Ted Cruz, the man who believes god wants him to be president

Daily Express ^ | April 8, 2016 | Chris Roycroft-Davis

[Freedom56v2]

SENATOR Ted Cruz may be dubbed the most despised man in Washington but he is certain God wants him to be the next president of the US.

snip

What is disconcerting is the paradox that such a religious person as Cruz can attract such hatred. If you think hatred is a strong word this is what Cruz’s college room-mate says of him: “I would rather have anybody else be the president of the United States. Anyone. I would rather pick somebody from the phone book.”

In case the US did not get the message, Craig Mazin – now a scriptwriter – added: “Ted Cruz will become the thing you need him to be so that he wins an election. No principles, no moral centre, no values. Just ambition.”

snip

Ted GETTY, Trump's senior policy advisor said said Cruz was a Wall Street globalist

The dawning realisation that it could be Cruz prompted Trump’s most senior policy adviser to tell an audience in Wisconsin: “I’m going to tell each and every one of you the real truth about Ted Cruz. He is a radical Wall Street globalist who will rip the beating heart of manufacturing out of the United States of America.”

Strong stuff. Trump weighed in this way: “He’s a nasty guy. Nobody likes him. Nobody in Congress likes him. Nobody likes him anywhere once they get to know him.”

snip

When asked which politician they would like to run for president many people who have worked with him closely say anyone but Cruz.

One political strategist who worked with Cruz in George W Bush’s campaign office tweeted that: “If a truth serum was given to the staff of the 2000 Bush [campaign team] an enormous percentage would vote for Trump over Cruz.”

[Psalm 73]

"I didn’t think I needed a sarcasm tag for that one."

Did you forget what site you were on? Lately, EVERYTHING needs one....

[austingirl]

Cruz is not a liar. He has won several Supreme Court cases and delivered on his promises to the Texas people. Lawyers work on all sorts of cases for their law firms. It is their job.

Cruz has demonstrated his strong Constitutional Conservative principles this entire life. He has never been a Democrat or donated to the Clinton Foundation. He speaks in full coherent sentences. He has my full support and your silly pictures of Teddy Bears will not change my mind.

[austingirl]

Cruz blamed the rioters in Chicago for their actions. He held Trump responsible for Trump’s own statements condoning violence.

[austingirl]

See post 195 for your answer.

[Freedom56v2]

This is a chat forum and thread starters are chat facilitators, not chat controllers. So I think your notion - of thread starter equating to teacher and all who respond are students who are supposed to stay strictly on the topic the author intended - is misguided and not applicable.

---

There is this thing called a sense of humor...apparently you did not get one...I was really being tongue and cheek...I am trying to facilitate the chat—which is difficult when people read one line or don’t read any of the article...

Ever hear of poisoning the thread? Ever hear of hi-jacking a thread? That happens all too often.

When I post a thread, I stay with it pretty much until people are done...I consider it polite to do so. Therefore, it is an investment of my time and effort, so I feel perfectly justified to try to keep it on topic...especially with as many comments as came in. I am not controlling, I am facilitating.

Other people may post and run, i.e. they leave the thread and folks say whatever they want...or their threads only have a few comments, they can do what they want.

You are more than welcome to start a thread about this article, the title, God’s will or whatever you like. However, that is not why I posted the thread...

Actually, I think I am doing poster a favor by pointing what the article is about or why I posted it...and it is perfectly OK for me to try to keep it on topic—especially since your comments were directed to me—others started discussing things among themselves on the thread and that is fine I let them...

As a person who tries to read and understand before I comment, I have found it surprising how so many people will comment on things that have no bearing on the article—they read one word, or one line, and they are off to the races with irrelevant or erroneous comments...

Sorry, I guess like many things here on FR these days, we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Hugin]

You consider 1999 “recent”? That’s nonsense.

[austingirl]

I consider 3-3-16 as recent.

[Hugin]

Show me a quote from 3/3/16.

[austingirl]

Bearingarms.com had an article about Trump’s flip-flop at the debate on March 3rd. I quoted from the article in post 195.

[zencycler]

My comments were not direct at you, they were directed at the title of the article, and as a thread starter you should expect many such comments that are not specifically addressing you but the content. Let me also suggest that a better strategy for maintaining your preferredfocu might be to just ignore comments that stray from that rather than trying to shepherd them all into your coral.

However, it’s perfectly fine for you to point out the focus of the article and to say in response that it is what YOU would rather discuss.

But when I gave a reply that clearly indicated that I was commenting on the title, your first response to me and was “Did you read the article”? That goes beyond stating your preference and implies so wrongdoing on my part for daring to comment on anything other than the article in totality, which you later reinforced with your replies that followed.

Stick to what you want to talk about - that’s fine. I won’t scold you for your preferences, so please don’t scold me for mine. If you don’t like the focus of the related topic I introduced in my reply, then better to just ignore it or to politely say that it doesn’t interest you.

[WVKayaker]

Cruz is not a liar.

He's a LIAR! He did not win cases. He was only reading what the staff prepared. He presented cases which were decided in favor of his side. Yet, this brilliant lawyer didn't bother to give up his Canadian citizenship until deciding to run for POTUS (instead of doing his Senate duties!).

But, the LIAR Teddy Bare is just a lawyer. If you think it is ok to "just do your job" and represent anybody, then you are probably OK with Hillary representing a rapist. A client is a client, huh!

Is it a lie to fail and report a very important loan in an FEC filing. Was it an oversight, or a deliberate attempt to hide the truth. That, my FRiend, makes it become a LIE!

He is a sleazy lying' lawyer, and you can vote for anybody. I will vote for the winner, and the only candidate that will Make America Great Again. Teddy is not the chosen one! God will not be mocked. Teddy aligned himself with Mormons, Beck and Romney, and the have decided that he will be one of their own! Teddy claims to be a solid Christian, but aligns himself with darkness.

Good luck with your choice. Teddy is nothing but a sleazy, slimy lyin' lawyer. He fooled Sarah Palin and Texas once. He will never be elected again, no matter how much he plays his Obama game!

Why did Teddy give money to Carley?

VOTE FOR THE WINNER. VOTE TRUMP!

VOTE FOR THE WINNER. VOTE TRUMP!

VOTE FOR THE WINNER. VOTE TRUMP!

VOTE FOR THE WINNER. VOTE TRUMP!

VOTE FOR THE WINNER. VOTE TRUMP!

VOTE FOR THE WINNER. VOTE TRUMP!

[Freedom56v2]

Dear FRend, I had hoped we were done...Apparently not...well, we are definitely going to disagree...

I will, however, take your suggestion to not comment to you...Better still, I will be sure to not comment on your threads, and I suggest you start your own rather than add any more to this one.

[MaxistheBest]

“See post 195 for your answer.”

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights

I guess you didn’t read this did you???

[austingirl]

Cruz won several Supreme Court cases. That is a fact. He fought and won to keep the Ten Commandments at our State Capitol. You really don't know anything about Texas.

I believe Cruz is an honest, principled man. Calling him a liar will not change my mind about him. Have a good day.

[Hugin]

The article you quote just shows that what he says now is at odds with what he said in 1999, and calls it a flip-flop. As Trump has said he was not a big gun guy, but his sons are, and they educated him on the subject over the years since then. Trump has not been anything other than 100 percent pro gun for many years. So it’s a flat out lie for Crus to say Trump “wants to gut the second amendment” (current tense). Cruz know that, just like he knows Trump isn’t for a single payer health plan and doesn’t propose expanding Obamacare. Yet he says it over and over again. If he were honest he could still say that Trump’s current positions are at odds with opinions expressed in the past, but he chooses to lie about his current positions instead. Before Trump entered the race Cruz and Walker were my top two choices. But Cruz has showed himself to be a lying scumbag. The sooner he is gone the better.

[austingirl]

I have been to Trump's website before. There is no date on when these statements were produced. It is hard to say when he changed his mind about an assault gun ban but he believed in restrictions to the 2nd amendment in the past, just as he was pro-choice in the past.

I prefer a candidate who has held Conservative views his entire life.

[zencycler]

Well, we’re almost done, but since you misstated something I said, I just need to correct that. I never suggested that you completely stop commenting to me (although you’re free to do that if you wish). I simply said that refraining from replying to my - or any - post that deviates from your preferred focus is perhaps a better strategy than implicitly scolding the poster from deviating from the topic which you prefer to be on.

That being said, as mentioned, do as you can wish, and yes, I’m done with this if you are, however I feel no need as you apparently do to add you to some kind or do-not-reply list. So as you say, we can just agree to disagree on the issue of the role of the threadstarter with regard to how or whether they police the prefered topics of any thread responders.

[VideoDoctor]

God wants Cruz to stop have adulterous sexual affairs.

[MaxistheBest]

“I prefer a candidate who has held Conservative views his entire life.”

I can appreciate that. My question wasn’t why you support Cruz, my question was why he lied. It’s one thing to say he held a certain view 16 years ago, it’s quite another to simply lie for the applause. This isn’t the only issue Cruz has lied about; ObamaCare, Iran, SC nominees.

Cruz said: Donald Trump pledges to work with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on SC nominees.

Trump never said that, in fact he is the only candidate that had given 2 names of judges.

[austingirl]

Trump is a wild card in my opinion. No one knows what he would do if elected. There is a lot of hyperbole in political campaigns. NRA says Trump came out with a position paper sept 2015 voicing full support of gun rights.

Rankings by Bearingarms.com: "Cruz has been on the winning side of two pro-gun Supreme Court cases, and is a gun owner of a revolver and a shotgun. It was tough to decide whether he belonged at the tail end of the top tier or at the top of the second tier, but felt that he simply doesn’t seem to log enough trigger time to hang with Perry, Paul, and Huckabee.

Though a concealed carry permit holder with a newfound respect for the 2nd Amendment, Republican front-runner Trump has supported the 1994 assault weapon ban, waiting periods, & background checks."