Posted on 03/28/2016 10:24:42 PM PDT by GilGil
If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, one of the main reasons will be that many in the conservative movement found him acceptable. And one of the main reasons that many conservatives are finding Trump acceptable is that the most influential political talk radio host in history, Rush Limbaugh, has provided his blessing.
Not his endorsement. Limbaugh takes pains to preserve neutrality between Trump and Ted Cruz, whom he describes as the obvious choice “if conservatism is the dominating factor in how you vote.”
But Limbaugh has also consistently defended Trump as a legitimate choice for those whose dominating factor is the humiliation of “the establishment.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I completely agree with this statement. Obvious (to me) Cruz was no longer talking about the canceled event when he said:
But in any campaign responsibility starts at the top. Any candidate who is responsible for the culture of the campaign. And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.
Disrespects the voters? By not showing up at a rally? Cruz is obviously talking about something else, not a rally that didn't happen beccause of 'protester' 'violence'. At least that is how I read it. He does go on to say 'affirmatively encourages violence'. I thought it was obvious he was talking about the event a couple days earlier when someone at a rally hit a protester that was being escorted out, and at some point DT said something about 'knock the crap out of them'. 'Nasty discourse', to me, certainly doesn't describe 'rioters', so, again, it is obvious to me that he wasn't talking about 'protests' (the media word?, when it was more of a 'riot').
That outlines what I read/heard when that statement was reported. If someone else wants to think that Trump canceling and not even showing at a rally was what Cruz was talking about when he said 'campaign...encourages violence', I can't change their mind. I just think that when he said that, he was talking about, well, when Trump actually 'encouraged violence'. Makes perfect sense to me, and I think it would make sense to anyone that objectively looks at it. But that is hard to do these days, especially on this forum...
I meant the governor of Georgia. Socialism is utterly wrong about in its economic critic of capitalism. But it is spot on in its view of what it does to the thinking of any class of people who accumulate too much power. It could be generals, or politicians, or priests, or plutocrats. They come to believe in their own omniscience, or at least of their own class.
Nice try, but the FACT is Cruz was blaming Trump for his rallies being attacked and disrupted.
NOTHING he says encourages violence and Cruz knows very well that those whose constitutional rights are under siege are entitled to fight back. We are NOT going to surrender to the Left and it is about time Cruz helped rather than hurt.
It isn’t Trump who is disrespecting the voters but Cruz who is only staying in this to cancel out the biggest set of voters - those for Trump.
I see where we differ. Trump encouraged rally attenders to knock the crap out of hecklers or those throwing tomatoes. Yes, it was in response to someone actually throwing a tomato at him in Iowa City (college town, very liberal). So he told the crowd in Cedar Rapids (where I live) to knock the crap out of those people. I would consider that to be 'encouraging violence'. Even if you disagree, I would hope you could at least see the point of view that I believe I share with Cruz.
Anyone throwing anything in a crowd is guilty of inciting a riot, assault and hopefully would have some bruises when apprehended.
That is dangerous activity and it should be met with resistance and force. It is LONG overdue.
We have seen the Left takeover events without any resistance other than whining pitifully.
Don’t you know what we are up against?
Trump’s people have instigated NOTHING and it is a lie to claim otherwise. They are NOT the source of violence. They are the recipients of violence. Anyone who cannot see that is blind to reality.
I guess he threw 2 tomatoes, after the first he probably should have had the second shoved down his throat.
That said, the candidate encouraging rally attenders to do more than maybe ‘help keep me safe’ was probably not the best move. Adding paying for legal ramifications - I don’t think it was smart. Trump will get better at this, but he has to walk a fine line because his fans loved it. But it did provide his competition with a quote they could use.
The guy was fined $65, no jail time.
With all due respect, Grow a pair. We are at WAR and need to go Patton on their asses.
Obviously the writer doesn’t actually listen to Rush. Rush has been slobbering all over Marco FoamBoy Rubio and now busTED sCruz.
Thelast month he has attacked not only Trump but his own listeners who support Trump. I’ve heard him demean Trump supporters.
It’s painfully apparent who side Rush comes down on.
Many of us have turned Rush off over his attacks on Trump.
And your alledged conservatives supporting
sCruz like Graham, Bush and the ones who say they will vote for Hillary. Tell me again how conservative sCruz supporters are.
I’m a conservative,.
Used to listen to Rush all the time. No longer. Not sure what Rush sees but I clearly do not see it.
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.
