A Nation is Calling: Ted Cruz Should Launch a Coup d’état

“Delusional” is the only way to describe this article.

Crazy delusional liberals must realy still beleive the earth of flat

This article implies those that harassed and called the conservative Cruz backers liberals and traitors and if we would not vote it would be us electing Hillary. When it is turned on them are they willing to elect Hillary with their non-vote? Trump lurches left to attempt to snag Bernie voters, and disaffected democrats. Everything he said to get the delegate count merely suggestions he didn’t really mean any of it.
Threatening and disparaging remarks of “his “own party. Hey Donny you are suppose to wait til you are put in office before you admit you lied and have no intention of doing what you promised.

teddy has more than a few issues no only in the public life but in his personal fife
born in Canada, not qualified to be pres nor was the fool.
why haven’t the black stone rangers and blm been placed on the domestic terrors list??
so the stones are going to form an new country in the south, why not Tx where cruz lives?
vincee, Trump is a lot smarter than you.

@MOS #8541: Still thinking Obama was born in Kenya?
Not many even here are still holding onto that one

@Steve:
It seems as though every Trump fanatic starts his or her threadbare spiel with “I’m a Cruz supporter, BUT…”

Maybe you were but I doubt it. In any case, Trump lost many of us with his gratuitous vulgarity and profanity, his shameless character assassinations against people of good character, his lying and flip-flopping, what turns out to be his support for touch-back amnesty, his support for socialized medicine, his support for larger and more powerful and more expensive government, his support for gun control (right up until the present time with his support for “No Fly/No Buy”) , and his BBB approach to everything he does (i.e. B.S., Bribery, and Bullying).

Not only did Trump have millions of Democrat voters, he also had close to $2 Billion worth of free media. With 2 exceptions he didn’t receive a majority in the states he won. IMHO he’s still a liberal Democrat posing as a Republican. He needs to be replaced.

@Spurwing Plover: Worse than that, I don’t believe they think there is an option. Most don’t know what flat vs round means.

@VoteOutIncumbents:

Cruz would have defeated Clinton in a Reagan/Carter type landslide.

I would prefer an American in the presidency, we have a foreigner now. Once is enough.

Cruz is Canadian. It’s called a kudatah up there. As in, eh, Ted Cruz should kudatah Trump eh. Pass me a Pilsner willya eh.

@Patriot16:
Well shucks and gee haw
I was talking about the PA primary
In which Trump got about 900000 votes can’t see where 12000 or 50000 would have changed much
But please embarrass yourself by trying to explaining Yourself to me

@Redteam:

How much does the Orange Obama pay you to sit in your mother’s basement and respond to rational posts with amazingly stupid replies?

@Smoking man:

So what exactly ARE you smoking?

PA isn’t the race; it’s only one state out of 50. Trump is underwater in most states, particularly the states that matter. Even solidly Republican states, including Georgia, Arizona, and Utah, are in play now, thanks to none other than the Orange Obama. Hitlery is even buying adds in Nebraska!

Trump has you believing he can win New York? He’s down over TWENTY POINTS there, Skippy. In his own HOME STATE!!! He’s failing to flip any blue states, and in fact is turning red states purple.

Trump is a loser. He’s choking. He’s a choker. He’s going to be dumped from the ticket, and good riddance!

@Marcus: hold on there Sparky
The original post by Vince was about how much influence the Dems had in the nomination of Trump
The article he cited was written last March it said that if 50000 Dems switched they woukd have a big influence on the primary
I showed that was incorrect that Trump woukd have still won that primary easily
The GOP is once again refusing to take any responsibility, instead once again blaming the usual suspects Obama, the left, SOROS, and hippies for having nominated such a weak candidate

@Steve:

This comment by Steve is the great undeniable truth. Cruz lost. Period.

@retire05:

and what the heck would trump threaten them with? assasination? that would put him in jail? where they live is not a secret, nor where their kids go to school, etc..

crazy people making up stuff that makes no sense

Hillary had the support of many Americans, until we realized how dishonest she is. The fact that she lied repeatedly to investigators, while under oath must be a Clinton family trait. It’s true she above the law and is immune from prosecution. Some of us found this to be fascinating; especially, after the impeachment of her husband for perjury, but we kept the faith and followed the Clinton banner like mindless sheep being led to the abattoir.

Benghazi was a bump in the road for us. What do we care if a few heroes risked everything to save a bunch of Americans and some of them died waiting for the help that never arrived. We Leftists hate the military and everything it stands for, unless we are in personal danger and then they are paid to respond. The fact that Hillary is a drunk and pissed the bed, and Obama wanted a good night’s beauty sleep for an important fund raiser the next morning didn’t deter us from supporting our ample pant suit icon.

When she deleted 30,000 pages of government records and sent many classified papers by way of a personal server, endangering the lives of loyal American operatives didn’t affect our loyalty. For those who began to falter in their faithful devotion, we were quick to remind them of Hillary’s brave “corkscrew” landing in Bosnia, under enemy fire, and how she and the indomitable Chelsea ran with their flak jackets on, across the tarmac, through a hail of sniper fire, just to receive flowers from a little girl.

We decided then and there, this is the type of brave woman we need to lead our country, but then someone asked what she accomplished besides the destruction of her husband’s rape victims? That was a tough and unfair question and it is costing Hillary supporters, because no one has an answer. But don’t let that deter you if you don’t mind voting for someone who stole White House silverware and furniture and was forced to return it or someone who sold influence while serving as Secretary of State through the Clinton Foundation. An organization that supports the Clintons in the style they most like to enjoy while providing less than 20% of expenditures toward the humanitarian efforts they boast of helping, the rest helps secure the Clinton lifestyle and myriad expenses associated with being a Clinton. We need a woman who can control a slush fund of hundreds of millions of foreign cash and make it look like she is an altruistic philanthropist . This is a rare and unique gift. Run of the mill gangsters and syndicate crime lords don’t have the class Hillary has and would cast our government in a bad light.

@Artfldgr:
He would threaten them by exposing them
Why is it that you don’t use your own name or publish where you live ?

@Skookum:
The American Institute of Philanthropy gave the Clinton Foundation an “A” rating for 2013
The Clintons own 2 houses one in DC and 1 in NY
They paid I believe a total of 4 million for them
McCain I believe said he didn’t know later it turned out to be 6
Trump ? Who knows
Romney ? Well his newest house being built ( the one with the elevator for his car) is costing 12 mil plus
The Clintons choose not to lead a decadent lifestyle at least in comparison to how they could live
The Clintons could bank more by not moving back into the White House

@Smoking man:
Other charity watchdogs are less charitable.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204
Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation
LITTLE ROCK, AR

Why isn’t this organization rated?

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology.

Yeah, an ”atypical” business model where all air travel and hotel stays are on/off the books.
But they are paid for by the ”charity.”

Give.org says the Clinton foundation fails to meet three criteria:
1. Compensated Board Members
Not more than one or 10% (whichever is greater) directly or indirectly compensated person(s) serving as voting member(s) of the board. Compensated members shall not serve as the board’s chair or treasurer.
2. Board Policy on Effectiveness
Have a board policy of assessing, no less than every two years, the organization’s performance and effectiveness and of determining future actions required to achieve its mission.
3. Board Approval of Written Report on Effectiveness
Submit to the organization’s governing body, for its approval, a written report that outlines the results of the aforementioned performance and effectiveness assessment and recommendations for future actions.

I thought it interesting how often the Clinton foundations skirts these orgs’ standards while ”promising” to look into all of that at a later date.
Lol.

This is Donald Trump’s position on ALL the issues:
http://www.ontheissues.org/images/s030_070.gif

This is Ted Cruz’s:
http://www.ontheissues.org/images/s020_100.gif

Tell me why any of you think – for even a second – that Ted Cruz could pull in more voters from that amorphous center where most voters are than Donald Trump.

@Nanny G:
The first organization that you mention simply did not rate the organization they also CLEARLY state that this is not a condemnation
The second is step child of BBB which has never endorsed a Dem
Although unrated this is what charity navigator had to SAY about the Foundation

We spoke by phone with Sandra Minuitti at Charity Navigator, and she told us Charity Navigator decided not to rate the Clinton Foundation because the foundation spun off some entities (chiefly the Health Access Initiative) and then later brought some, like the Clinton Global Initiative, back into the fold. Charity Navigator looks at a charity’s performance over time, she said, and those spin-offs could result in a skewed picture using its analysis model. If the foundation maintains its current structure for several years, she said, Charity Navigator will be able to rate it again.
The decision to withhold a rating had nothing to do with concerns about the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. Further, Minuitti said citing only the 6 percent of the budget spent on grants as the sum total spent on charity by the foundation — as Willis and Fiorina did — is inaccurate.
She referred us to page 10 of the 2013 990 form for the Clinton Foundation. When considering the amount spent on “charitable work,” she said, one would look not just at the amount in grants given to other charities, but all of the expenses in Column B for program services. That comes to 80.6 percent of spending. (The higher 89 percent figure we cited earlier comes from a CharityWatch analysis of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.)
“That’s the standard way” to measure a charity’s performance, Minuitti said. “You have to look at the entirety of that column.”
Minuitti said it is also inaccurate to assume all money spent on travel and salaries does not go toward charity. Depending on the nature of the charity, she said, travel and salary could certainly be considered expenses related to charity.
It’s true, as Willis said, that Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its “watch list,” but not because of concerns about insufficient funds going toward charity. Mainly, it was put on the watch list due to questions raised in the media about foreign donations to the foundation and the potential for quid pro quo when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. The site also linked to a story about the abrupt resignation earlier this year of the foundation’s CEO. (Go here to see a full list of articles that led to the decision by Charity Navigator to place the foundation on its watch list.)
According to the Charity Navigator site, it “takes no position” on the allegations raised in the media reports, nor does it “seek to confirm or verify the accuracy of allegations made or the merits of issues raised.” Minuitti said the watch list was more like “news to know” for potential donors.
None of the articles cited by Charity Navigator has anything to do with a low percentage of funding going to charitable work.

MOST charity evaluators peg the % of expenses used for charity at 80-85% well above the industry standard of 75%
Thank you for mentioning what charity navigator thinks about the Clinton Foundation

@Marcus: So Soros has a new employee. Gee, I think you’re the 3rd new one this week.. Hurry up and get your BS in before you find out he’s not good at making his payroll. You’ll be gone within a couple weeks.

@Marcus:

Hitlery is even buying adds in Nebraska!

You trying to display your literacy? Keep it up and they’ll flunk you out of kindergarten.

@Redteam:
A couple of weeks??
RedTeam I still consider you to be a newbie here
And that tide turning poll of Trump’s
Sorry guy even then most recent polls still show an easy win and a better than even chance of taking the Senate
I told you then to never get excited about a single poll especially without looking closely at it

@Redteam:
Not so
SOROS made mega billions when the pound crashed after the rightvwing voted in Brexit
In fact SOROS has never missed or been late on my check for the 10 years I have posted here
Probably will get a fat 10yr anniversary bonus to boot
you should come over to our side we have beer and pizza and hottie chicks too

@Steve: Steve you’re confused, I might have ‘quoted’ someone saying that about Trump but I didn’t say it myself.