Boehner calls Cruz 'Lucifer in the flesh'

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnykins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
Republican Congressman from New York, Peter King, went one step further by saying that the comparison is insulting to Lucifer. It appears that many of those who worked with Ted Cruz in Congress view him as disagreeable. But Lucifer in the flesh? A bit over the top!
Click to expand...
Not for people who support Trump.

This is the kind of language that is par for the course for The Donald crew.
 
meltzerboy said:
Republican Congressman from New York, Peter King, went one step further by saying that the comparison is insulting to Lucifer. It appears that many of those who worked with Ted Cruz in Congress view him as disagreeable. But Lucifer in the flesh? A bit over the top!
Click to expand...
You don’t call somebody ‘Lucifer’ or worse merely because they are disagreeable. There has to be more to it than even being just unpleasant.

Someone has to be positively vicious or malevolent before you are willing to call them Lucifer publicly, especially if they are from the same party.
 
openmind77 said:
You don’t call somebody ‘Lucifer’ or worse merely because they are disagreeable. There has to be more to it than even being just unpleasant.

Someone has to be positively vicious or malevolent before you are willing to call them Lucifer publicly, especially if they are from the same party.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are right. However, I would NEVER use that label for anyone, not even in gest or figuratively speaking. It is just an inappropriate statement, at least according to the Christian meaning of Lucifer. And for a politician, including an ex-public servant, to compare Cruz (or anyone else) to Lucifer publicly is beyond the pale in my book. And I am far from being a prude.
 
Darryl1958 said:
Not for people who support Trump.

This is the kind of language that is par for the course for The Donald crew.
Click to expand...
This is what Lindsey Graham said:

“If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you”.

Lindsey is not a Trump supporter at all.
 
openmind77 said:
This is what Lindsey Graham said:

“If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you”.

Lindsey is not a Trump supporter at all.
Click to expand...
Boehner is.
 
carpenter383 said:
** You believe reganomics are “extreme neo-liberal policies” ? **
Click to expand...
Ronald Reagan is the one who turned the tide of this country towards neoliberalism. And Cruz goes further: Flat tax, abolishing the IRS, massive downsizing of the federal government . . . I would call this extreme neoliberalism, yes.
 
carpenter383 said:
Trump has no chance in those 5 states either, counties don’t matter, the state as a whole does, hillary will win them in a general no matter who the gop candidate is.
Click to expand...
I agree on New York State and New England states going blue. I think the Rust Belt could go for Trump (or Kasich but not Cruz). I also think Trump could make a strong challenge in Florida and Ohio. (likely winning FA, losing OH; with Kasich’s support or as VP, Trump could take it) He might lose Hispanic states like Arizona, New Mexico. Even Georgia I hear is at risk (minority vote? not sure why. I cannot see Georgia going blue!). But the counter argument runs that Trump inspires his base. Trump has brought literally thousands and thousands of voters to the GOP; on paper we have surpassed the Democrats and our own numbers in 2012 by quite a bit - it is amazing.

So, yes, the sad (good?) thing is, for the first time in years, the GOP does ironically have the edge on enthusiasm and numbers to win. We are just too busy hating on each other to notice. Always the optimist, I think this will change - in time to win. The Democrats will need to run negative to mobilize. They have to get much uglier and politically correct than Trump. Vote for us out of fear (what else is on offer? how many people in this country actually seriously think Hillary Clinton is any better than Donald Trump?). I don’t know how well that will play down the middle, after 8 years of enforced negative social political correctness at the hands of a pretty bad president, bad on a number of levels, domestic and international. Again, they need big numbers out there for Hillary. I think the real uphill battle will be for the Dems. Time will tell.
 
Wesrock said:
Ronald Reagan is the one who turned the tide of this country towards neoliberalism. And Cruz goes further: Flat tax, abolishing the IRS, massive downsizing of the federal government . . . I would call this extreme neoliberalism, yes.
Click to expand...
How do you define neo liberalism, and from which school of thought do you derive your definition of neo-liberalismÉ
It is not without reason that people are having a hard time understanding what you are saying.
 
Neoliberalism is a common enough term. There may be some variance in definitions, but it’s all associated with free market economics. I’m not using it in an odd or vague way. It’s not some rare word used only in academics. The Austrian and Chicago schools of economics are neoliberal.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Seriously, people see the word ‘liberal’ and freak out. Now, if I was just throwing liberal around meaning what is now referred to as classical liberalism, I could understand the confusion. But confusion over the word neoliberal? Sigh…
 
Darryl1958 said:
All of them support it by supporting Trump.Some of them even join in the chorus.

Like Boehner.
Click to expand...
But it would have been nice if Boehner has said it earlier – especially at times when Trump had everyone believing he was “anti-establishment”.
 
Peter_J said:
But it would have been nice if Boehner has said it earlier – especially at times when Trump had everyone believing he was “anti-establishment”.
Click to expand...
There is an element of opportunism involved on behalf of politicians who want to run with who they perceive to be the winner.
 
Wesrock said:
Ronald Reagan is the one who turned the tide of this country towards neoliberalism. And Cruz goes further: Flat tax, abolishing the IRS, massive downsizing of the federal government . . . I would call this extreme neoliberalism, yes.
Click to expand...
You should move to Canada, or Europe, you would be very happy there, big govt socialists know whats best for everyone, you would never have to think 👍
 
FollowChrist34 said:
I agree on New York State and New England states going blue. I think the Rust Belt could go for Trump (or Kasich but not Cruz). I also think Trump could make a strong challenge in Florida and Ohio. (likely winning FA, losing OH; with Kasich’s support or as VP, Trump could take it) He might lose Hispanic states like Arizona, New Mexico. Even Georgia I hear is at risk (minority vote? not sure why. I cannot see Georgia going blue!). But the counter argument runs that Trump inspires his base. Trump has brought literally thousands and thousands of voters to the GOP; on paper we have surpassed the Democrats and our own numbers in 2012 by quite a bit - it is amazing.

So, yes, the sad (good?) thing is, for the first time in years, the GOP does ironically have the edge on enthusiasm and numbers to win. We are just too busy hating on each other to notice. Always the optimist, I think this will change - in time to win. The Democrats will need to run negative to mobilize. They have to get much uglier and politically correct than Trump. Vote for us out of fear (what else is on offer? how many people in this country actually seriously think Hillary Clinton is any better than Donald Trump?). I don’t know how well that will play down the middle, after 8 years of enforced negative social political correctness at the hands of a pretty bad president, bad on a number of levels, domestic and international. Again, they need big numbers out there for Hillary. I think the real uphill battle will be for the Dems. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
I agree, its the dims time to be unseated for 8 yrs, hillary is a very weak candidate. We are blowing our chance with the most prolife candidate we will likely ever see! Pro-life *without exceptions! * I for one will always stand with Christ and vote for the most pro-life candidate, even if it’s unpopular, besides I believe Cruz would beat Hillary more easily than trump for many reason which I have already posted numerous times. The more I learn about trump the harder it is for me to think I could ever vote for him in good conscience, I would never vote for Hillary or Bernie, I might just leave the presidential part blank if it’s hillary vs trump
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top