Questions for Ron Paul 2012 college bros?

[weixiaobao]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/05/ron-paul-warns-republicans-not-to-vote-for-ted-cruz/

"In a sign of just how tricky it is to court libertarian Republicans here, and how diffuse Ron Paul's old supporters have become, the former Texas congressman took to Fox News Friday to criticize Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).

"They think he's for the free market, and he's owned by Goldman Sachs," Paul said. "He and Hillary have more in common than we have with Trump or anyone else.""

Is this butt hurt on the Pauls' side or they just preaching their own truth?

Overall for everyone else, since the Iowa caucus, who had been having the worst week?  (Trump, Rubio, or Cruz)?

[NeverAgain]

Probably should have said this when his son actually had a chance in Iowa.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Yeah, Ron is skeptica of Cruz as a Presidential candidate, but I mean the dude did endorse Cruz for the Senate in 2012...

[This account no longer in use.]

Glad to see he's bringing up the whole "The Ted Kruhz got one millyin from the Goldmain Sacks" argument again.

[angus]

"the Paulians" says the article.  first we were Paultards, then were were Paulites.  

Well, as one of the 2012 Ron Paul college bros--I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 and 2012 Iowa caucuses, and although I wasn't a university student, I worked at a university, so I'll pick up the mantle--I'll say that they're on to something.  I think it's a little unfair to say that Ted Cruz deserved or did not deserve the win.  Cruz walked the beat, he kissed the ring, he put in the hours.  Cruz worked hard and he got what he deserved.  It's a little like claiming the grapes were sour.  Still, I think Paul is right when he says that it's disingenuous for the Cruzers (can I coin that term?) to claim that they're free marketeers when they're really just the new-and-improved version of corporatist/nationalist power projectionists.  I think it's a fair charge.  However, I don't know if it will hurt Cruz.  Nor, for that matter, would you necessarily want to hurt Cruz.  Any diminution of Cruz might be tantamount to helping Trump.  I can't believe a self-respecting Paultard (or "Paulian" if that's what we're using nowadays) would want to do that.  

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Yeah, Ron is skeptica of Cruz as a Presidential candidate, but I mean the dude did endorse Cruz for the Senate in 2012...

Senate and President are two different offices buddy

Apparently you misread what I said....I said he did endorse him for the Senate and 2012, but as a Presidential candidate he is skeptical of him...

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Yeah, Ron is skeptica of Cruz as a Presidential candidate, but I mean the dude did endorse Cruz for the Senate in 2012...

Senate and President are two different offices buddy

Apparently you misread what I said....I said he did endorse him for the Senate and 2012, but as a Presidential candidate he is skeptical of him...

Your original statement was worded weird then. I do not see the point in saying "but I mean the dude did endorse". You could have easily said he was skeptical of a cruz presidency, but endorsed him for senate

My apologies then, the point I was trying to make remains though.