Recommended Posts

On March 26, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Really?

You don't think Fox was pro-Rubio once Bush dropped out?

Are you a Frank Luntz fan? In every prime-time focus group he did after each GOP debate, he showed how "the people" (from an "objective sample") conclusively determined that Rubio won the debate. It was only one after another after another.

Meanwhile, online polls the Internet over showed a far different story, one after another after another. The primary voting did, too. 

Do you want some other examples of Fox's Rubio bias? It's not like there is any lack of them.

Michael

Michael,

My point was simply that if Rubio's people dug up the dirt and produced what became the Enquirer story—and Fox News was that far in the tank for Rubio—why didn't Fox News break the story? Break it early enough to help Rubio by damaging Cruz?

I have never been much of a fan of Frank Luntz.  I always considered him somewhat of a charlatan and his methods to have more than a little hocus-pocus to them.  When Luntzian reaction graphs were displayed under the 6 o'clock news with Brett Baier, I found them annoying and pseudo-scientific.  I wasn't shocked to learn that he was working for Rubio and trying to keep it quiet.

Fox ditched Dick Morris a few years ago.  Ditching Karl Rove wouldn't be a bad idea, either.  They could dump Luntz and a lot fewer people would miss him than either Morris or Rove.

I think one of the unexpected outcomes of the Trump campaign (well, unexpected by most people—not necessarily by Trump himself) is permanent damage to any media outlet that supports Republicans or conservatives but fails to constantly praise Donald Trump in particular.  Trump has done some damage to Fox News, and clearly would like to do more.  Breitbart is kind of wandering around in circles now—it had be 100% Trump, or he'd rather it wasn't anything at all.  Remember, it wasn't just Rubio's campaign that denied having any respect for Breitbart or any dealings with it.  Trump's did the same.  Still doing it, over Fields v. Lewandowski.

I'm surprised he hasn't tried to destroy the Wall Street Journal (whose editorial stands have been more objectionably Establishmentarian to me, since he entered the race, than Fox News' or or Breitbart's).  Maybe that just takes longer, from his point of view.

Media outlets that are all-Hillary all the time?  He'll occasionally complain about them, even demand that they be punished for offending him.  But he has yet to take a single step toward destroying a single one of them.

Meanwhile, for the Trump contingent, Fox News never got a single thing wrong, year after year, until the day that it failed to fall in line behind Donald Trump.  Which makes no sense at all.

Robert Campbell

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4546

  • Peter

    1416

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    881

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

The suicide note left by Fidel Castro’s eldest son has rocked the Cuban nation this week, with the most astonishing revelation being the claim that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was his half-

Posted Images

In Janesville, Wisconsin, right down the road from the 20th Century Motor Factory, Trump just came up with the perfect tag line for his campaign:

He said that his is a "...message of common sense and competence,"

Perfect.

A tribute to Aristotle?...lol...

Greece graphics

A...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Isn't the lesson that if you stand in Trump's path, even momentarily, you will have no place in the Senate, or in any other political capacity?

Robert,

I see this less having to do with personal vendetta and more to do with actually not liking what one sees the more one sees it.

The assumption underlying your comment is that Trump supporters don't think for themselves, that they are mindless pawns of a power-hungry manipulative Trump. So Trump can easily destroy whoever he pleases because his followers will eat it up.

That's a premise those who dislike Trump refuse to check over and over. And that's one of the main reasons Trump supporters tune them out.

I used to love Ted Cruz, but not because of great familiarity with his history. I saw Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck vouch for him way back when. (That was when I loved Glenn Beck.) I saw Ted do a David and Goliath story over and over, starting with his very election. Then the filibusters. I saw people talking about his constitutionalist integrity and Ted himself talking about it all the time. And so on. I loved the story of Ted Cruz, the freedom fighter.

Then I started getting indications of a different reality of Ted Cruz. That thing he did with stealing votes from Ben Carson, then playing innocent, created an enormous cognitive dissonance in my mind. That had nothing to do with Roger Stone, Donald Trump or any other person or cause those who think Trump supporters don't have brains like to fantasize. It's a value thing. When I see a person constantly talk about integrity and do dirty tricks, I say to myself, where have I seen this before? And I'm not the only one. (That kind of question is how a Trump supporter uses his brain. He calls it thinking. :) )

Then a string of dirty tricks came out of Ted. Then I start reading about his support of increasing the size of government and giving up US sovereignty in international trade agreements in his votes--that his actual votes did the bad stuff and his David and Goliath campaigns did great show for the media, but did nothing. And on and on and I started thinking, woah... 

That ain't like David facing down Goliath with a sling. That's more like David serving coffee to Goliath and waiting for a tip.

To get to your observation about the monster Trump, look at Trump's business practices--and not just the few failures the media harps on over and over. Look at the bulk of what he does. You will find all kinds of people he clashed with who are now his friends. For every objection you have, you will find hundreds of good things he did that are relevant to the objection. 

So just as I fell in love with the Ted Cruz freedom fighter story the media served up, I humbly suggest you hate the Donald Trump strongman dictator story the media serves up. It's an exciting story, but when checked against reality, it's a good story and that's about it.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Jon,

If Michelle Fields was acting like a threat to Donald Trump, how come he didn't remember it?

And say so immediately.

Robert Campbell

 

I am having trouble getting them to display here, but pictures at Trump's Twitter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

show her touching Trump. Next, Michael's pic shows him pulling away, easily noticeable from behind, and next campaign guy moves her away from Trump.

I don't know anything about your story about his memory, does it somehow refute what the videos clearly show?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Jon,

All I'm getting from this is that you hate Ted Cruz, and you hate him fervently.

If Cruz has had no place in the Senate for several years... he hasn't been there that long.  All you could mean is that he should never have been elected in the first place, because he could have done nothing of positive value there at any time.

So that what you previously said about his place being in the Senate wouldn't really be what you think now, and maybe never was what you thought about him.

What do you mean by the "vast majority of GOP"?  

Lindsey Graham isn't "the vast majority of the GOP."  He isn't the even in the vast majority of Establishment Republican US Senators.  He was part of the Gang of Eight.  He is the only Republican in the Senate to be on the record favoring cap and trade—a position that he continues to champion despite being censured on account of it by several county Republican organizations in his own state.   In 2014, he and Tim Scott were on the ballot at the same time (because Scott was running for the remainder of Jim DeMint's term).  While the Democrats didn't have much of anyone to run against either of them, Scott got more votes than Graham did. Graham decided to run for President, even though no one was exactly clamoring for him to do it.  He quit two months before the primary in his home state.  Had he stayed in, he would have lost badly—not just to Trump, but to Rubio and Cruz—in his own state.

Needless to say, Graham and Trump see eye to eye on virtually nothing.

I've seen enough of Graham's public appearances to note that he looked really bad (compared to baseline) and to wonder whether he had been drinking.  His subsequent abrupt turnaround (better Cruz than Trump) didn't argue against this impression.

Robert Campbell

I expressed myself poorly, inexactly.

I loved Ted Cruz. I thought he was great and should stay in the Senate. I never thought he could be President, but should stay in the Senate.

When I wrote "had no place in the Senate" I meant he was hated there, by Graham, McConnell, and most of the high level GOP leadership. Ted burned lots of bridges, he was widely hated. Not by me yet, though. I have become disappointed in Ted in just the last few months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well well, Trump ended an excellent town hall with Anderson Cooper. 

Masterful performance by both. 

Anderson would not let up. 

The town hall ended with Trump being asked about his eighth grandson being named after Cruz and The Donald must have gotten a mind message from me because he looked at Anderson and said, "I thought his name was Rafael?"  

Trump had a big smile on his face and Anderson Cooper looked totally lost and he stammered and after stumbling and muttering to himself, said, "I don't know."  

Hilarious.

A...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

My point was simply that if Rubio's people dug up the dirt and produced what became the Enquirer story—and Fox News was that far in the tank for Rubio—why didn't Fox News break the story? Break it early enough to help Rubio by damaging Cruz?

Robert,

Maybe because the Cruz people would have let loose long and hard on the Rubio gay party stuff as retaliation?

Just supposin'...

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

I am having trouble getting them to display here, but pictures at Trump's Twitter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

show her touching Trump. Next, Michael's pic shows him pulling away, easily noticeable from behind, and next campaign guy moves her away from Trump.

I don't know anything about your story about his memory, does it somehow refute what the videos clearly show?

Jon,

Do you have any idea what Trump and Lewandowski's immediate reactions were, three weeks ago?

You can look them up.

Robert Campbell

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

This is all assuming that Matt Drudge knows what the real story is.

Robert,

I want to point out a perspective you might not see well in this case.

Matt Drudge operates on the open market. He doesn't have a government job. He doesn't have a political appointment. He isn't in the military. He doesn't have something like academic tenure.

Matt Drudge competes for viewers just like every website on the Internet.

Here's a raw fact. If he screws up too much, he loses his audience. He has no backroom protection to keep his job.

But notice that Drudge does not lose his audience. In fact, he constantly grows it. So why does his audience keep growing?

1. One can assume this is blind luck and Drudge doesn't know what the hell he is doing, can't read well, has no network of industry contacts, and so on. He just stumbled onto a magic formula and is riding the wave.

2. Or one can assume he is a Svengali who has managed to hypnotize the whole world with headlines and can get the public to think whatever he damn well pleases.

3. Or one can figure he is topline in competence, knows his audience, and competitive as all get out in his profession.

I tend toward the third. So I think it is a reasonable assumption that Drudge knows what the real story is and has been fed a ton load of info backstage. (After all, what author of a news story doesn't want to get on Drudge? Imagine the sheer volume of pitches he must receive.) 

I believe Drudge not only knows the real story, he is doing the longer view aiming at a highly effective way to frame it for his audience. But since the effect will only be known later, we will have to wait and see if I am right. (But I'm right. :) )

Back to suppositions of the unobvious, assuming stuff and so on. We will only have sunlight tomorrow assuming the sun will rise. So maybe we should harbor serious doubts about the sunlight we will get tomorrow because God only knows what that darn little sun with do. Maybe we should start preparing for chronic darkness. You never know, right?

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I used to love Ted Cruz, but not because of great familiarity with his history. I saw Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck vouch for him way back when. (That was when I loved Glenn Beck.) 

Michael,

I liked Ted Cruz because of his track record, and because of his views on the constitution.

I read some books that were recommended on Glenn Beck's old Fox show, but never became a follower of Beck himself.  Before he left Fox, he was already letting his ultrareligiosity predominate, and I frankly think that since then he has completely flipped his lid.

Sarah Palin was recommending Cruz in 2012 (also Sarah Steelman, who would have been a hell of a lot better choice than Todd Akin). I did not, however, decide that Cruz was better than Dewhurst because of Sarah Palin's endorsement.  Since 2012, she has become a spent force, giving public speeches that in some cases have bordered on incoherency. Saturday Night Live showed Trump turning out, and deciding she was thoroughly dispensable, before she finished her speech endorsing him—which seems on target.

Robert

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Robert Campbell said:

Saturday Night Live showed Trump turning out, and deciding she was thoroughly dispensable, before she finished her speech endorsing him—which seems on target.

Robert,

You really don't know, do you?

I don't have anything other than knowing how people like Trump think, but he is going to rehabilitate Palin's image with the press. He thinks what the press did to her was a disgrace and he wants to fix it. He is going to start by putting her in his cabinet once he gets sworn in. (That judge reality show she is shooting a pilot for is probably mixed with this, too, but I'm not as sure as the rest.)

Trump has nothing but goodness in his heart, soul and rational mind for Sarah Palin. Both are keeping their hand close to their chest. Notice how surprised everyone was that she first endorsed him? I wasn't surprised at all. 

Watch how this unfolds over time. 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The assumption underlying your comment is that Trump supporters don't think for themselves, that they are mindless pawns of a power-hungry manipulative Trump. So Trump can easily destroy whoever he pleases because his followers will eat it up.

Michael,

I think it works more like this:

Trump sets out to destroy someone who he perceives as standing in his way.

Those who believe that Trump is basically a good guy and basically has their interests at heart then try to find the offenses (be they real or imaginary) that were committed by the person Trump stomped on.  'Cause, then, it was actually all for the good: Trump exposed the other guy's badness, then stomped.

This is not a mindless process.  Nor does it require memorizing and reciting Trump's alleged reasons for doing the stomping. In fact, it is considerably more effective when those who decide the stompee had it coming do not merely repeat talking points they got from Trump and his spokespeople.  

It doesn't follow that the thought processes employed are the best that could be brought to bear on the matter, or even that they are advisable.

Meanwhile, you refer to yourself as Trump groupie.

Why on earth would you ever want to be anyone's groupie?

Robert

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Maybe because the Cruz people would have let loose long and hard on the Rubio gay party stuff as retaliation?

Just supposin'...

:) 

Michael

Michael,

How sure are you that there actually was Marco Rubio gay party stuff?

Robert

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Robert Campbell said:

Meanwhile, you refer to yourself as Trump groupie.

Why on earth would you ever want to be anyone's groupie?

Robert,

It's a quip.

Read into it whatever you want, but it's a quip. Banter. Playful exaggeration of my support of Trump.

How it is you didn't get this?

Does the prospect of having your man lose hurt that much?

:) 

Michael

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a classic example of Trump doing his stomping.  It's nearly as fresh as the Town Hall Trump just did.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/29/donald-trump-scott-walker-wisconsin-taxes-cruz-endorsement?CMP=share_btn_tw

Quote

 

Walker became a conservative hero for his efforts to crush public sector unions and cut government spending in the Democratic-leaning state in Wisconsin, something that led to an attempted recall of the Wisconsin governor in 2012 and became a national cause célèbre. But, in a radio interview with talkshow host Michael Koolidge on Tuesday, Trump bashed Walker’s administration.

“There’s a $2.2bn deficit and the schools were going begging and everything was going begging because he didn’t want to raise taxes ’cause he was going to run for president,” said Trump. “So instead of raising taxes, he cut back on schools, he cut back on highways, he cut back on a lot of things.”

Trump also added of the Badger State in general: “Wisconsin has a lot of problems, plus there is tremendous hatred … I wouldn’t exactly say that things are running smoothly.”

 

In other words, Trump wants everyone to condemn Scott Walker for taking on the public employee unions and seeking to cut taxing and spending by his state government.

And the economic analysis that Trump cites, well...  When challenged by Charlie Sykes a couple of days back, he said he read it in Time magazine, and believed it because it appeared there (!!).  The Time piece got fisked, but Donald Trump either doesn't know or doesn't care.

More likely the latter.

Think about the implications of a man running for President as a Republican trashing, not Scott Walker's limp efforts at foreign policy, but his record as governor.

Far as I can see, there are only two reasons for Trump to do this:

— Scott Walker ran against Donald Trump for the nomination

— Scott Walker is now endorsing Ted Cruz instead of bowing before The Donald

Robert Campbell

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

The real question is, do you care whether any of the stories about Ted Cruz are true?

After all, a false story could do enough damage to remove an obstacle in Donald Trump's path.

Maybe, even enough to get Ted Cruz out of the Senate.

And, for a bonus, get a large number of people you hate (Evangelicals who think the Second Coming is nigh, Mormons in Utah) to hate one guy whom you hate.

Robert,

Let me address this in reverse order.

Where on earth did you get the idea that I hated Evangelicals and Mormons? I love those people. They are productive and try to be good. I don't share their cosmology and some of their social values (I've read their sacred texts recently so I'm sure), but these are salt of the earth great folks. When I move, I will try to find a community where there are a lot of churches. I like living around these kinds of people.

I must be an awful writer if I communicate that I hate Christian folks. Please give me an example or two where I exude or imply such hatred so I can correct this.

Now do I care if the stories about Cruz are true? Of course I do. Why wouldn't I?

Just because I support Trump?

Believe me, if National Enquirer ran an article on a lot of infidelities by Glenn Beck during the time I watched him regularly, I would laugh it off. Why? Because Beck was truthful during that time. He came off as truthful, making mistakes sometimes, but trying to get it right. 

I don't give that benefit of the doubt to Ted Cruz right now because of the constant lawyerly distortions he makes and the dirty tricks he is using as a campaign strategy. It has nothing to do with supporting Trump, hating Christians or anything like that.

It has to do with my independent view of his character based on what I have seen.

There are oodles of folks who think just like me. I know because I read them all the time on social media comments.

If you want to know my druthers, I want my negatives of Cruz to go away and go back to entertaining a Cruz VP fantasy. I don't trust him anymore and I want that trust to come back. I don't know how to fix that, but my antenna is up looking for something. I don't feel hatred for Cruz. I feel sadness.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

I want to point out a perspective you might not see well in this case.

Matt Drudge operates on the open market. He doesn't have a government job. He doesn't have a political appointment. He isn't in the military. He doesn't have something like academic tenure.

Matt Drudge competes for viewers just like every website on the Internet.

Here's a raw fact. If he screws up too much, he loses his audience. He has no backroom protection to keep his job.

Michael,

All true.

Notice, though, that Matt Drudge doesn't have to avoid every possible screwup.  If that were the requirement, he'd have gone out of business years ago.

He just doesn't have to screw up too much.

Robert

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
11 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Meanwhile, you refer to yourself as Trump groupie.

Why on earth would you ever want to be anyone's groupie?

Robert,

It's a quip.

Read into it whatever you want, but it's a quip. Banter. Playful exaggeration of my support of Trump.

How it is you didn't get this?

Does the prospect of having your man lose hurt that much?

Exaggeration? You mean, sort of like when the old NBI softball teams playfully, tongue-in-cheekily referred to themselves as the Attilas and the Witch Doctors - or when Rand's circle referred to themselves as "The Collective"? Mmmmmmaybeeee. :unsure:

Robert can certainly speak for himself, but I suspect this notion didn't occur to him for the same reason that it didn't occur to me: the only contexts I've heard someone apply the term "groupie" to themselves were either a celebrity's giddy follower's confession of (usually) her deficit of rational individuality, independence, self-esteem, etc. - and/or that giddy follower's desire to get in the celebrity's pants. :cool: 

But it is also barely possible that Robert's fear that "his man" is going to lose has impaired his ability to discern that you, MSK, were engaging in playful exaggeration of your support for said celebrity. (Robert, can I help?) But I personally have full confidence that when DT goes down in flames, preferably sooner than later, you will have no trouble finding a new celebrity figure to support in playfully exaggerated manner. :lol:

REB 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Think about the implications of a man running for President as a Republican trashing, not Scott Walker's limp efforts at foreign policy, but his record as governor.

Robert,

It's called campaign rhetoric. It's an election.

People say Trump made his money through inheritance and scams. So what?

By your criteria, Ben Carson should spit every time he thinks of Trump. But guess who's supporting Trump?

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

You really don't know, do you?

I don't have anything other than knowing how people like Trump think, but he is going to rehabilitate Palin's image with the press. He thinks what the press did to her was a disgrace and he wants to fix it. He is going to start by putting her in his cabinet once he gets sworn in. (That judge reality show she is shooting a pilot for is probably mixed with this, too, but I'm not as sure as the rest.)

Trump has nothing but goodness in his heart, soul and rational mind for Sarah Palin. Both are keeping their hand close to their chest. Notice how surprised everyone was that she first endorsed him? I wasn't surprised at all. 

Watch how this unfolds over time. 

Michael

Michael,

If elected, he's going to rehabilitate Sarah Palin with the press...

Will he order prosecutions against all media outlets that fail to say nice things about her all the time?

Remember, this is a guy who so far has hurt Fox News (to some degree) and Breitbart.

If he's made a dent in NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC/ESPN, or CNN, I've yet to see the slightest evidence of it.

Robert

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Roger Bissell said:

... the only contexts I've heard someone apply the term "groupie" to themselves were either a celebrity's giddy follower's confession of (usually) her deficit of rational individuality, independence, self-esteem, etc. - and/or that giddy follower's desire to get in the celebrity's pants.

Roger,

Well now you've got me.

Gotta fess up.

I want to be schlonged by Trump.

It's my deepest dream.

My apex of sexuality is imagining Trump nude.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Will he order prosecutions against all media outlets that fail to say nice things about her all the time?

Robert,

Nah.

Negotiate. That's more his style.

Or maybe do what he does now, lead the press around by the nose while they willingly follow and beat them at their own game.

Between negotiating and beating them at their own game, my bet is on the second because I think it's more fun for Trump. 

:) 

Like I said, watch what unfolds.

btw - Trump hasn't hurt Fox with lawsuits. Fox has essentially hurt itself by being too manipulative and Trump slammed their No. 1 upcoming product (Megyn Kelly) back after she slammed him. That slamming gets attention like a train wreck does, but it's short lived. The audience drain comes from the audience itself. As far as I know, Trump hasn't hurt Breitbart at all. They had an internal squabble over him and his detractors lost so the did a mini-exodus. I don't think Trump was personally involved in any of it.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
3 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

... the only contexts I've heard someone apply the term "groupie" to themselves were either a celebrity's giddy follower's confession of (usually) her deficit of rational individuality, independence, self-esteem, etc. - and/or that giddy follower's desire to get in the celebrity's pants.

Roger,

Well now you've got me.

Gotta fess up.

I want to be schlonged by Trump.

It's my deepest dream.

My apex of sexuality is imagining Trump nude.

Confession is good for the soul. But why so passive? Get in there and do some schlongin', boy! :cool:

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:
31 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump has nothing but goodness in his heart, soul and rational mind for Sarah Palin. Both are keeping their hand close to their chest.

 

 

 

Yeah, if I were Trump, I'd be keeping my hand close to her chest, too! That's some pretty good goodness there! :lol:

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Let me address this in reverse order.

Where on earth did you get the idea that I hated Evangelicals and Mormons? I love those people. They are productive and try to be good. I don't share their cosmology and some of their social values (I've read their sacred texts recently so I'm sure), but these are salt of the earth great folks. When I move, I will try to find a community where there are a lot of churches. I like living around these kinds of people.

I must be an awful writer if I communicate that I hate Christian folks. Please give me an example or two where I exude or imply such hatred so I can correct this.

Now do I care if the stories about Cruz are true? Of course I do. Why wouldn't I?

Just because I support Trump?

Believe me, if National Enquirer ran an article on a lot of infidelities by Glenn Beck during the time I watched him regularly, I would laugh it off. Why? Because Beck was truthful during that time. He came off as truthful, making mistakes sometimes, but trying to get it right. 

I don't give that benefit of the doubt to Ted Cruz right now because of the constant lawyerly distortions he makes and the dirty tricks he is using as a campaign strategy. It has nothing to do with supporting Trump, hating Christians or anything like that.

It has to do with my independent view of his character based on what I have seen.

There are oodles of folks who think just like me. I know because I read them all the time on social media comments.

If you want to know my druthers, I want my negatives of Cruz to go away and go back to entertaining a Cruz VP fantasy. I don't trust him anymore and I want that trust to come back. I don't know how to fix that, but my antenna is up looking for something. I don't feel hatred for Cruz. I feel sadness.

Michael

Michael,

You linked to an anti-Cruz piece by Bill Still a few days back.

With a straight face, Still showed Politifact ratings of statements by Ted Cruz as proof that he is, indeed, Lyin' Ted.

Still did not show Politifact ratings for Donald Trump.  Why not?

Donald Trump makes false statements so frequently, it's impossible to keep up with them all.

How does this make him a person of good character?

As for your views of Evangelicals and Mormons, just look at the way you have portrayed them on this one thread—for, say, the past three weeks.  I think anyone reading those posts would conclude that, at a minimum, you tend to favor Trump because he is irreligious and utterly despise Cruz because he is religious.  (If it were all about religion and irreligion, I would prefer Trump, hands down, over any other Republican in the field of 17 or whatever it was. I just don't think it is.)

Robert

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now