Cruz is toast

[grayhair]

Sore losers don't play well in Texas.  I'd say his career is downhill from here.  IMO, he just pissed away his chances for reelection to the Senate no matter what happens in the presidential election. 

[Dirtymilkman]

Far right, over religious, nut job. I'd LOVE to see the skeletons in his closet. These far left and far right people that try to push their values on everyone else are just insecure and most are Hippocrates.

[Bigdogtrucker]

Too far right why, because he stands for what this country was founded on? Why over religious, because he he try's to live by what the bible teaches? I do agree his career is toast though...

[Dirtymilkman]

To far right because he wants to shove his ideals and beliefs down our throats. Before he decided to run for president he was one of these guys that wanted to ban sex toys, pornography, anti gay and so on. We have a Bill of Rights. That gives EVERYONE rights, now just certain people. A politicians main concern should be serving his country. Not making laws he thinks people should follow because he believes in it. 

[Bigdogtrucker]

As a Christian I agree with a lot of what he says, but most libtards would call that being a bigot...As for politicians serving their country, they should start by what it was founded on. Not the perverted version it's become.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Bigdogtrucker

[RowdyRebel]

The Bill of Rights doesn't give us a damn thing...only spells out certain prohibitions to actions those in government might wish to take. Our Rights come from the Creator, not the government.

 

Second, being against "special" rights being created for some "special" groups doesn't mean you're trying to infringe upon ANYBODY'S rights. Marriage isn't about "love", but rather creating a stable environment to bring children into this world and raise them up to be decent human beings. In some cultures, the betrothed couple doesn't even meet prior to the wedding, as it is arranged by parents or other elders in the society. "Love" doesn't even factor into the equation. So, when since the dawn of time, marriage has been an institution meant to procreate and allow our species to continue on into the future, why now should that be opened up to "couples" who "love" each other when it is biologically IMPOSSIBLE for them to reproduce without going outside of the marriage? No matter how many times it is tried, man + man does not = child...and neither does woman + woman. ONLY man + woman holds the potential for procreation.

 

So now the definition of "marriage" has been altered by 5 justices in black robes. This new "right" created by the court has now stripped away the 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion held by those who's religious beliefs do not allow them to sanction these same-sex "marriages". You no longer have the right to say "You go live your life, and leave me to live mine." If you're a florist, baker, photographer, own a venue, or any other "wedding related" vocation, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to say "No thanks" when asked to participate in a union which you do not agree with. You don't have the RIGHT to freely exercise YOUR reliigious beliefs.  

 

You see, the problem we have isn't with new rights being created by the government, but rather the existing rights being infringed upon by these newly created rights. The courts no longer look to the Constitution to form their decision, but rather they form their opinion and then look to "precident" to justify that decision. If you've ever played that game as a kid where you sit in a circle and somebody starts whispering a message into the ear of the kid next to them...and then that kid repeats it to the next kid...and so on and so forth. The message is NEVER the same when it gets back to the one who started it. Same can be said about "precident". Case "A" may have been decided based off the Constitution. Case "B" bounces off of case "A". Case "C" goes a little farther based upon what was said in "B". By the time you get to "D", "E", and "F", the decisions are so far removed from the actual Constitution that they are in conflict with it. That is where we are.

 

So yes, when somebody stands up and says "This is absolute lunacy!" and stresses the need to get back to the Constitutional principals this country was founded upon, I'll support him. When somebody says what they mean in regards to standing up for the Constitution, and follows through on their words with actions, I'll support him.  And I can find no fault with a man who refuses to roll over and provide unconditional support for a guy who berated his wife and accused his father of conspiring to commit murder. If he HAD come out and endorsed Trump, I would have thought less of him.  

 

Vote your conscience...all of the way up and down the ticket...vote for people who will protect and defend the Constitution.

 

What is so bad about that message? If you believe in the Constitution, there is only 1 choice this election...and it ain't Hillary.  That indirect endorsement is the best Trump should have expected after the way he conducted his primary campaign.

[Bigdogtrucker]

Well said Rowdy...

[grayhair]

Right, too far right, whatever.  The sucker made a public pledge along with the other candidates to support the eventual nominee.  He should have honored that pledge no matter how difficult that might be.  Or, he should have publicly backed away from the pledge immediately after the insults if they hurt him that deeply.  But not doing so, blaming it on insults and innuendo about his wife and his father?  Need thicker skin bro...  And by the way, what about his wife Heidi and her employment activities at Goldman Sachs?  Maybe a real story there...

Anyway, so, now that he walked away from his pledge, why would one believe he'd honor commitments he might make in a future campaign?

I am a TX voter and supported his Senate campaign, but never again.  Toast! 

Edited July 21, 2016 by grayhair

[david wild]

Ban sex toys ??? I like sex, if my wife wants toys, i'm game.  

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, david wild said:

Ban sex toys ??? I like sex, if my wife wants toys, i'm game.  

I heard that, You can say that again......

[1958 F.W.D.]

Back when Cruz said he'd support "the nominee" there was not one single solitary member of the GOP who thought that Trump had a chance in hell, let alone WIN the nomination. Now that he got the nod, Cruz and the GOP refuse to kiss the ring. I did not vote for Trump in the primary, and I still remain skeptical about him as a POTUS but I have to vote for him as I believe him to be the lesser of two evils. Who knows, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. I am so disgusted with the GOP the last 5 years it makes me sick. They are no longer my party, I am a free-agent conservative.

As for same sex marriages....I was once a homophobe. But then people made me realize that people living alternative lifestyles are not out to get me, rape me and force me into their cult. They just want to live their own lives they way they want to live them, without bothering anyone else or to be bothered. Who am I to tell someone that they cannot love someone else as much as I love my own wife? And we know both a male and female couple who have children and they are probably better parents than 75% of the other male/female couples that I know. 

[Dirtymilkman]

I don't think trump will make the best President, but I think we really need him for four years. 

[Underdog]

Back when Cruz said he'd support "the nominee" there was not one single solitary member of the GOP who thought that Trump had a chance in hell, let alone WIN the nomination. Now that he got the nod, Cruz and the GOP refuse to kiss the ring. I did not vote for Trump in the primary, and I still remain skeptical about him as a POTUS but I have to vote for him as I believe him to be the lesser of two evils. Who knows, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. I am so disgusted with the GOP the last 5 years it makes me sick. They are no longer my party, I am a free-agent conservative.

As for same sex marriages....I was once a homophobe. But then people made me realize that people living alternative lifestyles are not out to get me, rape me and force me into their cult. They just want to live their own lives they way they want to live them, without bothering anyone else or to be bothered. Who am I to tell someone that they cannot love someone else as much as I love my own wife? And we know both a male and female couple who have children and they are probably better parents than 75% of the other male/female couples that I know. 

Your views on same sex relationship ( I still believe they should come up with a term other than marriage) indicate what I have concluded in my own mind. Most people in the US are libertarian, only aren't aware of this, because the two party system is all we have been exposed to. Democrat or Republican. Nobody really looks beyond those two categories. I consider myself a conservative thinker, but basically have no problem allowing anyone to make their own choices in life, as long as your behavior brings no harm to anyone else. AND with minimal government intervention. Let's wait and see, but I believe Donald Trump will be a good change for our country. Maybe we don't know what he will do, but we already know what the politicians will do, and that sure as hell ain't working for the last 20 years. The pendulum swings.

[david wild]

Trumps best talent is finding and hiring the very best talent, he will surprise you and will be one of he best presidents ever because he will bring the best there is out there to help fix things, he himself he can be a total flop, it's the people he will bring to the table to make things right that will define his performance, Obama is a moron who surrounded himself with ass kissing losers, especially Clinton.

[kscarbel2]

Cruz is a politician, which means he’s a cheat and a liar, and when he’s not kissing babies......he’s stealing their lollipops. But it also means that he’s keeping his options open.

[Freightrain]

^^LOL.   I was thinking that same line.

 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Freightrain

[RowdyRebel]

...So it was perfectly acceptable for Trump to back out of the pledge in February, even threatening to run 3rd party if he didn't get the nomination...and yet it is the crime of the century for Ted Cruz to say "Vote your conscience" instead of endorsing Trump?

Tell you what...I'll run against you in an election, and have the tabloids print articles defaming your wife and father. Then I'll get up on stage at campaign events and in TV interviews and call your wife a fat ugly whore and your father a murderer (because, after all, I'm just repeating what that "reputable" tabloid rag had printed). I'll expect your endorsement after you lose.

If Trump had run an honorable campaign and shown even an ounce of respect towards his competition, I doubt ANY of them would have had a problem endorsing him. Trump slung so much mud in the primary that it would've made Pigpen feel dirty.

[Freightrain]

Honorable campaign?   Who??   Not a single political candidate has EVER done that.  LOL!!

[gearhead204]

hell I don't think we've mud flinging yet, (more like dust off the dirt road)  I think the 4 wheel burnout in the mud pit still lies ahead! and I think killiary will be on the receiving end of the flinging  (fingers crossed)  she has generated so much mud I would love to see  her drown in it! 

[Dirtymilkman]

Every politicion trys to bury the next no matter what. 

[RowdyRebel]

The primary shouldn't be about tearing down your opposition, but rather promoting your own ideas...because if you don't get the nomination, one of them will be representing your party in the general election.  If you have a disagreement on the issues or other policy matters, debate those differences without attempting to destroy the credibility of the other guy. 

Part of the problem with politics in this country is that the people who SHOULD run for office don't, because their good name is more valuable to them than the power of the office. That leaves people who covet the power of the office more than they value their good name and reputation to run, knowing full well their name and reputation WILL be assaulted, their past distorted, and no stone left unturned in the search for "dirt". That is why we are typically left with a "lesser of two evils" decision at election time.

There's plenty of time to have your good name dragged through the mud in the general election. There really isn't any GOOD reason to beat each other up in the primaries.

[kscarbel2]

2 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

The primary shouldn't be about tearing down your opposition, but rather promoting your own ideas...because if you don't get the nomination, one of them will be representing your party in the general election.  If you have a disagreement on the issues or other policy matters, debate those differences without attempting to destroy the credibility of the other guy. 

Part of the problem with politics in this country is that the people who SHOULD run for office don't, because their good name is more valuable to them than the power of the office. That leaves people who covet the power of the office more than they value their good name and reputation to run, knowing full well their name and reputation WILL be assaulted, their past distorted, and no stone left unturned in the search for "dirt". That is why we are typically left with a "lesser of two evils" decision at election time.

There's plenty of time to have your good name dragged through the mud in the general election. There really isn't any GOOD reason to beat each other up in the primaries.

Relax, it's all just a show.

Seriously, do you honestly believe that either Hillary Clinton or Trump would be allowed to actually run America Inc. ?

[Dirtymilkman]

2 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

Relax, it's all just a show.

Seriously, do you honestly believe that either Hillary Clinton or Trump would be allowed to actually run America Inc. ?

I'm afraid Hillary will try. She'll break us. 

[grayhair]

I think one needs to consider the possibility that Hellary may win the election.  What with vote count fraud, military ballots that didn't arrive in time, electoral college shenanigans  etc., it is entirely possible.  The "fix" may be in.  If so, by the time you realize it, the shelves at gun stores will be empty. No guns, no ammo, sold out.   There is no telling what she may do by executive order.  And you won't be able to depend on a liberal supreme court to protect your 2nd amendment rights.  IMO, now is the time to get what you need.  Best to have stuff that can be considered "grandfathered-in."

[41chevy]

9 hours ago, grayhair said:

I think one needs to consider the possibility that Hellary may win the election.  What with vote count fraud, military ballots that didn't arrive in time, electoral college shenanigans  etc., it is entirely possible.  The "fix" may be in.  If so, by the time you realize it, the shelves at gun stores will be empty. No guns, no ammo, sold out.   There is no telling what she may do by executive order.  And you won't be able to depend on a liberal supreme court to protect your 2nd amendment rights.  IMO, now is the time to get what you need.  Best to have stuff that can be considered "grandfathered-in."

I fear Hillary is a shoe in because all the votes needed are already bought and paid for. Now with that said, no matter who wins, the crap will hit the fan either by her executive orders, revenge on her opposition or by "her" people rioting because Trump wins. One way or the other best to be prepared for the civil unrest that is sure to come.       Paul