Cruz: I'm voting for Trump

[TomSea]

Pro aborts? What warm, dark orifice did you pull that out of? If you are calling the people on that list "pro-aborts", yes perhaps moderator intervention is called for. Against you.

I said "I guess we can call that... to be tit for tat"

But as usual, we've been through the nasty personal attacks before with smokin' Joe, let alone, no comment on the odious post by Kartographer and putting words into others mouths to slime others, I won't back down.

Yep, pro-aborts it is.  I won't be turning my back on the unborn, if it is more important to go against pro-lifers, that's your choice.

[TomSea]

Yep applaud it alright, you and Fuller can say it but I won't believe Rand and Ron Paul are "phony conservatives".

 

You can't make this stuff up. 

 



And some folks are Libertarian?? Really???   

[Cyber Liberty]

@jmyrlefuller

I'm glad to know that Rand Paul and Ron Paul are phony conservatives according to your opinion.   

You can't make this stuff up, no siree.

Both Pauls would tell you they are not "conservatives," they are libertarians.  And I didn't make that up.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I understand this. There comes a point, however, where one has to consider the best way to protect those rights and increase our ability to do so. Right now the "cudgel" approach simply outlawing it isn't yet viable.

What we can—and should—do from a government standpoint is defund to the greatest extent possible. Here is where libertarians and conservatives have common ground: libertarians (even those who are "pro-choice") see it as a waste of money, and conservatives see it as a travesty. The courts have next to no authority to allocate federal funds.

I would never support a candidate who makes it part of their platform to explicitly support and subsidize abortion. Believe it or not, there are a few politicians (ahem, Andrew Cuomo) who hold that stance. But if it came down to a big-government statist who passed himself or herself off as "pro-life" and a limited-government libertarian who is more or less indifferent to abortion, I'd be much more inclined to vote for the libertarian—not because I think the life of the young is any less important, but because the numerous problems we have with government that can be fixed through policy changes are better suited to the libertarian's strengths.

The fight for life is going to be a long war. Sadly, we'll lose some along the way while it is fought. However, I would rather set the stage for a total victory than rush into a Pyrrhic one that we ultimately lose for good.

All very well said.  Taking an absolutist position that loses at the polls may result in more subsidizing of abortions by Democrats who get elected on that issue -- the vote is moral but the result is not.  I agree with you -- it is a very important issue, but we are not even close to the point at which it can be made illegal, and Roe v. Wade overturned.

[Cyber Liberty]

@TomSea , you are doing an excellent job of proving @jmyrlefuller 's point that certain issues are being used to drive a wedge between conservatives and libertarians.  Mock it if you must.

[TomSea]

Both Pauls would tell you they are not "conservatives," they are libertarians.  And I didn't make that up.

Some say the Pauls are States-Rights types of folks, no matter what, I'd think they are constitutionalists.

I consider myself a Crunchy-Con—that is, a conservative who likes, enjoys, and wants to conserve the environment.- Rand Paul
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/rand-paul-im-a-crunchy-con/

Ron Paul with Reagan:


Both Pauls, staunch pro-lifers, that's what we know.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@TomSea , you are doing an excellent job of proving @jmyrlefuller 's point that certain issues are being used to drive a wedge between conservatives and libertarians.  Mock it if you must.

On some sense, it is akin to asking conservatives what they think of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Do I personally think it was a violation of property rights?  Sure.  But for a politician to take that position today is political suicide, and while it may be "principled" to take a public stand on that, it also is stupid.

Fighting unpopular battles you can't win is simply giving a gift to your opponents.

[TomSea]

@TomSea , you are doing an excellent job of proving @jmyrlefuller 's point that certain issues are being used to drive a wedge between conservatives and libertarians.  Mock it if you must.

I'm not mocking one thing, You mean JmyrleFuller who said the Pauls are Phoney Conservatives?

[jmyrlefuller]

Last I checked, neither Ron Paul nor Rand Paul, both of whom are pro-life, put abortion before every other plank of their platform.

What I'm talking about here is the use of abortion as a wedge—the idea that if a politician is very effective and right with day-to-day policy (fiscal discipline, citizen freedoms, effective and efficient defense, etc.), but is not sufficiently anti-abortion, then that should disqualify him. Mike Huckabee is a perfect example. The more anti-abortion one is, the more Huckabee will support you (there were few more fervent backers of Todd Akin than Huckabee was), at the expense of every other issue.

Our government faces a lot of issues that need to be fixed; some can be remedied immediately, and some we may have to hold on a while before we can fix them. In the meantime, if our candidates are neutral on those other issues, it at least buys us time.

[TomSea]

I respect what Mr. Fuller says, at the end of the day though, Mr. 7 and a half percent G. Johnson is a pro-choicer who looks to put nominees on the Supreme Court who may not be that conservative or libertarian at that.

We have already been through the concept that the pro-life movement has done nothing since Roe V. Wade while quite the opposite has happened so that some states only have one functioning abortion clinic.

If pro-lifers are phoney conservatives according to Mr. Fuller, then, I will count myself in good company with Senators Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, President Reagan and so on.

[TomSea]

One may call it a "wedge" issue,

But would it be if Kasich, Cruz, Rubio or even Rand Paul was the nominee? They are had strident pro-life views. And in the case of Kasich, probably the most accomplishments.

Likwise, though some might question Romney's pro-life creds, when he ran his campaigns, I was not all of a sudden doubting him and taking Paul Ryan up as Veep added to it.

No, states, including back East in New Jersey and who knows where else besides the often mentioned Texas, Wisconsin, Ohio, all defunded Planned Parenthood. This is not a dead issue, it is a live issue and it could very well be done on a National basis.

[aligncare]

All very well said.  Taking an absolutist position that loses at the polls may result in more subsidizing of abortions by Democrats who get elected on that issue -- the vote is moral but the result is not.  I agree with you -- it is a very important issue, but we are not even close to the point at which it can be made illegal, and Roe v. Wade overturned.

Careful, or you just might be accused of pragmatism, oh, the shock

[libertybele]

Sadly, I think he could have gathered contributions from all over the country to cover that had he stick to his guns. But I wouldn't put it past the GOPe to threaten to fund a primary challenger, either.

Let's see ...Trump comes out and smears his wife and family; Cruz fires back at the convention, the crowd boos him and his wife is hurried away to a safer location and Cruz is not allowed back into the holding room. Meanwhile he is criticized for not adhering to his original promise to support the GOP nominee and is also criticized for telling people to vote their conscience. Meanwhile his big donors begin to pull away. Next, Greg Abbot (supposed long time friend) governor of TX tells Cruz that he needs to get on board and Castro (D), McCaul (R) and Perry (R) are already threatening his seat.

Trump threatened Cruz and and told him he would create Super Pacs and spend millions against him for not endorsing him.

Priebus came out and vowed to punish those who didn't support the GOP nominee.

As this is all happening he meets with Pence; and Pence asks him what is it going to take to get Cruz on board (obviously they need Cruz and his supporters) and Cruz tells them he needs assurance as to the SCOTUS justice.  Trump camp complies; Cruz comes out and states he's going to support Trump in order to stop Hillary and in hopes to secure justice appointments in line with Scalia and to keep the commitment he made to endorse the GOP nominee ... now people are angry because he kept his word on that.

Got it.  All in the day of politics ...but hey at least these threats against Cruz are out in the open ... who knows what else has been thrown at him lately.  My hunch is it probably goes a lot deeper than this.

Unfortunately for Cruz he had a choice ... walk away from everything he's worked for (as 2018 and 2020 would be nearly impossible without big donor funding) or endorse Trump in an attempt to stop Hillary along with a minute chance at saving his Senate seat and maybe running for POTUS again.

[roamer_1]

Ron Paul nor Rand Paul, both of whom are pro-life, put abortion before every other plank of their platform.

That is true - Both are great defenders of the Pro-Life cause, albeit that their solution (return Life to the states) is misguided. And while I adhere to a federal solution, right in line with NRTL, I would be happy to vote for such as a stop-gap measure - heading in the right way.

And, I might add, Cruz also adopts the civil-lib position, and had no problem getting conservative Christian support... which denies your next statement:

What I'm talking about here is the use of abortion as a wedge—the idea that if a politician is very effective and right with day-to-day policy (fiscal discipline, citizen freedoms, effective and efficient defense, etc.), but is not sufficiently anti-abortion, then that should disqualify him. Mike Huckabee is a perfect example. The more anti-abortion one is, the more Huckabee will support you (there were few more fervent backers of Todd Akin than Huckabee was), at the expense of every other issue.

Take a very prominent Pro-Life position off the table and you will not have Christian support, which means you lose. Period. Expecting Christian Conservatives to go to the back of the bus, or get thrown under the bus on this, their most unmovable principle, is utterly unwise.

Our government faces a lot of issues that need to be fixed; some can be remedied immediately, and some we may have to hold on a while before we can fix them. In the meantime, if our candidates are neutral on those other issues, it at least buys us time.

No, it loses the game, because it makes you un-electable. Disenfranchising the Christian Right is disenfranchising the biggest voting block there is... You can't make up that kind of deficit.

[skeeter]

@skeeter

I apologize for jumping and thinking you were speaking about me or anyone else.

I respect your position.

As I respect your's. No apology necessary.

I just hope this whole roll in the mud with Trump didn't effectively ruin the career of one of the very few voices we have in the senate.

[bigheadfred]

A nice roll in the mud now, and down the road some good flip-flops, a few shady deals, and Ted Cruz will be the perfect candidate for 2020 POTUS.

[Silver Pines]

As I respect your's. No apology necessary.

I just hope this whole roll in the mud with Trump didn't effectively ruin the career of one of the very few voices we have in the senate.

@skeeter

I know what you mean.  Everything that comes in contact with him turns into a...well, a big orange dancing buttface, lol.

@RAT Patrol

[Silver Pines]

If you want a really good laugh go to giphy.com and just search "Trump."  So funny.

I'm going to do that, lol.

[INVAR]

We were told we can't put funny gifs on the debate thread.  That of course made me want to go look for funny gifs.  So here you go:

That first one reminded me of this:



Very appropriate.

[jmyrlefuller]

I heard from a family member that Reince Priebus was interviewed today on Hannity, I think.  Anyway according to them, Priebus did say that Cruz would have lost GOP support if he didn't fulfill his pledge to support Trump.  Evidently he suggested the ones that didn't, such as Bush and Kasich, will not be receiving support.  This helps explain why Cruz did what he did.  I didn't hear the show.

There was a story on here that noted Priebus saying the same thing—that suggested that the RNC may even ban them from running for the GOP nod in 2020. It was one of those "I'm not threatening anyone, I'm just saying we had rules and a pledge" sort of thing (kind of like "I'm not saying Rafael Cruz was part of the JFK assassination, but it is there in the paper"). Jeb left 2016 with his tail between his legs, so that threat doesn't mean much in his case, but for Cruz and Kasich it would be a bigger deal as they might be contenders by that time. Sure enough, a couple days after that threat, Cruz endorsed Trump.

[Idiot]

There was a story on here that noted Priebus saying the same thing—that suggested that the RNC may even ban them from running for the GOP nod in 2020. It was one of those "I'm not threatening anyone, I'm just saying we had rules and a pledge" sort of thing (kind of like "I'm not saying Rafael Cruz was part of the JFK assassination, but it is there in the paper"). Jeb left 2016 with his tail between his legs, so that threat doesn't mean much in his case, but for Cruz and Kasich it would be a bigger deal as they might be contenders by that time. Sure enough, a couple days after that threat, Cruz endorsed Trump.

@jmyrlefuller

Thanks for the confirmation. 

What happened to your monkey avatar?  I was kind of getting used to it.  I enjoy your input by the way.  :o)

[INVAR]

And after that debacle of a debate tonight and the smelly slime of turdish incompetence as Trump threw it to Hildabeast - all Cruz did is smear that turd all over his face after telling us how important it was to do so.

Trump SUNK the Lusitania of the GOP in it's entirety tonight. 

[Smokin Joe]

I said "I guess we can call that... to be tit for tat"

But as usual, we've been through the nasty personal attacks before with smokin' Joe, let alone, no comment on the odious post by Kartographer and putting words into others mouths to slime others, I won't back down.

Yep, pro-aborts it is.  I won't be turning my back on the unborn, if it is more important to go against pro-lifers, that's your choice.

I am not going against 'pro-lifers'.
When you are done reading this, kindly scroll to the bottom of my post and see who I am supporting. HINT: It isn't either of the Liberals from New York. Not the woman who believes in the slaughter, not the guy who said Planned Parenthood does 'great things, great things'.

Castle is for removing the Abortion issue from the say-so of the Federal Government, including SCOTUS, and then the battle can be taken to the State Legislatures. That won't win them all, but it would end a lot of the wholesale slaughter, by letting States make their own rules. Without a SCOTUS to overturn Roe, it won't happen otherwise, short of a Constitutional Amendment.

You speak of partial victory, and the path the candidate I am supporting would yield just that.

If you stop with the knee jerk attacks and ad hominem crap, maybe you would see we actually agree on some things.

[Silver Pines]

I heard from a family member that Reince Priebus was interviewed today on Hannity, I think.  Anyway according to them, Priebus did say that Cruz would have lost GOP support if he didn't fulfill his pledge to support Trump.  Evidently he suggested the ones that didn't, such as Bush and Kasich, will not be receiving support.  This helps explain why Cruz did what he did.  I didn't hear the show.

Thanks for that information, @mrpotatohead.   It's definitely something to keep in mind.

Though Cruz came out with a statement saying Trump  was the big winner last night, and there's such a clear difference between him and Clinton, and we have to vote for Trump, etc., etc.  Ted just keeps digging. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Thanks for that information, @mrpotatohead.   It's definitely something to keep in mind.

Though Cruz came out with a statement saying Trump  was the big winner last night, and there's such a clear difference between him and Clinton, and we have to vote for Trump, etc., etc.  Ted just keeps digging.

@CatherineofAragon Well, Cruz was pretty well painted into a corner, and had to decide who he'd rather piss off.  We see how that came out.