Cruz: Those who bolstered Trump 'will bear that responsibility going forward'

[DiogenesLamp]

 Yet the masses accepted his vulgarity, anger, lying and verbal abuse towards others.

Are you kidding?   That was his biggest asset in winning their preference.    That was actually one of the things I liked about him.   He puts up a fight.    He bluntly states in no unclear language that his opposition is scum and unfit for office.   


Whether it's true or not is completely irrelevant to it's effectiveness as a means of winning.   


I am more angry at his Republican supporters who parroted all the lies he told about Cruz,   but I could tell that when he was saying them,   they were going to be effective.   


I think most Trump supporters were more concerned about "winning"  than ideology.   Winning is good,  and I assure you Trump is going to win,   but I don't think it does us much good to "win"  with people who won't enact our ideological agenda.   


At least he will do some of it....  I hope.

[GrouchoTex]

   
Winning is good,  and I assure you Trump is going to win,   but I don't think it does us much good to "win"  with people who won't enact our ideological agenda.   

Maybe someday we can figure out what Donald Trump's ideological agenda is and what are just merely "suggestions".

[LonestarDream]

Very concerning that voters cannot discern truth from lies anymore.  Trump is the lying conman not Cruz, which is precisely why Trump went after Cruz's integrity the way he did.  Cruz is EVERYTHING Trump voters want Trump to be, yet they all bought into Trump's BIG LIE.

Hindsight is 2020.   Maybe we could all unite The Trump Believers, The Never Trumps and Trump Realists by agreeing to vote for Trump and then impeach him in two years, unless Trump convinces the Trump Realists and Never Trumps that he does, in fact, have integrity.

Trying to be a uniter, not divider.  What do y'all think?

[DiogenesLamp]

No. 

Marxist Communists and Populist Fascists are.

Because they own the airwaves.   They always portray themselves as "heroic"  and "good"   and people who disagree with them as "scum" and "evil".   


I have been saying for a long time that the Conservative Power base should spend 99% of it's time trying to utterly wreck the finances and destroy careers of Liberal propaganda agents in media.   They are the weapon that is gutting us right now,   and that is where we need to have been directing 99% of our firepower.   

In a very short amount of time, the notion of liberty and individual freedom in this country will be as hated as loathed as Martin Shkreli is.

Again,   because that is what the News (New York)  and Entertainment (Los Angeles)  media have been teaching the public through their brainwashing machine known as movies and television.   


We should have nuke bombed (figuratively)  the lot of them decades ago.   

[Ghost Bear]

We have several Jewish members here who are insulted every time the Hitler comparisons are made.....I wish members would please keep that in mind....they ABSOLUTELY DO NOT see any similarity.

Just wait.  The "Strong Man" candidate always has to have a "National Enemy" to rally the populace against.  The "Enemy" this time may not be the Jewsish people, but there will be an enemy. There always is.

[INVAR]

Hindsight is 2020.   Maybe we could all unite The Trump Believers, The Never Trumps and Trump Realists by agreeing to vote for Trump and then impeach him in two years, unless Trump convinces the Trump Realists and Never Trumps that he does, in fact, have integrity.

Trying to be a uniter, not divider.  What do y'all think?

That would require sacrificing our Conservative Principles, which most of us have repented of doing for the last couple of decades.

[DiogenesLamp]

Such bitterness.  I'm embarrassed for him.   

I don't consider that "bitterness"  so much as a clear statement of fact.   I used to rant about the idiotic things George Herbert Walker Bush would do,  such as "Kinder,  Gentler,  Conservatism"   of breaking his "read my lips,  no new taxes!"  Pledge.   


I was constantly furious with George Herbert Walker Bush because he *KEPT*   doing non-conservative things,  and as a result he *KEPT*  damaging our brand.   


Well now we own Trump,  and I have little doubt that the things I hated to see George HW Bush doing,  I'm going to see double or triple as many being done by Donald Trump.    No,  he won't be as bad as Hillary,  but if anyone thinks he won't be compromising with Democrats a lot of the time,   they are just not seeing history clearly.   


People who claim to be conservative are going to be extremely disappointed with the things that New York Liberal (former) Democrat Donald Trump is going to do to "compromise"   with people from his old party.   

"Bitterness"?    No,  merely an accurate observation of what he is likely to do and how his current conservative supporters are going to end up feeling about it when he disappoints them by reverting to what he was before he became the nominee. 

Donald will be saying:  "Let's make a deal!"   (with Democrats.)   

[LonestarDream]

That would require sacrificing our Conservative Principles, which most of us have repented of doing for the last couple of decades.

It wouldn't .  We would be following the Brazilian model, which is working out fine lately.

The vast majority of the Petrobras kick back politicians were lefties.  Sure some on the right were involved too, but they were enabled by the left nationalizing Petrobras in the first place.

There has to be a pathway out of this mess without the grid and Republic falling.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Not as many as KNOW Trump to be a bottom-feeding gutter dweller.  For you to accuse Cruz of lying when Trump's lies manifest themselves DAILY is either ignorance or obtuseness. 

Maybe it's gullibility.  Trump is running a scam on you and you don't seem to know it.

        

[Right_in_Virginia]

I don't consider that "bitterness"  so much as a clear statement of fact.   

We simply disagree.   

[DiogenesLamp]

It's petty and it's bitterness. And he's not helping himself.  Cruz would do well to mourn his loss in private and give himself a chance to come to his senses before he goes on the record again.

I'm okay with Trump,  but I see exactly the same thing Cruz is talking about.   He's pointing out that Liberal Donald Trump is going to jettison the conservative agenda in his approach to  executive action.   He is not a small government conservative,  he is a big government Liberal,   and when he starts doing things,   conservatives are going to get disappointed a lot of the time.   


He is like George HW Bush ( Liberal from Connecticut)  on steroids.   If you liked George HW selling us down the river every few months,   you are going to *love*   Donald Trump doing it to us every few weeks.   

Cruz needs to rebalance and remember a very sobering political fact:  53% voted for someone other than him in the Texas primary.

That is a completely meaningless point.   Clinton won by a plurality,   but most people voted against him.   The media still portrayed it as a mandate when it wasn't.   

It is not uncommon in multi-candidate races for the lesser plurality to end up with a victory in a two man race.   Cruz suffered from the fact that it took too long to get some real losers (Kaisch, Rubio) out of the race so the remaining people could rally around him.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Me either.  Been quite some time.  And now he is thinking of Gingrich.  How did anyone ever think that Trump isn't Establishment?  Gingrich is like most Establishment politician there is.  Oh but he is a FOX contributor.  LOL!

I completely reject the assertion that Newt Gingrich is "establishment."   He's about as far from being "establishment"  as you can get.   We did have a balanced budget during his years as house speaker. 

He did get utterly castigated by the media constantly during this time.   I recall one headline: 

"The Gingrich that stole Christmas" 

Here it is:   




Gingrich was one of the very few who actually put up a fight,  and who was actually effective at reducing government spending and reducing government influence?   


Establishment?   Not even close. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

You will have to realize that the Trumpets work strictly off emotions and feelings.

And yet I'm the one thinking clearly.  You're wrong.   Again. 

[INVAR]

I completely reject the assertion that Newt Gingrich is "establishment."   He's about as far from being "establishment"  as you can get.   We did have a balanced budget during his years as house speaker. 

Gingrich was one of the very few who actually put up a fight,  and who was actually effective at reducing government spending and reducing government influence?   

Establishment?   Not even close.

Well, after his ouster - he went soft and compromising.

Case-in-point:



The ESTABLISHMENT is all-in on the "climate change" hoax.  So is Gingrich.

[DiogenesLamp]

We have several Jewish members here who are insulted every time the Hitler comparisons are made.....I wish members would please keep that in mind....they ABSOLUTELY DO NOT see any similarity.

The Cult of Personality has been around long before Hitler.   Hitler is just the most famous example within the memories of our generations.    Il Duce also had his groupies,  and so did Jim Jones,  Charles Manson,  and David Koresh.   


But the fact remains,   what we see as this worshipful "groupie"  mindset that has manifested itself as support for Trump from people who have always been against the liberal agenda, is eerily remenescent of the same behavior that brought Hitler,   (and a lot of other lesser despots)   to power.   


We saw the same social dynamics with the Obama supporters.   Reality didn't matter,   it was some form of mass-hysteria which emerged as a frightening form of idol worship.   


And Obama has emerged as the closest thing to an Adolf Hitler like Dictator that the US of A has ever seen.   


I do not think Trump is going to match even Obama for similarity to Hitler,   but some of his followers compared to Hitlers followers?    Frighteningly similar in my opinion. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

Quote from: Right_in_Virginia on Today at 12:45:00 AM
Cruz needs to rebalance and remember a very sobering political fact:  53% voted for someone other than him in the Texas primary.

That is a completely meaningless point.   Clinton won by a plurality,   but most people voted against him.   The media still portrayed it as a mandate when it wasn't.   

It is not meaningless.  Cruz, in his home state, after campaigning there, after running ads there, saw 53% of the voters choose someone else.  He'll want to figure this loss out before he begins campaigning for reelection.

This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton winning a plurality in a general election--this has everything to do with Cruz failing to reach 50% of the vote in the state that will vote him in or out of the Senate. 

[verga]

Yes, and Ted bears some of the responsibility. Right wing ideologues aren't popular with the voting public.

You voted for Dukakis and Carter didn't you.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, after his ouster - he went soft and compromising.

Case-in-point:


The ESTABLISHMENT is all-in on the "climate change" hoax.  So is Gingrich.

Posing with Nancy Pelosi was a bone head move,   but it is only the consequence of being gullible enough to believe the Global Warming Bullsh*t.    I am ashamed to admit that I was believing it when it first started making waves,  but after a year or so,  I figured out that it was crap.   

I do not fault people who have lesser understanding of the workings of science to have been fooled by all the agenda driven people pushing this claim,  and so i'm willing to give Gingrich the benefit of the doubt and assume nobody had straightened him out by the time he sat for that stupid picture.   


But believing in global warming makes you establishment?   That is a non-sequitur.   No it doesn't.   It just means you are uninformed and that you are simply going along with the popular crowd.   


Gingrich fought for us sufficiently that he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt,  and even some leeway to make mistakes. 

[libertybele]

Are you kidding?   That was his biggest asset in winning their preference.    That was actually one of the things I liked about him.   He puts up a fight.    He bluntly states in no unclear language that his opposition is scum and unfit for office.   


Whether it's true or not is completely irrelevant to it's effectiveness as a means of winning.   


I am more angry at his Republican supporters who parroted all the lies he told about Cruz,   but I could tell that when he was saying them,   they were going to be effective.   


I think most Trump supporters were more concerned about "winning"  than ideology.   Winning is good,  and I assure you Trump is going to win,   but I don't think it does us much good to "win"  with people who won't enact our ideological agenda.   


At least he will do some of it....  I hope.

Are you pulling my leg here?  So, let me get this straight, you don't mind having a president who has a vile, vulgar mouth and attacks others as your president that will represent this country around the World??   You don't mind a president who is a hollow drum, says nothing of substance on any issue and in fact has flip flopped on just about everything that he's stated.  Your ideological agenda?  Are you serious?  What ideological agenda would that be exactly??

When I read posts like yours, I have absolutely no doubt that Trump will be an absolute disaster for this country.

#NeverTrump

[DiogenesLamp]

 


It is not meaningless.  Cruz, in his home state, after campaigning there, after running ads there, saw 53% of the voters choose someone else.  He'll want to figure this loss out before he begins campaigning for reelection.

This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton winning a plurality in a general election--this has everything to do with Cruz failing to reach 50% of the vote in the state that will vote him in or out of the Senate.

Texas has a big Hispanic population.   Many of them wanted Rubio over Cruz.  (Rubio got 17% in the Texas Primary)    Were Rubio not in the race and not splitting the Hispanic vote,   Cruz likely would have stomped Trump in Texas.   


Once again,  your point is meaningless when you look more extensively at the facts.    You are presenting the weak Cruz win as having some significance vis a vis Trump.   Nope,  it's the fact that Cruz and Rubio split a large sub-demographic of Texas voters. 

[bilo]

No he wasn't treated fairly.  I no longer visit FoxNew.com or Drudge.

Nice to see I'm not alone. It's strange watching CNN after all these years, but I am so disgusted with the Trump supporters I don't want to have anything to do with them.

[bilo]

Cruz was treated like a red-headed stepchild by the GOP establishment, the DEMS, Fox News  (in particular Sean Hannity) and the MSM. Ironically, the liberal media treated him at times better than conservative news. I find it quite disheartening and appalling when a member of our party stands up and defends our rights, and freedoms, including religious liberty, of "We the People" under the Constitution and is greatly chastised, ridiculed and attacked for doing so.  Cruz is absolutely 100% correct, everyone who is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump will bear that responsibility going forward.  I find it interesting that many members of Congress are now very reluctant to be associated with Trump and some are declining to be his VP.  That speaks volumes.  My question is, where were they when they very well could have easily voiced support for Cruz?  When Cruz came back to the Senate, he was warmly received and applauded; certainly a change of tune.

Fifteen other candidates competed against Trump.  None of those candidates were as vile and vulgar towards each other as Trump was to them.  Yet the masses accepted his vulgarity, anger, lying and verbal abuse towards others.  If we simply take a step back and look at the huge difference in character alone between Cruz and Trump it is equally disheartening that the masses would chose a bully over a gentlemen to lead our country and to set an example for our children. They chose someone who obviously lacks moral character over someone of great integrity.  What does this say about the mindset of his supporters?  To think that this is what newly acquired voters are drawn to is frightening.  It indicates that we have become a society of bullies, liars, and cheaters who verbally abuse one another and that is now acceptable.  All I can say now, is God, please help us!

#Never Trump  Don't blame me.  I support Cruz.

[DiogenesLamp]

Are you pulling my leg here?  So, let me get this straight, you don't mind having a president who has a vile, vulgar mouth and attacks others as your president that will represent this country around the World??   

Not so much,  no.   I'd prefer he was more like Reagan,   but what I want most of all is someone who is not afraid to punch back.   Trump is not afraid to punch back,  and i'm pretty sure he's going to restrain any vulgarity regarding foreign leaders,   though if he didn't restrain himself in regards to Iran or North Korea,   I really wouldn't mind. 

You don't mind a president who is a hollow drum, says nothing of substance on any issue and in fact has flip flopped on just about everything that he's stated. 

I mind that a great deal,   and it is one of the things I most dislike about Trump.   I didn't vote for Trump,  I voted for Cruz,  and I would prefer Cruz,   but now I no longer have that choice.   I have a choice between Trump and Hillary,  so of course I'm going to support Vulgar Trump instead of Vulgar,  wicked,  corrupt,  hateful Hillary. 

Your ideological agenda?  Are you serious?  What ideological agenda would that be exactly??

When I read posts like yours, I have absolutely no doubt that Trump will be an absolute disaster for this country.

#NeverTrump

Compared to Hillary?   No.   Compared to Cruz?   Probably,   but disaster is now baked into the cake.   We aren't going to get any better choices at this point.   

[Right_in_Virginia]

Texas has a big Hispanic population.   Many of them wanted Rubio over Cruz.  (Rubio got 17% in the Texas Primary)    Were Rubio not in the race and not splitting the Hispanic vote,   Cruz likely would have stomped Trump in Texas.   


Once again,  your point is meaningless when you look more extensively at the facts.    You are presenting the weak Cruz win as having some significance vis a vis Trump.   Nope,  it's the fact that Cruz and Rubio split a large sub-demographic of Texas voters.

One last time:  I am not presenting this as significant in any way for the next President of the United States, Donald Trump.

I am simply stating that 53% of the voters in Texas DID NOT WANT TED CRUZ.   If Cruz wants to be reelected to the Senate, he needs to pay attention to THIS number, and not concern himself anymore with Trump's victory.

[Right_in_Virginia]

...and This may come as a shock to you....

People in Texas who have known Ted Cruz, for 20 years or more, say he is the exact same guy on the campaign trail, in the Senate, at home, or out having lunch.
Just the opposite of being hypocritical, they tell me what you see is what you get.
The people saying this are not all close personal friends of his, either.
They joke about this, actually, saying that while he has a great sense of humor, he could lighten up more often and not be so locked in all the time.

Just thought you should know....

Cool.    Nice story, he's got he's talking points memorized. 

But you might want to remember that 53% of voters in Texas chose someone other than Ted Cruz in the GOP primary.

Just sayin'.