Phyllis Schlafly: My Board Plotting to Fire Me Over Trump

[jmdrake]

I couldn't care less what you think of Trump. Makes no difference to me, nor will it change my vote.

I'm going to respond to this as you added it after my last response. I could care less who you vote for. In the grand scheme of things your one vote doesn't amount to much anyway. I voted for Rand in the primary even though he had dropped out. I thought about a strategic vote for Bernie to help put the brakes on Hillary. I changed my mind, not because of anything anybody on this forum said against my idea (and some were being total jerks), but because my girlfriend at the time, who is a Bernie supporter, was such a (I-won't-actually-say-it) about it because I told her that I didn't actually support his moronic positions. (No I didn't call them moronic to her. I just pointed out I didn't agree with them.)

Now we might actually get stuck with Trump v. Hillary. Seeing Hillary say bat guano crazy things like Libya is a functioning democracy is almost enough to say "Screw it. I'll vote for whoever the GOP throws up just to stop Hillary." Almost. Then I see people defending the indefensible when it comes to Trump. You turn me off just as much as some of the Bernie Sanders supporters turn me off. And I don't just me you personally. I mean the whole lot of "Nothing our guy says or does is remotely wrong --- everything Ted Cruz might have done is terrible and absolutely proven" nonsense that has been going on here for weeks now. Sometimes its better to simply concede weaknesses in your preferred candidate. For example, Ben Carson and Donald Trump are both candidates who are weak on guns. They both changed their position to at least appear strong on guns. But it's a fair criticism to point out, for both of them, that their initial positions where not very supportive of the 2nd amendment and that there's no evidence of either of them changing positions after deciding to run. If you want to say "You know what? I'm willing to take that risk." Fine. But to denigrate others for not being willing to take that risk, especially with someone who has been caught lying on the campaign trail and during the debates like Trump, really is unfair. That's all I will say about that.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Even the Monica story had broke before the blue dress came out. Bill Clinton was asked about it under oath. He said "I did not have sex with that woman" in a press conference before the dress came out. He wouldn't have told that lie if the evidence had already been known. And he wouldn't have talked about it in th press conference if it hadn't already been all over the news. I remember that press conference. Sorry but your whole argument is bollocks.

By the time of the Clinton press conference, the story was being covered in the press because of Drudge had broken the dam first, with other confirmed evidence (Monica's confession, recorded conversations). Clinton tried to crush the story regardless with a denial, then the blue dress was disclosed. But the story was exposed and confirmed based on the recordings, with or without the dress. Before Drudge broke the story, the MSM was burying the story, despite the recordings. That's the part you keep missing.

 

[jmdrake]

By the time of the Clinton press conference, the story was being covered in the press because of Drudge had broken the dam first, with other confirmed evidence (Monica's confession, recorded conversations). Clinton tried to crush the story regardless with a denial, then the blue dress was disclosed. But the story was exposed and confirmed based on the recordings, with or without the dress. Before Drudge broke the story, the MSM was burying the story, despite the recordings. That's the part you keep missing.

I'm not missing anything. Drudge still exists. Drudge is totally in Trump's corner. The National Inquirer ran with this story. So if Drudge was able to force more coverage of the Clinton story, why couldn't he force more coverage of the Cruz sex scandal? Because there was nothing to keep it going. You have cited no difference between then and now that would explain why this story hasn't gained traction unless you want to argue that somehow the "establishment" supports Cruz more than Clinton.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I'm not missing anything. Drudge still exists. Drudge is totally in Trump's corner. The National Inquirer ran with this story. So if Drudge was able to force more coverage of the Clinton story, why couldn't he force more coverage of the Cruz sex scandal? Because there was nothing to keep it going.

Or perhaps reasonable people disagree, as I disagree with Drudge's decision not to discuss the story, in view of other journalists and witnesses who did confirm it. But that's his judgment to make, whether he's pro or anti the Trump phenomenon. What is unfortunate is your presuming that his or other people's judgment is controlled by their bias for Trump. The world is more complicated than that. Drudge can be right about favoring Trump, if that is the case, while wrong in choosing to not pursue the Cruz sex story.

 

[afwjam]

Who cares?

 

[jmdrake]

Or perhaps reasonable people disagree, as I disagree with Drudge's decision not to discuss the story, in view of other journalists and witnesses who did confirm it. But that's his judgment to make, whether he's pro or anti the Trump phenomenon. What is unfortunate is your presuming that his or other people's judgment is controlled by their bias for Trump. The world is more complicated than that. Drudge can be right about favoring Trump, if that is the case, while wrong in choosing to not pursue the Cruz sex story.

LOL. I'm not the one making the presumptions. You are. You are presuming that the media is "sitting on the story" in order to help Cruz rather than the obvious conclusion that there's nothing to the story. This is the classic definition of a witch hunt. People accused of witches were tortured in order to make them confess. They were dunked to drowned and if the didn't drown that was proof they were a witch. Cruz hasn't "confessed" to the accusations against him? According to you that's proof he's an unrepentant sinner. The mainstream media, that has never been pro Cruz is sitting on the story to help Cruz. Why? Because the MSM doesn't like Trump? Well why didn't they jump on the story long ago when Trump wasn't even running for president? The bottom line is there is no substance to the story and that's why it hasn't been covered. All you have come forward with is hearsay. But you are 100% convinced that Cruz is guilty because....well you haven't actually articulated a reason. We wouldn't stand for such baseless accusations if they were leveled against Ron Paul.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The bottom line is there is no substance to the story and that's why it hasn't been covered. All you have come forward with is hearsay. But you are 100% convinced that Cruz is guilty because....well you haven't actually articulated a reason. We wouldn't stand for such baseless accusations if they were leveled against Ron Paul.

You presumed there was no substance to the story, even though I did articulate reasons (multiple journalists, multiple witnesses, etc) but did not elaborate because they were all hashed out in the thread I referenced, which confirmed the story with regards to two of the women. You presumed Trump invented it, despite evidence Rubio's team raised the story. You presumed no media was sitting on the story, despite it being disclosed that several news organizations have been sitting on the story. The Washington Times reporter who leaked this was suddenly dismissed, indicating somebody did not like it being exposed that the media was sitting on the story. And so on. You can believe what you want to, but the story was not baseless.

 

[jmdrake]

You presumed there was no substance to the story, even though I did articulate reasons (multiple journalists, multiple witnesses, etc) but did not elaborate because they were all hashed out in the thread I referenced, which confirmed the story with regards to two of the women.

And all of ^that is hearsay. Nothing you have mentioned so far would even be admissible in court.

You presumed Trump invented it, despite evidence Rubio's team raised the story.

That is a provable falsehood. I never said Trump invented the story. And I clearly said I don't care who raised it.

You presumed no media was sitting on the story, despite it being disclosed that several news organizations have been sitting on the story.

Another provable falsehood. There is no substance of the story, from what you have stated and restated, for any credible news organization to go with.

The Washington Times reporter who leaked this was suddenly dismissed, indicating somebody did not like it being exposed that the media was sitting on the story. And so on. You can believe what you want to, but the story was not baseless.

Based on your own description of the story, being nothing but hearsay, I see no reason not to fire the said reporter.

But again, you're saying all of this to push the agenda of a man who has bragged about committing adultery on his previous wife. He bragged about it. And in some twisted way you call that repentance? Seriously? That's a broken moral compass.

 

[undergroundrr]

You want to throw a long-time ally of Ron Paul's under the bus because she endorsed the anti-establishment candidate.

You are now effectively doing the bidding of neocons and their candidate of choice, Ted Cruz.

I just wanted it to be abundantly clear what you are doing, and what you have become.

Schlafly refused to endorse Ron Paul in 2008 and she endorsed ultra-warmonger Santorum in 2012 instead of Ron Paul. Be clear - Santorum is what Phyllis Schlafly supports. Her pro-life stance is honorable and good. I think it's wonderful she wants to keep babies from being killed. But I, like Dr. Paul, would rather not see grown-ups killed either. I have seen no evidence that Phyllis Schlafly ever supported Ron Paul or encouraged Eagle Forum to do so in any way. If you have access to past publications, I'm open to the idea she did, would welcome evidence and would love to hear anything pro-Paul she's said. But based on what I've seen of her, there's just no way. I'm sure many in Eagle Forum are of a libertarian bent, but not Schlafly herself.

Figures. I have underground on ignore for repeated insults. Sometimes you learn to just let go of people who have nothing positive to contribute in your life. By all accounts, some of these people are our enemies just for making our own choices and politics. No sense discussing things with a person like that.

Yes, it's fun challenging his assertions. Since he claims not to read me, he gets no chance to rebutt.

Sadly, not all libertarians are principled and loyal. Some are vultures who will happily join the lynch mob. Now we are seeing exactly who they are due to the Trump effect.

+repping that (as written) might put me at risk of being banned for being insulting.

But seriously, those who fail to share a bizarre messianic fantasy about trump are a "lynch mob" for saying so? Anti-trump libertarians are the KKK? I promise you, your life isn't threatened when someone challenges your assertions. It's more likely a sign that the challenger cares about you.

 

[jmdrake]

Schlafly refused to endorse Ron Paul in 2008 and she endorsed ultra-warmonger Santorum in 2012 instead of Ron Paul. Be clear - Santorum is what Phyllis Schlafly supports. Her pro-life stance is honorable and good. I think it's wonderful she wants to keep babies from being killed. But I, like Dr. Paul, would rather not see grown-ups killed either. I have seen no evidence that Phyllis Schlafly ever supported Ron Paul or encouraged Eagle Forum to do so in any way. If you have access to past publications, I'm open to the idea she did, would welcome evidence and would love to hear anything pro-Paul she's said. But based on what I've seen of her, there's just no way. I'm sure many in Eagle Forum are of a libertarian bent, but not Schlafly herself.



Yes, it's fun challenging his assertions. Since he claims not to read me, he gets no chance to rebutt.



+repping that (as written) might put me at risk of being banned for being insulting.

But seriously, those who fail to share a bizarre messianic fantasy about trump are a "lynch mob" for saying so? Anti-trump libertarians are the KKK? I promise you, you're life isn't threatened when someone challenges your assertions. It's more likely a sign that the challenger cares about you.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to undergroundrr again.

 

[TheCount]

bizarre messianic fantasy

That's an apt description.

 

[jmdrake]

That's an apt description.

Ron Paul brings us together. Donald Trump tears us apart.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

And all of ^that is hearsay. Nothing you have mentioned so far would even be admissible in court.

That is a provable falsehood. I never said Trump invented the story. And I clearly said I don't care who raised it.

But again, you're saying all of this to push the agenda of a man who has bragged about committing adultery on his previous wife. He bragged about it. And in some twisted way you call that repentance? Seriously? That's a broken moral compass.

Not hearsay, witnesses and family member admissions, etc. More accurately, you would be the kind of jury member who declares reasonable doubt exists, while I would be the juror persuaded by the evidence on hand. All that shows is that we're different jurors, not that the evidence doesn't exist. You connoted, without saying, Trump and his associates made the story up or first spread it. And you characterized, without context, that Trump "bragged" about cheating, while again omitting he "bragged" about making it right with his ex-wives.

For someone concerned with proof versus innuendo, you have spent most of the time painting Trump in the most negative light possible on just about every point imaginable, based on ambivalent or incomplete data. Mine is not a broken compass, but a complete one, that considers the full circumstances, and additional means of conveying repentance. Some sinners inelegantly pound their chest three times when seeking mercy, over and done with, while others keep on sinning, using legalese to beat the rap. Trump is the former, Cruz the latter.

 

[jmdrake]

Not hearsay, witnesses and family member admissions, etc.

All you're doing is proving that you don't know what hearsay even means. If the only thing you are a "witness" to is a statement by someone else? That's hearsay. Don't take my word for it. Go to an legal education website worth spit and do your own research.

You now, someday you will wake up, look in the mirror and say "WTF was I thinking" with regards to Donald Trump. It may take awhile, but it will happen. I'm sure underneath it all you are a decent person. But right now you are defending the morality of someone who has bragged about adultery and said that he doesn't even apologize to God. And for what? Because he's going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it? Donald J. Trump, by his own words has not "beaten his chest and begged for mercy." He can't even admit he's wrong about anything. Cruz may have committed adultery, but frankly you haven't proved it. You've just proven a lack of understanding of the legal system (no idea what hearsay means), and a rabid capability to jump on whatever bandwagon is sliming it's way through. You know, with all of the "evidence" supposedly against Bill Cosby, some of his accusers had to back down once it was proven that their claim that he had raped them at the Playboy mansion was false because the Playboy mansion records proved that Cosby hadn't even been there. Oh...but you're sure Cruz is guilty without even a direct witness. Okay. Whatever you say. It's your conscience you'll ultimately have to deal with. My is clean. Trump bragged about adultery. He has openly mocked God. That's not repentance by a long shot and deep down you know it.

Edit: This is what you are calling "beating his chest in repentance and sorrow?"


“If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married and important women, this book would be a guaranteed best-seller,” Trump wrote in his book “The Art of the Comeback.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ben-sasse-twitter-question-marital-infidelity

It's chest beating alright. But not in sorrow. Seriously, how can you defend ^that?

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Schlafly refused to endorse Ron Paul in 2008 and she endorsed ultra-warmonger Santorum in 2012 instead of Ron Paul. Be clear - Santorum is what Phyllis Schlafly supports. Her pro-life stance is honorable and good. I think it's wonderful she wants to keep babies from being killed. But I, like Dr. Paul, would rather not see grown-ups killed either. I have seen no evidence that Phyllis Schlafly ever supported Ron Paul or encouraged Eagle Forum to do so in any way. If you have access to past publications, I'm open to the idea she did, would welcome evidence and would love to hear anything pro-Paul she's said. But based on what I've seen of her, there's just no way. I'm sure many in Eagle Forum are of a libertarian bent, but not Schlafly herself.

"During my years in Congress, my staff worked closely with Phyllis's Eagle Forum on restoring parental control of education, protecting American sovereignty, and protecting privacy. Phyllis was one of the few conservative leaders who endorsed my campaign to return to Congress in 1996. Her support was very helpful in overcoming the Republican establishment's smear campaign designed to convince Republican primary voters that my consistent support of the Constitution and individual liberty somehow meant I was not a "real" Republican." - Ron Paul. He wrote the forward to the re-release of her book a couple years back.

But seriously, those who fail to share a bizarre messianic fantasy about trump are a "lynch mob" for saying so? Anti-trump libertarians are the KKK? I promise you, your life isn't threatened when someone challenges your assertions. It's more likely a sign that the challenger cares about you.

I am with Walter Block and Lew Rockwell when it comes to Trump. Is he a libertarian? Of course not. But is he causing trouble for the political establishment and bringing shame and folly onto national politics? YES! And for those reasons, he is the best candidate around and I hope he stays the bull-in-a-china-shop spoiler for the GOP for as long as possible.

If you have a case of Trump derangement syndrome so bad that you are actually cheering on the purging of anti-establishment, pro-liberty voices from the conservative movement and cheering on the GOP establishment rigging the circus in the favor of Goldman Ted, then yes, you have joined the lynch mob and shown your true colors.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

All you're doing is proving that you don't know what hearsay even means. If the only thing you are a "witness" to is a statement by someone else? That's hearsay. Don't take my word for it. Go to an legal education website worth spit and do your own research.

Alas, you seem to miss I was talking about DIRECT witnesses, e.g., family members who witnessed Ted and Amanda as a couple or had been informed by the principals that they were a couple, not hearsay witnesses. You simply do not respect other people's assessment of evidence on this matter, if it conflicts with your own. We simply disagree on this subject, and that is where I will leave it.

 

[undergroundrr]

"During my years in Congress, my staff worked closely with Phyllis's Eagle Forum on restoring parental control of education, protecting American sovereignty, and protecting privacy. Phyllis was one of the few conservative leaders who endorsed my campaign to return to Congress in 1996. Her support was very helpful in overcoming the Republican establishment's smear campaign designed to convince Republican primary voters that my consistent support of the Constitution and individual liberty somehow meant I was not a "real" Republican." - Ron Paul. He wrote the forward to the re-release of her book a couple years back.

Thank you!

I am with Walter Block and Lew Rockwell when it comes to Trump. Is he a libertarian? Of course not. But is he causing trouble for the political establishment and bringing shame and folly onto national politics? YES! And for those reasons, he is the best candidate around and I hope he stays the bull-in-a-china-shop spoiler for the GOP for as long as possible.

If you have a case of Trump derangement syndrome so bad that you are actually cheering on the purging of anti-establishment, pro-liberty voices from the conservative movement and cheering on the GOP establishment rigging the circus in the favor of Goldman Ted, then yes, you have joined the lynch mob and shown your true colors.

Again, the argument that trump is anti-establishment isn't generally accepted. Anti-trump does not equal pro-establishment. Pro-trump does not equal anti-establishment. Pro-trump does not equal pro-liberty. Refuting the arguments of trump supporters does not equal purging, forceful asphyxiation or anything of the sort. Is Ron Paul lynching you in the following video, entitled "Donald Trump: The Establishment Candidate"?



Ron Paul: "His simplified speech is this: 'I'm Donald Trump. I'll take care of you. I am the boss. I'll tell you what to do. Trust me.' There is never a mention of liberty."

Ron Paul > Phyllis Schlafly
Ron Paul > Walter Block
Ron Paul > Lew Rockwell

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Trump wouldn't be saying the things he is saying about the globalist trade agreements and foreign affairs if he was pro-establishment. I never argued he was pro-liberty. He probably wants to put in his own Trump brand establishment into place when he's President. But the way he is exposing the neocons and causing them to implode is fantastic from my point of view, and I hope it continues.

 

[jmdrake]

Alas, you seem to miss I was talking about DIRECT witnesses, e.g., family members who witnessed Ted and Amanda as a couple or had been informed by the principals that they were a couple, not hearsay witnesses. You simply do not respect other people's assessment of evidence on this matter, if it conflicts with your own. We simply disagree on this subject, and that is where I will leave it.

Did they see them having sex? If they didn't then the adultery charge is hearsay.

But regardless, this entire thread has been an exercise in obfuscation by those supporting Trump. The issue isn't whether Ted Cruz is more moral or less moral than Donald Trump. Phyllis Schlafly, a woman who claims to be about Christian morals, refused to endorse Ron Paul in any election cycle, but endorsed a man who bragged about committing adultery with married women. He bragged about it. Calling that "repentance" is just laughable. Trump's "I don't apologize to God" comment is borderline Satanic. I wouldn't care if Mrs. Morality hadn't endorsed the man.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Did they see them having sex? If they didn't then the adultery charge is hearsay.

But regardless, this entire thread has been an exercise in obfuscation by those supporting Trump. The issue isn't whether Ted Cruz is more moral or less moral than Donald Trump. Phyllis Schlafly, a woman who claims to be about Christian morals, refused to endorse Ron Paul in any election cycle, but endorsed a man who bragged about committing adultery with married women. He bragged about it. Calling that "repentance" is just laughable. Trump's "I don't apologize to God" comment is borderline Satanic. I wouldn't care if Mrs. Morality hadn't endorsed the man.

Perhaps because she isn't a one-issue voter, Drake. Perhaps she believes the survival of the country she loves has to take precedence.