Wouldn’t these just be the dream teams?

Wisconsin primary: Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders defeat Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton

Ted and Bernie running as a team against Donald and Hillary? What jolly japes that would be.

24 thoughts on “Wouldn’t these just be the dream teams?”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    The only team I want to see these four on is a chain gang. All four of them. Shackled together.

    Well then the high sheriff, he told Lazarus
    He says Lazarus I come to arrest you
    Well the high sheriff, told Lazarus
    Says Lazarus I come to arrest you
    And bring ya dead or alive
    Lawd, Lawd
    Bring you dead or alive
    Well then Lazarus, he told the high sheriff
    Says I never been arrested
    Well Lazarus, told the high sheriff
    Says I never been arrested
    By no one man
    Lawd, Lawd
    By no one man

    Although I still dream of Cruz being sent to the Supreme Court. Before or after his stint on the chain gang. I don’t care.

  2. The Inimitable Steve

    Ted Cruz will never be president of the United States.

    Personality matters in presidential politics, and – to the extent he has one – he’s actively unpleasant.

    It’s not that he’s a bellend – though he is that too – it’s more that you have to be a charming bellend to win national elections in the US.

    Trump is bombastically charismatic. Bernie has a sort of grandfatherly sincerity about him.

    Personality-wise Cruz is the male version of Hillary – like something that slithered out of the Uncanny Valley and creeps closer and closer to you… whispering in a hoarse, halting voice that sounds like buzzing flies that it has such… wonderful… things… to show you.

  3. Ted Cruz has the air of a used car salesman who cheats on his taxes and fiddles with kids on the side.

    William H Macy from Fargo basically. But with kiddy fiddling.

  4. In Wisconsin the GOP had just 42 delegates up for grabs. Scuttlebutt says that the Donald is walking it in the
    New England Primaries coming up next week, and Bernie now has some momentum having won 5 on the bounce. Your average Yank sees Ted and Hilary as representing the same constituency – the super-rich who think they should run the country, which is why the Donald and Bernie have captured the imagination of so many party members. A populist POTUS has not been seen since Regan, maybe our cousins think it’s time for a change.

  5. So Much For Subtlety

    K.R. Lohse – “Your average Yank sees Ted and Hilary as representing the same constituency – the super-rich who think they should run the country”

    I am not sure that is true of Cruz. I think that it is immigration that is the issue. Cruz voted for Amnesty as did Rubio. But Cruz has been able to walk back from it.

    UKIP needs to adopt a zero-level immigration policy. I bet the British voter is not that removed from the American ones.

  6. SMFS>

    We don’t generally share your perversions of thought. Which is why the UK (and European countries in general) have, in comparison to the US, an open-door policy to all.

    The USians like to talk about immigration as if it’s solely a matter of Mexicans, but all that means is that even the supposedly more liberal Democrats are not even contemplating whether it’s sane or sensible to have borders that are closed to _Europeans_, let alone anyone else.

  7. SMFS,

    It’s so rare that I see someone claim the reason Cruz is unpopular is due to immigration that I have no rebuttal off of the top of my head. I would argue that the overall lack of posted opinions supporting your idea means that Americans don’t dislike Cruz because of immigration.

    Before the presidential campaign I knew Cruz as the guy who would do anything to shut down the government just because. Although I understand the rhetoric I still don’t understand what, other than anarchy, he is trying to accomplish.

  8. LY>

    “I still don’t understand what, other than anarchy, he is trying to accomplish.”

    He’s apparently trying to fix the US political system. It’s currently broken because you lot have forgotten _why_ the Founding Fathers insisted on small government: because they couldn’t agree at all on anything other than to leave matters out of the remit of government.

    It’s obviously true that the two sides in US politics are never going to agree on things like abortion, marriage, and so-on. That’s not new, and it’s precisely why the system was set up as it was: they’re matters for state-by-state decision-making, not for Federal government to issue decrees on.

  9. His fix is to destroy everything with no regards to the consequences. As any fule kno getting rid of the IRS means there is no one to collect tax. With no tax revenue there is no federal government big or small. Despite the bloat the federal government still does some good things.

    If Cruz wanted to be an acceptable candidate to me the first thing he needs to do is to stop trying to destroy. He proposes that he can save $50 billion a year, it’s not as impressive sounding as $500 billion over 10 years but it’s the same amount, yet he hasn’t shown that he wants to accomplish that as a Senator. Since he’s proven to me he can’t succeed in his current job what is the point of promoting him?

  10. I’m hardly a fan of Cruz, just pointing out that he’s trying to fix a system that the Democrats have deliberately broken. I have no idea what you’re saying about the IRS.

  11. He’s updated it slightly since I last visited but here you go. Instead of saying he will abolish the IRS now he says he will review doing it. There is still no word on what, if anything, he would put in it’s place.

    I can go on as to why I trust Sanders more economically than Cruz. Cruz’s tax plan is for a 10% flat tax with a deduction, I assume that it is not just for families of four as he states as that would leave out most Americans. Actual federal spending was at* around $3.8 trillion or about 21% of the GDP. Cruz states he will be able to cut spending with $500 billion over 10 years to make up the difference. Obviously there is a gap of around $2 trillion of dollars in missing revenue even before he expands the military. Sanders’s plans might be crazy but at least he took the time to try to make the numbers work.

    *I can’t remember the base year I used months ago, just the key points. Once we account for the deduction my conclusion is that we would need an initial tax rate of around 28% to pay for Cruz’s plans without military expansion.

  12. Liberal Yank: Cruz is a theocrat, plain and simple. If it’s not in the bible, he’s not interested.

  13. LY:

    I have no idea what he’s on about, but viewed in the abstract it’s not an insane idea. A lot of what the IRS does could be done by others, and there’s no real evidence that having a huge, bloated revenue service – as we do too – is an advantage when it comes to getting people to pay tax.

    As for Cruz v Sanders on economics, neither is preferable to doing nothing – but Sanders definitely plans to do something fairly major, whereas Cruz is more likely to do nothing significant. Fiscal policies are a rather different matter to Bernie’s proposals to hamstring the US economy.

  14. LY

    “Although I understand the rhetoric I still don’t understand what, other than anarchy, he is trying to accomplish.”

    His goal is the election of Ted Cruz as president.

    Then (he thinks) he can do what needs doing.

    Theocracy, mainly, probably. But secondary to bring Prez.

  15. I am left wondering whether Cruz thinks I am an idiot or is just unable to do basic math. My guess is that he thinks I’m an idiot but I might be giving his intellectual ability too much credit. Either way I can’t find a reason to support him.

    Please don’t take this as me defending Sanders’s policies. Both plans are bad for America. I feel that Sanders is the much more stable candidate that at least tries to do what is best for the country in general. Cruz strikes me as someone who is drawn to power just to have power and will be unable to make the compromises necessary to get anything done.

    As usual this presidential election is about who is the least bad option. Of the four remaining relevant candidates Cruz comes across as the least able to understand logic.

  16. So Much For Subtlety

    Dave – “We don’t generally share your perversions of thought. Which is why the UK (and European countries in general) have, in comparison to the US, an open-door policy to all.”

    Well no one shares your perversion of thought Dave. Very few people think Top of the Pops is part of a vast plot against Jews. But British people have traditionally been more opposed to immigration than Americans. It is only in the last few decades that, over the objections of the voters, our Betters have gone for population replacement.

    Liberal Yank – “It’s so rare that I see someone claim the reason Cruz is unpopular is due to immigration that I have no rebuttal off of the top of my head.”

    You need to speak to someone else apart from Democrats. Rubio was a great candidate for TV. A pity about that Amnesty thing.

    “Before the presidential campaign I knew Cruz as the guy who would do anything to shut down the government just because.”

    So you believe the nonsense on TV. Fine.

    Matthew L – “Cruz is a theocrat, plain and simple. If it’s not in the bible, he’s not interested.”

    This is so delusional it is perfect. Last I heard Cruz was not calling to end the system of elections or abolish the First Amendment. He was not calling for adulterers to be stoned. He was not even calling for a ban on interest.

    Liberal Yank – “I feel that Sanders is the much more stable candidate that at least tries to do what is best for the country in general.”

    Yeah because Communists have done so well for the countries they have ruled. This just says more about your prejudices.

    “Cruz strikes me as someone who is drawn to power just to have power and will be unable to make the compromises necessary to get anything done.”

    Those two sentences are, of course, contradictory. Someone who just wants power will make any and all compromises to remain there. Cruz believes stuff. That is why he doesn’t compromise.

    “Of the four remaining relevant candidates Cruz comes across as the least able to understand logic.”

    Cruz graduated from Princeton University in 1992, and from Harvard Law School in 1995. Between 1999 and 2003, he was the Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice, and domestic policy advisor to George W. Bush on the 2000 George W. Bush presidential campaign. He served as Solicitor General of Texas, from 2003 to 2008, appointed by Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott. He was the first Hispanic, and the longest-serving, Solicitor General in Texas history. From 2004 to 2009, Cruz was also an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, where he taught U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

    Yeah. That CV just screams a guy unable to understand basic logic.

  17. SMFS,

    I’m not from Texas so before his presidential run I knew very little about him. The fact that you use his work on the staff of the worst president in my lifetime doesn’t help your case. As to the rest either he didn’t learn anything or he thinks voters are idiots. I already made it clear that I don’t think he is actually as dumb as he sounds so that means anyone that supports him is an idiot.

    As to the candidate running under the Communist Party I can’t tell you if their choice is nuttier than Cruz or not. Since you’ve looked into it an know for sure can you provide the link to that candidate’s platform? I’m trusting that you didn’t make the basic mistake of thinking our communists and socialists are the same thing.

  18. So Much For Subtlety

    Liberal Yank – “I’m not from Texas so before his presidential run I knew very little about him.”

    Yeah we get it. You’re a Low Information Voter who believes everything he hears on the TV news. You said that already.

    “The fact that you use his work on the staff of the worst president in my lifetime doesn’t help your case.”

    The fact that 1. you think George W was a bad President and 2. you think Obama is better tells us pretty much all we need to know. But if that wasn’t enough, the fact that you pull out one little piece of information in a large paragraph to support your irrational prejudices is amusing. Yeah, he went to Princeton and Harvard Law. What a loser.

    “As to the rest either he didn’t learn anything or he thinks voters are idiots. I already made it clear that I don’t think he is actually as dumb as he sounds so that means anyone that supports him is an idiot.”

    Because Harvard Law only takes fools. Again you know nothing about the man except your media-fed prejudices. And you admit it. So you clearly cannot make this claim with any confidence. You wish it to be true.

    “As to the candidate running under the Communist Party I can’t tell you if their choice is nuttier than Cruz or not.”

    Which pretty much sums everything up.

    “I’m trusting that you didn’t make the basic mistake of thinking our communists and socialists are the same thing.”

    I am not making that mistake. Socialists do not honeymoon in the USSR. Socialists do not praise the Sandanistas as better than the US. Well some do I suppose.

  19. SMFS,

    Are you Ritchie in disguise? You’re making about as much sense as he does.

    I don’t understand why you felt the need to bring only Obama into the conversation. Clinton was better. Bush I was better. Reagan was better. Carter was better. Ford was better. We have to go back to at least LBJ before we come close to the ineptitude of Bush II.

    As to the rest, what the hell are you babbling about?

    This is what we get when we cut the funding to the mental hospitals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *