Thread: Ted Cruz Takes Bold Stand on Border Crisis, Demands Action

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

Wonderful trhetoric, where is the action. Political speeches should not attract votes. Texas authorities are the ones that can tell him what action the Congress needs to take. A letter to Johnson was just theater for press releases! Stop talkin',Git'er done!

SSHEEESH, speeches like that got him elected, I have not seen him do anything constructive yet! I hop to get to vote against him, again!

If you voted against Cruz, I'd be interested in knowing exactly who you did vote for. I find it hard to believe that any serious opponent of his was tougher than he is on the immigration/border security issue.

It is quite simple for me, I have my standards based upon what Reagan's amnesty brought upon my family. One, a republican is suspicious to begin with, becuase they have not shown true interest in alien infestation since Reagan's amnesty. Thus anyone who does not address the standards that I subscribe to, will not get my support, that means naturally Dems. do not get my vote/ Two, if they talk strong about security and illegal immigration, then do not respond to my correspondence, as Cruz has done, and illegal immigration and border security are the only topics I've written him about, that casts a shadow upon his intent. Cruz is running for President, not truly interested in his present job.

That said, to interest me in voting for you or any candidate for federal office has to be strongly interested in deportation of at lest 93% of aliens, and 96% effective border and port security! If they will not even commit to striving for those standards, they will NOT get my vote. If you will not stand for something, you will fall for anything! That is exactly what Americans have been doing for some time, at least as far back as Reagan. Voting for the least of two evils is still VOTING FOR EVIL!
I WILL vote for someone that does advocate for those standards. It has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt in the past 60 years that accepting the least of two evils has NOT worked out well at all for America or Americans, has it?

After 18 months in office and not responding to my communiques with him even once, and I've likely sent him at least 18 e-mails, Cruz does not deserve my vote for Senate or President. Ignoring a voter infers that you disagree vehemently, that would strongly indicate that he has NOTHING in common with my views on immigration or aliens! If he has nothing in common with my position, it is very likely he has little in common with ALIPAC. That demands a price!

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

It is quite simple for me, I have my standards based upon what Reagan's amnesty brought upon my family. One, a republican is suspicious to begin with, becuase they have not shown true interest in alien infestation since Reagan's amnesty. Thus anyone who does not address the standards that I subscribe to, will not get my support, that means naturally Dems. do not get my vote/ Two, if they talk strong about security and illegal immigration, then do not respond to my correspondence, as Cruz has done, and illegal immigration and border security are the only topics I've written him about, that casts a shadow upon his intent. Cruz is running for President, not truly interested in his present job.

That said, to interest me in voting for you or any candidate for federal office has to be strongly interested in deportation of at lest 93% of aliens, and 96% effective border and port security! If they will not even commit to striving for those standards, they will NOT get my vote. If you will not stand for something, you will fall for anything! That is exactly what Americans have been doing for some time, at least as far back as Reagan. Voting for the least of two evils is still VOTING FOR EVIL!
I WILL vote for someone that does advocate for those standards. It has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt in the past 60 years that accepting the least of two evils has NOT worked out well at all for America or Americans, has it?

After 18 months in office and not responding to my communiques with him even once, and I've likely sent him at least 18 e-mails, Cruz does not deserve my vote for Senate or President. Ignoring a voter infers that you disagree vehemently, that would strongly indicate that he has NOTHING in common with my views on immigration or aliens! If he has nothing in common with my position, it is very likely he has little in common with ALIPAC. That demands a price!

Thank you for responding but your response is not exactly an answer to my question. For weeks now I've heard a lot about who you don't support but nothing about who you do support. Believe it or not, there are people in the U.S. Congress that do align closely with our position. I'd hate to see those folks throw up their arms in surrender simply because we don't support and/or encourage them. Just saying .......

Originally Posted by MW

Thank you for responding but your response is not exactly an answer to my question. For weeks now I've heard a lot about who you don't support but nothing about who you do support. Believe it or not, there are people in the U.S. Congress that do align closely with our position. I'd hate to see those folks throw up their arms in surrender simply because we don't support and/or encourage them. Just saying .......

MW. I am not trying to evade the question. if a candidate expresses interest in effective enforcement as I've described, he may have my support after I've evaluated if he is genuine or just trying to appease to receive my vote. It has not been a problem for me so far, not one candidate has accepted the terms of enforcement that I look for, I prefer an independent to pursue what I look for, but have never had an opportunity to vote for one. I do not, I will not apologize for voting against republicans or democrats. I've voted for so called strong men in both parties and after they win, the weaken. Party influence once they arrive in Washington, both parties, is strong and they then "go along" to get their slice of the party pie. That is why I would like to see non-partisan elections. It would open running for office to more individuals, IMO. Cannot get worse than running after the money.

Several politicians have complained that they spend more time fund raising than they do on legislative matters. That seems wrong, they should be attending to "company business", that of the nation, rather than starting fund raising for the next election as soon as they are elected. In addition to other things being broken, our political system is broken. The middle class, certainly the poor, cannot compete for office when an election costs several hundred million to billions of dollars. The founding fathers intention was for the middle class to be represented in the House of Representatives and to have control of the nation's budgetary matters.

Through "pork barrel" spending, bringing home the bacon, politicians have created the professional class of lifetime representatives. The founding fathers vision was for public service type of representation, which would have had new thinkers arriving in Washington constantly. Pork barrel spending was meant to assist a state that had suffered some consequence not of their own making, not to build a bridge to nowhere.

Sorry, answer to your question, it is very difficult, but only next to impossible rather than impossible, for a Dem. or Repub. to secure my vote, local or national. But, I accept no compromises, did that most of my life, here we are. Least of two evils is still evil!

Hope this helps you understand me, as well as my values!

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

MW. I am not trying to evade the question. if a candidate expresses interest in effective enforcement as I've described, he may have my support after I've evaluated if he is genuine or just trying to appease to receive my vote. It has not been a problem for me so far, not one candidate has accepted the terms of enforcement that I look for, I prefer an independent to pursue what I look for, but have never had an opportunity to vote for one. I do not, I will not apologize for voting against republicans or democrats. I've voted for so called strong men in both parties and after they win, the weaken. Party influence once they arrive in Washington, both parties, is strong and they then "go along" to get their slice of the party pie. That is why I would like to see non-partisan elections. It would open running for office to more individuals, IMO. Cannot get worse than running after the money.

Several politicians have complained that they spend more time fund raising than they do on legislative matters. That seems wrong, they should be attending to "company business", that of the nation, rather than starting fund raising for the next election as soon as they are elected. In addition to other things being broken, our political system is broken. The middle class, certainly the poor, cannot compete for office when an election costs several hundred million to billions of dollars. The founding fathers intention was for the middle class to be represented in the House of Representatives and to have control of the nation's budgetary matters.

Through "pork barrel" spending, bringing home the bacon, politicians have created the professional class of lifetime representatives. The founding fathers vision was for public service type of representation, which would have had new thinkers arriving in Washington constantly. Pork barrel spending was meant to assist a state that had suffered some consequence not of their own making, not to build a bridge to nowhere.

Sorry, answer to your question, it is very difficult, but only next to impossible rather than impossible, for a Dem. or Repub. to secure my vote, local or national. But, I accept no compromises, did that most of my life, here we are. Least of two evils is still evil!

Hope this helps you understand me, as well as my values!

I do understand where you're coming from. Trust me, if I had my way we would bypass the courts and actively seek out and immediately deport every single illegal immigrant in this country. Our judicial system, where illegals are concerned, is part of the problem. However, I've come to the conclusion that my goals are very lofty and will not happen in my lifetime. Knowing this, I must temper my expectations and face the reality of the current situation. With that said, I do honestly believe there are folks sitting in our Congress that feel as I do, however, I also think they feel it would be political suicide to publically admit such. Over the years I've learned the tactic of reading between the lines very well. For example, I'm pretty sure Sen. Sessions of Alabama supports tightening the screws on immigration enforcement (to a great extent), utlizing all available resources to secure the border, and supports the deportation of all illegal immigrants that law enforcement comes into contact with. Is he going to admit all of this publically in the direct manner that I would like to hear? Probably not, however, my learned ability to read between the lines tells me these things are true.

Did you know that Sen. Cruz currently has an A+ report card grade with NumbersUSA? Grant you, he's new on the scene but he's off to an excellent start. IMO, it's still a little early in his Senate career to give him praises, but so far he has done nothing to earn our distrust. Out of 11 actions in Congress on the immigration issue, he scores a 96%.

My point is, we shouldn't make a blanket judgement on everyone in the U.S. Congress just because they aren't jumping up and down ranting/screaming for us to immediately deport every illegal alien in the country. Waiting for such an event is a waste of energy because it's not going to happen. I feel just as strongly as you do on this issue but I do know we have some friends in Congress. Like I said in a previous post, it's important that we continue to support and encourage those individuals.

Yes, I am very familiar with NumbersUSA and their scoring system. They had my congressman scored A, I made a report on him suggesting that he deserved only a B-/ I guess they did another evaluation on him, soon he had been reduced to C+, lower than I'd suggested. My complaint was that he was hung up in Christian values of "not right to split up families." But, at least I found that out because he does answer my e0mails and explains himself.

So, my faith in that scoring system has been reduced somewhat. My Congressman does occasionally answer my e-mail, Cruz NEVER. But he has time to go to NH to campaign, well, if he does not have time to correspond now, he never will. I cannot have faith in one who does not exchange ideas!