Posted on 03/27/2016 6:24:00 PM PDT by cba123
Fools vote for Cruz.
Bubba, I am sure that you are not as dense as you are pretending that you are. Cruz didn't say anything negative about the ad until 2 days later after the voting was over. That was more than tacit approval. In addition I believe it was confirmed in another thread here that GQ, the owner of the photos of Melania sold the rights to Cruz's campaign manager shortly before the ad was run. If that doesn't prove coordination between the PAC and the Cruz campaign I don't know what does.
None of this actually matters however so don't sweat it. Most people do not seem to be aware of how National Enquirer milks one of these stories. First they come out with a teaser that is short on details. They then let the hapless politician make a big deal out of it and increase the public’s interest. Then they release a little more the next week which creates more turmoil and more free publicity. Then they let a little more out the week after that and so on, and so on. It is an excruciating process that sells a lot of thin weekly newsprint magazines for $5 a piece.
The first issue in this series barely sold more than their average, the second in the series will sell a lot more, the third more than the second, etc. etc... If they released all the details in the first issue they wouldn't sell a tenth as many magazines. Take a look at how the John Edwards thing played out, or Gary Hart, or Jessie Jackson, or Herman Cain or etc. etc... The National Enquirer may run a lot of freaky stories but they haven't got a political sex scandal wrong in the last 30 years. Milking the most from a sex scandal is an art form that they have perfected over the decades. But this is going to take months to play out completely, because they don't care about the primary, the candidates or the country, they just want to sell papers.
Thanks for the info. I thought hell had frozen over.
Even a Vegan will duck into a butcher’s shop to get out of a hailstorm. Doesn’t make them a meat eater. Just because the “establishment” is reluctantly backing Cruz doesn’t mean he’s a RINO.
It would be more believable if the vegan doesn’t crawl inside the meat case and let the butcher stick a for-sale sign on him.
I think the 'stand down Cruz' advocates are the same Trump supporters that want Trump to be a dictator.
No doubt..! Trump has called all of his supporters dumb a$$e$ and yet they follow him like the ignorant sheeple they are.
His supporters are even more fanatic that the most zealous "Trumpite". They will give the WH away (as will Cruz) in order to make their point (whatever in the hell that could possibly be at this stage).
Trump says he's the only one to beat Hillary. Cruz says he's the only one to beat Trump.....which one seems to be focused on actually winning the General instead of settling an ego-driven vendetta?
Kasich (OH) & Rubio (MN DC PR) have beat Trump too.
Similarly, each Congress also makes its own rules and the rules from the previous Congress do not automatically pass over to the next Congress. However, since a majority of each house of Congress has to vote to adopt rules at the beginning of each new Congress, as a practical matter the bulk of the rules get re-adopted with whatever minor changes that a majority of each house vote to make.
It is basically the same thing with the GOP Convention Rules, except that Trump and Cruz combined will control nearly all of the delegate votes. Neither Trump's nor Cruz's delegates will have any reason to vote to change Rule 40 to make any of the failed candidates or non-candidates eligible for nomination, since that would only make it possible for one of the failed candidates or non-candidates to take the nomination away. So the same GOP Convention Rules should be adopted, with whatever minor changes that Trump's delegates and Cruz's delegates vote to make.
It is certainly possible that either Trump's delegates or Cruz's delegates will team up with all of the failed candidates' delegates to push through other rule changes that the other does not want, but I just don't see any reason either Trump's or Cruz's delegates would have any reason to want to expand the eligible candidate list.
Well, the internet is learning. Every blogger with dreams of having a paycheck from ad space and the hits to make it is out there pumping the same rumors, with the same thin and watery justification.
Trump's pal Packer who runs the media group which NE is part of knows this game, it's red meat for him.
Cruz said the ad wasn't one of theirs, within hours. He didn't call a YUUUGE press conference and jump up and down, or beat his fist on the podium or threaten to have supporters punch out anyone, he just said it wasn't their ad.
If you had to decry things which were not your actions and go into histrionics over it so the drama minded reality/MTV generation would find you credible, for just one day's worth of world events, you'd have a long and exhausting week. No one feels the need to go to such lengths over things they didn't do. But let's say he went through the apparently required dose of drama driven theater and vehemently deplored the ad, would people have said 'he's trying too hard, so it must be his"?
What is the proper time frame and level of visible outrage--because those theatrics don't play in a courtroom--and that is where Cruz punched his ticket, in front of the SCOTUS, not on the frothing at the mouth streets of (F**K You Buddy! I'm walking here!) New York.
So, what's the standard? Is there a requisite X minutes to respond with Y decibels of outrage (real or not), jumping a minimum of Z inches high in a histrionic display of distaste for something you didn't do that would satisfy the critics?
No, we know there isn't. We know the global gossip industry is making out like a fat rat during all this, and Liberals aren't just making political hay of the allegations, they're getting effing rich, too.
Nope. Never confirmed. That claim was started right here at FreeRepublic. I have yet to see anything supporting it other than a tweet which does nothing more than state the claim.
Several people here have pointed this out already, yet Trump supporters here continue to falsely offer this claim as having been substantiated.
Well it hardly matters one way or the other. It was Cruz who managed to turn a story in the Enquirer from something that was going to be ignored by the main stream media and even Drudge into something that everyone now knows about.
Cruz went off message and his campaign is now floundering. We are one tearful admission away from a complete train wreck. The media and supporters would give a Democrat a pass but not the “anointed one”, as soon as this turns into a He Said, She Said situation, Cruz will be out on his ear. This literally will be one of the biggest political flameouts in history.
Speak for yourself. Truth matters to me.
Like when you said on another thread today referring to illegal immigrants that “once Trump becomes President since he is going to expedite them all in.” Yes the truth matters to you a lot doesn't it? You are really a piece of work. There are people here who actually try to keep it civil; you are not one of them.
Then, we have a law, right? You're supposed to come in legally. I would get people out, and I would have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal.
Touchback amnesty.
That must be why the people guarding the border are endorsing Trump and not the guy married to the New World Order Globalist who works for Goldman Sachs director.
I quoted exactly what Trump said. Deny it all you want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.