supports it cannot go uncorrected. A slap on the wrist does not make a policy not amnesty.
Only if you redefine the word amnesty. Ryan calls for an admission of guilt, a fine, and probation, that is not amnesty. Overstaying a visa and crossing the border illegally are misdemeanors. Fines and probation are common and legitimate punishments for misdemeanors.
Unless they leave the US and get in line behind the millions waiting to come here legally, it is amnesty. Anything else would be giving preferential treatment to those who broke the law.
You may call it insufficient punishment (I wouldn’t) but it is not amnesty. Amnesty is a pardon or taking no action against an offender. Paying a fine and probation are actions to punish an offense.
I don’t think there is very much to gain by arguing over competing definitions of the word “amnesty.” I think the question is whether a particular policy will solve the problem of people coming into the country illegally. Frankly, as long as there is little or no enforcement at the border, little or no enforcement of visa overstays, and little or no enforcement of the laws against hiring illegals or granting them government benefits, then I can’t see why any illegals would sign up to pay a fine. What would they get out of it? Policies like that seem like window dressing to me.
Excuse me, but I think that an effective definition of “amnesty” (and I think getting a definition is important) is any policy which illegal aliens celebrate. If, after the process, illegal aliens conclude that they are better off having broken the law than if they had not broken the law (and if they are allowed to stay at all they will be substantially better off) then that is amnesty.
We have an effective definition of the word, it can be found in any dictionary.
Meaning is usage.
Did not expect a Wittgenstein reference in this thread.
No one expects…..Ludwig Wittgenstein…..
Distorting meaning is misuse.
There is only Wittgenstein quote that is relevant to this thread
If Trump followed that advice, I would probably support him.
I agree with that, but I still don’t think that the problem is coming up with a definition of “amnesty.” If a policy isn’t working, and has no chance of working, then I don’t care whether you call it a particular name or not. I want something that will work. In this case, that means enforcement. The current laws would be fine, if they were enforced.