NOT Pushing a Single Candidate...

I thought a USEFUL task for me would be to pick a single candidate each post, and focus on what is GOOD about that candidate - no matter what the party.

No one does this, to my knowledge.  Feel free to pass on links to those acquaintances who might not be getting this information from the media.

Today's candidate, in no particular order, is:

TED CRUZ

You may be most familiar with him from his sterling defense of the Republican candidates from the media's shameless attacks disguised as questions.  Here is a video, along with an explanation of that fighting tactic.

The Wall Street Journal had good things to say about Cruz's Flat Tax proposal. This could lead to REAL GROWTH in the economy, which we haven't had in years.  I'm generally for flat taxes, because they benefit the frugal, who DON'T buy a house that is way too expensive, on the grounds that they will make up the cost on mortgage deductions.  In the business world, this would lead to encouragement of more frugal management practices (which would lead to more profits).

It would also benefit many people who pay no income tax (but do pay other taxes), by giving them some reason to care about government spending - which helps us ALL.

Sheer GENIUS!

No, I mean it.  Genius is an online tool that you can use to annotate text.  It was designed for song lyrics, but you can use it for any kind, including speeches.

I used it for the intro to Hillary's Benghazi testimony.

Rush is Running the Numbers...

...and, it completely upends what the pundits are saying about the fundraising of Democrat and Republican candidates.

There is an embedded app that allows you to toggle the total amount raised and how much is contributed by small donations.  I won't tell you the details, but it gave me a new appreciation of Ben Carson.

This Guy Gets Right Inside My Head

In a GOOD way, of course.

Why Do We Argue Politics?

After all, so few people will change an entire way of life, based on the arguments.

What do I mean?  For many, self-identification is a gateway to relationships, self-esteem, cultural and religious affiliations.  Their friends all agree with them politically - "arguments", for these people, amount to a spirited discussion of tactics and interpretation, not any kind of attempt to put forth the reasoning behind their stands.  OF COURSE, all rational people agree on general principles:

• Abortion is ABSOLUTELY necessary (not exactly wanted, but needed for their personal fulfillment).


• Conservatives are stupid.  Even if they have degrees, publications, or high IQs, they are stupid.


• Religion is OK, but must be tepid, willing to bend to more "modern" ideas, and not inhibiting any sexual activity that the adherents really want to engage in.


• Your sexual identity is NOT determined by your DNA or exterior body, but by how you "feel".  And, although Liberal women would be OUTRAGED by a biological and identifying man in a women's locker room, a biological man who identifies as a woman is PERFECTLY OK.


• Your racial identity is determined by whether you have a single Black ancestor - at that point, no matter how White you look, you will always be Black.  Those people (Southern Democrats) who originated that "One Drop" rule?  TOTALLY racist.


• Money is horrible when someone has worked hard to earn it, but wonderful when they have inherited it from an ancestor who earned it - at least, if they are Liberal.  If their ancestors were Conservative, it is still horrible, and government should punish them by taking it away.


• Power concentrated in the hands of elected Boards of Directors is just one more example of the Oppressors in action.


• Power concentrated in the hands of non-elected Boards composed of family members and friends of the organization, as long as they fund Liberal groups, is just peachy.


• Adultery is:
  
  
  
  • If committed by Conservatives, grounds for firing, shaming, and forced removal from office/employment/any influence whatsoever.
  
  
  • If committed by Liberals - oh, those Rascals!  How adorbs!  Look, a Conservative trying to make Liberals face the same consequences - GET those prudish Conservatives!
  
  
  
  


• Truth:
  
  
  
  • Falls like precious pearls from the lips of Liberals.  Don't you DARE say that they are lying!
  
  
  • Cannot be found in the vicinity of Conservatives - they ALL lie.
  
  
  
  

Can you use FACTS to change these preconceptions?

No.

All of the above stem from an emotional attachment to Liberal Values.  It is a given of their thinking that all virtue stems from their Liberalism.  They are good BECAUSE they are Liberal.  Conservatives are bad BECAUSE they are Conservative.

Although emotionalism is often a trait of women, many Liberal men fall into that category.  It seems to be a trait encouraged by the Liberal/Leftist Power Structure - they HAVE to base their politics on emotion.  If they used their brains, they would be Conservatives.

Jeanine Turner has some advice on how to talk to Liberals.

Heinlein's Crazy Times

In some of his books, Heinlein refers to the time period in which society's foundations totally collapsed, and government was incapable of performing even the most basic protective functions, as the Crazy Times.

We're at least in the cusp, if not fully at that point now.

Words fail me.

I'm Beginning to Lean Towards Several Candidates

I've been only sporadically keeping up with the Republican "pit bull fights" - er, "debates".  Not disinterested, just REALLY busy with other things in my life.

So, I really do depend on analysis of their performance from trusted sources on the Internet.  What do I consider a trusted source?

• Someone who cites reputable sources, with links, for their argumentative points


• Someone who is upfront about their affiliations, donations, and political leanings/votes


• Someone who does not merely repeat talking points


• Someone who does not demonize or smear the opposing side

This is a relatively small group.  They support different candidates, but generally will order that support on a continium - Prefer X, but Y is OK except for issue B, and Z would be terrible, because of....

That sort of reasoning, that is an assist to, but not a replacement for, keeping up generally on the candidates' progress/statements/background (verifiable).

What I read of Cruz's work on modifying/eliminating FTC regulations makes me willing to give him a second look.