Ted Cruz is a hypocrite, film at 11

[Executor32]

Cruz Slams His Republican Critics: They Want To ‘Inflict A Bunch Of Harm’ On Americans For Political Purposes
BY IGOR VOLSKY ON OCTOBER 20, 2013 AT 12:39 PM

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) pushed back against Republicans who have criticized his efforts to shutdown the government in an effort to defund the Affordable Care Act, arguing that they are trying to harm the American people “and hope we benefit politically.” Cruz’s remarks signal a growing rift between conservative and more moderate establishment Republicans over how to combat President Obama’s health care law as uninsured Americans begin to enroll in coverage.
While some — including Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and John McCain (R-AZ) — are urging the party to refocus on other issues, pointing to Obamacare’s rocky implementation as proof that the law will unravel on its own, Cruz, joined by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Marco Rubio (R-FL) and groups like FreedomWorks and the Heritage Foundation, says that Republicans should seize future budgetary fights to defund the measure.

The impasse was on full display this Sunday. “Obamacare is going to fail on its own right,” Coburn said during an appearance on Meet the Press. “The fact is the sick people are signing up, the healthy aren’t and they’re not going to because the deductibles are so high and the cost is so high. The penalty is not enough to force them to do it.”
McConnell agreed. “[F]ull-scale repeal is obviously something that’s not going to be achievable until I’m the majority leader of the Senate and we have a new president,” he told CBS’ Face The Nation. He conceded that Democrats may support undoing parts of the law “depending upon the amount of heat they get from their constituents because of rising premiums, because of job loss, because of the chaos of the exchanges, they may be open to changes.”

But during an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Cruz dismissed the GOP leader’s wait-and-see approach. “I consider that very — the Bad Samaritan theory,” he said. “Basically inflict a bunch of harm on the American people and hope we benefit politically from it. What a terrible, cynical approach.” “I’m not interested in seeing the American people suffer just because my party might benefit politically if they blame the Democrats for the foolish policies that have been imposed,” he added.

Republicans have expressed concern about repealing the law once uninsured Americans begin receiving coverage, likening the strategy to taking away Medicare or Social Security benefits from current retirees. For now, the party has united around scrutinizing the Administration’s rocky implementation process, pressuring Obama officials to testify before Congress and relying on outside conservative groups to urge Americans not to sign-up for insurance.

Seriously? Does he not realize that his accusation actually describes his own actions perfectly? Or is he just banking on the assumption that his constituents are too fucking stupid to notice?

[Imperial528]

Seriously? Does he not realize that his accusation actually describes his own actions perfectly? Or is he just banking on the assumption that his constituents are too fucking stupid to notice?

Given their track record, I'd say yes.

[Mr Bean]

Seriously? Does he not realize that his accusation actually describes his own actions perfectly? Or is he just banking on the assumption that his constituents are too fucking stupid to notice?

Given their track record, I'd say yes.

More correctly based on the news sources of his constituents he's counting on the fact that no one will call him on it. Because Rush never will, Fox News won't unless he pisses off Roger Ailes which means he won't be called on it by anyone who matters (IE Conservatives).

[Ahriman238]

Yes, how sickening the world would be if everyone restricted themselves to quietly undermining the governmnet whenever it did something they don't like, instead of bringing all society to a standstill so a first-term senator can get his name in the national news.

[Borgholio]

Here's a question. Supposing he tried to do it again, at what point would deliberately crippling the lawful government of the United States and endangering the welfare of countless millions be considered treason?

[krakonfour]

Seriously? Does he not realize that his accusation actually describes his own actions perfectly? Or is he just banking on the assumption that his constituents are too fucking stupid to notice?

Given their track record, I'd say yes.

Politicians. Duh. They didn't get elected for their brains...

[Napoleon the Clown]

Here's a question. Supposing he tried to do it again, at what point would deliberately crippling the lawful government of the United States and endangering the welfare of countless millions be considered treason?

Never, because treason has a very specific definition under the law and that's not covered by it.


If there were anything one could possibly call that it would be sedition, and that's simply because a single person is trying to hijack the government. I can't really see that charge being placed at his feet, either.

[Mr Bean]

Here's a question. Supposing he tried to do it again, at what point would deliberately crippling the lawful government of the United States and endangering the welfare of countless millions be considered treason?

Never because he has the right under the law to do just that as the elective senator of his state. The Senate has the ability to kick him out but the Constitution gives him the right to shut everything down. The founders had a great deal of faith in those who would be elected.

[Knife]

Read somewhere where his fund raising went through the roof, not seeing he has a downside in this, other than being a total douche bag.

[Edi]

Here's a question. Supposing he tried to do it again, at what point would deliberately crippling the lawful government of the United States and endangering the welfare of countless millions be considered treason?

There is no point in going the same direction as the Tea Party Republicans and calling everything we don't agree with treason.

[Zaune]

How about terrorism, then?

[AniThyng]

How about terrorism, then?

Missing the point much?

Though the reactions to Obama sending in Federal Marshals to arrest a serving Senator on charges of terrorism would be awesome to behold.

[Zaune]

What? It works for them, maybe we ought to give their tactics a try.

[AniThyng]

Here you go then

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/arrest-and-try-house

Good luck!

[Gandalf]

What? It works for them, maybe we ought to give their tactics a try.

"Because they do it" isn't a good justification. I explain that to six year old children, so it should sink in easily enough for you.

Furthermore, their crap doesn't exactly work. It's not like there's a guy called Romney in the White House, or Obamacare folded.

[Fiji_Fury]

The cold hard fact is that just because something is repugnant, irresponsible and harmful does not mean that action is illegal. In the case of Ted Cruz's grandstanding blockage of the legislative process of the US government, it certainly applies. Also, a desire to declare your political opposition to be "treasonous", "terrorists" or "evil" is simply wrong. Even when you disagree with somebody else, that doesn't make them inhuman. Be very careful with such statements or thoughts: that is a dark and undemocratic road to walk down.

I think Ted Cruz has acted the part of a village idiot. I think the Tea Party is driven mainly by ignorance and terrible ideology. They are not however doing anything illegal by presenting their opinions through rallies or their elected representatives. The fact is that many of their ridiculous policies and beliefs do no hold up to even a minimal degree of scrutiny and they are doing harm to the political engine that can bring them influence on government decisions. If the Republican party fragments over their ideological fundamentalism, the Tea Party itself loses leverage to influence federal politics and government policy. That may be short-sighted (or as some of us might think, down right stupid) but it is not, under any circumstances, comparable to acts of terrorism or treason.

[Borgholio]

The only reason I asked about calling it treason, is because I feel there's a difference between an asshat in the Senate pushing a dumbass policy, and someone who deliberately and intentionally kicks millions of people out of work, cripples the government, and risks destroying half the world's economies. There's bad policies, and then there's deliberately causing a catastrophe that could result in mass suffering.

[Connor MacLeod]

The only reason I asked about calling it treason, is because I feel there's a difference between an asshat in the Senate pushing a dumbass policy, and someone who deliberately and intentionally kicks millions of people out of work, cripples the government, and risks destroying half the world's economies. There's bad policies, and then there's deliberately causing a catastrophe that could result in mass suffering.

But people are saying that basically does not qualify as legitimate 'treason' under the US law, and none of what Cruz did, to my memory, qualifies as that because 'treason' is very specifically outlined. Simply throwing the harshest law you can think of at someone just because you don't like their policies is bad practice, especially since that is basically the same sort of mentality willingly embraced BY those like the Tea Party, so you are in effect endorsing their attitude and tactics by saying 'its okay for others to do it too.'

[Borgholio]

Simply throwing the harshest law you can think of at someone just because you don't like their policies is bad practice,

I never said that. I do hate his policies, but that in itself isn't what I'm talking about. He willfully and deliberately intended to try and ruin people's lives and trash the world economy. That crosses a line, in my opinion. Sure it may be technically legal, but how does that excuse him from having to suffer consequences of his actions? Had this happened in the private sector, he could very well be sued for compensation. It'd ruin him for life if he had to pay back the billions that he caused the US Economy alone to lose.

Now with that said, I understand that if you really want to play it by the letter of the law then he can't be charged with treason. Fine. But I think there should be some kind of punishment beyond simply being beaten in an election (which might not even happen if reports of his campaign funding are accurate).

[Ralin]

Do you really need an explanation of why someone being held legally accountable or subject to "punishment" for not voting the way you think they should is a can of worms that shouldn't be opened? Yes the worst that he can expect to suffer is not getting re-elected and that everyone will think he's an evil dick. I really, really don't want to live in an America where that's not the case.

[Borgholio]

What he did was NOT voting. The last 40-something times they tried to defund Obamacare...THAT was voting. When they decide to hold the entire country hostage using convoluted House rules just because they don't like the fact they're not getting their way, that is NOT voting.

If gunmen walked into the Capitol and held Congress hostage, crippled the government and put millions of people out of work, then it's called terrorism.

If the Tea Party uses arbitrary House rules to hold Congress hostage, cripple the government, and put millions of people out of work, then it's called...ok because they're just voting? Bull fucking shit. They never even got a chance to vote because of those goddamn rules.

What we saw the last two weeks was NOT the kind of democratic processes that we have to accept for better or worse. It was sabotage, plain and simple. And if you sabotage the legitimate democratic processes, there MUST be accountability. Do you think he should be allowed to stay in office and have a chance to do more of this bullshit in January when the next budget is due? Or when the debt ceiling comes up again in February? Even if you think that losing the next election is punishment enough, do you really think that'll happen? He's a senator from Texas for fucks sake. He's their goddamn poster boy.

No, unless there's some accountability to get rid of dangerous individuals such as Cruz, we'll just keep getting fucked over and over again when they decide to throw a tantrum.

[Prannon]

Treason then.

Ok, so I have a few concepts I'd like to throw out there for anyone who thinks that playing the dirty game RE: treason is a good idea.

1) If you think that the well is poisoned after the Republicans sabotaged the legislative process and shut down the government, just wait and see what happens after Democrats start throwing around serious treason charges.

2) Wanna see what would happen to the Tea Party base after treason charges get talked about seriously? They're already calling Obama a dictator wannabe, and what better way to illustrate that than to start "abusing" the process to take out his enemies.

3) The language from Democrats after the shutdown has centered in on this idea, "Ok, you had your temper tantrum, it doesn't work. Now let's get our heads in the game and get back to work and do our jobs." Moderate Republicans are all grumbling to themselves and nodding along, agreeing quietly. Tea Party folks are over in their corner having a JUICE session, saying that they didn't go far enough. Now suppose that some Democrats start saying that we need to try Republicans for treason. Well, you just gave the Republicans some political ammo to say that you're overreacting at best and that you're authoritarian at worst.

No. There won't be any treason charges. It's not a good idea.

[blahface]

The articles talks about the "Moderate" Republicans. There is no such thing. There are only extreme right wing Republicans and insanely extreme right wing Republicans.

[Borgholio]

Treason then.

Ok, so I have a few concepts I'd like to throw out there for anyone who thinks that playing the dirty game RE: treason is a good idea.

1) If you think that the well is poisoned after the Republicans sabotaged the legislative process and shut down the government, just wait and see what happens after Democrats start throwing around serious treason charges.

2) Wanna see what would happen to the Tea Party base after treason charges get talked about seriously? They're already calling Obama a dictator wannabe, and what better way to illustrate that than to start "abusing" the process to take out his enemies.

3) The language from Democrats after the shutdown has centered in on this idea, "Ok, you had your temper tantrum, it doesn't work. Now let's get our heads in the game and get back to work and do our jobs." Moderate Republicans are all grumbling to themselves and nodding along, agreeing quietly. Tea Party folks are over in their corner having a JUICE session, saying that they didn't go far enough. Now suppose that some Democrats start saying that we need to try Republicans for treason. Well, you just gave the Republicans some political ammo to say that you're overreacting at best and that you're authoritarian at worst.

No. There won't be any treason charges. It's not a good idea.

Ok, no treason then. You're probably right, it's going too far.

With that said, what option would be a satisfactory deterrent to prevent this sort of thing from happening again? In theory, if Cruz has his way, he can do this for the next three years at least.

[Mr Bean]

With that said, what option would be a satisfactory deterrent to prevent this sort of thing from happening again? In theory, if Cruz has his way, he can do this for the next three years at least.

Remove him from office?
Short of constitutional amendments say that Congress can not adjure during a shutdown there is no legal recourse. What he did is legal within our existing frameworks within the law.

To be sure there are other legal methods to prevent it from happening but none can occur if the Speaker of the House is in favor of the shutdown.