Posted on 01/16/2016 9:05:46 PM PST by TBBT
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are, not surprisingly, now in a total war. One school of thought is that Cruz made a mistake in cozying up to Trump for so long now that The Donald is lambasting him in the harshest and most demagogic terms. I don’t think that’s right. Even though Cruz’s “friendship†was transparently insincere–and often cringe-inducing–it was very shrewd, and the timing of the break-up is too. It was very unlikely that the truce could last forever, and the timing of the open hostilities means that Cruz can blame Trump for firing the first shot (the Canadian stuff) and, more importantly, attack Trump from a much stronger political position. With his surge over the last month or so, Cruz has amassed an extraordinary reserve of credibility on the right. A recent poll in Iowa had him at 91-6 favorable-unfavorable among tea partiers. If anyone has the standing to make the case against Donald Trump, it is Ted Cruz. And he won’t be making a “golly, Donald, why can’t you be nicer?†case against Trump, but a hard-hitting conservative one (and while a divided and feckless establishment, such as it is, watches from the sidelines). If there was any tactical error here it was on the part of Donald Trump. It has been pretty clear for a long time that Cruz had great potential in Iowa, but back when Trump could have dropped a bomb on Cruz before he took off, the mogul was either taken in by Cruz’s submissiveness, or willing to play along with the terms of their faux friendship.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Both are fine men in my book, I want a Trump/Cruz Ticket
We tried people like Rubio the last two times (McCain and Romney)and they got beaten fair and square by Obama
What makes you think a younger carbon copy of Romney could have a chance to win against Hillary
Nobody thought Reagan wold win because he was too “extremist” back then
WAS A LIBERAL , PEOPLE CHANGE, i was a hardline liberal atheist once who hated Christianity , support abortion and such and now im a Lutheran Christian
Reagan was once a liberal , he voted for fdr before turning conservative , with your logic we would have thrown Reagan under the bus
“Rigid belief systems alone do not define a cult. Far too broad.”
It is not the rigid belief system that is the basis for a cult. It is their total devotion to the leader without question that makes a cult - the leader rules their lives and they let him. That could be five or ten or hundreds or thousands or millions.
Can you imagine Freerepublic in 1980?
“Reagan is a stealth Liberal! He was pro-abortion 16 years ago! He’s trying to get Carter elected!”
There is no shortage of the DNC-supplied beverages to render Trump the NY LIEberal palatable. “Hey Kool-Aid!”
Total devotion is a rigid belief system. These terms are not mutually exclusive.
Having total devotion to Jesus does not make you a cult member. Being on a compound with David Koresh makes you a cult member. The difference is group size.
How could a Reagan/Freep/FoxNews/NationalReview-type conservative support Trump (in the primary)? It is mind-boggling.
Natural born means born American, and thus not an immigrant. Nice try, though.
I think maybe someone is hired to do this; they use the technique of the great insults over and over and over again, which tends to work well with weak minded democrats over time, less so with strong minded republicans. Insults in the vein of only stupid ignorant uneducated lower-class people support such and such, surely you do not want to be one of them, come be one of us smart upscale people. It gets to be quite annoying after a time, doesn’t it?
Was Cruz a natural born Canadian? I doubt I’ll get a yes or no out of you.
That is really bizarre to call Rich Lowry a RINO. He always takes conservative positions, even when they are not the most popular.
“That is really bizarre to call Rich Lowry a RINO. He always takes conservative positions, even when they are not the most popular.”
Lowry and National Review have gone over to the dark side and are GOPe big-time now. Conservatives have all noticed it. Why haven’t you? Lowry and Nat’l review started out backing Jeb Bush, also Rubio, and as Trump picked off most of the GOPe candidates, they are now reduced to Lowry touting Ted Cruz, a man he really can’t stand. You tell me why.
“Lets see here Cruz is losing in NH, SC, FL, VA, MI, NC, MN, IL, MO, TX, GA, AL, MA, CT, OK, OH, and even Trump took a slim lead in Iowa. I’m sure I missed other states that Cruz is getting beat in.”
He is running for the Santorum mantle, 2016.
“True. I was totally being kind to his supporters and I liked him but now he’s just a sneaky lawyer to me.”
You are too harsh. Didn’t you see the four efforts to say grace with his wife and daughters? It betokens REAL sincerity to make so many efforts to get it right. That is such deep sincerity and authenticity that it cannot be measured.
No, the point is Vattel didn’t write the Constitution and Vattel’s rule is NOT binding American law, and I have found no one in all these threads who has been able to show otherwise. The “Living Constitution” problem is not about constitutional terms that have more than one possible meaning (in law an ambiguity), but about legal positivists who reject the entire notion of being governed by an old piece of paper. Conflating the two is serious error.
Ask yourself, was the intent of the framers to prevent loyal Americans from serving if they were born out of country? Really? Or was it to prevent heart and soul foreigners such as Prince Henry of Prussia, or Fredrick, Duke of York, from asserting foreign control by insinuating themselves to become an elected monarch by way of the presidency? The framers of our Constitution were practical, powerful men. They were not trying to protect themselves or their country from born American babies. If you want to camp on originalism, these are the sorts of things that need to be considered.
Peace,
SR
LOL. Just like you said, RINO Rich Lowry is stuck with Cruz given his Jeb is out of the viable running, but I am more concerned with the vile hatred expressed and mistruths promoted here about Mr. Trump by some members, some of whom I’ve pinged.
Senator Cruz, IMHO is a natural born citizen, and eligible to hold our nation’s highest office. Mr. Trump didn’t start the conversation, but he has promoted it. Such is politics.
Mr. Trump claims he did NOT know about that wheel chair bound reporter or whomever he is and I believe him, so American Constitutionalist is a broken record with unfounded claims.
We have quite enough rancor here, without this continuous hatred dominating every damn thread. I think we should be grateful that our two leading candidates are TRUMP and CRUZ, and NOT Rubio and Jeb.
I like Grandpa Munster!
“All day long the same crap from Cruzbots.”
It is their Ardennes offensive. I think the only thing that has changed is that Cruz won’t be on the ticket now.
“I am more concerned with the vile hatred expressed and mistruths promoted here about Mr. Trump by some members, some of whom I’ve pinged.”
Thank you. It is getting hard trying to remain civil. I have to wonder how many of the odious agitators are actually GOP drones trying to whip rivalry into hatred.
You have to get specific in your comments. And you need to put things in context. The only stupid folks in Iowa were the ones supporting Ben Carson when you see things from Trump's perspective. Trump knew that Carson would be a threat when the 2015 Iowa State Fair straw poll, August 17, 2015, results gave Carson second place (19.37%). Trump received first place(29.92%)in that poll.
When Trump fell to second place in Iowa polling behind Carson later in October, the battle between them began. Trump began his jabs by saying, "We have a breaking story. Donald Trump has fallen to second place behind Ben Carson. We informed Ben, but he was sleeping." He compared Carson to Jeb Bush, calling him "lower energy" than Bush whose sluggish campaign led him to make financial cuts that week.
The battle stepped up after Carson made those revelations about his boyhood violence; which include punching a classmate in the face with his hand wrapped around a lock, leaving a bloody three-inch gash in the boy's forehead; attempting to attack his own mother with a hammer following an argument over clothes; hurling a large rock at a boy, which broke the youth's glasses and smashed his nose; and, finally, thrusting a knife at the belly of his friend with such force that the blade snapped when it luckily struck a belt buckle covered by the boy's clothes. All these things caused Trump to say in November, "It’s in the book that he’s got a pathological temper." Trump added, "That’s a big problem because you don't cure that . . . as an example: child molesting. You don't cure these people. You don't cure a child molester. There's no cure for it. Pathological, there’s no cure for that." With that conviction, Trump said, "Let me tell you something: If I did the stuff he said he did, I wouldn't be here right now," he declared. "It would have been over. It would have been over. OK? It would have been totally over." So, it is understandable that Trump questioned Iowa Republicans for putting him in second place under Carson. His Tweet read:
"@mygreenhippo #BenCarson is now leading in the #polls in #Iowa. Too much #Monsanto in the #corn creates issues in the brain? #Trump #GOP"
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.