Posted on 04/02/2016 5:34:15 AM PDT by xzins
Speaking on behalf of Donald Trump, Sarah Palin gave a speech last night to a Wisconsin Republican audience. Standing firmly on a platform of truth, Palin warned the mostly party (establishment) audience their decision to stand with deception in order to win an election also means placing themselves in a very precarious position.
The response from the audience to Sarah’s brutal honesty was what’s customarily known as “the collective nervousness of deceivers“.
Whenever anyone dares to tell the collective: ‘the emperor stands naked’; there’s a particular kind of autonomic group nervousness immediately evident. A group discomfort.
Such was the discomfort when Sarah Palin mentioned Senator Ted Cruz’s weak and opportunistic immigration position, and then contrast a real-life example of Cruz going to McAllen Texas (Saturday, July 19th 2014) to hand out “gift baskets” and welcome illegal alien families.
You could hear a pin-drop as an entire audience sat jaw-agape in disbelief.
So Sarah Palin brings some BIG TRUTH to those GOP insiders who gathered in Wisconsin; and, if we are to give benefit-of-the-doubt to those who heard it, apparently it’s the first time they became aware of Senator Cruz’s forked tongue on an issue. Hence, a gob smacked response.
Palin also pointed out another lie, when she reminded everyone that Senator Cruz never stopped the senate Gang-of-Eight amnesty bill. Despite Lyin’ Ted claiming on the campaign trail that he killed the bill, the reality is that bill passed the Senate in 2013, and it would have passed the House were it not for Dave Brat’s primary defeat of Eric Cantor in June of 2014 shortly before Sentor Cruz took off to the border with his gift baskets.
But Sarah didn’t stop there. She also fearlessly told the audience that Senator Ted Cruz was also lying about another policy aspect, his advocacy for the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal. And, more specifically, to the Trade Promotion Authority bill Senator Ted Cruz co-authored, co-planned and co-constructed, along with Paul Ryan in the House of Representatives. Again, Sarah was loaded with the truth.
The Republican disbelievers didn’t want to hear about that inconvenient reality either. Then again, when you stand boldly in sunlight the cockroaches never approach; they can only comfortably co-exist when they remain cloistered in the dark shadows of deception.
The media’s response to Palin’s speech? Well, initially (and immediately) they began accusing her of lying about the “gift baskets”. Then, after they realized everything she was saying was factual, they started spinning. Eventually, they dropped the subject – and that’s probably how it will remain today.
It’s easier to hide those uncomfortable truths that way. Well, at least until after the Tuesday election I guess.
Here’s Sarah’s bold and truthful speech:
Piece of cake for Cruz.
First, it’s as of now unsubstantiated.
Second, if it is substantiated all he has to do is say, “Trump is right, all that matters is finding a good piece of ass.”
So, the first option makes him better than Trump and the second just makes them equal. Hard to see anything cataclysmic about it.
Now if memory serves, every time I see an article about Trump’s failings I’m immediately treated to out of context poll numbers implying that no one cares, so I guess I should point out that Cruz is up by 10% in Wisconsin.
Now, did I say "if" - or did I say "has"
Next.
If her argument is "don't vote for Ted, vote for Don because Ted flip flopped", there are two reasons to dismiss that argument.
1.) Trump flipped as recently as July 2015.
2.)Because one flips on the issue, such as Trump in 2015, such as Palin previously, and (supposedly for the sake of argument)such as Cruz in 2013, doesn't mean that one isn't correct on the issue today.
Once again, it’s attacking the messenger instead of the message.
No. Again it's relevant. It makes the point. See my argument #2.
I'll give you another example.
Let's say that an alcoholic 10 years on the wagon, walks into a job interview. The job interviewer, who also is an alcoholic who is also 10 years on the wagon, tells the person being interviewed that he would not hire him for the job because of his problem.
The interviewee then points out to the interviewer, that the interviewer has the same problem and that he still does his job well.
In this example the interviewer isn't attacking the interviewer. He is making a relevant point.
Do I make the point clear??
Thanks s much for the picture.
Here's one for you. It's Trump and some illegal alien minors, a.k.a Dreamers meeting at Trump Tower.
Do I make the point clear??
***
Nope!
But Mr SampleMan, there is still ...that nagging bottom line:
"Even though a woman (or women) have not come forward as yet to confirm these rumors of infidelity, Cruz now finds himself in the precarious position of having a lifelong cloud of cheating hanging over his head."
Any rebutal will never help Senator Cruz now, the damage is there and -will remain there forever more.
Next.
Looks like those illegals don/t like Trump much, eh?
Another consideration is Ted Cruz has been a great Conservative voice supported here on Free Republic for many recent years when there was few, while businessman Trump was out donating to re-elect Harry Reid to be a ‘nice guy’.
Does Trump truly understand why ‘we always lose’? I buy it if Trump wants to be born again conservative because we have heard Limbaugh bring many folks to their senses, and Trump does show he is feed up with Democrats doing everything wrong.
You don't think so.
Have a good day.
This displays Mr Trumps compassion. But, it does not show that Mr Trump was responsible for the 'Dreamers' - getting here. That responsibility lays with Obama and his ilk.
Let me correct myself instead of just a flippant reply.
I get what you’re saying.
But the arguments you’re arguing against aren’t the kind of arguments that I’m hearing Sarah make.
And to use your metaphor, the argument is whether or not an alocholic on the wagon can do the job, or is more trustworthy. Not whether the interviewer is trustworthy.
But in this case, the argument goes like thus, as far as I can tell.
1: Ted says he’s always been against illegals.
2: This shows pretty clear evidence that he hasn’t always been against them.
3: So he was lying then or he’s lying now.
4: Therefore, we have reason to doubt his trustworthiness.
And I have yet to see any real arguments on this thread against that.
And I was nasty for a moment, and I apologize for my flippant comment. See my previous post for a proper reply.
Really? They look pretty happy with him in that picture, and he also seems pretty happy with them.
And why wouldn't they like him. At the time. Trump was for amnesty. They even claim that Trump agreed with them about amnesty. Whether Trump actually said that to them, can't be independently confirmed. But we do known that Trump was on record the year before saying that, Mitt's self deportation plan was "mean". And we do know that a couple of years later, through late July 2015, Trump was still for a legalization amnesty without deportations for the "good ones".
I’m sorry; I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say here.
Yes, and the same can be said about Ted.
Ironic you hold this stance, considering Trump is not a rumored philanderer, but rather a self professed one.
He even bragged about it with “many women”...
Trump is an adulterer, Cruz is not.
I’m only maintaining sCruzers low level attacks. Since sCruz announced I’ve been attacked and called names from the very first day on FB by sCruz sycophants. While I didn’t attack in kind. Well after a while I decided to try my hand and I have talent for pissing people off.
What I can’t u derstand is its obvious that sCruz is a republican in the Jeb Bush mold. Just who supporys him and who is on his campaign staff.
Ah, so no due process, you sacrifice any Republican that has an allegation against them. Got it.
Please tell me then that you aren’t supporting the accusation repository Trump.
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.