Trump or Cruz?

a reply to: nwtrucker

No wall between Mexico and Guatemala
? How is it when I google it, there four different pictures of walls between the two nations??

It may be that you have come across a fake site with picks of the US-Mexico wall claiming it is a Mexico and Guatemala wall. I am not sure what pictures you found, but if they have a desert in them then it isn't bordering Guatemala since they don't have a bordering desert with Mexico.

a reply to: Grimpachi


That's possible. didn't consider that. Mexico has very tough laws on illegal immigration in that Mexico is in a lot better shape than some of their southern neighbors. It's a short border, comparatively speaking. A couple of the pictures and your standard wire fences.


I highly doubt that their southern border is nothing but a Sunday jaunt across the street...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Their border is mostly jungle/forest and some areas have a natural river designated as the border. Crossing that border in some areas is nothing more than crossing the road. Many of their designated border crossing areas look no different than the various other crossings in Central America.

Honestly, most crossings there is pretty much a Sunday jaunt across the street.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: nwtrucker

Their border is mostly jungle/forest and some areas have a natural river designated as the border. Crossing that border in some areas is nothing more than crossing the road. Many of their designated border crossing areas look no different than the various other crossings in Central America.

Honestly, most crossings there is pretty much a Sunday jaunt across the street.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. No wall.

Doesn't mean we can't make use of one....::

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

That's ridiculous and so long ago debunked that it's not even relevant.

Surely you would know this if you were paying attention to anything intelligent.

There are so many times Cruz has been caught lying, it would amaze me if he was elected.
These are not just casual lies either - they are blatant, for example:

originally posted by: Gazrok

Best case for the GOP is a brokered convention and they toss somebody like Ryan or another GOPer not seen as insane who has not been dirtied by the current primaries. With a choice like that they have chance at independents which neither Trump nor Cruz do.

If they did that, the GOP would basically tell all Trump supporters that their votes didn't count.

This would basically destroy the party (which may not be a bad thing).

For starters, IF they did this, I'd be sure to vote AGAINST every other GOP candidate on the ballot (and I doubt I'd be alone). Additionally, it may force Trump to abandon the GOP and run independent. This would absolutely destroy even a snowball's chance in hell of a GOP candidate's go at Hillary.

Basically, there is NO scenario I can see for the GOP winning the Presidency....shy of Trump, and that's a VERY slim chance. It would require the existence of tons of closet Trump-supporters (which there are plenty of) showing up at the polls and voting. That said, I still don't think we have any shot at derailing Hillary in the Oval Office.

The GOP thinks not having Trump on the ballot will save their Congressional chances. If Trump SHOULD have gotten the nomination, but doesn't....I think they'd see just how wrong that assumption is.

Of course, may be a non-issue, as we'll see how well this Cruz mistresses scandal plays out.

When I first heard it, sounded like a stunt, but it's got legs it seems...(like the payoff to Carly, etc.) Cruz's days may be numbered....

It looks like Cruz has a sex scandal on Twitter, I know not super reliable.

More reliable than you think. While the National Enquirer has a certain rep, it DOES excel in outing such affairs, and it already reported it. Likewise, this was then backed up by a Washington Times reporter, and a few other media sources. I have a feeling this is going to go way more mainstream over the weekend.

Scott Walker has said today that the nominee could be someone not currently in the race. It's being prepared so its not a big shock in the summer.

As for the NE story - it would seem the Washington Times reporter who tweeted and confirmed the story about 2 of the women as being true has been sacked. Meanwhile the MSM is low balling the biggest story in the 2016 election so far. Nearly 1m social media posts already and counting.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Things could get very interesting in the general... it might be a great chance for an independent to win.
If it's Killary vs Trump then 50% of each of their parties supporters will be holding their noses when they vote for them (if they are the only two).

Lets say a really smart outsider comes along and throws their hat in the ring - one who has been watching and planning based on policy, and reaction. They take a chunk of Killary's vote and a chunk of Trumps vote... they could win with 40%...

Does it have to be an independent? otherwise a true VISIONARY: Warren Buffet vs George Souros election.........Walt Disney is dead unfortunately.

a reply to: UKTruth

Originally, before running for President, I had quite positive thoughts of Cruz. After all , he was a proponent of the Constitution, unwaveringly critical of Hillary and Obama, the ACA, etc. A deeply religious man, and unlike others, I had no 'fear' of a truly faith guided individual.

Trey Gowdy and Cruz typified a sense of commitment to the values basic to the right wing of the political spectrum.

This election cycle as wacky as it is has actually exposed, unintended by all expect perhaps Trump, a level of deceit unequalled in my memory. The awareness of that deceit has reached all the way down to the grass roots.

In Cruz's case, The first was a local so-called 'conservative' by the name of Nedved, who pointed out Cruz's wife was a senior director at Goldman-Sachs. I tended to give Cruz a mulligan on that one...but it increased my 'alertness' in regards to Cruz as I really didn't know much about any of the candidates.

The next item that was of personal concern was a quote of Cruz defending GMOs. I found that unpleasant but rarely does anyone agree with a candidate on every issue. Another mulligan...

Then my big one, Trey Gowdy endorsing Rubio. A Tea Party leader endorsing the heir apparent to Jeb Bush as the Establishment's candidate!?!? Far worse, zero comment from Cruz or ANY TP leader whatsoever on that stunning flip-flop.

I then realized the TP had been subverted at their leadership level similar to Gingrich and his Contract with America.( If the TP wasn't a valid wing from the start). The whole political spectrum had been nothing more than a non-stop betrayal of the citizens....Depressing to say the least. Cruz suffered direct and collateral damage, as a result.

Next? Cruz sponsors a bill to Federalize home schooling. My daughter successfully home schools my two grandchildren and that one hit home. Constitutional? About as signal example of individual vs the federal gov't as it gets. As anti-constitutional as say the ACA!

Following that event, outright support for Monsanto, the outright owner of Blackwater....yes, THAT Blackwater. Then his childish attacks of Trump, following in Rubio's footsteps as his desperation increased.

Your examples of outright lies is the icing on the cake, in my mind. His donators are largely the same crowd as the rest, semantics aside. I am fed up with the Republicans using my morals and beliefs for nothing more than enhancing their individual power and profit.

That leaves Trump. The very brilliant wild card that scares the crap out of the whole D.C.crowd, almost without exception. The least of which will be the demise of the Republican Party, the formation of at least one, if not more, replacement parties whether Trump wins the nomination and is elected or not.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: UKTruth
That leaves Trump. The very brilliant wild card that scares the crap out of the whole D.C.crowd, almost without exception. The least of which will be the demise of the Republican Party, the formation of at least one, if not more, replacement parties whether Trump wins the nomination and is elected or not.

Selection of the Vice President running mate may actually decide the election results.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: UKTruth

Originally, before running for President, I had quite positive thoughts of Cruz. After all , he was a proponent of the Constitution, unwaveringly critical of Hillary and Obama, the ACA, etc. A deeply religious man, and unlike others, I had no 'fear' of a truly faith guided individual.

Trey Gowdy and Cruz typified a sense of commitment to the values basic to the right wing of the political spectrum.

This election cycle as wacky as it is has actually exposed, unintended by all expect perhaps Trump, a level of deceit unequalled in my memory. The awareness of that deceit has reached all the way down to the grass roots.

In Cruz's case, The first was a local so-called 'conservative' by the name of Nedved, who pointed out Cruz's wife was a senior director at Goldman-Sachs. I tended to give Cruz a mulligan on that one...but it increased my 'alertness' in regards to Cruz as I really didn't know much about any of the candidates.

The next item that was of personal concern was a quote of Cruz defending GMOs. I found that unpleasant but rarely does anyone agree with a candidate on every issue. Another mulligan...

Then my big one, Trey Gowdy endorsing Rubio. A Tea Party leader endorsing the heir apparent to Jeb Bush as the Establishment's candidate!?!? Far worse, zero comment from Cruz or ANY TP leader whatsoever on that stunning flip-flop.

I then realized the TP had been subverted at their leadership level similar to Gingrich and his Contract with America.( If the TP wasn't a valid wing from the start). The whole political spectrum had been nothing more than a non-stop betrayal of the citizens....Depressing to say the least. Cruz suffered direct and collateral damage, as a result.

Next? Cruz sponsors a bill to Federalize home schooling. My daughter successfully home schools my two grandchildren and that one hit home. Constitutional? About as signal example of individual vs the federal gov't as it gets. As anti-constitutional as say the ACA!

Following that event, outright support for Monsanto, the outright owner of Blackwater....yes, THAT Blackwater. Then his childish attacks of Trump, following in Rubio's footsteps as his desperation increased.

Your examples of outright lies is the icing on the cake, in my mind. His donators are largely the same crowd as the rest, semantics aside. I am fed up with the Republicans using my morals and beliefs for nothing more than enhancing their individual power and profit.

That leaves Trump. The very brilliant wild card that scares the crap out of the whole D.C.crowd, almost without exception. The least of which will be the demise of the Republican Party, the formation of at least one, if not more, replacement parties whether Trump wins the nomination and is elected or not.

Thanks for this
I did not know a few of those things you highlighted. Cruz is actually gaining momentum when he should be toast. That in itself is very suspicious. The over the top condemnation of Trump and the hatred and vilification of his character has been the single most startling thing about this campaign.

I have a feeling that there are no candidates that have been anti=establishment for years and Trump comes along and the entire left and right close ranks against him. It says a lot about what is going on and has been going on for years.

originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: UKTruth

UKTruth: I have a feeling that there are no candidates that have been anti=establishment for years and Trump comes along and the entire left and right close ranks against him. It says a lot about what is going on and has been going on for years.

The Democratic Party has the exact problem with (perceived left wing socialist) Bernie Sanders as the only other potential Candidate if something happens to derail the Clinton campaign; another Bill'ism or Federal charges brought against her.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Perhaps. Yet there is a sentiment that prevails that Sanders was positioned to present Hillary as the more moderate of the two remaining Democrat candidates. Certainly Sanders acts and gains traction from the millennials and may be the trial balloon for future further left
movement.


Who knows...

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Could be. I suppose it would depend on whether he needs to lock down the magic number before the convention or if close is good enough.


I'm convinced that if the Establishment broker this when Trump has a commanding lead but not locked down prior to the convention, the grass roots
will be forced to confront the fact that these guys do not represent the members.


Mass desertion from the republican party will ensue.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Perhaps. Yet there is a sentiment that prevails that Sanders was positioned to present Hillary as the more moderate of the two remaining Democrat candidates. Certainly Sanders acts and gains traction from the millennials and may be the trial balloon for future further left movement. Who knows...

I don't doubt that. It is almost as if the trial/experiment also extends to a Trump TV "reality star"; a testing of the waters (by our overlords) for future further manipulation of the masses (they; the candidates themselves may not even be aware they are being*used*).

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Could be. I suppose it would depend on whether he needs to lock down the magic number before the convention or if close is good enough.I'm convinced that if the Establishment broker this when Trump has a commanding lead but not locked down prior to the convention, the grass roots will be forced to confront the fact that these guys do not represent the members.
Mass desertion from the republican party will ensue.

It absolutely would; those that in good faith would abandon that leadership as was betrayed by the very party they believe in/support (rug pulled out from under them).

Republican party leadership started degrading the Republican "brand" when they announced that the will of the majority voting for Trump doesn't count for squat. Now Trump and Cruz are acting like adolescents via Twitter. My hopes for a Republican President in 2017 are fading, sadly.

originally posted by: carewemust
Republican party leadership started degrading the Republican "brand" when they announced that the will of the majority voting for Trump doesn't count for squat. Now Trump and Cruz are acting like adolescents via Twitter. My hopes for a Republican President in 2017 are fading, sadly.

I'd say the 'degrade' started long ago. That announcement is more like the death-knell. The establishment must love Cruz and Trump acting up on twitter.

Not to worry, the electorate are short attention spanned, to say the least. Hopefully, Trump take the high road soon.

P.S. An interesting afterthought. Cruz 'might' consider he would have had the nomination if Trump hadn't entered this. Being second and hated almost as much as Trump, himself, he may know he isn't going to win this. REVENGE! Try to take trump out with him....just a thought...

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

So you're of the assumption Trump isn't a liar like Cruz?

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

So you're of the assumption Trump isn't a liar like Cruz?

A big difference, in my mind is Cruz took an oath of office....like the rest of them, and has betrayed the public trust.

Trump? Meh. A lot of spin, but I'd say we all 'lie' ....hopefully not after an oath is sworn, of at least a lot less than the current lot.