Posted on 01/12/2016 1:07:36 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
It appears that the bromance between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump is probably over for good. I mean, it was one thing to see Donald Trump openly attacking Cruz for days on end. We've seen that before, and never before had Cruz taken the bait. It appears that this method of dealing with Trump has finally reached its end in the Cruz campaign.
(CRUZ): >>>I will say that it's more than a little strange to see Donald relying on as authoritative a liberal, left-wing, judicial activist Harvard Law professor who is a huge Hillary supporter (Ed. note - Laurence Tribe). It starts to make you think, "Gosh, why are some of Hillary's strongest supporters backing Trump?" You know, the last couple of elections the Democrats have gotten the nominee they wanted to run against in the general election. It seems the Hillary folks are very eager to support Donald Trump and the attacks that are being tossed my direction.<<<
Welcome to the party, Ted Cruz. Better late than never to call Trump what he is.
I, for one, am glad that the prominent conservative personalities who have been pretending Trump is a conservative and talking about him positively to bolster their ratings, will finally have to choose between their wallet and their ideology (and credibility) in this battle between Trump and Cruz. It's been a long time coming.
Of course. Never said it wasn't. You miss the point.
Red state again?
Some have already been filed against Cruz, Rubio and Jindal. At least two have already been dismissed.
I’ve seen a couple of posts suggesting just that.
Thankfully, the boss nipped (one comment that I know of) it in the bud.
Ditto to originally being a CRuz supporter, then began researching - both CRuz and Trump - then getting fed up with the anti-Trump posts.
I’ve said it before...Trump is the ONLY candidate NOT PAC owned. No more career govt employees/politicians. We need an experienced business owner to clean the DC cesspool and turn this mess around.
It's an example of one parent.
The 1790 act was repealed by one written by Madison, and the language of "natural born" was targeted and explicitly removed thereafter.
Of course the 1795 Act replaced the 1790 Act. But it still gives us an indication what the Founders thought the definition of NBC was.
****************************
I agree, Jane.
Also, Cruz supporters keep bringing Reagan into the conversation. Reagan was nothing like Cruz.
Uh, no. Nowhere does it say "one parent." It says "the children of citizens." Whatever the case, as I said, it's completely irrelevant, since even if it was just "one" parent, it's the wrong parent, thus disqualifying Cruz.
But it still gives us an indication what the Founders thought the definition of NBC was.
Well yes, in that the language was targeted and removed by James Madison later.
"When will Jim banish Trump supporters from FR, like he did with Giuliani advocates?"
That's not the same as demanding that he kick off Trump supporters.
That thread also wasn't in the "past couple of weeks."
But Trump endorsed Romney and said he would run 3rd party if Romney was not the GOP candidate.
If Trump is given the opportunity to appoint two or three more liberals to the Supreme Court, then SCOTUS may some day agree with Trump and rule Cruz ineligible to serve in the White House. If Tribe is the kind of attorney that Trump would appoint to the Court, then true conservatives should be dropping Trump like a hot potato.
I’m looking forward to Cruz unloading on Trump in the debate on Thursday night...
We need to be done with the charlatan so a solid conservative like Cruz can lead this country back to where it should be.
********************************************************************************
Trump’s standard answer to everything will be “I’ll make America great again, It’ll be great.” He doesn’t usually get into the details...I’ll listen in to see if he’s changed that tact yet. The devil, after all, lies in the details.
“If Trump is out of the race, large numbers of his voters are out of the race too, and will probably vote Democrat since they’ll be turned off by the economic/trade policies of Cruz or any other GOP candidate.”
**********************************************************************************
VERY interesting. So large numbers of Trump’s voters will vote ‘RAT if the majestic Trump is not crowned?
OMG. The armchair lawyers on this site blow my mind. So many of you don’t know what you are talking about and dig up stuff and misinterpret and claim you know all.
Look here.
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
UNDERSTAND THESE WORDS:
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
When you have to lie to pitch your candidate, it means you've got the wrong candidate.
Cruz's immigration stance has been consistent over years. I've checked.
Kinda like Trump saying Cruz had "totally" changed on ethanol, a bold-faced lie.
If a winner has to lie to win, he's a loser even when he wins.
AND REPEALED BY JAMES MADISON AND SIGNED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON
Oh that’s rich. Read mark levin and educate yourself
Yeah, I had a poster do it to me earlier. Pulled Jim R. into conversation on the hope that he would ban me.
Ginsburg believes her grandson born in France is an NBC
Uh, no. Nowhere does it say "one parent." It says "the children of citizens." Whatever the case, as I said, it's completely irrelevant, since even if it was just "one" parent, it's the wrong parent, thus disqualifying Cruz.
Uh, no. You left out the second part of the phrase. It's "the children of citizens of the United States".
There's more than one citizen in the United States, thus the word "citizen" has to be made plural.
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.