Cruz's "New York Values" statement


does anyone have a problem with his explanation in the debate?

Ted Cruz: Donald Trump ‘embodies New York values’ -

I have no problem with it. As most of you are probably well aware, I have a certain level of dislike for North Eastern Republicans due to them typically being far more willing to lean left on the 2nd Amendment and other issues.

I was picking up what Brother Ted was laying down. Trump might be a republican, but he’s not a conservative. Not a lot of conservatives come from Manhattan. There have been some, as Trump rightly pointed out, but in general it’s true.

What are your thoughts on this? Does it matter to you that Cruz would have the same opinion that most of America holds?


I heard the clip, and as far as I know, it was factual. It wasn’t hostile except for the fact that he was presenting his observations (correctly) as liberalism. Why shouldn’t a conservative candidate attack liberalism, especially in the primary?


Cruz said not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan because Trump has said (repeatedly, in Iowa) that not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba.


You guys really think “facts” matter in these debates? It’s all symbolism over substance with a good punch line. Cruz won the “birther” exchange. Trump won the “NY values” exchange. They came into the debate 1 2 and left the debate 1 2. Both did well.


I think it is funny that anyone would challenge Cruz’s statement with a straight face, New York and California are cesspools of decadence and corruption that the people cannot get enough of; there are just not that many places in America that share those values.


I think it’s still early days for the “NY values” exchange.


Cruz knew he wasn’t about to get New York’s electoral votes, so he let Trump have them.
Good play, in my book.

As was noted elsewhere, and as you may have noticed, Trump didn’t come out and attack Cruz for his remark; he simply defended New Yorker’s.
Another good play.

If these two don’t have a gentleman’s agreement, I’d be very surprised.

When they win, do you think they’ll tell us?


When I first heard the comment I knew exactly what he meant! LIBERAL!!!

Nothing to do with bravery, dedication to duty, or anything along those lines; simply the values of NYers (big city primarily) as contrasted to fly-over country values. 'Course since he (Cruz) did not itemize these traits individually, Trump and the media immediately saw an open spot and thrust the dagger in!

AFAIC, Trump fell a few notches in my estimation for such a retort.:whistle:


I understood what Cruz meant and agree.


But Trump did not attack Cruz. THAT’S the critical important part, as far as I see it.


I don’t agree; I think it was an attack for Trump to call Cruz’s remarks “insulting” when he was (so far as I can tell) just stating facts.


Well ya’ll know I have not love for any northerners regardless where they hail from.

Though I make an exception for family(like’em/love’em/hate’em still family) and those on this board.


Trump is going to play whatever card he can against Cruz, there are not many available so the “birther” and Cuba’s religious tendencies are getting played; these are both pretty lame and I am sure Trump knows that but he really has no other options.

Cruz on the other hand has the whole deck to work with, he could play a different card in every Primary and still have an inside straight left over when the dust settles; the Cruz strategy has been to let the Establishment GOP fret over Trump while he builds the organization and resources to connect with Conservatives after things get fast and furious.

This has been a smart strategy for Cruz, he has basically taken the Establishment GOP out of the equation by not helping them bring down Trump until the 11th hour, in former elections the Conservatives candidates have seen the Establishment attacks on Conservative front runners as helpful to their cause; this was foolish as it just fueled the divide and conquer tactic.

Cruz knows the GOP is the enemy so he played them instead of falling for it, Cruz would rather Trump lead in the polls right up to the day before the voting starts than face the multifaceted assault from the GOP engine that would occur if Trump was brought down early; smart smart smart.

At this point in former elections all the Establishment hacks like Coulter, Steyn, Will and Krauthammer would have been major players as their columns ripping whatever Conservative was surging would be the focus of the daily discussions; these shills have all been dealing with Trump the whole time but getting no traction because the only ones trying to lend them credibility are other Establishment hacks.

If Conservatives do not give the Left credibility, the Left will have no credibility; I have been beating this drum for years and I am thrilled that Cruz believes the same. The words from lying Statist’s carry zero weight until someone with credibility treats them as a worthy perspective to address, Cruz and Trump are both graduates from the Reagan Campaign University and the results are self evident.

Let the GOP cowards with their “apology tours”, circular firing squads and fear of being seen as “mean” by the “moderates” be the only ones who suffer under the consequences of these fallacies; I am sick and tired of Conservatives falling on this same sword for no reason.


RET, your post piqued my curiosity about Coulter’s view on this issue. She originally supported Cruz but has been a staunch Trump supporter lately. That switch may have well come about as Trump’s immigration firestorm coincided with her latest book “Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole”. Anyway, she came out with one of her more intelligent columns a few days ago examining the legal arguments and precedents on both sides of the issue. It is not one of her typical bomb throwing sarcastic pieces. Worth a read:

Ann Coulter - January 13, 2016 - WE’RE ALL RUTH BADER GINSBURG NOW


Ann is most likely wrong. Trump is technically right, that it’s not a sure thing. There is a tiny chance, the court could rule against him. But it’s also exceedingly unlikely. Really, there is no clear distinction drawn between the two. If there is even a difference between the two terms is debatable. And I think the court would most likely rule that there is not.

I think it’s unlikely they would do it as a candidate. But if the question waited until he became president? Their hand would almost be forced to side with him, even in the unlikely event they felt there was a distinction. They aren’t going to overturn a democratic election. It would cause an uproar unlike anything this country has seen in at least sixty years(probably closer to one hundred and fifty).


Coulter says;

The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: “The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

Then she attempts to nullify this clear statement from the very first 1st Congress by saying;

Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.

Excuse me? Just exactly what Congress has ever denied the Right of a citizen to run for President based on their birth citizenship status not being obtained by a specific geographical standard?

The answer is not a single time, ever.

If someone is a citizen of the United States based on the natural conditions at their birth, they are a “Natural Born Citizen”; the very 1st Congress formed under our Constitution made certain that was clearly understood.

With all due respect for 1608 English Common Law of course (which is NONE), that Coulter would place more authority on 1608 English Common Law interpretation of our Constitution than the very 1st Congress formed by our Constitution make Coulter’s opinion the only one worthy of a Ruth Bader Ginsburg analogy.

Coulter knows Cruz is the most impeccable Constitutional Conservative to seek the White House since Reagan, she will go to any length to discredit or disqualify him.

I also think it’s hilarious that Coulter begins the article by asking “what was all the dust up over Obama’s citizenship then?”, as if there was EVER a significant number of people in the “Birther Camp”; she begins with history revision to establish a false premise and ends with a legal bastardization.


I agree that the 1790 law should settle the matter. We still have the current state of affairs in America: many leftists in the judiciary believe, or pretend to believe, that the 2nd amendment applies only to militia = National Guard, “interstate commerce”, “general welfare”, “nothing but gold and silver coin” etc. are twisted like a pretzel. And if it suits their interests, the left is eager to assume the faux role of “strict constructionists”. The Supreme Court rulings have become an episode of “anything can happen day” on the Mickey Mouse Club. I certainly don’t think Cruz should withdraw but, realistically, this issue could become a problem down the road. I would be very suprised if the Senate passed an unanimous resolution like they did for John McCain.


I agree with that, there is no justification for the idea that the Supreme Court will respect anything in the Constitution; I was just pointing out that Coulter was trying to be “a Ginsburg” while accusing those of us who respect our Laws of “being like Ginsburg”.


Trump is thinking further ahead than any of you. He thinks he already has the nomination sewn up and New York might be in play in a general election. Or maybe not “in play”, but tilting enough Trump’s way to where Hillary has to actively campaign there and spend money there.


No he is not, Trump is looking at Iowa and thinking ***“If I can get ahead of Cruz in Iowa and I already have New Hampshire sewn up then there is no way any of these guys can overcome my momentum”

No candidate makes campaign decisions in the interest of a general election that are not even nominated to run in yet, except for the Statist GOP of course; that is why they always lose though.

Trump is no idiot so Trump is focused on winning the nomination as cleanly as possible, taking Iowa from Cruz would go a long way toward making the rest of the way a coronation.