Posted on 04/08/2016 2:29:12 AM PDT by markomalley
Republican presidential candidate Texas Senator Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly that he defends GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump “a lot” on Thursday’s “O’Reilly Factor.”
After Cruz pointed to Trump’s donations to liberal politicians, O’Reilly objected that these donations weren’t made “as a politician.” O’Reilly then advised Cruz to have a press conference in Penn Station to see what has happened to it under Mayor Bill de Blasio (D).
Later on, Cruz argued there’s “liberal intolerance” in New York state, and stated that New York State Senator Rubén Díaz (D) told him that he knew exactly what Cruz’s reference to “New York values” meant, and that Díaz pointed to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s (D) statement that “extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay” “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”
O’Reilly responded that “Trump doesn’t subscribe to any of that.” Cruz objected that Trump does because “he funded it.” O’Reilly again said that this was done “as a businessman.” And “You can have two lives.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Facts are stubborn things, aren’t they?
He may not have had any say in that. If you don't believe that happens, talk to people who have union cards.
Trump did have a say in where his money went.
Cruz keeps hearing voices......’STOP ROOTING FOR THE MAPLE LEAFS, YOU’RE A CANDIDATE FOR THE American PRESIDENCY...NOT Canada.”
What do you mean by the rule of 8? There are a few called that?
I'd wager most of those fly in and overstay whatever visa arrangement they have or are sponsored by church-sounding organizations heavily subsidized by none other than the US Government.
Exactly right. Arrogant, condescending, and opinionated too. And very liberal with ad hominems. Watch how often he makes it about the poster he’s responding to instead of the issue. Like nearly always.
Why is some Hollywood actor on your George Patton quotes graphic?
Donald Trump has already qualified and I think Cruz has as well or is on the verge and probably will qualify. It is inconceivable that Kasich or anyone else could qualify and therefore the battle will be limited to Cruz and Trump rendering it impossible for the GOP establishment to parachute in a ringer like Paul Ryan.
However, is not entirely clear whether the rule can be freely amended by the rules committee but the weight of opinion seems to indicate that it can be changed by that committee at any time prior to the convention or even during the convention. I further understand that the proposed change of the rule, which we would fear because it would open the way for a GOPe candidate besides Trump or Cruz, must be approved by the delegates as a whole, or their representatives.
Please accept that my understanding in this matter is tentative. It appears that the rules committee is made up of delegates which are chosen by delegates who presumably would be controlled for the most part by Trump and Cruz together. I further understand that the acceptance of a change in the rules would be done by representatives of the delegates who would, again presumably, be controlled by Trump and Cruz with two from each state.
I am subject to correction on this understanding. But if it holds, it would behoove both Trump and Cruz to coordinate opposition to any amendment to the rule of eight.
My understanding from what the RNC stated is there are NO rules for 2016 yet. They have yet to be created. Its custom to make the threshold 1237 but as of now unless the new Rules committee confirms that for 2016 it can be anything; the same with Rule 40 (b) it does not exist yet.
Thus the Rules committee is what the GOPe is really focusing on and ensuring they control the output. Many of the old return delegates are saying they are for Trump or Cruz but are still party insiders.
My first thought when said Rule 8 was that’s the rule for Federal court pleadings hence my confusion.
I was lucky enough to find a great woman to marry me. A Boston boy and a true southern belle with all the whistles. In her younger years she and her family were surrounded by Dominionists and the like, even getting swindled by a leader of God’s children. She learned well. Like the best hunting dog, she can spot a huckster a mile away.
She first pegged mister Cruz while we were watching the debates, noticing how he would take deliberate pause between his words, like a good Harvard lawyer, then raise his arm, as if to the heavens, to make his point. She warned me then about him.
In short order she also realized that whenever Cruz would rail on about Trump’s positions at a rally, after he got his expected applause, he would crack a peculiar grin. She said he looked like he was nervous or even a bit scared, out of character for sure. Before she knew the exact positions of both candidates, she told me he was lying. She even called it “Ted’s Guilty Giggles”
Of course she was right on the mark. I’ll leave it to you to figure out how you showed your true face in your answer to me, but I understand now why you are attracted to Ted Cruz.
Complete with sealed records and foreign money.
Does Trump?
In a decent society an accused is entitled to know the charges against him, to confront the witnesses against him.
Your scurrilous attack on Cruz and evidently on me as well tells me why we must defend the Bill of Rights to the last extreme and oppose those who through their ignorance or arrogance put us all in jeopardy.
Next step: throw all those whom your wife in a vision disapproves of into a borstal where they languish, ignorant of their crime, ignorant of their accusers, ignorant of the evidence against them, denied any right to defend themselves, and isolated from humanity until they die.
I saw the interview. It’s true, at the very end Cruz rattled off a list of measures that would bring jobs back. I thought he was spot on. Lower corporate taxes, eliminate the IRS, eliminate crippling environmental regulations, repeal Obamacare, a few other good ones that I can’t remember.
In that moment, I liked Cruz and thought to myself, it would be a good thing if he could get himself elected.
Trouble is, that wasn’t the bulk of the interview with O’Rielly. Most of it was indeed focused on misrepresenting Trump. It really bothers me the way he harps on nothing burgers like the meme that since, as a businessman, Trump spread the money around to politicians of both parties, then he must explicitly support the policy positions of those politicians.
Whether it’s true or not, and I believe it is clearly not, the question has been asked and answered. Another one he harps on is the udea that Trump is afraid of him, afraid to debate him. Nobody buys that, so it just names him sound foolish when he repeats it ad nauseam. He has a number of these anti Trump talking points that are not at all convincing and his particular brand of Trump bashing us getting very old and very annoying and very hollow. O’Riely was right to push back on this.
As I said, I did like him for that minute when he rattled off the measures he would take to sour job creation.
name = make
sour = spur
OK, I’ll start using the spell checker :-)
Do you think it took Ted Cruz till 2011 to wake up and smell the coffee?
As long as Cruz is under 20 percent to lock out all delegates , he can win all the interviews he wants. Of course it’s subjective but under 20 in New York is extremely important.
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.