Ted Cruz Dropping Out of Republican Presidential Race

[Peter_J]

Those “riots” that Trump says will happen if he’s “denied” the nomination still sound quite appealing when compared to him getting the nomination.

Why didn’t Cruz ever say “They’ll be riots if I’m denied the nomination”? Was he afraid of being a copycat, or did shutting down the government take something out of him?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Why didn’t Cruz ever say “They’ll be riots if I’m denied the nomination”? Was he afraid of being a copycat, or did shutting down the government take something out of him?

So your saying he “threatened” rioting? I never seen that statement/article do you have a source? Or did he suggest something of that effect might happen?

Very disturbing thought we should clarify. We don’t want to put a bad wire out on anyone including Ted or Hillary?

 

[GaryTaylor]

What office and position has he held? I didn’t read about this anywhere I could be wrong.

 

[In_Hoc_Signo312]

Why didn’t Cruz ever say “They’ll be riots if I’m denied the nomination”? Was he afraid of being a copycat, or did shutting down the government take something out of him?

Because Cruz is more level-headed? To be honest, I’m getting to a point where I think that would actually be the better option to use. If these RINO “Trumpets,” “Trumpbots,” “Trump trolls,” or whatever I call them on any given day would decide to abandon the Republican party, I would probably say “good riddance” regardless of what it does to any chance the GOP would even have to begin with. At least then the Republican base would have a more cut and dry platform.

 

[Corki]

What office and position has he held? I didn’t read about this anywhere I could be wrong.

Being a politician does not necessity mean holding elected office.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Being a politician does not necessity mean holding elected office.

What does it necessarily mean? And btw who is the arbiter of this necessity? There’s no need to roll the eyes I understand the emotional dilemma here its well documented. Make your point if you disagree.

 

[sallybutler]

What does it necessarily mean? And btw who is the arbiter of this necessity? There’s no need to roll the eyes I understand the emotional dilemma here its well documented. Make your point if you disagree.

Have you never heard of office politics? Every organization has politics that people need to learn to work with. There are organizations that vote on positions. Even school children learn about this when they elect class officers.

Now if by politician, you mean someone must have been elected to a public office at a municipal, state, federal level, than yes, Trump is not a politician.

However, based on his business background, I think he is a politician.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, here’s the point as I mentioned above. Trump in fact never represented the will of the people to flip flop in politics, being a major difference, like everyone else in this race on a word he gave to the people. Theres no comparison. I doubt he needed to hob nose or support anyone. The fact is these peoples are so corrupt like he knew and used this to his profit. But there was no misleading the people thus the idea of his flip flopping or meandering on issues more accurately is very different than for example Hillary.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Working with politicians is a lot different from being one. I have been on both sides of that, and working with them does not mean you’re anything like them or that your interests remotely resemble theirs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, still the difference as I was stating is clear. One may suggest he will flip flop with abortion as you were saying you would bet on it. Its very plausible, however, the difference is thats a “yet” opposed to every single candidate that has such as Hillary, since shes left in this race.

Thats a clear difference. So the idea someone changes a position is rather common. But the idea Trumph has or will do this with the people as others in fact have is simply not a fact.

Thats said I really have little interest in dissecting the meaning and defining who is a politician as we could probably include peoples here in that definition without agree’d upon parameters. No need or desire.

 

[Monkey1976]

I believe that the image of Trump as a non-politician is based on the fact that - in the US, at least - when someone is referred to as a politician, it’s because that’s their primary career. Ms. Clinton might have once worked as an attorney, but she is a politician through-and-through. The entire basis of her exorbitant speaking fees is that she is a career politician. Otherwise, she’d be another unrecognized name on the rolls of the Arkansas Bar Association. Her entire campaign is financed by those who are hoping that their “donation” will result in some level of influence with her if she is elected.

Mr Trump, in comparison, is first and foremost a salesman. His father built a fortune from the ground up, and he took that company and turned it into a multibillion dollar, world-famous name. Now, he’s using some of that money to pay his own way in this election.

Clinton is well-known because of what others have done on her behalf. Trump is well-known because of what he has done on his own.

I don’t like either one of them. Personally, I’m hoping Austin Petersen will get the Libertarian Party’s nod - he’s pro-life and pro-pirate (look up Letters of Marque)

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, here’s the point as I mentioned above. Trump in fact never represented the will of the people to flip flop in politics, being a major difference, like everyone else in this race on a word he gave to the people. Theres no comparison. I doubt he needed to hob nose or support anyone. The fact is these peoples are so corrupt like he knew and used this to his profit. But there was no misleading the people thus the idea of his flip flopping or meandering on issues more accurately is very different than for example Hillary.

We have all been scrupulously trained to have an eye for “flip flopping”. When a candidate is running on an ideology, real or pretended, “flip flopping” is like twisting the end of a child’s kaleidoscope; the picture shifts and changes and the “ideological image” changes, even if only slightly.

As a non-ideologue, Trump is in the same category as most of us. He can change his mind. It’s ironic to see liberals get the vapors over Trump’s “flip flopping” in the face of Obama’s “evolving” from being a stalwart defender of traditional marriage to a full-bore promoter and advocate for homosexual marriage, Hillary Clinton’s promotion of Iraq War followed by her repudiation of it later when it became less politically popular, and so on.

It’s sometimes difficult to take a position you think will be popular then have to change when it becomes unpopular, all the while trying to make it fit within the mosaic of the particular ideology you think works for you. But that seems to be part and parcel of being a professional politician.

Additionally, most of Trump’s “flip flopping” is actually just adding details to a statement that he should have added when the question was first asked. Sometimes, though, one suspects that sometimes his statements are “off the cuff” answers to something he really never thought about too much, and is then told that his position as stated needs shoring up.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Being a politician does not necessity mean holding elected office.

Very good point.

 

[Crossbones]

We have all been scrupulously trained to have an eye for “flip flopping”. When a candidate is running on an ideology, real or pretended, “flip flopping” is like twisting the end of a child’s kaleidoscope; the picture shifts and changes and the “ideological image” changes, even if only slightly.

As a non-ideologue, Trump is in the same category as most of us. He can change his mind. It’s ironic to see liberals get the vapors over Trump’s “flip flopping” in the face of Obama’s “evolving” from being a stalwart defender of traditional marriage to a full-bore promoter and advocate for homosexual marriage, Hillary Clinton’s promotion of Iraq War followed by her repudiation of it later when it became less politically popular, and so on.

It’s sometimes difficult to take a position you think will be popular then have to change when it becomes unpopular, all the while trying to make it fit within the mosaic of the particular ideology you think works for you. But that seems to be part and parcel of being a professional politician.

Additionally, most of Trump’s “flip flopping” is actually just adding details to a statement that he should have added when the question was first asked. Sometimes, though, one suspects that sometimes his statements are “off the cuff” answers to something he really never thought about too much, and is then told that his position as stated needs shoring up.

It’s funny, because I see Trump’s flip flopping as more “I don’t have a coherent thought about this issue” than evolving. Basically, he’s too arrogant to say he doesn’t know, so he throws out something random and then adjust his position probably according to what his handlers tell him his Republican constituents want to hear (a la abortion).

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s funny, because I see Trump’s flip flopping as more “I don’t have a coherent thought about this issue” than evolving. Basically, he’s too arrogant to say he doesn’t know, so he throws out something random and then adjust his position probably according to what his handlers tell him his Republican constituents want to hear (a la abortion).

I am inclined to agree with you, with some reservations. He has not spent a lifetime thinking about what deceptive answers he’s going to give to every one of the 10,000 “gotcha” questions that are the daily fare of politicians with national aspirations.

Nor is he an ideologue who has borrowed some philosophical structure to defend at every occasion. Nor is he a person with a Catechism of the Catholic Church on his nightstand in which to look up the answer to issue number 2235 and a Summa Theologica next to it in order to check out the answer to 2235 for possible errors. . He probably hasn’t actually thought a lot about even abortion on demand. That’s not his life, and he’s a Presbyterian besides. How deep do you think that resource pool is when it comes to abortion?

What he has spent his life doing is figuring out practical solutions to very complex problems, learning the difference between a good advisor and a poor one, and figuring out what the objectives of all sorts of people are and how he can work with them to accomplish objectives he wants.

Does anybody really think Hillary thinks up her answers herself? No, she has had handlers for decades who poll hundreds and hundreds of possible questions for her.

 

[Crossbones]

I am inclined to agree with you, with some reservations. He has not spent a lifetime thinking about what deceptive answers he’s going to give to every one of the 10,000 “gotcha” questions that are the daily fare of politicians with national aspirations.

Nor is he an ideologue who has borrowed some philosophical structure to defend at every occasion. Nor is he a person with a Catechism of the Catholic Church on his nightstand in which to look up the answer to issue number 2235 and a Summa Theologica next to it in order to check out the answer to 2235 for possible errors. . He probably hasn’t actually thought a lot about even abortion on demand. That’s not his life, and he’s a Presbyterian besides. How deep do you think that resource pool is when it comes to abortion?

What he has spent his life doing is figuring out practical solutions to very complex problems, learning the difference between a good advisor and a poor one, and figuring out what the objectives of all sorts of people are and how he can work with them to accomplish objectives he wants.

Does anybody really think Hillary thinks up her answers herself? No, she has had handlers for decades who poll hundreds and hundreds of possible questions for her.

I didn’t realize having a clear answer on abortion is just one of 10,000 gotcha questions. I mean, from the sounds of things around here, it is the single most important issue, nee, the only issue that a Catholic should use to base his vote on. And the Republicans just nominated a person who changed (sorry, evolved) his position on it three times in a day.

He is the seed that fell on rocky ground. No roots. No core values. Nothing but sound bites and flag waving as Jharak has said.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Another way of looking at it is this. Despite everything, Trump has spent a lifetime figuring out what people want, concretely, and delivering it to them in a way they’ll actually pay for it voluntarily.

Hillary Clinton has spent a lifetime selling what isn’t hers to begin with, never having produced a single thing anyone would voluntarily pay for.

Now, in shopping at the “candidate store”, whose wares do you think you would want to spend your money on?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I didn’t realize having a clear answer on abortion is just one of 10,000 gotcha questions. I mean, from the sounds of things around here, it is the single most important issue, nee, the only issue that a Catholic should use to base his vote on. And the Republicans just nominated a person who changed (sorry, evolved) his position on it three times in a day.

He is the seed that fell on rocky ground. No roots. No core values. Nothing but sound bites and flag waving as Jharak has said.

Read the Presbyterian position on abortion. It’s incoherent. If Trump takes his positions based on what his advisors tell him Repubs want, it’s better than what you’ll read. And it’s certainly better than Hillary Clinton’s full support of partial birth abortion. And, in fact, Trump’s position is far better than hers, wherever he got it. To a person for whom abortion on demand really is central, one does not go to the bottom just because it’s not perfect elsewhere.

Far and away the greater promoter of the evil of abortion is Hillary Clinton. So, because Trump’s position is somewhat better than his own church’s is, that’s a sound reason to dive to the bottom of the pit with Hillary Clinton? That’s a good reason to support someone who demands that Catholics become Presbyterians?

The problem with seed falling on rocky ground is the rocky ground, not the seed, and there is sometimes no shortage of it in the heads of those who support Hillary Clinton.

What do Trump’s detractors really know about his “core values”? Nothing really. But there are hints. If he’s at all serious, (and a lot of people think he is) he really does care about jobs and making better deals for the American people. Contrast that with Hillary Clinton essentially telling that coal miner that her destroying his livelihood should be acceptable to him because, my goodness, there’s always food stamps and vague promises of more, and that transition is acceptable to her no matter what it does to him.

 

[Crossbones]

Read the Presbyterian position on abortion. It’s incoherent. If Trump takes his positions based on what his advisors tell him Repubs want, it’s better than what you’ll read. And it’s certainly better than Hillary Clinton’s full support of partial birth abortion. And, in fact, Trump’s position is far better than hers, wherever he got it. To a person for whom abortion on demand really is central, one does not go to the bottom just because it’s not perfect elsewhere.

Far and away the greater promoter of the evil of abortion is Hillary Clinton. So, because Trump’s position is somewhat better than his own church’s is, that’s a sound reason to dive to the bottom of the pit with Hillary Clinton? That’s a good reason to support someone who demands that Catholics become Presbyterians?

The problem with seed falling on rocky ground is the rocky ground, not the seed, and there is sometimes no shortage of it in the heads of those who support Hillary Clinton.

What do Trump’s detractors really know about his “core values”? Nothing really. But there are hints. If he’s at all serious, (and a lot of people think he is) he really does care about jobs and making better deals for the American people. Contrast that with Hillary Clinton essentially telling that coal miner that her destroying his livelihood should be acceptable to him because, my goodness, there’s always food stamps and vague promises of more, and that transition is acceptable to her no matter what it does to him.

Well, I do agree with you that no one know Trump’s core values and I doubt he has any.

 

[JimG]

For anyone interested in moral issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, the decline of the family, the decline of marriage, even the looming demographic crisis, Donald Trump could not possibly be worse than Hillary Clinton.