Is Cruz Cracking Up?

Posted on April 21, 2016 by Robert Ringer Comments (120)

Font:

Okay, enough’s enough. Now I’m getting seriously concerned about Ted Cruz’s mental health. Ever since Trump won New York in a landslide and Cruz came away with zero delegates, he’s been talking as though he were the one who came out on top in the Empire State.

Cruz keeps railing on and on about winning five states in a row, two (Colorado and Wyoming) of which were states where Republican voters were barred from voting! No problem — zero embarrassment.

He brags about his “ground game” and his campaign team’s ability to persuade Republican party hacks … er, I mean, delegates … as though such feats make him supremely qualified to be president of the United States.

Even with Trump poised to win Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania next Tuesday, TC insists, in classic Napoleonic fashion, that everything is falling into place for him.

He makes it clear that he plans to win the Republican nomination the old-dirty way — wining and dining unbound delegates and sweet-talking them into voting for him on the second ballot at the convention.

Don’t get me wrong. Even though I have very little faith in ANY politician, I believe that if Cruz were president, he would probably implement a number of policies to increase individual freedom and shrink the size of government. On the upside, he might succeed in carrying out as much as 25 percent of his overall agenda, which would place him far ahead of most past presidents.

But notwithstanding all his positive qualities — e.g., a great debater, a great constitutional lawyer, and a staunch refusal to compromise his core principles — his biggest problem is that he comes across as sleazy and creepy. Maybe it’s not his fault; it could just be a personality disorder he inherited at birth. But, regardless, sleazy and creepy are what come to my mind whenever I listen to him speak, which is something I try to avoid.

In fairness, let’s assume that the ease with which Cruz turns people off is just a birth defect, thus not his fault. But it’s something his advisers should encourage him to work on. I’m not saying he’s on a par with Hillary, who has “DESPICABLE” stamped across her forehead, but he definitely has a personality disorder.

Fortunately for Cruz, however, history has proven that voters will sometimes look past a bad personality (think Richard Nixon), but craziness is something that scares the hell out of them. And the latest example of Crazy Cruz came two days ago in Philadelphia when he told a crowd, “America has always been best when she is lying down with her back on the mat and the crowd has given the final count.” Huh? What was that again?

In all fairness, I guess we can strain to figure out what we think he was trying to say, but the way he said it (with the usual Shakespearean drama added in) reminded me of one of Glenn Beck’s overly dramatic, crazier moments in his fading days of superstardom. Cruz might want to consider rewording his thought to make it sound more intelligible and rational, then redelivering the line.

Though he doesn’t seem to realize it, time is running out on Texas Ted. Sleaziness and creepiness are making his hope for a Cleveland miracle less and less likely, but if he doesn’t get a grip on himself, he may end up not even being able to pass a background check for buying a handgun. What a sad irony that would be for a hardcore, pro-gun advocate like him.

Robert Ringer

+Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

120 responses to “Is Cruz Cracking Up?”

  1. Steve says:

    Yes-The man is very sleazy. By the way-for those interested, please look up what Cruz's ex-college roommate has to say about his character. It's a combination of chilling and humorous.

    • OnlyChumpsR4Trump says:

      What college roommate? Do you have a link?

    • Ellis Baxter says:

      What shocks me is this regurgitation of slander talking points with out any truth and with total disregard of the actions of the American Hitler! For a long time I have warned about the 4th Reich that we see world wide. While only in the angry stage the outline is there. Donald Trump fosters all this false talk about Senator Cruz. States have their choice as to how they choose their delegates. What none of you ever say is that most of the states have not mattered in decades ! So they decided to avoid the costs. The selection of the candidate is province of the party! On Feb 27, 2016 I was on the side line as my first and second choices were out of the race. I enjoy my Saturday coffee while reading the Financial Times. Page nine was on Trumps using illegal Polish workers to take down and clear the ground where Trump Tower was to go. What was in that article was the how the union let this happen … and the resulting fines that Trump had to pay .. .how ? The Genovese Crime family controls the Union ! I made some phone calls to NYC were I have contacts in Law enforcement who confirmed this with great ease ! Digging further I found that Mr. Trump has built his entire career on the political connections of the Mafia…. they are rewarded by his employing their legal construction company [news to me but it is the way it is done!] as I continued to dig there it is the man is immoral at the least … I have yet to turn over a rock that does not have a snake under it .. in this guys life.. Where as Cruz is doing battle over delegates .. history is ripe with the number of presidents that did not lead in the primary voting .. Reagan in 1976, IKE in 1952 ! I would state you all need to spend more time doing research and quit talking and start working on a new party God knows we need one ….

  2. Jerry O says:

    You must be a Trump supporter, though you didn't say it. Of all the candidates running right now, I see far less sleaze in Cruz than in any of the others. At least one can believe that he is telling the truth and that he will stand by his convictions.

    • OnlyChumpsR4Trump says:

      I'm with you 100%! At least Cruz isn't a pedophile like Trump allegedly is (www.corbettreport.com 2-27-16, Video #1144) and at least Cruz didn't get the "Liar Liar Pants On Fire" Award of 2015 from Politifact for LYING 83% of the time, like Lyin' Donald did! The one with the clearly manifesting personality disorder is Trump, not Cruz! (And Trump's proposed beliefs and policies change from day to day, while Cruz's do not.)_

      • FIGMO says:

        Pedophile?? Oh you have Trump confused with bubba clinton who went to that billionaire pedophile's island were he could choose from a large selection of 14 year olds. Like the kennedys and lbj bubba goes through life letting the little head rule the big head.

      • Peggy says:

        It wasn't Cruz making those ridiculous childish faces during the debates or resorting to name calling and personal insults when he didn't get his way. Cruz consistently comes across as the only adult in the room. When Cruz got CO delegates by playing by the rules, he was accused of "stealing" them. But when Trump got about 95% of NY's delegates with only 60% of the votes, that's perfectly fine. And, love him or hate him, Cruz has been consistently conservative for forever whereas Trump has been a flaming liberal his entire life until 5 minutes before he decided to run on the Republican ticket. And who's crazy?!?! Anybody who falls for Trump's change of stripes as genuine is crazy.. And Robert Ringer, as much as I usually love what you write, you also come across as having lost it yourself.

      • Dante Ardenz says:

        Typical Cruz supporters ..that's insane ! Mr Trump has had beautiful grown women in life ,and not hookers ,and a successful marriage to stay at home mother Melenia !

        Funny how " conservatives " just love believing " Liberal " media on Trump.

    • tin man says:

      Ever heard of Craig Mazin? He was Ted's college roommate. Check out his tweets and ask him how honest he KNOWS Ted not to be. This guy oozes creepiness.

  3. Marte says:

    I'd vote for Cruz over Hillary any day – but I don't like him. He does sound sleazy and creepy and he looks… plastic.

    I'll back Trump all the way – and I get really annoyed when I hear our all-wise folks on TV say that women don't like him. I like him and other women I talk with do too – but then we aren't asking for government handouts. Perhaps that's the difference.

    • OnlyChumpsR4Trump! says:

      Really? You think it's OK for a candidate to brag about how he cheats on his wives (all 3 of them) and talks about how the only thing that matters is having a hot piece of a__ in the bed beside him? And don't forget his tacky posting of Cruz's wife in an awkward moment next to a professional photo of his wife for sexist and insulting comparison purposes. Trump has an arrested development age of, at best, 13 years old mentally! And a maladjusted 13 year old at that! I personally know of NO women who would be self-loathing enough to vote for Trump, and as per the polls, he has AT BEST a 70% disapproval rating among all women.

      • I believe men who can afford it ought to have a "starter wife", then a "for show" wife, and then one or more willing mistresses. As a happy man, then, he would be more fit for work.

        • patg2 says:

          Your past advocacy for abortion (an atrocity committed only on women) and this remark lead me to believe you are anti-woman. A woman has a right to a man who will love, protect, and cherish her the way she will love and cherish him. We are human beings, neither slaves nor throways. Or are we supposed to never take you seriously?

          • ◄Dave► says:

            I was somewhat amused and didn't take Richard too seriously; but neither did I find his remarks anti-woman. He freely acknowledged that there was a high cost attached to supporting more than one "willing" woman. It would be naïve not to admit that there is no shortage of attractive women, who are more than willing to play those roles, for the benefits afforded. Such often predatory women, are the precise opposite of victims.

            Neither are those seeking an abortion victims. If one deems an abortion to be an atrocity, any fair reading would have to conclude that said atrocities are committed 'by' women, not 'on' them. While many women hire others to assist them, there are many techniques for terminating a pregnancy, which require no such assistance.

            Yes, a woman has the right to choose a loving, protective, provider for a mate, who will adore and cherish her, in return for her love and devotion. Since the choice is hers, it has always been a conundrum to me, why they so often seem to prefer a rascal to a gentleman. Alas, courting is a lost art, which is no longer necessary, or even appreciated by modern females. ◄Dave►

          • Sheila says:

            "Neither are those seeking an abortion victims. If one deems an abortion to be an atrocity, any fair reading would have to conclude that said atrocities are committed 'by' women, not 'on' them."

            If that were true, then when abortion was illegal the women victims (yes, VICTIMS) would have gone to prison had the crime been uncovered. But the abortionists were the ones that were convicted and went to prison. Of course, if Trump had his way he'd convict incarcerate the women. Um…he did say that, didn't he, during one of his recent lip slips?

            Oh and p.s. Abortion is not a CHOICE. A choice is between Coke or Pepsi, a blue prom dress or a red one. A choice is not rife with potential serious consequences, like infection, sepsis and hemorrhage. The problem with deranged pro-aborts like you is that you relegate serious decisions that require thought, time and serious introspection to nothing but soda pop.

          • Robert Ringer RJR says:

            Very interesting insight.

          • ◄Dave► says:

            Oh, good grief. I am not "pro-abort"; I am anti-coercion. I probably find most abortions as distasteful as you do; but I find the notion of Piously Correct busybodies empowering the government, to force an unwilling woman to bear an unwanted child, even more egregious.

            I was using the word 'atrocity' as a moral term, not a legal one. I know of no law proscribing atrocities. Like 'sin,' or 'good,' or 'bad,' the generality 'atrocity,' is in the eye of beholder. Many regard availing oneself of the option to abort a pregnancy as atrocious, even though doing so is currently perfectly legal.

            In many cases, so do I; but it is patently ridiculous to claim that these women are not making a choice. I have not heard of any women being kidnapped, and forced to undergo an abortion procedure against their will. How are those voluntarily ingesting an abortifacient, being coerced and victimized? You may consider their choices foolish, bad, and even atrocious; but they are freely made choices nonetheless.

            Many choices in life are rife with potential serious consequences. Any decision is another term for choice. In today's STD riddled hook-up culture, the decision to have unprotected sex, with someone whose sexual history is unknown, is itself a risky choice for women and even men. The choice to jump out of a perfectly good airplane, involves the calculated risk that one's chute might not open. Suicide, by definition, is choosing to experience dire consequences, as an alternative to perhaps less bearable pain.

            Trump is a neophyte politician, who has not yet learned to resist answering hypothetical questions. Yet, I found the question reasonable, and his answer perfectly legitimate. Those wishing to ban the act of terminating a pregnancy, need to answer it themselves. One thing that is absolutely unpreventable in this society, is access to supposedly controlled drugs on the black market. Just try to ban abortifacients, and they will instantly become ubiquitous on the street, and probably easier for a teenager to obtain than they are now.

            If abortion was made illegal, and it became known that a woman deliberately aborted a pregnancy all by herself, was a crime committed? If not, then abortion itself clearly would not really be illegal, and you folks are only fussing over physician-assisted abortion. If so, then what should be the legal consequences for her dastardly contumacy? If they are somehow less than a speeding ticket, what would be the point of another routinely unenforced statute? It would make about as much sense as the silly laws against suicide. ◄Dave►

        • Jonnie5 says:

          Touche! My friend, touche!

      • Helen Roberts says:

        Right on!! And Ted being sleezy & creepy? How about bombastic, boring and a
        braggart(Trump).And Cruz having a personality disorder? Gimme a break! Can't beat Trump who has an ego as big as Chicago!!

    • patg2 says:

      I'd vote for Trump over Hellary any day, but I don't like him. I think he doesn't understand the issues, and he's not being up front about what he will do. He contradicts himself a lot, which makes it worse.

      But I'd be mortified if Hellary were the first woman president.

    • Scumbag Ted looks like Gordon Shumway lol

  4. Philip Pizzurro says:

    Mr Ringer you just exposed your true intentions in our search for an honest and trustworthy person to be our next president. I can see you are well versed in the leftist's smear of good people who really can do something to save our country.

    • Phil says:

      Mr. Pizzuro, for what it is worth you've completely misjudged Mr. Ringer. I have started in the last few days to prefer Cruz a tad over Trump, primarily because I think the former to be more consistently principled in the realm of political policy. For example, I would love to see him nominate 3 hardcore originalist Justices to the Supreme Court. That could set the Left back decades. It would be beautiful, magnificent, and absolutely YUGE!!!

      But he does have a personality issue. And the way in which he is gathering votes via backroom delegate wooing is not exactly going to endear him to the electorate.

      Check out some of Robert's books. There is not a many alive who believes more strongly in freedom and liberty, and has put it out there for the whole world to see. Just saying.

      • Robert Ringer RJR says:

        Thank you, Phil, for saving me the trouble of clarifying my words. I will say it again: I neither trust nor support ANY politician. Supporting politicians is a bad habit that harms one's self-esteem. Whether the next president is Trump, Cruz, or a "compromise candidate," he will disappoint all of us. No need to even mention Hillary.

    • Dante Ardenz says:

      There is nothing " good" about creep Cruz…he is financially supported by Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs where is wife works.
      She / he is CFR globalists who support open borders ,and moving jobs abroad for the Transnationals.
      His campaign chairman is Michael Chertoff who destroyed civil liberties as Secretary of Homeland Security ,and Cruz wants war with Russia .

  5. Tasine says:

    I don’t believe it makes a bit of difference in what he says or does not say. Trump supporters will vote for Trump, Cruz supporters will vote for Cruz, Hillary supporters will vote for her, Bernie supporters will vote for him. Hillary win, NOT because she is a good candidate, but because I think most on the left are afraid of her. And the political right will have their vote split between Kruz and Trump. Republican voters are not as “loyal” to their party as the democrats are . We mustn’t forget that MANY in the republican party are RINOs and may vote for the devil should he be running….or may vote for Bernie. A republican will NEVER win a democrat vote. I am a solid conservative and will vote for Cruz, but if Trump wins the primary, I intend to vote for him in the general election. I will die before voting for a democrat- AKA socialist.

  6. Rocketman says:

    Trump has got it all but sewn up and here's why.. Did you hear him talk about who he is thinking about for vice-president the other day? Rubio and Kasich. Both just happen to have delegates in their back pocket that Trump could tell them that he will make them Vice President if they tell their delegates to support Trump on the first ballot. Either would jump at the chance and the delegates would put him over the 1,237 needed. If on the other hand he can see that he's already got the ballots and he doesn't need them then he could make his VP someone that he truly likes and respects like Sarah Palin. Win-win for Trump.

    • Sarah Palin? Heaven forbid! What if she were to become President? OMG!

      • patg2 says:

        Sounds like more anti-woman attitude to me. I think she's crazy for endorsing Trump, but she did a very fine job as governor of Alaska. She's strong, resourceful, and knowledgeable. And pro-life. A perfect feminist.

        • Stutts says:

          And quit…

          • patg2 says:

            Don't tell me you don't know WHY she quit. She quit because she was being sued, and the taxpayers were paying for the costs of defending the suit. She didn't want the taxpayers to pay. I wish we had a few more politicians who had that level of concern for the taxpayers. I find your criticism to have no merit.

    • Phil says:

      Yes, a Rubio nomination for VP would be brilliant and I could live with that.

    • Tucker says:

      If either Rubio or Kasich are picked by Trump for his VP, or if either of these two slabs of maggot infected, RINO, cuckservative hyena manure wind up being named for a future spot in a Trump Administration – I will refuse to vote for Donald Trump and vote for the best third party, likely the Constitution Party's candidate.

      I DESPISE Rubio and especially despise Kasich.

      • patg2 says:

        I can't stand either of them. That said, sounds like you despise both of them more than you despise Hellary. After all, if you vote 3rd party, Hellary effectively gets your vote.

        Thanks for the help preserving and restoring our nation. NOT!

    • Bill Anthony says:

      Palin? Sarah Palin??? If Trump picks Palin the ticket is doomed. Even I would vote for Clinton to keep Palin one heartbeat away from the presidency! Rubio would be a smart choice. Not because of the delegates he has, but because he could bring in sixty percent of the Hispanic vote.
      Chris Christie wouldn't bring in as many votes, but Trump could turn him lose on Clinton, staying above the fray while Christie lands the much needed body blows. Other possible candidates would be Kasich, Carson, or even Cruz. But Palin? NO WAY! Picking Palin would be a sure ticket to defeat.

  7. guest says:

    Cruz's father came on and very upset this bothers me why would his father speak out though it is his father who has pushed him from beginning. Also I read Cruz become a citizen day before he applied for the position of president does any one else know of this?
    the desire to be president has reached the point where I am leary about him.

    • Alex Lohr says:

      Cruz's father is a nut case minister ,and old buddy of Lee Harvey Oswald .

      "My son was appointed by the God to bring sacrifices to the priests " ,the old TV preacher wanna be has said .

      The Cruz family of Cuba via Canada ,through Britain are really nuts !

  8. OnlyChumpsR4Trump! says:

    I'm fed up with all the paid-off shills masquerading as journalists who pretend to be conservative while touting Trump. The two (Trump and conservatism) have NOTHING in common, and you cannot claim to be one while claiming to also be for the other!

    • Robert Ringer RJR says:

      Definitely not a conservative. In fact, I doubt he has ever given ideology a thought. As I have repeatedly said, if Trump were elected, his job would be to take a wrecking ball to Washington. If he didn't do that, then his presidency would be a failed one.

  9. Sally Martin says:

    I just don't get you anymore Ringer. What in the world is so sleazy about Cruz? He is our last best hope for this failing country of ours and you putting thoughts in uninformed people's heads doesn't help. Could you please just stick to the important issues that he is going to try and brilliantly solve and stop trying to be a psychologist! You sound like a child.

    • And YOU sound like "one type" of woman! Are you friends with Megan Kelly, perchance?

    • Sheila says:

      Thank you Sally. You are so right. It's nice to see another smart woman in here. Ignore Richard below, who reminds me of a dim incandescent light bulb. Sadly, unlike incandescents, he is not banned.

    • Robert Ringer RJR says:

      Sorry I sound like a child to you, Sally, but I get paid to be a psychologist and give my opinions. I agree with you that Cruz may be the candidate who would do the most good, but, even if did, I couldn't force my perceptions to disappear. He comes across as sleazy and creepy to me. Nothing I can do about it.

    • Steve says:

      "What in the world is so sleazy about Cruz? " haha how about his 5 mistresses,for a start.

  10. Gene R. says:

    "Conservative" means big government, abusive IRS, world government, and unprovoked foreign invasions. Why would anyone want to be a conservative?

  11. Leedees111@hotmail.com Lee says:

    Gene R how would you describe a democrat? Small government, a kind and gentle IRS, local government and no involvement in Afghanistan? Yes the Republicans are corrupt and useless but simply because they are not conservatives.

    • Gene R. says:

      I do not consider Democrats the opposite of Republicans. Based on the fruit of the governance of either party, they all produce big government, abusive IRS, world government, and unprovoked foreign invasions. The problem is with the voting majority – who think that one of the monopoly parties will be America First. I see Cruz as much better than most but I have not heard anything from him about the Constitutional problems of the type of government previously mentioned. If Cruz is creepy, the rest are downright dangerous.

  12. Yes, "by hook or by crook"! Great piece! Reminds me of one of my literary heroes, H.L. Mencken! I detest the "drama" of Cruz! It is downright corny! And amateurish! And the sound of his voice as it emanates through his pointy nose is gross to listen to! When I hear him, and I hate to, I wonder where is the Real Person, IF there is one behind the drama. Yes, I can't say enough bad about that guy. I can't say that if he becomes President, which I doubt he will, I'd move to another country because I already did. No way I could afford to live in the States these days. Not happily anyway. Donald Trump, on the other hand, just look at his physical posture. Like, "I can and will endure anything! Bring it on!" As if he is saying, "I may bitch and complain, but I will damn well get it done!" Whatever "it" refers to or may be! My prediction is that Mr. Trump will go ALL THE WAY! And America will be better for it. And maybe the world as well.

    • Phil says:

      Sure beats Hillary, Jeb, or most of the other Jokers vying for the Title.

    • patg2 says:

      If you don't even live here, why are you sticking your opinions into our affairs? Sure, anyone can comment. But given the nature of your comments, you DO have a lot of nerve.

      • I have a lot more than nerve. I am a resident of Michigan but live in the Philippines. There is a large American community here. And most of us follow what happens back in the States. And many continue to vote. Based on experience, it "seems" that Americans here are as or more interested in the affairs in American than people I knew before I came to the PI. I am a True Child of the 1950s, high school, Army, and college, and I lament what has been happening in America especially the last (almost) 8 years. (Reading and making comments is fun.)

        • patg2 says:

          We have a lot of real slackers in America, people who have no education because the public "schools" dumbed them down, and because they don't care. They shouldn't vote. I think people who take welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote. It should be noted, however, that you experience relatively little impact as a result of what goes on here, yet you influence the process. I don't know if your vote is calculated to make things better or worse, but your apparent hatred of women concerns me. Oh, and by the way, as is usually the case these days, I am older than you are. I remember how much better, for liberty, things used to be. And I was the beneficiary of the push for better science education, started by the educationists in response to Sputnik.

          • I've been saying for years, and not only me, that there is some percentage of citizens who should not be allowed to vote. They are not competent. But, how to test and qualify prospective voters? And then there is the additional problem(s) of people voting multiple times, or, voting illegally, and other infringements on the process. Nothing is perfect, but, seems little if anything is being done about such problems. Perhaps their numbers are not considered significant? I don't know. Idealists, however, at least TRY to make things are right as possible. Is Idealism still a value in America or American Government? Or are "they" mostly only on the make and on the take?
            As a former University Professor, the difficulties in American education concern me. Not only for the good of America, or even the World, but especially for young people, the students themselves. First, if there is no discipline, and order, how can any teaching/learning take place? I could never teach in most current educational contexts now since first and foremost I demanded and expected order and engagement. As of the 1960s, the decline began. Remember BLACKBOARD JUNGLE? But, much depends on whether a school, and its teachers, is in an affluent neighborhood, or a ghetto. What to do about the expanding ghetto-world I would think should concern people and Government. Et.c and so on…

          • Ken S says:

            Richard, I am a CPA and MBA and have for years been spending 20 to 25 hours per week studying philosophy, science, economics, political theory, and american history. Do I believe I am competent to vote. My honest answer is no. The reason why is no single individual can acquire the necessary knowledge to know if the economic and social policies of his chosen candidate will have the hope for result. This is why I believe a society base on individual rights and not majority rule give us the best chance for freedom, wealth, and peace.

          • Robert Ringer RJR says:

            A hearty yes to individual rights over tyranny of the majority.

          • patg2 says:

            Now you have me totally confused. How can someone who appears to be so astute on the topic of education, particularly university education, be so anti-woman?

            You do bring to mind another problem with internet voting, though. It is trivial to create multiple accounts on the internet. People would be able to vote many times. And I don't see a way to stop this. I have several identities myself, which I use for various purposes.

          • Richard Lee Van DV says:

            Your idea of me being anti-women is all in YOUR MIND, not a fact. I in "Real Life" take people on an individual basis, or try to. Regarding FEMINISM, there is the Pure View that I subscribe to, including equal OPPORTUNITY. And then there are those who are "emotionally afflicted". I like to steer clear of them, and that is part of the reason I live here and not in the midst of some types of angry so-called feminists. If one works in many different countries and cultures, as I have, s'he will see diverse attitudes regarding women. I mean "of women" themselves. And America, in my opinion, is not experiencing the best of attitudes on the part of women "these days". In any case, the subject of gender is vast. I am speaking, by the way, from the PV of a "normal" marrying and divorcing heterosexual (old) male. Generalizations, about gender, or any topic, are not usually valid. My first course in Philosophy at Michigan State back in the 50s was titled, THE PRINCIPLES OF RIGHT REASON using the text by Henry S. Leonard. That course, or the equivalent, should be required for all people who aspire "to think". The book is on GOOGLE.

          • patg2 says:

            No, I don't think my idea is all in my mind. The fact you are divorced tells me plenty, too. While not all divorces are the fault of men, or partly their fault, a lot of them are. I speak from the experience of someone who endured adverse situations and came out with a wonderful marriage to a wonderful man. We've been married 50 years, and counting.

            Many feminazis are not very nice people. I don't consider them feminists. They believe in killing helpless babies. A true feminist wants rights and protection for all human beings. That's the difference.

            I am willing to read your book, at least long enough to get an idea if I should finish reading it. I will check it out. On the other hand, I think the only book that is essential for people who "aspire to think" is the Bible. It is by far the most intellectually challenging book in existence, yet its central and essential message is simple enough a baby can understand it. Quite a feat.

    • Sheila says:

      "I detest the "drama" of Cruz! It is downright corny! And amateurish! And the sound of his voice as it emanates through his pointy nose is gross to listen to!"

      Oh, get a life already. You are so incandescently DIM. Speaking of noses, have you taken a look at your photo?

  13. Kevan Rowlee says:

    Sharing to my Facebook wall.

  14. Blank Reg says:

    Cruz is beginning to sound more and more like Baghdad Bob…declaring victory all the way to the convention, where he will have his ass handed to him…

  15. 124andmore says:

    I'm concerned about YOUR mental health. You still support a guy who wears a squirrel pelt on his head and thinks it's OK that a man in a wig can walk into a public bathroom occupied by female children. I think you need a checkup from the neck up.

  16. patg2 says:

    You said a lot of good stuff, but I think you missed the point on a couple of things. First, I see absolutely nothing wrong with being familiar with the rules for being nominated and taking advantage of them. As one writer pointed out, those rules have been there a long time, and Trump simply did not prepare adequately to take advantage of them. Second, I'd have to take issue with "sleazy". Cruz comes across as possibly abrasive to me. He speaks his mind. As an introvert who does not express herself well, I can relate to his difficulties communicating. And as you pointed out, he knows his stuff when it comes to preserving our constitutional heritage. We don't really know WHAT Trump would do. And all of that said, I have one huge quarrel with Cruz. He sided with Monsanto against the American people, to hide the presence of Genetically Modified ingredients in our food. That's fraud. I have jumped on him a number of times about this, and he hasn't recanted. Siding with a huge corporation that has committed multiple crimes against humanity, against the American people, is unacceptable.

  17. 124andmore says:

    I don't care how many times he repeats it. It is clear to me that he supports Trump. How do you know who trannies are attracted to? I don't want the sick f***s in restrooms with children – male or female. How do you know if they are really transvestites? How do you know that they aren't just pervs looking for an opportunity to rape a woman? They should plan their pee stops at gas stations or other single user restrooms. They can use a pee bottle in their car. It's their problem, not mine. Only a very tiny fraction of our population are transvestites. This isn't a big enough problem for the entire country to be concerned. They need a psychiatrist, not a female restroom.

    • Richard Lee Van DV says:

      You should see "how it is" in the Philippines, and I hear Thailand. They, transvestites, and other (ab)normal varieties are EVERYWHERE. And, they are far more accepted here than in the States. Another was subject RE how it is here vs there. Also, it is common if not universal to see men urinating in public against any tree or wall available. And, it appears to be acceptable. But, the men of the higher social classes here don't whip it out just anywhere to relieve themselves. Where I come from in rural Michigan, however, men don't hold it and search for a "rest room". BUT regarding "pervs" I would not want them allowed near children or decent people anywhere, anytime, but enforcement is another matter. So what to do? How, I wonder, did America get so concerned about petty issues, "political correctness", etc., INSTEAD OF concerning itself more RE National Securitiy, and other issues THAT MATTER. AT THE MOMENT, American are here in the PI, Bases, Ships and Fighter Planes, but, there is a national election soon, and, the frontrunner is another Nationalist who wants to cut ties with Americans and Aussies! I just don't get it that humans find it difficult to act in the interest of mutual help and good, and for the good of all concerned. Pettiness and Alienation continues, unfortunately, to reign among humans, individually and collectively.

  18. Smucko says:

    As long as you guys continue to fall in line with the typical voter who believes that all we have to do is get the Right Person (read Benevolent Dictator) in the White House and all will be right with the world, then all of us will continue to vote for the Lesser of Two Evils as the country stays the course toward slavery. The reason that we will stay the course is because we keep sending up to Congress and our State Legislatures the same corrupt lawmakers. If you want a real change in course, then you have to change the lawmakers at both levels.

    As you read this, the voters in your district are preparing to return their incumbent to their respective lawmaking office, where they will continue to amass power over you, and have you and your kids pay for their lifestyle. Not only do you re-elect them, you assure them that you will not leave the party, you will not call them home, and you do not see any reason to form a third party. You have enslaved yourself.

    If you want to rein in the Fascist Dictatorship that passes for our President, the bureaucrats that control every aspect of our lives, a Supreme Court that believes in giving the people whatever they want, and the Press that actively cheers on the partisans of their choice, then YOU have to replace your corrupt lawmaker with someone who will uphold the Constitution by impeaching unconstitutional Presidents and not approving unconstitutional federal judges. The revival of our Republic starts with that overhaul of Congress.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Personally, I would much prefer a laissez faire stateless society, where everyone cooperated on a volunteer basis, and no one could impose their values on others. Yet, the Marxists and religionists are unlikely ever give up pestering their neighbors to conform to their model of the world. If we must suffer a government then, I agree with Voltaire that the best form of government actually is a benevolent dictatorship – tempered by an occasional assassination.

      I'm afraid our Republic is long past any reasonable hope of a revival. Overhauling Congress, or even creating a viable third party, won't do it. It matters not which candidates ostensibly win or lose. It is the entrenched, unelected, tyrannical bureaucrats, who make and enforce all the rules and regulations, oppressing every segment of our society, that win every election.

      Any serious effort to return to the true Constitutional Republic designed by our founders, would first have to convince both the Marxists and religionists, to abandon their efforts to empower the government to coercively enforce their values and lifestyle choices on others. I honestly don't see how this could ever be accomplished.

      Assuming it might, then somehow the Civil Service System would have to be abolished, and replaced with the old original Spoils System. This way, in a 'change' election, we could throw ALL the bums out of office. No government job, or function for that matter, should have any expectation of lasting longer than two years. The very notion of a government employees' union ought to be laughed out of existence. Remember when Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers?

      Until these basic changes in the current nature of the present government are somehow made, there is little point in even voting in their sham elections. Doing so only legitimizes their tyranny, and permits the winners to claim a voter 'mandate' for their agenda, even though most were not voting 'for' them or their agenda; but 'against' their opponent's. They were merely expressing their opinion, as to which of the candidates the oligarchs allowed on the ballot, was the least onerous and/or the lesser evil. ◄Dave►

      • From my personal studies, "Ahimsa" of the Vedic literature of ancient India sez it all! It is the simple injunction to "DO NO HARM TO SELF OR OTHER". But that takes intelligence and good judgment, and a lot of it. Plus, Right or Good Motives. At least Ahimsa should be the ultimate goal taught in the schools, in the home, and by Government. It is NOT a religious principle; it is a PRAGMATIC principle. Pragmatism: what works is true. But, how to institute an Ultimate Ideal such as that in any given country or culture? One might say it is a "unifying principle" that if "preached and practiced" would solve all problems, individual and collective. Philosophy (the notion of Ahimsa), Principle, Policy and Practice is the old formula I learned in a course I took in the Philosophy of Education back in the late 50s. If Philosophy were looked to first, the rest "should", "ought to" follow. But, in the so-called Real World, how many people are able to think/reflect on that level. i suppose most would say, "Do Whut?"

        • ◄Dave► says:

          Richard, your "Ahimsa" somewhat reminds me of my own "Gospel According to Dave: Do Right, and Leave Others Be." 😉 ◄Dave►

          • Richard Lee Van DV says:

            You are right, Dave. Or, I agree. But, if a "bad guy" won't "leave me be", I retain the right to protect myself. But that, I suppose, goes without saying. I appreciate "thinking people", and you are one, Dave!

          • ◄Dave► says:

            Yes, of course, Richard. The right of self-defense goes without saying. I also reserve the right to be rude, to those busybodies insisting on pestering me with their nonsensical beliefs, and/or unwelcome prescriptions for how I should live my life. :) ◄Dave►

    • Robert Ringer RJR says:

      YOU ARE 100% ON TARGET. Anyone who keeps voting criminal enablers like McCain, McConnell, and Graham back into office qualify to appear on Watters' World. And I'm tired of getting the government THEY deserve.

  19. RealitySeeker says:

    Cruz is half the man Nixon was. How many times do I have to say it?

    Moreover, I have to laugh at those who say that Ted just does a better job than Trump by playing the arcane rules to his advantage. That's like saying a good lawyer knows how to play the corrupt system in order to win a favorable decision in court. I just got done testifing a month ago in a case againsts two transnational corporations. The two giants tried to win the case by a technicality and a false accusation.. They lost. Not only did they loose in court they lost in the court of public opinion. It's the same thing Cruz is doing, but it's even worse. Cruz is attempting to win through rules (laws) designed and passed by party insiders for the benifit of insiders. Cruz is trying to win by disenfranchisement. If winning without holding a public vote is OK, like was done in Colorado, then why bother with voting at all? Why not go all the way back to when the first president was elected? No women. No blacks. Nobody but insiders. It was Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt who opened the door of voting for "We the People". It took another 100 years to get the system to let the People vote. But as anybody with half of a brain can see the system still is very, very corrupt. Ted is right there playing dirty, yet he claims a big win?

    Hey Ted, it is mathematically impossible for you to win 1237 delegates. Your only path to victory is disenfranchisement.

    • patg2 says:

      You're not making sense. Both Cruz and Trump must play by the rules as they exist. The fact is Cruz is doing it better than Trump these days, in some places. And that makes him guilty of disenfranchisement? I don't THINK so. The delegates to the Colorado convention were selected on the local level by the PEOPLE.

      Claiming a big win is a motivator.

      • Reality Seeker says:

        "Both Cruz and Trump must play by the rules as they exist".

        No they don't. And everybody who understands the election process knows it's as riddled with corruption as my writing is with spelling and grammatical errors……. What must happen is the "People" must pressure the insiders to bend to the "Will of the People". That's the only way the system becomes better. I won't play by the rules, if the rules say women can't vote. In the case of Colorado, millions of people were left out of the process, not just women.

        One person, one vote………

        Anything less than one person, one vote is wrong. We now have the technology to have a completely fair and transparent election. In fact, we could all vote online. It could be that easy and that transparent. For example, anybody can have a credit card. It's as easy as going down to the local Walmart and buying a prepaid card. It can be the same with voting, only better, easier and faster. Nobody has to leave the comfort of their own home.

        There's simply no excuse anymore. Voting, campaign contributions and the entire political process can be revolutionized.

        Ted is part of the disenfranchisement club, and so is Hillary. In fact, Hillary is worse. The "Democrats" and their "super delegates" are totally corrupt. What's a super delegate?

        A super delegate = a super insider……

        This isn't about Trump, per se, although Trump is on the right side of the issue. And Cruz is proving himself to be less and less of a man and more and more of a sleazy attorney everyday. In fact, Cruz isn't even half the man Nixon was. He's so much less.

        No more delegates, I say. One person, one vote. Let the people vote……Let the people's vote count. We can do away with the entire delegate and convention baloney. Everything can be accomplished and determined online. The young people understand. They get it. The old people still buy newspapers and watch cable TV and support the GOP and it's unfair rules. The only young people who still watch cable news, write checks, and buy newspapers and the throwbacks…….

        Down with the old. corrupt way and up and in with the new……..

        • Ken S says:

          Why do you believe the majority we do able better then the few. The problem is not let everyone vote but let everyone have freedom. Let's have a system base on individual rights and not a democracy

        • patg2 says:

          No, it's YOU who apparently don't get it. Sorry to be so blunt. If you know anything about the internet, you would know that voting on the internet would be far more rife with fraud than our present system. It is so easy to divert data, change data, steal data. There is no way to prevent this. And then there's Microsoft, whose software is full of security holes, and a lot of people use Internet Explorer. They don't know any better. And Bill Gates is the enemy of life and liberty.

          I am personally familiar with how the internet can be co-opted and people's data can be compromised. It happened to me four times. I also live with one of the top experts on internet security in the country.

          It is up to the people of Colorado to change the system if they desire to do so. They DID vote on the local level. No, the people were not kept from voting. They elected people to represent them at the statewide convention.

          I don't get your comparison of Cruz to Nixon. Nixon didn't deserve what was done to him, either. It was ridiculous. Newer figures like the present PrOTUS have gotten away with stuff 1000x worse. (Pr stands for "pretender")

          • Reality Seeker says:

            "Internet….. It is so easy to divert data, change data, steal data."

            But it's not 'easy" to cover up "diverted data, changed data and stolen data". On the contrary. It might be "easy" (depends on what you mean by easy) to steal credit card information and raid a bank account, but it's not easy to keep it hidden. Accounts have to be reconciled. It's the same way with voting on the internet. You might be able to pretend you're a dead person and/or vote multiple times. But in a transparent system ( e.g., open source) it would be impossible to hide anything long-term.

            Your friend who is an "expert" must not be much of an expert if he can't see the possibility of employing a block-chain system in conjunction with open source code and/or a "LifeLock" . In fact multiple systems could be used to audit each vote. This is not only possible, but long overdue. The paper ballot is obsolete; so is the "delegate"; so are the insider rules.

            The voting system could be as simple as comparing one SSI number with one vote. Everybody could look at their online voting account and see if their vote was stolen. Could the system be hacked? Yes, of course. No system carries with it an absolute guarantee. But open source cannot be altered without it becoming widely known. Paper ballots can be disposed of and/or altered and it's much more difficult to detect — and that's just one example.

            I'll cast my vote with confidence on a well designed open source voting system combined with a block chain — like Bit Coin. Do you know how many "experts have tried to crack Bitcoin? You can steal Bitcoin ( like you can steal a credit card number) but you can't hide the theft and you can't counterfeit a Bitcoin.

            I purpose one vote to be the same as one bitcoin; backed up by a Life Lock; and audited by a citizen appointed network.

            You and your "expert friend" really need to get out more…..

          • patg2 says:

            If I told you who my expert was, you would agree he's an expert. 'Nuff said on that.

            Your system depends on the honesty of the people involved. And generally, "open source" refers to a computer program when the code is posted in a place where it is widely available to anyone.

            And what makes you think you can count on the honesty of people designing the voting system? Even computer screens not hooked to the internet are the biggest risks for fraud. All it takes is one knowledgeable person to hack the system. And there are a lot of knowledgeable hackers out there. Bitcoin may or may not be secure. Bitcoin may or may not be vulnerable. I wouldn't bet on anything if I were you.

            I'll go ask my expert about block chain… I did. Here's what he said.

            Nobody has figured out how to counterfeit Bitcoin YET. However, a block chain checker in a program can be disabled. The only way to guarantee there is no fraud is to have an audit trail . This means a way to trace back the vote recorded to the original. Only paper does that. Without this, people CAN vote multiple times. The purpose of block chain is to keep transactions ANONYMOUS, the OPPOSITE of what would be needed to have an audit trail.

            Me again. As for your suggestion of linking it to social security numbers, have you thought about all the people presently in this country who are using someone else's social security number fraudulently? And getting away with it? A bunch of illegal alien voters, anyone? What if the illegal votes first? What happens to the vote of the citizen? How about people who use dead people's social security numbers, like our present PrOTUS? And what about people who want to chuck the social security system, and do not want to have a social security number? I imagine you are aware that the social security system is really a form of slavery. Do you want only slaves to vote?

          • Reality Seeker says:

            1) "The only way to guarantee there is no fraud is to have an audit trail" .

            Yes. Now you're starting to get it. And the trail must be transparent to everybody.

            2) "The purpose of block chain is to keep transactions ANONYMOUS, the OPPOSITE of what would be needed to have an audit trail".

            Wrong. A block chain IS in and by itself a trail. On the other hand, I can spend a paper dollar and leave no trail. Why do you think all of the big banking cartels and big governments want to eliminate paper money? Paper money leaves no trail — if you know what you're doing. Dumping a box of paper votes leaves no trail because there's rarely an audit that tracks the paper back to its source. When was the last time you heard about paper votes being audited to an actual ID or SSI? The voter registration cards are a step in the right direction, but they can be done with both paper and an online account. A paper trail is only valid with an ID, e.g., an SSI # or some other verifiable ID. That's how we catch people in voter fraud in the first place. By tracking an SSI # or a drivers license. It's rarely done. What I propose is a running audit. I understand that the average person ( an even some of the so called experts don't get it) but just because the old-school people are incapable of conceptualizing what should be self-evident doesn't mean that it's not light years ahead of the current system.

            I cannot spend a Bitcoin without leaving a trail. Period. That's why Bitcoin cannot be duplicated. Bitcoin is a trail. A hundred-dollar bill can be counterfeited so well that it fools even a banker. A paper vote can also be counterfeited, and it takes a lot more work to audit a paper vote than it does a Bitcoin. There are other block chains that have been developed that have five or six layers more protection than bitcoin. This redundancy is as close to bullet proof as we can get. So the block chain is advancing rapidly. So get ready for the big banks to deploy there own versions. And the U.S. Treasury, the CIA and other insiders are planning on transitioning from paper to electronic money.

            I always laugh when I hear or read some expert say Bitcoin is 'anonymous". It's not. The FBI has busted so many people who bought into that myth. The record is all there. You are actually incriminating yourself when you buy and sell contraband. The IRS can trace every single transaction, so the fools who think that they're "anonymous" better go back to good ol' hundred dollar bills…..lol. All I have to do is follow the "chain" and I got you by the ass……

            Could the blockchain one day run your city? Some think so. It's that powerful of a technology. I don't think it can in its present form, but I know it can play a role in a new voting system; in conjunction with traditional audits the block chain would be better than paper ballots.

            http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/226832-could-t

            3) "Your system depends on the honesty of the people involved. And generally, "open source" refers to a computer program when the code is posted in a place where it is widely available to anyone".

            Wrong again. The very reason I want it available to everybody is I want everybody to see it. Which means I want full transparency. This actually safeguards against dishonesty.

            Finally, what I envision is when a vote is cast online that vote is sent to and recorded by at least three different systems which operate independent of each other. Ten systems would be better, but that might be overkill. But could you and your most ingenious friend possibly conceptualize your vote being sent to ten different systems and then compared for accuracy? They would audit each other. And it would be so cheap to do….. The system I have in mind might, to borrow a phrase, actually help "make America great again" .

            I'm done with this thread. Have a great day!

          • patg2 says:

            I'm glad you are done with this thread. There's no convincing a Bitcoin fanatic.

            My expert says that he would attack the computer that tabulates the votes.

            Suffice it to say, I want nothing to do with Bitcoin or anything connected to it. I would not feel safe voting with such a system, and I have lots of company. How is that going to fix anything?

          • Reality Seeker says:

            lol…… Bitcoin fanatic. No, I like gold, silver, diamonds and other tangibles as a store of value.

            "Money" is a separate issue altogether. Information is one thing. And the blockchain is great for transmitting information. A receipt for money is another issue. I would accept blockchain as a receipt for money, but blockchain is not money. It might be fair to say blockchain is used as electronic currency, like a paper dollar is used for physical currency. But my idea of money is the same as Ludwig von Mises'.

            Nope. I'll stick with commodity money. We'll discuss the issue of money and fiduciary media later on down the road, if you like. Maybe we'll even finish up our previous conversation on 9/11 and the classified 28 page report I'd like to see declassified.

            Again, have a really great day…..

            Really, have a great day.

          • patg2 says:

            Hmmm, thought you were done with this topic. :(

            I'm confused. When did I say money and blockchain are the same thing?

            We tried using gold to save our money temporarily, but when we had to sell, the price had gone down, and we lost thousands of dollars. Paper money is really barter certificates. Since it is widely accepted, it's less volatile than commodities. Sometimes people don't have a really good grasp on reality. Using commodities in that way is really a form of gambling. Not only do I not gamble, I am in no position to gamble. Mises had a lot of good thoughts, but unless they can be applied for the average person, they are just pretty theories. We have a lot of work to do to get things to the point where such ideas are good for the average person.

            As for the other discussion, I don't remember enough details to continue that discussion. There are far too many other issues impinging on my life in a big way.

            Take care.

          • ◄Dave► says:

            Although I have recently become a flaming anarchist, and now desire to banish voting entirely, the subject of this debate has always interested me. I don't have the expertise of either of you; but I have given thought in the past about the feasibility of internet voting.

            It would seem that the only way one could have a reasonable level of confidence that one's votes were actually recorded and counted accurately, would be if there was a digital audit trail, which one could somehow examine for oneself. The problem with that idea, however, is that providing that feature would necessarily defeat the important factor of anonymity. The fear that Big Brother was able to determine how one actually voted, would discourage dissenters from the status quo, from voting at all. Then, they would just pass a law mandating that everyone vote, whether they wanted to or not… making the cure worse than the affliction!

            Any ideas on solving this conundrum, RS? ◄Dave►

          • patg2 says:

            You do raise one critically important point. Such a system would be centralized. Very dangerous. Spreading things out so that less powerful people are in charge is critically important. It's why we have a republic of states, not a central government controlling all. At least that is what we are supposed to have. It needs to be restored. This scheme would do the opposite. I think you are spot on with this comment.

          • Reality Seeker says:

            "Dissenters" "Anonymity"

            I'm sure you've figured out by now that in this day and age it's almost impossible to retain anonymity while being a dissenter. Take, for example, Patg2's friend, he's a computer expert who's going to hack you no matter what precautions you take … lol. In fact, I'm sure you've figured out by now that privacy is almost nonexistent. The only way you retain a measure of privacy is by getting off of the grid and living a subsistence lifestyle.. If you're not off of the grid, then you have little or no real privacy. Electronic eyes and ears are everywhere. Private, public and military artificial-intelligence systems are surveilling you and me. As time passes the systems get exponentially better at what they do.

            In a decade or two, if the government isn't stopped, Big Brother will be watching 24/7 no matter where in the world you live. Personally, I use a nom de plume not to hide from Big Brother, but to shield my identity from the general public. The same goes for voting. Big Brother knows ( or he can find out if he wants to) how you vote. So forget about privacy. Big Bro knows whether or not you're a dissenter. But the general public wouldn't have to know how you voted online.

            Honestly, online voting would only work if your vote was sent to multiple entities who could verify your personal information ( name, address, SSI etc.) and then email you a receipt on just who your vote was cast. That way, you could actually get some feedback on if your vote was counted or noty. You could also have a receipt snailmailed to you. In fact, for the old, distrustful geezers, they could still mail in their ballot but they should get a receipt. A vote should still be sent to federal, state and local servers. But most importantly, the vote should be sent to non-profit groups who independently tally the votes and then compare the results against government totals on a master list.

            The age of privacy is gone. Sorry.

          • patg2 says:

            I agree with you pretty much. That said, you will notice that I didn't comment on his privacy ideas. I commented on the power of the people who receive the information and process it. I have my own ways to assure the level of privacy I want, and from whom I want to be protected. When I go to vote, I know darn good and well my vote can be traced back to me. The secret ballot has been a myth for a long time. As long as there are many, many people, and limited numbers of spies (unlike the former Soviet Union, where everyone spied on everyone else), you can still protect yourself to a large extent. And I don't particularly worry about it anyway, because I have bigger fish to fry.

          • ◄Dave► says:

            Privacy is no longer my thing, and hasn't been for many years. Apparently, I am even less concerned about it than either of you. I always participate on the internet under my real name. If anyone is curious, it is displayed rather prominently at:
            http://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2009/04/16/my-john-h
            …in an open and rather contumacious message to the Feds. Hiding from nothing, I now even permit my devices to report my GPS location when asked.

            My point was that keeping the sheeple voting for the lessor of evils, is so critical to the continued success of the oligarchs' Incumbrepublocrat duopoly, that internet voting might trigger unintended consequences, if too many were to give up voting over their own privacy concerns. Australia long ago made it a crime not to vote. I suspect that the only thing holding our politicians back, is the lack of clarity over which wing of the duopoly would most benefit.

            That said, currently the Progressives get their knickers in a twist, if their lo-fo voters are even asked to identify themselves and/or prove they are citizens entitled to vote. It is hard to imagine them ever permitting the level of personal scrutiny you are proposing, RS, especially if doing so would make it harder for them to rig an election.

            Then again, I really don't intend to ever vote again, and would encourage others to also boycott elections, so pondering this subject is only an intellectual exercise. Perhaps I should just use your assurance that there will never again be the expectation of privacy in the act of voting, as additional ammunition for my anti-voting arguments. 😉 ◄Dave►

    • Robert Ringer RJR says:

      Your analogy is perfect. It has nothing to do with being for or against Cruz, Trump, or anyone else. It's an analysis that stands on its own logic. The players are irrelevant.

  20. Sheila says:

    This article is ABSURD. Trashing Cruz (and Glenn Beck for good measure) is way way over the top. Sen. Cruz has every right to "wine & dine" the delegates, as he is allowed to do. Better wining than whining, which is all the Dumpster ever does, unless it's a state he wins. I find it comical that when he wins the NY primary it's "Sen. Cruz" and when he loses in Colorado it's "Lyin' Ted." Does he have Derangement Disorder? Or is it memory lapse?

    Either way, this article is moot in lieu of Trump's outrageous comments the next day defending transgendered men using ladies rooms. Um…that is really sick, especially since any man can now use that excuse to go into a bathroom with little girls. That is INSANE. RR, you think Ted looks CREEPY but you have no comments about the CREEPY bathroom policy that Dumpster supports? I'd rather have a creepy looking president than one who support sick and creepy policies. I'm afraid our culture is really finished if people think that is normal. No wonder Hillary got more votes than all three Republicans combined. That's because of what Trump is doing. Trump said again today he'd raise taxes. He's a LIBERAL, people, posing as a Republican. Voters are turned off. Kasich is full of himself and a spoiler. Cruz is right. Ringer is WRONG.

    • Reality Seeker says:

      "Sen. Cruz has every right to "wine & dine" the delegates".

      Lol…….. can I wine and dine a judge in order to win one of my legal cases? Can I wine and dine a cop, so he might or might not issue a ticket? Can I wine and dine admissions so my kid can get into Harvard? Can I wine and dine my way all the way up to the White House? Do I have the "right" to wine and dine?

      Let's add that to the Constitution: " The right to wine and dine" can become the Thirty-forth Amendments….lol

      You're too funny. Keep posting your shit. It really makes for a good laugh.

    • Robert Ringer RJR says:

      If I'm wrong, then so are you, Shiela, because I AGREE with most of what you say. But Trump is not a liberal, he's an unguided missile who just likes to say controversial things. And the bathroom thing makes me physically ill. If he can't pull himself together, his new campaign manager may just resign.

      Sheila, here's the real bottom line: The ENTIRE system is corrupt and ALL politicians are, to one extent or another, lowlife.

      Better?

      • Jim Hallett says:

        And too many Americans have been hoodwinked into the age old maxim of "choosing the lesser evil" and this is the mess we have in the republic – a "progressive" nightmare. Trump's main benefit is in torching the establishment, so we might be able to get a restart. Since neither Calvin Coolidge or Ron Paul are running this time, we are just watching various degrees of evil performing, and NONE worse than the wretch which is Hildabeast!!

      • Sheila says:

        Yes. I agree too, that the corruption is very sad and reaches across the political spectrum. Too bad we can't have government without politicians or lobbyists. :)

  21. Diane Young says:

    Ted Cruz looked like a used car salesman to me from the git-go–slippery and sleazy. Would you buy a used car
    from someone who looked and talked like he does?

  22. Marie says:

    Trump is the only Capitalist running in this race . That is why he is hated by many . The Jews brought Capitalism to Europe and disrupted the ruling Aristocracy's power over the population . When the Jews were attacked by the National Socialists , it was their business , not their churches getting the treatment .
    Everything they throw at Trump was said about the Jews in Europe

  23. Michael Ponzani says:

    I hear Cruz is extremely cold in private. Classic psycho-sociopathic personality. A Bad News Boy.

  24. Robert Ringer RJR says:

    Thank you, Dave, for again making my position regarding ALL politicians known.

  25. Robert Ringer RJR says:

    I did, 40 years ago. It broke down right after I pulled off the lot.

  26. patg2 says:

    Palin has a wacky sense of humor. I like that. She talks off the cuff. I used to do that a lot in speeches, so it doesn't bother me if she sometimes says things that don't sound quite right. As for Glenn Beck, good on her. Beck is a deceiver. I gave up on him for claiming to be both a Christian and a Mormon.

  27. Jason says:

    Lyin' Ted

  28. La'me says:

    At least Mr. Ringer did not mention principled Ted Cruz's finding money from Goldman Sachs in his pockets, Mr. Cruz's fatal attraction to finding his way into bed with women not his wife (notice no one filed a lawsuit over those Enquirer facts), lynching black candidate Ben Carson, and driving his wife Heidi, over the edge, because that would have cost Ted Cruz another million dollars in overtime to his employed minders, coming onto sites like this and posting defenses of how wonderful Ted Cruz is, a man who is ineligible due to another fact that he had dual citizenship being born in Canada.
    Let us just though blame Mr. Ringer, Mr. Trump and the tooth fairy as none of this is ever Ted Cruz's fault or crimes, as I believe Rush Limbaugh when he vouches that Ted Cruz is the most principled man and God is thinking about replacing Jesus with Ted.

    • patg2 says:

      Your rant is beyond belief, full of lies and innuendos. Too bad you apparently believe what you said.

      I'll TELL you why Cruz didn't sue the Enquirer. First of all, a public official or public figure CANNOT SUE FOR DEFAMATION. Second, it's a waste of time to sue the Enquirer.

      Two courts have ruled that for purposes of being president, Cruz is a natural born citizen.

      The rest of your message should be taken with the same skepticism. I don't think Cruz is perfect, and I desperately dislike some of the things he HAS done that I can verify. But that doesn't mean your criticism has merit. It doesn't.

      • ◄Dave► says:

        Are lawyerly judicial opinions all that mere voters, who still revere the Constitution, are permitted to care about? If Cruz is a natural born citizen (NBC), then so was Winston Churchill. So is Prince Albert II, the current reigning monarch of Monaco. Does that make any sense?

        Then, whatever was all the fuss about, over the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya? According to the legal opinions you cite, it could have made no difference to Obama's eligibility either way. One hell of a lot of people, on both sides of that dispute, sure thought it did. Why did a great many judges, including the SCOTUS itself on multiple occasions, dodge making a ruling on the matter?

        One thing is indisputable: Until he renounced his Canadian citizenship two years ago, after deciding to run for POTUS, Canadian born citizen Cruz spent the first 44 years of his life as a certified NBC of Canada. If he was also simultaneously a NBC of America, then the term has no useful distinction whatever, and our Founders were foolish for even employing it in the Constitution.

        In any case, those voters disagreeing with you and your court opinions, have every right to reject them as dispositive, and continue to refuse to vote for a candidate they reckon ineligible for the office. They also have the right to campaign against Cruz for that reason alone if they wish, and stating their opinion on the matter is not a 'lie,' just because a couple of lawyers in black robes have different opinions. ◄Dave►

        • patg2 says:

          The court system is what we are stuck with. It decides disputes of this nature. If you don't like this system, get it changed. Furthermore, the challenge based on citizenship has been used successfully in the past. I happen to like that as a requirement. As for the present PrOTUS, (Pretender Of The US), I don't know what the problem is there. I think he is an illegal, personally. There is a lot of really strange stuff going on, the way people capitulate to him for no apparent reason. Since he slipped by, evidently the courts in general are not going to use that requirement anymore. That needs to be fixed, too.

          You are free to vote against anyone for any reason. Or campaign against anyone. I just don't like to see people spreading lies. The idea that Cruz is or is not a natural born citizen is a matter of dispute, obviously. That wasn't what I was calling a lie. The idea that if Cruz didn't sue the Enquirer, the allegations must be true is simply false. The claim this proves the allegations a lie if you tell it KNOWING it's false. Otherwise, you are simply mistaken. I don't know the answer, but I have no reason to suspect Cruz of infidelity. Heidi's politics worry me a lot. Wives are very influential. But I will choose either Trump or Cruz over Hellary any day. Or Sandnut, for that matter.

  29. Scott says:

    Cruz is a creep. If you can't see through his transparent lies and creepy demeanor then you are a big part of the problem.

  30. K. says:

    `Crazy’ Cruz just held a rally in the major American city of Philadelphia to which 22 people showed up! LOL! You literally couldn’t make this up! Meanwhile Trump has been rallying 10,000 to 35,000 people at a time for months. Cruz is loudly claiming massive victories in states where the American people have not been afforded the opportunity to vote — Colorado, Wyoming. Meanwhile Trump has be demonstrating unprecedented political appeal across all demographics and ideological categories in all regions and corners of the country — winning 17 states (which is more states than Clinton). Trump just won 50% of the Republican Latino vote in New York, beating out crazy Raphael `Ted’ Cruz the Cubano-Canadian by twice the vote.

    Crazy, Crazy Cruz… election theft maestro… is sadly ineligible to run for President. He will be legalistically ground up like hamburger and terminally ruined by the Clintonistas should he prove unlucky enough to be `falsely nominated’ using `suspect electronic vote counting machines’ at the upcoming RINO convention in Cleveland. Yet Crazy Cruz keeps saying he is the only one who can beat Clinton.

    Cruz is a foreign-born, illegal immigrant raised to become a world class political-psychiatric case. I agree with the insightful author of this article. Crazy Cruz has a major `personality disorder’ — a disorder made to order on the other side of the American border.

  31. stevefromohio says:

    Cruz reminds me of Elmer Gantry. Always waving his Bible saying he is a man of GOD all the while trying to get a girl.

    Cruz is a hypocrite and he is a man of the system. He is a Bushite through and through.

  32. Rodney L Kincaid says:

    Rodney from Florida

    I just finished reading all of the comments, and it puts some humor in my soul. I was surprised that no one mentioned John Kasich He just may be our only hope for our country.

  33. I am curious as to whether American voters in our TV – soaked society will vote for a Commander in Chief or an Entertainer-in-Chief.

  34. It's a shame that ordinary people looked at the bigger Picture when the talk in politics – ca. 1972-5 – was of the 'official' sin committed by the Nixon Administration re Watergate – whose actions were magnified into a HUGE scam perpetrated by the Courts, the academia and rivals waiting to unseat the Devil Incarnate. Anybody remotely able to think clearly on Watergate MUST read Geoff Shepard's The REAL Watergate Scandal' out 2015 on Regnery History.

  35. alegator43 says:

    interssting

Leave a Reply to Stutts