Going cold on Cruz (I don't want to)

[L9teen]

I read previously that he had not been invited to speak and that he didn't care about that.

Where did you read this?  Because the actual video of his remarks after the meeting, don't have him saying that at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAFMLwyDbEA

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Thursday said Donald Trump invited him to speak at this month’s Republican National Convention, and that he accepted the offer.
"We had a positive and productive meeting this morning with Donald Trump. Donald asked me to speak at the Republican convention and I told him I would be happy to do so," Cruz told ABC News.
The two met privately after Trump’s meeting with the Senate GOP caucus Thursday morning.Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, and Cruz were bitter rivals during the presidential primary, lobbing personal attacks at each other and even dragging the other’s wife into the race.
"There was no discussion of any endorsement," Cruz added.

[Smokin Joe]

The two met privately after Trump’s meeting with the Senate GOP caucus Thursday morning.Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, and Cruz were bitter rivals during the presidential primary, lobbing personal attacks at each other and even dragging the other’s wife into the race.
"There was no discussion of any endorsement," Cruz added.

The comment that Cruz attacked Trump's wife (that they attacked each other's wives) is wrong. Cruz didn't attack Trump's wife. The pic posted from the GQ photo shoot was posted by a PAC, independent of any decision by Cruz. Trump, however, and supporters viciously went after Heidi Cruz.

Edited to get the right quote in the box...

[L9teen]

The comment that Cruz attacked Trump's wife (that they attacked each other's wives) is wrong. Cruz didn't attack Trump's wife. The pic posted from the GQ photo shoot was posted by a PAC, independent of any decision by Cruz. Trump, however, and supporters viciously went after Heidi Cruz.

Huh?

[Smokin Joe]

Huh?

There was an image from a GQ photo shoot of the current Mrs. Trump posing in her birthday suit that was posted by a PAC. In retaliation against Cruz, Heidi was attacked for allegedly being the globalist banking mastermind at Goldman Sachs and the architect of NAFTA, plus, some personal problems she had had were brought up and a pretty rough picture of her posted in comparison to Mrs. Trump. IIRC, all that went out by facebook and twitter.

[jmyrlefuller]

There was an image from a GQ photo shoot of the current Mrs. Trump posing in her birthday suit that was posted by a PAC. In retaliation against Cruz, Heidi was attacked for allegedly being the globalist banking mastermind at Goldman Sachs and the architect of NAFTA, plus, some personal problems she had had were brought up and a pretty rough picture of her posted in comparison to Mrs. Trump. IIRC, all that went out by facebook and twitter.

A PAC, by the way, that was supporting Rubio and was backed by Liz Mair. It literally had nothing to do with the Cruz campaign, any more than Ben Carson's deliberately vague statement that he was pulling out of NH made Cruz a "lyin'" liar.

[Sanguine]

Ted Cruz is invited to speak at the party convention (not Trump convention) because he earned a speaking slot. Trump probably didn't want to "invite him" but he pretty much had to. This does not mean Ted in any shape or form caved or endorsed Trump.

Why would DT invite him?  Isn't it the Republican Convention?  DT is the frontrunner, but he's not the head of the the GOP.   

[Sanguine]

Its not so much that Cruz is speaking at the convention. Commenters above make some good arguments that help me understand that decision. Maybe his speech will be a benefit in some way.

Its more that Cruz appears to be ready to forgive Trump for his cowardly attacks, and make light of those attacks.

I can't, and its difficult for me to understand how Cruz can.

Seems to me that an honourable man would never reach out to someone whom he had (rightfully) described as a sniveling coward. Never describe those cowardly attacks by means of the phrase "life is too short to worry about such things".

Is this an issue of Conservatism? I'm not so sure it is, and I view it more as a personal issue than one that reflects upon Cruz's commitment to Conservatism in the political context.

I see Cruz as the best existing option for the restitution of the Constitutional Republic. I hope he is aware of the concerns of his supporters regarding his relationship with Trump, and shows some care for this in respect of his future actions.

Edit: As Freya above suggests, maybe the speech itself will be the best indicator of where Cruz is going with this.

I don't see where "Cruz appears to be ready to forgive Trump for his cowardly attacks, and make light of those attacks".  Speaking at the convention, as a powerful entity in his own right, doesn't mean he's forgiven or forgotten.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't see where "Cruz appears to be ready to forgive Trump for his cowardly attacks, and make light of those attacks".  Speaking at the convention, as a powerful entity in his own right, doesn't mean he's forgiven or forgotten.

I agree. If anything, it gives Cruz the opportunity to underscore what the country needs.

Speaking there won't indicate Cruz is backing Trump. Sometimes, these things have different outcomes. Recall Mark Antony at the Forum...

[Wistful]

I don't see where "Cruz appears to be ready to forgive Trump for his cowardly attacks, and make light of those attacks".

Sanguine-

Please see my earlier response to CatherineofAragon. This observation was driven by Cruz's comment "life is too short to worry about such things" which was, where I had initially read it, presented as a reference to Trump's vicious and cowardly attacks on Cruz. As Catherine found in her research, Cruz was actually referring to criticism from Megyn Kelly.

Where did you read this?

L9teen-

I read it on some normal news outlet in the weeks before Cruz had agreed to speak at the Convention. Sometime around when Trump was saying he wasn't going to have anyone speaking at the Convention if they had not endorsed him.

[L9teen]

There was an image from a GQ photo shoot of the current Mrs. Trump posing in her birthday suit that was posted by a PAC. In retaliation against Cruz, Heidi was attacked for allegedly being the globalist banking mastermind at Goldman Sachs and the architect of NAFTA, plus, some personal problems she had had were brought up and a pretty rough picture of her posted in comparison to Mrs. Trump. IIRC, all that went out by facebook and twitter.

I'm aware of all that, I just don't know how that relates in any way to the video I posted of Cruz's remarks about speaking at the convention.

[EC]

L9teen-

I read it on some normal news outlet in the weeks before Cruz had agreed to speak at the Convention. Sometime around when Trump was saying he wasn't going to have anyone speaking at the Convention if they had not endorsed him.

There's a reasonably long thread on that news article on here somewhere. Remember seeing it.

[geronl]

There was an image from a GQ photo shoot of the current Mrs. Trump posing in her birthday suit that was posted by a PAC.

It was published in a magazine, so they weren't exactly secret pics.

[Smokin Joe]

I'm aware of all that, I just don't know how that relates in any way to the video I posted of Cruz's remarks about speaking at the convention.

From the quote at the bottom of post 28:

Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, and Cruz were bitter rivals during the presidential primary, lobbing personal attacks at each other and even dragging the other’s wife into the race.

I was taking issue with the implication that Cruz attacked Trump's wife. Statements which imply it was 'even up' and they were equally vile in that are incorrect, and to allow the equivocation between Trump attacks on Heidi Cruz and and the actions of an unconncected PAC sans Cruz' sanction to stand is, imho, to do Cruz an injustice.

YMMV, but I don't like distorted accounts, especially ones which diminish evil acts by saying or implying they both did it, and were equally vile.

[Sanguine]

Sanguine-

Please see my earlier response to CatherineofAragon. This observation was driven by Cruz's comment "life is too short to worry about such things" which was, where I had initially read it, presented as a reference to Trump's vicious and cowardly attacks on Cruz. As Catherine found in her research, Cruz was actually referring to criticism from Megyn Kelly.

L9teen-

I read it on some normal news outlet in the weeks before Cruz had agreed to speak at the Convention. Sometime around when Trump was saying he wasn't going to have anyone speaking at the Convention if they had not endorsed him.

Yes, sorry, I posted before reading all of the thread. 

[GrouchoTex]

I heard a report on the radio today that said the 2016 GOP platform will be more conservative than 2012.
I haven't seen it, so I cannot verify that.
If so, I would think the Cruz/Lee wing of the party had a great deal to do with that.
This is a good thing, and if true, Cruz should speak at the convention in support of this platform.
No need to "go cold" on him yet.
I guess we shall see next week.

[DCPatriot]

Seems to me, one way to get the shock collar on President Trump would be to have Cruz spell out the 2016 party platform and goals.

Put Trump on notice right now that we expect him to set his priorities straight on domestic policy. 

We expect him to sign presented legislation and not to fight, disagree or insult his own party....in an attempt to appear more favorably to voters in 2018.

Because Trump will.   

THAT'S a real danger to the Republican Party's power.

[L9teen]

From the quote at the bottom of post 28:

I was taking issue with the implication that Cruz attacked Trump's wife. Statements which imply it was 'even up' and they were equally vile in that are incorrect, and to allow the equivocation between Trump attacks on Heidi Cruz and and the actions of an unconncected PAC sans Cruz' sanction to stand is, imho, to do Cruz an injustice.

YMMV, but I don't like distorted accounts, especially ones which diminish evil acts by saying or implying they both did it, and were equally vile.

I agree wholeheartedly.  FYI - I got that whole quote in post #28 from CNN, so go figure, they spin it that way.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree wholeheartedly.  FYI - I got that whole quote in post #28 from CNN, so go figure, they spin it that way.

I figured it was from the source. Those subtle lies build the backgrounds for the pictures in people's minds, and images are built on those backgrounds. I just had to stop and point it out. 

CNN was suddenly given the key to the exec washroom, along with a lot of formerly scrutinized or patently disbelieved sources over at TOS when they seemed to be backing the Duke l'Orange. We'll see if that continues as we get on the home stretch for the general if Trump is officially the nominee. My bet is it won't, (they are still liberals and Hillary lovers).

[Wistful]

I see now that Pam Geller will be speaking at a Convention event in support of Trump.

She did endorse him a few weeks ago I think. Even after his erratic criticism of her for drawing Mohammed.

I just can't understand how these people are prepared to prostrate themselves to someone who shows the political consistency of rice pudding.

Things are in the state they are because of politicians who waver and won't stand firm on anything, and now everyone has gone gaga over a starkly obvious charlatan who epitomizes this very problem.

Pfffttt... its all too much for me.

[DCPatriot]

I see now that Pam Geller will be speaking at a Convention event in support of Trump.

She did endorse him a few weeks ago I think. Even after his erratic criticism of her for drawing Mohammed.

I just can't understand how these people are prepared to prostrate themselves to someone who shows the political consistency of rice pudding.

Things are in the state they are because of politicians who waver and won't stand firm on anything, and now everyone has gone gaga over a starkly obvious charlatan who epitomizes this very problem.

Pfffttt... its all too much for me.

All it means to some of us is that Pam Geller joins countless others who, despite their initial preference(s), realize Donald Trump is infinitely better than letting Hillary have the keys.     

[WAC]

All it means to some of us is that Pam Geller joins countless others who, despite their initial preference(s), realize Donald Trump is infinitely better than letting Hillary have the keys.   

That's exactly right.....but I also think that, just as with others, those who have taken time to meet with Trump are surprised how informed he is, and also that he really does believe what he's saying. I watched that over these past couple months rather closely I know I too have been surprised several times as I've looked into his history..not as it's been presented by others, but what he himself has stated in interviews and the like.....  But you do have to take the time in order to understand and see how he has changed when he did, yet in some cases he really does remain the same...l.......

I guess one does really have to accept the loss of their favored candidate before they can see this....I know I had to....then you are free to see and investigate Trump.

But then we all do so as we go through life as well I think.....unless you're a stoic type of individual perhaps.

[Silver Pines]

That's exactly right.....but I also think that, just as with others, those who have taken time to meet with Trump are surprised how informed he is, and also that he really does believe what he's saying. I watched that over these past couple months rather closely I know I too have been surprised several times as I've looked into his history..not as it's been presented by others, but what he himself has stated in interviews and the like.....  But you do have to take the time in order to understand and see how he has changed when he did, yet in some cases he really does remain the same...l.......

I guess one does really have to accept the loss of their favored candidate before they can see this....I know I had to....then you are free to see and investigate Trump.

But then we all do so as we go through life as well I think.....unless you're a stoic type of individual perhaps.

WAC, I don't know about you, but I  "accepted the loss" of Cruz the day after he dropped out.  As much as I like the man, he's a political candidate; he isn't my husband.

I understand you might need to believe that everyone will pull a 180.  But you're kidding yourself.  Some folks hold onto their principles.  I'll never support that dumpster fire.

And I feel great about it.

[geronl]

I just can't understand how these people are prepared to prostrate themselves to someone who shows the political consistency of rice pudding.

I totally and 100% agree with that.

[OldSaltUSN]

Seems to me, one way to get the shock collar on President Trump would be to have Cruz spell out the 2016 party platform and goals.

Put Trump on notice right now that we expect him to set his priorities straight on domestic policy. 

We expect him to sign presented legislation and not to fight, disagree or insult his own party....in an attempt to appear more favorably to voters in 2018.

Because Trump will.   
...

Link?  Proof based on history, facts, or evidence, as opposed to demagoguery, bombast, and mere claims?   If not, why do you continue to state this as if it were proven fact?

If THE DONALD decides to tank the Senate race (supporting Democrats (directly or indirectily), and govern as an Arnie Schwarzenegger, or Obama's brother, what recourse do GOP voters have then?

If the GOP party platform contains conservative ideas, it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with Donald Trump's ideas or actions.

[DCPatriot]

Link?  Proof based on history, facts, or evidence, as opposed to demagoguery, bombast, and mere claims?   If not, why do you continue to state this as if it were proven fact?

If THE DONALD decides to tank the Senate race (supporting Democrats (directly or indirectily), and govern as an Arnie Schwarzenegger, or Obama's brother, what recourse do GOP voters have then?

If the GOP party platform contains conservative ideas, it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with Donald Trump's ideas or actions.

Link for what?   I merely predict that a GOP-controlled Congress won't let him get away with playing 'King'.  Either will the MSM, nor will talk radio.

Where you highlighted my "Because Trump will"....I think you misunderstood.   I'm saying that Trump will indeed go after the GOP if they continuously hamper/hinder what Trump wants to do.