Repub Your handy, dandy Trump vs. Cruz comparison chart!

marsh

On TB every waking moment
http://noisyroom.net/blog/2016/01/2...m_campaign=Feed:+Noisyroomnet+(NoisyRoom.net)

Your handy, dandy Trump vs. Cruz comparison chart!
Posted on January 22, 2016 by TMH

Simply click each policy or issue to read the back-story.

Policy or Issue Trump Cruz
In 2013, supported Amnesty for all 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. Yes No
In 2000, supported an Assault Weapons Ban Yes No
In 2015, supported “touchback” Amnesty for every illegal alien in the U.S. Yes No
In 2000, supported Partial-Birth Abortion Yes No
In 2015, lied to gun media about his past support for an Assault Weapons Ban Yes No
Supports seizure of private property by the government using Eminent Domain (Kelo) Yes No
Supports Mitch McConnell’s habitual lies to constituents and fellow GOP Senators Yes No
Currently courting and being courted by GOP establishment Yes No
Currently supports crony capitalism: billions in taxpayer ethanol subsidies Yes No
In 2000, supported Extended Waiting Periods to Acquire Firearms Yes No
Amount of debt owed to bankers Many billions $1 million
Amount donated to the bogus Clinton “Foundation” $100,000 0
Endorsed by GOPe icon Bob Dole, who thought Ronald Reagan was “too fringe” Yes No
Number of bankruptcies declared by firms he led 4 0
Amount of debt defaulted on $4.7 billion $0.00
Number of times married 3 1
Number of “birther” conspiracy theories circulated 2 0
Praised/endorsed Communist for Mayor of New York Yes No
Spends virtually every waking moment on social media Yes No
Appears to shift his position on important issues literally overnight ? No
A guy so stable, sober and poised that you want his finger on the button ? Yep

Sorry, spent about 10 minutes trying to format and it won't take.
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
Here ya go, folks:
 

Attachments

  • Trump v Cruz chart.jpg
    Trump v Cruz chart.jpg
    65.1 KB · Views: 145

Mixin

Veteran Member
Thanks for bumping this up yesterday; I wanted to reply to it but forgot. I have to ask if any of you actually read any of the articles that are linked to see if they were factual? If not, you should have.

Let's look closely at a couple of them:

1. In 2013, supported Amnesty for all 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. Yes (T) No (C)

That one confuses me; maybe I'm not following his line of thinking. I assume author is talking about the immigration bill that was coming up for a vote. IIRC, it gave a pathway to the illegals and almost all reps voted against it. Here's a link to the CPAC 2013 speech Trump gave http://video.foxnews.com/v/2228325934001/donald-trumps-cpac-2013-speech/?#sp=show-clips

So if Trump spoke against it, how can he be for amnesty? Incidentally, Cruz's position on it was iffy.

Here's what Fact Checker wrote:
[snip]
Back in 2013, Cruz offered an amendment to a Senate immigration bill that would have stripped out a proposal for a path to citizenship for those currently in the country illegally. But Cruz’s amendment would have purposefully left intact the bill’s provisions to provide legal status for them.

Numerous media outlets described Cruz’s plan as a compromise “middle road” in the immigration debate that he hoped might be palatable to enough legislators in both houses of Congress to actually pass.

But here’s the thing: Cruz’s campaign says he was bluffing. The true purpose of the amendment, the campaign says, was to expose the real motivations of the bill’s supporters. While those supporters claimed the bill’s aim was to allow 11 million immigrants in the country illegally to come out of the shadows, the Cruz campaign says Cruz was convinced the actual intent was to provide citizenship to those immigrants so they could become future voters.

So, the campaign says, Cruz offered the amendment, knowing it would not pass, to show the real priority of supporters. Even if the amendment had been accepted, Cruz still would not have supported the bill, the campaign says, because he opposes legalization.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/did-cruz-support-legalization/

So the bottom line is neither one supported the bill (except for Cruz when he did but then really didn't).

***********************

Let's look at this one since I already have some info posted here: http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...versed-Support-For-Late-Term-Abortion-In-2000

2. In 2000, supported Partial-Birth Abortion Yes (T) No (C)

This is true but he did educate himself about the procedure by talking to doctors and quickly opposed it. Both happened in 2000.

Going back 16 years to dig up a position which he reversed almost immediately is pathetic and :dhr:

Here's a recent op-ed from him

Donald Trump op-ed: My vision for a culture of life
By DONALD J. TRUMP • 1/23/16 10:13 AM

Let me be clear — I am pro-life. I support that position with exceptions allowed for rape, incest or the life of the mother being at risk. I did not always hold this position, but I had a significant personal experience that brought the precious gift of life into perspective for me. My story is well documented, so I will not retell it here. However, what I will do with the remaining space is express my feelings about life, and the culture of life, as we just marked the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

I build things. There is a process involved in building things. We tap into a lot of disciplines with engineering being one of the most important. The rules for putting structures together are as strict as are the rules of physics. These rules have stood the test of time and have become the path to putting together structures that endure and are beautiful. America, when it is at its best, follows a set of rules that have worked since our Founding. One of those rules is that we, as Americans, revere life and have done so since our Founders made it the first, and most important, of our "unalienable" rights.

Over time, our culture of life in this country has started sliding toward a culture of death. Perhaps the most significant piece of evidence to support this assertion is that since Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Count 43 years ago, over 50 million Americans never had the chance to enjoy the opportunities offered by this country. They never had the chance to become doctors, musicians, farmers, teachers, husbands, fathers, sons or daughters. They never had the chance to enrich the culture of this nation or to bring their skills, lives, loves or passions into the fabric of this country. They are missing, and they are missed.

The Supreme Court in 1973 based its decision on imagining rights and liberties in the Constitution that are nowhere to be found. Even if we take the court at its word, that abortion is a matter of privacy, we should then extend the argument to the logical conclusion that private funds, then, should subsidize this choice rather than the half billion dollars given to abortion providers every year by Congress. Public funding of abortion providers is an insult to people of conscience at the least and an affront to good governance at best.

If using taxpayer money to facilitate our slide to a culture of death were not enough, the 1973 decision became a landmark decision demonstrating the utter contempt the court had for federalism and the 10th Amendment. Roe v. Wade gave the court an excuse to dismantle the decisions of state legislatures and the votes of the people. This is a pattern that the court has repeated over and over again since that decision. Roe v. Wade became yet another incidence of disconnect between the people and their government.

We are in the middle of a presidential political cycle and votes will be cast in just days. The citizens of this nation will have the chance to vote for candidates who are aligned with their individual worldviews. It is my hope that they will choose the builder, the man who has the ability to imagine the greatness of this nation. The next president must follow those principles that work best and that reinforce the reverence Americans hold for life. A culture of life is too important to let slip away for convenience or political correctness. It is by preserving our culture of life that we will Make America Great Again.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-op-ed-my-vision-for-a-culture-of-life/article/2581271
 

Be Well

may all be well
So-called Handy Dandy charts without any context, history or updates are worse than useless, they are neatsy keen propaganda tools.
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
So-called Handy Dandy charts without any context, history or updates are worse than useless, they are neatsy keen propaganda tools.


This^^^ Cruz's attack ad here is running video clips of stuff Trump said back in the 80's and 90's, like that's even relevant today.

I mean if we're supposed to forget that his often suicidal wife used to work for Bush Sr. administration, and as a VP for Goldman Sachs, or the fact that his sperm donor wasn't a citizen of the United States when he was born, or that his sperm donor views him as the anointed one sent to set up God's kingdom here on earth, then we can definitely forget about Trumps past.
 

Be Well

may all be well
I clicked on the link and saw the tenor of the site, and the list is really bogus, and the background info is similarly tainted. "List of crazy birther conspiracies circulated". Life is too short to waste on propaganda b.s. pretending to be unbiased.
 

Mixin

Veteran Member
Item #3 on the chart

In 2015, supported “touchback” Amnesty for every illegal alien in the U.S. Yes No

I had never heard of "touchback" amnesty so I dug around the net and found this interesting article from News Week

WHO KNEW? TRUMP FAVORS AMNESTY FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS
BY MARC THIESSEN ON 11/17/15 AT 1:27 PM
[snips]
This is a policy called “touchback” and it was first proposed in 2007 by moderate Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas). She offered a “touchback” amendment on the Senate floor that would have required illegal immigrants to return to their home countries to apply for a special “Z visa” that would allow them to re-enter the United States in an expedited fashion and work here indefinitely.

Her amendment lost by a relatively close margin, 53-45. It was supported by most Republicans and even got five Democratic votes—senators Claire McCaskill, Max Baucus, Jon Tester, Byron Dorgan and John Rockefeller all voted for it.
...
In fact, the idea even got the support of—wait for it—illegal immigrants.

In 2007, the Los Angeles Times did the first telephone poll of illegal immigrants and asked whether they would go home under a “touchback” law that allowed them to return with legal status. Sixty-three percent said yes, 27 percent said no and 10 percent were undecided. If they were promised a path to citizenship when they returned, the number who said they would leave and return legally grew to 85 percent.
......
http://www.newsweek.com/who-knew-trump-favors-amnesty-undocumented-immigrants-395512

Trump has stated many times that the good ones will come back but he has never said they all will come back. I suspect the young ones who were brought here by their parents and have done well would be among the first to come back and would be the likely majority.

I'm opposed to rewarding any of the illegals by letting them come back; but, otoh, if they have a history of being a productive part of our society, they may be a better choice than some of those waiting.

If he can round up all the criminal gang members, dry up the job market for the illegals, track the over-stay visas and get the wall built, that will 4 huge steps to solving the problem.

I think any deportation policy will be met with amounts of wailing and teeth-gnashing never before seen, so Trump is really going to have to be smart about it.
 

Mixin

Veteran Member
Regarding Cruz on the touchback issue, the article is right. He's all for just leaving all 11 million illegals here and providing a path of some sort for them.

Here's what a few people had to say about him:

Ted Cruz’s ‘Flat Out Lie’ on Immigration
01.28.16 12:03 AM ET

The Texas senator insists he’s never favored a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants, but many of his old colleagues say that’s not true.

For Latino Republicans who have known Ted Cruz over the last 15 years, the candidate stumping across the country on an anti-immigration platform is not the rising talent they once worked with on the George W. Bush campaign, in the Bush administration, and then as Texas Solicitor General.

The Ted Cruz of those years was a whip-smart and audaciously ambitious lawyer who lent his considerable intellectual heft to the policies many Latino Republicans cared most about, including immigration reform. But during a CNN debate in December, as Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio clashed over Cruz’s past positions on offering legal status to undocumented immigrants, Cruz said definitively, “I’ve never supported legalization, I do not intend to support it.”

Weeks later, Cruz doubled down, explaining to Fox News’ Bret Baier that he tried to amend to the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” comprehensive immigration reform bill not to pass it, but to doom it to defeat. “Bret, you’ve been around Washington long enough, you know how to defeat bad legislation.”

And with that, Cruz’s bridge back to his former colleagues in Latino Republican circles began to burn.

“It’s just a flat out lie. Period,” said Robert De Posada. “There’s just no truth behind it.”

De Posada is a former Director of Hispanic Affairs for the RNC and founder of the Latino Coalition, a conservative Latino organization that worked with the Bush administration unsuccessfully to pass immigration reform.

“My criticism is that Cruz can say, ‘Things have changed and I’ve changed my position.’ But don’t sit here and flat out lie that you have never been for legalization when the facts are very clear.”

The facts, according to De Posada and several Republicans who worked with Cruz in Washington and Texas, are that in Cruz’s past work for Bush and later as a board member of the Washington-based Hispanic Alliance for Prosperity Institute, Cruz helped craft policies to allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the country and pursue legal status.

None of those efforts included granting automatic amnesty to undocumented workers, but it is clear in the minds of his former colleagues that finding a way to offer immigrants a way to remain in the United States and gain legal status was central to the work Cruz did.

A former Bush administration official who worked with Cruz during the 2000 campaign and later as a part of an interdepartmental White House working group on immigration remembered Cruz as an aggressive member of the teams tasked with creating a framework to pass Bush’s pro-immigration agenda. The position Cruz holds today was not in play in those years, the official said, in sometimes deeply personal terms.

“How do you say hypocrite in Spanish? Do you know? It’s Ted Cruz,” the former official said. “To know Ted is to hate Ted.”

The official described Cruz’s role on the Bush immigration agenda as working as a liaison between the office of public liaison and the White House’s policy shop. “He wanted to bring immigrants out of the shadows,” the official said. “That’s changed since the campaign and changed since the White House days. But of course it has. If it suits Ted, he’s for it. If it doesn’t, he’s against it.”

“It’s a disappointment,” said the official, who, like many of the people interviewed for this piece, referenced Cruz’s natural intelligence. “I think Ted could do a lot of good if he had a soul.”

But before the White House, Cruz worked in Texas as a policy adviser for the Bush presidential campaign, including on Bush’s plans for immigration reform.

When Charles Foster, a prominent Houston immigration lawyer, was tapped to draft Bush’s plan, he said he was told the campaign had a team of bright young lawyers to work with him. “One of them, named Ted Cruz, had in his bailiwick of issues immigration and he would be my contact with the campaign,” Foster said.

Together, Foster and Cruz worked for nine months drafting what would become the immigration principles of the Bush campaign and eventually the White House. The plan would not include amnesty like Ronald Reagan’s blanket legalization program, which immediately put undocumented immigrants in line for citizenship. But Bush would push for a path to legal status, an aggressive temporary worker program, and a requirement that undocumented workers who stayed in the United States would go to the back of the line for citizenship.

Foster remembers Cruz as a “very hands on” professional who never raised objections to the policies. “I assumed Ted was supportive of Gov. Bush’s positions, but I honestly can’t remember asking Ted if he agreed with the position and personally supported it. I assume he did, but we were like lawyers representing the interests of our client.”

After the campaign and two years in the Bush administration, Cruz moved home to Texas to become the state’s Solicitor General in 2003. Once in Texas, he joined the board of advisers for HAPI, a group of Latino conservatives that included George P. Bush, former members of Congress, and multiple veterans of the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations.

While Cruz was a member of the board and its policy committee, HAPI advocated conservative positions to an array of issues, including its opposition to both climate change legislation and the Affordable Care Act. On immigration, HAPI strongly advocated for a path to legalization, including President Bush’s principles for immigration reform, as well as the 2006 McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

“It’s just bullshit,” said a former member of the HAPI when asked about Cruz’s contention that he never supported legalization. “That’s what pisses us all off. Don’t throw us under the bus for legalization and not take on the nativists and the crazies when you wrote the language. Stand for something.”

The former HAPI board member, who asked not to be named in order to speak freely, described Cruz as a fully engaged member of the group. Cruz co-chaired a 2005 event featuring Gov. Rick Perry and served as a keynote speaker for two of the group’s events. And because of Cruz’s legal expertise, board members said they relied on him to do the first draft of policy positions, including HAPI’s support for immigration reform. When he ran for Senate in 2012, HAPI hosted a fundraiser to support his candidacy.

In the 2012 campaign for Senate, Cruz’s role at HAPI became the subject of a bitter disagreement between Cruz and David Dewhurst, then the lieutenant governor of Texas and Cruz’s opponent in the Senate primary race. The Dewhurst campaign accused Cruz of “leading two organizations that support amnesty,” a position that neither HAPI nor the other group ever supported. But members of HAPI’s board insist that legalization for undocumented immigrants was always unequivocally a part of its platform.
HAPI no longer exists, but Cruz has gone on to become its most famous and potentially most powerful former member, an end to the story that many of his fellow Latino Republicans lament.

“When he went so far as to say he’s never been for legalizing, that’s where he crossed the line and lost people like me,” said Robert De Posada. “It’s a character issue where a lot of us are just like, ‘Um, no.’”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ter_page&account=thedailybeast&medium=twitter
 

Millwright

Knuckle Dragger
_______________
The voter shaming letter did it for me.

If he or his staff can't grasp the level of pisstivity in america that is directly attributable to government intrusion...he/they are no better than what we are fighting against.
 

Be Well

may all be well
The voter shaming letter did it for me.

If he or his staff can't grasp the level of pisstivity in america that is directly attributable to government intrusion...he/they are no better than what we are fighting against.

If he or his staff can't grasp the level of pisstivity in america that is directly attributable to government intrusion...he/they are no DIFFERENT than what we are fighting against
 
Top