Posted on 03/23/2016 9:13:08 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Ted Cruz spoke to Chris Cuomo this morning on CNN about the Twitter battle that took place between the two of them last night on Western Tuesday. This is what he had to say:
TRANSCRIPT
Cruz: But what Donald did last night, and listen, you’re in New York, you’ve seen this a lot. When Donald gets scared, when he gets angry, when he’s threatened, he begins yelling, he begins screaming, he begins often cursing, and he begins trying to be a bully. So last night Donald threatened my wife, he went directly after my wife. And I gotta tell you, number one- Heidi, my wife, she’s the daughter of missionaries in Africa, she’s my best friend in the world, and if Donald wants to get in a character fight, he’s better off sticking with me because Heidi is way out of his league. But it is also– it reveals a lot about character, it reveals a lot about class, that Donald’s instinct is to try to attack my wife and sully her. And you know what, that should be beneath Donald. But you know Chris, the reason he’s doing that? Is because he had a very bad night last night. He got clobbered in Utah. Remember Donald campaigned in Utah, he tried to win in Utah, and he got blown out of the water. And he is seeing Republican uniting behind our campaign.
He’s not wrong.
Watch video...
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Wait till Trump goes after Cruz’s kids and we get lectured why that’s OK too!
To no one in particular - was reading the comments on the yahoo story about this. I just had to laugh at the first part of this comment.
BEST NEWS ABOUT MELANIA WE KNOW TRUMP WILL NOT USE WHITE HOUSE INTERNS AS A HUMIDOR. HE HAS A BEAUTIFUL, SWEET WIFE.
Here’s an idea: Don’t run ads calling Trump’s wife a whore.
<><><><<>
You’ve clearly seen an ad I havent seen.
That being said, it is not unusual on this site to read that those who pose for money in the nude are whores.
What’s different this time is that the one who posed in the nude for money is a GOP candidate’s wife. Now somebody’s ox is getting gored.
I don’t go for unproven defamation. The moniker “Lyin’ Ted” is just a popular mythology built on a shaky foundation of misinformation mixed with bias, and I am disappointed someone of your accomplishment feels the need to use it.
Furthermore, if you cannot distinguish between an employee hiding her shady past and a prospective First Lady volunteering to have the world see her naked, then I suppose we are at a place past words. I cannot imagine a person of your intelligence being unable to make that distinction. It flummoxes me. The one is a world apart from the other.
The question about “thick heads” is interesting. Very often, when a witness refuses to change their story, even when it hurts them, it is because they really believe it is true. Ted saw the Iowa event for what it was, staffers taking a reasonable inference and getting it wrong. Nothing in that event, at all, suggests Ted engaged in deliberate deception. Errors in judgment do happen. Ted tried to apologize for the event multiple times, but was rebuffed. My theory on why he was not “forgiven” is that he did not himself perpetrate any lie, so he couldn’t confess to a crime he hadn’t committed. After that, it was all about smearing him into the ground with weak arguments from innuendo. No smoking gun proof ever that he deceived anyone intentionally. Yet now here, I cannot go five minutes through a political thread without this nonsense cluttering what should be reasoned debate over the difference in substance between a life long conservative and a life long dem lib running as a “probationary conservative.” May God in Heaven have mercy on us all.
Peace,
SR
I am trying to understand the latest issue. It seems a non affiliated PAC ran an unfair and sleazy ad about candidate one who then personally threatened to spill the beans on the wife of candidate two. Candidate two then told candidate one he had nothing to do with the ad and to leave his wife alone.
Candidate two is now being criticized by supporters of candidate one because he did not denounce the unaffiliated PAC although candidate one did not denounce the PAC himself but rather focused on the wife of candidate two. Supporters of candidate two use the logical argument form to present their argument while supporters of candidate one use the ad hominem argument form in their presentation. Neither side appears to be listing to or making any headway with the other and the democrats are encouraging both.
It is certainly a good thing the election is not decided on this forum. Hopefully sanity will set in before the general election.
So you’re demanding that he prove a negative? How does that work? Does he show you an empty outgoing mailbox?
Sorry bud but that’s not how accusations work. If you want to accuse someone, then prove it. Don’t make an accusation without evidence and demand someone prove you wrong. That’s something a Clinton hack would do.
It is NOT “Ted’s PAC.”
To say it *is* his PAC is an outright lie.
“... when a sleazeball uses his friends to attack a man’s wife ...”
First, Ted Cruz had *nothing* to do with the ad.
Second, apparently the ad includes an image of Trump’s wife, an image that appeared in a publicly available magazine, an image that she posed for.
You go ahead and base your vote on an unethical, immoral, and unprincipled “businessman”.
I’ll base my decision on where the candidates actually stand on the issues.
You know what issues are, right? So believing in a candidate that has a strong stand on the issues is something to be ashamed of?
Is any issue important enough for you to take a stand on, is it all based upon being against the establishment?
If you want a truly anti-establishment candidate who has actually walked the walk didn’t just become a Donnie come lately yesterday, you need to vote for Cruz. Donnie has done nothing but support liberal cause and liberal candidates his entire life, including members of the Gang of Eight.
BTW, if you think Ducking Donnie’s not throwing you a bunch of candy, you’re blind.
Are you aware of Donnie’s position on amnesty, June 2015, July 2015, and February 2016? Didn’t think so, because it’s too hard to keep track of all the positions he’s taken.
That’s what a politician is, pal.
Wake up...
“CapitalistCrusader
Since Feb 26, 2016”
You don’t make statements you can’t prove.......
Cruz blames all those donors surrounding him who he just cannot control.
Trump is honorable, Cruz is not.
Someone who is supposedly “presidential” doesn’t ever make threats about another candidate’s family. That is nasty, gutless, classless, and cowardly.
Period.
End of story...
If that isn’t clear to you, I can’t help you.
“Yet now here, I cannot go five minutes through a political thread without this nonsense cluttering what should be reasoned debate over the difference in substance between a life long conservative and a life long dem lib running as a “probationary conservative.” May God in Heaven have mercy on us all.”
Obviously, there is no real debate on the issues. If the Trumbots truly were to talk about the issues, their candidate doesn’t look real good.
It’s a lot easier to sully reputations.
But when Cruz started with his pitiful attempts at attacks and began to buddy up to the establishment pricks in Washington, I lost most respect for the man...
THAT'S what a “politician” is...You need to open your eyes....
The Trump cult is strong. Just as strong as the Obama cult.
While not conceding your argument, I ask how is this any different or any more disqualifying than Mr. Trump’s assertion that he supported democrats and liberal policy because it was good for his business. Mrs. Cruz was an employee and was obviously interested in her advancement just as Mr. Trump was. Between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Cruz, only one is a candidate for president.
Wasn’t it the Ted campaign surrogates that initiated the wife issue?
Too much has already been written about Ted's lies for me to bother rehashing it here. Compilations of the most important 20 or so are freely available and recent threads have featured lists with links.
Suffice it to say that the pretzel shaped husks of Cruz supporters litter the FR landscape from trying to defend:
Unreported loans which are in violation of statutes and covered up to craft an election platform
The irregular contribution history from foreign nationals and over individual limits
A lawyer who doesn't know the campaign laws and doesn't seek competent help
A lawyer who doesn't know he is a Canadian citizen and who seals the documents of his naturalization
An open boarder advocate for 500% increase in H1B visas who is now strong on restricting immigration, but went to the border with Teddy bears
A man who steps aside whenever his campaign or a PAC does something shady while masquerading as a moral man and sincere Christian
A man who misquotes and straight out lies about his opponents
A man who helped land us with a treaty making it easier for our national sovereignty to be given away by Obama or the next globalist.
I think you would like to have the dialog about "a life long conservative and a life long dem lib running as a “probationary conservative" but the facts about the men involved get in your way not other freepers "thick heads".
“But when Cruz started with his pitiful attempts at attacks and began to buddy up to the establishment pricks in Washington, I lost most respect for the man...”
That dirty rascal Cruz! Yeah. He even compared Ben Carson to a pedophile and called him sick... Oops, that wasn’t him that was Ducking Donnie!
Yeah. Spare me with the holier than thou attitude. As you stated, you’ve been Trump first all along.
BTW, I somehow doubt Donnie will ever reject the support of any “establishment pricks”. In fact, I think he’s going to have to cozy up to them to win a contested convention.
Please spare me the platitudes about this.
I’m sure you’ll have no problem with Trump getting support from whomever he gets it from, as long as he gets elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.