I will let the reader decide whether to believe Donald Trump's own words or your preposterous spin.
Posted on 03/07/2017 8:23:43 PM PST by Helicondelta
Donald Trump is scheduled to host Ted and Heidi Cruz at the White House on Wednesday.
The president and the former presidential candidate will reportedly have dinner together Wednesday night. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the purpose of Trump and Cruz’s meeting.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I will let the reader decide whether to believe Donald Trump's own words or your preposterous spin.
But we're used to that from you. Anything relating to Donald Trump can only be explained by selecting the most negative interpretation possible.
Something you have in common with the Trump-hating left.
Everyone in this community knows about the incidents you're referring to, and the statements by Donald Trump.
Everyone is also aware of the voluminous comments by Donald Trump decrying violence, and the potential for violence, at his rallies. Those statements far outnumber and outweigh the cherry-picking that you have engaged in.
Not very many people here believe that Donald Trump "approved of violence" during his campaign. The reason for that is precisely because the overwhelming preponderance of evidence demonstrates the contrary.
It is your selective memory, combined with a pathological need to put the most negative interpretation possible on everything Donald Trump says or does, that causes you to put such blind faith in your own distorted assertions.
Donald Trump did not approve of violence at his rallies. Indeed he routinely condemned it. Your hysterical pronouncements to the contrary have been rejected by many reasonable people, not just myself.
We understand. Your irrational dislike for Donald Trump colors virtually every syllable you utter about him. Consequently, every exaggerated statement you make regarding President Trump must be considered in that context...
So will I, because virtually everyone in this community knows that Donald Trump didn't approve of violence at his rallies. Virtually everyone here is familiar with the few isolated occurrences of such incidents, and they're similarly aware that the full historical record overwhelmingly demonstrates the fact that Donald Trump didn't approve of violence, notwithstanding your cherry-picking...
"your cherry-picking"
"Knock the crap out of them"
Keep diggin'.
If I recall, during the same period of time, you stated your firm belief that Donald Trump was a "fraud", a "con man", a "charlatan", and several more equally delusional insults.
Do you still stand by those statements?
Your similarly unhinged conclusion that Donald Trump "approved of violence" is a total crock, notwithstanding your phony "evidence", which does not support your thesis.
For example, when Donald Trump said to "knock the crap out of them", he was specifically referring to protesters that were threatening to launch missiles (throw things).
But you already knew that, of course.
So it's very convenient—not to mention disingenuous—for you to pluck such statements of entirely out of context in an effort to reinforce your flimsy propaganda.
You're as full of crap as the day is long with respect to your smears of Donald Trump, and, quite frankly, your pathological Trump-hating hysteria doesn't carry much weight in this community, and it's unlikely that it ever will...
When you do not have the facts pound on the law;
When you do not have the law, pound on the facts;
When you do not have either the facts or the law, pound on the table.
Having no where else to go, you pound on Nathan Bedford.
...who can't pound on anything except hysterical calumny against the President.
My point stands: you cherry-pick statements made by Donald Trump during the campaign; you divorce them from the context in which they were made; you cite them as evidence of your thesis that Trump "approves of violence".
How about your other theses from the campaign? Do you still believe that President Trump is a "fraud", a "con man", and a "charlatan"? A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
You, sir, are an incorrigible Trump-hater, plain and simple. You haven't changed your sentiments regarding the President one whit since the campaign, so I'll try not to waste any further time in a fruitless effort to persuade you to display a modicum of fairness towards him...
The context:
Knowing well that his rallies had a history of physical assaults and manhandling of protesters, Trump, while haranguing a crowd of tens of thousands of enthusiastic if not excitable supporters who were manhandling and in some cases actually physically assaulting lone protesters/disruptors, exhorted them to violence instead of appealing for to them for calm .
A crowd of tens of thousands can easily be turned into an uncontrollable, dangerous mob by a demagogue. Every Speaker has a responsibility to lead his followers in such a volatile and potentially dangerous atmosphere away from violence. Trump's conduct time after time was a terrible example for a man seeking to be the political and moral leader of the greatest nation on earth and Ted Cruz properly described it.
Ted Cruz is not Prreident, I think you need to move on and take your bitter loss with you.
Every Speaker has a responsibility to lead his followers in such a volatile and potentially dangerous atmosphere away from violence.
And Donald Trump did exactly that.
Given the anger that was prevalent out there in the electorate, and the Alinsky tactics that the Left was engaging in, the number and severity of violent incidents at Trump rallies, especially considering the crowd sizes, was astoundingly small.
Ted Cruz didn't have to worry about such things, of course, inasmuch as the potential for problems at rallies is much reduced when they are both uninspired and poorly attended.
Trump's conduct time after time was a terrible example for a man seeking to be the political and moral leader of the greatest nation on earth and Ted Cruz properly described it.
Donald Trump's conduct, time after time, was a classic example for a man seeking to be the political and moral leader of the greatest nation on earth, and Ted Cruz's decline in the polls can be directly traced to his hysterical and shameful smear of the future President in the aftermath of the organized, premeditated Left-wing violence which shut down Donald Trump's the Chicago rally.
To reiterate: the general lack of violent incidents at Trump rallies is a testament to his leadership in an atmosphere where anger and passions were running extremely high, and your distorted perception and characterizations of Donald Trump were not (and are not) connected to objective reality. They were "fake news", and the electorate treated them as such, by and large.
You parrot Left wing smears, nothing more, and your assessment of Donald Trump's character and actions is every bit as deep and convincing as that of the Democrats...
No, I simply parrot Donald Trump's own words.
Why are you still pushing leftist propaganda? Are you really dumb or just working for the other side? Because the rest of us watched all those violent protesters disappeared after Bob Creamer was exposed as having funded them. This put to rest the idea that Trump had anything to do with the protests and they where simply another rat funded propaganda op.
Yes, divorced from their context, like Left wing smearers do...
You did no such thing, sir. You plucked a statement from Donald Trump out of the air, and didn't make any note regarding what it was responding to.
That's what a propagandist Trump-hater does. That's what you do.
I would further note that you've now repeatedly refused to respond to my challenge regarding your previous;y stated opinions of Donald Trump: that he's a "fraud", "con-man", and "charlatan".
The fact that you won't disavow such calumnies amply demonstrates that you remain a Trump-hater, incapable of routine fairness...
In the 1994 film Forrest Gump, the titular character says that he was named after his ancestor General Nathan Bedford Forrest, who “... started up this club called the Ku Klux Klan.” Tom Hanks who plays Gump, also makes a cameo as General Forrest, inserted into scenery from Birth of a Nation.
The children's science fiction series Animorphs has flashback scenes of an ancestor of one of the main characters fighting a battle against Forrest's brigade.
In the 2004 mockumentary C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America a slave narrator cites Nathan Bedford Forrest as the leader of a Confederate army that massacred hundreds of freed slaves in the North shortly after the Civil War, possibly an alternate reference to the Fort Pillow Massacre.
The 2006 song The Decline and Fall of Country and Western Civilization by Lambchop begins with the lines: “I hate Nathan Bedford Forrest / He's the featured artist in the Devil's chorus.”
Nathan Beffroi bio - not good. Why would anyone post his picture over and over again as if this loser was someone to look up to. Pathetic.
Incidentally, the statements were not made by me as you seem to think but by Donald Trump it is he who is to be judged, not me.
As to context, there is no context which would justify such remarks from a man seeking his office. Indeed,
res ipsa loquitor
If you have a look at my "about page" you can educate yourself about Nathan Bedford Forrest and learn why I adopt his avatar.
I do not know where you can go to learn etiquette.
I am simply publishing Trump's own words.
Recall the context in which this discussion arose. Cruz was asserted not to be a "real" conservative because he had supported protesters against Trump in Chicago. In defense of Cruz, I stated that there were 13 examples of Trump inciting violence at his rallies. That statement was challenged and is now being defended by offering examples of Trump's words seriatim.
The fact remains that time and again Trump has condoned violence at his rallies, often even encouraged it in the rawest language. Therefore, Ted Cruz' criticism of Trump in that context was wholly warranted.
I did not start this discussion to attack Trump but to defend Cruz as a true conservative, a consideration important now as he wages war with conservatives such as Mike Lee and those in the house against Rino care. It is vital that conservatives who oppose Rino care have their credibility unsullied by slander.
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.