Cruz PAC’s Paid Talk Radio Insider $8M Dollars – Was Money Illegally Used To Buy Endorsements?

Republic Broadcasting ^ | 4/13/2016 | Republic Broadcasting

[sargon]

Well done, Lakeshark.

Tuesday night is going to be sweet, as is the Tuesday after that.

Nathanbedford is still stuck on the same old, weak "Trump incites violence" canard that he's been peddling for months, a classical (if feeble) Left wing smear tactic used when criticizing a candidate's policies is ineffectual (since Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have very similar policy positions on most issues).

Ted Cruz has exhibited his lack of character on several occasions at this point, and indeed has ceded the moral high ground to Trump long ago. I've never seen such an empty shell of a so-called "conservative" who is so driven by personal ambition that he was willing to sell his soul to the GOPe, hire Neil Bush, and be endorsed by the likes of liberal GOPe icons such as John McCain, Mitt Romney, Lindsay Graham, Jeb Bush, etc. Cruz even has stopped using the term "DC cartel" because it might offend his GOPe masters (except in his funding literature, of course).

Ted Cruz has leveled so many false accusations against Donald Trump that I've lost count.

Just like with nathanbedford's obsession, Ted Cruz literally can't string 2 sentences together without disparaging Donald Trump as some kind of demon from Hell. He appears unhinged in interviews, turning every single question into a smear of Donald Trump. And it's not working.

The People have seen Cruz's hysterics, and he's now dropping like a rock in polls all over the country, trailing a distant third behind even John Kasick throughout the Northeast.

If it weren't for the "greased skids" delegate thefts that Cruz is availing himself of courtesy of the GOPe (a fact even Cruz fan Rush Limbaugh conceded a few days ago) Cruz would not be picking up any delegates for the remainder of April.

Again, GOP voters see all this, and they won't tolerate Ted Cruz being the nominee on any ballot at the convention. Even the GOPe isn't so stupid as to splinter the party, destroy voter enthusiasm, and lose both houses of Congress with the toxic Ted Cruz at the top of the ticket.

I can recall Cruz falsely accusing the Trump campaign of assaulting reporters, which of course was repudiated forcefully a few days ago as the Michele Fields hoax ran its full course with no charges being filed, once the prosecutors saw the video evidence which showed that there absolutely was no assault.

That's just one example, of course, but there are a plenitude of others.

Nathanbedford's hateful anti-Trump propaganda is becoming more and more repetitive, boring, and, most importantly, impotent.

After the next couple of Tuesdays, with Cruz eliminated both mathematically and practically, we can start to focus on unifying the party behind Donald Trump, and we'll see exactly how much nathanbedford and his ilk really want to see Hillary in the White House. Will they support the party's nominee, Donald Trump, or not?

Time will tell, but some people are apparently willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Ted Cruz, disingenuous as he is, would still have gotten my vote had he won the GOP nomination, but, fortunately, with that now being an impossibility, I don't have to worry any longer about that moral dilemma.

Vote Trump

[Lakeshark]

You don’t seriously expect a Trumpster to engage in thoughtful discourse, do you?

How perfectly condescending, perhaps that's the reason your candidate is being shellacked at the polls. You might want to think about that.

Now, I've responded to him twice, and he can't rebut.

And he won't. Just watch.

And neither will you.

What you did, that's called projection, btw.....

[Lakeshark]

Well, one thing for sure, he won't respond to my rebuttal. He doesn't like it when he's shown to be wrong.

It's pretty clear he will try to force people to debate about silly, non existent things (Trump's VIOLENCE!!!), and when you show him how silly that claim is, pouting about how you won't respond to him like an adult (even though you did) is enough argument.

[nathanbedford]

I owe you no obligation to rebut anything but since you added "please" I will comment:

There is nothing on Jim Robinson's bucket list that is not shared by Ted Cruz, in some instances effecting the goals would be done better by Ted Cruz or more enthusiastically by Ted Cruz.

Apart from the issue of trade, there is really no substantial variation. Even concerning trade, the goals are identical only the methods and approach vary between Cruz and Trump. Cruz will be realistic in a technological global age and Trump thinks he can wave a magic wand over the Pacific and simply override the economic interests of 4 or 5 billion people. He will be tragically disabused of his arrogance and we will suffer as a result.

Overall the essential difference is that you can't believe a word of what Donald Trump says but Ted Cruz has proven over and over again that he keeps his campaign promises.

[Lakeshark]

There is nothing on Jim Robinson's bucket list that is not shared by Ted Cruz

That may be true, but it's Trump who has pushed those issues to the forefront, not Cruz.

The main two, illegals and stopping muzzies from immigrating are only in the forefront because Trump had the courage to put them there. I'm not sure Cruz would be saying amen to them had Trump not done the hard lifting against the media.

One of the main reasons I shifted preference to Trump is he clearly had the strength to form the narrative. It's in that ability to take on the media, and the strength to push that narrative that enables him to be winning.

That's not only what we will need to win in November, but it's what we will need in a leader when the left starts howling when the changes start to be made.

Cruz is a good debater, well spoken, but I don't think we need a debate champ. We will need someone who can move the Overton window, form the narrative, and stay strong enough to actually effect change in the face of the howling that will go on. It's why it's called executive experience, not debating experience.

In my opinion, Trump has demonstrated he can do that, Cruz has not. My belief is if Cruz had one tenth of what has been thrown at Trump, he would be polling at 10%. I don't think he can handle Hillary, and I don't think he can handle the pressure of being the one to take on the left after the election.

He's young, and if he takes the right road, he will do very well in the future. Frankly, I'd prefer him on the Supreme Court.

It is also true, that if something changes, and Cruz wins this thing with a miracle finish, I am not #neverCruz, and would support him if he won. It just doesn't look like that's going to happen.

[nathanbedford]

My problem with the Trump supporters is they resort to shooting the messenger to divert criticism away from Trump. Trump's qualifications, or lack of them, for the office of President of the United States of America have nothing to do with me.

Perhaps my age is showing, but I am getting tired of defending myself rather than speaking to the issue. I am tired of the personal vituperation which is dripping from every thread in this forum. I believe this is a foretaste of the degrading of our civil society should Donald Trump become president. I have campaigned against political correctness in this forum for years but opposition to political correctness is not the equivalent of license. Opposition to political correctness does not mean there is open season on the character of the people who oppose Donald Trump.

Worse, we are seeing a swelling evidence of Trump supporters seeking to impose censorship in this forum against anyone who might speak out against Donald Trump. Nothing could be more harmful to Free Republic than the dead hand of the censor which will ultimately bring the best conservative forum to ruin.

I think over the years and thousands of replies I've established a reputation on this forum that I will engage the issues and try to do so respectfully and without resorting to the ad hominem.

Sometime ago I wrote a reply which incorporated previous replies setting forth my conception of how one who contributes to this forum should conduct himself and I incorporate it again here knowing that it will make this reply even longer:

----------------------------------

You make several very important points in your well constructed vanity.

Your observation that Free Republic is, "the greatest conservative site in the sorry history of the internet" is inarguably true and that truth should be restated and broadcast often.

As I have often posted, I do not come on to the threads of Free Republic to discuss the weather (unless we are confusing whether with climate "change"). I come here to be informed and, primarily, to persuade. That is why I sport the avatar below, because I want readers to know whose ideas they are dealing with and to take the time to read them. I want them to expect a reasoned contribution because of the name and avatar.

I do not expect anyone to accept my point of view merely because it is my point of view, it is my responsibility to persuade. I hope the avatar induces Freepers and lurkers to read what I write so that I have a chance to persuade. But once we posters have a reader's attention we owe him a duty to accurately inform and rationally argue.

From a reply of mine in August, 2015:

"Imagine some youngster awakening to politics and venturing into this forum to get a taste of conservatism only to be met with cheap shots. People who pepper their replies with condescension, derision, snarkiness, and in general indulge in ad hominem attacks which do not advance their arguments and certainly would not make any converts of the kinds of youngsters that we would want to join the conservative movement. It seems to me that the last way I would choose to get voters for Donald Trump is to comport myself like Donald Trump. Usually these tactics are resorted to not to win an argument but to make the poster feel better about himself, to paper over insecurity, or to distract the argument from the issue. I also find unappealing the use of ":-)" or "LOL" as though that clinches an argument. It reveals instead an absence of resources.

On October 27, 2010 I responded to a newbie asking Free Republic how he should conduct himself and how he should post:

Speak your mind, tell the truth, do not post without reason or for its own sake or for your own sake, but post only when you can contribute value added, never post out of malice, ad hominem, or pique. Do not troll for disputes or to be pointlessly argumentative, or to shore up your own ego, but defend your good name and reputation to the last extreme. Post as though every word were to be read and measured by a young mind seeking a political ideology and your post alone will fix his future worldview forever. Finally ask yourself, what would that half born American, Winston Churchill, say?

Welcome to the greatest forum on the Internet. I look forward to being edified by your posts.

.............................................

[nathanbedford]

They would be foolish of me to disagree that Trump has been successful in bringing the issues you mention to the forefront of the debate.

But I take issue with your assertion that Cruz did not "push" the issues of immigration because my interpretation of his poison pill efforts in the Senate and his lobbying in the House demonstrate that he was pushing these matters before Trump got in. In addition, I have cited Trump'S 2013 tweet supporting amnesty, at least temporarily.

Nevertheless, you are correct Trump is a public-relations genius who has brought these matters to the front of the debate.

Conceding that reality, I also look at the other side of the coin which tells me that for every positive effect Trump has had concerning issues that we love, he has provoked a bitter opposition which is reflected in his negatives. It will make it very difficult for him to be elected and difficult for him to govern. I have been wrong on Donald Trump on several occasions so I could be wrong in this estimation but it is not an unreasonable position to take.

[Lakeshark]

In our discussion over the past month, if you look, you will normally find one NathanBedford starting with condescension and ad hominem, not me.

I have lamented that you have done so. If that’s an attack, so be it.

I have given you two substantial posts on this thread that you have ignored, both with less personal vituperation than you have given to me.

As to the degrading of the civil discourse, both sides here have much blood on their hands, and yours aren’t particularly unstained.

Perhaps you might want to become an example rather than rail against the other side. The idea that Cruz supporters are Lilly white is far from true. Before switching preference to Trump, when I was a Cruz supporter, I was frankly shocked at the nastiness coming from the supporters of my preferred candidate. Quite honestly, I think they started it, and continue from a point of dripping condescension that gets worse as Cruz gets closer to losing.

There isn’t an easy fix, but I hope it will pass, I hope it will get better when the race is won.

[Lakeshark]

Much better, will reply later when I can, but I must go for now.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“I would run from that kind of endorsement, it’s just shy of being endorsed by the John Birch Society in the days after Buckley outed them”

LOL....I was called a John Bircher by a Cruzophile, along with other sordid things. Some of them need to be checked for rabies : )

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Overall the essential difference is that you can’t believe a word of what Donald Trump says but Ted Cruz has proven over and over again that he keeps his campaign promises.”

Ted Cruz is a slick, yet transparent Harvard lawyer, and career politician who has accomplished next to nothing in life. You have the men bass-akwards.

Promises in Malibu has a good in patient record for drug addiction. Something you might consider. Insurance might cover most of it. : )

[nathanbedford]

Promises in Malibu has a good in patient record for drug addiction. Something you might consider. Insurance might cover most of it

And so it goes, a Trump bot, utterly without provocation, descends to the ad hominem as they invariably do. No matter how many times you resort to this tactic to divert attention away from the moral failings and policy failings of your candidate, it ain't about me it is about the candidate.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Well, seeing as you CRUZbots in just one day called me (Yes, ad hominem)

1) traitor

2) John Bircher( had to research this one)

3) anti-Semite ( I married a CONSERVATIVE Jew)

I just thought that I might return the hospitality....LOL!

[nathanbedford]

Since you're feeling so hospitable, do you suppose the next time you're disposed to slander me for no just cause, instead of ending it all with "LOL" you might end it in equally big capital letters with:

VOTE TRUMP

That will make you feel better and will alert everyone who reads it that there is no truth to it.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Nobody slandered you, crybaby. Grow up and get a life. Get a sense of humor too : )

[nathanbedford]

You forgot to add in capital letters:

VOTE TRUMP

You must not have been feeling very hospitable.

Do you feel better?

[stephenjohnbanker]

“You forgot to add in capital letters:

VOTE TRUMP”

You are correct.

VOTE TRUMP

[nathanbedford]

Well done!

Now you feel better and everybody knows not to believe a word of what you wrote.

A win-win.