Free Republic

American men work and we don't waste time dressing up just to get a nut and a bolt... My dad would take a shower and dress in something a little nicer just to go to the store for the equivalent of a nut and a bolt (although more commonly it was because he'd broken something...), and he still does so now he's in his eighties. I've seen him shower four times in one day, between projects and mowing the lawn and whatnot. Of course, he also grew up in a house with no running water (they had electricity first and he was in school before that happened), and still remembers how thrilled he was when he could finally take a shower after he had done the chores and before he left for school. Showers are a luxury and not a given in his world.

I dunno, Matt Groening's entertained me a time or two. And entertained a lot of other people by creating The Simpsons. Entertaining people may not be a significant contribution, but it's a worthy one, IMHO. That said, the fact that most graduates of Evergreen go on to work for the government at various levels does not speak well of it.

I also thought that dress was the one clothing mistake Melania made. Fortunately it was more in the “unusual choice” category than outright wrong.

Hillary Clinton’s 1993 purple inaugural gown was worth about $50,000 as well, and that was in 1993!

So you don't care about his personal life, just what you think he will do as President. I would imagine most Cruz supporters would have laughed off any Trump supporter that said that.

"More interested" in something else does not equal "don't care." Cruz's voting record comes first, and I will dig pretty deeply to track that down. OTOH, I'm not going to question his "public persona" and go digging to see if he's different in his "personal life." The Cruz fans I know all believe the Bible is correct when it says "put not your faith in Princes" and when it teaches that only God knows a person's heart. Voting for a political candidate is like loaning money to friends or family -- you hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

If I highly prioritized a candidate's personal life, I would never have been willing to "hold my nose" and vote for Trump if he's the Republican candidate. Someone who proudly brags about his adulteries and says he has no reason to ask forgiveness (definitely Trump) is far more morally offensive to me than a guy who upholds family values in public and falls into sin in private, but still publicly calls it sinful and wrong (potentially Cruz). One guy actively endorses a lifestyle that damages people, the other doesn't.

Who even uses the word copulate?

Intellectual nerds do. Cruz regularly reminds me of the guys in my high school computer club who were also on the debate team; he's a total nerd.

I like nerds, but when they lose their temper they say stupid stuff, and IMHO Cruz has crossed that line. Doubt it's done him much damage yet, but it will if he keeps it up (or pretend keeps it up once he settles down, should his advisers tell him he needs to talk tough or something).

that they’re holding off on publishing what they’ve found until after Cruz clinches the nomination, ensuring an easy victory for Hillary in November.

That makes no sense at all. The media is overwhelmingly liberal, while practically every poll out there has Hillary beating Trump while Cruz has been advancing on her rapidly. If the average liberal reporter had a credible report on Cruz that would knock him out of the race, they'd be on it like a shot.

That's because even Cruz supporters are (subconsciously) afraid that there might some truth to this story since it becomes more obvious every day that he is not quite the guy we were sold.

Or maybe it's because I'm not the only Cruz voter who is more interested in his voting record than his personal life. Plus a lot of Cruz supporters are Christian, who by definition reject the idea that anyone is "without sin." Powerful men fall into sexual sin all the time, and I know of no reason to think Cruz is immune to that.

OTOH, I've been around long enough to know that "guilty until proven innocent" is that way to go in most cases, and that "where there's smoke, there's fire," when said by a political enemy, is generally spin with no facts behind it. Political figures who fool around generally get caught with pretty compelling evidence as soon as someone makes a serious effort to get it.

Reporters and others have been looking for evidence that Cruz has fooled around since he was running for Senator, and no one's found anything solid yet. Rumors have been flying for the past few months, and still there's no credible evidence. That, to my mind, puts the odds in Cruz's favor.

Johnson’s also refusing to give details. “Oh, not my story, I defer to unnamed online source.” Alex Jones, maybe — Jones has had a video out on it for a week or more, according to recs on my youtube page.

the Enquirer never lost a libel suit,

You're either young or have a short memory.

That said, the National Enquirer is very good at avoiding lawsuits. Look at the opening sentence for this article -- "Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is the target of a vicious ”dirty tricks” campaign!” With that opening, and with the many weasel words ("rumor", "may have" "purported", etc.), they can (theoretically) claim that, "WE never said that Ted Cruz is doing these things -- we're reporting the FALSE RUMORS other people are spreading!" This is precisely how they escape lawsuits -- and NOT how they report things when they have actual evidence, in which case they write up their articles like a legitimate news paper.

The only part of it that reads anything like real news is the part on Heidi Cruz's depression. The rest of it is pure hack -- and, I suspect, pure lies.

It’s not Cruz’s PAC, it’s an Anti-Trump PAC. Cruz has condemned the ad, not that the news bothers to report that, but there’s no reason to assume he has any control over the PAC because the PAC is more anti-Trump than pro-Cruz (and a small fry compared to the Anti-Trump “Our Principles” PAC).

Trump did not “handle” the pro-Trump PAC that shut down; he made it clear where he stood and, as Trump fans, they honored that. The Washington Post was also trying to cause legal trouble over Trump’s PAC. Not the same situation here.

About all a super PAC does is run ads for or against candidates; Trump already has all the publicity he needs, so he doesn’t really need any super PACs. The media is not giving any of his competitors anything like so much free publicity.

It’s too bad. I used to really enjoy the Conservative Treehouse. It has a long history of going off the deep end and speculating as much as reporting, but it was lively and interesting, and, for the most part, self-correcting. Although there was some indication that success was going to Sundance’s head — their treatment of the Trayvon Martin case was excellent, and they did some good work on the Michal Brown case, but with the Jessica Chambers case I got uncomfortable with some of Sundance’s statements that “This person is clearly involved and evil.”

It’s a minor switch — from “here’s the evidence and my suspicions” to “here’s what happened” — but to me it’s an important change, and not one I was happy about. It shows a lack of humility that can be dangerous.

I don’t think the Conservative Treehouse crew has always lied about stuff — I’m not even convinced Sundance is deliberately lying now — but when it comes to Trump, Sundance has lost touch with reality and he cannot see the evidence right in front of his nose.

What kills me is the number of older people who are Trump fans. I have always kind of gotten a kick out of Trump, so although I’ve never gotten serious enough to read a book about him or anything, I’ve read a lot of articles over the years, and I remember the time he got the analyst fired because he didn’t like that the guy said his Casino would lose money as soon as money hit (which it did). I remember the billboard lady, who only got paid because she faked Trump out. I remember the neighbors he tried to drive away, then walled off and tried to bill for the fence.

The fact that none of these are in the news tells me that the media is holding back, but that won’t be the case if Trump becomes the Republican Presidential candidate. Trump has a long history of skating just this side of the law — the media knows very well how to make use of that kind of stuff if so inclined. The fact that they haven’t done it thus far means either that they figure Trump is “one of them”, in which case he’s not the outsider his fans think he is, or they’re just holding back until he wins the primary.

Cruz has yet to attack Trump’s wife.

For that matter, I wouldn’t call the anti-Trump PAC’s Melania photo ad an attack on Trump’s wife, either. Melania knew when the picture was taken that it would be public; it’s not like it was a private pic she meant only for her husband that someone stole and published.

Personally, I think she looks fine in that pic, and I expected Trump to blow it off — “She’s a beautiful woman; anyone who puts her down for that picture is just jealous.” I was surprised when he blew up instead.

Still, how that ad is an argument against Trump that would have the remotest influence on a Trump fan I cannot fathom. I’m not a Trump fan, but best I can tell, Melania would make a lovely first lady (and I mean that in the old fashioned sense, i.e. that she is graceful and charming, not just beautiful).

Well, he’s either stupid, or deliberate liar. I don’t mind stupid people, but hate liars, so I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Wonder Woman’s the main reason I want to go, for sure. None too keen on this version of Superman.

If this article is true, how can she not have already been indicted?

The question of the age, referring to a multitude of articles.

If Clinton doesn't get indicted, and particularly if Clinton wins the Presidential election (a mindboggling concept in itself), the US Intelligence community is going to be devastated. I don't know if they'll quit en masse or just take on the Democrat-city-ruled police approach of turning up to work and ignoring their job, but one way or another, it'll be toast.

Trump once again demonstrating he doesn’t understand how PACs work...

Could be. OTOH, I’ve never seen “The American President”, but have been telling guys some woman is “way out of your league” since the seventies. It’s not like the movie coined the phrase.

once he signs off on a deal, it is done.

Tell it to all the guys who lost money on his various bankruptcies. If Trump believed all the things he says, he wouldn't have so carefully insulated himself after the first one, where he actually took a financial hit.

Maybe Trump will make him AG, or nominate him to the Court to replace Scalia (now THAT would be quite an honor).

I don't see it happening. Trump is a loose cannon -- nobody really knows what he'll do as President, probably not even Trump himself. I don't see Cruz tying himself someone that risky.

If Cruz doesn't get the nomination, I'd rather he stay right where he is, hopefully holding Trump's feet to the fire anytime Trump starts waffling on some of his foundational claims that got people interested in him in the first place. Trump does not have a great history of following through on his promises, and Cruz is one of the few people who will call him on that sort of thing.