Posted on 05/03/2016 9:16:33 PM PDT by Strac6
Trump did a good job in his speech—humble, and VERY magnanimous when it came to Cruz, who he praised as being a tough opponent with a fantastic future. I wish Cruz had done the same, but I understand the disappointment in his camp. Hopefully he’ll return the favor, though his comments earlier today might make that tough too. He needs to take a few days, calm down, and come out with a pledge to help defeat HRC, the real enemy. Hope he does so.
“I’d bet a dollar to a donut that the DemocRATS are all over the FBI right now begging them to indict Clinton.”
It’s there only chance to replace Hillary at this point, who’s going to be eaten alive by Trump.
Due to poor health, Hillary does not have the ability to appear in public often, and when she does, she performs extremely poorly unless she has all of the questions in advance and the answers memorized, she has no ability to speak extemporaneously, and when she does speak, she comes across as harsh, nonempathetic, and unlikable.
Additionally, Hillary is going to try to remain invisible an “campaign” via intermediaries while no one speaks for Trump EXCEPT Trump, which means Trump will be on the air ALL the time, and Hillary will almost never appear. This dichotomy will become evident to even the most clueless in a short while.
Rush was much more subtle than the others.
He’ll probably pretend he was never against Trump.
A mixed metaphor! It produces a ridiculous scenario.
How well he does is going to determine who her veep candidate is. Whether she is going to be seems to go back to the center. At last she is going to have to put off going after Trump for a little while. He, on the other hand, can get some free air time to go after her.
Doesn't he always position himself as a commentator?
t
Rush is very smart and subtle.
He loves to use double entendres to mock people.
I liked it when used it against liberals, but when he started using it against his own listeners who supported Trump, it really turned me off.
Cruzifer got out to protect his Dad. That Trump got him to go ballistic and on the same day he dropped out is also more than a coincidence.
Trump would be saying over and over that he thinks someone needs to look into the Oswald Cruz connection.
Some say he was a agent of Cuba, some say it was CIA.
What is true is it is him in many pictures with Oswald, and many people wonder if he knew Oswald planned to assinate JFK.
I think Cruz ended this line of inquiry by surprising everyone less than a day after he said with certainty he was going to stay in the contest.
Well, that's one on me. I always thought he was a straight ahead kind of guy. Can you give an example?
Cruz certainly surprised his Nebraska campaign chariman.
Less than an hour before Cruz bowed out, I heard the Nebraska chairman say that the Indiana defeat had no impact on the Nebraska primary, where the Cruz campaign was making an all-out effort.
As for Rafael Sr., I wonder when he went from pro- to anti-Castro (if it mattered, if he was only in it for the money). It was anti-Castro Cubans who were alleged to be involved in the JFK assassination.
As for Rafael Sr., I wonder when he went from pro- to anti-Castro (if it mattered, if he was only in it for the money). It was anti-Castro Cubans who were alleged to be involved in the JFK assassination
Wow! Had not heard that! Now I am wondering if there actually was some fire to stories swirling around... Do you have any sources where I can go to read more?
Think of when he makes an outrageous comment, and then pretends he didn’t realize it. That’s when he’s making an overt joke out of it, but he also does it more subtly as well, when he wants to make a point but not be held accountable for it. He’s laughing at the dummies who don’t get it.
The best overt example was early in his career, when he launched a campaign against women “farding” in their cars. (”Farding,” as he later explained, meaning applying make-up.)
It goes back to his love of practical jokes in his teenage years, and is not uncommon in smart people who like to make inside jokes at the expense of the uninitiated.
Maybe you don’t understand what an example is, because I don’t see one here.
Mark Lane won a federal lawsuit defending Liberty Lobby, which was sued by Howard Hunt for libel for having published an allegation that Hunt was involved in the JFK assassination.
Lane proved to the satisfaction of the jury that the anti-Castro Cubans run by Hunt at the CIA were indeed intimately involved in the JFK assassination.
The book is “Plausible Denial” by Mark Lane.
The lawsuit was Hunt v. Liberty Lobby.
Here’s another example. Calling Trump supporters “Trumpists.” He acts surprised that they find it offensive.
Now that's what I call turning lemons into lemonade!
Vote Trump
Ruh roh...
That's not a double entendre, or anything close to it.
Here's a double entendre: "When I woke up this morning, I was feeling kind of stiff."
Get it? Get it? "Two meanings"
My biggest reason to turn against Ted was his inability to state exactly what he would do regarding the illegals crawling all over this nation. His weak reply of ‘we’ll have a dialogue about that’ was the end for me.
I could never believe he was sincere in his desire to do what Americans are screaming for.
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.