Phyllis Schlafly: My Board Plotting to Fire Me Over Trump

[jmdrake]

The people on this forum have become no better than the GOP establishment, or any mob of political gangsters you could imagine.

I am happy that Trump has brought this out in people. It is now more easy to see where they stand, who is principled and who is not, than ever before.

^This

 

[jmdrake]

No, the media in that instance showed the exception proves the rule. In the Lewinsky case there was hard evidence but the regular media still spiked the story. If Drudge hadn't later published it in the alternative media, it would have stayed hidden.

You know, now that I think about it, you have absolutely no credibility on this issue. IT WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE BEFORE THE BLUE DRESS CAME OUT THAT BILL CLINTON WAS AN ADULTERER! The names "Paula Jones" and "Gennifer Flowers" were ALL OVER THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA LONG BEFORE THE BLUE DRESS!

I can't believe I let you get away with this crap for more than one post. Before Bill Clinton even got elected president, Hillary had to come to his defense for all of the allegations of his cheating. When Bill Clinton was forced to say in a press conference "I did not have sex with that woman" that was BEFORE the evidence of the blue dress. No. The media did not sit on that story. Not at all.

You have engaged in an unchristian and unsubstantiated smear campaign against Cruz based on nothing but unsubstantiated allegations. And it's shameful. If the allegations are true then let the evidence come out. So far nothing hard has come out. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. The fact that Trump is an adulterer and that his current wife is a homewrecker is not at all hidden.

Still waiting for you to acknowledge that Rubio first raised the sex scandal about Cruz.

What relevance does that have to anything? I'll take your word on it. That really doesn't prove anything.

Being a bimbo is about character, not modeling gigs. Melenia did the photo shoot as a part of her job or caareer.

Did Melenia commit adultery with Donald Trump as part of her career? Or does that speak to her character?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

You know, now that I think about it, you have absolutely no credibility on this issue. IT WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE BEFORE THE BLUE DRESS CAME OUT THAT BILL CLINTON WAS AN ADULTERER! The names "Paula Jones" and "Gennifer Flowers" were ALL OVER THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA LONG BEFORE THE BLUE DRESS!

Briefly, as your patience in dragging this out is endless, while mine is not: My focus with Monica was specifically on the chronology of confirming that story, not the entire Clinton scandal history. The prior trail of Clinton adulteries and sexual assaults, and especially the criminal aspects of them, were routinely dismissed or downplayed by the MSM during his presidency whether they 'covered' the stories or not.

The blue dress confirmed the Lewinsky affair and got mainstream coverage, only after the story had already been confirmed by the recorded phone conversations, which included confessions by Lewinsky and a third party witness (Linda Tripp). These previous confirmations were NOT covered until Drudge broke the story---that is simply the history. I know the adultery history well, since when I ran against Hillary in 2000 (on the LP line) I repeated much of it on the campaign trail and online.

I think your contempt for Trump, and Manichean attempts to paint him as all evil, is impairing your normally piercing attention to detail, and ability to fairly incorporate relevant context into your analysis. So we continue have a disagreement over the Cruz adulteries, as I concluded based on this thread and its links that the story was and is confirmed for some of the women, while you do not. I brought up the fact that the Rubio team first raised the issue to remind you the charges were not invented by Trump or his friends. And bringing up the fact that the Melenia affair began during the months when the divorce was being finalized is a vital fact you omitted. If you don't feel the same way, that doesn't mean the other interpretation is unreasonable, or un-Christian.

 

[Ender]

Briefly, as your patience in dragging this out is endless, while mine is not: My focus with Monica was specifically on the chronology of confirming that story, not the entire Clinton scandal history. The prior trail of Clinton adulteries and sexual assaults, and especially the criminal aspects of them, were routinely dismissed or downplayed by the MSM during his presidency whether they 'covered' the stories or not.

The blue dress confirmed the Lewinsky affair and got mainstream coverage, only after the story had already been confirmed by the recorded phone conversations, which included confessions by Lewinsky and a third party witness (Linda Tripp). These previous confirmations were NOT covered until Drudge broke the story---that is simply the history. I know the adultery history well, since when I ran against Hillary in 2000 (on the LP line) I repeated much of it on the campaign trail and online.

I think your contempt for Trump, and Manichean attempts to paint him as all evil, is impairing your normally piercing attention to detail, and ability to fairly incorporate relevant context into your analysis. So we continue have a disagreement over the Cruz adulteries, as I concluded based on this thread and its links that the story was and is confirmed for some of the women, while you do not. I brought up the fact that the Rubio team first raised the issue to remind you the charges were not invented by Trump or his friends. And bringing up the Melenia affair began during the months when the divorce was being finalized is a vital fact you omitted. If you don't feel the same way, that doesn't mean the other interpretation is unreasonable, or un-Christian.

So, guilty until proven innocent?

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

So, guilty until proven innocent?

Where did private judgement based on probability get equated with public verdict with sentence? They are not close to the same thing.

 

[Ender]

Where did private judgement based on probability get equated with public verdict with sentence? They are not close to the same thing.

Did you read the post? Reading is your friend.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Did you read the post? Reading is your friend.

Yes, I read his post. In fact, I agreed with it. I remember the time, in fact we were even on the same forum back then. What Peace&Freedom said was accurate, and a moderate, reasoned response.

 

[Ender]

Yes, I read his post. In fact, I agreed with it. I remember the time, in fact we were even on the same forum back then. What Peace&Freedom said was accurate, and a moderate, reasoned response.

So, guilty until proven innocent- as I said.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Did you read the post? Reading is your friend.

So, read the thread I referenced. I was of the "Cruz doesn't have enough game to have done that" school, until I reviewed the info. So I did view him as innocent, now believe he's guilty.

 

[Ender]

So, read the thread I referenced. I was of the "Cruz doesn't have enough game to have done that" school, until I reviewed the info. So I did view him as innocent, now believe he's guilty.

You can view all you want, but people should always be innocent until proven guilty. Remember how guilty everyone thought the Duke lacrosse students were.

Skepticism is fine; one should be careful about touting someone's guilt without due process.

 

[jmdrake]

Briefly, as your patience in dragging this out is endless, while mine is not: My focus with Monica was specifically on the chronology of confirming that story, not the entire Clinton scandal history. The prior trail of Clinton adulteries and sexual assaults, and especially the criminal aspects of them, were routinely dismissed or downplayed by the MSM during his presidency whether they 'covered' the stories or not.

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.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It is in the Bible that you should not take the name of the Lord in vain and not to mock God. Trump did both when he said he never apologized to God. Also hypocrisy is against the Bible and you and your fellow Trump supporters are practicing it. My point about Trump's lack of repentance was made in response to your fellow Trump supporter accusing Cruz of being unrepentant for not "fessing up" to an unsubstantiated smear campaign. What Trump attempted to do to Cruz is what others attempted to do to Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. I'm shocked (seriously) that you have so willingly gone along with this. Shocked and frankly disappointed.

Have you asked for forgiveness for the smear campaign you appear to be waging?

 

[LibertyEagle]

^This

You missed his point. Completely.

I usually don't ban people because I want to expose them. Before the Ron Paul revolution, virtually the only folks who supported Ron Paul were followers of Eagle Forum and John Birch Society. They kept him around and hanging in there for so many years.

I don't forget things like that. 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.

 

[erowe1]

Have you asked for forgiveness for the smear campaign you appear to be waging?

Smear campaign against whom? Trump?

 

[jmdrake]

Have you asked for forgiveness for the smear campaign you appear to be waging?

It's not a smear campaign when you have hard evidence lady. You are the one who needs to ask forgiveness for your smears, personal attacks and violations of the forum rules. I have hard evidence that Donald Trump:

1) Lied when he claimed to be against the Iraq war from the beginning. Answering the question "Should we invade Iraq" with "I guess so. But we should have done it right the first time" is not being against the Iraq war from the beginning.

2) Lied when he said he was against the war in Libya from the beginning. Quite the opposite. When Obama was talking about a limited bombing campaign, Trump was demanding that we send in ground troops.

3) In the same book where he claimed to be against gun control he called for a total assault weapons ban. Yes, that was 2000. No, he never repudiated that stance. Sure, one can argue he doesn't believe that now but again he didn't repudiate his earlier stance and he's only being consistently pro gun now that he is running for the GOP nomination.

4) He thinks TARP is necessary.

5) He think unbridled eminent domain is "great."

I was neutral on Trump, even after Ron Paul started attacking him as authoritarian (you think Ron Paul should ask forgiveness as well), but after I saw the mounting evidence that this man cannot be trusted I decided I could no longer take that position.

You want to be against Ted Cruz because he didn't vote for Audit the Fed? Fine. That's cool. You want to attack him based on unsubstantiated rumors in the National Inquirer? That's beneath you, but okay. You want to compare my pointing out the facts about Donald Trump to unsubstantiated yellow journalism? That's beneath contempt.

 

[jmdrake]

You missed his point. Completely.

No I didn't.

 

[jmdrake]

Smear campaign against whom? Trump?

Apparently some people think that documented evidence that doesn't make their candidate look good = smear campaign.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I am talking about your smear campaign against fellow forum members.

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

 

[jmdrake]

I am talking about your smear campaign against fellow forum members.

You mean forum members who call me a liar for telling the truth and then challenge me to prove that and when I do have nothing to say? Forum members like that?

Edit: And this is yet another example of you starting a personal attack LE.

 

[Bryan]

There is great value in discussing matters of public important, but the value gets lost if the discourse degrades and matters become personal. That's what we have here, now. No one wants to be accused of things, and doing it publicly is just going to cause a mess. We must remember that ultimately we are on the same side and we shouldn't burn bridges with each other. We can disagree but its best done in a friendly manner. If you are truly concerned with someones behavior try to discuss it in PMs, or explan it to the staff. You will have a stronger case if you do not retaliate.