QuoteMultiple sources close to Ted Cruz say the Texas senator is expected indicate his support for Donald Trump as soon as Friday.
It is unclear whether Cruz will say only that he is voting for the Republican nominee, as other lawmakers have done, or offer a more full-throated endorsement, but the idea of throwing any support to Trump is controversial within Cruzworld.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-rival-cruz-to-throw-support-to-gop-nominee-228584#ixzz4L6bjLKl5
http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/09/23/politico-ted-cruz-expected-endorse-trump/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/ted-cruz-endorses-donald-trump/index.html
Is there any political person to trust anymore? :unsure:
Quote from: mrconservative on September 23, 2016, 11:42:05 AM
Is there any political person to trust anymore? :unsure:
I hope Ted Cruz does the right thing for the future of our country!
Quote from: wally on September 23, 2016, 11:44:15 AM
I hope Ted Cruz does the right thing for the future of our country!
He always has.
I did not expect this at all.
Erik Erickson tweeted that Cruz endorsing Trump just probes Cruz detractors correct, that Cruz is self absorbed, not self principled.
Yesterday, one of Trumps minions, Omarosa Manigult, said that eventually all of Trumps haters will bow down to the great Trump. One wonders if she made those comments knowing of a supposed Cruz announcement of support for Trump.
Via Ted Cruz's verified Facebook page...
QuoteThis election is unlike any other in our nation's history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.
In Cleveland, I urged voters, "please, don't stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution."
After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
I've made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that's why I have always been #NeverHillary.
Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices "in the mold of Scalia."
For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.
Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.
Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration's war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.
Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama's lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.
Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration's willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.
Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama's plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.
These are six vital issues where the candidates' positions present a clear choice for the American people.
If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.
My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.
We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.
Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.
The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.
Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.
A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don't want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.
Quote from: mrconservative on September 23, 2016, 12:21:55 PM
Erik Erickson tweeted that Cruz endorsing Trump just probes Cruz detractors correct, that Cruz is self absorbed, not self principled.
Yesterday, one of Trumps minions, Omarosa Manigult, said that eventually all of Trumps haters will bow down to the great Trump. One wonders if she made those comments knowing of a supposed Cruz announcement of support for Trump.
Ted Cruz asked us all to vote our conscience and I believe this is what he is doing now! No doubt he has wrestled with his own conscience. Now, just as I and so many other Conservatives have, Ted Cruz can not in all good conscience, take a chance in not stopping Hillary Clinton and the downward spiral that Obama has set us on! While Trump is not the candidate of my choice and certainly not the candidate of Ted Cruz's choice, he is the candidate that is our only choice to stop Hillary and the Marxists from destroying America! I Believe that..Do you? Apparently this is what (our) candidate has decided! (Kind of a "between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea") Time to put on our Big Boy pants and deal with reality!
Maybe that louse Priebus' threat that if one didn't get on board they would have no chance next election cycle played a part in the thinking. :huh:
Quote from: Dubinsky on September 23, 2016, 01:55:32 PM
Maybe that louse Priebus' threat that if one didn't get on board they would have no chance next election cycle played a part in the thinking. :huh:
I have a higher regard for the integrity of Ted Cruz. I believe that his conscience dictated his change of position. Sometimes the winning strategy may dictate the Quarterback must fall back and punt even when every fiber of his body says he should run! Ted Cruz could not set this one out on the side line and the stakes are just too high to allow emotion to stand in the way of one's better judgement!
Quote from: mrconservative on September 23, 2016, 12:32:37 PM
Via Ted Cruz's verified Facebook page...
I understand, read the post, and still am a bit disappointed in Ted. Punkin the Pollster said, "RNC finally got to him", He would have been better off lying low and staging a comeback in Oct on being a 'True conservative" or something." I feel the same, & replied, "A little disappointed, but... expected". Everyone in politics is tainted, some more than others. I wonder how many votes are changed after threats of political blackmail...?
First they wear down the good guys, and they cave in for one vote, then they use that instance as a threat to ruin their political career if they step out of line. Like the Bush promise, "Read - my - lips, no new taxes" he probably wishes he never said that.
I've always thought of Mike Lee and Ted Cruz as examples of what the average politician ought to be, men of the people. It is a real shame when they are the most conservative, Constitution believing we have in the Senate.
His choice, right or wrong.
Quote from: tac on September 23, 2016, 02:42:48 PM
His choice, right or wrong.
Sad indeed. The GOP knows Trump has no chance of winning without Cruz and his supporters. Problem is, it changes nothing for me. NEVERTRUMP / NEVERHILLARY.
Quote from: Hoofer on September 23, 2016, 02:28:42 PM
I understand, read the post, and still am a bit disappointed in Ted. Punkin the Pollster said, "RNC finally got to him", He would have been better off lying low and staging a comeback in Oct on being a 'True conservative" or something." I feel the same, & replied, "A little disappointed, but... expected". Everyone in politics is tainted, some more than others. I wonder how many votes are changed after threats of political blackmail...?
First they wear down the good guys, and they cave in for one vote, then they use that instance as a threat to ruin their political career if they step out of line. Like the Bush promise, "Read - my - lips, no new taxes" he probably wishes he never said that.
I've always thought of Mike Lee and Ted Cruz as examples of what the average politician ought to be, men of the people. It is a real shame when they are the most conservative, Constitution believing we have in the Senate.
Feel the same way, but this is politics. Hopefully Ted's coming out and saying this cost trump plenty. Guessing here that trump had to make concessions or promises to Ted for the future of our nation. We may never know. Damn, but I still can not vote for trump.
Quote from: mrconservative on September 23, 2016, 12:32:37 PM
Via Ted Cruz's verified Facebook page...
Cruz is clear, and reasoned.
Just what I want from a Supreme Court Justice.
So Mr Trump, is Senator Cruz on THAT list yet ?
Quote from: Hoofer on September 23, 2016, 02:28:42 PM
I understand, read the post, and still am a bit disappointed in Ted. Punkin the Pollster said, "RNC finally got to him", He would have been better off lying low and staging a comeback in Oct on being a 'True conservative" or something." I feel the same, & replied, "A little disappointed, but... expected". Everyone in politics is tainted, some more than others. I wonder how many votes are changed after threats of political blackmail...?
First they wear down the good guys, and they cave in for one vote, then they use that instance as a threat to ruin their political career if they step out of line. Like the Bush promise, "Read - my - lips, no new taxes" he probably wishes he never said that.
I've always thought of Mike Lee and Ted Cruz as examples of what the average politician ought to be, men of the people. It is a real shame when they are the most conservative, Constitution believing we have in the Senate.
Since Cruz has fought several Supreme Court battles (Heller v. DC etc.) and won, I think Scalia's vacancy weighed heavily on him and the fact that at least one other additional justice will probably be appointed. Cruz stated; "We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. T
rump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices 'in the mold of Scalia'".
Cruz unfortunately, is taking him at his word.
..."Cruz also praised Trump for releasing an updated list of potential Supreme Court nominees that includes Sen. Mike Lee. Cruz said he had sought "greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/23/cruz-says-will-vote-for-trump.html
Quote from: s3779m on September 23, 2016, 04:25:27 PM
Feel the same way, but this is politics. Hopefully Ted's coming out and saying this cost trump plenty. Guessing here that trump had to make concessions or promises to Ted for the future of our nation. We may never know. Damn, but I still can not vote for trump.
Completely agree with you on all points. The race is too close for Trump to keep Cruz at arm's length, when he needs him and people like us to secure the WH... that's politics.
Levin and Cruz have this in common, they care more about the USA than themselves, or their careers - actually, that's one of the reasons I still like both of them, I understand the difficulty they went through in making a decision.... and if we're honest, we're all going through the same thing. Of course that thing is exactly what Ted pointed out,
the prospects of Hillary and the clear end of America as we love it.While some talk show hosts might still be fuming over Ted,
it was his move,
and actually delaying the "decision"... yep, I was expecting it, but was wondering if Trump would give him "enough Conservative talking points" to allow Ted to say, "OK, we AGREE on those points (6 of them), you're not nearly as bad as Hillary. Before the Trump-a-loons get all giddy, did Ted actually make any concessions, or was it Donald's "conservative talking points" that allowed the possibility of both Levin and Cruz...? Seriously,
Ted & Mark have not budged a smidgen, they are the same guys, with the same political policies of a year ago!...
just a little bruised for standing on their principles!I'm still disappointed, because I wanted people like Mark Levin and Ted Cruz to become the standard-bearers and lead us to the Conservative Promise Land.... well,
our numbers are still too few. The key for us, Mark Levin "educating" the listening audience, while guys like Mike Lee & Ted Cruz fight on the front lines in the Senate, hopefully we can keep sending them "reinforcements".
We are GROWING in numbers by the public getting educated about the Constitution -and- voters seeing & experiencing first hand the failure of Liberal, Democratic, Socialist policies. Trump doesn't represent anything we know as Conservative - but, he's realizing he needs us, that's a really, really good thing. Trump also has enough balls to tell McConnell to shove it,
if he wants to. So, we actually can "use" him - like Levin alludes to... keep the pressure on him. The goal is to purge the GOP of the liberals.
Yes, I am still quite optimistic, we are not going to 'win' this fight with a couple of elections, but with educating the populace - they will "inherit" the restored America we wanted.
Quote from: Hoofer on September 23, 2016, 06:19:50 PM
Completely agree with you on all points. The race is too close for Trump to keep Cruz at arm's length, when he needs him and people like us to secure the WH... that's politics.
Levin and Cruz have this in common, they care more about the USA than themselves, or their careers - actually, that's one of the reasons I still like both of them, I understand the difficulty they went through in making a decision.... and if we're honest, we're all going through the same thing. Of course that thing is exactly what Ted pointed out, the prospects of Hillary and the clear end of America as we love it.
While some talk show hosts might still be fuming over Ted, it was his move, and actually delaying the "decision"... yep, I was expecting it, but was wondering if Trump would give him "enough Conservative talking points" to allow Ted to say, "OK, we AGREE on those points (6 of them), you're not nearly as bad as Hillary. Before the Trump-a-loons get all giddy, did Ted actually make any concessions, or was it Donald's "conservative talking points" that allowed the possibility of both Levin and Cruz...? Seriously, Ted & Mark have not budged a smidgen, they are the same guys, with the same political policies of a year ago!... just a little bruised for standing on their principles!
I'm still disappointed, because I wanted people like Mark Levin and Ted Cruz to become the standard-bearers and lead us to the Conservative Promise Land.... well, our numbers are still too few. The key for us, Mark Levin "educating" the listening audience, while guys like Mike Lee & Ted Cruz fight on the front lines in the Senate, hopefully we can keep sending them "reinforcements".
We are GROWING in numbers by the public getting educated about the Constitution -and- voters seeing & experiencing first hand the failure of Liberal, Democratic, Socialist policies. Trump doesn't represent anything we know as Conservative - but, he's realizing he needs us, that's a really, really good thing. Trump also has enough balls to tell McConnell to shove it, if he wants to. So, we actually can "use" him - like Levin alludes to... keep the pressure on him. The goal is to purge the GOP of the liberals.
Yes, I am still quite optimistic, we are not going to 'win' this fight with a couple of elections, but with educating the populace - they will "inherit" the restored America we wanted.
Well, perhaps Ted saw that optimism vanish after Hillary grants amnesty to millions; the demographics would change dramatically and he saw absolutely no chance of ANY conservative including himself surviving. With Trump perhaps he saw a very slight minute glimmer of hope and his very last chance. Sad.
Quote from: Hoofer on September 23, 2016, 06:19:50 PM
Completely agree with you on all points. The race is too close for Trump to keep Cruz at arm's length, when he needs him and people like us to secure the WH... that's politics.
Levin and Cruz have this in common, they care more about the USA than themselves, or their careers - actually, that's one of the reasons I still like both of them, I understand the difficulty they went through in making a decision.... and if we're honest, we're all going through the same thing. Of course that thing is exactly what Ted pointed out, the prospects of Hillary and the clear end of America as we love it.
While some talk show hosts might still be fuming over Ted, it was his move, and actually delaying the "decision"... yep, I was expecting it, but was wondering if Trump would give him "enough Conservative talking points" to allow Ted to say, "OK, we AGREE on those points (6 of them), you're not nearly as bad as Hillary. Before the Trump-a-loons get all giddy, did Ted actually make any concessions, or was it Donald's "conservative talking points" that allowed the possibility of both Levin and Cruz...? Seriously, Ted & Mark have not budged a smidgen, they are the same guys, with the same political policies of a year ago!... just a little bruised for standing on their principles!
I'm still disappointed, because I wanted people like Mark Levin and Ted Cruz to become the standard-bearers and lead us to the Conservative Promise Land.... well, our numbers are still too few. The key for us, Mark Levin "educating" the listening audience, while guys like Mike Lee & Ted Cruz fight on the front lines in the Senate, hopefully we can keep sending them "reinforcements".
We are GROWING in numbers by the public getting educated about the Constitution -and- voters seeing & experiencing first hand the failure of Liberal, Democratic, Socialist policies. Trump doesn't represent anything we know as Conservative - but, he's realizing he needs us, that's a really, really good thing. Trump also has enough balls to tell McConnell to shove it, if he wants to. So, we actually can "use" him - like Levin alludes to... keep the pressure on him. The goal is to purge the GOP of the liberals.
Yes, I am still quite optimistic, we are not going to 'win' this fight with a couple of elections, but with educating the populace - they will "inherit" the restored America we wanted.
You make sense
Quote from: Ms.Independence on September 23, 2016, 06:15:00 PM
Since Cruz has fought several Supreme Court battles (Heller v. DC etc.) and won, I think Scalia's vacancy weighed heavily on him and the fact that at least one other additional justice will probably be appointed. Cruz stated; "We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices 'in the mold of Scalia'".
Cruz unfortunately, is taking him at his word.
..."Cruz also praised Trump for releasing an updated list of potential Supreme Court nominees that includes Sen. Mike Lee. Cruz said he had sought "greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/23/cruz-says-will-vote-for-trump.html
We can either take Trump at his word, or Hillary at her word.
We are screwed.
Let's be honest here. Ted is a politician. When he refused to back Trump, Trump's numbers were lower than Obama's IQ. Ted has his career to think about if he wants to remain in the senate and eventually run for president again.
There is also Hillary. She's more miserable than leprosy. Is Ted Wrong? He's doing what we have forsaken. The system has truly screwed us.
Quote from: Rotwang on September 23, 2016, 06:13:13 PM
Cruz is clear, and reasoned.
Just what I want from a Supreme Court Justice.
So Mr Trump, is Senator Cruz on THAT list yet ?
Trump has added names to his list of Supremes
possibles suggestions.
You must think nobody on the left would object if Trump did name Cruz.
QuoteLee is Cruz's BFF in the Senate and the Trump campaign has been nudging Cruz lately to finally come aboard and endorse. If Cruz is holding out on grounds that Trump isn't conservative enough, Trump naming Mike Lee as a potential Supreme Court justice is a quick and easy way to remedy that. An even quicker and easier way would have been to float Cruz himself as a potential nominee, but maybe the politics of that wouldn't have worked. If Trump had put Cruz on the list and then Cruz had endorsed, it would have looked like a venal quid pro quo by Cruz, with Trump having essentially purchased his endorsement by dangling a plum job offer in front of him. If Cruz is going to cave now, he needs to be able to save face by framing his endorsement in terms of principle. Putting Lee on the list instead of him is the perfect way to make that happen.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/23/trump-names-10-judges-possible-supreme-court-picks-including-trump-critic-mike-lee/
Quote from: wally on September 23, 2016, 02:26:26 PM
I have a higher regard for the integrity of Ted Cruz. I believe that his conscience dictated his change of position. Sometimes the winning strategy may dictate the Quarterback must fall back and punt even when every fiber of his body says he should run! Ted Cruz could not set this one out on the side line and the stakes are just too high to allow emotion to stand in the way of one's better judgement!
Not sure that I'm following that line of reasoning. Most of us vowed not to vote for Trump. Some said they would either write Cruz's name in, vote third party or just vote the rest of the ballot and not for president.
So if you're saying the stakes are so are you also saying that we're supposed to jump on board because in a sense, and I repeat...in a sense we're supposed do what Ted now tells after telling us to vote our conscience?
Sorry but this stinks to high heaven. It smacks of promises made behind the scenes or concern born out of personal reasons. I still feel that Reince Preibus's threat that those that don't get on board will never run for President in the future played a big part. That threat was just a few days ago and then Cruz comes out with this. Sorry but I'm not buying Ted's epiphany.
Every alleged conservative politician that supported him was vilified and accused of selling out thus far So should we change our principles now since Ted seems to have sold out? Are we now suddenly going to sing the tune "well Trump is still better than Hillary" or use the "lesser of two evils" excuse? Sorry but I'm not and I'm sorely disappointed with Cruz.
I also recall many saying that Cruz should never back Trump even with a promise from Trump to nominate Cruz for the SC. It's only a promise and we know how steadfast Trump is when he promises something. :rolleyes: Trump changes his mind hourly.
Thankfully the electorate have short memories when it comes to future voting because right now "Ted Caved" is all over the net. Can't see that as being helpful to him now or in the future unless there's more to it. You can see his opponents now touting that he is a phony and caved on his principles. Perhaps not true but it will be said anyway. Think that won't happen?
If this was any other politician we would be calling him a sell-out. Considering how principled Cruz has been it's actually worse when a person that focused and principled...caves in. The reality is that those that vowed not to vote for Trump, probably still won't so just what did Ted gain by doing this? And if one does change their mind then maybe they aren't as principled as they first thought or they were going to vote for Trump anyway and like many will never admit that they did.
All the explanations and attempted justification doesn't change what Cruz had been saying...until yesterday. :rolleyes:
Just a a sampling of what's out there. Not saying I agree entirely. Here's another theory:
Report: Cruz caved over possible primary challengers, and private polling numbers...
This would be a much more cynical explanation than the already damaging "Mike Lee SCOTUS" narrative being put out there. What is most likely is that they're both true.
http://therightscoop.com/report-cruz-caved-over-possible-primary-challengers-and-private-polling-numbers/
Ted Cruz Caves
Ted Cruz wants, above all else, to be president. He's spent years working and strategically plotting toward achieving that goal. After endorsing Donald Trump today, Cruz's chances of becoming president have, it seems to me, nearly evaporated.
I'd heard rumblings last week that Cruz, who had shocked most observers by refusing to endorse Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention in July, was wavering on the subject. So the news that broke today was therefore not entirely unexpected, but it does have a certain surreal quality. This is a disastrously bad decision on Cruz's part, and one that he will come to regret. He fully deserves the criticism and scorn being heaped on him today and the realization he will have—albeit only now that it's too late—is that this was not a mistake he could afford to make.
First, both of the reasons Cruz gave for his decision, in a statement he posted on Facebook Friday afternoon—that he signed a pledge and that Hillary Clinton is unacceptable—are demonstrably ridiculous. Even if you agree that Clinton is more "unacceptable" than Trump, and that a pledge made to the Republican National Committee should take precedence over one's oath of office and one's repeated promises to work for the 27 million people of Texas, it remains the case that Cruz signed the pledge last year and could have known, months ago, that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee.
At the same time, I'm aware that even before today's news, it was tricky to persuade anyone to consider giving Cruz the benefit of the doubt about anything—and after today, it will be impossible. Either his endorsement is a pack of lies, or his speech at the RNC was: they can't both be true.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/ted-cruz-caves/
So the Constitutional Conservative Ted Cruz is now a follower of the liberal democrat Donald Trump.
Maybe just maybe Donald Trump isn't that liberal or Ted Cruz isn't that Conservative. Maybe we call it a wash both RINOS.
How can Ted Cruz stand before us on any platform and tell us about Conservative value when he is now a follower of the liberal Donald Trump...?
Sad day for me, my pocket, our Constitution, and our nation.
I can never believe the man again.
Quote from: Dubinsky on September 24, 2016, 04:30:31 AM
Not sure that I'm following that line of reasoning. Most of us vowed not to vote for Trump. Some said they would either write Cruz's name in, vote third party or just vote the rest of the ballot and not for president.
So if you're saying the stakes are so are you also saying that we're supposed to jump on board because in a sense, and I repeat...in a sense we're supposed do what Ted now tells after telling us to vote our conscience?
Sorry but this stinks to high heaven. It smacks of promises made behind the scenes or concern born out of personal reasons. I still feel that Reince Preibus's threat that those that don't get on board will never run for President in the future played a big part. That threat was just a few days ago and then Cruz comes out with this. Sorry but I'm not buying Ted's epiphany.
Every alleged conservative politician that supported him was vilified and accused of selling out thus far So should we change our principles now since Ted seems to have sold out? Are we now suddenly going to sing the tune "well Trump is still better than Hillary" or use the "lesser of two evils" excuse? Sorry but I'm not and I'm sorely disappointed with Cruz.
I also recall many saying that Cruz should never back Trump even with a promise from Trump to nominate Cruz for the SC. It's only a promise and we know how steadfast Trump is when he promises something. :rolleyes: Trump changes his mind hourly.
Thankfully the electorate have short memories when it comes to future voting because right now "Ted Caved" is all over the net. Can't see that as being helpful to him now or in the future unless there's more to it. You can see his opponents now touting that he is a phony and caved on his principles. Perhaps not true but it will be said anyway. Think that won't happen?
If this was any other politician we would be calling him a sell-out. Considering how principled Cruz has been it's actually worse when a person that focused and principled...caves in. The reality is that those that vowed not to vote for Trump, probably still won't so just what did Ted gain by doing this? And if one does change their mind then maybe they aren't as principled as they first thought or they were going to vote for Trump anyway and like many will never admit that they did.
All the explanations and attempted justification doesn't change what Cruz had been saying...until yesterday. :rolleyes:
I am speaking for myself and I made no such "Never Trump" pledge. Ted Cruz did make a pledge and he is keeping his word..As difficult as it is for us to accept, I am sure it is even more difficult for Ted Cruz to have to eat shit, swallow hard and endorse our only choice of stopping Hillary from destroying America. The only thing I focus on is that! (I am not a Trumpster and hate how he has divided us...but there is no other way to stop Hillary Clinton and the far left loons from making our country into a Marxist Dictatorship!)
Quote from: wally on September 24, 2016, 05:08:41 AM
I am speaking for myself and I made no such "Never Trump" pledge. Ted Cruz did make a pledge and he is keeping his word..As difficult as it is for us to accept, I am sure it is even more difficult for Ted Cruz to have to eat shit, swallow hard and endorse our only choice of stopping Hillary from destroying America. The only thing I focus on is that! (I am not a Trumpster and hate how he has divided us...but there is no other way to stop Hillary Clinton and the far left loons from making our country into a Marxist Dictatorship!)
And who's going to stop the liberal Trump...? Your vote...?....lol
Quote from: wally on September 24, 2016, 05:08:41 AM
I am speaking for myself and I made no such "Never Trump" pledge. Ted Cruz did make a pledge and he is keeping his word..As difficult as it is for us to accept, I am sure it is even more difficult for Ted Cruz to have to eat shit, swallow hard and endorse our only choice of stopping Hillary from destroying America. The only thing I focus on is that! (I am not a Trumpster and hate how he has divided us...but there is no other way to stop Hillary Clinton and the far left loons from making our country into a Marxist Dictatorship!)
I understand and I was speaking for myself as well. My thought is that who stops Trump which takes us back once again to the lesser of two evils scenario and I see Rrump as potentially just as evil and destructive as Hillary in his own way. He's certainly no conservative and is likely clueless as to the Constitution and what it really means. The guy can't even hold steadfast to his positions for more than a week.
Ted did not have to eat "shit and swallow hard" as you say. In fact, I think he did himself more harm than good among his supporters. He'll lose many of those but he will NOT gain any from the ranks of those who have already proclaimed they would never vote for him. What's the gain here? He isn't changing my mind (and I doubt that I'm alone on that) except to take a long hard look if I will ever support him again.
He'd better hope that he get that SC nomination because in my opinion, and maybe it's just mine, he will never get elected now. He will be ridiculed and vilified even more. They LSM will pound him further as "Lying Ted" and point out that he lies to his constituents, true or not when he said he would not support Trump. It's seen as capitulation, not as the right thing to do...unless of course one was already voting for Trump anyway.
I'd ask myself if Trump isn't just as much a threat as a "Marxist" as Hillary is. Sorry but everyone is free to vote as they please and I will as well...but not for Trump and the way I feel right now...never for Cruz either. In fact, it gives new meaning and impetus to the name "Lying Ted". Suffice it to say, Ted may not care what I think but I'm sorely disappointed with him. He gains nothing from this unless he cut a backroom deal that offers him something in return for his selling out. And yes I know, imagine all the great things he can do on the SC...or maybe not.
Just MHO.
Quote from: Dubinsky on September 24, 2016, 06:12:44 AM
I understand and I was speaking for myself as well. My thought is that who stops Trump which takes us back once again to the lesser of two evils scenario and I see Rrump as potentially just as evil and destructive as Hillary in his own way. He's certainly no conservative and is likely clueless as to the Constitution and what it really means. The guy can't even hold steadfast to his positions for more than a week.
Ted did not have to eat "shit and swallow hard" as you say. In fact, I think he did himself more harm than good among his supporters. He'll lose many of those but he will NOT gain any from the ranks of those who have already proclaimed they would never vote for him. What's the gain here? He isn't changing my mind (and I doubt that I'm alone on that) except to take a long hard look if I will ever support him again.
He'd better hope that he get that SC nomination because in my opinion, and maybe it's just mine, he will never get elected now. He will be ridiculed and vilified even more. They LSM will pound him further as "Lying Ted" and point out that he lies to his constituents, true or not when he said he would not support Trump. It's seen as capitulation, not as the right thing to do...unless of course one was already voting for Trump anyway.
I'd ask myself if Trump isn't just as much a threat as a "Marxist" as Hillary is. Sorry but everyone is free to vote as they please and I will as well...but not for Trump and the way I feel right now...never for Cruz either. In fact, it gives new meaning and impetus to the name "Lying Ted". Suffice it to say, Ted may not care what I think but I'm sorely disappointed with him. He gains nothing from this unless he cut a backroom deal that offers him something in return for his selling out. And yes I know, imagine all the great things he can do on the SC...or maybe not.
Just MHO.
I share you perception of Trump, as well as our common anxiety about the choice we have this election. The best predictor of future behavior is always past behavior. The only reason I can see for not supporting Trump is "The Devil you know may be better than the Devil you don't (know)". I cn't sit on my hands and allow others to determine the future of my country. Too much is at stake! I have decided (for myself) that I can not sit on the sidelines and merely pitch a fit and piss and moan about this thing. I have decided that I must do everything I can to stop Hillary from becoming POTUS. The left wing, from the media to the progressives of both parties, are all trying to fix this election in favor of her and (their)shared common cause(s). Trump is the only way to stop them. Do you see another alternative?
Quote from: wally on September 24, 2016, 06:32:15 AM
I share you perception of Trump, as well as our common anxiety about the choice we have this election. The best predictor of future behavior is always past behavior. The only reason I can see for not supporting Trump is "The Devil you know may be better than the Devil you don't (know)". I cn't sit on my hands and allow others to determine the future of my country. Too much is at stake! I have decided (for myself) that I can not sit on the sidelines and merely pitch a fit and piss and moan about this thing. I have decided that I must do everything I can to stop Hillary from becoming POTUS. The left wing, from the media to the progressives of both parties, are all trying to fix this election in favor of her and (their)shared common cause(s). Trump is the only way to stop them. Do you see another alternative?
Sound to me your vote is going to a liberal democrat.
Quote from: Bronx on September 24, 2016, 07:08:40 AM
Sound to me your vote is going to a liberal democrat.
Who are you voting for? Not much of a choice.
Do you intend to just sit this one out, regardless of the potential harm to our freedoms and even the possible end of conservatism as a meaningful opposition to the communist movement that is taking over our country.
A parable comes to mind; Isn't it better to light one candle than to forever curse the darkness?
Which to you prefer our weak Congress dominated by (controlled) by an Alynsky trained Marxist POTUS or having all three branches of our government under Republican control and the chance of have conservative voices heard and the chance of having conservative positions matter?
Quote from: wally on September 24, 2016, 07:47:12 AM
Who are you voting for? Not much of a choice.
Do you intend to just sit this one out, regardless of the potential harm to our freedoms and even the possible end of conservatism as a meaningful opposition to the communist movement that is taking over our country.
A parable comes to mind; Isn't it better to light one candle than to forever curse the darkness?
Which to you prefer our weak Congress dominated by (controlled) by an Alynsky trained Marxist POTUS or having all three branches of our government under Republican control and the chance of have conservative voices heard and the chance of having conservative positions matter?
I see the problem. You're under the illusion there's a difference in the two party's. There is NOT!!!!
Quote from: Solar on September 24, 2016, 08:22:02 AM
I see the problem. You're under the illusion there's a difference in the two party's. There is NOT!!!!
Have a solution?
Quote from: wally on September 24, 2016, 08:46:52 AM
Have a solution?
Yes, as I said in another post, steal the GOP from the leftists.
Quote from: Solar on September 24, 2016, 08:53:44 AM
Yes, as I said in another post, steal the GOP from the leftists.
This is a good idea. I think when (if) we control both Houses of Congress and have a Republican in the Whitehouse, we have a better chance of having a conservative Justices appointed to the SCOTS (perhaps Mike Lee) and regardless of the crap President Trump may pull, we (Conservatives) may be able to accomplish this goal (stealing the GOP from the RINOs) during the midterms.
If Hillary is elected we ay never have a chance to do anything to advance conservatism. Conservitism will be stifled just as they did with the Tea Party in 2012. They have been getting away with illegally using the government to classify anything that does not support their agenda as Hate Speech. Hillary's election will embolden them and it will be like Obama's Presidency on steroids! What makes you think if Hillary is not defeated, we will be able to "steal the GOP" or if it would even matter anymore. There will be a one party system in the new United Socialist States of America!
Quote from: Solar on September 24, 2016, 08:53:44 AM
Yes, as I said in another post, steal the GOP from the leftists.
Hell, the GOP was started on leftism.
Hey Shooterman! (Just wanted to say "Hi", it's been awhile)
Quote from: wally on September 24, 2016, 09:55:30 AM
Hey Shooterman! (Just wanted to say "Hi", it's been awhile)
Yes it has, Wally. Hope you are doing well.
Quote from: wally on September 24, 2016, 07:47:12 AM
Who are you voting for? Not much of a choice.
Do you intend to just sit this one out, regardless of the potential harm to our freedoms and even the possible end of conservatism as a meaningful opposition to the communist movement that is taking over our country.
A parable comes to mind; Isn't it better to light one candle than to forever curse the darkness?
Which to you prefer our weak Congress dominated by (controlled) by an Alynsky trained Marxist POTUS or having all three branches of our government under Republican control and the chance of have conservative voices heard and the chance of having conservative positions matter?
No sitting out for me. i will vote for the Constitutional Conservative up and down the ticket. If none I will move on to the next.
I will not vote for a liberal democrat being it Trump or hillary.
Quote from: Bronx on September 24, 2016, 12:23:24 PM
No sitting out for me. i will vote for the Constitutional Conservative up and down the ticket. If none I will move on to the next.
I will not vote for a liberal democrat being it Trump or hillary.
Well, since there is no constitutional conservative on the ballot, I guess you mean you will be writing in a candidate of your choosing. Isn't this akin to not voting at all? If Hillary Clinton is elected by a very narrow margin and subsequently we lose our great nation to Marxism. What then? OOPS! Wish there had been something I could have done to prevent this? For all his (many) faults, Donald Trump is not an ideologue, while Hillary Clinton has proved herself to be an ardent Ideologue who is hell bent on reshaping this country using all of Saul Alynsky's teachings!
Quote from: wally on September 24, 2016, 01:02:40 PM
Well, since there is no constitutional conservative on the ballot, I guess you mean you will be writing in a candidate of your choosing. Isn't this akin to not voting at all? If Hillary Clinton is elected by a very narrow margin and subsequently we lose our great nation to Marxism. What then? OOPS! Wish there had been something I could have done to prevent this? For all his (many) faults, Donald Trump is not an ideologue, while Hillary Clinton has proved herself to be an ardent Ideologue who is hell bent on reshaping this country using all of Saul Alynsky's teachings!
So this will be the year
more then 40% of people that could vote will not vote.
Quote from: walkstall on September 24, 2016, 01:25:05 PM
So this will be the year more then 40% of people that could vote will not vote.
I hope this does not become our epitaph!
Quote from: wally on September 24, 2016, 01:02:40 PM
Well, since there is no constitutional conservative on the ballot, I guess you mean you will be writing in a candidate of your choosing. Isn't this akin to not voting at all? If Hillary Clinton is elected by a very narrow margin and subsequently we lose our great nation to Marxism. What then? OOPS! Wish there had been something I could have done to prevent this? For all his (many) faults, Donald Trump is not an ideologue, while Hillary Clinton has proved herself to be an ardent Ideologue who is hell bent on reshaping this country using all of Saul Alynsky's teachings!
Are you blind to the fact that Trump is a liberal democrat freak and that is what you will be voting for.
Please tell me how wrong I am on that...please.
Quote from: Bronx on September 24, 2016, 03:32:26 PM
Are you blind to the fact that Trump is a liberal democrat freak and that is what you will be voting for.
Please tell me how wrong I am on that...please.
Well Trump MAY appoint a non Dem political judge. :rolleyes: He think his is a great judge. :ohmy:
Quote from: walkstall on September 24, 2016, 03:41:44 PM
Well Trump MAY appoint a non Dem political judge. :rolleyes: He think his is a great judge. :ohmy:
I don't believe a word Trump says. If he told me it was raining outside I would have to go outside and see for myself.
He has flip flopped on EVERYTHING including lyin' Ted Cruz's endorsement.
Hillary will stab you in the front while Trump will stab you in the back.
"We're now on Day Two of The Great Ted Cruz Decision, and people are still upset, confused, irritated, and any other manner of generally negative emotion. They don't know if they can trust him or if he really was what he said he was. And, I would agree that they are right to question him and his standards. They have every reason to. Of course, one of the big concerns is that we as a society tend to follow cults of personality when it comes to politicians.
The same can and should be said of Ted Cruz, or more broadly, politicians as a group, to include Ted Cruz. Ted was deified as the arch conservative. Possibly even the second coming of Ronald Reagan, who today is revered like a god of old within conservative circles. It's true that for the conservative movement, both men have heralded the right ideas and very much seem to have supported them.
But, it's when we put guys like Ted Cruz (or Marco Rubio, or Rick Perry, or, again, anyone else for that matter) up on these immortal pedestals that we get in trouble when they screw up. As they inevitably will. The question then becomes whether we dump them or not.
Several people I know and trust will swear off Cruz forever. Several more will stick with him. Even more will say they never liked the guy because they always knew he was a self-serving, ambitious impostor of a conservative. Many people, many more than exist on Political Twitter or in your Facebook feed, will just be confused. Because these are extremely confusing times.
Instead we should treat Cruz, Rubio, and anyone we send to any political office like an investment. Any time a politician screws up - and they will because (PAY ATTENTION HERE) they are human - you should not dump them immediately. You need to look at their body of work. Is this one event in a pattern of screw-ups? Or is this something new?
Right now, one bad decision is all that most conservatives have to judge Cruz by. And, yes, it is a big one and, yes, it is one that we will judge him on more harshly than, say, him voting to increase the federal budget. It is just one decision, however, and the question is whether or not conservatives think it outweighs the good Cruz has done and can continue to do."
http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/09/25/politicians-like-ted-cruz-treated-investments-gods/
Quote from: Dubinsky on September 25, 2016, 05:43:18 AM
"We're now on Day Two of The Great Ted Cruz Decision, and people are still upset, confused, irritated, and any other manner of generally negative emotion. They don't know if they can trust him or if he really was what he said he was. And, I would agree that they are right to question him and his standards. They have every reason to. Of course, one of the big concerns is that we as a society tend to follow cults of personality when it comes to politicians.
The same can and should be said of Ted Cruz, or more broadly, politicians as a group, to include Ted Cruz. Ted was deified as the arch conservative. Possibly even the second coming of Ronald Reagan, who today is revered like a god of old within conservative circles. It's true that for the conservative movement, both men have heralded the right ideas and very much seem to have supported them.
But, it's when we put guys like Ted Cruz (or Marco Rubio, or Rick Perry, or, again, anyone else for that matter) up on these immortal pedestals that we get in trouble when they screw up. As they inevitably will. The question then becomes whether we dump them or not.
Several people I know and trust will swear off Cruz forever. Several more will stick with him. Even more will say they never liked the guy because they always knew he was a self-serving, ambitious impostor of a conservative. Many people, many more than exist on Political Twitter or in your Facebook feed, will just be confused. Because these are extremely confusing times.
Instead we should treat Cruz, Rubio, and anyone we send to any political office like an investment. Any time a politician screws up - and they will because (PAY ATTENTION HERE) they are human - you should not dump them immediately. You need to look at their body of work. Is this one event in a pattern of screw-ups? Or is this something new?
Right now, one bad decision is all that most conservatives have to judge Cruz by. And, yes, it is a big one and, yes, it is one that we will judge him on more harshly than, say, him voting to increase the federal budget. It is just one decision, however, and the question is whether or not conservatives think it outweighs the good Cruz has done and can continue to do."
http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/09/25/politicians-like-ted-cruz-treated-investments-gods/
FOR THE RECORD THE ONLY REASON i STOOD WITH TED WAS DUE TO his knowledge and respect for the constitution and nothing more...he is a republican after all...
so his support for trump is disturbing after all that has happened but what do you expect from a GOPer..they protect their own even if its a fake like trump...
PARTY FIRST and fck the people..
my biggest problem is that he would rather pass the buck to his children then stand on principle and fight...
as for me I only have a few more yrs of fighting strength left and would rather fight now instead of dumping it on my children..
IF THERE BE A FIGHT BRING IT TO ME SO MY CHILDREN MAY LIVE IN PEACE!!!
I almost want to vote for hilary to bring this to a head but would not want it to cause a mandate to encourage the evil that has come to us ...anyway the constitution has taken maybe its last hit ...who knows ....time will tell
I am angry at cruz right now ...he should have just kept his mouth shut ...I may in the future support him if that chance arises ...again who knows if that chance will come
we have passed this on to our children to many times and it has to stop...
when I say we I do mean D's & R's...cause I have never voted for one of them at the fed. level...EVER..cause I learned at a young age what these people are
I need more coffee
Quote from: Bronx on September 25, 2016, 05:15:50 AM
I don't believe a word Trump says. If he told me it was raining outside I would have to go outside and see for myself.
He has flip flopped on EVERYTHING including lyin' Ted Cruz's endorsement.
Hillary will stab you in the front while Trump will stab you in the back.
AGREE 100% "Never Trust a Politician or someone over 30yrs." we use to hear during the Nixon administration.
And this stupid GOPe pledge nonsense, EVERYONE, including Sean Hannity, should have quit using it as a "wedge" within the GOP. Trump was the first one to bail, but where was the GOPe after Trump crossed the "red line"?
Oh, I guess that only applies to Ted Cruz, not Trump!? Kasich - why not a peep out of Hannity or the GOPe.
YES, I'll NEVER trust a word Sean Hannity says AGAIN! Period He ran with a pledge Trump broke and caused further fracturing and division within the Republican Party, to the point it'll never be unified before the Elections.
If Hillary WINS, we can THANK SEAN HANNITY for driving the wedge, day after day & hardening the opposition to Trump instead of wooing anti-Trump people back to the GOP. Threatening and belittling, implying we & Ted are 'sore losers' for not parking our brains & liberty at the door and drinking the Trump koolaide. Everyone who berated, belittles and bullies the non-Trump supporters have some real "Soul Searching" to do, starting with, "What did I do to WIN OVER the fence sitters, the disenfranchised Ted Cruz 35% of the electorate?" NOTHING! Instead of trying to win US over, we got everything from our integrity to our intelligence questioned (which we accurately question FOX and the BOUGHT OFF news media - who have made a point of picking favorites for decades). If these PAID political advocates got out of their echo-chambers, they might realize there are millions and millions of people just like us, who are really sick and tired of someone else telling us to vote this way or that, and assuming we're the stupid ones.
If Ted Cruz got down on both knees and begged Donald Trump to accept an endorsement Trump said he didn't want, would that make Hannity shut up and start making nice? I doubt it, these "conservative liberals" have a vested interest in ... well, they DO work for Liberals, and after years to
kissing the rings of their Liberal masters - they find a warm kindred spirit in their Liberal candidate, Donald Trump. All together now, Sean, Laura, Mike, Rush - "Finally, someone we can all agree upon in the Republican Party, Hail Donald!!! You TEA party folks, just shut the hell up and vote Donald!" They would answer "US" with
the usual, mightier-than-thou, "a nobody", "some worthless mass of flesh, a blogger", "a nothing, some guy in pajamas" - as if they "OWN" the minds of the electorate, and independent thought is an impossibility without them. To tell the truth, if we met on the street, I wouldn't recognize them any more than they're recognize me - to me,
we have equality, ONE VOTE.
And my vote is my Conscience, not yours, 100% MINE.TEA is alive and well - ignore our no-votes and write-in votes at your peril, GOPe, RINOs & bought off MSM and talk show hosts, there is a whole new League of Constitutional Conservatives rising up. We don't need a Political Party like the GOP or TEA, because we are individual voters, with
a singular cause, returning the USA to it's Constitutional roots & reining in this bloated, corrupt government. Talk is cheap, coming from these so-called "conservative talk show hosts" - they promoted their Liberal buddies on one hand and lamented, "Oh, the terrible corruption on the other" - they're bought and paid for political pundits! Years and years they've warned us against the "political liberal bias in the mainstream news media" - but this election cycle, everyday is clear evidence, these "Moles" in the Conservative movement have one goal, enriching themselves & screw the USA.
Eric Erickson suggested some of us like to put Conservatives up on pedestals & revere them as gods. That's for the short-sighted folks, the Conservative talk show hosts, the Trump-a-loons who parked their brains in neutral and wildly fantasize
a known Democratic Liberal with an "R" stuck to his keister is going to "save" America. We've always taken the long-view, it took decades of liberal indoctrination to screw up this electorate, it'll take decades to get us back to order and sanity. We don't need these daytime, soap opera era entertainers, polluting our cause.
Eric, get a hold of yourself, Ted's STILL a good guy, on our side - we're not the ones fainting when Ted held a rally.None of us absolutely agree 100% with each other, neither have the Democrats. Yet these media pundits seem to think, "If only the Conservatives would come together, park their brains... we could win it all."
Sorry, MSM talk show hosts, you're still not the solution, you're the problem. Why would we want to agree 100% with those on "our side", Eric Erickson & Mark Levin, when I like Kosher Swedish Meatballs without Onion and Levin likes his with Parmesan?
We need to ask Erickson - ohhh, this could be a deal breaker!!! OMG! There's no unity! Cruz caved! We're all doomed! The GOPe won! Tears & sobbing, choking & crying in my beer...!
..yes, times like this, a dog IS man's best friend - they'll listen to anything, and don't drink much beer. We DO agree where it counts, the United States of America Constitution.What do I REALLY think? Mark Levin & Hillsdale College has stumbled onto something, or we stumbled on to him - whatever, 'they' have the L_O_N_G view in mind. Whether it's the Convention of States, or returning to the principles our nation was founded upon - the Constitution, that's where we need to focus, IMO.
Educating the electorate. If we want a litmus test, we can frame EVERY QUESTION over understanding and adherence to the Constitution. The potential Candidate either understands and adheres, giving well reasoned responses, or we flat out REJECT the bastard as something other than American.
If I were "given" the opportunity to ask a debate question, I'd make it a solid Constitutional one, and require ALL parties answer. None of these hot-button crap quesitons, that have no basis in our future as Americans. If nothing else is gained through the debates (a worthless exercise in political correctness, IMO), at least
someone could ask a simple question: "The 5th Amendment states... why is an essential right for every American?" Make the SOBs either deny or support the Constitution, and educate the viewers with one question.
If I were a moderator, hell... I'd start with the 1st Amendment and work right down the line with pointed questioning! With any limp-wristed, wet noodle answer, I'd fire back, "The Oath of Office you'll swear to uphold the Constitution, the public has a right to know, do you BELIEVE it or are you going to LIE when you take the oath of office!?"BTW - Solar, I'm with you, we're gonna take back the GOP - I see nothing but continued fracturing and division in these 3-party options - their only practical use is a "protest vote" which would be muted anyways. Consider Cruz & Lee as Constitutional plants, more on the way.
Quote from: mrconservative on September 23, 2016, 11:42:05 AM
Is there any political person to trust anymore? :unsure:
I trust Cruz to do what is best for HIMSELF first.
And for US second.
Which is a whole lot better than most of them, which NEVER do what is in OUR interest.
Quote from: walkstall on September 24, 2016, 01:25:05 PM
So this will be the year more then 40% of people that could vote will not vote.
I don't want LIBS to Vote.
Quote from: Rotwang on September 25, 2016, 11:43:09 AM
I don't want LIBS to Vote.
Too late they crossed over and voted for Trump.
Do not be a Glen Beck Crybaby.
Anyone who does not vote or does not vote for Trump is helping hillary.
The future of the Supreme Court and the future of America will be decided in this election. If you do not vote for Trump you are helping hillary.
In fact, this is the very last chance the Republican Party will have to ever win the White House.
The demographics are rapidly changing. They will change much quicker if hillary gets in and brings in millions more of muslims and mexicans.
Stand up and be a man. Help make America Great Again. I gurantee you all, that anyone who does not vote for Trump and thus contributes to a hillary victory will go to their grave regretting it. Most especially if hillary wins.
Principles are principles and principles are good. Yet there is no greater principle than to do everything possible to prevent a hillary victory. Anyone who cannot grasp that is severely deluded.
Sure, I like most conservatives would have loved to see Cruz win but unfortunately that did not happen. One can cry like Glen Beck and try and tear down Trump or one can understand that with a Trump victory that will eventually help Cruz to rise up once again and seize the party leadership. Whereas on the other hand a hillary victory will make that impossible.
Quote from: Coyote9 on September 25, 2016, 03:24:45 PM
Do not be a Glen Beck Crybaby.
Anyone who does not vote or does not vote for Trump is helping hillary.
The future of the Supreme Court and the future of America will be decided in this election. If you do not vote for Trump you are helping hillary.
In fact, this is the very last chance the Republican Party will have to ever win the White House.
The demographics are rapidly changing. They will change much quicker if hillary gets in and brings in millions more of muslims and mexicans.
Stand up and be a man. Help make America Great Again. I gurantee you all, that anyone who does not vote for Trump and thus contributes to a hillary victory will go to their grave regretting it. Most especially if hillary wins.
Principles are principles and principles are good. Yet there is no greater principle than to do everything possible to prevent a hillary victory. Anyone who cannot grasp that is severely deluded.
Sure, I like most conservatives would have loved to see Cruz win but unfortunately that did not happen. One can cry like Glen Beck and try and tear down Trump or one can understand that with a Trump victory that will eventually help Cruz to rise up once again and seize the party leadership. Whereas on the other hand a hillary victory will make that impossible.
I myself will go to my grave with a big smile on my face knowing I did not vote for the less evil dem, but for my
Principles.
You on the other hand will own trump. By the way, trump will be bring up one of his kids. :tounge:
Quote from: Coyote9 on September 25, 2016, 03:24:45 PM
Do not be a Glen Beck Crybaby.
Anyone who does not vote or does not vote for Trump is helping hillary.
The future of the Supreme Court and the future of America will be decided in this election. If you do not vote for Trump you are helping hillary.
In fact, this is the very last chance the Republican Party will have to ever win the White House.
The demographics are rapidly changing. They will change much quicker if hillary gets in and brings in millions more of muslims and mexicans.
Stand up and be a man. Help make America Great Again. I gurantee you all, that anyone who does not vote for Trump and thus contributes to a hillary victory will go to their grave regretting it. Most especially if hillary wins.
Principles are principles and principles are good. Yet there is no greater principle than to do everything possible to prevent a hillary victory. Anyone who cannot grasp that is severely deluded.
Sure, I like most conservatives would have loved to see Cruz win but unfortunately that did not happen. One can cry like Glen Beck and try and tear down Trump or one can understand that with a Trump victory that will eventually help Cruz to rise up once again and seize the party leadership. Whereas on the other hand a hillary victory will make that impossible.
What a crock of BS and ignorance.
How do you answer this? This doesn't have anything to do with Beck, plenty of us here think he's half-nuts.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/9447/report-top-trump-advisor-privately-met-top-kremlin-hank-berrien#
QuoteOne of Donald Trump's top foreign policy advisors is under investigation by U.S. intelligence for privately communicating with Kremlin officials, possibly to undercut American foreign policy by seeking to lift sanctions implemented after the Russian annexation of Ukraine. In addition, he met with a Russian intelligence official who is responsible for gathering intelligence about the U.S. election.
Carter Page, who was named by Trump as one of five advisers "that we are dealing with" when The Washington Post asked him to name his "foreign policy team" last March, met with Igor Sechin, the Russian deputy prime minister who runs Rosneft, Russian's leading oil company. That's disturbing because in August 2014, the Treasury Department, calling Sechin, "utterly loyal to Vladimir Putin — a key component to his current standing," sanctioned Sechin because of Russia's "illegitimate and unlawful actions in the Ukraine." According to Western intelligence, Page and Sechin discussed the lifting of sanctions.
Additionally, U.S. intelligence agencies report that Page also met with Igor Diveykin, who is Russian deputy chief for internal policy, and thus responsible for intelligence collected by Russian agencies about the U.S. election. Former undersecretary of defense for intelligence Mike Vickers recently asserted that the Russian cyberattacks that revolved around the U.S. election were "beyond the pale."
Open your eyes and start vetting Trump instead of just drinking the Russian Koolaide, Comrade! Take off the darn blinders, look around, and maybe you'll be asking yourself, "WHY are WE, Constitutional Conservatives reluctant to turn over a smidgen of political power to a man with the wrong past, and disturbing connections in Moscow. Your "guarantee" is meaningless, how you going to back it up? Gonna hand over the title to your house, car and 10% of future earnings?
Mitt Romney, whom I didn't care for, actually had it correct, Russia is our greatest enemy - and now, you're blindly advocating we all just pull the lever for Communist sympathizers? ....what are you, a Sean Hannity or Michael Savage fan...!?
Doesn't the Moscow-Trump connection bother you in the least?
Quote from: blades on September 25, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
FOR THE RECORD THE ONLY REASON i STOOD WITH TED WAS DUE TO his knowledge and respect for the constitution and nothing more...he is a republican after all...
so his support for trump is disturbing after all that has happened but what do you expect from a GOPer..they protect their own even if its a fake like trump...
PARTY FIRST and fck the people..
my biggest problem is that he would rather pass the buck to his children then stand on principle and fight...
as for me I only have a few more yrs of fighting strength left and would rather fight now instead of dumping it on my children..
IF THERE BE A FIGHT BRING IT TO ME SO MY CHILDREN MAY LIVE IN PEACE!!!
I almost want to vote for hilary to bring this to a head but would not want it to cause a mandate to encourage the evil that has come to us ...anyway the constitution has taken maybe its last hit ...who knows ....time will tell
I am angry at cruz right now ...he should have just kept his mouth shut ...I may in the future support him if that chance arises ...again who knows if that chance will come
we have passed this on to our children to many times and it has to stop...
when I say we I do mean D's & R's...cause I have never voted for one of them at the fed. level...EVER..cause I learned at a young age what these people are
I need more coffee
:thumbup: Well said and I agree.
Quote from: mrconservative on September 23, 2016, 11:42:05 AM
Is there any political person to trust anymore? :unsure:
My theory is Cruz was under pressure from his donors to endorse Trump or risk them withholding funds for his 2018 reelection campaign which maybe a tight one if Michael McCaul runs against him as expected. They're already peeved with Cruz as is for his stunt in the convention. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/us/politics/influential-donors-criticize-ted-cruz-for-his-gop-convention-speech.html
Quote from: Rotwang on September 25, 2016, 11:41:37 AM
I trust Cruz to do what is best for HIMSELF first.
And for US second.
Which is a whole lot better than most of them, which NEVER do what is in OUR interest.
I disagree. I believe Ted did what he felt was best for country in the long term and did what was best for his family and himself second. I believe he's worried as hell as to what's just around the corner for this country and that ultimately is going to affect his family and his career.
Yes, I think you are absolutely correct. We live in very dangerous times and people need to wake up and learn to think for themselves. You cannot rely on the media, they have doubled down on hillary and are doing everything in their power to stop Trump.
Ted Cruz is a honorable man, he fought as hard as he could, and he is a very intelligent man and even more a very wise man.
A man who despite his loss is willing to endorse his opponent because he understands Trump is the best hope America has. Please try and spread the word, our enemies are legion and unless those who support Trump work very hard--the forces of darkness will prevail.
All True Conservatives should take the lead of Ted Cruz and vote for Trump.
Quote from: Coyote9 on September 25, 2016, 09:55:14 PM
All True Conservatives should take the lead of Ted Cruz and vote for Trump.
Trump should take the lead of Ted Cruz.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crrbbtstwfbbrssrxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Ffrfqrfkbxssqrtwrstxrdfqfgqrg%2F1%2F1595431%2F13930667%2Frump3bankruptcies500x282x100vi-vi.png&hash=042c4689117775a00f5128e2d6ff91bab4eee382)
Quote from: Coyote9 on September 25, 2016, 03:24:45 PM
Do not be a Glen Beck Crybaby.
Anyone who does not vote or does not vote for Trump is helping hillary.
The future of the Supreme Court and the future of America will be decided in this election. If you do not vote for Trump you are helping hillary.
In fact, this is the very last chance the Republican Party will have to ever win the White House.
The demographics are rapidly changing. They will change much quicker if hillary gets in and brings in millions more of muslims and mexicans.
Stand up and be a man. Help make America Great Again. I gurantee you all, that anyone who does not vote for Trump and thus contributes to a hillary victory will go to their grave regretting it. Most especially if hillary wins.
Principles are principles and principles are good. Yet there is no greater principle than to do everything possible to prevent a hillary victory. Anyone who cannot grasp that is severely deluded.
Sure, I like most conservatives would have loved to see Cruz win but unfortunately that did not happen. One can cry like Glen Beck and try and tear down Trump or one can understand that with a Trump victory that will eventually help Cruz to rise up once again and seize the party leadership. Whereas on the other hand a hillary victory will make that impossible.
I call bullshit on your "sky is falling" crap. You vote for the liberal democrat Trump that is your choice because that is what liberal democrats do. They vote for.... well liberal democrats.
Now while you're sitting in your mommy's basement playing video games and eating Cheetos you seem to have missed the fact that the SCOTUS is lost already. Case to point. What happened with the Obamacare ruling with the very so called Conservative Roberts. Oh That's right we lost that to the SCOTUS.
Oh that was years ago you say in mommy's basement. Let me bring you up to date. Texas lost their abortion ruling in the SCOTUS 6-3 in June 2016. What say you sky is falling...?
Wait young liberal grass hopper there is more. Them two Marines that tried to get their 2nd Amendment rights back because a misdemeanor and that's right they lost their right to Bear Arms by the SCOTUS. What's say you living off of mommy...?
So please take your SCOTUS crap to the toilet. My friend we lost the SCOTUS years ago.
You my liberal friend is the reason the United States of America is in this state. If you and your 12 million cross over voters was so worried about the end times of the United States why didn't you bring this same argument to the primary...? Why didn't you cry from high Heaven about open primaries...? You was silent. You tip toed around like a thief in the night so you can have your liberal treat Cheeto Trump.
Well you have him now and he can't win. So now you want me to cross over and help push the lyin' liberal Trump to victory. You can kiss my Constitutional Conservative ass all the why to the Supreme Court of the United States. . Ya hear me boy.
Now as far as Ted Cruz is concern. I dogged him for the last two days and I'll sum it best this why. Ted Cruz was a bad investment for me. I dropped that investment and i'm taking my lose. I'm my own man and make my own calls while you let liberal Breitbart pull you around by your nose ring. You're a parrot at best. Stop the mimics of the liberal Breitbart and the Drudge Report.
Now tell me where i'm wrong foolish child...?
Quote from: Coyote9 on September 25, 2016, 09:55:14 PM
Yes, I think you are absolutely correct. We live in very dangerous times and people need to wake up and learn to think for themselves. You cannot rely on the media, they have doubled down on hillary and are doing everything in their power to stop Trump.
Ted Cruz is a honorable man, he fought as hard as he could, and he is a very intelligent man and even more a very wise man.
A man who despite his loss is willing to endorse his opponent because he understands Trump is the best hope America has. Please try and spread the word, our enemies are legion and unless those who support Trump work very hard--the forces of darkness will prevail.
All True Conservatives should take the lead of Ted Cruz and vote for Trump.
Not sure if your a liberal or just a child but I can assure you that Trump is not the answer and is not much different than Hillary. He is anti constitution simply because he is ignorant to the constitution and is a huge NY liberal who will govern according to his lifetime of being a liberal and supporting their policies. I will never sell out my conservative values and convictions to him or any other liberal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE
Why is this not even being discussed?? True or not we dont know but if it were Cruz or Rubio it would be all over the media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usGAeBMDUoM
Quote from: Double D on September 26, 2016, 09:04:17 AM
Why is this not even being discussed?? True or not we dont know but if it were Cruz or Rubio it would be all over the media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usGAeBMDUoM
Not being discussed because ol bill clinton himself used epstein's plane and is just as guilty.
http://nypost.com/2015/02/14/bill-clintons-libido-threatens-to-derail-hillary-again/
Must be a real problem for the lsm, they have on this dirt on slime ball trump but can not used it because of dirt bag clinton.
Come on all you trumpsters, why should I vote for trump????
Quote from: s3779m on September 26, 2016, 09:15:17 AM
Come on all you trumpsters, why should I vote for trump????
So The Beast doesn't become President.
Quote from: Shooterman on September 26, 2016, 02:57:44 PM
So The Beast doesn't become President.
Yep, thats about the only answer I ever get. Trouble with that, I see no difference between them. Call it evil 1 and evil 2.
Quote from: s3779m on September 26, 2016, 03:16:54 PM
Yep, thats about the only answer I ever get. Trouble with that, I see no difference between them. Call it evil 1 and evil 2.
Just be sure and tell your kids you voted for Hillary. :lol:
Quote from: Shooterman on September 26, 2016, 03:20:48 PM
Just be sure and tell your kids you voted for Hillary. :lol:
I still plan to write in Cruz. That is not a vote for hillary or trump.
Quote from: Shooterman on September 26, 2016, 03:20:48 PM
Just be sure and tell your kids you voted for Hillary. :lol:
Now thats original.... :sleep:
Quote from: Shooterman on September 26, 2016, 03:20:48 PM
Just be sure and tell your kids you voted for Hillary. :lol:
Oh Shooter, shame on you. :thumbdown:
Quote from: Shooterman on September 26, 2016, 03:20:48 PM
Just be sure and tell your kids you voted for Hillary. :lol:
Be sure your kids know you supported the Establishment.
TED CRUZ' STATEMENT ENDORSING DONALD TRUMP - full text
https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10154476728267464
Ted Cruz
September 23 ·
..
This election is unlike any other in our nation's history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.
In Cleveland, I urged voters, "please, don't stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution."
After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
I've made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that's why I have always been #NeverHillary.
Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices "in the mold of Scalia."
For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.
Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.
Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration's war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.
Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama's lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.
Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration's willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.
Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama's plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.
These are six vital issues where the candidates' positions present a clear choice for the American people.
If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.
My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.
We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.
Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.
The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.
Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.
A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don't want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.
_______
(Note to admin: It seems to me that Ted Cruz posted his statement
intending that it be spread as widely as possible.
If you really think that there's any chance of Ted Cruz suing for copyright infringement,
then go ahead and edit as you see fit.)
_______
added:
Oh! I just found the same text as the above at Reply #4 of this thread!
Oh well. It's worth another look.
(As long as I'm here again, I chose some passages to highlight.)
I give Ted credit for ripping into Hillary, something the establishment wont do.
Quote from: je_freedom on October 28, 2016, 06:22:24 PM
TED CRUZ' STATEMENT ENDORSING DONALD TRUMP - full text
https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10154476728267464
Ted Cruz
September 23 ·
..
After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
I've made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that's why I have always been #NeverHillary.
First, and most important, the Supreme Court.
Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.
Third, energy.
Fourth, immigration.
Fifth, national security.
Sixth, Internet freedom.
For someone that usually sees through the BS, you certainly display your addiction to the Chump Koolaid.
All of what you mention is not the responsibility of POTUS, rather Congress, so these issues are moot regardless of who gets elected.
Electing Hillary forces the GOP to defend their positions, electing Trump allows the Leftist GOP to get away with even more cronyism and corporate welfare, and telling the Conservative to fuck off.
So fuck the GOP, they do not deserve our support!!!
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 07:16:07 AM
For someone that usually sees through the BS, you certainly display your addiction to the Chump Koolaid.
All of what you mention is not the responsibility of POTUS, rather Congress, so these issues are moot regardless of who gets elected.
Electing Hillary forces the GOP to defend their positions, electing Trump allows the Leftist GOP to get away with even more cronyism and corporate welfare, and telling the Conservative to fuck off.
So fuck the GOP, they do not deserve our support!!!
You are wrong about the influence of the presidency on those issues. First and foremost, while congress, indeed, writes the laws, the president has the authority to veto them. So when it comes to matters such as repealing O-care, it does indeed matter who occupies the WH. Second, it is the job of the president to ENFORCE the laws, and Obama has made a strong argument demonstrating what happens when the executive branch chooses to enforce only that with which the president agrees. So, again, it matters a WHOLE BUNCH who is in the WH. Third, as Obama has been so prevalent in demonstrating, the use of executive orders and fiat regulatory authority through the various federal departments and agencies also has a profound impact. The current war on coal - a war which has DEVASTATED an entire Montana community and has negatively affected many others - has been waged entirely through the EPA. Congress had nothing to do with it, yet thousands working in the coal industry are out of jobs, and tens of thousands more whose living depended on supporting the coal industry are also out of work (and that's just Montana!). So, yet a third time, it DOES make a HUGE difference if we somehow manage to keep Clinton out of the president's chair. Ditto on the other three issues that Cruz mentions as being of significant concern if CLinton becomes president.
We KNOW FOR CERTAIN Clinton, as President, will continue the war on fossil fuels. We KNOW FOR CERTAIN that she will wage a full blown war on the Bill of Rights. We KNOW FOR CERTAIN she will stack the supreme court - as well as all other federal courts - with extreme leftist "The Constitution says what we want it to mean," "The federal government has the authority to do whatever it 'needs to do'" justices. We KNOW FOR CERTAIN she will further the intent of the ACA until it damages the health industry so badly it is insupportable, and use those engineered conditions as an excuse to go full blown socialist in our health care industry. WE also know FOR CERTAIN Clinton will continue with the policies and executive orders through the USCIS that literally invites millions to break our immigration laws - and in the process inundate our economy. WE know she will use the executive authority over the DHS to invite more and more Islamist "refugees" and spread them throughout the country, with no process for assuring they are not ISIS sympathizers intent on harm.
With Trump, we STRONGLY SUSPECT that he MIGHT also engage is SOME of the above pro nanny-state, anti-liberty policies.
Yes, they are both establishment. But that does not mean there are zero differences. And with the current condition of the Republic, even minor differences can mean the final difference between having another chance to vote in real change later, or be reduced to other means forced on those who founded the republic.
Quote from: zewazir on October 29, 2016, 11:31:19 AM
You are wrong about the influence of the presidency on those issues. First and foremost, while congress, indeed, writes the laws, the president has the authority to veto them. So when it comes to matters such as repealing O-care, it does indeed matter who occupies the
Bull, Congress holds the purse, they decide what gets funding!
Second, it is the job of the president to ENFORCE the laws, and Obama has made a strong argument demonstrating what happens when the executive branch chooses to enforce only that with which the president agrees. So, again, it matters a WHOLE BUNCH who is in the WH.
Geeez, again, Wrong!!! Congress has the power to Impeach, so if the President doesn't uphold his oath of Office, they can kick his ass to the curb.
It's for this reason I say it matters not who inherits the office, Congress has proven they have gone leftist.
QuoteThird, as Obama has been so prevalent in demonstrating, the use of executive orders and fiat regulatory authority through the various federal departments and agencies also has a profound impact. The current war on coal - a war which has DEVASTATED an entire Montana community and has negatively affected many others - has been waged entirely through the EPA. Congress had nothing to do with it, yet thousands working in the coal industry are out of jobs, and tens of thousands more whose living depended on supporting the coal industry are also out of work (and that's just Montana!). So, yet a third time, it DOES make a HUGE difference if we somehow manage to keep Clinton out of the president's chair. Ditto on the other three issues that Cruz mentions as being of significant concern if CLinton becomes president.
We KNOW FOR CERTAIN Clinton, as President, will continue the war on fossil fuels. We KNOW FOR CERTAIN that she will wage a full blown war on the Bill of Rights. We KNOW FOR CERTAIN she will stack the supreme court - as well as all other federal courts - with extreme leftist "The Constitution says what we want it to mean," "The federal government has the authority to do whatever it 'needs to do'" justices. We KNOW FOR CERTAIN she will further the intent of the ACA until it damages the health industry so badly it is insupportable, and use those engineered conditions as an excuse to go full blown socialist in our health care industry. WE also know FOR CERTAIN Clinton will continue with the policies and executive orders through the USCIS that literally invites millions to break our immigration laws - and in the process inundate our economy. WE know she will use the executive authority over the DHS to invite more and more Islamist "refugees" and spread them throughout the country, with no process for assuring they are not ISIS sympathizers intent on harm.
We gave the GOP both Houses and what good did it do?
Yes, it is in their power to stop the corruption, reign in the EPA, an entity that can write policy, but not law as they have been doing under the Marxist.
Congress has made itself irrelevant.
QuoteWith Trump, we STRONGLY SUSPECT that he MIGHT also engage is SOME of the above pro nanny-state, anti-liberty policies.
Yes, they are both establishment. But that does not mean there are zero differences. And with the current condition of the Republic, even minor differences can mean the final difference between having another chance to vote in real change later, or be reduced to other means forced on those who founded the republic.
If you look at the last two continuing Resolutions, Omnibus Bills, you'll see the GOP gave the Dims everything and more than they asked for, increasing the debt more than they did when Bush, (The POTUS that never vetoed one Bill) was in office.
Point is, it matters not who sits in the WH, the GOP have proven they no longer work for the American people even when they control both Houses.
So giving them full control (Three Houses) is a recipe for disaster.
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 12:29:25 PM
Bull, Congress holds the purse, they decide what gets funding!
Second, it is the job of the president to ENFORCE the laws, and Obama has made a strong argument demonstrating what happens when the executive branch chooses to enforce only that with which the president agrees. So, again, it matters a WHOLE BUNCH who is in the WH.
Geeez, again, Wrong!!! Congress has the power to Impeach, so if the President doesn't uphold his oath of Office, they can kick his ass to the curb.
It's for this reason I say it matters not who inherits the office, Congress has proven they have gone leftist.
We gave the GOP both Houses and what good did it do?
Yes, it is in their power to stop the corruption, reign in the EPA, an entity that can write policy, but not law as they have been doing under the Marxist.
Congress has made itself irrelevant.
If you look at the last two continuing Resolutions, Omnibus Bills, you'll see the GOP gave the Dims everything and more than they asked for, increasing the debt more than they did when Bush, (The POTUS that never vetoed one Bill) was in office.
Point is, it matters not who sits in the WH, the GOP have proven they no longer work for the American people even when they control both Houses.
So giving them full control (Three Houses) is a recipe for disaster.
At anytime they could try and override the president veto.
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 12:29:25 PM
Bull, Congress holds the purse, they decide what gets funding!
IF the situation is controlled by funding. OTOH, agency regulations are being rewritten, without congress - a usurpation of power which has been ongoing for a long time which has placed too much power in the hands of the executive branch.
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 12:29:25 PM
Geeez, again, Wrong!!! Congress has the power to Impeach, so if the President doesn't uphold his oath of Office, they can kick his ass to the curb.
Congress cannot impeach just because they disagree with the way the president is (or is not) running the executive branch. That is about as ignorant a statement I have seen.
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 12:29:25 PM
We gave the GOP both Houses and what good did it do?
Yes, it is in their power to stop the corruption, reign in the EPA, an entity that can write policy, but not law as they have been doing under the Marxist.
Congress has made itself irrelevant.
The authority being used to allow un-elected bureaucrats to issue regulations which have the impact of law is, indeed, a usurpation of power. And the fact that laws are written which grants such authority to the agencies or departments in question results in what is essentially an abdication of authority by congress. Such has been going on for many decades. However, these facts simply support the statement that who resides in the WH makes more of a difference than you are willing to admit. YES, Congress SHOULD be reigning in the bureaucracies of the executive branch. That does not change the FACT that in the current situation, the president DOES wield powers which, as Ted Cruz has stated, need to be kept out of Clinton's hands using any reasonable means available to us.
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 12:29:25 PM
If you look at the last two continuing Resolutions, Omnibus Bills, you'll see the GOP gave the Dims everything and more than they asked for, increasing the debt more than they did when Bush, (The POTUS that never vetoed one Bill) was in office.
Point is, it matters not who sits in the WH, the GOP have proven they no longer work for the American people even when they control both Houses.
So giving them full control (Three Houses) is a recipe for disaster.
So your answer is to allow a full blown admitted Marxist in the Oval Office because your mad at the way the establishment kicked our feet out from under us? (Which I warned would happen a long time ago, but no one wanted to listen.)
Good plan! We all know that Trump is little more than a demoncrap plant. The ENTIRE DESIGN of corrupting the primaries was to put up about the only person on the entire planet who could LOSE to Clinton. Putting Trump up as the republican nominee has one and only one purpose: put Clinton in office. This is NOT like the last two elections, where the establishment really did not care who won, since they owned them both. This time they want/need Clinton, because she is the only one corrupt enough to be willing to take the destruction of the Republic to the next level. And, like as their entire push to divide us along racial lines, their method to get what they want is DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
And you are helping them with that goal. Your answer is to GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT, and call it "principle!" "Gee, Mr. Establishment System, if you want Clinton in office that badly, well, just go ahead! I'll help divide your opposition vote JUST AS YOU WANT ME TO DO, so you can get what you want."
Such a well thought out plan you have.
Quote from: zewazir on October 29, 2016, 02:50:13 PM
IF the situation is controlled by funding. OTOH, agency regulations are being rewritten, without congress - a usurpation of power which has been ongoing for a long time which has placed too much power in the hands of the executive branch.
I think I just said that, which again, is my reason for no longer supporting the gOP.
QuoteCongress cannot impeach just because they disagree with the way the president is (or is not) running the executive branch. That is about as ignorant a statement I have seen.
Kind of makes you look the fool when making such ignorant statements. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing!
Now look up Impeachment and tell me again how ignorant I am. Even kids no this one :rolleyes:
(Impeach: to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.)
When a new president is elected to office, he or she takes an oath that lists many heavy responsibilities. Abuse of power
or failure to uphold these responsibilities cannot be tolerated. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the right to impeach the president. Impeachment means that a charge of misconduct is filed against the president. A majority of the members of the House must vote for these charges in order to impeach the president.
Of all places, http://congressforkids.net/Executivebranch_impeachment.htm
QuoteThe authority being used to allow un-elected bureaucrats to issue regulations which have the impact of law is, indeed, a usurpation of power. And the fact that laws are written which grants such authority to the agencies or departments in question results in what is essentially an abdication of authority by congress. Such has been going on for many decades. However, these facts simply support the statement that who resides in the WH makes more of a difference than you are willing to admit. YES, Congress SHOULD be reigning in the bureaucracies of the executive branch. That does not change the FACT that in the current situation, the president DOES wield powers which, as Ted Cruz has stated, need to be kept out of Clinton's hands using any reasonable means available to us.
So your answer is to allow a full blown admitted Marxist in the Oval Office because your mad at the way the establishment kicked our feet out from under us? (Which I warned would happen a long time ago, but no one wanted to listen.)
Study the Omnibus Bill and show me where the two party's differ.
QuoteGood plan! We all know that Trump is little more than a demoncrap plant. The ENTIRE DESIGN of corrupting the primaries was to put up about the only person on the entire planet who could LOSE to Clinton. Putting Trump up as the republican nominee has one and only one purpose: put Clinton in office. This is NOT like the last two elections, where the establishment really did not care who won, since they owned them both. This time they want/need Clinton, because she is the only one corrupt enough to be willing to take the destruction of the Republic to the next level. And, like as their entire push to divide us along racial lines, their method to get what they want is DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
And you are helping them with that goal. Your answer is to GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT, and call it "principle!" "Gee, Mr. Establishment System, if you want Clinton in office that badly, well, just go ahead! I'll help divide your opposition vote JUST AS YOU WANT ME TO DO, so you can get what you want."
Such a well thought out plan you have.
LOL!!! And your plan is to play useful idiot and continue to empower the GOP?
Look how well that's worked over the last few decades.
What's that they say about repeating the same failure over and over again expecting different results?
Side note, I find it funny under the word "IMPEACHMENT" they have this pic. :lol:
IMPEACHMENT(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcongressforkids.net%2Fimages%2Fimpeachment.gif&hash=ad0986213c6145d394648dff897b910b5dafa317)
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
I think I just said that, which again, is my reason for no longer supporting the gOP.
You assume voting for Trump is in support of the GOPe. The problem with that assumption is the GOP has NO INTENTION for Trump to win. They never did. They WANT Trump to lose, and to lose big. They pushed Trump on us when they realized they would never get one of their own accepted. So they went dark horse, and with great fanfair, media hype, and a deliberate tight focus on conservative leaning LIVs, along with a big crossover help from willing Dims, Trump was entered into the GOP race as a democrat spoiler. The GOPe knew it then, and knows it now.
Yes, the GOPe is in league with the demoncraps, and as such is running Trump to LOSE. Therefore, an attempt to put Trump in the winners circle is, ultimately a vote AGAINST the plans of the GOPe. Additionally, if we are successful in preventing Clinton from taking the WH, it will give us at least the potential to come together across the nation as a unified movement (something the conservative movement has sadly failed to do - with the inevitable results of LOSING time and again...), kick the establishment to the curb, and take over the GOP, forcing them to start representing their constituency (We conservative types) by nominating real conservatives without allowing media hype to derail us.
Conversely, if we fail in preventing Clinton from becoming President, then say a final, sad fare-thee-well to the Republic. She takes power for four years, with nothing in Congress to hinder her (by your own admission), we will be faced with the situation that the only option left for Constitutional Conservatives is to turn to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And that will be bloody.
We kicked ass against the establishment in 2010 and did something no third party movement has done since the Republicans separated from the Republican-Democratic party and kicked the Whigs to the curb: we forced our own selections on the party and got a significant percentage of them in office. We did OK in 2012, getting several of our choices re-elected, though we didn't get many new names in office and failed utterly to have any influence on the presidential primaries. But we came back strong in 2014, with re-electing many of those who stayed true to our ideology and adding a few new names to the mix. This method of using our influence within the GOP proved effective, while third party approaches have always failed.
But the thing with war (and all politics is merely war without as much blood) is each side adjusts tactics and strategy according to what the other side does. So this election the GOPe was ready for us with new tactics which we failed to anticipate (in part because we still fail to unify across the nation as a cohesive movement) and handed us a big shitburger to munch on. Once again: The GOPe WANTS us to split off from them. That has been their plan, and it is working. They are marginalizing us effectively by making us angry at them so that constitutional conservatives basically go away in disgust to play in our own sandbox while they continue with their designs to reframe the republic into a system of government more favorable to those in real power behind our political system. So now is the time for TEA - and other true Conservative movements - to change tactics to adjust to their actions. But it seems to me giving them exactly what they want is NOT the proper direction to change.
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
Kind of makes you look the fool when making such ignorant statements. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing!
It has to do with what the Constitution itself defines as reasons for removal of a president or vice president from office: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." I do not see anywhere in that statement that congress has the authority to impeach and convict a sitting president because he fails to operate the executive branch in a way the majority of congress agrees with.
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
Now look up Impeachment and tell me again how ignorant I am. Even kids no this one :rolleyes:
(Impeach: to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.)
When a new president is elected to office, he or she takes an oath that lists many heavy responsibilities. Abuse of power or failure to uphold these responsibilities cannot be tolerated. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the right to impeach the president. Impeachment means that a charge of misconduct is filed against the president. A majority of the members of the House must vote for these charges in order to impeach the president.
Of all places, http://congressforkids.net/Executivebranch_impeachment.htm
Again: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In the first place, impeachment does NOT remove a president from office (just ask Slick Willy), so your focus on impeachment will not change a damned thing unless you can add conviction to the process. But even for an accusation to be levied to begin impeachment proceedings, there has to be a crime. It would be a push to call the failure to enforce the ACA as written (something Obama did no less than 5 times as various deadlines within the ACA approached and went) as treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor. No crime, no impeachment. No impeachment, no conviction, and everything stays the same. Violation of oath SHOULD be a crime, but, by itself, is not. (If it were every member of congress would have to also sit through impeachment hearings.) Violation of oath has to be associated with an action which would be criminal even without having taken an oath. That is the legal and constitutional reality of the separation of powers.
Additionally, the laws themselves are written to give various departments and agencies authority to write and enforce regulations. This has the net effect of giving agencies the equilvalent authority to write law, sonce their regulations are enforceable with associated criminal penalties. But, as written, it is NOT breaking the law, nor is the president violating law when they use that usurped authority to alter the economy or society in the manner they see fit. So, yet again, no crime, no impeachment.
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
Study the Omnibus Bill and show me where the two party's differ.
So abandoning the republican party (as opposed to working within it, as we have successfully done before) is going to change this how?
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
LOL!!! And your plan is to play useful idiot and continue to empower the GOP?
Look how well that's worked over the last few decades.
What's that they say about repeating the same failure over and over again expecting different results?
No, my plan is to foil the establishment plans to put Clinton in power. Since the GOPe never planned for, nor wants Trump to win, a vote for Trump is quite the opposite of supporting their ultimate agenda. Conversely, since the INTENT of the GOPe is to send true conservatives packing, when a true conservative GOES packing, it is giving them exactly what they want. And THAT is empowering them.
Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
Side note, I find it funny under the word "IMPEACHMENT" they have this pic. :lol:
IMPEACHMENT
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcongressforkids.net%2Fimages%2Fimpeachment.gif&hash=ad0986213c6145d394648dff897b910b5dafa317)
Humorous, yes. Also clearly demonstrates the leanings of the author of that sight, which is rather refreshing considering what official public education sites teach our youth about the Republic. However, much of what they wrote about impeachment is a simplistic (or perhaps I should say Idealistic) view at best, and is significantly skewed away from legal reality by that idealistic bias.
There are, however, a number of things which Obama has done which could successfully be argued as treason. He and Clinton both should have gone to Club Fed for their decisions during the Benghazi crisis. His complicity in the graft and corruption behind the passage of the ACA would easily fall under the heading of bribery. He SHOULD have been impeached long ago. But the political reality is there were never enough votes in the House to impeach, even if every single 'Pub voted in favor. Plus there were never enough votes in the Senate to convict, even if every single 'Pub in the Senate voted for conviction. Laying the lack of action in congress at the feet of the GOP, in the particular instance of removing Obama from office for his crimes, or even at the GOPe, is a claim that is not consistent with reality. The (sad) reality is that any genuine attempt to remove Obama from office would have been the political equivalent of the Charge of the Light Brigade. Had any of those elected to congress through the actions of the TEA tried to push for impeachment and conviction, we would be starting over from scratch, as every one involved would have been thoroughly vilified in the media and lost their seats in '14. Instead, we still have a number of voices on our side in congress. (Voices which, BTW, happen to have the R after their name on the congressional rosters.)
Quote from: zewazir on October 29, 2016, 10:48:19 PM
You assume voting for Trump is in support of the GOPe. The problem with that assumption is the GOP has NO INTENTION for Trump to win. They never did. They WANT Trump to lose, and to lose big. They pushed Trump on us when they realized they would never get one of their own accepted. So they went dark horse, and with great fanfair, media hype, and a deliberate tight focus on conservative leaning LIVs, along with a big crossover help from willing Dims, Trump was entered into the GOP race as a democrat spoiler. The GOPe knew it then, and knows it now.
Yes, the GOPe is in league with the demoncraps, and as such is running Trump to LOSE. Therefore, an attempt to put Trump in the winners circle is, ultimately a vote AGAINST the plans of the GOPe. Additionally, if we are successful in preventing Clinton from taking the WH, it will give us at least the potential to come together across the nation as a unified movement (something the conservative movement has sadly failed to do - with the inevitable results of LOSING time and again...), kick the establishment to the curb, and take over the GOP, forcing them to start representing their constituency (We conservative types) by nominating real conservatives without allowing media hype to derail us.
Conversely, if we fail in preventing Clinton from becoming President, then say a final, sad fare-thee-well to the Republic. She takes power for four years, with nothing in Congress to hinder her (by your own admission), we will be faced with the situation that the only option left for Constitutional Conservatives is to turn to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And that will be bloody.
War is failed politics, and we're at war with the GOP, the very party that called us the enemy, enabled the Dim party to continue to this day in it's use of the IRS as a weapon against Conservatives.
QuoteWe kicked ass against the establishment in 2010 and did something no third party movement has done since the Republicans separated from the Republican-Democratic party and kicked the Whigs to the curb: we forced our own selections on the party and got a significant percentage of them in office. We did OK in 2012, getting several of our choices re-elected, though we didn't get many new names in office and failed utterly to have any influence on the presidential primaries. But we came back strong in 2014, with re-electing many of those who stayed true to our ideology and adding a few new names to the mix. This method of using our influence within the GOP proved effective, while third party approaches have always failed.
But the thing with war (and all politics is merely war without as much blood) is each side adjusts tactics and strategy according to what the other side does. So this election the GOPe was ready for us with new tactics which we failed to anticipate (in part because we still fail to unify across the nation as a cohesive movement) and handed us a big shitburger to munch on. Once again: The GOPe WANTS us to split off from them. That has been their plan, and it is working. They are marginalizing us effectively by making us angry at them so that constitutional conservatives basically go away in disgust to play in our own sandbox while they continue with their designs to reframe the republic into a system of government more favorable to those in real power behind our political system. So now is the time for TEA - and other true Conservative movements - to change tactics to adjust to their actions. But it seems to me giving them exactly what they want is NOT the proper direction to change.
The base spoke when they chose to let another lib (Mitten) rot on the podium in 2012, the base was through supporting libs and sent a clear message to the GOP, do that shit again, and become irrelevant.
QuoteIt has to do with what the Constitution itself defines as reasons for removal of a president or vice president from office: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." I do not see anywhere in that statement that congress has the authority to impeach and convict a sitting president because he fails to operate the executive branch in a way the majority of congress agrees with.
Again: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In the first place, impeachment does NOT remove a president from office (just ask Slick Willy), so your focus on impeachment will not change a damned thing unless you can add conviction to the process. But even for an accusation to be levied to begin impeachment proceedings, there has to be a crime. It would be a push to call the failure to enforce the ACA as written (something Obama did no less than 5 times as various deadlines within the ACA approached and went) as treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor. No crime, no impeachment. No impeachment, no conviction, and everything stays the same. Violation of oath SHOULD be a crime, but, by itself, is not. (If it were every member of congress would have to also sit through impeachment hearings.) Violation of oath has to be associated with an action which would be criminal even without having taken an oath. That is the legal and constitutional reality of the separation of powers.
Additionally, the laws themselves are written to give various departments and agencies authority to write and enforce regulations. This has the net effect of giving agencies the equilvalent authority to write law, sonce their regulations are enforceable with associated criminal penalties. But, as written, it is NOT breaking the law, nor is the president violating law when they use that usurped authority to alter the economy or society in the manner they see fit. So, yet again, no crime, no impeachment.
So abandoning the republican party (as opposed to working within it, as we have successfully done before) is going to change this how?
No, my plan is to foil the establishment plans to put Clinton in power. Since the GOPe never planned for, nor wants Trump to win, a vote for Trump is quite the opposite of supporting their ultimate agenda. Conversely, since the INTENT of the GOPe is to send true conservatives packing, when a true conservative GOES packing, it is giving them exactly what they want. And THAT is empowering them.
Humorous, yes. Also clearly demonstrates the leanings of the author of that sight, which is rather refreshing considering what official public education sites teach our youth about the Republic. However, much of what they wrote about impeachment is a simplistic (or perhaps I should say Idealistic) view at best, and is significantly skewed away from legal reality by that idealistic bias.
There are, however, a number of things which Obama has done which could successfully be argued as treason. He and Clinton both should have gone to Club Fed for their decisions during the Benghazi crisis. His complicity in the graft and corruption behind the passage of the ACA would easily fall under the heading of bribery. He SHOULD have been impeached long ago. But the political reality is there were never enough votes in the House to impeach, even if every single 'Pub voted in favor. Plus there were never enough votes in the Senate to convict, even if every single 'Pub in the Senate voted for conviction. Laying the lack of action in congress at the feet of the GOP, in the particular instance of removing Obama from office for his crimes, or even at the GOPe, is a claim that is not consistent with reality. The (sad) reality is that any genuine attempt to remove Obama from office would have been the political equivalent of the Charge of the Light Brigade. Had any of those elected to congress through the actions of the TEA tried to push for impeachment and conviction, we would be starting over from scratch, as every one involved would have been thoroughly vilified in the media and lost their seats in '14. Instead, we still have a number of voices on our side in congress. (Voices which, BTW, happen to have the R after their name on the congressional rosters.)
]
Congress alone has the power to decide what rises to the definition of Crimes and Misdemeanors, in fact it is thrie responsibility to make the distinction.
QuoteThere is no authoritative pronouncement, other than the text of the Constitution itself, regarding what constitutes an impeachable offense, and what meaning to accord to the phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." When he was a Congressman, Gerald R. Ford advocated the ultimately unsuccessful impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice by defining an impeachable offense as anything on which a majority of the House of Representatives can agree. As impeachment is understood to be a political question, Ford's statement correctly centers responsibility for the definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the House. The federal courts have thus far treated appeals from impeachment convictions to be nonjusticiable. Nixon v. United States (1993). Even if the issue of impeachment is nonjusticiable, it does not mean that there are no appropriate standards that the House should observe.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment
Quote from: zewazir on October 29, 2016, 10:48:19 PM
Yes, the GOPe is in league with the demoncraps, and as such is running Trump to LOSE.
I see more than half of my post disappeared, (user error) total frustration!
However I find your take on this interesting. I absolutely agree, the GOP is just another arm of the Dim party, but you are the first to broach the subject as to whether or not they wanted to win, or are merely helping the Marxists. And yes, there are Marxists in the GOP.
What we do know for a fact is they didn't want a Conservative to win, which begs the question, why even entertain the idea of getting involved in their scam of getting Hillary elected?
What it does tell them, is there are plenty of gullible people willing to pull the lever for a lying lib, just because they have an (R) next to their name.
Why even add to their delusion that they have you wrapped around their finger? But the even bigger question would be, why do you delude yourself in believing you are outwitting the GOP at their own game?
Kind of like trying to outwit cancer by smoking more. Though I do understand your logic, the odds are completely against you considering the base refuses to vote for another GOP lib selectee.
Their game is over, they've been exposed as frauds, so you'd be better off joining the majorities cause in not enabling their game.
All the GOP sees are raw numbers in the end, and not your intent, so in the end, they'll look at these numbers and see they were still able to fool a large portion of their constituency.
Cruz write in votes tell a completely different story in that we send a solid message of revolt.
Quote from: Solar on October 30, 2016, 09:35:15 AM
I see more than half of my post disappeared, (user error) total frustration!
However I find your take on this interesting. I absolutely agree, the GOP is just another arm of the Dim party, but you are the first to broach the subject as to whether or not they wanted to win, or are merely helping the Marxists. And yes, there are Marxists in the GOP.
What we do know for a fact is they didn't want a Conservative to win, which begs the question, why even entertain the idea of getting involved in their scam of getting Hillary elected?
What it does tell them, is there are plenty of gullible people willing to pull the lever for a lying lib, just because they have an (R) next to their name.
Why even add to their delusion that they have you wrapped around their finger? But the even bigger question would be, why do you delude yourself in believing you are outwitting the GOP at their own game?
Kind of like trying to outwit cancer by smoking more. Though I do understand your logic, the odds are completely against you considering the base refuses to vote for another GOP lib selectee.
Their game is over, they've been exposed as frauds, so you'd be better off joining the majorities cause in not enabling their game.
All the GOP sees are raw numbers in the end, and not your intent, so in the end, they'll look at these numbers and see they were still able to fool a large portion of their constituency.
Cruz write in votes tell a completely different story in that we send a solid message of revolt.
In the end it is a rigged game with no way to win. Vote for Trump, you're "playing their game" and voting for whom they allow you to vote for. DON'T vote for Trump and you've basically marginalized yourself, which is exactly what they want. It lose lose, because the PTB's have American politics tied up in a neat package called the Party National Committees.
I do not think I am "outwitting" anyone. But I do look at what the aim of the principals are, and then go against those aims. Currently, from all information and rhetoric available, I have come to the conclusion that BOTH parties aim is to get Clinton elected. Therefore I will oppose that aim in the best manner available to me by voting for the only name which has a non-zero chance of defeating their intent of putting Clinton in office. In the end, I am tilting at a windmill. And so are you. And so is every individual true conservative whose purpose of political activity is to return our government to the Constitutional Republic in its original design.
Quote from: zewazir on October 30, 2016, 02:20:15 PM
In the end it is a rigged game with no way to win. Vote for Trump, you're "playing their game" and voting for whom they allow you to vote for. DON'T vote for Trump and you've basically marginalized yourself, which is exactly what they want. It lose lose, because the PTB's have American politics tied up in a neat package called the Party National Committees.
I do not think I am "outwitting" anyone. But I do look at what the aim of the principals are, and then go against those aims. Currently, from all information and rhetoric available, I have come to the conclusion that BOTH parties aim is to get Clinton elected. Therefore I will oppose that aim in the best manner available to me by voting for the only name which has a non-zero chance of defeating their intent of putting Clinton in office. In the end, I am tilting at a windmill. And so are you. And so is every individual true conservative whose purpose of political activity is to return our government to the Constitutional Republic in its original design.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falibertarianfuture.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2Fend-evil-step-out-of-line-vote-third-party.jpg&hash=57e98844e5b7acf62fd84182f388d94c4118a6fc)
Quote from: zewazir on October 30, 2016, 02:20:15 PM
In the end it is a rigged game with no way to win. Vote for Trump, you're "playing their game" and voting for whom they allow you to vote for. DON'T vote for Trump and you've basically marginalized yourself, which is exactly what they want. It lose lose, because the PTB's have American politics tied up in a neat package called the Party National Committees.
I do not think I am "outwitting" anyone. But I do look at what the aim of the principals are, and then go against those aims. Currently, from all information and rhetoric available, I have come to the conclusion that BOTH parties aim is to get Clinton elected. Therefore I will oppose that aim in the best manner available to me by voting for the only name which has a non-zero chance of defeating their intent of putting Clinton in office. In the end, I am tilting at a windmill. And so are you. And so is every individual true conservative whose purpose of political activity is to return our government to the Constitutional Republic in its original design.
I get your point and in theory agree, however, Trump hasn't a prayer of winning, add to that, Trump is in on the scam as evidenced by his actions every time Hillary gets in a jam, Trump fumbles right on cue, so he'll do whatever it takes to help Clinton win.
So I see no need to waste my vote and support the GOP in the process of destroying this Nation further. Therefore I vote in protest of the GOP/Enemy and vote for the candidate that they fear the most, that being Cruz..
Quote from: Solar on October 30, 2016, 03:05:29 PM
I get your point and in theory agree, however, Trump hasn't a prayer of winning, add to that, Trump is in on the scam as evidenced by his actions every time Hillary gets in a jam, Trump fumbles right on cue, so he'll do whatever it takes to help Clinton win.
So I see no need to waste my vote and support the GOP in the process of destroying this Nation further. Therefore I vote in protest of the GOP/Enemy and vote for the candidate that they fear the most, that being Cruz..
And I can see your point. I believe you live in CA? No way a protest vote will make a difference since the blue cities have CA tied up for the jackass party anyway.
Meanwhile, I am keeping an eye on the trend in Montana. Currently we are listed as solidly red, in which case I just may take advantage that our three electoral votes are slated for Trump and go ahead with my own protest vote. The idea of a protest vote makes me nervous, though, because I did so back in '92, and (along with a whole bunch of others) ended up putting Slick Willy in office. If the numbers get close before election day, I will vote AGAINST Clinton in the (sadly) only significant way the establishment has left open for me.
Quote from: zewazir on October 30, 2016, 03:40:24 PM
And I can see your point. I believe you live in CA? No way a protest vote will make a difference since the blue cities have CA tied up for the jackass party anyway.
Meanwhile, I am keeping an eye on the trend in Montana. Currently we are listed as solidly red, in which case I just may take advantage that our three electoral votes are slated for Trump and go ahead with my own protest vote. The idea of a protest vote makes me nervous, though, because I did so back in '92, and (along with a whole bunch of others) ended up putting Slick Willy in office. If the numbers get close before election day, I will vote AGAINST Clinton in the (sadly) only significant way the establishment has left open for me.
Strangely enough Ca is one of those States that allot for a write in for POTUS, and though in the big picture of things, it's akin to voting for the Freedom party, still, the GOP/RNC pay close attention to trends in the State and where their party is leaning.
Quote from: Solar on October 30, 2016, 09:35:15 AM
I see more than half of my post disappeared, (user error) total frustration!
However I find your take on this interesting. I absolutely agree, the GOP is just another arm of the Dim party, but you are the first to broach the subject as to whether or not they wanted to win, or are merely helping the Marxists. And yes, there are Marxists in the GOP.
What we do know for a fact is they didn't want a Conservative to win, which begs the question, why even entertain the idea of getting involved in their scam of getting Hillary elected?
What it does tell them, is there are plenty of gullible people willing to pull the lever for a lying lib, just because they have an (R) next to their name.
Why even add to their delusion that they have you wrapped around their finger? But the even bigger question would be, why do you delude yourself in believing you are outwitting the GOP at their own game?
Kind of like trying to outwit cancer by smoking more. Though I do understand your logic, the odds are completely against you considering the base refuses to vote for another GOP lib selectee.
Their game is over, they've been exposed as frauds, so you'd be better off joining the majorities cause in not enabling their game.
All the GOP sees are raw numbers in the end, and not your intent, so in the end, they'll look at these numbers and see they were still able to fool a large portion of their constituency.
Cruz write in votes tell a completely different story in that we send a solid message of revolt.
More and more reps coming home to Trump. Haley Barbour was on Cavuto saying he is voting Trump and also we now see a never trumper come home.
Hugh Hewitt Flip-Flops On Trump, Now Says He's 'Inclined To Cast' His Vote For Him http://bit.ly/2fFyiZQ (VIDEO)
Quote from: ldub23 on November 02, 2016, 04:09:54 PM
More and more reps coming home to Trump. Haley Barbour was on Cavuto saying he is voting Trump and also we now see a never trumper come home.
Hugh Hewitt Flip-Flops On Trump, Now Says He's 'Inclined To Cast' His Vote For Him http://bit.ly/2fFyiZQ (VIDEO)
Haley Barbour, who was part of the whole Cochran/McDaniel crap... who cares.
Quote from: ldub23 on November 02, 2016, 04:09:54 PM
More and more reps coming home to Trump. Haley Barbour was on Cavuto saying he is voting Trump and also we now see a never trumper come home.
Hugh Hewitt Flip-Flops On Trump, Now Says He's 'Inclined To Cast' His Vote For Him http://bit.ly/2fFyiZQ (VIDEO)
Meh, neither of which could be classified as actual Conservatives, especially Barbour.
Quote from: Solar on November 02, 2016, 04:32:17 PM
Meh, neither of which could be classified as actual Conservatives, especially Barbour.
There is also this. Ted Cruz joining Mike Pence to close out campaign.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ted-cruz-mike-pence-230657?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Quote from: ldub23 on November 02, 2016, 04:49:04 PM
There is also this. Ted Cruz joining Mike Pence to close out campaign.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ted-cruz-mike-pence-230657?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"after pressure from fellow Republicans, and meeting privately with Pence in Washington, Cruz endorsed Trump on Sept. 23 in a Facebook post."
This means absolutely nothing. If they really wanted to make a difference, he needed to campaign with Trump, not Pence.
All this does is change Trumpanzees minds about Cruz and getting in their better graces, but it means nothing to Conservatives, Trump's still a lib, that will never change.
Quote from: Solar on November 02, 2016, 05:02:21 PM
"after pressure from fellow Republicans, and meeting privately with Pence in Washington, Cruz endorsed Trump on Sept. 23 in a Facebook post."
This means absolutely nothing. If they really wanted to make a difference, he needed to campaign with Trump, not Pence.
All this does is change Trumpanzees minds about Cruz and getting in their better graces, but it means nothing to Conservatives, Trump's still a lib, that will never change.
It means quite a bit. They are coming home. We are also seeing Johnson's support evaporating as i expected. On a side note Rand Paul who i initially supported is +16 in KY with Trump with a slightly bigger lead. Im seeing a trend where Trump is outperforming the GOP senate candidates in many states like MO, where he is +14 while Blunt is even.
Quote from: ldub23 on November 02, 2016, 05:11:10 PM
It means quite a bit. They are coming home. We are also seeing Johnson's support evaporating as i expected. On a side note Rand Paul who i initially supported is +16 in KY with Trump with a slightly bigger lead. Im seeing a trend where Trump is outperforming the GOP senate candidates in many states like MO, where he is +14 while Blunt is even.
Coming home? No Conservative will be swayed by anything Cruz says, the only people that give a shit about Trump are libs and people voting against Hillary.
No one on the Right actually supports Trump the NY Lib, they're voting against Hillary.