[Unverified] National Enquirer Runs Story of Multiple Ted Cruz Affairs

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...torney-says-election-bombshell-already-online



A lot of DC Madam's logs were released a long time ago. Here's an example of what is being posted all over the place.

OdBkB.jpg


Guess we'll know in a few days if it's anything. If this links to the NE story, then Corsi from Worldnetdaily (see twitter above)
said it would take until next week before NE publishes.

fyi - this was released late yesterday if it's anything.
 
So, in your opinion, it is far superior to keep being raped by our so-called trading partners, with the horrible trading deals that are now in place? Because it would start a "trade war" to renegotiate them such that the terms for the U.S. and the "trading partner" would be the same? Really?

To each their own, but to me, in foreign policy, he seems by far to be the least interventionist.
When Trump negotiates a trade deal, what kind of principles will he bring into negotiation, other than "winning"? I see someone who looks at trade as a zero sum game rather than something which can be transformed into a positive sum game, which is extremely dangerous especially with his childish, volatile temperament. There are certainly a lot of libertarian concerns with these trade deals like TPP, but Trump never addresses them. He just talks about how he will shake things up and make the best deals.

The way he would "shake things up" seems utterly scary to me. One reason why I oppose neoconservatism so strongly is exactly because it promotes shaking things up, which leaves messes and creates many negative chain effects. Neocons create problems. I see Trump doing the same exact thing in trade, except with even a worse temperament.

Least interventionist? He wanted to go into Iraq and now he is sad we left Iraq. He seems to have supported the Libya mess as well. He sounded okay on Syria until he turned full neocon on it in the last debate. Now he wanted to spread nukes around before he didn't, and he wouldn't even rule out using nukes against ISIS. He's a dangerous man.
 
Last edited:
Trump supporters remind me so much of Obamabots from the 2008 election. They didn't really know what he would do, and they didn't really care. They just liked him.

YES WE CAN!
HOPE! CHANGE!


And to the extent that we have any idea what he would do, it's pretty much the same as Obama, except with more bombs.
 
And to the extent that we have any idea what he would do, it's pretty much the same as Obama, except with more bombs.
Don't forget torture, and "winning" (plundering).

I just read the thing about the Geneva Convention too. Should've added it into my response to LibertyEagle. It is very likely that the guy is more anti-peace than neocons. Which is a grand accomplishment.
 
To each their own, but to me, in foreign policy, he seems by far to be the least interventionist.

Is this an April Fools joke?

Trump is extremely and unabashedly interventionist. More than any other politician I can think of.

He wants to use economic sanctions to bully around every country on the globe. Way back in 1987 he was advising Reagan to impose sanctions on France because other countries were getting nuclear technology from them.
 
When Trump negotiates a trade deal, what kind of principles will he bring into negotiation, other than "winning"? I see someone who looks at trade as a zero sum game rather than something which can be transformed into a positive sum game, which is extremely dangerous especially with his childish, volatile temperament. There are certainly a lot of libertarian concerns with these trade deals like TPP, but Trump never addresses them. He just talks about how he will shake things up and make the best deals.
He is totally against TPP and would not sign it, if he were President. He has clearly stated he is against all of the trade deals from NAFTA on. While I would prefer getting rid of them altogether and the associated ruling bodies above our own Congress, renegotiating them such that U.S. companies get at least as good a deal as the country we are trading with, would be a step in the right direction. And yes, he has talked about this many times.

The way he would "shake things up" seems utterly scary to me. One reason why I oppose neoconservatism so strongly is exactly because it promotes shaking things up, which leaves messes and creates many negative chain effects. Neocons create problems. I see Trump doing the same exact thing in trade, except with even a worse temperament.
If you want more detail, you have to watch a townhall. Otherwise you are going to get soundbites.

Least interventionist? He wanted to go into Iraq and now he is sad we left Iraq. He seems to have supported the Libya mess as well. He sounded okay on Syria until he turned full neocon on it in the last debate. Now he wanted to spread nukes around before he didn't, and he wouldn't even rule out using nukes against ISIS. He's a dangerous man.
He doesn't believe in telegraphing his plans to our enemies. That used to be the position everyone held. The other thing I have seen are people posting his positions from 10 or more years back and yes, he has changed on some things. I would imagine you have too.

I am supporting him because he was the person who FINALLY said something about our rotten trade deals. I do think he would improve that situation. Will it be perfect? No, I'm sure not. But, with everyone else, we will just get more of the same. Our country is dying. Or haven't you noticed?

I am also supporting him because I am sick and tired of the illegal alien invasion of our country. I'm sick and tired of paying for them to get free education, free healthcare and even welfare. They are not immigrants; they are criminals.

I also support him because he would shut down bringing more "refugees" over here. At least for the time being.

Finally, I support him because he wants to get rid of the Dept. of Education and return education to the states and the communities.

He's a flawed candidate, for sure. But, I do believe he puts America first and that would be damned nice. Could he be another POS? Yes, he could. But, I know damned well the others would be. Trump has a possibility of doing some great things.
 
Last edited:
Is this an April Fools joke?

Trump is extremely and unabashedly interventionist. More than any other politician I can think of.
Yes, he is by far the least interventionist.

He wants to use economic sanctions to bully around every country on the globe.
Really? How about you provide proof of that. Proof being within the last 5 years.

Way back in 1987 he was advising Reagan to impose sanctions on France because other countries were getting nuclear technology from them.

I went and looked this up. Apparently, France was selling the technology to everyone. Trump was very concerned about nuclear proliferation.

“I’ll tell you why,” Trump says. “People just don’t believe the inevitable. You know, there’s a feeling that it’s always going to happen to the other guy. I read something the other day about a football player who played five years and he saw a lot of guys getting hurt and he never thought it could happen to him. All of a sudden his knee’s gone and he’s out forever. You know—he’s gone. He never thought it could happen to him. Never thought.”

“I believe they’re sort of fools,” Trump says. “They only think about Russia. Russian and U.S. weapons. But the summit is a joke. It’s not about the real nuclear problem. You have countries like France that are openly and blatantly selling nuclear technology.”

Trump is very down on the French.

“They’ve got an arrogant head of the country, who I think is a total fool, and he’s trying to make up for his losses by selling this technology to anyone, and it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace.”

So what’s the solution? I ask him. How do you get the French to stop, how do you get French technology out of the hands of the Pakistanis at this point?

“I think you have to come down on them very hard economically or whatever way,” Trump says. “I think the solution is largely economic. Because there are so many of these countries that are so fragile and we have a vast power that’s never been used. They depend on us for food, for medical supplies. And I would never even suggest using it except on this issue. But this issue supersedes all other things.”

I stopped reading there. Do you have anything from this century erowe?
 
Don't forget torture, and "winning" (plundering).

I just read the thing about the Geneva Convention too. Should've added it into my response to LibertyEagle. It is very likely that the guy is more anti-peace than neocons. Which is a grand accomplishment.

I believe in the just war theory. Heard of it? Go look it up.

I am not a pacifist. In other words, I am not a chicken shit who wouldn't lift a finger to defend my own country. I don't believe in starting wars. Only finishing ones that are waged on us.
 
"Heidi Cruz filed for divorce in 2011 citing infidelity."

Bloggers have reported this with links to a couple sources . . . but links are now broken.

Some reporter should just ask Lyin' Ted
 
"Heidi Cruz filed for divorce in 2011 citing infidelity."

Bloggers have reported this with links to a couple sources . . . but links are now broken.

Some reporter should just ask Lyin' Ted

Filings for divorce are public records. If this was true, it would be very easy for Cruz foes to get documentation. No one has produced any. Why?
 
Filings for divorce are public records. If this was true, it would be very easy for Cruz foes to get documentation. No one has produced any. Why?
Simple.

BECAUSE LYIN' TED IS LYING!!

MAKE AMERICA GREAT! HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[insert punch-a-protester here]
 
Filings for divorce are public records. If this was true, it would be very easy for Cruz foes to get documentation. No one has produced any. Why?

It could still be true if she got a lawyer but didn't go further. However, I've seen no proof.

The standing out in the middle of the street and emotional until the police came however, is documented. And marital problems could have been one reason.
 
It could still be true if she got a lawyer but didn't go further. However, I've seen no proof.

The standing out in the middle of the street and emotional until the police came however, is documented. And marital problems could have been one reason.

I would go so far as to say marital problems are by far the most likely reason. They were also not living together for the longest time.

People are right to suspect that that marriage is held together by cheap masking tape and political aspirations, the problem is just in finding a smoking gun absent Heidi's willingness to admit it. I live in Alabama, and our guvnah robert bentley was said to be having affairs for a while, people kinda knew, but the people who blew the lid off of it once and for all was the guvnahs own wife and kids. Ouch.
 
Everything I've read about the Jindal video indicated that it was a genuine hidden-camera video that by definition would have taken only one take.
 
I believe in the just war theory. Heard of it? Go look it up.

I am not a pacifist. In other words, I am not a chicken $#@! who wouldn't lift a finger to defend my own country. I don't believe in starting wars. Only finishing ones that are waged on us.
You think Trump believes in just war theory?
 
Just posting for info - what's being passed around info. Not too favorable about this one, perhaps I'm not too familiar with anything
besides condoms. But the picture is real, you don't have to magnify it to see it, and the skin color is suggestive. What
is that sticking out of her pocket?

CfJ2DTIWwAAgYQj.jpg
 
I would go so far as to say marital problems are by far the most likely reason. They were also not living together for the longest time.

People are right to suspect that that marriage is held together by cheap masking tape and political aspirations, . . .

It was for 7 years that Heidi and Ted were married and lived apart . . .

- things looking better for them recently.


.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top