moonbattery logo

Sep 07 2017

Ted Cruz Told Us What to Expect

Conservatives are enraged that Trump betrayed Republicans by cutting a deal with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to tie hurricane relief to jacking up the debt ceiling even further, making it obvious that fiscal responsibility is still nowhere in sight, even as the national debt reaches potentially catastrophic proportions. It’s not as if no one saw this coming. Politistick quotes Ted Cruz from January 2016:

“Donald just a couple of days ago drew the difference between me and him. And he said, look, Ted won’t go along to get along. He won’t cut a deal. So if as a voter you think what we need is more Republicans in Washington to cut a deal with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, then I guess Donald Trump’s your guy.”

Getting Schumer and Pelosi to raise the debt ceiling requires about as much deal-making talent as negotiating to get Shrillary to guzzle another glass of scotch.

BTW, the national debt is now just a hair under $20,000,000,000,000.00, not counting unfunded liabilities, and skyrocketing upward as rapidly as ever.

For the next big deal, Trump will work with leftists to bestow upon us comprehensive immigration reform — a.k.a. amnesty. How nice to have a President who gets things done.

Also on the agenda: conspiring with Schumer to abolish the debt ceiling altogether, so that Big Government can spend and grow and spend and grow until every penny of wealth we create has been flushed away and the whole country collapses into insolvency.

On tips from Torcer and Varla.



  • geeknerd

    Will the NeverTrumpsters start shouting “See!, We told you so!”?

    You know they’re just waiting to say it.

  • Torcer

    Will some of a certain cult following admit their mistake?

  • Charlie Wiegert

    I won’t shout it. I’ll just say it calmly, quietly and with a smile. TOLD YOU SO YOU CULT45 DUMMIES!! Okay. maybe I will shout. And laugh.

  • The LIEberal Media ☆ ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ

    .
    What conservatives? Who is backing him up in Congress? Though in this case doing nothing would have been better than dealing with the double devil.
    .

  • The LIEberal Media ☆ ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ

    .
    If he does anything stupid re. dacaca we will see a lot of people heading for the exits.. and just hypothetically, who would we agree on for 2020..?
    .

  • ramrodd

    TRUMP the “OUTSTANDING” illegals you want to give a “Merit System” have…

    (MAIA)

    Before
    an illegal alien receives his/her first paycheck or cash payment, they have
    committed some 26 Federal, State and Local laws.

    1.
    They conspire to cross the border illegally. (1 count)
    2.
    They hire a coyote or are provided passage by a Drug Cartel in exchange for
    guided passage into the USA. (1 count)
    3.
    They cross the Border with a coyote and in many cases smuggle drugs. (1
    count)
    4.
    They travel, illegally, to their destination or to a destination determined by
    their “smuggler.” (1 count)
    5.
    They obtain fraudulent documents via identity theft, or via manufactured
    documents….driver license, green card, social security card, birth certificate
    (each count a felony). (4 counts)

    6.
    They look for work using these documents. (1 count)
    7.
    They fill out work documents falsely, i.e., Federal and State IRS forms, SSN
    forms, Immigration forms, Workers comp. forms (each a separate felony. (6
    counts)
    8.
    They drive on our roads without a legal license, registration, insurance. (3
    counts)
    9.
    They get paid via check or under the table, thus conspiring with the employer to
    defraud the government(s) via the use of false documents. (2 counts)
    10.
    They open bank accounts via the use of false documents in violation of Federal
    Law and the Patriot Act. (2 counts)
    11.
    They obtain housing via the use of false documents. (1 count)
    12.
    They obtain a car or truck via the use of false documents. (1 count)
    13.
    They obtain healthcare via the use of false documents. (1 count)
    14.
    They secure public service benefits via the use of false documents – food,
    housing, healthcare, etc. (3 + counts)

    At
    a minimum this list shows that they commit at least 28 crimes of identity theft,
    conspiracy, obtaining false documents making false statements, fraud, violation
    of Federal and State and Local laws, etc.

    AND
    THE LIST GOES ON.

    The
    above list correctly demonstrates that they are not simply in violation of our
    laws just for crossing the Border, they are in violation for multiple
    misdemeanor and criminal acts in just a very short period of time and they
    continue to compound their violations via the passage of time, via falsification
    of documents, false statements, perjury and the list goes
    on.

  • ramrodd

    ICE Agent: “My Job Obsolete, Borders Now Wide Open;” Career ICE Official:

    “We’re Being Kept in Dark;” 40 Mlln Amnesty, NOT Just 5 Mlln

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/75847/ice-agent-my-job-is-now-obsolete-borders-now-wide-open-career-ice-official-were-being-kept-in-dark-40-mlln-amnesty-not-just-5-mlln/

  • Mr. Freemarket

    The simple truth is that many of us predicted a year and a half ago that Trump would likely destroy the republican party. Yes, the GOPers don’t support him, then again, he isn’t exactly standing up for conservative principles either.

    Nancy and Chucky are licking their chops.

  • grayjohn

    Government = Criminal

  • Maurice Miner

    Trump is, unfortunately or otherwise, a businessman – whose business has traditionally relied upon debt to grow. Debt is good if put to productive enterprise, where the increase in profit exceeds the cost of debt.

    Econ 101.

    However, if he follows the same tactic as a Government, it is doomed to failure. Firstly, Government debt is not put to productive enterprise – it all goes on welfare payments, the MIC, and various other boondoggles.

    Secondly, there is no “profit” arising from Government, as there is no productive enterprise. The only “profit” a Government makes is the coercive power of taxation – nothing else a Government does brings in sufficient revenue to even come close to a “profit”.

    Trump is going to take the USA to Hell in a hand-basket by embracing debt.

  • daPenguin

    sure they will Torcer, ooh was that Rosie O that I just saw fly by?

  • Stosh

    In the election we had a choice between a Demonkrat and a Socialist…would have been nice if the GOP had someone running.

  • Richard Baratheon

    buy bitcoin

  • KirklesWorth

    What “mistake”? Not letting Hillary win?

  • Jack Bauer

    This is a little something offered to my fellow conservatives and libertarians here, inspired by the comments thread. Please take it in the constructive spirit in which it is offered, and please don’t take it the wrong way:

    ==========================================================
    Unfortunately this comment thread, and the article itself, demonstrates why I worry that conservatism is sadly doomed to fail in the end, unless conservatives are willing to adopt a more realistic approach towards advancing their cause.

    Oh sure, the odds are highly stacked against us, as the real powers that remain hidden in Washington, continue to call all the shots, regardless of which faux political party happens to be in “power”. But we also tend to be somewhat self-defeating, unfortunately.

    Although I was not a supporter of Trump in the primaries, after he won, I supported his agenda because there were a great many things about it in which I found myself in agreement. Then, along come the repubs in Congress, now with a clear majority, who cannot, or more appropriately WILL NOT comply with the campaign promises they themselves made in order to get elected.

    For example: Suddenly, we can’t repeal Obamacare,… there’s no money in the budget for the wall, or ….we don’t have time to take up the issue of tax cuts in this session,……seriously? Incidentally, mind if I refer to all of you there on Capital Hill as a collection of lying sacks of shit?

    Trump’s agenda could not be thwarted any more right now, than it would have been had dems gotten the majority. The momentary euphoria that conservatives felt after the re-securing the House majority and gaining a new one in the Senate, really amounts nothing. In the words of the late comedian George Carlin: “…The elections are there to give us the illusion that you have a choice. YOU DON’T. The shit that we shuffle around every four years is meaningless”.

    All that aside, I can’t help but feel this response for some, was like a spring loaded trap, just waiting to snap, the second Trump did anything that conservatives didn’t approve of. Many of course, were motivated by the urge to be seen as right, so they could launch into a session of “see I told you so”. I guess everyone has their priorities….lol.

    But conservatives seem to have the greatest tendency to do this, and it is always as though no repub president has ever made a decision before, that went against conservative principles. Compare this to Bush I’s pledge of “no new taxes”, or Bush II’s endorsement of “No Child Left Behind” co-written with the despicable Teddy Kennedy, or his tacit support of “Campaign Finance Reform”. And while we’re at it, let’s not forget our sainted Ronald Regan, who signed off on Tip O’Neal’s illegal immigration amnesty, which in large part contributes to the mess we have now. My guess is that some of the same people would be lambasting Ted Cruz, had he been elected, and committed the unpardonable sin of having made a decision that didn’t follow conservative ideals.

    At times like these, the words of my mentor, William F. Buckley still ring in my ears, when he (as one of the principle founders of the modern conservative movement), stated that he always voted for the candidate who MOST CLOSELY represented his political views. Implicit in that view, is that the candidate, while in office, may not follow conservative principles right down the line on everything.

    But for some conservatives, when this occurs, they can’t resist the urge to say:”That’s it! I’ll never vote/support him because of this!”. (Have you noticed that the dems/socialists don’t do this?).

    For myself, I tend to follow Buckley’s advice, and take a longer view of things, and, for example, not complete my evaluation of an administration until after it has completed. In that way, I can quantify whether or not, as a whole, my political philosophy has made a net gain or loss. For example, despite some things I disagreed with Reagan about, I saw it as a net gain. As for Trump, my vote for him in the general election seemed logical, considering the horrendously bleak alternative of a Hillary Clinton administration, and yet I’d be the first to agree that right now, it’s not looking too good, considering that he has the dems, the repubs, the entire media, and the administrative state, all working against him…but there’s still 3+ more years to go, and only time will tell.

  • Richard Daniels

    Have to disagree on the article.
    Please remember we are only eight months into this administration. The money has already been spent. There is little to nothing Trump could do to stop what Congress or the previous administration has done. Objecting to raising the debt ceiling right now is pointless, and vetoing it could cause damage to the agenda later down the road.
    Imagine we were passengers on a bus that had been driven to the middle of nowhere and stopped at a fuel station with an empty tank.
    The driver gets out,shrugs his shoulders and says he doesn’t have cash for fuel and walks away. Another passenger steps up and says he will drive the bus back to town,but needs to borrow gas money from the other passengers. Would you then rail against the new driver and cry out that you’ve already paid for your ticket,and you don’t want to pay more? Or would you shall out more money and hope the driver can get us back on the road to civilisation?

  • MAS

    Well said. Time alone will tell if Trump’s presidency was a net gain or loss and the RNC has only confirmed what we already knew about them…political snakes in the grass with little (if any) interest in our welfare. If I were looking for a perfect president It’d be Jesus Christ, all others are as flawed as me.

  • Jack Bauer

    “….. If I were looking for a perfect president It’d be Jesus Christ…”

    Yeah, but judging by his reaction to the merchants in the temple, I think this crowd of phonies and crooks we have down there on Capital Hill, would REALLY piss him off…..lol.

    And that “den of thieves” from 2000 years ago, were rank amateurs compared to the current ones.

    Thanks for your comment, MAS.

  • MAS

    He had no interest in politics but was double tough on the mainstream religious folk. Now to those politicians (on both sides) who play the religion card to get elected…well those He’d whip pretty good. 😉

  • magic1114

    Ain’t gonna happen. If Trump were to sign off on some kind of amnesty deal he knows he could kiss his second term goodbye…

  • TrojanMan

    Here we go again… LOL

  • geeknerd

    Not with a North Korean Electro-Magnetic Pulse hanging over our head.

  • Torcer

    No, the mistake of choosing the wrong candidate.

    But it is an entirely pointless exercise in arguing the past.

    The question now becomes one of whether or not incorrect behaviour should be reinforced?

    BF Skinner: Operant Conditioning
    Skinner is regarded as the father of Operant Conditioning, but his work was based on Thorndike’s (1905) law of effect. Skinner introduced a new term into the Law of Effect – Reinforcement. Behavior which is reinforced tends to be repeated (i.e. strengthened); behavior which is not reinforced tends to die out-or be extinguished (i.e. weakened).
    https://simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html

  • KirklesWorth

    So you mean pre-July-20th-2016 Trump supporters.

  • Torcer

    Can you answer these please:
    The question now becomes one of whether or not incorrect behaviour should be reinforced?

    BF Skinner: Operant Conditioning
    Skinner is regarded as the father of Operant Conditioning, but his work was based on Thorndike’s (1905) law of effect. Skinner introduced a new term into the Law of Effect – Reinforcement. Behavior which is reinforced tends to be repeated (i.e. strengthened); behavior which is not reinforced tends to die out-or be extinguished (i.e. weakened).
    https://simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html

    Why are you insisting on a pointless argument on past events?

  • KirklesWorth

    Your initial question was: “Will some of a certain cult following admit their mistake?”, which is an unspecific and loaded question. What was the mistake in question and who comprises the “certain cult following”?

  • Torcer

    Do you have some innate need to argue over minutia?
    That question was in response to the initial question from

    geeknerd
    Will the NeverTrumpsters start shouting “See!, We told you so!”?
    You know they’re just waiting to say it.

    To which you could apply the same criticisms.

    I was referring to those who did not listen when they were warned last spring. What does that matter anyway? Is there some particular reason for pinpointing a specific time period when that is all past history?

    The only thing we can gleaned from this is that we have to be extremely careful in picking our leaders and to not be afraid of criticizing them when they go of the rails.

    We had an historic opportunity to roll back the scourge of Socialism and while it hasn’t completely evaporated we should have made for more ‘progress’ in saving the Republic.

  • KirklesWorth

    Do you have some innate need to argue over minutia?

    Funny, I thought I was answering questions that you left ambiguous.

    I was referring to those who did not listen when they were warned last spring. What does that matter anyway? Is there some particular reason for pinpointing a specific time period when that is all past history?

    Since when are you one to shy away from specifics?

    So using your own query, why ask “Will some of a certain cult following admit their mistake?” when you just answered “What does that matter anyway?” Besides, indications are that Cruz would have lost to Hillary, so “what does that matter [that a “certain cult following” picked the “wrong candidate”] anyway?” Sounds to me like we got the best-case scenario based on the indicators.

    We had an historic opportunity to roll back the scourge of Socialism and while it hasn’t completely evaporated we should have made for more ‘progress’ in saving the Republic.

    True, but with the RINO-infested republican party, who’s to say anybody else could accomplish anything more than what Trump has so far? At least we saved the Republic from Hillary’s clutches, so that glass is half-full.

  • Torcer

    KirklesWorth Funny, I thought I was answering questions that you left ambiguous.

    Only according to your opinion. Debating past events in a pointless and worthless exercise.

    KirklesWorth Since when are you one to shy away from specifics?

    That is usually the case when in the discussion of minutia. Can you answer the question, please.

    KirklesWorth Besides, indications are that Cruz would have lost to Hillary,

    Based on what Facts?

    KirklesWorth True, but with the RINO-infested republican party, who’s to say anybody else could accomplish anything more than what Trump has so far?

    That is a difficult to to determine. Trump isn’t helping the situation siding with the national Socialist Left.

    KirklesWorth At least we saved the Republic from Hillary’s clutches, so that glass is half-full.

    That is very true. One shudders at what would have taken place had she won…. In fact, take a look at the screed at the bottom of this post that a Leftist posted a few months before the election with suggestions on what should have been done had she won.

    My point is that we are not helping ourselves re-litigating the election. Neither is making excuses for when the man has gone off course.

    John Derbyshire: “Like Nazis After 1945”—Never Forget The Bullet We Dodged When Hillary Was Defeated
    So we have a Harvard law professor writing on the blog of a Yale law professor. Dodged a bullet? What we dodged here was a heavy artillery barrage.

    The blog post is dated May 6th last year, six months before the election, when all reasonable people—and who could be more reasonable than a couple of Ivy League Law School professors?—assumed that Mrs. Clinton would be the country’s next president.
    Prof. Tushnet then lays out a program for Leftists, once they have swept to power in last November’s election, seizing all the commanding heights of constitutional jurisprudence.
    With a solid liberal majority on the Supreme Court, justices should, Prof. Tushnet tells us:
    Overrule key cases. Prof. Tushnet offers a list. Head of the list is the 1978 Bakke ruling, that imposed some slight, cautious restraints on Affirmative Action in college admissions, ruling out blatant racial quotas, for example. According to Prof. Tushnet, the ruling amounted to “rejecting all the rationales for Affirmative Action that really matter.”
    Deal sternly with what Prof. Tushnet calls “the losers in the culture war.” Quote: “The war’s over, and we won.” Further quote: “Taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.” This is what tjcfs means by treating us like “Nazis after 1945.” Just to remind you, this is a professor of constitutional law at America’s most prestigious law school.
    “Exploit the ambiguities and loopholes in unfavorable precedents that aren’t worth overruling.“ The assumption here is that with Mrs. Clinton in the White House, liberal justices would be able to overrule anything at all; but where it’s too much trouble, a precedent should be interpreted with maximum progressive spin.
    Be more ideological! Conservatives are too dimwitted consciously to practice ideological jurisprudence, although the results of their rulings are anti-progressive none the less. Progressives should have their ideology always in mind.
    Be bold and triumphalist, like Justices Brennan and Marshall (Tushnet clerked for Thurgood Marshall in the early 70s)…not timid and accommodating like that squeaky little mouse Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose “work as a judge has been shaped more than it should be by defensive crouch constitutionalism.”
    Stop pandering to Justice Kennedy, whose vote won’t be crucial any more.
    [..]
    http://www.vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-like-nazis-after-1945-never-forget-the-bullet-we-dodged-when-hillary-was-defeated

  • KirklesWorth

    Only according to your opinion. Debating past events in a pointless and worthless exercise.

    What does that matter anyway?

    That is usually the case when in the discussion of minutia. Can you answer the question, please.

    What does that matter anyway?

    Based on what Facts?

    What does that matter anyway?

  • Torcer

    My response is here:
    http://moonbattery.com/?p=87755#comment-3512608765
    Since I prefer to discuss these matters on an active thread instead of having to deal with pointless arguments on old an thread.

  • KirklesWorth

    LOL! Classic! Your trademarked “non-response response”.

  • Torcer

    Again:My response is here:
    http://moonbattery.com/?p=87755#comment-3512608765
    Since I prefer to discuss these matters on an active thread instead of having to deal with pointless arguments on old an thread.

  • KirklesWorth

    Again, my response is here. Plus, what does that matter anyway?

    Nice how you go AWOL for a few days, come back and make a “pointless argument on an old thread”…another classic!

  • Torcer

    Again:My response is here:
    http://moonbattery.com/?p=87755#comment-3512608765
    Since I prefer to discuss these matters on an active thread instead of having to deal with pointless arguments on old an thread.

  • KirklesWorth

    Again, my responses are here, here, and here.

  • Torcer

    KirklesWorth How did that score? Let’s review the checklist:
    ● “Cogent point”…check.
    http://moonbattery.com/?p=87755#comment-3514306041

    Really..
    And that was what exactly? Please do everyone the courtesy of writing it out.
    Again:My response is here:
    http://moonbattery.com/?p=87755#comment-3512608765
    Do try and act like and adult and respond where everyone can see your actions.. unless you don’t like to be seen wasting people time in pointless debate over minutia..

  • KirklesWorth

    Still fighting on multiple fronts? So be it. I took care of this comment here.

  • Torcer

    Could you please answer the question without the incessant recitation of the past.

    KirklesWorth How did that score? Let’s review the checklist:
    ● “Cogent point”…check.
    http://moonbattery.com/?p=87755#comment-3514306041

    Really..
    And that was what exactly? Please do everyone the courtesy of writing it out.

  • KirklesWorth

    Sure (#2). Then I followed up here.

  • Torcer

    Could you please answer the question without the incessant recitation of the past.

    KirklesWorth How did that score? Let’s review the checklist:
    ● “Cogent point”…check.
    http://moonbattery.com/?p=87755#comment-3514306041

    Really..
    And that was what exactly? Please do everyone the courtesy of writing it out.

  • KirklesWorth

    (#2) No more of your thread games or subtlety.

  • Torcer

    Could you please answer the question without the incessant recitation of the past.

    KirklesWorth How did that score? Let’s review the checklist:
    ● “Cogent point”…check.
    http://moonbattery.com/?p=87755#comment-3514306041

    Really..
    And that was what exactly? Please do everyone the courtesy of writing it out.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy