Quit blaming me for my indiscretions.
Posted on 03/31/2016 4:00:43 AM PDT by cba123
Haha! But Sarah didn’t deny ANYTHING! Her “spokesperson” did the denying. You see? In the eyes of Trumpers, that alone, makes her guilty! She refused to stand up by herself in front of all of America and recite, word by word, the required line of denial. Therefore, obviously (in a demented Trump world) she must be guilty.
Seriously? You can't gather THIS as a denial???
"Let me be clear, this National Enquirer story is garbage. It is complete and utter lies."
Also..
I bet the NE owner has many friends again unsubstantiated comment on your part.
Are you unable to type the words "David Pecker and Donald Trump" on Google? Give it a try.
And you have factual evidence for this (besides your imagination)?
Are you an ardent “Jerry Springer” viewer? Because that’s what ardent “Jerry Springer” viewers sound like.
Apparently so did Cruz.
Trump has been running away from his friend’s slander piece because the voters were smart enough to read between the Nasty Enquirer lines and see Trump’s fingerprints.
“Let me be clear, this National Enquirer story is garbage. It is complete and utter lies.”
________________________________________________________
NO! This is not a denial. The story may be wrong, I didn't have sex with THOSE girls, or perhaps, the story is wrong because I did not have sex with all 5 of those girls, perhaps the story is wrong because there were many more girls than that, there are many reasons the story could be garbage. When asked if he ever cheated on his wife he changed the subject. Carley Forina jumped in and shamed the reporter for asking such a question but the question was never answered.
So again in reference to your comment, no, “Let me be clear, this National Enquirer story is garbage” is not a denial. For all I know he could have been holding another story in his hand from the National Enquirer that was unrelated and saying “this” is wrong.
He would not answer the reporter. Go look.
Yes... it is. And I'm done arguing this point with you.
Every one in my office at work, republicans and democrats alike think Cruz had at least 2 affairs. Not sure but enough evidence presented to make that view the most likely
here is the evidence that leads them in that direction:
1) The press conference with Carla F. He just came across as hiding something, that is the impression he left.
2) The 500,000 hush money directed to Sarah in Carla’s campaign. That actually may rise to the level of a crime.
3) Amanda Carpenter: her tweets, the time stamps, the pictures, the black list and her actions on CNN. She looks like a women in love with a married man, that is the most logical explanation for her actions.
Cruz is damaged goods.
Roger Stone was on Mark Simone’s radio show today. He confirmed that he was a friend of the Donald, he wasn’t working for the campaign or advising him and that he was one of 22 people called by the National Enquirer but that he wasn’t a source but a confirmation. He said people have known for years that Cruz “had a zipper problem.”
And everyone I've spoken to at work, regardless of political orientation, says that story is bunk.
The press conference with Carla F. He just came across as hiding something, that is the impression he left.
Among those who want to believe he's hiding something. You see such countenance because you WANT to see it.
The 500,000 hush money directed to Sarah in Carla’s campaign. That actually may rise to the level of a crime.
PAC to PAC. No matter your suspicions, it's not a campaign-to-campaign transfer. Prove (and NOT suppose or assume) otherwise.
Amanda Carpenter: her tweets, the time stamps, the pictures, the black list and her actions on CNN. She looks like a women in love with a married man, that is the most logical explanation for her actions.
You can make your own suppositions based on what you think someone is up to. Not sure what you mean by "looking like a woman in love with a married man."
The voters of Wisconsin will tell us whether "Cruz is damaged goods."
So.. to sum up.. in your mind, Cruz is guilty because 1.) You spoke to some people at work who agree with you; 2) Two PACs exchanged money; and 3) Amanda Carpenter acts odd.
That's it? No pics, videos, admissions, confessions or eyewitnesses... IOW... actual proof?
Well certainly the social world in VA may be different from PA. eastern PA is an old time mixed industrial/agricultural state, with a large English/Swiss/German/Italian/Irish mix, at least in my circles. That could certainly account for the difference in opinion if your section of VA is simply different in outlook. Point taken.
Nonetheless while folks certainly allow for the possibility that Cruz is innocent, the circumstantial evidence is pretty compelling to folks here. It is not that folks want to believe it, it is their read on the folks involved. 500,000 dollar donations to your opponents PAC does not make sense, but a payoff to keep a mistress quiet does. The distributions of the PAC, the timing of same and the continued payments to Sara F. all are congruent with a payoff, which would by the way be illegal.
Amanda Carpenter, a married women with Kids extreme advocacy of Cruz is kind of odd...unless she is in love with him. The Tweets, pictures form 2014 to 2015 seem to be again consistent with an affair of the heart. Said another way: the subtle read of character we all do says that Amanda was infatuated with Cruz and still is, does not hid it, despite being married to another man. That is the read of the women I know, and I have noted women are much better at picking up other women’s feelings then men, it seem to be a sport to them.
As for proof, folks have to make assumptions based on partial evidence all the time. You may well be right and folks should wait for proof, but that is how the real world works. For example you assumed I want to believe this, though I have said nothing of the sort. In fact your response makes a lot of assumptions about me, without a shred of evidence. See what I mean?
As for what I would like: I would have preferred a Trump Cruz ticket with Trump as President and Cruz as VP. Trump if he wins is strictly a one termer, he will be 74 when His first term is up. If he were to get the trade imbalance in headed in the right direction, build the wall, get rid of at least a good percentage of the illegals welfare and criminal class that would be pretty good for one term. then a successful VP Cruz could run and move the country in the conservative direction that a lot of Cruz folks want.
But that is not to be. The two candidates have damaged each other , it seems the time for a unity ticket is past. Perhaps Mr. Cruz thinks that Trump is such a dangerous man that taking his own career down is worth it and he is a real patriot, I do not know. Regardless he is damaged goods and is likely among the worst candidate to run in the coming election cycle. I am saddened by what has occurred, not glad of it, I think the big chance to move things to the right might have passed us.
Are you so dense as to think neither have other friends? Lots of people don’t like Cruz including Rubio who tried getting the story to press. Are you unable to think about anything other than your hatred of Trump?
You’re not capable of understanding my point about the National Enquirer, so I’m done with you.
Go away.
The narrative is working just fine for me. Cruz keeps blaming Trump for the story, yet Trump has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, Cruz has yet to deny the allegations. I think that most people are smart enough to see what is going on here.
Be honest--if Cruz were the front runner, do you think his claim that the story was planted would have any traction at all? The media absolutely loves using sex scandal stories to take out Republicans, because it works to suppress the conservative vote. The *only* reason the media is carrying the story that Cruz is blaming Trump is because their priority right now is to take out Trump. God forbid that they should succeed, but if they do, they will aim for Cruz next. And Cruz has already given them ammunition by not denying the story. We'll have bimbo eruptions all over the place, but this time, the media won't be trying to cover them up (like they did for Clinton) because Cruz isn't *their* guy.
Quit blaming me for my indiscretions.
Nope - talkin' about Cruz's response when Trump said if abortion became illegal then there should be some sort of punishment for those that get them contrary to the law - Cruz came out and said how mean spirited it was and how everyone is human and makes mistakes.
Makes you wonder how pro-life Cruz really is and also what he thinks about across-the-board rule of law - kind of worrisome if one is backing him for his "hard-core conservatism/Constitutionalism/Christianity/Pro-life/Enforce the Law qualities...no?
“Makes you wonder how pro-life Cruz really is ....”
No, it really doesn’t when he has the exact same position as pretty much every pro-life group.
Donald is the one who is making it up as he goes along.
Donald is the one who is making it up as he goes along.
Really......Cruz sounded a lot like Bush espousing his "Compassionate Conservatism" as he tried to rack up points over Trump's comments - which were spot on by the way. Amazing how horrendous the pressure can become when even those who claim to have moral values/principles jump on when a candidate u[psets the pro-abort crowd....
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.