Ted Cruz Booed After Failing to Endorse Trump: ‘Vote Your Conscience’

a reply to: Stormdancer777

To be on the news all day today, that's why he did it. He is hoping Trump loses so he can say, "See, I told you he wasn't the one to win, now vote of me in 4 years. I'm honest as the day is long, except when it's not in my best interest, then screw it, I will lie cheat and smear anyone I have to do win." Ok, so he won't say that last sentence, but that will be the truth. Cruz' side attacked Trump's wife first, and Trump responded. People seem to only focus on what Trump did, not why he did it.

Cruz never denounced what they did to Melania, and he never apologized to Mr. Trump for starting it.

a reply to: UKTruth

In a couple of your posts you seem to be confusing the point about 'if he was not going to endorse then he should not have shown up' [sic] with blocking someone from speaking.

You seem to have a problem understanding the English language. I never said anything about stopping him I said support his rights. You do know stop and support are two totally different words right? If you need it I can post their definitions.

The argument is not that he should not have been ALLOWED to speak, rather that the right thing to do would have been to stay away.

So how would he been allowed to make his speech if he wasn't there? Someone going against Trump is needed at the convention just to see how Trump will deal with them because if he cannot even deal with someone from his own party then he's dogmeat when he faces Clinton.

The fact that he DID speak tells you that it's probably correct that blocking free speech is more of a liberal disease.

Someone from the UK that doesn't understand plain English that's a laugh.
We'll have to wait and see won't we?

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

That is not what happened. Rather than taking heat during the primary season by simply saying, "I will support everyone except Donald Trump. He's not going to win, so that won't matter." No, Cruz didn't think Trump could win so he signed the pledge. What good is a pledge if you don't keep it? How about our military all take their oath and then say, "Um, no, I don't want to go over there."

For God's sake...do not compare a pledge to a political party to the military oath...And damn right...Soldiers would disobey an oath to obey if the order was out of bounds of the constitution. For eff sake...Trump attacked Cruz's wife..on her appearance...and accused his father of killing JFK. I don't like Cruz, but he had no obligation to endorse Trump after that insanity. You can't demand that Cruz put politics before his own family. Just BS.

a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

How about our military all take their oath and then say, "Um, no, I don't want to go over there."

That would be fine with me

It's an interesting question though - worth thinking about

At what point is conscientious objection more important than an oath?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

On a second read, I see they probably mean the convention committee provided Collins' remarks to the Business Insider.

Which brings me back to my original thought...why the heII would she include the endorsement in her own prepared speech if she didn't intend to endorse him??

Very, very odd.

For clarity..Cuz I heard CNN discuss convention speech process ad nauseum last night after the Cruz debacle..

(1) The person giving the speech prepares a speech
(2) They give it to the convention committee for final approval and editing
(3) Like with Cruz...the Convention Committee adds/edits in an endorsement of Donald Trump as standard.
(4) The final speech after editing is given/returned to the Speech Giver and given to the tele-prompter folks and distributed to media in transcript form.

Ah, thank you for sharing.

a reply to: Indigo5

Picking and choosing what battle to go to has nothing to do with the constitution. Pledges show a persons character. If they don't agree with it, then don't sign it. My point was pledging. It points to character, and the character of the President is just as important as any military pledge.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Nikola014

As I can see it, the only ones applauding Cruz are hillary's supporters.

And the people who actually sees Trump for what he really is a clueless bully that isn't fit to run for the job of dogcatcher.

So, I would say the Republican Party is pretty united, if you exclude a couple of boys whose ego's are hurt because they lost fair and square.

When all the important republicans stay away from the convention it's hardly a sign that they are united.

Important Republicans lol.. Like Mittens and the Bushes, or greedy Kasich?
You are amusing, I'll give you that!

Ever hear of a group of people that have been elected into a little group called the American Congress? Just how many of them showed up? About all that showed up are a bunch of people who will be out of a job next November.
Perhaps you should study up on American politics because right now you are just like Trump clueless but you are a foreigner so that's to be expected and forgiven.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: UKTruth

In a couple of your posts you seem to be confusing the point about 'if he was not going to endorse then he should not have shown up' [sic] with blocking someone from speaking.

You seem to have a problem understanding the English language. I never said anything about stopping him I said support his rights. You do know stop and support are two totally different words right? If you need it I can post their definitions.

The argument is not that he should not have been ALLOWED to speak, rather that the right thing to do would have been to stay away.

So how would he been allowed to make his speech if he wasn't there? Someone going against Trump is needed at the convention just to see how Trump will deal with them because if he cannot even deal with someone from his own party then he's dogmeat when he faces Clinton.

The fact that he DID speak tells you that it's probably correct that blocking free speech is more of a liberal disease.

Someone from the UK that doesn't understand plain English that's a laugh.
We'll have to wait and see won't we?

You are very confusing as well as amusing.
You seem very upset about your silly comment about free speech. Don't worry, I understand you just misspoke.

a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

All the remaining candidates backed out of the pledge at the same time (Trump, Kasich, and Cruz). The three affected parties were no longer in agreement on the pledge. I see no problem with them reaching a new agreement.

DP

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity
a reply to: Indigo5

Picking and choosing what battle to go to has nothing to do with the constitution. Pledges show a persons character. If they don't agree with it, then don't sign it. My point was pledging. It points to character, and the character of the President is just as important as any military pledge.

The military OATH is not a PLEDGE...

And a Pledge to support a nominee should not be kept after a candidate personally attacks your wife and father..

And here is the Military Oath
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

See the bit about "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." when swearing to follow orders?

I would argue that political campaign pledges are also subject to qualifiers...For example...not having to endorse a candidate that accuses your father of assassinating JFK and publicly attacks your wife based on her looks.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Nikola014

As I can see it, the only ones applauding Cruz are hillary's supporters.

And the people who actually sees Trump for what he really is a clueless bully that isn't fit to run for the job of dogcatcher.

So, I would say the Republican Party is pretty united, if you exclude a couple of boys whose ego's are hurt because they lost fair and square.

When all the important republicans stay away from the convention it's hardly a sign that they are united.

Important Republicans lol.. Like Mittens and the Bushes, or greedy Kasich?
You are amusing, I'll give you that!

Ever hear of a group of people that have been elected into a little group called the American Congress? Just how many of them showed up? About all that showed up are a bunch of people who will be out of a job next November.
Perhaps you should study up on American politics because right now you are just like Trump clueless but you are a foreigner so that's to be expected and forgiven.

You've been consuming a little too much TV and getting confused about what is actually happening
But being a liberal that's to be expected and forgiven

a reply to: defiythelie

I will buy an extra 2ply roll for your pants come Nov. 2016. Trump is a done deal. POTUS, Donald J. Trump!

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Domo1

He has always, and I expect will always, make my skin crawl. *shudders*

It's strange you say that, but so many women I know have said the very same thing. Interesting.

a reply to: Indigo5

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: MotherMayEye

According to my post above, reports were that she was criticized for getting involved in politics, even though it is obvious that she was trying to promote space exploration.
She has previously been critical of Obama for cutting their programs, so it is not surprising she would be speaking at the convention.

My theory - the attacks on her came from the Clinton Machine.

Another speaker said that she was also attacked mercilessly on social media after she was announced as a speaker.

So, to try to ease the criticism of being political, Collins left the name out.
She obviously originally had that in there, but was bullied into not saying it.

Which, in my opinion, says more about the viciousness of Hillary supporters instead of anything at all about Collins not supporting Trump.

Trump and his followers are way too exclusive. They turn to cannibals on their own kind. They're a mob that has thrown away conscience. They prioritize bootlicking above principle. They boo at anything less than total subservience. Let's just say... I'm not convinced that's a wise group to side with.

a reply to: xuenchen

Why should Cruz specifically endorse Trump? He said, "vote your conscience" and gave convincing talking points regarding pro-Republican / anti-Hillary jargon, so he essentially endorsed the Republican candidate thereby fulfilling his pledge. Republicans voting their conscience in this matter is taking the form of specifically voting against Hillary, and I imagine Cruz will cast his ballot in favor of Trump for that very reason. At least, that's the impression I got out of his speech.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

The problem is he didn't lick the boot from top to bottom. That's apparently now the requirement for Trump supporters. They are a fickle bunch. A few years ago they were all for McCain, then for Romney, now those two are banished. Even a few months ago, Trump was deemed a mole for Clinton to get her elected. Now he's the second coming. They could just as easily turn on Trump again...

This is truly the result of all these years of insane right-wing extremist propaganda. We all saw it in the making... we all knew that only so much filth can be spewed without consequence... The hate, the xenophobia, the anti-reason, anti-science. And now look at them. Mob bootlickers without conscience who boo and shout down matters of principle.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Why should Cruz specifically endorse Trump?

Simple question. Simple answer.

Because all the Republican presidential candidates were asked and questioned on whether or not they would promise to support the party's nominee. They all agreed, even Ted Cruz. "Word is bond"!

They thought they concocted a big "gotcha" problem for Trump, who was hemming and hawing, threatening to go 3rd party rogue if they didn't start treating him fairly. But Trump finally also committed to the promise to support the party's nominee.

Now it's time for the chickens to come home, for everyone to make good on their promises, or be guilty of lying to the Republican party and the American people.

"Word is bond"! Ted Cruz is a big fat liar! He should have stood by the conviction of the consciousness in the first place.

Cruz puts his political career ahead of his country — and it backfires

As if to punctuate his own bitter whining over losing, Mr. Cruz actually told conventioneers that New York is different from Iowa, reviving the major theme of his losing campaign against Mr. Trump. And reminding folks that, yes, he won the Iowa caucuses and for a very brief moment was the Republican front-runner.

As he wound up his non-endorsement speech, the convention hall grew restless. Delegates began to realize that the rude political has-been was actually going to withhold an endorsement.
...
It would have been humiliating for the senator if he had been listening. Instead, he remained laser-focused on a speech he hoped would set him up for another presidential run in 2020. This, of course, would be banking on the deep hope that Donald Trump loses in November. And Hillary Clinton wins.

This is a man whose arrogance and ego know no bounds.
...
This is a man who loves himself and his political career so much more than his country.
...
Good riddance.

Quite a scathing editorial!