He's playing a familar tune which the masses will always follow...
A pied piper is defined as:
1. A person who offers others strong yet delusive enticements.
2. One, such as a leader, who makes irresponsible promises.
Posted on 02/10/2016 10:45:46 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
(CNN)The national spokesman for Ted Cruz's presidential campaign is calling the Donald Trump campaign "the Seinfeld candidacy," because as he puts it, "The whole campaign is about nothing."
Rick Tyler told CNN's Erin Burnett that Trump says "nothing about immigration, nothing about job creation, nothing about what's going on in North Korea, nothing about ISIS. I mean this is amazing."
Tyler said Cruz is running a campaign about conservative issues and that Trump fails to discuss the issues because he isn't a true conservative.
Both Trump and Cruz are eying key primaries in southern states starting with South Carolina, which holds its primary February 20.
Tyler added that "Donald Trump's own worst enemy is himself." ...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Horrible tactics by Cruz campaign: Attack Trump for being shallow, with a shallow attack. The Cruz aide fails to ask a single good question, insults Trump voters (of whom Cruz MUST draw a lot of support if he (Cruz) has any hope at all, fails to throw Trump off balance, and utterly ignores Trump’s position papers.
The Cruz campaign also seems utterly ignorant of why so many voters are sick of politics and campaigns in the 1st place.
I mostly like Ted - he’s my 2nd choice, and the positive parts of your argument are good. But, his high level campaign people? Ick.
Exactly. The sad thing is that, whichever candidate comes on top, that candidate will require the backing of those that are currently being called insufferable fools (and that goes to both Cruz and Trump supporters). As I said on another thread, this is a repeat of the Gingrich/Santorum wars on FR 4 years back ...although the current iteration appears to be significantly nastier. Trump and Cruz supporters are vehemently attacking each other with bile that is better reserved for the real phantom menace (Bush/Rubio) and the real absolute menace (Hillary/Sanders).
Thing is, the war is not really between Trump and Cruz. The real war is (a) with the establishment and (b) the Democrats. Both of those fights are not simple, and there is a large chance 'our' side can lose. The Establishment, following the Romney path to nomination, knows that as long as Trump and Cruz are fighting, their chosen Establishment Candidate (EC), be it Bush or Rubio or Kasich, will get 100% of the Establishment votes once ONE EC is selected. Thus, just like 2012 where Gingrich and Santorum would win around 2/3rds of the votes but Romney comes and wins the primary due to those two splitting their catch, they hope that the same will prevail and Trump/Cruz will be embroiled in such a hot war that whichever EC is chosen will keep on 'just barely' winning primaries after Super Tuesday - at least win enough that, through the use of Unelected Delegates (our version of Super Delegates) they can squeeze the EC through.
Fact is, until the recent schism between Trump and Cruz, their supporters on FR were very cordial - at least most of them. Since then its degenerated into insults on both sides.
Fact is - Trump, if nominated, cannot win without former Cruz supporters helping him out.
Another fact is - Cruz, if nominated, cannot win without former Trump supporters helping him out.
What's currently happening on FR is the best case scenario for the Democrats. It (i) helps get a Bush nominated and (ii) ensures that the party is split, no matter who the GOP nominates, and thus enhances a Clinton presidency.
As someone rightly said, the GOP is The Stupid Party. I shouldn't say this, but maybe FR is the stupid site. After all, with most posters either supporting Trump or Cruz - whether the split is 50:50, 60:40/40:60 or 70:30/30:70 does not matter, what matters is that most people are in one of those two buckets. This means, flame wars will only ensure that whichever side 'loses' will not be supporting the other side. Fact is, whether one supports Trump or Cruz, most GOP support ANOTHER candidate (i.e. not Trump or Cruz). If Trump is at 30%, that means 70% want someone else. If Cruz is at 30% it means 70% want someone else. As the field narrows, and particularly as the Establishment decides which horse they are going to back, we rapidly get to a Romney 2012 repeat.
All the while FReepers call fellow FReepers twits and insufferable fools.
As I said, a repeat of the Gingrich/Santorum 'wars' (and at times involving the same characters interestingly ...), and it may very well yield the same result.
“Not that there’s anything wrong with it.”
way too long.
Trump is pragmatic, and conservative on key issues; most importantly,... Defense, Taxation, and Immigration.
It is supremely foolish for fellow FReepers to attack each other, and only plays onto the hands of (1) the Establishment and (2) the Democrats.
Well now that you’ve pinged the others...
...Let me say that post I posted was a test.....it was quoted verbatium directly from a Trump supporter using those very words to attack a Cruz supporter. They were not my words.
Isn’t it amazing that when you dish back Trumpsters exact words suddenly it’s seen as ...and I quote.... “This comes under the category of attacking fellow FReepers rather than debating ideas.”
It’s becoming clear what is happening here therefore I will leave this thread for you folks to figure out.
The polls in IA have a history of being wrong. They fail to account for how the caucus process works, and the level of candidates’ ground games. They were wrong in the other direction in NH, though in neither case were they as wrong as most were in the recent KY Gov’s race, and the degree of the errors in none of the above would make Trump a loser in the next few states.
I also question whether Cruz can maintain the level of ground game he had in IA: Less than 4.3 votes per campaign worker or volunteer (this per Cruz’ own bragging.)
This race is Trump’s to lose.
Trump will say anything to get elected. Heard his speech in NH never advanced Conservatism but echoed bernie sanders trashing big private sector not big govt
“how can he explain a policy, other than to say “It will be womderful.—
It’ll be Yuge!
God Guns Guts and DONALD TRUMP in 2016!!!!!
You have given Cruz’s position on waterboarding. Below is the complete interaction between Cruz, Trump, Bush and Rubio on the question of waterboarding. My review of Cruz’s position appears like he brought up the subject of line officers as a way to dodge the question with what I call a red herring. Those who do the waterboarding would be specialized people trained in the method. If a line officer was specialized in waterboarding, and they were given the authorization, they would have the authority to do it. Otherwise, even though Cruz sidestepped the issue, he did make some good points.
Take a look at the other candidates. There are good points from all of them. There was also some sidestepping as what politicians are good to do.
DAVID MUIR:
WE’RE GOING TO MOVE ON. MARTHA, THANK YOU. WE’RE GOING TO STAY ON ISIS HERE AND THE WAR ON TERROR, BECAUSE THERE’S BEEN A DEBATE IN THIS COUNTRY ABOUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THE ENEMY AND ENHANCED INTERROGATION ATTEMPTS. SENATOR CRUZ, YOU HAVE SAID, TORTURE IS WRONG, PERIOD. CIVILIZED NATION DO NOT ENGAGE IN TORTURE. SOME OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES SAY THEY DON’T THINK WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE. MR. TRUMP HAS SAID, I WOULD BRING IT BACK. SENATOR CRUZ, IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE?
CRUZ:
WELL, UNDER THE DEFINITION OF TORTURE, NO, IT’S NOT. UNDER THE LAW, TORTURE IS EXCRUCIATING PAIN THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO LOSING ORGANS AND SYSTEMS, SO, UNDER THE DEFINITION OF TORTURE, IT IS NOT. IT IS ENHANCED INTERROGATION, IT IS VIGOROUS INTERROGATION, BUT IT DOES NOT MEET THE GENERALLY RECOGNIZED DEFINITION OF TORTURE.
DAVID MUIR:
IF ELECTED PRESIDENT, WOULD YOU BRING IT BACK?
CRUZ:
I WOULD NOT BRING IT BACK IN ANY SORT OF WIDESPREAD USE. AND INDEED — I WOULD JOIN WITH SENATOR McCAIN IN LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PROHIBIT LINE OFFICERS FROM EMPLOYING IT, BECAUSE I THINK BAD THINGS HAPPEN WHEN ENHANCED INTERROGATION IS EMPLOYED AT LOWER LEVELS, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO KEEPING THIS COUNTRY SAFE, THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF HAS INHERENT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO KEEP THIS COUNTRY SAFE. AND SO, IF IT WERE NECESSARY TO, SAY, PREVENT A CITY FROM FACING AN IMMINENT TERRORIST ATTACK, YOU CAN REST ASSURED THAT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF, I WOULD USE WHATEVER METHODS WE COULD TO KEEP THIS COUNTRY SAFE.
DAVID MUIR:
SENATOR CRUZ, THANK YOU. MR. TRUMP, YOU SAID NOT ONLY DOES IT WORK, BUT YOU WOULD BRING IT BACK.
TRUMP:
WELL, I’LL TELL YOU WHAT. IN THE MIDDLE EAST, WE HAVE PEOPLE CHOPPING THE HEADS OFF CHRISTIANS. WE HAVE PEOPLE CHOPPING THE HEADS OFF MANY OTHER PEOPLE. WE HAVE THINGS THAT WE HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE, AS A GROUP, WE HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE, WHAT’S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. THE MEDIEVAL TIMES, I MEAN, WE STUDIED MEDIEVAL TIMES, NOT SINCE MEDIEVAL TIMES HAVE PEOPLE SEEN WHAT’S GOING ON. I WOULD BRING BACK WATERBOARDING AND I WOULD BRING BACK A HELL OF A LOT WORSE THAN WATERBOARDING.
DAVID MUIR:
MR. TRUMP, THANK YOU. GOVERNOR BUSH, YOU SAID YOU WON’T RULE IT OUT. CONGRESS HAS PASSED LAWS BANNING THE USE OF WATERBOARDING BY THE MILITARY AND THE CIA, AS YOU KNOW. WOULD YOU WANT CONGRESS TO CHANGE THAT?
BUSH:
NO, NO, I WOULDN’T. IT WAS USED SPARINGLY, CONGRESS HAS CHANGED THE LAWS AND I THINK WHERE WE STAND IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE. BUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE EXPAND OUR INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES. THE IDEA THAT WE’RE GOING TO SOLVE THIS FIGHT WITH PREDATOR DRONES, KILLING PEOPLE SOMEHOW IS MORE ACCEPTABLE THAN CAPTURING THEM, SECURING THE INFORMATION. THIS IS WHY, CLOSING GUANTANAMO IS A COMPLETE DISASTER. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS MAKE SURE WE ARE KEPT SAFE BY HAVING INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES, BOTH HUMAN AND TECHNOLOGICAL. THAT’S HOW YOU GET A MORE SAFE PLACE, IS BY MAKING SURE THAT WE’RE FULLY ENGAGED. RIGHT NOW, THIS ADMINISTRATION DOESN’T DO THAT.
DAVID MUIR:
GOVERNOR BUSH, THANK YOU. SENATOR RUBIO, I DO WANT TO ASK YOU, YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU DO NOT WANT THE TELEGRAPH TO THE ENEMY WHAT YOU WOULD DO AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF. BUT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, DO YOU BELIEVE WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE?
RUBIO:
WELL, WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT INTERROGATING TERRORISTS, THEY ARE ACTING LIKE THIS IS SOME SORT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTION. LAW ENFORCEMENT IS ABOUT GATHERING EVIDENCE TO TAKE SOMEONE TO TRIAL AND CONVICT THEM. ANTI-TERRORISM IS ABOUT FINDING OUT INFORMATION TO PREVENT A FUTURE ATTACK. SO, THE SAME TACTICS DO NOT APPLY. AND IT IS TRUE, WE SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING IN A WIDESPREAD WAY THE EXACT TACTICS THAT WE’RE GOING TO USE, BECAUSE IT ALLOWS TERRORISTS AND OTHERS TO PRACTICE HOW TO EVADE US. BUT HERE’S THE BIGGER PROBLEM WITH ALL OF THIS. WE’RE NOT INTERROGATING ANYBODY RIGHT NOW. GUANTANAMO IS BEING EMPTIED BY THIS PRESIDENT. WE SHOULD BE PUTTING PEOPLE INTO GUANTANAMO; NOT EMPTYING IT OUT. AND WE SHOULD NOT BE RELEASING THESE KILLERS WHO ARE REJOINING THE BATTLEFIELD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
DAVID MUIR:
SENATOR RUBIO, THANK YOU.
What a load of BS. If you say it long enough and loud enough even a lie sounds true. So much for Cruz.
He's playing a familar tune which the masses will always follow...
A pied piper is defined as:
1. A person who offers others strong yet delusive enticements.
2. One, such as a leader, who makes irresponsible promises.
Thank you.
Bump!
Then Cruz is running the Elmer Gantry candidacy.
Trump’s record has shown he is pragmatic. He knows how to get things done. Trump has gone through a holy conversion to conservatism and is on the right path. To understand this, we have to look back at Saint Paul who was a staunch persecutor of the early Christians in the region of Jerusalem. He wanted to destroy their movement. However, he had a life-changing moment that changed him from being one of the early movement’s most ardent persecutors to being one of its most fervent supporters. This change is what I see has happened to The Donald. He has seen the light and through his pragmatic way of doing things, he will be successful like his record has shown. And he will be zealous for our cause in a way that will be miraculous, just like Saint Paul.
When did Trumpettes start debating ideas?
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.