Cruz and Bush donors switch to Hillary. Cruz was anti establishment eh? Bwahahahahahahaha!

[tinydancer]

How is Cruz or any other candidate supposed to control who donors give money to?

That's not the point. If Hillary is their second choice, there must be something that Cruz and Hillary were both willing to do for them that Trump is against.

that's utter bull crap.

these donors first donated to bush, then donated to rubio then reluctantly donated to cruz, all before the pacs supporting hillary approached them to see if they would contribute to their PACS.

They are nevertrumpers, because donald duck is the most disgusting candidate for President in all of US History....he's a lying duffus, arrogant, ignorant, embarrassing, narcissistic idiot and NO ONE like him should ever in a million years, no matter who he is running against, be President of the USA....he's a great reality tv show host though....

No, it's because they can't control him the way they can control any of the other ones. Funny how you liberals suddenly turn into crony corporate capitalists when it's YOUR candidate being bought and paid for.

ok, since you know so much, what is it that they want? please tell us oh wise one....

The same thing they always want, a puppet.

I think this has been a coordinated effort. Man going thru all the layers is like peeling an onion. I'm not into conspiracy theories but when you start to connect all the dots I think you can drop the conspiracy part and leave it at a pretty solid theory.

Hang in with me here. I put up the links in another thread and I'm ready to crash so I'm going to do a basic C&P on my own post.



"The game plan by the establishment was to nominate Bush AND Clinton. It would be a win win for the inside the beltway crew if either was elected. Trump stopped the coronation of Bush and consequently has the elite running for their extra strength Immodium AD and giving millions to Clinton now.

The Clintons and the Bush family have become tied at the hip. I know that people have said theTrump family associated with the Clintons at social gatherings but they are no where near this level of involvement.

I personally believe that Jeb's run was strictly orchestrated to suck up all the donations and be the big money candidate but Trump screwed that up for Jeb.

He blocked the coronation. BTW Hillary and Jeb had something like 60 donors that were funding both of them.

Jeb getting decimated in the primaries left the Bush family another option and that's Ted Cruz. No one else apart from Cruz was left in the field that the Bush family could work as well with them as Ted.

Not sure if you know this but this is what really red flagged me is when Ted hired Neil Bush and his wife Maria to be part of his financial advisor group. Cripes it's like peeling an onion back layer by layer.

Cruz's charade that he was an outsider and that he would take on the Washington cartel had been well played. But scratch the surface and bingo bango right out there is the Bush link one more time. Heidi worked for the Bush administration longer than Ted, but make no mistake. They were big time players in the Bush White House.

And speaking of the CFR.....
Task Force Report
Print Cite
Building a North American Community

At the link she is listed as on the task force. It's a complete lie that they are outside the beltway anti Wall Street couple. The opposite is true. Power couple.

HEIDI S. CRUZ is an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas. She served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Prior to government service, Ms. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City.

Now back to the relationship between the Bush family and the Clintons. Trumps don't come close. Check this out. Worth the read at the links when you have the time.

Damn, Washington is so incestuous. It never ceases to amaze me.


Jenna Bush: Hillary Clinton and I are 'related' through 'Uncle' Bill - George W Bush's 'brother from another mother'

• Former first-daughter Jenna Bush-Hager joked about her Clinton family ties at a charity gala earlier this week
• When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the stage, she spoke about the 'special feeling of kinship' she had for Jenna

Jenna Bush says she's 'related' to Hillary Clinton

Bush's daughter Barbara opens up about wanting Hillary Clinton to run for president,

Bush's daughter Barbara opens up about wanting Hillary Clinton to run for president, spoiling her new niece and what her dad thinks of her boyfriend

 

[emilynghiem]

How is Cruz or any other candidate supposed to control who donors give money to?

That's not the point. If Hillary is their second choice, there must be something that Cruz and Hillary were both willing to do for them that Trump is against.

that's utter bull crap.

these donors first donated to bush, then donated to rubio then reluctantly donated to cruz, all before the pacs supporting hillary approached them to see if they would contribute to their PACS.

They are nevertrumpers, because donald duck is the most disgusting candidate for President in all of US History....he's a lying duffus, arrogant, ignorant, embarrassing, narcissistic idiot and NO ONE like him should ever in a million years, no matter who he is running against, be President of the USA....he's a great reality tv show host though....

No, it's because they can't control him the way they can control any of the other ones. Funny how you liberals suddenly turn into crony corporate capitalists when it's YOUR candidate being bought and paid for.

ok, since you know so much, what is it that they want? please tell us oh wise one....

The same thing they always want, a puppet.

Just because Trump isn't a puppet does not mean he will listen to reason.
I know lots of people who follow their own agenda independently, which works for them,
but not for everyone else who needs to be represented in solutions.

Let's see if Trump can listen and work with his own constituents, fellow conservatives
to unite their efforts and party. if he can't even listen and collaborate enough to do that,
what makes you think he can lead America and organize leaders and resources to get the job done.

If people cannot work with his mgmt style, how are plans for America going to work under it?

I'm not saying Clinton's better, I'm just saying that A LOT of support for Clinton
is coming from FEAR of Trump being a loose cannon who can't be trusted to work with reliably.

I don't think a lot of this support for Clinton is coming from her per se.
Most of the liberal politics is reaction and fear of conservative and Christian agenda taking dominance.

the real grassroots liberal/progressive reform is among the Greens and Sanders supporters, not Clinton.

 

[tinydancer]

If he is going to respect the Constitution, why would he attack Cruz who seeks to defend that almost to a fault?

Because they were running against each other and Cruz was attacking him. Was he supposed to not respond or try to win?

Where did Cruz say anything that wasn't true about Trump?

Lots of false things have been allowed to circulate about Cruz that he didn't do.
Cruz may be biased against the left but he's not a liar.

From what I understand, because Trump was resorting to personal attacks on people for media attention,
that's the main criticism his opponents had on him: his immature inability to debate and discuss the
issues and solutions without resorting to such remarks. And his inexperience in various areas, including
this inability to give and take corrections civilly instead of putting on a "reality TV show" act for publicity.

He was the only person resorting to such extreme poor taste in commentary
such as the sexist-baiting referral to a woman bleeding from "wherever"
and the gratuitous reference to male anatomy in proportion to hand size.

Nobody else was trying to take the media exchanges to that level but Trump.
That has been their main complaint, and for Trump not to listen and try to improve on this
is a bad sign if people can't take correction from their own peers even when it's in their interests.
He can still carry the same interest in the media WITHOUT stooping to such tactics,
or he should be able to if he has the right ideas and solutions to promote as policy and reform.

Why not stick to that? Will he really rally more votes than he alienates
by sticking to this trend of personal attacks and bullying that detract from real issues to address?

Last I read Trump has shattered the record held for over 30 years for receiving more votes in a Republican primary race than any other candidate.

 

[S.J.]

If he is going to respect the Constitution, why would he attack Cruz who seeks to defend that almost to a fault?

Because they were running against each other and Cruz was attacking him. Was he supposed to not respond or try to win?

Where did Cruz say anything that wasn't true about Trump?

Lots of false things have been allowed to circulate about Cruz that he didn't do.
Cruz may be biased against the left but he's not a liar.

From what I understand, because Trump was resorting to personal attacks on people for media attention,
that's the main criticism his opponents had on him: his immature inability to debate and discuss the
issues and solutions without resorting to such remarks. And his inexperience in various areas, including
this inability to give and take corrections civilly instead of putting on a "reality TV show" act for publicity.

He was the only person resorting to such extreme poor taste in commentary
such as the sexist-baiting referral to a woman bleeding from "wherever"
and the gratuitous reference to male anatomy in proportion to hand size.

Nobody else was trying to take the media exchanges to that level but Trump.
That has been their main complaint, and for Trump not to listen and try to improve on this
is a bad sign if people can't take correction from their own peers even when it's in their interests.
He can still carry the same interest in the media WITHOUT stooping to such tactics,
or he should be able to if he has the right ideas and solutions to promote as policy and reform.

Why not stick to that? Will he really rally more votes than he alienates
by sticking to this trend of personal attacks and bullying that detract from real issues to address?

I'm not gonna argue over tactics with you. It's pointless. I get that you don't like Trump, and I understand you don't like his tactics. I didn't like Cruz or his tactics either. Neither one of us is gonna convince the other one of anything and I'm tired of responding to the same old complaining about Trump's personality from Cruz supporters. If you guys don't want to vote for him, don't. It's your decision.

 

[tinydancer]

If he is going to respect the Constitution, why would he attack Cruz who seeks to defend that almost to a fault?

Because they were running against each other and Cruz was attacking him. Was he supposed to not respond or try to win?

Where did Cruz say anything that wasn't true about Trump?

Lots of false things have been allowed to circulate about Cruz that he didn't do.
Cruz may be biased against the left but he's not a liar.

From what I understand, because Trump was resorting to personal attacks on people for media attention,
that's the main criticism his opponents had on him: his immature inability to debate and discuss the
issues and solutions without resorting to such remarks. And his inexperience in various areas, including
this inability to give and take corrections civilly instead of putting on a "reality TV show" act for publicity.

He was the only person resorting to such extreme poor taste in commentary
such as the sexist-baiting referral to a woman bleeding from "wherever"
and the gratuitous reference to male anatomy in proportion to hand size.

Nobody else was trying to take the media exchanges to that level but Trump.
That has been their main complaint, and for Trump not to listen and try to improve on this
is a bad sign if people can't take correction from their own peers even when it's in their interests.
He can still carry the same interest in the media WITHOUT stooping to such tactics,
or he should be able to if he has the right ideas and solutions to promote as policy and reform.

Why not stick to that? Will he really rally more votes than he alienates
by sticking to this trend of personal attacks and bullying that detract from real issues to address?

I'm not gonna argue over tactics with you. It's pointless. I get that you don't like Trump, and I understand you don't like his tactics. I didn't like Cruz or his tactics either. Neither one of us is gonna convince the other one of anything and I'm tired of responding to the same old complaining about Trump's personality from Cruz supporters. If you guys don't want to vote for him, don't. It's your decision.

What I don't get is that somehow others can insult the crap out of Trump and expect Trump to take it? Like hell Trump would not retaliate. Favorite saying around Trump parts is "you mess with the bull you get the horns".

 

[L.K.Eder]

the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Um, ok.

1st sentence in the op is the nonsensical bastardized version of the saying.

It's not nonsensical at all. It's the modern version

"The modern version of "The proof is in the pudding." Implies that there is a lot of evidence that I will not go through at this moment and you should take my word for it, or you could go through all of the evidence yourself.

Homeowner: I don't believe it really takes 100 trees to build a house?

Carpenter: The lumber for the framing of the house requires all the boards to be the same length; the proof is in the pudding."

Urban Dictionary: the proof is in the pudding

sure. urban dictionary. proof in the pudding, got it, lol

 

[tinydancer]

the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Um, ok.

1st sentence in the op is the nonsensical bastardized version of the saying.

It's not nonsensical at all. It's the modern version

"The modern version of "The proof is in the pudding." Implies that there is a lot of evidence that I will not go through at this moment and you should take my word for it, or you could go through all of the evidence yourself.

Homeowner: I don't believe it really takes 100 trees to build a house?

Carpenter: The lumber for the framing of the house requires all the boards to be the same length; the proof is in the pudding."

Urban Dictionary: the proof is in the pudding

sure. urban dictionary. proof in the pudding, got it, lol

Just grabbed the first link. It's a common shortened version used world wide. And I'm on a message board not writing a speech for Queen Elizabeth for crying out loud.



Here ya go!

"It was a particularly apt phrase because pudding did not mean a creamy dessert, it was the term for a kind of mixture of meat and seasonings stuffed into a casing like sausage. And with meat in the very early 1600s, when the first example of the idiom appears in print, or in the 1400s, when the OED states the phrase originated, it was very easily contaminated. One would not know if it was going to be good or bad until one ate it.

Examples

“The most important thing for our organization is for him to develop. … The proof is in the pudding at this point.” [The Washington Post]

“We think we’ve been productive over the last two weeks but the proof is in the pudding on Sunday.” [Western Morning News]

But Boyd has worked hard to turn his life around and the proof was in the pudding when Wayne Bennett’s newest Broncos signing was unveiled at Red Hill on Monday. [Stuff NZ]

“I guess the proof will be in the pudding when we see how we react to it all, but we’re excited about what happened.” [Los Angeles Times]

Proof is in the pudding - Grammarist

 

[L.K.Eder]

the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Um, ok.

1st sentence in the op is the nonsensical bastardized version of the saying.

It's not nonsensical at all. It's the modern version

"The modern version of "The proof is in the pudding." Implies that there is a lot of evidence that I will not go through at this moment and you should take my word for it, or you could go through all of the evidence yourself.

Homeowner: I don't believe it really takes 100 trees to build a house?

Carpenter: The lumber for the framing of the house requires all the boards to be the same length; the proof is in the pudding."

Urban Dictionary: the proof is in the pudding

sure. urban dictionary. proof in the pudding, got it, lol

Just grabbed the first link. It's a common shortened version used world wide. And I'm on a message board not writing a speech for Queen Elizabeth for crying out loud.



Here ya go!

"It was a particularly apt phrase because pudding did not mean a creamy dessert, it was the term for a kind of mixture of meat and seasonings stuffed into a casing like sausage. And with meat in the very early 1600s, when the first example of the idiom appears in print, or in the 1400s, when the OED states the phrase originated, it was very easily contaminated. One would not know if it was going to be good or bad until one ate it.

Examples

“The most important thing for our organization is for him to develop. … The proof is in the pudding at this point.” [The Washington Post]

“We think we’ve been productive over the last two weeks but the proof is in the pudding on Sunday.” [Western Morning News]

But Boyd has worked hard to turn his life around and the proof was in the pudding when Wayne Bennett’s newest Broncos signing was unveiled at Red Hill on Monday. [Stuff NZ]

“I guess the proof will be in the pudding when we see how we react to it all, but we’re excited about what happened.” [Los Angeles Times]

Proof is in the pudding - Grammarist

you are not telling me anything new. but maybe you learned something.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's not that complicated. Trump would be a terrible president, and would screw up trade agreements before the first week was over. The rich guys are donating to stop Trump from flushing the entire country down the toilet more than they are to help any particular candidate.

Unlikely.

He makes a lot of money off free trade. Almost everything that he says is rhetoric and unlikely to be what he actually tries to accomplish.