Ted Cruz expected to endorse Donald Trump

cpwill said:

I don't see much emphasis on intellectual history in the Trump movement. If anything, it's marked by derision towards learning.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That's my point.

Beck's main contention(s) regarding the progressive movement (i.e. the root of all modern evil) would be quickly shown to be vastly overblown, had his viewers read much, I don't know..Hofstadter onward.

Fiddytree said:

That's my point.

Beck's main contention(s) regarding the progressive movement (i.e. the root of all modern evil) would be quickly shown to be vastly overblown, had his viewers read much, I don't know..Hofstadter onward.

Click to expand...

:shrug: I have a bachelor's in history, a master's in poli sci, and while I think that there are indeed areas where progressivism did real good, in the area of politics, it did very real violence to our Constitution and did indeed commit real evil. Agreeing that there is heavy overlap between the Beck's of the world and The Paranoid Style, I think, respectfully, that you are taking your own field for more than it is, and letting the vanity of gnosticism appeal to you.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Hawkeye10 said:

THis is no more true now than it was in Cleveland, so what was Cleveland, a brain fart?

Click to expand...

Nope. It was a speech on freedom, liberty and upholding the Constitution. He wasn't going to endorse Trump until he would be willing to totally commit to a list of jurists in the mold of Scalia. Trump's campaign had released a list of 11 jurists which were all good choices but Trump later backed away saying "he may pick one on the list". Typical Trump on just about every issue. Says one thing one day and walks it back the next.

Also, the Convention was a contentious one as the majority of delegates were not happy with Trump and an effort was made to be able to vote their conscience. There was a lot of strong arming and threats made to delegates if they didn't get on board. It started in the Rules Committee. I watched the proceedings. FreetheDelegates had enough support to force the RNC into a floor vote. Just as they opened the meeting they claimed there would be a delay because the printer was not working. There was nothing wrong with the printer.They needed more time to threaten and twist some arms into caving so the vote to allow a floor vote would not pass. It took about 3 hours for the "printer" to get fixed before they proceeded with business.

A few weeks back Pence went to speak to Cruz and asked what would it would take for him to get on board and Cruz told him a promise to him and to the American people that Trump would only choose jurists on the published list of names. Cruz gave a list of 10 more names that he felt were in the mold of Scalia and asked that they be included. Shortly after that Trump's campaign released a statement that he was fully committed to choosing jurists from his list and had added the ten names which Cruz wanted included with no mention of Cruz. That's when Cruz felt he could endorse. You know how they use to say "It's the economy stupid". Well for Cruz "It's the Supreme Court stupid".

Trump also started speaking about the bill Cruz was working on to stop Obama from giving away the Internet and the need for Obama to be stopped. Of course he did not mention Cruz's name. By the way the vote on the bill is this Friday. If you want to see Obama stopped, call your senator and let them know.

cpwill said:

:shrug: I have a bachelor's in history, a master's in poli sci, and while I think that there are indeed areas where progressivism did real good, in the area of politics, it did very real violence to our Constitution and did indeed commit real evil. Agreeing that there is heavy overlap between the Beck's of the world and The Paranoid Style, I think, respectfully, that you are taking your own field for more than it is, and letting the vanity of gnosticism appeal to you.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I meant Hofstadter's synthesis of the progressive movement onward in the historiography. Basically the progressive movement was both far too complicated (and with contradictory factions) to suggest it was wholly bad for X reason, and it was far too removed to explain contemporary problems.

The problem with Beck is that he turns it into a conspiracy theory, not that he has beefs with progressives or the progressive movement of the early 20th century. I'm highly critical of a number of developments that came from that era, but as was I with the Gilded Age (which in many ways produced a number of the antecedents that Beck was ascribing solely to progressives).