The Observer is a Student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame & Saint Mary's. Learn more about us.



Students volunteer at Ted Cruz rally

| Saturday, April 30, 2016

Just five days before the Indiana presidential primaries, Ted Cruz paid a visit to South Bend to rally voters in pursuit of a crucial win in the race for the Republican nomination.

Junior Dylan Stevenson, who attended the rally for the Texas senator at the Century Center on Thursday, said the place was “buzzing” with excitement and enthusiasm.

“You had elderly people there, people with families,” Stevenson, vice president of College Republicans, said. “You had men and women, people of all shapes and sizes. It was a really diverse group. I’m guessing there were several principles that united the crowd, but if you were to see these people wandering around the store, you wouldn’t think they necessarily were to share political beliefs.”

Fresh off a series of losses on the East Coast, Cruz seeks to defeat frontrunner Donald Trump in what has been deemed a deciding state primary by analysts. If Trump wins Indiana, he will likely secure the 1,237 votes needed the win the Republican delegate majority.

Freshman Isabel Teixeira said Cruz discussed the unusual amount of power and responsibility held by Hoosier voters, as the Indiana primaries are often held too late to have a significant effect on national level.

“The fact that Indiana is such a big deal this year shows what a weird election this is and what a divided election it is,” she said.

Teixeira and freshman Lizzie Cameron said their biggest reason for attending the rally was to see Carly Fiorina in one of her first public appearances since being named Cruz’s running mate this past Wednesday.

“There’s no one I really feel strongly about voting for, so we decided to go check out Cruz to see what he’s like,” Cameron said. “I like Carly a lot, and she talked about how close [she and Cruz] have grown and how he’s a really good, hardworking guy.”

Cruz’s speech was catered for an Indiana audience and focused on three main points — jobs and wages, freedom and security, sophomore John Kill said.

“At the moment, he was speaking to people in South Bend, but I think his audience at large was the people of Indiana,” he said. “The points he spoke to are the things Indiana conservatives, generally really care about and want to protect.”

Junior Pat Crane, president of College Republicans, said Cruz put an emphasis Indiana jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs, which are being outsourced to other countries.

“Touching on what really has been Trump’s line this whole time, we really want to bring these jobs back,” he said. “He was laying out an effective strategy for that.”

In terms of freedom, Crane said Cruz promoted a return to a “Constitutional outlook” on life. Cruz also touched on religious liberty, a relevant topic in light of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed in 2015, Kill said.

Stevenson said the senator looks to increase and strengthen national security in line with typical Republican platforms.

“He’s going to rebuild the military so it’s not depleted, so it can take on radical Islam,” he said. “It’s a peace through strength sort of strategy.”

Kill said Cruz made a point to differentiate himself as the “true conservative” candidate.

“Not only did he say Donald Trump wasn’t a conservative, but he said he was just the masculine version of Hilary Clinton,” Kill said.

“I think that was his point — not just to the people in South Bend that were there, but to his general audience in Indiana — that look, you know, the election is coming down to here,” he said. “You’re either going to vote for me, or you’re going to vote for Donald Trump. And a vote for Donald Trump is basically a vote for Hilary Clinton.”

Kill plans to intern for the Texas senator this summer in his Houston office. Although he will not be involved in the campaign process, Kill said he will support Cruz in the presidential race.

“I resonate with a lot of the things he said. … He’s a good family man, comes from a background that shows the importance of hard work and dedication to your family, to your country, to values and principles that I support,” he said.

Stevenson said roughly 25 College Republicans members volunteered at the rally.

“The energy was great. People started chanting ‘Ted’ part-way through,” he said. “There was really good energy, just overall a really good event. I don’t know what the Trump event will be like, but it’ll be tough to top that.”

Cruz is not the only candidate targeting South Bend — Bernie Sanders will host a rally at Century Center on Sunday, while Trump is set to visit the same location Monday.

Crane said he hopes to get a similar Notre Dame crowd for the Trump campaign.

“That volunteer work is something we want to keep up, whether or not the nominee is Cruz,” he said. “You know, either way, we really want to support the nominee.”

Kill said the University’s political atmosphere is sure to provide a stimulating forum for students as the 2016 election draws nearer.

“Being here at Notre Dame, the combination of being Catholic and being millennials, that whole mix of things makes it a very interesting political climate. We’re not a left-leaning school, we’re not a right-leaning school — we’re somewhere in the middle,” he said.

Associate News Editor Rachel O’Grady contributed to this story.

Tags: , , ,

About Katie Galioto

Katie, the Observer's current Managing Editor, is a senior majoring in political science, with minors in Business Economics and Journalism, Ethics and Democracy. She's a former Walsh Hall resident who now lives off campus and hails from Chanhassen, Minnesota. Follow her on Twitter @katiegalioto.

Contact Katie
  • Gary Smith

    Cruz blatantly cheats in the elections (the latest is using robocalls in Montana, which is illegal under Montana’s laws). He insists that big money donations are free speech and is completely beholden to exploiters like the Koch brothers, Goldman Sachs, Robert Mercer, etc. He is a free-trading, war-mongering, privacy-invading, super-PAC abusing, exploiter-funded puppet who won’t secure our southern border to help stop the 90% of hardcore drugs here that come across it, support fair trade, stop policing the world, respect our privacy, stop corporations from undermining our democracy, or anything else the exploiters don’t want him to do.

    Cruz is the typical snake politician who has done one or two things to try to gain cred with voters but has spent the rest of his career selling out America. It is a shame that people are continually fooled into supporting all the slick-talking, two-faced lawyers in DC (Clinton, Obama, Cruz, etc.) selling out our country to the parasitic exploiters.

    • Brendan

      I can’t imagine what it is like to be able to make the logical jump that all this is true…and to support Donald Trump in response. Look at his record of hiring foreign workers, of bribing politicians, and of buying favors from the very people he now condemns.

      • Gary Smith

        All you have to do is follow the money. People don’t generally provide huge sums of money and other favors without wanting something in return. The most important criteria to me is whether a candidate is a paid-for stooge or not.

        Personally, I was a contractor for 20 years but decided to get a degree and pursue a different career because all of my competitors had nothing but illegal immigrants working for them on the cheap. I wasn’t willing to hire illegals to compete and it is a dirty shame that a couple of my former employees are now living in homeless shelters.

        That said, Trump has obviously done what it takes to compete. However, I also think he is sincere in his love for America and desire to fix things. Whereas, I know darn well the other candidates will continue the status quo destruction of America. I don’t believe Cruz would actually build a wall, and I know he won’t push for fair trade. Ultimately, I have serious reservations about Trump but I don’t trust Cruz at all.

        • Brendan

          Fortunately for him, one of the people he was paying is now his general election opponent. If either candidate touches political corruption during the debate, they may self-destruct.

          I believe Cruz would have secured the border. As for free trade, I honestly need to read up on that. I understand most of the pros and cons, but I don’t know enough about the Trans Pacific Partnership to debate you on it (although from what I do know, I probably wouldn’t vote for it if I were in office). I do know that Cruz refused to support the bill.

          I know nothing about who Trump really is and I know Clinton currently is favored in every swing state, but I hope you’re right about his character and patriotism. He does have a shocking ability to inspire incredible loyalty and hold onto it in the face of anything. This is the only reason I can’t be 100% certain that he is going to lose in November.

      • Punta Venyage

        “I can’t imagine what it is like to be able to make the logical jump that all this is true”

        And how, exactly, is your ability (or lack thereof) to imagine relevant to the discussion?

        Facts don’t care about your feelings. Try rereading Garry’s comment and post something more useful please.

  • Gary Smith

    Ted Cruz gave Fiorina $500,000 via his Robert Mercer funded super-PAC “Keep the Promise” last year when they were COMPETING, and now she’s his VP pick. What we have here are two snakes in a pod (typical politicians). It appears as though one is a blackmailer and the other did something worth being blackmailed over.


    • Brendan

      Your insane accusation reveals how little you understand about the political process, Political Action Committees, and campaigns. Political Action Committees are prohibited by law from colluding with even a single campaign (let alone two apparently). They only campaign on behalf of candidates without cooperating with anyone on the campaign.

      There are Political Action Committees that support Cruz specifically, but

      also Political Action Committees formed that support one candidate at one time and another later or simply exist to promote a specific policy item or stop a particularly noxious candidate. Candidates don’t run Political Action Committees and Political Action Committees aren’t necessarily loyal to their initial choice.

      • Gary Smith

        Brendan, I understand how super-PACs are “supposed” to work. However, I am not naive enough to think that anybody (especially politicians) are making sure that’s the case. I have full confidence that candidates use loopholes to coordinate with their super-PACs just as I am sure they use loopholes in the tax code to lower their taxes.

        Here’s a quote concerning just one method they can utilize to coordinate without breaking any rules if they are actually concerned about it being an issue…

        “Many of the super PACs and the campaigns are run by a revolving door of close friends and staffers, ensuring that the two sides share a common playbook even when they avoid tripping over the vague Federal Election Commission rules banning coordination…One Democratic commissioner at the FEC said that she is ‘very concerned’ about the growing influence of super PACs and frustrated about the inability of her agency to do anything about it.”


        • Brendan

          There are certainly abuses and I typically take a cynical approach to all politicians. I have a higher opinion of Ted Cruz (and Trump and is my 22nd favorite candidate for President of the 22 who ran, although I used to prefer him to the Democrats).

          I suspect most candidates abuse the system whenever they believe they won’t get caught or hire political operatives or local supporters to do it for them (and keep their hands clean).

          In the specific cases you pointed to at first, I wanted to point out that a Political Action Committee supporting one candidate (Carly Fiorana) and then supporting another (Ted Cruz) is not evidence of collusion.

          For example, a particularly annoying PAC that supported Jeb Bush began running Pro-Cruz adds as soon as Rubio dropped out of the race (Objective: #NeverTrump). Another #NeverTrump PAC published a “naked” picture of Trump’s wife, getting Cruz a ton of bad press until Trump responded. Political Action Committees change their loyalty when the road to whatever they want changes. For most of them, they had to embrace “Lucifer in the flesh” to stop Trump.

          In your first particular example, presumably the Political Action Committee saw Carly as the best path to their priorities or they supported her because she condemned Trump. Once she was gone, the first or second reason probably applied to Cruz.

          Political Action Committees are not ideal (I like to think campaign money goes back into the economy so at least it isn’t a waste), but I don’t buy that Ted Cruz inappropriately colluded with favorable Political Action Committees, other candidates, and their Political Action Committees.

      • Punta Venyage

        Your assumption that powerful people are good boys and girls that follow the rules reveals how little you understand about the political process.

        Time spent studying the Clintons would benefit you remarkably.

  • Gary Smith

    Super-PACs MUST be banned! They give a few wealthy exploiters the ability to shape our entire political system; they allow for absurdly unequal representation! The people and corporations funding these PACs have acquired their wealth from selling out America through political favors, endless wars, unfair trade deals, exploiting foreign labor, exploiting illegal labor within our borders, creating insurmountable debt for our children, and maintaining a rigged election process that ensures nothing will change. Super-PACs are a direct conflict of interest and an absolute corrupting force!

    In my opinion, any candidate who doesn’t demand their super-PACs disband in the name of democracy and the people is a flat out TRAITOR to America! Exploiter puppets Clinton and Cruz will never do this like Trump and Sanders have; instead, they will continue feigning powerlessness and ignorance regarding super-PACs. Anyone who votes for these two-faced lawyers is voting to continue selling out America!

    If someone with Trump’s resources can’t run without being shredded by exploiter-funded super-PACs and media pundits, how does someone like me or you have a chance? The answer is that, unless we are lackeys like Clinton and Cruz, whom those same exploiters also fund, we don’t! The process is rigged; you can watch a great example of how the media takes things out of context and falsely demonizes non-controlled candidates like Trump by searching for and viewing “The Untruth about Donald Trump” video.

  • Gary Smith

    It doesn’t take a genius to understand that a global “free-trade” market means that workers making $25/hr will have to compete with workers making $1/hr. An equilibrium must ultimately be achieved just like in any system and, in this case, that essentially means that American workers will be working for no more than the minimum wage set by law when all is said and done. Unfortunately, countries without minimum wage laws will still offer lower labor costs than us, which means that America will not produce anything and will not provide services to anyone outside our own border. Anyone who says anything else concerning free-trade is either lying, or is completely clueless. “Free-trade” comes at a huge cost to workers in developed countries. American workers can only survive and thrive with FAIR trade!

    • MC

      Free trade is also the reason goods cost significantly less in the US than they used to. Globalization has significantly raised the standard of living of every single American. Sending certain jobs overseas frees up Americans to work more skilled jobs or innovate in new fields. Free trade also pulls millions out of subsistence poverty in the third world, meaning fewer kids are starving to death every year–that’s a win in my book. In the short term, people lose their jobs, but in the grand scheme of things everybody wins.

      • Gary Smith

        Ross Perot was exactly right about what NAFTA would do to us. As far as standard of living goes, technology has certainly made life better for us. However, time is really a human’s most precious resource and it’s pretty sad that both parents have to work full-time to support a family today.

        In any economy, you either have to make something or provide a service. That is the bottom line. In America, we are quickly approaching an economy in which we don’t make anything. We are also providing fewer services to other nations because those services can be obtained for cheaper elsewhere. The idea of people working in “more skilled jobs” or “new fields” is great for a small percentage of Americans who will be able to provide whatever those services are to other Americans if they can’t be provided for less by foreign workers, but that won’t save us from bankruptcy and falling to third world status.

        In the very long term and on a global scale, everything will reach an equilibrium someday. I think where you and I differ is that you are more globalist minded, whereas I am more nationalist minded and don’t want America to suffer now and for the foreseeable future in order to help developing countries.

        • MC

          First off, it is just statistically untrue that Americans, on average, work more than they did in the 1950s or 1970s. We work much less than we did in the 50’s and in less dangerous jobs, and the only group that works significantly more than they did in the 70s is the very rich. The country has a fair amount of workaholic culture, but it can hardly be said that is out of necessity if the workaholics are also the ones in the upper class and highest paying jobs. The middle class works slightly more than they did in the 70s and the poor work less.

          Second, there is no way we are ever going to be a third world country. We have a large amount of capital, a strong infrastructure, and a mostly stable government. Working more skilled jobs or in new fields isn’t for the few because we are already doing it. Employment changes hurt a small number of people in the very short term, but it is good for the country overall. Protectionism is expensive (it costs the country more than the salary of the job) and it doesn’t actually benefit anyone in the medium or long run.

          We will always need services here, and more capital and technology in this country means a greater need for trade work, which is accessible to people of all income groups. More money in this country that need not be spent on basic goods can instead be spent on services and luxury goods, which opens up new fields for workers of all skill levels.

          We have yet to see the decline of the US so far, even as globalization has spread. The poor have seen HUGE gains in their quality of life and every American spends less on basic necessities than we did in the 70s. It is regrettable that people have to work so much, but our hours have not skyrocketed, and people who work more than they would have in the 70s work more hours than they need to by choice or by a want for more material goods than they actually need (I won’t say we don’t have a materialism problem in America). This decline that people are so afraid of in the American economy just isn’t coming.

          If you want to actually be worried about something, be worried about our abysmal growth rate. Growth is the only thing that allows people to live better while working less, and the amount that our economy is tied up in taxes and transfer-seeking is slowing that down. People would see the benefits of higher growth in their own lifetimes, while at our current growth rate it will take over 140 years for us to double our standard of living.

          • Gary Smith

            Your first point is false.
            Quote: “In 1960 only 19 percent of married mothers with children under age 6 were in the labor force but this increased to 64 percent in 1995.”

            Your second point is also false. We are a debtor nation who must continually print and borrow money, which devalues our currency (90% of wages never keep up with inflation BTW) in order to maintain our society. This is a practice that cannot go on indefinitely. If interest rates were raised, the interest alone on our debt could quickly become our largest annual expenditure. Worse yet, after bankruptcy, we will have almost no manufacturing to attempt to rebuild our economy with.

            At least we can agree on growth rate. The problem is that you don’t see our stagnant growth as having anything to do with the decline in our manufacturing and outsourcing of services.

            The “decline that people are so afraid of” has been happening right before our eyes for decades now but, don’t worry, we will print and borrow enough money to mask it and create all of these bubbles waiting to burst in the process. The small percentage of people who benefit from all of it will massage your ears with their forked-tongues in an effort to get you to parrot the exact rhetoric that you are. They take pleasure in cherry-picking statistics and using hopelessly flawed studies to support their claims.

          • MC

            The rise in the female labor participation rate is mostly due to the women’s liberation movement, the decrease of the rigor of housework, and the choice of families to outsource housework to others and work in formal capacities instead of having one parent stay home. Working hours of couples have not increased.
            Also, we have always been a debtor nation in terms of national debt, it was just held in store credit and in banks rather than on credit cards and other forms we have now. I will admit people live beyond their means in some cases and abuse credit, but that is nothing new. Debt, in extraordinary measures, has existed in Western society as long as lending has.
            The Fed decided to print money and extend monetary policy to try to increase our recovery post-recession. I agree it was a bad idea, but it’s not unfixable.
            Our stagnant growth doesn’t have anything to do with the decline in manufacturing and outsourcing of services. Most economic models of growth rely on increases in capital and technology to drive growth. We are more developed, so it becomes more and more difficult to create growth. Add the amount of government interference in investment (which really drives growth) and we are doomed to stay at 0.5% for the foreseeable future.
            There is no need to use “flawed studies” to support this kind of economics. Prominent and time-tested economic theory is on the side of free trade and high growth solutions.

          • Gary Smith

            The liberation movement increased opportunities for women to work, but did not drive the need for them to work. What has driven the need for both parents to work now (and much of the wealth divide) has been wages not keeping up with inflation for all groups. “If our standard for minimum wages had kept pace with overall income growth in the American economy, it would now be $21.16 per hour.”

            As far as our snowballing debt and the interest payments on it goes, “CBO projects that net interest costs will triple over just the next 10 years, soaring from $261 billion in 2016 to $755 billion in 2025 and totaling $5.2 trillion over the period.”

            As far as growth goes, “according to the Economic Policy Institute, each manufacturing job supports almost three other jobs in the economy.” “From the rise of England in the 19th century, to the rise of the US, Germany, Japan and the USSR in the 20th, to the newly industrializing countries like Korea, Taiwan, and now China, manufacturing has been the key to prosperity.” There has been “a manufacturing decline in the United States of historic dimensions; even without adjusting for inflation, the trade deficit in goods for the United States between 2000 and 2010 was 7 trillion dollars.”

            But more than anything, all one has to do is engage their common sense to know that manufacturers will always gravitate to a place with cheaper labor and fewer regulations. And until the U.S becomes that place (which won’t be pretty), the U.S. will continue to lose manufacturing in a free trade environment. The overwhelming majority of empirical evidence also supports this claim.

  • Brendan

    One of the many reasons I support Ted Cruz:

    Dear Washington Cartel,

    Last year, Governor Bobby Jindal called out the lobbyists and corporations which bullied the state governments of Arkansas and Indiana for defending religious freedom. Walmart,Apple, and even NASCAR threatened these states, attempting to pressure elected representatives into ignoring their voters for financial concerns. An imposing list of 376 corporations, also lobbied the members of the Supreme Court to abuse their authority by redefining marriage last summer.

    Many of these corporations have also been exposed as donors to Planned Parenthood, whether by directly donating or by matching employee donations.

    Corporations are increasingly willing to pressure Republicans to abandon social issues of incredible importance to their conservative base. At the same time, Republican contenders have noted this trend and reexamined the role of big business in our country. In particular, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, and Bobby Jindal have explicitly denounced the attempt to smother the religious liberty of Christians beneath a pile of corporate cash. Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz traveled to Kentucky to
    support Kim Davis. They are not willing to abandon religious freedom, traditional marriage, or the innocent unborn. This is not the case for Donald Trump who has endorsed Transgender Bathrooms rights, stated that abortion laws should “stay as they are”, and promised to amend the GOP platform on abortion.

    Yet their rhetoric of the rest on the influence of big business, on subsidies, and the regulation of Wall Street is changing quickly. As a staffer at a
    conservative media event in 2013, I witnessed some of the speakers conclude that sugar subsidies were not desirable, but were necessary to compete with other countries. During a Republican debate, Jeb Bush openly called for their elimination. Ted Cruz has frequently inveighed against the “Washington Cartel”, the “revolving door” between business and government that overrides the will of the voter. In the same debate, Kasich was loudly booed for supporting limited bailouts for banks, while Cruz courageously announced that he would “Absolutely not” bail out the banks again. While some candidates skirted the issue, it is now clear that Republicans will not simply accept the will of Wall Street, whether on social issues, immigration, or the TPP.

    While a self-proclaimed socialist and a desperate opportunist attempting to emulate him battle for the Democratic nomination, these corporations alienate and belittle the candidates and voters who stand against Sanders and Hillary. While they minimize their own tax burden, lobby the government for special treatment, and receive generous subsidies at the expense of the taxpayer, they reveal the same clueless arrogance that cost Romney the 2012 election. When Romney made his 47% remark, he assumed that no one who financially benefits from big government would vote against it. He
    trusted the Washington Cartel and Super PACs, while smearing the millions of Republicans voters who vote on social issues, regardless of their income or government benefits. These voters are horrified by the undercover videos from inside Planned Parenthood. They showed up to vote down the “Houston Equal Rights Amendment” in a city that has repeatedly elected extremist progressive officials. They broke out in thunderous applause when
    Marco Rubio stated that the family is the basic unit of society and defended
    the child tax credit, regardless of the cost.

    If corporate interests continue to ally with liberals in the government and the media against conservatives, they should not expect our support. If the Democrats defeat a Republican coalition, fractured by corporate money and influence, the resulting taxes and regulation will justly reward these corporations for their treachery. It is our votes, not their money, which will
    protect the liberty and prosperity of America in the coming election. The Washington Cartel has been warned: Do not take us for granted. Cruz/Carly 2016!

    • João Pedro Santos

      So you support Cruz because you are a misogynist and a homophobe?

    • João Pedro Santos

      Doesn’t want liberals to interfere on people’s religious feelings… Wants to control women’s bodies and wants to forbid people who love each other from getting married.

      • Brendan

        That is a ridiculous red herring. Liberals always make the abortion debate about this, while ignoring the murders of the helpless.

  • João Pedro Santos

    Are there students seriously supporting Cruz? Cruz is a fascist who wants the US to be a Christian theocracy. While Drumpf is always changing his mind on everything, Cruz tells very explicitly how bad he is.
    I seriously hope these students are a minority at ND.

    • MC

      Do you know the definition of fascism? Cruz hardly advocates for greater government power over the people or a crushing of dissent. And I’m sorry to say for you that Cruz supporters are plentiful on campus.

      • João Pedro Santos

        In case you haven’t noticed, wanting to implement Christian sharia is advocating greater government power over the people. You know, like Saudi Arabia does. “Carpet bombing” the Middle East is also advocating greater government power. So yes, Cruz is a fascist.

        • MC

          There is no such thing as Christian sharia, so it would be hard to implement it. Also, foreign affairs is the one thing almost nearly every political school of thought in America agrees is the responsibility of the government. So you’re really swinging and missing here.

          • João Pedro Santos

            I didn’t know “foreign affairs” included using taxpayers’ money, which should go to schools and healthcare, on bombing foreign nations, which instead of fighting terrorism just created more terrorists. Moreover, Cruz supports the War “on Drugs”, which uses taxpayers’ money to arrest people for minding their own business while that money would be better used in dealing with actual crimes. And guess what, similar to the War “on Terror”, the War “on Drugs” only created more drug addicts.
            And just because it isn’t called “sharia”, Christian theocracy is still a theocracy. The US was founded by people who wanted to escape Catholic and Protestant theocracies, they don’t need the state to interfere on their religious beliefs (or lack of them).
            Apparently it’s ok to use taxpayers’ money as long as it doesn’t improve the well being of citizens.

          • MC

            What I was trying to say is that there is no want for a Christian country run by Christian law because the faith does not call for that. Jesus himself said that he had no problem with the state being separate from religious law, and he asked his followers to respect both the law of the state and the principles of the religion as best they could. Not so in Islam, by the way –Sharia is held over state laws or secular courts.
            And I would say using taxpayer money overseas counts as foreign affairs. It’s foreign. It’s an affair. Fits neatly.
            I’m not sure where we got onto the war on drugs…

          • João Pedro Santos

            “What I was trying to say is that there is no want for a Christian country run by Christian law because the faith does not call for that.”
            Then why did the Inquisition happen? Why do politicians mention God in debates? Why are there US states which say in their constitution that atheists can’t hold public offices?
            “Not so in Islam, by the way –Sharia is held over state laws or secular courts.”
            In case you don’t know, Muslims don’t live only in Saudi Arabia (which is curiously an US ally). Countries such as Turkey, Tunisia or Indonesia are secular. And Syria also used to be secular before imperialist powers decide to destroy that country under the logic “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
            Neither religion is better than the other one, both have decent people and both have fanatics which unfortunately are usually the ones with most power.
            I mentioned the War “on Drugs” (which should be called War on Minorities to have a more accurate name) because it’s an example of how the government intervenes in people’s lives, causing more harm than good. But apparently conservatives are OK with that.

          • MC

            There is a stark difference between encouraging theism and religion in general in the public sphere and wanting the establishment of a particular faith as the country’s law and principle. The Constitution forbids us from establishing Christian legal courts or electing church leaders to political office. That being said, there are compelling reasons for the government to want to encourage theism, and they do so as they see fit within the guidelines of the Constitution.
            Also, you are embarrassingly wrong about the prevalence of Sharia courts worldwide. The three countries you cited are the exception, not the rule. Most Muslim majority countries have Sharia courts and in most countries these Sharia courts have total power over personal law (marriage, divorce, inheritance, child custody, etc). There is simply no Christian equivalent to that in tradition or scripture. I’m not saying it’s better or worse (that’s another conversation for another day), but religious law and a necessarily religious state is deeply rooted in the tradition and scripture of Islam. Pick a random Middle Eastern country and read their constitution; I would guarantee the very first page mentions that the country is an Islamic country and that the document also cites a commitment to Sharia law.
            Conservatives believe in laws and principles that are ordered toward a just society. Libertarians would be more on your side. Though most conservatives have weakened their support of the war on drugs, if you actually pay attention to the news.
            I implore you to spend less time starting arguments on the Observer and more time actually critically researching these issues. You might not change your mind, but at least your arguments will make sense.

  • HolyHandGrenade

    “He’s going to rebuild the military so it’s not depleted, so it can take on radical Islam,” he said. “It’s a peace through strength sort of strategy.”

    Depleted? Peace through strength? What a joke.
    “You’re either going to vote for me, or you’re going to vote for Donald Trump. And a vote for Donald Trump is basically a vote for Hilary Clinton.”

    Uh, what?
    Cruz is a terrible human being who supports completely backwards policies. There’s a reason Congress almost unanimously despises him.

    • Johnny Whichard

      Let it be known that Holy Hand Grenade wants his/her ideal presidential candidate to be liked by Congress