You backed away because "your guy" took a margin loan against his own assets to fund his campaign? If you don't understand the mechanism, do some research. Don't drop "your guy" because his opponents demonize him for every small detail they think can stick. It only sticks if you let it.
A lot of folks who liked Cruz (my brother was a very big fan going way back) have backed away backed on what they have seen.
Now if You still support Cruz as your # 1 candidate I can certainly understand why but realize other folks can look at an issue that does not affect you and form another conclusion.
In the case of the 2012 loan, the fundamental issue folks have seems to revolve around the following:
The narrative Cruz presented to the voters is he liquidated his assets, not that his campaign took a loan out secured by his assets. That distinction matters to some observers. Why you ask? Three reasons:
1) By taking a loan out against his assets he does not lose said assets: that is contributors can give his re-election campaign contributions which are used to repay the loan. That is what happened, he never liquidated any of the assets borrowed against to repay the loan, it was paid by donations to his reelection fund. Had he liquidated the assets like he said he did , they would be gone forever, he could not have paid himself back. Effectively he would have donated those assets to his own campaign.
3) He was and is playing the outsider. Part of that narrative is that the plucky outsider used his own money to fight the system and get elected. When it turns out he got ends the old fashioned way that narrative crashes, and he becomes yet another politician who has taken money to get elected and is beholden to a specific set of interests. You may well still believe that he is an outsider, to some this action indicates otherwise and that is a reasonable assumption.
3) It appears to some he deliberately hide this loan: Now it might have been a mistake, but if so it was a mistake that allowed an errant narrative to be used by his campaign and it was a major selling point. He himself never corrected that narrative until found out, nearly 4 years later. As a lawyer he well knows the concept of “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. By omission he allowed a falsehood to become the story of his campaign. That does not speak well of his character.
So a reasonable person understanding the above would then start to examine other actions of Mr. Cruz with likely a more suspicious view. What has happened in the last three months:
1) There is the little issue of his sealed immigration records. Court decisions not withstanding, some are going to see this as deceptive.
2) the issue of the Iowa Carson pull-out sabotage. Some are going to assume this was deliberate and ruthless. There is some evidence to support that assertion, though I can see why folks would not believe that. But if you are already suspicious of the man, that action would tend to back up that suspicion.
3) Cruz’s fairly prolific miss-statements of Trumps declared stances. Some will justify these comments, to others it appears to be bearing false witness. If one finds in one’s conscious that these are lies, well it is hard not to look at Cruz in a negative light, even if you agree with him and feel he fought the good fight in Washington when virtually no one else did. Christians do not bear false witness and Cruz could have made his point without misrepresenting Trumps stated positions on numerous occasions.
4) Cruz’s apparent willingness to dump on Trump over the Chicago riot. That makes him appear to not be a defender of free speech, but an opportunist willing to go after his foe with any weapon at his disposal, at least to some I have talked to. Now that is problematic for one who is defined as a “principled conservative”, as that phrase implies a man who is internally restrained from actions that would violate right and wrong.
I could go on but if you are honest you will get the point: to some folks Cruz does not seem to be the trustworthy and principled conservative he said he was. While one can disagree with their conclusions, if you honestly examine the way they got to those opinions, I think you will see that thy have a point. It is not any single instance, but the slow accumulation of evidence if one is inclined to be suspicious in the first place.
The same way Cruz people who point out the many defects of Trump have a point. An honest Trump supporter will admit those faults, but respond with why they think he is the best candidate, those defects not withstanding.
I could go on for some time on the many faults of Trump, but you question seemed to be that you could not see how Trump supporters could see the 2012 funding issue as being damaging. Hopefully the answer provided helps you understand that, even if you do not agree with the conclusions.
Similar to using bankruptcy laws to protect assets from creditors? Were his assets that large that he could make a seven figure “margin loan”?
>You backed away because “your guy” took a margin loan against his own assets to fund his campaign? If you don’t understand the mechanism, do some research. Don’t drop “your guy” because his opponents demonize him for every small detail they think can stick. It only sticks if you let it.
Ted’s still refusing to do the proper reporting on the loan despit his promises to do so. There’s something unethical there.