For NeverTrumpers: An appeal to not vote Hillary over Trump

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, yjacket said:

So if you as a male shared cheesecake with a female co-worker at ~2:50am in the morning in a private setting, your wife would be fine with that.  And not just any female, but a very attractive young female?

As I understand it, it's not even confirmed that Cruz is who Carpenter was with; or that the two of them were alone.  But even if that was the case--obvviously, they were so ashamed of what they were doing and afraid of getting caught, that they FRICKIN' SENT OUT A TWEET ABOUT IT!!!!

Quote

Oh let's add a little bit more to it, this is the same reporter who tweeted out the night of the Iowa caucuses that Ben Carson was leaving the race.  

So here we have a very attractive woman who ~6 months earlier worked as Cruz's Communications Director, the two were obviously very close together (reading her tweets she is at best a fan-girl at worst something more). The Cruz campaign was then able to put out a report that CNN had reported that Ben Carson was leaving the race. The Cruz campaign had complete deniability . . ."it wasn't us, it was CNN".  Right, I'm to believe there was no collusion between this CNN reporter who worked as Cruz's communication director and the Cruz campaign?

Oh, dear, dear, dear.  It would seem your narrative is about to come apart at the seams.  Breitbart gives a timeline of that night in Iowa, here.  Carpenter's name is nowhere in it.  To the contrary, the Cruz campaign acted on a tweet from CNN's Chris Moody in conjunction with verbal commentary from Dana Bash and Jake Tapper.

Quote

She has tweets with pictures of him in his 20s saying things like "I love the floppy young lawyer hair", and "Daddy Cruz is going to get you".  

Two different issues.

1)  "Floppy young lawyer hair" mocks nerdiness.  'Nuff said.

2)  "Daddy Cruz is going to get you"? Look at the date--December 22, 2015.  Look at who it was addressed to--the Washington Post.  

On December 22, 2015, the Washington Post ran a cartoon depicting Cruz's two young daughters as dancing monkeys.

In context the "Daddy Cruz" makes perfect sense, because Cruz was defending his children.  

Quote

You'd give your suit coat jacket to a young pretty thing  and the picture is in a hotel room??? Come on man.

First off, you're thinking like Trump.  Not everyone sees a female in her thirties and thinks "young pretty thing" (or, as your guy would more directly put it, "piece of ____").  Some people just think--brace yourself--"person" or "co-worker", and if a person is cold and you're not, lending the person a jacket isn't beyond the realm of possibility.  (And it looks like Reddit is still aflame over whether that's even his jacket or not, due to the fit of the arms and so on).

Second, the picture isn't in a hotel room, it's in a public bathroom (you can see one of the stall doors off to the right).

Quote

Come on JAG, you are smarter than this.

A big part of my job is dealing with accusations of infidelity, both real and imagined.  So I am used to people making up BS like this, for pecuniary or other gain.

You've said Carpenter was the source of the Carson tweet.  You were wrong.

You've said "Daddy Cruz" denotes something bizarre.  You were wrong.

You've said the jacket pic was in a hotel bathroom.  You were wrong.

Yjacket, earlier in this thread you said:  

Quote

Look, I get it you hate Trump so much you can't even carry on a conversation about him.  I dislike both of them, but I can carry on a logical conversation about both. You simply see blood.

In the light of the utter frivolity of your innuendos about Cruz and Carpenter, perhaps you'd like to revisit that statement?

Edited April 26, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Heaven forbid I'm ever on the wrong side of an argument with Bro. JAG. 

[Vort]

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Vort said:

There's that photo again.  I LOVE it!

[yjacket]

Lol . . . you're going all Lawyer on me JAG, that's cool, you know what they say about lawwwyers or should I say liaaars.

I learned a long time ago the following: Admit Nothing, Deny Everything, Make Counter Accusations.

If I ever went to court, I'd make sure I'd want a scumbag lawyer on my side :-).

You can't admit your own bias-you are biased for Cruz and unless you had pictures of them doing the deed you'd deny it . . .in fact pictures you'd say; well you see her, that's not really Cruz, it's a look alike Cruz.

It's like I've said, when politics get involved people can't see what's right in front of their face.

No I won't revise my statement; you can't simply admit that yes there is evidence (you'd say what evidence!) that there was something suspicious going on. Deny, Deny, Deny, Counter, Counter, Counter, Counter.

Take the cheescake example.  The facts are that she was sharing a private desert setting at 2:00am in the morning, in the tweet she says STTE "after a hard day of work with my friend, he is sharing a piece of cake with me" . Who that "he" is???, I don't know, but no married professional in their right mind would do something like that with the opposite sex. If I'm her husband, we are having a nice chat. Who was she working for at this time? Cruz.

Look man, this isn't hard.  You want to make Cruz out to be this upstanding, moral, righteous white knight-he is not!!! He is a slimeball.  Now, you can say I agree with his policies (which I generally do). 

In sum, stop the love affair with him as this "Christian Conservative"-he is a politician, who will lie, steal and cheat.

How many times do I have to say, Trump is a egostistical narcisstic. But that isn't enough, I have to have this love affair with Cruz or I'm a "Trumpster" . . lol funny.

Edited April 26, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest]

1 minute ago, yjacket said:

Lol . . . you're going all Lawyer on me JAG, that's cool, you know what they say about lawwwyers or should I say liaaars.

I learned a long time ago the following: Admit Nothing, Deny Everything, Make Counter Accusations.

If I ever went to court, I'd make sure I'd want a scumbag lawyer like yourself on my side :-).

Does the smiley face make this personal attack acceptable?

[yjacket]

54 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Does the smiley face make this personal attack acceptable?

Well considering how many times I've said Trump is narcissistic. Then I get accused of frivolity (which I guess if adultery is frivolity, that's cool), then get accused of being for Trump.  Yeah, I'd say it is.  

Right, people say "Daddy Cruz" all the time when talking about a political candidate they like?

Right, people have a hard day at work then share dessert with a co-worker in a private setting with a person of the opposite sex that isn't their spouse? That's okay, that's perfectly fine.

Yes I absolutely would want the best slimy scumbag lawyer who can call white black and black white on my side in court. So that's actually a compliment on JAG's craft, b/c he is good at it. Because for a lawyer it's not about morality or doing what's morally right, it's about winning and just like Cruz, it's not about morality it is about winning. 

People get so bent out of shape because the politician they want to believe in so hard is in truth a scumbag; there are very, very few good, honest, decent elected officials.  You can tell who they are because they have a very long track record of doing what is right no matter the circumstances. Cruz does not have a long track record of being an elected official and doing what's right.

Look, vote for Cruz if you think his policies are the best policies, if you think he can bring this country around. But don't vote for him because you think he is the moral upstanding righteous guy in this race-b/c he's not.

And FYI, I do have relatives who are lawyers, so I do know when, how, and why they go all "lawyer". So if JAG wants to go all "lawyer" on me, I'll sling it back at him. The why is easy, they can't win the argument the good 'ol fashion way (or they are just playing around to get their kicks), so they resort to their lawyer tactics to prove the other person wrong.  I've had it happen multiple times to me from relatives, so I'm not an idiot at this.

 

Edited April 26, 2016 by yjacket

[yjacket]

JAG still won't admit that sharing dessert with a co-worker (or boss) of the opposite sex in a private setting at 2am in the morning is unacceptable.  Admit Nothing, Admit Nothing, Admit Nothing. Deny, Deny, Deny, Counter, Counter, Counter.

JAG, do you work for the Cruz campaign?

Edited April 26, 2016 by yjacket

[Vort]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

Lol . . . you're going all Lawyer on me JAG, that's cool, you know what they say about lawwwyers or should I say liaaars.

Seriously?

[Vort]

28 minutes ago, yjacket said:

So if JAG wants to go all "lawyer" on me, I'll sling it back at him.

But he didn't sling anything at you. His "going lawyer" on you consisted of pointing out the weaknesses in your arguments; I am sure he would be happy for you to return the favor. He did not engage in puerile rants and name-calling; again, I am sure he would be happy for you to return the favor.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, yjacket said:

JAG still won't admit that sharing dessert with a co-worker (or boss) of the opposite sex in a private setting at 2am in the morning is unacceptable.  Admit Nothing, Admit Nothing, Admit Nothing. Deny, Deny, Deny, Counter, Counter, Counter.

You may want to take a look at this thread.

Quote

Well considering how many times I've said Trump is narcissistic. Then I get accused of frivolity (which I guess if adultery is frivolity, that's cool), then get accused of being for Trump.  Yeah, I'd say it is.

To accuse your posts as frivolous is quite different than calling an individual a scumbag.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

You can't admit your own bias-you are biased for Cruz and unless you had pictures of them doing the deed you'd deny it . . .in fact pictures you'd say; well you see her, that's not really Cruz, it's a look alike Cruz.

 

Quote

Take the cheescake example.  The facts are that she was sharing a private desert setting at 2:00am in the morning, in the tweet she says STTE "after a hard day of work with my friend, he is sharing a piece of cake with me" . Who that "he" is???, I don't know, but no married professional in their right mind would do something like that with the opposite sex. If I'm her husband, we are having a nice chat. Who was she working for at this time? Cruz.

I think I've been pretty open about my preference for Cruz over Trump; unlike certain Trump supporters here who initially couched their pro-Trump arguments with lofty language about the good of the party and the need to unite against Hillary while disingenuously denying a preference for any particular candidate.  And, sure; that's naturally going to make anyone slower to believe accusations against their preferred candidate (you don't believe Trump raped Ivana, I suspect, even though she made the accusation under oath).

That said, the case against Cruz is extraordinarily flimsy; and as I've shown repeatedly above, you are woefully unaware of the factual circumstances underlying your case.  You present Cruz as an adulterer, but you really don't even know why he is--you are just taking it on faith that it is so, trusting that the factual support is "out there", somewhere.

Oh, and by the way - it wasn't cheesecake Carpenter shared with a friend, it was cheese; you still haven't established that Carpenter and her companion were alone; and given that you continue to besmirch her even though you concede you don't know who she was with--well, that's right out of the Trump playbook, I guess.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

 

Note date and time

Edited April 26, 2016 by yjacket

[yjacket]

46 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

I think I've been pretty open about my preference for Cruz over Trump; unlike certain Trump supporters here who initially couched their pro-Trump arguments with lofty language about the good of the party and the need to unite against Hillary while disingenuously denying a preference for any particular candidate.  And, sure; that's naturally going to make anyone slower to believe accusations against their preferred candidate (you don't believe Trump raped Ivana, I suspect, even though she made the accusation under oath).

That said, the case against Cruz is extraordinarily flimsy; and as I've shown repeatedly above, you are woefully unaware of the factual circumstances underlying your case.  You present Cruz as an adulterer, but you really don't even know why he is--you are just taking it on faith that it is so, trusting that the factual support is "out there", somewhere.

Oh, and by the way - it wasn't cheesecake Carpenter shared with a friend, it was cheese; you still haven't established that Carpenter and her companion were alone; and given that you continue to besmirch her even though you concede you don't know who she was with--well, that's right out of the Trump playbook, I guess.

Lol . . . I have made political observations.  Nominating Cruz over Trump when Trump has received a significantly more votes would signal to Joe Blow their vote doesn't matter.  If that is the message you want to send-go ahead. If you do that, you run a very high risk that many people simply won't vote for your guy in the fall.  You will end up losing to Clinton/Sanders. That isn't a bias, that is a simple fact. Not understanding that as a fact is a bias.

As far as the Trump, stuff, yeah it's pretty bad.  If true very horrible. Hey look, unlike someone I can say yeah if it's true it is bad!! Oh my.

How many times do I have to say, I won't vote for either, both are narcissist and not exactly role models.  My case is flimsy?? more like you just don't want to see any smoke.  There is plenty of smoke out there that Cruz is an adulterer. Watch his facial expressions when denying it. 

Right and now it is me who is bismirching her, dragging her through the mud-it's my fault right?? She is the one who put up the tweets, being stupid about what you post, isn't my fault-that's hers.  

All I know, is that if my wife was on a business trip (she is and was married at this time), in a slinky dress, didn't have a wedding band on, ate cheese, or whatever @ 2am with another man, wore another man's suit jacket coat while dressed up while away on a business trip. If my wife were posting what she posted, she and I would be having some serious discussions.

I guess you'd be okay with your wife doing those things . . . that's cool. No big deal-I'm done. It's not worth my time or energy.  I'll just come back in 6 months and say told ya so.

[anatess2]

Okay guys... let's bring this back.

This is not a Never Cruz thread....

Cruz or Trump it doesn't matter.  They're both LOADS BETTER than Hillary.  Vote for Cruz or Trump in the general.  Or even Kasich - although, that would be a very difficult thing to sell to the Party.  Cruz, as it stands right now, will be a very difficult thing to sell to the Party.  You know why Trump's "rigged election" stump speech is sticking?  Because... what Cruz is doing right now with the delegates resonates with a lot of Tea Partiers who have fought tooth and nail to put representatives to represent their will.  They go to Congress and they get thrown against the Senate Rules Committee or the House Rules Committee and get silenced through backroom dealings and what-not and all their promises to their constituents go by the wayside silencing the people once again.  Cruz, right now, is projecting an image of using these rules and these backroom systems to separate the delegates from the will of the people - this may not be reality (i.e. if Colorado was to straw, it could well be that the people truly want Cruz by a big margin), but the impression is there.

So, as of today - neither Cruz nor Kasich gets majority guaranteed.  So none of their reasonings against Trump - like, 62% of the people rejected Trump - that goes back at them - they rejected Cruz or Kasich by a bigger %... etc.  You just can't make the case anymore at this stage to weaken Trump.  So a unity ticket is imperative.

Now, if I was Trump, this is going to be my next stump speech - my unity speech (in complete Trump-speak):

Lyin' Ted.  He holds the bible up, puts it down and starts lying.  He lies so much he can argue with Bill Clinton on what the meaning of "is" is.  But that's okay.  I get along with everybody.  It's true!  I know the most vicious people, they work for me.  The best of them will be working on renegotiating our trade deals.  This election is so rigged and Lyin' Ted knows exactly how to manipulate the system.  He took votes from Ben Carson - who endorsed me, by the way.  He took votes from Little Marco.  He is the best debater - nobody is better, except me.  He debates very well until I start interrupting him every 15 words or so.  But, Presidents don't debate.  They execute.  Senators debate all day long.  But Senators have to be elected, so there's a better place for Ted Cruz than the Senate.  Now all these people ask me for my list of Supreme Court Nominees.  I have my list.  There's only one name in it.  One name.  It's true!  Ted Cruz.  That's the only name.  He is the best on the Constitution.  He is the best with Conservatives.  There is nobody more conservative than Ted, nobody better than Ted on the Constitution.  He is so literal with the Constitution as it is founded that he can out-Scalia Scalia!  When I'm President... when I'm President... within 6 months... SIX MONTHS... Ted Cruz will be a Supreme Court Judge.  BELIEVE ME!

 

 

Edited April 26, 2016 by anatess2

[estradling75]

15 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Lol . . . I have made political observations.  Nominating Cruz over Trump when Trump has received a significantly more votes would signal to Joe Blow their vote doesn't matter.

 

And that right there is a really big problem...  Joe Blow is ignorant on how Politics happen.  We are a Representative Republic not a democracy.  The reason candidate want 1237 delegate votes before the convention... is not because it is what is required to WIN the nomination, but because it is what is required to make it a given.  The fact that Cruz can no longer get that number before the convention doesn't make him out of the race.

It just means he needs to pick them up during the convention, after the delegates become free to vote for whom they think is best. (this is why who you voted for matters because they are representing you).

It doesn't seem likely that anyone is going to get the required 1237 delegates.  This means if the candidates are as smart and as savvy as there supporters like to claim then they need to be working on convincing Our Representatives (aka the delegates) that they are the one to vote for once the delegate is free from the required vote.

It is being unified after the convention that matters.  And that is where I am afraid the republicans are going to fall apart.   I am thinking that if Trump doesn't win the convention, that he can't "close the deal" with the republican party,  that he will go independent, and split the party...  Giving the election to the democrats

 

 

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

And that right there is a really big problem...  Joe Blow is ignorant on how Politics happen.  We are a Representative Republic not a democracy.  The reason candidate want 1237 delegate votes before the convention... is not because it is what is required to WIN the nomination, but because it is what is required to make it a given.  The fact that Cruz can no longer get that number before the convention doesn't make him out of the race.

It just means he needs to pick them up during the convention, after the delegates become free to vote for whom they think is best. (this is why who you voted for matters because they are representing you).

It doesn't seem likely that anyone is going to get the required 1237 delegates.  This means if the candidates are as smart and as savvy as there supporters like to claim then they need to be working on convincing Our Representatives (aka the delegates) that they are the one to vote for once the delegate is free from the required vote.

It is being unified after the convention that matters.  And that is where I am afraid the republicans are going to fall apart.   I am thinking that if Trump doesn't win the convention, that he can't "close the deal" with the republican party,  that he will go independent, and split the party...  Giving the election to the democrats

 

 

 

See the first part of my post above.  I don't know why people think Joe Blow is stupid.  Jeff Sessions, Ben Carson, Allen West, Rudy Gulliani... they're not stupid.  Paul Manafort, especially, is not stupid.  (I have to say, I am really impressed by Trump's choice of Manafort - I've known Manafort from the Marcos days!)

Edited April 26, 2016 by anatess2

[estradling75]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

See the first part of my post above.  I don't know why people think Joe Blow is stupid.  Jeff Sessions, Ben Carson, Allen West, Rudy Gulliani... they're not stupid.  Paul Manafort, especially, is not stupid.  (I have to say, I am really impressed by Trump's choice of Manafort - I've known Manafort from the Marcos days!)

 

Ask yjacket he is the one claiming that it would be a signal that his (Joe Blows) vote doesn't matter...  Which is only true if Joe Blow doesn't understand the Republican part of the Republican Party

 

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 

Ask yjacket he is the one claiming that it would be a signal that his (Joe Blows) vote doesn't matter...  Which is only true if Joe Blow doesn't understand the Republican part of the Republican Party

 

Or Joe Blow is one of those Tea Partiers that went to all the meetings and sent Marco Rubio to the Senate only for him to put up a Gang of 8 Bill.  You know... the ones whose voices got stomped on by the political machinery.

I was driving one time and had the radio on Sean Hannity and some delegate from Florida called into his show and Sean asked her - how do you justify voting for Cruz on the 2nd ballot when the people of Florida clearly picked Trump?  And she said - the people do not vote the GOP nominee, Sean!  The GOP does!  And Sean said - wait, wait... the GOP is the people that voted in Florida, right?  And she said... no, we are the GOP.  We put a lot of effort on grassroots and even put up our own money to promote the GOP platform.  So Sean asks - so why bother with primary elections?  And she said - we really don't need elections.  It really is just to make people feel comfortable about the process.

Now, that's not a Representative Republic.  A Representative Republic is when a group of people chose a Representative to speak for them... not speak despite of them.

[Just_A_Guy]

52 minutes ago, yjacket said:

 

Note date and time

An hour and three minutes after Moody's tweet. 

The vixen!!!!!

Quote

All I know, is that if my wife was on a business trip (she is and was married at this time), in a slinky dress, didn't have a wedding band on, ate cheese, or whatever @ 2am with another man, wore another man's suit jacket coat while dressed up while away on a business trip. If my wife were posting what she posted, she and I would be having some serious discussions.

I guess you'd be okay with your wife doing those things . . . that's cool.

Considering that the dress, other than being sleveless, wasn't THAT slinky, thar Reddit continues to debate whether they can see the glint of a ring or not, that my wife is a sucker for cheese, and that it's not at all established that they were alone together . . .

I think I'd have a little more faith in my wife.

[LeSellers]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

A Representative Republic is when a group of people chose a Representative to speak for them... not speak despite of them.

You were the one who reminded us that the Republican Party, like the Democrat Party, or the Libertarian Party or … well, you get the idea, is a private club and the members set the rules. Parties are not democracies (especially the Democrat Party).

The original Constitution did not cater to parties, as it did beginning in 1804 with the ratification of the XII. It was a very bad idea for many reasons, not least of which is that it reduces the power of the people and of the states to elect the president of the united States of America.

No one who cherishes freedom can want a direct election of the president, but he doesn't want the people to lose their voice in the selection, either.

Lehi

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

You were the one who reminded us that the Republican Party, like the Democrat Party, or the Libertarian Party or … well, you get the idea, is a private club and the members set the rules. Parties are not democracies (especially the Democrat Party).

The original Constitution did not cater to parties, as it did beginning in 1804 with the ratification of the XII. It was a very bad idea for many reasons, not least of which is that it reduces the power of the people and of the states to elect the president of the united States of America.

No one who cherishes freedom can want a direct election of the president, but he doesn't want the people to lose their voice in the selection, either.

Lehi

Yes, it's a private club.  They get to make the rules.

But, Republicans decided they're going to be a Representative Republic... where delegates represent the will of the people.  They could always just say - the State's RNC chairman select the nominee without regard for the people and that would be just fine... private club and all.  But, when you're trying to pass yourself as a Representative Republic system, at least make it Representative... otherwise, don't.  Then you don't have disenfranchised people caught in the mix wondering where their representatives went.

Of course, this has nothing to do with Ted Cruz.  He's doing a brilliant job of staying alive in this election cycle.

In my opinion, the Democratic Party primaries is a better organized system.  The rules are very clear - here are your representatives (bound delegates)... they represent the people and will express their will at all times (can't be unbound).  Then they have the party representatives (super delegates) who can vote who they want - they don't represent the masses.

Edited April 26, 2016 by anatess2

[LeSellers]

21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Republicans decided they're going to be a Representative Republic... where delegates represent the will of the people.  They could always just say - the State's RNC chairman select the nominee without regard for the people and that would be just fine... private club and all.  But, when you're trying to pass yourself as a Representative Republic system, at least make it Representative... otherwise, don't.

I have no argument with the position. It's the reality that is problematic.

The Republican Party is not the voters who are registered as Republicans, it's those who staff the phone banks, the precinct captains, the committee members. They dedicate (part of) their lives to the mechanism, and they have the right (and the power) to set the rules. The casual citizen doesn't have the moral right to step in at the last minute and dictate what those who do the hard, slogging, day-to-day work how to run the party, which rules are "right" and who should control the apparatus.

Lazy Republicans are to blame for where the party is. If anyone objects, and he hasn't "infiltrated" the structure, he has no one to blame but himself.

Lehi

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I have no argument with the position. It's the reality that is problematic.

The Republican Party is not the voters who are registered as Republicans, it's those who staff the phone banks, the precinct captains, the committee members. They dedicate (part of) their lives to the mechanism, and they have the right (and the power) to set the rules. The casual citizen doesn't have the moral right to step in at the last minute and dictate what those who do the hard, slogging, day-to-day work how to run the party, which rules are "right" and who should control the apparatus.

Lazy Republicans are to blame for where the party is. If anyone objects, and he hasn't "infiltrated" the structure, he has no one to blame but himself.

Lehi

I have no problem with that either.  But they need to be clear about it - when you have a party that spends millions on "get out the vote" efforts you expect your vote to count.  Otherwise, spend your millions on telling people why the delegate would choose X.

This applies the same way in Congress - you expect the House to carry out a mandate.  And, because they made Senators elected positions, they have to carry out the mandate as well.  Otherwise, they shouldn't put out the illusion that they are going to do what they promised to do on the campaign.

If you're referring to the voting public as the Lazy Republicans then it's a silly accusation.  That's WHY we have a Representative Republic.  Because we don't all have the time nor the nitty-gritty know-how to carry out governance... even in this information age.

Edited April 26, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

P.S.  I just want to be clear.  I have no issue with the Republican Primary System.  It's their rules, they can make it however they want it.

I am simply stating the impression it is making on a lot Republicans (65% of Wisconsinians and 72% of New Yorkers).  It's not the usual turn of events to get to April and still not have a nominee so fighting over delegates has surfaced a lot of these things that didn't used to matter.