GatewayRedbirds.com

“What good are you if your word is not on your bond?” asked one delegate from Nevada, George Assad. “I was a big Cruz fan. No more.”

Yo - Mr. Assad, how about our country's treaties? You extend that word-is-your-bond thing to those too right? Because you believe in law and order I am sure. You need to talk to your nominee about that.

Nice job Cruz. If only Bernie had the balls to do the same with Hillary.

It always pisses me off when canidates tell us how bad a person is until they lose the nomination. Then that person is suddenly a great choice.

I say good for Cruz. That's him playing the dirty game, to borrow a sentiment from Hillary's supporters.

But he does need to go the hell away. History will remember that speech kindly, but Cruz isn't the direction this disaster of a party (at present) needs to go.

I get what Cruz was doing. He is predicting a Trumpwreck in 2016 and is setting himself up for 2020. Of course, does anyone remember early in the primary when the two were having what was called a bromance? He saw a Trumpwreck there two, but that didn't work so well.

I also think he miscalculated badly again. I don't think Republicans will be too forgiving. I think a lot of Pubs can get behind his policies and if he wasn't such a beady eyed bastard he could get another shot. But I think a lot of people don't trust him. Hell, I'd like to like him, but just can't trust him. Don't know what it is, just a gut feeling I guess.

Edit - Cruz sees himself as the second coming of Reagan. But must have forgotten this part in a very, very contested convention:

Per Wikpedia:

"Reagan's impromptu concession speech has been called a "defining moment of the Reagan Revolution."
Reagan endorsed Ford after his defeat, and gave an eloquent and stirring speech that overshadowed Ford's own acceptance address. Some delegates later stated that they left the convention wondering if they had voted for the wrong candidate.[5] A contemporary media account stated that if a motion to reconsider the nomination had been in order, it might have passed.[6]

Trumpwreck. I like that. I may have to use that.

Myles wrote:Nice job Cruz. If only Bernie had the balls to do the same with Hillary.

It always pisses me off when canidates tell us how bad a person is until they lose the nomination. Then that person is suddenly a great choice.

The fact that Cruz and Trump can't stand each other is a big problem. In message board context: attack the policy/words/actions but not the person. Cruz and Trump made things personal. Trump attacked Cruz's wife and dad for Christ's sake.

Bernie has said bad things about some things Hillary has done such as vote in favor of the Iraq war and take money from huge corporate interests. That's not quite the same thing as calling Hillary names or saying Hillary's dad killed JFK. Do you see the difference?

Leroy wrote:I get what Cruz was doing. He is predicting a Trumpwreck in 2016 and is setting himself up for 2020. Of course, does anyone remember early in the primary when the two were having what was called a bromance? He saw a Trumpwreck there two, but that didn't work so well.

I also think he miscalculated badly again. I don't think Republicans will be too forgiving. I think a lot of Pubs can get behind his policies and if he wasn't such a beady eyed bastard he could get another shot. But I think a lot of people don't trust him. Hell, I'd like to like him, but just can't trust him. Don't know what it is, just a gut feeling I guess.

Edit - Cruz sees himself as the second coming of Reagan. But must have forgotten this part in a very, very contested convention:

Per Wikpedia:

"Reagan's impromptu concession speech has been called a "defining moment of the Reagan Revolution."
Reagan endorsed Ford after his defeat, and gave an eloquent and stirring speech that overshadowed Ford's own acceptance address. Some delegates later stated that they left the convention wondering if they had voted for the wrong candidate.[5] A contemporary media account stated that if a motion to reconsider the nomination had been in order, it might have passed.[6]

I think this is spot-on.

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:

At first, I thought Ted Cruz was the bizarro topper of the night. But I've got to agree with this right here. The enormity of saying you won't defend a fellow NATO nation means you aren't going to honor the treaties your country has signed.

Republicans out there - are you going to defend that? What if Hillary had said that?

If Americans truly are going to allow their country to walk away from their commitments and treaties, there is no way in hell you can call this country the Leader of the Free World. It means you don't believe in American Exceptionalism which, as far as I know, is still a cornerstone of the GOP's platform.

Do we really care that much about the Baltic states? I mean there is a reason why you can buy a hotel there for like $450.

Leroy wrote:I get what Cruz was doing. He is predicting a Trumpwreck in 2016 and is setting himself up for 2020. Of course, does anyone remember early in the primary when the two were having what was called a bromance? He saw a Trumpwreck there two, but that didn't work so well.

I also think he miscalculated badly again. I don't think Republicans will be too forgiving. I think a lot of Pubs can get behind his policies and if he wasn't such a beady eyed bastard he could get another shot. But I think a lot of people don't trust him. Hell, I'd like to like him, but just can't trust him. Don't know what it is, just a gut feeling I guess.

Edit - Cruz sees himself as the second coming of Reagan. But must have forgotten this part in a very, very contested convention:

Per Wikpedia:

"Reagan's impromptu concession speech has been called a "defining moment of the Reagan Revolution."
Reagan endorsed Ford after his defeat, and gave an eloquent and stirring speech that overshadowed Ford's own acceptance address. Some delegates later stated that they left the convention wondering if they had voted for the wrong candidate.[5] A contemporary media account stated that if a motion to reconsider the nomination had been in order, it might have passed.[6]

Excellent points Leroy. I think you're spot on. There's a small chance that Trump blows up so badly that the GOP collectively says 'What were we thinking?' and turns to Cruz. But he is so unlikable...

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:

At first, I thought Ted Cruz was the bizarro topper of the night. But I've got to agree with this right here. The enormity of saying you won't defend a fellow NATO nation means you aren't going to honor the treaties your country has signed.

Republicans out there - are you going to defend that? What if Hillary had said that?

If Americans truly are going to allow their country to walk away from their commitments and treaties, there is no way in hell you can call this country the Leader of the Free World. It means you don't believe in American Exceptionalism which, as far as I know, is still a cornerstone of the GOP's platform.

If Hillary had said that, the GOP wouldn't be talking about Benghazi and e-mails anymore and Congressional hearings would already be scheduled for next week.