Why Ted Cruz's huge convention gamble will pay off in the end

[Liberty Tree Dr]

Only #NeverTrump people believe this will pay off for Cruz.  If you're #NeverHillary, you recognize this wasn't about principles, or about conscience, but about Cruz's personal character.  He could and should have just plain stayed away from the convention, as he showed himself to be in no way like his supposed hero Ronald Reagan.  Reagan did endorse Ford in 1976 at the convention.  Reagan would have never dreamed of doing what Cruz did on Wednesday - because Reagan had class.

So from this Cruz voter in 2012, and Cruz primary voter in 2016, but a voter who is not willing to risk four years of Hillary, I can tell you that I will be voting for any primary challenger to Cruz in his 2018 Senate primary.  You don't vote for someone whose behavior indicates he is hoping Hillary wins so he has his personal shot in 2020.  That self-centered, narcissistic behavior is way more damaging than any character flaw of Trump's.  Everything Cruz has done now makes sense, if you view it through the "it's all about me" lens.

[chae]

@Liberty Tree Dr

Narcissistic only makes sense if you are referring to Trump's main character trait.
He said "Don't stay home, get out and vote"  he also said to vote your conscience.  The only reason I can come up with for that so enraging people is if they know a vote for Trump is not voting their conscience.  If this is incorrect, can you please explain?

[Sanguine]

Only #NeverTrump people believe this will pay off for Cruz.  If you're #NeverHillary, you recognize this wasn't about principles, or about conscience, but about Cruz's personal character.  He could and should have just plain stayed away from the convention, as he showed himself to be in no way like his supposed hero Ronald Reagan.  Reagan did endorse Ford in 1976 at the convention.  Reagan would have never dreamed of doing what Cruz did on Wednesday - because Reagan had class.

So from this Cruz voter in 2012, and Cruz primary voter in 2016, but a voter who is not willing to risk four years of Hillary, I can tell you that I will be voting for any primary challenger to Cruz in his 2018 Senate primary.  You don't vote for someone whose behavior indicates he is hoping Hillary wins so he has his personal shot in 2020.  That self-centered, narcissistic behavior is way more damaging than any character flaw of Trump's.  Everything Cruz has done now makes sense, if you view it through the "it's all about me" lens.

Reagan didn't endorse Ford at the 1976 convention.

[chae]

I was reading that when they look at demographics, most people 45 and under really liked the speech, and those 45 and over didn't. 
If that is true, I'm reasonably sure that in 4 years, there will be more of those still around that approved than there will of those that didn't.

[catfish1957]

Title and premise:
"Why Ted Cruz's huge convention gamble will pay off in the end..."

It might.
But first he has to overcome the pall of this:

Before posting ridiculous graphics like this  again, would you please answer this question simply as yes or no.....

If one of your co-workers :

(1) Claimed your father was involved with a presidential assassination.
(2) Tweeted unflattering pictures and comments about your spouse
(3) Was complicit in spreading false rumors about you fidelity with your spouse.
(4) Memed you name into "Lyin" Theme in every sentence.

Again simply YES or NO......   WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT PERSON FOR A JOB OR PROMOTION?

[catfish1957]

I think that is the perfect riposte to Cruz critics. I also escaped from Free Republic. I couldn't help posting last night that I was proud of Cruz for standing up for his principles. As expected, I was told to GTFO. I can scarcely believe that longstanding posters on that forum, that I have long admired for their wit and humorous but thoughtful support of conservatism, have gone bat-guano crazy!

Welcome....

You will find many Former Freepers (like me) here who could not stand anymore the Orange echo chamber.  I was there 16 years, and just wish I had found TBR earlier.  Using he new system will take a little getting used to, but once you catch on, you will love finally participating in a forum with 21st century technology.

FR is antiquated garbage.

[skeeter]

Only #NeverTrump people believe this will pay off for Cruz.  If you're #NeverHillary, you recognize this wasn't about principles, or about conscience, but about Cruz's personal character.  He could and should have just plain stayed away from the convention, as he showed himself to be in no way like his supposed hero Ronald Reagan.  Reagan did endorse Ford in 1976 at the convention.  Reagan would have never dreamed of doing what Cruz did on Wednesday - because Reagan had class.

So from this Cruz voter in 2012, and Cruz primary voter in 2016, but a voter who is not willing to risk four years of Hillary, I can tell you that I will be voting for any primary challenger to Cruz in his 2018 Senate primary.  You don't vote for someone whose behavior indicates he is hoping Hillary wins so he has his personal shot in 2020.  That self-centered, narcissistic behavior is way more damaging than any character flaw of Trump's.  Everything Cruz has done now makes sense, if you view it through the "it's all about me" lens.

And another 'former Cruz supporter who's seen the light' weighs in.

[Sanguine]

I was reading that when they look at demographics, most people 45 and under really liked the speech, and those 45 and over didn't. 
If that is true, I'm reasonably sure that in 4 years, there will be more of those still around that approved than there will of those that didn't.

I guess that depends on what he does in the meantime.

[aligncare]

Only #NeverTrump people believe this will pay off for Cruz.  If you're #NeverHillary, you recognize this wasn't about principles, or about conscience, but about Cruz's personal character.  He could and should have just plain stayed away from the convention, as he showed himself to be in no way like his supposed hero Ronald Reagan.  Reagan did endorse Ford in 1976 at the convention.  Reagan would have never dreamed of doing what Cruz did on Wednesday - because Reagan had class.

So from this Cruz voter in 2012, and Cruz primary voter in 2016, but a voter who is not willing to risk four years of Hillary, I can tell you that I will be voting for any primary challenger to Cruz in his 2018 Senate primary.  You don't vote for someone whose behavior indicates he is hoping Hillary wins so he has his personal shot in 2020.  That self-centered, narcissistic behavior is way more damaging than any character flaw of Trump's.  Everything Cruz has done now makes sense, if you view it through the "it's all about me" lens.

Agreed. 

[Liberty Tree Dr]

@Liberty Tree Dr

Narcissistic only makes sense if you are referring to Trump's main character trait.
He said "Don't stay home, get out and vote"  he also said to vote your conscience.  The only reason I can come up with for that so enraging people is if they know a vote for Trump is not voting their conscience.  If this is incorrect, can you please explain?

Sure - you're bit about the reason for this enraging people is projection on your part.  You believe Trump supporters can't have a conscience if they support Trump.  This is your bias.  What Cruz was actually saying was directly precisely to people like you - come out and vote, but if your conscience says Trump is a bad guy, don't vote for him, even if that means Hillary wins.  Instead, vote for the Libertarian, or don't vote in the Presidential race at all, but let your feelings guide you.

The fact that getting people to note vote for President, or to vote for the Libertarian, benefits Cruz's aspirations in 2020, is the true basis for my personal disgust.  He doesn't care about what four years of Hillary - and 2-3 Supreme Court nominations - will do to this country, if it means he gets a shot in 2020.  And Cruz is thereby proven too stupid to understand that in four years, 5-10 million more newly-minted Democrat voters (Hillary's citizenship for illegals) means no Republican will ever win again. 

FYI, we might have already crossed that threshold for permanent Democrat control - the results of this election will be close.  Which is why we need every vote against Hillary possible. 

So, what does your conscience say about permanent Democrat control of the USA?

[skeeter]

Sure - you're bit about the reason for this enraging people is projection on your part.  You believe Trump supporters can't have a conscience if they support Trump.  This is your bias.  What Cruz was actually saying was directly precisely to people like you - come out and vote, but if your conscience says Trump is a bad guy, don't vote for him, even if that means Hillary wins.  Instead, vote for the Libertarian, or don't vote in the Presidential race at all, but let your feelings guide you.

The fact that getting people to note vote for President, or to vote for the Libertarian, benefits Cruz's aspirations in 2020, is the true basis for my personal disgust.  He doesn't care about what four years of Hillary - and 2-3 Supreme Court nominations - will do to this country, if it means he gets a shot in 2020.  And Cruz is thereby proven too stupid to understand that in four years, 5-10 million more newly-minted Democrat voters (Hillary's citizenship for illegals) means no Republican will ever win again. 

FYI, we might have already crossed that threshold for permanent Democrat control - the results of this election will be close.  Which is why we need every vote against Hillary possible. 

So, what does your conscience say about permanent Democrat control of the USA?

If find it interesting that you Trump people feel it necessary to show up after the fact to tell us what we heard.

Trump is out there today, talking about how Cruz's father actually met with Lee Harvey Oswald. Perhaps you can interpret this for us as well. What did he REALLY say?

[Liberty Tree Dr]

Reagan didn't endorse Ford at the 1976 convention.

So what do you think this means...

From Reagan's 1976 convention speech:  "We must go forth from here united, determined and what a great general said a few years ago is true: “There is no substitute for victory.” Mr. President."

FYI, the "Mr. President" to whom President Reagan refers was Gerald Ford.  Pretty obvious he was telling the room that they all needed to be united for victory, and the person to unite behind was the sitting President of the United States. 

If you want to parse words like a Clinton, go ahead.  You'll need the practice if you and your cohorts help Hillery win the White House.

[Liberty Tree Dr]

And another 'former Cruz supporter who's seen the light' weighs in.

Go check my account on FR - Liberty Tree Surgeon - and you'll see I was banned on TOS for my support of Cruz.  Or don't, if that means you can continue to make an ad hominem attack rather than address what I said. 

[Sanguine]

If find it interesting that you Trump people feel it necessary to show up after the fact to tell us what we heard.

Trump is out there today, talking about how Cruz's father actually met with Lee Harvey Oswald. Perhaps you can interpret this for us as well. What did he REALLY say?

That's the way it is: Trumpspeech needs to be explained to us Hobbits.

[skeeter]

Go check my account on FR - Liberty Tree Surgeon - and you'll see I was banned on TOS for my support of Cruz.  Or don't, if that means you can continue to make an ad hominem attack rather than address what I said.

Oh don't be so thin skinned. I'm suspect of anyone who qualifies their anti-Cruz rant by saying how much they used to like him. Its a pretty common ploy.

[Liberty Tree Dr]

If find it interesting that you Trump people feel it necessary to show up after the fact to tell us what we heard.

Trump is out there today, talking about how Cruz's father actually met with Lee Harvey Oswald. Perhaps you can interpret this for us as well. What did he REALLY say?

I don't see where I addressed the alleged meetings between the elder Cruz and JFK's assassin.  Reason - I don't care.  Politics is blood sport - Cruz also made some leaps in describing Trump's beliefs, policies, etc. It happens.  Trump was just more effective at it, since he knew what would appeal to voters, and Cruz was mistakenly working to appeal to policy wonks. 

[TomSea]

Michael Brendan Doherty is a Republican Senator from New Jersey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Doherty

Pure editorial.

[aligncare]

Oh don't be so thin skinned. I'm suspect of anyone who qualifies their anti-Cruz rant by saying how much they used to like him. Its a pretty common ploy.

I'll clue you in to another ploy. It's the one used by #NeverTrump and it involve self-delusion.

They tell themselves (and the rest of us) that their non support for Donald Trump is justified because he's vulgar and he insulted Ted Cruz's wife and father. But, they ignore the reality that their non support, and in some cases, their outright hostility, will somehow preserves their integrity and their country as a recognizable nation of free people.

When the truth is, the reality is, that that attitude will only work to get Hillary elected, who is anathema to those concepts of liberty and freedom we conservatives cherish so.
 
So, we're left with a dichotomous choice. Only one choice. Will it be Hillary or Donald Trump?

The ball is in your court #NeverTrump.

[catfish1957]

I'll clue you in to another ploy. It's the one used by #NeverTrump and it involve self-delusion.

They tell themselves (and the rest of us) that their non support for Donald Trump is justified because he's vulgar and he insulted Ted Cruz's wife and father. But, they ignore the reality that their non support, and in some cases, their outright hostility, will somehow preserves their integrity and their country as a recognizable nation of free people.

When the truth is, the reality is, that that attitude will only work to get Hillary elected, who is anathema to those concepts of liberty and freedom we conservatives cherish so.
 
So, we're left with a dichotomous choice. Only one choice. Will it be Hillary or Donald Trump?

The ball is in your court #NeverTrump.

Trump stated today that he would fund a PAC to defeat Cruz.

War has now been declared.

[Sanguine]

I don't see where I addressed the alleged meetings between the elder Cruz and JFK's assassin.  Reason - I don't care.  Politics is blood sport - Cruz also made some leaps in describing Trump's beliefs, policies, etc. It happens.  Trump was just more effective at it, since he knew what would appeal to voters, and Cruz was mistakenly working to appeal to policy wonks.

And, that is why we get what we've been getting, unprincipled, unscrupulous, power-hungry carpet baggers.

[txradioguy]

Before posting ridiculous graphics like this  again, would you please answer this question simply as yes or no.....

If one of your co-workers :

(1) Claimed your father was involved with a presidential assassination.
(2) Tweeted unflattering pictures and comments about your spouse
(3) Was complicit in spreading false rumors about you fidelity with your spouse.
(4) Memed you name into "Lyin" Theme in every sentence.

Again simply YES or NO......   WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT PERSON FOR A JOB OR PROMOTION?

No real man with any semblance of a spine would.

[txradioguy]

I'll clue you in to another ploy. It's the one used by #NeverTrump and it involve self-delusion.

They tell themselves (and the rest of us) that their non support for Donald Trump is justified because he's vulgar and he insulted Ted Cruz's wife and father. But, they ignore the reality that their non support, and in some cases, their outright hostility, will somehow preserves their integrity and their country as a recognizable nation of free people.

When the truth is, the reality is, that that attitude will only work to get Hillary elected, who is anathema to those concepts of liberty and freedom we conservatives cherish so.
 
So, we're left with a dichotomous choice. Only one choice. Will it be Hillary or Donald Trump?

The ball is in your court #NeverTrump.

Not one of you Branch Trumpidians Has ever been able to explain beyond mindless psycobabble how exactly not voting for Trump means my vote is going to Hillary.

Somebody who wrote in Reagan's name in 1976...does that mean they voted for Carter?

Does that mean in the past that a vote for John Anderson was a vote for Carter?

Was a vote for Ross Perot a vote for Clinton?

I mean all of these questions fit that weird "logic" of yours.