Posted on 03/25/2016 9:40:59 PM PDT by bobsunshine
The National Enquirer published a story this week accusing Texas Senator Ted Cruz of multiple extramarital affairs.
.....
It was discovered that weeks ago a large number of Marco Rubio operatives and supporters were trying to bring the sex scandal story to the MSM attention.
Under the open guise of #TheThing they were communicating via various twitter feeds and following along to see if the story had been picked up. Most of the activity was centered around March 10th – March 15th.
Yesterday the hashtag CruzSexScandal went viral. Today, many of those DC operatives, participants, supporters, consultants, Super-PAC’s and campaign advisors have spent a great deal of time deleting their (The Thing) participation. The peak of their scrubbing coincided with Senator Ted Cruz accusing Donald Trump of planting the story.
......
Virtually everyone in the blog-o-sphere who supported Marco Rubio was active, tweeting, re-tweeting, or following the events related to #TheThing. Now they’re running for cover and trying to hide their fingerprints.
Anti-Trump Republican operative Rick Wilson tweeted this out weeks ago. (He has since deleted it.)
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
I am not going to play the silly liberal game of ‘selective literalism’ with you- it’s an asinine liberal tactic that belongs on schoolground playgrounds, and not in serious discussions- (”Oh- so you admit that you did kick the puppy then- I knew you did it”-—”Nuh Uh- I never admitted that”-— “Well you didn’t deny it, therefore you did it- Dog-Kicker!”.......... see how ridiculous such arguments are?)
sorry- my previous posts was supposed to be posted to ucansee- don’t know what happened there-
T. Cruz’s reaction from what I have read is at best odd. An innocent person would in most cases have proclaimed that the story was false, that he never committed adultery. He would not have shouted, “It’s Trump’s fault!” Yet Cruz, who is abnormally obsessed with Trump, sees it as another chance to blame Trump even though the evidence I have seen points to Marco Rubio.
[[However, the phenomenon of transference has been mastered by the Marketing dept at Trump Inc. and they are defending the Democrat while clamoring to hang the Conservative.]]
Agreed- It’s as plain as the noses on our faces- too bad they can’t see that- His recent ‘conversion’ to ‘republican’ should be a warning flag- considering how extremely liberal he was before, compared to Reagan who he likes to compare his recent conversion with- Reagan was a moderate liberal- not an extreme liberal like donald was- perhaps still is-
It is as I said... Trump is the anti-establishment candidate... Period.
[[An innocent person would in most cases have proclaimed that the story was false,]]
Apparently you’ve missed where he did just that? As did 2 of the women who were accused? I don’t find it odd at all that ted THEN turned and accused donald after donald threatened to ‘spill the beans’ and knowing donald’s connection nwith hte National enquirer and the reporter who broke the story
Do you find that reaction unreasonable? Who in their right mind wouldn’t see a connection between donald and the NE and the writer on the NE? Whether it’s a right connection or not- the perception is very strong that donald did have something to do with it especially in light of the fact that he had just threatened ted and his wife-
there are things to be concerned over or find odd- but honestly, this isn’t one of them- IF ted is innocent- then this is a very reasonable reaction by Ted at an attempt to completely ruin his life and his wife’s life and his children’s life by smearing him with lies- This is serious stuff- this isn’t a game anymore- IF Ted is innocent, then an innocent man’s reputation has been destroyed by filth- and it sure as heck looked like donald did have something to do with it- for the reasons mentioned above-
IF there is clear evidence that donald did not have anything to do with it- then you can expect an apology from ted- but as it stands now, donald did have a connection with the writer of the article, AND the NE ran disgusting articles about carson in favor of trump before when carson was gaining on trump- Ted’s reaction is not unreasonable in light of these facts-
The GOPe is beyond contemptible. They're trying to frame Trump. The only thing I'm not certain about is whether Cruz is being played or he is in on the framing.
You are the one who said it didn't matter what HE SAID EXACTLY, and that what was important was WHAT HE MEANT. Correct ?
“TRUE” Capitalized and everything- must make it a fact then- Because hookers are known to be nothing but truthful- Tell us ucansee- did you witness the affairs yourself?
I said the WAPO said it was true. Which they did. I also said, IF it was true, then....
I'll ask again, If those stories are true, then that would make TED a LIAR , correct ? (note I'm not saying they are true, but asking a question. Your emotional anger is blinding you to the words I have written).
Do you know for a fact Ted is guilty?
Do you know for a fact that he isn't ?
Then why are you trying to portray the idea that he is before the facts aRe known?
The WAPO is the one that is portraying the idea that at least two of the accusations are true. I guess you want me to ignore that because you find it inconvenient.
Did the Washington times reporter? (Who by the way it appears, if it’s the same person, was fired for Faking a news headline-)
First intelligent argument you have made in this debate. IF it's true about the reporter, then that would , in my opinion, discredit the WAPO article.
Likewise, if TED is claiming that everything in the NE article is a lie , and it's obvious the info about the donation wasn't a lie, then he too should be discredited.
Have you seen anything in the media yet where Ted says, "the donation accusation is true" ?
sigh! And people that say ‘the world is burning’ don’t ‘actually say’ ‘most of the world is not burning’ either- what’s your point?
You keep sticking to that particular straw man argument because it allows you to believe what you THINK he meant instead of what HE SAID.
Let's use your 'straw man' argument in a context that is not so 'ambiguous' as "the world is on fire".
Let's say you are accused of robbing a bank and killing three people. You state that it is "all lies". YET, you were caught exiting the bank with the bank's money.
Now... there's no proof you killed the three people, but proof you took the money.
So... are you lying or not ?
An independent PAC, which claims to support Cruz, but which is not part of his campaign, ran an ad showing a picture published in a worldwide gentleman's magazine, which the now Mrs. Trump posed for.
Whether they support Cruz is debatable. This whole sh*tstorm was predictable, all downside, and any benefit in a Conservative Western state would be questionable. Folks out here don't take kindly to attacking someone's womenfolks and the likelihood that Cruz would get the blame for something he didn't do was tremendous, as the whole crapfest has shown.Are these people supporting Cruz? With "support" like that, who needs enemies?
If anyone puts forth that this whole thing may have been instigated by the (former?) GOPee operatives in the Cruz campaign, who may well be there to sabotage it, not help it along, well, at first, even I thought that they were most qualified available people for the job, but now I am not so certain that they aren't there to throw the fight.
It sure seems that way.
Ted Cruz, upon discovering this, did not immediately condemn the ad. Instead, he chose to merely distance himself from it, saying in effect, “I dindu nuffin.”
Cruz said 'it isn't one of ours'. That is a disavowment, by definition. It isn't the type of histrionic display many Trump fans are used to, but in any part of the world, saying something isn't yours is, in effect, disavowing it.
Trump rightfully came out with strong criticism of the ad,...[Sure he did. After all, the ad was sleazy, by benefit of the image. But it isn't (first off) Ted's ad, it was from an independent PAC. Second, no one went window peeking to get the photo and (I assume) there were no roofies involved, just a straightforward skin shot as part of a modeling job for GQ Magazine..]...and of Ted, for failing to call it what it was - pure sleaze politics, which Ted benefited from.
As for sleaze politics, well, yes it was. As for Cruz benefiting from it? Nope. The ad, even conducted by an independent, has hurt him, fed the 'lying ted' meme (through the usual distortion of fact), and has been used to smear Cruz for days. I would not call that a benefit, and like I said, those results would be entirely predictable.
In addition, Trump and his pals in the tabloid media are fully attacking Cruz and his wife and their marriage. All over an ad some alleged supporters put out.
And they are laughing so hard at DU they are having trouble breathing.
Sheesh!
I don’t care if Cruz was boffing half of Washington and all of Texas.
All I care about is that when WAR came to Chicago Cruz joined the Enemy.
Well, except for the fact that Cruz’s campaign manager bought the rights to the picture and passed it off to the PAC.
That makes pretty much your entire argument fall apart.
No, the PAC would have to purchase the license to use the image, or those rights would have to be transferred. If the latter, then there should be a paper trail. If the PAC did not have the rights, there is a lawsuit over intellectual property and possibly criminal charges. No matter what, the USE of the image is on the PAC.
[[You are the one who said it didn’t matter what HE SAID EXACTLY, and that what was important was WHAT HE MEANT. Correct ?]]
I see you completely missed the significance of what i said and why-
[[Let’s say you are accused of robbing a bank and killing three people. You state that it is “all lies”. YET, you were caught exiting the bank with the bank’s money.]]
Now we’re back to the ‘all lies’ claim again? Which is it ucansee- did ted say ‘all lies’ or ‘full of lies’? Let’ say the accusation was that the robber carved initials into everyone’;s chest before he left the bank, that he called everyone;s family members and threatened them - that he killed several puppies, lit fire to the bank vault, cut hte toes off of everyone in the bank and that he shot three people
What if what if what if- As I said I’m not playing your silly liberal selective literalism games with you- Have a nice day-
Even as a liberal though he waqs a moderate liberal back in te days when liberals actually had some pretty conservative ideals- trump is no Reagan
You got that right.
If you don’t care who I (and presumably anybody else) votes for, why do you get so negative and nasty about Cruz?
cruz wants to be the president who could not shoot straight?
we tried that these last eight years.
I agree. However, is that what she meant ? Or did she mean it in the way that Hillary did when she talked about being CO-PRESIDENT ?
I get the impression that Heidi is the one who 'wears the pants' in that family. Of course, that is just my opinion.
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.