Ted Cruz booed off stage at RNC for not endorsing Donald Trump

[Idaho_Cowboy]

The flaw in your argument is you mistakenly assume Cruz is a conservative. A conservative does not argue reasonable gun-control to the Supreme Court, a conservative does not ignore the First and Fourth Amendment rights of conservatives at the Trump rally in Chicago, etc. That's not what a real conservative does.  That's what a deceptive lawyer trying to fake being a conservative does.

Ted Cruz is one of the most conservative Senators in the nation and he has been fighting for conservative causes back when Donald Trump the Billionare Tycoon was still a Democrat friend of the Clintons.

As for Chicago I ask for evidence instead more lies from you.

If you are at all interested in the facts of what Ted Cruz presented to the Supreme court I post the rollowing excerpt.

What Cruz’s brief did say was that “federal law generally prohibit[ing] the possession of both machine guns and firearms that are undetectable by metal detectors and x-ray machines” would not be invalidated if the Court struck down the District of Columbia’s hand-gun ban. There is no evidence that Senator Cruz believes otherwise today. The Heller decision made it clear that the Second Amendment protects firearms “in common use” — such as the 4 million assault weapons Americans own today — but doesn’t protect “weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” such as machine guns and guns designed to evade metal detectors. The claim that Cruz’s brief supported the constitutionality of state bans on assault weapons is based on the brief’s Appendix and is equally false. The brief notes that the 31 states filing it “have a strong interest in maintaining the many state laws prohibiting felons in possession, restricting machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, and the like,” while citing the Appendix. The Left’s argument that Cruz was thereby endorsing the constitutionality of all state gun laws listed in the Appendix is rendered laughable by the fact that the Appendix includes D.C.’s hand-gun ban, the very statute that Cruz’s brief argued must be struck down. In fact, Cruz’s brief went out of the way to note that the 31 amici states for whom he was writing did not agree on the constitutionality of many of the state laws listed in the Appendix. Cruz wrote that “On more difficult questions involving the [Second] Amendment’s application — such as registration requirements and comprehensive regulation — the many amici States may well part ways.”
 Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/344223/another-bogus-attack-ted-cruz-curt-levey

Editted to include link to the full case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[mountaineer]

The flaw in your argument is you mistakenly assume Cruz is a conservative. A conservative does not argue reasonable gun-control to the Supreme Court, a conservative does not ignore the First and Fourth Amendment rights of conservatives at the Trump rally in Chicago, etc. That's not what a real conservative does.  That's what a deceptive lawyer trying to fake being a conservative does.

You just recited Trump's positions.  Kudos.

[beandog]

Look again it was pretty much everybody there. Trump opponents are on the left.

Like I said,  only in the upside down crazy world of a tRumpbot.

[Mechanicos]

Ted Cruz is one of the most conservative Senators in the nation and he has been fighting for conservative causes back when Donald Trump the Billionare Tycoon was still a Democrat friend of the Clintons.

As for Chicago I ask for evidence instead more lies from you.

If you are at all interested in the facts of what Ted Cruz presented to the Supreme court I post the rollowing excerpt.

What Cruz’s brief did say was that “federal law generally prohibit[ing] the possession of both machine guns and firearms that are undetectable by metal detectors and x-ray machines” would not be invalidated if the Court struck down the District of Columbia’s hand-gun ban. There is no evidence that Senator Cruz believes otherwise today. The Heller decision made it clear that the Second Amendment protects firearms “in common use” — such as the 4 million assault weapons Americans own today — but doesn’t protect “weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” such as machine guns and guns designed to evade metal detectors. The claim that Cruz’s brief supported the constitutionality of state bans on assault weapons is based on the brief’s Appendix and is equally false. The brief notes that the 31 states filing it “have a strong interest in maintaining the many state laws prohibiting felons in possession, restricting machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, and the like,” while citing the Appendix. The Left’s argument that Cruz was thereby endorsing the constitutionality of all state gun laws listed in the Appendix is rendered laughable by the fact that the Appendix includes D.C.’s hand-gun ban, the very statute that Cruz’s brief argued must be struck down. In fact, Cruz’s brief went out of the way to note that the 31 amici states for whom he was writing did not agree on the constitutionality of many of the state laws listed in the Appendix. Cruz wrote that “On more difficult questions involving the [Second] Amendment’s application — such as registration requirements and comprehensive regulation — the many amici States may well part ways.”
 Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/344223/another-bogus-attack-ted-cruz-curt-levey

There you go citing to  KNOWN dishonest and anti-trump source who has been proven wrong many times. Doubling down on it does not make it true. I reject any Open Borders (now for Hilary) source that includes this source.

This source LIES.

Ted Cruz: Don't Believe What I Said to the Supreme Court
Fri, 03/15/2013 - 5:19pm — Paul

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz - who notoriously attempted to lecture Sen. Dianne Feinstein yesterday about the Constitution and the Second Amendment, asserting his deep knowledge of the subject as the submitter of an amicus brief representing 31 states in the Supreme Court's Heller case - seems to be caught in a huge contradiction that begs for clarification.

Yesterday, during the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of the assault weapons ban bill, Cruz flatly asserted that the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller decision absolutely prohibits the proposed federal ban on assault weapons. Yet, in the brief he proudly pointed to submitting he claimed that a favorable ruling in the case would not undermine the constitutionality of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which had expired in 2004 and which included many of the weapons inthe current bill. His brief said that "none of the federal firearms regulations discussed in the United States's brief is jeopardized by the Court of Appeals's decision." The federal assault weapons ban was one of those regulations discussed in brief submitted by the United States.

In addition, as the Yelling at the TV blog has pointed out, Cruz's brief also specifically called state assault weapons bans reasonable:

    Indeed, it bears emphasis that amici States likewise have a strong interest in maintaining the many state laws prohibiting felons in possession, restricting machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, and the like. See Appendix.

    But all 31 amici States agree that striking down the District of Columbia's categorical ban on all operative firearms would pose no threat to these reasonable regulations. (emphasis added)

Cruz pointed the Justices to his appendix, where he listed those state laws he regarded as "reasonable" and which would not be threatened by the ruling they ultimately made. Among them are bans on assault weapons in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York.

If Cruz meant what he said to the Supreme Court, then did the Justices say something in Heller that differed from what Cruz was urging them to say?

Or perhaps the difference is that Senator Cruz is now speaking on his own behalf, while as Texas Solicitor General he was advocating a legal position on behalf of his client (the state of Texas). Such a claim would come just a week after Cruz joined other Republicans last week in filibustering Caitlin Halligan's nomination to the DC Circuit on the basis of arguments she made on behalf of her clients, assuming that what an attorney argues in court on behalf of their client reflects their personal beliefs.

It's also one thing to advocate the legal position of a client that you may or may not personally believe (e.g., arguing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms and makes the District of Columbia law unconstitutional). It's another thing to make a factual statement in support of that argument ("this legal interpretation won't affect x, y, and z laws, which are not part of this case") that, it turns out, you believe is false.

Whatever the explanation is, it is something he should explain.

http://blog.pfaw.org/content/ted-cruz-dont-believe-what-i-said-supreme-court

You just got your ass handed to you by a real 2nd Amendment Advocate.

[INVAR]

Had to go and post a SECOND thread with nearly the same title instead of staying on the other "Cruz Booed" thread so you can spam the board with more of your inane crap because you are having your ass handed to you on the other thread.

Pathetic.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

There you go citing to  KNOWN dishonest and anti-trump source who has been proven wrong many times. Doubling down on it does not make it true. I reject any Open Borders (now for Hilary) source that includes this source.

So do you have proof they are misquoting the brief? Go look it up its public record.

Also, I want to thank you for revealing what side you are on. The LA Time is an a-okay source when convient (you know the folks that suggested an armed coup that LA Times), but a consistent and conservative publication like National Review is never to be trusted. Thanks for revealing that your affair with intellectual honesty was both brief and tenuous, like Trumps marriages.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

There you go citing to  KNOWN dishonest and anti-trump source who has been proven wrong many times. Doubling down on it does not make it true. I reject any Open Borders (now for Hilary) source that includes this source.

This source LIES.
http://blog.pfaw.org/content/ted-cruz-dont-believe-what-i-said-supreme-court

You just got your ass handed to you by a real 2nd Amendment Advocate.

So I should believe someone tell me what Cruz said as opposed to the quotes of what Cruz actually said. RIGHT! I posted all 157 pages. You show me were he said what your aritcle claims. You won't because he didn't.

Sometimes the more you have to brag about something the less true it is. Like Trump's hand size.

[Mechanicos]

So do you have proof they are misquoting the brief? Go look it up its public record.

Also, I want to thank you for revealing what side you are on. The LA Time is an a-okay source when convient (you know the folks that suggested an armed coup that LA Times), but a consistent and conservative publication like National Review is never to be trusted. Thanks for revealing that your affair with intellectual honesty was both brief and tenuous, like Trumps marriages.

I'm more conservative than you apparently since you presumed Cruz was a conservative.

[Mechanicos]

So I should believe someone tell me what Cruz said as opposed to the quotes of what Cruz actually said. RIGHT! I posted all 157 pages. You show me were he said what your aritcle claims. You won't because he didn't.

Sometimes the more you have to brag about something the less true it is. Like Trump's hand size.

You were busted now stop embarrassing yourself. Attacking me is a distraction from the fact you lost this.

[INVAR]

I'm more conservative than you apparently since you presumed Cruz was a conservative.

Says the Trump Operative that supports a party and candidate that applauds homosexuals and boos the Constitution while promising revenge on all his enemies while continuing to attack them and ignoring the person they supposedly fear getting into the White House.

You were busted now stop embarrassing yourself. Attacking me is a distraction from the fact you lost this.

Gargantuan projection there little man.  Attacking us at every opportunity is a distraction from the fact you support a liberal Democrat from NYC for President.  The same guy who supported and funded the Clintons AND supported, funded, campaigned and partied with Communist Bill DeBlasio less than 3 years ago.

Some 'conservative' you are.

As in - not at all.

[txradioguy]

I'm more conservative than you apparently since you presumed Cruz was a conservative

This by far is the biggest most blatant and easily proveable lie ever told by a Trump supporter since I've been here.

[geronl]

Cruz tried to sabotage the party for his own agenda of hoping to run in 2020. The next morning he doubled down on it. Hes a traitor to the GOP now and a supporter helping a dem get elected for his own interests. Don't take my word for it, his own Texas delegates said as much. We are going after Hilary.

Cruz spends more time attacking Hillary in his speech than Trump has this month.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I'm more conservative than you apparently since you presumed Cruz was a conservative.

You are honestly trying to tell me Cruz isn't a conservative. 

I guess he should have been saying conservative things like:

Donald Trump 2008: "Hillary Clinton said she’d consider naming Barack Obama as her vice-president when she gets the nomination, but she’s nowhere near a shoo-in. For his part, Obama said he’s just focused on winning the nomination, although at least one member of his team said Clinton would make a good vice-president. (I know Hillary and I think she’d make a great president or vice-president.).”

"Hillary is smart, tough and a very nice person, and so is her husband. Bill Clinton was a great President. They are fine people. Hillary was roughed up by the media, and it was a tough campaign for her, but she's a great trouper. Her history is far from being over."

Donald Trump again showed he agrees with Obama and Clinton on the gun control: Donald Trump 2016: "I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns."

Perhaps you should research the assault weapons ban the Clinton's were so fond of.

If Ted Cruz's perceived faux pas from the past enough for him to lose his status as a conservative in your eyes. Perhaps you should consider what Donald Trump said in 2012.

After the shooting in Newton Obama made a speech that included the following lines:

“We can’t tolerate this anymore, These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law—no set of laws—can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this.”

Trump responded to Obama’s lightly veiled call for more gun control with the following words: “President Obama spoke for me and every American in his remarks in #Newtown Connecticut.

In his book The America We Deserve Trump wrote: “I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,”

Sources: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264386-trump-once-wrote-hillary-clinton-would-be-great-president
https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/the-19-yuugest-classiest-simply-the-best-moments-from-donald#.qhJJ4rRQO
http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/15/no-fly-list-no-guns-trump-agrees-with-ob
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sandy-hook-shooting-obama-spoke-me-462131

[Idaho_Cowboy]

You were busted now stop embarrassing yourself. Attacking me is a distraction from the fact you lost this.

Have you ever heard the one about playing chess with a pigeon? 

[Mechanicos]

Says the Trump Operative that supports a party and candidate that applauds homosexuals and boos the Constitution while promising revenge on all his enemies while continuing to attack them and ignoring the person they supposedly fear getting into the White House.

Gargantuan projection there little man.  Attacking us at every opportunity is a distraction from the fact you support a liberal Democrat from NYC for President.  The same guy who supported and funded the Clintons AND supported, funded, campaigned and partied with Communist Bill DeBlasio less than 3 years ago.

Some 'conservative' you are.

As in - not at all.

I can see you are not good at chess.

Do you think the office of the Presidency acting within the Constitution has any authority over the issue? No, its the legislative branch, Judicial branch, Education and religious liberty.

Now lets look at 3 steps ahead 3D chess type strategy...

Trump has indicated he will rely on such groups as the Heritage Org for judicial picks, He has the RNC platform to return education to local control, and he has promised to get rid of the Johnson amendment of the IRS code that blocks churches from political speech while protecting religious liberty. This is the nuts and bolts that a President actually can do to heal the cancer. But hey, keep the blinders on full, so you can stop the best chance of getting what you want in your lifetime.

[Mechanicos]

Have you ever heard the one about playing chess with a pigeon? 

At least you have not called me a racist, that's a plus in your favor. :smash:

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I can see you are not good at chess.

Do you think the office of the Presidency acting within the Constitution has any authority over the issue? No, its the legislative branch, Judicial branch, Education and religious liberty.

Now lets look at 3 steps ahead 3D chess type strategy...

Trump has indicated he will rely on such groups as the Heritage Org for judicial picks, He has the RNC platform to return education to local control, and he has promised to get rid of the Johnson amendment of the IRS code that blocks churches from political speech while protecting religious liberty. This is the nuts and bolts that a President actually can do to heal the cancer. But hey, keep the blinders on full, so you can stop the best chance of getting what you want in your lifetime.

I'll bet the pigeon could play 3d chess too. Nice change of the topic to something completly irrelvant to what we were talking about.

Which brings me to the Trumpsplaining word of the day:

ob·fus·cate/ˈäbfəˌskāt/
verb
render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
 

[HoustonSam]

Yes I've seen plenty of his work here.  But I've also noticed that he is quick to drop a thread when asked a simple, intellectually honest question based on careful thought with no name-calling or insults.  I'm seeing similar behavior in other outspoken members of the pro-Trump camp as well.

As I was saying, I have not seen a response to my simple question in #15.  Since you're going after Hillary @Mechanicos, can you tell us how the video you posted at the top of this thread advances Trump's candidacy at Hillary's expense?