Posted on 07/03/2016 10:05:35 AM PDT by conservative98
I think that’s it, you are so angry you want Trump to lose so you go all over this web page screaming and name calling
If you don’t find it messed that Ted Cruz would endose someone stabbed the teaparty in the back, lied to his own voters, and tried like hell to legalize 50 million new voters while fragging Trump at every opertunity... then I don’t understand Cruz supporters.
What was he suppose to do back a nobody and give the seat to a Democrat?
Cruz and Rubio are prob hoping Hillary wins so they can be a ticket in 2020. HA!
Fact is if Hillary does win we will never have another Republican for at least a generation or 20 or 30 years, if ever.
>What was he suppose to do back a nobody and give the seat to a Democrat?
The same could be said about Trump v Hillary, but he spends his time attacking Trump.
Democrats thought that in 1988 when Dukakis lost, and Republicans appeared to have a permanent lease on the Presidency.
Then came 1992, when Slick Willy trashed that and began the 24 year-and-counting Democrat electoral stranglehold on IL, CA, NM, VT, NJ, NH, MI, DE, CT, ME, PA, MD.
From 1968-1988 (incl.) the first six went GOP 6 out of 6, the next 4 went GOP 5 out of 6, & last 2 went GOP 4/6.
(I don’t buy the Perot-elected-Clinton lie; see http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3441714/posts ).
Point is that no “electoral lock” or “blue wall” is permanent. Bush Sr. lost because of the perception of the economy; if and when recession occurs on Shillary’s watch, whoever the GOP nominates could begin a “Red Wall” or “Electoral Lock 2.0,” because white voters will get even more sick of Democrat racism, and more Hispanics are seeing themselves as “white,” and that doesn’t help the Democrat grievance culture. (see the seething liberals about this trend http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/29/opinion/liu-study-hispanics-favor-whiteness/)
Exactly what did Cruz say when he "attacked" Trump? Where was he and who reported it?
I ask because the latest that I can find a report of Cruz even mentioning Trump was May 3 -- when the campaign was still underway.
Doesn't seem as if that's "spending his time attacking Trump."
Attacking Trump:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282408-cruz-trump-wrong-to-attack-judge
BTW, this judge failed to drop a class action law suit after the lead plaintiff dropped out. It’s purely a political prosecution and Ted Cruz knows it.
And you’re still dodging the question, if endorsing a back stabbing, open borders traitor like Rubio is needed to stop a democratic victory, why didn’t Cruz endorse Trump long ago in order to stop Hillary victory?
Seems to me that most everybody agrees it was a mistake and that Cruz was simply being honest. How is that an "attack"?
I’m with you
Why is Saint Theodore endorsing an open borders guajiro like Rubio
So its fine for Cruz to effectively give aid and comfort to the Clintons, by piling on Trump? Let Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow do that; Cruz took the pledge, unless he wants to live up to the name Lyin Ted.
Your Cruz talking points couldn’t be more mistaken:
To: Jim Robinson
So, Trump stating that Curiel is Mexican was not a statement regarding ethnicity, it was a statement of legal fact. He’s a citizen of Mexico, by operation of Mexican citizenship law.
5 posted on 06/09/2016 10:37:33 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3438476/posts?q=1&;page=1
Irrelevant. American citizenship law takes zero notice of other nations' citizenship laws.
The judge may be an asshole -- but he's an American asshole, not a Mexican asshole.
You didn’t read the link.
Well, yes, I did. Curiel was born in Indiana. He is, ipso facto, an American citizen.
Only if you, like Cruz, believe the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to supply the US with a never ending horde of Anchor Babies.
How did he "pile on"? He was asked a question; he gave an honest answer.
He then refused to go any further; characterize it as "racist", etc. That would've been piling on...and Cruz avoided doing that.
Thing is, when your guy makes a mistake, you shouldn't try to defend it. Accept it...and move on.
Remember, your personal interpretation of the 14th Amendment carries no weight.
Now the open borders, war mongering, crony capitalist McCain I took a pass on. I figured Obama, who at the time we knew very little about, could not possibly worse then McCain so I sat that one out. With President McCain amnesty was a done deal. Amnesty along with chain migration would kill this republic.
We all know what we are getting with Hillary, no one not voting for Trump can plead ignorance. Hillary will give amnesty to 20 million illegals thus giving democrats a super majority for a 100 years. Hillary will appoint radical liberal Judges to the Supreme Court thus rendering our Constitution null and void. Hillary will continue the neocon foreign policy of conducting nation building wars. And Hillary will continue the Clinton family practice of selling out the country for personal gain. Now if all that sounds good to you then by all means keep supporting Hillary by not supporting Trump.
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.