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

[Maj. Bill Martin]

He represents the people as ALL of Congress is supposed to.  He would have won the nomination had the media simply given him the same media attention as Donny.  As time goes on, many have realized their mistake in backing someone other than Cruz. 

Cruz only represents the people who elected him.  When he was running for President, he also represented that portion of the GOP electorate that supported him.  But it was never anywhere close to 50%.

You're seeing everything through Cruz-colored glasses, like when you said that Cruz could unite the entire country.  He can't.  The very things that you like about him are also the very things that make others detest him.  It is impossible for any candidate to unite the country.  Period.

I'm a conservative, so I supported him when he and Kasich were the only alternatives left to Trump, but I still wasn't blind to his weaknesses as a candidate.  If you agree with him 100%, he's the perfect candidate, but his manner of speaking and overtly religious messaging is a turn-off for a lot of people.  It makes him a very difficult candidate to win a general election, though he might have had a shot at Hillary.

[Sanguine]

Cruz only represents the people who elected him.  When he was running for President, he also represented that portion of the GOP electorate that supported him.  But it was never anywhere close to 50%.

You're seeing everything through Cruz-colored glasses, like when you said that Cruz could unite the entire country.  He can't.  The very things that you like about him are also the very things that make others detest him.  It is impossible for any candidate to unite the country.  Period.

I'm a conservative, so I supported him when he and Kasich were the only alternatives left to Trump, but I still wasn't blind to his weaknesses as a candidate.  If you agree with him 100%, he's the perfect candidate, but his manner of speaking and overtly religious messaging is a turn-off for a lot of people.  It makes him a very difficult candidate to win a general election, though he might have had a shot at Hillary.

Who thinks the whole country can be united?  That's a pipe dream right off.

[Smokin Joe]

Cruz only represents the people who elected him.  When he was running for President, he also represented that portion of the GOP electorate that supported him.  But it was never anywhere close to 50%.

You're seeing everything through Cruz-colored glasses, like when you said that Cruz could unite the entire country.  He can't.  The very things that you like about him are also the very things that make others detest him.  It is impossible for any candidate to unite the country.  Period.

I'm a conservative, so I supported him when he and Kasich were the only alternatives left to Trump, but I still wasn't blind to his weaknesses as a candidate.  If you agree with him 100%, he's the perfect candidate, but his manner of speaking and overtly religious messaging is a turn-off for a lot of people.  It makes him a very difficult candidate to win a general election, though he might have had a shot at Hillary.

Cruz represented a clear contrast to the direction the country has been headed in. A choice, not just a lite version of the same ol' same ol'. Given the choice between Hillary or Bernie and Cruz, I think (I pray) the country would choose the latter. If not, we're wasting our time.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I agree. The biggest reason a third party candidate can't win is that so many have been told that a third party candidate can't win. Talk about circular reasoning and self-fulfilling prophesy.

No, that's not the reason a third party candidate can't win.

The third party we're talking about is conservative, right?  So let's do the math.

Approximately 35% of the electorate is Republican.  So how many "conservatives" should we need to seize control of the GOP?  Well, let's start off by acknowledging that someone self-describing themselves as a conservative does not make them an actual conservative in the eyes of every other "conservative".  Even Jeb and Kasich both described themselves as conservatives.  So, the idea that 40% of the electorate is actually "conservative" (in the sense meant by many here) simply because they describe themselves in that manner in response to a survey is false.  Because the truth is that if 40% of the electorate was truly "conservative", the GOP would be nominating nothing but true conservatives, and that just doesn't happen.

Reality tells us that our inability to nominate true conservative Presidential candidates 3 elections in a row (arguable 6), means that "true conservatives" aren't even a majority in the GOP.  That means we're only somewhere between 15-18% of the electorate.  That's it.

So how is this splinter group that isn't even large enough to win a majority of a party that only contains 35% of the electorate going to be win a plurality of votes in a three party race?  How do we get from 15-18% to 34% (assuming that the other two parties split the vote perfectly, which is unlikely)?

I think a third party could win in this election, but if it did, it would be a Kasich-type third party more in the middle, getting all the disaffected establishment Republicans and perhaps peeling off a good number of Dems who don't like Hillary.  But obviously, that's not helping to elect more conservatives.

I've simplified things a bit, because I think a good chunk of the truth is splintering among conservatives to the point where we keep disqualifying each other as "conservative".  So there are those to whom you are not a "conservative" unless you are hard-line conservative on social issues.  Then there are those for whom all conservatives must be for tightened borders and no amnesty.  And there are those for whom libertarian-leaning conservatives aren't conservative.  So by the time some of us get to "true conservatives", we've limited ourselves to a small segment of the electorate that can't really win anything except in a dozen or so staunchly "conservative" states.

But that doesn't change the bottom line -- a breakaway conservative party that is truly conservative enough here to gain the support of everyone here who argues for conservatism is never going to get close to win even a plurality.  Else, we'd have control of the GOP nomination.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Cruz represented a clear contrast to the direction the country has been headed in. A choice, not just a lite version of the same ol' same ol'. Given the choice between Hillary or Bernie and Cruz, I think (I pray) the country would choose the latter. If not, we're wasting our time.

Then in your eyes, we really are wasting our time.

I think we have to be realistic and acknowledge that while ideology and direction matter a lot, so too does charisma and good communication skills.  Ted lacks the former, and his skills in the latter are too narrow.  Just because voters wouldn't vote for Ted doesn't mean that might not vote for someone who is just as conservative, but who has a better presentation.

[Smokin Joe]

Then in your eyes, we really are wasting our time.

I think we have to be realistic and acknowledge that while ideology and direction matter a lot, so too does charisma and good communication skills.  Ted lacks the former, and his skills in the latter are too narrow.  Just because voters wouldn't vote for Ted doesn't mean that might not vote for someone who is just as conservative, but who has a better presentation.

You are saying Cruz couldn't beat Hillary or Bernie?

Maybe not after the smear campaign of lies that Trump threw at him, but before that, handily.

If that is the case, though, Trump will fail miserably, too, as more people seem to be awakening to his bombastic and vacuous nature, albeit somewhat belatedly.

If the electorate wants a Hillary or Bernie, I'm right, we are wasting our time.

As far as Cruz' being able to communicate, he transmits just fine. I heard him 5X5, loud and clear.
Maybe some of the receivers aren't doing so well.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Who thinks the whole country can be united?  That's a pipe dream right off.

I said the same to @libertybele in either this or another thread, and she said yes it could, and that Cruz was the one who could do it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You are saying Cruz couldn't beat Hillary or Bernie?

No, I'm saying Cruz is a poor candidate, but the Democrats in this election are also bad enough that Cruz might have been able to beat them.  In almost any other year, he gets clobbered.

If the electorate wants a Hillary or Bernie, I'm right, we are wasting our time.

I think that's something of a false dichotomy -- I don't think the electorate actually wanted any of those four. 

As far as Cruz' being able to communicate, he transmits just fine. I heard him 5X5, loud and clear.
Maybe some of the receivers aren't doing so well.

I'm not saying that Cruz cannot get his message across, but style and presentation matter a lot in terms of how that message is received.  I agreed with Cruz on the issues more than with any other candidate, but I was still left cringing at his preacher's diction and cadence, and his bombast.   So his message comes across, but only in a way that appeals to those who already lean hard right.  He's not a guy who I think can pitch his message in a way that appeals to voters who are more moderate.

If we could have taken Cruz' positions and blended them with Rubio's tone, we'd have had an absolute winner.  Unfortunately, that wasn't the case.

[DCPatriot]

You are saying Cruz couldn't beat Hillary or Bernie?

Maybe not after the smear campaign of lies that Trump threw at him, but before that, handily.

If that is the case, though, Trump will fail miserably, too, as more people seem to be awakening to his bombastic and vacuous nature, albeit somewhat belatedly.

If the electorate wants a Hillary or Bernie, I'm right, we are wasting our time.

As far as Cruz' being able to communicate, he transmits just fine. I heard him 5X5, loud and clear.
Maybe some of the receivers aren't doing so well.

LOL!  So Cruz might have won against Hillary....if not for Donald Trump's words during the campaign.

OOOOHKAAAYYY! 

[Sanguine]

@Maj. Bill Martin , I've just read over your recent comments in one gulp, and I'm wondering why you're here and putting so much effort and thought into your comments.  Generally, someone who is critical is most effective when they have an alternative vision to offer.  Criticism for that sake of criticism doesn't offer much and tends to just irritate others.  Just curious - what is it you want to happen?

[libertybele]

LOL!  So Cruz might have won against Hillary....if not for Donald Trump's words during the campaign.

OOOOHKAAAYYY! 

Trump's words are LIES and I don't forsee that changing, nor do I see him following through on anything that got him the nomination in the first place.

As you know I am a #Never Trump and I'm sure you'll get a chuckle out of this; my hubby is now aboard the Trump train ... after 34 years of marriage ... just when I finally thought I knew the guy!   

[DCPatriot]

Trump's words are LIES and I don't forsee that changing, nor do I see him following through on anything that got him the nomination in the first place.

As you know I am a #Never Trump and I'm sure you'll get a chuckle out of this; my hubby is now aboard the Trump train ... after 34 years of marriage ... just when I finally thought I knew the guy!   

LOL!  That's funny, @libertybele

My lady friend is an avowed Hillary supporter....and the one before that, a wonderful girl from Trinidad/Tobago...is a freaking Communist.

 

[libertybele]

LOL!  That's funny, @libertybele

My lady friend is an avowed Hillary supporter....and the one before that, a wonderful girl from Trinidad/Tobago...is a freaking Communist.

 

That's equally as funny ... thank God for humor right?   

[Henry Noel]

Cruz need not make any apologies and I find it quite ridiculous that you see him as surly and seeking attention.

They cannot justify Trump without damning Cruz.

[DCPatriot]

That's equally as funny ... thank God for humor right?   

What can I say.  Damn DDs distracted the hell out of me.   

[txradioguy]

When he was running for President, he also represented that portion of the GOP electorate that supported him.  But it was never anywhere close to 50%.

Neither was Trump.  He got the nomination with 60% of the GOP supporting someone else.

Even as the only guy running he can only garner 70%

Nationally right now he can't get out of the 40's either.

[txradioguy]

What can I say.  Damn DDs distracted the hell out of me.   

They'll be the death of all men one way or another. 

[DCPatriot]

They cannot justify Trump without damning Cruz.

That's simply not true, @Henry Noel

Cruz was nothing but a pimple on Trump's butt during the campaign.   Ted destroyed his candidacy all by himself.

[DCPatriot]

They'll be the death of all men one way or another. 

Indeed!   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin , I've just read over your recent comments in one gulp, and I'm wondering why you're here and putting so much effort and thought into your comments.  Generally, someone who is critical is most effective when they have an alternative vision to offer.  Criticism for that sake of criticism doesn't offer much and tends to just irritate others.  Just curious - what is it you want to happen?

In terms of...what?

First, I've never liked the whole cheerleader approach to message-boarding period, where people defend "their guy" to the death no matter how wrong he is on a particular issue, and vice-versa for the people they don't like.  I think it is more important to take a stand on the merits of each issue, regardless of how the candidates break down on those issues.  So if you're sensing from me a lack of consistency in terms of who I support, that's because I evaluate what is said, not who says it.

Second, I honestly don't know whether or not I will vote for Trump in November.  I've been as honest about that as I can whenever it comes up.  So trying to be honest about how I feel on particular issues is selfish on my part -- it helps clarify the issues, and helps me figure out where I should end up standing.

But big picture, here's where I stand:

I don't believe in the "uniparty" or "GOP-e" stuff, for the most part.  I think most of those Republicans simply have a different strategy in that they prioritize winning over ideological purity.  They don't take the Cruz approach not because they like Obama's ideas, but because they don't think Cruz's defunding approach will succeed in the long term, and that it will end up costing so many votes that it will hand over control to the Democrats and things will get even worse.  Rightly or wrongly, I think they truly believe that.  So I don't view them as the enemy as much as flawed allies.

I also don't buy into some of the doom and gloom within conservatism.   Not yet, anyway.  Charisma/messaging, etc. is an absolutely essential skill for a Presidential candidate, and we've been unlucky in not having a candidate who combines that with conservatism for awhile.  But that is still achievable if the right candidate emerges, and it may very well be one of the guys who failed this time.  Maybe a new and improved Cruz, or Rubio, or Jindal etc.. next time around.  I'm sure all of those guys -- and others -- learned something from their failure this time

So to answer your question, what I don't want to see happen is for those of us who oppose Democrats to tear ourselves apart to the point where we cannot rally around the right candidate if he/she emerges.  I dislike intensely the personalization of arguments, where people engage in what I see as juvenile name-calling -- "Trumpturds" and "Cruzbots", for example.  Seriously, what the hell is that crap?

And that mindset is exacerbated by those who see every single issue and statement as a chance to attack the guy they don't like, and to use personal insults against the people on the other side of the debate.  All that does is drive people further apart, and they'll start disagreeing on issues not because of the issue itself, but simply because of who is on the other side.  Everyone who posts on a message board isn't a wordsmith, so people aren't always going to express their opinions perfectly.  Yet, less than perfect expression is sometimes jumped on with glee by those who just want to get a dig in for "their guy", or against "the guy" they don't like.  Maybe if we more often tried to figure out where the other side was coming from and not always attach the worst possible interpretation to what they say, we might actually communicate better.

I'm not saying we cannot disagree, or that disagreements can't be strong and sometimes passionate.  I'm just opposed to the personalization of attacks, and the cheerleader-esque approach of always backing one side over the other, regardless of the nuances on the argument.  Because in the end, what is left is a whole bunch of hard feelings, some of which never heal, and which can linger to the point of weakening whatever opposition we can muster to those statist goons on the left.  Not to mention that I personally get zero enjoyment out of discussing issues when it devolves into "my guy is better than yours, nyah nyah nyah".  Which, if you look back a bit in this thread, is kind of what it is starting to look like.

Maybe it's just me, and I'm not cut out for this message board stuff.  Entirely possible.  Even likely.

[Sanguine]

They cannot justify Trump without damning Cruz.

That's probably right.  Sort of a: "We rejected a constitutional conservative for a blow-hard reality show guy, and in order to justify doing so, we have to make the constitutional conservative look like a bad guy.  And, because it's hard to make him look bad, we'll have to try all that harder.  And, since the end justifies the means, it's all good."

[musiclady]

They cannot justify Trump without damning Cruz.

Very perceptive observation, Henry, and most likely the root of it.

That, and the fact that Trump is Alinsky-ite in his words and behavior, and that clearly has rubbed off on his followers.

You don't just have people you disagree with, you have enemies that have to be destroyed.

Trump tries to destroy everyone who dares disagree with him.

And he's been pretty successful, hasn't he?

[libertybele]

In terms of...what?

First, I've never liked the whole cheerleader approach to message-boarding period, where people defend "their guy" to the death no matter how wrong he is on a particular issue, and vice-versa for the people they don't like.  I think it is more important to take a stand on the merits of each issue, regardless of how the candidates break down on those issues.  So if you're sensing from me a lack of consistency in terms of who I support, that's because I evaluate what is said, not who says it.

Second, I honestly don't know whether or not I will vote for Trump in November.  I've been as honest about that as I can whenever it comes up.  So trying to be honest about how I feel on particular issues is selfish on my part -- it helps clarify the issues, and helps me figure out where I should end up standing.

But big picture, here's where I stand:

I don't believe in the "uniparty" or "GOP-e" stuff, for the most part.  I think most of those Republicans simply have a different strategy in that they prioritize winning over ideological purity.  They don't take the Cruz approach not because they like Obama's ideas, but because they don't think Cruz's defunding approach will succeed in the long term, and that it will end up costing so many votes that it will hand over control to the Democrats and things will get even worse.  Rightly or wrongly, I think they truly believe that.  So I don't view them as the enemy as much as flawed allies.

I also don't buy into some of the doom and gloom within conservatism.   Not yet, anyway.  Charisma/messaging, etc. is an absolutely essential skill for a Presidential candidate, and we've been unlucky in not having a candidate who combines that with conservatism for awhile.  But that is still achievable if the right candidate emerges, and it may very well be one of the guys who failed this time.  Maybe a new and improved Cruz, or Rubio, or Jindal etc.. next time around.  I'm sure all of those guys -- and others -- learned something from their failure this time

So to answer your question, what I don't want to see happen is for those of us who oppose Democrats to tear ourselves apart to the point where we cannot rally around the right candidate if he/she emerges.  I dislike intensely the personalization of arguments, where people engage in what I see as juvenile name-calling -- "Trumpturds" and "Cruzbots", for example.  Seriously, what the hell is that crap?

And that mindset is exacerbated by those who see every single issue and statement as a chance to attack the guy they don't like, and to use personal insults against the people on the other side of the debate.  All that does is drive people further apart, and they'll start disagreeing on issues not because of the issue itself, but simply because of who is on the other side.  Everyone who posts on a message board isn't a wordsmith, so people aren't always going to express their opinions perfectly.  Yet, less than perfect expression is sometimes jumped on with glee by those who just want to get a dig in for "their guy", or against "the guy" they don't like.  Maybe if we more often tried to figure out where the other side was coming from and not always attach the worst possible interpretation to what they say, we might actually communicate better.

I'm not saying we cannot disagree, or that disagreements can't be strong and sometimes passionate.  I'm just opposed to the personalization of attacks, and the cheerleader-esque approach of always backing one side over the other, regardless of the nuances on the argument.  Because in the end, what is left is a whole bunch of hard feelings, some of which never heal, and which can linger to the point of weakening whatever opposition we can muster to those statist goons on the left.  Not to mention that I personally get zero enjoyment out of discussing issues when it devolves into "my guy is better than yours, nyah nyah nyah".  Which, if you look back a bit in this thread, is kind of what it is starting to look like.

IMHO I see personal attacks in here far and few between and personal attacks really aren't permitted or accepted. This particular thread IS about Cruz's statement; "those who bolstered Trump will bear that responsibility going forward".  Sooo... in this particular thread you either agree with Cruz's statement or you don't.  This particular thread has drawn a tremendous amount of response. In essence, Cruz's statement has sparked a lot of passion; without being bombastic, narcissistic or psychotic.

I wish that Trump was a candidate that we could all stand behind, but he isn't.  That isn't the fault of those who support or did support Cruz, or Rubio or Kasich or Bush, etc.  That is the fault of Trump himself.  How the heck do you defeat Hillary when we don't have a candidate that can defeat her because of how he represents himself?  All she has to do is point out his personality and attach it to an issue and she makes him look wrong regardless if he's right or not. In fact, how do you defeat Hillary when the objective of our nominee is to hijack the GOP in the first place?  He didn't go after Hillary and hasn't gone after Hillary with the same intensity that he used against members of his own party. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

This thread needs to end. It's my least favorite and the people commenting on it just keep getting progressively dumber. Including me, who is now commenting on it. 

[musiclady]

This thread needs to end. It's my least favorite and the people commenting on it just keep getting progressively dumber. Including me, who is now commenting on it. 

When did your homeroom teacher ask you to be a hall monitor, Weird?   

This thread is just fine, and as far as I know, one person's random opinion as to whether or not it needs to be shut down doesn't hold much water.

btw, libertybele's last post was far from "dumb."  Nothing she ever says is "dumb."