Trump is honored to have Cruz' support. Official press release came out.

Cruz officially tied to Trump. He has been assimilated.

He was the main person in the GOP field in 2015 who defended Trump during his initial ascension, then attacked him when he realized he wasn't going away, then really went off on him, then became one of the few principled holdouts, now supports him.

Werthless wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It can't hurt. I'm not sure a person exists whose consideration goes "I was planning to support Donald Trump, a man backed by most prominent conservatives, but now that Ted Cruz is on board, no thanks!"

But I doubt it moves the needle much. Most of Trump's problems with GOP voters are with moderates and somewhat conservatives.

I don't know. There's gotta be someone out there who is considering Trump solely because of decades of Clinton-loathing but also hates bloviating, self-aggrandizing politicians like Ted Cruz. By surrounding himself with people like Cruz, Christie, et al., doesn't Trump run the risk of that person's distaste for his motley crew of supporters overcoming that person's distaste for Hillary?

And the flip side is that I can't imagine there are too many in the #NeverTrump movement that are swayed by a Ted Cruz endorsement. This seems like a zero-sum gain for Trump at best to me. Sure, Cruz beat Trump in Iowa, but Trump is already leading there.

An endorsement is different from whatever it is that Christie and Trump have together. I imagine that Cruz offers a weak endorsement and limited, if any, fundraising support for Trump. And it's not like Cruz's endorsement adds any obligation to Trump.

So the fact that he said that he didn't respect Cruz, didn't want his endorsement, and wouldn't accept it...

and now has said that he's "honored" by the endorsement and accepts it...

that's not a bad thing for Trump? The story isn't that Trump got a prominent endorsement... it's about Cruz being gutless and Trump reversing himself. At best that makes it a net zero for him, which was my point.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Werthless wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It can't hurt. I'm not sure a person exists whose consideration goes "I was planning to support Donald Trump, a man backed by most prominent conservatives, but now that Ted Cruz is on board, no thanks!"

But I doubt it moves the needle much. Most of Trump's problems with GOP voters are with moderates and somewhat conservatives.

I don't know. There's gotta be someone out there who is considering Trump solely because of decades of Clinton-loathing but also hates bloviating, self-aggrandizing politicians like Ted Cruz. By surrounding himself with people like Cruz, Christie, et al., doesn't Trump run the risk of that person's distaste for his motley crew of supporters overcoming that person's distaste for Hillary?

And the flip side is that I can't imagine there are too many in the #NeverTrump movement that are swayed by a Ted Cruz endorsement. This seems like a zero-sum gain for Trump at best to me. Sure, Cruz beat Trump in Iowa, but Trump is already leading there.

An endorsement is different from whatever it is that Christie and Trump have together. I imagine that Cruz offers a weak endorsement and limited, if any, fundraising support for Trump. And it's not like Cruz's endorsement adds any obligation to Trump.

So the fact that he said that he didn't respect Cruz, didn't want his endorsement, and wouldn't accept it...

and now has said that he's "honored" by the endorsement and accepts it...

that's not a bad thing for Trump? The story isn't that Trump got a prominent endorsement... it's about Cruz being gutless and Trump reversing himself. At best that makes it a net zero for him, which was my point.

Of course the story from the campaign's perspective is that Trump got an endorsement. No one expects Trump to be consistent. He isn't held to account for serious flip flops on issues that matter. Why on earth would anyone considering voting for him give a shit that he once said he wouldn't accept Cruz's endorsement, and now welcomes it that it happened?

Stay Strong Kasich.

jerseyhoya wrote:Of course the story from the campaign's perspective is that Trump got an endorsement. No one expects Trump to be consistent. He isn't held to account for serious flip flops on issues that matter. Why on earth would anyone considering voting for him give a #$!&@ that he once said he wouldn't accept Cruz's endorsement, and now welcomes it that it happened?

Because people choose to give a shit about the weirdest stuff?

Besides, I didn't say that people "cared" about it. I said that the story is about those two things, rather than the endorsement itself.

Where I think that Trump is an @**hole, I have always believed that Cruz was vile. Cruz proving that he is a pantywaist (so want that word to be spelled waste), commits his last transgression and endorses thus proving that he has now lower limit. Cruz who refereed to Donald as "utterly amoral," "a pathological liar," and "a narcissist at a level I don’t think this country has ever seen", kisses the ring showing that there is, as some said like Trump, nothing that Ted Cruz will not do to get elected. Of course the spin will be that he is honoring his commitment to endorse the party's nominee that he made at the debate of the ten thousand way back when.
Vote your conscious lying ted.

what's amazing is that the political process is so transparent, and filled with hypocrisy and no one really cares.

You can say something with vehemence and a few months later completely contradict it. I hate this guy don't want his support, I'm honored to have his support.

No one cares. It won't stop anyone from voting for that person and it won't demand accountability.

Almost everyone knows they will say whatever they are supposed to say at any given time. Nothing is real. It's all spectacle and construction of bytes and memes.

This is not participatory government of the people. It's reality TV. Except the winners get to sign budgets and push red buttons.

JH, remind us who was your choice? I am not trying to bait you, but I was thinking it was Cruz until I LMFAO at your critique of the endorsement.

"Well, I think he's a guy who has been an entrepreneurial guy," Eric Trump told Fox News on Friday after being asked about his father's outreach to millennial voters. "He's built an amazing company. He's become the epitome of the American dream." Trump begun to say that millennials could relate to his father because "he's gone from just about nothing," but was interrupted by "Outnumbered" panelist Julie Roginsky.

"Nothing? He got a million bucks? I mean, come on," Roginsky interjected.

"Listen, he's built an unbelievable empire," Trump responded. "He's epitomized what America is all about: opportunity and working hard and being able to achieve your dreams and what you want to succeed, right?" Trump continued, "It's no different from a (Mark) Zuckerberg, right, who went out with a great idea like Facebook and developed this idea and built it and grew it and grew it and grew it. That's achieving something, right? And I think it is very different than a person who has been career politician."

We should all be so lucky to start off with Trump's "just about nothing". These kids have so much money and privilege in their lives that they really have no fucking idea what it means to live without. That they believe they or their father can relate to millennials (or pretty much 99% of the population) is beyond laughable.

thephan wrote:JH, remind us who was your choice? I am not trying to bait you, but I was thinking it was Cruz until I LMFAO at your critique of the endorsement.

Rubio until he dropped out, then Cruz because he was the only person who could stop Trump

@MEPfuller
"I don't want his endorsement. If he gives it, I will not accept it." -Donald J. Trump, July 22, 2016 https://t.co/Kdix9rMZqy

Congress is planning on overriding President Obama's veto regarding allowing victims of 9/11 attacks to so Saudi Arabia.

This bill seems poorly thought out to me.

pacino wrote:Congress is planning on overriding President Obama's veto regarding allowing victims of 9/11 attacks to so Saudi Arabia.

This bill seems poorly thought out to me.

Yup.

slugsrbad wrote:

pacino wrote:Congress is planning on overriding President Obama's veto regarding allowing victims of 9/11 attacks to so Saudi Arabia.

This bill seems poorly thought out to me.

Yup.

It seems people, many of whom i respecr, don't want to be against it for fear of political backlash, but it's not a good precedent.

Who's fault will it be when it's overidden and foreign Country families start dropping lawsuits on the United States for millions and millions of dollars in response to drone strikes. I'm not sure how many civilians have gotten killed as collateral damage, but I'm thinking that a couple million dollars per family in a lenient court will not be terribly good for the United States budget. But then again we're talking about elected officials and thinking in the same sentence so there's really no point do having any type of reasoning.

thephan wrote:Who's fault will it be when it's overidden and foreign Country families start dropping lawsuits on the United States for millions and millions of dollars in response to drone strikes. I'm not sure how many civilians have gotten killed as collateral damage, but I'm thinking that a couple million dollars per family in a lenient court will not be terribly good for the United States budget. But then again we're talking about elected officials and thinking in the same sentence so there's really no point do having any type of reasoning.

Exactly. It's all about winning the easy points, not about the obvious consequences.

I think this is dumb, but the idea that US would have to sit idly by as drone victims sue is not true.

pacino wrote:Congress is planning on overriding President Obama's veto regarding allowing victims of 9/11 attacks to so Saudi Arabia.

This bill seems poorly thought out to me.

pretty shitty of Obama. let those people get some justice. maybe we could subpoena some docs that will show what lots of credible people have said, which is the Sauds were in some capacity financiers to terrorism against the US.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I think this is dumb, but the idea that US would have to sit idly by as drone victims sue is not true.

Definitely, good luck to anyone trying to collect on that judgment. Which is another reason why it's dumb it just sets up another obvious way for us to look like hypocrites.