Trump v. Cruz's Wife: This may do in the Donald (1 Viewer)

cpwill said:

It wasn't. It's not a Cruz PAC.

Click to expand...

Even if it was a "Cruz PAC" you could fall back on your "it's a felony for Cruz to correspond with them," excuse.

Of course, we all know this excuse is bull**** and they coordinate all the time. But it's interesting that people think hundreds of millions of dollars get spent on campaigns that the politicians have zero control over.

sangha said:

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

Cruz is responsible for an ad that does not quote him, but Cruz is not responsible for what his hand-picked spokesperson says because there is no Cruz quote?

Click to expand...

Cruz had an opportunity to address the ad in his own words. With that opportunity, he fed us the sexist claim that "real men don't attack women," baiting Trump (note that he has attacked Hillary- and not just on policy issues like people have claimed here). Instead of denouncing the ad, he figuratively smiled, claimed he didn't do it, and preemptively insulted Trump's character.

Responsibility is not always so black and white. Cruz had the opportunity to denounce the ad, himself, but he didn't. He is responsible for that.

What some PR expert he hires says on his behalf is not so severely distinguishable from what a super pac says on his behalf. Recall when he fired Rick Tyler ? Did he fire Rick Tyler because Rick Tyler said exactly what Cruz wanted him to say, but he wanted to wash the mud off his own hands ?

Or what ?

Moot said:

A new low?? Are you kidding? Trump is a bottomless pit of new lows.


While Cruz wasn't directly responsible...his PAC tried to "slut shame" Trump's wife. I think he had every right to be outraged...BUT...the way he responded was very telling how he would handle criticism if president...tit for tat. It wasn't very good statesmanship.

Trump and his twittering might be his downfall.

Click to expand...

I have given up making predictions about trump.

The only prediction I will make is that this campagin will continue to descend into the abyss.

cpwill said:

1. If so, that would be a felony. At some point you should present evidence of such if you are going to claim it.

2. As I understand, it wasn't even a pro-Cruz PAC, it was an anti-Trump PAC.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry...what "felony" would that be?

JumpinJack said:

In the latest, after someone posts a racy photo shoot of Trump's wife (a real photo shoot the babe did once) in a support ad for Cruz, Trump comes out and tweets an unflattering pic of Cruz's wife, next to one of those fakey glamour shots of the Trump wife (just a head shot).

Cruz is mad, points his finger, and tells Trump not to mess with his wife, Heidi. Cruz further says that the reason Trump has a problem with Meagan Kelly of Fox is that Trump doesn't like strong women and feels threatened by them.

Point: Cruz. Trump lost this.

Attacking the opponent's family is off base. Way off base. Trump sank to a new low. And, as in the past, it centers around WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. To Trump, there is simply nothing else important about women.

Point: Let's give Cruz two points. He comes out ahead because of how pitiful Trump acted.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, Trump has his wife, while Cruz has his.

Captain Adverse said:

I'm sorry...what "felony" would that be?

Click to expand...

Coordinating like that between a candidate and a PAC.

justabubba said:

i cannot find where cruz came out and criticized that use of melania's nudie photo
his failure to do so - because that photo was intended to hurt his opponent - implies cruz was OK with such misuse of tRump's spouse's photo

which is why i am asking to see a cite where cruz made such an objection

Click to expand...

No he wasn't good with it. He denounced it on his facebook, twitter and in response to reporters.

Here is Ms. Stewart from his campaign reiterating what Cruz had already stated.



Look Donald got shellacked in Utah. He had to blame it on a Ted Cruz dirty trick for coming in a distant third. So a meme ad of Melania surfaces on the web by an anti-Trump pac who is such small peanuts with just 14,000 in their account and Trump blames Cruz claiming it caused all the Mormons to vote against Trump. What a putz.




But something is happening since the party has been uniting around Cruz. Cruz is up over 4 points of Trump in Wisconsin. So today Trump's buddy Mr. Peter who owns the National Enquirer published a hit piece on Cruz alleging Cruz had 5 affairs one with his spokesperson Ms. Carpenter. The only reported source of the story is Roger Stone, Trump's chief adviser. Stone has a real nasty history of filthy political dirty tricks. He is also associated with that nutjob Alex Jones and Infowars. But he was the only named source of the story.

Are you familiar with Michael Savage? He is a Trump supporter but investigated the story. He knows someone at the NE and was told that Mr Peter, Trump's personal friend is handling the story on Cruz and that there are no sources other than Roger Stone to corroborate this hit piece. All roads lead back to Trump. So Savage said if Trump doesn't denounce this hit piece he will denounce his endorsement of him. He also revealed that Peter is often a frequent flyer on the Trump jet to Florida to stay at Trump's resorts. What an appropriate name (Peter=Pecker) for such an act. Even Peirson, Trump's spox has come out and called the story false speaking only on behalf of herself not Trump. This has Roger Stone's fingerprints all over it. He is notorious for destroying candidates through personal destruction. Truth be damned.

But there is a reason for this, the latest polls show Cruz pulling ahead of Trump in Wisconsin the next state to vote. He is up currently 4+ points. He is also gaining in California and elsewhere. Not good news for Trump.

cpwill said:

Coordinating like that between a candidate and a PAC.

Click to expand...

Coordinating like what?

Absentglare said:

Coordinating like what?

Click to expand...

Reviewing and approving/not-approving ads

cpwill said:

Reviewing and approving/not-approving ads

Click to expand...

False. Not a felony.

Next.

cpwill said:

Coordinating like that between a candidate and a PAC.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you need to be much clearer than that.

What kind of coordination are you talking about? Let's be specific here if you are going to throw out bold statements like "it's a felony!"

Cite the law! Chapter and Verse. Let me review it to see if what I said holds no water.

Captain Adverse said:

Sorry, you need to be much clearer than that.

What kind of coordination are you talking about? Let's be specific here if you are going to throw out bold statements like "it's a felony!"

Cite the law! Chapter and Verse. Let me review it to see if what I said holds no water.

Click to expand...

The kind that he was accused of: reviewing and approving/disapproving ads.

Unitedwestand13 said:

I have given up making predictions about trump.

The only prediction I will make is that this campagin will continue to descend into the abyss.

Click to expand...

And we still have eight more months to go.

cpwill said:

The kind that he was accused of: reviewing and approving/disapproving ads.

Click to expand...

Only if he did so directly, which is pretty ****ing easy to get around.

Like i said, go ask Stephen Colbert.

Absentglare said:

Of course, we all know this excuse is bull**** and they coordinate all the time. But it's interesting that people think hundreds of millions of dollars get spent on campaigns that the politicians have zero control over.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY! I've worked on two campaigns in my lifetime. Each time PACs submitted "sample ads" for the candidates to review. The campaign manager, top staffers, and often as not the candidate himself will sit around to review each sample, access it's merits, and then let the PAC rep. know how they feel. Legally the PAC is not bound to listen or care, but they are supporting the candidate and don't want to do something that might damage the campaign strategy.

Absentglare said:

Cruz had an opportunity to address the ad in his own words. With that opportunity, he fed us the sexist claim that "real men don't attack women," baiting Trump (note that he has attacked Hillary- and not just on policy issues like people have claimed here). Instead of denouncing the ad, he figuratively smiled, claimed he didn't do it, and preemptively insulted Trump's character.

Responsibility is not always so black and white. Cruz had the opportunity to denounce the ad, himself, but he didn't. He is responsible for that.

What some PR expert he hires says on his behalf is not so severely distinguishable from what a super pac says on his behalf. Recall when he fired Rick Tyler ? Did he fire Rick Tyler because Rick Tyler said exactly what Cruz wanted him to say, but he wanted to wash the mud off his own hands ?

Or what ?

Click to expand...

Again, EXACTLY! There have been maverick PACS who have their own agendas and sometimes post "supportive" attack ads that hurt their candidates too. In every case where the candidate really doesn't agree with the ad, he will speak up openly to denounce the ad, and he will also contact his opponent right away to personally warn and apologize, disavowing any association with the ad and it's contents.

Now I lumped both of your quotes together because you state what I would have stated myself.

cpwill said:

The kind that he was accused of: reviewing and approving/disapproving ads.

Click to expand...

Okay so in this instance you really don't know what you are talking about and you are just throwing your "opinion" out there. Fine. :coffeepap:

Captain Adverse said:

Okay so in this instance you really don't know what you are talking about and you are just throwing your "opinion" out there. Fine. :coffeepap:

Click to expand...

:shrug: well I'm always open to the possibility that I am wrong. If you can show me where candidates can coordinate with their PACs, please do.

cpwill said:

:shrug: well I'm always open to the possibility that I am wrong. If you can show me where candidates can coordinate with their PACs, please do.

Click to expand...

Of course they can.

For one, they can coordinate before they announce their candidacy.

For two, they can coordinate through public channels, say, by releasing hours of interview footage that a super pac can edit for talking points.

For three, all they have to do is make the interaction sufficiently indirect to avoid indictment. How difficult is that ?

cpwill said:

:shrug: well I'm always open to the possibility that I am wrong. If you can show me where candidates can coordinate with their PACs, please do.

Click to expand...

Dude! I wasn't the one who said it was a felony. I don't need to prove anything. :no:

Read this post if you want my understanding...

Captain Adverse said:

EXACTLY! I've worked on two campaigns in my lifetime...

Click to expand...

...so if you think some kind of felony is being committed, cite the law with the section you believe would be violated and we'll see. Otherwise? :shrug:

Absentglare said:

Of course they can.

For one, they can coordinate before they announce their candidacy.

For two, they can coordinate through public channels, say, by releasing hours of interview footage that a super pac can edit for talking points.

For three, all they have to do is make the interaction sufficiently indirect to avoid indictment. How difficult is that ?

Click to expand...

So.... none of those are a candidate approving or disapproving an ad in Utah.

haymarket said:

Yes Trump is trash. And Cruz might be even worse.

Click to expand...

Though it makes for good drama and colorful debate, the point is moot. Neither will see a day serving as P.O.T.U.S.

Popcorn anyone?

Absentglare said:

Cruz had an opportunity to address the ad in his own words. With that opportunity, he fed us the sexist claim that "real men don't attack women," baiting Trump (note that he has attacked Hillary- and not just on policy issues like people have claimed here). Instead of denouncing the ad, he figuratively smiled, claimed he didn't do it, and preemptively insulted Trump's character.

Responsibility is not always so black and white. Cruz had the opportunity to denounce the ad, himself, but he didn't. He is responsible for that.

What some PR expert he hires says on his behalf is not so severely distinguishable from what a super pac says on his behalf. Recall when he fired Rick Tyler ? Did he fire Rick Tyler because Rick Tyler said exactly what Cruz wanted him to say, but he wanted to wash the mud off his own hands ?

Or what ?

Click to expand...

I don't think Cruz did or approve the Trump wife ad. There are tons of PR things sent out by various pacs and supporters. The people that run them have a certain discretion. It's reasonable to think that the one who ran the ad would think Cruz would approve, since it wasn't really that bad. They were wrong.

Another reason I don't think Cruz did it is that it invited a reaction against his own wife. I don't think Cruz would tempt fate with his family, though he would with himself. It doesn't make sense. Most things that don't make sense aren't true. IMO.

But the ad with Trump's wife...there really was nothing wrong with it. It wasn't a secret photo. It was out there in the world for all to see, anyway. The ad merely called it to the attention of American voters. If Trump thought his wife was good enough to marry, surely he approved of the work she did before they married. Nothing wrong with the ad. If Trump is ashamed, that's a reflection on him. The pic is a reflection on the wife (the pic makes it clear she'll never be First Lady, though).

Then for Trump to retaliate against Cruz's wife, by implying she's unattractive, is a new low, and it likely cost him the election. That's because he hit a non-politician female with an insult about her appearance, feeding the stereotype of Trump as a misogynistic bully who dislikes women except as arm candy. This is something Trump does regularly.

Trump doesn't get it. First Ladies are not made First Ladies because they're hot. They're made First Ladies because they are one-half of a power couple, and they enable their spouses to become President. They are usually educated, intelligent, classy. Appearance really doesn't come into it. Think Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the greatest First Ladies the country has ever had. Trump doesn't get that he's no longer in television and beauty contests, now.

I think this has cost him the election (if he gets the nomination). His unfavorability rating among women is over 60%. You can't win with numbers like that.

Captain America said:

Though it makes for good drama and colorful debate, the point is moot. Neither will see a day serving as P.O.T.U.S.

Popcorn anyone?

Click to expand...

Agreed.

JumpinJack said:

In the latest, after someone posts a racy photo shoot of Trump's wife (a real photo shoot the babe did once) in a support ad for Cruz, Trump comes out and tweets an unflattering pic of Cruz's wife, next to one of those fakey glamour shots of the Trump wife (just a head shot).

Cruz is mad, points his finger, and tells Trump not to mess with his wife, Heidi. Cruz further says that the reason Trump has a problem with Meagan Kelly of Fox is that Trump doesn't like strong women and feels threatened by them.

Point: Cruz. Trump lost this.

Attacking the opponent's family is off base. Way off base. Trump sank to a new low. And, as in the past, it centers around WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. To Trump, there is simply nothing else important about women.

Point: Let's give Cruz two points. He comes out ahead because of how pitiful Trump acted.

Click to expand...

After all the stupid **** Trump has said to no ill effect, you really think this is going to do him in?

Case in point:

Hawkeye10 said:

Trump has the much much better wife, he won.

Click to expand...

cpwill said:

So.... none of those are a candidate approving or disapproving an ad in Utah.

Click to expand...

I cannot, and i assume that neither can you, demonstrate that Cruz did or did not indirectly condone the ad before it was released.

What we do know is that Cruz, himself, addressed the ad to Trump without explicitly condemning it. The ad supported his campaign, and he did not apologize for how it personally attacked Trump's wife.

I totally agree that Trump was the more disgusting of the two, but let's be realistic. Cruz doesn't deserve credit for entirely taking the high road even though he's trying to claim it.