Let’s get real. Most Republicans would be fine with President Trump.

The Washington Post's Plum Line ^ | December 9, 2015 | Paul Waldman

[2ndDivisionVet]

The question of the day is whether Republicans, particularly the Republicans running for president, would support Donald Trump if he were to become the party’s nominee. Much as they might hem and haw when they get asked — many insist that it’s a moot point since he won’t be the nominee — the real answer is simple: Of course they would.

Let’s put what’s happening right now in context. Periodically, the political press finds a question candidates (and sometimes other politicians as well) are having a difficult time answering, and so they ask it again and again. It’s not necessarily a “gotcha” in that it has no answer that won’t make the candidate look bad, but its attraction comes from the fact that the reporter knows it’s going to make the candidate squirm. That doesn’t mean it’s not substantively revealing, however. For instance, a couple of months ago all the Republican candidates were asked whether the Iraq War was a mistake, and their answers did tell us something about what they’ve learned from recent history. Hillary Clinton is often asked how her plans on one topic or another differ from what the Obama administration has done, which puts her in an awkward position but also forces her to be specific about what course she intends to pursue....

[Unam Sanctam]

Trump is certainly not my first choice, but I would definitely support him over any of the America-hating Marxists the Democrats might put forward.

[higgmeister]

Amen, with you. Sadly with his ego and bambi’s precedent no telling what he would do beside. Fortunately,the dems would have no problem impeaching him if he pulls the same kind of stuff bambi does.

You cannot vote for Goldwater, he will get us into a nuclear war! /s

[Vision Thing]

Unfortunately they view the nuanced approaches of the others (not Trump) as just more ineffective political correctness.

You want nuanced?

Whatever happened to "bold colors, not pale pastels"?

[Pelham]

“Whatever happened to “bold colors, not pale pastels”? “

+1

[Finny]

I think [Trump] is a narcissistic demagogue with no respect for the constitution.

I think Trump is all of that and also a sincere patriot in a showman who's convinced the world that his wealth indicates fame and genius. Installing just such a celebrity CEO in the White House is asking for trouble.

[Finny]

Hey 6chip, instead of insulting Chapin, how about defending Trump against Chapin’s charge that Trump is a narcissistic demagogue with no respect for the Constitution? Why not tell us why we should think Trump’s not that, show us how he respects the Constitution?

[Finny]

BUMP to the whole post. Especially:

The sad fact is that Trump is no real conservative, is a very flawed character and has an exegerrated and checkered business past. The tragedy is that he and he alone has catured the imagination of voters and given voice to their frustrations and legitimate fears.

[Finny]

Change the subject to argue a false conclusion ("vote for Hillary", then.

You refuse to address voting for a guy who had effusive, affectionate praise for Hillary only eight years ago, who switched parties three times in the past 26 years, leaned left-moderate in his politics the entire time, and joined the Republican party in 2009 -- right after the disaster with McCain.

Trump joined the Republican party the same year it finally left this lifelong middle-aged conservative for good.

Vote for Trump if you think it isn't stupid to vote for a patriotic celebrity CEO left-leaning moderate.

[going hot]

Vote for Trump if you think it isn't stupid to vote for a patriotic celebrity CEO left-leaning moderate.

I am going to vote for him, not for the reasons you espouse or think that he will be voted for, but because, in spite of your bullshit, he is the best there is, at this time, for this country.

Argue away, talk smack, do what you do best. In the end, it will not matter.

We are fed up, and we need someone who is not worried about what the media or the friggin dems will say about him.

People like you, who look for reasons to denigrate, or shoot him down, in favor of your candidate, miss the whole reason he is 2-3 times the next runner up, and that is because, unlike you, people see what is going on, and see the best way to address it.

If it finally sinks in, that is cool. If it never does, that is also cool, the care meter is on zero.

[MacMattico]

If nominated as a Republican I would have no problem voting Trump. But just like Conservatives didn’t come out for Romney, I don’t think the GOP-e will come out for Trump. I’m hearing a lot of it. The truth just may be either we find a candidate both groups can vote for or we have four more years of Obama policies. No, actually Hillary will probably be worse. Please let’s not make it easy for the Clinton’s and those they surround themselves with. I’ll say it— Romney was not anywhere near my guy, but he would have been 100% better than Obama. I know a lot of people here don’t like GWB. Would you like it if we could go back in time and split the party and have a President Gore on 9/11? It was that close to Gore winning... One more thing— near the bottom of my list is Kasich, But he’s won in Ohio, what, twice? If Ohio goes Clinton over Trump, she’s in.

[MacMattico]

I even heard someone say Trump has a chance at winning NY. I live in NY. That type of thinking is delusional!

[RightGuy]

Hey, Big Mac: you’ve got special sauce dripping down your sesame-seeded buns.

[Yosemitest]

Let's get TED CRUZ's OWN WORD on the subjects.
It's always best to get the information from the ORIGINAL SOURCE.

Sen. Ted Cruz on the Hugh Hewitt Show ( 20:04 )

Ted Cruz
Published on Jun 11, 2015 www.tedcruz.org

If you want to save time on the video, start at 8 minutes and 50 seconds, and listen until the end.
Here's a transcript of that interview.
I'll just post the transcript for 8:50 until the end.

Senator Ted Cruz on 2016, TPA, TPP And The Islamic State
Thursday, June 11, 2015, posted by Hugh Hewitt

TED CRUZ: . . . avoid debating and trying to defend her policies.
And ...

Hugh Hewitt: Do you expect she'll discuss Libya on Saturday at Roosevelt Island, Senator Cruz?

TED CRUZ: That she will?
I doubt it in any serious length.
You know, she has been, look, to date, her campaign has been almost entirely mum.
She doesn't take questions.
And it's been devoid of substance.
When it comes to foreign policy, about the only thing she speaks on is in her book.
I mean, she did lay out some views in her book, but she hasn't on the campaign trail gotten into Libya,
she hasn't gotten in Iran and the Iranian nuclear deal,
which is the single biggest threat to our national security we're facing.
She hasn't even answered the question whether she agrees with President Obama on free trade or not.
I mean, she's just avoiding questions across the board.

Hugh Hewitt: Let's take that opportunity, then, to go and talk about free trade.
TPA, TPP, Export-Import Bank, Senator Cruz, for clarity's sake,
can you quickly give us an overview of where you are on those three issues as there's quite a lot of confusion among conservative voters
as to where different people are
and why on each of those three issues?

TED CRUZ: Sure.
There is a lot of confusion, and there's unfortunately a lot of misinformation that you can get on the internet, that people are confused.
So let's explain what each of those three are.
TPA is trade promotion authority.
That's also known as fast track.
That is the process through which free trade agreements are negotiated.
Historically since FDR, virtually every president has had fast track authority.
What fast track provides is simply
if a free trade agreement is negotiated, the Congress will vote on it up or down without amendment.
And history has demonstrated for the last 80 years that the only way to get free trade agreements adopted is to have fast track,
that if there is no fast track,
free trade agreements do not end up being negotiated.
TPA is what the Senate voted on recently.
I voted in favor of fast track, because I support free trade.
I think free trade benefits America, it creates jobs, opening markets to our farmers, to our ranchers, to our manufacturers, improves economic growth.
In Texas alone, roughly three million jobs depend upon international trade.
And if you support free trade,
the only way history has shown free trade agreements get negotiated is with fast track.
Now there is a second issue that's caused a great deal of confusion, and that is TPP.

Hugh Hewitt: Trans-Pacific Partnership.

TED CRUZ: Correct, and that is one specific trade deal that is currently being negotiated.
It is separate from TPA.
Congress has not voted on TPP.
And there's a great deal of concern about TPP.
Now I have not voted on TPP, and I haven't decided if I will support it or not, because the negotiation isn't complete.
And I'm going to wait and review
and see what the agreement is first
before assessing if it would be beneficial or harmful.

Hugh Hewitt: And you were against Export-Import, and I told people that, and we disagree on that.
But I just wanted people to understand you were yes on TPA, undecided on TPP, no on Export-Import.
And then I want to get to what you wrote today, Senator, so that we don't run out of time,
because I think your piece in the Washington Examiner is important.
You wrote about the war against the Islamic State,
and you endorsed the David Petraeus concept of an overwhelming air campaign and direct support of the Kurds.
But you did not directly address how many and when American troops, if any, have to go back.

TED CRUZ: : Right.

Hugh Hewitt: And I'm talking to General McChrystal tomorrow.
He's at the Nixon Library tonight, and he'll be in my studio tomorrow.
I think every military person I've talked to says we've got to send significant number of American troops over there
or the Islamic State will continue to erupt and threaten this country.
What do you think?

TED CRUZ: : Well, I think several things.
I think the first thing that is missing is a commander-in-chief who defines our objective up front.
And that objective should be to destroy ISIS, and indeed, more broadly, to defeat radical Islamic terrorists.
All of the problems we're seeing dealing with ISIS stem from the failure of President Obama to define that objective and to pursue a serious military strategy to accomplish it.
Indeed, President Obama just a few days ago candidly admitted that he still doesn't have a strategy to deal with ISIS,
a remarkable admission that for anyone observing and watching this,
surprised nobody, because it's evident they're not pursuing a strategy to accomplish it.
If the object is to destroy ISIS, then I think the specific means of carrying it out should be determined primary by military expertise.
Now there are a number of different components that we ought to consider employing.
First of all, as I wrote today, we should be using overwhelming air power,
not constrained and limited air strikes as we're doing now
that in many ways is really more of a photo op foreign policy,
but using air superiority to punish and pound ISIS into oblivion.
And right now, our military is operating under very constrained rules of engagement that are limiting the effectiveness of our air power.

Hugh Hewitt: Are you concerned about civilian casualties, collateral damage and creating more terrorists by virtue of our operations in close quarters?
I read the Wall Street Journal story on Mosul yesterday.
They're pretty deeply embedded.
Their precision strikes are not that precise.

TED CRUZ: Right, look, of course we should be concerned with collateral damage.
And American military power has always worked to minimize civilian deaths.
But if we are ineffective in our military strategy, that ultimately will result in far more civilian deaths,
because ISIS is oppressing and murdering Christians, murdering Jews, even murdering Muslims who do not ascribe to their radical Sharia Law.
And so we need to be using air power effectively, number one.
Number two, when it comes to boots on the ground, we have right now a tremendous opportunity,
because the Kurds are today fighting.
The Peshmerga, the fighting forces of the Kurds, are fighting ISIS today.
They have been longtime allies of America.
They've proven to be reliable allies.
And the Obama administration refuses to arm the Kurds.
Instead, they're sending the weaponry to Baghdad, which doesn't, will not pass it on to the Kurds.
This makes no sense,
because the Kurds are, in a very real sense, boots on the ground for us.
And the Kurds are fighting ISIS.
We ought to be giving them weaponry so that they can be killing ISIS.

Hugh Hewitt: And a last question, Senator, because we're running up against, I know you're on a tight schedule.

TED CRUZ: Sure.

Hugh Hewitt: Defense Appropriations bill is going to be back in the Senate soon.
There should be money in there for the Ohio-Class submarine replacement in a separate line item.
Democrats have said they're going to filibuster the Defense Appropriations Bill.
A) are you going to make sure there's the Ohio-Class money?
And B) should we break the filibuster like they broke the filibuster
to make sure our men and women get the money they need to fight this war?

TED CRUZ: Well, I think Republicans are committed,
and I'm certainly committed, to ensuring that we provide the funding that is needed both
for the elements of our nuclear triad, including the Ohio-Class submarine,
but more broadly for readiness that has been severely degraded under sequestration.
You're right that the Democrats are threatening a filibuster of the Defense Appropriation.
It's not clear they can maintain it, and so your question,
should we break the filibuster,
absolutely we should.
And I can tell you, you know, as you know, I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
On the National Defense Authorization Act, in committee, the Democrats threatened,
they told us they were going to bloc vote against the National Defense Authorization Act,
because they wanted to hold Defense funding hostage
in order to force higher spending in non-Defense areas like the EPA and the IRS.
Well, that proved to be a hollow bluff.
When it came time to vote in the committee, only a handful of Democrats voted no, and the rest voted yes.

Hugh Hewitt: But to be precise, Senator, if they did have 40-plus votes blocking Defense Appropriations, I was asking whether you ought to borrow from Harry Reid's book
and break the filibuster as he did with the D.C. Circuit nominees.
Would you be in favor of going with a simple majority vote on the motion of the chair as to the interpretation of the rules?

TED CRUZ: Okay, I didn't understand the question as you first asked it.
I do not believe that there would be the votes for Republicans to use the so-called nuclear option to end the legislative filibuster.

Hugh Hewitt: But would you support ending, would you support using it?

TED CRUZ: No, I would not,
and indeed of the 54 Republicans we have, I am not aware of any who support ending the legislative filibuster.
And the reason is in the long term, the legislative filibuster serves conservative purposes.
It slows down the legislative process.
Now that can be frustrating when we want to do good things.
But far more often than not, when Congress is moving quickly, it is moving quickly
to attack our liberty,
to strip away our rights,
to expand government.
And the legislative filibuster has prevented a great deal of mischief.
And so in the long term interest of the liberty of the citizenry, and also slowing down the growth of government,
I think we should preserve the legislative filibuster,
but we need to beat Democrats
and make the case on the merits that we've got to fund our vital national security needs.

Hugh Hewitt: Senator Ted Cruz, thank you, a topic for another day, because I think in the long run, we're all dead with ISIS and Iran
if we don't break the legislative filibuster
and they're not funding the military,
but for another time.
Senator, always a pleasure, thank you for joining us,
you've been generous with your time today.

TED CRUZ: Thank you, Hugh, God bless.

End of interview.

Now let's really take a close look at HOW the Trans-Pacific Partnership was passed. (It took me a long time to track it down.)

Under The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, 2015 isn a small block index you'll find 2 Legislation.
There you'll find Legislation timelines and under that heading you'll read
• June 24, 2015: The Senate voted in favor of stand-alone TPA legislation ATTACHED TO HR 2146 - Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act by a vote of 60-38.^[41]

Now look at HOW TED CRUZ VOTED on THAT VOTE.

Cruz (R-TX), Nay

So you can STOP TELLING LIES about TED CRUZ !

TED CRUZ
voted
AGAINST TPP !

[Lib-Lickers 2]

you are ridiculous.. how many people do you know that tell the world their friend is a complete failure at everything they have done and on top of that should be in prison?

[MacMattico]

And that’s suppose to mean...?

[DaveA37]

There will NEVER BE the perfect candidate, no matter who runs. Reagan was good, was he perfect? No. Do I see trump as perfect? Same answer. With the issues in our country that has drawn us all down, it appears that trump may be just the man we need at this time to “Make America Great Again”. Would I vote for Trump versus Hitlary? In a heart beat.

[MNJohnnie]

Most Americans would be fine with President Donald Trump.

[trebb]

I would not be fine with a President Trump. I think he is a narcissistic demagogue with no respect for the constitution.

Just feelings or any actual real thought in those fears? How far would you go to stop him - vote for Hillary?

What are you doing to support a conservative? What are you doing to support FR?

Are you doing anything positive or just helping to spread "the alarm"???

If you're not doing anything positive, then your motives are more suspect than Trump's...

Now for a short public service announcement to all on FR:
We need to ensure we don't get another Obama-like America Hater as the next President.
The best way to ensure that is to actively support a candidate as the next President.
I prefer Cruz and my money goes to his campaign, hence the Cruz link. If you like someone else, donate to him/her (find your own link to do it) and if you use FR and don't donate, then please don't complain about the welfare leeches or those who have Obama Phones because, functionally, you are no different than any other FReeloader

PS - If you are one of those who cannot afford even a small donation to FR or a candidate, God Bless and happy FReeping!.....

GO CRUZ!! Keep it up Trump!!

Donate to FR

Donate to Cruz

Donate to FR

[central_va]

I think he is a narcissistic demagogue with no respect for the constitution.

Almost every President I've had rule over me has been like that.

[Albion Wilde]

The Republican Party has to have someone better than Trump to emerge as a consensus candidate.

What conservatives must realize is that the attitudes of the people of this nation are so widely spread now, there cannot possibly be a consensus candidate. There cannot be any consensus that will last more than a few days, such as after 9/11, when the voices of blaming the victims started immediately and gathered force within days.

We are in a civil war being fought in the media and cyberspace with words and falsehoods, in the government by massive regulation and penalties, in schools and universities with indoctrination, in the courts with unconstitutional doctrines being illegally enacted, in the Congress by dereliction of duty and ignorance of responsibility, and in all public spaces with fascist Political Correctness. We are so far gone that nothing -- repeat, nothing and no-one -- will unite us as Americans at this point in history.

The best we can hope for is someone with the strength of character and purpose to manage a house divided against itself until the next cataclysmic event that will frighten everyone into making the choice which side they're on; frightened enough for the end stage of civil war when brother does not hesitate to kill brother.

It will take a war on our homeland from without or within, or a famine or a plague, and that will only bring a brief respite, because multiculturalism itself, the enshrinement of atheism into law since the 1940s and the anti-American hordes imported and grown here are already naturally opposed to the Constitution, written for a consensus not of opinion, but of morality based on the Western canon that has been utterly denounced and deracinated by generations of the elites. Sady, many today don't even believe that any moral absolutes exist.

It is only a matter of time until we do have to have martial law for a period of time to restore some semblance of order. I'd rather have Trump leading our side than be ground under the heel of any of the figureheads on the left.