Cruz eviscerates Reid on the Senate floor. Which one do you agree with?
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
The country is more divided than I have ever seen. I'm not sure any candidate from either party can be a uniter, although I agree that Hillary is the most divisive. In part, because the parties themselves are moving in opposite directions. I have long argued that the Dems are moving left much more aggressively than the GOP is moving right but that is actually beside the point. Very few "Rockefeller" Republicans exist and the Blue Dog Democrats have almost disappeared. Even Bill Clinton's moderate Democrat Leadership Council is no more.
We are a mess, both domestically and internationally and we need to come together to solve our enormous problems. But outside of a catastrophic event (e.g. another 9/11), I just don't see the country coming together. The hatred is palpable.
You may assume that if you wish. Your assumption would be correct also. I also didn't vote for a republican either time either.
That was his attempt at humor, a good one I might add, to answering your question exactly the way I did. Why bring up the Dems in this discussion when the whole thing is about Cruz.
I don't understand you reasoning. Using your logic, he shouldn't have called Cruz a divider since the discussion was about his debating skills. And the original post was about Kate's Law and Reid's absurd opposition.
I just made a logical extension of his post by asking which Dem is a uniter. He's a big boy and I assume can answer the question.
And I don't believe he was attempting humor, rather he was avoiding the question.
First, I didn't call Cruz a divider ... I said we need somebody to bridge the aisle and he isn't it.
As DD said, it was humor ... making fun of the way you deflect and dodge and change topics when you don't like the way it's going. You didn't make a logical extension of anything, you deflected.
I wasn't avoiding the question, I was making fun of you.
I've made my opinions known on the democratic candidates, and this forum has a search function so do your own f'n homework. I'm not going to repeat those opinions for your benefit because frankly I have zero respect for your thoughts and opinions.
"you're about as useless as a poopie flavored lolly pop"
You're a typical lib. Don't like the facts, call someone names. I usually don't read your inane posts so forgive me for not knowing your positions on Dem candidates. My strong guess is that while you claim to be a moderate you are a lib and just a little embarrassed to admit it. The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem. Liberalism isn't a disease and you have no reason to feel badly about it.
O biggest problem isn't divisiveness it's the inept American public electing socialist like Obama, Sanders Reid thinking that they well make the US better. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Pretty much sums up democratic governance.
The one thing he does do well is debate. His background shows that. I think his problem is he just doesn't have the charisma needed to captivate voters. However, once Trump and Carson are out the way, (I predict that will ultimately happen) it will may come down to Rubio and Cruz. JMO.
Last edited:
If the GOP runs Cruz against Clinton then you can bet your *** Clinton will win. Cruz has a personality that will rub voters the wrong way.
I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion when you look at the ineptitude in your party right now. A classroom of ADHD kindergarten kids would have more structure than they do right now.
Are you suggesting that it should be to fall in line and follow the party leader. If that is what is required, why do we have to pay 435 plus 100 people and their staffs to run the government? If we are only going to be one voice for House and one voice for Senate? That only requires one wearing House hat and one wearing Senate hat. Hell, we could actually afford that government.
I guess I could be classified as T-Party since I want every precinct and district to be equally represented. If representatives were actually required to represent their constituents instead of DC and the Party we would have a hell of different government.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all .... and I've been down this road with you too many times ... I can already see where this is going to go and I'm not going to comment further than to say that you don't understand what I was suggesting at all.
Obviously we are talking past each other. In an attempt to clarify what we are saying, I will attempt to utilize your words and ask what the meaning is. Hopefully, that will not be confusing.
"been down that road too many times" When and what was the context? "can see where it is going... don't want to continue". Would you share with me where it is going and I will have no need to pursue?
"ineptitude of your party.... kindergarten ADHD students would have more structure than your party". What is the desired "structure" that you see that is needed for the good of the party? Is unity of thought required in this "structure" you speak of? From my perspective, unity of thought is appropriate as an end product after everyone has their say in an effort to introduce the position of their constituents. Am I wrong, and how, in assuming that your "structure" involves top down decisions and subordinates fall in line. Or like Nancy ran the House?
Do you not hate to see your fellow man failure to comprehend what you are trying convey? I really try to work with you, but do fail to follow some of your offerings or what you fail to follow in my offering..
Last edited:
You'll soon learn that this poster is much smarter than the rest of us and because we don't understand his logic (or lack thereof) we're unworthy of his response. Typical lib.
Pretty much the reason for my response. I wanted to use his vernacular to respond to his inquiry to remove ambiguity.