That's a screen shot (in case he deletes it). Here's the link.
I imagine he'd say he's just retweeting something someone else put up that he's not completely endorsing, just noting that it's interesting (which is how he explained retweeting @ilduce2016).
Do you need background on the "spill the beans" story from yesterday? Here.
Posts
188 comments:
She looks like she's nagging.
That is pretty appalling, even for Trump. A superpac uses a picture of...his wife?...and he responds by threatening Cruz's wife. Who cares if it might be unfair to Heidi? What matters is Ted's got it coming.
Shades of the old "the wife is the property of the husband."
This tweet was in response to a slut-shaming ad on Melania from Cruz's side. Trump has to find a good way to negate Cruz. Cruz is down and dirty. Read the Utah caucus stories on the web and you will see he is one hungry, thirsty guy who is willing to do anything -- 60+% is a caucus state when he fails to win primary states resoundingly. Give me a break.
Heidi Cruz is a lovely woman. He put a very unflattering picture of her up. Basic message: "My wife is hotter than your wife". This is ridiculous.
"Do you know any men, Ann?"
We each will have our opinions, Mary, but this doesn't seem very manly to me, neither does proudly cheating on multiple wives.
"I can't believe" I can't believe [the NYT, Trump, Hill, Bill, O] would "put this up"! Odd. I can't believe you can't believe it. But, then, to paraphrase a UW law professor, I generally don't believe that people can't believe what they profess they can't believe.
Serious question: I've heard that the SuperPAC is not affiliated with Cruz, he didn't choose the ad, etc. The Trump forces are convinced that he approved it. Which is true?
Trump has to find a good way to negate Cruz.
I guess he better keep trying.
Same with Sanders. Winning caucus states when he can't win primaries. Abolish the caucuses. They were handing out ballots like napkins to people in a Utah caucus precinct. Honor code does not mean much in America these days.
Trump's making it clear: don't mess with my family or I'll mess with yours. He didn't start the attacks on family members, the Cruz campaign's surrogates did. I like it, we need a president with some huevos.
pm317 you do understand a candidate has no control over what a SuperPac does. If they did, it would be a campaign finance law violation.
pm317: Cruz is down and dirty. Read the Utah caucus stories on the web and you will see he is one hungry, thirsty guy who is willing to do anything -- 60+% is a caucus state when he fails to win primary states resoundingly. Give me a break.
Doesn't surprise me at all that Cruz had a resounding win in Utah. It's Utah, for chrissakes.
I'm looking forward to the media making this a big deal. Then he can run dozens of comparisons of their pictures of Republican and Democratic candidates.
"Serious question: I've heard that the SuperPAC is not affiliated with Cruz, he didn't choose the ad, etc. The Trump forces are convinced that he approved it. Which is true?"
The main reason I don't believe Cruz was behind the original ad was that the original ad didn't even seem calculated to hurt Trump. A picture of his attractive wife in a published magazine spread? That would do as much to help Trump (among those who would want a good looking first lady) as it would to hurt him (among the very small subset of prudes who would not want a first lady in a magazine shoot). Remember, this was a GQ shoot, not Hustler.
Cruz may be a lot of things, but he doesn't seem stupid enough to endorse an ad like that.
But Trump is a paranoid douchebag and of course is willing to believe any allegation that his enemies are behind everything, and probably attributes his own awful mindset to others. A clumsy, stupid "attack" (which isn't even much of an attack) would be what Trump would do, so he assumes Cruz would do it too.
Trump is like a sophomore at an all boys high school re his woman.
What will he do when Putin starts in on him on Twitter?
@cubanbob, well, they are not supposed to have control but I won't put anything past Cruz -- he showed his colors with what he did to Carson in Iowa. More than this story though, I am appalled at the caucus stories coming out of Utah and the numbers are there to prove shenanigans from Cruz's side.
What a colossally disgusting person Trump is. I guess there is no low too deep for him. And some people want this in a president, because nastiness is somehow leadership? I wonder what sort of people they admired in high school.
Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands off beans! - Empedocles
It's thought to mean testicles.
I have no idea who those women are.
I'm glad.
Aaaaaand, we see the master persuader's next move in action.
Look at these people! Can you believe this? They're accusing me of a war on women - I love women, now wait a minute - a war on women, that's the headline. MEANWHILE, in Syria, in Europe - in Paris and Brussels - they're letting in ISIS, who goes around raping and beheading women. Just letting them in. And they're doing that here, as well! Bringing them into America. And when I say keep them out, they tell me "oh you can't do that, it's wrong".
I'm the only candidate that doesn't want to behead women, but I'm the bad guy. Can you believe this, what country is this?
Trump is going to sucker you with this.
"I like it, we need a president with some huevos."
That's what you think are huevos? Making a crude, nasty attack on another guy's wife when there's a better than even chance that guy never did that to your own wife?
No downside for Trump with this tweet. He shows Ted that he'll keep the pressure up regardless of the issue and he sells the idea that Cruz was behind the slut-shaming. None of that has to be true or relevant -- it doesn't matter -- Trump is doing what he does best: controlling the narrative.
We should go back to discussing all the unflattering photos of a snarling Trump that we see each and every day.
Not going to happen.
Bring back dueling.
Real Republican Man says:
The Republicans have kept an immaculate lawn through years of prudent tending. It has been seeded and trimmed and is as Pristine as an Augusta Putting Green. This is because we have been Prudent. It is the kind of lawn made for elegant parties with women with large elegant hats to protect their fair skin from the sun: prudent women.
But underneath: the burrowing. Rodents. In the past we have been successful at marginalizing the Rodent Menace, but they keep coming back. And you know what rodents do at an Elegant Lawn Party?
You know EXACTLY what they do: they Shit in the Caviar.
America:our Immaculate Lawn is needed, now more than ever. We can no longer assume that the rodents will be disposed of by traditional methods. Extreme measures may be necessary.
Or do you want to see our Elegant Women with the Elegant Hats eat the same Caviar that the Rodents have just despoiled?
Republicans: you know a Rat when you see one.
I am Keeping a List.
I am Laslo.
Brando: What a colossally disgusting person Trump is. I guess there is no low too deep for him.
Remarkable what pearlclutcher-Americans reserve their colossal disgust for.
That's a screen shot (in case he deletes it)
Why would he delete it?
Would y'all have wanted to know about Bill Clinton's woman troubles back when he was coming from Arkansas and running for president, initially?
Some of us did...we were just ignored.
When we say Trump is the king of re-tweets, you've got to understand that he didn't come up with it. He's just forwarding it along. He can't be held responsible for that. I mean, you wouldn't arrest a guy who was just passing drugs from one guy to another.
Brando said...What a colossally disgusting person Trump is. I guess there is no low too deep for him. And some people want this in a president, because nastiness is somehow leadership? I wonder what sort of people they admired in high school.
I admired my high school English teacher. He never backed down from ugly taunts. You despise Trump because he doesn't turn the other butt cheek, so to speak.
I challenge you to name one ugly confrontation that Trump initiated since last June. For every historical incident, there will either be a prior taunt, or press histrionics.
Are people still willing to give Trump a pass on his sexism? How is this gutter behavior in any way Presidential? This is the Vulgarian in Chief, how embarrassing for Republicans, actually for all of us as Americans.
David Begley said...
Trump is like a sophomore at an all boys high school re his woman.
What will he do when Putin starts in on him on Twitter?
He'll tweet a picture of Putin's sheep?
Are people still willing to give Trump a pass on his sexism
Apparently people like you are still willing to give Clinton a pass on rape and sexual assault.
Amanda said...
Are people still willing to give Trump a pass on his sexism?
How is this "sexist" as opposed to juvenile or breaking the family taboo? He's not slut shaming her, that was what others did to his wife (note - with zero criticism from Amanda). The only definition of sexism which fits these facts is "someone I don't like mentioned a woman". Come to think of it that must be the operative definition the left uses, I can't think of any of their position which contradict it.
With "kill shots" like this, Trump could win the Republican nomination, motivating a plurality of Resentment Republicans. And delight Scott Adams who will remind us that he was the first to predict it.
And then, Trump will lose the general election in a landslide, with historically low support among women and college-educated Republicans. After which Scott Adams will remind us that he's not a Republican, and will tell us that he voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson.
You can't believe it....because there was some reason previously to think there are lines of decency that he won't cross?
The guy who publicly shamed his first wife into returning to NYC to take care of their children so that he could get her out of Atlantic City where he was having an affair with a beauty pageant queen?
Although Cruz may not have approved the viscous sexist attack on Trumps innocent,sophisticated world class wife , his rhetoric and attitude encourages his rabid followers to behave in this despicable manner.
Anyone who condones such behavior is a low down cock sucker.
Amanda see Bernie wanting to add twenty trillion dollars to our national debt: He gets my vote!
Amanda sees Trump re-tweeting a photo: He's unpresidential!
Concern duly noted.
"Remarkable what pearlclutcher-Americans reserve their colossal disgust for."
So I'll chalk that up as a Trump fan totally cool with this. Some third party puts up a tasteless ad of your wife, go ahead and make an even nastier ad of some other guy's wife. Got it. There's some of that alpha male behavior we've been hearing about!
"You despise Trump because he doesn't turn the other butt cheek, so to speak."
That's an interesting view of this. He doesn't know whether Cruz put up the original ad, but decides to get nasty against the guy's wife--not Cruz, but his wife--anyway. So I guess if Al Quaeda attacks us and President Trump decides to bomb Japan, that makes perfect sense because otherwise we're just taking it in the butt cheek from Al Quaeda.
"I challenge you to name one ugly confrontation that Trump initiated since last June. For every historical incident, there will either be a prior taunt, or press histrionics."
Far as we know, this was not initiated by Ted Cruz and certainly not by his wife. Also, did Megyn Kelly "initiate" her feud with Trump, by asking him an "unfair" question? I guess if you see everything as an unfair attack no matter what, then it's impossible not to think everyone else initiated everything.
Wonderful candidate you guys are pushing.
Andy Jackson fought a duel with pistols when a political opponent slimed his wife. Jackson took a bullet for her honor that was never removed. Jackson was despised by eastern elites for that.
HST fought a duel with letters to the editor when a music critic slimed his daughter. The Truman action was despised by eastern elite critics.
DJT just fought a duel when a political opponent slimed his wife. Trump will be despised by the Establishment Leviathon all over the place. This actually helps identify them.
Heidi Cruz is a courageous lady to endure her life under religious phonies. That's not her fault.
Cruz and his people started it. I'm not buying the plausible deniability. They ran a cheap ad against Trump's wife in Utah to play on the puritanical hypocrisy of the Mormons. Guess it doesn't matter she speaks five languages. Trump hit back. Refreshing.
It was ok when Palin got labeled a ding bat by the Dems though. We understand the game.
BTW...Cruz got slaughtered on one of the CBS Morning show yesterday by Norah O'Donnell. He was trying to defend his suggestion that police should patrol Muslim neighborhoods and she made him look like an idiot. You could just feel how disgusted she was by Cruz' presence.
Cruz get beat badly in the general election and the #nevertrump Republicans know it.
Chuck said...
With "kill shots" like this, Trump could win the Republican nomination, motivating a plurality of Resentment Republicans. And delight Scott Adams who will remind us that he was the first to predict it.
And then, Trump will lose the general election in a landslide, with historically low support among women and college-educated Republicans. After which Scott Adams will remind us that he's not a Republican, and will tell us that he voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson.
The two Republican choices are now Trump and Cruz. Which one can beat possibly beat The Vagina? Hint: it's not the one who is/is not ineligible.
Chuck, it's just entertainment now.
The "terrible" Heidi Cruz story is nothing much. She had a little episode of depression. The threat of exposure that got people wondering what terrible thing is in her past was worse than the incident itself.
Hillary better watch what she says when she has to go mano a mano with the Donald.
The point is if you choose to play rough with Trump, you had better be prepared to take what you dish out, and more.
We will have to call Trump "Stompy Foot TWO" because he acts like a 12 year old kid. Seriously?? Melania DID pose for those pictures, and she got paid for it. To go after Heidi, when Heidi did absolutely nothing to him? That is crazy. I thought Obama was vain, but he has nothing on Trump.
Trump doesn't fight like a girl, deal with it.
Cruz get beat badly in the general election and the #nevertrump Republicans know it.
Word on the street is that he is the GoP's pet now but will be replaced in the convention. Maybe they will promise him the SCOTUS. I think he can direct his delegates to vote for a third guy and not Trump at the convention.
"The point is if you choose to play rough with Trump, you had better be prepared to take what you dish out, and more."
Yes, and if someone else plays "rough" with Trump, then you'd better look out anyway in case he decides the person you're married to had something to do with that.
I feel like he's already Making America Great Again!
I'm back to suspecting that maybe some shadowy Spectre-like organization has highjacked the internet and it's running psychological experiments on me.
Why the fuck do I keep encountering this brain-rotting, soul-corroding toxic shit?
What the fuck is my problem?
traditionalguy wrote: Andy Jackson fought a duel with pistols when a political opponent slimed his wife. Jackson took a bullet for her honor that was never removed. Jackson was despised by eastern elites for that.
Tangential, but interesting that just the other day in the context of keeping Hamilton on the $10 bill, Ted Cruz suggested that Jackson be taken off the $20 bill. Did anyone else notice?
What will Trump do with Hillary? America holds its breath!
I predict some pearl-clutching disapproval by AA when The Donald unleashes his Inner Sophomore against America's Queen.
This is a horrible election year.
"Get in their face"..."Punch back, twice as hard"...a famous person said.
Brando said...
That's an interesting view of this. He doesn't know whether Cruz put up the original ad, but decides to get nasty against the guy's wife--not Cruz, but his wife--anyway. So I guess if Al Quaeda attacks us and President Trump decides to bomb Japan, that makes perfect sense because otherwise we're just taking it in the butt cheek from Al Quaeda.
Whether Cruz approved it or not - and I presume he did not - it was for his benefit. So the better comparison would be to bomb Saudi Arabia in response to an Al Quaeda attack.
Heidi gets all depressed by American National sovreignty and borders. Her paymasters told her that it needs to be sold off to the Globalists who will bring a greater authority to North America, and her family will be great leaders in this necessary New World Order.
Je suis North AMERICAN.
Brando responded: Far as we know, this was not initiated by Ted Cruz and certainly not by his wife.
Did Trump compose the Heidi retort?
Also, did Megyn Kelly "initiate" her feud with Trump, by asking him an 'unfair' question?
Kelly, unprovoked by Trump, assembled a collection of Trump responses to individual women and cleverly repackaged them as affront to women in general. There was no curiosity on Kelly's part regarding the back story on each Trump "insult."
C'mon. Cruz started it.
I like Cruz, but I was disappointed when he used that picture of Trump's wife. It wasn't exactly an appeal to people's better nature.
That said, I'm glad I got to see the picture. Bare skin. Bear skin. What's not to like?
dreams said...
"Trump doesn't fight like a girl, deal with it."
He kind of just did.
I mean Trump.
"Whether Cruz approved it or not - and I presume he did not - it was for his benefit. So the better comparison would be to bomb Saudi Arabia in response to an Al Quaeda attack."
Not to get too off track, but Al Quaeda I never imagined was a big fan of the Saudi government what with its coziness to the U.S. But as with the Cruz example, if some group Cruz didn't control did the initial ad, even if they were trying to help Cruz, should his wife have to take the hit?
"Did Trump compose the Heidi retort?"
He did send it.
"Kelly, unprovoked by Trump, assembled a collection of Trump responses to individual women and cleverly repackaged them as affront to women in general. There was no curiosity on Kelly's part regarding the back story on each Trump "insult.""
As I recall, she pointed out that those quotes could be problems for him in a race against Hillary, which is of course true--even if you think context could explain the comments or that the comments are just fluff anyway (which I do). That's hardly unfair, and he easily could have addressed them. His months-long harangue against Kelly is as childish as it is unjustified.
"Look at that face!" I guess Carly Fiorina was asking for it, how dare she.
Brando said...
if some group Cruz didn't control did the initial ad, even if they were trying to help Cruz, should his wife have to take the hit?
The issue is how reasonable it is to hold the beneficiary responsible for his supporters even if he didn't direct the act. There are all kinds of precedent for such accountability.
You're making too big a deal about this. Trump shouldn't have retweeted this because bringing someone's family into politics is wrong. But she's making an odd face, that's it. This isn't even libelous much less some uniquely disqualifying sexism.
I guess this female attorney was asking for it, huh?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-once-said-you-disgust-me-to-breastfeeding-lawyer/
"In 2007, Trump was facing two lawsuits over a project in Florida, when one of the opposing lawyers, Elizabeth Beck, called for an hour-long recess so that she could pump breast milk for her young daughter. Her husband and co-counsel Jared Beck, reportedly said that Trump was disgruntled during the meeting, calling her “uptight” and her questions “stupid,” until he had enough with Beck’s request.
“You’re disgusting,” he allegedly told Mrs. Beck before leaving the room and ending the testimony for the day."
"C'mon. Cruz started it.
I like Cruz, but I was disappointed when he used that picture of Trump's wife. It wasn't exactly an appeal to people's better nature."
You're being willfully obtuse. Cruz didn't "start" it. He has nothing to do with Liz Mair's Super PAC. He didn't "use" that picture of Trump's wife. Trump 1) knows this and b) knows his fans will buy any bullshit he wants to sell them.
"Heidi gets all depressed by American National sovreignty and borders. Her paymasters told her that it needs to be sold off to the Globalists who will bring a greater authority to North America, and her family will be great leaders in this necessary New World Order."
And now, here to weigh in from the asylum.
"You're making too big a deal about this. Trump shouldn't have retweeted this because bringing someone's family into politics is wrong. But she's making an odd face, that's it. This isn't even libelous much less some uniquely disqualifying sexism."
Fair enough--it really is a minor blip in the long list of ugly episodes we're seeing this year, and by tomorrow it'll be something else--this is how Trump stays in the news. I guess I'm less "outraged" (considering this is to be expected) by Trump than incredulous that so many people seem to characterize this as justified and admirable.
The defenses of Trump are becoming surreal.
First off, pointing out someone's bout of depression in the past (if that's the "beans" he meant to spill) means that you suck as a person.
The next move the brave, brave sir Trump did was point out that his wife is hotter than Cruz's wife (to respond to an ad that Cruz didn't create that made the point that Trump's wife has posed nude, using pictures that she posed for and approved).
I'm sick of hearing about what an alpha male big dog Trump is. This kind of stuff helps him with his followers, but I think it's a political mistake to think this will help him in the general. Most people don't like boorish jerks.
Something is fishy about the Cruz marriage. Never around each other. She gets a plumb job because she was in the Bush Cabinet. He becomes senator.
They are complete insiders by the way-not outsiders.
Trump is the real outsider.
I want Trump to go to town on the Cruz bitch-she looks bat shit and I want all the nasty dirty details.
Love the picture they found of her too-abs delish.
Here's a question...
If Ted Cruz sent an email to the Make America Awesome SuperPAC, telling them that he wanted them to remove the ad featuring a nude Melania, and they responded to Cruz saying, "You know, we think you're right; we're going to take it down. It is better strategy to just can it;" would that be a violation of federal campaign finance law (and, more importantly FEC regulatory guidelines)?
Because that's what Trump would like to happen, right?
Trump is just way too stupid, to understand how SuperPACs work; trying to talk to Trump about "coordination" and the meaning of "independent expenditures" would take too long and Trump wouldn't give anybody the time for it.
Some of Trump's supporters might get it, but they wouldn't grasp the arguments.
Of course, such direct coordination would be prohibited. So whatever Trump himself thinks, he's wrong. As usual, he's barely making sense.
It is interesting, based on some recent FEC rulings (and non-rulings!) that if Ted Cruz went into the media environment and said, "I think the attack on Melania is very distasteful and I'd like it to be gone," it would likely not be found as illegal coordination.
But the funny thing there is that Trump -- who joins with liberal Democrats in his ignorant rejection of the First Amendment principles in the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org cases -- would say that such activities (coordination through the media) merely prove that campaign finance laws are meaningless.
Brando: So I'll chalk that up as a Trump fan totally cool with this.
"Cool" in the sense of "my Colossal Disgust meter isn't calibrated to register feelings of distaste over public figures' vulgarity"? Yes. It's more of a "feelings about public figures' treachery and disastrous incompetence" measurement device.
All this huffiness about Trump's vulgarity would carry more weight if the rest of the party hadn't long since revealed itself to be a pack of castrati when it came to going after the enemy. (Brave as lions they are, though, when it comes to attacking their serfs.)
Such balls. Of course trump wont debate him anymore. Or maybe thats bec of megyn kelly
Alpha male behavior includes peeing all over stuff and humping legs.
Can we get the Trump supporters on record saying that you won't cheer him on if he starts displaying those behaviors?
Bob Boyd said...
C'mon. Cruz started it.
I like Cruz, but I was disappointed when he used that picture of Trump's wife. It wasn't exactly an appeal to people's better nature.
Thanks, Bob Boyd. Thanks for sharing. We now know that Trump has the Howard Stern demographic sewn up.
And now I want to inform you, Bob, that Ted Cruz didn't start it. Ted Cruz didn't design the offending Melania Trump ad. His campaign didn't pay for it. Cruz didn't authorize it. When you say that "...he [Cruz] used that picture of Trump's wife," you're wrong. You're either lying, Bob, or you're too stupid to know the story, Bob.
You Trumpkin shitheads get all huffy about Trump supporters who are videotaped acting badly at rallies and on the streets, claiming that they don't represent Trump and aren't authorized by Trump in any way (even though Trump might agree to pay some legal bills), but you can't keep this story straight.
Okay? Bob?
Heidi does well considering the immense task the Cruz duo has taken on with the Goldman Sach's secret sweetheart loan and mega donor finance, not to mention pleasing her father in law God channeler. All must be done to raise Ted up to the place of dominion that God has chosen for him. Depression is but for a moment, but ruling the World for God is forever. So what are a few lies anyway...in politics all do it.
Now somebody get Glen Beck to fire up the Cult.
Okay, Chuck.
Cruz has an attractive wife. She's attractive in an age appropriate way. That speaks well for Cruz. He didn't trade up for a trophy wife unlike some Presidential candidates I could name. I can't see how Trump comes out the winner in this exchange. The faith of his followers is unshakeable, but it's not a faith geared to win many converts.
"I can't believe Trump put this up."
Well, it's one of the factors to consider in making a decision:
“I like Perez. He’s got a classic swing. It’s a real clean stroke.”
“I don’t know… he can’t hit a curveball”.
“Well there’s some work to be done, I’ll admit that. And he’s got an ugly girlfriend.”
“What’s that mean?”
“An ugly girlfriend means no confidence, OK? I’m just saying, we are trying to replace Giambi and this guy’s girlfriend is a 6 at best.”
---Moneyball
The people on this thread who are cheering this boorish behavior should be ashamed. You sound like Philadelphia Eagles fans, variously cheering or booing due to some non-reciprocated (but imagined) love. Many of you deserve to be ashamed. I won't hold my breath hoping you regain your mooring.
The group not affiliated with, but supportive of, Cruz should not have used the GQ picture.
Trump should not have re-tweeted the image he chose to give notoriety.
Men must be held accountable for what they did. They cannot be held accountable for the actions of third parties.
Many of you need to reconsider your behavior. You sound deranged.
"Heidi does well considering the immense task the Cruz duo has taken on with the Goldman Sach's secret sweetheart loan and mega donor finance, not to mention pleasing her father in law God channeler. All must be done to raise Ted up to the place of dominion that God has chosen for him. Depression is but for a moment, but ruling the World for God is forever. So what are a few lies anyway...in politics all do it."
You literally sound like you're off your meds.
Birkel said...
The people on this thread who are cheering this boorish behavior should be ashamed. You sound like Philadelphia Eagles fans,
Let's have some more fun with your (nice) anaology, Birkel.
Because I'd agree that Trump has likely captured about 98% of the Eagles fanbase. Easy. And the Giants, of course. Oh, and the Ravens. (Thinking about the most boorish of NFL fans.)
Here's the problem. At the same time that Trump won the NFL fans, he has lost the University of Michigan fanbase, the Ohio State University fanbase, and the University of Texas fanbase.
What's that mean?
Eagles (Lincoln Financial Field) capacity: 69,176.
Giants (MetLife Stadium) capacity: 82,500.
Ravens (M&T Bank Stadium) capacity: 71,008.
University of Michigan (Michigan Stadium) capacity: 107,601.
Ohio State University (Ohio Stadium) capacity: 104,944.
University of Texas (Memorial Stadium) capacity: 100,119.
Oh; and the college stadiums all sell out every fall home game, unlike the NFL.
Melania won the genetic lottery and has been working in front of cameras for decades. Heidi Cruz, like me, is a reasonably attractive woman battling against middle age. We learned long ago that comparing our looks to those of a supermodel is futile. Every trip to the grocery store and standing in the check out line is another lesson in this futility. Trump's tweet is tacky, but that kind of comparison rolls off the back of most women. Been there, done that.
What I really didn't appreciate was Melania's professional work in a less-prudish Europe used as a derogatory campaign tactic.
dreams:
One of them wasn't an ad but was re-tweeted by the candidate himself. Trump did that.
The other was given notoriety by Trump but had nothing to do with Cruz. It was a third party ad over which Cruz cannot, legally, have any control.
Do go on with your false equivalence.
"Cruz has an attractive wife. She's attractive in an age appropriate way. That speaks well for Cruz. He didn't trade up for a trophy wife unlike some Presidential candidates I could name. I can't see how Trump comes out the winner in this exchange. The faith of his followers is unshakeable, but it's not a faith geared to win many converts."
Yes, Cruz's wife is an attractive woman and so both the Cruz ad and the Trump tweet are not true representations so why is one bad and the other ok. Both are the same in that they attempt to negatively portray someone.
Birkel, yes I noticed that and tried to correct it by deleting and reposting.
Awesome! You did go on with your false equivalence!
Third try the charm?
dreams said...
...
Yes, Cruz's wife is an attractive woman and so both the Cruz ad and the Trump ad are not true representations so why is one bad and the other ok.
Well, one thing you've gotten wrong is that it wasn't a "Cruz ad." Unless you want to be so vague about it being "an independently produced and sponsored ad by a pro-Cruz group that Ted Cruz and his campaign had nothing to do with."
And it wasn't a "Trump ad" in response. It was a threat, put out on Donald Trump's Twitter account, which I have every expectation is an immediate, approved reflection of Trump's personal feelings and intentions, in real time. (Trump has deleted a lot of stupid Tweets, of course. He's never claimed that his Twitter account was hijacked.)
So, what is it; are you sloppy, or stupid, or dishonest? Which one?
Eagles fans have yet to see a holding penalty committed by one of their offensive linemen.
Eagles receivers always suffer pass interference from defenders, according to Eagles fans.
Cruz's wife is pretty fat though.
I think that I liked Mrs. Cruz better than the latest Mrs. Trump, but my partner looks much more like Mrs. Trump, with the high cheekbones, narrow chin, and blue eyes. And, at an earlier age, may have beaten her out, with a dazzling smile.
DIL complains that my partner doesn't take bad pictures, and much of that is that she knows how to throw a pose, from her modeling days. Someone points a camera in her direction, and she just instinctively tilts her head, looks and the camera, and smiles. No doubt that is what goes on with the various Mrs. Trumps. While Mrs. Cruz was learning law, etc., the various Mrs. Trumps (along with my partner) were learning how to instantly pose, and then move pose to pose. It is an art. Also how to do makeup so that it is dramatic, but perfect (and, yes, how to have it done for you). The makeup really is key here - you can see how perfect it is with this Mrs. Trump. Maybe too perfect. My partner doesn't usually wear such, and, I forget its effect (esp. when she is snoring at night), but when she does, she inevitably can take control of a room with her looks. No expert here, but good makeup accentuates those high cheekbones, and accentuates the eyes. I suspect that this Mrs. Trump is not so beautiful in the morning before she puts on her makeup (or has it done these days), but well done makeup on this sort of face does turn a woman like this into a 10 out of 10.
Diamondhead: You literally sound like you're off your meds.
Never seen any indication that our trad was ever on his meds, but he occasionally manages to allude to things that exist in this space-time continuum, in spite of himself. Cruz's campaign does get beaucoup dinero from Wall Street (iianm, the most of any rep candidate, since Jeb got out), he was a bit economical with the truth re a loan(s) used to finance his senate campaign, and his Dad does appear to be some kind of religious weirdo.
I assume that the only reason the MSM hasn't gone full ooga-booga on this stuff is because they've decided Trump is a bigger threat right now. If by some chance Cruz should get the nomination (or even gets slated for another office), we can look forward to a 24hr MSM "Cruz the Snake-Handlin' God-botherin' Wall Street-lovin' Wonder Boy" freakshow from that point 'til November.
Although Cruz may not have approved the viscous sexist attack on Trumps innocent,sophisticated world class wife , his rhetoric and attitude encourages his rabid followers to behave in this despicable manner.
Anyone who condones such behavior is a low down cock sucker.
Dripping with irony. And of course, you can't see it. Hint: we ARE talking about rhetoric and attitude, and if you think Cruz is worse than Trump with that, you are utterly delusional. I hope all Trump supporters don't think this way.
It was ok when Palin got labeled a ding bat by the Dems though. We understand the game.
Well, the fact that she's not a dingbat, and that Palin didn't put out ads pointing out the looks of some media peoples' spouses, probably change this view from an apple to an orange.
Holding candidates responsible for what the SuperPacs say is common. No candidates practice nuance except in defense and it doesn't work.
Trump understands media better than Cruz.
"Cruz started it."
lol
Can't we take their milk and cookies away from them until they behave?
Practice Tip: Lawyers argue by stating facts and relating those facts to prove what must be true. Actually it cannot be proved without a verified video slow motion tape from 5 angles.
So the battle begins with Fact assertions. Cruz does that every time he opens his slimy mouth. That is why draws the hatred from others as he places falsehoods in the argument as if he believes them proven reality, but everybody knows they are lies.
When I do the same thing in a comment, you are not proving my argument is wrong , but you are reacting to me the same way as the people do who do not accept Cruz's false fact recitals.
That is why we need jurors who can use the human experience of the panel to sift out lies and liars. Cruz is only an Appellate Lawyer who blithely can argue from any facts as real if they are in the record and he sounds like a Shakespearian actor.
Trump is better off dropping this counter attacking their families strategy. He reveals a weakness when he lets Cruz slimeball lies about his Bride get his blood up.
But when a person attacks your dog with a stick , what do you do about it? And Melania is not a dog. She is the apple of Trump's eye.
"But when a person attacks your dog with a stick , what do you do about it?"
But he's not counter-attacking the person who attacked his wife. And if you are saying Cruz attacked Melania, YOU are the slimeball and the liar. Trump corrupts everyone he attracts to his side.
Well Cruz could go Reagan I guess: "I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, the youth and sex appeal of my opponent's third wife."
I assume that the only reason the MSM hasn't gone full ooga-booga on this stuff is because they've decided Drumpf is a bigger threat right now. If by some chance Cruz should get the nomination (or even gets slated for another office), we can look forward to a 24hr MSM "Cruz the Snake-Handlin' God-botherin' Wall Street-lovin' Wonder Boy" freakshow from that point 'til November.
Oh, certainly. This has already happened with Trump, in that he has already been rendered/rendered himself completely unelectable. Trump supporters don't realize it yet because as far as they're concerned he's teflon (to the point that Trump could shoot someone without losing their votes). Unfortunately for Trump, there is a broader electorate out there beyond his feverish disciples, and he will by far the most unpopular major party nominee in decades (at least).
"But Cruz benefits...
Is Cruz speaking out, against the nasty PAC that is smearing Drumpf's wife?"
But Trump benefits...
Is Trump speaking out against the KKK, David Duke, and other white supremacists who are supporting him?
We shall see what a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition class model wife does for a candidate. In New York and Florida it is a big plus.
In Wisconsin, she is way too thin and that makes Scott Walker's wife look bad. So Cruz may get Wisconsin with Walker's endorsement.
What does Mrs Kasich look like anyway?
Go fuck yourself, Mary.
I didn't compare Trump to Hitler. All that I have done on these pages is to relate the story, originally told in the pages of Vanity Fair, about how Ivana Trump told her divorce lawyer about The Donald's keeping a copy of the book of Hitler speeches at his bedside. She explained to her lawyer how Trump got, and how he looked at it.
When asked about it by the Vanity Fair reporter, Trump lied. He denied it outright, at first, and has recently gone back to denying it outright. In between, Trump said that (a) it was a copy of "Mein Kampf; (b) that it was given to him by Marty Davis of Paramount, "who is a Jew"; and (c) that he never looked at it.
The Vanity Fair reporter asked Marty Davis about it. Marty Davis confirmed that it was the book of speeches. He absolutely did give it to Trump. And no, Marty Davis is not a Jew and so Trump's supposed cover (?!?) on that is invalid.
In one of my own comments on that story, I said that I would not be in the business of casually or blandly comparing Trump to Hitler. My interest was in the way that Trump took a true story that could easily have been handled with candor and an honest explanation, and he turned it into a farce with his lies and bluster.
Typical Trump.
"But when a person attacks your dog with a stick , what do you do about it?"
It seems Trump would respond by attacking the other guy's dog, even if it was actually the other guy's friend who did it. Me, I'd be more interested in going after the guy who actually attacked my dog.
"Is Trump speaking out against the KKK, David Duke, and other white supremacists who are supporting him?"
This is a guy who with scant information and no confirmation decides to "counterattack" against Cruz's wife, but when it comes to the KKK he has to look into it because there's a lot of nuance there.
And "Cruz benefits"--that's the standard we're going with? So if a crazed serial killer murders the guy who is competing with me for a job, since I "benefit" from this heinous act I guess I'm guilty now?
Only in Trump World!
Cruz's wife is younger than Trump's wife.
Cruz is younger than Trump's wife.
Cruz is ruthless enough to be pleased by this move by Trump. If you are a follower of Trump on Twitter this is the kind of thing you follow him for. If you are not a follower of Trump on Twitter this is the kind of thing that reinforces your #NeverTrump mindset.
I like Cruz, but I was disappointed when he used that picture of Trump's wife.
The only way that it's possible for Cruz to have been the one who did that is if he broke campaign finance laws by colluding with the PAC who did do it.
Furthermore, this is not a picture that some paparazzo snuck around and took through a keyhole against Melania's wishes. She voluntarily took her clothes off, sprawled on a rug, contracted with GQ to take the picture, and then okayed it to be distributed to thousands of men in exchange for cash and publicity. If it's something Trump is proud that his wife does, then it's not logical for him to call showing the picture a "low blow."
If it's distasteful "slut-shaming" to have an unfavorable opinion of what Melania does for her job, then it's distasteful "banker-shaming" to have an unfavorable opinion about Heidi Cruz's former role at Goldman Sachs.
Anybody who thinks PACs that support a candidate are not controlled by that candidate are True Believers in a grade B Disneyworld.
Either that or they are MOBY PACS.
There's a better British GQ picture of Knauss to use--the one in the cockpit.
Also, did Megyn Kelly "initiate" her feud with Trump, by asking him an "unfair" question?
Short answer: Yes
Context: Kelly asked a question that Trump did not have time to answer. Here’s the part of the question that was unfair:
You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs' and 'disgusting animals.' ... Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contestant on 'Celebrity Apprentice' it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.
I count at least 6 or 7 different incidents Trump was supposed to address. To properly and completely answer each one would have required that Trump remember and give a summary of each incident, remember and supply each context, describe relationships with each of the women in question, etc. And how the hell is Trump supposed to recall each incident, each woman – some of which happened many years ago? Kelly had to have known the question was unanswerable. It was a question designed to embarrass – a gotcha question. And in fact it was not answerable due to the time constraints of those first “debates.”
The part I find amusing is that there is no sign that this kind of crap has ever hurt Trump in the primaries.
First Rule of Trump Fight Club: Always fight back every time they throw a punch. Never let them hit you with impunity.
You're being willfully obtuse. Cruz didn't "start" it. He has nothing to do with Liz Mair's Super PAC.
Bullshit.
If Ted Cruz sent an email to the Make America Awesome SuperPAC, telling them that he wanted them to remove the ad featuring a nude Melania, and they responded to Cruz saying, "You know, we think you're right; we're going to take it down. It is better strategy to just can it …
Actually, no. The Trump strategy is to makes sure the pro-Cruz superpac realizes that by trying to hurt Trump in order to elevate Cruz that the silly superpac only ends up hurting their own favored candidate, Cruz.
Can we get the Trump supporters on record saying that you won't cheer him on if he starts displaying those behaviors?
Ms. C. Stanley is missing the point. Trump benefits from these kerfuffles. The MSM, the Lefties and the #neverTrumpers can always be counted on to overreach; they can’t help themselves, PC is in their DNA. Why would we Trump supporters want it to stop?
"Only in Trump World!"
See also Trump's extended riff on Ben Carson's pathology with the knowledge that a few months later Carson would endorse him. Stop Trump World and let me off.
"I count at least 6 or 7 different incidents Trump was supposed to address."
Oh, poor Donald. Being asked to answer for his past statements! You're right it hasn't hurt him in the primaries, though. Of course he's toast in the general, and we can thank all of you credulous Trump supporters for President Hillary.
traditionalguy said...
Anybody who thinks PACs that support a candidate are not controlled by that candidate are True Believers in a grade B Disneyworld.
Either that or they are MOBY PACS.
There is a really, really good place for you. And I am 100% serious on this. You need to join the Democratic Party.
They've got Supreme Court Justices (Ginsberg, Breyer) who think the same way that you do.
They've got politicians (Sanders, Clinton) who are advocating some sort of change (how, they don't quite say) in the law as developed under the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org case law.
They have left-wing, Soros-funded thinktanks like the Brennan Center that are working on the issue.
And there are hundreds if not thousands of left-wing writers who predicted the end of the world as we know it as a result of secret "coordination" between PACs and campaigns.
You'll be happy as a Democrat. Campaign finance is such a big deal to them, they will welcome you with open arms. And remember that the biggest First Amendment defenders of campaign speech are people like Mitch McConnell, the National Review editors, and the Wall Street Journal. The enemies of your newfound Dem friends will be your same old enem-- ah, anyway skip that complicated stuff.
You're a born Democrat! Embrace it! Say hi to Debbie Wasserman-Schutlz, John Conyers and Barbara Boxer while you're over there!
"Bullshit."
Ah, the rhetorical flair and unassailable logic of the Trumpist.
"See also Trump's extended riff on Ben Carson's pathology with the knowledge that a few months later Carson would endorse him. Stop Trump World and let me off."
One of the more jarring debate moments for me, simply because of its whiplash nature, was Trump saying something really nice about Cruz (along the lines of "this is an honorable guy and I consider him a great friend...") and then a moderator asks Cruz about some criticism he made about Trump not being a real conservative, and Cruz acknowledged it--then Trump in response lights into this tirade about Cruz being the most dishonest lying scumbag he ever met.
I mean, I get changing your opinion about someone when new info comes to light, but the total 180 right in the span of a minute (and over what really wasn't a beyond the pale comment, certainly not like the more recent slingings) to go from "I think this guy is great and wonderful" to "this is the worst person ever" just seemed unhinged.
"I count at least 6 or 7 different incidents Trump was supposed to address. To properly and completely answer each one would have required that Trump remember and give a summary of each incident, remember and supply each context, describe relationships with each of the women in question, etc. And how the hell is Trump supposed to recall each incident, each woman – some of which happened many years ago? Kelly had to have known the question was unanswerable. It was a question designed to embarrass – a gotcha question. And in fact it was not answerable due to the time constraints of those first “debates.”"
There are plenty of good ways to address these comments--and they're hardly "gotcha" (certainly not as bad as Bret Baier asking Rubio "how many jobs have you created?" as if Senators are supposed to create jobs). Trump has an image problem among women (at least according to current polls) and is running against the first female party nominee. The issue has to be addressed, and if there's not enough time to go into every incident, he can simply say that--"those are several incidents over my career, taken out of context and they reflect my opinion of people who were quite nasty toward me--there's not enough time to address each one now but I'd be happy to follow up later." He could add "I think when people learn the truth about these attacks I anticipate from Hillary, they'll see what a liar she really is, even though to know her is to know she's a liar. Megyn, I hope you're not carrying water for them!"
Would that have been so hard? Turning the attack around on the attacker and blunting the parry--that's fighting back. Dodging the issue completely and then having a vendetta with the moderator for having asked the question? That's obsessive and weak. It helps solidify his supporters onto his side, and his detractors against him, and solidifying those numbers the way they are now would ensure his loss in November.
Brando, even easier than that would have been for Trump to say that he rejects the premise that women should be treated differently than men, and that his record would show that he speaks in non-pc ways about men as well.
"Brando, even easier than that would have been for Trump to say that he rejects the premise that women should be treated differently than men, and that his record would show that he speaks in non-pc ways about men as well."
Exactly--there were several ways to answer the question, any of which would have turned the attack around ju-jitsu-like, and opened back on the attackers. The idea that he was in a "lose-lose" position with that question, and that Megyn Kelly was lowbrow for asking it, is silly.
And if he's so torn up by a question like that, to the point that he boycotts a later debate and months later still tweets about the moderator, how on earth is he going to handle real challenges as president?
Chuck,
Don't sic Trump on Democrats, we can't stand him and he never would've gotten so far if he had run as a Democrat. Those conservatives who love him have their very own thing going on in their heads, but they sure as hell aren't liberal or Democrat. Sanders, Clinton and even Green Party voters absolutely loathe the man across the board and reject him wholeheartedly.
I can't wait to see what he is going to do to Hillary. She relies heavily on her media gatekeepers, and, as she has rued in the past, "The problem with the internet is that there *are no* gatekeepers."
And if he's so torn up by a question like that, to the point that he boycotts a later debate and months later still tweets about the moderator, how on earth is he going to handle real challenges as president?
America is still standing and we have a petulant child for a President that still can't get over and accept the fact that three times in a row America has said they want a Republican Congress.
If Hillary was smart, she would plea bargain a relatively short prison sentence just so she wouldn't have to face-off with Trump. She is going to get punished severely.
Hillary has been trying to roar but mostly just shouting and shouting.
I can remember back when Obama said that if only we believed and had hope, we could have heaven on earth. After all, they were the ones they had been waiting for.
And eight years later still no heaven on earth and the believers then were definitely not believers in Trump, but...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/24/video-shows-how-incredibly-wrong-the-media-was-about-trump-video/?utm_campaign=thedcmainpage&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social
"I am hoping with every fiber of my being that Trump is not the Republican nominee. It seems to me that now is the time to oppose Trump in every way imaginable. If Republicans nominated Trump, I am not sure how I'd vote."
Chuck continues to upchuck.
There is a difference between being politically incorrect and being stupid. Trump falls more into the realm of being stupid. But, again, it comes down to a game he is playing. At some point someone will turn the tables on him and his family and we'll see how much he likes it. He won't. He already wants to sue everyone who portrays him in a negative light. Trump is anti-establishment in the same way some high school kids are anti-establishment. That's one reason not to vote for him.
"I am pretty sure that Cruz had nothing to do with it, because that is what he says, and that is what the PAC says. And because they are legally barred from any coordinating communication."
I agree--not only because it is illegal, but more importantly the "Melania GQ" ad was so weak it would make no sense strategically for Cruz to have anything to do with it. First, it crosses the "leave wives out of it" line, which really turns off a lot of people (myself included--wives should be left out unless they actually get involved and only then your attack should be related to that involvement). Second, it's an ad that makes Trump's wife look attractive, and not trashy--hell I'd almost believe a pro-Trump group produced it if it launched in an East Coast city.
So most likely Cruz had nothing to do with this ad, and Trump has no reason to believe so, but of course he goes into full "animal mode" on Twitter like any 6th grader. Puerile and nasty.
"If Republicans nominated Trump, I am not sure how I'd vote."
Don't worry Chuck. Trump is putting new states in play. Like Utah!
Fabi said. None of that has to be true or relevant -- it doesn't matter -- Trump is doing what he does best:______
---
Ah..controlling the narrative? Or flinging feces?
But really..Cruz should trade in the old model every few years like Trump.
Yeah..he's not a rich asshole.
But hey..doesn't matter what folks write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass.
These things weren't real ads were they? Weren't they just stupid Tweets?
Was broadcasting the GQ pic of Melania supposed to work against the Donald? Regardless of where the attempted attack originated, it's about as dumb as the failed NY values meme.
Tank:
Mary is a banned commenter.
Don't reply to her.
I was kind of hoping an Althouse Special cage-match was being allowed here between Chuck and Mary. Two annoying posters go in, two annoying posters bore and bitch each other to death and never clog up a thread again.
No? Damn.
In case anybody didn't get it, that last exchange is not worth anybody's being banned.
A meta-exercise in the weird, wild world of Trump-as-channeled-by-Scott Adams. Minimal seriousness.
Mary was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Oh, poor Donald. Being asked to answer for his past statements!
Folks are letting the nature of the question cloud their judgement. Being asked a complicated, multi-part question in which it would be impossible to answer given the time constraints of the first “debates” is patently unfair whether the subject would be Trump’s utterances in regards to women over a period of years or Trump’s tax policy. Unfair is unfair no matter how much you enjoy having Trump confronted with gotcha questions.
Of course he's toast in the general, and we can thank all of you credulous Trump supporters for President Hillary.
Trump will destroy the Democrat just as he’s defeated his GOP opponents.
Some of what we Trump supporters want:
We want agitators to continue to try to break up Trump rallies. And blocking highways. The optics are priceless.
We want Cruz-supporting SuperPACs to continue to attack Trump’s family. They are not going to like where that path leads.
After terror attacks we want Trump’s opponents in the eGOP and the MSM to continue to act like idiots. We want them to continue to point out that many of these terrorists are homegrown 2nd generation Muslim citizens of the nations attacked as if that fact somehow neutralizes the terrorists coming in with the refugees.
We like it that even members of the MSM have to finally admit that the European Muslim “enclaves” are actually No Go Zones, the same No Go Zones the MSM and many Lefties were hotly declaring did not exist not long ago.
… he can simply say that--"those are several incidents over my career, taken out of context and they reflect my opinion of people who were quite nasty toward me--there's not enough time to address each one now but I'd be happy to follow up later …”
Translation: Deal with it like every other awed, frightened, milksop GOP candidate would deal with a hostile, unfair question.
Instead Trump quipped about Rosie and the audience laughed. Trump lambastes Kelly afterward, Ailes issues a weird press release, ends up having to call Trump and asking Trump to please not be so mean to Fox and please continue to allow Fox to interview Trump on Fox’s programs. Ratings.
… even easier than that would have been for Trump to say that he rejects the premise that women should be treated differently than men, and that his record would show that he speaks in non-pc ways about men as well.
I like the sentiment behind this proposed course of behavior. But it’s a little weak. It still doesn’t allow Trump to properly address each allegation. Maybe Trump could have tacked this part on after the Rosie joke.
And if he's so torn up by a question like that, to the point that he boycotts a later debate and months later still tweets about the moderator, how on earth is he going to handle real challenges as president?
Debate challenges are different than presidential challenges. I am confident that Trump, an intelligent person, will know the difference.
If Hillary was smart, she would plea bargain a relatively short prison sentence …
I do not believe Obama will ever allow her to be indicted. She knows too much. If he has to President Trump will give lip service and appoint a commission which will come to nothing, nor should it. Reluctantly, I do not believe it would be good for America to put her on trial.
Trump falls more into the realm of being stupid.
Trump, a first-time politician, has dumbfounded the MSM, defeated most of his GOP opponents, leads in the polls, has led in the polls for months but Trump is stupid. Wow.
Or flinging feces?
The superpac threw the first turd. They shouldn’t bitch when he throws one back. Neither should Cruz.
All that bullshit, Mary, when all I asked is for a smidgen of evidence that Cruz coordinated with that ad.
And you've still got nothing.
And I want to bear down on what a shitty argument you are attempting to make; that there's always an affirmative duty to deny, disown and distance oneself from anything that gets said about an opponent, regarding any topic with which one might have an interest.
Mary, you didn't see me whining about Trump having to urgently disown David Duke. Others made that claim, of course. And they made demands of Trump that he condemn the people who got into scuffles with protesters at his rallies. Again, that's not my style. It's one of the oldest and least-worthy gambits in political messaging: "You have to condemn that terrible unfair thing that was said about your opponent!" Go after those people, along with Ted Cruz, if that is your thing.
It's not my thing. And you're not sufficiently interesting to me anymore. Sorry. I'm just not into you, Mary.
Umm..the "nudie pic" is a published pic from a photo shoot.being used to suggest values issues in a first lady. So telling that Trump retweets a response that uses a mid sentence speaking pic of Heidi then focuses on "which one is hot"...which one is the better piece of ass.
Maybe a better one here
"Trump will destroy the Democrat just as he’s defeated his GOP opponents."
People disbelieved the polls showing Trump could win the Republican nomination (to the great mirth of Trump supporters) and now Trump supporters, who've been yakking about polls for a solid 9 months, suddenly, oddly, find them very uninteresting. I still hope the party manages to nominate a legitimate candidate, but I guess the silver lining in a Clinton win will be witnessing the wailing and gnashing of teeth on November 9, when the cold light of morning finally ends the fever dream. That won't make up for losing the Senate and the House by the time it's all over, but you take what you can get.
No, best one here:
http://www.ohfree.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Melania-Knauss-nude-photos-www.ohfree.net-010.jpg
@Diamondhead-
The worst part is that the silver lining you predict won't happen either. Instead, the Trump voters will blame the GOP who stayed home.
It's ok..Trump has said Hil would make a good prez
The worst part is that the silver lining you predict won't happen either. Instead, the Trump voters will blame the GOP who stayed home.
Well..fair is fair. The Establishment has been blaming the Conservative base for every loss for the last thirty years.
And if neither Trump nor Cruz are the Republican nominee, it won't matter anyway, because for all intents and purposes, the Republican Party will be dead.
Stanley, you're right they will be looking for someone to blame. But what I'm hearing is 1) they understand some Republicans will stay home and 2) it won't matter because Trump is going to gather unto himself all the dispossessed white working class Democrats of the Rust Belt. So they're voting for him knowing full well that he is unacceptable to a not insignificant portion of the party (I don't really believe 35%, but 15%? 20%?) and they will have only themselves to blame when those Republicans stay home and the Trump Democrats fail to materialize in the numbers necessary to offset them. So if the Republicans behave as they're predicting, but the Trump Democrats don't, they'll have to blame the Trump Democrats, right? I know...haha.
This just keeps getting worse for Trump. New NBC/ Wall Strret Journal poll.
Trump's favorability with women overall is a dismal 21 percent positive/ 70 (!) percent negative.
"Asked if they would prefer to see a Democratic president or a Republican president regardless of who the nominees are, 52 percent of female voters chose the Democratic option while 36 percent chose the Republican option. That's a net advantage of 16 percentage points for the Democratic candidate.
But plug in the names "Hillary Clinton" and "Donald Trump" and the gap gets even wider.
In that hypothetical matchup, just 31 percent of women said they would chose Trump, while 58 percent said they would chose Clinton. That's a net advantage of 27 points for Clinton.
In 2012, Barack Obama bested Mitt Romney by far less -- 55 percent to 44 percent -- among female voters."
Of course, Cruz has no obligation to speak out when someone runs a nudie pic of Trump's wife that benefits his campaign.
Just don't scream too loudly when pics of his wife are run in return.
"Mess with the Bull, get the horns"
(You don't want to get the horns, don't mess w/the Bull." Real Life 101.
There you go again, Mary. You need an editor, more than anyone commenting on this blog. You probably don't even see what you did. I'll fill you in.
It's this:
Just don't scream too loudly when pics of his wife are run in return.
"...in return..." In return? "Return," for what? Heidi Cruz, who had nothing to do with anything, and who didn't pose nude for anybody at anytime, is dragged by Donald Trump in some twisted Trump-retaliation, for a third party's use of a Mrs. Trump III photograph. "In return," then, for what?
YOU KEEP DOING IT! This doesn't seem to get through to you. Ted Cruz didn't do the ad to which Trump objects. Heidi Cruz wasn't remotely involved. But I've explained that enough times now for any intelligent person to get it.
Speaking of normal intelligent people, here's what Trump could have done. He could have objected to the ad; he could have condemned the PAC that created the ad. Trump could even have made an ordinary demand to Ted Cruz, asking Cruz to denounce the ad and the PAC. Those would have been normal things to do.
That, we know, is not what Trump did. Trump did the Trumpiest thing; he attacked Heidi Cruz. For no reason other than that it was important to Trump to lash out for Trump's sake and to play "offense" (Trump is quite naturally offensive), Trump makes an ugly threat aimed at Heidi Cruz.
Trump isn't just a prick; he's worse than the mere liar he's known to be; he's a sociopath.
And you, Mary, enjoying your class at Trump University (get your money back) in "Real Life 101" are a nasty, ugly, bitch for endorsing it.
Why can't you believe it. This is the materialistic, narcissistic culture that YOU and your Republicans always wanted.
People will respond to it.
Well, either he thinks he can't win unless he gets 50.1% pledged or he'd rather be seen as a badass everyone is afraid to attack than get his unfavorables down. This hurts Cruz more than it hurts Trump, but it hurts Trump.
Yes R&B..it's strictly a Republican creation..being promoted by someone who had been a Dem most his life? Of course....
FTR: Every Republican in the State of Georgia that was politically active prior to the late 1970s was a Democrat supporter that gave contributions to Democrats.
Like NYC, we were a one Party System. You picked one Democrat or another Democrat. The Talmadge clan was country Democrats, and a few Emory Graduates were City Democrats that were still more conservative than Coolidge.
But posture on that you have proof that Trump was a Democrat back in the 1980s and 1990s.
Heidi Cruz is Chris Matthews with hair in that photo.
Amirite?
@Chuck: I must say this once and only once:
You are the reincarnation of Crack EmCee in 2012.
May I ask you:
How can you possibly be a well-respected and highly paid Michigan attorney (as you've argued) who "enjoys" deposing opponents when you spend entire days hanging out on the Althouse blog posting comments? Are billed clients aware of your actual timekeeping???
Are billed clients aware of your actual timekeeping???
I could imagine that if Jeb Bush were your client, all is good.
But tell me it ain't so.
chickelit said...
@Chuck:
...
May I ask you:
...
No, you may not.
Trump makes an ugly threat aimed at Heidi Cruz... Trump isn't just a prick; he's worse than the mere liar he's known to be; he's a sociopath.
What threat was that? (You need to learn to actually read since he didn't threaten Heidi Cruz.)
So, we've now arrived at the point where passing along a humorous tweet is psychopathy. Quite honestly, shit like this is precisely why Trump is popular. Nothing more.
We all know that Cruz and Clinton are far more nasty, dishonest and creepy, but they do it behind closed doors. We know both would do almost anything to get elected (and I'm not sure about the almost with both of them.) Cruz and Clinton are everything people despise about politicians.
No, you may not.
Thanks for the denial, "Chuck"
My God you're transparent.
"What threat was that? (You need to learn to actually read since he didn't threaten Heidi Cruz"
Hmm, "be careful or I'll spill the beans on Heidi" sure reads like a threat.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Trump-Tweet.jpg
You gotta admit...Trump makes people curious about what the "beans" are.
[Dennis Hopper voice] "I'm curious, are you curious?"
"Gov. Jindal is rejecting the “Never Trump” movement, making a bold announcement that he’s going to stand with Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump.
“The GOP establishment is done for,” he said on MSNBC’s Meet the Press. “This race shows that.”
“[Republican] voters are angry and frustrated and, in some part, the Republican Party deserves some of that frustration. Donald Trump should serve as a wake-up call.”"
http://buzzpo.com/gov-jindal-just-released-huge-trump-announcement/?utm_content=bufferadd8c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=positivelyrepublican
What an amoral, trashy lot you are.
Joe accuses me of not being able to read; of making a bogus claim that Trump threatened Heidi Cruz. You get it now, Joe? You see the Trump Tweet?
Thanks, Joe; apology accepted.
And then you, "chickelit," respond with wanting to know just what the "beans" are. Charming.
You ratfuckers don't want a conservative government; you want a reality show.
dreams your rotten little quote from your rotten little link gives people the phony impression that Jindal likes Trump.
He doesn't.
"If it comes down to Donald Trump and (Democratic presidential frontrunner) Hillary Clinton, I would certainly support Donald Trump as the Republican nominee," he said.
"I didn't wake this morning a big fan of Donald Trump. I hope it's not him (as) he is not my favorite. I think Donald Trump is wrong on a whole host of issues," Jindal said.
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/bobby-jindal-targets-trump-nikki-haley-backs-ted-cruz/20160317.htm
Oh, and "MSNBC's Meet the Press" is a Freudian slip, isn't it?
You ratfuckers don't want a conservative government; you want a reality show.
That's the way to win them over.....now follow up with some White trash comments to really cement the deal.
Gahrie;
I couldn't "win them over" if I had a video recording of Trump shooting someone dead in the middle of Fifth Avenue.
Know who said that?
This doesn't seem to get through to you. Ted Cruz didn't do the ad to which Trump objects.!
What the commentor doesn’t seem to realize is that it doesn’t matter who was the formal originator of the ad about Trump’s wife. The ad was designed to denigrate Trump’s wife to the Mormons in Utah, to hurt Trump and to help Cruz. To fight back Trump has to destroy the effectiveness of the ad. Just which entity created the ad is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the ad was designed to hurt Trump and help Cruz. If wives are fair game then people shouldn’t complain that wives are fair game.
None of the news I watch ever runs the ad of Trump’s wife but they always run the Trump tweet about Cruz’s wife. Anyone want to venture a guess as to why this is so? Hint: The ad about Trump’s wife cannot be shown in prime time. It’s too revealing. It might elicit from their viewers some sympathy for Trump and the MSM can’t have that, now can they.
"Chuck" wrote And then you, 'chickelit,' respond with wanting to know just what the "beans" are. Charming.
So, what's Heidi hidin'?
"That's the way to win them over.....now follow up with some White trash comments to really cement the deal."
Ha. That stage of the campaign is over. Now it's time for the celebrants of Trump to try to their hand at persuasion. Btw, the self-pitying tone is hilarious given what Trump people (not to mention Trump himself) are apt to say about everyone else.
By which I mean try to persuade Republicans who can't imagine voting for this hideous man not to stay home.
Let ye who has no unflattering public photo cast the first stone.
Chuck asked...Know who said that?
Probably Donald Trump said that on Howard Stern's show while they were both discussing naked chicks in order to piss off American women.
Next question?
The very sad fact is that a full half of the conservative base are the rat 'lovers' that Chuck describes. We liberals always knew this. That's why Trump running as a Republican was no surprise, the liberal base would've chewed him up and spit him out with his first major slur, the one about immigrants being rapists. That monster would've been slain within a week. Now it's up to Democrats and the other half of the conservative base to make sure he never ever sets foot in the White House. Somehow I dont think that we Democrats can depend on them though.
Chickelit,
And this is the kind of President America needs? Is pissing off American women a smart thing to do?
Trump’s message to the SuperPACs: You hit me, I hit your boy, I hit your cause. This is the reality. Standing on technicalities such as who legally owns the ad featuring Trump’s scantily clad wife is fine with me – wasted effort on the part of the #neverTrumpers is always welcome, always desirable.
If I were the superpac in question I would quietly discontinue attacks on Trump’s family. If you stir shit you shouldn’t whine when it stinks. I think a lot of the public will understand that very basic concept.
That's why Trump running as a Republican was no surprise, the liberal base would've chewed him up and spit him out with his first major slur, the one about immigrants being rapists,
Translation: No Democrat politician could ever break through the wall of PC erected by the Lefties of America. And this is seen as a good thing.
I’m watching Morning Joe this AM. They are running Trump’s relatively mild tweet of the two wives but NOT the much worse not-for-prime time superpac ad showing Trump’s scantily-clad wife. They won’t even run it with the more revealing anatomy blurred out, lest it gain some sympathy for Trump and his wife. This is how they attempt to shape the news and dictate their favored biased narration.
The Morning Joe’s are also astounded that Trump is so RIGHT so much of the time. Trump is currently tweeting about reforming NATO and all the Morning Joes agreed that Trump’s tweets have a “kernel of truth” about the need for NATO reform. But according to the Morning Joes Trump’s accuracy about NATO is insignificant and utterly unredeeming. And so it goes.
The Democrats never had to prove their case, not with the MSM constantly covering for them. Anything a Democrat says is offered as gospel; anything said by anyone threatening this cozy accommodation is attacked, lied about, denigrated and marginalized. But Trump manages to break through this loose conspiracy with bluntness, some minor vulgarity and oh yes – being RIGHT - about NATO, the refugee threat, our lazy, unreliable “allies” in Europe and the ME, border security, unfair trade agreements, etc., etc.
"Trump’s message to the SuperPACs: You hit me, I hit your boy, I hit your cause."
I realize this issue is already old news and we'll be moving on to the next bit of ridiculousness soon, but just to point out, again - he didn't hit their boy. He hit their boy's wife, based on her looks (she's actually a very attractive woman, albeit not a supermodel). His followers think this is awesome, proves he's a "real man", tells it like it is, etc. And he based it all on a lie (that it was a Cruz ad). A commenter on another site went through the painstaking and thankless work of putting together the actual timeline on all this and making the (obvious) point that the only reason Trump did this was to change the narrative after he got smoked in Utah, but of course none of that sways Trump voters one bit: http://neoneocon.com/2016/03/24/trumps-melania-heidi-wars/#comment-1024803
I can't make predictions anymore, but I just don't think this kind of stuff plays well with the general electorate. Trump is transparently dishonest, hypocritical (with all the "Lyin' Ted" stuff), unstable, immature, misinformed, vengeful, narcissistic, and he treats people like cr@p. Alpha males do not pick on women, but for Trump nothing's off limits. How anyone would want to give him the nuclear codes is beyond me, but - hey - that's why we have elections.
Bill Roberts: His followers think this is awesome, proves he's a "real man", tells it like it is, etc. And he based it all on a lie (that it was a Cruz ad). A commenter on another site went through the painstaking and thankless work of putting together the actual timeline on all this...
Forest, trees, etc. Trump no doubt has "followers" who think this vulgar little slap-fest is "awesome, proves he's a 'real man'" blabbity blah. They're the opposite numbers of people like you and Chuck, who've persuaded yourselves that this stuff is deeply important.
Other people (I'd say most) who will vote for Trump really don't give a rat's ass about this stuff. Our "colossal disgust" has long since been directed toward other objects, and that informs our priorities. You are welcome to return to your bickering about how the timeline you've painstakingly put together about "all this" (all this!) proves that Trump can't be trusted not to start WWIII with Russia, or something. Carry on.
… just to point out, again - he didn't hit their boy. He hit their boy's wife, based on her looks …
Here we go again. The superpac ran an ad featuring Trump’s wife in a scantily-clad, provocative pose. Trump retaliated by running an ad of the two wives, his and Cruz’s, with no cheesecake at all. And again, I’m compelled to point out the reality of the situation. The wives are peripheral to this tiff. They are what is called a “McGuffin” in the theatre and the cinema. The reality is: An ad was run to hurt Trump, Trump retaliated by running an ad to hurt Cruz.
The superpac, in it’s efforts to help Cruz, may end up sinking Cruz’s ship.
His followers think this is awesome, proves he's a "real man", tells it like it is, etc. And he based it all on a lie (that it was a Cruz ad).
Here again we see a favorite meme: Although the superpac ad was designed to hurt Trump and help Cruz, since Cruz doesn’t legally own the ad it is outrageous that Trump should retaliate against Cruz.
I, for one, do NOT base my analysis on the technicality of whether the risqué superpac ad of Trump’s wife is legally owned by Cruz. Of course the superpac owns the ad and Cruz does not. I base it instead on the rather transparent tactics and strategies of the parties involved.
Notice also, readers, that there is nary a hint from any of the #neverTrumpers of a condemnation of the superpac’s titillating ad featuring Trump’s wife which started this tiff. Mum’s the word on THAT score. Cruz’s wife should be inviolate but Trump’s wife is getting what she deserves seems to be their attitude. A glaring double standard.
Trump is transparently dishonest, hypocritical … unstable, immature, misinformed, vengeful, narcissistic, and he treats people like crap.
The commentor left out “dumb, tasteless, capricious, callous, sloppy, reckless, cruel, lawless, uncaring, Hitler and Mussolini.” Must be an off day.
Alpha males do not pick on women, but for Trump nothing's off limits.
Alpha males never waste time worrying about what alpha males are supposed to do. We leave that up to the betas.
grackle; You too seem to be unable to grasp the simple point that Trump veered off from an attack ad that Ted Cruz didn't produce, to a very nasty and personal threat against Ted Cruz's wife intended as some sort of "revenge" or "warning shot."
If you can't understand how that was wrong on the part of Trump himself, then you really are a stupid old coot.
And if you do understand that, and are still okay with that tactic, then God help you and the other Trumpkins if your man gets the nomination. You whine about the mainstream media's treatment of Trump; assuredly, Trump's behavior in this instance didn't just earn him the criticism of the "mainstream media;" it also earned him the criticism of commentators across the spectrum, including conservatives. It's NOTHING, compared to what awaits a loose cannon like Trump -- with no help from the usual conservative press and blogosphere -- if he goes up against a Democrat in the fall. It will be the media shitstorm to end all. Expect it; and don't cry about it or make excuses when it happens.
The Trumpkins have insulted Republican incumbents, Republican donors, Republicans and conservatives in the press, etc. Don't expect any of them to happily endorse Trump if he's the nominee.
Angry old guys like you have succeeded in carving out your own perfect candidate; someone who attacks and insults everyone else not like you. That's a recipe for a general election disaster. And don't deflect with a reference to Trump's primary wins. Those wins only prove the point; that Trump has an intractable 35%. That 35% in the general election equals a landslide loss.
Has Scott Adams analyzed this yet? Going uber alpha-male doesn't work for Cruz. And now we are all wondering about these mysterious Heidi beans.
But far more damaging to Cruz, his "sniveling coward" response was a Dukakis tank moment.
And wasn't it Cruz who said the candidate is responsible for the culture and tenor of his campaign? Yet Cruz never criticized, denounced or repudiated Liz Mair's maliciously captioned photo of Melania, Trump's "out of bounds" wife -- the 15-year-old photo that sparked this feud. By his silence, Cruz gives unaffiliated pro-Trump and pro-Cruz PACs license to do nearly anything with impunity (assuming Cruz sticks with his "not my PAC, not my problem" position).
Trump knows how to draw Ted into the Dukakis little-man tank now, regardless whether wives are involved. Time will tell whether Trump won this round. If he did, it may take quite a while before we see what he does with his winnings.
I can't believe you can't believe. Where have you been?
grackle; You too seem to be unable to grasp the simple point that Trump veered off from an attack ad that Ted Cruz didn't produce, to a very nasty and personal threat against Ted Cruz's wife intended as some sort of "revenge" or "warning shot."
“Spill the beans” really just doesn’t cut it as “a very nasty and personal threat.” It’s not very nasty and not all that personal. But hyperbole normally abounds when it comes to the #neverTrumpers and their crusade against the evil Trump.
I fully “grasp” the tragically flawed “simple point” of the commentor’s. Here’s Trump’s point and my point: If wives are open to attack then folks shouldn’t whine when wives are attacked. If the #neverTrumpers want attacks on wives to stop then they need to contact the superPac that ran the ad featuring Trump’s scantily-clad wife in a provocative pose and implore the superPac to drop the ad.
But the new rule seems to be that wives ARE open to attack, because I have not observed anyone condemn the superPac ad featuring Trump’s wife. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Trump is just playing by the new rules.
… Trump's behavior in this instance didn't just earn him the criticism of the "mainstream media;" it also earned him the criticism of commentators across the spectrum, including conservatives.
Yep, the commentor is correct. Many conservatives have condemned Trump. They would rather lose to the Democrat than support Trump. To me it seems like a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face but to each his own. BTW, I’m not a conservative so it doesn’t much matter to me what conservatives think about Trump. I’m an independent that holds some views on issues that could be considered liberal and some that could be considered conservative. I try not to fall into the ideological trap of rigid political identity.
… if he goes up against a Democrat in the fall. It will be the media shitstorm to end all. Expect it; and don't cry about it or make excuses when it happens.
The above fantasy brought a chuckle to me. The commentor apparently seriously believes that if someone other than Trump is nominated that the MSM will go easy on the GOP nominee. Just like they did with Romney, I suppose. And how about McCain? He was a media darling before he was nominated. After the convention his name was mud.
The Trumpkins have insulted Republican incumbents, Republican donors, Republicans and conservatives in the press, etc. Don't expect any of them to happily endorse Trump if he's the nominee.
“Happily?” Perhaps not. But inevitably, maybe so. I think Trump will prove to have wide coattails and many of the disaffected, who are concerned now about being re-elected, will come around.
And don't deflect with a reference to Trump's primary wins. Those wins only prove the point; that Trump has an intractable 35%. That 35% in the general election equals a landslide loss.
And Cruz and Kasich? What percentage have THEY attracted? I think we all know the answer to that particular question. The proponents of this meme hold that Trump has to attract some unnamed high percentage in order to be viable but Cruz and Kasich? Well, THAT’S different. It’s one of the many double standards held by the #neverTrumpers.
Leigh alleges that "Cruz never criticized, denounced or repudiated Liz Mair's maliciously captioned photo of Melania". That is simply false. As USA Today reports, "That morning, Cruz's campaign denounced the ad depicting Trump's wife and stressed it had no affiliation with the super PAC Make America Awesome that created it." They even used the word "denounced". "That morning" was yesterday morning, some hours before he called Trump a "sniveling coward". I found that in less than a minute by Googling "Cruz denounces Trump" - why couldn't Leigh find it?
Dr Weevil wrote: That morning, Cruz's campaign denounced the ad depicting Trump's wife and stressed it had no affiliation with the super PAC Make America Awesome that created it.
"That morning" being yesterday, well after the Utah primary and the damage done. Sort of like George Bush apologizing after the election for that Dukakis ad. /snark
BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if the Cruz campaign never brings any of this up again. Let the holy cruzadores do it.
"Alpha males never waste time worrying about what alpha males are supposed to do. We leave that up to the betas."
You're only an alpha male if people think of you as an alpha male.
Cruz's campaign denounced the ad depicting Trump's wife and stressed it had no affiliation with the super PAC Make America Awesome that created it.
Here’s how the game works: First the superpac that supports Cruz runs an ad of Trump’s scantily-clad wife in a provocative pose. That ad runs for a couple of days in order to do some damage to Trump in Idaho. Trump gets wind of the ad and warns Cruz about it. Cruz, after the ad has done it’s damage for another day, disavows all knowledge and much too late to soften the impact finally condemns the risqué superpac ad. But the line was crossed and such a line cannot be uncrossed at a convenient time afterward when the damage has already been done. The superpac made Cruz’s bed and now Cruz is going to have to sleep in it.
Getting into shit-fight with Trump is not a good idea. Ask Rubio and Jeb.
P.S. If you believe Cruz had no beforehand knowledge of the superpac ad you are being naïve. This kabuki dance between the superpacs and the candidates they support is hypocrisy at its most exquisite.
@Dr. Weevil: The real way to test Cruz's sincerity regarding "morning after election" regrets to watch for the emerging pattern of insult by proxy prior to the election followed by a "denouncement" after the election.
Larry Thornberry (at The American Spectator) puts in perspective the way this nasty little episode began:
"It’s easy enough to understand how any husband might not be thrilled with having pictures of his wife, nearly nude and in provocative and silly poses, used in campaign ads. But then the pictures wouldn’t be out there if wifey (then girlfriend) hadn’t willingly posed for them and made them available for anyone with Google or the price of a copy of British GQ. Actions have consequences, including naked ones. Especially naked ones.
"Any woman who does not want the world to see her exciting the male impulse in return for money should simply not do it. (And these photos would appear to appeal most effectively to the 15-year-old male impulse.) Nothing complicated about this. To pose, cash the check, and then whine when people see the results is tackier than the photos themselves (which is saying something).
"There’s no evidence that boyfriend Donald tried to dissuade Melania from posing for the cameras on his private plane back in the day, making his indignation now the more hollow. And as adolescent as the photos are, the Donald was hardly an adolescent when he enabled this nonsense. He was in his fifties. It goes, as the lawyers say, to character, which when Bill Clinton was president, Republicans used to say mattered. Is that now inoperative? Ron Ziegler, call your office
..."
And then there was Michael Warren, writing in the Weekly Standard online, who deconstructed the Team Trump approach to the Trump-created controversy, including an easy-reading timeline of the events. There's simply no defense for Trump's end of this thing. Not one of the Trump supporters' arguments offered on this blog survives:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-not-cruz-escalated-wife-fight/article/2001716
Best of all, Warren ends it this way:
"The whole episode was the equivalent of a Red Sox fan heckling a Yankees pitcher from the stands and the pitcher in turn throwing a fastball right into the Red Sox batter's face. There's no equivalence here. There's no "Trump-Cruz feud" over each other's wives. The anti-Trump super PAC may have "started" the fight, but the responsibility for escalating the attacks to beyond the bounds of decency falls, as it often has in this election, on Trump and Trump alone.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-not-cruz-escalated-wife-fight/article/2001716
Thank you for that excellent catch, Dr. Weevil. I feel so much better now.
Post a Comment