Cruz: I'm voting for Trump

[bigheadfred]

Ted Cruz is a politician. He can't be an effective politician without some compromise. So for people who are hurt by his endorsement of trump look at it this way. Cruz holds back as long as he can. He has conservative backing, but the powers basically force him to bend to their will. If Cruz has any brains he makes the endorsement on the grounds he gets a nomination for SCOTUS.  He gets a seat there he can be far more effective for a lot longer time than being POTUS for 4 years. He can get back to being Ted Cruz the day after the election at any rate.

[Smokin Joe]

@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.

The "liberal" thing makes no sense to me, either. Of all people, those who embraced the concepts he campaigned on are not Liberals in the modern sense, and Cruz would absolutely know that.

Is this the equivalent of blinking out S O S in Morse code for the cameras in the Hanoi Hilton?

[INVAR]

Exactly how is he going to accomplish that?  Aren't all of us free to vote however we want in the primaries and general elections of 2018 and 2020?  How would he prevent that?

He already is in the process of destroying Conservatism within the GOP.  He is rebranding, redefining and recategorizing what a 'Conservative' is.  Today it is said that a lifelong, NYC Democrat who funded and campaigned for the Clintons, the Schumers and the DeBlasios is 'Conservative'.

By 2018, Hillary could get away with calling herself a Conservative.

By 2020 - Marx and Engels will be regarded as the Fathers of modern Conservative thought.

It's just a political version of defining deviancy down and bastardizing the language so that what was once unacceptable, is now preferred.

Okay, assume Trump wins.  Exactly what do you expect he and his supporters to do to the rest of us?  Be specific.

Aside from the numbers of social media freaks who promise to roam the countryside and 'punish' (meaning shoot for treason) those of us who did not vote for Trump - I will let Trump's campaign Advisor answer that question for you:

"More importantly, every critic, every detractor will have to bow down to President Trump.”"]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/omarosa-critics-bow-down-trump]"More importantly, every critic, every detractor will have to bow down to President Trump.”"

[jmyrlefuller]

I reject your assertions.    They do not bear any resemblance to the reality which I perceive.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why Donald Trump continues to be a contender.

His supporters, great in number, live in an alternate reality.

[Cyber Liberty]

What do you think he meant in those direct quotes, Bigun?

I don't see any media spin with the words I read.  What you think he meant by them?

(Serious, respectful question).

This appears to be the Big Quote under discussion:

TC: 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

I happen to disagree with that assertion, and I don't care if it came from Ted Cruz's own lips.  I'd hazard a guess that not one person on this forum "hated the fact that I have stood up to Washington and the Senate."  I think we were pretty unified in our support when he fought against Chinless McConnell.  Our opinions only diverged when he came out and said we gotta support Trump. 

It is flat-out inaccurate for him to say people who disagree with his Trump endorsement did not support him when he was fighting the GOP leadership.  It simply isn't true, and that's the biggest problem I have with his interview with Hugh.  What's another word for speaking an untruth?  What do we call someone who does it?

[Smokin Joe]

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.

Maybe. That sudden and complete disconnect from reality, fired at people who Cruz knows are Conservative, is such an egregious misstatement, I find it curious, too.
Of course, duh Donald would not like this guy, he was captured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgelmcOdS38

It makes me wonder.

[libertybele]

You haven't found it because it doesn't exist!  This whole thread is about made up media garbage!

Exactly!!   

[Bigun]

What do you think he meant in those direct quotes, Bigun?

I don't see any media spin with the words I read.  What you think he meant by them?

(Serious, respectful question).

I think he was talking about the "leadership" in Washington and most of the media.  Certainly not you and I!

[musiclady]

This appears to be the Big Quote under discussion:

I happen to disagree with that assertion, and I don't care if it came from Ted Cruz's own lips.  I'd hazard a guess that not one person on this forum "hated the fact that I have stood up to Washington and the Senate."  I think we were pretty unified in our support when he fought against Chinless McConnell.  Our opinions only diverged when he came out and said we gotta support Trump. 

It is flat-out inaccurate for him to say people who disagree with his Trump endorsement did not support him when he was fighting the GOP leadership.  It simply isn't true, and that's the biggest problem I have with his interview with Hugh.  What's another word for speaking an untruth?  What do we call someone who does it?

Exactly.  Everyone on this forum, and conservatives all over the place (even those who supported others in the primary) understood that he was one of the only people who went to DC and did what he promised to do.

And I don't see how any other interpretation can be given to those words other than that he is saying those of us who supported him and are now "throwing rocks" at his decision are liberal Republicans.

I fall short of calling him a liar though.  If he would simply apologize and clear up what he really meant, and acknowledge that his supporters aren't liberal in any way, shape or form, I think all would be well.

If he digs in, I will lose respect for him that is not yet lost for me.

[musiclady]

I think he was talking about the "leadership" in Washington and most of the media.  Certainly not you and I!

He's an expert communicator and absolutely brilliant.

Why, then, do his words look like he did mean you and me?  And if he meant the "leadership" in DC, has he clarified that since this interview?  I haven't heard that he has...

My mind isn't made up yet, Bigun.  I'm just telling you what it looks like.

I WANT to have at least one person in Washington I trust.  Believe me!!

[Cyber Liberty]

He's an expert communicator and absolutely brilliant.

Why, then, do his words look like he did mean you and me?  And if he meant the "leadership" in DC, has he clarified that since this interview?  I haven't heard that he has...

My mind isn't made up yet, Bigun.  I'm just telling you what it looks like.

I WANT to have at least one person in Washington I trust.  Believe me!!

I don't think I'd call him a liar (yet) anyway, but I do think he misspoke or was trying, and failing to spin something for someone.  I would like to see him win reelection and stay in the Senate, because he's been a royal PITA to the right people.

[bigheadfred]

This is not compromise.  It is a sellout and a back-stab.  Both.  I will look at it how it appears to me.  You can look at it how it appears to you.  This whole fight is so reminiscent of the Trumpsters that I am disgusted.  I do not see it as a small thing.  Get over it.  See it how ever you want to see it.  Ted Cruz is going to be forever off my list if you guys keep morphing into Trumpsters.

Sorry if you think I am morphing. Just throwing it out there. To me it is a polly acting like a polly. I would count Ted on the SCOTUS a win.

Any ways I am about to launch a campaign on this forum to get every member on board with contacting their reps to the point those pollys get every state represented on this forum to pass agreement to an Article Five Convention. I prolly won't have time to begin my e=mail assault on my reps until this weekend, but I am going to apply all of my bigheadedness to the effort.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

He already is in the process of destroying Conservatism within the GOP.  He is rebranding, redefining and recategorizing what a 'Conservative' is.

No he isn't.  Just because Donald Trump calls a chicken a dog does not magically convert all chickens into man's best friend.  The label itself of limited value because people didn't agree on the definition even before Trump -- people argued whether Bush, McCain, Romney, etc., were conservatives, and didn't agree even then. What matters is that people can still articulate the same principles and ideas, and voters can still chose to vote for them.  The rest is semantics.

Today it is said that a lifelong, NYC Democrat who funded and campaigned for the Clintons, the Schumers and the DeBlasios is 'Conservative'.

Is he?  Do you think he is?

By 2018, Hillary could get away with calling herself a Conservative.

Saying ridiculous things like that just demonstrates that you have no serious argument.  And so what if she did?  It's a label, and we all have evaluated candidates on their actual positions rather than labels for a very long time anyway.  That doesn't change.

By 2020 - Marx and Engels will be regarded as the Fathers of modern Conservative thought.

This isn't a serious argument, so it essentially amounts to you just conceding the point.

[Doug Loss]

Exactly.   Against all the evidence of Hillary's mindset and History,  you irrationally think that other people could be just as bad.

This "lesser evil"  is an issue of scale.    You would have us believe that  we are comparing a rat and a mouse,  the mouse being the "lesser evil."    This comparison is as inaccurate as it can possibly be.   The reality is more that of comparing a Cobra to a Mouse,  because the mouse will just annoy us,  but the Cobra will pose a deadly threat. 

Hillary is the modern day reincarnation of the Nazis in the United States.    Trump is just a greasy capitalist opportunist of dubious ethics.

And in a nutshell, that's the difference between you and us.  You actually believe Clinton is the Devil incarnate.  I agree that she's the vilest candidate for president in my life, but I don't agree that Trump is any better.  Vote your conscience, as I (and the rest of us) will vote mine.

[Doug Loss]

I reject your assertions.    They do not bear any resemblance to the reality which I perceive.

Exactly.  The "reality" you perceive is not what the rest of us can see plainly.

[Doug Loss]

I'm really curious to hear a realistic scenario that will have Trump accomplishing those same results.

You must realize (we certainly do) that the way you phrase your challenge guarantees that you will reject any answer given as "unrealistic."

[Doug Loss]

Sorry if you think I am morphing. Just throwing it out there. To me it is a polly acting like a polly. I would count Ted on the SCOTUS a win.

Any ways I am about to launch a campaign on this forum to get every member on board with contacting their reps to the point those pollys get every state represented on this forum to pass agreement to an Article Five Convention. I prolly won't have time to begin my e=mail assault on my reps until this weekend, but I am going to apply all of my bigheadedness to the effort.

Already done.  Tennessee passed the required resolution some months ago.

[Bigun]

All the people defending Cruz are sounding like Trumpsters defending Trump.  They will not suffer criticism of their man.  Well, tough.  Cruz deserves this criticism.  They can disagree.  I think they should not be bashing the rest of us.  But whatever.  Divide and conquer.  Enjoy your ride on the Trump train.  (Not you.  Them.)

Total unmitigated balderdash!  Every single word of it!  YOU and a few others here are making mountains out of mole hills and you know it!

"TC: 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"

I don't know about you but I never hated the fact that that he stood up to Washington and the Senate!  As a matter of fact I absolutely LOVE him for doing that and wish we had a great many more doing the same exact thing!  He was not talking about me in the above quote! No way no how!

[Bigun]

You can think you know what he meant all you want.  It is not what he said.

It most certainly IS what he said! All of your protestations to the contrary!

[INVAR]

Just because Donald Trump calls a chicken a dog does not magically convert all chickens into man's best friend.  The label itself of limited value because people didn't agree on the definition even before Trump...  The rest is semantics.

Just because there is no scientific fact to back up the claims of man-caused Global Warming doesn't deter the vast majority of the people on the planet who buy into the fraudulent hoax as legitimate.  It is accepted as fact by the majority.  Same thing is happening to Conservatism. 

Just because we do not consider a liberal to be a conservative does not belay the fact that a vast majority of people believe it to be so.  Heck, the majority of the people in this land cannot even agree on what the definition of liberty is, ESPECIALLY among those who self-identify as Conservative.

Is he?  Do you think he is?

It is irrelevant what I think.  I'm a minority.  The vast majority claim that he is and believe it DESPITE the facts of his history and his own words.  Perception IS now reality for the vast amount of those who vote.

Saying ridiculous things like that just demonstrates that you have no serious argument. 

Well, people said I was nuts and ridiculous when I stated that smokers would find themselves banned from lighting up in public places back in the early 80s too.  They convinced themselves that the state needed the tax revenue and would never quasi-criminalize smoking. 

Leftists call themselves 'progressive' and get away with it.  Trump calls himself a Conservative, despite his record and words and a vast majority believe he is.  Why is it ridiculous to suggest Hillary could call herself a Conservative in the future and get away with it?  Who gives a rat's ass what you and I think, it's what Joe Sixpack and the legions of low information voters think.

This isn't a serious argument, so it essentially amounts to you just conceding the point.

Except history teaches that despotic regimes and fundamentally transformed societies REWRITE history to suit their agenda and program their subjects. 

Everyone at one time said the editors at the Munich Post had no serious arguments to make either.

They were proven right in time.

[bigheadfred]

OK people.

Stop talking and start doing. Please.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,227168.msg1072133.html#msg1072133

[Cyber Liberty]

OK people.

Stop talking and start doing. Please.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,227168.msg1072133.html#msg1072133

I disagree with that approach, and will discuss it on that thread.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You must realize (we certainly do) that the way you phrase your challenge guarantees that you will reject any answer given as "unrealistic."

Then you and others would be perfectly free to point out how ridiculous my rejection of the answer is.

Trump is a blowhard.  He says stupid things off the cuff that he can never hope to accomplish, like making Mexico pay for a 40 foot wall.  Even if he wanted to destroy the conservative movement - and I personally think he could care less one way or the other -- I don't see the means he would use.  If you've got an idea, let's hear it.

Hillary isn't a blowhard.  She is conniving, nasty, and most importantly, has the full power of an entrenched political machine, plus a judiciary that is right on the precipice of tipping over into full-scale, structural, left-wing activism.  She is truly a political disease from which we likely will never recover, simply because she could take actions by 2020 that would render it impossible for anyone other than a progressive to win the Presidency.

Trump may well discredit the GOP temporarily, but he is unlikely to effect the same kind of permanent structural change.

[Sanguine]

OK people.

Stop talking and start doing. Please.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,227168.msg1072133.html#msg1072133

@bigheadfred, I agree.  All of this bickering over small (and some large) matters is rendering us completely immobile.  It's like we're mice frozen in place by the snake looming over them.  Drop the kibble and run!

[Silver Pines]

This appears to be the Big Quote under discussion:

I happen to disagree with that assertion, and I don't care if it came from Ted Cruz's own lips.  I'd hazard a guess that not one person on this forum "hated the fact that I have stood up to Washington and the Senate."  I think we were pretty unified in our support when he fought against Chinless McConnell.  Our opinions only diverged when he came out and said we gotta support Trump. 

It is flat-out inaccurate for him to say people who disagree with his Trump endorsement did not support him when he was fighting the GOP leadership.  It simply isn't true, and that's the biggest problem I have with his interview with Hugh.  What's another word for speaking an untruth?  What do we call someone who does it?

@Cyber Liberty
@musiclady
@Smokin Joe

Here's the thing.  As far as I know, and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know of any RINOS in the Senate who are "throwing rocks" at Cruz for supporting Trump.  Haven't they pretty much all fallen in line with the GOP leadership, especially since Priebus sent down his little diktat?