Time-Line of Trump’s “Mockery”

The videos used to make the montage are from CATHOLICS 4 TRUMP’S article entitled, “Even MORE Video Evidence Trump Did Not Mock Reporter’s Disability“. Here is the timeline (maroon is before or during the event in question):

May 2005 – Trump imitates a flustered Trump (decade prior to the “event” in question);
October 2015 – Trump imitates flustered bank president (25-days prior to the “event” in question);
November 25, 2015 – Trump imitates flustered reporter and flustered general (during the same speech given as the “event” in question);
February 2016 – Trump imitates flustered Ted Cruz;
October 2016 — Trump imitates a flustered Donna Brazile.

I include this call because it is more concise than my other uploads:

Did Trump Go Full Retard On That Reporter? (Sep 8, 2016)
Larry Elder Slays Fools | Meryl Streep (Jan 10, 2017)

Trump Appointments Better Than With Rubio or Jeb

The bottom line is that Jeb or Marco wouldn’t have nominated these folks!

MARK HALPERIN: Who is going to drive policy in this administration in education and EPA and Attorney General and DHS? He’s nominated very sharply ideological activists who Ted Cruz I don’t necessarily think would have had the follow-through to nominate.

[….]

JOE: Exactly. I have a story I’ll tell off-camera about telling somebody I wasn’t ready for something [and they said], well that tells me that you are ready for it. But anyway, but again. How fascinating that the Never Trumpers and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Bill Kristols, and all the people that were rightly the most skeptical of Donald Trump during the primary, have to sit back going, wow, I would not have gotten this with Jeb or Marco.

“Ahhh ‘Heller’ No!” Hillary Shot Down by John Lott

THE FEDERALIST notes how the Supreme Court described the facts of the case:

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

No mention of toddlers.

JOHN LOTT’S article responding to Hillary Clinton’s claims in the 3rd Presidential debate in regards to the 2nd Amendment and the Heller Case:

…The 2008 Heller decision struck down Washington, D.C.’s complete ban on handguns.  Before the decision, people in the District could own a rifle or a shotgun, it was a felony to load the gun. This amounted to a complete ban on guns, and the Supreme Court said that Washington went too far.

But then, on Wednesday night, Clinton suggested that Wallace had misunderstood her statement.

She explained: “I support the Second Amendment… I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. And so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.”

But the Supreme Court did nothing at all to stop safe-storage laws. And the Justices that Clinton promises to appoint to the High Court will, in all likelihood, again make it possible for the government to ban guns.

As to the storage laws, the Heller decision couldn’t have been clearer: “Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.”  If the ruling contributed to the problem that Clinton describes, one would think that there would have been a lot of accidental gun deaths involving toddlers.  But there doesn’t appear to have been a single accidental gun death of any kind in the District, let alone for toddlers, during the eight years since the Heller decision was announced.

The only gun laws that the Supreme Court has struck down have been complete bans on guns. Let me repeat this: If Clinton’s judicial appointments vote to overturn Heller, governments will again be able to ban guns.

And this is a real possibility. Heller can be overturned with just one more appointment to the court.

The Supreme Court is currently tied 4-4 on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Right now, all four liberal justices have made it clear that they believe in the government’s right to completely ban guns.

In 2010, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

This decision will ensure that many Americans will face gun bans. With the change in the Supreme Court, the District of Columbia and some cities will quickly move to ban guns.

California has already banned over 12,000 models of handguns since 2001, with only a dozen that can still be sold in the state and even those likely banned within a few years.

If Clinton becomes president, all handguns in California will likely soon be banned.

[….]

That Hillary Clinton won’t honestly tell American’s what she intends to do if she becomes president, shows that she is concerned that many Americans do support gun ownership.  But regardless of whether or not she openly acknowledges her plans, the threat that she poses is still very real.

 

 

The Best Flip-Flop In A While ~ Donald Trump

AS AN ASIDE: I hate that term, “alt-right,” see a great commentary by GAY PATRIOT on it.

(HOTAIR) [see also, The American Spectator] A classic via the Daily Rushbo. Listen [above] and you’ll realize immediately that he’s not laughing out of affectation. He’s honestly cracking up at the ridiculous irony that the great populist warrior who’s come to smash the Washington “globalists” has turned out to be the amnesty errand boy they’ve been dreaming of. Marco Rubio couldn’t sell amnesty to the populist right. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t sell it. But Mr Nationalism? If he says it’s okay, what cuckish RINO would dare disagree? If Rush wasn’t laughing, he’d have to cry at how little many of his own grassroots listeners seem to care about the policies they claim to support when a heroic authority figure argues to the contrary…..

(POLITICO) Team Cruz on Trump’s immigration shift: Told you so…. “Everything Trump promises comes with an expiration date,” said Cruz’s former Senate communications director, Amanda Carpenter. “We knew it during the primary, and now it is apparent he has duped his most loyal supporters on the issue they care about most, immigration. Don’t say we didn’t warn them.”

(WINTERY KNIGHT) Trump Cuckolds Low Information Alt-Right Voters By Reverting To 2013 Pro-Amnesty View…

The so-called “alt-right” is a group of secular leftist white nationalists who supported Trump in the GOP primary because they thought he would be tough on immigration. They called traditional conservatives “cuckservatives” because they thought that voting for GOP primary candidates who had a record of being tough on immigration was less important than insults and vulgarity.  Well, just as policy-oriented conservatives predicted during the primary, Trump has reversed himself on his tough rhetoric and resumed the standard Democrat position on immigration: amnesty.

There are a whole bunch of posts about Trump’s reversal on immigration policy over at the Conservatives 4 Ted Cruz hub.

[…..]

….Rick Tyler, Cruz’s former campaign communications director, said that Trump’s evolving stance seems like amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“From what I have seen, he is now the pro-amnesty candidate,” he told Politico.

“If Trump is insistent on reversing himself on amnesty, then he will have fooled his entire base. He would have fooled enough people who voted for him to make him the Republican nominee. It’s deceitful; it was a betrayal.”

Wintery continues:

  • Cruz reminded voters during the primary: “Donald Trump will betray you on every issue. If you care about immigration, Donald is laughing at you”

Two quotes from WINTERY KNIGHT about or in the above noted article:

  1. Trump’s only skill in life was ability to inherit wealth. That’s it. The rest of his life has been committing adultery, hosting beauty pageants and declaring bankruptcy several times. Trump is not qualified for any kind of professional work. The presidency is a professional job and requires experience, judgment and proven ability. If we want to have a free country with the rule of law, then we need the alt-right people to stop getting their marching orders from the National Enquirer. (WK’s Article)
  2. This is only a surprise to people who thought that Trump’s campaign-speech clowning was more important than Ted Cruz’s winning second amendment and religious liberty cases before the Supreme Court, and battling against Rubio’s Gang of Eight amnesty and Obama’s executive amnesty. If border security and immigration were your issues, Cruz was your candidate – unless you were stupid enough to mistake grade-school vulgarity for a conservative record. (WK’s Facebook)

“The Donald” Double-Downs on Crazy!

Here is a great comment from my YouTube via Frodojack:

Sad to see the high number of psychos posting here who actually agree with Trump. Well I have news that tops Rafael Cruz taking part in the JFK assassination. Donald Trump’s father, Fred Trump, secretly help run the Third Reich for Hitler. Trump’s great-great grandfather helped John Wilkes Booth kill President Lincoln. Trump’s ancestor Pontius Pilate Trump helped crucify Jesus. I know it’s true because I read it in the National Enquirer.

Video Description from my YouTube:

Just when you thought he was headed in the right direction… one interview sinks that thought. I almost wonder if he is in the early stages of Alzheimers? At any rate, he comes across here as (a) petty, (b) cheap, (c) bat-shit-crazy, (d) unhinged, (e) confused… I could go on… but really. You can see Mike Pence take deep breaths when he is thinking – WTF?

Remember. I am FURIOUS at the Democrats for being so bad that I have to vote for this guy. And I am very disappointed that the Republicans nominated such a jackass. It boggles the mind!

The videos worth watching that I used for the video are as follows:

★ Donald Trump on Cruz’s endorsement – ONE;

★ Donald Trump on Cruz’s endorsement – TWO;

★ Ted Cruz facing the Texas delegation after his convention speech.

Something Cruz said in the “townhall” with his delegation. He said… could you imagine our nominee being in this type of format being asked questions?” That got me thinking of when Medea Benjamin (the head of Code Pink) tried to crash a Cruz event. He gave her the mic and went back and forth with her (like a boss!). Likewise, could you imagine the GOP nominee doing the same?

3rd Party Option Is Realized (RPT Positions)

I suggest that the lover of our U.S. history and Constitution (and other founding documents) listen to this extended interview with professor Barnett via ReasonTV. Here is a snippet that caught my ear from the interview that has ALL the relevance a day after “The Donald” won the delegates in Indiana:

Here is the Professor “3rd Party” column:

Is it time for a new third party? Not yet. But if Donald Trump gets the Republican nomination, then a new third party will be an imperative — and the time for organizing it is now.

I have long vocally opposed third parties as irrational in our two-party system. They inevitably drain votes away from the major party closest to them, thereby benefiting the major party that is even worse. But strategies must adjust to circumstances. If Trump wins the GOP nominations, one of two things will happen, either of which would be disastrous for the Constitution and for the country.

If Trump wins, he’s made clear he cares nothing for the constitutional constraints on the president, or on government generally. His ignorance of our republican Constitution — to match his ignorance of much else — and his strong-man approach to governance would make Trump’s election a political cataclysm second only to Southern secession in its danger to our constitutional republic.

For this reason, millions of patriotic Americans who would ordinarily vote GOP — including most conservatives and all constitutionalists — will never vote for him…

[….]

…And let’s be frank. By refusing to credit the legitimate concerns of ordinary Americans, the GOP establishment created Donald Trump. And many K Street Republicans will rush to embrace him because they know he has no principles and will be happy to deal.

What the nation needs is a new party that is expressly dedicated to upholding theConstitution of the United States, however it may cut politically — a party that can attract principled conservatives, but also any American who is tired of crony capitalism, runaway government and rule by an out-of-touch political class.

Should such a party split the GOP vote and throw the election to Hillary, this beats a Trump presidency, which would inevitably remake the Republican Party in the Donald’s own image. And, if Republicans hold onto Congress, divided government under Hillary beats one-man rule by a demagogue and his party.

Could we see a “Rand Paul” figure stand in for the real conservative? People like George Will and others can get behind the movement. National Review and the Weekly Standard can start support this option, called maybe The Federalist Party: Defending Intent Since 1776. We shall see.

Here is an interview with Dr. Barnett about his most recent book, “Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People,” Dennis Prager asks some great questions for the layman to access the main idea behind the book:

(During the actual interview portion the audio changes quite a bit. Whatever phone the Professor was on I tried to even out a bit… be forewarned)

  • (Video Description) During the first hour and the third, Dennis Prager was talking about the “heartbeat” of America, it’s philosophy. What is conservatism? Later, Prager interviews author and professor Randy Barnett (Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches constitutional law and contracts, and is Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution). Take note as well that an article was discussed that the Professor wrote for USA Today, can be found here. For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit Prager.com as well as Prager University.

Clear thinking in the above interview on our REPUBLIC is expressed as-well-as-is clear delineation between Cruz and Trump… which is why — at the risk of repeating myself… as of early morning on May 3rd — I have finally decided that I will NOT vote for Trump. He has mainstreamed conspiracy stories (RPT and National Review), he has expressed clearly the massive expansion of government over healthcare, free speech, and the like.

I have purchased some URLs to meet a need for a real third party choice:

  • ConstitutionalFederalistsofAmerica.com
  • ConstitutionalFederalistsofAmerica.org
  • ConstitutionalFederalistsofAmerica.net
  • ConstitutionalFederalistsofAmerica.info
  • CFAParty.com
  • CFAParty.net
  • CFAParty.org
  • CFAParty.info

Crazy Rafael Cruz/CIA Conspiracies Emerge #TrumpConspiracyTheories

#TrumpConspiracyTheories

I have ALREADY been sent two links to InfoWars about this conspiracy involving Rafael Cruz.

I wish to note here that I was told by the same person that sent me these links that I should use discernment in choosing Trump over Cruz… because Cruz is not a nice guy. And true Christians should always be nice apparently… even in their “office” as Senators (here is a bit of that convo here). Anyhew, I merely responded to these latest linked articles that people like he support Trump… and that is all the “discernment I need.”

Snopes squashed that original report from the whacked site InfoWars when they pointed out that,

…the WMR’s [the second linked article in my bullet points] author doesn’t explain how he could possibly know that the unidentified person standing near Lee Harvey Oswald in these photographs was actually a Cuban (other than by assuming he’s Rafael Cruz), nor does he identify the “source” who informed him that the “individual to Oswald’s left is none other than Rafael Cruz.” (By the standards of “evidence” used in typical WMR items, someone’s saying, “Hey, the dude in that blurry Oswald photo looks kinda like Ted Cruz’s dad” counts as a “source.”)…

NOT TO MENTION that Rafael Cruz did not live in New Orleans until 1965 — two-years after the photo of him and Oswald in “Nwawlins.” PolitiFact adds to this whirlwind of “evidence”

…Two photo experts the tabloid hired — Mitch Goldstone of ScanMyPhotos, a digitizing photo service, and Carole Lieberman, a forensic expert witness — said another man in the image appears to be young Rafael Cruz, according to McClatchy.

We could not independently verify these experts’ validation, as neither Goldstone nor Lieberman got back to us.

When we reached out to Kairos, a Miami-based facial recognition software company, Chief Technology Officer Cole Calistra was skeptical about claims of a positive identification. Calistra told PolitiFact that the photos are too grainy “to perform a proper match one way or the other.”

James Wayman, the former director of U.S. National Biometric Test Center in the Clinton administration, said proper analysis requires two full-frontal facial images.

“Without such images, no professional face examiner will be willing to render an opinion,” he said.

That being said, we had freelance programmer Lucien Gendrot test it out using Kairos’ face recognition API. The software could not verify a match between photos of the unidentified man next to Oswald and young Rafael Cruz, even at a low threshold of a 25 percent match.

In short, as Snopes wrote in an April 2016 analysis of a similar claim, the low-resolution photos are essentially “of dark-haired young men with similar haircuts.” That’s speculation, not evidence.

One commentator at Free Republic humorously finishes his serious point:

  • “This is really the idiot the GOP is going to go with against Hillary? At least he’ll release the files about the moon landing hoax.”

What are some of the facts known? (I cannot believe I have to do this!):

  • In known pictures of Rafael from the time, the era are vastly different between the two men (MetaBunk);
  • Rafael is almost an entire head taller than the man in the picture (Secrets of a Homicide);
  • The two “experts” that identified Rafael for the Inquirer are not returning calls to the press (PolitiFact);
  • Rafael Cruz said he was not in New Orleans until 1965, the photo touted as Rafael were take in 1963 (Heavy).

I am after another piece of evidence that will surely come sooner-or-later… and it is the connection to the CIA:

For one thing, Rafael’s draft card from July 26, 1967 lists his employer as “Geophysics & Computer Service Inc.,” a French-based firm connected to both Schlumberger and Zapata Offshore Company, the former having a since-declassified relationship with the CIA and the latter once run by George H.W. Bush. (InfoWars)

My experience is that if you wait a bit… those more industrious than I uncover embarrassing facts for the conspiracy believers. More to come, surely.

Trump is Bat-Shit-Crazy!

#TrumpConspiracyTheories

Politico notes:

Donald Trump on Tuesday alleged that Ted Cruz’s father was with John F. Kennedy’s assassin shortly before he murdered the president, parroting a National Enquirer story claiming that Rafael Cruz was pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963.

A Cruz campaign spokesperson told the Miami Herald, which pointed out numerous flaws in the Enquirer story, that it was “another garbage story in a tabloid full of garbage.”

[….]

Asked to respond, Trump called it a disgrace. “I think it’s a disgrace that he’s allowed to do it. I think it’s a disgrace that he’s allowed to say it…”

Is Trump saying government should be so invasive that it could stop silly speech like Cruz’s father? Moonbattery continues on in commentary on this topic:

Egged on by his Fox News pompom squad, Trump also denounced Cruz, who is a preacher, for courting evangelicals on behalf of his son. Trump has promised to silence critics when he takes power; now he sputters that it is “a disgrace” that Rafael Cruz is “allowed” to encourage voters to support his son.

Despite the appalling sellout by Jerry Falwell, the lines are clearly drawn where Christianity is concerned. Those who take it seriously must be very poorly informed to support a degenerate like Trump.

national-enquirer-cruz-jfk

And Gay Patriot joins in the chorus:

…Yeah, just when you think he can’t possibly sink any lower than talking about Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle or saying George W. Bush was responsible for 9-11.

And his slobbering followers are lapping it up.

Because they are as mindless and impervious to reason and good sense as Obama’s followers.

I think I’ve officially gone from #NeverTrump to #NeverEverNoFkingWayNotEvenIfYouHeldAGunToMyHeadTrump.

At this point, Hillary could pick Chuck Schumer as her running mate, Gloria Allred as her Supreme Court pick, and Huma Abedin as First Lady and I would still be #NoFkingWayTrump

The State of the Union ~ RPT has Decided NOT to Vote Trump

The Trump people are very similar to the social justice warriors (like #trigglpuff) that drown out reasoned discussion in the arena of free speech. In one call into the Medved Show (on my YouTube channel) a Trumper said if there were a brokered convention (which gave us Lincoln BTW) he would resort to violence. As society becomes more secular and moves away from a classical type of education that teaches people “how to think well,” we will see more emotive reasoning thrown behind opinions. One person told me Cruz did not have “compassion.” I mentioned that acting compassionately with government has gotten us our ever-growing unconstitutional nanny-state. I could care less if Cruz likes me… As long as he is doing his duty according to the document that runs our country and has a plan to curb it’s growth to date (for instance, his flat tax program, whereas Trump said he will raise taxes). Plus this gentleman was wrong (see the Federalist for instance). My view is that if Ted is following and acting oon the spirit of the Constitution… which may, to the modern feminized society seem uncharitable (un loving), it will be in fact the MOST compassionate thing Ted Cruz could do.

I hope another (if it is not Cruz) will be supplemented at the Convention. It is in the hands of the delegates.

Dennis Prager speaks to “American Philosophy” and then has the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center where he teaches constitutional law and contracts, and is Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution–Randy Barnett–on:

“If we are to be mothered, mother must know best…. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They ‘cash in.’ It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science…. Let us not be deceived by phrases about ‘Man taking charge of his own destiny.’ All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others…. The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be.”

[….]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severley, because we have deserved it, because ‘ought to have known better,’ is to be treated as a human persons in God’s image.”

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 292. (See some helpful links via the Independent Institute. Also Walter Willaims section quoting Lewis.)

This disconnect is amazing to me. What this exchange did for me was solidify that I cannot vote for Trump. Period.

Malcolm Muggeridge (a British journalist, author, satirist, media personality, soldier-spy and, in his later years, a Catholic convert and writer)said it best:

  • “If God is ‘dead,’ somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Heffner.”

Ravi Zacharias, The Real Face of Atheism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 32.

Here is a great interview with Professor Randy Barnett:

Here is the video description from Reason.org:

In his forthcoming book Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People, Randy E. Barnett, the intellectual leader of a consciously libertarian legal movement that has hugely reshaped how courts interpret the law, lays out his case for “judicial engagement,” in which judges actively challenge and invalidate laws and policies that infringe on individual rights and freedom. Our Republican Constitution is a powerful rebuke to democratic majoritarianism, which holds that legislators have b

A professor at Georgetown Law School, Barnett has also been at the center of two major Supreme Court cases in the 21st century. He was the lead in 2005’s Raich case, in which the Court ruled that Congress’ power under the Commerece Clause was immense. And, as he recounts in gripping and compelling fashion in his new book, Barnett helped to create the nearly successful (and in his telling, partly successful) challenge to the individual mandate at the heart of President Obama’s controversial health care reform.

Born in 1952, Barnett grew up in the Chicago area, attended Northwestern as an undergad (he majored in philosophy), and went to law school at Harvard, where he was a classmate of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Garland, he says, is a smart, nice guy who would be terrible from a libertarian perspective because of his reflexive deference to lawmakers under virtually any circumstance. “As a matter of judicial philosophy,” says Barnett. I think he would not be a good justice for us to have”. In the early 1970s, he was associated with the Center for Libertarian Studes and economist Murray Rothbard, whom he says continues to shape his thinking in important ways.

An alumnus of the Institute for Humane Studies and an active participant in the Federalist Society, Barnett is the author the highly regarded and controversial academic books The Structure of Liberty (1998) and Restoring the Lost Constitution (2004). Intended for a general audience, Our Republican Constitution is simultaneously intellectually rigorous and a real page-turner, filled with dramatic anecdotes that illustrate Barnett’s powerful and provocative argument that routine deference to elected legislators is the wrong way to interpret the Constitution or create a rich and flourishing society.

Barnett sat down with Nick Gillespie at Reason’s D.C. headquarters for a wide-ranging conversation about his experiences working in his father’s laundry, his favorite Supreme Court case (that would be Lochner), how he developed his nascent libertarianism at a time when few people called themselves such, why he thinks a new political party may be a necessity, why he thinks Donald Trump is an authoritarian, and why he believes Ted Cruz understands how the Constitution limits government power.

Cruz Is In Control of Stats and Facts (i.e., Presidential)

After watching this twice, I wish to note how similar Trump supporters are to the SJWs yelling vacuous statements/bumper sticker slogans and trying to drowned out the opposition.

Cruz handled himself in a way that Trump will never be able to. He took a discussion that opposed his views/positions and had factual responses to each point and countered with information PERTENANT to the discussion — unlike Trump.

Video description:

Cruz confronts Trump supporters in Indiana Ted Cruz tells a Donald Trump supporter in Marion, Indiana that he is being played “for a chump.” at a meet and greet in indiana ted cruz took on some “trump supporters” for about a 10 minute debate on who is better for the country cruz or trump. to be honest, this looked staged and fake as fuck. While campaigning in Indiana Monday afternoon, Sen. Ted Cruz confronted a throng of Trump supporters, enduring taunts of “Lyin’Ted” and challenging them to name a single thing they liked about the GOP frontrunner. “You are the problem,” a Trump supporter repeated, while demanding that the Texas senator drop out of the race. Cruz repeated his usual talking points against Trump. “With all respect, Donald Trump is deceiving you. He is playing you for a chump,” Cruz said — to little avail.

Here is another Presedential exchange between Cruz and the MSNBC where Cruz calls out the bias involved — well (via NewsBusters):

Ted Cruz continued his verbal war on the liberal media, Monday, sparring with NBC’s Hallie Jackson over the mainstream media’s excitement to crown Donald Trump the Republican nominee. Cruz, standing next to Indiana Governor Mike Pence, endured a barrage of questions about the businessman. The Texas Senator finally shot back: “I guarantee you if we were here and a Democratic governor actually endorsed Hillary Clinton, the first question would be, ‘Governor, tell me how Hillary Clinton is fantastic.’”

Cruz explained that a successful, conservative governor “is barnstorming the state, campaigning with me. And yet the first question you ask him is, ‘So, tell me about Donald Trump.’”…