Cruz

[Missourian]

New Hampshire Republican Primary turnout largest ever for Republicans...

The Republican record was shattered: The final tally for GOP ballots cast was 284,120 votes. That beats out the 2012 Republican primary tally of 248,475.
​

That was only 3,000 votes short of Obama's historic 2008 turnout.

And who drove that turnout? Hint...it wasn't Cruz.

I don't have anything against Cruz...I just don't believe his support reaches into the ranks of Independents. His support is far right conservative base.

That doesn't win election.

Trumps support is Republican, Independent and conservative Democrat. That is a winning coalition.

New Hampshire Turnout Breaks Records, But Not On Democratic Side

For the record...Democrat turnout just barely beat Republican 2012 turnout...250,974 votes, 30,000 less than Obama 2008.

 

[Agit8r]

Well, there is one eeensy little issue...

View attachment 62996

Ah, another birther.

Just to let you know, that is not an 'eeensy' issue - it is not an issue at all.

I dunno if it is a constitutional issue, but it's a political issue.

 

[Silhouette]

With Cruz doing well in both states, shouldn't conservatives be coalescing around him now? He is clearly electable, a constitutionalist, and he isn't a progressive like Trump.

It seems like common sense here.

You must be from the left. They would want a Canadian to attempt to run as the GOP nominee.

Whenever I look at Cruz I see Molsen Ale and start hearing people say "about" like "aboot".. Eh hoser?

 

[Cecilie1200]

With Cruz doing well in both states, shouldn't conservatives be coalescing around him now? He is clearly electable, a constitutionalist, and he isn't a progressive like Trump.

It seems like common sense here.

Who?
Do you call Cruz getting less than 12% "doing well"?
Maybe on Uranus but not on planet earth pal.

In New Hampshire, yes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cruz is not an honest man.

Are you still butt-chapping about your faux "scandals"? What's it like to be so gullible and shallow?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The OP thinks Cruz is electable.

Cute.

Remind me, who's your side running? Oh, right, Hillary Clinton.

Tell me more about "electability".

 

[Silhouette]

The OP thinks Cruz is electable.

Cute.

Remind me, who's your side running? Oh, right, Hillary Clinton.

Tell me more about "electability".

If Hillary had a Canadian birth certificate, do you think Fox News might be running with that? And since we all know the answer is "YES", then which supporter of Cruz thinks the dems won't rake him over the coals for being Canadian-born? I mean, Hillary has a law degree from Yale. Think maybe she or one of the dems might make a legal challenge to disqualify Cruz?

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, there is one eeensy little issue...

View attachment 62996

Ah, another birther.

Just to let you know, that is not an 'eeensy' issue - it is not an issue at all.

I dunno if it is a constitutional issue, but it's a political issue.

Not really.

Obama's birther bullshit most likely garnered him MORE support - not less. Anyone that would not vote for Obama because they were 'concerned' with where he was born would not have voted for Obama if he turned out to be Jesus Christ reincarnate. They were never going to vote for him in the first place. Those in the middle that had to witness that drivel were more likely to be spurred to Obama rather than away.

 

[Stephanie]

I like Cruz first. I like Trump, because I find it hilarious he has the left all twisted up into pretzels and they aren't even hiding their Intolerance for anyone "not of their kind". take the Hufferpuffingpaint site, the New Yak post rag, etc. If Trump wins it, I'll vote for him. He can't be any worse than that thing that was just in as President

 

[Cecilie1200]

The OP thinks Cruz is electable.

Cute.

Remind me, who's your side running? Oh, right, Hillary Clinton.

Tell me more about "electability".

If Hillary had a Canadian birth certificate, do you think Fox News might be running with that? And since we all know the answer is "YES", then which supporter of Cruz thinks the dems won't rake him over the coals for being Canadian-born? I mean, Hillary has a law degree from Yale. Think maybe she or one of the dems might make a legal challenge to disqualify Cruz?

I think Fox News would report on it more or less like they're reporting the tempest in a teapot about Cruz, if her circumstances were exactly the same.

There is no problem with Cruz's citizenship. There's just a problem with people like you WANTING there to be a problem.

Ruling: Ted Cruz is a 'natural born citizen'

So one state election commission has already addressed and ruled on the citizenship question in Cruz's favor. However sue-happy we've gotten in this country, it's still properly the decision of the election commissions. And they're satisfied. You're never going to be, because you don't want to be, and that's YOUR problem, not anyone else's.

Oh, and side note: the ballot commission in New Hampshire ALSO looked at the question, and came to the same conclusion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's just talk honestly about Cruz and the crap people keep trying to gin up about him (Other than the birther thing, because I've already addressed that in great depth in multiple places).

"Dirty tricks" and the Carson campaign - Let's be serious here. I've never personally attended a caucus, because my state has primaries, and I think that's probably true of the vast majority here. My understanding is that it's set up to be essentially a crazed, hectic free-for-all in which the supporters of each candidates try to convince the supporters of other candidates - and the undecided voters - to get behind their guy. Then the supporters stand up and get counted in front of God and everybody.

Carson's supporters have smart phones just like Cruz's do. Pretending they weren't right there, able to shoot down anything that was said on the spot, is disingenuous. The REAL "dirty trick" to the whole thing is the Trump supporters, Carson supporters, and media trying to fool everyone into believing otherwise. Oh, and Rubio and his supporters pretending that THEY didn't use the exact same news story in exactly the same way.

Furthermore, both Cruz and Carson got an overwhelming majority of votes from people who said they had made up their mind weeks ago, before ever coming to the caucus. The preponderance of undecided, made-up-my-mind-on-the-spot voters actually went to Rubio. Further-furthermore, to believe that Cruz won Iowa because of this is to assume that Carson would have otherwise massively over-performed his pre-caucus polling, to the point of more than doubling the number of votes he actually got. In point of fact, Carson got almost exactly the number of votes he was projected to get, and the math simply doesn't support the idea that this kerfuffle allowed Cruz to "steal" the caucus.

While we're on the subject of dirty tricks to sway voters, why don't we discuss other people - primarily Trump supporters - going around telling people that they can't vote for Cruz because he's not a citizen? How is "CNN has a story that Carson is going home to Florida after this" dirtier than "You can't vote for your candidate because he's not really eligible to run"? And THAT happy crappy is not only a blatant lie, but it's been bandied about a lot longer than just on caucus night. But you don't see Cruz pissing and moaning and sulking about it.

Or how about Rubio's supporters running around the caucus, telling Cruz supporters not to vote for him because he's pro-amnesty? THERE'S a little bit of hypocrisy for you, not to mention a lie. Or Trump smearing Carson as "a liar and a lunatic" during the campaign? Or any of a number of things Trump has said about his opponents, come to that?

Fact of the matter is, this is what caucuses are like. This is what they're DESIGNED to be like. Which, in retrospect, is probably why most states have primaries instead.

Meanwhile, of all these candidates, only Cruz has had the decency and integrity to offer apologies, even though none were really required. He has also demonstrated great personal loyalty by taking the hit and personally shouldering the burden for what happened, rather than throwing his staffers under the bus as Carson demanded.

Owned by banks - Again, let's be serious here. Campaigning for President is a very expensive proposition, and virtually no one has that kind of cash just lying around in their couch cushions, nor can they afford to liquidate and spend that amount of their personal fortunes (I'm looking at you, Donald). There is an enormous difference between taking a personal loan - which must be paid back with interest - to start a campaign, and getting huge donations - which are just gifts - or being paid ridiculous amounts for speeches - which are thinly-veiled donations.

Ted Cruz did what virtually everyone in America does when needing a larger sum of money than is on-hand: he got loans from lending institutions. I don't know anyone who feels "owned" by their mortgage banker, in the sense of having some sort of personal loyalty toward them. In fact, most people don't feel particularly fond of their creditors at all.

Are there corporations and wealthy people donating to Cruz's campaign? Sure. But this is not surprising, nor is it sinister. The wealthy are citizens of this country, too, and they have as much right as anyone else to donate money to the campaigns of candidates they feel will best govern they way they want. And Republican policies tend to be more pro-business than Democrat policies are. That's not really a bad thing, nor is there any reason to believe that Cruz's policies are or will be influenced by donors to be any different than they would have been, anyway. On the contrary, the reverse is true: they chose him for his policies, rather than him choosing his policies for them.

Did Goldman Sachs also donate to his campaign? Yes, within the legal bounds set by campaign financing laws. Is this surprising, given that his wife worked for them? One would assume that this would create some sort of positive feeling toward him. And so what? Under any other circumstances, we would be applauding a woman being smart and accomplished enough to hold down an executive position with a major corporation. But since the woman in question is a prospective First Lady, suddenly we're reverting to the 1950s and acting like cookie-baking homemaker is the only acceptable career, because anything else might create "favoritism" of some sort.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is out there, blathering about how he's completely self-financed, which is a bald-faced lie. Yes, he has so far shouldered a larger percentage of his financing personally than anyone else, because he can. He has also benefited greatly by shooting his mouth off like a lunatic and getting the media to talk about him for free. But anyone who thinks that state of affairs is going to continue all the way through to the election is delusional. He most certainly is accepting donations, and he most certainly is going to have to accept a lot more before this is over. There's nothing at all wrong with that, but let's be honest about it.

As an aside, I also think "only billionaires who can self-finance can run for President" is a ridiculous standard to set.

At some point, it becomes necessary to look beneath the surface at not only WHO donates, but WHY, and also at the character of the candidate in question. This is why examining voting records and past behavior is necessary. There is no reason in Ted Cruz's past to believe that his policies are anything but what he genuinely believes are good, or that he will not do his utmost to live up to his campaign promises. And really, how many candidates have you EVER been able to trust to honor campaign promises?

 

[Silhouette]

Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. That is 1. A fact and 2. A constitutionally-prohibitive deal-killer.

From that as your starting point, you can discuss "Cruz as a candidate for POTUS"... I'm not a goddamned "birther" either. Those are people who even when shown an US birth certificate, still try to gin up conspiracy theories. I and the others like me who studied American Government in high school and got a C- grade or higher understand that an actual bone fide birth certificate from Canada means Cruz can't run. Period. We are not "birthers", we are "high school graduates".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. That is 1. A fact and 2. A constitutionally-prohibitive deal-killer.

From that as your starting point, you can discuss "Cruz as a candidate for POTUS"... I'm not a goddamned "birther" either. Those are people who even when shown an US birth certificate, still try to gin up conspiracy theories. I and the others like me who studied American Government in high school and got a C- grade or higher understand that an actual bone fide birth certificate from Canada means Cruz can't run. Period. We are not "birthers", we are "high school graduates".

Yes, you're a birther. No matter how many times, from how many different sources, you are told that the Constitution does not require the President to be physically born on American soil, you continue to maintain that reality is what you want it to be, and that the law says what you want it to say, and anyone who disagrees is automatically disqualified to have an opinion on the subject. That is a birther.

So until and unless you can find an actual official authority on the subject of Presidential eligibility who agrees with you, rather than Donald Trump and a bunch of talking heads on the Internet, the debate is finished and you lost. Cruz has been declared eligible by the authorities who actually matter, he's running, you can't disqualify him out of Donny's way, end of discussion.

 

[Silhouette]

The Highest Bylaws of the US say that a person has to be natural born to be president. Upon a challenge it will be found accurate and binding. Keep playing pretend.

And BTW, Cruz's Canadian birth certificate ACTUALLY EXISTS, as opposed to the Obama birth certificate claimed in Kenya, which does not exist..

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Highest Bylaws of the US say that a person has to be natural born to be president. Upon a challenge it will be found accurate and binding. Keep playing pretend.

And BTW, Cruz's Canadian birth certificate ACTUALLY EXISTS, as opposed to the Obama birth certificate claimed in Kenya, which does not exist..

A) The Constitution is not a "bylaw". Get a dictionary.

B) The Constitution does not specifically define "natural born", any more than it defines things like "due process", "unreasonable search and seizure", etc. These things are all left to lesser laws, passed by Congress and/or state legislatures, to define. Our law has never recognized more than two types of citizenship, that conferred at birth and that conferred by naturalization.

C) Eligibility for elections is left to be determined - BY LAW - to state election commissions, which have always found that children of US citizens, regardless of place of birth, are eligible to appear on Presidential ballots.

D) No amount of shouting that reality is what you say it is and want it to be is going to make it so.

 

[Vigilante]

With Cruz doing well in both states, shouldn't conservatives be coalescing around him now? He is clearly electable, a constitutionalist, and he isn't a progressive like Trump.

It seems like common sense here.

Trump isn't a Constitutionalist or a TRUE Conservative as most know conservatism. He's a POPULIST and a NATIONALIST, and THAT resonates with Independents, Moderates, and many TRUE Conservatives.... He's learned how to build a majority that will NOT BE BEAT by any of the DemoRAT/Progressive/Socialist scum that the left can throw at us...BUT I am hoping that Joe "The World's Dumbest Politician" Biden will be the Lefts choice coming out of a brokered DNC convention! He's PERFECT for all the meme's and Video's I have of that nutcase's activities!

 

[Staidhup]

So please explain John McCain, born in Panama, 2008 presidential candidate? This entire issue is the result of unsubstantiated claims regarding Obama's birth certificate, which by the way does exist. Trump refuses to tolerate anyone that questions his hollow rhetoric and will do what he dam well chooses to discredit any and all that stand in his way. The one question that needs to be addressed is his hollow rhetoric, like, what are his specific plans? The Donald, Cruz, and others seem to do a great deal of talking without articulating the substance of their plans. I can see it now instead of "its all about the economy stupid" to "where's the beef".

 

[JoeMoma]

He's a fake, funded by big-money, and his ethics are of question. Real conservatives should support either Trump or Sanders

As for Bernie, he just wants to increase the size and scope of government instead of limit it.

But really, increasing the size and scope of government is what both parties have done over the years, so I guess a complete takeover of pretty much everything that is left is only a natural progression.

Stuff like that is why I will not vote for trump. Not so much that at one time he said that he liked Hillary, but because his opinion and what he says morph based for what is in Trump's self interest at the moment.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

He's a fake, funded by big-money, and his ethics are of question. Real conservatives should support either Trump or Sanders

Sanders is worthless who hates america to the core. He should move off to denmark.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He's a fake, funded by big-money, and his ethics are of question. Real conservatives should support either Trump or Sanders

Sanders is worthless who hates america to the core. He should move off to denmark.

Apparently even Denmark isn't what Sanders thinks Denmark is.