Posted on 02/18/2018 11:05:23 AM PST by TaxPayer2000
It already has been.
Hmm, don't discount the Irishman, with a Hispanic nickname. Have been watching his progression across the state.........and his supporters are fired up and full of hate for Trump.
Will complacent voters, who think a Dem can't win, stay home and let him take the prize?
Will voters who "hate Cruz", because of his campaign against Trump, stay home to "show him" and let a Dem go to Washington to fight Trump?
Based on years past, I would say no, too..........but some of the comments posted on this article tend to make me think otherwise.
Why, he should be posthumously IMPEACHED!
Cruz is a powerful personality exceeded only by President Trump, and he has a very strong constituency of his own that is a little different, but compatible. I have always wished for them to be allies.
We’ll see but I just don’t think that in a general election
statewide for gov and other statewide offices plus one US
senator and 36 US representatives that the democrats will win
statewide offices. We’ll see come November. Take care.
Ted Cruz is excellent when he works for us. There is no one more intelligent. But, he may be owned by the Soros/The House of Rothschild elite cabal. But for the Hegelian Dialectic they will allow him some leeway on the Right-—just not enough to sink the Deep State-—THE TRUE PROBLEMS WHICH WILL CONTINUE UNTIL WE RETURN RULE OF LAW!!!!
Without Just Law, civil society will collapse (Cicero)..
Trump needs to dismantle the Leviathan-—the System—the Federal Reserve and eliminate the marxist Income Tax Act——all of it....because it is “null and void”—antithetical to the Constitution. All “laws” and Amendments which were enacted after 1912 are unconstitutional and the Warren Court “laws” and “regulations” have to be truly DUMPED for he implemented the UN (Stalin) Constitution.
We need our Constitution returned as well as a “Free Press”—All MSM “press” is exactly as Solzhenitsyn stated in 78-—it is Pravda......and as
John Swinton 1880 the famous Scottish orator and journalist stated:
“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with.
Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
Somebody mentioned Chester A. Arthur, but I'm not familiar with his case.
In the case of Ted Cruz, there doesn't appear to be any "dual allegiance" issue, and that's one of the reasons I'm so confident that the USSC would unanimously determine Ted Cruz to be eligible for the office of President.
When one must pin one's hopes on a USSC which figures to be staunchly conservative, and rely on Justices like Clarence Thomas to be in a majority that would somehow rule Ted Cruz ineligible, this is simply not a realistic expectation.
To reiterate, I believe that virtually any USSC that you could arbitrarily construct would not consider Ted Cruz ineligible—and that either unanimously or near unanimously. Thus, whimsically hoping for some fantastical scenario where that wouldn't be the case is a purely academic exercise.
Politics is the art of the possible,ad—like it or not—the Supreme Court would rule within that realm—not the boundaries defined by wishful thinking and extreme idealism.
I'm open to any rational argument that could convince me that the Supreme Court—as currently constituted, or as likely to be constituted in the next couple of decades—would rule Ted Cruz ineligible, but I simply don't see a single Justice that I think would support such a ruling—not even a strict constructionist.
<>Lyin Ted....still at it<>
Still at what?
Seriously? SMH
Well, by all means......we should replace him with an anti-gun, pro abortion, pro-amnesty, "no borders" Democrat.
Good grief........
It does not really matter.
Cruz will never President.
Maybe Texas will keep him as a Senator.
Maybe he will move back to Canada.
But he will never be President.
I guess you weren’t paying attention
??
How does the brand of thigh highs the stripper who lived with me for a while wore relate to Ted Cruz?
Are you hinting that Ted has a secret? If so, woman related or cross dressing related?
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.