I am aware of that. But Ted Cruz is betting on evangelicals to deliver him the nomination. He is counting on the Iowa Caucus and South Carolina to put him on top in terms of perception and deflate Trump. Cruz is focused on the SEC primary, which is eight days after the South Carolina primary. Much of red state America will vote two weeks later. At that point, we could be looking at a heavy Cruz lead, with Trump struggling in the northern and western states. Or, no Trump at all, since he isn't going to spend his own money to campaign. Trump has no campaign organizations to speak of in any states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Texas, and Cruz's organiztion in South Carolina along outnumbers Trump's entire national campaign. Now that the primaries are getting ready to shift to the state by state races, the national polls that Trump boasts about won't matter at all. I suspect that the GOP establishment has already quietly written off the White House.
What do you mean by give 90% of the cuts to the voters? How would the 90% of the money that has been cut be distributed to "the voters?" Do you mean all Americans? Working-age Americans? Would everyone get the exact same amount? Does that really sound like something that could pass at all? Forget whether it sounds like it would be better than keeping whatever programs you are thinking of. The money would have to targeted at particular groups of people for anyone to even care. Otherwise, it wouldn't be enough for voters to push their politicians to support the proposal. Also, using only 10% of the money saved to reduce the deficit isn't fiscally responsible.
I didn't say that Cruz was my ideal candidate... but it appears that if he were on a ticket with, say, Rubio, we could finally (FINALLY) get the Libocrat manure-pile out of the White House long enough to fix some things that both Idiot Bush and Idiot Obama have badly broken. The worst is Obamacare, which is a massive, expensive, hopelessly ensnarled mess that involves 1/6ths of the entire United States economy. In blunt terms, Cruz learned a lot from his attempts to shut down Obama's big Welfare Circus, and he won't be making those mistakes again. Rubio could bring the Latino vote, and maybe, if we're lucky, we can send "Blood Clot" Hillary off to one of her mansions for a way overdue retirement....
The GOP is looking for a candidate whom they can manipulate, and Ted Cruz is the perfect puppet. The GOP can't put Trump under their claws and be subjected to their personal agendas. In my opinion, while Obama - as an experienced politician-was elected by running his mount talking flowers and butterflies to Americans, on the other hand Trump tells the plain truth straight to Americans. His initiatives have been found correct until now, and this is what America needs for a real change. Ted Cruz will be the continuation of a greater debt limit and you must admit that he is more soft than Obama himself when is about making decisions to stop the enemies of America. Times have changed a lot. We are not more in the Clinton's era, the Kennedy's era, those years where the world was different. In today's world we don't need a president who will be soft and will comply with fear what other countries want from America. In today's world, America must show with strength that it's the leader, and Trump in the only GOP candidate who can generate that status.
And Cruz hasn't voiced any dissent to the GOP leadership. The GOP leadership can't stand Cruz and if they get rid of Trump, they will start working on getting rid of Cruz.
Because you made it up and we both know it. - - - Updated - - - That is certainly true. And if they can't keep him from getting the nomination, the money will dry up instantly. Wall Street, big oil and many of the GOP donors aren't going to put their money on a radical ideologue with a record of courting disaster.
^^^wishful thinking that the Dems, and the media (sorry for repeating myself again) are fantasizing about. I like Trump, I absolutely love his attitude towards the hyper sensitive pajama boy libs and the way he treats the media parasites. I'm a Cruz guy though, but man is it hilarious to see the left get their panties in a bunch! Lol
So, you're telling me that you'd be willing to support a candidate who is an international pariah, and who has shown by experience that he has no idea how to govern, especially in a democracy???????
Trump probably won't go away for a while. He says he won't quit. He threatens to run as an independent. There is little reason to take him at his word, since he says whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear. He is not the first charletan to do that. In fact, he's only the latest in a long line. And the same audience falls for it every time Trump may be around six months from now, but he won't be around come November of 2016. And Ted Cruz will be cruising toward either not running for re election or being primaried out by his own party.
She asked questions liberals wanted in some attempt to prove that FOX could and would ask "tough" questions. FOX has succumbed to the left wing noise machine and tries so hard to prove it is fair and balanced that they end up leaning left. Just like when politicians do this to garner favor with the left though it backfires. The left still hates them and they alienate the right. Add to this the leftist like Shep they put on and FOX ends up being only slightly better than the drive by DNC media
Cruz can be senator for life as far as Texans care. He is very popular in Texas. Now if we could just replace John Cornyn..... Texas Republicans control 2/3 of the Texas House and Senate and our conservative wing has become much stronger in the last 7 years. If we could get rid of our RINO speaker of the house(the Dem and RINO keep him there), the tea party alone would be a majority and we could really get things done. 0bama would be suing us left and right.
With nothing more than the power to veto legislation and a soap box from which to cheerlead from, detailed plans are less important than a genuine desire and intent to reduce the size, power and cost of government anywhere we can, considering that any plans would be subject to the whims of Congress.
Apart from the fact that I don't agree with what you've said about Cruz, I'll be candid enough to tell you this: I'd vote for a mangy two-headed dog, vomiting out one end and (*)(*)(*)(*)ting out the other rather than vote for a deceitful, conniving, completely inept, and frankly stupid Democrat like Hillary Clinton! Hell, at least Bernie Sanders is an honest person, even if he's a damn socialist! Hillary lies almost as often as Obama does, and that's quite one hell of a lot!
Nonsense. Roger Ailes saw that debate as entertainment first, and news second, which has always been his guiding principle. Fox has always been aimed at people with short attention spans who are bored with news, don't read anything over a paragraph long, and would rather have their prejudices validated than learn. It has always been flagrantly right wing. The only pretense at "fair and balanced" is a slogan. Ailes has never been interested in attracting an audience outside that narrow band. But the first GOP debate allowed him a stage with a much bigger audience than he had ever had before. He used it to promote his young hottie star, presumably at the expense of Donald Trump. But Ailes is a coward, and Trump is a bully. While Fox got virtually no ratings bounce after the debates, Trump was able to intimidate Fox and leverage that into several days worth of free publicity for himself. The right wing audience, which has always been easy prey for this sort of show biz nonsense, took it all at face value and started attacking Fox, name calling, and saying they were turning away. But they're all back now. Fox has the same audience and demographics that it did before the debate. - - - Updated - - - I don't understand what's to disagree with. Cruz made himself an international pariah with his government shutdown stunt. That's pretty easy to document. The fact that he's the most hated man in the United States Senate is no secret either.
Rand Paul is no threat to Donald Trump. I've argued since the beginning of this election that Rand Paul would be a major force for the Democrats to contend with were he to win the primary, especially in the event of a Hillary nomination. A definite threat there. However, only problem is: he has no chance of actually winning that primary. It doesn't matter what he does. I would bet my entire bank account, my house, and my car on him not getting the nomination. If he approaches it from the more libertarian side, the warhawks and christian conservatives will eat him up. If he approaches it from the more conservative side, then he will just get lost in the shuffle of the other conservative candidates. If he approaches it from a little of both sides, as he has been, both sides will get pissed off and leave his campaign. As they have been. Donald Trump may act like a fool, but he's far from it. Fools don't lead at 40%. He knows Rand Paul has a better chance of becoming dictator of the world than getting the GOP nod. He attacks him because that's what Donald Trump does. He attacks people. Threat or no threat.
Cruz was trying to pull the wheels off of Obamacare, the biggest slow-motion, ongoing trainwreck to occur in this country in a long time. He failed to rally the RINO's, and it's a pity he didn't do a more effective job of it, but he tried. If anyone thinks Obamacare stinks now... just WAIT. The full horror of this Socialism-lite pile of welfare-laden (*)(*)(*)(*) is only going to become more and more obvious during 2016.... Hint: A "subsidy" is nothing but another word for WELFARE.
OK, you disagreed with my claim that Cruz is an international pariah, and that he's the most hated man on Capitol Hill. When I pointed out taht both are well known and easy to document, you deflected with a rant about Obamacare.
I don't know, or frankly, CARE whether Ted Cruz is an "international pariah" or not. We've already got one president who committed several embarrassments and one actual crime while trying to please his "international" admirers, so it doesn't mean SQUAT to me.... I could counter that among people who aren't slobbering socialists and Obama sycophants, Harry Reid is the most hated man on Capitol Hill, although I must admit, I'm sure as hell no admirer of Mitch McConnell, either. Nevertheless, my rant about Obamacare was purely because you lambasted Cruz for trying to stop funding for the government, and, I was telling you WHY he did it. I doubt that he had a "big fun" time trying to fight socialist Libocrats and RINO's at the same time, and he failed in the attempt. But I wasn't "deflecting".... Look, I don't even really believe at this point that it's possible for Hillary to lose! Does that surprise you? I've studied human nature for a long, long time, and I can tell you that there are few kinds of people who are more determined and energized than parasites who successfully get something-for-nothing from a socialist government. They'll come in throngs and swarms to vote for Hillary Clinton, purely because they know that she'll continue Obama's big socialist Welfare Circus. And when Obamacare finally finishes falling flat on its face, they know she'll ram through some kind of other socialist medical coverage for all the bottom-feeders who have stopped even trying to do anything for themselves....
He has shown moments of promise. I really liked his filibuster. I'd say he's pretty much the best case scenario which is actually realistic. I thought Paul showed a lot of promise in the recent debate, but I can't see him winning the nomination - he's tries to cut a fine line between fringe and centrist which doesn't entirely convince either camp. Compared to the rest of the field Cruz and Paul are a breath of fresh air. At least some in the party are willing to stand up for that somewhat forgotten history of non-intervention and civil liberties. Graham and Huckabee were just comical on the subject. I swear, Graham's kid could ask him about the birds and the bees, and he'd respond "I'd like to refer to my experience in Afghanistan and Iraq helping our brave troops - we really need to provide them every tool they need in this war on terror, and one component of that is a dragnet surveillance state. " Yeah alright Lindsey, talk it up.
