Replies

Who is the DC Insider Ivy league lawyer with a history of saying and doing whatever it takes to win that changed his spots when he ran for office?

Let me see if I've got the latest Trump speak well understood:

The son of an illiterate, impoverished, refugee dishwasher through merit and hard-won achievement becomes the national debate champion while an undergraduate at Princeton, law review at Harvard Law school, and clerk to the Chief Justice of the United States is tainted because he is an "Ivy League lawyer"

The same man whom Trump lovers habitually describe as one who could not get along with his fellow senators and could not accomplish anything is the same Senator Trump lovers accused of "saying and doing anything to get elected." It is remarkable how such a smart Ivy League lawyer would be so stupid in real life about actually saying and doing anything to get elected.

Meanwhile Trump, son of a millionaire, social climber, the consummate insider whose telephone call before he ran for office would be taken by the President of the United States, the same man who admits to bribing politicians, is touted as an independent man of the people.

Ain't Trump speak wonderful?

“...the same man who admits to bribing politicians, is touted as an independent man of the people.”

Hey, that’s how you get things done! You’re not looking at his successful results, just his methods. What’s wrong with you Cruzers anyway? /sarc

Ignoring the liberal ad homing emotional-based attack on Trump Supporters and Using your leopard changing his spot theme:

Ted Cruz was hired as a partner Morgan Lewis & Bockius in 2008, during the presidential election in which Barack Obama became president. Morgan Lewis & Bockius made contributions totaling over $200,000 in support of Obama’s campaigns for President, as well as $750,000 to Democrats since Cruz became a partner.

http://linkis.com/www.texasinsider.org/zdEEh

Among his final clients were “a businessman who pleaded guilty to bribery, a drug manufacturer that fired an employee who refused to break the law, and a company that illegally copied another’s tire design.” Cruz lost all of those cases.

1. The businessman was Robert Mericle, who bribed two judges to give minors harsher sentences in the infamous “kids for cash” system. Why? To make money for his private juvenile detention center.

2. Cruz represented Moog, a company that fired a spokesperson for refusing to promote its pain control pump Accufuser for nonapproved purposes. Cruz argued in appeals court that the trial jury didn’t fully analyze whether the company made the request. The appeals court found the evidence for illegal misconduct to be overwhelming, and Cruz lost that case too.

3. Cruz also made money from a case he argued in December 2011 on behalf of a Chinese tire company against charges that it illegally took blueprints from Florida businessman Jordan Fishman. Cruz failed to disprove the accusations. Last June, an appeals court upheld a $26 million jury verdict in favor of Fishman.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/13891/ted-cruz-made-1-million-representing-sketchy-clients-while-running-for-senate

These and more are unemotional facts about Cruz’s say-anything-to-win character and past conduct inconsistent with the perception hes a consistent conservative.

Seems after getting burned by so many “conservative” Ivy league lawyers over the years who back stabbed us over and over, one would learn to not do the same thing and expect a different result.

The son of an illiterate, impoverished, refugee dishwasher through merit and hard-won achievement becomes the national debate champion while an undergraduate at Princeton, law review at Harvard Law school, and clerk to the Chief Justice of the United States is tainted because he is an "Ivy League lawyer"

The key word here is "lawyer." It doesn't matter what a person's background is, when they go to law school, they are taught to parse words and say big, long, confusing statements that mean nothing at all. They are taught to win cases not by getting to the facts and the truth, but by devising the best argument, shoving truth and justice into the sewer.

We don't need yet another lawyer politician making laws to complicate our lives while exempting themselves from the consequences. We need a guy who understands the consequences of having the government run by weaselly lawyers. We also need a guy who understands economics, because it is clear that lawyers have no clue about it.