How do ANY of you morons know Cruz WASN'T referring to the communist INFILTRATORS, like Antifa?
Where did he accuse MAGA of being 'terrorists'?
Everyone jumping on the anti-Cruz bandwagon are all ASSUMING way too much.
Q repeatedly cited Cruz FAVORABLY.
How do you know he wasn't referring to the infiltrators?
How do you know Cruz was referring to MAGA and not Antifa?
Your characterization doesn't even make sense.
Cruz is playing the game because he HAS to
I believe Cruz was referring to Antifa and other communist terrorists, NOT MAGA
Prove me wrong. I dare you.
Oh so because there is still uncertainty, you thought it was a good idea to be certain he definitely smeared MAGA?
You're not making any sense!
Absence of ADDITIONAL vocalization is also NOT proof that in his mind he was referring to one or the other, MAGA or Antifa.
By your shit logic, because Cruz didn't specifically call out MAGA, it means he couldn't have been referring to them, otherwise, by your logic, "if he had been referring to MAGA, he would have taken action against said MAGA."
You're not making any sense .
This is also not proof.
This is just the same shit we hear from the radical left every day.
Confirmation bias included.
You can PROJECT until YOUR 'fingers fall off'.
You're claiming 'only time will tell'…but that is just an attempt to keep the narrative going that Cruz 'for sure' meant MAGA…
Terrorist communists DID attack the Capitol.
They did in fact cause violence.
WTF is it wrong to even MENTION terrorists were present at the Capitol?
All the attackers of Cruz are behaving like there was no infiltration, that it was all 100% MAGA he 'must' have been referring to.
By your own logic, because he didn't clarify MAGA or Antifa/Communists, he 'must' have meant Antifa/Communists.
If ABSENCE of clarifying A or B is proof of just A, then it must also be proof of just B. But that is a contradiction so you CAN'T conclude that 'absence of clarifying' A or B is proof of A.
This is ALSO not proof that Criz 'must' have been referring to MAGA and not Antifa.
We already know the DOJ is corrupt, pointing out absence of prosecution of 'assets' is ALSO not proof Cruz 'must' have been referring to MAGA.
My goodness, ALL the 'justifications' for the attacks on Cruz are built on sand, there's nothing there, all bullshit excuses.
Attacking me personally is ALSO not proof that Cruz 'must' have been smearing MAGA and not Antifa as terrorists.
Terrorists WERE there you stupid moron. You can't rewrite history.
BY YOUR OWN LOGIC because he 'didn't specifically mention MAGA' then 'he couldn't have been referring to MAGA'!
LOOK at your own arguments and read them.
The reason you're giving that Cruz 'must' have been referring to MAGA because he didn't mention Antifa, ALSO logically implies that because he must have been referring to Antifa because he didn't specifically mention MAGA!
This is ALSO not an argument that Cruz 'must' have been referring to MAGA as terrorists.
I am over the motherfucking target
If by virtue of 'not clarifying', 'not mentioning', 'not naming', 'not mentioning' communist infiltrators that he 'must' have been referring to MAGA, THAT SAME FUCKING BULLSHIT LOGIC also implies that by 'not clarifying', 'not mentioning', 'not naming', 'not mentioning' MAGA that he 'must' have been referring to communist infiltrators!
And WHO exactly would have a VERY HIGH incentive to promote, encourage, goad, push and repeat all these 'attacks'?
I know who.
I know what is happening.
Thanks for proving AGAIN I am over the target.
If by 'not mentioning' Soros paid communist infiltrators he 'must' have been smearing MAGA as terrorists, then by that same logic by 'not mentioning' MAGA he 'must' have been smearing Soros paid communist infiltrators!
Your logic has a bug in the code.
If I am incorrectly a 'CruzFag' then by that logic you're incorrectly a 'CommunistInfiltratorFag'
See how that works?
I don't care who the NAME is, I am seeing absolute shit quality arguments supposedly 'justifying' the attacks.
YOU 'relax', I am comfy demolishing the stupid retards using the same pattern of communist playbook, of 'negative' proof this and negative proof that.
"hE DiDn'T mEnTiOn CoMmUniStS, eVeRyOnE shOuLd nOw aSsOciAtE MAGA WiTh tErRoRiSm, uSiNg CruZ As tHe hOoK!"
I know the game.
AGAIN the SAME logic you're using applies to your own bullshit.
"Because he hasn't clarified" according to you he meant MAGA, but that ALSO implies that "Because he hasn't clarified" he meant the communists!
You are contradicting your own logic!
Falsely implying Cruz rather than the illogical retards claiming MAGA are terrorists is digging a hole in the first place.
Falsely implying his career is 'ruined' on the basis of the illogical argument he 'must' have been referring to MAGA by virtue of 'not clarifying'.
Ok, sure, you're making total sense.