Voting for 'Trump' because 'Duck' isn't an option?

[edthecynic]

He did document it. It was not reported on his FEC form

The mark of a sociopathic liar is they can't even see their lies no matter how obvious.

 

[Boss]

He did document it. It was not reported on his FEC form

The mark of a sociopathic liar is they can't even see their lies no matter how obvious.

Well Eddy, I am terribly sorry you have such a short attention span you can't read a complete paragraph, but I did explain what you seem to be highlighting as a contradiction. His loan was documented with the IRS. He was not doing anything unethical or illegal, he wasn't trying to hide something or cover something up. Even though he documented his loan with the IRS, he failed to report the loan on his FEC form.

When this was brought to his attention (because it WAS documented) he corrected the error. Now, the only people who are LYING about it are you, candycorn, Establishment GOP and Democrats as well as their lapdog media, who want to make a bigger deal of this than needs to be.

But now... I've got news for you jackwagons... if you believe your'e going to be able to successfully campaign with Hillary against Cruz on ETHICS.... you've lost your fucking minds.

 

[LoneLaugher]

He did document it. It was not reported on his FEC form

The mark of a sociopathic liar is they can't even see their lies no matter how obvious.

Well Eddy, I am terribly sorry you have such a short attention span you can't read a complete paragraph, but I did explain what you seem to be highlighting as a contradiction. His loan was documented with the IRS. He was not doing anything unethical or illegal, he wasn't trying to hide something or cover something up. Even though he documented his loan with the IRS, he failed to report the loan on his FEC form.

When this was brought to his attention (because it WAS documented) he corrected the error. Now, the only people who are LYING about it are you, candycorn, Establishment GOP and Democrats as well as their lapdog media, who want to make a bigger deal of this than needs to be.

But now... I've got news for you jackwagons... if you believe your'e going to be able to successfully campaign with Hillary against Cruz on ETHICS.... you've lost your fucking minds.

Cruz has to worry about Trump....the topic of this thread.....and perhaps Donald Duck.....before he has to worry about Hillary Clinton.

Here's the deal.....Ted tried to hide the loan from the FEC so he didn't have to disclose the details on forms that would quickly become political fodder for his opponent. He got away with it long enough to make said disclosure insignificant. In the meantime, he portrayed himself as spending his last dollar to fund his campaign. In fact, he borrowed money from a bank with which he has close personal ties without disclosing the terms of the loan. Shady.

None of this matters, of course. Ted is a soft, doughy man with tiny hands and tiny teeth....barely hidden by his thin lipped, uncomfortable smile. He's odd and creepy and wants this nation to put his freaky religious doctrine in a more prominent place in the White House. That's not what this nation is all about.

 

[edthecynic]

Well Eddy, I am terribly sorry you have such a short attention span you can't read a complete paragraph, but I did explain what you seem to be highlighting as a contradiction. His loan was documented with the IRS. He was not doing anything unethical or illegal, he wasn't trying to hide something or cover something up. Even though he documented his loan with the IRS, he failed to report the loan on his FEC form.

Neither the GS or CitiBank loans appear in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders.

“The law says if you get a loan for the purpose of funding a campaign, you have to show the original source of the loan, the terms of the loan and you even have to provide a copy of the loan document to the Federal Election Commission.”

There would have been nothing improper about Mr. Cruz obtaining bank loans for his campaign, as long as they were disclosed. But such a disclosure might have conveyed the wrong impression for his candidacy.Mr. Cruz, a conservative former Texas solicitor general, was campaigning as a populist firebrand who criticized Wall Street bailouts and the influence of big banks in Washington. It is a theme he has carried into his bid for the Republican nomination for president. The Right used this exact kind rationalization to attack Obama and Clinton for saying a video was involved in Benghazi, so you can't dismiss lying to protect a campaign as unimportant without pissing on the entire Benghazi witch hunt!

Cruz broke the law and LIED about his source of campaign funding claiming it came from his "personal funds" throughout his campaign and in interviews after the election.

 

[candycorn]

For example, it has come (or is coming to light more and more) that Ted Cruz has taken Wall Street money
and, at the same time, his rhetoric was railing against others taking the same money. The fact that he just happened to leave those specific contributions off of his required disclosures, I'm sure, is just a conincidence.
...

Nope... False. Cruz took out a loan against he and his wife's stock in Goldman Sachs. You understand what a "loan" is, right? It's NOT a "contribution" ...it's a loan against collateral. So get your facts straight, bitch. Stop trying to LIE about a good man.

You really need to be worrying about how to keep Hillary out of prison. Word has it indictments are coming down soon.

So he took Wall Street money and forgot to document it. Thanks for the confirmation. Well done.

No, he took a loan on collateral... that's not taking Wall Street money. If you want an example of THAT... look at Hillary Clinton's FEC donor page. I think she is up to about 30 million from Wall Street so far.

So taking money in Conservistan is not taking money....

Taking the money is no big deal. Being a hypocrite about it is regrettable. Just happening to forget to mention it on your required form is criminal.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Isn't this great?! Boss asks a question as though he really wants the answer. This question has been discussed on these pages at length....and Boss has already read what everyone here thinks on the matter. But....the drive to post something......anything.....is strong in some.

No. The support that Trump has received prior to votes being cast is not a form of protest. It is simply a sign of weakness. Weak people are attracted to tough talk. Weak people admire those who never admit a fault. Weak people will cheer when they are told......over and over.....that their world is crashing down around them......because of "them".

Now....lets be clear. Trump is playing to the weak in order to win his current race. Should he win that nomination, you will see him walk back much of his most incendiary rhetoric in an attempt to convince people who have a little more backbone that he's a viable option. There are greater numbers of these people in this nation. Those who are currently his greatest cheerleaders will become his most vocal critics.....and he won't give a shit. That, my friend, will be more fun than watching Saturday morning cartoons.

Interesting rhetoric from a supporter of a party that is putting up a 70 yo crook and a 200 yo nutter.

 

[Boss]

For example, it has come (or is coming to light more and more) that Ted Cruz has taken Wall Street money
and, at the same time, his rhetoric was railing against others taking the same money. The fact that he just happened to leave those specific contributions off of his required disclosures, I'm sure, is just a conincidence.
...

Nope... False. Cruz took out a loan against he and his wife's stock in Goldman Sachs. You understand what a "loan" is, right? It's NOT a "contribution" ...it's a loan against collateral. So get your facts straight, bitch. Stop trying to LIE about a good man.

You really need to be worrying about how to keep Hillary out of prison. Word has it indictments are coming down soon.

So he took Wall Street money and forgot to document it. Thanks for the confirmation. Well done.

No, he took a loan on collateral... that's not taking Wall Street money. If you want an example of THAT... look at Hillary Clinton's FEC donor page. I think she is up to about 30 million from Wall Street so far.

So taking money in Conservistan is not taking money....

Taking the money is no big deal. Being a hypocrite about it is regrettable. Just happening to forget to mention it on your required form is criminal.

What's fascinating as hell to me is.... For all the flack Trump takes for saying ballsy outrageous shit, he can't hold a candle to some of the ballsy outrageous shit Liberals trot out! Your leading candidate has a 50-year history of scandals and dead bodies in her wake and you're seriously going after Ted Cruz on ethics and criminality? That's like Trump criticizing Hillary on the basis of her fucking hairdo!

 

[Boss]

I think very few people voted for Obama just to 'piss off the right'. I would say, at least for his first term, it was much more an 'anti-Bush' vote.

I don't think a significant number of people will vote for Trump because they are fed up with both parties. This is especially true with Trump running as a Republican; just how much are you protesting the political dichotomy in this country by voting for a major party candidate?

Since Bush was not a candidate in 2008, I am perceiving an "anti-Bush" vote to be for the express purpose of 'pissing off' the right. Teaching them a lesson... getting even... how ever you want to describe it.

And while you can make the argument that someone wanting to make a statement regarding the dichotomy of politics wouldn't vote for a major party candidate, how much change do you actually affect by voting for the libertarian or green candidate? Trump is certainly not making friends with the GOP establishment. In a sense, he IS a third party candidate who is running for the GOP nomination.

When I attempt to rationalize Trump's phenomenal poll numbers in light of his incendiary comments and outrageous statements, I have to think there is something going on there. I really do think that a certain segment has just said... you know what, fuck it! Trump is the "Donald Duck" option come to life. To put it in your terms, the "anti-Obama" vote or the "anti-establishment" vote. It's a lot of people who are just absolutely done with Democrats and Republicans and they see Trump as a sort of "protest" candidate.

 

[Montrovant]

I think very few people voted for Obama just to 'piss off the right'. I would say, at least for his first term, it was much more an 'anti-Bush' vote.

I don't think a significant number of people will vote for Trump because they are fed up with both parties. This is especially true with Trump running as a Republican; just how much are you protesting the political dichotomy in this country by voting for a major party candidate?

Since Bush was not a candidate in 2008, I am perceiving an "anti-Bush" vote to be for the express purpose of 'pissing off' the right. Teaching them a lesson... getting even... how ever you want to describe it.

And while you can make the argument that someone wanting to make a statement regarding the dichotomy of politics wouldn't vote for a major party candidate, how much change do you actually affect by voting for the libertarian or green candidate? Trump is certainly not making friends with the GOP establishment. In a sense, he IS a third party candidate who is running for the GOP nomination.

When I attempt to rationalize Trump's phenomenal poll numbers in light of his incendiary comments and outrageous statements, I have to think there is something going on there. I really do think that a certain segment has just said... you know what, fuck it! Trump is the "Donald Duck" option come to life. To put it in your terms, the "anti-Obama" vote or the "anti-establishment" vote. It's a lot of people who are just absolutely done with Democrats and Republicans and they see Trump as a sort of "protest" candidate.

Again, being done with Republicans doesn't seem to make much sense to me if you are voting for a Republican candidate. Some people might do it; who says anyone must be internally consistent?

The anti-Bush vote was because many people were upset, rightly or wrongly, with the Bush administration. There was some feeling that McCain would be a continuation of the same policies (that Obama ended up being similar in many ways isn't important. The important thing is what I think was the perception at the time). The people that you are describing as voting to 'piss off the right' were, I think, more voting against what the right, or more accurately Republicans, had done with the presidency.

The hope and change slogan was very much banking on that anti-Bush sentiment. I don't think voters were trying to get even, they were trying to get a new direction for government.

That the president is limited in power and too much is put on presidential elections by the electorate is another discussion.

 

[Boss]

I think very few people voted for Obama just to 'piss off the right'. I would say, at least for his first term, it was much more an 'anti-Bush' vote.

I don't think a significant number of people will vote for Trump because they are fed up with both parties. This is especially true with Trump running as a Republican; just how much are you protesting the political dichotomy in this country by voting for a major party candidate?

Since Bush was not a candidate in 2008, I am perceiving an "anti-Bush" vote to be for the express purpose of 'pissing off' the right. Teaching them a lesson... getting even... how ever you want to describe it.

And while you can make the argument that someone wanting to make a statement regarding the dichotomy of politics wouldn't vote for a major party candidate, how much change do you actually affect by voting for the libertarian or green candidate? Trump is certainly not making friends with the GOP establishment. In a sense, he IS a third party candidate who is running for the GOP nomination.

When I attempt to rationalize Trump's phenomenal poll numbers in light of his incendiary comments and outrageous statements, I have to think there is something going on there. I really do think that a certain segment has just said... you know what, fuck it! Trump is the "Donald Duck" option come to life. To put it in your terms, the "anti-Obama" vote or the "anti-establishment" vote. It's a lot of people who are just absolutely done with Democrats and Republicans and they see Trump as a sort of "protest" candidate.

Again, being done with Republicans doesn't seem to make much sense to me if you are voting for a Republican candidate. Some people might do it; who says anyone must be internally consistent?

The anti-Bush vote was because many people were upset, rightly or wrongly, with the Bush administration. There was some feeling that McCain would be a continuation of the same policies (that Obama ended up being similar in many ways isn't important. The important thing is what I think was the perception at the time). The people that you are describing as voting to 'piss off the right' were, I think, more voting against what the right, or more accurately Republicans, had done with the presidency.

The hope and change slogan was very much banking on that anti-Bush sentiment. I don't think voters were trying to get even, they were trying to get a new direction for government.

That the president is limited in power and too much is put on presidential elections by the electorate is another discussion.

Well I am very much a person who doesn't like to paint with a broad brush or stereotype, so I don't want to convey the idea that I am doing that here. I'm not saying EVERYONE who voted for Obama was doing it to piss off the right, but I do believe some people were. Just as I think some support Trump to piss off the left and establishment right.

"being done with Republicans doesn't seem to make much sense to me if you are voting for a Republican candidate."

I understand what you are saying but Trump isn't your "traditional" republican candidate. If you are at least half-way intelligent, you have to realize that the next president is either going to be a democrat or republican.... doesn't matter how much you may not like it. That is a reality of the two party system we have and you may as well accept reality. I'm sure there are many people who are fed up with both parties and won't vote at all. Some will find a third party candidate to throw their vote away on and some will inevitably write in "Donald Duck" as they always seem to do in every election. Again, not painting anything with a broad brush here... I do believe there are some who are disgruntled with D's and R's and are ready to shake things up with Trump... the 'non-party' choice. Yes, he is running as a Republican but you HAVE to be one of the two parties to get elected.

 

[Montrovant]

I think very few people voted for Obama just to 'piss off the right'. I would say, at least for his first term, it was much more an 'anti-Bush' vote.

I don't think a significant number of people will vote for Trump because they are fed up with both parties. This is especially true with Trump running as a Republican; just how much are you protesting the political dichotomy in this country by voting for a major party candidate?

Since Bush was not a candidate in 2008, I am perceiving an "anti-Bush" vote to be for the express purpose of 'pissing off' the right. Teaching them a lesson... getting even... how ever you want to describe it.

And while you can make the argument that someone wanting to make a statement regarding the dichotomy of politics wouldn't vote for a major party candidate, how much change do you actually affect by voting for the libertarian or green candidate? Trump is certainly not making friends with the GOP establishment. In a sense, he IS a third party candidate who is running for the GOP nomination.

When I attempt to rationalize Trump's phenomenal poll numbers in light of his incendiary comments and outrageous statements, I have to think there is something going on there. I really do think that a certain segment has just said... you know what, fuck it! Trump is the "Donald Duck" option come to life. To put it in your terms, the "anti-Obama" vote or the "anti-establishment" vote. It's a lot of people who are just absolutely done with Democrats and Republicans and they see Trump as a sort of "protest" candidate.

Again, being done with Republicans doesn't seem to make much sense to me if you are voting for a Republican candidate. Some people might do it; who says anyone must be internally consistent?

The anti-Bush vote was because many people were upset, rightly or wrongly, with the Bush administration. There was some feeling that McCain would be a continuation of the same policies (that Obama ended up being similar in many ways isn't important. The important thing is what I think was the perception at the time). The people that you are describing as voting to 'piss off the right' were, I think, more voting against what the right, or more accurately Republicans, had done with the presidency.

The hope and change slogan was very much banking on that anti-Bush sentiment. I don't think voters were trying to get even, they were trying to get a new direction for government.

That the president is limited in power and too much is put on presidential elections by the electorate is another discussion.

Well I am very much a person who doesn't like to paint with a broad brush or stereotype, so I don't want to convey the idea that I am doing that here. I'm not saying EVERYONE who voted for Obama was doing it to piss off the right, but I do believe some people were. Just as I think some support Trump to piss off the left and establishment right.

"being done with Republicans doesn't seem to make much sense to me if you are voting for a Republican candidate."

I understand what you are saying but Trump isn't your "traditional" republican candidate. If you are at least half-way intelligent, you have to realize that the next president is either going to be a democrat or republican.... doesn't matter how much you may not like it. That is a reality of the two party system we have and you may as well accept reality. I'm sure there are many people who are fed up with both parties and won't vote at all. Some will find a third party candidate to throw their vote away on and some will inevitably write in "Donald Duck" as they always seem to do in every election. Again, not painting anything with a broad brush here... I do believe there are some who are disgruntled with D's and R's and are ready to shake things up with Trump... the 'non-party' choice. Yes, he is running as a Republican but you HAVE to be one of the two parties to get elected.

We're still not at election time, so for now this is all just discussion. I don't know how many people would actually vote for Trump for president, and among those, how many would do it as a protest or anti-establishment kind of vote.

I would guess that there would be a lot more people who are sick of the Republican party, rather than the Democrats, who would vote for Trump for that reason. These would be people who aren't sick of the Dems because they never liked them to begin with. There is certainly a good amount of support from posters here that seem to lean toward the conservative/Republican side of things for Trump, often because he's 'not PC' or 'saying things we're all thinking', things of that nature.

I don't think that many liberals/Dems will vote for Trump, even as a protest vote.

As for people who lean third party/independent.....I still don't see it happening much. It's easy to say it now, with the election still so far away, but I don't expect a big chunk of independent type voters to go with Trump because he seems anti-establishment.

I've said I can understand the draw. However, I think Trump is far less an anti-establishment vote than someone like Perot. That was a reasonable 'sick of both parties' kind of protest vote, even if the man was a bit insane.

 

[SwimExpert]

I was having an interesting conversation this evening and it was mentioned that someone thought the reason a lot of people were saying they planned to vote for Donald Trump is because Donald Duck isn't an option. In other words, it's kind of a "protest vote" of sorts... Politics have simply become such a joke that you may as well vote for someone like Trump, just to demonstrate the absurdity and spectacle.

I had never really considered this. I hear people passionately telling me why they support Trump and I can't really fault them for their arguments. I also hear people bashing and railing on Trump like he is the Anti-Christ or something. Other conservatives tell me that Trump isn't their first choice but they would vote for him over Hillary.... but the proposal intrigued me so I thought I would bring the question here to the all-knowing brain trust of USMB.

Is there any merit to this argument that people are supporting Trump in protest and it's akin to voting for Donald Duck?

how stupid do you have to be to vote for someone just because you think he pisses people off?

dumbass right-wingers.

That's not really the argument but I actually think a LOT of people voted for Barack Obama because he pissed off the right... and for that reason alone.

Again... in elections past, Donald Duck has had write-in votes as well as a host of other non-real and real spoof candidates. I remember Pat Paulsen running for president. There is always a contingent of disgruntled voters who are just fed up with BOTH parties and voice their disgust by casting such a vote.... The argument is, do you think that might be the case with Trump? Is his support kind of a "protest" thing against politics as usual? I think, given his anti-establishment message and rhetoric, that could be possible.

It's not that anyone is trying to piss you off by not supporting your queen-apparent, Hillary. It's more that people are simply done with Republicans AND Democrats and they see Trump as a way to voice their disdain with politics as usual.

BTW... The person I happened to be talking to was a moderate liberal who usually votes Democrat. He can't stand Hillary or Bernie. He said, the Republicans can't make up their minds what a Republican is and the Democrats have gone bat-shit crazy... so why not elect a joke of a president and have 4 years of prime entertainment value watching Congress have to deal with the asshole? If nothing else, SNL will be interesting again!

Hey... don't shoot me, I am only the messenger here!

i can promise you that no one voted for the president because he pissed off the right.

the truth is none of his views were that unusual. he's actually far more moderate on many issues than the left would like. the right's being pissed off was the result of years of their pols telling them they'd change things like roe v wade, etc., when they knew they couldn't do those things. ultimately, the GOP is about 47% of the electorate. dems are about 52% and are made up of a much more diverse constituency. that little bit of the GOP that is the "base" doesn't have the weight or numbers to elect a president and won't since the only candidates they find acceptable are the ones who 52% of the country would never vote for.

don't you think that's silly?

*edit*

and just to add, everyone has their priority issue. for me it's who is appointing judges to the federal bench because the court rulings affect everything else.

to me, if your priority issue is hatred of gays or mexicans or muslims, you're focused on they wrong things.

I chime in here in regards to the 47/52 split you mention. I think that:

1 - It's not quite accurate
2 - Needs to be qualified

Yes, there are more registered Democrats than there are registered Republicans. However last I heard both parties will still pretty much neck-and-neck. There is a sizable portion of independents as well. But perhaps more importantly, there are many people who are registered as one or the other party, but who are of a drastically different ideological mold. Take Kim Davis as an example. Until recently she was a registered Democrat, and a long time public office holder as such. Her reasons for aligning Democrat (I assume were predominantly based on economic policy) obviously weren't because of Democrats' position on same sex marriage.

I think your analysis does hold some relevance in terms of the base of each party. But the overall composition of each party is, IMO, more diverse than I think you're giving credit for.

 

[candycorn]

For example, it has come (or is coming to light more and more) that Ted Cruz has taken Wall Street money
and, at the same time, his rhetoric was railing against others taking the same money. The fact that he just happened to leave those specific contributions off of his required disclosures, I'm sure, is just a conincidence.
...

Nope... False. Cruz took out a loan against he and his wife's stock in Goldman Sachs. You understand what a "loan" is, right? It's NOT a "contribution" ...it's a loan against collateral. So get your facts straight, bitch. Stop trying to LIE about a good man.

You really need to be worrying about how to keep Hillary out of prison. Word has it indictments are coming down soon.

So he took Wall Street money and forgot to document it. Thanks for the confirmation. Well done.

No, he took a loan on collateral... that's not taking Wall Street money. If you want an example of THAT... look at Hillary Clinton's FEC donor page. I think she is up to about 30 million from Wall Street so far.

So taking money in Conservistan is not taking money....

Taking the money is no big deal. Being a hypocrite about it is regrettable. Just happening to forget to mention it on your required form is criminal.

What's fascinating as hell to me is.... For all the flack Trump takes for saying ballsy outrageous shit, he can't hold a candle to some of the ballsy outrageous shit Liberals trot out! Your leading candidate has a 50-year history of scandals and dead bodies in her wake and you're seriously going after Ted Cruz on ethics and criminality? That's like Trump criticizing Hillary on the basis of her fucking hairdo!

Again, Cruz's shady ethics are his problem and just underscores how eager us Clinton supporters are to have him as your, giggle, nominee for President of Canada....errr the United States.

Your appeasement of his admitted violations are just icing on the cake.

 

[Boss]

Again, Cruz's shady ethics are his problem and just underscores how eager us Clinton supporters are to have him as your, giggle, nominee for President of Canada....errr the United States.

Your appeasement of his admitted violations are just icing on the cake.

His ethics aren't shady in the least. Again... if you HOPE to get Hillary Clinton elected by attacking her opponent on ethics.... you've completely lost your goddamn mind. I mean, really... that's all anyone can say.

 

[Toro]

• For example, it has come (or is coming to light more and more) that Ted Cruz has taken Wall Street money and, at the same time, his rhetoric was railing against others taking the same money. The fact that he just happened to leave those specific contributions off of his required disclosures, I'm sure, is just a conincidence.

I'd be shocked if Cruz took more money from Wall Street than Hillary.

And that's a bigger issue in the Democratic Party than the GOP.

 

[LoneLaugher]

• For example, it has come (or is coming to light more and more) that Ted Cruz has taken Wall Street money and, at the same time, his rhetoric was railing against others taking the same money. The fact that he just happened to leave those specific contributions off of his required disclosures, I'm sure, is just a conincidence.

I'd be shocked if Cruz took more money from Wall Street than Hillary.

And that's a bigger issue in the Democratic Party than the GOP.

She probably has. But Cruz made it a big issue for himself.

 

[Toro]

• For example, it has come (or is coming to light more and more) that Ted Cruz has taken Wall Street money and, at the same time, his rhetoric was railing against others taking the same money. The fact that he just happened to leave those specific contributions off of his required disclosures, I'm sure, is just a conincidence.

I'd be shocked if Cruz took more money from Wall Street than Hillary.

And that's a bigger issue in the Democratic Party than the GOP.

She probably has. But Cruz made it a big issue for himself.

Hasn't Hillary been claiming she'd come down hard on Wall Street?

 

[LoneLaugher]

• For example, it has come (or is coming to light more and more) that Ted Cruz has taken Wall Street money and, at the same time, his rhetoric was railing against others taking the same money. The fact that he just happened to leave those specific contributions off of his required disclosures, I'm sure, is just a conincidence.

I'd be shocked if Cruz took more money from Wall Street than Hillary.

And that's a bigger issue in the Democratic Party than the GOP.

She probably has. But Cruz made it a big issue for himself.

Hasn't Hillary been claiming she'd come down hard on Wall Street?

We don't disagree on Hillary's hypocrisy regarding Wall Street. But Cruz made it an issue for himself....even though the GOP base doesn't care as much.

 

[Boss]

Hasn't Hillary been claiming she'd come down hard on Wall Street?

There is no telling what lies spew from her mouth each day... she tells more lies before breakfast than the average person tells in a year... so it's possible she has said this.

However.... take a look at her FEC donors page and you will see a virtual Who's Who list of Big Wall Street Bankers and Brokers. It's essentially who is funding her campaign... save for the money she has corruptly siphoned from her non-profit "charity" organization.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Sen. Ted Cruz: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2016 | OpenSecrets