quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:
Didn't check, but can I assume you are over in the Cruz thread saying how much of a scumbag he is because of his people bringing up Trumps wife.....first?

You can scroll up this page about 6 or 7 posts and see what I said about Cruz.

Not harsh at all compared to the Trump comments.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
Put up with what? This is a campaign for POTUS. This is the dirtiest game on the planet. To think otherwise is hopelessly naive.

Not even a tiny bit naive here. I know the stakes, I know the game and this move by Trump was juvenile and beneath contempt.

Not hardly. It has been said by LBJ historians that he had men whacked on his way to the White House. Look what Nixon did to get an edge during his campaign. This shit with the wives isn't even close to juvenile and contempt.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:

Didn't check, but can I assume you are over in the Cruz thread saying how much of a scumbag he is because of his people bringing up Trumps wife.....first?

Cruz people seem to have this belief that there is a complete disconnect between PACs and Cruz. Cruz PACs do something like this, and all his supporters act like he is blameless.

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
This shit with the wives isn't even close to juvenile and contempt.

As I said, YMMV and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. Mine is not changing on this issue.

quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:
Not harsh at all compared to the Trump comments.

Yep, because it's not called for. A third party PAC runs an ad like that I would have called them out and renounced it and have no problem with Trump making that an issue and calling on Cruz to either defend or renounce it. That's perfectly fine and the way these things are resolved.

To put out something saying 'your wife is ugly compared to my wife'? I'll just say that if anyone is defending that it says a lot about that person's character and leave it at that.

As I said earlier, YMMV. Where I come from that's way out of bounds.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
I know this will not fly well here, but real scumbag/douchebag move by Trump. Not a MAN here would put up with that shit. Bad, bad move - if you have a problem with a man, you take it up with the man, you leave his wife the hell out of it. Scumbag move.

Personally, I don't find it such a big deal. When Cruz put his family into commercials as seemingly idyllic, he should expect that they would not be beyond counter attack. I think children should be off limits. But, adults are fair game to me. And, Cruz' supporting PAC attacked Melania as being unfit to be first lady. That raises an obvious counter question about Heidi's fitness to be first lady.

Any man will normally defend his wife. But, I just do not see the photo as despicable. I've seen some pretty unflattering photos in my day.

Is it despicable because it shows Heidi with a contorted face? Is it despicable because Trump brought Heidi into a contest of who would make the best first lady?

If someone just calls it despicable because that is part of their values, that seems unassailable. Each has his/her own values to be brought to evaluate any situation.

Bama, your wife, if you have one, is lucky to have your protection. The issue I have is that Cruz knew about (I am informed) that the attack on Trump's wife was being run, Cruz took advantage of it to win Utah without condemning his own supporter and then when Trump said that he would spill the beans about Heidi if Cruz wanted to make it about who would make the best first lady, Cruz rose to indignation.

If the KKK started running ads for Cruz in a state, I pretty we;l guarantee that Cruz would be out immediately to condemn the ads and distance himself from the despicable content.

Was Cruz happy to see Melania attacked as unfit and then upset when Trump responded? As pointed out before, Glenn Beck actually called Melania a lesbian porn photo model. But, Cruz didn't call him off about it that I know of.

I asked my wife about the photo in question here and she said that if I was running for office she would have "felt a little embarrassed about the bad picture but, ehh, aren't people stupid sometimes." She said she would not want me to get out the dueling pistols or anything of the kind.

quote:

It's just plain dumb for the two of them to be flinging shit at each other like pissed off monkeys. It does neither of them any good, and only helps Hillary.

Yes. They would both be smarter to start working together to make each of them look presidential (even while competing against each other). Time to take this thing to a higher plane.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:
Not harsh at all compared to the Trump comments.

Yep, because it's not called for. A third party PAC runs an ad like that I would have called them out and renounced it and have no problem with Trump making that an issue and calling on Cruz to either defend or renounce it. That's perfectly fine and the way these things are resolved.

To put out something saying 'your wife is ugly compared to my wife'? I'll just say that if anyone is defending that it says a lot about that person's character and leave it at that.

As I said earlier, YMMV. Where I come from that's way out of bounds.

Maybe the Cruz camp shouldn't have put out an ad that featured how sexy Trump's wife is, as if its a bad thing. She's a model, she's hot. So whats the point?? Why run that ad? To insinuate she's a slut? Cruz people should be absolutely ashamed about making any ad that had to do with Trump's wife. Now act all hurt when he posts a pic of the two of them.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
it's like a poo-flinging fight amongst monkeys.

they're all being assholes.

we ought to ignore it all.

...and this will be forgotten in no time. Just another car crash that the media is focusing on, and will soon pass.

+1 . . . except if Cruz does get his ire up, it may affect the future of the primaries and general election. This is just more needless negative condemnation of the leader of the primary.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
I had a history class once by a preeminent scholar who said he would not publish untol after he died. Until then, he had peers review his work and put things in articles to test his views. He had filing cabinets of books to be published on his death. His view was that he saw so many people publish early in their careers and they seemed to spend the rest of the lives defending what they wrote. He wanted to avid that.

Sounds like a chicken shit ass hat to me. He had peers review his work (different than peer reviewed work) and float trial balloons on his "theories"? Has anything been published that John Q Public could read? How did he get tenure with that attitude? How did he become a preeminent scholar? Nobody ever called bullshit?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
But, again, you did not address why or how Trump is sexist because of what he said to Carly or retweeted about spilling "the beans" about Cruz' wife.

You brought the word sexist into the discussion. Not me. I never implied Trump is sexist. You want pull me into your idea of how this debate should go, but I'm not biting.

He attacks people's looks no matter if they are male or female.


You're going to deny that? Yes, you already have, haven't you? I believe Trump can indeed be a deep thinker and is a very intelligent man, but in regards to these types of attacks, he's falling back to his banal instincts.

No. I haven't denied the point that Trump attacks people when deemed helpful based on their looks and demeanor/actions. One's impression is important. Have you ever said that you just do not like the cut of someone's jib? Trump does zero in on what may be off putting in an opponent. At times, I don't like it either but it can often help get to the heart of matters.

I am glad that you have stayed away from what seemed like a sexist spin. I did not intend to miss your point. So, Trump does comment about both men and women based, in part, on how they look and how that reflects something the voters may have in mind or may find true about an opponent. Granted.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

It's just plain dumb for the two of them to be flinging shit at each other like pissed off monkeys. It does neither of them any good, and only helps Hillary.

Yes. They would both be smarter to start working together to make each of them look presidential (even while competing against each other). Time to take this thing to a higher plane.

I think it is too late for that. All of this childish shit will come back and bite them in the general election...

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
I had a history class once by a preeminent scholar who said he would not publish until after he died. Until then, he had peers review his work and put things in articles to test his views. He had filing cabinets of books to be published on his death. His view was that he saw so many people publish early in their careers and they seemed to spend the rest of the lives defending what they wrote. He wanted to avoid that.

Sounds like a chicken shit ass hat to me. He had peers review his work (different than peer reviewed work) and float trial balloons on his "theories"? Has anything been published that John Q Public could read? How did he get tenure with that attitude? How did he become a preeminent scholar? Nobody ever called bullshit?

No. Not at all. He is very famous and his work is incredibly well respected in numerous circles.

Dr. John Hannah, Th.M, Ph.D and Th.D. He is still alive, that I know of, and I presume, still editing his work. If you were Saint Thomas Aquinas, would you publish before you had finished Summa Theologica?

From Wikipedia: "The Summa Theologiæ (written 1265–1274 and also known as the Summa Theologica or simply the Summa) is the best-known work of Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274)" Saint Thomas Aquinas published the Summa Theologica in the year he died. So, it is not such a strange idea. Aquinas worked on his 3,500 page Summa for the last 9 years of his life.

I guess Saint Thomas Aquinas was a chicken shit ass hat too?

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
No. Not at all. He is very famous and his work is incredibly well respected in numerous circles.

Dr. John Hannah, Th.M, Ph.D and Th.D. He is still alive and I presume, still editing his work. If you were Saint Thomas Aquinas, would you publish before you had finished Summa Theologica?

From Wikipedia: "The Summa Theologiæ (written 1265–1274 and also known as the Summa Theologica or simply the Summa) is the best-known work of Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274)" Saint Thomas Aquinas published the Summa Theologica in the year he died. So, it is not such a strange idea. Aquinas worked on his 3,500 page Summa for the last 9 years of his life.

I guess Saint Thomas Aquinas was a chicken shit ass hat too?

So his work was (is) heavily peer reviewed and he didn't just use his peers to float trial balloons. OK. Got it. No problem. Maybe dropping his name in the first place would have made it a little more clear? Your original description of this guy is more than a little off compared to a quick Google of his peer reviewed work.

Now back to the thread.

Guys, what in the world does this have to do with the subject of this thread? Come on.

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
No. Not at all. He is very famous and his work is incredibly well respected in numerous circles.

Dr. John Hannah, Th.M, Ph.D and Th.D. He is still alive and I presume, still editing his work. If you were Saint Thomas Aquinas, would you publish before you had finished Summa Theologica?

From Wikipedia: "The Summa Theologiæ (written 1265–1274 and also known as the Summa Theologica or simply the Summa) is the best-known work of Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274)" Saint Thomas Aquinas published the Summa Theologica in the year he died. So, it is not such a strange idea. Aquinas worked on his 3,500 page Summa for the last 9 years of his life.

I guess Saint Thomas Aquinas was a chicken shit ass hat too?

So his work was (is) heavily peer reviewed and he didn't just use his peers to float trial balloons. OK. Got it. No problem. Maybe dropping his name in the first place would have made it a little more clear? Your original description of this guy is more than a little off compared to a quick Google of his peer reviewed work.

Now back to the thread.

You know, I try to avoid the name dropping when I post. I am glad someone was interested because he was a truly great professor and I still remember the class from the early 80s. I do not footnote either. My point was about his reasoning and that's why I used the story and his name seemed irrelevant to my point.

When someone has already taken a final position, it makes it harder for them to entertain change.

Yes. Back to the thread.

Para I just saw your post. Do you want me to delete?

I want you guys to be mindful that this is a 350 page thread.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Lindsay Graham (we are going to have to win in spite of this clown)

Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,”

“We’re already split,” Graham said. “Here is my concern. We can lose in 2016 and we probably will.

Trump gets wiped out, Ted makes it competitive, I don’t know if he can beat her or not, but at least we got a fighting chance.

Yet Trump is the standard bearer. It’s not about 2016, it’s about losing the heart and soul of the conservative movement.

I’m not going to stand behind a guy that gets David Duke’s support. What is it about Trump’s campaign that David Duke likes?

I don’t think he is a reliable conservative Republican. So it’s no longer about winning the election for me, it’s trying to salvage a party that I love and conservatism as I know it.”

*********************

What an idiotic low blow from Graham. He pushes the absurd KKK charge like he was a Democrat.

If we had Rep leadership w any brains and guts, Graham would get his ass chewed.

Who doors Lindsay think Duke voted for in 2008 and 2012?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I want you guys to be mindful that this is a 350 page thread.

Perhaps when the dust settles on this election you can publish? Should get good reviews as to how the Political times be a changing.

quote:

But it's clear that Cruz likes to get down dirty, and then back away with his hands raised pledging that he knew nothing-- nothing!-- about any of this....

Plausible deniability, meaning believable lie, just like with the Carson incident.