Hours After Trump Dropped Out of Fox News Debate, These Comments He Made in 2011 Surfaced

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/27/hours-after-trump-dropped-out-of-fox-news-debate-these-comments-he-made-in-2011-surfaced/ ^ | 27 Jan 16 | OLIVER DARCY

[jstaff]

But the polls don’t back up that statement. And since there are no votes cast between the two all we have is polls. And opinion.

[annieokie]

It really is. How can anyone keep up with his doublespeak, I will/I won't/maybe/I don't know, what do you think?/etc etc.

Trumps managers say this: """"Asked about Ted Cruz's call for a one-on-one debate before Monday's caucuses in Iowa, Lewandowski said the Texas senator's campaign was not the only one to reach out asking if they could participate in the Trump campaign's event for wounded warriors and veterans on Thursday night in Des Moines."""""

See the double speak? He turns Cruz's challenge for a one on one into meaning Cruz and others want to participate in Trumps campaign event for the VETS....HUH?

There are TWO subjects there: pick one Trump/if you can.

Trump says: I won't be at the Debate, then again I "MOST LIKELY won't""..Doublespeak again? Pick one Trump and stay with it. your just getting boring.

Now if Trump does go to the debates (which his "MOST LIKELY not", could also mean he will go.

So: now that he has said he will do the VET event, BUT goes to the Debate instead.....what a jerk.

Debate/Vet event.....Trump has just now boxed himself in.

Be a man Trump.....pick one. Being mad at or afraid Megan Kelly, shows a temperament not fit for the Presidency.

Mommy, she hit me...., make her stop...Trump you would have been laughed off the playground by the real boys.

[mtrott]

“If Fox or anyone had sent such a press release about Cruz, Cruzers like yourself would be just as pissed, and would be celebrating Cruz if he had been the one to skip the debate.”

BS. If my guy, Cruz, dropped out of a debate in a similar situation, I’d be looking for another candidate.

[2nd amendment mama]

In that same time frame he also donated heavily to Republicans. You're lying by omission. Very simple to do a search on FEC.gov to get the truth.

[SubMareener]

Let’s shift to the third dimension and see if the view is different. For starters, tell me what you learned about all the other candidates today.

Nothing?

Trump sucked the oxygen out of the room. Again. And the issue - as always - is something we can jabber about forever. It is jabber-ready by design, so the media and the public will have no time and no brain cycles left to consider his competition.

Admit it - you already think the competition on the Republican side has narrowed to Trump versus Trump. If he stumbles, he loses. If he doesn’t, he wins. But the other candidates and all of their money will not change anything. The presidency is 100% in Trump’s hands to win or lose.

And he hasn’t stumbled (in the 3rd dimension of persuasion) in six months of continuous media attention.

Now keep in mind that one of Trump’s signature moves involves creating situations in which he has two or more paths to win, and no paths to lose. He wins AT THE START by picking his battles.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138125409321/trump-fox-news-and-megyn-kelly-explained-master

[annieokie]

He will go......He won't go....He "most likely won't got"

He will go to a Veteran Event, or He won't go to a Veteran event because he has not made up his mind if he "Most Likely" will not go to the Debate."

My head is spinning, but not as much as Trumps mouth.

Trump you are boxed in: Go to the debate and disappoint all the Veterans, or admit you are a coward and "Most likely won't go to face Kelly" and attend the other Event.

The other event by the way IS NOT the one on one debate that Cruz has challenged you to, but your manager seems to think it is. OMG and ROFL..........

[FourtySeven]

Elhombrelibre posted some damning evidence of (another) Trump flip flop but you posted some pretty convincing evidence justifying his flip flop here. That must be acknowledged.

With that said, Trump has some mighty flip-flops in his recent past that simply can’t be justified without conceding they are done for purposes of convenience. That can’t be denied either. At least not reasonably. Perhaps the most egregious example of late is his treatment/words for Cruz now as opposed to last year, when they stood shoulder to shoulder opposing the Iran deal on the steps of the Capitol building. I’m sure he had some glowing things to say about Cruz then, only a short 3 months (or so) ago as opposed to now.

I’m really starting to reconsider my view of him as a solid second pick in the primary. For his recent liberalism (not comparable to Reagan, who converted decades before he ran) and again for his recent support of Cruz, he could t be more naked in his opportunism. This simply must be acknowledged and accepted when/if one votes for him. I’m starting to think we may not be getting what we think if we vote for him in the primary.

I just can’t see any of the others being even close to comparable. At least Trump doesn’t take the usual media crap the pinheaded leftists there try to give him. That’s about the only stellar thing I can say about the man at this point, when compared to the other Republicans.

The question is (for me at least) is that enough to justify supporting him (should he defeat Cruz)?

[CrosscutSaw]

Anyone can search my posting history to see that is not true at all.

Posting false innuendos about me doesn’t help your position at all. You’re just like your idol Trump. You resort to personal attacks even though they are not based in truth.

Trump shouldn’t be upset that when he tells lies about others, someone will tell the truth about him. Don’t be like Trump.

[ObozoMustGo2012]

[BS. If my guy, Cruz, dropped out of a debate in a similar situation, I’d be looking for another candidate.]

So you prefer your candidates to be like monkeys on a string, and play nice and get along?? Be cuckolded like the little weak sissies they are??

Sorry, I prefer a candidate who has the balls to walk away when he senses a set up (see posts re: Muslim audience member), and when HE can control the narrative!

[Political Junkie Too]

My first page of posting history goes back to December. Yours goes back to 2012. Your second page goes back to 2004; mine goes back to October.

We are all on the lookout for old IDs with infrequent activity that show up at election time only to disparage one or another candidate. You seem to be living only in the Trump threads.

-PJ

[elhombrelibre]

I’d be ashamed of any candidate unwilling to show up for the debate under the circumstance Trump is using. I remember he said to Megyn Kelly, when Trump was going to moderate a NEWSMAX debate and some candidates didn’t want to show up, that the candidates are supposed to be brave. Of course, Trump does 180’s on everything. This is the advantage of an opportunist, like him. He has not fixed ideas or principles. He merely says what suits him in the moment.

[elhombrelibre]

Oh, how convenient. He’s Saul. He’s born again; he and his two Corinthians can now walk into a bar together?

[elhombrelibre]

He’s the biggest baby to ever enter presidential politics, and, of course, he’s never been elected to anything but has to start at the top.

[Catsrus]

You do know this has been debunked, don’t you? He has alwaqys been a registered Republican.

[MD Expat in PA]

You do know this has been debunked, don't you? He has alwaqys been a registered Republican.

No. It wasn't debunked. Some blogger thought he or she had but was very sloppy in their research, assuming that the R in the column "voter type" stood for Republican. It doesn't. Furthermore, if Trump had always been a registered Republican, I would have expected him to come out with a denial to those saying he's changed party registration several times. Crickets.

See page 32 of this 2013 Annual Report from the Board of Elections - The City of New York:

http://vote.nyc.ny.us/downloads/pdf/documents/boe/AnnualReports/BOEAnnualReport13.pdf

In the column Voter Type, the R stands for Regular Voter as opposed to: E-Special; F-Federal; H-R(Mail Address); M-Military; O-Overseas or P-Permanent Absentee. I am not sure what all those designations mean but none of them have to do with party registration. Military, Overseas and Permanent Absentee are fairly obvious, but I can't find any keys or designations for the others. But it has nothing to do with party registration at the time the vote was cast.

Ballot Type would be R for Regular or A for Absentee.

On the voting record print out, the registration date is the date the person first registered to vote in Manhattan (and Trump has said that prior to 1987 he was registered in Queens), and the Enrollment, i.e. Republican, would indicate the voter's party registration at the time the printout was made.

[reegs]

Yet another Trump supporter with an unhealthy fixation on Donald’s balls. This over-the-top bravado and posturing reeks of desperation and fan-boi crush.

[CrosscutSaw]

My first page of posting history goes back to December. Yours goes back to 2012. Your second page goes back to 2004; mine goes back to October. We are all on the lookout for old IDs with infrequent activity that show up at election time only to disparage one or another candidate.

Sorry I have a life and don't spend all my time posting on internet message boards. I have been posting quite a bit more recently since Trump started trying to personally destroy Ted Cruz, a solid conservative, and I can't just sit back silently without calling him out.

I see a phony narcissist trying to con his way to the Oval Office while trying to slander and personally destroy a sincere conservative warrior like Cruz and anyone else who dares challenge or disagree with him, and I've had enough.

Even so, you originally stated that I havent posted since 2012 which is an outright lie, since I've posted in 2013, 2014 and 2015 as well as this year. I've been here since 2002 and I have been posting ever since. I don't however spend my whole life on the internet.

So like Trump since you can't dispute the message you try to falsely discredit the message.

[Political Junkie Too]

So I generalized a little. You posted here and there, but not with the recent Trump intensity. Like I said, we're on the lookout. If you are a genuine poster and not a disrupter, then I apologize for the insinuation.

If you're not a regular contributor here, but only a casual poster when events urge you to it, then perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to hurl comments like "lie" and "idol" around. If you were here regularly, you would know my positions and temperament.

-PJ

[CrosscutSaw]

I have to admit that Trump motivated me to start posting here a lot more recently.

Whenever any major news occurs, be it political or just current events I always stop by FR to see what people here are saying about it because being conservative I want to hear other conservative viewpoints which you don’t get in the news media. In fact sometimes I hear news first on FR before I hear about it anywhere else.

Usually I don’t feel a need to post any comments because usually my point of view is already represented by a large number of posters anyway.

But in recent weeks I’ve been outraged at the personal attacks on Ted Cruz by Donald Trump. If he wants to say Cruz shouldn’t be president because he was born in Canada, fine. Reasonable people can disagree but the fact is cruz was born in Canada.

If he wants to call out Cruz for failing to report a loan on the proper form, again that’s legit. People can accept or reject Cruzs explanation.

But then Trump starts saying things like Cruz is owned by the banks - give him money and he will do whatever you want (I saw him say this). He starts calling Cruz names - he is a nasty person, nobody likes him, he looks like a jerk, he is worse than Hillary, he is a liar he is the same as Obama. And all because Cruz has the audacity to challenge Trump on things Trump has actually said or did in the past.

Not content with disputing with Cruz on the issues, he wants to personally destroy his reputation in such a way that if Trump’s accusations stick in the mind of the public, Cruz will be so damaged that he will never be able to serve in public office again.

Then I come to FR, the premiere conservative site and half of the people here are cheering on the personal destruction of not only Cruz but any conservative who dares disagree with Trump.

I believe Ted Cruz is the best candidate running for president and has been a consistent advocate for the constitution and conservativism and I disdain Trump for what he has been doing.

[Political Junkie Too]

This is a good post; it isn't a drive-by shooting at others.

I came here for the same reasons in 2000, and haven't left since finding it. I signed up the day after the Bush-Gore election and have been pontificating even since. :-)

My earliest statements about Cruz and Trump from last summer were basically that 1) Trump fights while the GOPe cowers and we need a fighter, 2) Cruz has too many enemies to win.

Expanding on Cruz, I wrote that he'd be better off staying in the Senate because he may not make it through a Senate confirmation for a Cabinet position with McConnell in control. That was before McConnell refused to allow a McCain-like resolution on Cruz' eligibility. For me, that confirms that McConnell would interfere with a Cruz confirmation, making the VP slot the only other non-confirmation choice for Cruz. Since the VP is a largely ceremonial position, Cruz would be more effective in the Senate as an agent for a President Trump.

Personally, I've been in the camp that a natural born citizen is a child of two citizen parents. I'm on the fence as to where the child is born, but not to both parents being citizens. That rules out Obama and Cruz with single citizen parents, and Jindal and Rubio as anchor babies with no citizen parents.

Expanding on Trump, I believe that his wealth does innoculate him from a lot of what ruins people in Washington. He really is beholden to nobody. I believe that he is sincere in trying to fix the country, even if he sees that as making better deals that don't give away the store as our starting position, stopping unregulated immigration, restarting domestic manufacturing and the jobs that go with it, restoring a market-based health care system, returning power to states regarding education and maybe other things, and fixing veteran affairs.

I contrast that with people like the Clintons, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, and Feinstein, who used their positions to grow their family wealth at the expense of the country; and Boehner, McConnell, Lott, the Doles, Hatch, McCain, and Graham, who just want to keep their power at the expense of the country.

One perhaps unfair comparison I will make is that the currently richest President we ever had was George Washington. Washington married his wealth while Trump earned his, but that wealth might have been a motivating factor when he retired from the military, and again when he declined to run for a third term when he was elected by acclamation. I'm not suggest ing that Trump is the next Washington, but I am comparing his personal wealth as a motivator to do what he said he wants to do out of love of country, and then leave.

-PJ