Cruz: I'm voting for Trump

[libertybele]

I'm not sure I believed that until now.  The "debate" last night pretty much cinched it for me.  It didn't matter who won, the "winner" was preordained.

Absolutely.  10 minutes into the debate confirmed that for me as well.

[txradioguy]

Cruz called us Liberal Republicans?

Link please.

And I'm sorry...unless he says very specifically "I endorse Donald Trump" ...he's no more endorsing Donny than any of the people here that have made the difficult decision to hold their nose and vote for him.

[Suppressed]

I was a literacy volunteer teaching inner city kids how to read and reading with them in Trenton NJ for many years til I lost my kidneys. I loved it. The kids loved me. They didn't care my skin was different or my politics were different. I was just some lady that came to the school to first and second graders twice a week and tried to instill my love of reading.

Excellent!

I so much wish more conservatives would do the same!

[Suppressed]

:nometalk:

OK.  WTH. They say some things are better left to the imagination...some things aren't.

   Ooops.

[Norm Lenhart]

Cruz called us Liberal Republicans?

Link please.

And I'm sorry...unless he says very specifically "I endorse Donald Trump" ...he's no more endorsing Donny than any of the people here that have made the difficult decision to hold their nose and vote for him.

Oh for the love of God. He endorsed him by definition. He's telling people to vote for him. He is saying people have to come together and elect him.

If you tell your teenage daughter to sleep with the bass player of the local band, you are endorsing that event. It's absurd to claim Cruz has not/ isnt endorsing. That's a semantic argument by someone clinging to reasons to continue supporting a guy they emotionally over-invested themselves in.

[Smokin Joe]

I was a literacy volunteer teaching inner city kids how to read and reading with them in Trenton NJ for many years til I lost my kidneys. I loved it. The kids loved me. They didn't care my skin was different or my politics were different. I was just some lady that came to the school to first and second graders twice a week and tried to instill my love of reading.

The coin kids trade in at that age is attention. If you pay them a little, it gains interest over the years and they will ever love you for it. Who knows what lives you will have changed by giving of your time. Kudos! 

[bigheadfred]

If you tell your teenage daughter to sleep with the bass player of the local band, you are endorsing that event.

I think that description is a bad example. It falls more into the line of taking one for the team.  Which, I guess, is what cruz is doing by endorsing trump. 

[Gefn]

The coin kids trade in at that age is attention. If you pay them a little, it gains interest over the years and they will ever love you for it. Who knows what lives you will have changed by giving of your time. Kudos! 

I double majored in English, and got a Masters in it. I can't imagine a life without books. I'm kinda like that geeky guy on the Twilight Zone with his books who survives the nuclear apocalyse and has a library....and I'd have the same luck he had.

[Frank Cannon]

Yup, calling us "liberal Republicans" was over the line in terms of any grace I will ever extend him again.

He's become just another party hack shill same as Limbaugh and Hannity.

I read his statement and heard his interviews. Where exactly dis he call us Liberals?

[INVAR]

I read his statement and heard his interviews. Where exactly dis he call us Liberals?

Hugh Hewitt's show this morning who was answering the question of all the pushback Cruz was receiving from Conservatives and Republicans like Beck for his endorsement of Trump:

Cruz: Well, it is not surprising that there are a bunch of people throwing rocks, and I would note that the people who are throwing rocks are by and large people who have hated the fact that I have stood up to Washington and the Senate since I have been elected. They have hated that I’ve taken on leadership and have been willing to lead the fight against Obamacare, willing to lead the fight against the debt ceiling, willing to lead the fight against amnesty. And when you have liberal Republicans who don’t want to see conservatives doing that, their natural fallback, and the fallback of many of the mainstream media, is anytime you’re fighting for conservative principles, they accuse you of being just political. That’s just what they say. They say oh, this is just politics. This is political. You know, the Wall Street Journal had an editorial where they said oh, it must be political. What inevitably happens is the Washington establishment accuses anyone who stands up to them of doing what they in fact are doing. Here’s the simple reality. If I were being political, I would have endorsed Donald Trump back in Cleveland at the convention. That was the obvious political thing to do. If the goal were political, that’s the easy decision. It’s why almost every other elected official did so.

My 'natural fallback' is not what the MSM parrots sir. 

I would remind the good Senator that the majority of the 'liberal Republican Establishment' has already endorsed Trump.  You were nearly the last man standing. 

Most of the 'rock throwing' at you since your endorsement of Trump has been from principled Conservatives whom are outraged you betrayed them after telling us to vote our conscience back at the Convention.

Yesterday you said on Beck's show that our choice is now binary and if we do not want Hillary, we must vote for Trump, even after you declared him to be a sociopathic liar.  Today you assert the people 'throwing rocks' at you are Liberal Republicans who hated your leadership and fight against Obamacare, when all of us applauded your efforts for doing so.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

I think there is a reasonable threshold beyond which you should refuse to concede on an issue of principle.   I am normally a person who insists on principle above all other considerations,   but in this election I have chosen to deviate from Principle because the pragmatic argument is simply too powerful.   


We have from Trump the most significant concession on an issue of principle;  that he will nominate conservative judges,  and he has even supplied us with a list for our perusal.   


In contrast,  we have from Hillary an absolute assurance that she will nominate Federal Judges who will further usurp our rights and impose on us a mandatory "group think"  of Liberal Orthodoxy.   


It has become a contest between a rather unprincipled Oskar Schindler sort of fellow and a True believer Socialist-Fascist psychotic hate-witch.   


There is a point at which insisting on principle should require you to lose the political debate,  but in the realistic scheme of things,   it is only the "fainting couch"  people who have reached this point in this election.   


People who have a rational view of things realize that we have a bad choice and a super-horrible-evil bad choice.    The most significant issue of principle is whether or not we are going to survive.  At the moment,  that is the only principle which we should be insisting on defending. 

[verga]

Hugh Hewitt's show this morning who was answering the question of all the pushback Cruz was receiving from Conservatives and Republicans like Beck for his endorsement of Trump:

My 'natural fallback' is not what the MSM parrots sir. 

I would remind the good Senator that the majority of the 'liberal Republican Establishment' has already endorsed Trump.  You were nearly the last man standing. 

Most of the 'rock throwing' at you since your endorsement of Trump has been from principled Conservatives whom are outraged you betrayed them after telling us to vote our conscience back at the Convention.

Yesterday you said on Beck's show that our choice is now binary and if we do not want Hillary, we must vote for Trump, even after you declared him to be a sociopathic liar.  Today you assert the people 'throwing rocks' at you are Liberal Republicans who hated your leadership and fight against Obamacare, when all of us applauded your efforts for doing so.

@INVAR   Thank you for articulating my thoughts and feelings so well.

[Doug Loss]

I think there is a reasonable threshold beyond which you should refuse to concede on an issue of principle.   I am normally a person who insists on principle above all other considerations,   but in this election I have chosen to deviate from Principle because the pragmatic argument is simply too powerful.   


We have from Trump the most significant concession on an issue of principle;  that he will nominate conservative judges,  and he has even supplied us with a list for our perusal.   


In contrast,  we have from Hillary an absolute assurance that she will nominate Federal Judges who will further usurp our rights and impose on us a mandatory "group think"  of Liberal Orthodoxy.   


It has become a contest between a rather unprincipled Oskar Schindler sort of fellow and a True believer Socialist-Fascist psychotic hate-witch.   


There is a point at which insisting on principle should require you to lose the political debate,  but in the realistic scheme of things,   it is only the "fainting couch"  people who have reached this point in this election.   


People who have a rational view of things realize that we have a bad choice and a super-horrible-evil bad choice.    The most significant issue of principle is whether or not we are going to survive.  At the moment,  that is the only principle which we should be insisting on defending.

The difference between your understanding of the current situation and ours is that you see a significant disparity in probable effect between the two major candidates, while we consider that regardless of which one becomes President their actions will be essentially the same.  You see the "lesser evil" as worth setting aside your principles yet again (as we all have done in past elections, don't get me wrong), while we have had enough of being ignored and marginalized and see this hobson's choice as the last straw, and rejecting both candidates is what our principled demand of us.

[Silver Pines]

Allahpundit wrote an article about Cruz's new Trump surrogacy and the "liberal Republican" remark.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/ted-cruz-celebrates-trumps-debate-performance-hugh-hewitts-show/


@INVAR
@Frank Cannon
@RAT Patrol
@ExFreeper
@txradioguy

[Cyber Liberty]

Allahpundit wrote an article about Cruz's new Trump surrogacy and the "liberal Republican" remark.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/ted-cruz-celebrates-trumps-debate-performance-hugh-hewitts-show/


@INVAR
@Frank Cannon
@RAT Patrol
@ExFreeper
@txradioguy

@CatherineofAragon , good article.  No wonder you and scads of other people are so pissed at Cruz.  He stabbed each and every one of us square in the back.  The only reason I'm not more PO'ed than I am is because I didn't want him in the first place, but settled after the guy I liked got creamed because he had no money (Walker).  I blame Bush the Tool for that.

[Silver Pines]

@CatherineofAragon , good article.  No wonder you and scads of other people are so pissed at Cruz.  He stabbed each and every one of us square in the back.  The only reason I'm not more PO'ed than I am is because I didn't want him in the first place, but settled after the guy I liked got creamed because he had no money (Walker).  I blame Bush the Tool for that.

@Cyber Liberty

I really tried to find another way to look at it, but I couldn't.  Stabbed in the back is pretty accurate, and I'm sad to say it.  I could rationalize, if I wanted to, that Cruz had to endorse Trump, but this was too much.  Ted is being deliberately dishonest here and he knows it, because he's familiar with the NeverTrump faction and its reasons for being so.

Scott Walker's a good man and I would have been perfectly pleased with him as the Republican nominee.

[ExFreeper]

Allahpundit wrote an article about Cruz's new Trump surrogacy and the "liberal Republican" remark.

AP is right...

None of the people “throwing rocks” at Cruz are liberal Republicans who hate him for standing up to Washington. Those people are laughing at him for having revealed just how thin his principles are once he finds himself in a truly hard spot politically. They’re not mad, they’re happy because he proved they were right about him all along. The people throwing rocks are chumps like Glenn Beck, Steve Deace, and me who liked that he stood up to his own leadership and wouldn’t go along with the tide in endorsing a not-even-pretend conservative like Trump. We all bought the “man of principle” nonsense to varying degrees and now, like anyone who’s been conned, we’re angry. The fact that Cruz is retreating into his same old tired bullsh*t about how everyone criticizing him is a tool of the establishment when it’s the opposite that’s true shows you just how few cards he has left to play to justify his change of heart.

[musiclady]

Allahpundit wrote an article about Cruz's new Trump surrogacy and the "liberal Republican" remark.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/ted-cruz-celebrates-trumps-debate-performance-hugh-hewitts-show/


@INVAR
@Frank Cannon
@RAT Patrol
@ExFreeper
@txradioguy

My question is, why did he say those things about people like you and me who have supported him through thick and thin?

What is the possible motive for accusing his supporters of opposing what he was doing in DC and being "liberal Republicans" when we are the polar opposite of that?

Couldn't he have just done what he felt he had to do  (or was forced to do) in endorsing Trump and left out the false accusations against those of us who don't agree with what he did?

In reading those exact words, I am more than disappointed.  Cruz stock has gone down for me significantly.

[aligncare]

@CatherineofAragon , good article.  No wonder you and scads of other people are so pissed at Cruz.  He stabbed each and every one of us square in the back.  The only reason I'm not more PO'ed than I am is because I didn't want him in the first place, but settled after the guy I liked got creamed because he had no money (Walker).  I blame Bush the Tool for that.

...then you should be thanking Donald Trump, who surgically removed from the running Jeb! – the well funded, open borders, media darling and establishment favorite to win.

Heck we should all be thanking Donald Trump for quickly dispatching the heir apparent to the Bush dynasty.

And as Trump deftly proved, he was the only sonofabitch who could do it. One dynasty down – one more to go November 8.

Go Trump! Defeat Hillary!

[libertybele]

Cruz specifically laid out his two primary objectives as to why he is voting for Trump:

#1  To stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president.

#2  Preserve the Supreme Court and our Bill of Rights under the Constitution.  He was very specific and laid out the fact that he met with Mike Pence (the meeting was known about weeks ago) and his answer to Pence was the Supreme Court; consequently a list of 21 acceptable justice nominees were given (including Mike Lee).  Cruz also was specific in stating that he was told that the justice(s) would be picked and voted on from that list.

He also stated that Trump is the only one standing in the way between Hillary and losing our rights.

Once again, and I've stated this before, Cruz represented 31 states before the Supreme Court in Heller v. DC and won.  I have every reason to believe he would like to see our 2nd amendment rights preserved as his primary motivation for voting Trump.

I continue to support Cruz.  I very strongly believe that our 2nd amendment right is the MOST important of all of our rights; without it we will have NO rights!

[Silver Pines]

My question is, why did he say those things about people like you and me who have supported him through thick and thin?

What is the possible motive for accusing his supporters of opposing what he was doing in DC and being "liberal Republicans" when we are the polar opposite of that?

Couldn't he have just done what he felt he had to do  (or was forced to do) in endorsing Trump and left out the false accusations against those of us who don't agree with what he did?

In reading those exact words, I am more than disappointed.  Cruz stock has gone down for me significantly.

@musiclady, I wish I could answer your question, but I just don't understand the motive, either.  It makes no sense to me.

You're right...if he believed he had to endorse Trump, that was one thing.  Praising Trump's debate performance is getting into squeamish territory, where the types like Christie and Carson live.  But deliberately mischaracterizing some of his strongest supporters as liberals is stunning to me. 

[XenaLee]

Hugh Hewitt's show this morning who was answering the question of all the pushback Cruz was receiving from Conservatives and Republicans like Beck for his endorsement of Trump:

My 'natural fallback' is not what the MSM parrots sir. 

I would remind the good Senator that the majority of the 'liberal Republican Establishment' has already endorsed Trump.  You were nearly the last man standing. 

Most of the 'rock throwing' at you since your endorsement of Trump has been from principled Conservatives whom are outraged you betrayed them after telling us to vote our conscience back at the Convention.

Yesterday you said on Beck's show that our choice is now binary and if we do not want Hillary, we must vote for Trump, even after you declared him to be a sociopathic liar.  Today you assert the people 'throwing rocks' at you are Liberal Republicans who hated your leadership and fight against Obamacare, when all of us applauded your efforts for doing so.

I disagree.....that, from Cruz's statement right there....that he called us (#neverTrump folks) liberals or liberal Repubicans.  He was talking about all of the RINO supporters there...NOT about his conservative (albeit former) supporters. 

Just my two cents.

[Silver Pines]

Cruz specifically laid out his two primary objectives as to why he is voting for Trump:

#1  To stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president.

#2  Preserve the Supreme Court and our Bill of Rights under the Constitution.  He was very specific and laid out the fact that he met with Mike Pence (the meeting was known about weeks ago) and his answer to Pence was the Supreme Court; consequently a list of 21 acceptable justice nominees were given (including Mike Lee).  Cruz also was specific in stating that he was told that the justice(s) would be picked and voted on from that list.

He also stated that Trump is the only one standing in the way between Hillary and losing our rights.

Once again, and I've stated this before, Cruz represented 31 states before the Supreme Court in Heller v. DC and won.  I have every reason to believe he would like to see our 2nd amendment rights preserved as his primary motivation for voting Trump.

I continue to support Cruz.  I very strongly believe that our 2nd amendment right is the MOST important of all of our rights; without it we will have NO rights!

@libertybele

But why did he say that NeverTrumpers are liberals? 

Look, I'm as well-versed with Cruz's accomplishments as anyone else.  I spent enough time listing them to the morons at TOS, and for friends and family as well.  My in-laws initially supported Cruz, but they fell for the Iowa/Ben Carson lie, and my husband and I tried our best to get them to see sense.  We bought Ted's book and gave it to them.

Bottom line, endorsing Trump is one thing, and I don't even like that.  Becoming a surrogate is another.  But I'm not going to blindly follow someone who calls me a liberal after I worked for him and voted for him and gave him my hard-earned money.

[INVAR]

I think there is a reasonable threshold beyond which you should refuse to concede on an issue of principle.   I am normally a person who insists on principle above all other considerations,   but in this election I have chosen to deviate from Principle because the pragmatic argument is simply too powerful.   

Then they were not really principles you held to begin with.  'Reasonable threshold'? 

Tell that to the Christians in Iraq, Egypt and Syria who are being told to 'convert to Islam or watch your family die'.  To men, that might be a 'reasonable threshold' to surrender your principles, even though there is no guarantee that the Jihadists are not going to kill them and you anyway (making sure you and your family die as Muslims).  It can be argued that deviating from principle because convert now, repent later and save your family is a powerful pragmatic argument.  Certainly a powerful pragmatic argument to the reasoning of men, except that denial of principle will cost them their salvation since Christ said explicitly that if we deny The Father before men, He will deny us before The Father.

That's life and death there.  This is just politics we're talking here.

Anytime you would choose to surrender a principle for pragmatism, you've surrendered your principle completely because you obviously are not governed by it.  It was never a principle to begin with.  Just a guideline that can change for the sake of expedience.

We have from Trump the most significant concession on an issue of principle;  that he will nominate conservative judges,  and he has even supplied us with a list for our perusal.

You have no proof of character that he will nominate such judges, and no hope that the Senate will confirm them given the Democrat promise to block any such nominee.   To surrender principles because of a fool's hope that Trump will NOMINATE someone Conservative - is beyond foolish.  You will end up hearing from Trump that the REALITY of getting a Conservative Justice confirmed is not gonna happen, so Trump has to nominate a less-than-radical liberal that the Senate will agree to confirm.  Because, if anything - life is a sporting event for Trump and he has to 'win', he cannot risk 'losing' a nomination. Your faith in Trump has exceeded your own foundation in what you claim to be principle.

It has become a contest between a rather unprincipled Oskar Schindler sort of fellow and a True believer Socialist-Fascist psychotic hate-witch.   

So Trump is Reagan, Trump is George Washington, Trump is Patton, Trump is Jesus and now Trump is Oskar Schindler.  Trump is all things to all men and all things on every position.  What were you saying about True Believers again?

There is a point at which insisting on principle should require you to lose the political debate

A perfect illustration of Isaiah 30:10 being displayed there.

The most significant issue of principle is whether or not we are going to survive.  At the moment,  that is the only principle which we should be insisting on defending.

Tell that to Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego.  They chose principles over pragmatism. 

So you are willing to surrender EVERYTHING, for the mere promise of "surviving".  That is how slaves are made.  Thanks for demonstrating.

[musiclady]

@musiclady, I wish I could answer your question, but I just don't understand the motive, either.  It makes no sense to me.

You're right...if he believed he had to endorse Trump, that was one thing.  Praising Trump's debate performance is getting into squeamish territory, where the types like Christie and Carson live.  But deliberately mischaracterizing some of his strongest supporters as liberals is stunning to me.

Stunning and entirely unnecessary.

Again, laying out his reasons for the endorsement (which I would disagree with, but as with others, accept) is perfectly acceptable, but there is no reason in the world to insult us with something that is preposterous.

I may be repeating myself, but that part of it makes no sense whatsoever.