Cruz RNC Speech

[tinydancer]

First endorsements don't mean shit anymore. Second did anyone seriously think Cruz was going to endorse the man who suggested his father was involved in the JFK assassination?

You mother fucking right wing creeps. You fucking cried so hard about Obama palling around with Reverand Wright and you don't fucking mind the fact Ted's dad was palling around with someone who assassinated JFK? A fucking CUBAN no less! Then Ted's mom the traitor leaves the USA after they helped murder our President and years later they send the Manchurian Candidate back to America to do god knows what? Luckily they gave birth to a used car salesman who has no chance of ever being president.

Your fear is the best endorsement Trump could ever ask for...

Look at Trump when he was listening to Cruz

Not happy. LOL

Ted's NOT endorsing Trump is Trump's best endorsement.

Oh Trump is actually ecstatic. On the inside. He knew exactly what was in that speech and what wasn't. He knew the endorsement wasn't coming. Everyone on Team Trump knew this. No one was blindsided at all.

Haha. I love their faces. The whole family pulled it off.

You really have to understand that this was a set up by Team Trump. Cruz accepted the speaking engagement at the convention because his ego drove him to it.

Manafort knew that if Cruz endorsed Trump that would be great. If he didn't endorse him it would forever marginalize Cruz and destroy Never Trump for eternity.

It was a win win scenario.

Cruz's political career aspirations for the Presidency are now toast. That was the ultimate goal.

To set this up you see was going to be a win win for Team Trump. Cruz is now the divider. And the Donald?

The unifier. For the Republican Party. Too funny and well played.



It was one of the most audacious and awesomeness of awesomeness political strategy I have witnessed.

1. You believe that shit that they saw Cruz' speech before he gave it? God you are dumb.
2. Cruz was never going to be president. The fact you think he ever stood a chance tells me a lot more than the words you just wrote to me. LOL.

Now tell me how they pre planned Melania's plagiarized speech. Please, tell me that! Every time the unorganized Trump campaign fucks up please give me your right wing spin. I love it!

Pffffft. Yes they saw the speech. Of course they did. Trump had read the speech. Do you really think that Manafort would have allowed a mortal enemy to take the stage on the Wednesday night without knowing what was in that speech?

Oh and Melania's speech wasn't plagiarized in the clinical sense.If anything mosaic plagiarism would be the closest.

I know they had a fall guy (woman) come out and apologize and that put a lid on it. But there was nothing in Michelle Obama's speech that was cribbed that hasn't been out there like general phrases "your word is your bond".

Michelle didn't make up that phrase or "you work hard for what you get" or "show people respect" for crying out loud. Hence no clinical plagiarism.

Back to last night. It killed Cruz's career. Adelson wouldn't even let Cruz into his party. He's toast.

Hahahaha!

 

[saveliberty]

Wonder if Congressional leaders will sanction Cruz?

 

[ChrisL]

This is what you say to someone who calls himself a "buck toothed moron" and pisses on gum? That I'm a hoot? Good grief, all of you people have fallen off your rockers.

You are being really stupid Chris

Clinton’s gun violence prevention proposal would impose restrictions, including a ban on semi-automatic “assault weapons,” but it does not call for banning all guns.

Trump Distorts Clinton’s Gun Stance

You tell me why you have a problem with this:

Among other things, her plan would:

• Expand background checks. Her proposal would expand required background checks to include some private sales at gun shows and over the Internet. The current requirement exempts any person “who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”
• Close the so-called “Charleston Loophole.” Federal law currently allows federally licensed dealers to sell firearms after a three-day waiting period for a background check even if a background check on the buyer is not completed. Legislation proposed by Democratic Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina would require a potential gun buyer to pass a background check before being sold the gun.
• Ban semi-automatic “assault weapons.” Clinton supports reinstating the 1994 ban that expired in 2004. The ban was signed by her husband, President Bill Clinton. Her proposal makes no mention of retroactively banning such weapons. She was a cosponsor of legislation that would have extended the assault weapons ban before it expired in September 2004. The 1994 law allowed gun owners to keep prohibited weapons purchased before the ban took effect.

Clinton has said her gun proposals are “consistent with constitutional rights,” acknowledging that gun owners have a constitutional right to own guns.

Now, Clinton’s critics point to past comments that she has made as evidence that she wants to take away all guns. But these interpretations distort her position.

The National Rifle Association said her comments in Keene proved that the “real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation.”

But Clinton’s non-committal answer to a hypothetical question at a single campaign stop hardly amounts to proof that she “wants to take your guns away,” as Trump said. She said only that the Australia buyback program is “worth looking at” and “worth considering.” It is not part of her gun violence prevention plan.

Trump went a step further this time, saying that Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

The evidence for this appears to be a recording of a speech that Clinton gave in New York last year, although Trump’s campaign did not respond to our request for clarification. In that speech, Clinton said that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, and I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website that obtained an audio of her speech,wrote at the time: “Although Clinton did not identify which Supreme Court case she disagreed with, she appeared to be criticizing the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., unconstitutional.”

Gun rights advocates point to that quote to claim that Trump was right in claiming that Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

YOU and Trump may choose not to believe what Clinton says, but the fact is there is no evidence that Clinton wants to “take your guns away” or “abolish the Second Amendment.” She hasn’t said that, and her gun proposals would not do that.

Incremental steps towards a total ban. What are they going to demand after the NEXT psycho uses a gun to commit his carnage?

Demand? We can't even get the GOP to stop selling guns to people on the no fly list. Chris, for a smart lady (most of the time) you are being really dumb.

Do you live in New Hampshire or a blue state? One that votes Blue every time? If so, feel free to continue to be stupid since it doesn't matter.

Because that would be against those people's CONSTITUTIONAL rights!!! Don't you know this? You cannot revoke the rights of people who have NOT committed any crimes!

Then America is doomed if even suspected terrorists can get guns and not even the FBI will be warned. Geez!

It has been found that your beloved "list" is completely inadequate. There have been grannies and children included on that list!

 

[defcon4]

Gingrich put the Cruz speech in perspective. Indirectly, Cruz endorsed Trump or hinted a write in option.

 

[saveliberty]

2020, I am writing in Cruz for dog catcher, he'll need a job.

 

[RodISHI]

Hitlery's only chance is in the illegal and the dead and buried coming out of the graves to vote for her.

You over estimate your fellow voting citizens........

Well it is pretty obvious the saudi and bank ass kissing Texans did get get to Cruz.

They did? I wouldn't know.

Yeah you probably wouldn't. Cool thing about being in the later years is you have enough history behind you sometimes to see a little ways beyond what the rhetoric of the day is.

Why do you think I don't listen to people like you or the idiots on the far left, age and experience.

Probably because you don't get invites to their private parties but hey one day even you will grow up.

 

[Ringel05]

You over estimate your fellow voting citizens........

Well it is pretty obvious the saudi and bank ass kissing Texans did get get to Cruz.

They did? I wouldn't know.

Yeah you probably wouldn't. Cool thing about being in the later years is you have enough history behind you sometimes to see a little ways beyond what the rhetoric of the day is.

Why do you think I don't listen to people like you or the idiots on the far left, age and experience.

Probably because you don't get invites to their private parties but hey one day even you will grow up.

Boy do I love hacks.......

 

[JimBowie1958]

For the record, Cruz hasn't broken laws and allowed the murder of people. I think I'm starting to hate Trump-Bots half as much as Hillary-Bots, and that's a lot. You guys are just as whiny and childish as he is.

Bullshit.

Cruz made a solemn promise or pledge to support trump if Trump won the nomination and now Cruz is breaking his word like a typical Professional Political Class Crony and so I have lost all respect for him. To say that Cruz is OK simply because he is not as bad as Hillary is nonsense as there are many more way to be an unacceptable candidate than Hillary has been able to corner the market on, and Cruz fills at least one of those criteria for being an unacceptable candidate now for the White House EVER until he corrects his violation of his own word.

A man that cannot keep his word does not have the minimum self-respect and respect for others to ever become President.

 

[ChrisL]

This is what you say to someone who calls himself a "buck toothed moron" and pisses on gum? That I'm a hoot? Good grief, all of you people have fallen off your rockers.

You are being really stupid Chris

Clinton’s gun violence prevention proposal would impose restrictions, including a ban on semi-automatic “assault weapons,” but it does not call for banning all guns.

Trump Distorts Clinton’s Gun Stance

You tell me why you have a problem with this:

Among other things, her plan would:

• Expand background checks. Her proposal would expand required background checks to include some private sales at gun shows and over the Internet. The current requirement exempts any person “who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”
• Close the so-called “Charleston Loophole.” Federal law currently allows federally licensed dealers to sell firearms after a three-day waiting period for a background check even if a background check on the buyer is not completed. Legislation proposed by Democratic Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina would require a potential gun buyer to pass a background check before being sold the gun.
• Ban semi-automatic “assault weapons.” Clinton supports reinstating the 1994 ban that expired in 2004. The ban was signed by her husband, President Bill Clinton. Her proposal makes no mention of retroactively banning such weapons. She was a cosponsor of legislation that would have extended the assault weapons ban before it expired in September 2004. The 1994 law allowed gun owners to keep prohibited weapons purchased before the ban took effect.

Clinton has said her gun proposals are “consistent with constitutional rights,” acknowledging that gun owners have a constitutional right to own guns.

Now, Clinton’s critics point to past comments that she has made as evidence that she wants to take away all guns. But these interpretations distort her position.

The National Rifle Association said her comments in Keene proved that the “real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation.”

But Clinton’s non-committal answer to a hypothetical question at a single campaign stop hardly amounts to proof that she “wants to take your guns away,” as Trump said. She said only that the Australia buyback program is “worth looking at” and “worth considering.” It is not part of her gun violence prevention plan.

Trump went a step further this time, saying that Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

The evidence for this appears to be a recording of a speech that Clinton gave in New York last year, although Trump’s campaign did not respond to our request for clarification. In that speech, Clinton said that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, and I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website that obtained an audio of her speech,wrote at the time: “Although Clinton did not identify which Supreme Court case she disagreed with, she appeared to be criticizing the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., unconstitutional.”

Gun rights advocates point to that quote to claim that Trump was right in claiming that Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

YOU and Trump may choose not to believe what Clinton says, but the fact is there is no evidence that Clinton wants to “take your guns away” or “abolish the Second Amendment.” She hasn’t said that, and her gun proposals would not do that.

Incremental steps towards a total ban. What are they going to demand after the NEXT psycho uses a gun to commit his carnage?

Demand? We can't even get the GOP to stop selling guns to people on the no fly list. Chris, for a smart lady (most of the time) you are being really dumb.

Do you live in New Hampshire or a blue state? One that votes Blue every time? If so, feel free to continue to be stupid since it doesn't matter.

Because that would be against those people's CONSTITUTIONAL rights!!! Don't you know this? You cannot revoke the rights of people who have NOT committed any crimes!

They can go appeal and even sue the government if they feel their rights have been violated.

Crazy people haven't broken any laws either.

Why don't we just put guns in vending machines.

Sorry, but here in America we don't punish people for what we THINK they might do.

 

[ChrisL]

This is what you say to someone who calls himself a "buck toothed moron" and pisses on gum? That I'm a hoot? Good grief, all of you people have fallen off your rockers.

You are being really stupid Chris

Clinton’s gun violence prevention proposal would impose restrictions, including a ban on semi-automatic “assault weapons,” but it does not call for banning all guns.

Trump Distorts Clinton’s Gun Stance

You tell me why you have a problem with this:

Among other things, her plan would:

• Expand background checks. Her proposal would expand required background checks to include some private sales at gun shows and over the Internet. The current requirement exempts any person “who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”
• Close the so-called “Charleston Loophole.” Federal law currently allows federally licensed dealers to sell firearms after a three-day waiting period for a background check even if a background check on the buyer is not completed. Legislation proposed by Democratic Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina would require a potential gun buyer to pass a background check before being sold the gun.
• Ban semi-automatic “assault weapons.” Clinton supports reinstating the 1994 ban that expired in 2004. The ban was signed by her husband, President Bill Clinton. Her proposal makes no mention of retroactively banning such weapons. She was a cosponsor of legislation that would have extended the assault weapons ban before it expired in September 2004. The 1994 law allowed gun owners to keep prohibited weapons purchased before the ban took effect.

Clinton has said her gun proposals are “consistent with constitutional rights,” acknowledging that gun owners have a constitutional right to own guns.

Now, Clinton’s critics point to past comments that she has made as evidence that she wants to take away all guns. But these interpretations distort her position.

The National Rifle Association said her comments in Keene proved that the “real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation.”

But Clinton’s non-committal answer to a hypothetical question at a single campaign stop hardly amounts to proof that she “wants to take your guns away,” as Trump said. She said only that the Australia buyback program is “worth looking at” and “worth considering.” It is not part of her gun violence prevention plan.

Trump went a step further this time, saying that Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

The evidence for this appears to be a recording of a speech that Clinton gave in New York last year, although Trump’s campaign did not respond to our request for clarification. In that speech, Clinton said that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, and I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website that obtained an audio of her speech,wrote at the time: “Although Clinton did not identify which Supreme Court case she disagreed with, she appeared to be criticizing the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., unconstitutional.”

Gun rights advocates point to that quote to claim that Trump was right in claiming that Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

YOU and Trump may choose not to believe what Clinton says, but the fact is there is no evidence that Clinton wants to “take your guns away” or “abolish the Second Amendment.” She hasn’t said that, and her gun proposals would not do that.

Incremental steps towards a total ban. What are they going to demand after the NEXT psycho uses a gun to commit his carnage?

Demand? We can't even get the GOP to stop selling guns to people on the no fly list. Chris, for a smart lady (most of the time) you are being really dumb.

Do you live in New Hampshire or a blue state? One that votes Blue every time? If so, feel free to continue to be stupid since it doesn't matter.

Because that would be against those people's CONSTITUTIONAL rights!!! Don't you know this? You cannot revoke the rights of people who have NOT committed any crimes!

They can go appeal and even sue the government if they feel their rights have been violated.

Crazy people haven't broken any laws either.

Why don't we just put guns in vending machines.

If you're so worried about it, then instead of punishing American citizens, then why not put a ban on Muslim immigration?

 

[RodISHI]

Well it is pretty obvious the saudi and bank ass kissing Texans did get get to Cruz.

They did? I wouldn't know.

Yeah you probably wouldn't. Cool thing about being in the later years is you have enough history behind you sometimes to see a little ways beyond what the rhetoric of the day is.

Why do you think I don't listen to people like you or the idiots on the far left, age and experience.

Probably because you don't get invites to their private parties but hey one day even you will grow up.

Boy do I love hacks.......

I don't especially those who play the mercenary for a bunch of back stabbing saudi's and then whine because those friends they made died when in fact it is their bank accounts that they will be missing and will be lacking while the dirty oil business stays stuck in a downward spiral.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh Trump is actually ecstatic. On the inside. He knew exactly what was in that speech and what wasn't. He knew the endorsement wasn't coming. Everyone on Team Trump knew this. No one was blindsided at all....

Pffffft. Yes they saw the speech. Of course they did. Trump had read the speech. Do you really think that Manafort would have allowed a mortal enemy to take the stage on the Wednesday night without knowing what was in that speech?....
Back to last night. It killed Cruz's career. Adelson wouldn't even let Cruz into his party. He's toast.
.

You are spot on with this. When Cruz dropped from the running, Trump extended a peace olive branch and Cruz ignored it. Cruzes wounded pride is still smoldering even now, months later, which proves how he is not a 'team player' and not a person with the even temperament to be President (which sounds weird in a discussion including Trump, lol).

Basically Trump had the huge NEVER Trump faction to absorb into his election effort, a big task for anyone.

He first makes conciliatory moves and gets most to endorse and support him.

He then pick Spence who is a major personality from the biggest block of NEVERTrumpers, the Western Evangelical wing of the party (to include Pentecostals and fundamentalists). This brought him about a third (I am guessing) of the NeverTrumpers, but more than anything it reduced the anger and fear that they had for Trump, reasoning, 'If he can pick a guy like Pence, then he cant be 100% evil.'

He then lets Cruz destroy himself on live national TV by letting Cruz be Cruz. The visuals of Cruz laughing all the way through his non-endorsement shows he was either ignorant of or incredibly apathetic toward the overwhelming wishes of the Republicans gathered at the convention and who tuned in nationwide. This makes Trump the sympathetic betrayed person and undermines the Cruzbots support by Cruz showing himself to be unworthy of loyalty because he himself is not loyal to his own party nor his own word. This way Trump really has nothing to be concerned about in 2020 if he wins this year as well as winning over the vast majority of his hard core NeverTrump opposition.

All in all this is the kind of in-house fighting Trump excels at and had to in the real estate market in New York. Simply because Trump talks to the nation at a 4th grade reading level does not mean that Trump is a 4th grade retard. It only means he knows his target audiences well.

All in all, this could not have worked out better for Trump. He has manipulated and managed this thing skillfully.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I with the GOP would have just ignored Cruz and all his far right followers. Shouldn't have even let him speak last night, no I certainly do not blame him for not endorsing Trump. I wouldn't have either.

But at some point , the GOP has to realize that winning is FAR more important than continuing to fight over such things as abortion and gay rights. Let that shit go .

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why don't we just put guns in vending machines.

If you're so worried about it, then instead of punishing American citizens, then why not put a ban on Muslim immigration?

How about a ban on Salafists from terrorist nations and let the people be their own first line of defense?

Georgia Legalizes Handgun Vending Machines

 

[JimBowie1958]

But at some point , the GOP has to realize that winning is FAR more important than continuing to fight over such things as abortion and gay rights. Let that shit go .

Bullshit. About half of Republican voters consider one of those issues or both to be very important.

Why do you advise the GOP to cut its own throat?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Heidi Cruz had to be escorted out by security because of angry thugs threatening her.

I'm so hard right now.

see senior pollock.....he can help you and you him....

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't especially those who play the mercenary for a bunch of back stabbing saudi's and then whine because those friends they made died when in fact it is their bank accounts that they will be missing and will be lacking while the dirty oil business stays stuck in a downward spiral.

You dehumanize Americans simply because the contract out to the federal government or its allied governments?

How about you go fuck yourself, traitorous jack ass.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

But at some point , the GOP has to realize that winning is FAR more important than continuing to fight over such things as abortion and gay rights. Let that shit go .

Bullshit. About half of Republican voters consider one of those issues or both to be very important.

Why do you advise the GOP to cut its own throat?

I certainly don't disagree that around 1/2 of all Republicans are stupid.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But at some point , the GOP has to realize that winning is FAR more important than continuing to fight over such things as abortion and gay rights. Let that shit go .

Bullshit. About half of Republican voters consider one of those issues or both to be very important.

Why do you advise the GOP to cut its own throat?

I certainly don't disagree that around 1/2 of all Republicans are stupid.

So now that half of the GOP is stupid because they disagree with you on abortion and fagot rights?

You really are a blithering idiot then.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

For the record, Cruz hasn't broken laws and allowed the murder of people. I think I'm starting to hate Trump-Bots half as much as Hillary-Bots, and that's a lot. You guys are just as whiny and childish as he is.

Bullshit.

Cruz made a solemn promise or pledge to support trump if Trump won the nomination and now Cruz is breaking his word like a typical Professional Political Class Crony and so I have lost all respect for him. To say that Cruz is OK simply because he is not as bad as Hillary is nonsense as there are many more way to be an unacceptable candidate than Hillary has been able to corner the market on, and Cruz fills at least one of those criteria for being an unacceptable candidate now for the White House EVER until he corrects his violation of his own word.

A man that cannot keep his word does not have the minimum self-respect and respect for others to ever become President.

I can understand his position. Trump embodies none of his values, and he insulted his wife and father.

You're also arguing that he should support a liar.