Was Ted Cruz Right?

[Left Coast]

And that's to say the left is any better?

Um, yes. But that's also not relevant to my actual point.

 

[Shad]

I backed up my claim with relevant facts / evidence. You have provided none (but let me know if I missed it). For example, I said that Trump voters decided to support a bully. Ted Cruz, who I believe had the support of the most Republican voters next to Trump during the primary, called Trump - and no one else, to my knowledge - a bully.

The third place candidate in the Republican primary was John Kasich, who now supports Trump's impeachment ... for what I would argue is Trump being his same "bullying" self towards a tiny ally, Ukraine and his own staff in the budget office. But I will let Mr. Kasich speak for himself, and let you perform the gymnastics necessary to dismiss as unremarkable the damning views (current or historical) every major Trump Party leader seems to have had of Trump:

A lot of people had no issues hanging around Trump when he wasn't running for office. Consider that factor.

 

[Shad]

[Emphasis added] Thank you, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Well it is his common medium of communication right now. I am sure Trump would say something in a rally and such but twitter is what he uses daily.

To me, it is interesting to note that not every president would use the tactic of going off on Twitter (notwithstanding the fact that not every previous president had Twitter), nor would every president have a base of supporters who would reward that behavior. I am not talking about the practice of a president supporting state candidates from their own party, but rather the tactics ... it's one thing for a president to give or withhold support; it is another for them to rip apart anyone in their way and throw the pieces to the hyenas, so to speak.

Trump does not play a character like most politicians do once an election is over.

I also think this goes back to something I mentioned earlier, which is a number in the GOP seem to have traded integrity for survival.

The two-party system creates the need for a party to ride out the bad times and avoid splits. Hence why both parties will tolerate radical elements. Toss in a lot of these elements bring voters. Hence why socialists are running as Dems.

A common theme among politicians, to be sure. But it is striking for Cruz and Graham to describe Trump in such negative terms - "crazy", "pathological liar", "amoral", "bully" - and then embrace him out of fear he will crush them.

It is a simple numbers game in the two party system. Both parties embrace radical elements when they need the voters from those elements.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A lot of people had no issues hanging around Trump when he wasn't running for office. Consider that factor.

True but I think hanging around someone who has flaws is different from supporting that person in their bid for high office.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well it is his common medium of communication right now. I am sure Trump would say something in a rally and such but twitter is what he uses daily.



Trump does not play a character like most politicians do once an election is over.




The two-party system creates the need for a party to ride out the bad times and avoid splits. Hence why both parties will tolerate radical elements. Toss in a lot of these elements bring voters. Hence why socialists are running as Dems.



It is a simple numbers game in the two party system. Both parties embrace radical elements when they need the voters from those elements.

I agree Trump doesn’t play a character like most politicians do ... that’s a nice way of saying it. The flip side of that coin is when he lies it’s pathological (to use Cruz’ word), and when he’s racist, erratic, or ignorant - he’s also being authentic.

I also think you make a good point re: the two party system. Yes, that’s why there are socialists running as Dems (I think Bernie is the only one remaining who embraces that label - but never mind).

But I also think Trump is not merely an example of the party embracing a “radical”, ideologically; it’s also an example of the party embracing someone who is a notorious liar and bully and unfit for high office. I think that is noteworthy because one could argue that parties - and voters - ought to have standards that transcend partisanship ... there ought to be people you wouldn’t vote for *even if* they push forward your political agenda. The Dems May have allowed socialists due to the two party system (as you said) but they have yet to embrace an outlandish liar and bully. Perhaps they will - I hope they don’t.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well it is his common medium of communication right now. I am sure Trump would say something in a rally and such but twitter is what he uses daily.

Thanks - agreed. Just to clarify, I was really talking about the things he says, rather than the vehicle (whether it be Twitter, a rally, etc).

 

[Shad]

True but I think hanging around someone who has flaws is different from supporting that person in their bid for high office.

Political support has benefits

Thanks - agreed. Just to clarify, I was really talking about the things he says, rather than the vehicle (whether it be Twitter, a rally, etc).

Sure. However do consider at times Trump is calling a spade a spade when other politicians avoid doing so at all costs.

I agree Trump doesn’t play a character like most politicians do ... that’s a nice way of saying it. The flip side of that coin is when he lies it’s pathological (to use Cruz’ word), and when he’s racist, erratic, or ignorant - he’s also being authentic.

While I do not agree with all your views of him I do agree that you get the bad with the good when someone speaks their mind with no filter.

I also think you make a good point re: the two party system. Yes, that’s why there are socialists running as Dems (I think Bernie is the only one remaining who embraces that label - but never mind).

Keep in mind the socialist and communist parties died in the 70s and 80s in the USA. This forced the next generation(s) of those ideologies to look at the Dems for political support, power and funding.

But I also think Trump is not merely an example of the party embracing a “radical”, ideologically; it’s also an example of the party embracing someone who is a notorious liar and bully and unfit for high office.

Trump winning changed that. It isn't in a the party's interest to be anti-Trump at this this. I could the same about Dems supporting Clinton with different character flaws.

I think that is noteworthy because one could argue that parties - and voters - ought to have standards that transcend partisanship ... there ought to be people you wouldn’t vote for *even if* they push forward your political agenda.

Sure. However do the nature of the two party system people have a choice between taking part or not. There is no valid alternative nor required voter turn out. A 1 million turn out can vote someone in the WH as easily as 60 million. So often people will vote for the lesser evil as that is the only choice they have when it comes to being involved.

The Dems May have allowed socialists due to the two party system (as you said) but they have yet to embrace an outlandish liar and bully. Perhaps they will - I hope they don’t.

Socialism by it's nature requires government oppression. I rather have a bully in character than a jackboot of government on my throat mandating redistribution of my income because politicians buy votes with government money. Point being choice undermines the partisan nature of some parties. I flipped my vote last election as the party of my political alignment didn't

Keep in mind I am in Canada. We have 3 major parties with 2 smaller parties to pick from. We even have a cultural nationalist party in power in Quebec.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Political support has benefits

Right. People like Ted Cruz have decided to support a bully / narcissist / pathological liar in exchange for benefits.

Sure. However do consider at times Trump is calling a spade a spade when other politicians avoid doing so at all costs.

Well, I see what you are saying, but I have trouble accepting that way of describing it. I view that as, again, a nice way of putting it. And I can explain why. You see, in my mind, "calling a spade a spade" refers to calling something (1) as it is, and (2) without worrying about being blunt or rude. Trump only satisfies #2. While Trump is indeed not worried about being blunt or rude, he will call a spade whatever is expedient for him to call it in that moment - maybe a rake, or a bucket, and then later change his story and say it was a pickax. What is operative here is not his insistence on calling something what it is, which would be admirable; it's his complete lack of regard for others / shamelessness. A subtle, but important distinction.

People who yearn for a politician who "calls a spade a spade" are right to want that. But they are getting the cheap imitation brand of that, in Trump. Like ordering a steak, and instead getting a Trump steak.

Moreover, the very lying and bullying that we are talking about on this thread - or, what you call Trump's "calling a spade a spade" - is an impediment to calling a spade a spade when it comes to the President. Which is perhaps one of the most important times to call a spade a spade. It impedes the Republican party from calling him a spade. And it appears to have been impeding Trump's own advisors' ability to tell him the truth, or give their genuine advice, when Trump disagrees with it. That appears to be why he's had such high turnover. And it is likely what John Kelly was referring to when he warned Trump not to replace him with a "yes man" ... otherwise, Kelly said, he would get impeached. (And here we are.)

While I do not agree with all your views of him I do agree that you get the bad with the good when someone speaks their mind with no filter.

Thanks. Yeah, again I accept what you are saying but we just have a different "spin" on it. Yes he speaks his mind with no filter .... but to me that doesn't quite capture it. Because I don't believe that everyone's mind, unfiltered, is full of the same vile, racist, etc. thoughts he expresses (telling US Congresswomen to go back to their rat infested countries, etc.) Some Americans' minds, I suppose, are full of such thoughts ... and I guess for them, it's empowering to see someone as powerful as the president express those thoughts unashamed.

I am 100% in favor of politicians expressing their minds without a filter more, but saddened that this is the mind we wanted to see unfiltered.

Keep in mind the socialist and communist parties died in the 70s and 80s in the USA. This forced the next generation(s) of those ideologies to look at the Dems for political support, power and funding.

Okay, noted.

Trump winning changed that. It isn't in a the party's interest to be anti-Trump at this this. I could the same about Dems supporting Clinton with different character flaws.

I agree it isn't in the party's interest to be anti-Trump. In my view it is in the country's interest. I know you disagree with that view, but, in support of it I am citing what Cruz and other Republican leaders said about Trump, before it was in their interest to support him.

Sure, you could say the same about Dems supporting Hillary Clinton with different character flaws. Certainly, Hillary was a very flawed candidate in many ways. But, she is not the Democrat mirror image of Trump. The difference is there was never a virtual bipartisan consensus that Hillary was erratic and unfit to be president, as there was for Trump. I refer you back to the videos / quotes of Cruz, Graham, Romney, McCain, Paul, Kasich ... you didn't see that kind of universal astonishment at Hillary's lying from her own party. It really transcended the usual disagreements over policy and even the usual disagreements over leadership ability / political scandals. It went quiet for Trump for the reasons you said: "benefits" and it being "in the interest of" the party, and Trump "winning". It did not go quiet because Trump's behavior changed. So much for calling a spade a spade ...

Sure. However do the nature of the two party system people have a choice between taking part or not. There is no valid alternative nor required voter turn out. A 1 million turn out can vote someone in the WH as easily as 60 million. So often people will vote for the lesser evil as that is the only choice they have when it comes to being involved.

Fair point. However, that explains why people voted for Trump. It does not explain why they still support him. There are people like Joe Walsh who once supported Trump and can no longer support him ... country before party. They still have, after all, Mike Pence as VP. Then there are people like Lindsay Graham who knew Trump was unfit, didn't support him, but now defend him in exchange for the "benefits" you mentioned. The Republican Party had two paths to go down .... they chose the Lindsay Graham path, rather than the Joe Walsh path.

Socialism by it's nature requires government oppression. I rather have a bully in character than a jackboot of government on my throat mandating redistribution of my income because politicians buy votes with government money. Point being choice undermines the partisan nature of some parties. I flipped my vote last election as the party of my political alignment didn't

Hm, well if you think Hillary Clinton was that bad (most consider her a moderate, Wall Street supported Democrat who didn't even support pursuing Medicare for all, much less some communist redistribution of income nightmare) then I suppose Trump was an interesting gamble to take. The question I am more focused on now is, with Hillary Clinton no longer in the picture and Mike Pence firmly installed as Vice President: why does the Trump Party keep supporting a "bully" and "pathological liar"? I think you and I agree why - you said it well.

 

[Shad]

Right. People like Ted Cruz have decided to support a bully / narcissist / pathological liar in exchange for benefits.

Standard politics.

Well, I see what you are saying, but I have trouble accepting that way of describing it. I view that as, again, a nice way of putting it. And I can explain why. You see, in my mind, "calling a spade a spade" refers to calling something (1) as it is, and (2) without worrying about being blunt or rude. Trump only satisfies #2. While Trump is indeed not worried about being blunt or rude, he will call a spade whatever is expedient for him to call it in that moment - maybe a rake, or a bucket, and then later change his story and say it was a pickax. What is operative here is not his insistence on calling something what it is, which would be admirable; it's his complete lack of regard for others / shamelessness. A subtle, but important distinction.[/quote]

Consistency isn't required.

People who yearn for a politician who "calls a spade a spade" are right to want that. But they are getting the cheap imitation brand of that, in Trump. Like ordering a steak, and instead getting a Trump steak.

Something is better than nothing at times. Consider that.

Moreover, the very lying and bullying that we are talking about on this thread - or, what you call Trump's "calling a spade a spade" - is an impediment to calling a spade a spade when it comes to the President.

You are changing what I said. Lying is not calling anything a spade. Calling out Hillary regarding women and her husband all while Hillary is proclaiming to be on the side of women is calling a spade a spade.

Which is perhaps one of the most important times to call a spade a spade. It impedes the Republican party from calling him a spade.

They have more to lose. If you haven't noticed both parties have major issues calling out problems in their own party.

And it appears to have been impeding Trump's own advisors' ability to tell him the truth, or give their genuine advice, when Trump disagrees with it. That appears to be why he's had such high turnover. And it is likely what John Kelly was referring to when he warned Trump not to replace him with a "yes man" ... otherwise, Kelly said, he would get impeached. (And here we are.)

You are making an assumption that Mulvaney said something that led to this without evidence.

Thanks. Yeah, again I accept what you are saying but we just have a different "spin" on it. Yes he speaks his mind with no filter .... but to me that doesn't quite capture it. Because I don't believe that everyone's mind, unfiltered, is full of the same vile, racist, etc. thoughts he expresses (telling US Congresswomen to go back to their rat infested countries, etc.) Some Americans' minds, I suppose, are full of such thoughts ... and I guess for them, it's empowering to see someone as powerful as the president express those thoughts unashamed.

This is projection of your view on to people you do not know.

Omar is from another country.

I am 100% in favor of politicians expressing their minds without a filter more, but saddened that this is the mind we wanted to see unfiltered.

Again you projecting that people wanted Trump instead Trump being what we got. See the difference?

I agree it isn't in the party's interest to be anti-Trump. In my view it is in the country's interest. I know you disagree with that view, but, in support of it I am citing what Cruz and other Republican leaders said about Trump, before it was in their interest to support him.

Sure. Likewise you must acknowledge that people could flip to Trump based on their own idea of the nation's interest. Beside if everyone agreed there would be only 1 party.

Sure, you could say the same about Dems supporting Hillary Clinton with different character flaws. Certainly, Hillary was a very flawed candidate in many ways. But, she is not the Democrat mirror image of Trump.

She is worse.

The difference is there was never a virtual bipartisan consensus that Hillary was erratic and unfit to be president, as there was for Trump.

This was never a consensus to begin with

\I refer you back to the videos / quotes of Cruz, Graham, Romney, McCain, Paul, Kasich ... you didn't see that kind of universal astonishment at Hillary's lying from her own party.

A few people's opinion isn't universal anything. You are twisting words beyond their meaning here.

It really transcended the usual disagreements over policy and even the usual disagreements over leadership ability / political scandals. It went quiet for Trump for the reasons you said: "benefits" and it being "in the interest of" the party, and Trump "winning". It did not go quiet because Trump's behavior changed. So much for calling a spade a spade ...

Except Trump tends to mock people that flipped from being anti-Trump to Trump like he did in 2018 when a number of never-Trump GOP lost their seats. Even at the rally for Cruz Trump mocked their past interactions and that Cruz flipped to Trump not the other way around.

Fair point. However, that explains why people voted for Trump. It does not explain why they still support him. There are people like Joe Walsh who once supported Trump and can no longer support him ... country before party.

Walsh voted against Hillary not for Trump. That is a major difference. He was never pro-party as he is from the Tea Party wave.

If you want to know why people support Trump ask them.

They still have, after all, Mike Pence as VP. Then there are people like Lindsay Graham who knew Trump was unfit, didn't support him, but now defend him in exchange for the "benefits" you mentioned. The Republican Party had two paths to go down .... they chose the Lindsay Graham path, rather than the Joe Walsh path.

Walsh has no path. He is just pandering especially given his own past.

Hm, well if you think Hillary Clinton was that bad (most consider her a moderate, Wall Street supported Democrat who didn't even support pursuing Medicare for all, much less some communist redistribution of income nightmare) then I suppose Trump was an interesting gamble to take.

She does not need to be a socialist in order for me to view her as a horrible choice. One can look at her record in office and her family life compared to how she campaigned. Like I said 2016 which a choice between two piles of crap.

The question I am more focused on now is, with Hillary Clinton no longer in the picture and Mike Pence firmly installed as Vice President: why does the Trump Party keep supporting a "bully" and "pathological liar"? I think you and I agree why - you said it well.

Cruz is not part of the Trump Party. Never was, never will be. It is in the interest of the GOP to support a GOP POTUS. Attacking one's "own" that won is bad politics. Just as people didn't flip on Hillary until after she lost. Ergo people will turn on Trump once he is out of office.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Standard politics.

What Ted, Lindsay, Rand, Mitt, etc said about Trump is not standard. Ted even said in the video what he was about to say is unusual.

 

[Shad]

What Ted, Lindsay, Rand, Mitt, etc said about Trump is not standard. Ted even said in the video what he was about to say is unusual.

I mean flipping after the fact.

People didn't care about Trump until he ran for office. Think about that.

 

[SoyLeche]

I mean flipping after the fact.

People didn't care about Trump until he ran for office. Think about that.

A lot of people cared about Trump during the whole birther thing. That’s what propped him up onto the national political stage.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I mean flipping after the fact.

I’m not sure I entirely agree. For example, Hillary supported Obama after he won in 2008. She “flipped” in the sense that she initially supported herself, then supported him once he won the party’s nomination. But she didn’t “flip” from saying Obama is a narcissistic bullying pathological liar unfit to serve, to defending him. The latter is what Cruz and others in the GOP have done relative to Trump, and it is not standard.

We would be remiss not to acknowledge how striking the “flip” was this time.

People didn't care about Trump until he ran for office. Think about that.

To me, it makes sense that people didn’t care as much about Trump before he ran. I’m not sure I follow what your point is here?

 

[Shad]

I’m not sure I entirely agree.

I was clarifying.

For example, Hillary supported Obama after he won in 2008. She “flipped” in the sense that she initially supported herself, then supported him once he won the party’s nomination. But she didn’t “flip” from saying Obama is a narcissistic bullying pathological liar unfit to serve, to defending him. The latter is what Cruz and others in the GOP have done relative to Trump, and it is not standard.

Actually she said he was unfit in the 3am ad. She also said in the late 90s blacks were criminal predators. The latter is far worse than anything Trump has said to Cruz.

We would be remiss not to acknowledge how striking the “flip” was this time.

Yes after she lost she changed her tune about his leadership qualifications.

To me, it makes sense that people didn’t care as much about Trump before he ran. I’m not sure I follow what your point is here?

Point being is Trump didn't suddenly become an *** in 2016. Hillary for one had no issues associating with him before. Oprah wanted him to run for office years ago. Now both changed their tune. Figure it out.

 

[Shad]

A lot of people cared about Trump during the whole birther thing. That’s what propped him up onto the national political stage.

Hillary and her campaign actually started it yet no one cares now. No one was hammering her about it. Yet Trump believing it is a problem only now. Amusing.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Actually she said he was unfit in the 3am ad. She also said in the late 90s blacks were criminal predators. The latter is far worse than anything Trump has said to Cruz.

Could you please provide sources for those two claims, please?

Yes after she lost she changed her tune about his leadership qualifications.

Criticizing leadership qualifications is pretty standard. But that’s not quite the same as Cruz, Graham and others absolutely trashing Trump’s character.

Point being is Trump didn't suddenly become an *** in 2016. Hillary for one had no issues associating with him before. Oprah wanted him to run for office years ago. Now both changed their tune. Figure it out.

I’m still not sure what your point is but it sounds like they came to their senses.

There are private citizens I have no problem associating with. They are totally unfit for high office though and I couldn’t support them. Therefore ... ?

 

[Shad]

Could you please provide sources for those two claims, please?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...tor-remarks/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.9ae9912c076b

Criticizing leadership qualifications is pretty standard. But that’s not quite the same as Cruz, Graham and others absolutely trashing Trump’s character.

Attacking qualification in this context is still attack upon the person as per their judgement of themselves.

I’m still not sure what your point is but it sounds like they came to their senses.

Only when he ran for office? Sorry I do not buy such a radical and convenient turn.

there are private citizens I have no problem associating with. They are totally unfit for high office though and I couldn’t support them. Therefore ... ?

So you hang around people that you think are pathological liars, racist, etc? After all that is what being said about Trump now. What do you think such a view would say about your own character? Think about it. This is why people like Cruz, Clinton and other politicians are scumbags that only care when votes matter.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hillary and her campaign actually started it yet no one cares now. No one was hammering her about it. Yet Trump believing it is a problem only now. Amusing.

Trump promoting it was a problem at the time and also during the 2016 campaign. Hillary didn’t start the rumor. Trump perpetuated it then unconvincingly tried to blame others for his own actions.

Trump's False claim Clinton started Obama birther talk

 

[Shad]

Trump promoting it was a problem at the time and also during the 2016 campaign. Hillary didn’t start the rumor.

Actually her campaign did. You can look up reports and memos from the 2008 campaign. Politico even covered it.

Trump perpetuated it then unconvincingly tried to blame others for his own actions.

Trump's False claim Clinton started Obama birther talk

Birtherism: Where it all began

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Actually her campaign did. You can look up reports and memos from the 2008 campaign. Politico even covered it.



Birtherism: Where it all began

According to the article it wasn’t the Clinton campaign that started it. It was started by chain emails and conspiracy theorists who supported Clinton and then perpetuated for years by people like Trump. In fact the first thing the article mentions is how Trump keeps perpetuating this debunked theory - and this was in 2011. So this doesn’t match your characterization that Trump’s birtherism wasn’t an issue before he ran for president - it’s what prompted the very article you cited, several years before Trump ran in 2016.

That is a very different fact pattern from, hypothetically, Clinton personally appearing in live TV and saying that Obama is a pathological liar, narcissistic bully, unfit, clown, etc as Republican leaders said about Trump. To try to equate the two is just silly.