Posted on 03/12/2016 9:35:11 AM PST by Brookhaven
Nope --- just the Uni-party.
Some years ago, I turned in my voter i.d. card and shredded my Republican Party membership card.
I did these things because I had come to the realization that it really didn't matter who you voted for, the march to end the True America and replace it with a socialist nightmare, just keeps going forward.
They tell you what you want to hear, and then they vote like the rest of the morons in D.C.
I saw somewhere, today, on FR the word "secession" listed in where we seem to be going. I have been thinking about secession as the only way out of this mess for at least a decade. I'm just not sure that we would be allowed to secede. The left doesn't want us gone and living our lives as we see fit. They want us to obey them. And, as it always is with the left, they will use violence to get their way.
Right. I'll side with the guy who has at least read the Constitution.
One thing which has become apparent to me is that you don't need to import the third world to make America a third world sewer. One self-serving vulgar nouveau riche and a herd of followers will get it done just fine.
I don't care if Cruz written the Constitution. He is not eligible and will get destroyed by Hillary over it. She already has judges chomping at the bit that will tie Cruz up in courts.
One self-serving vulgar nouveau riche and a herd of followers will get it done just fine.
So Trump's supporters are a flock a dumb sheep? Nice.
More lies. He said thee protesters were responsible for their behaviour. He also said such can be expected when the tone of a campaign includes violent rhetoric, when the bar of behaviour has been lowered--as it has.
The Cruz supporters on this forum have’t shied away from the Trump/Hitler comparisons - that I’m aware of.
Why should we when the metaphorical Reichstag is still smoldering, and the Trumpettes are blaming Cruz?
Your words, not mine. I'd put "angry" in there somewhere.
Separating water from wet, just like a good leftist.
RE: We are in uncharted territory.
Ignorance of history. We’ve been in this territory over and over in history and certainly in the US in the 60’s.
Yeah, we don't know any better. I'll get back to my Monster Truck rally.
Guess we now know what these tyrants planned at Sea Island off the coast of Georgia. Next time they meet, should be their last.
I have read at least 7 reputable accounts including Ted’s quotes. He makes the classic shared blame article which would be roundly and justifiably denounced here if the subject were rape and provocative clothing. Any time you follow a “blame statement” with a “but the victim shares blame” you are making the same argument.
Your Hitler response betrays an appalling ignorance of history. To say more would put me in a position of sinning even though the additional statements are true.
Shout loud enough and insult enough people and support will surely flow to Ted./sarc
You could see the meme being laid out the past week. And I also thought some major violence had occurred when I first read the responses from GOP aligned elites. Then discovered there was no real violence. Somebody gave Trump the tip off and he made the right move. These globalists are not the sharpest pencils in the desk drawer.
Yep, tell a cop you smacked your wife cause she said you had gotten fat and the cop will put handcuffs on you.
I saw a slew of articles, one of which even used a headline kluged together from a partial quote and the reporters own words to distort what Cruz had said. So I went to the source and heard what he said. That used to be common around here, but since the Cult of Trump!, there are more knee jerk reactions going on around here than ever.
He said that the blame for the actions of the protesters lies with the protesters. He also said that when candidates lead their supporters with violent rhetoric, then they set the tone for violent action.
The Communists own the 'protesters' and their actions.
I think you will see more of it. They are the type to exploit any sign of weakness repeatedly.
As for Chicago, this was no 1968.
But then in 1968, no candidate for President would have made remarks about a woman bleeding out the eyes and ...wherever, nor many of the other remarks. That wasn't considered Political Correctness, but simple civility and decency.
In 1968, Trump would have been done right there, even if he was a Democrat.
Now, if Trump supporters manage to throw the turd of 'Cruz being in league with the protests' and make it stick to the wall, (right down to inset photos of Cruz with Bill Ayres walking on the American Flag) the wrong person will have been blamed for a violent event. That is what happened with the Reichstag fire. (note, my comment was "metaphorical Reichstag fire") The analogy may well apply.
Nobody accuses Trump, Kasich or Rubio of being in league with the protestors. Thanks for setting up your own straw man to knock down. What Cruz supporters refuse to acknowledge is that the shared blame argument is morally bankrupt. The shared blame argument is repugnant when applied to a rape victim; it is repugnant in this situation.
Shared blame is the rhetorical device of communists, jihadists and slimy trial lawyers. I supported Ted (financially and volunteer time) for his Senate campaign and was an early supporter of his quest for the presidency. I will support him if he wins the nomination by selling himself not by demonizing his only real opponent. I expect better of him and have a right to since he, his father and Glenn Beck have invoked Almighty God as having called and ordained Ted to be president.
Now, what amounts to a call for civility is decried as being in league with Communists. Who is doing the Alinsky thing, here. When Ted made his comments about the tenor set up by the Candidate, he didn't mention Trump by name. If that shoe fit, so be it.
Somehow, calling "The Donald" out on his behaviour makes Cruz the evil one 'in league' with people who behaved even worse than Trump's rhetoric?
The Communists have to be rolling on the floor with glee at the Trump people Alinskying Cruz, doing their work for them.
They know where Trump's skeletons are, and they'll take him down in the general.
It's not surprise that people who live to protest would eventually turn towards the presidential campaign and mobilize against Trump.
And because Trump is news, the protests and disruptions are news. The actions wouldn't have the same media impact if they were directed against Rubio or Cruz or Clinton.
. . . and I was right there with him, when I heard that.He also said such can be expected when the tone of a campaign includes violent rhetoric, when the bar of behaviour has been lowered
You say it has, I say, “Where’s the beef?” Where are all the Trump (or Cruz or any other Republican, FTM) supporters threatening violence or stage/microphone takeovers at Sanders or Hillary rallies????????????????????????????Umm...what violence?In that context, the first word said against the “violence” of Trump’s (whoever’s) speech after a peaceable assembly was intentionally disrupted before it even began is one word too many.Violence did not break out at the rally. There were a few protesters smashing cars in the parking lot and blocking roads, but violence did not break out. And, as far as I can find, there are no reports at all of Trump supporters engaging in violence of any kind. So, why the flurry of Trump condemnations?
Because, that was the planned narrative. The plan was to spark violence at a Trump event, and then blame it on Trump's rhetoric and his supporters. The plan went astray when Trump and his supporters failed to take the bait. But, those whose role in the play was to condemn Trump didn't know the plan to spark violence had failed, so they dutifully played out their assigned part--condemning Trump for the violence that had actually not occurred.
A point about freedom of speech: A speaker who hires a venue to speak has a right to do so unopposed in that venue at that time. Your freedom of speech is not compromised at all by the expectation that the people who come to hear me do not listen to you. You do not have a right to be listened to, only a right to try to attract your own audience on your own dime, without imposing on me. I will admit that the right to listen to who you want to is not explicitly articulated in Amendment I - but it is certainly implied. What good does it do me to speak if the government or anyone else drives away anyone who tries to listen to me???
Trump is in the right, and he can embarrass any political opponent who claims to respect freedom but who has insinuated that the people who want to listen to Trump have no rights.
At this moment I could wish I had given to JimRob what I have recently given to the Cruz campaign. Cruz sure does have some stinky stuff on his shoe over this.
Umm...what violence?
Violence did not break out at the rally. There were a few protesters smashing cars in the parking lot and blocking roads, but violence did not break out. And, as far as I can find, there are no reports at all of Trump supporters engaging in violence of any kind. So, why the flurry of Trump condemnations?
Because, that was the planned narrative. The plan was to spark violence at a Trump event, and then blame it on Trump's rhetoric and his supporters. The plan went astray when Trump and his supporters failed to take the bait. But, those whose role in the play was to condemn Trump didn't know the plan to spark violence had failed, so they dutifully played out their assigned part--condemning Trump for the violence that had actually not occurred.
How about Trump Supporter Who Punched Protester: 'Next Time, We Might Have To Kill Him'
Not my word, nor Trumps, nor (definitely) Cruz's, but that sort of stuff sets the standard if it isn't condemned, and among the Communists, there doesn't have to be a real injury or insult, just the thought that there might be or might could have been one is enough to justify their behaviour (to themselves and others of their ilk), especially when the press will shield them and they know it.
No one should have disrupted that rally, and I am NOT a Trump supporter.
I don't even like the shoutdowns around here, frankly. I really miss rational discussions.
Nor do I in any way condone (nor, I believe does Cruz condone) the Communists and Racists shutting down a Republican rally.
The Communists and racists would have a fit if anyone remotely associated with the Right were to do the same to them.
If the planned (Communist) narrative was to attack Trump for the violence of his supporters and that didn't happen, then why are Trump supporters having a feeding frenzy saying Cruz said something he did not and then tearing into him?
If Trump supporters did not turn around and have a melee in the street with the Communists I would think that thwarted the communists' goals.
Implying that Cruz was in with the Communists--which is what your unattributed paragraphs do, is crap.
Trump started setting the tone with a crack about Meghan Kelly and the tone has gotten rougher, overall. Cruz's remarks were justified after the supporter punched the jerk in N. Carolina.
Without putting on my tinfoil hat, why aren't Trump supporters going whole hog (verbally) on the Communists instead?
Cruz didn't endorse their behaviour, if anything he called for people to tone down the rhetoric.
Reagan shut down disrupters' crap by saying "I paid for this microphone..."
I don't expect that level of class (tough act to follow) but it worked.
Now, we all agree that something different needs to be done with this country. Get back to work, make stuff here, control our borders, and kick out the people who aren't supposed to be here. (and Change it back--to original intent, or a lot closer to it). We don't agree on who will be the best person to do that, but we DO agree it damned sure isn't Hillary or Bernie.
(You are only replying to me and I see no attribution.) It is not quoting ME, so I am curious as to the source.Umm...what violence?Violence did not break out at the rally. There were a few protesters smashing cars in the parking lot and blocking roads, but violence did not break out. And, as far as I can find, there are no reports at all of Trump supporters engaging in violence of any kind. So, why the flurry of Trump condemnations?
Because, that was the planned narrative. The plan was to spark violence at a Trump event, and then blame it on Trump's rhetoric and his supporters. The plan went astray when Trump and his supporters failed to take the bait. But, those whose role in the play was to condemn Trump didn't know the plan to spark violence had failed, so they dutifully played out their assigned part--condemning Trump for the violence that had actually not occurred.
I plead guilty to using - routinely - <tt> to set off text which is not from the poster to whom I reply.</tt> Typically the source of such text would be either another poster, who would be named second in the “To:” box, or - as in this case - the article which started the thread (Oops. Don’t you hate it when that happens?)
How about: Trump Supporter Who Punched Protester: 'Next Time, We Might Have To Kill Him'so they dutifully played out their assigned part--condemning Trump for the violence that had actually not occurred.
From your link:If the planned (Communist) narrative was to attack Trump for the violence of his supporters and that didn't happen, then why are Trump supporters having a feeding frenzy saying Cruz said something he did not and then tearing into him?Multiple videos show the protester, 26-year-old Rakeem Jones, raising a middle finger to the crowd as security escorted him from the rally - before the unnamed [Trump] supporter punched him to the ground.Throwing the first punch at someone is definitely not civil. But in the context of an obscene gesture directed at thousands of people - tho I don’t know if they included the wife or daughter of the “perpetrator,” that is certainly not an outlandish suspicion - I get the impression that the “perpetrator” thought he had grounds for thinking that he was defending civility. And, it is hardly impossible that the “perpetrator” was a Trump supporter who was/is a blue collar Democrat. Trump is counting on such people, in the primary and even more (I suspect) in the general election.
I have never contributed nearly as much to any political campaign - not even that of Ronaldus Maximus - as I have to that of Ted Cruz. Discount that as troll talk if you will, but it is true.But in context of a hostile takeover by Democrats of an event for any Republican candidate (any candidate for any party not itself guilty of similar behavior), any comment volunteered by a competitor of the offended candidate which is not condemnation of the perpetrators of the hostile takeover is - to put the best face on it - an unforced error. I’ll leave it at that.
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.