Posted on 03/27/2016 2:17:14 PM PDT by Red Steel
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Sunday slammed rival Ted Cruz for the recent ad produced by an anti-Trump super-PAC featuring a photo of Trump's wife posing nude.
"From what I hear, he and his campaign went out and bought the cover shoot. Melania did a cover story for 'GQ,' a very strong modeling picture. No big deal," Trump said on ABC's "This Week."
"But it was a cover story for 'GQ,' a big magazine. And it was, you know, fine. And from what I hear, somebody bought the rights to it and he was the one or his campaign bought the rights and they gave it to the super PAC."
Trump said Cruz knew about the ad, adding he started the latest fight between the two. Last week, Trump threatened to "spill the beans" on Cruz's wife in response to the ad featuring Melania Trump. He then shared a tweet featuring a photo of his wife next to a photo of Cruz's wife, stating, "A picture is worth a thousands words."
Cruz has denied knowing anything about the ad, and called it deplorable on Sunday.
But Trump said the super PAC that produced the ad is "very friendly to Ted Cruz."
"He knew all about it, 100 percent," he said.
"There's no way in a million years that super PAC did that without his absolute knowledge."
No, you shame the site. I never, ever make a statement that I can't back up with links to sources. Unless it's my opinion which is always stated as such and, much to your chagrin, I'm entitled to.
Problem with you and some others is you cannot handle the truth, very sad.
linking to a picture,
and using the picture in a digital print ad
are two different things
one act does not require a copyright
one act does
the PAC in question reportedly has less than 15K in the bank
the copyright fee likely would have wiped that out and then some
Non events have no empirical proofs 60Gunner. Now lets say I say that I never carried a 60. You could easily falsify that by looking at my Army records or by asking the guys in my platoon. But that’s because it would be true. There is no way to falsify a statement such as Ted Cruz had an affair if he didn’t. Comprende?
That proves only that the campaign considered such an attack and refused to use it. Trump is a sociopathic liar. it is a shame to see his formerly conservative fans follow their dear leader.
You had your opportunity above to cite evidence that Cruz was responsible for Melania appearing in an ad. You failed. In fact you didn’t even attempt it because you know it is bs.
So many have bought into the Trump con. Glad to see you are not one of them.
It’s not my claim you idiot. I posted the story and I told you that I read it somewhere.
You need to re-evaluate why that isn't important to you.
In other words, the ad says: "Because Donald Trump's wife posed nude, she is a brazen slut. And because Ted Cruz's wife did not pose nude, she is not a brazen slut. Therefore, you should vote for the man whose wife is not a brazen slut."
But whether or not Ted Cruz approved of it, the reality is that it is out there, and it has his name on it. So in politics, one's friends can often do more damage than one's enemies. In this case, Cruz's friends painted him out to be a hypocritical holy-joe. And the ad, with HIS name on it, made his wife fair game, whether he wants it or not. His friends brought her into it through their attack on Melania Trump.
Not saying that Cruz did it. But he'd be smart to shut his friends up, because he's a rank amateur when it comes to anything other than just talk.
And I am not talking about your opinions. You are more than entitled to say “I think Ted Cruz is a skunk who cheats on his wife and I will back my skunk because he is upfront about cheating on his wife.” That’s an opinion. Stating “Ted Cruz is responsible for putting Melania’s picture in an advertising campaign” is a false statement sometimes referred to as a lie.
Now Cruz may well be a serial adulterer, member of a pagan cult and overall sob but you gotta provide some evidence. Understand Kenny?
“’They’ meaning someone other than Cruz, right?”
Well,,,, We don’t know yet who “they”are. I’m willing to wait and find out. For 25 years I have wanted a businessman to be President. Someone who will veto bills that fund studies about “Why are lesbians obese?” and spending money to teach African men how to wash their weenies after sex! We need to get other countries to pay their fair share for their defense. And we need a WALL!
So you have no problem posting a story that self-admittedly has zero foundation in truth?
I’m not seeing the point of the wall if Trump is going to expedite illegals right back in. As for businessman, the last businessman President we had was Jimmy Carter.
Hey foolish take it up with Trump speaking to ABC News. It’s news and relevant.
If he verified it, he would have said he verified it. He was very careful to say he heard it, which I have too, here at Free Republic. But have yet to see any proof.
I respectfully reassert my position. One could, for example, assert with 100 percent certainty that there is no evidence for the existence of polka-dot three-horned elephants on roller skates, because there was never any mention of one in any published historical document, pictorial representation, or piece of archaeological evidence to ever exist.
That is my point: that it is possible to prove a complete lack of evidence for something by proving that there is no mention of it an any existing historical media; but it often requires a great deal more intellectual effort to prove something does not exist because you have to pore over every single media during a given time period and not find even a vague allusion to its existence.
It's far easier to prove the existence of something because someone, somewhere, will doubtless have written about it in either a peer-reviewed or generally accepted document.
Therefore, I continue to stand by my challenge to its original recipient: If there is no evidence, prove to us that there is no evidence. Stand by your statement by doing some intellectual work, or step off now before you prove yourself to be an intellectually lazy fool.
Why would he when its so fun to play rope a dope with Cruz bots and their Hillary backers?
So a super PAC, funded by a Muslim oligarch who paid DT 2.5 million to use his name and was probably angered by DT’s anti-non-peaceful Muslim policy, bought the rights to the photos?
If they are truly owned by Cruz, and not the PAC, then Cruz can simply give the rights to DT?
” But have yet to see any proof. “
I have yet to see any proof that Cruze is a US citizen, Do you have that, if not, it doesn’t exist, right?
I do, however, have proof of his Canadian Citizenship.
It is BS.
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.