{ snip absurd insult of FreeRepublic }
Dude ...
Posted on 03/16/2016 8:43:37 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“When Cruz blamed Trump for the violence in Chicago, he became dead to me. Cruz is not conservative and he can go to hell. He’s a TPP, corker and h1b supporting career politician born in Canada and not naturalized until the 1980s.”
Your accusation about Chicago is ridiculous. It’s not even worth addressing.
Trump has been a partial birth abortion supporter, Gang of Eight donor, has been a Republican for an extremely small minority of his life, and has financially supported liberal candidates for the past the past 40 years. Does that warrant any attention on your radar screen, or does your indicator light only work when evaluating Cruz?
Maybe you can enlighten me on a few questions:
How exactly do you define a true conservative?
What makes someone a member of the establishment?
Is there any elected politician who is not a member of the establishment?
In your post that to which I responded, you said 'principled conservative'. Not the same. How about you define 'principled conservative'...
Trump is more principled than any other of the primary candidates in either party!
I like to hear your definitions first.
Do you even have a criteria, or are you just shooting from the hip to support your candidate?
By the way, how principled was Trump when he said during the debate he had BBB rating of A for Trump University, when that rating was for a another entity that took over after Trump University went out of business and had received a D- rating?
I agree. Ted the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow! A courageous chivalrous conservative who stays on track year to year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr_yshI9D7A
“Ted the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow! A courageous chivalrous conservative who stays on track year to year.”
Everybody knows that, but the Trumpbots are trying to re-write history, because it suits their narrative.
The only way they can justify voting for Trump, who they know is a fraudulent conservative, is to tear down the credentials of Cruz.
They will exaggerate every vote Cruz has ever made and claim that every misstep he has made is a lie.
That is the only way they make their consciences feel good, for what is the completely unconservative act of voting for Trump.
Thank you for this video from EWTN!
We are EWTN listeners and staunchly conservative Catholics.
I will listen to it later when I have more time.
First of all, among politicians, there is no such thing as a ‘true’ conservative. ‘True’ to what? Ronald Reagan was not a ‘true’ conservative, though he had some conservative principles. Erick Erickson (fired from ‘Red State’) is not a conservative, though he likes to throw ‘conservative principles’ around as he bashes Trump. Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump are both ‘Populists’, and I see Trump garnering support from many of the ‘Reagan Democrats’ in the general election.
The closest thing to a ‘true conservative’ probably was Barry Goldwater. Of course, ‘they’ told me if I voted for Goldwater, taxes would go up and the war in Vietnam would get worse...I voted for Barry and yup, taxes went up and the war got worse...
So what is conservative...?
Minimize the Federal Gov’t (Only Constitutional Cabinet Departments are Defense, State, Treasury, Attorney General)
Balanced budgets
The Federal Reserve is Un-Constitutional
Reduce the national debt (Perhaps we should make the banksters eat the debt that they have created)
Right to life for the unborn
Belief that the Constitution is ‘written’ in stone, and the Bill of Rights is untouchable.
Legislating ‘from the bench’ (Federal Court Justices, US Supreme Court) is an un-Constitutional usurpation of powers.
Protect our borders
Protect US manufacturing with ‘fair’ free trade...no NAFTA, no TPP, etc.
No agreements with other countries (Iran Nuke Deal) without Senate confirmation...the Iran Nuke Deal is un-Constitutional
Executive Orders may not have effect outside of the running of the Executive Branch, may not be used to subvert the Constitution, may not be used to ‘legislate’ if the Congress chooses not to legislate on any given matter.
There might be a few more that could be included above to define ‘conservative’, and others might like to add their own thoughts...even you might like to do so. In any case, this pretty much defines my own position, conservative wise. That might just make me a ‘true’ conservative, and I am ‘principled’.
Thank for that. I think you’re definition is very close to what I would consider a true conservative.
I agree by your definition I would consider you a true conservative.
But Ronald Reagan a populist? He may not have been 100% conservative, but he was about as close as you can get.
Based upon your definition, however, don’t you think Cruz fits a lot closer to this definition than Trump???
“It’s not nonsense that only 35-40% of the party has chosen Trump; it’s a fact. And that’s not insignificant.”
It’s not nonsense that only 20-25% of the party has chosen Cruz; it’s a fact. And that’s not insignificant.
Reagan was a populist when he was elected. It is how he was able to be elected. The establishment did not want Reagan to be the nominee. And then they wanted to saddle him with Gerald Ford, a former president, as VP, in effect as co-president. The establishment hasn’t learned anything in all these years.
Being a populist may have nothing to do with being ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’. And Reagan became more conservative during his 8 years in the White House. I would suggest that Bernie Sanders is a ‘populist’.
Cruz is an opportunist. He did not demonstrate conservative characteristics during his years as a part of the Bush teams. And he helped vet John Roberts for Chief Justice. Cruz can be a persuasive debater, but conservatism does not come out of Ivy League schools (Princeton & Harvard). He took on the Tea Party mantle as a ‘conservative’ in his run for the Senate.
Cruz supports TPP, Trump does not. It is true that Trump has morphed toward conservatism, just as Reagan did. I suggest that Cruz morphed toward conservatism for his Senate run, and he garnered Sarah Palin’s endorsement. But did not get it now.
Early on in this Presidential Election Year cycle, I thought very highly of Cruz. Then came Trump. I too am an opportunist...it is absolutely essential that we elect a Republican President. This country cannot afford to have a Democrat appointing Justices to the Supreme Court, or to the lower Federal courts. We have seen establishment candidates go down in flames in the last two cycles...McCain and Romney. In both cases I held my nose while I voted for them. I think Trump is the only candidate, who as nominee, can win in November. And I think he will help Senate and House Republican candidates win, increasing Republican control of both chambers. Much to the chagrin of the establishment, and also to the chagrin of the likes of Nebraska’s Sasse.
The disapproval ratings are based upon total electorate, which included Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.Trump consistently has the worst disapproval rate of any presidential candidate by far. His disapproval rate sits at 60%. By comparison, Hillary is at 54% and Cruz is at 48%.
That is a big part of why Cruz does better in head to head matchups with Hillary.
The Reagan comparison is apples and oranges. I guarantee you Reagan never had a 60% disapproval rating at any time from 1980 to 1988, and things went downhill fast for Carter in the Fall of 1988.
Trump is already starting with an alltime lousy number for disapproval. It’s bound to improve (because it probably can’t get any worse), but it’s not at all at a level you want before a General Election. Granted things could go downhill fast for Hillary, too, if the feds finally announce their seeking an indictment, but we’ve been waiting a long time for that.
I know most of you Trumpbots think there’s no way Cruz could win being as firmly entrenched as a staunch conservative, but the only thing that’s prevented a conservative Presidential candidate from wining a general election since 1988 is the Republican voters. And Cruz, although he has high negatives as well, is not anywhere near the polarizing figure that Trump is.
If you’re not concerned about the fact that there are more than 60% of the Republicans voting for someone else, and there roughly a third or more of the voting Republicans who say they won’t vote for him no matter what, then you really are naive.
Well first of all, I don't recall insulting you, but you couldn't return the favor I see ... So "Cruzbot", you mostly just repeated what you said earlier. I gave you all the evidence you needed to contradict your false narrative, you are not processing the data!
He is already getting 40% of the vote in the primaries. To believe he would only get 40% in the general means that you believe he gets ZERO (I)ndependents and (D)ummycrats. We have no (R) candidate in memory that has more crossover appeal. And note that Reagan himself did not get them in 1980 ( final total 50.8% ), it was in 1984 that that they switched ( final total 58.8% ). They went 3rd party to Anderson in 1980.
Trump has no mythical ceiling since the evidence shows he has increased his share of (R) voters as the size of the field has decreased. I would say that a majority of Cruzers will come to their senses and come along for the ride, just like most did for Reagan, because there is much more at stake today.
The polls of every cycle, especially "favorability", are wild and crazy and plain stupid. But use your head. Can you think of anyone who has had such an onslaught of warfare directed at him? His "favorability" should be low. He is now part of the club of Sarah Palin, Reagan, Bork, Thomas, North, Cheney, Libby, etc.
Polarizing? Yep, that is the enemy plan and YOU are playing right into their politically correct hands. YOU are now expecting what the enemy expects, for him to go away and accept the verdict of the media and intelligentsia. YOU are doing this by believing and promoting these push polls. Don't you understand yet how we even got into this predicament in the first place? It was by listening to these clowns and surrendering. Ask President George Allen how that works out. Oh, wait.
Reagan in fact was behind 60-30 and narrowed the gap towards the end. The fact that the +30 points existed and was narrowed is another piece of evidence you failed to process. Whether the polls were slanted and wrong or whether he actually improved is irrelevant. What is relevant is the delta, and this makes it odd for you to invest such power and authority in to them!
the only thing that’s prevented a conservative Presidential candidate from wining a general election since 1988 is the Republican voters
You're parroting Rush who is going to kill us with this myth. 51 years of great society welfare rats, and 24 years of 18-year old voting, and 51 years of immigration, amnesty and naturalization, plus the attrition of WWI, WWII, Korea era patriots dying off and being replaced by baby boomers and now these newer people have had no effect on the electorate?
Each election, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 demonstrated the linear trend against us, in 2000 they achieved their first majority since LBJ vs Goldwater, and since the outlier 2004 ( Iraq war ) has seen a dramatic continuation, with the trend now in serious danger of going logarithmic. Their electoral vote advantage is approximately +70 minimum and if they turn one more state "Blue" the elections will be over before they ever begin ( and Rush and Levin will still carry on their merry way selling books to you and telling you the problem is that we just are not on the ballot for them to choose from ). This election is about putting some time back on the clock, saving the Supreme Court and hopefully getting a moratorium on the demographic warfare. And you and Rush and Levin want to gamble on your religious belief that we just need a conservative on the top of the ticket and the enemy will lay down their arms and vote for us?
Look, I could spend all day hammering you over this fantasy ...
... Cruz does better in head to head matchups with Hillary.
... All I can say is you have been brainwashed by Cruz propaganda if you actually believe that. You also must believe that O.J. didn't kill Nicole and that Michelle Fields was assaulted by the campaign manager.
Let's make it simple. Cruz shot his own legs out by "New York Values" and hammering "(D)emocrats" rather than just Hillary. He went from Constitutional Conservative to bible thumping evangelical. He has no play to make for (I) and (D) voters. So he is the one with an actual ceiling. But most importantly, that theoretical head-to-head push poll ignores the actual battlefield of 50 states + D.C. Three questions you need to answer about Ted Cruz in a general election ...
I'll even list the battleground states for you: OH, PA, NC, IN, FL, IA, VA, MI, WI, NV, NM, CO, and remind you that McCain/Palin took 0, and Romney/Ryan took 2 ( NC, IN ).
That is the election in a nutshell. It is against Hillary, the entire liberal (D)emocrat-Socialist machine and the enemedia. The truth is that Ted Cruz would not even be here today except that he was ducking behind Trump's armor. He would have been toe-tagged last summer/fall since all the RNC rules and machinations were specifically designed to kill candidates like him ( and Keyes, George Allen, Ron/Rand Paul, Gingrich, Bachmann, Dornan, Buchanan, Cain, Santorum, Huck, Robertson ... ) in favor of GOPe hacks. To stand up now and say "look at how Ted Cruz survived all this so far" is like saying the French survived World War II.
You're parroting Rush who is going to kill us with this myth. 51 years of great society welfare rats, and 44 years of 18-year old voting, and 51 years of immigration, amnesty and naturalization, plus the attrition of WWI, WWII, Korea era patriots dying off and being replaced by baby boomers and now these newer people have had no effect on the electorate?
I never said they couldn’t. I’m addressing the argument that Cruz can’t win the nomination unless he takes 87% of the remaining votes. That’s not true. And yes, it also is possible that someone else could win the nomination if the rules were changed either before or at the Convention to remove the 8 state minimum.
Yeah but that's like saying Romney is also still in contention and Goldwater and Reagan also. They need only about 200% of the remaining delegates.
I'm in the same boat, the SS Conservative, as you Cruzers are. I'm probably far more hardcore than most of you because Keyes is still my favorite of all time, a bible thumping constitutionalist who runs rings about the great pretender TPA Ted.
But the difference between us is that I now realize that I am in a minority of a minority. This is the epiphany you all still have not had. Remind me of the plan again for getting one of our "minority of a minority" guys into the white House? Besides succession, there is no logical way, certainly no legitimate path given the demographic warfare waged on America. There is a consequence to us dying off and being replaced by naturalized invaders and welfare rats.
So now a chance for an imperfect "common sense" Conservative ( still far better than the metrosexual "Compassionite Conservatives", hard to believe that was ever a "thing" ) to at least put some time back on our electoral doomsday clock. Are ya'll really gonna split hairs on this?
{ snip absurd insult of FreeRepublic }
Dude ...
Hi libbylu!
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.