Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: iontheball
Yesterday, I was having this very debate with a #neverTrumper friend (well I guess technically a #almostneverTrumper, because he finally caved a week before the election and voted for Trump.) He was a Cruz supporter during the primary and still doesn't like Trump though he is glad he beat Hillary. His argument is basically:

"Hillary was such a flawed candidate that ANY Republican who won the nomination was destined to win the presidency, and most would have won by a much larger margin than Trump. Cruz and Rubio would have gotten a much larger share, if not an outright majority, of the Hispanic vote, Jeb or Kasich would have peeled off many more moderate voters from Hillary etc."

The counter argument I gave was:

"Trump was the ONLY candidate who could beat Hillary. None of the traditional candidates would have gone on the attack the way Trump did. They all would have treated Hillary with kid gloves for fear of being labeled sexist. Hillary would have gone into the election with all her ethics and criminal issues swept under the rug and with her huge money and liberal media advantage she would have crushed any other Republican. Not to mention Trump was the only candidate that made a serious shot at the rust belt working class."

Certainly two polar opposite views of the election, it is probably a discussion that political science classes will be having for years to come...

17 posted on 11/15/2016 5:10:35 AM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: apillar

I agree with you. Clinton fights like a cornered rat and most republicans fight fair. Like you, I supported Cruz and even voted for him in the primary, all the while knowing that Trump was the only one with the ability to punch a woman (figuratively) like he would a man.

Whenever Clinton or the media would launch a broadside at Trump. “Back in 1994, you....” his basic response was “So?” and would move on instead of wasting precious time apologizing and promising to change or resigning.

He owned his past, talked about how he had already changed and envisioned the future.


45 posted on 11/15/2016 5:43:17 AM PST by cyclotic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: apillar

Your friend is wrong.
Demographics and vote fraud have reached the point that NO ONE should have been able to beat Hillary!.
Trump’s victory is nearly miraculous.
And I am not a Trump supporter. I just voted against Hillary!.
I’ll change if he tries to stick to his announced plan, though!


49 posted on 11/15/2016 5:51:19 AM PST by Little Ray (Freedom Before Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: apillar
I believe only Trump would have won. I compare:

While Cruz tried to position himself as the cerebral candidate, and Trump as the junk yard bully, Trump's words were red meat for the bulk of the electorate. And the more people looked at Trump, the more they saw less of a bully, but someone standing on principle (rule of law applies equally to all), with some really excellent ideas. Cruz looked more wishy-washy (blaming Trump supporters for the violence of the Chicago rally, rather than to fall on the side of free speech.)

90 posted on 11/15/2016 6:50:20 AM PST by MrsEmmaPeel (a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson