Posted on 03/08/2016 2:26:59 PM PST by Steelfish
1. to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.
2. to issue publicly the work of:
Random House publishes Faulkner.
3. to submit (content) online, as to a message board or blog: I published a comment on her blog post with examples from my own life.
They publish a new webcomic once a month.
4. to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate.
5. to make publicly or generally known.
6. Law. to communicate (a defamatory statement) to some person or persons other than the person defamed.
Yes, dynoman, you have published on the Internet. And to the extent what you have published has helped Trump, you are responsible for harming the country.
I am not, however, accusing you of criminal activity. I am not accusing you of criminal activity. You are simply a Trump supporter doing what a Trump supporter does best.
“You, you you,” then quote word meanings LOL.
Just can’t not make it about me.
BTW nice use of logical fallacies yet again: sweeping generalization, opinion asserted as absolute fact, and too few alternatives.
“BTW nice use of logical fallacies yet again: sweeping generalization, opinion asserted as absolute fact, and too few alternatives.”
In other words, you got exposed, and want to speed away from the facts as quick as possible behind a screen of random word associations.
You ought to be a little upset. Trump does this all the time and gets away with it. You try it one time, get caught, and are held accountable. In a way, that is not fair.
No your use of logical fallacies got exposed. If you have to use logical fallacies to make a point the point isn’t worth making.
“Over Regulation and High Taxes.”
Right. Because of these conditions it’s actually BAD business to locate your textile (or other) company here.
Trump is a GOOD businessman.
“Fix this and companies will want to manufacture here again.”
That’s what he wants to do.
So many here are unbelievably obtuse on this easily understandable stance.
You are the ultimate Trumphating uninformed so called conservative (being here on FreeRepublic). Enormous taxes and regulations make it impossible to manufacture products. Which would you rather pay for a shirt $20.00 made in China, or $45.00 made in America?
So all that time that Jeb was throwing away $100 million on his campaign the Bush family was also paying for Cruz’s campaign? Need some well researched sources for that.
Twitter and FB opinions won’t count.
I understand the chart you have published to say commercial and investment banks have made campaign donations to the Cruz presidential campaign.
Name one.
Then what you are saying is that Trump’s plan will hurt the middle income! Great way to make America, great again.
Ted’s finance chair is Jeb’s brother. Look it up. Ted is going to Florida to kiss Jeb’s ring as we speak.
A campaign loan with interest way lower than you or you could get is effectively a campaign contribution. Think about it.
Let me ask my question like this: I understand the chart you have published to say commercial and investment banks have made campaign donations to the Cruz presidential campaign.
Name one.
http://www.npr.org/2016/01/14/463093708/the-ted-cruz-goldman-sachs-loan-explained
“The campaign paid zero interest, the documents say.”
No one but an insider politician could get a zero interest load from Goldman Sachs and Citibank. Period.
Then there is this gem of hypocrisy;
“Goldman Sachs has always been a tender subject in the Cruz organization. He doesn’t apologize for Heidi Cruz’s job there, but he attacks Goldman and other Wall Street financial firms as “crony capitalists” with too much power in Washington.
The day after announcing for president, he told Bloomberg News, “Goldman is one of the biggest banks on Wall Street, and my criticism with Washington is they engage in crony capitalism. They give favors to Wall Street and big business, and that’s why I’ve been an outspoken opponent of crony capitalism, taking on leaders in both parties.”
If there turns out to be some impropriety in the loans, the Cruz campaign could be grievously wounded. Even without that, deals with Goldman Sachs and Citibank could blur the anti-establishment line Cruz has always drawn for himself.
But by mid-afternoon Thursday, Cruz was actually fundraising off the controversy.”
That from the guy who wrote a book with the title of “A Time For Truth”. What a stinking steaming pile of status quo crap. I believed him, actually believed he was “ the only principled candidate in the race”. I’d like a refund on the book.
Maybe if I asked the question like this you could better understand:
I understand the chart you have published to say commercial and investment banks have made campaign donations to the Cruz presidential campaign.
Name one.
A zero interest loan is a campaign contribution, what don’t you understand about that?? Is is not “principled” in any sense of the word.
If you want to go throught the logical, moral, and ethical contortions to defend that as something the self professed “most principled conservative in the race” should be doing, go right ahead.
One thing that I do not understand is the chart on your post that shows 11 different candidates (including Cruz) having received campaign donations from commercial and investment banks.
Are you now saying each of the 11 candidates received zero interest loans from the banks, or just Cruz?
And if it was just Cruz, what kind of campaign donations did the other ten receive?
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.