Sen. Ted Cruz closes campaign with a flurry of attacks on Beto O’Rourke

[corbe]

Now @corbe surely you know by now politicians on either side can't read...you silly wabbit. They rely on blind loyalty...at least the Dems do...and they get it. Our side doesn't, which is a good thing. 

   


   Every azzhole locally (I did the primaries), mostly GOP (besides Lloyd Doggett (D), won and my vote wouldn't have mattered @berdie 
   Had Cruz lost by 1 vote, I'd be suicidal, tonight.

[corbe]

I'd rather listen to a deranged Texan about Texas ground-level politics than some Eastern Seaboarder.  Only you guys know Texas as thoroughly as I know AZ.

   And @Cyber Liberty just as I gave the citizens of Arizona a break on the Flake/McCain thing, and Alabama on Roy Moore, This is a Texas thing, we'll figure it out just as the aforementioned did.

   PA and VA gone Blue and these Yankees have the audacity to call me out.    Go Figure.

[Silver Pines]

Why? Because it was a point of discussion. Try to keep up!  This is a discussion forum.

@TomSea

LOL

[Sanguine]

Ted Cruz was plenty popular in Texas, and nationally for that matter given the strength of his Iowa campaign, until Trump did his best to destroy personally both Cruz and Cruz's family, including the morning after securing the nomination at the Republican convention.  There was no long-term strategy or insight behind Trump's behavior, no "flying nine dimensional invisible stealth jedi chess" that only Trump was smart enough to understand, just pure narcissistic malice.  Some of Trump's defenders in the media have suggested that Trump deserves the credit for Cruz's victory because Trump campaigned for Cruz recently; at best Trump was merely helping to solve a problem that he had previously created, a problem which could have put the Republican Senate majority at greater risk.

To Trump's credit he was the first to make illegal immigration a central issue in the 2016 campaign, he has demonstrated to the Republican establishment that their base wants a fight, he's taking a strong position on regulation, and he's been true to his word on Supreme Court nominees.  But the argument that there is simply something wrong with Ted Cruz is a canonical example of viewing the entire political world through the funhouse-mirror lens of exalting every word Trump speaks and every move he makes.

 

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine @IsailedawayfromFR

Not only the Cruz election, but most of the election (with the exception of Abbott) was way too close, imho.

I blame it largely on the influx of east and west coast refugees.

I'm worried.

We should be @berdie. We will have to work very hard to maintain our red status.

[HoustonSam]

@Sanguine  @austingirl

Thanks both of you.

[GrouchoTex]

Ted Cruz was plenty popular in Texas, and nationally for that matter given the strength of his Iowa campaign, until Trump did his best to destroy personally both Cruz and Cruz's family, including the morning after securing the nomination at the Republican convention.  There was no long-term strategy or insight behind Trump's behavior, no "flying nine dimensional invisible stealth jedi chess" that only Trump was smart enough to understand, just pure narcissistic malice.  Some of Trump's defenders in the media have suggested that Trump deserves the credit for Cruz's victory because Trump campaigned for Cruz recently; at best Trump was merely helping to solve a problem that he had previously created, a problem which could have put the Republican Senate majority at greater risk.

To Trump's credit he was the first to make illegal immigration a central issue in the 2016 campaign, he has demonstrated to the Republican establishment that their base wants a fight, he's taking a strong position on regulation, and he's been true to his word on Supreme Court nominees.  But the argument that there is simply something wrong with Ted Cruz is a canonical example of viewing the entire political world through the funhouse-mirror lens of exalting every word Trump speaks and every move he makes.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Ted Cruz was plenty popular in Texas, and nationally for that matter given the strength of his Iowa campaign, until Trump did his best to destroy personally both Cruz and Cruz's family, including the morning after securing the nomination at the Republican convention.  There was no long-term strategy or insight behind Trump's behavior, no "flying nine dimensional invisible stealth jedi chess" that only Trump was smart enough to understand, just pure narcissistic malice.  Some of Trump's defenders in the media have suggested that Trump deserves the credit for Cruz's victory because Trump campaigned for Cruz recently; at best Trump was merely helping to solve a problem that he had previously created, a problem which could have put the Republican Senate majority at greater risk.

To Trump's credit he was the first to make illegal immigration a central issue in the 2016 campaign, he has demonstrated to the Republican establishment that their base wants a fight, he's taking a strong position on regulation, and he's been true to his word on Supreme Court nominees.  But the argument that there is simply something wrong with Ted Cruz is a canonical example of viewing the entire political world through the funhouse-mirror lens of exalting every word Trump speaks and every move he makes.

Right! THe poison started going into the well after Cruz won Iowa, and it just didn't stop until well after the General Election. No way that didn't leave a mark, and there was no long term plan.

[roamer_1]

Ted Cruz was plenty popular in Texas, and nationally for that matter given the strength of his Iowa campaign, until Trump did his best to destroy personally both Cruz and Cruz's family, including the morning after securing the nomination at the Republican convention.  There was no long-term strategy or insight behind Trump's behavior, no "flying nine dimensional invisible stealth jedi chess" that only Trump was smart enough to understand, just pure narcissistic malice.  Some of Trump's defenders in the media have suggested that Trump deserves the credit for Cruz's victory because Trump campaigned for Cruz recently; at best Trump was merely helping to solve a problem that he had previously created, a problem which could have put the Republican Senate majority at greater risk.

Exactly right.

To Trump's credit [...]

No credit due. No credit deserved. You said it all in the first paragraph.I will never trust someone with such an obvious character deficit. If he did it once, he will do it again. Watch and see.

[HoustonSam]

No credit due. No credit deserved. You said it all in the first paragraph.I will never trust someone with such an obvious character deficit. If he did it once, he will do it again. Watch and see.

Didn't say I trust him, and I agree, he will do the same thing again.  He simply is what he is.

The focus on illegal immigration, reduced regulation, and originalist justices is a good thing.  I won't be surprised if Trump moderates or even abandons these positions in order to "make a great, beautiful deal, the best deal you've ever seen, people are saying" with the new Democrat house majority.  But until he *does* abandon these positions I'll credit him for taking them.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yeah. He really blew that election out last night didn't he?

Frank, do you do Abrams math like the loser wins or do you count the votes to see if you have over 50%?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

As a representative and defender of liberty Ted Cruz the best.

But you're right he can't do any good unless he gets elected and stays elected. We need him around for another two or three decades.

There's nothing he can do about his looks. I would hope we as a people were more sophisticated than to vote for looks but thats where we are.

What he can do, IMO, is back off the elevator speech. He's a smart, funny guy and has a great personality. Every now and then you get a glimpse of it but he needs to cultivate it and show it more often.

Well, he can do more than that.

Unlikable people who are defenders of the Constitution and liberty and can win arguments are perfect for lifetime appointments to be federal judges.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

   

   Had Cruz lost by 1 vote, I'd be suicidal, tonight.

No you wouldn't.

You would have cheered as the next candidate for a judicial appointment would have been found.

[Sanguine]

No you wouldn't.

You would have cheered as the next candidate for a judicial appointment would have been found.

No, we would have been stuck with "Beto".  And, that would have been awful.

[roamer_1]

Didn't say I trust him, and I agree, he will do the same thing again.  He simply is what he is.

The focus on illegal immigration, reduced regulation, and originalist justices is a good thing. 

Alas @HoustonSam , I see far less than you do - What I see is all hat and no cattle.

I won't be surprised if Trump moderates or even abandons these positions in order to "make a great, beautiful deal, the best deal you've ever seen, people are saying" with the new Democrat house majority.  But until he *does* abandon these positions I'll credit him for taking them.

Nor will I be surprised. I expect it.

[HoustonSam]

Alas @HoustonSam , I see far less than you do - What I see is all hat and no cattle.

In Trump the man, I certainly agree.

And yet Gorsuch and Kavanaugh actually *do* sit on the SC today.  I credit Trump with no insight or fidelity to originalist principles, indeed I'm sure he has no understanding of any of that.  But he *did* choose from the list of names he was given, and I believe that has moved the court, incrementally, in a desirable direction.

On this issue Trump ordered from the menu without knowing how to prepare the food, but that's all he said he would do.  If the RBG or Breyer seats fall open in the next two years, and Trump is locked in a battle with the Democrats over his personal taxes or some other issue reflecting on his ego as a businessman, I don't put it past him to order off the menu to make a deal.

[XenaLee]

In Trump the man, I certainly agree.

And yet Gorsuch and Kavanaugh actually *do* sit on the SC today.  I credit Trump with no insight or fidelity to originalist principles, indeed I'm sure he has no understanding of any of that.  But he *did* choose from the list of names he was given, and I believe that has moved the court, incrementally, in a desirable direction.

On this issue Trump ordered from the menu without knowing how to prepare the food, but that's all he said he would do.  If the RBG or Breyer seats fall open in the next two years, and Trump is locked in a battle with the Democrats over his personal taxes or some other issue reflecting on his ego as a businessman, I don't put it past him to order off the menu to make a deal.

I don't either.   After all.... getting "the deal" done so he can claim he made ""the best deal evah"" is what I think the main goal with Trump is.  Case in point is the last budget "deal" he made.... funding Planned Parenthood and other leftist agendas.... raising the debt ceiling.....just to avoid a (gasp/shudder) government "shutdown".   If he caves on this next "deal".... his chances in 2020 among Conservatives or Republicans will be cut in half, IMO.  We don't forget as easily or conveniently as the left does.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No, we would have been stuck with "Beto".  And, that would have been awful.

yes, but still have Senate control.

Do you attribute Beto's place in Senate with superman powers?

[roamer_1]

In Trump the man, I certainly agree.

And yet Gorsuch and Kavanaugh actually *do* sit on the SC today. 

Both 'originalists' come out of Kennedy... If they are crafted in his image, then we have traded a Scalia and a Kennedy for two Kennedys, and a more liberal court.

If the RBG or Breyer seats fall open in the next two years, and Trump is locked in a battle with the Democrats over his personal taxes or some other issue reflecting on his ego as a businessman, I don't put it past him to order off the menu to make a deal.

Perhaps a chance at a more moderate court if he gets another pick or two... but never a Conservative one. And I quite agree that he is likely to order 'off the menu' which can only be worse.

As for the Heritage list, one should ask why Jim DeMint stepped down, and whether Heritage is as Conservative as it used to be. It seems one cannot trust anyone anymore. 

[Sanguine]

yes, but still have Senate control.

Do you attribute Beto's place in Senate with superman powers?

No, I attribute Senators with way too much power though.

[Sanguine]

Both 'originalists' come out of Kennedy... If they are crafted in his image, then we have traded a Scalia and a Kennedy for two Kennedys, and a more liberal court.

Perhaps a chance at a more moderate court if he gets another pick or two... but never a Conservative one. And I quite agree that he is likely to order 'off the menu' which can only be worse.

As for the Heritage list, one should ask why Jim DeMint stepped down, and whether Heritage is as Conservative as it used to be. It seems one cannot trust anyone anymore. 

I heard on Glenn Beck, that Mike Lee and Ted Cruz are "in charge" of the list now.  I don't know if that is true or not, but apparently that was an olive branch that Trump extended to Cruz after the campaign. 

[XenaLee]

yes, but still have Senate control.

Do you attribute Beto's place in Senate with superman powers?

Considering that Beto is just another radical open borders leftist... all in for impeaching Trump.... yeah.  He would have been a disaster for Texas and for Trump.  He would have been leading the way for RINOs like Collins & Murkowski to jump ship and vote against the Republican agenda.  Does that answer your question?

[HoustonSam]

After all.... getting "the deal" done so he can claim he made ""the best deal evah"" is what I think the main goal with Trump is.

Government as deal-making became a central theme of Trump's 2016 campaign, and of course he still references that theme.  As applied to international trade I'm open to the idea that existing trade agreements might be disadvantageous to the US, and I appreciate fresh eyes scrutinizing those agreements with US interests as a primary concern.

But I also maintain that "deal-making" is what has put the US Federal Government into unmanageable debt - "you vote for my spending, and I'll vote for yours."  Trump's reduction of limited, constitutional government to "deal-making" is one of the reasons he did not enjoy my support during 2016.

[XenaLee]

Government as deal-making became a central theme of Trump's 2016 campaign, and of course he still references that theme.  As applied to international trade I'm open to the idea that existing trade agreements might be disadvantageous to the US, and I appreciate fresh eyes scrutinizing those agreements with US interests as a primary concern.

But I also maintain that "deal-making" is what has put the US Federal Government into unmanageable debt - "you vote for my spending, and I'll vote for yours."  Trump's reduction of limited, constitutional government to "deal-making" is one of the reasons he did not enjoy my support during 2016.

I totally agree.  Ditto that.  Only thing I will add is.... Trump's past leanings and aversion to solid fiscal conservative principles (balancing the budget) is why I was not convinced that he was really serious about beating Hillary... and then, even if he did, what would we be left (pardon pun) with...?  I have been relieved to see him NOT lean or lurch left thus far.   

[roamer_1]

Government as deal-making became a central theme of Trump's 2016 campaign, and of course he still references that theme.  As applied to international trade I'm open to the idea that existing trade agreements might be disadvantageous to the US, and I appreciate fresh eyes scrutinizing those agreements with US interests as a primary concern.

Would that it were so.
Have you looked at the differences/improvements to NAFTA?

He fluffed it up, and gave unions a foothold in Mexico... whoopee. more winning.