![](http://i63.tinypic.com/24wdh7r.jpg")
Posted on 05/04/2016 4:56:00 AM PDT by Magnatron
From which we get the ecclesiastical term simony, an attempt to purchase church influence by mammon. Some may perceive that Donald with his enormous wealth did that, although he ended up spending relatively little so he was a picture of frugality too.
Church analogies can only go so far for a secular land, because the associated bible promises and responsibilities aren’t the same.
I disagree. He stood against McConnell and Boehner at the cost of being called an SOB and hated. How is that establishment? Of course you won’t agree, but you missed my whole point. Trump is a master counterpuncher - he took Cruz’s self described strength as anti establishment and turned it against him. That was a masterful trick...everyone needs to take thir blinders off and search for the truth. Now that his republican opposition has been vanquished, everyone should have a more critical eye, because his real self will come out.
“What went wrong with lyn’ted? He exists. Please...stay home, go away.”
Really? Trump won and you’re still trying to alienate Cruz supporters? It’s about time that those of us who voted for Trump (as I did a week ago today) acted like adults.
This is not a difficult concept: Personal insults directed at Cruz or at his voters do not make it more likely for the 30% of republican voters who preferred Cruz to vote Trump in November. That conduct makes it more likely for Hillary to win. Please give it some thought and start acting like a gracious winner - even if it’s an act.
I don’t object to the valid criticisms with specifics (Cruz did plan for a different race, one where he would be the anti-establishment candidate; and especially Ted’s stupid comment blaming Trump for the violent anti-Trump protestors!) - that is supposed to be the topic of this thread and can be done without alienating conservatives who supported and still admire Cruz. Your comment, however, adds nothing to the discussion except more alienation of voters that Trump needs.
“People got to know him a bit better. He really is just not a very nice man, and listening to him makes you cringe. I think the whole nasty business he pulled with Dr. Carson was key.”
...not to mention that he is the devil incarnate, had affairs with 5 women, lied all the time about Trump donating to Hillary’s campaigns, and deliberately had his father assassinate John F. Kennedy, or was it Lee Harvey Oswald? I mean, how could anyone like someone like that?
Sorry, Lady, you are mistaken. Cruz has been a U.S. citizen since birth -- 45 years ago.
And, though he was eligible to become one after reaching his majority, he was never a Canadian citizen -- since he did not affirmatively choose to do so.
Didn’t even need all that nonsense (although I assume you’re being sarcastic) - just listening to him was enough for me. I started out liking him, but over time....nope.
I think a lot of what turned people off to Cruz was when he went into preacher mode. In fact, he really began to pick up what I believe is called preacher cadence in his speeches, where he makes short statements then pauses and looks around the room (I guess to let his point sink in?).
Look at his concession speech last night versus some of his speeches on the Senate floor from 2012-2013. His speaking style is radically different. He used to speak in full sentences without long pauses, and his voice was less nasally. Most people will accept being preached at if they’re in church, but they don’t want to be constantly bombarded by it.
That speaking style also makes it more difficult for him to get exposure. A news program isn’t going to run a 30 second clip of Ted Cruz when 15 seconds of the clip is him making dramatic pauses. In contrast Trump may ramble, but he fills up the space and keeps your attention.
Conservatism just got “trumped” by ethno-civilizational identitarianism.
I think everybody on the GOP side started with the assumption that Jeb would be the guy to beat. A fair assumption.
I concede that Trump had the biggest impact on derailing the Jeb campaign. Where Cruz and the rest of the also-rans failed was timing. They didn’t adjust to the fact of Trump-as-front-runner soon enough. Waging a guerilla campaign against Jeb in a crowded field is a whole lot different than waging a conventional multi-state campaign against a recognized frontrunner.
Still, Cruz gave it a good shot.
I would add that Trump succeeded in convincing people that he took the mantle of ‘anti-establishment’ from Cruz, and miraculously somehow managed to paint Cruz as a GOPe. That was quite an accomplishment. Also, Trump is a counterpuncher - he went after any serious contender and attacked their strengths. Bush championed his steadiness and quietness and Trump turned it into ‘low energy’. Rubio championed his underdog role and ‘a lot of fight in a small dog’, and Trump negated it with ‘Little Marko’. Cruz championed his honesty and integrity, and Constitutional Strength - Trump turned him into ‘Lyin Ted’ and part of the Establishment. It stuck and killed his campaign of momentum. None of these candidates had ever been exposed like this. The next fight, however, will be different. What could Trump ever say about Hillary Clinton that has not already been said? On the other hand, Trump cringed at the least amount of criticism from his opponents, even to the point of boycotting debates when he was asked tough questions. I get a sense that he is the candidate that the Democrats have been praying for. They have a ton of unexposed dirt that they will drop on him like a nuclear weapon. He has been covered by a compliant media so far, but only because he was good for their ratings and profit. Now the game will change to attack, because that will be even better for their ratings...In sailor terms, we have a red sky on the horizon this morning...
_________________________________
I might add trump took drubbing in Colorado due to ineptitude and turned that into a GOPe bashing for Cruz. It negated any momentum from Wisconsin and painted Cruz as a cheater and a member of the GOPe.
I do disagree that The democrats wanted Trump rather than Cruz. Hillary is an exceptionally bad candidate. Cruz would have run a very traditional campaign where as Trump will beat her over the head with all types of her past criminal activities. This part is the only part of the Trump train I’m anticipating with glee.
I would love for Jaunita Broderick and the other victims to get their day in the sun. They were drug through the mud by the Clinton crime family. I can only imagine being raped and then portrayed as the bad guy.
yep... trump ain’t stupid.... so what was that about i thought..... and then cruz drops out...
A: Donald Trump.
Cruz had an excellent election strategy that beat the entire field, except a populist TV personality.
Now, let's finish off Hillary.
But it humanized him; it felt like he was saying the same things that Joe six-pack would say over a beer after a day at the job site.
Contrast it with Romney - two billionaires, but one was a corporate raider while the other was a construction and real estate magnate. Which one might the day laborer identify with more?
-PJ
I’m not sure.
Thank you, I knew someone would say it.
The essential qualification of POTUS cannot be overlooked! Thanks for underlining this.
” I found Cruz to be a slimy liar who would do and say anything to get elected. In other words, it was about him and his ambitions, and not about We the People. “
That’s all you really needed to say! He fooled me too initially!
Thank you, I knew someone would say it.
The essential qualification of POTUS cannot be overlooked! Thanks for underlining this.
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.