RNC - The Land

[jdshock]

Cruz:"This November vote for a candidate with principle"
Delegates: "BOOOO"
Cruz: "protect the Constitution"
Delegates: "BOOOOOOOO"
Cruz: "Don't say home. Vote your conscience!"
Delegates: "BOOOOOOOOOOO"

It is fascinating, and quite disheartening I might add, to see folks put party ahead of principles and most importantly their country.

And I am not a Cruz supporter really.

So Donald is going to convince the Mexicans to pay for that wall and then he will skillfully trick Putin into leaving the Ukraine alone but he can't find common ground and reconcile with Ted Cruz so that the convention isn't torpedoed? Really!?

Cruz: Vote your conscience
Delegates: BOOOOO
Cruz: Alright, fine... vote for a candidate you despise
Delegates: YEAH!

[Play Angry]

Serious question, because I'm not a big follower of the political system in general. Did Ted Cruz cost himself a good part of his future by not endorsing the candidate that the party chose? I just wondered, because I've seen some saying that he may have committed career suicide by not sticking to the oath he took to support the party's candidate. I'm not familiar with said oath, but I'm sure there is something there.

It was basically a bet against the ideological path Trump is leading the GOP down. He wants to establish himself in the role that many have tried to paint Paul Ryan into (the hero of the conservatives within the Republican party who are not on board with Trump nationalism/populism/whatever phrase works).

If Trump wins in November (which probably makes the party's ideological shift permanent), then Cruz hurt himself badly.

If Trump loses in November and his rabble rousing populism fades (evidence that this was more of a personality movement than anything), then Cruz is set up well for 2020 and beyond.

If Trump loses in November but Republicans continue shifting towards Trump policies, then Cruz still has a role in future cycles but it will be increasingly diminished.

[RoyalShock]

Here are a series of videos of Cruz addressing the Texas delegation this morning, first addressing the speech last night, then the full Q&A.

http://therightscoop.com/watch-ted-cruz-addresses-delegates-about-his-convention-speech-last-night/

[shocka khan]

Do you think Cruz is a smart politician?

Of course Cruz is smart. But he's also a bomb thrower who acts like a petulant child when he does not get his way.

He stabbed John Boehner in the back.

He tried to stab Mitch McConnell in the back.

He also tried to stab Trump in the back by agreeing and signing a pledge to back the nominee and then when crunch time came, he threw that pledge away and did what he felt like was best for him.

He shut down the federal government when he did not get his way.

He got up in front of all republicans and insulted their candidate publically by not at least offering lukewarm support when he did not get his way (i.e. being theparty nominee).

After this last episode, people are starting to see who Ted Cruz really is and what he stands for. He may have an opportunity to say 'I told you so' after the elections, but the fact that he acts like a child and is not a team player will be what people really remember, no matter how smart he is.

He is someone exactly like Hillary. He will sacrifice anything and anyone to get his goal (POTUS).

That's one of the most dangerous traits Hillary has.

[RoyalShock]

Of course Cruz is smart. But he's also a bomb thrower who acts like a petulant child when he does not get his way.

He stabbed John Boehner in the back.

He tried to stab Mitch McConnell in the back.

He also tried to stab Trump in the back by agreeing and signing a pledge to back the nominee and then when crunch time came, he threw that pledge away and did what he felt like was best for him.

He shut down the federal government when he did not get his way.

He got up in front of all republicans and insulted their candidate publically by not at least offering lukewarm support when he did not get his way (i.e. being theparty nominee).

After this last episode, people are starting to see who Ted Cruz really is and what he stands for. He may have an opportunity to say 'I told you so' after the elections, but the fact that he acts like a child and is not a team player will be what people really remember, no matter how smart he is.

He is someone exactly like Hillary. He will sacrifice anything and anyone to get his goal (POTUS).

That's one of the most dangerous traits Hillary has.

Watch the videos at the link I posted above. He addresses all of this. You may not like his answers, but they are there.

[shocka khan]

Watch the videos at the link I posted above. He addresses all of this. You may not like his answers, but they are there.

I don't care what excuses he offers up. I voted for him to represent me as my senator and I've been really unimpressed with his conduct. He is guilty of the many of the same things he accuses Obama of doing. He is a hypocrite.

He certainly won't be getting my vote again. If you want to accept the excuses he offers up, it's your right to continue to back him and even vote for him, provided he gets re-elected to his senate seat and makes another try for the presidency. At this point, I think he will have to offer up a lot of explanations and excuses to continue to enjoy the support he once had here (and I think people are tired of that).

I can absolutely tell you that the people in the urban areas of Texas will not be voting for him in the numbers they did the first time. Whether he can convince the people in Lubbock or Amarillo (those areas are 80%+ republican) remains to be seen.

That being said, there are a lot of republicans holding statewide offices in Texas (which is more what a senatorial election is) that got there from all the panhandle votes being cast for them.

PS: I did not watch the video, but I read the article.

[LuskingforGuttin]

Here are a series of videos of Cruz addressing the Texas delegation this morning, first addressing the speech last night, then the full Q&A.

http://therightscoop.com/watch-ted-c...ch-last-night/

That was a very powerful speech. I was watching it this morning on CNN.

Never been a huge proponent of Cruz previously but he is definitely someone I will give serious consideration in the future if he runs. I don't think I can bring myself to ever vote for a politician who has endorsed The Donald. And that eliminates a lot of folks that I have voted for in the past and planned to vote for again in the future. It's down to a democrat and a libertarian for me in 2016 and I never would have imagined that being possible even just a year ago.

[wu_shizzle]

I thought that a number of other politicians were conservatives and more worthy of support and more authentic like Rubio, Huckabee, and Kasich but we all know that they didn't win the Primary.

Authentic and Huckabee don't belong in the same sentence. Huckabee is all shtick.

And there's no way you can convince me that Kasich is a conservative.

Rubio I can see.

[jdshock]

And there's no way you can convince me that Kasich is a conservative.

If he's not a conservative, what is he? I've heard a lot of people call him a moderate conservative, (I think he's only a "moderate" under the new tea party views of conservatism) but he's certainly not a liberal.

He signed the bill to defund planned parenthood. He's slashed education budgets. He supported a ban on same-sex marriage. He was completely in favor of tax cuts. He's said he wants to repeal Obamacare.

He's most certainly not a liberal.

[wu_shizzle]

If he's not a conservative, what is he? I've heard a lot of people call him a moderate conservative, (I think he's only a "moderate" under the new tea party views of conservatism) but he's certainly not a liberal.

He signed the bill to defund planned parenthood. He's slashed education budgets. He supported a ban on same-sex marriage. He was completely in favor of tax cuts. He's said he wants to repeal Obamacare.

He's most certainly not a liberal.

Here's 17 reasons why he's not a Conservative: https://www.conservativereview.com/c...litical-career

[SHOCKvalue]

It's down to a democrat and a libertarian for me in 2016 and I never would have imagined that being possible even just a year ago.

How does one choose from between a democrat and a libertarian, exactly? They are literally ideological polar opposites on almost every issue. The republican platform is somewhat closer to the libertarian one, but there is still a chasm.

When polled for opinions on a multitude of issues, the majority of the country is actually indirectly libertarian, though for whatever reason the populace hasn't had their "Sixth Sense" moment yet. It is mystifying and flustering. The millennials especially have a disconnect in this regard - effectively libertarian in belief, yet overwhelmingly supportive of Hillary. It is akin to munching down on a **** sandwich, but blissfully thinking for some odd, who-the-F-knows-why reason that you're actually having a prime-grade ribeye.

[jdshock]

Here's 17 reasons why he's not a Conservative: https://www.conservativereview.com/c...litical-career

This article is exactly the kind of thinking that is running the conservative party into the ground. Three of the 17 are because he recognizes that the Supreme Court has the authority to make constitutional rulings. Seriously? That makes you a liberal? Another of the 17 was because he didn't promise to defund planned parenthood, which he did ultimately do. Well, believe whatever you want, but we liberals don't want him.

P.S., what does this even mean?
"In 2014, Kasich twisted the words of scripture to promote welfare expansion and Obamacare, asserting that he would be asked on the day of judgment, “‘What’d you do for the least of those?'” Hence, Kasich not only supported the goals of the Left, he validated the entire pagan foundation of the social justice movement and helped echo all of the Left’s stereotypes about conservatives."

What is the author saying? Because he quoted scripture, it reinforced the stereotype that conservatives read the Bible? And that's bad? But the author calling the foundation of the social justice movement "pagan" does nothing about the left's stereotypes about conservatives?

[WuShock16]

P.S., what does this even mean?
"In 2014, Kasich twisted the words of scripture to promote welfare expansion and Obamacare, asserting that he would be asked on the day of judgment, “‘What’d you do for the least of those?'” Hence, Kasich not only supported the goals of the Left, he validated the entire pagan foundation of the social justice movement and helped echo all of the Left’s stereotypes about conservatives."

What is the author saying? Because he quoted scripture, it reinforced the stereotype that conservatives read the Bible? And that's bad? But the author calling the foundation of the social justice movement "pagan" does nothing about the left's stereotypes about conservatives?

Yeah, I am confused by this one too. Is this author saying that Jesus meant something else when he told the Parable of the sheeps and goats and said "That which you have done to the least of these, you have done for me" and continued by basically saying "...and those of you who didn't are going straight to hell?" It seems pretty clear cut to me. Unfortunately, there are some "Christians" who seem to conveniently ignore what Christ said.

[wu_shizzle]

This article is exactly the kind of thinking that is running the conservative party into the ground. Three of the 17 are because he recognizes that the Supreme Court has the authority to make constitutional rulings. Seriously? That makes you a liberal? Another of the 17 was because he didn't promise to defund planned parenthood, which he did ultimately do. Well, believe whatever you want, but we liberals don't want him.

P.S., what does this even mean?
"In 2014, Kasich twisted the words of scripture to promote welfare expansion and Obamacare, asserting that he would be asked on the day of judgment, “‘What’d you do for the least of those?'” Hence, Kasich not only supported the goals of the Left, he validated the entire pagan foundation of the social justice movement and helped echo all of the Left’s stereotypes about conservatives."

What is the author saying? Because he quoted scripture, it reinforced the stereotype that conservatives read the Bible? And that's bad? But the author calling the foundation of the social justice movement "pagan" does nothing about the left's stereotypes about conservatives?

It's twisting scripture to equate the government confiscating taxes and dolling out welfare with the commandment to the Christian to look out for their neighbor's physical, mental, emotional and spiritual needs. The Acts of the Apostles and other NT passages go into great detail on how the church can and should meet the needs of their community.

[jdshock]

It's twisting scripture to equate the government confiscating taxes and dolling out welfare with the commandment to the Christian to look out for their neighbor's physical, mental, emotional and spiritual needs. The Acts of the Apostles and other NT passages go into great detail on how the church can and should meet the needs of their community.

Right. But as much as I agree with @WuShock16: about the role of those passages, that's not really what my question was. I just don't get what the author is saying in the very last portion. How is it bad that Kasich reinforced a stereotype that conservatives rely on the Bible for their logic? And if it is in fact bad, why does the author of the article call the foundation of the social justice movement pagan? That seems like it absolutely reinforces the stereotype. I was mostly just making fun of the author's logic. It doesn't make sense, and I think it's indicative of their thought process throughout the article.