Posted on 01/28/2016 6:30:16 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
A pair of pro-Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)Super PACs just offered $1.5 million for veterans if Donald Trump will debate Cruz one-on-one in Iowa before Sunday evening. Keep The Promise I and Keep The Promise II offered up the sizable donation for America's veterans on Wednesday evening. The principal donors of Keep the Promise I, the Mercer family, and Keep the Promise II, the Neugebauer family, in a joint statement released Wednesday evening said:
Senator Cruz and Mr. Trump both respect the veterans and hold them in the highest regard but Senator Cruz respects the process and we are calling on Mr. Trump to do the same and debates are the purest form of democracy. Iowans - and Americans - deserve to hear from the frontrunners in this 'two-man race' one last time. Not only would this be a heck of a debate, but it would also be a terrific opportunity to generate millions of dollars for the veterans.
The press release made clear the parameters of the pro-Cruz Super PACs' offer: The debate must be between just Trump and Cruz, must take place on or before Sunday Jan. 31 in Iowa, must be one-hour long, and the candidates can pick a jointly-agreed-to moderator themselves.
The two organizations said in a press release:
In response to Senator Ted Cruz's challenge of a one-on-one debate, the principal donors of the Keep the Promise I and II super PACs are offering presidential candidate Donald Trump a truly fantastic deal, pledging to donate $1.5 million to charities committed to helping veterans if Mr. Trump agrees to debate Senator Cruz in Iowa. This money is in addition to the millions of proceeds available to the veterans as a share of the revenues that this debate could secure from a host network.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
That's simple. Because he wasn't running the debates; the networks were. And as soon as he realized how much extra money they were making due to his appearances (their ratings exceeded all projections when he appeared) and the way they were structuring the debates to extract the maximum revenue from advertisers, he did start shaming the networks and asking them to donate $5 million to wounded veterans. But they refused.
That's one reason he insisted the second debate be cut down to two hours from three -- he felt they were just soaking up the money and not contributing any of the excess in ad revenues to a worthy cause. Try to keep up.
Your answer is that Trump did not hold fund raisers for veterans because he was not running the debates?
The suggestion was that the Cruz Super PACs should simply give $1.5 million to veterans’ charities rather than making the donation contingent on a debate with Trump. If that criticism is valid, then it is equally valid that Trump should have been raising money for veterans rather than participating in debates.
The question is about how campaigns dispose of their own resources - money for the Cruz Super PACs, star power for Trump - not about how networks spend their revenues. Network bottom line figures are irrelevant to the argument.
Is Trump requiring that the media covering his rally tonight donate their advertising revenues to veterans’ causes?
> “But you are making assumptions about Trump’s schedule for which there are simply no facts in evidence.”
There’s plenty of evidence to support my view over yours. And I say that not from ego but from processing objective raw information.
The below items are evidentiary:
1. You should surely see that his schedule is maxed out. Surely you agree with this.
2. He has appeared at numerous events on behalf of vets both before and after he filed as a candidate.
3. Because he has always included the well-being of vets in his life, and is without doubt, passionate about them, it should be no surprise at all that he makes time for them and draws attention to them. He did this before he was a candidate and he does this as a candidate. Therefore, one cannot informatively say he does it to wrap himself in the flag.
Conclusions:
1. Because Trump has held numerous events for and on behalf of vets, consistent with his life’s history, it is quite reasonable to expect he has many more such events scheduled in the future.
2. Because of Trump’s heavy schedule and the logistics it requires, we can infer he has a team of people working on current events as well as future events, including events held on behalf of vets.
3. We can expect his team of event schedule masters to have a detail of persons scouting out and assessing future events. We reasonably assume the Fox News debate has been known to them for enough time that they learned of the venom and attacks he would experience. We know his people had discussions with Fox News which failed and we know the result is a cancellation of his appearance.
4. We can reasonably infer that the opening in his schedule from the cancellation of his appearance needed to be filled and that meetings were held to see what was appropriate and sensible to replace the cancelled debate appearance.
But Hostage, your position was that this fund raiser had most likely already been scheduled. The evidence and conclusions you list, while entirely reasonable in themselves, shed no light on the assertion that tonight’s event was already scheduled and has simply been moved up. Maybe it was already scheduled, but neither of us know that.
While I’m not familiar with Trump’s prior philanthropic history I don’t question that he has given significant time and money to worthy causes, including veterans. And certainly whatever money he raises for veterans tonight will go just as far as money he might have raised behind the scenes. My issue is simply the intent of the specific event tonight.
So, who do you think will actually be on camera, getting the attention, tonight?
> “Maybe it was already scheduled, but neither of us know that.”
We can be sure it was scheduled beforehand. The weight of evidence and experience supports that vet events are on his schedule.
We are more reasonable to expect that meetings were held as to which future scheduled event would be chosen to fill the gap.
I don’t see Donald choosing a vet event as out of the ordinary. I see it as business-as-usual.
If there was not a long history of Donald and vets, if his campaign events on behalf of vets appeared contrived and disingenuous, then we would be in agreement.
But the facts weigh more to business-as-usual than to a false show of patriotism.
Well Hostage, I’m afraid you are hostage to a wish. But I’ve been guilty of that many times myself and can’t blame another man for it. We’re all supremely hacked off at the media and the political establishment and we’re all looking for the moment that they come undone. You and I just see different things when we look at Trump. That doesn’t make you a bad guy in my eyes.
There is probably much that we agree on. I wish you the best.
If you think Trump’s schedule is devoid of events for veterans, given all the evidence, then I would have a hard time making a case that you should be a candidate for wise counsel.
I didn’t read your links, because I’ll freely stipulate that Trump has done plenty of good for veterans in the past, and I’m sure he will in the future. I applaud him for that. My contention is that that the event tonight is about him, not about veterans.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked you earlier, and I’ll ask the question I asked of Hostage :
Is Trump requiring that media covering his rally tonight donate $5 million to veterans’ charities? As you point out, he called for the networks to do that but he was not in control. Now he is in control, and he predicts very high ratings for his event. If he is not requiring the donation, why not?
If Trump intends to focus attention on veterans rather than on himself, do you agree that he will yield the camera to veterans tonight?
He called for one network to do it on the third debate, the CNN one if I recall; and I cannot remember whether it is even legal to do, or whether the GOP or elections officials had anything to say about whether it even could be done.
To know the answer to about tonight's event, in addition to the legalities of campaigning, we would have to read the hastily-arranged contracts and what sort of last-minute advertiser sponsorships C-SPAN was able to buy, since they did not have a long time to plan. Advertisers are where the money comes from. Had Trump stayed in the scheduled debate at Fox, that debate has had weeks of advertising already pumped into it. I don't know exactly how the contracts work, and whether the amount of network profit is tied to the viewer ratings as projected in advance or after the fact. But it seems logical that this last-minute event maay not have as much "margin" as a Fox event would have had. So I don't know.
But I do think his point in the past was well taken: the GOPe and the networks were indeed banking on his drawing power to cash in with sponsors and then were loading up more and more debates and longer debates with ineffectual formats just to milk the situation; recognizing his ratings draw as the winner of all the debates, he tried to get them to give some of their unexpected high profits to the veterans.
The way you posed your challenge sounds like you have judged him hypocritical in advance, like the long-lost relatives who show up expecting a handout when they learn another relative has had a windfall; when in fact he is under no more obligation to do it at all.
I hope I’m not posting this twice - just had a “fat finger” error.
You raise some fair points. Perhaps it was somehow impossible or illegal for a network to make a donation tied to ratings on a specific event, and that whole idea has been dropped as a result. But that is speculative. Possible I suppose, but speculative.
Certainly any negotiations required to televise his rally tonight must have been executed quickly. But the greatest deal maker who has ever lived shouldn’t have a problem with that, in fact he should be able to use the pressure as an advantage to get what he wants. If Trump wanted a network donation for vets and could legally get it, he could have simply walked away from TV coverage of his rally. TV cameras aren’t necessary to raise money for vets, but they are necessary for his campaign. Which reminds me of the second question I asked you.
Certainly the networks have milked Trump’s star power for ratings and revenues. I applauded Trump and Carson for requiring the 2 hour limit. But surely we don’t think the Republican nominee should be arguing that a private corporation is making too much money; Sanders and Hillary can make that argument, but it’s not a Republican or conservative argument.
And that demonstrates why I actually do consider Trump to be a hypocrite. He has been all over all sides of each issue and we simply don’t know what he’s going to say next, other than whatever benefits him at the moment. We can’t even trust him to stick to the fundamental belief in private property, as demonstrated by my case above, and perhaps by his absolute defense of Eminent Domain for needs which are clearly not in the broad public interest. On a personal level he is quick to resort to personal insult, and even quicker to complain about other people insulting him.
I don’t think Trump is purely a hypocrite on the veterans issue. He has truly done good work for them and I’m sure he has been sincere and will do more good work for them in the future. But the event tonight is tied up too much in his own political best interests for me to see it as altruistic.
It occurred to me that you are engaging in casting doubt on the reasoning of others for their lack of evidence of Donald Trump’s motives for hosting an event for veterans, yet you have no evidence of your own as to his motive, only a ‘feeling’.
Links for facts and history have been provided to you of the sincerity of Donald Trump towards veterans. You might also note his father was a great supporter of veterans as well. So it’s not a mystery as to the source of his passions. Yet you hand wave this history as somehow not consistent with his event scheduling of tonight.
Yet you have zero evidence yourself of your own perceptions questioning his motives. But the evidence is overwhelming that he is a friend to vets and will always find time, any time, to meet with them. I think you’re just sore because he would not put up with the ambush planned for him. You’re just sore that he’s a lot smarter than you expected or wanted him to be.
I have stated elsewhere in this thread, to you and others, that I am sympathetic to his arguments against the media and Fox specifically. But his shtick is long past its expiration date, and my disappointment is that he is *not* as smart as I had hoped he would be.
I didn’t watch his rally last night. How much time was he on camera, and how much time were veterans on camera? The one brief film clip I’ve seen showed a podium with a big banner on the front that said “Trump”. But I thought this was about veterans?
Heidi Cruz service as Deputy Nation Security Advisor to Condoleezza Rice missing on the Wikipedia web page? Why is her service to Deputy Trade Director to Robert Zoellick handling China specifically. Why is missing that missing from her Resume? We know she works at Goldman Sachs. We know she is a member on the Console of Foreign Relations (aka C.F.R.) . We now know that Ted Cruz got sweetheart secret loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank, and this guy is going to reform Washington?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/26/who-is-the-real-ted-cruz/
Please get the word out on Heidi.
She is 100% CERTIFIED ESTABLISHMENT/GLOBALIST
In reply, see my tagline. This is an election like no other. As freepers, we must support whomever gets nominated from the R side, and refrain going forward from giving ammunition to the Democrats, which is what these endlessly repeated talking points from the Cruz side (hypocrisy, mixed motives, insults, yada yada) are doing.
Rest assured I do not regard this candidate as perfect. Many on here seem to think such a virtuous man could possibly exist and still want to run for possibly the dirtiest job in the world. But the Bible on which they base their claims has already stated that no one is without sin. Most of us have the luxury of a cover of privacy that he has not had for the past 50 years, because we have not been in the public eye raising the money that he has which is affording him the independence to call out the corruption in the GOPe as well as the Dems, the current administration’s goals to flood us with refugess, the donor class and the media.
For that diagnosis and sharp focus on the issues to be answered by this election, and for that alone, we owe him a great debt of gratitude. Civil gratitude is not the same as worship, so don’t start.
There were also remarks by Santorum and Huckabee from the podium, remarks by Diamond and Silk, and a long interlude from a wounded warrior with a prosthetic leg who is representing a group of veteran activists trying to help the phenomenon of veteran suicide. As of last night, Trump’s event raised $5 or 6 million, one million of which was his personal donation.
Thank you for your remarks, Hostage.
Everyone on FR must be prepared to support whomever is the R nominee against the D’s in November. We are out of time to hope allowing them to win rather than selecting an imperfect R will work as a strategy or survival mechanism. This is it.
It is not surprising that you don’t bother to read or watch. You can watch the entire rally at a time of your convenience on YouTube; so easy. But I can see from your writing that you spot a thing or two and quickly cast it as a cynical narrative about Donald Trump. You would be more honest to stop lying and just come out and say you don’t like the man period. That I could respect, not agree with, but respect. I do not respect all of your other tap-dancing.
You keep saying you agree with everyone that tries to inform you with ***facts*** about the sincerity of Donald Trump, but then you turn right around and make expressions indicating that to you the facts don’t matter.
The vets love Donald. They loved him before he filed to run and they love him now. They are always asking him to meet them, and he always obliges them. They are his family and the vets feel the same way. There is not even a question of it.
Even if Donald showed up and asked that all Trump signs, banners, placards and gear be taken down and hidden, the vets would respond “Nope!”. That’s how much they love him. To them, he is already the President.
I scanned reports of the vet rally. I don’t watch TV. I read FR and watch selected YouTube clips. The first thing Donald said at the vet event was that he really didn’t want to be there but he had to stand up for his rights, to which the vets roared their approval.
I caught a few minutes of Rush today, and he reported that Trump was actually off camera for about 20 minutes at the rally. That’s more than I had expected, and I thought surely Albion that you would call me out on that. But I guess everyone could see that Trump kept his name front and center on the podium. Well, I’m sure Diamond and Silk re-focused the event, given their celebrated advocacy of veterans’ philanthropy going back so many years.
Rush also reported that Trump had been in discussions with Fox until the last minute about appearing at the debate, but that Trump had again demanded a $5 million donation to veterans’ charities, and Fox refused. Now maybe Rush heard wrong and that never happened, but here is at least a bit of evidence that there is no impediment to such a donation. Again, Did Trump require that of the media at his rally?
Still there were actually $6 million collected, and my distrust of Trump’s motives will not diminish the good that money will do.
Albion you are arguing that all Rs must close ranks, and criticism of Trump is now harmful to the party’s chances in the fall. Yet Trump pointedly refused a loyalty pledge, then later said he would take it, and has suggested a non-committal position since then. And it is laughable that you criticize others for an insulting tone in their statements about Trump. You’re right that his imperfections just make him human, and I give him all the credit for putting the spotlight on illegal immigration as the key issue. But after effectively focusing the nation on that issue, he plans to put “a big, beautiful door” in the wall, and after deporting all illegals immediately turn around and let “the good ones” back in. His positions are directly and fearlessly stated, and completely unreliable. So Albion I don’t accuse you of worship, I accuse you of delusion.
Hostage I don’t spend time reading things that are irrelevant. News accounts of Trump’s prior philanthropy are not relevant to the argument I’m making. The affection veterans feel for Trump is not relevant to the argument I’m making. I freely admit that those accounts are true and he has done far more for veterans than I ever will, and that reveals nothing about the intent of last night’s rally. Placing a big “Trump” placard on the podium while he’s campaigning and inviting his YouTube fans is revealing.
Frankly Hostage your respect is of no concern to me. But if it makes you feel any better I don’t like Trump. I started out liking him, and I wanted to continue, but just as Trump doesn’t like veterans who get captured, I don’t like a man who behaves like an ass. I can recognize things he’s done which are positive, and positions he’s taken which I supported (until he changed them), without liking him or supporting his candidacy or trusting his motives on any specific action. If you are unable to draw those distinctions then get Albion to explain to you the difference between civil gratitude and worship.
I’m sure my reading habits won’t interest you Hostage, but if you want some insight into the root causes of the problems in this country, and why Trump is not their antidote but merely their next chapter, try Richard Weaver’s “Ideas Have Consequences.” To understand what happens in campaigns like Obama’s and Trump’s I recommend Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer : Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.”
I don’t think the three of us can accomplish anything by continuing this discussion. Still I suspect there are many things we would agree on other than Trump’s virtues as a President, and I bear neither of you ill will.
Upon review I see that Albion in fact did not state that criticisms of Trump had been delivered in an insulting tone. He demonstrates no inconsistency on that point.
I withdraw that item from my remarks, with apologies to Albion and the forum at large
I don't think the three of us can accomplish anything by continuing this discussion...
If you don't want to continue the discussion, don't post falsehoods about me such as "Albion you are arguing that ...criticism of Trump is now harmful to the party's chances...." What I actually said was,
Everyone on FR must be prepared to support whomever is the R nominee against the D's in November. We are out of time to hope allowing them to win rather than selecting an imperfect R will work as a strategy or survival mechanism.No mention of Trump whatsoever. So there is no point in attempting to have a conversation with you, since you are so willing to see what you want to see and state a self-serving distortion connected to my name.
Kindly do not post to me any more. Thank you very much.
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.