The All-Important Legal Insurrection TRUMP VERSUS CRUZ Poll
Recent polls indicate it may come down to this
Last week, Quinnipiac reported poll results for Iowa that showed Ted Cruz surging to 23%, only 2 points behind Donald Trump.
The Wall Street Journal reported:
A new Quinnipiac University poll of likely Republican caucus goers showed Mr. Cruz with 23%, behind only New York real estate developer Donald Trump, with 25%. That is more than double Mr. Cruz’s showing of 10% in the university’s October poll. Mr. Trump gained five points from October.
Today, Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, tweeted the following:
Just talked to a campaign (not Cruz's) that has private data showing Cruz now ahead in Iowa and Trump falling into second there
— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) December 5, 2015
More Twitter responses:
This isn't going to be close. Cruz will blow this out. https://t.co/BCgSpT2Y79
— stuart stevens (@stuartpstevens) December 5, 2015
Where the smart money is right now >> https://t.co/Hpj1JdY2kU
— Alex Burns (@alexburnsNYT) December 5, 2015
.@katherinemiller's year-old column calling Cruz the front runner looks pretty good https://t.co/zQDQJkbc1o
— Ben Smith (@benyt) December 5, 2015
I feel another LI reader poll coming on . . . .
The poll is open until Noon on Monday (Pacific Time).
[Featured image via Rick Tyler]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Cruz is the man. The CONSERVATIVE man.
T-rump is not.
I’m not a Cruz supporter. But he is a conservative Republican. So if he is in the final two against Trump, he wins by default. There is simply nothing more to it.
Look at where the money comes from backing Cruz, he is there man, not ours.
Because grammar is so RINO, man. 😉
Question: what someone posts when they have nothing of substance to say.
Answer: see post above from Amy in FL
No doubt a homonymophobic
They’re, their and there are not homonyms. They’re homophones. #MakeAmericaLiterateAgain
But whatevs, right?!
So he’s homophonophobic? I love this word.
If there’s a billionaire out there who’s pro-life, anti-Obamacare, for shrinking government, then I would be very grateful if he donated to Cruz! Which particular Cruz donor are you referring to? If the donor is conservative, then that’s a huge point in favor of voting for Cruz. A conservative putting their money where their mouth means Cruz must be really trustworthy and solid on those issues.
I like Ted Cruz, but I support Donald Trump. Both men have the establishment (R’s and D’s) against them; Trump has the people behind him. Trump is many things, but he is pro-American through and through.
Where are the crowds cheering for Cruz?
Lots of law professors (including our esteemed host) have proclaimed that Cruz is a natural born citizen; but our Founders believed that phrase described a citizen born in this country to two parents who were citizens of this country. That was to prevent someone who may not be pro-American from becoming President; too bad we didn’t apply it in Obama’s case, isn’t it?
Sadly Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen, though I believe he is pro-American and a good man; I would love to see him in the Supreme Court, where he is sorely needed, before the next lot of establishment panderers put in another progressive and our Constitution is lost entirely.
No longer will I ever vote for the “lesser of two evils.” That road led us to the greatest evil this country has ever faced. Go Trump!
How do you know what they were thinking? The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 specifically dealt with the foreign-born children of citizens and said they ARE natural-born citizens. So that’s one very clear insight into the thinking around that time which supports Cruz’ eligibility. The Constitution didn’t clarify what natural-born meant and these laws came soon after to help make that clear.
Cruz
Cruz is my choice — the smartest politician and most pricnipled conservative. I always saw him as long-haul man in this race.
However I don’t think denigrating Trump has value. He’s excited many voters, a good portion of them who would not normally vote Republican. This is to be appreciated. He’s also led the way in defining some of the issues, and set precedents of media criticism and anti-establishment challenge. Cruz understood this, and has behaved appropriately given his long-term vision.
The fact is that Cruz too often puts his finger in the wind. TPP and H-1B visas come to mind.
Claiming McConnell lied to you and therefore changing your vote on TPP is too little too late.
TPP is an immigration invasion nightmare. It provides for the free movement of labor into and out of the country. It’s a nation-killer.
Trump has not done this kind of thing. His 2011 book spelled out that number one,we get rid of birthright citizenship. He gets it.
TPP does not change immigration law. Cruz is the LAST politician who should ever be accused of putting his finger in the wind. He governs based on core, bedrock principles and values, unlike Trump, who made massive shifts in his positions on immigration, abortion, health care, taxes and Hillary’s qualificiations in run-up to running for President. Cruz is also all for ending birthright citizenship unlike Rubio and the RINOs in the race.
Well said, pesanteur!
Now the Trump phobes are making up their own reality and living it, just like liberals do. LOL!!! You can’t make this stuff up! Stop getting the vapors over Trump. It’ll all shake out when the base goes to the polls, when real people start casting real ballots. Then we’ll see what’s what.
The vapors is what Trump fans have been getting when anyone dares to critique him by the same standards that are applied to any other candidate. Anyone who points to his inconsistencies are temperamental flaws has been branded with names (e.g. “Trump-phobe”) the likes of which are not applied to those who point out other candidates’ flaws.
Trump fans have made up their own reality by painting Trump as a superhuman hero figure who’s “the only one” who can save the country, and by pretending he’s the most solid, principled, authentic, reliable conservative candidate — which is obvious nonsense.
The so-called Trump-phobes are just saying that Trump needs to be vetted like anyone else, and that being a very rich TV celebrity should not immunize him from scrutiny.
Trump has had his past dug up many times now, nothing material is unknown. How much more vetted can you get?
And, by the way, for me Cruz is the man. Trump is number two. The rest, meh (or worse). I know you Trump phobes don’t get that, but that’s on you.
Trump is doing a brilliant job of attracting all the MSM fire while we wait for the primaries to actually begin. And making the MSM and Dems tear their hair out and scream and shout.
Not only is this fun, and firing up *our* base, but it also has to be getting the low-info voter desensitized. Heck, they’re already going full-bore Godwin on Trump, with two months until Iowa.
There’s a reason for the “full bore Godwin”. In Weimar Germany, there was political paralysis for many years. Out of frustration, the people voted for a “strong leader” who would “act, not talk”. I like the way Trump has poked his finger in the eyes of the media, but his supporters should be real careful what they wish for.
Some of his supporters seem to want Trump to sweep away “the uniparty” — i.e. our governing system — and fix everything by decree.
Meanwhile, candidates with a respectable record of governing on principle have been pushed out because Trump fans are swooning over his promises and bluster. They explain their fandom by saying they’re fed up with “politicians” who don’t keep their promises — so they’re going with the guy who has no political record except for helping Democrats get elected, and who recently expressed very different political views from the ones he now claims to hold. And the Trump-bots wonder why we “don’t get it”!
Cruz/Fiorina for me.
I think that’s a smart ticket.
Fia-RINO is an establishment hack who lost to Barbara Boxer in a landslide. She’s not an outsider, she’s a failed insider. She thinks and campaigns like Romney. Flat, programmed crony capitalist who doesn’t really want the job.
Fuzzy Slippers – You need to be more specific in the wording of your question. Is the intent of the question:
a.) If the choice is between Ted Cruz or Donald Trump, who would you pick?
b.) If the choice is between Ted Cruz or Donald Trump, who will be more likely to win in Iowa (or the nomination)?
My preference is Ted Cruz (which would answer A above). The answer to “B” is a much more subtle question, which will be impacted by a whole bunch of factors. The largest of those factors will be turnout.
If the turnout is high, with a lot of LIVs showing up to caucus based on “Trump popularity,” then Trump takes Iowa.
On the other hand, if turnout is moderate or low, Cruz will win in a landslide (at least as of today), as his voters are much, much more likely to brave bad weather, storm, bitter cold or other drawbacks to show up (same for Ben Carson’s voters who tend to be true-believers in Carson, and Rubio’s voters who generally can be swayed).
I don’t think anybody else will have the pull necessary to have any reasonable chance at winning. Graham, Pataki and (I’m sorry to say) Santorum need to get out now. Being at 0% at this point is embarrassing. Paul and Huckabee need to be handed their hat and shown the door, with an admonishment that if they can’t break out of their 2% band by the end of December that they should go too.
Heh, Chuck. I meant A., given a choice between Trump and Cruz, for whom would you vote. But B. is also an interesting point to ponder. 🙂
You know, I’m trying to figure out what in my post is generating down-votes. If it’s the one Pataki supporter out there, and the two supporters for Paul, and the one for Huckabee, then so be it.
The point still stands that at this point, the individuals listed have poll numbers that are embarrassing. There is no reason at ALL to be in the race if you can’t break 3% (and all you JEB! supporters out there, even then that’s pushing it).
Being on stage for the debate may be worth something in order to get your agenda in front of the public, but at this point, if you’re STILL polling at 2% or less, it means that while the public may CARE what you’re saying, they don’t care ENOUGH to support you as a candidate.
If Trump is the nominee, I will vote Libertarian.
Cruz is a fraud, too. all his stands have been nonsense.
He;s tryin to inherit votes that leave Trump and Carson, and temporarily he’s doing that a little bit.
He’s surging in Iowa because of attack ads against Rubio.
Could you give some examples of his “nonsense” stands — and why you think they’re nonsense?
Cruz was for TPP before he was against it.
He was for increasing the number of H-!B visas, before he was against it.
Do you REALLY want to argue the flip-flopping case when your man is Donald Trump?
Trump was for abortion before he was against it.
Trump was for letting some illegals stay and get amnesty before he was against it.
Trump was for nationalized single-payer health care before he was against it.
Trump was for a wealth tax before he was against it.
Trump was for thinking Hillary was a highly-qualified Secretary of State before he was against it.
Shall I go on?
Could you also link to some of his “attack ads?”
While Cruz is generally more conservative, the last thing we need is another ineligible, non-natural born citizen occupying the Oval Office. Plus, Cruz’s neoconservative stance on immigration is not sustainable.
The interpretation you use of “natural born citizen” has NEVER been accepted by a United States court, ever.
You are entitled to believe the moon is made of green cheese if you like, but the law is the law and not subject to individual flights of imagination.
The interpretation you use of “natural born citizen” has NEVER been accepted by a United States court, ever.
Nor has your interpretation.
You are entitled to believe the moon is made of green cheese if you like, but the law is the law and not subject to individual flights of imagination.
I invite you to cite a credible pre-2008 source for your interpretation.
Cruz was a citizen at birth. If you need to apply for citizenship when you’re a baby born to a U.S. citizen overseas, then can you list for me all of the babies of U.S. citizen parents who’ve been rejected for citizenship? I guess some of them reside in an orphanage at the U.N. because most countries don’t give automatic citizenship just because you’re born on their soil.
Cruz was a citizen at birth.
Yes, he was. Now demonstrate how that’s relevant. Your opinion that this is what “natural born citizen” means is interesting but has no solid basis.
You don’t seem to understand simple English. Being a natural-born citizen and being a citizen at birth are synonymous. The opposite is being someone who was NOT a U.S. citizen at birth and therefore had to become a naturalized citizen, i.e. their citizenship was acquired at some point after their birth.
The esteemed founder of this blog, a *law professor*, has addressed this question in his article, “natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz” https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/
I’m gonna go with the professor’s opinion on this one.
I’d rather an ineligible president who respects the constitution than an eligible one who despises it. After all we’ve been through over the last 7 years I no longer care enough to reject Cruz on that basis. Agrippa I was ineligible to be king of Judæa but he was one of the best kings it had. Cruz may prove the same.
LOL!
Pathetic, race baiter of Mississippi Senator Thad Cockroach fame Stuart Stevens and Rich Flowery.
It’s President Trump!
Cruz lost conservatives when he co-authored TPA with Paul Ryan and proposed a 500% increase in H-1B visas.
Lawyers obfuscate and America doesn’t need another one.
That’s not conservative.
A freshman senator with no executive experience, clueless in financial matters is who 0bama was. A freshman senator with no executive experience, clueless in financial matters from the right side of the aisle is unqualified to clean up 0bama’s mess.
Cruz belongs on the Supreme Court.
Trump lost conservatives when he did the following. Note, these all represent his most recent positions on each issue, which is why I won’t list out his donations to Democrats here:
*said “sorry, conservatives” but the government must provide universal health care coverage
*supported preserving the progressive income tax
*said Social Security and Medicare should not be reformed or changed at all
*supported the ethanol subsidy
*called Edward Snowden a traitor
*said he’s fine with the federal government listening in on everybody’s phone calls
*said any current illegals can come back in legally in an expedited fashion after being deported (i.e. “touchback amnesty”)
*said he loves eminent domain
*said his sister would make a great Supreme Court judge
*supported the Obama administration ending the Cuba embargo
*flip-flopped from pro-choice to pro-life in Romney-esque fashion
*said Kim Davis must comply with the law on giving out same-sex marriage licenses
*when daughter Ivanka became best friends with Chelsea, said U.S. women don’t receive equal pay for equal work, fundraised for Corey Booker and supported a same-sex marriage event
*said “sorry, conservatives” but the government must provide universal health care coverage
Not true. Your claim this is his Trump’s position is a lie.
*supported preserving the progressive income tax
So did Ronald Reagan. Trump’s tax plan is doable and isn’t bat shit crazy without protective constitutional amendments like Cruz’s vat/sales tax plan.
*said Social Security and Medicare should not be reformed or changed at all
He said he would grow economy and save social security and medicare. I guess you favor cuts to these programs.
*called Edward Snowden a traitor
Snowden IS a traitor abd should be shit in the head. Trumo is cirrect. You are WRONG.
*said he’s fine with the federal government listening in on everybody’s phone calls
Not what he said nor what is done yiu sound like a Ron Paul whacko.
*said any current illegals can come back in legally in an expedited fashion after being deported (i.e. “touchback amnesty”)
Another LIE
*said he loves eminent domain
President has nothing to do with eminent domain. The founders loved emibent domain. That is why its in the constitutiin. Are you anti founders?
*said his sister would make a great Supreme Court judge
Maybe she would how do you know.
*said Kim Davis must comply with the law on giving out same-sex marriage licenses
And your point is? Do you think Cruz has a different position? He doesn’t.
Other than being completely wrong on almost everything great post.
Everything you said I’m “lying” about were direct quotes from his speeches or interviews this year. He said in the Arizona speech “sorry, conservatives” but everybody has to have health care coverage universally. He told Fox & Friends he’s okay with the government listening in on his phone calls. His statement on letting illegals come back in in an “expedited” fashion was made over and over in interviews this summer.
And Snowden is a hero, not a traitor. Our government went rogue, violating the Constitution, and Snowden exposed it to the citizens. He’s a whistleblower who should be pardoned from any possible prosecution. I believe Cruz would pardon him if he was convicted and going to be executed or face life in prison.
Not sure why I’m getting in the middle of a fight I have no money on, as I haven’t supported anyone yet.
Your statements regarding Trump’s healthcare plans use terms which are loaded with meanings that may not apply to what Trump has actually said on healthcare, even in his Arizona speech.
Specifically, the term “universal/universally”, to many means/infers “universal healthcare”, i.e. socialized medicine, such as found in European nations. I have researched Trump’s healthcare positions a fair bit, and so far I have not heard him use the word “universal/universally” during this campaign. During this campaign he has said in various terms “Everyone needs to be covered with healthcare.” When giving explicit answers, he has said he supports repealing Obamacare and allowing individuals greater access to a variety of plans, inferring increased competition. Specifically, in the past he has written,
“I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare.
“Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice. Possible? The good news is, yes. There is already a system in place-the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-that can act as a guide for all healthcare reform. It operates through a centralized agency that offers considerable range of choice. While this is a government program, it is also very much market-based. It allows 620 private insurance companies to compete for this market. Once a year participants can choose from plans which vary in benefits and costs.”
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.206-208 & 218, Jul 2, 2000
From what I’ve found in the book or his speeches, he makes no specific mention that government pays for “universal healthcare”.
Specifically, I find it hard to fathom how offering citizens multiple levels of coverage (as above) could ever imply the government would pay for such differing coverage…it would be absurd. And AFAIK, he has not specified how the government employee model above would differ from Obamacare exchanges.
He has also said that government should cover healthcare for those who are unable to afford it (which essentially is what we currently do under Medicaid or free/universal emergency room care). Where he differs with the way care is provided now is that he states he would negotiate repayment rates with providers (not specified if just hospitals or other providers.).
It’s clear Trump’s healthcare proposals need much more definition (which I suggest is true for a number of other candidates I’ve researched). But I have not ever heard or read Trump specify that the government should pay for all healthcare, e.g. “single payer healthcare”.
“As far as single-payer, it works in Canada, works incredibly well in Scotland.” Trump, who has (luckily for him) never had to use the NHS, praises the NHS – August 2015
May as well get the full quote for clarity:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/gkt7gcy
“As far as single-payer, it works in Canada, works incredibly well in Scotland. Could have worked in a different age, which is the age you’re talking about here. What I would like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees and if I’m negotiating in New York or New Jersey or California, I have like one bidder.
“Nobody can bid. You know why? The insurance companies are making a fortune because they have control of the politicians. Of course with the exception of the politicians on the stage. But they have total control of the politicians. They’re making a fortune.”
So he still likes the concept of single-payer, he just thinks oligarchs like him should control it instead of the State?
I’ll try to answer what I think your asking.
First, I have found no statements from Trump stating he supports “single payer”, if you mean a single standardized government paid/provided healthcare for everyone, such as Europe has. (As he wrote in 2000, he suggested a national marketplace with different plans/prices, such as government employees have available, might have been a good place to start in healthcare reform.) Alternatively, he has said and written that he believes in “universal healthcare” for everyone, e.g. everyone in the nation should have healthcare available to them. So in his statements, single payer (government provided) is not the same thing as universal healthcare (privately provided and paid for, except for the poor) with a wide variety of plans/providers at a wide range of prices.
Second, in Trump’s statement, “I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees and if I’m negotiating in New York or New Jersey or California, I have like one bidder,” I’m relatively certain he is referring to the fact that currently insurance companies are specifically restricted to single states of operation (state regulated).
As such, there is far less competition such that in some states Trump only has one insurance company bidding to supply health insurance for his employees in that state. If insurance companies could sell policies across state lines, and he could buy insurance for all of his employees regionally/nationwide, it is likely there would be more robust competition, more plans, more providers (and the lack of competition in Obamacare has exposed that flaw).
I don’t see anything in his statement that suggests that he (or oligarchs?) should control anything in healthcare, rather companies and individuals should have a national marketplace where they can purchase a wide range of plans from many providers. One thing I have NOT seen from Trump is if he believes such plans should have standardized minimums of healthcare (aka “essential health benefits” or EHBs in Obamaspeak) in each policy such as Obamacare demands. Such standards in Obamacare are what have killed the health insurance industry, since insurance companies can’t rate customers on pre-existing conditions or risks, and must supply all EHBs to every policyholder, regardless if they want them or can even use them, e.g. maternity coverage for men.
You’ve just claimed that you’re supporting Trump because Cruz isn’t conservative enough for you. What color is the sky in your world?
Cruz, an easy choice. But we will be blessed to have either of them head the ticket given the alternatives.
C) None of the above?
I’ll vote for either over the DNC ticket if they get the nom, but I think we have other candidates that stack up much better against Hillary.
Name one.
I voted for Cruz. I’ve been donating $50 a month to him since Perry faded. I like Cruz.
But I also like Trump. He tells it like it is. He doesn’t weasel-word his replies to the media like 99% of the politicians do. I like that.
I’ve been around going on 7 decades now and I’ll reveal something I’ve learned – perfection is not a human trait. Okay?
So if you’re looking for the perfect candidate, you’re going to be disappointed. Cruz or Trump, whatever, either is better than the POS in there now or the POS the dimocRATs will nominate.
I like Cruz. He remains my second choice behind Trump but I have noticed a few things about him during this year that have lowered my opinion of him somewhat. He is not nearly the leader I thought he was and he shows some signs of being not the man of proper conviction I once thought he was.
For Example, take Obamatrade. He wrote a wall street journal op ed praising obamatrade/tpp and explained why he was going to vote for it. But within a few weeks he realized (thanks to Trump) there were lots of people in gop base that hated obamatrade and that supporting it would hurt him with voters. Suddenly he was against obamatrade/tpp but he wasn’t against it like Trump because it was a bad too complicated multiparty deal and hurts workers in USA. He claimed to drop his support because it was “too caught up in politics”. In other words he could join Ryan and McConnell and the GOPe and support it later.
Other examples show he is more of a calculating follower of Trump than he is a leader like Trump. Trump says he will bomb ISIS oil fields and take away their money months ago and only recently does Cruz join this chorus once he sees that position is popular. Trump says before Paris he will bomb the shit out of ISIS and two weeks later after Cruz sees that made Trump more popular and now today again we have cruz following Trump and promising to bomb ISIS to smitherines. Trump says he will take out ISIS and their families and now today cruz the follower says he will carpet bomb ISIS.
I’m afraid that cruz is a strong believer in the original intent of the constitution which is why I like him but as an executive he is much more of a calculating finger in the wind follower than he is a leader lije Trump. As a leader Trumo is head and shoulders above cruz and he isn’t afraid to speak his mind whether conventional wisdom says its good or not. Cruz does not share these qualities with Trump.
Finally away from the fact that Cruz is a calculating follower are things lije his tax plan which is crazy because it implements a national sales rax/vat tax on business without the protection of a cobstitutional amendment to prevent democrats from slapping an income tax on business on top of cruz’s sales/vat tax. Also needed would be a constitutional amendment to set a maximum tax rate fir his sakes/vat tax. Without these constitutional amendments Cruz’s tax plan is crazy dangerous.
It is funny to watch all the cruzaholucs here slam Trump and his supporters for not being reasonable when they ignore the fact that Cruz is a follower and calculating opportunist with a horribly crazy dangerous tax plan.
All that said Cruz is still my second choice. I think if he studied under Trump for 4 to 8 years he could learn to be a better executive and leader.
Cruz has clearly made a number of politically motivated changes in policies to better fit his perception of what his target voters want.
But it seems hypocritical at best to criticize him for this while blindly accepting the far greater number of more stark reversals and continuing anti-conservative positions by Trump.
The point I made is that Trump is a leader when it comes to his positions and even hus changes in position while Cruz is a follower and NOT a leader. Yes Trump has had changes in his positions over several decades of public life. His changes however did not come as a political expedience because polls were showing such changes were popular. Nor did he make those changes as part of a political campaign. Finally Trump changed to positions that were decidedly anti GOPe at a time when conventional wisdom was what he changed to was political suicide. That makes Trump a LEADER in the vein of Ronald Reagan.
Cruz on the other hand has had all of his changes in a short period of time as part of political campaign and only after Trump the leader demonstrated such opinions were viable. Only then did Cruz the Trump follower change his position. And even then his changes were not made for the right reasons always such as I pointed out about TPP/Obamatrade.
Cruz also won’t support challenging birth right citizenship like Trump will and took almost 6 months before finally following Trump to say he would also build a wall.
Cruz is a follower and does not have the executive leadership experience and qualities of Trump. I think he needs to study under Trump for 4 to 8 years before seeking to be top executive and leader for our nation.
You’re absolutely lying about Cruz’ positions. He stated clearly that he is in favor of ending birthright citizenship to children of non-citizen parents. And Trump only came up with this “deport them all” schtick for his opening campaign speech this year. Before on O’Reilly he said he’d sort out the good ones and let them stay. Now they have to be deported, but can come back legally afterwards. Nothing brave about it, the polls clearly show that what most primary voters want is the deportation, but he throws in the bone to the business elites that all the deported can come right back if they’re “good.” Supporting ethanol subsidies was another “brave” Trump stance in your world I guess. I say Cruz opposing them is brave when Iowa is so important to his win. Some of Trump’s other flip-flops were set up when he flirted with a campaign run in 2012, so luckily he got to keep those on record for an extra 4 years.
As to birthright citizenship, Cruz was either for it (or believed it was legal) before he was against it:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/ted_cruz_on_birthright_citizenship.html
Evolved/changed/whatever, but his stance is different today. Note: I’m not suggesting that’s a bad thing. Just pointing out a fact.
The talking point du jour from Trump Central is that “Trump is a leader; Cruz is a follower.” In case y’all hadn’t picked up on that yet. 😀
Amy in FL folliws typical mindless left wing method if argumentation. When one has nothing substantive to state then post some non substantive meaningless drivel to try and attack the messenger with some lie ti change the subject.
So sad.
You kniw Amy why peopke talk about Trump being a leader and Cruz being his follower? Its the same reason people talk about the sun rusing in the east. The facts speak for thenselves.
I’m sorry, were you trying to say something? 😛
Gary’s drunk.
Again.
Rags:
You de man, very astute! 😉
Ps: Gotta severe case chuckles, staying home from work today!
Wasn’t speaking to you Amy. Couldn’t you tell.
At 6’8″ and 290 lbs. Big fingers and small phone equals some typos. If you have trouble with your comprehension I would suggest you just skip my posts. Especially since all your replies have been completely devoid of anything sustantive.
You hit the “reply” function on my comment. You replied to me! Now you’re astonished that I took that to mean that you were replying to me? Oh my stars and garters.
I’m actually crying now. lol
So no you couldn’t tell I wasn’t talking to you.
As for your crying, children and the mentally retarded are easily entertained. Glad I could bring a little joy and happiness into your little world. Now you should be off to bed.
Meanwhile, Trump flip-flopped on donating to Democrats and abortion. Trump came out in favor of ethanol subsidies “Big League,” while Cruz continues to be against them. Which position is more calculating when it comes to winning Iowa? Trump has also staked out many anti-conservative positions which are politically safer than the conservative side, e.g. keeping the progressive tax and refusing any reforms to SS or Medicare. Even Trump’s position on immigration was also done strictly as a calculated move. It just so happens REAL polling shows people despise amnesty so Trump went with where the polls took him. In the last primary when Trump flirted with running he told O’Reilly that the “good” illegals would get to stay and the “bad” would have to be deported and it would take some time and effort to sort them out. He added the “deport them all” step now, but still says all the good ones can come back in an expedited fashion. So even on his #1 issue, Trump is fooling people with tough talk while the end result is a form of amnesty.
Oh and as for Rich Lowry and his secret friend with a secret poll that says Cruz leads Iowa, I say Rich Lowry is an untrustworth liitle turd and tool of the GOPe.
And I say that Cruz will win Iowa. Either you believe that EVERYTHING Lowry says is a lie or you believe some or most of it is true. This is a statement that rings extremely true to anyone who studies the facts on Iowa GOP primaries past and present, so there’s no reason to doubt it.
Uh…er.. No.
Sen Cruz is not an Art. II, §I, Cl. 5, natural born citizen. He was born with a foreign attachment. He is a statutory U.S. citizen at birth.
If we abandon the natural born citizenship clause now, it will be exploited by others who come after Sen Cruz who may not share his political convictions and expose us all to the greatest threat to the Republic the founders and framers of the US Const. knew well and feared the most, the loss of our freedoms and liberties not from an external military threat but from political subversion from within our own political system. There is no absolute, failsafe, clause or provision that will protect the Republic from just such a fate, but if we weaken this provision now that fate will come sooner rather than later and future generations of Americans will look back at this time and call out our names, giving us the blame.
I hope Trump takes a few minute before choosing Sen Cruz as his VP to realize virtually all executive power in this country is held by one person as the commander in chief of all of this nation’s armed forces and also take into account the vast increase in speed and destructive firepower modern weapons now have over their 18th Century counterparts. If he does, he will begin to realize just how important this requirement has become in today’s turbulently shrinking world, and how important it is to apply the narrowest of definitions to the “natural born citizen” requirement in the presidential qualification clause of the US Const. rather than standing on the threshold of abandoning it altogether forever.
Once more: NO U.S. COURT HAS EVER ACCEPTED your definition of “natural born citizen” as correct. You are welcome to swallow the nativist nonsense, but it has no effect whatever on the law.
No court has accepted yours either. But I don’t care; the clause is stupid, and I’ll happily support an ineligible candidate who respects the constitution over an eligible one who spits on it. The whole idea that someone born in the USA and raised by communists and America-haters is more likely to be loyal than someone born elsewhere who believes wholeheartedly in everything America stands for is ridiculous.
John Jay was worried about foreign kings running their younger sons for president of the USA, and thus taking it over. An early version of the Manchurian Candidate. That seems like a ridiculous fear altogether, but if it were to happen today they wouldn’t send one of their people, they’d just find a native-born American for it.
Not so ridiculous. As proof, I give you ‘Barack Hussein Obama'(or whoever he really is.)
Never forget his act of bowing to the Saudi King – a character who is funding war on America:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5128171/Barack-Obama-criticised-for-bowing-to-King-Abdullah-of-Saudi-Arabia.html
So there’s no confusion, the Saudi kind and Obama are both waging war on America.
Using Stuart Stevens to sell your point indicates you’ll have a highly lucrative career with the Beltway Establishment. Stuart Stevens of course is a longtime Beltway parasite and part of the racist Barbour and RNC 2014 Mississippi GOP primary and runoff. 6/30/14, “The Ruling Class Went Down to Mississippi,” Angelo M. Codevilla. There’s zero money in defending the country. All the money is on Stuart Stevens’ side.
Wow. Between the Trump-philes and the Cruz-birthers, this thread is pretty amusing.
Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. The law at his birth, as now, state it clearly. Several legal scholars have resolved this non-issue. But birthers gotta keep shouting, I guess. And as for Trump, he will sink himself, or he will win the primary. No MSM attack is going to take down The Donald. He is a celebrity, a billionaire-businessman who speaks his mind, and isn’t PC. Time will tell if he says something over the line…..
Ted Cruz is the one who is the consistent, most tested and proven Conservative. Andy McCarthy today endorsed him, as have many in the last few days and weeks.
I’m all in for Ted Cruz. I truly believe he is the leader of our age, our Ronald Reagan, raised up for “such a time as this.”
James Woods has endorsed Cruz as well. All of the truly conservative people with high IQs are going for Cruz. We should seriously listen to people who share our conservative values and are also, in terms of sheer brainpower, smarter than us. They might be able to concoct a better plan for a conservative revolution than most of us.
Speak for yourself Jedi. Such elitism comes from the darkside of the force. He might be smarter than you….. That is all you can say with credibility.
There are two points the law makes clear when it comes to those born beyond U.S. jurisdiction; one, they are U.S. citizen at birth, and, two, even if the law states someone is a natural born citizen, they may not be for Constitutional purposes.
Cruz is on the right side of ALL the below issues and he has been FOR HIS ENTIRE PUBLIC LIFE. He is also passionate about them, not just “checking the box.” And he is articulate enough to explain to the public why he believes these are the right positions.
Trump is CURRENTLY on the opposite side of at least 5 of these issues. Others he’s flip-flopped on recently. And I haven’t seen one Trump supporter yet who even tries to claim he shows any passion at all on any of the social or religious issues.
*flat tax
*originalist judges
*traditional marriage
*anti-abortion
*religious liberty protections
*repealing Obamacare
*reforming government entitlements
*shutting down multiple alphabet agencies
*deregulating business
*ignoring the global warming hype
*ending subsidies for things like sugar/ethanol/”green” energy
*wiping ISIS out
*refusing Muslim refugees
*strong military
*preserving gun rights
*securing the border
*stopping amnesty
*ending the unconstitutional surveillance state
*ending abuse of eminent domain
*ending the EXIM bank
*keeping the Cuba embargo
He’s not fooling us on amnesty. I don’t like letting them back in ONE BIT. But he’s at least going in the right direction.
No one else, except maybe Santorum, even comes close.
Those of you who are commenters and/or regular readers of comments here may remember my ongoing commentary regarding this primary race.
I’ve consistantly maintained from day one that I support the supporters of both these men.
I will not endorse until much further down the line.
Both of them are fully able to do a great job as president.
I don’t like seeing their supporters tearing at each other but that’s Politics.
When it comes down to holding my primary ballot and picking one of the two, it will be a rare event… Deciding who is best of the best instead of picking the lesser of two evils.
The two men have tag-teamed and leapfrogged together over the field.
That strategy is working out beautifully. It is not by accident.
In the shadows is Sarah Palin who, in all likelihood, pulled them together to work as a team.
What a primary!!!
God Bless America! We are only 13 months away from replacing Obama.
How those who say No more RINOs can even consider Trump is the triumph anger over common sense. Trump is center left on almost everything other than what he currently says about immigration.
Trump is the leader not just immigration but on military defense, veterans, fighting ISIS, foreign policy and the economy. None of which are anything close to center left and for which polls consistently show Trump has crushing leads over Cruz and the rest.
I like Cruz, but we need Trump. Cruz can’t beat Hillary, and Cruz won’t have the down ticket pull to get anything meaningful through congress.
Trump will destroy Hillary, and have the pull to bring ideas through congress.
Most media have been lying and bashing Trump for months, and that has pushed many people toward other candidates, but the shine is wearing off the smear as more people compare the media spin to actual speeches. Support for Trump will surge as the truth becomes apparent to even the most diehard media sheep.
You are correct. Trump is by far the most electable general election GOP candidate.
Only amongst the Low-Information-Voter (aka LIV).
Wrong! The last Fox poll has both Trump, Cruz and almost every other leading GOP candidate beating Hillary. Trump and Cruz are only 1 point apart. Cruz is a fantastic communicator and debater, while Trump flops in the debates with limp, lackluster performances after which his poll numbers always stay flat or drop while other candidates get boosts. The debates mean EVERYTHING in the general election. Trump will flop in them while Cruz will win them easily with sharp, rousing answers and soar to victory. But the idea that ANY candidate would lose to Hillary is utterly baseless. She’s an awful candidate. We have the luxury of picking the best person for the job instead of worrying about who can beat her because anyone can.
Leadership and Courage. Trump has it. The rest not so much.
Trump on Face the Nation today says we have to profile Muslims in this country including their wives and families.
Trump continued, “Look. we are having a problem with radicals in Muslim groups — let’s not kid ourselves. You can say it or don’t have to say it. Maybe you won’t even want to, I’m saying it loud and strong. So, if you have people coming out of mosques with hatred and with death in their eyes and on their minds, we’re going to have to do something, John. We can’t just say we’re not going to look at it. I made that statement a number of weeks ago. It took a lot of whatever, lot of people were not exactly thrilled with it. Now everybody seems to agree with me.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/12/06/trump-we-have-to-profile-track-terror-suspects-go-after-the-wives/
For those down voting this post. Don’t fret. Give it a week or two and Cruz will come out and follow Trump on this.
Trump seems to have the personality to overcome the immense bias of the ‘news’ media, bypassing the corrupt, ignorant sleazbags and connecting directly with Americans.
They’re both great. Hopefully, they’ll be a team.
Ted Cruz.
I don’t want either one because either of them being nominated would result in a Hillary win, but if I have to pick between the Democrat Trump or the Republican Cruz, I’ll pick Cruz. I’ll pick Rubio over either of them, though.
So no you couldn’t tell I wasn’t talking to you.
As for your crying, children and the mentally retarded are easily entertained. Glad I could bring a little joy and happiness into your little world. Now you should be off to bed.
Wow- I amazed this is not more one sided.
Keep in mind, a lot of Democrats will be voting Trump as well in the primary.
So states like Wa, Oregon and California will be going for Trump even though they will be Hillary in the general.
That sort of annoys me.
Is that a sad trombone I hear coming from Trumpeteer HQ?
😛
Make the polls small enough, or targeted to a certain demographic and you can pretend anybody is winning.
Three to four times a week Trump draws crowds of 10,000 or more people, and those people aren’t just going to vote for Trump, those are energized people who go out and change minds.
No Amy, it is the sound of the air coming out of Rich Lowry’s big lie balloon:
a new CNN/ORC Poll finds TRUMP LEADS CRUZ 33% TO 20% IN IOWA.
…………….
Overall, Trump has 33% support among likely GOP caucusgoers, followed by Cruz at 20% with Carson at 16%, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 11% and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 4%. The new poll shows Trump up 8 points, Cruz up 9, while Carson has faded by 7 points, compared with the last CNN/ORC poll, conducted in late October and early November.
The poll finds a markedly different landscape among potential GOP caucusgoers than another Iowa poll released Monday by Monmouth University. The difference between the two seems to stem primarily from sampling.
READ: The complete CNN/ORC poll results
The Monmouth poll interviewed a sample drawn from registered voter lists that primarily comprised those who had voted in state-level Republican primary elections in previous election years. Among those voters, Monmouth found Cruz and Rubio ahead of Trump and Carson. Among voters who were not regular GOP primary voters, however, the poll found Trump ahead, similar to the CNN/ORC poll’s finding.
The CNN/ORC Poll drew its sample from Iowa adults, asking those reached about their intention to participate in their caucus, interest in news about the caucuses, and past participation patterns to determine who would be a likely voter.
But still, Trump’s lead holds even among only those voters who express the most interest in attending the caucus or the most regular past participation in presidential caucuses. Among those in the CNN/ORC poll who say they definitely plan to attend the caucuses and are more interested in news about them than any other news story — a group which represents approximately 8% of Iowa adults — Trump’s lead grows to a 42% to 23% advantage over Cruz, with Rubio at 11% and Carson at 9%.
And among those who say they have participated in almost all of the caucuses for which they have been eligible — about 10% of Iowa adults — Trump leads 38% to 21% for Cruz, with Carson at 12% and Rubio at 11%.
One group that remains a challenge for Trump and which makes up a large share of Iowa’s usual set of Republican caucusgoers is white evangelicals. Among that group, 26% back Cruz, 24% Trump, 20% Carson and 12% Rubio. In last month’s poll, Trump trailed Carson 31% to 20% among white evangelicals, with Cruz at 15% and Rubio at 11%.
Trump is increasingly seen by likely GOP caucusgoers as the Republican with the best chance to win the 2016 general election: 42% say Trump has the best shot, followed by 17% for Cruz and 11% each for Carson and Rubio. Last month, 33% thought Trump had the best chance to win followed by Carson at 25% and Rubio at 17%. Cruz is up 9 points on this question.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-iowa-poll/index.html