TexasCHLforum.com

This is just my thoughts on a Texan in the presidential race. As I'm sure we all know Texas Senator Ted Cruz is in the race. It's my opinion that since he is the only Texan in the race shouldn't all of us Texans vote for him in the primary regardless of your party affiliations? For those in the Democrat, Independent or other parties, they would at least have a Texan in the White House if their nominee loses in the general election. This would be to your advantage in my opinion. This is not meant to side with any party or candidate, or a discussion on who is better or worse. Just an idea and my opinion.

By that token would you vote for Wendy Davis if she was the only Texan in the race? Where is the sarcasm emoji?

Wait, I see what you did. Yes, get all your liberal friends, uh acquaintances, to vote for Cruz in the primary. If they are dems, they get to vote more than once.

I think Ted is a decent guy. He has no chance in general election however. Just my opinion.
Too many drones floating in the electorate these days.

By the way, fact that he retained his Canadian citizenship until just recently really irks me, as I renounced mine the second I was eligible for US citizenship.

For those who'd say "it doesn't bother me...", would you feel the same if he kept Iraqi or UAE citizenship while serving as your Texas Senator?

Anyways...all on the republican side are better then commie and the criminal.

Gee, I don't know... The Donald says Cruz is a lier and cheat. For some really odd reason lots of folks think whatever The Donald says is okay. And if The Donald doesn't do well in Texas he might have hard feelings for the state if and when he's elected president.

Mitt or Sarah, where are you when we need you?

dale blanker wrote: Mitt or Sarah, where are you when we need you?

Mitt is busy bashing Trump these days. Sarah actually endorsed Trump, so, DT was good enough for her.

I've said before and I'll say it again; ANY person on the elephant side is better then commie or the criminal.
In the general election, DT has the highest chances of winning, incidentally.
So, we either get 60% of something with Trump, or, we will get 100% of nothing with either donkey Marxist candidates.

For me, it's about winning. I want us to win the WH, Cruz or Rubio simply cannot get the vote volume that Trump can. It will be more evident after next Tuesday that if they struggle to even come within 10% from Trump in the primary race, where majority of your vote is conservative base, then how will they get the blue collar democrat voters, independents etc. , who are an important voting block for the general election?

Read the specifics of Trumps stance on host of issues, especially 2A, Veterans care, Immigration reform etc.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

dale blanker wrote:Gee, I don't know... The Donald says Cruz is a lier and cheat. For some really odd reason lots of folks think whatever The Donald says is okay. And if The Donald doesn't do well in Texas he might have hard feelings for the state if and when he's elected president.

Mitt or Sarah, where are you when we need you?

That is part of the problem, some people still follow those who have proven they are not to be followed. Mitt did what Mitt was told to do. Sarah did her own thing and then quit when it was not easy.

One of the problems with Trump and his positions is the fact he didn't take his current positions until he started contemplating a run for president about five years ago and realized his best chance would be on the republican ticket. He is a campaign conservative republican.

Why do people not realize he is just another RINO? Until recently he was pro abortion, wanted limits on what guns citizens could own, for the individual mandate, espoused government paid health insurance, thinks he can tax and tariff businesses back to the U.S., use imminent domain for private profit and supported progressive democrats in helping them win elected office.

I think spring Trump is just another case of one cutting their noise of to spite their face as he is capitalizing on conservatives' justified anger.


Here is just one example of Trump changing his position to fit his agenda.

Check out @tedcruz's Tweet:

mojo84 wrote:One of the problems with Trump and his positions is the fact he didn't take his current positions until he started contemplating a run for president about five years ago and realized his best chance would be on the republican ticket. He is a campaign conservative republican.

Why do people not realize he is just another RINO? Until recently he was pro abortion, wanted limits on what guns citizens could own, for the individual mandate, espoused government paid health insurance, thinks he can tax and tariff businesses back to the U.S., use imminent domain for private profit and supported progressive democrats in helping them win elected office.

I think spring Trump is just another case of one cutting their noise of to spite their face as he is capitalizing on conservatives' justified anger.


Here is just one example of Trump changing his position to fit his agenda.

Check out @tedcruz's Tweet:

Yes, Trump used eminent domain for his business. And you know who else did? That's right, Bush family.

I didn't say you'll get 100% with DT. I said 60%.

But again, 60% of something we value is better then 100% of Marxism, which is what you'll get if you don't vote for Trump, as Cruz or Rubio are not winning the GE.

I'll take this topic on again after next Tuesday, where I'll either concede that I'm wrong with respect to their electability, or echo Trump's victory.

The Bush family isn't the ultimate standard by which all should be judged.

Cruz has been the most consistent in standing up for his principles. I also do not believe Cruz is as unelectable as many think. If the claimed republicans will get behind him in the general, he will beat Hillary. If they pout and decide to be vindictive, of course Hillary will win and that goes for all of the candidates.

I bet if only one or two of Cruz, Rubio, Kasich or Carson were running, Trump wouldn't be leading the pack. The true conservative vote is split and diluted at this point.

Trump threatens to run as an independent "if not treated fairly" whatever he decides that might be.

Conventional wisdom is that the result would put the Democrat in the WH, but it might result in no candidate receiving 270 electoral votes, in which case the President is chosen in the House. Each state gets one vote, and with most state delegations having a GOP majority, presumably the GOP candidate would be elected. The Veep is chosen in the Senate, same rules.

Another scenario is that a non-Trump gets the nomination, Trump runs as an indendent, and right as the race gets going after Labor Day, Hillary is indicted and perp-walked in to the local Stoney Lonesome for booking. That would throw the cat amongst the pigeons, wouldn't it?

For those that prefer Trump over Cruz. Listen to what came from the horses mouth.

Interesting article about Trump's past support and donations. It's obvious he isn't above paying off politicians in both sides. However, his contributions tilt towards the democrats such as Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel, Charlie Rangel and the Clintons.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/03/donal ... -in-power/

None of whom are pro 2nd Amendment conservatives.

If we as conservatives can't pull together, no doubt Billery wins. The garbage they are doing now is tearing the Republican Party apart and I blame most of that on Trump with his mudslinging from the beginning. The other have no choice but to retaliate. Cruz tried to maintain dignity as did Rubio but Trump just kept throwing daggers until the others decided enough and fought back. Too late? Perhaps but I am not sure I want Trump to have his finger anywhere near the football

RPBrown wrote:If we as conservatives can't pull together, no doubt Billery wins. The garbage they are doing now is tearing the Republican Party apart and I blame most of that on Trump with his mudslinging from the beginning. The other have no choice but to retaliate. Cruz tried to maintain dignity as did Rubio but Trump just kept throwing daggers until the others decided enough and fought back. Too late? Perhaps but I am not sure I want Trump to have his finger anywhere near the football

I agree. He's to much of a loose cannon. He IS a super slick salesman. But salesmen, no matter how slick they are, can make a good president.

parabelum wrote:

mojo84 wrote:One of the problems with Trump and his positions is the fact he didn't take his current positions until he started contemplating a run for president about five years ago and realized his best chance would be on the republican ticket. He is a campaign conservative republican.

Why do people not realize he is just another RINO? Until recently he was pro abortion, wanted limits on what guns citizens could own, for the individual mandate, espoused government paid health insurance, thinks he can tax and tariff businesses back to the U.S., use imminent domain for private profit and supported progressive democrats in helping them win elected office.

I think spring Trump is just another case of one cutting their noise of to spite their face as he is capitalizing on conservatives' justified anger.


Here is just one example of Trump changing his position to fit his agenda.

Check out @tedcruz's Tweet:

Yes, Trump used eminent domain for his business. And you know who else did? That's right, Bush family.

I didn't say you'll get 100% with DT. I said 60%.

But again, 60% of something we value is better then 100% of Marxism, which is what you'll get if you don't vote for Trump, as Cruz or Rubio are not winning the GE.

I'll take this topic on again after next Tuesday, where I'll either concede that I'm wrong with respect to their electability, or echo Trump's victory.

Interesting thing.... Democrats nominate whom they want. Republicans nominate whom they think is electable against a hard left candidate. Democrats have won the last two general elections following that strategy. Back when republicans followed that strategy, they won two general elections. Even if they win, getting a "60% republican" each time simply shifts the nation further left each election cycle, but at a slightly slower rate. I'm an independent Liberative Conservatarian these days, and I am no longer holding my nose to vote for the lesser of two evils. The country I grew up in is finished anyway, so I might as well vote my conscience.