Posted on 02/23/2017 3:53:43 PM PST by ForYourChildren
I do not, but others may.
I don’t either, and I’m not wedded to it either way.
Cruz is not his father and for me this was a throw-away issue.
You are an idiot.
Trump addressed gun rights hundreds if times last year in front of 100s of thousands of people.
And you didn’t know it?
Thanks for the laughs, sweetheart.
Honestly, you’re just subliminal?
I mentioned gun rights on a list of issues Hillary Clinton would have destroyed us on.
You respond by telling me you didn’t know Trump’s stance on guns or couldn’t trust him.
I mentioned that he made statements in front of hundreds of thousands of people, and here you were saying you didn’t know what his policy was.
You still haven’t come to terms with the fact it was Trump against Hillary, and Cruz didn’t have the gray matter to figure out which of them would be better on those subjects, and oppose stridently the worse of the two.
You scamper from angle to angle to angle to avoid having to agree on a subject every FReeper would agree on.
Hillary would have been calamitous on all those issue.
Do you really think you’re representing yourself well here?
I mean, how can someone go from my comment that all we have is what Trump said (at the time) to suggesting that I don't know what he said (or what he was saying at the time)?
It's silly. Perhaps it's late and you need rest.
Bud, I could be up for years and still plaster your idiotic self to the wall.
Ted Cruz couldn’t fathom that Hillary Clinton would be worse on all those issues. He didn’t see her as a threat on them. He refused to go after her and help the rest of Conservatism try to prevent her from being president will all his might.
You’ve been trying through a number of posts to deflect from this point, and you’re still flailing around.
It isn’t working.
Ted f’d up.
Nothing in the Bill of Rights is negotiable.
And I'm certain you think you could in your own mind.
In any case, for anyone else wading through the detritus of what you think is an argument, here's the Executive Summary:
Ted Cruz must be destroyed because he didn't endorse Donald Trump quickly enough, in part because Hillary Clinton is anti-gun, Donald Trump said he is pro-gun, and Ted Cruz argued pro-2A cases in front of the Supreme Court.
The options were Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
Evidently both you and Ted had a tough time with that stem-winder of a dilemma.
Ted argued a 2A case before the Supreme Court, and yet didn’t know Hillary Clinton would have been devastating on the subject if she were president.
1RudderlessInfant... strike ten to fifteen, I lose count.
#2ndAmendment
Helping him do what? Distributing the Hands off Cuba leaflets? That seems to be all, allegedly, Rafael is in a photo.
You knew that was silly when you said it. No one's uniting to defeat Ted. Defeat him how? For what race? Honestly...
I was one of Ted's biggest detractors around here, during the primary (and right through the convention, due to his NeverTrump shenanigans), but I've since let it go. He's slowly rebuilding credibility in my eyes, by steadfastly standing by the President.
Come 2018, I may even vote to return him to the Senate, if he stays on the straight and narrow.
FReeper Cruz Derangement Syndrome Sufferers don’t realize who is salivating to replace Cruz, the totally un-plugged-in, Comcast owner-marrying rep Mike McCaul:
Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas misspeaks says Republican National Committee was hacked
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, told CNN Wednesday that Russians had hacked the Republican National Committee then later recanted the statement saying operatives had been hacked.
The Republican National Committee denied the breach after CNN’s report and McCaul swiftly said he meant to say that Republican operatives had been hacked, according to a report in Business Insider.
McCaul said both Democrats and Republicans had been hacked at the national level and that it didn’t seem targeted to one party or the another, according to a report on Politico.com.
He said he believed that the hackers were trying to undermine the “integrity of our election systems and our democracy and our way of life,” according to Politico.com.
So the CDSers want a NeverTrumper to take Cruz’ seat.
FReeper Cruz Derangement Syndrome Sufferers don’t realize who is salivating to replace Cruz, the totally un-plugged-in, Comcast owner-marrying rep Mike McCaul:
Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas misspeaks says Republican National Committee was hacked
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, told CNN Wednesday that Russians had hacked the Republican National Committee then later recanted the statement saying operatives had been hacked.
The Republican National Committee denied the breach after CNN’s report and McCaul swiftly said he meant to say that Republican operatives had been hacked, according to a report in Business Insider.
McCaul said both Democrats and Republicans had been hacked at the national level and that it didn’t seem targeted to one party or the another, according to a report on Politico.com.
He said he believed that the hackers were trying to undermine the “integrity of our election systems and our democracy and our way of life,” according to Politico.com.
So the CDSers want a NeverTrumper to take Cruz’ seat.
He filed the Amicus for a gun control bill, whether he actually argued Heller to the SCOTUS is questionable from my limited knowledge.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/cruzs-record-before-the-supreme-court/
Thanks. He argued seven cases before the SCOTUS. He won two.
My main issue with Ted is his refusal to do everything in his power to help us make sure Hillary didn’t destroy this nation over the next four years.
5 to 7 Leftist Justices and Anthony Kennedy, is an absolute terrible thing to contemplate.
It just didn’t matter to Ted, who was almost mute for 100 days prior to the election.
The issue of him being a good litigator or not, is not something that is high on my agenda right now. The fact that he or any other attorney would have to argue before a court with 5 to 7 Leftist judges at the end of four or eight year is.
Ted? What were you thinking when you went AWOL last year?
This is just one issue, one way Hillary could have altered this nation almost irreversibly.
He defended (in private practice) the Obama stimulus, some matter with Texas Teachers: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/read-ted-cruzs-2009-defense-of-obamas-stimulus-as-an-aid-to-americas-economic-recovery_042015
Though he has not been for a path to citizenship, he has clearly been for H1B1 visas to handed out and a lot of green cards.
But what ticked me off is by the time the North Carolina primary came around, it was dirty tricks again.
At first I liked him a lot but too many dirty tricks, if he is considered for the SCOTUS, he might get the Romney treatment.
He was an advisor to Bush in 1999. In it he came up with catch phrases so Bush could pass off immigration enforcement on the basis of children and parents... a soft squishy Leftist tactic. That wasn’t Conservative, and it didn’t help that he was backing Bush, a man I could clearly see as a moderate Republican.
From that point on, it seemed to me there was an ‘angle’ to everything Ted did. It could be described in great terms, but by the time you took a better look, there was an unseemly side to it.
By the time he was running, I was inclined to back him for the V.P. slot, the POTUS slot later on, and ultimately a SCOTUS slot still later on.
Then he started making prediction. Oh he was going to win the Bible belt for sure. He was the this and the that of Conservatism. I began to check him out better. I didn’t like what I found.
In some cases his complaints against Trump sounded just like the GOPe and top Republicans in Congress. That sent some warning shots across my bow.
Trump was winning open electons and Cruz was winning the heavily controlled Caucuses. Cruz predicted he was going to clean the slate in the Bible belt. The next thing you knew, he didn’t win a single one of them.
He won only two or three states East of the Mississippi, and only one bordering the Mississippi on the West. It was a total route for Trump.
Then Ted started winning caucuses. You know, you may win a few of them when you can’t win a state wide election, but you’re not going to win them all. He almost did.
What was the difference? Caucuses are run by the party, and Ted became known to me as a guy the party wanted. That didn’t sit well with me.
So I want from thinking I’d like to see Cruz get the trifecta, to thinking I didn’t want any part of him at all.
His Carson stunt, his claims of very strong Christian support, his trashing of Trump as if he caused the violence out side his events, his PACs and unseemly antics with Glenn Beck, I began to not like him very much at all.
Then he refused to endorse at the Convention, an event that is always very important as you capitalize on big momentum, Ted stole that from Trump. He refused to sign on and request his supporters to sign on too.
That’s a very big deal. Cruz supporters pass it off as if he was right to do it, or that it didn’t matter.
He wasn’t right to do it, and it did matter.
His feeble attempts to give himself cover so he could say he backed Trump were ridiculous. He knows it. We all do.
Going into an election that could honestly have meant the end of our nation, it’s Constitution, and everything we say we have supported our whole lives, and Ted couldn’t show up?
So here we are and Ted is running for office again (at least in my estimation).
Sorry Ted. Been there. Done that.
No.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.