Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It has to just suck being a modern Republican.Your front runner was/is a reality TV star. And the fact he's not at all Republican, just saying what you want to hear (apparently) is just the icing on the cake. Conservatives are almost always at the fore to complain about the dumbing down of America through "liberal indoctrination". And here you are voting Trump brand vodka and TV!

How do you seriously not take a really thorough look at what got you here? Electing an (bad) actor wasn't enough, you needed reality TV!

 LordofHats wrote:
It's one thing to debate what facts mean. It's another to build your platform around the conception they don't exist.

Absolutely, and if Safire had said something along the lines of 'partisanship can produced informed debate if all parties stick to fact based reasoning and argue in good faith' then it would have been reasonable, and not funny at all.

But he didn’t. He didn’t even consider the possibility that partisanship might involve one party that is arguing from positions of an almost faithlike ideology, with no regard for facts.

And I’m not saying he’s wrong for failing to predict that. The warning signs were there, but they were only really clearly seen in hindsight. But it goes to show how much there is that we don’t or can’t see ahead of time, that makes so much of our analysis hopelessly wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
Conservatives are almost always at the fore to complain about the dumbing down of America through "liberal indoctrination". And here you are voting Trump brand vodka and TV!

Most people are saying Trump is a sign of how badly things have gone wrong in the Republican party. Republicans are saying he's a sign of how badly things have gone wrong in America.

If Trump does get the nomination, then in November we'll know whether it's just a problem with the Republican party, or something much greater.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
Conservatives are almost always at the fore to complain about the dumbing down of America through "liberal indoctrination". And here you are voting Trump brand vodka and TV!

Most people are saying Trump is a sign of how badly things have gone wtong in the Republican party. Republicans are saying he's a sign of how badly things have gone wrong in America.

If Trump does get the nomination, then in November we'll know whether it's just a problem with the Republican party, or something much greater.

No I know that, but it is the deep Republican base that is supporting him. They can't deny that. There aren't many people that were pro-Obama for years and suddenly didn't like the cut of his jib and are Trumpers now. It's the exact same crowd the Republicans have been catering to.

And it is wrong of me to conflate Conservative with Republican, but this is what it is. Whether or not his ideals are Conservative (they're not) he is attracting "Conservative" speaking voters in droves

Okay, here's a question... let's say Trump wins the next few states and comes within a hair's breadth of 1237 a week or two before the convention. So he's pretty much got a lock on getting all 1237 by the actual convention. There is no hope for Cruz and Kasich to last till a brokered convention, all that is left for them is to concede defeat. Given that situation, can Cruz and Kasich give those delegates they've already won to Hillary? Y'know... just to spite Trump.

Also: something a friend of mine told me tonight that I believe he saw on the internet... "Can we write in James T. Kirk on the ballot? Because this election is turning into a real Kobayashi Maru."

Weird double post shenanigans.

Well, some candidates do run for multiple parties in local elections...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
. Evan Bayh, Corey Booker, hell, put Elizabeth Warren on and she will have more youth voters than Sanders would net her.

I would definitely vote for a ticket with Corey Booker on it. I've seen him speak on numerous occasions, various interviews, etc. and he's one of the few people up there in Washington that, when he opens his mouth, my BS alarm doesn't go off. In one of his more recent interviews, he said flat out that he reaches across the aisle, and has even worked with the anti-christ himself (Cruz) on a few bills.

I have no idea who Evan Bayh is, but I suspect with that last name, it may draw a bit of negative attention, no matter what he looks like. It simply looks a bit too foreign for Republicans to NOT go after.

I seem to recall Warren stating flat out that she would not take any offers for the VP, though to be fair, she could very well have been responding only to a potential Sanders offering.

I like Booker, and I'd vote for Clinton/Booker, but I do have some pretty serious reservations about his experience. I don't really know much about what he's done or not done in his 2 years in the Senate. I'd prefer a candidate with a longer record.

squidhills wrote:
Okay, here's a question... let's say Trump wins the next few states and comes within a hair's breadth of 1237 a week or two before the convention. So he's pretty much got a lock on getting all 1237 by the actual convention. There is no hope for Cruz and Kasich to last till a brokered convention, all that is left for them is to concede defeat. Given that situation, can Cruz and Kasich give those delegates they've already won to Hillary? Y'know... just to spite Trump.

Also: something a friend of mine told me tonight that I believe he saw on the internet... "Can we write in James T. Kirk on the ballot? Because this election is turning into a real Kobayashi Maru."

You hit on a point here, which is that Trump doesn't need to reach exactly 1237, but close enough that with released delegates and non-committeds, he gets there. If he does, well, he's the nominee, rules are rules.

I think we're finally seeing a coordinated effort to stop that. Cruz should clean up in the western states, especially those that caucus. All Ted need to do is stop a first ballot win by Trump, and he's in. Hell, if Kasich wants to be be VP I still think Cruz/Kasich should get enough delegates to win on the first ballot.

The GOP establishment has is sick of hearing people whine about a lack of true conservatives on the ticket. They'll nominate Cruz, he'll lose by 8 points in the popular vote and by 100 electoral votes, and the GOP can figure out what it wants to do.

Keep in mind that no matter how you define "safe state," the dems start the game with more electoral votes. In a Cruz/Clinton matchup, I think the Obama blue wall holds (including wisconson and Pennsylvania), while Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, and Nevada are very much in play. Not that it matters, as Clinton would win Ohio and Florida against Cruz.

The electoral math is grim, and there's a reason the GOP has trotted out more moderate candidates since Goldwater: the election is won or lost in the battleground states.

R's your candidates for president are "Shutdown" Cruz or "You're Fired" Trump.

I honestly never thought that would happen when the race started all those months ago. I didn't think either had a snowballs chance in Arizona.

Ok, so saying "conservative" in regards to GOP glosses over some pretty different groups:
Business conservatives who like deregulation and lower taxation- this group includes large corporate interests and wealthy elites. This is the big funder of GOP politics and seems to be in the crosshairs this primary.
Cultural conservatives who range from moderate to extreme fundamentalists. This group is the voting base of the GOP and seems to be increasingly hostile to the globalism of the first group. This is where you see the strong naturalism, populism, and protectionist rhetoric scoring big.

Now in order to win a national election, the GOP needs both these groups, plus enough political moderates that don't identify strongly as Democrats. The problem is that the second group is pushing against the other two blocs that the Repubs need to actually win.

Trump appeals to the second group, and possibly the crossover group, but not the first. He is also a nightmare to philosophical conservatives, but their influence is pretty minor.

 jmurph wrote:
Ok, so saying "conservative" in regards to GOP glosses over some pretty different groups:
Business conservatives who like deregulation and lower taxation- this group includes large corporate interests and wealthy elites. This is the big funder of GOP politics and seems to be in the crosshairs this primary.

I disagree with part of this. I think the Large Corporate Interests don't want deregulation and lower taxation, at least not for everybody. They want regulation that gives them an advantage, and taxation rules that do the same. They can afford taxation and regulation compliance that allows them to dominate smaller business that cannot. They lobby not for deregulation for all, but for exemptions narrow enough that they retain an advantage. This is the crony capitalism some 'conservatives' rail against.

 CptJake wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Ok, so saying "conservative" in regards to GOP glosses over some pretty different groups:
Business conservatives who like deregulation and lower taxation- this group includes large corporate interests and wealthy elites. This is the big funder of GOP politics and seems to be in the crosshairs this primary.

I disagree with part of this. I think the Large Corporate Interests don't want deregulation and lower taxation, at least not for everybody. They want regulation that gives them an advantage, and taxation rules that do the same. They can afford taxation and regulation compliance that allows them to dominate smaller business that cannot. They lobby not for deregulation for all, but for exemptions narrow enough that they retain an advantage. This is the crony capitalism some 'conservatives' rail against.

Yes, big corporations lobby for regulations that stifle competition against them from smaller innovative companies. Big corporations want to legislate themselves into a monopolistic position where they make plenty of money to afford to pay the costs of regulation and taxation because they have no fear from competitors. In those situations corporations win, consumers lose, the free market is obstructed and innovation is replaced with stagnation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

squidhills wrote:
Okay, here's a question... let's say Trump wins the next few states and comes within a hair's breadth of 1237 a week or two before the convention. So he's pretty much got a lock on getting all 1237 by the actual convention. There is no hope for Cruz and Kasich to last till a brokered convention, all that is left for them is to concede defeat. Given that situation, can Cruz and Kasich give those delegates they've already won to Hillary? Y'know... just to spite Trump.

Also: something a friend of mine told me tonight that I believe he saw on the internet... "Can we write in James T. Kirk on the ballot? Because this election is turning into a real Kobayashi Maru."

You hit on a point here, which is that Trump doesn't need to reach exactly 1237, but close enough that with released delegates and non-committeds, he gets there. If he does, well, he's the nominee, rules are rules.

I think we're finally seeing a coordinated effort to stop that. Cruz should clean up in the western states, especially those that caucus. All Ted need to do is stop a first ballot win by Trump, and he's in. Hell, if Kasich wants to be be VP I still think Cruz/Kasich should get enough delegates to win on the first ballot.

The GOP establishment has is sick of hearing people whine about a lack of true conservatives on the ticket. They'll nominate Cruz, he'll lose by 8 points in the popular vote and by 100 electoral votes, and the GOP can figure out what it wants to do.

Keep in mind that no matter how you define "safe state," the dems start the game with more electoral votes. In a Cruz/Clinton matchup, I think the Obama blue wall holds (including wisconson and Pennsylvania), while Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, and Nevada are very much in play. Not that it matters, as Clinton would win Ohio and Florida against Cruz.

The electoral math is grim, and there's a reason the GOP has trotted out more moderate candidates since Goldwater: the election is won or lost in the battleground states.

The electoral map is indeed pretty grim for the GOP. It's very hard to look at states that Obama won in 2008 and 2012 and find ones in which Trump or Cruz would have a good chance of defeating Hillary. The most pressing question for the GOP, IMHO, isn't figuring out which candidate would win the election, but is which candidate would do the least damage to the party by winning the nomination? Unfortunately for the GOP it's probably already too late. None of the candidates are unifying the party and getting the levels of support in the primaries that McCain and Romney got, those guys were winning primaries with 70% of the vote, far better performance than Trump, Cruz and Kasich are averaging. If primary voters continue to be divided and unenthusiastic it's not a good sign for turnout in the general.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Unfortunately for the GOP it's probably already too late. None of the candidates are unifying the party and getting the levels of support in the primaries that McCain and Romney got, those guys were winning primaries with 70% of the vote, far better performance than Trump, Cruz and Kasich are averaging. If primary voters continue to be divided and unenthusiastic it's not a good sign for turnout in the general.

I agree, but honestly, I'm not sure what other outcome there could have been with these candidates. Never have I seen such a clown car of losers, has beens, and never-wases. It's the 2012 Anyone But Romney if there was no Romney.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Unfortunately for the GOP it's probably already too late. None of the candidates are unifying the party and getting the levels of support in the primaries that McCain and Romney got, those guys were winning primaries with 70% of the vote, far better performance than Trump, Cruz and Kasich are averaging. If primary voters continue to be divided and unenthusiastic it's not a good sign for turnout in the general.

I agree, but honestly, I'm not sure what other outcome there could have been with these candidates. Never have I seen such a clown car of losers, has beens, and never-wases. It's the 2012 Anyone But Romney if there was no Romney.

The turnout has far exceeded 2012 for Republicans... the issue is that, there's more players in the field.

I think, when all said & done, if it's Clinton vs. not-Trump, both parties will unify.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Unfortunately for the GOP it's probably already too late. None of the candidates are unifying the party and getting the levels of support in the primaries that McCain and Romney got, those guys were winning primaries with 70% of the vote, far better performance than Trump, Cruz and Kasich are averaging. If primary voters continue to be divided and unenthusiastic it's not a good sign for turnout in the general.

I agree, but honestly, I'm not sure what other outcome there could have been with these candidates. Never have I seen such a clown car of losers, has beens, and never-wases. It's the 2012 Anyone But Romney if there was no Romney.

The turnout has far exceeded 2012 for Republicans... the issue is that, there's more players in the field.

I think, when all said & done, if it's Clinton vs. not-Trump, both parties will unify.

There won't be much Republican unity this election. I don't see Trump voters suddenly deciding to vote for Cruz or somebody else just because of the R next to the candidate's name. Trump isn't much of a Republican and I don't see much crossover appeal there. Exit polls of Republican primary voters that have voted for other candidates have shown a high majority of them would be "dissatisfied" with Trump as the party nominee so that will probably depress turnout of Trump wins. The campaigns in the Republican primaries have also gotten even nastier and more rediculous and the leve of acrimony building up isn't good for unity in the general either.

Prestor Jon wrote:
There won't be much Republican unity this election. I don't see Trump voters suddenly deciding to vote for Cruz or somebody else just because of the R next to the candidate's name. Trump isn't much of a Republican and I don't see much crossover appeal there. Exit polls of Republican primary voters that have voted for other candidates have shown a high majority of them would be "dissatisfied" with Trump as the party nominee so that will probably depress turnout of Trump wins. The campaigns in the Republican primaries have also gotten even nastier and more rediculous and the leve of acrimony building up isn't good for unity in the general either.

Trump supporters are mostly dissatisfied, and Cruz has pretty serious outsider credentials. He has no friends in the Senate and has worked harder than anybody to shut down government, both figuratively and literally. I wouldn't be surprised for Cruz to pick up a big chunk of the Trump supporters, especially those that had been Republicans consistently prior.

The problem for Cruz isn't in the party faithful. he's a hardline conservative with plenty of appeal to evangelicals. The problem he runs into is winning moderate and swing voters. Now, conventional wisdom is that attracting swing voters isn't a good strategy, because there simply aren't very many. the problem with that is that winning a swing voter is twice as effective as getting a base voter out to the polls, because you also denied your opponent a vote.

Cruz is by far the better choice for the GOP. I think you need to, barring an indictment, write off the next four years in the White House. Nominating Cruz would show that a "true conservative" doesn't fare any better (and likely will fare worse) than a more moderate candidate like Romney. The GOP base feels that they keep losing because they aren't conservative enough, which is almost certainly not true, but they may need to try with a true conservative.

Putting Kasich on the ticket would help, as Ohio is a legit swing state and Kasich is popular. It would also make him seem more prestigious, so that he can muster for a real run in 2020.

 jmurph wrote:
Ok, so saying "conservative" in regards to GOP glosses over some pretty different groups:
Business conservatives who like deregulation and lower taxation- this group includes large corporate interests and wealthy elites. This is the big funder of GOP politics and seems to be in the crosshairs this primary.
Cultural conservatives who range from moderate to extreme fundamentalists. This group is the voting base of the GOP and seems to be increasingly hostile to the globalism of the first group. This is where you see the strong naturalism, populism, and protectionist rhetoric scoring big.

Now in order to win a national election, the GOP needs both these groups, plus enough political moderates that don't identify strongly as Democrats. The problem is that the second group is pushing against the other two blocs that the Repubs need to actually win.

Trump appeals to the second group, and possibly the crossover group, but not the first. He is also a nightmare to philosophical conservatives, but their influence is pretty minor.

The GOP sowed the seeds of their current debacle back in the 1980's with the "Reagan Coalition." Bringing fiscal conservatives and social conservatives into the same party got Reagan elected but while the two groups share the "conservative" moniker they work at cross purposes. The GOP would be better off today if they were still a party championing fiscal conservatives, limited government, free markets and individual liberty. That would give them a good mix of being for gay marriage, against runaway deficits, unfunded wars, government surveillance and failed policies like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.

The GOP messed up by trying claim to be for limited government while simultaneously trying to expand government to legislate morality in a pseudo theocratic manner. They should have focused on pushing ethics instead of morals. They should be advocating free markets regulated with laws that enforce good business ethics and fair competition instead of getting overtake by big business and creating a crony capitalist oligarchy. They let Big Business write their own regulations and twist ethics to fit the profit above all idealogy and then misconstrued the lack of ethics as a lack of morals to advocate fixing problems by expanding government to legislate morality which the govt has no business doing and opposes individual liberty.

It would be a boon for the country if the 2016 election cycle broke up both parties. They've become political institutions that mirror far too many of the negatives aspects of the too big to fail financial institutions. More parties providing more choices to voters and letting the myriad parties form coalitions to pass legislation when they find common ground would be so much better.

To be fair, Bush ran up a huge deficit by unfunded wars in Ganners and Iraq. The whole western world is still trying to figure out how to deal with the fallout from those disasters.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Unfortunately for the GOP it's probably already too late. None of the candidates are unifying the party and getting the levels of support in the primaries that McCain and Romney got, those guys were winning primaries with 70% of the vote, far better performance than Trump, Cruz and Kasich are averaging. If primary voters continue to be divided and unenthusiastic it's not a good sign for turnout in the general.

I agree, but honestly, I'm not sure what other outcome there could have been with these candidates. Never have I seen such a clown car of losers, has beens, and never-wases. It's the 2012 Anyone But Romney if there was no Romney.

It's easy to forget 2012, but it was pretty much a clown show as well. Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and above all Michelle Bachmann. At least this time there were several sitting Senators and Governors to pick from (for all the good it did them).

Yeah, at least in 2012, Romney was a adult in the room. I didn't vote for him, but I could have said, well, he's my President had he won and not have been embarrassed and ashamed the way that Trump or Cruz represent. Trump or Cruz! It still blows my mind to say that's who it's down to.

Stephen King said it best: "Conservatives who for 8 years sowed the dragon's teeth of partisan politics are horrified to discover they have grown an actual dragon". The idea of no compromise at any cost is above all what led to this lineup.

Yeah, it's hard for me to think that the GOP has anyone me to blame but themselves for their current Trumptastrophe. You can raise a mob, but don't be surprised when it turns against you.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, at least in 2012, Romney was a adult in the room. I didn't vote for him, but I could have said, well, he's my President had he won and not have been embarrassed and ashamed the way that Trump or Cruz represent. Trump or Cruz! It still blows my mind to say that's who it's down to.

Trump would be an absolute embarrassment and wouldn't even come close to the WH... even against Clinton.

Cruz is an ideologue... but, he wouldn't embarrass you like Trump would. He'd have some serious uphill challenge to defeat Clinton, but he certainly wouldn't be worst that Clinton or (gasp) Trump.

Stephen King said it best: "Conservatives who for 8 years sowed the dragon's teeth of partisan politics are horrified to discover they have grown an actual dragon". The idea of no compromise at any cost is above all what led to this lineup.

That a whole lotta paint sniff'n BS there man...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Yeah, it's hard for me to think that the GOP has anyone me to blame but themselves for their current Trumptastrophe. You can raise a mob, but don't be surprised when it turns against you.

GOP leadership is the blame by ignoring the conservatives/tea party movement. They're paying the piper now...

Cruz is more dangerous than Trump IMO, mainly due to the fact that he's a religious zealot. Trump may be a con man but he wont try turn us into a Theocracy like Cruz would.

Oh... heyo!

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ted-cruz-trump-sniveling-coward-n545026

"It's not easy to tick me off. I don't get angry often," Cruz told reporters while campaigning in Wisconsin. "But you mess with my wife, you mess with my kids, that'll do it every time. Donald you are a sniveling coward and leave Heidi the hell alone."

I'm liking *this* Ted Cruz...

Trump idiotic tantrum is giving Cruz free sympathy points and easy opportunities to make himself look good by defending his wife.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Cruz is more dangerous than Trump IMO, mainly due to the fact that he's a religious zealot. Trump may be a con man but he wont try turn us into a Theocracy like Cruz would.

Sorry... it's laughable to believe that Cruz would turn us into a Theocracy. Not going to happen by any stretch nor attempts.

We hear this everytime with every Republican Presidential candidates...

That's the same as righties believe that Democratic candidates are the Red hammer&sickle communists.

 whembly wrote:
Sorry... it's laughable to believe that Cruz would turn us into a Theocracy. Not going to happen by any stretch nor attempts.

We hear this everytime with every Republican Presidential candidates...

That's the same as righties believe that Democratic candidates are the Red hammer&sickle communists.

Theocracy is a strong word, but his stance on social issues is straight line Religious Right, and his own website speaks of Christians being persecuted. This isn't a guy that's looking to .

One choice tidbit from his website: in the section about "Restoring the Constitution" he lists:

•Successfully defended the constitutionality of the Texas Ten Commandments monument, winning a 5-4 landmark decision before the U.S. Supreme Court.
•Led the way to preserve the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance at the U.S. Supreme Court.

I'm not sure I'd consider either the Ten Commandments or any part of the Pledge, let alone the "under God" clause, part of "restoring the constitution," unless you have a pretty specific idea of what the Constitution really means...

 whembly wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Yeah, it's hard for me to think that the GOP has anyone me to blame but themselves for their current Trumptastrophe. You can raise a mob, but don't be surprised when it turns against you.

GOP leadership is the blame by ignoring the conservatives/tea party movement. They're paying the piper now...

Kinda hard for me to accept that Tea Party types are going for Trump. He's a big government guy. Maybe the convictions of the Tea Party are pretty thin, but I've just been assuming that the Tea Party vote is where Cruz is getting his limited support.

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sorry... it's laughable to believe that Cruz would turn us into a Theocracy. Not going to happen by any stretch nor attempts.

We hear this everytime with every Republican Presidential candidates...

That's the same as righties believe that Democratic candidates are the Red hammer&sickle communists.

Theocracy is a strong word, but his stance on social issues is straight line Religious Right, and his own website speaks of Christians being persecuted. This isn't a guy that's looking to .

One choice tidbit from his website: in the section about "Restoring the Constitution" he lists:

•Successfully defended the constitutionality of the Texas Ten Commandments monument, winning a 5-4 landmark decision before the U.S. Supreme Court.
•Led the way to preserve the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance at the U.S. Supreme Court.

I'm not sure I'd consider either the Ten Commandments or any part of the Pledge, let alone the "under God" clause, part of "restoring the constitution," unless you have a pretty specific idea of what the Constitution really means...

It's all about freedom of religion polonius... not, freedom from religion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Yeah, it's hard for me to think that the GOP has anyone me to blame but themselves for their current Trumptastrophe. You can raise a mob, but don't be surprised when it turns against you.

GOP leadership is the blame by ignoring the conservatives/tea party movement. They're paying the piper now...

Kinda hard for me to accept that Tea Party types are going for Trump. He's a big government guy. Maybe the convictions of the Tea Party are pretty thin, but I've just been assuming that the Tea Party vote is where Cruz is getting his limited support.

Many Tea Partier *ARE* supporting Trump. Not because he's an awesome candidate... but, they want to RELEASE THE KRACKEN (Trump) amonst the GOP elite as a show of disapproval.

They're what I'd call the, Burn the GOP Down Crowd.

I don;t get it. It doesn't get much more Tea Party than Cruz? And no one in the GOP can stand Cruz, either, so its not like voting for him would be supporting the establishment.

I guess I shouldn't be looking for too much common sense, consistency, and rationality when it comes to people's voting habits. If the religious are buying what Trump's selling, why not the Tea Party.

Don't worry, Cruz's hallmark is pretty much getting nothing done. He likes to talk a lot and do very little.

I don't know that Cruz's comments are going to help him. Certainly didn't do Rubio any good to go head to head with Trump. And it kinda looks weird since an anti-Trump PAC went after Trump's wife first. The fact that PACs aren't the same as a campaign is kind of a technicality- Cruz could have said that he didn't support that kind of dirty play, but he didn't and now we have this.

Cruz gets killed in a general against Hillary. He loses a portion of the Trump voters, and drives moderates to vote Dem. Kasich probably does better, but has no real chance short of being brokered in, which leaves the same problem of losing Trump/Cruz voters. So, at this point, I don't see any chance of the Republicans winning the general with a candidate other than Trump. Which, the leadership may be perfectly okay with- Cruz would rehab them somewhat, put a conservative on the ticket, and then go down in the general, but not destroy the down ticket candidates.

 whembly wrote:

It's all about freedom of religion polonius... not, freedom from religion.

You better believe that implicit in 'freedom of religion' is the freedom from compulsion to adhere to any religion. Otherwise, it's a meaningless phrase.