Cruz knocks Fox News after clash with Hannity (Just answer a simple question, Ted)

The Hill ^ | April 22, 2016 | Evelyn Rupert

[jazusamo]

GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz lashed out at Fox News over coverage of Donald Trumpafter a heated interview with Sean Hannity earlier this week.

When asked on “The Dom Giordano Program”

about coverage of Trump’s claims of unfair “voterless elections” in states like Wyoming and Colorado, Cruz said, “They know it’s not true.”

“Donald doesn’t handle losing well, and when we loses, he cries and he screams and he whines and he curses and he insults everybody,” Cruz said. “So when Donald lost five states in a row in landslide elections, that’s when they began making up this nonsense about voterless elections.”

On Wednesday, Cruz and Fox host Hannity had a testy exchange over the delegate process that Trump has repeatedly called “rigged.”

“The media loves to obsess about process, this process, and this whining from the Trump campaign, is all silly,” Cruz told Hannity. “The only people asking this question are the hardcore Donald Trump supporters.”

Giordano asked Cruz “what the heck is going on with this whole deal here on what should be a home court for a constitutional conservative.”

“Fox News has got to decide what stories they want to air and what stories they want to tell,” Cruz responded. “I’m not going to worry about who they’re rooting for and what surrogates they put on and what messages they push. I’m gonna focus on my own positive message.”

[MIA_eccl1212]

A man who can’t say what he wants to say is a coward.

---

I did not say you were a coward, but I do think we need to follow the owner’s wishes regarding support of the presumptive candidate and that we unite NOW in support of Donald J. Trump. That means the constant bilge being pumped out to slander, sandbag or reduce trumps chances of nomination are probably not so welcome as they were before New York and the runaway landslide that is in progress.

the “second ballot initiative” by ted cruz is NOT supported here, and that activity by the Ted Cruze campaign has been deemed treason of the grass roots, by the owner and the vast majority of freepers.

Ted is the loser, Trump is the winner and we need to move on. That is the plan. Were it the other way around, I would be supportive of Ted as well. But it is not.

I made the jump to hyper space late last year. from Cruz to Trump. You will make the jump as well, or go another direction. And that is entirely up to you. But there is almost NO chance now of a brokered convention. And Ted will not rise again on the second, third or ‘n’ ballot either.

Go Trump.

[Repeal The 17th]

Please do not FReepmail me in the future.
Thanks, ever so much.

[Repeal The 17th]

Not a sycophant, just abiding by the boss’s wishes.
If you don’t like the host, why do you go to his house?

[wistful]

I did not claim that you called me a coward.

I said you and your friend are cowards.

For you wont say what you want in blunt and simple terms. Instead you beat all around the bush for you don’t have the courage to say what you want to. That is-

“If you do not agree with and supinely endorse alI I write here, I will seek to have you banned”

I suggest with that viewpoint you are better placed at Democratic Underground.

I suggest such a viewpoint is the antithesis of Conservatism.

I also say anyone supporting such a view is no Conservative.

And if such as you are nowadays the essence of this forum, then Jim doesn’t have to zot me, I’ll cancel my own account.

For having people like you decide who writes here and who does not means this forum has zero worth.

I hope that is not the case.

You’re a despicable coward and everything this forum once stood against.

[wistful]

Apologise. That email was meant for nathanbedford.

[Repeal The 17th]

“... That email was meant for nathanbedford ...”
-
Which part?
Was it where you said I was a
“dishonorable thug”?

Or was it where you said
“Sad to see FR come to be dominated by such low persons?”

Or where you said
“Disappointed that JR allows it”?

[MIA_eccl1212]

I don’t ban anybody.
Don’t want you to be banned.
DO want you to get on board with the next phase which is defeating hillary, instead of defeating Trump.

That is the directive I receive from J.R. posts of late.
The nevertrump stuff will not fly here though, that has been made clear. If ted were ahead I am confident he would probably have sent out the same directives and advisories... and I would comply...

Ted betrayed us. and by that I mean ME by turning on the grass roots. and by that I mean my $$$. That clear enough for you sister?

[nathanbedford]

If you don’t like the host, why do you go to his house?

You are still playing the same insidious game. To the best of my knowledge, there is no daylight between me and Jim Robinson. If you have no warrant whatsoever for implying that I don't like Jim Robinson, in fact I have the greatest respect for his accomplishments in creating far away the best conservative forum, no the best forum, on earth. I come to Jim Robinson's "house" because I am invited in and because I think I can constructively contribute to conservatives discourse which I believe I have done approximately 15,000 times.

If you have your way you will turn Free Republic into a Potemkin enclave where one cringes under the bed waiting for the knock on the door or the zot intruding from cyberspace. I believe that conservatism is right and leftists are wrong and that we can win any argument. We should not be afraid to venture into the marketplace of ideas. Censorship is the path to ignorance and ultimately to electoral defeat. We can beat them with conservative ideas. We lose when people like you try to intimidate those who wish to engage.

[MIA_eccl1212]

not to worry NB... most of the coward stuff has been directed at me I think...

nobody thinks you are a coward.
may not agree with you, and I may think you are off track a bit... but what the heck... who is right all the time, but Jesus... and I ain’t him.

we are going to get this sorted out over the next few weeks, and move on...
hopefully...

[Repeal The 17th]

“... I contribute to conservative discourse approximately 15,000 times ...”
-
Well, there is always the quantity vs. quality argument to consider.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“... If you have your way you will turn Free Republic into a Potemkin enclave ...”
-
I do not have “my way”, I do not control FR, Jim Rob does.

[MIA_eccl1212]

Are we to assume the meanness of character of Donald Trump and impose it arbitrarily on ourselves?

---

In my idea of a perfect world... heck yes.
I like his meanness of character. I like the New York MOUTHING off he does and it does not offend me one iota. Usually it inspires me...

I especially love the phrase “bomb the hell out of ISIS”, in fact I cannot get enough of it and think it ought to be our nation’s theme for the next 4 years when it changes from ISIS to Islamic Terrorists. But hey that is just me being coarse.

But then, I do not have the “sensitivities” of a woman and of course I do not consider HELL a swear word.

What I do mind, is that sometimes people say “tell us what you really think or mean” and I wonder... did I really NOT say that succinctly enough?

[glock rocks]

Excellent post.

[nathanbedford]

I invite any fair-minded reader to consider this very long reply which follows which is actually a compendium of several replies that consider the range of opinion and etiquette which go into making a well ordered yet dynamic and relevant conservative political forum:

In September 2006 I published the following reply:

60 years after the October Revolution, the Soviet Union was incapable of responding to the counterattack of Ronald Reagan and so lost the Cold War. The Soviet Union was incapable of responding to Reagan's strategy because it had not the institutions in place, primarily a culture which permitted self criticism, which permitted it to identify problems and adapt to solve them. By the late 1980s, communist ideology had so hobbled itself that it could never undo its failures and so crashed at the feet of Ronald Reagan.

In 1994 we saw the same phenomenon at work in the Democratic Party and it has continued to this day and it has led to their exile in the political wilderness, the administration of Bill Clinton being an exception of no consequence. Liberalism today has hobbled itself with Political Correctness and cannot analyze itself and its mistakes except through that prism and the party as a result becomes even more and more extremist.

This was published March of this year:

If my rights of free speech are dependent on the benign reaction of the listener, I have no right of free speech. That is why I have also argued in this forum that we must be very careful about promiscuous use of zotting because it is a threat to free speech and in the end damaging to our conservative philosophy. If we cannot protect what we believe from the Philistines, is not worthy of protection.

Which brings us to the matter of offending Trump supporters. I feel that I render fair comment fairly and that ends my responsibility. I am not a psychiatrist, or a grievance counselor, I am an advocate for a political point of view and I am here to persuade. If those who encounter the persuasion are distressed, they should argue about the truth of the comments or the manner of making it. But of all people on earth, Donald Trump is among the least worthy of solicitude.

One last point, it is interesting how many private mail messages I receive from people who are opposed to Donald Trump who do not go public on these threads with their views. Evidently they are intimidated and that is a very unfortunate as well as a dangerous tendency. Anecdotal for sure but evidence of the power of subjective intimidation.

One last point, it is interesting how many private mail messages I receive from people who are opposed to Donald Trump who do not go public on these threads with their views. Evidently they are intimidated and that is a very unfortunate as well as a dangerous tendency. Anecdotal for sure but evidence of the power of subjective intimidation.

[ PS I received two already today.]

In February of this year I posted this:

If my rights of free speech are dependent on the benign reaction of the listener, I have no right of free speech. That is why I have also argued in this forum that we must be very careful about promiscuous use of zotting because it is a threat to free speech and in the end damaging to our conservative philosophy. If we cannot protect what we believe from the Philistines, is not worthy of protection.

Which brings us to the matter of offending Trump supporters. I feel that I render fair comment fairly and that ends my responsibility. I am not a psychiatrist, or a grievance counselor, I am an advocate for a political point of view and I am here to persuade. If those who encounter the persuasion are distressed, they should argue about the truth of the comments or the manner of making it. But of all people on earth, Donald Trump is among the least worthy of solicitude.

You make several very important points in your well constructed vanity.

Your observation that Free Republic is, "the greatest conservative site in the sorry history of the internet" is unarguably true and that truth should be restated and broadcast often.

Your observation that, "It is not hyperbole to state that this is going to be the most important election in my lifetime, probably top 3 in the history of the Republic," could well be historically accurate. By any measure we are dealing with a truly significant election.

Again your comment is well taken that, "I and many others on this site have to wade through these oceans of bullshit flame wars to try and find the substantive arguments over who would be the best possible candidate to guide this country out of the Obama wilderness."

As I have often posted, I do not come on to the threads of Free Republic to discuss the weather (unless we are confusing whether with climate "change"). I come here to be informed and, primarily, to persuade. That is why I sport the avatar below, because I want readers to know whose ideas they are dealing with and to take the time to read them. I want them to expect a reasoned contribution because of the name and avatar.

I do not expect anyone to accept my point of view merely because it is my point of view, it is my responsibility to persuade. I hope the avatar induces Freepers and lurkers to read what I write so that I have a chance to persuade. But once we posters have a reader's attention we owe him a duty to accurately inform and rationally argue.

From a reply of mine in August, 2015:

"Imagine some youngster awakening to politics and venturing into this forum to get a taste of conservatism only to be met with cheap shots. People who pepper their replies with condescension, derision, snarkiness, and in general indulge in ad hominem attacks which do not advance their arguments and certainly would not make any converts of the kinds of youngsters that we would want to join the conservative movement. It seems to me that the last way I would choose to get voters for Donald Trump is to comport myself like Donald Trump.

Usually these tactics are resorted to not to win an argument but to make the poster feel better about himself, to paper over insecurity, or to distract the argument from the issue. I also find unappealing the use of ":-)" or "LOL" as though that clinches an argument. It reveals instead an absence of resources."

On October 27, 2010 I responded to a newbie asking Free Republic how he should conduct himself and how he should post:

Speak your mind, tell the truth, do not post without reason or for its own sake or for your own sake, but post only when you can contribute value added, never post out of malice, ad hominem, or pique. Do not troll for disputes or to be pointlessly argumentative, or to shore up your own ego, but defend your good name and reputation to the last extreme. Post as though every word were to be read and measured by a young mind seeking a political ideology and your post alone will fix his future worldview forever. Finally ask yourself, what would that half born American, Winston Churchill, say?

Welcome to the greatest forum on the Internet. I look forward to being edified by your posts.

[Repeal The 17th]

Are you drunk?

[nathanbedford]

Let the reader observe how supporters of Trump argue ad hominem:

1. Accuse the person with whom you disagree of lying.

2. Accuse the person with whom you disagree of being drunk.

[Repeal The 17th]

You have been gone for too long.
You are no longer an American,
you have become a European.

[nathanbedford]

Dear open-minded reader: we have just added example #3 to the list of ad hominem:

3. Accusing the person, with whom you disagree, or at least insinuate,of a lack of patriotism or apostasy.

[Repeal The 17th]

I specifically called you out on your particular lie.
When you continued to deny it, I asked if you were drunk.
Now you are in denial.
Please seek help from a counselor.

[Repeal The 17th]

When was the last time you “visited” the United States for any length of time?

[MayflowerMadam]

“...when Cruz refused to answer a simple line of questioning, with a litany of lawyerly dodges and talking points.”

I listened to that a few times. The more I heard it, the more I became convinced that he didn’t answer the question about delegates because he doesn’t have an answer. He has no clue about how the delegate system operates. He’s hired people who DO know, but he doesn’t. He came out sounding like every Democrat talking head we’ve heard for decades — obfuscating and BS-ing.