Saturday, July 28, 2018

GDP & UNEMPLOYMENT LOOK GOOD! WAGES DO NOT


“The United States labor market is closing in on full employment in an economic expansion that just began its 10th year, and yet the real hourly wage for the working class has been essentially flat for two years running. Why is that?

Economists ask this question every month when the government reports labor statistics. We repeatedly get solid job growth and lower unemployment, but not much to show for wages. Part of that has to do with inflation, productivity and remaining slack in the labor market.

But stagnant wages for factory workers and non-managers in the service sector — together they represent 82 percent of the labor force — is mainly the outcome of a long power struggle that workers are losing. Even at a time of low unemployment, their bargaining power is feeble, the weakest I’ve seen in decades. Hostile institutions — the Trump administration, the courts, the corporate sector — are limiting their avenues for demanding higher pay.”


 

“The United States labor market is closing in on full employment in an economic expansion that just began its 10th year, and yet the real hourly wage for the working class has been essentially flat for two years running. Why is that?

"Economists ask this question every month when the government reports labor statistics. We repeatedly get solid job growth and lower unemployment, but not much to show for wages. Part of that has to do with inflation, productivity and remaining slack in the labor market.

But stagnant wages for factory workers and non-managers in the service sector — together they represent 82 percent of the labor force — is mainly the outcome of a long power struggle that workers are losing. Even at a time of low unemployment, their bargaining power is feeble, the weakest I’ve seen in decades. Hostile institutions — the Trump administration, the courts, the corporate sector — are limiting their avenues for demanding higher pay.”

 
If you are a working class American, Trump is not the man for you!

 

FOLLOW THE $ TRAIL



The shell company used by President Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen to pay off porn actress Stormy Daniels received about $500,000 last year from a business linked to a Russian billionaire who is close to President Vladimir Putin.

Cohen's company, Essential Consultants LLC, received the money from a U.S. offshoot of the business empire of Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-cohen-russia-vekselberg-20180508-story.html#

THERE IS NO REUBLICAN PARTY, IT'S TRUMP'S AUTHORITARIAN POPULIST PARTY NOW


 
And lots of solid Republicans,
Say Trump is not a conservative Republican.
 
"There is no Republican Party. There's a Trump party," John Boehner [former Republican House Speaker] told a Mackinac, Michigan, gathering of the GOP faithful last week. "The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere."
Longtime conservative columnist George Will is making a case against voting for Republicans in November’s 2018 midterm elections, arguing that House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and other GOP members of Congress “have become the president’s poodles.”
In a column published Friday in The Washington Post, Will lamented “Republican misrule,” and criticized lawmakers for “hav[ing] no higher ambition than to placate the president.”
“The Republican-controlled Congress, which waited for Trump to undo by unilateral decree the border folly they could have prevented by actually legislating, is an advertisement for the unimportance of Republican control,” Will wrote.
 
“Forget policy. Forget ideology. Forget hating Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi. From Indiana to Arizona to Ohio, the name of the game for Republican candidates this primary cycle has been to flaunt their Trump love. And woe unto anyone deemed insufficiently smitten.
This week’s primary elections underscored the striking degree to which President Trump has transformed the Republican Party from a political organization into a cult of personality. By contrast, Democrats show signs of taking a more pluralistic approach, fielding candidates who are willing and even eager to break with their national leaders — the House minority leader, Ms. Pelosi, in particular.”

FORMER CIA DIRECTOR ON TRUMP AND PUTIN


Former CIA director John Brennan tweeted-

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/943947333645099014/hxbD0MyG_normal.jpg

Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???


Trumpis not a patriot.  Trump only cares about Trump.  Republicans who criticized his Helsinki performance are beginning to see this. So have others




 

 

Pres. Trump can’t seem to make up his mind on whether Russia intervened in the 2016 election.  First he said no, then corrected himself and seemed to say ‘yes,’ and now this.  (He later changed his Helsinki statement to state at least imply that Russia was guilty.)

“On Sunday, President Donald Trump tweeted this: "So President Obama knew about Russia before the Election. Why didn't he do something about it? Why didn't he tell our campaign? Because it is all a big hoax, that's why, and he thought Crooked Hillary was going to win!!!"  The message seemed clear: The entire investigation into Russia's active interference in the 2016 election was a "hoax." Which would be somewhat odd, given that the intelligence community unanimously concluded that Russia not only worked to meddle in the election but did so to help Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. But, given Trump's repeated refusal to acknowledge that fact -- including while standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin last week in Helsinki, Finland -- it all made a weird sort of sense.

 

 

Trump is "unstable, inept, inexperienced, and also unethical," [Former CIA Director John Brennan said in an interview with MSNBC.


I’ve been watching politics and Presidents closely since LBJ.  I agree with the assessment.

ing to see what constitutes a breaking point for the Trump crowd. They were fine with Trump's ignorance, inconsistency and mendacity; his crazy conspiracy theories and unhinged tweets; his vile attacks on women, war heroes, and the press; his demonization of Mexicans and Muslims; his pussy-grabbing and general, all-around loutishness; his kowtowing to Vladimir Putin, Rodrigo Duterte and other loathsome dictators; his son's eagerness to collude with the Russian government and his own attempts to obstruct justice by firing the FBI director. The Trumpites excused all of this inexcusable conduct on the grounds that "at least he fights."

True, he fights. But what does he fight for? Not for conservative principles. He has no principles. Trump is not pursuing an "America First" policy. He is pursuing a "me first" policy. He will not fight for legislative priorities such as health-care reform — a subject he does not understand or care about — but he will fight to obstruct an investigation into his own misconduct.

None of this should be remotely surprising to anyone who has been awake for the past two years. Jeb Bush accurately called Trump the "chaos candidate" and predicted that he would be the "chaos president." This did not faze his fans for a second. They wanted someone to come in and shake up Washington. Well, they got what they wanted. Now we must all live with the calamitous consequences.


 

 

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

REPUBLICANS WORRIED THAT TRUMP IS COMPROMISED BY PUTIN


"
If you are a Trump supporter, can you be an American patriot at the same time?  Trump seems to be more more worried about Putin.
After President Trump’s ghastly performance in Helsinki, a few sober conservatives joined a wide assortment of Democrats in observing that it is not irrational to presume that Trump is in some way “compromised.” Rep. Will Hurd (R-Tex.), a former CIA agent, wrote in the New York Times on Thursday:
Over the course of my career as an undercover officer in the C.I.A., I saw Russian intelligence manipulate many people. I never thought I would see the day when an American president would be one of them.
The president’s failure to defend the United States intelligence community’s unanimous conclusions of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and condemn Russian covert counterinfluence campaigns and his standing idle on the world stage while a Russian dictator spouted lies confused many but should concern all Americans. By playing into Vladimir Putin’s hands, the leader of the free world actively participated in a Russian disinformation campaign that legitimized Russian denial and weakened the credibility of the United States to both our friends and foes abroad.
In other words, Trump is acting an awful lot like a man under the sway of a hostile foreign power. Hurd is not alone in thinking this.
Former House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) observed Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union”: “The worst — the worst possible thing you can do is give information from your own words that they can use against the credibility of our intelligence and defense services around the world. That’s exactly what the Russians are doing.” He added: “They’re taking the president’s words. They’re injecting it into the influence operations and that’s causing a problem.” Trump, in other words, is acting no differently from the way an effective Russian asset would.
A third Republican steeped in national intelligence matters agrees. NPR reports:
A GOP Congressman and former FBI agent says he thinks President Trump was manipulated by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Brian Fitzpatrick told NPR’s Michel Martin on “All Things Considered” that he drew that conclusion after the two leaders appeared in Helsinki.
“The president was manipulated by Vladimir Putin,” Fitzpatrick said. “Vladimir Putin is a master manipulator.” …
Fitzpatrick sits on the House committees on Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security. In his previous role as an FBI special agent, he said he was assigned to Ukraine and worked on counterintelligence, collecting Russian propaganda reports.
He told Martin he was “frankly sickened by the exchange” between Trump and Putin.
The congressman, who represents Pennsylvania’s 8th District, said he shared his view with former CIA agent and fellow House Republican Will Hurd of Texas. Hurd wrote recently in The New York Times that Trump “actively participated in a Russian disinformation campaign.”
The voters at large have figured out that Russia is not a friend that deserves the benefit of the doubt. According to the most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, “65 percent of voters believe the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election (up 12 points from a year ago); 41 percent say the interference affected the election’s outcome (up 8 points from a year ago); and 30 percent think Democrat Hillary Clinton would have won without the interference (up 6 points from last year).” Trump, however, continues to stick with Putin’s line that the investigation into Russian manipulation of our election is all a “hoax.”
Perhaps the Russia investigation will solve the mystery of exactly what Putin has on Trump — or whether Trump’s solicitude is settlement of a debt (figuratively, if not literally) for bailing him out when he couldn’t get U.S. banks to lend him money in the 2000s. It hardly matters what precisely is the source of leverage — or even if Trump personally and privately colluded with Russians in the campaign. (He did so publicly in calling for Russia to release emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee; his son, son-in-law and campaign chief Paul Manafort did so by meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer for the purpose of getting “dirt” on Clinton.) Rather, the crucial problem is what to do about a president beholden to a hostile power.Democracy activist and former Russian chess impresario Garry Kasparov knows a thing or two about Russian intelligence operations. “While it’s irresistible to theorize about what exactly Putin has on Trump to keep him on such a tight leash, it’s more important to accept the fact that it is happening,” he writes. “With the Mueller investigation indicting more Russian agents and a potential Democratic takeover in the midterm elections threatening to curtail Trump’s authority, Putin is rushing to squeeze everything he can from his prized Oval Office asset before it is devalued.” He warns, “Aside from a few notable exceptions like Sens. John McCain, Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse, the Republicans in Congress have been far too quiet. They are afraid of losing in primaries to Trumpist extremists, and fear has made them swallow their tongues. Many of these quietly critical Republicans hope to outlast Trump by not confronting him and his voters.”
This “dangerous delusion,” as Kasparov describes it, results not only from naivete but also from Republicans’ self-interest. They fear the GOP base; they cannot bring themselves to admit that they have enabled a pro-Russian operator. . . . In their refusal to admit error and risk the wrath of the increasingly irrational GOP base, these lawmakers turn their foolish bet — that they would mitigate Trump’s unfitness to serve in order to obtain policy goals — into a conscious decision to put partisanship over country at a time that Russia continues to wage a cyberwar against our democracy. (As #NeverTrump conservative Charles Sykes puts it, “Many Republicans have rationalized their support for Trump by pointing to tax cuts, rollbacks in regulation and Trump’s appointments of conservative judges. But last week reminded us how many of their values they have been willing to surrender.”)
It’s not only politicians who have fallen into this trap. Upwards of 80 percent of GOP voters support Trump, and a throng of conservative media apologists insist daily that it has all been worth it (to get tax cuts or judges or whatever). Now, however, the issue is not whether it was “worth it” to have a racist president, or an irrational one, or one who wasn’t Hillary Clinton, but whether it was worth it to elect a president who takes the side of a hardened enemy of the United States. No decent, self-respecting American patriot should answer in the affirmative. Alas, far too many in the GOP still do."
 
 

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

PERSONAL LOYALTY TO LEADER AND AUTHORITARIANISM

Trump told then-FBI Director that the wanted 'loyalty.'  He didn't say loyalty to America.  Trump's obsession with the loyalty of those in government to him personally, is characteristic of authoritarian regimes.  Unfortunately, it seems many Americans want an Trump-led authoritarian regime.


As The Post reports:

Credentialed candidates have had to prove loyalty to the president, with many still being blocked for previous anti-Trump statements. Hundreds of national security officials, for example, were nixed from consideration because they spoke out against Trump during the campaign. But for longtime Trump loyalists, their fidelity to the president is often sufficient, obscuring what in a more traditional administration would be red flags.

There is one thing that gets checked thoroughly:

Since the early days of the presidential transition, however, the Trump team has been especially thorough in vetting job applicants for their loyalty to the president and his policies, with their social-media profiles and writings scoured for anti-Trump posts.

Even tepid comments in opposition could torpedo nominees, current and former officials said. Trump himself would sometimes ask if candidates were “Never Trump” or if they supported him during the general election, officials said. Having posted on social media with the hashtag “#NeverTrump” or having signed a public letter in opposition to his candidacy made the nomination a non-starter.

Any casual look at the literature studying autocracies demonstrates the degree to which this sort of behavior is one of their hallmarks. Autocratic leaders prioritize loyalty over competence, rewarding subordinates and others who demonstrate fealty with plum positions, access and multiple opportunities to profit, while turning a blind eye to blatant corruption. Those who are deemed disloyal are not just banished but jettisoned in humiliating rituals.


 

 

Saturday, July 14, 2018

NO-POACH CLAUSES KEEP WAGES DOWN

Here's an example of how the system protects business and shafts workers. Trumps trade wars will raise prices on many consumer items.  If you think Trump's policies are good for working and middle class workers, you are suffering from a delusion.  Read the economic news!


Seven major restaurant chains, including Arby’s, Carl’s Jr., McDonald’s and Jimmy John’s, agreed to drop a hiring practice that critics say may be keeping tens of thousands of fast-food workers locked in low-wage jobs.

Under agreements with Washington State announced on Thursday, the companies pledged to remove so-called no-poach clauses from their contracts with franchisees. Auntie Anne’s, Buffalo Wild Wings and Cinnabon also agreed to drop the clauses.

The provisions prohibit workers at, for example, one Carl’s Jr. franchise from going to another Carl’s Jr. They do not stop those workers from taking jobs at restaurants run by a different chain.

No-poach clauses have drawn scrutiny over whether they hold down pay for restaurant employees — one of the largest segments of the United States work force — and also contribute to a broader wage stagnation that continues to plague the economy long after the end of the recession.

Many types of franchise businesses impose the clauses, but they may be most prevalent in the restaurant industry. The fast-food sector, in particular, relies overwhelmingly on independently owned and operated franchise stores.

One such worker is Maria Sanchez, who worked part time at a McDonald’s in Grimes, Iowa, this year. She needed more hours than she was being scheduled for, so she found a job at a nearby McDonald’s that offered more shifts.

She said she had made it as far as orientation when a manager told her the store had learned that it could not hire her.

“I cried all the way until I got home,” Ms. Sanchez, who is originally from Mexico, said through a translator provided by the advocacy group Fight for 15. “I can’t survive with 25 hours a week.”

Ms. Sanchez, 50, said she eventually got a job at a different McDonald’s.

“I never told them that I worked for another McDonald’s,” she said, adding that she recently left the new job after hurting her back. “I was scared to mention that I was working in another McDonald’s, because I need my job.”

Unlike noncompete clauses, which job-seekers can review before signing hiring documents, no-poach provisions are buried in contracts between restaurant chains and franchisees, which independently own and operate the majority of stores. Workers at these stores may not even know they are bound by the restrictions until they try to land new jobs. . . .

After examining the franchise deals of 40 of the country’s largest chains, Professor Krueger and Professor Ashenfelter concluded that no-poach restrictions appeared to exist mainly to limit competition and turnover, possibly depressing wages in the process."
 
Seven major restaurant chains, including Arby’s, Carl’s Jr., McDonald’s and Jimmy John’s, agreed to drop a hiring practice that critics say may be keeping tens of thousands of fast-food workers locked in low-wage jobs.
Under agreements with Washington State announced on Thursday, the companies pledged to remove so-called no-poach clauses from their contracts with franchisees. Auntie Anne’s, Buffalo Wild Wings and Cinnabon also agreed to drop the clauses.
The provisions prohibit workers at, for example, one Carl’s Jr. franchise from going to another Carl’s Jr. They do not stop those workers from taking jobs at restaurants run by a different chain.
No-poach clauses have drawn scrutiny over whether they hold down pay for restaurant employees — one of the largest segments of the United States work force — and also contribute to a broader wage stagnation that continues to plague the economy long after the end of the recession.
Many types of franchise businesses impose the clauses, but they may be most prevalent in the restaurant industry. The fast-food sector, in particular, relies overwhelmingly on independently owned and operated franchise stores.
One such worker is Maria Sanchez, who worked part time at a McDonald’s in Grimes, Iowa, this year. She needed more hours than she was being scheduled for, so she found a job at a nearby McDonald’s that offered more shifts.
She said she had made it as far as orientation when a manager told her the store had learned that it could not hire her.
“I cried all the way until I got home,” Ms. Sanchez, who is originally from Mexico, said through a translator provided by the advocacy group Fight for 15. “I can’t survive with 25 hours a week.”
Ms. Sanchez, 50, said she eventually got a job at a different McDonald’s.
“I never told them that I worked for another McDonald’s,” she said, adding that she recently left the new job after hurting her back. “I was scared to mention that I was working in another McDonald’s, because I need my job.”
Unlike noncompete clauses, which job-seekers can review before signing hiring documents, no-poach provisions are buried in contracts between restaurant chains and franchisees, which independently own and operate the majority of stores. Workers at these stores may not even know they are bound by the restrictions until they try to land new jobs. . . .
After examining the franchise deals of 40 of the country’s largest chains, Professor Krueger and Professor Ashenfelter concluded that no-poach restrictions appeared to exist mainly to limit competition and turnover, possibly depressing wages in the process."
 

 
 
 

WORKERS GET STIFFED IN TODAY'S ENVIRONMENT

As usual, when the economy starts to pick up, workers feel it last and least. (And when it goes down they feel it first and strongest) Immigrant workers, affirmative action, etc. are not the problem.  When are working and middle class Americans going to figure out who really is to blame for their economic woes?  It's corporate America and the government--which cow-tows to it.  Fox news, Trump, and white nationalists notwithstanding, those of the real culprits.  Wake up American workers. Don't let Fox and Trump distract you  fool you and hide the real source of your woe.
 
"Corporate profits have rarely swept up a bigger share of the nation’s wealth, and workers have rarely shared a smaller one.
The lopsided split is especially pronounced given how low the official unemployment rate has sunk. Throughout the recession and much of its aftermath, when many Americans were grateful to receive a paycheck instead of a pink slip, jobs and raises were in short supply. Now, complaints of labor shortages are as common as tweets. For the first time in a long while, workers have some leverage to push for more.
Yet many are far from making up all the lost ground. Hourly earnings have moved forward at a crawl, with higher prices giving workers less buying power than they had last summer. Last-minute scheduling, no-poaching and noncompete clauses, and the use of independent contractors are popular tactics that put workers at a disadvantage. Threats to move operations overseas, where labor is cheaper, continue to loom.
And in the background, the nation’s central bankers stand poised to raise interest rates and deliberately rein in growth if wages climb too rapidly.
 
Workers, understandably, are asking whether they are getting a raw deal.
“Sure, you can get a job slinging hamburgers somewhere or working in a warehouse,” said Christina Jones, 53, of Mobile, Ala. Ms. Jones spent eight months searching for a job with living wages and benefits, after being laid off from a paper company where she had worked for nearly 13 years. Dozens of interviews later, she landed work last month at a concrete crushing company as an accounts payable clerk for $14 an hour — two-thirds her previous salary.
“You hear, ‘Oh, the unemployment rate is as low as it’s ever been,’” Ms. Jones said, but “it was discouraging.”
Businesses have been more successful at regaining losses from the downturn. Since the recession ended in 2009, corporate profits have grown at an annualized rate of 6.5 percent. Several sectors have done much better. On Friday, for example, banks like JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup reported outsize double-digit earnings in the second quarter.
Yearly wage growth has yet to hit 3 percent. And when it does, the Federal Reserve — which has a mandate to keep inflation under control even as it is supposed to maximize employment — can be expected to tap the brakes.

Labor’s Declining Share

Workers’ paychecks account for much less of the nation’s total income since the last recession, and the profits of businesses account for more.
Employee pay as a share of national income
68
%
67
66
65
64
63
RECESSIONS
62
61
60
1970
’80
’90
2000
’10
’18
Corporate profits as a share of national income
%
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
1970
’80
’90
2000
’10
’18
Source: Bureau of Economic Statistics | By The New York Times
As Fed policymakers have explained, allowing the economy to run too hot “could lead eventually to a significant economic downturn.” And persistent wage increases.
 
 

TRUMP, ROGER STONE, RUSSIANS AND COLLUSION

On July 27, at a public speech, Trump said:"Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing 

1,  It's outrageous that an American political candidate would ask a foreign adversary nation to hack American accounts.

2.  According to the indictment released Friday, Russian operatives targeted Clinton’s personal emails “for the first time” the same day.  Coincidence? Collusion?  Is the noose starting to tighten around Trump's neck?


WASHINGTON — It was one of the more outlandish statements in a campaign replete with them: In a news conference in July 2016, Donald J. Trump made a direct appeal to Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails and make them public.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

As it turns out, that same day, the Russians — whether they had tuned in or not — made their first effort to break into the servers used by Mrs. Clinton’s personal office, according to a sweeping 29-page indictment unsealed Friday by the special counsel’s office that charged 12 Russians with election hacking.

The indictment did not address the question of whether the Russians’ actions were actually in response to Mr. Trump. It said nothing at all about Mr. Trump’s request for help from Russia — a remark that had unnerved American intelligence and law enforcement officials who were closely monitoring Russia’s efforts to influence the election.  [It did mention an unnamed Trump insider]

Advertisement


But the indictment did offer some clues about what happened, implying that the hacking had occurred later on the day Mr. Trump issued his invitation. He made the statement around 10:30 a.m. July 27 at his golf course in Doral, Fla. It was late afternoon in Russia.

“For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the conspirators attempted after-hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton’s personal office,” according to the indictment, referring to spearphishing, a common tactic used to target email accounts. . .

At the 2016 news conference, Mr. Trump made a series of statements on Russia and raised questions about whether the Kremlin had actually been behind the earlier hacking of emails from the Democratic National Committee. Emails from the committee had been made public days before, on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, creating a significant distraction as the party formally nominated Mrs. Clinton. . . .

Mr. Trump also signaled then that he would be open to recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. The Obama administration and the European Union had considered the seizure illegal and imposed sanctions.

“We’ll be looking at that,” Mr. Trump said when asked if he would recognize Crimea as Russian land and lift sanctions that had been imposed after the annexation. “Yeah, we’ll be looking.”


 

Roger Stone appears to be the unnamed individual in a new Russia probe indictment made public Friday who is described as having communicated with Guccifer 2.0 [A Russian hacker] in 2016.

Stone, a longtime associate of President Donald Trump and political figure, agreed with the sentiment in a Friday night interview on CNN's "Cuomo Prime Time."

"I think I probably am the person referred to," Stone said Friday evening.

From numerous sources, esp.


\

TRUMP'S LYING CONTINUES

Trump is a never-ending fount of lying

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/leave-the-dark-twisted-fantasies-to-trump/2018/07/13/d63f3352-86c6-11e8-9e80-403a221946a7_story.html?utm_term=.10a645262663

TED CRUZ'S POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES

Ted Cruz's positions on the issue (from Wikipedia)
"Regarding economic policy, Cruz supports free trade; wishes to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and implement a single tax for all citizens; opposes a higher minimum wage; and supports downsizing the United States government. On domestic and social policy, Cruz is pro-life, against Obamacare, same-sex marriage, legalization of marijuana, net neutrality, and immigration reform. He is in favor of the death penalty, the USA Freedom Act, school choice, and gun rights. Environmentally, Cruz is opposed to both the scientific consensus on climate change and the Water Resources Development Act. Finally, in regard to foreign policy, Cruz is "somewhere in between" Rand Paul's non-interventionist position and John McCain's active interventionism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

Beto O'Rourke is on the opposite side on most, if not all these issues

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beto_O%27Rourke

https://betofortexas.com/issues/.