Donald Trump To Dine With Ted Cruz At The White House Wednesday Night

dailycaller.com ^ | 03/07/2017

[dragnet2]

I have supported him upon his nomination and thereafter when he adhered to conservative principles.

After you attempted to discredit and undermine him over and over? You have bad judgment nate. If everyone had thought like you, we'd have President Hillary Clinton, right now, orchestrating this very corrupt government. What a sight~

[dragnet2]

No, no, I asked first. You threw out the comment, lets see it.

And what do you think this is, a game show where I have to qualify to get you to back up your own comment?

lol.

[RedWulf]

>1) I amfornot a never Trumper and I have never been a never Trumper. I have supported him upon his nomination and thereafter when he adhered to conservative principles. Therefore, I neither admit nor deny lies which might or might not have been uttered by other people.

You repeat #nevertrumper lies. Birds of a feather.

>2) of course there were protesters, it is foolish to deny that they were protesters.

People paid to protest are actors, not protestors. Duh.

>>they’re paid agitators

>3) you imply that they were all were agitators which any sensible person would deny. The evidence is of course, that some were paid agitators.

Sensible how? The protests dispersed the moment that Bob Creamer was exposed as paying for them. If they where not paid for then protests would have continued but they did not. QED, they’re all paid protestors.

Arguing that at least one might not have been paid, (of course you offer no proof to that affect) doesn’t help your case.

>>who were paid to start violence

>4) again, someone somewhere no doubt acted pro bono.

Prove it. All the evidence we have points to them being paid.

>Unlike supporters of Trump today respecting his position on the healthcare bill, I will abandon Cruz when he abandons conservatism.

Then you should have abandon Cruz when he supported Hillary Clinton for president at the GOP convention by stabbing us in the back.

>6) I do not have Cruz’ words in transcript form before me but my recollection is that he was criticizing Trump for his violent language rather than defending the protesters.

Good conservatives where beaten by paid agitators and Cruz thought it was a good idea to give the those agitators cover? How ever “Conservative” of him.

>and (B) Cruz defended all the protesters.

Cruz gave them cover by attacking Trump. Actual Conservatives saw it that way, you do not. I submit that you don’t feel any loyalty to fellow conservatives and only care about ideology.

[sargon]

The responsibility is with the Rinos and with Trump who overpromised

The President didn't overpromise.

This bill will probably not go through in its present form.

That's what I've been saying all week. Hence the unwarranted panic.

The President is going to deliver what he promised on healthcare. He's going to see to it that his voters get the reform they want—the reform he ran on.

As you've done all along, you're underestimating the President again...

[sargon]

So according to [nb], Cruz was right, it was Trump who encouraged all violence all this organized violence at his rallies?

That's what the Dems and NeverTrumpers believe.

There you go again, nb, reaching way back to take a swipe at Donald Trump—and a phony, slanted swipe, at that.

No Establishment campaign canard is too ridiculous for you to recycle, is it?

Your warped perception of Donald Trump is based on a caricature that doesn't in fact exist. Your "evidence" does not "prove" your propagandist thesis...

[dragnet2]

Yep. Maybe some folks don’t quite understand, but when you see union style mass violence and destruction, over politics, it’s a safe bet it’s very organized and funded. This certainly was the case for the Trump era.

[Churchillspirit]

Amen.

[Lakeshark]

You most certainly can see my proof when you commit for just one reply to be intellectually honest.

You haven't been intellectually honest for a year or maybe more.

You've disgraced yourself here. We all know it, unfortunately you won't ever look in the mirror and admit it.

You are, quite simply, the most disingenuous a hole on this forum.

You should have stayed banned, or at least given us all the opportunity to not have to see your stupid ass fake picture for a few years. Maybe you can sell your arguments to the stupid Germans you seem to hang out with so much.

[nathanbedford]

Sargon, you have your facts wrong. I did not "reach back" I was responding to a swipe against Cruz in which it was alleged that he was not a real conservative because he had supported paid disruptors over Trump.

You repeat this conclusion by another FReeper which is wholly contrary to the very point I made, that there is no way of telling how many disruptors were paid or whether all were paid:

So according to [nb], Cruz was right, it was Trump who encouraged all violence all this organized violence at his rallies?

The portion which you quote is a wholly distorted version of what I said and to join in a childish trick so easily debunked like that is beneath you so I assume you have not read the whole exchange. Read the exchange please.

In fact, the record shows Trump made a dozen or more comments approving of violence. Ted Cruz was quite properly reacting to the over-the-top rhetoric of Donald Trump. Google it if you do not believe me.

As to LakeSnipe, his latest gratuitous intervention is utterly without any factual support whatsoever. He has been a stalker for nearly a year and he is a contemptible cheap shot artist who emerges from the dark with the moon but he cannot engage above the level of personal invective.

[nathanbedford]

The President didn't overpromise.

My contention is that Donald Trump overpromised during the campaign when he promised to retain all of the expensive features of Obama care, such as pre-existing illness, and reduce premiums etc.. That circle cannot be squared except by dipping deeper into the treasury and accelerating the fiscal reckoning which is looming on our horizon.

Contrary to Doughty One, I have criticized the "Rinos" along with Donald Trump for crafting a replacement bill which is simply not a conservative bill. Doughty One agrees with that assessment of the current bill but makes the point that if we do not support Trump we risk disparaging his administration and therefore we risk the most dire consequences for the country. I believe he misunderstood what I said which was that that argument, which I had heard made the day before by Newt Gingrich on Hannity, had merit.

I think the alternative argument also has merit, indeed more merit, to the effect that we dare not institutionalize the flaws of the original Obama care and inflict the reckoning on the next generation. If we do not fix this bill we will suffer the political consequences for a failure and we will divide the party, separating conservatives from Rinos because of this issue. We will achieve the opposite result which was intended by congressional Rinos when they surrendered to the moderates concerning the contents of this bill which was to win the next election.

Within the context of criticizing the bill I deny that it is somehow improper to observe that the problem has been partially caused by Trump with his overpromising. We can examine whether I am correct that he overpromised but that is not a function of animus on my part against Donald Trump. It is an observation of reality, or not. His promises concerning the main features of this bill are what got us to this point because he retains the goodies and eliminates the pain of paying for them.

What then should we do considering our present dilemma? I have long been arguing that Obama care was doomed, we all seem to agree that is doomed and will implode, let it implode, do not take this tar baby from the Democrats and embrace it ourselves. Failing that, we must correct the present bill and that cannot be done unless we make our opinions known. Trying to save Trump's presidency, which I understand Doughty one equates with success on this bill, is not attained with the bill in its current form. It must be fixed. Once the bill is fixed, the administration can go on to the very important work we all hope will be accomplished to drain the swamp.

If the Trump presidency is at risk,as I understand Doughty one to have said he believes it is, it is not at risk because of me but because of Rinos and because the bill is fundamentally flawed-a condition with which Dowdy One is in agreement.

I have been accused of aligning with the Rinos on this which is a preposterous charge that stands reality on its head. I have been accused by Dowdy One of failing to criticize Speaker Ryan for his contribution to this dilemma but that is exactly whom Trump is giving his full throated support to. Trump has aligned himself on this issue at least with the Rinos of the House and the Senate who have produced a bill embracing Trump's promises. All as I pointed out in my reply explicitly criticizing these Rinos. Evidently, what was written was not read or not understood.

Further to agree with Doughty One, I observed that there was a chance to work out a better bill. That it was folly not to engage on a political forum now out of some misguided belief that Trump cannot be criticized when he is in the wrong. That is why I said we should engage now, improve the bill, even if it subjects us to criticism for having a divided party, in effect, let us "make sausage in public."

I think both of you gentlemen are guilty of not carefully reading what I wrote, selectively reading it, and selectively reacting.

[Lakeshark]

In fact, the record shows Trump made a dozen or more comments approving of violence.

Hiding behind that silly avatar has made you dumber than I thought possible. I stand behind what I said: You are the most disingenuous and embarrassing fraud on the board, and there you go again.

And everyone here knows it.

Rather than hide your head in shame for your stupidity you keep saying stupid things.

Implying Trump is responsible for the violence that was ginned up against him by the left, purposely, consistently, and professionally, is as stupid as when you tried to convince us all that he couldn't win based on polls last winter.

[dragnet2]

That's what the Dems and NeverTrumpers believe.

Exactly correct. It's a page right out of leftist playbook. Like Trump currently, the posers, frauds and betrayers are ever present.

[sargon]

I am familiar with precisely the rhetoric which you have referred to by Donald Trump, and I reject your characterization of it, as I did Ted Cruz's.

The accusation that Donald Trump made comments "approving of violence" were and are hysterical.

[DoughtyOne]

My contention is that Donald Trump overpromised during the campaign when he promised to retain all of the expensive features of Obama care, such as pre-existing illness, and reduce premiums etc.. That circle cannot be squared except by dipping deeper into the treasury and accelerating the fiscal reckoning which is looming on our horizon.

On that I can agree. It is problematic. I don't have an answer for it. Other than simply saying, "Okay, all you folks with pre-existings, just go someplace and die.", I don't know a fix here. In this instance it was over-promising. I don't think he did it simply to get elected. I think he was merely trying to look out for folks who are less lucky than others. He can be criticized for this, but I don't think any of us are pleased with this conundrum.

Contrary to Doughty One, I have criticized the "Rinos" along with Donald Trump for crafting a replacement bill which is simply not a conservative bill.

You know as well as I do that Trump was not involved with crafting this bill. Ryan and his cronies in the House crafted this bill.

Doughty One agrees with that assessment of the current bill...

No he doesn't, as detailing above. Further...

Trump was not involved in the crafting of this bill. Ryan and his cronies in the House came up with it. Other Republicans are very opposed to this bill. Trump did voice support for this bill. Was that real support thinking it was likely to pass, or was it a feign to let Ryan go out and hang himself. This could be a way of rendering Ryan powerless, discredited for the duration. This may be seen as forgiving Trump anything. In truth it's simply a recognition that he is such a strategic game player, that it isn't out of the question that he knew exactly what he was doing here. The bill as proposed does not reflect Trump's promises. I think there's a very good chance he knew that and wanted to watch it get trashed and gutted without him being blamed for it. Why? Because if he was blamed for it, many people who favored this version would have dug in their heels when a more "Trump ideological" bill was brought up for support. I don't honestly know which of these is closer to the truth.

I believe he misunderstood what I said which was that that argument, which I had heard made the day before by Newt Gingrich on Hannity, had merit.

Okay, I did misunderstand you. When I read that, I thought the tail end was said in a sarcastic vent. I appreciate the correction.

Trying to save Trump's presidency, which I understand Doughty one equates with success on this bill, is not attained with the bill in its current form. It must be fixed. Once the bill is fixed, the administration can go on to the very important work we all hope will be accomplished to drain the swamp.

I do not equate the passage of this bill in it's current form to saving Trump's presidency, and I have corrected you on that point previously. It is my belief that passage of this bill in it's current form would be a lasting blemish on Trump's presidency.

In addition, I don't think the Ryancare bill is fixable. Something more on the order of what the Paul group is pushing will have to advance and be passed.

Here I need to go back and touch on something again. Referencing this bill as something Trump help craft is a massive mistake. It hangs a label around his neck that is not warranted. It's tantamount to starting to call it Trumpcare. While this looks like defense of Trump, it is much more than that. It is the defense of the viability of Conservatism marching forward in this administration to the end of Trump's four year term.

When the media can, it will start printing articles far and wide, that the Democrats saw Trump for what he was right off the bat. The majority of Republicans soon saw him that way too. And then the Conservatives woke up to that reality.

When the media can print that and advance that thought with evidence, such as criticizing Trump for crafting this bill, Trump will have a very hard time getting support from any quarter. A certain number of Conservatives will have peeled off. You have become a sterling example of that.

You MUST stop it.

Trash Ryan and his allies in the House who came up with this boondoggle all you like. I want you to. This bill mustn't become law. Keep Trump out of it. If you want our values to flourish during this administration, you have to protect the only guy capable of gifting that to us.

Quit saying he helped craft it. Good grief. Bud, you're playing right into the hands of the Left here.

I have been accused of aligning with the Rinos on this which is a preposterous charge that stands reality on its head.

Are you capable of grasping that the RINOs in the House want to neuter Trump? By attributing Trump to be one of the crafters of this bill, what are you playing into? By calling it Trump's bill, which you did in a previous post, what are you doing except tarnishing Trump to the maximum extent you could?

I called you on this Leftist tactic, because I saw it for exactly what it was. You either did it on purpose, or you simply didn't grasp what you were involved in.

Quit attributing this bill to Trump. I don't like that he voiced support for it, but it is Ryan's bill. Ryan is our enemy. Trump is not our enemy. He may get it wrong on some things, but we don't destroy the golden goose because it lays one lead egg every 35th try.

I have been accused by Dowdy One of failing to criticize Speaker Ryan for his contribution to this dilemma but that is exactly whom Trump is giving his full throated support to.

If it's full throated, meaning there could be no room for anything else, why did Trump have a number of Conservatives into the Oval Office to hear differing opinions? Oh..., that's right. He couldn't. Why did Jim DeMint report that Trump had been very receptive to his and other Conservative's concerns, if Trump was all-in on Ryancare?

Trump has aligned himself on this issue at least with the Rinos of the House and the Senate who have produced a bill embracing Trump's promises.

Except in that it doesn't end Obamacare. LOL

You got hung by your own argument there.

It didn't embrace Trump's promises did it.

All as I pointed out in my reply explicitly criticizing these Rinos. Evidently, what was written was not read or not understood.

Evidently you haven't read or understood your own posts them.

In them you have referred to this bill as "Trump's bill", and "...the bill Trump helped craft...". None the less you frame your criticism as if it was directed at Ryan and the RINOs in the House. LOL You need to read your own posts.

Further to agree with Doughty One, I observed that there was a chance to work out a better bill. That it was folly not to engage on a political forum now out of some misguided belief that Trump cannot be criticized when he is in the wrong. That is why I said we should engage now, improve the bill, even if it subjects us to criticism for having a divided party, in effect, let us "make sausage in public."

I saw what you were making in public. It wasn't sausage. It was a trail of NeverTrump droppings.

Okay, so we didn't flush twice.

I think both of you gentlemen are guilty of not carefully reading what I wrote, selectively reading it, and selectively reacting.

Only you know what you are thinking when you are writing. We don't. All we can do is read your words and agree or disagree.

I have disagreed on quite a bit of it. I have tried to address the issues you raised. You seem to thank that is so unfair.

I don't.

[DoughtyOne]

My contention is that Donald Trump overpromised during the campaign when he promised to retain all of the expensive features of Obama care, such as pre-existing illness, and reduce premiums etc.. That circle cannot be squared except by dipping deeper into the treasury and accelerating the fiscal reckoning which is looming on our horizon.

On that I can agree. It is problematic. I don't have an answer for it. Other than simply saying, "Okay, all you folks with pre-existings, just go someplace and die.", I don't know a fix here. In this instance it was over-promising. I don't think he did it simply to get elected. I think he was merely trying to look out for folks who are less lucky than others. He can be criticized for this, but I don't think any of us are pleased with this conundrum.

Contrary to Doughty One, I have criticized the "Rinos" along with Donald Trump for crafting a replacement bill which is simply not a conservative bill.

You know as well as I do that Trump was not involved with crafting this bill. Ryan and his cronies in the House crafted this bill.

Doughty One agrees with that assessment of the current bill...

No he doesn't, as detailing above. Further...

Trump was not involved in the crafting of this bill. Ryan and his cronies in the House came up with it. Other Republicans are very opposed to this bill. Trump did voice support for this bill. Was that real support thinking it was likely to pass, or was it a feign to let Ryan go out and hang himself. This could be a way of rendering Ryan powerless, discredited for the duration. This may be seen as forgiving Trump anything. In truth it's simply a recognition that he is such a strategic game player, that it isn't out of the question that he knew exactly what he was doing here. The bill as proposed does not reflect Trump's promises. I think there's a very good chance he knew that and wanted to watch it get trashed and gutted without him being blamed for it. Why? Because if he was blamed for it, many people who favored this version would have dug in their heels when a more "Trump ideological" bill was brought up for support. I don't honestly know which of these is closer to the truth.

I believe he misunderstood what I said which was that that argument, which I had heard made the day before by Newt Gingrich on Hannity, had merit.

Okay, I did misunderstand you. When I read that, I thought the tail end was said in a sarcastic vent. I appreciate the correction.

Trying to save Trump's presidency, which I understand Doughty one equates with success on this bill, is not attained with the bill in its current form. It must be fixed. Once the bill is fixed, the administration can go on to the very important work we all hope will be accomplished to drain the swamp.

I do not equate the passage of this bill in it's current form to saving Trump's presidency, and I have corrected you on that point previously. It is my belief that passage of this bill in it's current form would be a lasting blemish on Trump's presidency.

In addition, I don't think the Ryancare bill is fixable. Something more on the order of what the Paul group is pushing will have to advance and be passed.

Here I need to go back and touch on something again. Referencing this bill as something Trump help craft is a massive mistake. It hangs a label around his neck that is not warranted. It's tantamount to starting to call it Trumpcare. While this looks like defense of Trump, it is much more than that. It is the defense of the viability of Conservatism marching forward in this administration to the end of Trump's four year term.

When the media can, it will start printing articles far and wide, that the Democrats saw Trump for what he was right off the bat. The majority of Republicans soon saw him that way too. And then the Conservatives woke up to that reality.

When the media can print that and advance that thought with evidence, such as criticizing Trump for crafting this bill, Trump will have a very hard time getting support from any quarter. A certain number of Conservatives will have peeled off. You have become a sterling example of that.

You MUST stop it.

Trash Ryan and his allies in the House who came up with this boondoggle all you like. I want you to. This bill mustn't become law. Keep Trump out of it. If you want our values to flourish during this administration, you have to protect the only guy capable of gifting that to us.

Quit saying he helped craft it. Good grief. Bud, you're playing right into the hands of the Left here.

I have been accused of aligning with the Rinos on this which is a preposterous charge that stands reality on its head.

Are you capable of grasping that the RINOs in the House want to neuter Trump? By attributing Trump to be one of the crafters of this bill, what are you playing into? By calling it Trump's bill, which you did in a previous post, what are you doing except tarnishing Trump to the maximum extent you could?

I called you on this Leftist tactic, because I saw it for exactly what it was. You either did it on purpose, or you simply didn't grasp what you were involved in.

Quit attributing this bill to Trump. I don't like that he voiced support for it, but it is Ryan's bill. Ryan is our enemy. Trump is not our enemy. He may get it wrong on some things, but we don't destroy the golden goose because it lays one lead egg every 35th try.

I have been accused by Dowdy One of failing to criticize Speaker Ryan for his contribution to this dilemma but that is exactly whom Trump is giving his full throated support to.

If it's full throated, meaning there could be no room for anything else, why did Trump have a number of Conservatives into the Oval Office to hear differing opinions? Oh..., that's right. He couldn't. Why did Jim DeMint report that Trump had been very receptive to his and other Conservative's concerns, if Trump was all-in on Ryancare?

Trump has aligned himself on this issue at least with the Rinos of the House and the Senate who have produced a bill embracing Trump's promises.

Except in that it doesn't end Obamacare. LOL

You got hung by your own argument there.

It didn't embrace Trump's promises did it.

All as I pointed out in my reply explicitly criticizing these Rinos. Evidently, what was written was not read or not understood.

Evidently you haven't read or understood your own posts them.

In them you have referred to this bill as "Trump's bill", and "...the bill Trump helped craft...". None the less you frame your criticism as if it was directed at Ryan and the RINOs in the House. LOL You need to read your own posts.

Further to agree with Doughty One, I observed that there was a chance to work out a better bill. That it was folly not to engage on a political forum now out of some misguided belief that Trump cannot be criticized when he is in the wrong. That is why I said we should engage now, improve the bill, even if it subjects us to criticism for having a divided party, in effect, let us "make sausage in public."

I saw what you were making in public. It wasn't sausage. It was a trail of NeverTrump droppings.

Okay, so we didn't flush twice.

I think both of you gentlemen are guilty of not carefully reading what I wrote, selectively reading it, and selectively reacting.

Only you know what you are thinking when you are writing. We don't. All we can do is read your words and agree or disagree.

I have disagreed on quite a bit of it. I have tried to address the issues you raised. You seem to thank that is so unfair.

I don't.

[DoughtyOne]

I posted that again, because the first version came out almost unreadable.

This is a good example of why I sometimes use differing colors to make response posts. The use of them makes the posts much more clean and understandable.

I have pinged those who responded to the post the above response was directed to, because of expressed interest on the topic.

It’s not my intent to start a four against one debate here.

Please don’t use it for that.

If you agree with me, direct it toward me. If you disagree with me, direct it toward me.

Thanks folks.

[nathanbedford]

"My contention is that Donald Trump overpromised …"

On that I can agree…

You know as well as I do that Trump was not involved with crafting this bill. Ryan and his cronies in the House crafted this bill

Quite true but Trump has endorsed the bill, he has praised the bill, he has adopted it as his own. We all know it is the way of Washington that those who actually draft the bill do not get named. You say that Ryan drafted the bill which is equally untrue, his staff drafted this bill but Ryan's name is associated forever with it. Trump has made this bill a key part of the success of his administration and that is undeniable. Moreover, the bill parallels the overpromises made by Trump in the campaign concerning for example pre-existing conditions which are anti-conservative, destructive of the mathematics of healthcare, and ape Obama care. Finally, it is probable that this administration, any competent administration, will have jointly staffed with Ryan's people on the drafting of this bill. As you say, "Trump did voice support for this bill."

I do not equate the passage of this bill in it's current form to saving Trump's presidency, and I have corrected you on that point previously. It is my belief that passage of this bill in it's current form would be a lasting blemish on Trump's presidency.

In previous posts, which I quoted in part, you talked about "saving this guy" or words to that effect in the context of the bill and I have all along been associating the bill with Trump. I do not believe that you made clear your distinction between attacking the bill and attacking Trump. I understand now that is your distinction. I think it is an unwarranted excuse for Trump. He brought this situation on us by overpromising and by insisting that all of this would be done early in his administration.

A certain number of Conservatives will have peeled off. You have become a sterling example of that.

You MUST stop it.

Yes, I claim credit for anticipating all of this in writing replies before all this came up to the effect that we should keep away from this tar baby, it is absurd to believe that conservatives will peel off because of what the media has printed. The media is printing that the conservatives have already peeled off, and thank God they have.

Except in that it doesn't end Obamacare. LOL

You got hung by your own argument there.

What???

In your penultimate remarks you seem to repeat your meme that is inapposite to criticize Donald Trump on this issue (perhaps on any other?) I have already said that I do not accept that censorship. Trump must be criticized when warranted or we venture onto very treacherous constitutional grounds. We also venture into very treacherous political grounds. I contend that the criticism of this bill has caused Trump to back off from his unqualified association with the bill as you described in his meetings with former Senator Demint and others.

Criticism actually works, that is why we do it, that is why free speech must be protected, that is why a political forum even exists.

You yourself accept that the bill in its present form would be destructive of the Trump presidency. Without criticism there is no mechanism to correct course to avoid such a calamity. If Trump associates himself with such a bad bill he must, by your own logic, be criticized for it.

[nathanbedford]

"The accusation that Donald Trump made comments "approving of violence" were and are hysterical."

"I would like to punch him in the face," he told the crowd when one protester was ejected.

[nathanbedford]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3533633/posts

[sargon]

"I would like to punch him in the face," he told the crowd when one protester was ejected.

Yes, he said that. He was saying something he'd like to do. That is not the same as "approving of violence".

Saying to someone in the crowd "Hey, punch that guy in the face", or, "I wish somebody would punch that guy in the face" would be closer to "approving of violence".

If I had been in that crowd, I'm realtively sure that I would have liked to punch that guy in the face, but 1) I wouldn't have, and 2) stating that I'd like to do so doesn't mean I approve of violence.

So, as pointed out both back then and right now, your "evidence" is distorted, and doesn't prove your assertion that Donald Trump was "approving of violence". That assertion is a hysterical distortion on your part, and, purely coincidentally, of course, on the part of opponents of Donald Trump.

I imagine all of us, on occasion, have either committed an act of violence, or said that we'd like to commit an act of violence. In neither case does it mean that we "approve" of violence.

It requires much more than the "evidence" you have presented to make a convincing case that Donald Trump was ever "approving of violence". It's simply a disingenuous political cheap shot to try to foment such a narrative.

But for someone who can only place the most negative context possible in any such circumstance (if it relates to Donald Trump), it's not surprising that you'd still restate that canard from time to time...