Replies

>>> 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.

I was not at all shocked by that. I saw it as an effort by the Bush clan to maintain some sort of relevance to the corridors of power. It is *them* trying to stay connected. As for Cruz, he needed support from any direction he could get it. Trump is a very formidable opponent because Trump doesn't need any money, and he knows how to fight in the court of public opinion.

I didn't like Cruz making allies with the Bush clan, but I also saw it as something he couldn't win without. (Like Reagan in 1980. He did the same thing.)

I saw that as a candidate trying to make hay out of anything he can. It was a dumb effort, and he would have probably gotten more accolades had he not attempted such a cheesy stunt, but that's all I saw it as; A Cheesy stunt.

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.

I don't think Cruz was being serious. I think he was just flinging poo. It just happened to be the only thing he could get his hands on at the time. He doesn't have the natural flair for politics that Trump or Bill Clinton has. (Remember when Trump waited for Ben Carson at that one Debate? Very smart. That incident paid dividends for him.)

I looked into that. It is not so cut and dried as people would have us believe. My recollection is that he said he was against it, but he ended up voting for it because of some stupid and convoluted effort to delay it. I do not believe that Ted Cruz has any desire to do anything to help Obama. I think this was just a misguided blunder where he thought he was being clever, and it didn't work. I've been noticing quite a few incidents where he thought he was being clever, and it didn't work.

I never thought he had any chance of winning anything in New York, especially after people blew up his comments about "New York Values." I think he knew quite awhile before New York that the only way he was going to be able to stop Trump was to throw the party into a brokered convention.

Again, Trump is a very effective campaigner. He's likable, and Cruz isn't. Trump can do political mockery on his feet and he's good at it. Cruz hasn't mastered that at all. He's more of a contemplative man.

Cruz needed Trump in the beginning to keep the fire off of him, (Because all the establishment candidates hated Cruz at that point.) but Cruz needed the field to narrow much faster than it did. Rubio and Bush hung in far too long.

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.

Yes, a brokered convention is very likely to be a disaster. If the man with the most votes doesn't win, a lot of voters will be turned off and resentful. It would possibly be enough to let that Witch-Hag win.

But on the other hand, the possibility of that Witch-Hag becoming president would probably get people to overcome their resentment and vote for anyone but her.

I don't know. What I *do* know is that this is the worst mess i've ever seen.