RNC YouTube live stream

[ProdigalHorn]

Remember, these people also think Taylor Swift is a secret neo nazi goddess.

Well apparently now Laura Ingraham is a Nazi. This is why I'm rapidly losing interest in all of this.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a46866/laura-ingraham-rnc/

Yeah, it's just me and Shapiro.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/05/27/3782503/donald-trump-anti-semitism-tweets/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-jewish-republicans-223196

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/trump-needs-to-loudly-denounce-the-hate/481608/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-s-anti-semitic-fans-out-of-the-woodwork.html

http://forward.com/opinion/321871/why-wont-trump-stand-up-to-his-fans-the-anti-semites/

http://theweek.com/speedreads/625463/donald-trumps-antisemitism-problem-seems-getting-louder

http://www.jta.org/2016/06/02/news-...trumps-anti-semitism-controversies-a-timeline

http://blog.adl.org/anti-semitism/extremist-support-of-donald-trump

http://www.adl.org/press-center/c/trump-must-reject-racists-support.html#.V46M8fkrJhE

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...g-jewish-supremacists-who-control-our-country

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/...c-trump-fans-attack-critical-reporters/210165

Did you not look at the list of sources above and think, "OK maybe these aren't exactly the people who are looking to give this question a fair shake..."

 

[Joe Fan]

Trump accused Cruz's dad of killing JFK and attacked Cruz's wife. I would not respect Cruz if he put partisan politics over his family. .....

This excuse is pretty smelly.

Apparently what happened today was that Cruz attended the Texas delegation breakfast and got grilled for his speech. According to eyewitnesses, he stuck with boilerplate rhetoric for as long as he could but the delegation kept giving it to him. Good for them. Cruz finally cracked under the increasing pressure, admitting he was mad about dad and wife and this was the real reason he broke his pledge and said what he said last night.

First off, Trump did not actually attack his wife. He retweeted an unflattering meme/picture someone else put together. This was a bad call by him in my opinion, but it is nonetheless inaccurate to say he attacked Cruz' wife.

In any event, Cruz' admission clearly established that this was personal. He is holding a grudge. He is butthurt. It was petty.

Further, it seems pretty clear that Cruz is trying to set himself up for 2020. His campaign guy today even referenced Reagan in 1976. The problem is, for this to happen, Cruz needs Trumps to lose now. Hence the backstabbing. In summary, Cruz is willing to sacrifice the country and control of the SCOTUS for his own ambitions. This is hardly principled, as Cruz is attempting to portray himself.

Lastly, two things about that Reagan speech in 1976. First, the Reagan speech was so good that he had a majority of the delegates thinking they may be nominating wrong guy (clearly this did not happen with Cruz last night). Second, the part that is overlooked, the Ford/Reagan division ended up giving us the worst president of a generation -- Jimah Carta.

 

[Joe Fan]

Cut the apocalyptic nonsense. She'll probably get two appointments (Scalia and Ginsburg). .....

Ginsburg 83y
Kennedy 79
Breyer 77
Thomas 68
Alito 66
Sotomayor 62
Roberts 61
Kagan 56

It's not difficult to foresee Roberts as the lone pseudo-rational-thinker remaining on the Court after two or possibly even just one term of HRC.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

I think the Republican primary for Cruz' Senate seat is going to be a battle Royal!!! I don't think it is given that he wins the primary......I will have to research some candidates......I think that race will be in two years?

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

Cruz will be in the Senate as long as he wants, ......

 

[Htown77]

First off, Trump did not actually attack his wife. He retweeted an unflattering meme/picture someone else put together. This was a bad call by him in my opinion, but it is nonetheless inaccurate to say he attacked Cruz' wife.

In any event, Cruz' admission clearly established that this was personal. He is holding a grudge. He is butthurt. It was petty.

You left the part out where Trump implied that Cruz's dad was part of the JFK assasination because there is a picture with a brown man standing next to Lee Harvey Oswald and Cruz's dad also happens to be a brown man.

I know if someone told lies about my father, I would not endorse them. Of course, for me, family and people I love come before partisian politics. I guess that's "pettiness" in the year 2016.

Your position is that people should not take Trump's personal insults personally.

 

[NJlonghorn]

As usual, Deez, you come through with a well-conceived post that actually addresses the merits. I wish there were more of you on this board….

NJ, I would never tell you that you should vote for Trump, because I'm not doing it myself. However, this shouldn't be your reason. I think it's pretty unfair to judge a candidate by a small sect of his supporters, especially when that candidate hasn't shown any real signs of being sympathetic to the bad apples that concern you. Every national candidate has his or her wing nuts.

I agree that you can’t judge a candidate by who supports him, and I agree that Trump is not sympathetic to the “bad apples”. However, he has made it clear (to me, at least) that winning is everything to him, and that he will do what is necessary to make sure the wingnuts support him. They don’t happen to support him – he has actively courted them. This troubles me greatly, and gives credence to my concern that this could spiral out of control. I'm not talking about tomorrow or even next year, but over the course of a decade or two.

Just to be clear on something I've said repeatedly. I don't think Trump is anti-Semitic, and I don't think he will become anti-Semitic. I am not worried about Trump. I am worried about the direction our country would take during 8 years of Trump, and the decade or two thereafter.

Plus, while I’m not concerned that Trump may be anti-Jewish, I do think he is anti-Muslim and actively courts the anti-Muslim vote. That is the snowball I’m most worried about. To paragraph the great pastor Martin Niemoller, if I do nothing when they come after the Muslims, who will be left to speak for me?

Also, which candidate's anti-Semites concern you? I'm sure David Duke and his dozen supporters will vote for Trump. . .

There are way more neo-Nazi / anti-Jewish people out there than you are giving them credit for. But you are right that there are much fewer of them than there are radical Muslims.

. . . there are millions of Nation of Islam and BLM sympathizers who will vote for Hillary Clinton. Do you think those people like Jews? They don't. In fact, "Minister" Farrakhan might be more inflammatory towards Jews than Duke is.

Fair point. However, the "millions" of BLM supporters mostly support the slogan, not the movement. I don't know how many Americans actually support the anti-Semitic viewpoints of NOI and BLM, but I doubt it is millions.

I also think it's worth noting that these liberal anti-Semites hold real political power, because they're indispensable to a Democratic victory. If a bunch of white crackpots who don't like Jews decide not to vote for Trump, it's not going to impact his chances. There aren't anywhere near enough them. However, if every black voter who's sympathetic to NOI and every Muslim voter who hates Jews decides not to vote for Hillary, she's done. Realistically, I don't think either would tolerate or appease anti-Semites, but if any of them would, it would be Hillary.

I wholeheartedly agree that the NOI / radical Islamic contingency is an equal or greater threat to Jews than the neo-Nazi crowd, based on sheer numbers if nothing else. If I thought Trump’s approach to terrorism would help quell radical Islam, I’d be more inclined to give him a harder look. But I don’t.

If I had to list reasons why I don't support Trump, his treatment of non-radical Muslims would be issue #1. His courting of the skinhead vote would be on the list, but well down it.

 

[mchammer]

As usual, Deez, you come through with a well-conceived post that actually addresses the merits. I wish there were more of you on this board….



I agree that you can’t judge a candidate by who supports him, and I agree that Trump is not sympathetic to the “bad apples”. However, he has made it clear (to me, at least) that winning is everything to him, and that he will do what is necessary to make sure the wingnuts support him. They don’t happen to support him – he has actively courted them. This troubles me greatly, and gives credence to my concern that this could spiral out of control. I'm not talking about tomorrow or even next year, but over the course of a decade or two.

Just to be clear on something I've said repeatedly. I don't think Trump is anti-Semitic, and I don't think he will become anti-Semitic. I am not worried about Trump. I am worried about the direction our country would take during 8 years of Trump, and the decade or two thereafter.

Plus, while I’m not concerned that Trump may be anti-Jewish, I do think he is anti-Muslim and actively courts the anti-Muslim vote. That is the snowball I’m most worried about. To paragraph the great pastor Martin Niemoller, if I do nothing when they come after the Muslims, who will be left to speak for me?



There are way more neo-Nazi / anti-Jewish people out there than you are giving them credit for. But you are right that there are much fewer of them than there are radical Muslims.



Fair point. However, the "millions" of BLM supporters mostly support the slogan, not the movement. I don't know how many Americans actually support the anti-Semitic viewpoints of NOI and BLM, but I doubt it is millions.



I wholeheartedly agree that the NOI / radical Islamic contingency is an equal or greater threat to Jews than the neo-Nazi crowd, based on sheer numbers if nothing else. If I thought Trump’s approach to terrorism would help quell radical Islam, I’d be more inclined to give him a harder look. But I don’t.

If I had to list reasons why I don't support Trump, his treatment of non-radical Muslims would be issue #1. His courting of the skinhead vote would be on the list, but well down it.

So, turning a blind eye towards illegal immigration and radical Islam is preferable. Got it.

 

[Joe Fan]

here is a good periscope of the protesters outside the Convention
seems disappointingly boring
after the lefties went whacko in San Jose, it seemed reasonable to expect some fireworks here, but no dice

https://www.periscope.tv/w/1MnxnyOXQaBJO

 

[NJlonghorn]

So, turning a blind eye towards illegal immigration and radical Islam is preferable. Got it.

if I thought any of the candidates was turning a blind eye towards radical Islam, I'd be very, very concerned. I don't think Obama has done so, and I don't think Clinton or Trump would do so either.

The difference between Obama/Clinton and Trump in this regard is Trump's willingness (if not eagerness) to go after all Muslims, not just the radical ones. That sure is riling up support amongst the base, but it is very concerning to me.

I half agree with you about illegal immigration. I think Trump's approach is way too restrictive, but that Clinton's approach is way too permissive.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Mr. Deez]

Plus, while I’m not concerned that Trump may be anti-Jewish, I do think he is anti-Muslim and actively courts the anti-Muslim vote. That is the snowball I’m most worried about. To paragraph the great pastor Martin Niemoller, if I do nothing when they come after the Muslims, who will be left to speak for me?

Understandable, but I'm not sure I'd call him anti-Muslim as much as I'd call him scattered and shallow. I think he knows that terrorism is mostly an Islamic phenomenon and simply doesn't approach the issue with any meaningful level of nuance. It's the same idea with illegal immigration. I don't think he's racist toward Hispanics. I think he's just overly simplistic and shallow.

Is he nationalistic and believe in a distinct American culture that immigrants should assimilate into rather than avoid? Yes, and frankly I don't have a problem with that. I think he's right. My issue with Trump is his temperament and unwillingness to approach issues like immigration and dealing with Muslims in a nuanced manner that considers logistical and moral realities.

Fair point. However, the "millions" of BLM supporters mostly support the slogan, not the movement. I don't know how many Americans actually support the anti-Semitic viewpoints of NOI and BLM, but I doubt it is millions.

Maybe it's in the millions. Maybe it's not, but it's more than the neo-Nazi, white supremacists and by a substantial margin. Furthermore, it's concentrated and taken seriously by the Democratic Party. There are congressmen and senators who care what Louis Farrakahn thinks. Nobody of relevance cares what David Duke thinks.

I think it's also worth noting that the antisemitism of the Left is bigger than NOI or the black community in general. In the last several years, it seems like the position of Jews in the political arena has shifted from victim status to a status of Western privilege. They're treated more like rich, white colonialists than like a group of people who were on the brink of complete elimination just a few generations ago. I think it's because of their economic success (which is a borderline miracle considering that even those who survived the Holocaust lost almost everything they had), the fact that they have adopted a liberal democracy that is culturally Western, and because they're often at odds with poorer anti-western people who are of a darker ethnicity. This has led to a resurgence in antisemitism and a renewed tolerance for it in the US and especially here in Europe, and frankly, it's disturbing and coming overwhelmingly from and tolerated by the Left.

Having said that, I understand why you'd be more sensitive to neo-Nazis, and if I was Jewish, I'd probably the same way. After all, Muslim and left-wing antisemites mostly just talk about murdering and oppressing Jews. The neo-Nazis' ideological ancestors actually did it on a massive scale, so it's natural to fear them disproportionately. However, I think it's also important to keep current trends in mind.

I wholeheartedly agree that the NOI / radical Islamic contingency is an equal or greater threat to Jews than the neo-Nazi crowd, based on sheer numbers if nothing else. If I thought Trump’s approach to terrorism would help quell radical Islam, I’d be more inclined to give him a harder look. But I don’t.

Perfectly understandable, and like I said, the last thing I'd want you to do is vote for Trump. If you did, I'm not going to say I'd lose all respect for you, but I'd be a bit mystified.

 

[iatrogenic]

That is the snowball I’m most worried about. To paragraph the great pastor Martin Niemoller, if I do nothing when they come after the Muslims, who will be left to speak for me?

I'm thinking the great Charles Darwin has already spoken for you NJL.

I think he knows that terrorism is mostly an Islamic phenomenon and simply doesn't approach the issue with any meaningful level of nuance.

Please hurry and let him know the proper nuanced response. Islamists killed 30,000 people last year, and we need to start nuancing right away.

 

[iatrogenic]

As usual, Deez, you come through with a well-conceived post that actually addresses the merits. I wish there were more of you on this board….



I agree that you can’t judge a candidate by who supports him, and I agree that Trump is not sympathetic to the “bad apples”. However, he has made it clear (to me, at least) that winning is everything to him, and that he will do what is necessary to make sure the wingnuts support him. They don’t happen to support him – he has actively courted them. This troubles me greatly, and gives credence to my concern that this could spiral out of control. I'm not talking about tomorrow or even next year, but over the course of a decade or two.

Just to be clear on something I've said repeatedly. I don't think Trump is anti-Semitic, and I don't think he will become anti-Semitic. I am not worried about Trump. I am worried about the direction our country would take during 8 years of Trump, and the decade or two thereafter.

Plus, while I’m not concerned that Trump may be anti-Jewish, I do think he is anti-Muslim and actively courts the anti-Muslim vote. That is the snowball I’m most worried about. To paragraph the great pastor Martin Niemoller, if I do nothing when they come after the Muslims, who will be left to speak for me?



There are way more neo-Nazi / anti-Jewish people out there than you are giving them credit for. But you are right that there are much fewer of them than there are radical Muslims.



Fair point. However, the "millions" of BLM supporters mostly support the slogan, not the movement. I don't know how many Americans actually support the anti-Semitic viewpoints of NOI and BLM, but I doubt it is millions.



I wholeheartedly agree that the NOI / radical Islamic contingency is an equal or greater threat to Jews than the neo-Nazi crowd, based on sheer numbers if nothing else. If I thought Trump’s approach to terrorism would help quell radical Islam, I’d be more inclined to give him a harder look. But I don’t.

If I had to list reasons why I don't support Trump, his treatment of non-radical Muslims would be issue #1. His courting of the skinhead vote would be on the list, but well down it.

The timing on the DNC WikiLeaks release today is good. Below are a few DNC emails. Here is how the "Trump and his followers are anti-Semitic" crap starts. The DNC writes a negative article about how Trump supporters are anti-semitic, and they throw in a few quotes from their Democrat friends that write for liberal rags like Politico to support their position. Unsolicited, the DNC sends the anti-Trump article to be approved by the ADL and other jewish organizations (that the DNC has included in the article) that support the DNC, and Voila! Trump hates Jews just like his supporters.

The best quote is from Sarah Arkin and is underlined below. It basically says, we need to paint a picture that Trump attacks jews, not reporters.

Before you know it, NJL is on a message board repeating this crap.
Emails:
Re: response to anti-semitism against jewish reporters by trump supporters
From[email protected]
To: [email protected] Date: 2016-05-21 14:36 Subject: Re: response to anti-semitism against jewish reporters by trump supporters
I don't like DWS talking at all about trump's wife. We need to reword this. - TP On May 21, 2016, at 12:33 PM, Sarah E Arkin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

wrote: there are placeholders for those at the bottom. [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

wrote: The chair should have a quote in this about how anti Semitic, racist, bigoted attacks are wrong and should be rebuked. We need quotes from others in support of our position.

Sent from my iPhone On May 21, 2016, at 9:17 AM, Sarah E Arkin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

wrote: meant to paste: DNC Chair, Jewish Community Leaders Denounce Anti-Semitic Vitriol Against Jewish Reporters in 2016 campaign Today, DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz joined Jewish community leaders from the Anti-Defamation League, the National Jewish Democratic Council, and Bend the Arc to denounce anti-Semitic vitriol against Jewish reporters in the 2016 campaign. Throughout the 2016 campaign, journalists reporting on Donald Trump’s candidacy have been met with hatred and vitriol inspired by the Republican nominee himself. In fact, the Wall Street Journal recently reported how Trump inspires white supremacists in a story titled: “White Nationalists See Advancement Through Donald Trump’s Whether it’s Trump’s campaign manager assaulting a female reporter, or Donald Trump commanding the crowd to direct their anger towards the press during his rallies, it’s clear Trump’s supporters derive this kind of violent behavior and extreme rhetoric towards the press from the man standing behind the podium[SA1] Furthermore, the Trump camp has shown no remorse or sympathy for reporters who are subjected to abuse by Trump supporters. When GQ reporter Julia Ioffereceived hateful messages in response to a profile she penned about Melania Trump, Ms. Trump blamed the reporter, saying she “provoked the anti-Semitic abuse. Mr. Trump declined to denounce the followers who flooded that reporter with invective, saying he had “no message,” for them. According to Politico, Jewish leaders on both sides of the aisle were dismayed by Trump’s refusal to combat Yesterday, Robert Kagan wrote this in the Washington Post about the fascist threat posed by Trump’s candidacy “A mass political movement is thus a powerful and, to those who would oppose it, frightening weapon. When controlled and directed by a single leader, it can be aimed at whomever the leader chooses.” Predictably, when Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times, tweeted out a passage from that op-ed, he was treated to similar anti-Semitic abuse from Trump supporters. This is unacceptable. Until Trump makes a forceful denouncement of the anti-Semitic vitriol his supporters have directed at Jews and Jewish reporters, he is condoning his followers’ comments. ________________________________

[SA1]. [This quote to me seems more about attacking the press than attacking Jews or a minority group, is there another that’s more about attacking Jews specifically?

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Sarah E Arkin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: minor changes and question. On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Weinberg, Aaron <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Yes, I will take a look after Shabbat. Might we want to consider including the RAC too? Aaron Aaron Weinberg Director of Jewish Engagement Democratic National Committee Cell: 847.848.2968<tel:847.848.2968> -Sent from my iPhone On May 20, 2016, at 3:28 PM, Sarah Arkin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Yes. Will look over the weekend Sent from my iPhone On May 20, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Walker, Eric <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hey everyone – there’s been a lot of press on this and I think there’s an opportunity for us to weigh in. Bit late in the day for this, so I’d like to roll this out on Monday.

Want to get thoughts from this group first, then I will take to ADL / NJDC / Bend the Arc Thanks – let me know. DNC Chair, Jewish Community Leaders Denounce Anti-Semitic Vitriol Against Jewish Reporters in 2016 campaign Today, DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz joined with Jewish community leaders from the Anti-Defamation League, the National Jewish Democratic Council, and Bend the Arc to denounce anti-Semitic vitriol against Jewish reporters in the 2016 campaign.

 

[nashhorn]

If I thought Trump’s approach to terrorism would help quell radical Islam,

I do, and compared to what I believe Hillary's approach will be, I really do.

 

[Joe Fan]

..... I remain firmly in the Gary Johnson protest vote camp.

Johnson thinks Hillary Clinton is "a wonderful public servant."

 

[Htown77]

^ and Trump thinks Ted Cruz is "dishonorable." Trump encouraged the rumor of Ted having affairs and accused Ted's father of being in on it to kill JFK, the Trump has the audacity to say Cruz is "not honorable" for revoking his pledge to the party once Trump insulted Cruz's family. It is not honorable to place a pledge to a party before family or core values. However Trump supporters act like fascists with "a pledge to the party comes first!" I think if Trump said "we should kill all the jews" his supporters would demand everyone stick to their pledge to Trump and party. F*** Trump.

As for Gary Johnson, that quote still has nothing on "party and me before values" Hillary or Trump. My protest vote remains. I will not vote for Trump or Hillary that will continue 4 years of putting themselves and party before the United States of America, our nation's laws or any values of right and wrong whatsoever.

Your candidate cannot keep his mouth shut and continues to alienate votes he should have on the right. If the 30ish% that voted for Trump hate Hillary so bad, they should have thought of this before nominating Trump.

 

[Mr. Deez]

And of course, Trump gushed over Hillary Clinton and threw money at her until he was running for President.

 

[Joe Fan]

..... There are congressmen and senators who care what Louis Farrakahn thinks. Nobody of relevance cares what David Duke thinks......

is this surprising?

ps .....

 

[Joe Fan]

Poor CNN is having a meltdown
They may just give up polling now

 

[mchammer]

^ and Trump thinks Ted Cruz is "dishonorable." Trump encouraged the rumor of Ted having affairs and accused Ted's father of being in on it to kill JFK, the Trump has the audacity to say Cruz is "not honorable" for revoking his pledge to the party once Trump insulted Cruz's family. It is not honorable to place a pledge to a party before family or core values. However Trump supporters act like fascists with "a pledge to the party comes first!" I think if Trump said "we should kill all the jews" his supporters would demand everyone stick to their pledge to Trump and party. F*** Trump.

As for Gary Johnson, that quote still has nothing on "party and me before values" Hillary or Trump. My protest vote remains. I will not vote for Trump or Hillary that will continue 4 years of putting themselves and party before the United States of America, our nation's laws or any values of right and wrong whatsoever.

Your candidate cannot keep his mouth shut and continues to alienate votes he should have on the right. If the 30ish% that voted for Trump hate Hillary so bad, they should have thought of this before nominating Trump.

The National Enquirer made the Oswald claim, not Trump. The organizations aren't related.

 

[mchammer]

Poor CNN is having a meltdown
They may just give up polling now

TV viewers or convention goers?

 

[Joe Fan]

TV viewers or convention goers?

I think it was their own snap poll of people who watched it

 

[Htown77]

The National Enquirer made the Oswald claim, not Trump. The organizations aren't related.

Did you see Trump double down on his crazy last night?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...trump-lee-harvey-oswald-rafael-cruz/87475714/

Donald Trump doubled down on his baseless insinuation that a photograph published by the National Enquirer shows Ted Cruz’s father with “crazy Lee Harvey Oswald having breakfast.”

Nonetheless, Trump proclaimed in a May 3 interview on Fox and Friends that Cruz’s “father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being, you know, shot! I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous … And nobody even brings it up. I mean, they don’t even talk about that, that was reported and nobody talks about it. But I think it’s horrible, I think it’s absolutely horrible, that a man can go and do that, what he’s saying there.”

Trump later added, “I mean what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the death – before the shooting? It’s horrible.”

“All I did is point out the fact that on the cover of the National Enquirer, there’s a picture of him [Rafael Cruz] and crazy Lee Harvey Oswald having breakfast,” Trump said. “I had nothing to do with it. This was a magazine that frankly in many respects, should be very respected. They got O.J. They got Edwards. They got this. I mean, if that was The New York Times, they would have gotten Pulitzer prizes for their reporting.”

“Now, Ted never denied that it was his father,” Trump said in his post-convention remarks, adding later, “But they never denied. Did anybody ever deny that it was the father? They’re not saying, ‘Oh, that’s not really my father.’ It’s little hard to do. It looks like him.”

In fact, they have.

“This is another garbage story in a tabloid full of garbage,” Communications Director Alice Stewart told McClatchy. “The story is false; that is not Rafael in the picture.”

“It’s ludicrous, it’s ludicrous,” Rafael Cruz told ABC News on May 3. “I was never in New Orleans at that time.”

Ted Cruz dismissed the Enquirer story as “idiotic” and called Trump a “pathological liar” who is “utterly amoral” and a “bully.”

“Donald Trump alleges that my dad was involved in the assassinating JFK,” Cruz said. “Now, let’s be clear, this is nuts. This is not a responsible position. This is just kooky.”

So to sum up: despite Trump’s claim to the contrary, the Cruz campaign categorically denied that it is Rafael Cruz in the photo. And Ted Cruz called the Enquirer story “nuts.” And there is still no evidence — at all — that the man in the photo with Oswald is Rafael Cruz.


Trump also claimed that Obama does not have a birth certificate. The man is a loon.

 

[mchammer]

Did you see Trump double down on his crazy last night?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...trump-lee-harvey-oswald-rafael-cruz/87475714/

Donald Trump doubled down on his baseless insinuation that a photograph published by the National Enquirer shows Ted Cruz’s father with “crazy Lee Harvey Oswald having breakfast.”

Nonetheless, Trump proclaimed in a May 3 interview on Fox and Friends that Cruz’s “father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being, you know, shot! I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous … And nobody even brings it up. I mean, they don’t even talk about that, that was reported and nobody talks about it. But I think it’s horrible, I think it’s absolutely horrible, that a man can go and do that, what he’s saying there.”

Trump later added, “I mean what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the death – before the shooting? It’s horrible.”

“All I did is point out the fact that on the cover of the National Enquirer, there’s a picture of him [Rafael Cruz] and crazy Lee Harvey Oswald having breakfast,” Trump said. “I had nothing to do with it. This was a magazine that frankly in many respects, should be very respected. They got O.J. They got Edwards. They got this. I mean, if that was The New York Times, they would have gotten Pulitzer prizes for their reporting.”

“Now, Ted never denied that it was his father,” Trump said in his post-convention remarks, adding later, “But they never denied. Did anybody ever deny that it was the father? They’re not saying, ‘Oh, that’s not really my father.’ It’s little hard to do. It looks like him.”

In fact, they have.

“This is another garbage story in a tabloid full of garbage,” Communications Director Alice Stewart told McClatchy. “The story is false; that is not Rafael in the picture.”

“It’s ludicrous, it’s ludicrous,” Rafael Cruz told ABC News on May 3. “I was never in New Orleans at that time.”

Ted Cruz dismissed the Enquirer story as “idiotic” and called Trump a “pathological liar” who is “utterly amoral” and a “bully.”

“Donald Trump alleges that my dad was involved in the assassinating JFK,” Cruz said. “Now, let’s be clear, this is nuts. This is not a responsible position. This is just kooky.”

So to sum up: despite Trump’s claim to the contrary, the Cruz campaign categorically denied that it is Rafael Cruz in the photo. And Ted Cruz called the Enquirer story “nuts.” And there is still no evidence — at all — that the man in the photo with Oswald is Rafael Cruz.


Trump also claimed that Obama does not have a birth certificate. The man is a loon.

Apparently the DNC thought it was possible too according to a wiki leak email.

 

[Htown77]

So the fact that Donald Trump shares asinine beliefs with the DNC is supposed to be a defense? Maybe you should ask yourself why you are supporting someone who shares the DNC's dumb*** beliefs?