Now this I regard as an entirely rational approach. The Consolation prize with Trump is that he will address some of the *MOST* important issues, even though he will probably make a mess of the lesser issues.
Yes, we need pushback against the globalist efforts. Yes, we need more nationalism, and I hope Trump will move in this direction.
Trump is the only nationalist in the mix, and the consensus among many conservatives (at least on this site) is that if the borders and immigration and trade can’t be fixed, then all is lost.
I do not believe that Cruz is a globalists. I've seen people accusing him of that, i've seen people making an issue out of his wife working for Goldman Sachs, but I haven't seen anything that I regard as reasonable proof that he is in favor of Globalism rather than Nationalism.
But I agree with you that we *MUST* get control of our borders and we *MUST* stop allowing International corporations to have so much influence on our society and public policy.
Do I expect Trump to be a small government conservative? Absolutely not...
Nor do I, and I regard that as a pretty serious problem.
but then again, I don’t trust Cruz in that regard as far as I can spit after his mask came off in recent months.
I see a lot of allegations repeated over and over and over again. I am not persuaded by "argumentum ad populum". When I have made efforts to examine the facts on various accusations, it has invariably turned out that the people making the accusations were the ones doing the misleading.
I remember seeing one video that someone posted about Cruz's "Lies." The first "Lie" was how Cruz said John Roberts would make a great Supreme Court Justice.
I pointed out to the person who posted it that we all thought John Roberts would make a great Supreme Court Justice, and Cruz no more "lied" about this than any of us. We were just all mistaken.
Making a mistake is not a "lie", and it is a Lie to portray such a mistake as a lie.
There has been too many false accusations and rumor mongering in this campaign. I thought our side was more reasonable and decent than the Democrats, yet I saw many people repeating the most vicious accusations against both Cruz and Trump.
This "mob" mentality is ugly, and I had thought we were better than this.
>>> I am not persuaded by “argumentum ad populum”.
I agree that just repeating stuff is not an effective argument, so I will specify the things that turned me from Cruz. First was after Jeb dropped out, Cruz took on the Bush finance team to his campaign, including brother Neil S&L-fiasco Bush (http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/politics/neil-bush-ted-cruz-finance/). That shocked me and I didn’t quite know how to set things in their place.
But the one that pushed me over the brink was his yabuttal after the Chicago riots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmxBp4IFe_I). He spends 5 seconds (at 1:15)saying, “ya, the protesters were wrong, BUT...” and then launches into a 40 second diatribe on why Trump had it coming and encouraged the riots. A Constitutional lawyer should understand the notions of free speech, that crashing private venues like Trump rallies in an effort to disrupt American’s freedom of assembly is legally no different than a home invasion.
That was it for me and Cruz. But I would not that since then, I’ve learned additional things, like Ryan and Cruz pushed Obama’s fast track authority for TPA (http://www.wsj.com/articles/putting-congress-in-charge-on-trade-1429659409). That is certainly working with the globalists.
Finally, his refusal to concede after New York when victory became numerically closed to him can only be taken as doing the bidding of the Romney/Bush clan. A brokered convention is already a losing proposition (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3416210/posts). In the last 100 years (8 brokered nominees) only one defeated a non-brokered nominee in the general election. And that one, FDR in 1932, came to the convention with the most delegates, in fact over 50% (back then, 2/3 was required for nomination). So, the whole notion of arguing for a brokered convention to allow a second tier candidate to pushed to the top, as Cruz continues to do, is to basically call for Prez. Hillary. History shows it to be true and as a scholar, Cruz should know the history better than I.
So there you have it. These are the reasons I stand against Cruz.