Peter Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 I was wrong. The offending site was not FOR Cruz. Guy Bensen in TownHall: Another day, another venomous late night tweet war instigated by Donald Trump. Angry over an independent, non-Cruz-affiliated Super PAC's Facebook ad featuring a borderline-pornographic photo of his wife from the British edition of GQ magazine, Trump blamed the situation on Cruz and threatened Cruz's wife -- likely a reference to her decade-old battle with depression. Cruz has denounced the ad, calling it "completely inappropriate." To be clear, it had nothing to do with the Texas Senator's campaign, and 'Make America Awesome' is not even a Cruz-linked SuperPAC, a fact over which Trump ally Sean Hannity corrected himself last night: end quote I also saw Trump’s unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz next to his own wife, obviously calling Mrs. Cruz ugly in comparison. He sent it out just after midnight last night. Now I am seriously though I hope temporarily in the “Anybody But Trump” crowd. We are milling around asking each other, “did you see that? Did you hear what Trump did next? I know I can’t vote for Trump.” How low can he go? Nobody knows. Woe is us. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Peter said: I now doubt we can win this election. The Dems are shrieking in glee. Only a well done campaign from now until November can save us and is that likely to happen? Is Hillary going to be indicted? What stupidity. Now we sit back and wait for Trump to act like an asshole. Peter Damn, you give up real fast... This is all a "dog and pony show" now. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Peter, You are not seeing this Heidi Melania thing in context. From where I sit, this is a perfect example of not bowing to sanction of the victim and, to go all Aristotle for a moment, doing it to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way. 1. Let's start with how the game is supposed to be played. The name of the game is to do dirt, but have deniability. Cruz said he had nothing to do with the ads attacking Melania, he wasn't even aware of them. And, when you scratch it, the organization is not an official pro-Cruz organization. So the victim (Trump) is supposed to grant his sanction and say, OK. It was that evil person over there, not you, the honorable Cruz. The public image becomes Cruz is a good guy who was slighted. But look deeper. Everybody knows if you believe Cruz on this, you are a great prospect for buying the Brooklyn Bridge at a discount. Cruz's campaign is shot through with dirty tricks. He's like Richard Nixon in that respect. (Do you really need a list of Cruz's dirty tricks?) Only this particular time it wasn't a dirty trick, right? Cruz knew nothing about it, right? Riiiiiiight... I mean Cruz openly says he uses big data to micro target folks, the Melania ad was served precisely to the very people who would find it offensive in the right way, it was done by someone who has nothing to do with the Cruz campaign, and all that was a mere coincidence. Right? Riiiiiiight... Where's the Brooklyn Bridge guy? It's time to make a real estate transaction. 2. Notice that neither Ted nor Heidi--even when asked directly by reporters--said publicly they want the person who had nothing to do with them to stop attacking Melania, seeing as that person had nothing to do with them and all. I mean, if someone has nothing to do with them and want's to attack Melania, that's their business. Ted nor Heidi would never do that. Only someone who has nothing to do with them would do that and they do that because they have nothing to do with Cruz. The following is paraphrased, but it's accurate. Reporter: Do you want that person to stop attacking Melania? Cruz and Heidi: We would never attack family. That person has nothing to do with us and all. Reporter: But do you want that person to stop attacking Melania? Cruz and Heidi: Oh... Well, we would never attack family. That person has nothing to do with us and all. 3. Rather than play games, Trump says (paraphrasing), "Call off your dogs or I'm taking this directly to you." People who play the "do dirt with CYA" sanction-of-the-victim game always imagine someone would never go there. And what does Trump do? He goes there. And he does it well. He knows the effect on people who play that sleazy CYA game, too. Do you want proof? Cruz is cracking. Look at this: Ted Cruz: Trump is a 'Sniveling Coward'. A direct quote by Cruz from that article: "It's not easy to tick me off. I don't get angry often. But you mess with my wife, you mess with my kids, that'll do it every time. Donald you are a sniveling coward and leave Heidi the hell alone. Our spouses and our children are off bounds. It is not acceptable for a big loud New York bully to attack my wife." That is a perfect example of getting Cruz entangled in a Social Justice Warrior baiting game and fixing him in the public's mind on the wrong side. (The purpose of the SJW baiting game is to get plenty of free prime-time media exposure.) Later, after the dust settles, Cruz is emotionally going to be connected with the PC language crowd. I know it's hard to see this right now, but keep watching. But even further, what do you think is going to happen when it comes out that Cruz knew about the Melania ad in advance? Reporters are already asking why he and Heidi don't bash the person who did it. That seed is already growing. Even if solid proof of Cruz's foreknowledge doesn't come out, the public perception that he must have known is growing. And that's just as good for an election. So not only is Trump running the Social Justice Warrior baiting game on Cruz, in the end he is reinforcing his little jingle: Ted Cruz'll raise that Bible high, Then he'll put that Bible down And he'll lie lie lie. Lyin' Ted. Lyin' Lyin' Lyin' Ted. 4. This point is perhaps the most important one. This whole Heidi Melania affair is ultimately a non-issue. Another flash-in-the-pan like Trump bashing McCain for getting caught in war. But what does it do right now? It keeps Trump's name on the front page in the media. The next primary (Wisconsin) is April 5. That's an eternity for prime time coverage so it's easy for the media to forget Trump's name for awhile. And there is the Brussels bombing to talk about. Not any more with Trump's Social Justice Warrior baiting. 5. There is a principle in persuasion that is, by far, the most powerful. If you can get a person to come to his own conclusion, that will be more long-lasting and intense than if you get him to agree with you. Trump does this over and over with his supporters and I give you as proof their growing numbers and how immune they are to arguments against Trump. So what is Trump not saying that people could possibly conclude later? He's not saying the following. If Trump is willing to go there with Ted Cruz and there probably isn't much there there with Heidi, imagine what he is going to do with Hillary, who has a lot of there there. That covers the main points off the top of my head. Is there risk? Of course there is. That's what entrepreneurs do. Calculated risks. Trump lost one risk by bowing out of the debate before Iowa, but he course corrected after that. Look at how many other risks paid off big. I have a feeling this is one of the risks that will pay off, even though the women SJW's are on the warpath in the mainstream right now. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backlighting Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 lol The Trumpinator: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Joe, Goddam that video was funny! LOL... Trumpinator indeed. Speaking of which, here he comes the Trumpinator after Ted Cruz like I said above: I didn't start the fight with Lyin'Ted Cruz over the GQ cover pic of Melania, he did. He knew the PAC was putting it out - hence, Lyin' Ted!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 24, 2016 Ted Cruz'll hold the Bible high... Then he'll put that Bible down... And do what?!! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Make America Awesome is the group that released the photo of Melania Trump and sent it to Mormon women in Utah before the primary vote. I tried to go to: http://makeamericaawesome.com/, but I could not get the site to display. What if it is a George Soros run operation to get Trump and Cruz and Kasich fighting each other? If that is not its true purpose, then after this there will be multiple sites to commit dirty tricks. Imagine reputations and campaigns ruined by the other sides dirty tricks. Before Trump spoke he should have found out who runs and who funds this group. I do not think Cruz has anything to do with it. If they sent him a "heads up" about the picture of Melania it was to set Cruz up as culpable. Peter From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Dick Tuck. Dick Tuck (born January 25, 1924) is a former American political consultant, campaign strategist, advance man, and political prankster for the Democratic National Committee.[1] Pranks / Tuck first met Richard Nixon as a student at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In 1950, Tuck was working for Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas. She was running for a seat in the U.S. Senate against Richard Nixon. In a 1973 Time magazine article, Tuck stated, "There was an absent-minded professor who knew I was in politics and forgot the rest. He asked me to advance a Nixon visit." Tuck agreed and launched his first prank against Nixon. He rented a big auditorium, invited only a small number of people, and gave a long-winded speech to introduce the candidate.[2] When Nixon came on stage, Tuck asked him to speak about the International Monetary Fund. When the speech was over, Nixon asked Tuck his name and told him, "Dick Tuck, you've made your last advance."[3] Tuck's most famous prank against Nixon is known as "the Chinatown Caper."[4] During his campaign for Governor of California in 1962, Nixon visited Chinatown in Los Angeles. At the campaign stop, a backdrop of children holding "welcome" signs in English and Chinese was set up. As Nixon spoke, an elder from the community whispered that one of the signs in Chinese said, "What about the Hughes loan?" The sign was a reference to an unsecured $205,000 loan that Howard Hughes had made to Nixon's brother, Donald. Nixon grabbed a sign and, on camera, ripped it up.[4] (Later, Tuck learned, to his chagrin, that the Chinese characters actually spelled out “What about the huge loan?”)[2][4] After the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960, Tuck hired an elderly woman who put on a Nixon button and embraced the candidate in front of TV cameras. She said, "Don't worry, son! He beat you last night, but you'll get him next time."[5] Tuck is credited with waving a train out of the station while Nixon was still speaking. Tuck has at times taken responsibility claiming "Nixon's up there talking and suddenly the crowd goes out like the morning tide"[6] while at other times he has denied it entirely[7] saying that he did borrow a conductor's hat and wave to the engineer, but the train stayed put.[] In 1968, Tuck utilized Republican nominee Nixon's own campaign slogan against him; he hired a very pregnant African-American woman to wander around a Nixon rally in a predominantly white area, wearing a T-shirt that said, "Nixon's the One!"[8] Political career. In 1966, Tuck ran for the California State Senate. He opened his campaign with a press conference at Forest Lawn Cemetery in Glendale claiming that just because people had died doesn't mean they don't still have (voting) rights. Hearing of Tuck's entry as a candidate, Richard Nixon sent him a congratulatory telegram, including an offer to campaign for him, despite his being a Democrat. Dick Tuck designed his campaign billboards to read, in small print, "Dick," and in much larger lettering, "Tuck". The names were printed twice, piggy-backed one above the other. On the eve of the election he drove around the area and painted an extra line on the upper "Tuck" on the billboards. This converted the T in his name to an F so that passersby would see a profane phrase. Tuck said he thought voters would think his opponent had done this and he'd "get the sympathy vote" with this tactic. In a field of eight candidates for the Democratic nomination, Tuck finished 3rd with 5211 votes (almost 10% of votes), losing to future Congressman George Danielson.[9] As the ballot totals piled against him on Election Night, the candidate was asked his reaction. Referring back to his cemetery speech, Tuck quipped, "Just wait till the dead vote comes in." When defeat became inevitable, Tuck made the now notorious statement, "The people have spoken, the bastards."[3] Tuck was a key adviser in Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. After Kennedy was shot in Los Angeles, he rode in Kennedy's ambulance as the mortally-wounded candidate was rushed to the hospital. Tuck claimed that the Watergate break-in was an attempt to access information held by Larry O'Brien, chair of the Democratic National Committee about the Hughes-Nixon relationship. Tuck was first and foremost a campaign operative, and claimed he was never malicious in his political pranks. Richard Nixon was obsessive towards Tuck, however, as recorded in his presidential tapes. But Nixon also admired Tuck,[4][7] comparing the dirty tricks committed by his staffer Donald Segretti unfavorably to the intelligence and wit behind some of Tuck's political pranks.[7] After the Watergate scandal became public, H.R. Haldeman, White House Chief of Staff under Nixon, saw Tuck in the Capitol. Haldeman reportedly turned to Tuck and said, "You started all of this." Tuck replied, "Yeah, Bob but you guys ran it into the ground."[3] Tuck also served briefly as political editor/adviser to the National Lampoon magazine. As of 2006 Tuck was retired and living in Tucson, Arizona. Controversy[edit] Virtually every great "prank" Dick Tuck claimed to have pulled or has been associated with him has been disputed in some way. Dick Tuck often confessed and later denied his actions. He admitted to making up some of his pranks to author Neil Steinberg, who covered Tuck in his 1992 book If At All Possible, Involve A Cow: The Book of College Pranks. However, Tuck is mentioned in an October 1972 Oval Office tape when Nixon, speaking to H.R. Haldeman about the Segretti disclosures, said, "Dick Tuck did that to me. Let's get out what Dick Tuck did!"[7] Nixon goes on to describe egged limousines and staged violence in San José, Costa Rica.[7] According to a 1997 The Washington Post article by reporter Karl Vick, Nixon was not the first to confuse Tuck's record with Tuck's legend.[7] White House tapes also record Nixon speaking with John Connally on October 17, 1972, stating Tuck had all of Goldwater's speeches in hand before they were spoken because, Nixon presumed, Tuck had an informant in the Goldwater campaign.[7] Tuck denies this but his reputation earned him the nickname "Democratic pixie of the 1964 race."[7] Quotes "I didn't hide what I did. I never tried to be malicious. It's just the difference between altering fortune cookies to make a candidate look funny and altering State Department cables to make it look as if a former President were a murderer." --Dick Tuck on the difference between himself and Nixon's Watergate operatives. "The people have spoken, the bastards." --Dick Tuck's concession speech following his loss in the 1966 California State Senate election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Here Peter, this should calm your inner Chicken Little. If Trump's the Nominee, He Has My Vote Because the Democrat Party Is the Most Destructive Force in America Today Rush Limbaugh Rush had a dinner with Republican heavy donors--according to him some real kingmakers--last night. They're starting to be OK with Trump, and even find him fascinating. They are entertained by Trump, of all things, and are disposed to let the process run unobstructed. I even think they like the idea of turning their sundry media empires on Hillary with all the entertainment values Trump can bring. Think of the ratings... So don't worry. It's all going to work out just fine. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 18 minutes ago, Peter said: Before Trump spoke he should have found out who runs and who funds this group. I do not think Cruz has anything to do with it. If they sent him a "heads up" about the picture of Melania it was to set Cruz up as culpable. Peter, What makes you think Trump doesn't have his own information? The story they tell in the media? Heh... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backlighting Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Joe, Goddam that video was funny! LOL... Trumpinator indeed. Glad you liked it. I spilled some coffee, laughing, while watching it. -J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 I've mentioned the "trading up the chain" publicity process before. This is where a dubious or controversial story gets placed in the media at low credibility places like blogs, Twitter, local press, etc. Then more credible, but overworked and harried journalists are encouraged to look at it. They see it published, so they comment on it. Then even more credible journalists see those and start commenting. And so on until the news item reaches the top of the mainstream press. Here's a story that is being worked like this. It is right at the beginning. If you are like me and like to observe this stuff in real time, keep an eye on it. I looked around the Internet and this thing is percolating like mad. Now that National Enquirer has decided to actually run with the story, more respectable mainstream vehicles should not be far behind. Even if the story ends up being false, there will be mainstream commentary. I tend to think there will be enough evidence to be damaging because of the size of National Enquirer and the electoral implications. It's a sleazy rag, but it has had a history of uncovering real fact-based dirt on politicians and celebrities. Barring a decisive expert media maneuver by Cruz, which I'm not sure he has the ability to pull off, I predict this story will not be good for the numbers among his core evangelical supporters. SHOCKING CLAIMS: Pervy Ted Cruz Caught Cheating — With 5 Secret Mistresses!The romps that could destroy his presidential campaign! By J.R. Taylor Mar 23, 2016 National Enquirer Here are just some of the more credible places this story is running as it goes up the chain: Political Insider: BREAKING: A Ted Cruz SEX SCANDAL Appears To Be Looming? Gawker: National Enquirer: Ted Cruz Has Had at Least 5 Extramarital Affairs The Last Refuge at The Conservative Treehouse: *Updated* – The National Enquirer Runs Story of Multiple Ted Cruz Affairs… Patheos: Could this be true? Tabloid reports Ted Cruz has had 5 mistresses Heavy: #CruzSexScandal: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know I could go on, but this thing is set to go crazy. Very shortly, there are simply going to be too many articles to list. I don't think Trump has his little finger in actually placing this story (I might be wrong), but I bet he knew about it. Especially since the name of one Ted's alleged mistresses keeps coming up in the buzz to these articles. That name is Katrina Pierson, Trump's spokesperson. Anyone remember Trump Tweeting recently that he was going to spill the beans? Hmmmmm... That would further explain why Trump prepared the public with a huge wave of mainstream sympathy toward Heidi and goaded self-righteous outrage from Ted. Poor little Heidy victim being bullied by the big bad Trump bully. Now that the sympathy spotlight is on her, if this story does what I think it's going to do, guess who the real villain is going to be in the public mind? How does the moniker "Lyin' Ted" sound now? As gravy, there is a rumor attached that a Cruz SuperPac contributed a cool half a million to Carly's campaign awhile back. The speculation is she had proof of these affairs and received a payoff to stay silent. Let's just say that, after this, I don't see the VP slot going to Cruz if Trump wins the nomination. Oh well... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 btw - Here's an image of the National Enquirer article running in The Examiner: Ted Cruz sex scandal follows Melania Trump slut shaming: Did Ted have 5 affairs? And here's some video commentary on the unfolding scandal by Mark Dice at one in the morning last night: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 If it is true that Ted Cruz had an affair with Katrina Pierson, or even if it is not, but she knew that this scandal was about to blow up, this makes the following exchange yesterday on air absolutely fascinating. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 So Trump may have found and hired a woman Lyin' Ted had an affair with? Tha's one way to rattle the opposition! Can you imagine looking at the tv one day and she's on screen and it says "Trump Spokeswoman" under her image? Can you imagine being Bill Clinton right now and seeing this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Thanks for the info about Rush still supporting Trump. But two out of three women in my immediate vicinity will never vote for Trump and in the following snippet 73 percent of registered women voters and 47 percent of Republican women have an unfavorable view of Trump. Will any truth about the National Enquirer’s slurs against Cruz prove to be true? They won’t. I still think it was way over the line for Trump to attack Heidi Cruz. It is fair to show public, semi nude photos of Melania, since she was paid to have them taken. It is unfair for anyone to show salacious unproved stories about Cruz in that rag of a newspaper. Notice how the women’s faces are blanked out to avoid lawsuits? They are making this up. That is not a double standard, though it is tacky considering Melania’s current status as potential first lady. I would not want them ground into my face. Well . . . no more than once a day. The campaign has a long way to go, but this Chicken Little is suspending his potential support of Trump. Peter One gloomy prediction for Trump and one less gloomy but still gloomy from A.B. Stottard. Notes: From The Hill. Trump faces daunting gender gap By Ben Kamisar. Surveys suggest the controversies have taken a toll: A new CNN poll released Thursday, taken before the spat with rival Ted Cruz over his wife, found that 73 percent of registered female voters in the United States had an unfavorable view of Trump. That’s in line with a Reuters poll from last week that found more than half of American women hold a “very unfavorable” view of the billionaire. “That gives him a huge number of voters he has to make up from somewhere,” said American University political science professor Karen O’Connor. “And I don’t know where they will come from.” Opposition to Trump among women also extends to the GOP. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 47 percent of Republican women could not see themselves supporting Trump, a number significantly higher than for any other GOP candidate. “It further highlights the calamity that a Donald Trump nomination would be,” said Doug Heye, a former Republican National Committee aide who opposes Trump. “While Republicans in the past have cried foul, rightly so, about Democrats talking about a war on women — Donald Trump has personally waged a war on women for decades.” Donald Trump’s controversial attacks on Heidi Cruz are spotlighting what could be one of his biggest vulnerabilities in the general election: his poll numbers with women. The GOP front-runner has faced accusations of sexism throughout the presidential race, with members of both parties denouncing remarks he has made about Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and former GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina. end quote From The Hill, By A.B. Stoddard - 03/23/16 04:38 PM EDT: When it comes to the question of whether Donald Trump can win a general election this November, both parties need to accept it: Yes, he can. Trump’s path — made up of new and mostly white voters without college degrees — is a narrow one, but President Obama’s two White House campaigns showed the candidate with the most new voters likely wins. Of course Trump will lose many establishment Republicans, movement conservatives, independents, women and minorities. But in 2012, with only 58 percent voter turnout, Mitt Romney lost to Obama by 333,908 votes in four states. Surely Trump, who inspires new and exceptionally enthusiastic voters, could invest the resources to target whiter states like New Hampshire, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio. The GOP primary race has proven Trump’s strength with voters in economically distressed areas where opposition to trade runs high, and he could even attract supporters of Bernie Sanders in certain pockets of the Rust Belt. Trump currently loses to Hillary Clinton in almost all general election polling, and his approval ratings with Latino and African-American votes are abysmal. His many liabilities in the general election form much, but certainly not all, of the basis for the high-risk proposition of a contested GOP convention in Cleveland this July. But those who see a Trump nomination delivering a landslide to Clinton are discounting the candidates they both are and the year we are in. Polls show both Clinton and Trump are broadly disliked and polarizing candidates who could depress turnout on either side. But history shows voters are likely, after two terms of a Democrat in office, to vote Republican. Moreover, Clinton represents the past, the withering establishment voters are soundly rejecting in an insurgent year. Toxic he may be, but Trump is the agent of change. In the 32 primaries and caucuses thus far, Trump has boosted turnout significantly. While most analyses (see Nate Silver) show an increase in primary voting as merely a reflection of a competitive primary and not predictive of numbers in a general election, a Bloomberg study of primary turnout shows such surges could help Trump in battleground states this fall. For example, Mahoning County in Ohio saw turnout spike by 125 percent last week compared with 2012, with Trump crushing John Kasich 50.6 percent to 37.4 percent. In 2012, Obama’s campaign registered more than 200,000 new African-American voters in Ohio, without whom he would have lost the state to Romney. It’s not just a numbers game but knowing where to run the numbers up. Certainly there is a multitude of data to suggest that this steep climb is impossible: As the white share of the vote continues to decline each cycle, -RealClearPolitics estimates the next GOP nominee will have to win 64 percent of the white vote and 30 percent of the nonwhite vote to prevail. Romney won 59 percent and lost. And whites with college degrees turned out more than whites without them, 80 percent compared with 57 percent, in 2012. Democrats hope Trump will inspire record turnout on their side. Fantasies abound of the party winning back not only a Senate majority but the more than 30 seats needed to retake the House of Representatives, and even Clinton winning Arizona and Georgia. But getting people to turn out against someone is harder than getting them to turn out in support of someone, as Obama did. If #NeverTrump Republicans vote for Clinton, they will help her win, but if they stay home, they still help Trump. Republicans underestimated Trump, but if Clinton wants to win, she had better not make the same mistake. Stoddard is an associate editor of The Hill. end quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 29 minutes ago, Peter said: Will any truth about the National Enquirer’s slurs against Cruz prove to be true? They won’t. Peter, Right. Ask Bill Clinton (and Monica Lewinsky), John Edwards, Jesse Jackson, Bristol Palin and God knows who else about National Enquirer never writing the truth about sexual scandals. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Jon wrote, “Can you imagine being Bill Clinton right now and seeing this?” Up until Trump’s unfair bashing of Heidi Cruz I was chortling about how Trump will handle Old Hickory’s charge of misogyny. Squirm Billy Bob Clinton! But, underneath her political façade you will find a person more common, crude and ruthless than Donald Trump. Bill is more open and honest about being a horn-dog. I base this only on my own eyes, leaks from former associates, (the Philippine steward who slipped on cum on the floor,) occurrences in the news, and ex-military and Secret Service people who were near the Clintons and were appalled at her, Bill’s and Chelsea’s antics. I remember Chelsea walking up to Marines at the White House and screaming in their faces that they were warmongering baby killers. Remember those stories from Bill’s office hideaway in Harlem, New York City and how a parade of black women were showing up daily after his Presidency but before his heart problems? Supposedly, Al Sharpton was in charge of the busy schedule. Trump apparently brags about affairs or simply one night stands in writing. And he divorces and remarries every decade or so with regularity. I won’t speculate who’s fault that is. So the one blessing for the Republican campaign if Trump wins . . . is his horribleness, is his horribleness, from Nantucket. . . I will stifle my urge to write a limerick. It’s almost funny. A political campaign but no one to support except the Libertarian? It’s worse than when McCain ran only times three worse. And to think I took heat for supporting the superior, honest, smart candidate, Mitt Romney, over Obama. Please Ted. Tell us it ain’t true. Get to the Convention. Contest Trump’s coronation. Micheal wrote: Ask Bill Clinton (and Monica Lewinsky), John Edwards, Jesse Jackson, Bristol Palin and God knows who else about National Enquirer never writing the truth about sexual scandals. end quote Anybody but Trump. Sincerely, Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 26 minutes ago, Peter said: Anybody but Trump. Peter, As your man said to Donald, breathe. Calm down. Take some deep breaths. You can do it... Trump tends to have this effect on people when they think he's toast, except he doesn't know it, then they discover he actually won. Besides, after the dust settles, I wager you will start seeing Trump's virtues again. It's all good... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Meanwhile, as this sexual scandal with Cruz is starting to explode all over everywhere, Trump piously posted the following on Facebook. Dr. Ben Carson- I concur. "I believe in God who can change people- he can make any of us better." Dr. Ben CarsonPosted by Donald J. Trump on Friday, March 25, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 So which is worse bragging about it like Rump or lying about it? Lying is worse. It will take a huge toll on Ted’s wife Heidi and I think he will drop out. But then Ted might campaign in a modest way, for anyone but Rump. Get it? Do you see what I‘m doing? I’m being as smart and devious as Rump. If Ted is “Lying Ted” as Rump calls him and Ted has had, like Herman Caine, numerous affairs, sexual harassment incidents, and a Mistress it will mean the end of his campaign. If I thought that were true I would not support Ted Cruz. He would not be the guy I thought he was. I think it is a lie. Cruz is the guy Rand would ideologically support, and she might say his personal life is personal . . . and the personal is not so relevant . . . and holy cripes, Batman . . . how many times has Cruz beaten Trump? Who else we got? What I think Trump has done by targeting Heidi, is to lessen his chances with current, potential Cruz supporters, and women in general. A lot of women, and aren’t they more than 50 percent of possible voters? Apparently, the vendetta is continuing according to Fox just now at 13:53. Does anyone seriously think this is part of Trump’s grand strategy or just mean and rotten vindictiveness? 10 rotten tomatoes to Trump. Anybody but Rump. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 23 minutes ago, Peter said: So which is worse bragging about it like Rump... Peter, You've said this before and now, through repetition, you are treating it as if it were a fact. Where has Trump bragged about the women he has bedded? I haven't come across this in his writing, interviews or whatnot. Granted, I've only been looking at his stuff since last July, but in the stuff I have seen, I haven't seen him bragging about it. Do you have a link or something? btw - I agree with you that lying about it is awful. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 35 minutes ago, Peter said: So which is worse bragging about it like Rump or lying about it? Lying is worse. It will take a huge toll on Ted’s wife Heidi and I think he will drop out. But then Ted might campaign in a modest way, for anyone but Rump. Get it? Do you see what I‘m doing? I’m being as smart and devious as Rump. If Ted is “Lying Ted” as Rump calls him and Ted has had, like Herman Caine, numerous affairs, sexual harassment incidents, and a Mistress it will mean the end of his campaign. If I thought that were true I would not support Ted Cruz. He would not be the guy I thought he was. I think it is a lie. Cruz is the guy Rand would ideologically support, and she might say his personal life is personal . . . and the personal is not so relevant . . . and holy cripes, Batman . . . how many times has Cruz beaten Trump? Who else we got? What I think Trump has done by targeting Heidi, is to lessen his chances with current, potential Cruz supporters, and women in general. A lot of women, and aren’t they more than 50 percent of possible voters? Apparently, the vendetta is continuing according to Fox just now at 13:53. Does anyone seriously think this is part of Trump’s grand strategy or just mean and rotten vindictiveness? 10 rotten tomatoes to Trump. Anybody but Rump. Peter Since you think Rand would ideologically support Cruz after deriding Reagan on abortion, I have to consider you not to be much of an authority on her. It is very easy to analyze the 2016 campaigns and campaigners but very hard to actually observe what is going on and all projections are arbitrary. I've never seen anything like this is presidential politics. If Cruz drops out it will be because of his up in the air citizenship status. He may be the citizen of no country at all because he renounced his Canadian citizenship (2014). His parents declared him Canadian at birth. By Canadian law there is no such thing as dual citizenship. Nor was any paperwork ever filed with the US Government to the contrary. His mother was a US citizen. That's the only thing going for him. He may even be illegally a US Senator. Regardless, it looks like Trump will get enough delegates for a first ballet win. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Brant, he could never survive without his blinders on... Peter, why don't you relax because you know that Trump will never get the nomination. I am sure you will be totally comfortable with eight years of Evita... A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 For the record, Katrina Pierson speaks out. Of course the National Enquirer story is 100% FALSE!!! I only speak to myself, however.Carry on...— Katrina Pierson (@KatrinaPierson) March 25, 2016 She's only speaking about that part she knows, meaning the part that deals with her, of course. She wouldn't want to be unfair to any truth that may be out there. Nope, not at all. And, by the way, do carry on... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Does anyone really care whether Rafael had five (5) mistresses? Maybe they have an open marriage. Maybe Rafael likes that multiple wife deal that Romney's religion believed in. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: For the record, Katrina Pierson speaks out. She's only speaking about that part she knows, meaning the part that deals with her, of course. She wouldn't want to be unfair to any truth that may be out there. Michael I find it very interesting that Katrina might know of the others that are true. And if Trump has anything to do with the article, he had better hid his tracks well. Right now in the early stages of this, I'm inclined to think Trump's "spill the beans" comment triggered others to go searching on their own, and that Trump knew of it, but didn't collude. It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now