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

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

First, how many interviews does a candidate get with 14 candidates? When are they going to mention those issues? Cruz was asked about the riots and he responded that the responsibility for the actions of the rioters belonged with the rioters.

Not after Chicago. The whole episode was disgraceful and Cruz did not stand with Donald in favor of free speech. And I said to myself then "I  wonder if Cruz just lost the campaign". Predictably, Trump's support went up, Cruz's went down. This was right around the time of Trump saying women who get abortions should be punished.

[Sanguine]

Not after Chicago. The whole episode was disgraceful and Cruz did not stand with Donald in favor of free speech. And I said to myself then "I  wonder if Cruz just lost the campaign". Predictably, Trump's support went up, Cruz's went down. This was right around the time of Trump saying women who get abortions should be punished.

OK, enough.  Here are Cruz' comments after the events in Chicago:

We need to learn to have disagreements without being disagreeable. To have disagreements while respecting human beings on the other side. Earlier today over thirty people were arrested at one rally. And then tonight, as violence broke out, the rally was canceled all together. Now, the responsibility for that lies with protesters who took violence into their own hands. But in any campaign responsibility starts at the top. Any candidate who is responsible for the culture of the campaign. And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/03/12/just-got-real-ted-cruz-blasts-trump-unrest-chicago/

Or, here it is from Breitbat if you don't like Redstate:

    I also want to mention something about the events this evening in Chicago. This is a sad day. Political discourse should occur in this country without a threat of violence without anger and rage and hatred directed at each other. We need to learn to have disagreements without being disagreeable, to have disagreements while being respecting human beings on the other side.

    Earlier today over thirty people were arrested at one rally. And then tonight as violence broke out the rally was canceled altogether. Now, the responsibility for that lies with protesters who took violence into their own hands. But in any campaign responsibility starts at the top. Any candidate is responsible for the culture of the campaign. And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that’s facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discord.

He was asked if Trump should have canceled the rally.

    I think that the decision should be based on public safety. But I think a campaign bears responsibility for creating an environment, when the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence–to punch people in the face. The predictable consequence of that is that it escalates and today is unlikely to be the last such instance. We earlier today in St. Louis over thirty arrested. That’s not how our politics should occur.

    You know, the City of Chicago in 1968 saw some ugly days when politics descended into hatred and incivility and even violence and it is my hope that in 2016 that we can appeal to our better angels and avoid going down that road once again.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/11/ted-cruz-says-violence-at-trumps-canceled-chicago-rally-starts-at-the-top/

You've got a problem with that WTF?

[Smokin Joe]

I

I truly cannot believe that so many self-described conservatives cannot see the monstrous crime of using force to shut down opposition political speech for the critical issue that it is.  Instead, they want to use it as another opportunity to get in their digs that Trump is an undeserving jackass.  Of course he is, but that shouldn't even enter the equation when discussing the violence of the left, because that simply gives them exactly what they want.

I recall that the Left had a little riot thingy going on in Chicago--in 1968, among other places.
At no time did I hear anyone (on the right) express support for the leftists rioting in the streets, then or now, even if that issue got lost in the he said/she said distortions and misrepresentations of a couple of the candidates statements after the rioting in Chicago this time around.
If the message got lost that rioting to shut down political speech is wrong, maybe it is because the spotlight was taken off the rioting and unjustly put on (especially one of the) candidates for allegedly siding with the rioters.
When those who actually paid attention to what was said had to spend their time defending their candidates against those unjust allegations, that left little time for focus on the rioters themselves. Ironically, the Trump supporters who were busy claiming that Cruz had said something he did not were more busy alleging Cruz supported the rioters than they were decrying the actual behaviour of the rioters.

[Smokin Joe]

I was neutral on Ted Cruz until he said the Trump Chicago rioters had a point. I think Ted Cruz revealed his human side with that remark. In other words, he wanted to win against Trump so bad he was willing to use leftist language and tactics.

Cruz didn't say that. He never defended the rioters.

[Bigun]

Cruz didn't say that. He never defended the rioters.

They know that and just don't care! Nothing is to vile if it furthers the interest of Trump!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The GOP siding with Cruz against Trump was a poison pill.  At that point, Trump's claim to fame was that he was an outsider.  Cruz, by benefit of having stuck to his guns in DC and fought the GOPe in the Senate was also considered an "outsider"--he lost that when the GOP climbed on board as the other candidates dropped out.
One of the big arguments I saw was that with the GOP hacks on board, it just proved that Cruz was GOP-e all along, and only Trump was a true outsider.
That 'support' hurt him, imho, as intended.

So if the GOPe publicly supported Trump, that obviously proves the argument that they supported Trump.  And if they publicly supported Cruz....well, that also proves they supported Trump?

That's a "head I win, tails you lose" rhetorical rabbit punch, Smokin' Joe, unworthy of your pugilistic namesake.  It's also not even the argument made earlier in this thread, when people were talking about actual endorsements and not poison pill endorsements.  Someone dared me to produce evidence of an actual endorsement for Trump, I did, so then it gets switched around to mean the exact opposite?  I'm not buying that.

On top of that, I don't think the poison pill argument holds anyway.  Sure, it would have been a "poison pill"  endorsement, but only for those fervent anti-establishment types who were already in Trump's corner anyway.  (But who repeatedly celebrated any such endorsements their own candidate got nonetheless).  The people those endorsements were directed at were anti-Trumpers, including not just supporters of Kasich, but supporters of Rubio and others who might otherwise just stay home.  And to those people, such endorsements weren't "poison pills."  Further, I'd suggest that the people who actually made those endorsements -- Bush, Romney, Rubio, etc.., didn't see themselves as "poison pills", and certainly weren't trying to sabotage Cruz with their endorsements. 

Note the GOP didn't call for Kasich to drop out, so the non-Trump vote was split between Kasich and Cruz.

I disagree -- there were calls pretty early on for Kasich to drop out, but he was consistently having none of that.  They just gave up after awhile.  But additionally, some expressly did call for Kasich to drop out:

Romney said that a vote for Kasich amounted to a vote for Trump, and encouraged all anti-Trumpers to unite behind Cruz:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/18/mitt-romney-m-voting-ted-cruz-not-john-kasich/81980750/

Otherwise, when the race is down to just Trump, Cruz, and Kasich, I think an endorsement of Cruz, and urging anti-Trump voters to unite behind him is the functional equivalent of asking Kasich to drop out anyway -- a distinction without a different.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If the message got lost that rioting to shut down political speech is wrong, maybe it is because the spotlight was taken off the rioting and unjustly put on (especially one of the) candidates for allegedly siding with the rioters.

So wait a minute.  Now you're saying that the spotlight was taken off the rioters not because someone put the spotlight on Trump, but because someone pointed out that someone else was putting the spotlight on Trump.  I mean, really??

[Maj. Bill Martin]

They know that and just don't care! Nothing is to vile if it furthers the interest of Trump!

Ugh.  To be honest, this is the kind of argument that makes me want to quit message boards period.

You are reflexively assuming that anyone who criticizes Cruz must be a Trump supporter.  It just can't be that they see an issue differently than you do -- they must be "Trumpists", or "Trumpturds" or "Trumpeters" or whatever other cutesy perjorative of the moment is popular.  I think Trump is vile.  I supported Cruz from the moment Rubio left the race, and hoped desperately that he would beat Trump.  He didn't.  And as of today, I wouldn't vote for Trump in the general election.

But to you, it's like everyone is either on one "team" or the other, and therefore must defend to the bitter end every stupid thing "their guy" does or says, and attack mercilessly anything the "other guy' said even if it's just the proverbial stopped clock being right once a day.

Frankly, that entire POV infects this entire thread, and much of the forum.  On both/all sides.   It was exactly what I left FR to escape, yet here it is again.

[Bigun]

Ugh.  To be honest, this is the kind of argument that makes me want to quit message boards period.

You are reflexively assuming that anyone who criticizes Cruz must be a Trump supporter.  It just can't be that they see an issue differently than you do -- they must be "Trumpists", or "Trumpturds" or "Trumpeters" or whatever other cutesy perjorative of the moment is popular.  I think Trump is vile.  I supported Cruz from the moment Rubio left the race, and hoped desperately that he would beat Trump.  He didn't.  And as of today, I wouldn't vote for Trump in the general election.

But to you, it's like everyone is either on one "team" or the other, and therefore must defend to the bitter end every stupid thing "their guy" does or says, and attack mercilessly anything the "other guy' said even if it's just the proverbial stopped clock being right once a day.

Frankly, that entire POV infects this entire thread, and much of the forum.  On both/all sides.   It was exactly what I left FR to escape, yet here it is again.

I use the word "they" in the general sense.  Not every Trump supporter is in that category but my personal observations of them says that most are.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I use the word "they" in the general sense.  Not every Trump supporter is in that category but my personal observations of them says that most are.

Considering that I was the primary person engaging on that issue, the intent was clear.

[Bigun]

Considering that I was the primary person engaging on that issue, the intent was clear.

As I recall my post was in response to another poster but you go ahead and assign anything you like to it.

[RetBobbyMI]

Trump winning the GOP maybe just what the doctor ordered. Now the GOP will get what they deserve for all their siding withe the likes of Reid, Pilosi, Obama and the like. They tried to be like democrats, now they got one to lead them. Cruz was handed a gift by not winning this election cycle. To be associated with all those who would side with democrats over his ideals and principles would have tarnished him. Now he can still fight his terms in the Senate.

[libertybele]

Ugh.  To be honest, this is the kind of argument that makes me want to quit message boards period.

You are reflexively assuming that anyone who criticizes Cruz must be a Trump supporter.  It just can't be that they see an issue differently than you do -- they must be "Trumpists", or "Trumpturds" or "Trumpeters" or whatever other cutesy perjorative of the moment is popular.  I think Trump is vile.  I supported Cruz from the moment Rubio left the race, and hoped desperately that he would beat Trump.  He didn't.  And as of today, I wouldn't vote for Trump in the general election.

But to you, it's like everyone is either on one "team" or the other, and therefore must defend to the bitter end every stupid thing "their guy" does or says, and attack mercilessly anything the "other guy' said even if it's just the proverbial stopped clock being right once a day.

Frankly, that entire POV infects this entire thread, and much of the forum.  On both/all sides.   It was exactly what I left FR to escape, yet here it is again.

If I may interject something here.  Your mention of every stupid thing "their guy" does or says; I take offense to.  My guy happens to be Ted Cruz and has been from the very beginning; even back to when he was running for Senate. I've been watching him as a 'conservative' with amazement.  He is truly a Constitutional Conservative. His actions and voting record speak for themselves.  His record as a Solicitor General is remarkable and without reproach and I find his record in the Senate refreshing in comparison to most.  He has stood up for "We the People" against the Washington Cartel.  I have found him to be a man of great intelligence, morality and above all integrity.  You would be hard pressed to find anyone to match that caliber of person in Congress.  I have a lot of admiration for him and hopefully will get a chance to meet him one day.  He isn't perfect. No one is.  But as far as doing stupid things ... Trump is the Olympic gold medal winner. I don't see the situation as a matter of teams, but rather someone who was willing to save our Republic vs. someone who didn't even know we were a Republic.  Trump and Cruz were the last two standing (Kasich aside with few delegates) so primarily people have chosen sides...Trump remains.  A lot of us can't stomach the thought of our Republic turning into a dictatorship or a socialist entity. For a lot of us everything we have fought for and stood up for, for over well over a decade, we watched go down the drain while Trump lied about, insulted and attacked our last hope for this country; a man of great integrity with an impeccable record and extremely knowledgeable about our Constitution.

#NeverTrump

[HonestJohn]

Words should never be met with violence. If you're arguing that Trump supporters deserve violence because of Trump's words, then I hope Trump supporters arm themselves against what you feel they deserve.

And I feel Trump is an unqualified, un-knowledgeable ass-clown.

Trump's words begat violence from his supporters.  That violence then begat anti-Trump protests.

Which begat more words by Trump advocating violence from his supporters. ('...pay for his legal bills...')

Which begat violence from the anti-Trump protesters.

...

Now Trump plays innocent?

Bull!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Trump's words begat violence from his supporters.  That violence then begat anti-Trump protests.

Which begat more words by Trump advocating violence from his supporters. ('...pay for his legal bills...')

Which begat violence from the anti-Trump protesters.

...

Now Trump plays innocent?

Bull!

Bull youself. Nothing begat nothing. Trump supporters were violent in some instances and as far as I know, they were arrested by the law.

Words should never inspire violence, on either side. Period.

[truth_seeker]

Cruz didn't say that. He never defended the rioters.

He blamed Trump for the rioters, like blaming a lady that gets raped, for the little black dress she wore.

At that point, Cruz lost support, and Trump gained support.

[HonestJohn]

Bull youself. Nothing begat nothing. Trump supporters were violent in some instances and as far as I know, they were arrested by the law.

Words should never inspire violence, on either side. Period.

People should never use words *TO* inspire violence.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

People should never use words *TO* inspire violence.

This we are in agreement with.

[DCPatriot]

Trump's words begat violence from his supporters.  That violence then begat anti-Trump protests.

Which begat more words by Trump advocating violence from his supporters. ('...pay for his legal bills...')

Which begat violence from the anti-Trump protesters.

...

Now Trump plays innocent?

Bull!

"Bull" is the perfect word.....as in you're full of BS.

One elderly man in the audience spontaneously throws a punch at a protestor being escorted out of the hall...and you want to make that "Pearl Harbor".  The beginning of all the coordinated and PAID protestors....Uh-huh.   

You're a bad joke.  Don't quit your day job.

[Sanguine]

Bull youself. Nothing begat nothing. Trump supporters were violent in some instances and as far as I know, they were arrested by the law.

Words should never inspire violence, on either side. Period.

I don't even know WTF you're trying to say.  "Words should never inspire violence?"  What on earth are you talking about?  They do all the time. 

Modified:  I see you allowed "to" to be added to your statement.  So, what DT was doing was using words "TO" inspire violence.  I'm baffled as to your argument now. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I don't even know WTF you're trying to say.  "Words should never inspire violence?"  What on earth are you talking about?  They do all the time. 

Modified:  I see you allowed "to" to be added to your statement.  So, what DT was doing was using words "TO" inspire violence.  I'm baffled as to your argument now.

We have freedom of speech in this country, Sanguine. We also have the right to peaceably assemble. Trump supporters, no matter how you may think of them, should have the right to attend Trump rallies and not be accosted. Words should never lead to violence. Whatever Trump says, violence isn't deserved by people attending his rallies, who didn't even say those words and might not even support Trump. (yes I've heard of non-Trump supporters going to rallies to check them out)

[HonestJohn]

We have freedom of speech in this country, Sanguine. We also have the right to peaceably assemble. Trump supporters, no matter how you may think of them, should have the right to attend Trump rallies and not be accosted. Words should never lead to violence. Whatever Trump says, violence isn't deserved by people attending his rallies, who didn't even say those words and might not even support Trump. (yes I've heard of non-Trump supporters going to rallies to check them out)

No.

PEOPLE should never use words to incite violence.

Words are just that, words.  Like guns, they cannot do anything by themselves.

That you keep trying to excise the person who spoke the words from those words... speaks very loudly to me.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

No.

PEOPLE should never use words to incite violence.

Words are just that, words.  Like guns, they cannot do anything by themselves.

That you keep trying to excise the person who spoke the words from those words... speaks very loudly to me.

I have condemned Trump repeatedly.

[DCPatriot]

We have freedom of speech in this country, Sanguine. We also have the right to peaceably assemble. Trump supporters, no matter how you may think of them, should have the right to attend Trump rallies and not be accosted. Words should never lead to violence. Whatever Trump says, violence isn't deserved by people attending his rallies, who didn't even say those words and might not even support Trump. (yes I've heard of non-Trump supporters going to rallies to check them out)

Thanks, WTF...for your objective opinion.

Noticed that the #nevertrump contingent ran immediately onto the LIVE thread regarding Trump's Richmond rally...with MSNBC claiming there's only 2 thousand people there in an arena that holds 11,000.

Given all the publicized violence inflicted on Trump Supporters...would 'you' allow your family to be exposed to possible mob violence?

Plus...it was just planned and schedule a couple days ago.

I still maintain he's going to win in a landslide.

..and yeah...I said the same thing about Romney.    :nometalk:

[HonestJohn]

I have condemned Trump repeatedly.

It's not that.

By excising the person from their speech, you excise the responsibility of a person (*ANY* person) for their words.

I'm responsible for what I write or say.  And I hold others responsible for what they write or say.

If Dimbulb Cummings, the 'patriot' of East Bumfluckistan and Presidential candidate, says he wants all North Flumsticklegrubers to die in a chocolate fudge factory... he's responsible for that, too.