text:
A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz)
Posted by William A. Jacobson	Friday, April 8, 2016 at 11:30am | 4/8/2016 - 11:30am
While anything COULD happen at the convention, it's likely to come down to Trump or Cruz.
I still can't stand even the sound of John Kasich's voice.
Now that we have that out of the way, it's pretty clear that the Republican primaries and convention come down to a choice between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
Speculation otherwise — including conspiracy theories — does not seem to live in the real world, according to Charlie Cook:
Whenever I hear Republicans wax on about the possibility of nominating someone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz — talking up John Kasich, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Mitt Romney, or some other less polarizing figure — it makes me wonder: Exactly how would that happen?
We all have memorized two numbers. The first is 1,237, the number of delegates needed to win a majority at the GOP convention. The second is 40, as in Rule 40, requiring that a candidate win primaries or caucuses in eight states to have his name placed in nomination. (It was added to the party rules in 2012, pushed by allies of Mitt Romney to stifle Ron Paul.)
Yes, the convention rules committee could theoretically amend Rule 40, but then the change would have to be approved by a majority vote of the delegates. Ask yourself, exactly which delegates would vote to rescind the rule? Trump and Cruz are likely to have more than 80 percent of the delegates locked up, so which one will encourage his delegates to support this change? Short answer: neither. It would be against their interests, and it ain't gonna happen. Like it or not, this thing is coming down to either Trump or Cruz, and people ought to stop fantasizing about other options.
I'm not quite as certain as Cook, but as I pointed out, both Trump and Cruz are working to make sure they are the only choices.
The real issue is whether Trump gets to 1237 prior to the convention. If that doesn't happen, Cruz has the clear advantage as he has been waging trench warfare to ensure as many bound "Trump delegates" on the first ballot defect.
There's also the issue of 170 Rubio delegates, who likely would vote for Cruz:
Nate Silver writes that even if there were an attempt to unseat both Trump and Cruz, it likely wouldn't work, Ted Cruz, Not Paul Ryan, Would Probably Win A Contested Convention:
… with Donald Trump's path to 1,237 delegates looking tenuous, especially after his loss in Wisconsin on Tuesday night, [a contested convention is] a real possibility…
We know that Cruz is likely to do well among delegates chosen through state and local conventions because we've seen that demonstrated quite a few times already…. Cruz has also gotten good results at state and local conventions in states that do hold a presidential preference vote. In fact, considering that relatively few states have completed their convention process, it's remarkable how many examples you can find of Cruz cleaning Trump's clock: for example, in Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and South Dakota….
We have fewer examples of how Cruz will fare among delegates chosen by party committees, but Tennessee represents an initial success for him. Another good proxy for how state party insiders are leaning is endorsements from state legislators. Cruz has about six times more of those than Trump and more than twice as many as Kasich, according to data collected by Boris Shor and Will Cubbison. Furthermore, Cruz has been fairly popular among state legislators for some time, according to Shor and Cubbison; they're not merely coming to him out of desperation….
… we're also learning more and more about who those delegates are now that they're being chosen. They're not members of the Washington "establishment." Instead, they're mostly grass-roots activists, and many of them want Cruz to be their next president.
Sure, anything could happen. But it's not likely to. It almost certainly will come down to Trump or Cruz.
Putting aside numerous gratuitous digs at Trump, George Will provides some good information about Cruz's focus on delegate strategy:
People here at Ted Cruz's campaign headquarters are meticulously preparing to win a contested convention, if there is one….
The nomination process "is a multilevel Rubik's Cube," says Jeff Roe, Cruz's campaign manager. "Trump thought it was a golf ball — you just had to whack it." Roe says the Cruz campaign's engagement with the granular details of delegate maintenance is producing a situation where "the guy who is trying to hijack the party runs into a guy with a machine gun."
… Trump, says Roe, is now "bound by his brand rather than propelled by his brand." If Trump comes to Cleveland, say, 38 delegates short of 1,237, he will lose. Cruz probably will be proportionally closer to Trump than Lincoln (102 delegates) was to William Seward (173.5) who was 60 delegates short of victory on the first of three ballots at the 1860 convention.
Trump, by contrast, is scrambling to assemble a convention delegate team and transition from a campaign waged by force of personality and media domination:
The stepped-up role for the [newly hired] convention manager, Paul Manafort, a veteran of floor fights whose presence on Mr. Trump's campaign has created anxiety among other top aides, was intended in part to quash reports of infighting and concerns about an organization whose performance has been lackluster at best in a recent string of nominating contests….
But Mr. Manafort faces some daunting obstacles. In the two weeks since he joined a campaign driven by a candidate with a larger-than-life personality, Mr. Trump has lost the Wisconsin primary by double digits to Senator Ted Cruz. The better-organized Cruz campaign has been able to wrangle delegates from Mr. Trump in Louisiana. And with the Colorado Republican convention days away, the Trump campaign last weekend fired the aide overseeing efforts in the state.
It's at this point I'd normally have a reader poll. But pro-Trump websites and Twitter trolls have become too adept at driving people to online polls, rendering them meaningless.
That's why we can't have nice things.
134	134 Comments	 2016 Republican Primary, Donald Trump, John Kasich, Paul Manafort, Ted Cruz
A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz) https://t.co/oIJlxi73Vi
@Don Faris
A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz) https://t.co/4R50SHtfCs via @sharethis
@Mark Cromwell
more machinations https://t.co/HShXGHE1Ny
@Charlie Earl
A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz) https://t.co/bF3MoYFTmn via @sharethis
@= Linda Wray =
A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz) https://t.co/G62j4Fllwh via @sharethis
@Bill Balderama
SpeedNews: A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz) - While anything COULD happen at the convention, it's l... https://t.co/uL5jpAUeoQ
@Dean S Oshiro ™
A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz) https://t.co/X63kk8qMGu | https://t.co/9uLRfObOhR https://t.co/TDqTTzDPWJ
@Todd Ξ Herman
A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz) https://t.co/e2OyBp2Wpr
@Legal Insurrection
A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz) https://t.co/34XNLd00Jg #DropOutKasich #gopdebate
@Mikhail Alterman
A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz) https://t.co/cr0JZR6D13 via @sharethis
@Joe FreedomLover
A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz): While anything COULD happen at the convention, it's likely to co... https://t.co/b0cZPPvAm4
@The Oppo Man
A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz) https://t.co/pOOWlRggqt
@Tea Party News
A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz) https://t.co/0h2n5OHBMG | #tcot
@CO2HOG™
newStream©: A Time for Choosing (between Trump and Cruz) https://t.co/dxidYRxpi9
@greychampion
casualobserver | April 8, 2016 at 11:44 am
For me it is not just the sound of Kasich's voice that turns me off, it's the way he gets too preach, too often that does it too. He may have some great ideas among his many, but he is far from the ideal messenger.
And if Trump gets anywhere close to 1150+ delegates after CA followed by shenanigans in Cleveland, I expect any GOP nominee to get the fewest votes in November that we've seen in a few generations. Hillary may get fewest Dem votes, too. So it could be a race to the bottom. But it is clear that either Trump or Cruz supporters right now will have nothing to do with the other candidate. Could be a Dem landslide.
Andy | April 8, 2016 at 11:58 am
I don't buy into that. This still hasn't been run through the prism of the electoral college, which always changes things considerably.
It's not how much Trump/Cruz is loved or hated in California…cuz they'd vote Stalin if he were on the Dem ticket. As usual it's going to come down to not less than 6 and not more than 10 states that have flipped in past elections.
The rest is academic theatre. I'd like to think America were as great now as it was in 1980, but I don't foresee an electoral landslide for either side.
Estragon | April 9, 2016 at 3:07 am
Reality. The amity between Trump & Cruz supporters almost guarantees neither will give in to support the other. A greater % of Trump delegates are not diehard, but party loyalists committed only for the first (in some case, also second) ballot, but that doesn't mean they would desert to Cruz, who has put his personal ambition ahead of any party loyalty since coming to the Senate. Trump should have paid attention to detail early, but he didn't.
As Walker said, it is most likely that if the convention doesn't nominate a candidate in the first couple of ballots, they will choose a compromise candidate who was not among the field this cycle. The challenge for Cruz is to block Trump on the first, then win on second or third. If he is gaining votes and getting close on the third, maybe he could win on the fourth. But along in there somewhere, delegates will be looking for a compromise candidate to end the tremendous pressure. Imagine how they will be lobbied between ballots! They will want to end it, quickly, without declaring a winner between Trump and Cruz.
Remember what they said about Nixon in '68? "Tanned, rested, and ready." But in reality, Nixon had been tireless since the '64 debacle, traveling the country on his own dime to stump for state and local Republicans and raise money for state parties. By '68, a lot of Republicans felt they owed him. Bring anyone to mind?
windbag | April 8, 2016 at 11:55 am
This is the year of the spiteful voter. All bets are off. There's no telling who will defect and vote third party, opposite party, write-in, or not vote at all. Both sides. It's easier to see Cruz supporters holding their noses and voting Trump, but I'm not so sure of Trump supporters doing the same for Cruz. I think the Dems are more loyal, so I'm not sure if Sanders or Hillary voters are more likely to defect, but there are surely plenty out there who will.
Spite. It's the bus driver on this ride.
Liz | April 8, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Because of all the talk about voting and the delegate selection process, I checked the websites for the State Election Board as well as the state GOP organization.
The process was clearly written out. One interesting point was that my state does not allow write in candidates. We have the paper ballot that you complete the arrow and then the voter scans it into the machine. Good paper trail but the candidate has to be on the ballot. We get poll results within an hour of polls closing. Very efficient.
I wonder how many other states ignore the write-in candidate?
VotingFemale | April 8, 2016 at 2:48 pm
What state are you in, dear?
CloseTheFed | April 8, 2016 at 3:53 pm
I support Trump. But if Cruz is nominated, I will vote Cruz.
Zachary | April 8, 2016 at 8:10 pm
On this we find common ground. I'm with Dennis Prager on this, as well. We can't have another D in the White House this time.
MattMusson | April 8, 2016 at 11:57 am
I would be happy with either one. Both will secure the border and stand up to the Dems. I just don't want the GOP to do something stupid at the convention i.e. Romney/McCain 2016. (Because 2 losers equals a winner?)
Gary Britt | April 8, 2016 at 12:20 pm
Cruz will NOT secure the border. Cruz will NOT build a wall. Cruz WILL help pass and implement Obamatrade and even more stupid unfair job killing trade deals.
Cruz's tax plan taxes a business at 16% for the Salaries and Wages that business pays to its employees. BUT Cruz's tax plan does NOT tax at all a business on what it spends for robots and automation equipment. Therefore, Cruz's insane tax plan will provide huge incentives to businesses to layoff and fire workers, replace workers with robots and automation, etc. etc.
There are many other reasons Cruz's tax plan is insane but the effect on jobs and wages alone is enough to understand Cruz is a moron.
Note to Rags: big think tanks and the taxfoundation.org don't give a crap about what a tax plan does to workers, jobs, and wages. It isn't even something they analyze for. They just look at the effects on tax revenues.
buckeyeminuteman | April 8, 2016 at 1:12 pm
Kind of like the Trump-robots who didn't even know Legal Insurrection existed until late last summer and who now post on here incessantly about their dear leader?
Gary Britt | April 8, 2016 at 1:50 pm
You should be glad we are here because otherwise you would have no idea how insane is Cruz's tax plan.
Arminius | April 9, 2016 at 9:57 pm
I'm glad you're here because you guys are comedy gold.
Barry | April 8, 2016 at 2:11 pm
"Kind of like the Trump-robots…"
Opposition to the Cruz cult cannot be tolerated.
To Gary Britt:
I assume you are speaking of Section 179 expensing. I don't know if that includes the ridiculous real estate depreciation schedules.
Honestly, every business expense should be deductible when it is spent (but not with borrowed money – not sure about that), and not drawn out. That is the biggest drag on investment and growing business. I loathe it!
No it has nothing to do with 179 expense deductions.
Cruz's tax plan is not a tax on net income. It is not a net income tax at all so concepts of deductions and expenses against gross sales as you are thinking don't apply at all. Cruz's tax plan is a modified VAT tax. It is much more akin to a gross sales tax like the sales taxes you pay when you buy something at walmart.
The way the math works for the Cruz VAT tax is more or less like this. Gross Sales minus direct materials costs minus full cost of equipment and machinery purchased. Take result and multiply by 16% sales tax/vat tax rate.
Another way of calculating it is take what we all think of as net income and add back all salaries and wages paid plus add back all depreciation and amortization and then deduct full amount spent on machinery and equipment purchases. Then multiply tgat by 16% vat tax.
The result as you can see is a huge tax bias against wages and salaries in favor of machines and automation. The result will be layoffs, firings, pay cuts, etc to save on that 16% tax on wages and salaries.
Another way to conceptualize Cruz tax poan is take gross profit (gross sales minus only direct materials costs of goods sold) then deduct full cost of machinery and equipment and then pay 16% of that.
So it is a modified gross sales tax. Gross sales minus only two deductions. Materials costs of goods sold and machinery and equipment purchased. Then you pay 16% sales/vat tax on that modified gross sales amount.
It's getting old, bro. And you're part of the problem the professor described as his reason for no reader poll.
Get a hobby.
SDN | April 9, 2016 at 2:28 am
Cruz was working for border security when Trump was playing footsie with Billy Jeff and Epstein at Pedophile Island.
rotten | April 8, 2016 at 11:57 am
So the dishonest media that declared Cruz the victor of the election last week is spinning the Trump narrative this week.
The story: he's learned and with the establishment guy on his team now he's changed. Lewandowski's on his way out. Plus we want to humiliate Cruz for his comments on NY.
What BS.
Rick | April 8, 2016 at 12:00 pm
"But pro-Trump websites and Twitter trolls have become too adept at driving people to online polls, rendering them meaningless."
The tone comes from the top. Trump is a bully, and his supporters have followed along. We see that regularly on LI.
What about the LI members of the Cruzstapo, my friend?
Rick | April 8, 2016 at 2:33 pm
They are fewer, and most of them are much more restrained and courteous, and less contemptuous.
On the other hand, there seems to be a slight but very positive and noticeable mellowing by at least one female Trump supporter.
How about naming names, Rick?
Stand your ground Trump supporters commenting on LI are in the minority, in my view.
LI staff (Fuzzy Slippers) has overtly taken sides (in the comment section) with the worst of the Cruzstapo Nazis, Rags, and has launched similar personal attacks against Trump supporters herself, in the comment section.
First two times she personally attacked me recently, my response was I did not want to have a dialog with her.
My reason was I respect this blog and did not want to have to go to the mat with one of it's writers and embarrasses her or the blog.
Third time she did it? I lowered the boom on her.
Name the names on both sides… prove your point. Do not leave anyone out.
I think you are correct: I think there are more Cruz than Trump supporters commenting regularly on LI.
I'm not required to name names, and I don't see the value in personal attacks. Each LI reader can decide independently whether other commenters' comments are worth reading.
Fuzzy Slippers | April 9, 2016 at 2:12 am
What on earth are you talking about, VF? You really do seem to live in your own little world. It's kind of sad.
Perhaps Trump-haters, who comment and/or vote on comments, should mount an LI petition drive and present the results of who they want banned from having an LI account.
That way, the comment section can be a SafeSpace® for Trump-haters.
Has some Cruz supporter asked for LI to ban Trump supporters who become unhinged? That would surprise me, because most Cruz supporters understand the concept of free speech. There are three other presidential candidates who do not understand that concept, and, once again, many of their followers just follow along. Those are the people who are likely to lust for a "safe place."
That is a question only the LI staff can answer, Rick.
Related to the free speech discussion is Trump's contribution to the flaming-liberal-rogue California AG Kamala Harris.
I can answer that. Absolutely. Not only are the cryzbots vile in their comments first and most often compared to trump supporters here on LI. They are often first and most often to request bans on trump supporters and use such tactics as gang attacks on trump supporters seeking to suppress speech supporting Trump and first and most often to tell Trump supporters to leave and stop posting here.
princepsCO | April 8, 2016 at 12:04 pm
As a delegate to the CO CD 7 Assembly last night, I can attest to your statement, "… we're also learning more and more about who those delegates are now that they're being chosen. They're not members of the Washington "establishment." Instead, they're mostly grass-roots activists, and many of them want Cruz to be their next president." About 65-70% of the 385 delegates seated vocally supported Sen. Cruz, 10% were uncommitted or Kasich/Rubio fans and the remainder were vocal Trump delegates. Yes, about 30 delegates were 'establishment' in nature as they're elected state reps or senators and party leaders…and the majority were Cruz enthusiasts. The Cruz campaign had staff on site working the crowd, but neither Trump nor Kasich had any official presence.
The Trump delegate that sat next to me was glum through much of the proceedings and was more interested in getting me to support Trump no matter what if nominated than in explaining any policy virtues or aspects of conservative values that he saw in The Donald.
Of the three delegates and three alternates we are sending to Cleveland, all delegates and two of the three alternates are Cruz supporters, with one alternate open to the best conservative available. I anticipate a similar outcome tomorrow at the State convention as it appears that Sen. Cruz is appearing to address the delegates… Exciting times indeed!
MrMichael | April 8, 2016 at 12:10 pm
Okay; let's narrow it down to the people who can comment.
I'll try an experiment: I'll post three posts; this one will be for "I'LL NEVER VOTE FOR EITHER ONE"… thumb this one up if this is your choice.
I'll also post one for Donald Trump, and one for Ted Cruz.
I'll try an experiment: I'll post three posts; this one will be for "I'LL VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP"… thumb this one up if this is your choice.
I'll also post one for I'LL NEVER VOTE FOR EITHER, and one for Ted Cruz.
I'll try an experiment: I'll post three posts; this one will be for "I'LL VOTE FOR TED CRUZ"… thumb this one up if this is your choice.
I'll also post one for I'LL NEVER VOTE FOR EITHER, and one for Donald Trump.
I gave all three of your choices a thumbs up.
Here is the you tube video of the Pastor at the Freedom conference calling for the killing of gays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN1IXDrXgV0
Just watch it and tell me if that isn't a hate filled racist bigot speaking. Nobody could watch that video and see anything but a hate filled racist bigot LEADER of the Iowa Freedom Conference 2015.
It was a three day conference and Cruz attended the next day to give a speech. Cruz was introduced by the very same hate filled racist bigot pastor who the day before called for the killing of gays. Trump did not appear at this conference. Cruz and some other presidential candidates did.
Old Millhouse argues Cruz didn't know he was attending a racist hate filled event at the time he appeared. Even if that were true, which is doubtful in my opinion since Cruz is more than comfortable with hate speech himself, Cruz has had 5 months to learn about it and denounce it. HE NEVER HAS !!!!
Combine this FACT (see video) with Cruz at the very same time in Iowa using himself racist antisemitic dog whistles about "New York Values combined with media and money" and it is quite easy to understand exactly what Cruz was saying and to whom.
LWP | April 8, 2016 at 2:10 pm
You seem to be ignorant of the American right of free speech. The pastor may be vile, but he may speak, you don't have to listen. The audio in the Utube vidio was very good, and the audience gave him no applause or affirmation of his "religious" rant. When he introduced Sen. Cruz, the audience was loudly enthusiastic. The obvious conclusion is the audience liked Cruz and disliked the pastor. Your conclusion is that Cruz agrees with the pastor, but what did Cruz say in his remarks? Did he agree, or did he give his stump speech? Your socialist/fascist tradition is to prevent the opposition from speaking, the American tradition is to hear all viewpoints and then decide. Especially applied to candidates for office, they tour around and speak to anybody who will listen or groups who invite them in to hear. If you can't show how Cruz' remarks somehow affirm the pastor, you have no argument.
"You seem to be ignorant of the American right of free speech."
Oh, BS. That hate filled bigot can be denounced by Cruz anytime he wishes to do so. It has nothing to do with "free speech".
If Cruz were to somehow get the R nomination, that is going to be played 24/7 on every network. Cruz should have already disavowed this. You TDS sufferers were all screaming because Trump did not disavow david duke often enough or with the words you wanted, even though he did so.
This guy makes duke look tame.
You probably know that Sen. Cruz is campaigning as someone who upholds our Constitution. If he denounces the "vile pastor" he would violate the first amendment. You benefit from the first amendment in speaking your mind, but deny the pastor the right to speak. Being in the same assembly hall as the pastor does not indicate Cruz agrees with him, not denouncing him does not say anything about his position except to honor the first amendment.
Idiot. Where is your argument?
"If he denounces the "vile pastor" he would violate the first amendment."
You fucking fool, denouncing the vile bigot pastor is as much a part of free speech as allowing the bigot to speak. Nowhere did I call for shutting the bigot up.
I'm speaking freely you fool. You are as well. The difference is you nothing about freedom of speech.
Reply to Barry below, since his remark has no reply button.
Actually, you did. You didn't simply disagree with him, you want him to not speak freely. And now, you interfere with Sen. Cruz' free speech in telling him what he must say to make you feel good.
An argument needs to be both logical and factual, which I have demonstrated, even in calling you an idiot. I'm waiting for yur argument.
"Actually, you did. You didn't simply disagree with him, you want him to not speak freely."
OK, post the quote, or I will presume that in addition to being a fool, you are also a liar.
"And now, you interfere with Sen. Cruz' free speech in telling him what he must say to make you feel good."
No, I suggested that this video would be played around the clock by his D opponent should he win the nomination. And, it would be to his benefit to disavow this bigot before then.
Apparently, in addition to being a fool and a liar, you are incapable of reading.
No that would be you as amply demonstrated by this and your next two posts. I would throw in you need to take some further education classes and finish that GED so you don't embarrass yourself by proclaiming your ignorance so loudly to others.
The pastor may be vile, but he may speak, you don't have to listen.
Go back and reread my post this time for comprehension. Try and find the sentence where I say anything at all about the racist pastor's right to speak. It isn't there. Try reading more slowly next time and stick to just the words that are written without inserting words from your own mind.
The audio in the Utube vidio [sic] was very good, and the audience gave him no applause or affirmation of his "religious" rant.
While the audience reaction has nothing to do with my post or free speech restrictions, the audience also did NOT boo or indicate disapproval and it should be remembered that the audience members likely had something to do with electing or appointing the racist pastor to be the leader of the conference.
When he introduced Sen. Cruz, the audience was loudly enthusiastic. The obvious conclusion is the audience liked Cruz and disliked the pastor.
Nope the only conclusion you can make from that is the audience was polite and welcoming to Cruz. Perhaps because they believed Cruz was a supporter of the racist pastor. His mere appearance with the racist pastor is an endorsement of a type of the racist pastor and his racist teachings.
Your conclusion is that Cruz agrees with the pastor,
Cruz's appearance with the Pastor is a form of non-verbal speech in which Cruz clearly communicates the idea he supports the racist pastor. The only way to avoid such non-verbal communication of support and still appear with the pastor jointly on the same stage would be to publicly state loud and clear that he thought the pastor's racist bigoted remarks were completely offensive and that he completely and totally disavows any connection to or approval of those kinds of remarks.
Cruz has wholly failed to repudiate the racist/bigoted pastor and his remarks at the time of his appearance or in the 5 months since his appearance. Cruz's failure to repudiate the racist/bigoted pastor and his remarks constitutes additional non-verbal speech that Cruz in fact APPROVES OF AND SUPPORTS THE RACIST/BIGOTED PASTOR'S HATE SPEECH.
Your socialist/fascist tradition is to prevent the opposition from speaking,
Finish that GED so you can perhaps actually learn what those words mean and how to apply them in real life situations. You obviously have no clue at this time.
they tour around and speak to anybody who will listen or groups who invite them in to hear.
Complete nonsense. They don't tour around and speak to Klan rallies or communist party meetings or black panther kill whitey meetings. And they don't for the reasons stated above. Appearance with such people communicates the non-verbal speech that the speaker approves of the groups racist hateful speech and conduct.
If you can't show how Cruz' remarks somehow affirm the pastor, you have no argument.
res ipsa loquitur. But since you obviously needed further elucidation it is provided in liberal quantities above.
LWP | April 8, 2016 at 10:46 pm
" Cruz has had 5 months to learn about it and denounce it. HE NEVER HAS !!!!"
You may disagree with the pastor, I may disagree with the pastor, Cruz may disagree with the pastor. When you tell Sen. Cruz he must denounce the pastor, you violate his free speech by telling him what he must say.
Are you Barry? I am still waiting for your logical and factual argument.
Barry | April 9, 2016 at 12:39 am
By the way, before you continue to make a fool of yourself, you might want to bone up on freedom of speech. I'd give you a lesson, but I don't think you have the IQ of a gnat.
Gary Britt | April 9, 2016 at 12:59 am
If I state it is my opinion you should shut up and stop posting because your posts are idiotic and nonsensical, that is an expression of my opinion. It is my exercise of my free speech.
My expression of my opinion in no way violates your free speech because you remain free to post or not post your idiotic nonsense.
Now if I put a gun to your head and keep you from posting under penalty of death now that would violate your free speech rights.
Similarly if people of common intelligence all agree that Cruz appearing on stage with a vile racist pastor implies approval of the vile racist pastor unless Cruz disavows the racist pastor is merely the expression of an opinion. Cruz remains free to choose to remain silent and let people believe he supports the vile racist pastor or choose to speak out and let people know he disavows the racist pastor. Cruz's free speech and choices remain fully in tact and unaffected.
The right of free speech does not include the right to be free from other people reacting to that speech and/or forming opinions about the speaker as a result of hearing the speech.
Speech includes all forms of expression verbal, written, and non verbal. Silence can be speech, such as remaining silent about a racist bigot pastor while appearing at a public gathering with the vile racist pastor. That silence speaks very loudly indeed.
You wrote: "Now if I put a gun to your head and keep you from posting under penalty of death now that would violate your free speech rights."
LWP | April 9, 2016 at 3:12 am
"if people of common intelligence all agree"
I don't believe you know any people who approach common intelligence. I have read all of your blather and still await a cogent argument.
Fuzzy. Using force to suppress someone's speech violates their free speech rights. I didn't say that it didn't also violate other laws. Those matters aren't under discussion.
LWP. We have reached the point where you have nothing left but name calling, ad hominems, and non sequiturs. These are the refuge of a person who like you has not even the pretense of anything of any intellectual merit to say.
I don't know if you are as stupid and uneducated as your writings here clearly indicate or if you are just pretending to be so. If the former you are a victim of poor breeding and personal choices, and if the latter you are a troll with personality disorders. Either way you are done.
I accept your admission of defeat.
LOL. No doubt all your verbal contests end exactly the same way. I'm confident you never lose.
Apparently my first reply got censored.
I will try again.
You would not know a "logical and factual argument" if it bit you in the *behind*, taking out a chunk of your nose.
I'm still waiting for you to post a quote where I advocated denying the bigots free speech rights. Of course, you will not, because there is none.
Fuzzy, your love of "true blue" Ted is apparently making you dense.
Please point out where anyone in this particular section has advocated violating anyone's free speech rights.
Why should an audience at a religious freedom conference boo or otherwise indicated disapproval of THE BIBLE?
You're so caught up in your lies that you're missing the point, and instead making the point that those people not booing the Bible get, and is the reason they are there.
Leftards like you disapprove of the Bible so much that you will lie, smear, and yes even carve out exemptions to ban as hate speech those parts of the Bible you disapprove of. If not the entire book.
You aren't going to get this disavowal from Cruz for the simple reason that what you want him to denounce is not the Pastor but the Bible. The pastor is saying he's not ashamed of the Bible and will read the whole thing even if it lands him in jail. That's his original speech, but the parts you think everybody should get irate over are the parts where he cites the Bible.
Your lies and your smears aren't going to work because unless you're already a twisted leftist you can watch the tape and understand that the "kill the gays" smear is all lies. That pastor is not saying "kill the gays," he is saying he'll read the whole Bible even if it gets him locked up. Then rabid leftards like you come along demonstrating he's exactly right. If your side could, they'd lock him up for reading the whole Bible out loud. Your lies, smears, and demands that Cruz disavow him prove it. So this line of attack isn't going to work since it won't change normal peoples' minds. Twisted leftists will think it's clever, but only because it works in the leftard echo chamber. Those who believe Cruz is evil and can't tell the difference when someone is speaking in first person or citing scripture (or who believe the Bible is evil because like the Constitution it's too old and too long for them to grasp with their tiny leftard brains) will have their stupid prejudices reinforced. But no one else.
Fuzzy Slippers | April 9, 2016 at 6:20 pm
I don't get the attacks on the Bible or on Christians that the Trump fans engage in, but it shows their true colors, so I haven't commented on it. It's like when Trump went to Wisconsin, attacked a true conservative governor, and admonished him for not raising taxes . . . let him go, I say. He shows what he is to more people when he's not corrected. Same here, mocking conservatives who have strong faith and regard for the Word helps us because it shows who they really are (if we didn't know already). Gary relentlessly mocks Cruz for being a Christian, and I"m great with that. Keep it up, I say. I especially like contrasting Cruz's heartfelt words with those burbled by Trump at Liberty University, where he literally used the Bible as a prop and then misquoted it horrendously. They reveal themselves with this stuff, let them have at it.
Barry | April 9, 2016 at 11:25 pm
"Same here, mocking conservatives who have strong faith and regard for the Word helps us because it shows who they really are (if we didn't know already). Gary relentlessly mocks Cruz for being a Christian, and I"m great with that."
I don't read everything Gary has to say, so I cannot say that he mocks Christians or not. However, this comment section started with the video of a pastor using the words of the Bible to suggest gays should be put to death, something he has in common with many muslims. I find that bigots of that stripe have a hidden view of others, jews and blacks, that remain barely concealed. In any event, as I said, this will be played over and over by the media should Cruz become the nominee. Associating himself with this bigot will guarantee a general election loss of unprecedented proportion. He should disavow this now. It will be too late later, even though he will do it.
You find it distasteful that such a video should be put out here. You will see it over and over in the general.
Gary Britt | April 10, 2016 at 4:25 am
Wrong. I didn't say the audience should boo the bible. I said they should boo a bigoted pastor who quotes from the old testament while proclaiming that the gospel of Jesus Christ (found in the new testament) says "kill the gays".
They absolutely should boo any pastor whose reading of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that it says kill the gays.
But ok I'll play. I'll concede that this particular audience agreed with this pastor when he proclaimed a kill the gays reference in the old testament was part of the gospel of Jesus Christ and he said "he will never apologize for the gospel of Jesus".
So I will also agree with you that Cruz agrees with the pastor and hiscaudience that Cryz believes the gospel of Jesus Christ stands for the proposition that gays should be killed. Certainly Cruz's failure to disavow these comments indicates Cruz's support of same.
All I'm saying is the public including all christians should be informed that Cruz believes killing gays for being gay is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Personally I missed that particular beatitude in my bible that appears to be in this pastor's and Cruz's bible.
You know the one that must go "blessed be the gay killers for they are unafraid to follow the gospel of Jesus Christ"
That one isn't in my bible but I'm not a crazy dominionist end times evangelical like Cruz and this pastor.
Fuzzy you are a LIAR or just a stupid arse or both. I mock Cruz for acting like a crazed preacher while seeking a politucal office. I find it very offensive because it is quite clear Cruz would sell his bible his wife his kids and his mother all to satan if he thought it would get him elected president.
I also mock his weird cult fake form of corrupted christianity known as dominionism that believes dominionists must literally take over the levers of government and the wealth of the world as a necessary precursor to the return of Jesus. I am particularly troubled by a person like Cruz a member of an only semi christian cult that believes in much crazy stuff, including apparently kill the gays bigotry having his fingers on the nuclear button.
None of that is mocking the bible or christianity.
Why do idiots like you think you're clever when you lie about something that is refuted by the evidence you yourself link to? All you're doing is proving his point. He's reading the Bible, pointing out that leftards hate it when you do that. Particularly when you read portions of the Bible that sound harsh especially if you're a clueless leftard easily driven to head explosions by cherry picked verses and lack understanding of scripture as a whole.
And what do you do when he reads those portions of the Bible? Your head explodes, and you smear him and lie about him. Thus proving his point and underscoring the need for a conference on religious freedom. And frankly given all the lies in your comment, I don't believe you would leave his First Amendment rights alone. Even if by some strange twist of fate that you are telling the truth about that in your screeds full of falsehoods, plenty of your fellow leftards are frothing at the mouth for the chance to lock him up for his "hate speech." I.E. reading the Bible.
This line of attack hasn't taken hold precisely because it's an obvious lie. And, the fact that people of your ilk are proving that you will do anything to shut him, which makes his point. So please continue to lie and smear him and make his point. His point is that religious freedom is under attack, so by all means, attack him for exercising it.
By the way, I have no idea who this speaker is. I've never heard of him before. He may wall be a racist and/or a bigot, but not because of anything he says on video.
It's truly bizarre, but take heart, only other Trump fans listen to this sort of drivel. I'm not sure what he thinks he's accomplishing, but everyone but the most supreme dullard knows that he spews lies, propaganda, and sometimes pure fantasy. It's good to point it out, but luckily, it's not entirely necessary.
Oddly, Gary spends more time here than I do, and I work here. No one knows why Gary feels the need to troll LI as a full-time occupation, but he does. Hopefully, he'll go away when Cruz wins the nomination (and that he'll take his little helpers with him). Fingers and toes crossed.
I'm not worried about such transparent lies influencing anybody. Brain dead leftists think it's clever because it sounds clever to themselves. This is right up their with people who think they're talented comedians because they laugh at their own jokes. Nobody else laughs, but the only person who matters to them laughs, so that makes them funny.
Their problem is they don't know that people can see through them. Just as they don't know that just because they don't understand the Bible, that doesn't mean everybody doesn't understand the Bible. Of course, not everybody only has contact with the Bible on-line, and then only to do a Google word search to prove the New Testament is just as violent as the Quran. (It is also relevant to this discussion.) They think the case is closed on the Old Testament; hands down more violent than the Quran.
That happens a lot these days with illiterates doing word searches to "prove" what they set out to prove, and then posting their cherry-picked Bible verses as if they make their case.
A prime example is Luke 19:27
"'But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.'"
Just like Gary can't tell when a preacher is speaking for himself and when he's citing the Bible (I need to be more precise; this pastor does not read or quote the Bible but merely cites verses and accurately decribes what they contain) or average brain dead leftist atheist can't tell when Jesus is giving commands to his disciples and when he's telling them a fictional tale.
All they know is, yup, Jesus said those words. Those words came out of His mouth. Therefore Jesus is advocating that his followers commit violence in his name.
Actually that is how the Parable of the Ten Minas ends. Here's how it begins.
"11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return…"
Parables have a point. Note the key words; "and then to return." Jesus is talking about Himself. When they reach Jerusalem He will be crucified. After His resurrection He will go away, like the man of noble birth in his story. But He will return. Not that there are no executions or even judgement until the man of noble birth returns as king. Jesus is describing judgement day, which occurs after His return.
To insist, as many brain dead leftists do, that this is somehow a commandment to commit violence is absurd. You have to ignore the rest of the New Testament, in which Jesus is constantly telling his disciples to love everyone, even their enemies. If their enemy is hungry they are to feed him, if their enemy slaps them across the face they are to turn the other cheek so their enemy can slap them across the face on that one, too. If their enemy demands their cloak they are to give him their tunic as well, if their enemy compels them to walk a mile with him, they are to walk two. Then there are the parts of the Bible that makes clear that Jesus followers aren't going to be the ones carrying out God's judgement and punishing sinners on judgement day; that will be done by the angels. And they certainly aren't allowed to punish sinners on earth. They're commanded not even to judge sinners. That is God's right alone. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord. I shall repay."
So Gary Britt and others of his ilk don't even know you can't have a "kill the gays" rally and call yourself a Christian. You can have "pray for the gays" rally, where you pray they repent so they don't suffer God's wrath. But you can't even advocate killing them or any other sinner. As St. Paul said in one of his epistles, "Who are you to judge the servant of another?"
It would be possible to have a "kill the gays" rally IF verse 19:27 of the Gospel of Luke meant what these barely literate, untutored atheists think it means. But it doesn't, and Christians know this, so you can't.
Just like these atheists, Britt thinks the audience should be booing. Of course they aren't. Unlike Britt, they know what they're hearing. It's Britt who can't understand when the preacher is speaking for himself and when he's citing the Bible. It occurred to me later why that may be.
Many barely literate, untutored, brain dead leftist atheists (BLUBDLAs) a nonsense book anyway. You hear this most often when BLUBDA reporters interviewing priests, bishops, or Vatican officials when the Church is going to change its "policies" on things such as abortion, birth control, and accepting active homosexuals and their lifestyle.
Those aren't the Church's "policies." Those are the Boss's "policies."
Of course, it doesn't help that dying Protestant denominations espouse the idea that Christians can edit the scriptures and alter our "policies" to the point where they
can even have unmarried sexually active gay bishops. But then since these same denominations have embraced theological modernism to the point that they deny the authority of scripture and therefore Jesus was who he said he was; that he was divine, that He had entered into creation to become man, that he would die to atone for our sins, on the third day he would be resurrected, and he would ascend into heaven, they are in no meaningful way Christians and no one takes them seriously except their fellow atheists. Which is why they're dying in the first place; everybody who belonged who was actually Christian as opposed to just wanting membership in a social club in which "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross."
But these modern Arians (not Aryans, morons, his heresy is named after a bishop of Alexandria named Arius) are a subject for another time and place.
You express yourself eloquently, and I agree. The thing is we're not going to change Gary or any of his ilk. They have a set of beliefs that are grounded in a powerful government not a powerful deity, so they can't be expected to know any better. They've had their chance, been exposed to the Word, and rejected it. Instead, they hold up a greedy, vain, boastful man as their messiah, and then can't understand why so few follow his calling. Hopefully, in time, they will come around, but in the meantime, Gary's ignorance doesn't help his cause; it just shows how far astray they all are. The audience should not be booing, and we know that. That's enough.
Arminius | April 9, 2016 at 10:26 pm
Thank you, Fuzzy Slippers. I'd be expressing myself better if my laptop weren't infected with malware that causes it to, among other things, cause the cursor to jump around and highlight and cut text. Usually so quickly I don't notice. I will notice if it autonomously deletes a large block of text, but not necessarily if it just deletes a few words or even a sentence.
I'm going to take care of this on Monday.
As far as Gary goes, I know nothing I say will change him. Indeed, I often depend on that fact.
Bernie Sanders may be stupid enough to build an ad around the clip of that preacher Gary wants Cruz to disavow and/or condemn for his "racist, bigoted hate speech" but I doubt Hillary Clinton will be that stupid. Because she doesn't want to alienate the black vote. They've probably heard their own pastors say the same thing, particularly when same sex marriage was up for a vote from California to North Carolina (not like the voters had much of a say before the SCOTUS took it off the table).
Leftist atheists may be angry at Cruz, but they weren't going to vote for him anyway. Leftist atheists may think running an ad based on what this preacher is saying is pure genius, but if anything it's going to turn many black voters who do go to church and do know what's in the Bible off. It may drive some of them to Cruz, but I see most of them sitting home. What leftards like Gary don't understand is an attack ad on Cruz over this is an attack on Bible-believing Christians including black Christians. Who have a far lower opinion of SSM than almost any other demographic you can think of. Actually that's true of blacks in general, the majority of whom when they had the chance to vote against SSM voted against it.
The only thing you can do that will piss black voters off more is compare gay rights to the black civil rights struggle.
"By the way, I have no idea who this speaker is."
He would be the one introducing Ted Cruz.
If Cruz wins the nomination, you will know who he is in the general election, that much is certain.
You can quote the Bible all you want, mainstreet is not going to support anyone that associates with those that advocate the murder of gays.
Cruz would do well to disavow this bigot as quickly as possible.
Arminius, Fuzzy, and Ragspierre. Very strong supporters of Cruz. Their posts, their thinking, and their writing styles tell one all you need to know about tbem and all one needs to know about why Cruz must never be president.
I'll leave with what appears to be one of Arminius and Fuzzy's and Cruz's favorite parts of the gospel of Jesus
"Blessed be the gay killers….."
And these morons call me and Trump supporters stupid.
MarlaHughes | April 10, 2016 at 7:14 pm
"Particularly when you read portions of the Bible that sound harsh especially if you're a clueless leftard easily driven to head explosions by cherry picked verses and lack understanding of scripture as a whole."
I am neither a leftard nor clueless and am a practicing Christian who does not agree with the homosexual lifestyle nor feel they deserve special privileges. However, the preacher's over the top rhetoric was uncalled for, especially considering it was a Presidential candidate forum. If I had been in the audience I would have gotten up and walked out or at the very least distanced myself from his over the top rhetoric immediately.
"Thus proving his point and underscoring the need for a conference on religious freedom."
I agree that we need more conferences on religious freedom. However, I do hope that those who sound like the Christian version of the Taliban aren't the MC.
"This line of attack hasn't taken hold precisely because it's an obvious lie."
Actually, considering how the left attacked GWBush's religious views and that Cruz's is more extreme and he uses those views as a political vehicle, they're more likely to be holding back those attacks to see if they can use them if he's the nominee. Much like they did with Romney's religious views during the last election.
Barry | April 10, 2016 at 7:14 pm
"Cruz has had 5 months to learn about it and denounce it. HE NEVER HAS !!!!"
I never found it either, however, down below, Fuzzy Slippers has it, and the Cruz campaign emphatically did denounce it:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/12/10/ted-cruz-religion-2016-evangelicals/76945128/
Tyler, the Cruz spokesman, called Swanson's comments "reprehensible" and said Cruz has spoken out repeatedly against anyone who calls for hatred or violence against homosexuals.
"Senator Cruz is passionate about religious liberties" Tyler said in an email. "Many respected organizations were sponsoring [the conference], but, given these offensive comments, it was a mistake for Senator Cruz to appear at the event."
VotingFemale | April 8, 2016 at 12:24 pm
George Will and Nate Silver hate Cruz's guts and probably more so than they hate Trump.
A Cruz v Trump only scenario is what I have worked for since the beginning of the primary.
Why? Because it locks out all Establishment Candidate Squishes.
The Establishment wants Cruz and Trump buried together in an unmarked grave and all us Constitution conservatives to be exiled to a desert island.
Are two people using your account? Only yesterday you were whinging on about how Cruz supporters were establishment. And, newsflash, you are not a conservative. Not by a long shot, and everyone here knows it. Rags had your number from the get-go, but some of us were slower on the uptake, giving the benefit of the doubt.
Your schizoid weirdness, being normal and sane one day and incoherent and belligerent the next, is just bizarre. I'm never sure, when I bother to think of you at all, whether to feel sorry for you or what. I lean toward pity because I suspect you must be struggling with some severe emotional and psychological issues. If you're not already seeking help, you may consider doing so (and I say this with heart and not malice. Your bizarre mood and tone changes, even the content of what you say as here–sometimes it's like two people are using your id to post comments, are indicative of deep problems.). I wish you no ill, but I do think that you might benefit from seeking some help.
What a pile of stinking steaming bullcrap.
1. Earnest voters are not "twitter trolls."
2. We have a constitution in this country that allows for free speech. Any douchebag that attacks free speech can kiss my Constitutional Conservative ass.
3. Since when were online polls ever scientific?
Since NEVER. How can an online poll be "ruined?"
What the douche bags are complaining about is free speech.
Ragspierre | April 8, 2016 at 1:43 pm
"Any douchebag that attacks free speech can kiss my Constitutional Conservative ass."
You don't have a Constutional any-body-part.
But IF you did, you should drop your drawers for T-rump to give you a big smooch.
T-rump HATES the Constitution. He HATES free speech. He has a life-time history of crushing it in anyone who rejects or criticizes him.
Was just thinking about you, Rags. What a timely arrival.
By the way, you misspelled 'Constitutional' in your reply:
Rags wrote: "Any douchebag that attacks free speech can kiss my Constitutional Conservative ass."
You take personal attacks to a high level. Actually, I like having you around as an object lesson for anyone who claims to be a constitutional conservative yet tosses out their principles to shut down the free speech of others.
Continue to exercise your "free speech," such as it is.
I see you are market-testing the "Constitutional Conservative" meme today, with the Cruzstapo meme crashing and burning yesterday.
It won't work, honey. You are not a "Constitutional Conservative", and we know it.
You are a daft old LYING T-rump sucker, who has PRETENDED to be what you are not for months here.
I see you. You are busted.
There he goes again. The head Cruzstapo Nazi is on the job.
Carry On, Herr Rags.
See, I find it really entertaining when you try to pwn people here with your little "role-playing" games, such as you're playing here today.
Yesterday…yes! ONLY yesterday!…you were not the soft-mouthed equanimous PRETENDER you are here PLAYING.
Twitter Feed:
Come convention time, Trump will be prepared to do battle with the GOPe's Cruzstapo Jackbooted Goons:
Voting Female
@VotingFemale
Team Trump Prepares To Take On the GOPe Goon Squad
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/07/trump-reorganizes-campaign-in-preparation-for-convention/
#NYprimary
#nra #maga #tcot #pjnet
http://pic.twitter.com/FcUxBQyrvs
1:13pm · 7 Apr 2016 · TweetDeck
It is to laugh…!!!
I don't know that Trump hates the constitution, it's more of a nuisance that he ignores unless it gets in his way. It's convenient at times to invoke it, otherwise it's just some ancient document for vellum fetichists.
It's actually not clear that he's ever read it.
He consistently insists that the executive has the power to override the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 10th amendments.
He'll make it okay to sue journalists for printing "negative" or "horrible" words about him; he'll make it okay for the government to seize anyone's personal effects and surveil anyone at any time; he'll fix it so that the government knows that only "bad guys" and cops have guns; he'll fix it so that the states bow down to the federal government on issues the Constitution–if he'd read it, or understood it–left to the states. Indeed, only last week he asserted that two of the primary responsibilities of federal government are education and health care. NO conservative would ever support that. It's anti-conservative and, arguably, anti-American.
He's a walking disaster in every conceivable way, particularly in his and his campaign manger's declarations that he's "ready" to begin his "reign" and to "manage" the American people.
Same Same | April 8, 2016 at 12:58 pm
"There's also the issue of 170 Rubio delegates, who likely would vote for Cruz"
This is where the analysis breaks down. Rubio seems to have gone more than a little nuts over the course of the campaign. God only knows what he and Kasich will do with their delegates, but one assumes they are for sale.
wcvarones | April 8, 2016 at 1:02 pm
Even if you don't want Cruz, supporting Cruz from here on is the only way to get to a brokered convention where you might get another choice.
tom swift | April 8, 2016 at 1:03 pm
The obvious Achille's heel of all this maneuvering is that it can affect the convention and the nominee, but not the real votes in the general.
Trump has consistently led Cruz in delegate count by about fifty percent; no small amount. If that proportion holds,Trump will go into the convention with a commanding lead. If, despite that, Cruz ends up the nominee, then tens of millions of voters will believe that Cruz and/or the GOPe have cheated them. These voters will not be terribly likely to vote for Cruz or any other Republican candidate. But they won't be voting for Hillary or just staying home. Because, for reasons which so many find baffling, Trump inspires an enthusiasm which the other candidates do not, I expect that in the general we'll see a huge write-in campaign. That's not something Cruz or the Party can stop.
Seven states, totaling less than 40 electoral votes, don't allow write-ins, but the others do.
I don't see any way that this can get Cruz into the White House.
If GOPe successfully subverts the process in favor of anyone, I will write in my choice for President, if my choice is not on the ballot.
They neither want Cruz or Trump nor their supporters to have any say whatsoever.
I will never cast a revenge vote for a Democrat-Communist like Sanders or Hillary.
Mark Levin and I agree on that 100%.
If Cruz or Trump righteously wins nomination, I will vote for the winner.
The GOPe skanks can bite me.
conservative tarheel | April 8, 2016 at 3:47 pm
OMG I am in agreement with u ….:D
High-Five, Sir Tarheel! 😀
Gunstar1 | April 8, 2016 at 3:23 pm
I heard Hannity saying something similar. No Trump supporter ever seems to realize that if Trump does not cross the finish line, that lead no longer matters.
It doesn't help that Trump supporters would rather yell "thief", "sneaky" or "underhanded" of Cruz for following the rules than blame Trump for being unprepared.
If Cruz had the lead but not 1238 at the end, wouldn't his lead matter?
It would matter to me and a lot of others who are supporting Trump or Cruz.
The process is as important, or more so, than which man wins.
A majority of my twitter followers are bi-candidate… meaning, there is a mix of Cruz and Trump supporters who will vote for either of them if the process is righteous.
katiejane | April 8, 2016 at 5:41 pm
But it DOES matter if Trump supporters feel he has been "cheated" by the GOPe and refuse to support the nominee they consider a thief. All those delegates won't mean squat to Cruz either if he can't get Trump supporters to vote for him in the general.
There are some who would/will/are cheat/ing to win on both the Cruz & Trump side.
I detest it.
Let the process be clean and fair. Let the man with the most votes win.
It is already too late for the process to be fair. As a strong Trump supporter I would have no problem with Cruz or anyone else beating him in a fair fight. Problem is it has NEVER been a fair fight.
GOPe Super Pacs were from the very beginning flooded with money from the globalist mega donors who are afraid of Trump upsetting their golden apple carts. Trump has faced so far at least 200 to 300 million in negative ads from the GOP establishment and GOP leadership in congress.
It is one thing for a candidate to be attacked by another candidate's negative ads. Its quite something else to be attacked by the other candidates plus the republican party leadership and insiders on top of that.
No matter what happens at and after this point the result will be perceived as grossly unfair and a form of cheating by the GOP establishment. Nobody but Trump will be seen by me and those like me as a legitimate nominee. The GOP establishment (along with the boorish behavior of the worst of the cruzbots) has guaranteed that Cruz nor any other nominee will ever be seen as legitimate.
"Nobody but Trump will be seen by me and those like me as a legitimate nominee."
Well, of COURSE not…!!!
You are a T-rump sucking cultist. You and "those like" you.
You've already gone on record as swearing to vote for Hellary or ANY other Deemocrat if your man-crush is not anointed. We get it. You're a Collectivist puke.
We can…and we WILL…do very nicely without you. We always have.
Heh…!!!
Again, the tone is set from the top. Gary perfectly mimics Trump's whining.
I'm still amazed that people don't know how a contested convention works. Having a lead in number of delegates counts for nothing. You either have enough delegates to win outright or you don't. Like in a marathon, the winner isn't the guy who collapses and passes out closest to the finish line. You either cross it or you don't.
Then the horsetrading begins. The guy with the most delegates is in the same boat as everyone else; he's got to "disenfranchise" some of his rivals' voters by getting some of his rivals' delegates to flip to him.
As an aside, it amuses the hell out of me when Trumpsters accuse the Cruz campaign of "stealing" delegates and "disenfranchising" voters. I suppose it's a badge of honor to be clueless about the rules from the top of the Trump campaign down to the rank-and-file Trump supporter. Really, it's a badge of something but not something to be proud of.
If the Trumpsters feel "cheated" because the candidate with more delegates but still not enough doesn't win automatically anyway because somehow the meaning of the words "not enough" eludes them, imagine how "cheated" the supporters of William Seward felt. Compared to Trump, Seward had a far larger lead in delegates then the guy in second, but the guy in second was able to get delegates to turn against Seward and win. Oh, wait, they didn't feel cheated. As a matter of fact, their candidate went on to campaign for the man Trumpsters would revile as a "cheater" and a thief.
But then the American education system was far better then, turning out eighth graders who were more literate than today's college grads.
At the convention of 1860 William Seward led Abraham Lincoln by 173.5 to 102. By the third ballot it was unanimous. For Lincoln. I had to state clearly that Abraham Lincoln won and we never had a President William Seward. Even though by the "Trumster House Rules" Seward was "the only legitimate nominee. Actually, because the Trumpsters think we're playing by the "Trumpster House Rules" and not the GOP convention rules is why I had to spell things out for them.
I have no idea just how much they pride themselves on being clueless about. One thing I do know they're clueless about is this. The same thing that has been happening at contested GOP conventions since 1860? Yeah, that'll be happening in Cleveland in July 2016.
Because they apparently think this is something new! That this is some wizardry recently concocted by "GOPe" just to stop Trump.
The Cruz camp expects to be closer, statistically, to Trump in the delegate count than Lincoln was to Seward. Cruz's campaign manager says that if Trump is 38 delegates short he won't be able to win.
So, your butthurt, Trumpsters, will be nothing compared the the Seward fan bois. If you think Trump losing to Cruz at a contested election, just look at how "Lyin' Lincoln" cheated and "stole" the nomination of 1860 from the "Only Legitimate Winner."
Exactly. When no one hits 1237, then the process opens up. That's where a majority of Cruz's support is coming from: Never Trump. The goal is get to the convention and start over.
A little something from Steven Colbert this morning who's definition of "democracy" = One Party Socialist Rule.
@colbertlateshow
The GOP race is down to @realDonaldTrump, @tedcruz, and the subversion of democracy.
http://http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-late-show-with-stephen-colbert/video/221C9841-5129-93BF-4369-F33F870CE5B8/the-road-to-the-white-house-has-gotten-lumpy/
#LSSC
http://pic.twitter.com/v7B8ASe71x
10:03am · 8 Apr 2016 · TweetDeck
4 Retweets 17 Likes
5under3 | April 8, 2016 at 1:14 pm
I reviewed the Ron Swanson Pyramid of Greatness and it told me to avoid skim milk. Cruz seems like skim and Trump more like fully loaded whloe milk so there you go.
windbag | April 8, 2016 at 3:44 pm
Being Libertarian, Ron Swanson would vote for neither Trump nor Cruz. He would vote for Gary Johnson.
I'm really sorry to read that comment because except for a couple of posters I won't name, this site had pretty much held it's anti-Trump venom in check. So many sites have given any pretense of being places for all Republicans/Conservatives to discuss the 2016 election. Some of places I've read for years have become rabid cesspools of fighting mostly between Trump & Cruz supporters.
I grant that some Trump supporters can be annoying however when your candidate and you are attacked 24/7 – and on a personal level – it's hard not to respond in kind. As it has become more apparent how LI feels about Trump it has encouraged the pro-Cruz and the Never Trump mindset folks. As I said at another site – the level of bile runs the risk of ensuring a GOP loss regardless of who ends up the nominee – if the "Never Trump" people stay home if he is the nominee or the Trump supporters do the same thing if Cruz is the nominee
agreed … and it is to bad … this election and the last one should have been gimme's ….
Great comment, Katie Jane. Wish I could give you a dozen thumbs up.
edit – "so many sites have given UP any pretense"
labrat | April 8, 2016 at 4:08 pm
http://dennismichaellynch.com/highlight-one/trump-ignites-the-good-ol-days/
That is one of the best monologues I have watched, Labrat.
Thank you for sharing it.
While it is pro-Trump, that should not dissuade non-Trump supporters from watching it. It's about us… We Anerica-loving Americans and what America means to us.
Scott Anderson | April 8, 2016 at 4:15 pm
I've never been so proud to be so out of step with so many of my fellow countrymen.
There are four likely candidates to be our next president. Three of them are authoritarian Constitution-haters. The fourth is my choice.
Hillary Clinton became a hundred-millionaire by selling access to the White House and the State Department to the worst the world has to offer. Slap Chop became a billionaire by buying Hillary Clinton and her decrepit, venal cronies.
Slap Chop isn't going to build a wall. Remember in the February debate, Senator Cruz had to explain to Slap Chop what Slap Chop's website said about the wall? Slap Chop looked dumbfounded.
He's not going to lower taxes. He's not going to do anything that requires work because he's a low-information candidate who can't be bothered to learn his talking points. He's slightly less trustworthy than the current president. (At least with Obama, he sometimes accidentally tells you what he actually thinks. Slap Chop truly believes whatever line is most expedient at that very moment.)
This second-rate Billy Mays spent five minutes in a nationally televised debate explaining that his penis is adequate for most purposes.
Think about that. Think about his priorities. Think about what kind of a person would prioritize that kind of selfish nincompoopery. Now think about what it would say about our country to have the Adequate Penis Guy as our president.
He's going to get money from Mexico to build a wall by shutting down Western Union? Because that's his actual plan. He's going to balance the budget by renegotiating private trade deals? As if the trade deficit can be nationalized and monetized? It's a non sequitor. But that's his plan. It's pathological and he's both psychotic and psychopathic. He thinks you're stupid, and so far, he's been right.
And finally, he keeps bumping his head at 37% support. That worked when there were 17 candidates, but it isn't working now that there are three. And it won't work. Now that there is a reason for dictator-lovin' Democrats to vote in the Democrat primary, a lot of Trump's support will evaporate, I predict. He will lose in California. He will lose in the suburbs of many Northeastern liberal states. The one remaining question is whether he will eke out 50% in his home state. The magic 8-ball that keeps predicting Trump wins keeps getting it wrong. We will see what happens in New York.
Now, on the subject of the electoral college.
This may be completely academic. Looking at the map, the Democrat is going to start at 263 EVs. (See http://www.270towin.com/maps/5Vyz3 for my forecast). Any slip up anywhere, including in Florida, and Hitler would win if he had a D by his name.
The horror we face is this: the Democrats have the choice between Eva Peron and Hugo Chavez; and on our side, we have a choice between Calvin Coolidge and Slap Chop.
But I'd bet you all the money in my wallet plus my nicest necktie that Reince, Rove and Ryan are angling for another 8 years of Democrat control of the White House.
Beldar | April 8, 2016 at 5:10 pm
I first became aware of Ted Cruz back in 2003.
I was reading the briefing for the State of Texas before the three-judge panel charged with approving or overturning the Texas' legislature's attempt to undo a pro-Democratic gerrymander from the 1990s that had kept the Texas Congressional delegation majority-Democrat.
In the 1980s & 1990s, I'd had many occasions to duel in court with representatives of the Texas Attorney General's office. I knew about how good they were, which is to say: There were about typical, maybe slightly better, than most government career lawyers.
But THESE briefs — wow, they were amazing! They were utterly polished, incisively edited, powerfully phrased, persuasively argued. It was simply some of the best legal work product I'd ever read — and by then, I'd been in practice since 1980, including a year's Fifth Circuit clerkship, so I'd read a LOT of briefs.
I remember flipping to the signature block to see who, exactly, in the Texas AG's office was writing this stuff, and saw a name I'd never heard of before: Ted Cruz, Texas' then-new Solicitor General.
If it pleases you that the GOP has been competitive for, and now holds, a majority in the U.S. House, you have Ted Cruz to thank for that in considerable measure. He was working for our cause — even before those of you elsewhere, or even most of us in Texas, had ever heard his name. Think how much worse the nightmare of the Obama years would have been if the Texas Congressional delegation were still majority Democrat!
If it pleases you that the left has been frustrated in their efforts to tear down an enormous cross erected to honor America's Christian war dead, or in their efforts to prevent the display of the Ten Commandments on a state capitol's grounds, Ted Cruz was already fighting for you in the Supreme Court — again, long before you knew his name. Ditto if you believe that foreign governments shouldn't be able to collude with the U.S. State Department to overturn a death sentence of a brutal murderer. Ditto if you believe that there's a personal right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. Ted Cruz was fighting, and winning, for these causes in the SCOTUS before Texans ever sent him to the U.S. Senate.
Now the rest of the country is, gradually, getting past the media stereotypes of Cruz — he's amazingly easy to caricature, of course — to see the substance behind the surface. They're seeing what we figured out in Texas long ago: It's deep. This guy walks the walk.
I'd rather share these observations than vote in an online poll anyway.
I worked with Ted Cruz on a legal matter before I had any information about his political leanings or aspirations. I had been practicing law for about 40 years at the time I worked with Cruz, and I had never before encountered an attorney as knowledgeable about the Constitution and who was so immediately recognized by sophisticated clients as being exceptional.
Gerald Gunther, with whom I also had an opportunity to work, was equally knowledgeable about the Constitution, but back then I was too young and inexperienced to recognize how far above others he stood.
David Dewhurst, by the way, endorsed Ted Cruz for POTUS on March 25th. As his former enemies in Texas have rallied around Ted Cruz, so too will the entire two-thirds of the GOP that opposes Trump, plus some sizeable number of Trump supporters who can't bear to see Hillary elected.
The same will be true of Cruz supporters when Trump is the nominee.
Henry Hawkins | April 8, 2016 at 6:30 pm
I'm writing in William A. Jacobson because 'Fuzzy Slippers' and 'Anchovy' are pseudonyms.
Cruz is an excellent appellate lawyer and brief writer.
That doesn't make him an excellent leader or executive, and it certainly doesn't make him good at trade deals, economics, taxation, or job creation.
His purist straight line thinking causes him to have horrible instincts on trade deals (he supports Obamatrade and shipping more jobs overseas), taxation (his VAT tax is insane for many reasons including pointing an arrow directly at the heart of millions of more middle class jobs), and he has never even run as much as a lemonade stand based upon his own investment of capital and personal risk.
Further since everything but appellate briefing and the constitution is outside his frame of references and understanding Cruz is clearly not opposed to taking tens of millions from open borders globalist mega donors who will control him on policies of trade and open borders and increases in h1b visas.
A parallel argument to yours would be to point out that everything but sometimes making money and making women is outside Trump's frame of reference, which explains many of his otherwise inexplicable actions.
Well, AND supporting both Collectivist pols and Collectivist causes.
There's that…
Have you ever run any business of your own, excepting possibly a small law office. A business where your personal wealth and the financial future of you and your children were at risk ??
If so you would have a lot better understanding of the skill sets involved in leading a billion dollar enterprise with 1,000s of employees.
Several.
And that has nothing to do with his support of Collectivist pols and Collectivist causes, does it?
Collectivist liar.
Wasn't talking to you Rags. I already knew that you have done EVERYTHING with the greatest success, that you post from your beach home and yacht in Monaco, and that there is nothing you haven't ever done. Your bucket list is completely empty, and you don't always drink beer but when you do you drink dos equis (XX).
that was supposed to appear above in response to lwp. recopied and posted in the correct place…
I hope you're right and the Democrats do play this tape around the clock. I can't imagine a more effective ad to suppress the black vote. The majority of black voters have voted against SSM where ever and whenever it was on the ballot, and most of them have heard their own pastors say the same things.
Because verses like Leviticus 20:13 really do say that those who engage in homosexuality deserve to die.
You can't just attack and smear this pastor in this video. You attack and smear him, you're attacking every pastor who has ever preached a sermon against the sin of homosexuality. In the black community that's going to be many of them. And these pastors have a good deal of social status, their words carry a lot of weight. So you won't also be attacking and smearing the Bible-believing Christians in the black community, you'll be attacking and smearing every member of that community who look up to and respect the pastor.
Recall what black community leaders told Barack Obama, according to his own autobiography. They told him that he'd go nowhere as a community organizer in the black community unless and until he joined a church. That's the kind of weight these pastors carry, and why Obama had to affiliate himself with one if he was going to have any success at all (he didn't have any success but that was for other reasons).
So I hope the Democrats take your idea and run with it. Because neither one expects the black voter turnout to be anything like it was for Obama, but they need the black vote to turnout for them or they won't win. And running this video or ads based on this video will suppress the black vote.
Which is probably why they're not going to be so stupid as to take your advice.
Barry | April 10, 2016 at 11:35 am
You are too ignorant to have any discussion with.
I don't advocate the D's play this around the clock, it is simply what they will do. That you actually think it will be a plus just shows how out of touch with normal human beings you are, at least politically.
You can advocate killing groups of people you don't like all you want, based on your interpretation of the Bible. But I will guarantee you it will not sit well with most Christians in this country. About the only "religious" group that it will fit will be islam, but I doubt the American Islamic community will appreciate that sentiment.
You defend this only because it's your preferred candidate. If Trump were introduced by such a bigot, you would be screaming bloody murder. Like all you TDS people did when it was reported Duke endorsed him.
You're all hypocrite's of the first order. And foolish people.
Fuzzy Slippers | April 10, 2016 at 12:18 pm
"Foolish people"? Did you get that from the Big Book of Trump phrases?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/trump-oh-freedom-of-speech-freedom-of-speech-these-are-foolish-people
No, I just read your comments and figure it out for myself.
I do notice you always skirt the actual issue at hand, and when challenged, run away and hide.
So, let's see if you care to actually discuss the content of the comments.
1. Do you support the "biblical" idea, presented here that gays should be murdered? (I don't think you do, but it is the starting point)
2. Do you think the democrats will run that video as an attack against Cruz?
3. Do you agree with Arminius, that running such an add will strengthen Cruz's standing, leading to more votes?
4. With respect to the previous comments, can you find anywhere that I (or anyone else) suggested denying the bigot "preacher" his right to free speech?
That should be a good start, not that I expect you to engage in any substantive discussion.
Fuzzy Slippers | April 10, 2016 at 3:28 pm
Hee! I don't run away and hide, I just don't spend ten hours a day writing comments, nor do I feel the need to respond to every issue commenters discuss or to engage in endless discussions about non-issues like this. I just don't care that Jindal, Huckabee, and Cruz were introduced by someone who supported a Ugandan law or read some OT passages about killing gays when the Cruz campaign has already admitted it was a mistake. You and Arminius can beat that dead horse all day long, but I'm not interested in joining you. Do I think the Dems will play the video? Yep. Do I think it will make any difference to Cruz supporters? Nope. Do I think it will lead to more Cruz support among evangelicals or others? Sure, probably. Do I care about any of this? Nope.
I don't think that this is, or will be, a big deal. At all. In fact, you and the fringe left seem to be the only people even remotely interested. I'd rather see this video looped with Cruz as the candidate than loops of a candidate Trump gushing over the greatness of Hillary–she's "great," "terrific"–and what a great president she'd make and how she did such a terrific job as Secretary of State (this AFTER Benghazi and the video claims and "what difference at this point does it make"). She'll show him endorsing her in 24/7 ads.
"Hee! I don't run away and hide,"
OK, you responded here. You have often made some comment to me, then disappear. You're right to do so…
"when the Cruz campaign has already admitted it was a mistake."
??? Alright, then I missed it. Perhaps you could point it out? If so, then my request that he do so will have been met, and I will be in error assuming it was not.
"I don't think that this is, or will be, a big deal. At all. In fact, you and the fringe left seem to be the only people even remotely interested."
Sorry, but you would be wrong about that. I do not believe Ted Cruz advocates mistreating gays, much less murdering them. But without a clear denunciation of it, he will get hammered by it. It is what the left does, truth be damned, and that is my point. If you are more than 30 years old you should know how the left twists anything, and it very often works.
Deflecting to trumps poor judgments will not change that.
Since you have declared your self to be a Cruz supporter, that he is "true blue", you better start caring if you want to see Cruz win the election.
Now, the last question and I will leave you alone. Have you found anyone in this comment thread advocating for eliminating free speech?
You asked, "Have you found anyone in this comment thread advocating for eliminating free speech?"
Not that I recall, but I haven't read this whole thread (I rarely do these days). But when have I said that I did see that? This seems like a non sequitur to me as I have no idea where that comes from. I have heard Trump call for limitations on free speech on a number of occasions (after Garland, Texas; when he called for "closing up the internet"; more recently with regard to freedom of the press and their saying "horrible" things about him), though, does that count?
Hey, thanks. I've searched and not found it, but it might have been my search using Ted Cruz, not anyone else. That's good enough and I'm glad to see it occurred some time ago. I'll include it upstream…
You did comment upstream where the "discussion" was about free speech. Not that you made any accusations, just curious.
No, your trump reference doesn't count 🙂
You're welcome. Thank you for being gracious about it. It's delightfully refreshing to see.
And heh, I didn't think the Trump comments would count. 😉 I'm okay with that.
Arminius | April 12, 2016 at 1:39 am
Right, Barry. I'm the ignorant one.
" That you actually think it will be a plus just shows how out of touch with normal human beings you are, at least politically."
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/13/across-country-black-pastors-weigh-in-on-obamas-same-sex-marriage-support/
I suppose like Justice Kennedy you imagine SCOTUS rulings are a source of moral authority. Hint: they're not. Nobody's mind has been changed by their rulings particularly now that the gaystapo is using the Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell decisions to attack Christian business owners. Or to get public officials like Atlanta fire chief Kevin Cochran fired for expressing orthodox Christian beliefs on homosexuality. Or just generally use as a cudgel.
Google Kevin Cochran; see why his firing and similar events might actually galvanize the black community against anyone who'd run this ad.
http://caapusa.org/2015/07/media-coverage-scotus-decision-civil-disobedience/
"…Black Pastors Promise Uprising If SCOTUS Approves Same-Sex Marriage
Uptown Magazine
"If they rule for same-sex marriage, then we're going to do the same thing we did for the civil rights movement," said the Rev. Bill Owens, president and founder of The Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP), at a press conference. "We will not obey an unjust law."
CAAP and other Christian ministers announced at a press conference their plans to engage in civil disobedience across the nation, according to the Christian Post.
CAAP has been an opponent of same-sex marriage for years, even going as far as rebuking President Barack Obama and former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for their stance on the issue. "The man holding the most powerful position in the world is stooping to lead the country down an immoral path," Owens told U.S. News & World Report.
The pastor group even promoted impeaching Holder and chastised the NAACP for being in favor of same-sex marriage."
I mentioned on another comment thread that density is infinite at the black hole singularity, but black holes have nothing on Trumpsters. Your density is infinite as well Barry. But ever since SSM became an issue black pastors have been telling congregants pretty much the same thing that preacher in the video has been saying. That they will not compromise with any part of gay agenda. It isn't merely that they won't perform gay weddings or rent facilities for gay weddings. They also won't go along with what Rev. Owens has rightly called the indoctrination of children to believe that homosexuality is normal. Which means?
Black Congregants have heard their pastors say this:
"Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Or, pick a version of the Bible.
"(American Standard Version)
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
There isn't a version of the Bible that I've ever come across that doesn't condemn homosexuality as a sin worthy of death. Along with sacrificing their children to Moloch, incest, and bestiality it was one of the sins of the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites et al that caused God to command the Israelites to drive the inhabitants out of the Holy Land and take possession for themselves. And God told the Israelites that if they did the same things, He would drive them out of the land as well.
"You can advocate killing groups of people you don't like all you want, based on your interpretation of the Bible. But I will guarantee you it will not sit well with most Christians in this country."
You've finally got something right. Killing groups of people because for any reason in the name of Christ will not sit well with any Christian including me. But that's not what was going on in that video. The Old Testament isn't the Gospel of Christ, but it is the word of God. Homosexual activity is a sin. But if anyone reads the Old Testament (or New Testament) and gets the idea that it's thetr job to judge sinners and punish sin on this earth then that someone can't possibly be a Christian. Because that means such a person doesn't believe Christ is who He said He is. That He would return and He would judge the living and the dead.
I'm amused you call me ignorant. I can guarantee you that most of these black congregants have heard their pastors preach exactly what the pastor in the video is saying. Not before SSM became an issue, but since it's been forced upon them. And these congregants have probably heard these verses referenced in a pretty fire and brimstone sermons, because that's how the Bible condemns sin. The Supreme Court didn't do itself any favors among pastors and priests in general and African American pastors in particular by letting Kennedy right the majority opinion in Windsor, in which he claimed the only possible reason anyone could oppose SSM was sheer bigotry; blind hatred of gays.
I certainly hope the Democrats are stupid enough to compound the damage by deliberately and maliciously mischaracterizing this guy's references to Bible verses harshly condemning homosexual practices as grave sins as some sort of "kill the gays" rallying cry/hate speech.
I hope the Democrats are stupid enough to think that will sit well with the black community. Because they'll know Clinton/Sanders isn't just attacking Ted Cruz and that pastor. Whoever is the Democratic nominee is attacking their pastor, and ultimately attacking them.
Try reading for comprehension, Barry.
I never said it would strengthen Cruz's standing and lead to more votes. Sure, it may lead to a few extra votes for Cruz but not enough to make any sort of difference. Quite the opposite. I said the major effect would be to suppress the black vote and lead to less votes for whoever is the Dem nominee.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/100.black.detroit.pastors.outraged.over.gay.rights.comparison.civil.rights/37444.htm
"100 black Detroit pastors outraged over 'gay rights' comparison to civil rights
'Never have I been so insulted.'
A judge's reversal of a voter-approved ban against same-sex marriage in Michigan is being protested by 100 black pastors in Detroit.
The pastors are offended by the comparison of same-sex coupling to the civil rights movement, and dismayed by the government's rejection of biblical marriage.
…St. Galilee Baptist Church Pastor James Crowder said the comparison to civil rights is as fictional as a theater production.
"Judge Friedman is sanctioning the staging of a false story," he said. "On stage are many actors who pretend that redefining traditional marriage is as valid as blacks fighting against the carnage of chattel slavery and the humiliation of Jim Crow.
"Never have I been so insulted. The curtain must be pulled down on this play of disinformation."
Despite the federal government allowing benefits for same-sex couples, and gay marriage being approved in 20 states including Washington D.C., the pastors said they will continue to support the biblical definition of marriage, and reject political leaders who do not…"
Likely they'll just sit home if the Dems insist on insulting them and their beliefs. And such an ad would do precisely that. Because that pastor in the video? The Bible he's referencing is their Bible, too.
I doubt the black electorate will turn out in any meaningful numbers for Cruz but who knows what's going to happen this year. If the Dems are sufficiently condescending the results might surprise us all.
legalizehazing | April 8, 2016 at 8:07 pm
As much as I want Ted, I want to win more. WE HAVE TO WIN. I'm not convinced Trump can do that. But he's a wild card and moderate on some issues that probably put him more in play in some purple states. Also there's the NY thing. If he could win NY, FL, TX..
Cybrludite | April 9, 2016 at 8:33 am
In pretty much every poll regarding possible general election matchups, Trump gets brutally bent over in a re-creation of every prison rape scene by either possible Democrat candidate. He loses, and loses big. As in Reagan's re-election looks like a close run thing by comparison. And Trump's negative coattails loses us the House and Senate.
NY – 2016 GOP Presidential Primary:
Donald Trump 56% –
Ted Cruz 22% –
John Kasich 17% – (Emerson College 04/08/2016)
Source: Emerson College
Method: Phone
Date: 04/06/2016 – 04/07/2016
Voters: 321 (Likely voters)
Margin of Error: 5.4 %
Full Result:
Trump 56%
Cruz 22%
Kasich 17%
– See more at: http://www.pollheadlines.com/election-polls-4-2016/ny-2016-gop-presidential-primary-trump-56-cruz-22-kasich-17-emerson-college-04062016-04072016.html#sthash.d3vHxy4b.dpuf
It is already too late for the process to be fair. As a strong Trump supporter I would have no problem with Cruz or anyone else beating him in a fair fight. Problem is it has NEVER been a fair fight…"
Trump and his 'tards idea of "not fair."
"Trump team tells supporters to sign up to be delegates 2 days late
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/trump-washington-state-delegates-late-221725#ixzz45N3tTOkt
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook"
It's not fair that "Lyin' Ted" can "cheat" The Donald by reading and understanding things like rules, deadlines, and dates. And The Donal can't. And then "GOPe" turns around and screws The Donald by not giving him all the do-over he needs to win. Like the Iowa caucuses, and no doubt letting his delegates file late.
Why poor Donald just can't catch a break, and now "the establishment" is going to "steal" his nomination. The only legitimate nominee, in the same way that the team that is up 2-1 after the first three games of the World Series is the only legitimate winner. We all know the team that goes into the locker room at half-time is the only legitimate winner. Why should they even have to play the rest of the game when they've got it locked up? The only thing that can happen in the second half is that the refs and the other team will collude to "steal" the Superbowl from the only legitimate winners. Probably by knowing the rules better and playing the game better.
Which. Is. NOT! FAIR!
Right Trumptards?


The Gorge Private Game Lodge & Spa is a 5 star graded game lodge offering Oribi Gorge accommodation in 5 guest rooms.
The opulent, eco-friendly design of the spacious villas boasts double volume glass, offering guests panoramic views of the magnificent Oribi Gorge canyon. From this vantage point, guests can enjoy the sight of the endangered Cape Vultures gliding on the thermals and our ever changing views. Elevated 4 metres off the ground, each villa flows seamlessly from state-of-the-art comfort and luxury into the unique indigenous coastal forest with its abundance of butterfly and birdlife.
Our talented chef, Chris Whitham, prides himself on presenting our guests with exquisite fine dining cuisine. He uses his creative flair and passion for cooking to create our remarkable signature dishes. Guests can savour a selection of estate wines in the open-plan restaurant while interacting with the chefs as they prepare first class, fine dining cuisine with its distinct "African Fusion ".
Experience a moment of complete indulgence, pampering and luxury at our lavish day spa which offers a range of therapies incorporating the exclusive products of Dermalogica and Africology. Professional therapists and breathtaking views enable guests to immerse themselves in peace and tranquillity. Day visitors are welcome to book treatments.
With our owner run establishment's emphasis on attention to detail, personalised service and a sense of "timelessness", our guests are pampered in all areas of their stay at their own leisure.
Nature lovers will enjoy our informative guided trails through the indigenous coastal forests with its rich bio-diversity of plant, animal, insect and 250 recorded bird species. The Oribi Gorge bird list shows 250 recorded species including Cape Vulture, Crowned Eagle, African Finfoot, Ground Hornbill, Knysna Woodpecker, and African Broadbill. Most of Southern Africa's plains animals can be seen on our daily game drives.
Gate closes at 18h30, arrangements can be made for a late arrival provided prior arrangement has been made.


A narcissistic T.V. weatherman, along with his attractive-but-distant producer and mawkish cameraman, is sent to report on Groundhog Day in the small town of Punxsutawney, where he finds himself repeating the same day over and over.Groundhog Day featuring Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell is streaming on Showtime, free on Sony Crackle, available for rent or purchase on iTunes, and 7 others. It's a comedy and cult movie with a very high Rotten Tomatoes (critics) score of 96% and a high IMDb audience rating of 8.0 (537,723 votes).
Groundhog Day has a very high Rotten Tomatoes (critics) score of 96% and a high IMDb audience rating of 8.0 (537,723 votes). The movie is popular with Reelgood users lately.


Follow @cduhaime Interesting article here on Swissinfo.ch on the expansion of gambling in Switzerland and the fact that approximately 120,000 Swiss have a gambling addiction or a problem with gambling. According to the article, research by the Neuchâtel University's Institute of Economic Research, determined that the social costs of gambling addiction is between CAD$564 million and CAD$681 million annually.
According to the Associated Press, Vulcan Sports Media, Inc., doing business as The Sporting News, has agreed to pay a US$7.2 million penalty to settle claims by the U.S. government that it promoted illegal Internet and telephone gambling in print, on its website and on its radio stations from the Spring of 2000 to December 2003. The settlement includes payment of a US$4.2 million fine and US$3 million in the form of public service advertisements designed to dissuade people from gambling over the Internet on foreign operated sites. The ad campaign will run for three years. According to the report, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office are targeting companies who assist foreign Internet gambling sites advertise and and operate their services to Americans.
A poster campaign for an Internet bookmaker in the U.K. depicting Jesus seated behind a stack of chips has been withdrawn following a rebuke from the U.K. Advertising Standards Authority. The poster drew widespread complaints for showing a pastiche of Leonardo da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper with Jesus next to the chips and the Apostles playing cards or roulette. The ASA noted that the representation of the Last Supper as a casino, with the Christian imagery replaced with items used for gambling, could cause serious offence and was a breach of the ASA taste and decency clause. The Internet bookmaker said they had tested the campaign on their employees beforehand and received a positive response.


text:
Q: How to query a composite id key inside a list How can I query a composite key field in a multiple IN clause SQL?
My Subsidiary is a composite of a String and a Company
public class Company
{
     public virtual String Id { get; set; }
}

public class Subsidiary
{
     public virtual String Id { get; set; }
     public virtual Company Company { get; set; }
}

public class Disponibility
{
     public virtual String IdCompany { get; set; }
     public virtual String IdSubsidiary { get; set; }
}

Currently stuck at this
var subsidiarys = session.Query<Subsidiary>().ToList();
var result = session.Query<Disponibility>().Where(x => subsidiarys.Contains(???) ).ToList();

The generated query needs to be
SELECT * FROM VW_DISPONIBILITY D
WHERE (D.COMPANY, D.SUBSIDIARY) IN (SELECT S.COMPANY, S.SUBSIDIARY FROM SUBSIDIARY S);

A: Not all databases support oracle multiple IN clause so the only way to do this is by concatenating multiples or.
var disjunctions = Restrictions.Disjunction();
foreach (var sub in subsidiarys)
{
    disjunctions.Add(Restrictions.Where<Disponibility>(x => x.IdCompany == sub.Company.Id && x.IdSubsidiary == sub.Id));
}

var result = session.QueryOver<Disponibility>()
                    .Where(disjunctions)
                    .List<Disponibility>();

Generated SQL
SELECT
    ...
FROM
    VW_DISPONIBILITY this_
WHERE
    (
        (
            this_.COMPANY = :p0
            and this_.SUBSIDIARY = :p1
        )
        or (
            this_.COMPANY = :p2
            and this_.SUBSIDIARY = :p3
        )
        ...
    );

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange