Robert Campbell Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Michael, Breitbart's still handling #thething with tongs. Supposedly, Breitbart was one of many media entities that passed on (some version) of the 5-woman story, before the Enquirer picked it up. The original Enquirer article is written in such a way as to make it appear that this all someone else's collection of dirt that's been feed to them. The article tries out various epithets for Ted while constantly saying the allegations are rumors, and stating that ... Katrina Pierson ... has already denied them. Also, the previous online stuff (including Anonymous) is mentioned. The whole thing can be read here http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/24/the-national-enquirer-runs-story-of-multiple-ted-cruz-affairs/ at the twin costs of magnification and eyestrain. Ultra-slimy, of course, in that Ted Cruz would be unlikely to know who all of the unidentified women were supposed to be, unless the allegations were all true. Multiple political operatives obviously involved, but only Roger Stone lets himself be quoted by name (in a way that allows himself to pretend he had nothing to do with shopping the dirt, just giving it some peer review). Meanwhile, the same site that I linked to notes that Rick Wilson (a particularly nasty establishment Republican operative, formerly known on Breitbart as "Gollum") is one of those encouraging other media outlets that were shopped this material to leak it. So will this turn out to be an item that Donald Trump asked David Pecker to run? One that David Pecker ran, with the consequence that now he and Trump will no longer be friends? Or? Timing of publication (why not a week earlier?) does remain interesting. I expect we'll find out whether there is anything to the allegations. If there is, Ted Cruz should schedule a speech closing his campaign. Now. If there isn't, it means that there are at least two present or former contenders for this nomination who will never receive my support or my vote under any circumstance. Marco Rubio and Donald Trump. Others, perhaps, to be named later. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 3 minutes ago, Peter said: And that raises the question: why is the thinking man vote not stronger in the GOP? end quote So, let's help you be clear. I, as a Trump supporter, am I no longer a thinking voter? Is this what you mean to say? A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Finally I came across something from mainstream reporting that has more than a "look down your nose at the little people" premise when trying to understand Trump supporters. Who’s really voting for Trump: Portraits beyond the polls By Yahoo Politics March 24, 2016 This is a main article and six supporting articles (portraits). And there are videos for each, videos that are different than the articles. So it takes a little time to get through it all. I have only done the main article and the first portrait so far, but I already sense that this approach is far, far superior than anything else out there that I have come across. When I started the main article, I was skeptical. I mean, after reading a gazillion articles that get it wrong, it's a reasonable expectation that this is going to be one more. And all the warning signs were there. Racism, hatred and so on. But the voice of reason was present, also: Quote There is, in other words, no shortage of data on Trump supporters. Yet even the best polling has its limits. It can tell you a lot about big groups of people, but it doesn’t tell you all that much about the people themselves. And the way the polls are publicized is even more reductive, with headlines that treat a candidate’s strongest demographic as if it were his or her only demographic. So Yahoo Politics is trying something different. We’ve decided to take Trump’s advice and “turn the cameras around”: To focus on Trump’s supporters in much the same way the media has focused on Trump himself. To look at them as people rather than statistics. Plenty of Trump fans have been quoted in the press, chiming in here or there after a rally. But our goal is to dig deeper. After talking to scores of Trump voters in more than a dozen states, we identified six who seemed to embody the spectrum of Trump’s support and whose stories supplied the sort of nuance that numbers alone can’t convey: Ron Vance, 59, an insurance agent from Pahrump, Nev.; Eileen Schmidt, 46, a mother of two from Tiffin, Iowa; Justin Neal, 39, a vehicle maintenance foreman from Bealeton, Va.; Rick Cruz, 62, a semiretired contractor from Royal Oak, Mich.; Nell Frisbie, 79, a real estate agent from Kiln, Miss.; and A.J. Delgado, 36, a public-interest lawyer from Miami. Then we circled back, spending hours with each of them, asking about their lives, their hopes, their fears and, of course, their fondness for Trump. . . . The list of indicators for supporting Trump runs long: voters over 45; voters who earn less than $50,000 a year; voters (especially white voters) who didn’t graduate from college; voters from rural areas; voters who are “angry” at the government; voters who are “very worried” about the economy; voters who think trade “takes away” U.S. jobs; voters who fear that they are “falling behind”; voters who think that illegal immigrants ought to be deported; voters who believe that Muslims should be temporarily banned from entering the country; voters who are convinced that the GOP nominee should come from “outside the establishment”; voters who, above all else, want a president who “tells it like it is” or can “bring about needed change”; voters who settled on their candidate of choice more than a month ago — dig through the entrance and exit polls and you’ll find that these are the primary voters with whom Trump always overperforms. And so a narrative has taken shape in the media: Trump supporters are white, male, undereducated, lower-income, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and angry — even racist. But the truth is more complicated. To be sure, some Trump fans — especially the ones sucker-punching black protesters at rallies — may resemble this stereotype. Yet relatively few Trump voters belong to every single one of the categories listed above; most of them answered yes to some (or even just one) of these questions and no to the rest. What’s more, Trump’s strongest supporters aren’t his only supporters; he is winning among other demographic groups as well. . . . None of the Trump supporters profiled here completely fit the stereotype, either. Actual human beings rarely do. As you can see, this is far, far different than the normal approach, that is pigeonholing people to fit a prejudice or pre-accepted theory. I still get the feeling the authors are doing this so they can figure out a way to manipulate Trump supporters, but I also feel a certain resignation that they oversimplified previously and blew it--so it's time to look at reality. I can live with that. What they are doing here, although not great, at least fits my approach of identifying correctly BEFORE judging. Finally they are getting the sequence right and looking for things beyond validation for their own theories. And they are actually talking to people rather than talking at them. There are flaws in this report. For instance, up to where I have read and watched, I haven't seen the reporters pick up on certain fundamental things that bind Trump supporters of all demographics. Just to cite three: they are sick and tired of being lied to in their face (read my lips... I did not have sex with that woman... there are weapons of mass destruction... the YouTube video caused the Benghazi attack... just to mention some of the most obvious), they admire achievement--Trump's achievements, not just words, and they don't mind fighting a war, but not over oil or not in a half-assed manner--they want to win it and get out. Even though this is not a great execution of this new approach, when compared to the past, it's a great start. Let's see if others in the mainstream follow. If they don't, no matter. Trump supporters are going to vote them into irrelevancy. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Still Report is interesting. The guy is a Trump supporter, obviously relishes seeing Cruz in a jam (would he cite Politifact about his guy's statements?), and likes to put Bible verses at the end of each segment. If the new Enquirer page on display is real, there's a word we will all soon be seeing in print or online much more often than we care to. If it's not real, or real and full of false statements... Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 22 minutes ago, Peter said: ... why is the thinking man vote not stronger in the GOP? Peter, That is you quoting Tracinski and that is probably the most condescending snooty thing I have read from him. You can listen to that garbage. I don't. Here's a clue for Tracinski if he ever reads this. Trump voters are thinking. They just don't consider Tracinski and those like him a thinker worth considering. If he wants to be a real thinker, he might check a premise or two, and start by looking elsewhere than down at the tip of his nose for the reality check. And he shouldn't blame it on stupid people who refuse to acknowledge how awesomely superior he is to them. Rejection is not lack of thinking. In other words, Tracinski should turn his own brain on and get out of his mental fog for a change. If he ever did that, he might not like what he would see, but at least he would see it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 33 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: If there isn't, it means that there are at least two present or former contenders for this nomination who will never receive my support or my vote under any circumstance. Marco Rubio and Donald Trump. Robert, LOL... From your posts so far, I doubt you would have ever voted for Trump under any circumstance to begin with. So why give only that as a reason? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Robert wrote: If there isn't, it means that there are at least two present or former contenders for this nomination who will never receive my support or my vote under any circumstance. Marco Rubio and Donald Trump. end quote So that leaves the guy in the white hat. Eddie Murphy in Mr. Roger’s ghetto neighborhood had an interesting show. Good morning boys and girls. Cruz rhymes with booze, blues, cues, clues, dues, flues, glues, hues, Jews, loos, moos, news, pews, rues, Aussie roos, sues, woos, and zoos. Can you think of any more rhymes? For the rest of the primary process, I thought of an excellent slogan for those of us who are less than happy with the prospect of Donald Trump as our nominee. It is, “Anyone but Trump until there is no one left but Trump,” and maybe not even then if he gets any worse. And Trump shows every indication of getting worse. I think before OR during the general election, he will explode like a toy balloon or the Trump - Hindenburg, leaving us with embarrassment, stunned expressions on our faces, and the stench of methane. And Adam I do think you think about things but like many of us you want to oust the bastards and hit them over the head with their own deceit. And "them" is the establishment Republicans and elites. Reconsider your support. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 19 minutes ago, Peter said: . Reconsider your support. Peter Reconsider my support for RomMcNeyCane? Not a chance. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Every participant in national, let alone Presidential elections is a vicious, power-grubbing monster who will do anything. Those who fall for their "let's demand decency and decorum" act are naive tools. Trump found that cesspool, he did not create it. He is playing by it's actual rules and winning, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 There is a new release from the NY Times called: Quote In Donald Trump’s Worldview, America Comes First, and Everybody Else Pays Quote Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, said that if elected, he might halt purchases of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies unless they commit ground troops to the fight against the Islamic State or “substantially reimburse” the United States for combating the militant group, which threatens their stability. In a 100-minute interview, he also said he would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than depend on the American nuclear umbrella for their protection against North Korea and China. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy.html?emc=edit_na_20160326&nlid=53564225&ref=headline I have the entire NY Times article, however the link above may be behind their paywall. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Some churn is breaking out over reporter Drew Johnson's tweet: COMING CLEAN: From what I know, at least 2 of the women named as Cruz mistresses by the National Enquirer are accurate #TRUMP #CRUZ #TCOT— Drew Johnson (@Drews_Views) March 25, 2016 The Washington Times said he had not been working there for over a year, but now he is really not working there since he had been. Like goodbye dude. And Johnson posted a scan of his last paycheck from them. (See Twitter feeds for Washington Times and Drew Johnson.) Johnson has a pretty good reputation for facts, not a tabloid one. Going by the things I read by him, he really dislikes Trump, too. So his statement is not due to making things easier for Trump. A few articles are already appearing about this, but it looks a lot like a crack in the dam to me. I wonder what it's going to look like when it bursts (if it does)... Also, it seems that the Breitbart staff mini-exodus over Trump included the Cruz cheating on wife story. It's being reported that Ben Shapiro (who is pro-Cruz) blocked the story while he was still at Breitbart. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 There's a lot of funny stuff out on the Internet about this Cruz thing. My favorite by far is from a comment I read to an article somewhere. I can't remember where... sorry... It was from a lady. She said: I don't want to live in a world where Ted Cruz has been intimate with six different women. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 7 minutes ago, Selene said: There is a new release from the NY Times called: Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, said that if elected, he might halt purchases of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies unless they commit ground troops to the fight against the Islamic State or “substantially reimburse” the United States for combating the militant group, which threatens their stability. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy.html?emc=edit_na_20160326&nlid=53564225&ref=headline I have the entire NY Times article, however the link above may be behind their paywall. A... That's interesting. Of course, Islamic State is a threat to the Arab rulers, but only if it got too successful. As long as it doesn't, it exists to the benefit of Arab rulers, as a force opposing ongoing Persian expansion. Islamic State and the Saudi rulers agree on religion. It would be interesting to see if the Arab states could even find significant numbers willing to fight against IS. I would think the target recruits are against IS reaching their homeland, but happy with it being strong in Iraq and Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 49 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: Every participant in national, let alone Presidential elections is a vicious, power-grubbing monster who will do anything. Those who fall for their "let's demand decency and decorum" act are naive tools. Trump found that cesspool, he did not create it. He is playing by it's actual rules and winning, that's all. Jon, You see what I see. What's more, Trump's the kind of man who believes in getting his hands dirty to clean up a mess. So to clean up the cesspool, he has to get in it to throw the others out. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Also, it seems that the Breitbart staff mini-exodus over Trump included the Cruz cheating on wife story. It's being reported that Ben Shapiro (who is pro-Cruz) blocked the story while he was still at Breitbart. Michael, If that is the case, why didn't the story run on Breitbart the day Shapiro was out the door? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, LOL... From your posts so far, I doubt you would have ever voted for Trump under any circumstance to begin with. So why give only that as a reason? Michael Michael, It wasn't an "only that." If the story is false, I don't care whether Rubio operatives launched it or Trump operatives launched it, or whatever. The mere fact it ran the day after Trump insulted Cruz's wife, and that Trump sought to profit from it, will be enough. If the story is true, then Trump takes the nomination in a walkover. Either way, Gary Johnson is starting to look a lot better to me than anyone with the -R after the name. Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 7 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: If that is the case, why didn't the story run on Breitbart the day Shapiro was out the door? Robert, Rober Mercer, maybe? I got that tidbit from the link you provided above to sundance's article at The Last Refuge on the Conservative Treehouse (here's the link again). Here's a quote from that article by sundance that might help explain some things. sundance said: The apparent thinking was if they could get the media to pick-up the story prior to Super Tuesday, it would finish off Ted Cruz and allow Marco Rubio to win in several key elections and states. Unfortunately, the truth-tellers ran into the corporate side of the media enterprises. Breitbart owned by pro-Cruz Super-PAC funder Robert Mercer was one of the roadblocks. The editor, Ben Shapiro, also now being named as one of the political advocates who would not allow his chosen candidate to be ‘outed”. Shapiro is also the Editor of The Daily Wire, which is also owned by a Pro-Cruz Super-PAC team, The Wilks Brothers. It appears Shapiro buried and blocked the story because he, along with others, didn’t want to see Cruz negatively impacted. Unfortunately, this is brutal confirmation of the type of media bias we have discussed before. Pro-Rubio and Pro-Cruz corporate media intercepts refusing to allow sunlight upon their preferred candidate(s). (Salem Communications: Hugh Hewitt et al, NRO, Human Events, Twitchy, etc) and Pro-Cruz sites like Conservative Review (Mark Levin, and unfortunately Amanda Carpenter), Right Scoop, Red State, Insurgent etc. with an obvious reason to bury or not allow the story to surface. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said: Every participant in national, let alone Presidential elections is a vicious, power-grubbing monster who will do anything. Those who fall for their "let's demand decency and decorum" act are naive tools. Trump found that cesspool, he did not create it. He is playing by it's actual rules and winning, that's all. Will he proclaim himself king of the cesspool, then? Might as well. Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Jon wrote: That's interesting. Of course, Islamic State is a threat to the Arab rulers, but only if it got too successful. As long as it doesn't, it exists to the benefit of Arab rulers, as a force opposing ongoing Persian expansion. end quote Damn, Jon! That is Winston Churchill-ian or would it be Kissinger-ian in its global stra-tee-gery? And Isis keeps Western civilization and the Crusaders out of the Middle East too. Recently, I mentioned that article in the Hillsdale College Magazine about Islam and I am still thinking about it. The day ISIS murdered 20 or more Arab men the Saudi’s chopped off the heads of eight people who did the western equivalent of spitting on the sidewalk. The terrorists are good Muslims. Mediocre Muslims are westernized Muslims who mostly pretend to not want to murder infidels and apostates who left the Muslim faith. Good Muslims try to subvert the U.S. Constitution with Sharia Law. Unfaithful Muslims live here and try to assimilate. It is moronic to separate a good Muslim from terrorism. They are required to be terrorists in today’s world because of the Koran. If they ignore parts of the Koran they will avoid jail in Western Societies, but they are not good Muslims, etc. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 21 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: There's a lot of funny stuff out on the Internet about this Cruz thing. My favorite by far is from a comment I read to an article somewhere. I can't remember where... sorry... It was from a lady. She said: I don't want to live in a world where Ted Cruz has been intimate with six different women. Michael Michael, I think you would be a more effective salesman for Trump, if you didn't keep insisting that anyone who opposes him, for any reason, is an inferior being. Trump already does enough of that himself. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 2 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: Will he proclaim himself king of the cesspool, then? Might as well. Robert Campbell He might. That would be his typical honest. He only insulted Heidi after his wife was insulted. Pacifism doesn't work. When your opponents are quietly knifing you and your wife in the night and pleading for decency in the day, decency and decorum don't work. And who has insulted Heidi, really? He who highlighted a poorly timed picture of her, or, he who has been banging prostitutes and waving the bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, Robert Mercer, maybe? I got that tidbit from the link you provided above to sundance's article at The Last Refuge on the Conservative Treehouse (here's the link again). Here's a quote from that article by sundance that might help explain some things. Michael Michael, If the story didn't run in Breitbart before Shapiro left, and it is still being handled with tongs as we post, because of Robert Mercer, how long will the present Breitbart entity survive? Will Stephen Bannon be the next one out the door? If the story is true, then any Cruz supporter who tried to keep it out of any media outlet is a complete fool. If it is false, on the other hand... By the way, if Fox News is as pro-Rubio as is now frequently alleged, why didn't it run the story at the time desired by the Rubio camp? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 3 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: He might. That would be his typical honest. He only insulted Heidi after his wife was insulted. Pacifism doesn't work. When your opponents are quietly knifing you and your wife in the night and pleading for decency in the day, decency and decorum don't work. And who has insulted Heidi, really? He who highlighted a poorly timed picture of her, or, he who has been banging prostitutes and waving the bible? Obviously Ted has insulted his own wife, if the charges are true. You write as though you became convinced of them long before anyone was making them in public. That said, sticking it to Ted Cruz for what Liz Mair did makes as much sense as sticking it to Ted Cruz, regardless of what's going on, because he is running against Trump. Trump vs. Clinton is going to make Grover Cleveland vs. James G. Blaine look like a Sunday school picnic. There's an excellent chance that our next President will go to his or her inauguration ceremony hated by a substantial majority of the public. There won't even be a welcome to wear out. Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 48 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: I think you would be a more effective salesman for Trump, if you didn't keep insisting that anyone who opposes him, for any reason, is an inferior being. Robert, You might be right. The precious delicate egos of the elites can only take so much. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 35 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: Obviously Ted has insulted his own wife, if the charges are true. You write as though you became convinced of them long before anyone was making them in public. That said, sticking it to Ted Cruz for what Liz Mair did makes as much sense as sticking it to Ted Cruz, regardless of what's going on, because he is running against Trump. Trump vs. Clinton is going to make Grover Cleveland vs. James G. Blaine look like a Sunday school picnic. There's an excellent chance that our next President will go to his or her inauguration ceremony hated by a substantial majority of the public. There won't even be a welcome to wear out. Robert Campbell Then Liz Mair is next. It was always certain the next President would be hated by about half the country. And also certain that the left would be in synthetic hysterics over the candidate chosen by their opposition, whoever it was. There are still a few months to November. Aside from AIPAC he has not even begun to show his thoughtful, professional, Presidential side. He will introduce many women who work for him. He will start to name his highly female cabinet. There will be a lot less hate by Nov. 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