Ted Cruz the genius?

[Revoltingest]

You are right! It is the other way around.

Yeah......it's just like religion.
So many different faiths have the one true religion, & all the others will rot in Hell.

I don't say we Libertarians have the truth or sanity.
I just prefer our agenda.

 

[LuisDantas]

You know me, Rev. I am not the kind of person who sees fit to call insanity sane.

If that troubles you, tough.

 

[Revoltingest]

You know me, Rev. I am not the kind of person who sees fit to call insanity sane.
If that troubles you, tough.

It's no problem for me.
I just disagree with your assessments.
It appears (correct me if I'm wrong) that you judge sanity of the parties by how closely they agree with you.

 

[Sunstone]

Yeah, I'm sayin' it.

And please don't assume, this is not referring to Cruz's policies or views but the man himself.

In fact, he may very well be an evil genius, I don't know.

I've read many right-wing sources fawning over his intelligence, how he's fought with the Supreme Court etc.

But what gets me are the left-wing/neutral sources that are also (perhaps grudgingly) talking about how intelligent the man is.

The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...eenager-yearbook-constitutional-corroborators

The Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21689978-iowa-what-sort-president-might-ted-cruz-make

From the Economist: 'Superficially the senator from Texas is a classic overachiever, whose ability to surmount Himalayan obstacles—such as winning that office in his first-ever political race—bespeaks and fuels an adamantine self-confidence; the sort whose warp-speed ascent is powered by strenuous calculation and fearsome intelligence. Don Willett, a judge and long-term acquaintance, describes Mr Cruz as a “freakishly gifted” lawyer; watching him argue at the Supreme Court, during his stint as Texas’s solicitor-general, was “like watching Michael Jackson unveil the moonwalk.”'

"He is said to have relaxed by playing several chess games at once." - What is he, the rain man?!

Much is also being made by Republicans of Cruz having a conversation with an ethanol farmer and justifying his position against subsidies and having a rational discussion with the man, which is something to be praised when we see such a lack of it from politicians,

And in addition to all this, he is a national championship debater, though I personally have not seen great evidence of this in the actual Republican debates that have taken place.

He also seems to believe what he says, you don't fight the Supreme Court nine times, withstanding the grilling of their justices, and winning two cases, for fun.

Some may wonder why I have taken such great pains to prove all this. That is really for those who can't possibly begin to imagine that someone of Cruz's worldview could be intelligent.

So I suppose the topic is really to discuss, what are your thoughts if Cruz is as clever as they say he is? Is it surprising, and does it affect your view of him? (I've read one article from Slate which says he's even more dangerous because of his intelligence, where Trump and Carson were crazy, Cruz is pretty much likened to an evil genius hahah, but I find that doubtful)

I once knew a person who was both brilliant (e.g. among many, many other such things, she routinely did calculus problems in her head whenever she was bored) and horribly abusive. She was even instrumental in getting one of her boyfriends murdered by his own family. Cruz reminds me of her.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's no problem for me.
I just disagree with your assessments.

That is fine.

It appears (correct me if I'm wrong) that you judge sanity of the parties by how closely they agree with you.

I would feel insulted by that impression if I valued it enough. But I do not think you gave it any thought, and I do not intend to give it much more than you did.

So it is fine all the way.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would feel insulted by that impression if I valued it enough.

Well, I did say it was just how it appears to me.
And I invited correction.

But I do not think you gave it any thought, and I do not intend to give it much more than you did.
So it is fine all the way.

Don't ignore my invite!
What are your criteria for diagnosing insanity?

 

[LuisDantas]

Internal coherence, degree of correlation to observable facts, degree of apparent self-control.

 

[esmith]

And by reading some of the above one does not have to wonder why this nation is so divided and why there is so unresolved hostility in the world. It is a given fact that once the verbal assault begin they grow larger by feeding on each, until they grow to a point that physical altercations are the only foreseen outcome. In the past the physical altercations, in most cases, did not arise because of a physical meeting, face to face. Unfortunately, due to this supposedly wonderful thing we call the internet this is no longer possible or desirable. We tend to hid behind the anonymity of a keyboard and a monitor, continually bombarding those with opposite views with harsher and harsher rhetoric. Can one not see why what is going on in the political arena now is in part due to the anonymity of this thing called the internet. There are some on this forum that I really don't care for, just as some do not have a favorable opinion of me. Some have even reached the point of repressed aggression against them . Whereas if in the past we had met and had a face to face discussion we would probably still disagree but have some respect for their opinion. I know this for a fact, because I have a very very good friend who is a strong believer in unions whereas I'm am opposed to them. We never got to the point of verbal abuse, just a friendly disagreement because we were in the physical presence of the other.
So, what does this have to do with the current political rhetoric being put forth by some of the current political contenders? Well, they are feeding on the hostility of the electorate that has been slowing growing over the past few years. We all know that as one is attacked, in this case verbal attack, the returned aggression is heightened and the result is a continuing escalation that eventual makes any compromise improbable and a total disdain for the other. Now this may not be the total reason for the present hostility but in my opinion it has a lot to do with it. Hostility bottled up continues to feed upon itself.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

She's the Democrat's front runner.
I strongly oppose such agendas....they're deadly & horribly expensive.
Even Trump looks better in this regard.

I heard an interesting idea that this early, in a place like Iowa, what may be hurting him is the fact he is a Jew. I've never been to Iowa, but from what I've heard it is a lot like Indiana. From that perspective, it becomes very easily understood why a Jew probably wouldn't do that well in such a conservative area. If Indiana were a competitive hotspot, it wouldn't surprise me at all if him being Jewish was a hang-up for many voters, considering it's not at all unusual or uncommon to hear someone harping about the Jewish banking conspiracies, or Hollywood conspiracies, or other such nonsense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And by reading some of the above one does not have to wonder why this nation is so divided and why there is so unresolved hostility in the world.

It's easily summed up as Bin Laden got his way, and the "unresolved hostility" in the world does not and should not include America. Places like the Middle East and North Korea, no one should dictate what goes on except for the citizens. We cannot fix these problems, and good god every time we try things only get worse. The most recent example is eliminated Saddam, which only served to clear the way for ISIS. No Westerner who has been so strongly indoctrinated with Western ideology and finds the good that lies within such ideals would support such repressive ideology, but when we try to force such ideas on another culture - especially a culture that has been struggling to form a cultural identity for over a century - well, you can ask the British or Russians how well that turns out, because they were trying the same ****, just on a different day. But in America's case, there is involvement after the collapse of an empire, after nearly a decade of nationalism being promoted, and after that nationalism lead to religious extremism. The British and Russians already lost that fight. Why are we trying to do the same thing that has already failed?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Different things matter to me than to Democrats
The Hilldebeast is an aggressive hawk.
\http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-sanders-john-kerry-1115-20151113-column.html
She has threatened Iran.
She's the Democrat's front runner.
I strongly oppose such agendas....they're deadly & horribly expensive.
Even Trump looks better in this regard.

Have to agree. As a Brit I am more concerned by the American candidates' foreign policy. Trump, who appears to advocate a more self-interested foreign policy, "taking their oil", "make South Korea pay for our protection", sees no problem in working with Putin, doesn't seem intent on taking down all the dictators of the world, and so is still better than Hillary's ideological "spread freedom and democracy" attitude where she has advocated imposing a no-fly zone on Syria and "shooting down Russian planes" and isolating Russia even more than they have been already. I find Hillary's and candidates like Chris Christie's rhetoric on fighting Russia more worrying than anything Trump has to say, to be honest.

Ideally Rand Paul would have been nice in terms of foreign policy, but Bernie's still around and he seems to be good on it.

Even Ted Cruz would be better than Hillary on foreign policy, even though he wants to "carpet bomb" ISIS he does it because he believes it is in the national security interest of the USA, and on that principle he has also opposed more ideological interventions like the proposed Syrian intervention against Assad and the Libyan intervention against Gaddaffi.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

It's easily summed up as Bin Laden got his way, and the "unresolved hostility" in the world does not and should not include America. Places like the Middle East and North Korea, no one should dictate what goes on except for the citizens. We cannot fix these problems, and good god every time we try things only get worse. The most recent example is eliminated Saddam, which only served to clear the way for ISIS. No Westerner who has been so strongly indoctrinated with Western ideology and finds the good that lies within such ideals would support such repressive ideology, but when we try to force such ideas on another culture - especially a culture that has been struggling to form a cultural identity for over a century - well, you can ask the British or Russians how well that turns out, because they were trying the same ****, just on a different day. But in America's case, there is involvement after the collapse of an empire, after nearly a decade of nationalism being promoted, and after that nationalism lead to religious extremism. The British and Russians already lost that fight. Why are we trying to do the same thing that has already failed?

America won the Cold War on the ideological front because of their commitment to liberty, a restricted government that could not infringe on the people's rights, one limited by a fair justice system with unanimous jury trials, a respect for the sovereignty of nations, while the Soviets imposed their righteous communist values on all they conquered, building an empire with unfair state-run trials and an iron fist.

Now America is building an empire, her values are now the superior ones that she feels must be imposed on everyone else. I do not see the inspiring "leader of the free world" America of the 1950s in the war-hungry democracy zealots we have today, and I find it hard to imagine the leaders of that time would look on approvingly.

 

[Revoltingest]

I heard an interesting idea that this early, in a place like Iowa, what may be hurting him is the fact he is a Jew. I've never been to Iowa, but from what I've heard it is a lot like Indiana. From that perspective, it becomes very easily understood why a Jew probably wouldn't do that well in such a conservative area. If Indiana were a competitive hotspot, it wouldn't surprise me at all if him being Jewish was a hang-up for many voters, considering it's not at all unusual or uncommon to hear someone harping about the Jewish banking conspiracies, or Hollywood conspiracies, or other such nonsense.

Trump is a Jew?
I never knew!
Learned something new.
Bernie is too!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

America won the Cold War on the ideological front because of their commitment to liberty, a restricted government that could not infringe on the people's rights, one limited by a fair justice system with unanimous jury trials, a respect for the sovereignty of nations, while the Soviets imposed their righteous communist values on all they conquered, building an empire with unfair state-run trials and an iron fist.

America did just those things. Communism was banned and communists, even American citizen communists, were punished. Just before the beginning of the Cold War, American citizens of Japanese descent were detained. The trial of Leonard Peltier happened during this era. The Tuskegee experiments had a round of "testing" during this era, and MKUltra also happened during this time. America had a military draft, nor did it respect the sovereignty of many nations given it's frequent military intervention and establishing puppet regimes. The Iran-Contra affair even happened during the latter part of the Cold War.

Trump is a Jew?

I thought we were talking about Sanders.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought we were talking about Sanders.

I lost track.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I think the genius about him is he's good about acting like he really gives a **** about all the religious issues his base cares about. He's been able to tap into it and whether or not he really does believe it I don't know if that matters as much as he's been able to tap into it and to use that as his base and to get people to campaign and do activism for him. He beat Trump in Iowa and he really put a lot of time and effort there for it and getting to people. When you know how to play the game that's genius.

I don't think a genius would enter politics, certainly not in the GOP.

Why not? It's easy lol. If you're just in it for money and to make a career and you don't really care about the issues you can just do the basic lines and care about the basic things people do and bamb. You can get connections for businesses and then once you finish your time (however long you want to play the game) you can go and be a lobbyist for a company. You can make big bucks doing that. Once you're a member of the House and/or Senate you have access to their areas for life. Think of that access you can have for a business as a lobbyist. You could even open your own lobbyist firm and be your own boss. You can become pretty comfortable if you do that.

 

[Mycroft]

I think Cruz may well be a psychopath. Basically saying the craziest **** you've ever heard, but quite often also coming up with quite salient and legitimate points to keep his credibility.