Posted on 03/24/2016 8:45:39 AM PDT by maggief
But to be fare it is hard to tell what she’s saying because her Yugoslavian accent is so heavy.
We’re not electing her.
You are so naïve. Cruz has the power to shut down the pacs if he wants. He has the authority to put pressure on them if he wants.
You have to love this.
I get you are for Cruz. No problem there. I also get that your point of view is that if Cruz makes mistakes or has double standards you can live with it and it is no big deal. I get that if Cruz cozies up to the establishment Republicans and takes their millions that is not a problem. I get that too.
I also understand that the only scrutiny worth focusing on is towards Trump. Trump is the bad guy and Cruz is the good guy because he is “principled.”
I get all of that. So go vote for him and best of luck!
Sure we are. Its a package deal. Every first lady is part of the package. Just as Moochelle is and Nancy Reagan was.
A mans wife says a LOT about him. Also, as first lady she’ll have access to the nations most sensitive secrets. Many of which are normally NEVER released to someone with her background.
The "so what" is that he's running for election, so popularity and likeability matter.
Was Julius Caesar a swell guy w/proper schooling, breeding and manners? How about, Winston Churchill, a drunkard. Or Otto Von Bismarck who cashiered Prussian Generals w/o pause. Douglas MacArthur, conceited, pompous and vain was intolerant of dissent.
The only one of those four who actually had to run for election was Churchill, who failed at multiple attempts to win office and only won because of the unique circumstances of WWII, and they threw him back out before the war was even over. Not exactly great precedents for showing who can win popular elections, especially since society has changed a hell of at lot since the 1st Century B.C., and the 19th and 20th centuries. Not only have standards of acceptable behavior changed, but the emergence of mass media that formerly private personal flaws are now open to the public for all to see.
Maybe Trump's antics don't show anything about what kind of President he'll be. But they will certainly impact how likely he is to be elected.
You may be, but I’m not. That being said, the woman is an incredible beauty and she seems very nice. No one is perfect.
I’d rather have her than a woman who thinks that she is running for president along with her husband.
The plurality of Republican voters view him positively and over half of Republicans polled believe the party should gather around him and support him. Then he can win.
Changed the subject there didn’t you. Common here on FR.
The subject was Trump’s wife not attacking Cruz. Hello.
Naw.... I love women.
you are one smart dude. Keep posting.
I’d rather not have a nude model.
The subject was whether she was fair game for criticism. She campaigns for Trump and is part of the package.
Repeating Acton’s wise observation;”Good men are never great men.”
Trump may be many things, both good and bad, but most critically he is audacious; a prerequisite for leadership; and perceived by many as a transformational agent of change. Large swathes of voters have made it abundantly clear that they have seen enough effete types such as Doofus Willard and George the Compassionate; two of the most incompetent schmucks politics ever produced. Both had copious breeding, manners, schooling, etiquette etc. in their personality profiles and it all amounted to squat as both were and always will be perceived as feckless failures and losers. Voters have no further interest. Pass it on.
No, the accusation was she has attacked Cruz and she has not. She has in fact shown an ardent belief in her husband while refraining from criticizing Cruz. A good example, IMO.
Repeating Acton’s wise observation;”Good men are never great men.”
Trump may be many things, both good and bad, but most critically he is audacious; a prerequisite for leadership; and perceived by many as a transformational agent of change. Large swathes of voters have made it abundantly clear that they have seen enough effete types such as Doofus Willard and George the Compassionate; two of the most incompetent schmucks politics ever produced. Both had copious breeding, manners, schooling, etiquette etc. in their personality profiles and it all amounted to squat as both were and always will be perceived as feckless failures and losers. Voters have no further interest. Pass it on.
Some journalist—she just became part of the story—on purpose.
BS
First, all the "good qualities" in the world are irrelevant if you can't get elected. And though you talk about how "many" perceive Trump positively, and "large swathes" have made clear their support, I don't think it is enough. "Many" people supported both McCain and Romney, and it wasn't enough. I also think "many" abhor Trump, and "large swathes" will never vote for him. I say that not based just on polling, but on conversations I've had with normally reliable Republican voters.
Second, the problems with Romney and Dubya were not that they were "effete". The primary problem with Dubya was that he was not sufficiently conservative. The primary problems with Romney were that he let up during the campaign due to bad advice, and had RomneyCare in his background. I would say that Trump actually probably shares equivalent flaws policy-wise.
But third, and perhaps more importantly, the derision you demonstrate toward manners, schooling, and etiquette is misplaced. Those were not the reason those candidates lost. In fact, you can be a bold, audacious leader and still display at least an average set of class and manners. You don't have to be a pompous snob, just don't be the guy who farts during Easter dinner and thinks it's funny.
Was Reagan effete because he had manners? Was he "unmanly" because he didn't talk about other candidate's wives, or the size of his penis, or because he didn't Barbara Walters for her looks? Strength, integrity, and executive ability are not logically linked to being rude.
I would agree that Trump has certain qualities of a good leader. Unfortunately, he loads them down with other lousy qualities that bear no relationship to leadership, but only serve to discredit him.master of the language. Churchill was many things, but common was not one of them. Actually, it's kind of funny that you talk about breeding given that Churchill's blood was about as blue as it gets.
I don't need a saint as President. But I don't want someone who too often acts the part of the fool either. I will likely overlook his personal foibles and vote for the guy in the general election anyway. But there are an awful lot of people who won't.
“Heidi Cruz looks like Chris Matthews in a wig with some lipstick on.”
Heidi Cruz is not guilty.
Melania Trump is a little more not guilty.
All four of them should stick to the issues and otherwise STFU.
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.