Post by: nddons on March 24, 2016, 12:53:35 PM
http://m.therightscoop.com/trumpertantrum-tweets-after-threatening-ted-cruzs-wife-he-posts-classy-attack-on-her-physical-appearance/
Post by: JeffDG on March 24, 2016, 01:10:29 PM
I can't identify the type, and I've never seen his particular brand of "class" anywhere before, but I'm sure it exists.
Post by: Dav8or on March 24, 2016, 01:32:21 PM
Post by: Little Joe on March 24, 2016, 01:38:44 PM
I've said a bunch of times now, Donald Trump is a total douche bag. How in the world people think he is fit to be the leader of this country and the free world is well beyond me. I guess they must figure that at least he's their douche bag.We've had the bar lowered over the past few years.
Post by: acrogimp on March 24, 2016, 02:06:22 PM
The only bar that has been lowered is what constitutes an attack.
You think that's bad, just wait until he starts in on her being a Goldman-Sachs exec, etc.
What a bunch pf pansies, this is as bad as the special snowflakes terrified of chalkings.
Edited to add: I don't think this (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=581.0) was an attack either, a dirty trick from a pro-Cruz PAC yes, but not an attack. Ideally spouses and children are off limits but there are cases where a spouse's or a child's ACTIONS might be relevant (e.g., Clinton, Heidi Cruz as former Goldman-Sachs, etc.).
'Gimp
Post by: asechrest on March 24, 2016, 02:12:45 PM
That is 'an attack' on her appearance? Really?
The only bar that has been lowered is what constitutes an attack.
You think that's bad, just wait until he starts in on her being a Goldman-Sachs exec, etc.
What a bunch pf pansies, this is as bad as the special snowflakes terrified of chalkings.
'Gimp
I can't recall any candidate publically engaging in a contest of looks between his wife and another candidate's wife. Usually, the family is off limits. It's awfully slimy.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 24, 2016, 02:23:36 PM
We've had the bar lowered over the past eightfewyears.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 24, 2016, 02:24:34 PM
I can't recall any candidate publically engaging in a contest of looks between his wife and another candidate's wife. Usually, the family is off limits. It's awfully slimy.
Trump never starts a fight but he won't back down from one.
Post by: FastEddieB on March 24, 2016, 02:27:17 PM
Trump never starts a fight but he won't back down from one.
I honestly can"t tell - was that sarcasm?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 24, 2016, 02:52:38 PM
I honestly can"t tell - was that sarcasm?Nope. As far as I can remember, he doesn't take the first swing.
Post by: acrogimp on March 24, 2016, 03:05:03 PM
I honestly can"t tell - was that sarcasm?Probably referring to the Pro-Cruz PAC add that ran in Utah featuring Melania before she became Mrs. Trump in a provocative pose on a fur throw rug saying 'your next first lady?'
I have never wanted to be a fur throw rug so much my in my life BTW. Hubba hubba.
In other words, Trump didn't start it and unlike others he makes no discernment between the candidate and the PACs that, wink wink nudge nudge do not coordinate with any candidate or candidate's committee.
'Gimp
Post by: JeffDG on March 24, 2016, 03:29:54 PM
So, you suggest that Cruz violate federal law just because Trumpy doesn't understand that Cruz cannot direct a PAC to the Men's Room.
In other words, Trump didn't start it and unlike others he makes no discernment between the candidate and the PACs that, wink wink nudge nudge do not coordinate with any candidate or candidate's committee.
'Gimp
Post by: FastEddieB on March 24, 2016, 04:29:15 PM
Nope. As far as I can remember, he doesn't take the first swing.
How about the dig at Fiorina? "Look at that face".
Post by: JeffDG on March 24, 2016, 05:39:06 PM
How about the dig at Fiorina? "Look at that face".That doesn't count. She's a woman.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 24, 2016, 06:44:21 PM
So, you suggest that Cruz violate federal law just because Trumpy doesn't understand that Cruz cannot direct a PAC to the Men's Room.
I'll bet he could have found a way to get the message across without violating federal law had he desired to. Poor excuse IMHO. I guess The Cruzer just wanted a fight.
Post by: JeffDG on March 24, 2016, 06:48:11 PM
I'll bet he could have found a way to get the message across without violating federal law had he desired to. Poor excuse IMHO. I guess The Cruzer just wanted a fight.Yeah, following the law is such an outdated concept. We certainly must condemn candidates who do so.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 24, 2016, 07:08:49 PM
Yeah, following the law is such an outdated concept. We certainly must condemn candidates who do so.
So the law would stop him from saying, "Yeah I saw that ad and thought it was over the top"
Post by: LevelWing on March 24, 2016, 08:57:12 PM
Post by: FastEddieB on March 25, 2016, 05:02:02 AM
This is just getting petulant now.
pet·u·lant
ˈpeCHələnt/
adjective
(of a person or their manner) childishly sulky or bad-tempered.
"he was moody and petulant"
synonyms: peevish, bad-tempered, querulous, pettish, fretful, cross, irritable, sulky, snappish, crotchety, touchy, tetchy, testy, fractious, grumpy, disgruntled, crabby; More...
You're just noticing now???
Post by: Number7 on March 25, 2016, 06:50:21 AM
https://teespring.com/trump-supporters-riot
Post by: acrogimp on March 25, 2016, 06:54:38 AM
This sort of sums up the opinions of many not-Trump voters.And that is why they are losing.
https://teespring.com/trump-supporters-riot
The Alinski-ite tactics of the Left suck when they use them against those of on the Right, it is downright bullshit when some on the Right use them against others on the Right.
'Gimp
Post by: nddons on March 25, 2016, 07:35:08 AM
This is just getting petulant now.
What is getting petulant? Trump acting like an unpresidential immature idiot for ridiculing Cruz' wife for her looks, or me pointing it out?
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 25, 2016, 08:12:02 AM
Post by: Lucifer on March 25, 2016, 08:14:06 AM
Cruz could have headed it off at the pass had he chosen to. For whatever reason he chose not. Why is that?
He's desperate and behind. Throw anything against the wall and hope it sticks.
Post by: JeffDG on March 25, 2016, 08:24:11 AM
Cruz could have headed it off at the pass had he chosen to. For whatever reason he chose not. Why is that?Because "heading it off" would have been a violation of federal law.
Post by: nddons on March 25, 2016, 08:27:20 AM
Cruz could have headed it off at the pass had he chosen to. For whatever reason he chose not. Why is that?
It was a PAC ad. He can't coordinate with them whatsoever.
Post by: acrogimp on March 25, 2016, 08:35:51 AM
Cruz could have headed it off at the pass had he chosen to. For whatever reason he chose not. Why is that?In fairness to Cruz, he can have no official discussion with any PAC or SuperPAC - he could, if he wanted, make a blanket statement that he does not run that kind of campaign and that he does not want that kind of help and not run afoul of election law but he cannot have direct contact with any PAC or SuperPAC.
Given the atrocious behavior of his own campaign to date I think any PAC would assume he does support that kind of campaigning since he does it within his own campaign, preferring to beg forgiveness and offer up a sacrificial lamb but only when caught red-handed and if the public outcry is sufficient enough.
But make no mistake - this specific issue, the looks/behavior of a candidate's spouse was initiated against Trump by a pro-Cruz PAC with the ad in Utah, and that is what he is reacting to.
I think by taking it to Cruz (the benefactor if not sponsor of the ad) Trump may end up helping to improve the nature of non-campaign PAC/SuperPAC ads - I would prefer that he make more mention of the pro-Cruz PAC by name and call them out but he's going to do whatever he feels is right.
Again, I don't think that simple tweet was an attack on Mrs. Cruz but your mileage may vary.
And as I said before, ideally spouses and children ought to be off limits in a campaign unless their actions and behaviors are relevant. I think Trump (or Hillary if Cruz secures the nomination) will have tons of ammo against Cruz as a self-appointed outsider by bringing up his wife's tenure within the very banking community that was in part responsible for the Great Recession.
'Gimp
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 25, 2016, 08:55:31 AM
Because "heading it off" would have been a violation of federal law.
I'll await your link to what said violation would be Jeff.
Once again, "I saw that ad that was run and I feel it was in bad taste and certainly would not have done that myself." No specific mention of the PAC or direct contact with the PAC. For some reason "The Cruzer" couldn't do that, or wouldn't do that.
Post by: Little Joe on March 25, 2016, 09:06:58 AM
What is getting petulant? Trump acting like an unpresidential immature idiot for ridiculing Cruz' wife for her looks, or me pointing it out?Yes.
Post by: acrogimp on March 25, 2016, 09:08:17 AM
Yes.I almost made the same post. ;D
'Gimp
Post by: nddons on March 25, 2016, 09:24:47 AM
Yes.
I almost made the same post. ;D
'Gimp
Witty, witty men. ;)
Post by: LevelWing on March 25, 2016, 11:28:39 AM
What is getting petulant? Trump acting like an unpresidential immature idiot for ridiculing Cruz' wife for her looks, or me pointing it out?The race to the bottom between those two.