Your remembrances of Reagan are as inaccurate as Ted Cruz' lies that he told about it when talking to Cooper. Man, that guy is full of lies. Reagan was never as hated by the GOP establishment for challenging Ford as Cruz is by his own colleagues now. Reagan absolutely got many of his projects passed by working with Democrats, finding common ground, and compromising. You should actually check your history and facts instead of swallowing what Cruz is shoveling. Here's an article that talks about how Reagan worked with congress, and congress worked with him in a bi-partisan manner. It doesn't mean that there weren't disagreements or that everything was conflict free. http://www.politico.com/story/2012/02/reagans-legacy-of-constructive-bipartisanship-072468 Some snippets Ronnie wasn't hated by his party, and did work both sides of the aisle to accomplish things. He was opposed to type of politics (and many policies) adopted by Cruz. You can cheer Cruz all you want, but don't try and rewrite history about Ronald Reagan (who I can't stand as a President).
texx, texx... your string of bad weeks seems to be continuing. This thread is about Ted Cruz. The Cruz supporter was looking for evidence of Cruz's dishonesty. And brought up Reagan as a role model for Cruz. The recent threads responded to those questions about his integrity and Reagan's willingness to work with congress and Democrats. If you wish to question anyone else's honesty, knock yourself out in the appropriate threads. I am sure there are plenty. But take a deep breath, gather your thoughts and focus on the topic.
Interesting article I found on Cruz. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-has-a-huge-math-problem/
... <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Mark Sanford Endorses Ted Cruz for President | February 19, 2016 <a href="https://t.co/ZdP8jS9VY0" title="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsWmV2XFPgM&feature=youtu.be">youtu.be/ZsWmV2XFPgM</a> via @<a href="https://twitter.com/YouTube">YouTube</a></p>— Rick Tyler (@rickwtyler) <a href="https://twitter.com/rickwtyler/status/700758429724311552" data-datetime="2016-02-19T19:06:43+00:00">February 19, 2016</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Actually, it appears that Nate Silver has a "math problem". Here is Nate Silver on Twitter in July 2015 explaining that "Donald Trump Basically Trump is the Nickelback of presidential candidates. Disliked by most, super popular with a few." https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/626134184864710657 Here is Nate Silver in September 2015 telling Anderson Cooper that Donald Trump has about a 5% chance of winning the nomination: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...lver_trump_has_about_5_chance_of_winning.html Here is Nate Silver in November 2015 telling people to stop freaking out over the polls and that Trump has only a 20% chance to win the nomination. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dear-media-stop-freaking-out-about-donald-trumps-polls/ And of course now he is starting to walk that back a bit. But then if one of you is smart, you will observe that not only has Silver been pretty consistently off the mark so far this cycle, but that Trump has NOT won the nomination yet. Of course that raises the question about who might the nominee be if not Donald Trump. Ted Cruz, anyone? In any case, is Trump a sure loser? Is Cruz a sure loser? Is there anyone that Nate Silver thinks is likely to win this nomination more than these two that he is willing to name? Thanks for nothing here, Nate. I hope someone will try to weed through all of Nate Silver's wrong prognostications this cycle at the end of this race and not just cherrypick out the one post he got right. When you offer prognostications of seemingly every possible scenario, of course that makes it a lot easier to have one handy you can point to later and say, "Let's see, I put that one around here somewhere. Oh, here it is. Yep. I got it right." And he also got it wrong. A lot. Including maybe even on the post that you guys have linked above.
^^^ LOL. I don't know what the above is supposed to counter. First, I doubt Nate Silver or his team have a dog in the race (unlike, mojoman). But the tweets you are posting (from as far back as September of 2015, then in November) seem consistent with what the article says (certainly don't contradict the article's findings), that the odds of someone other than Trump winning the nomination are getting smaller and smaller, and may soon disappear. I suspect back in September, the authors would have expected the loons, I mean GOP to toss Trump aside and a more reasonable candidate (probably Bush or Rubio) would rise to the top. Over time that hasn't happened. And if Trump win SC, and continues to win in the deep south... Well, I am afraid mojoman will be quickly changing his crush target...
Cruz campaign is hilarious. Re: the photoshopped Rubio/Obama shaking hands photo. UPDATE (11:13 AM): The Cruz campaign doubled down, telling CNN that they believe the image is authentic. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Cruz campaign spox on this: "I am confident that our campaign would not use a photo that is not authentic." <a href="https://t.co/VjsqV0kFKy">https://t.co/VjsqV0kFKy</a></p>— Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) <a href="https://twitter.com/teddyschleifer/status/700347698222886912">February 18, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> UPDATE 2 (11:47 AM): The Cruz campaign is now walking back its initial denial, while not quite admitting the image is fake. “If Rubio has a better picture of him shaking hands with Barack Obama I’m happy to swap it out,” Spokesman Rick Tyler told CNN. “Two days before presidential primary in South Carolina, they want to talk about a picture we used.” However, the Cruz campaign later admitted that the photo was not real. The picture appears to have been removed from therealrubiorecord.com website. "It is simply an illustration, I don't think anyone who looked at that website believes it is a real picture of them shaking hands," an unidentified adviser, speaking on background, told CNN. "It's symbolism."
Something tells me you are way more of a Sanders supporter than Kasich. You have supported EVERY single socialist idea every promoted here so I have little doubt.
I couldn't say but I doubt that since I tend to evaluate ideas on their merits whereas you kind of leave it all up to man in the sky. We all know how Jesus was all about the social Darwinist policies you support. Although something tells me you couldn't define socialism if your life depended on it so your post probably wasn't worth a response The whipping that Cruz has taken since Iowa must really have you questioning God's plan right about now.
Let's see... Lost the Evangelical vote to a lifelong pro-choice democrat: CHECK. Lost runner-up to a broken robot: CHECK. Finished 3rd in the South: CHECK. Move made: SPLASH!
Sound the cannon for Cruz. If he can't even pull a strong 2nd in the Bible belt, he's got no chance. A step forward for the Republican party. Good riddance.
