Trump: I May Pay Legal Fees of Guy Who Sucker-Punched and Talked About Killing Protester
Trump says he has instructed his legal people to look into the possibility of paying the legal fees of a man who sucker-punched a protester at one of his rallies.
Imagine if someone said they wanted to start a collection to pay for the legal fees of the guy who rushed Trump the other night and had to be detained by the Secret Service. Or if someone said they would pay the legal fees of anyone who attacked or killed Trump. I think people would rightly decry a statement like that, because it would appear to condone and promote violence.
Yet Trump is considering defending the guy who did this:
And then said “the next time we see him, we might have to kill him”:
When asked if he liked the rally, [Trump supporter John McGraw] said: “You bet I liked it. Knocking the hell out of that big mouth.”
And when asked why he punched the protester, he said: “Number one, we don’t know if he’s ISIS. We don’t know who he is, but we know he’s not acting like an American, cussing me… If he wants it laid out, I laid it out.”
He added: “Yes, he deserved it. The next time we see him, we might have to kill him. We don’t know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization.”
When will the electorate decide enough is enough?
This is getting very hard to take.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:25 amThe more absurd the victory of either Trump or HRC, the better to motivate folks to demand systemic change.
Of course, there is still a puncher’s chance that Ted gets it done and we can fight from within the system.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:51 amWhat percentage of Trump supporters would have stood in line to punch the protester?
I’m relatively certain that some of Trump’s most vocal supporters here would queue up, and probably pay good money for the change to be at the head of the line.
The interesting thing is: Based on the video, the defendant is very likely to be convicted. Trump can’t pay to get the guy out of that conviction.
And of course, nothing Trump has said about paying the guy’s “legal fees” — which most people probably understood in this context to be not only a promise to pay fees, but also the costs of a settlement — is remotely close to being a binding obligation.
Now that he’s been used for purposes of the weekend news cycle, this supporter is likely to find himself spectacularly on his own — indeed, he’s very likely to find Trump pointing the finger at him alone if there’s civil litigation brought by the victim against them both (as seems incredibly likely).
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:51 am* “change to be at the head of the line” –> “chance to be at the head of the line”
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:52 amEspecially since otherwise sensible people are defending Trump on this. It’s still rather early in the primary season. Somehow I don’t think we’ve gotten to the nadir of this behavior yet.
Christ, I thought it was bad when Obama was exhorting his followers to get in our faces.
Bill H (dcdd7b) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:56 amWhat would you wager that dude would STILL support Trump, even if he is discarded like yesterday’s leftover oatmeal?
Bill H (dcdd7b) — 3/14/2016 @ 1:00 amThere’s a few ‘happy’ people who are going to tell us that punching people can be cool if they deserve it, or that fruit punch is a cool drink on a summer drink, or that punch ball was a cool game in fourth grade. (LOL)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 3/14/2016 @ 1:04 ami think your headline is a lil tendentious Mr. P
from watching the video where this was discussed, i doubt very much that Mr. Trump is gonna pay any legal fees in this case – he said he’d look at the situation and decide if it was warranted, but he seems a bit dubious about this
happyfeet (831175) — 3/14/2016 @ 1:19 amYet again, I find myself defending Trump, though I’m not a Trump supporter.
Why? Because I’m utterly sick and tired of of the thugs of the left getting away with things like they did in Chicago, and countless other places. It’s high time they got a taste of their own medicine, because trying to be civilized about it just isn’t working.
The guy who got punched was, according to what I’ve read, shoving people, etc, so yeah, if that’s the case IMHO he had it coming.
I’ve always liked Breitbart’s “Punch back twice as hard”.
Or, as Ronald Reagan, as governor of California and faced with the Berkley riots, told the police “use whatever method they choose against the protesters”. As a result, one of the students died. What did Reagan say about that? “Some of you who are old enough to know better let young people think they have the right to choose which laws they will obey in the name of social protest.”
Reagan did the right thing.
Arizona CJ (da673d) — 3/14/2016 @ 1:30 amThe truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die.
this is so much more concerning to me than this business with the protester
happyfeet (831175) — 3/14/2016 @ 1:33 amhappyfeet – When there is a gas leak, in this universe, would you knowingly provide a spark of any size?
Thanks to decades of seemingly inconsequential rhetorical and behavioral cuts, our culture, our polity, and our republic are now on life support. Every spark matters.
It will not take very much for the conflagration to fire. Wake up.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 3/14/2016 @ 1:35 amit only takes a spark to get a fire going and soon all those around can warm up in its glowing
happyfeet (831175) — 3/14/2016 @ 1:36 amSorry, CJ, you don’t punch someone after he has already been taken into custody no matter what he did before. Regan did not authorize beating the protesters after they were arrested.
Random Numbers (744102) — 3/14/2016 @ 1:37 amMr. SFV i tell you my thinkings on the sparkly sparkly sparks
happyfeet (831175) — 3/14/2016 @ 1:38 amhere is my feeling on that
if lois lerner and john koskinen’s fascist hijacking of the IRS to butt-rape democracy was not a spark
then i’m not super worried about the risk we face of the failmerican people getting roused by much of anything
happyfeet (831175) — 3/14/2016 @ 1:40 amtrump our next president will pardon those trump supporters who need them.
trump 1 (cffd4a) — 3/14/2016 @ 2:12 amto be honest Mr. JD i just don’t really care if Corey grabbed Michelle I’m too caught up in the excitement of making America great again
that’s probably wrong of me on some level, but gosh this is so exciting
please don’t ruin this for me
happyfeet (831175) — 3/10/2016 @ 2:34 pm
Luke Stywalker (33f010) — 3/14/2016 @ 2:16 amThe Elites on their current dilemma distilled as “Trump”:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/13/the-circus-gop-establishment-figures-discuss-how-to-stop-trump/
Hello? This is life at Rico’s, our putative forum of legal acumen where “La, la, la, I can’t hear you” is the pat response to any argument.
You people are inarticulate, uniformed and incapable of self-awareness, in a word ‘Cattle’.
DNF (755a85) — 3/14/2016 @ 3:44 amI’ve changed my mind about Cruz, he is knuckling under. It does not help that his staunchest supporters are drooling imbeciles.
DNF (755a85) — 3/13/2016 @ 7:20 am
It’s not Cruz I’m worried about, its the rest of you cocks^ckers.
DNF (ffe548) — 3/6/2016 @ 1:37 pm
As bad as my circumstances get, my life is charmed; evidence that God is with me.
Luke Stywalker (33f010) — 3/14/2016 @ 3:53 amDNF (755a85) — 3/13/2016 @ 7:40 am
10. NRO has effectively put the gun to the head of America, “You are not worthy”.
Why in the world are these people preferable to Democrats, or Communists?
DNF (ffe548) — 3/14/2016 @ 4:01 am19. Ok, some are at least paying attention.
DNF (ffe548) — 3/14/2016 @ 4:04 amSo here’s Williamson:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/12/national-review-white-working-class-communities-morally-indefensible-they-deserve-to-die/
And here’s the rebuttal from Deutsche Bank:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-12/deutsche-bank-negative-rates-confirm-failure-globalization
We have no jobs to support the global economy, this is the whole reason for the Fed loaning $16 Trillion to foreign banks, we can no longer fill the role required of the “Reserve Currency”, $500 Billion in global USD yearly input gone and never to return.
DNF (755a85) — 3/14/2016 @ 4:22 amNo one seems to be much of a history student today. Read the rise of fascism in the 1920’s (the socialist version of nationalism) then read 1 Samuel Chapter 8.
cedarhill (0dcbf8) — 3/14/2016 @ 4:45 amThis will be the election year of riots by the left. It’s what they do.
Blaming Trump or anyone for “hate speech”, et al, is symptomatic of how far the Village has gon.
Moveon is doubling down. They claim that they are “overwhelmingly peaceful” and are raising funds in an email to keep disrupting Republican rallies. Of course, they can’t disrupt Republican rallies by being peaceful. A wee, tiny, tiny fraction of their troopers has to infiltrate the rally so they can start fights and attempt to intimidate those who came to hear the candidate, but that is just a tiny tiny fraction of their peaceful members. This is from the article:
So we will be faced with a choice. Fight back or go home. I know what Soros wants us to do. I am not a Trump supporter, but I am not outraged that his supporters attempted to protect their First Amendment right to hear their candidate, who, by the way, paid real money to rent the facility. Nor am I surprised that one of several thousand irritated supporters threw a sucker punch at the thug who remained disruptive even as he was being led out. And I won’t be saddened if he is prosecuted, but I would expect his victim to face charges for his behavior also.
It gets down to the meaning of peaceful, and I don’t think the behavior of the thugs inside that building was “peaceful”. If Soros is allowed to sneak 150 such thugs into every rally, and if it takes 5 minutes to identify (after the fact, by their disruptive behavior) and remove each group of 5 thugs, then we are looking at an effective closure of all Republican rallies.
BobStewartatHome (a52abe) — 3/14/2016 @ 5:28 am23. “how far the Village has gone.”
Fighting the battle lost Nov. 2012 in feckless revanchism, tilting at windmills is all this Conservative adoption of the left’s tactics can obtain.
Your opportunity has passed never to return.
DNF (e4ee41) — 3/14/2016 @ 5:28 amYup. That was a typical Trump supporter. Gay Midnight Cowboy outfit and all. Giving an elbow to the face of a kid half his size already in the the custody of four cops. Emblematic.
nk (dbc370) — 3/14/2016 @ 5:51 amWhen he hires Hell’s Angels as security let me know.
pinandpuller (c16705) — 3/14/2016 @ 5:52 amHell’s Angels, heh, don’t make me laugh. Trump probably trucked this guy in from 42nd Street where he peddles his “leather” to homely gays who have to pay for “rough trade”. Who wears a lavender shirt and a black leather vest, for crying out loud?
nk (dbc370) — 3/14/2016 @ 6:09 amnk, the assailant was standing on the next step up the stair case when the blow was thrown, so he appears taller. I’d say the disruptor was an inch or two taller and 50 pounds heavier than the urban cowboy. And I noticed the elbow also. The assailant would have had difficulty reaching the disruptor’s face with his elbow if they were standing on level ground.
BobStewartatHome (a52abe) — 3/14/2016 @ 6:12 amThis won’t help Cruz… http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/video-reveals-pastor-calls-for-execution-of-gays-then-introduces-ted-cruz-on-stage/
Colonel Haiku (eff58e) — 3/14/2016 @ 6:29 amWhen random acts of passionate stupidity become a general melee, do civil authorities bother with criminal charges on multiple assailants? Trumpismo is certainly headed towards mob violence and the Moveonistas don’t lack for morons willing to compete for the first Darwin Award of the electoral season. Are prosecutors going to actually charge for acts of stupidity or will they treat the mutual combat in the same manner as conflicts between union thugs and scabs are generally treated, with no actual charges being laid except in cases of great bodily harm?
Rick Ballard (ba78e0) — 3/14/2016 @ 6:55 amKill the gays and burn the Harry Potter books… oh and vote Cruz for common sense conservatism… yeah, that’s how we restore the American ideals so dear to everyone.
Cruz’s own Dad says that Cruz said he was told by God to pursue the presidency.
Trump, Obama, Cruz and Hillary — the four horsemen of the apocolypse
spokanebob (6797b5) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:08 amONE thing is for sure…. You couldn’t pay me to go to a TRUMP rally !!!!
These people are asking for trouble and a few cells short of a brain.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:10 amThe sds were peaceful till they went to cuba to cuba to train and came back as the weather underground, btw who was presentvcheering the protest, bill ayers
narciso (732bc0) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:15 am#30: Colonel, isn’t it strange how only Republican chickens come home to roost? Cruz runs into this guy at a conference, and now they are bedfellows. Obama sits in a church for 20 years and is assumed by the media to be completely unaware of the substance of the sermons.
This is how the game is played.
BobStewartatHome (a52abe) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:16 amCruz’s own Dad says that Cruz said he was told by God to pursue the presidency.
…………………………………………………………………………..
bob, you’re an idiot because that is not what Cruz said………….
Cruz said that for the sake of his daughters and this mangled messed up BO defaced country he would run.
Then he said if the doors are shut by the will of God then he would not…..CRUZ’s doors have been pretty open thus far and with every establishment including the ignorant people like you trying to take him down HE SITS PRETTY GOOD!
jealously/envy is no way to go through life!
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:16 amAs of he was only cheering thebprotest, instead of organizing them as in Egypt.
narciso (732bc0) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:17 am#36 – by the same standard that is being applied to Trump should Cruz be expected to disavow comments that Pastor Swanson made?
spokanebob (1aaf2a) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:26 amYes that’s too much max blumenthaling* for my taste.
narciso (732bc0) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:30 am“You couldn’t pay me to go to a TRUMP rally !!!!”
How ’bout if Trump made a conditional promise to pay hospital/funeral costs as well as legal fees, if he felt like it?
Rick Ballard (ba78e0) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:32 amI’m sure John oliver won’t make too much of that, maybe Russell brand.
narciso (732bc0) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:36 amThen he said if the doors are shut by the will of God then he would not…..CRUZ’s doors have been pretty open thus far and with every establishment including the ignorant people like you trying to take him down HE SITS PRETTY GOOD!
jealously/envy is no way to go through life!
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:16 am
Yup! Pretty good:
G6loq (3a2647) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:45 amPastor calls for executions of gays, is joined on stage by Ted Cruz
https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/709060312759029761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Trump is probably appreciative that the guy took out the crazy lunatic “protester” who flipped off the crowd because the dude was a threat to the innocent people gathered there. You have to presume the guy is going to start shooting or stabbing any second if he is crazy enough to flip off the crowd.
jcurtis (00837a) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:45 amHonor thy father and mother. Whosoever shall speak badly of his father or mother shall be put to death.
nk (dbc370) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:56 amMoveon, bill ayers, do you need van Jones to complete the picture.
narciso (732bc0) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:01 amDo you think there may come a time when people get tired of anarchists trying to control public discourse?
Jim (a9b7c7) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:08 am38.#36 – by the same standard that is being applied to Trump should Cruz be expected to disavow comments that Pastor Swanson made?
No. Each candidate is entitled to pursue which ever avenue they choose. The proof will be in the pudding…. or the fruit.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:11 am“You couldn’t pay me to go to a TRUMP rally !!!!”
How ’bout if Trump made a conditional promise to pay hospital/funeral costs as well as legal fees, if he felt like it?
nope. my soul is not for sale. People are so weak and deserve what they get for being weak.
survival of the fittest.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:13 am44.Honor thy father and mother. Whosoever shall speak badly of his father or mother shall be put to death.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:14 am………………………………………………………………………….
mothers and fathers are merely vessels God uses. God is the only father we owe anything to.
Forgive me if I take Christ’s Word over yours, jrt.
nk (dbc370) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:21 am“survival of the fittest”
I don’t see how that could apply in a Moveonista/Trumpista confrontation. There would certainly be survivors but nature doesn’t really place a particularly high reproductive value on emotion.
Rick Ballard (ba78e0) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:27 amhow quickly they forget:
http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/258925/
narciso (732bc0) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:34 amAren’t you a lawyer? If so, that’s an interesting take on this. We’re going to pay for his legal defense if he’s found indigent so how is this different from Trump offering to pay? I’m just asking the hard questions, here. As a lawyer, do you only choose cases where you KNOW the client is innocent? Do you refuse cases when you KNOW the client is guilty? Does the state suggest support for his position in paying for his defense? I think the attack was unprovoked and unjustifiable. I still don’t advocate judging him on the internet…or in the press. Is this something you can get behind?
RaynMan (2f33cb) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:35 amContext, nk, context
If one’s father told you to sacrifice to Baal, do you think Jesus would say to ignore his idolatry??
We too often (self included) take a statement at face value in the abstract, rather than understand the meaning in the context. Elsewhere Jesus said to hate your family for His sake.
In some ways it is not helpful at all to speak of theological differences in the public debate, but yeah, probably at some point Cruz, he will need to clarify his view of how religious freedom works in the context of our system of government.
MD not exactly in Philly (b0439a) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:38 amIf he can do it well, it may turn into a big win.
IMO, no way are we going to enforce Old Testament law for the nation of Israel on the US,
But freedom of religion does mean that if one believes that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equivalent, you have the freedom to believe that and to live according to that belief as long as there is no harm done to anyone.
Of course, that is part of the debate, some claim that needing to call a different baker for a wedding cake is a crime.
50.Forgive me if I take Christ’s Word over yours, jrt
…………………………………………………..
you mean perception of Christ’ word as it was written. God is the creator of all as Jesus too refer to him as his father. Mary and Joseph were merely vessels. If one gets caught up in pleasing the human father and mother then they usually forget to see what their real father has chosen for their life.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:39 amone could cite romans and leave out the problematic old testament texts, paul focuses on such behavior, is reflective of denial of god’s truth,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:41 am#51:
Hmmm …
Yours is a theoretical argument, I presume?
BobStewartatHome (a52abe) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:43 amIt is generally a safe bet that when someone claims to just be asking the tough questions, they are being a twatwaffle.
JD (f1ca56) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:45 amTrump has no idea what’s coming or going…. which side is which….That’s the problem with Trump he speaks a lot on stuff he has little closeness with.
Emotions are always over done.
I like Trump for his entertainment FACTOR, but after nearly a decade of Obama we are in critical conditions….. bleeding from the neck, and only Cruz offers real solution
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:46 amOver the weekend Cruz got THE MOST DELEGATES THAAT NO ONE IS REPORTING
CRUZ GETS more than80% of Wyoming!!!!!!!!!!!!
Trump got 1 delegate.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:48 am56.one could cite romans and leave out the problematic old testament texts, paul focuses on such behavior, is reflective of denial of god’s truth
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:55 am………………………………………………………………………………………
Ok then, Yes Old Testament were the books compiled before the birth of Jesus. But then God needed for Jesus to walk the earth and try to shake some sense into the people that were blindly following Old Testament by its exact wording. The word of God written is not always the same as God’s word.
there is a remarkable continuity between the new and the old testament,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/14/2016 @ 8:59 amHonor thy father and mother does NOT mean to live a life of guilt because you don’t accept/respect or honor an abusive weak father or mother. Now, I was not abused and was given mostly honorable mother and father, but when I see the amount of abuse at the hand of mothers and fathers, I have to say that mothers and fathers are merely vessels… luck of the draw. I am pro choice though because God has given man the ability to terminate an embryo before it become life/breath and that life then stays with God. I am pro choice because God gives us free will and no one can’t take what God gives even if those that abuse free will need punishment. I am also pro capitol punishment because for a society to stand and allow a rabid animal to continue to abuse without taking them out of society is asking for more abuse.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 9:03 am62.there is a remarkable continuity between the new and the old testament,
…………………………………………………………………..
sure, but if there weren’t any problems with man then Jesus wouldn’t have been sent.
BUT since he was we can take from that….. God expects more from us….
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 9:05 amI am probably the least qualified person here to discuss the Bible and what God wants from us, but I think God sent Jesus to save and forgive us because we are so sinfully weak.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/14/2016 @ 9:10 amYes, Bob Stewart, agreed. I’ve recently read how Gateway Pundit has gone off the rails on other stuff, so grain of salt applies.
Colonel Haiku (eff58e) — 3/14/2016 @ 9:23 amjrt for Cruz –
I don’t believe you have been around here real long, and don’t yet know some of the personalities and how to “understand/interpret” what is sometimes said,
And though I’ve been around off and on 10 years or more, often I just scratch my head in puzzlement,
Since this excursion began with an interaction between you and nk,
nk is not argumentative, imo, but he will tweak things a bit, and it is often worth asking him to clarify
In the case about, I’m tempted to think he was simply making a statement that when we start to explain what Jesus meant, we aren’t as authoritative as Jesus Himself, details of the specific case in question aside.
I could be wrong though.
In any case, nk is happy to remind us (somewhat tongue in cheek) that he is one of the few around here who have read the original, being Greek himself.
MD not exactly in Philly (b0439a) — 3/14/2016 @ 9:24 amSpeaking of which, I just saw an ad for “My Big Fat Greek Wedding II”
Or am I guilty of cultural appropriation by referring to it?
MD not exactly in Philly (b0439a) — 3/14/2016 @ 9:28 am#63 jrt for Cruz wrote, “I am pro choice though because God has given man the ability to terminate an embryo before it become life/breath and that life then stays with God.”
That may well be the most morally-upside down garbage I’ve ever heard.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 3/14/2016 @ 9:39 amDo you not realize that God gives us all free will to do anything? But “anything” we do does not earn God’s endorsement. He’s given us the free will to go shoot a gun at people having a picnic in the park on a Saturday, but that doesn’t mean we have a green light to go and do it.
A lot of moral choices are defined by restraining one’s self from doing what you’d like to do.
I was being tongue in cheek with my first comment, responding to suggestions that Cruz might should denounce his father (quoting Matthew 15 where Christ chides the Pharisees for weaseling around the Commandments themselves while criticizing the Disciples’ hygiene).
But if anybody here thinks that Cruz should denounce his father’s religious beliefs to avoid some political disadvantage, I would be very glad to bitterly disagree with him. Maybe your parents don’t come before God but they sure should come before votes or pats on the fanny from pundits and media.
nk (dbc370) — 3/14/2016 @ 9:57 am60. OH is too close to call so Kasich is in the hunt for 66 tomorrow.
The vast majority tho are Trump’s so enough of this Cruz has momentum. He will get no more than 600 or so on the first ballot at convention.
Let’s at least try to have some perspective, mmmK?
DNF (755a85) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:04 am#70 No one suggested he denounce his father’s religious beliefs except jrt who injected that interpretation. His father did, however state that certain statements were made by his son at a prayer meeting with Pastor Randle, Ted, his wife and his father.
spokanebob (1aaf2a) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:05 amThe statements that Pastor Swanson made at a different time about killing gays and disavowing Harry Potter were made right before candidate Cruz spoke to the audience. It is probably reasonable to expect that someone who is running for POTUS can be expected to disavow those types of comments much as Trump failed to do that for the klan references to his campaign.
MD not exactly in Philly,
I don’t post to start arguments/drama
I post merely to give my opinion. I don’t care either way if you agree or disagree with my opinion. But, you telling me that your 10 years posting hx., and then coming to the defense of another poster only shows that you like to stir up drama.
Just agree or disagree with my opinion is all that is needed on an opining board.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:09 amMany of you just don’t get it. Yet.
Its “us” versus “them” now. No mushy middle exists any more.
mark johnson (4111cf) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:24 amI’ve been reading Dr. Kildare stories (the originals by Max Brand), myself, MD.
I haven’t seen the second BFGW, but the first one was fun. Over-dramatized, maybe, but not a parody, speaking as someone with a lot of girl cousins whose weddings I stood up at as a groom’s man. We often quote from it around the house.
nk (dbc370) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:26 am73. With all due respect, unqualified opinion is worthless. Spewing indiscriminately is measure of a crappy citizen.
DNF (755a85) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:27 amCruz is THE tough, but honest pill that democrats and Rhinos don’t want to swallow.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:28 amWhy is it that the media isn’t covering the fact that Most democrats are switching parties to jump on Trumps party train to Kardashianville. Trump is a pop cult phenomenon that democrats and a few stupid republicans see as a path out of Obama-mania….. Only the truth would be more uncertainty and Trump would be more of the same Obama-drama
Only Cruz offers solution without bells and whistles, and golden Trump towers. If this nation ends up with a Trump as president when they could have had a V-8/Cruz then shame on them, and I guess we all go down the drain with the dirty bath water.
No fears as God will always be there to save he baby.
77. “No fears as God will always be there to save he baby.”
I believe that too, but the toll to the living may be eternal and Judgement will fall on the enormity of the offense.
DNF (755a85) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:35 amFun movie, nk. I hope the squelch does it justice.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:35 amSequel, not squelch, and that had to be Auto-Correct. I am disabling it permanently.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:36 amCombine the fact that it’s a heavily edited video from the off-the-rails MSNBC with the off-the-rails Gateway Pundit’s commentary and you’ll need to to take it with a 10lb bag of salt.
You can tell it’s heavily edited. At the 52 second mark this pastor is on the left hand side of the stage waving his bible around. Then at the 53 second mark he’s magically behind the podium. He doesn’t walk to it. One second he’s in one spot. Then next second he’s magically in another spot.
They edited out all but 1:02 or three minut
Steve57 (79ea4f) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:42 amyes a touch of blumenthalization,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:43 amThis is easy for me. If the pastor who introduced Cruz said gays should be executed because they are gay, then Cruz should disavow what he said. Politicians shouldn’t have to answer for everything supporters say, but it’s different if he was part of the rally.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:53 amOk, this sucks. My cursor was nowhere near the submit button but I hit the space bar and boom. Submitted. I meant to say they apparently edited out all of the guys remarks, and he did talk quite a bit more than that, except those to somehow make it look like Cruz is in favor of executing gays.
But that isn’t what was going on. The Pastor wasn’t giving a sermon. This was about politics. It was about religious liberty and free speech. People have gone to jail in other countries for reading these “problematic” verses in Leviticus and Romans. In countries where there is not God, or if you believe in God you’re a retard, and there are not eternal truths governments can’t understand why they can’t censor you and indeed make you edit your scripture.
We are rapidly becoming just such a country. There are assaults on the First Amendment all the time.
So the pastor wasn’t preaching a sermon about the sin of homosexuality. He was talking about the assaults on our first amendment rights. That’s why he finished up (in the edited portion Rachel Madcow left in to give completely the wrong impression of what was going on) by saying he wasn’t ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and he would go to jail.
Because there’s a movement afoot to make preaching the Bible a crime if you insist on preaching all of it including the not-approved-by-the-government “not-nice” “un-inclusive” parts.
Steve57 (79ea4f) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:04 amThat isn’t what was happening. It wasn’t a religious revival it was a political event. Specifically about protecting our First Amendment right of free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.
There are parts of the Bible that aren’t politically correct and can land you in jail in other countries if you insist on preaching them. Specifically the parts that state that homosexual activity it is a sin. Preachers in other countries have gone to jail for reading the parts of the Bible the pastor made a point of talking about. The leftist brownshirts can’t understand why Christians can’t just update their scriptures now that the SCOTUS has decriminalized homosexuality and legalized gay marriage.
Since the SCOTUS is the supreme moral authority in their universe that means it is in ours, and the only reason we Christians won’t get on board with the program must be because we hate the LGBT crowd.
That’s why the pastor said he isn’t ashamed of any part of the Bible and would rather go to jail.
This was an event about the Constitution. It was only religious in the sense that it was specifically about the portion of the Bill of Rights that bears on religion.
Steve57 (79ea4f) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:16 amof course not, but if you’re going to address a national audience, maybe a little discretion is warranted, of course we should be mindful to focus on all sins of the flesh, not just the ones that repel us the most,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:22 amI think open secrets is a reliable link,
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/14/report-soros-money-funding-john-kasichs-presidential-bid/
narciso (732bc0) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:36 amI am not convinced, Steve57. I think it is fair to ask candidates if they agree with the statements of the people who introduce them at events, no matter what kind of events they are.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:36 amBut does he understand that? He doesn’t seem to know much about the legal system; he doesn’t know the difference between a legal opinion and a bill for a law, or to have heard of the first amendment, or to know that the military are trained to disobey illegal orders, or that the police can’t and won’t arrest people for disagreeing with him, so maybe he’s also unaware of the differences between a criminal and a civil case, and thinks that he can “pay the fine” for this fellow and get him out of trouble.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:37 amIt has nothing to with being repelled. As a political matter we only need to focus on those sins the gub’mint wants to financially ruin you or jail you for refusing to condone.
When I can lose my business and my house and my life savings for refusing to cater a swinger’s party then we can focus on other sins of the flesh.
Steve57 (79ea4f) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:39 amAgreed, Steve, just try not to use the passage that makes you look like a wahhabi, imho,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:40 amUnderstand that I am speaking *analytically* here, not *proscriptively*:
I think the electorate isn’t going to decide enough is enough because the part of the electorate which likes Trump *likes* this sort of thing, and because enough of the rest of the electorate isn’t sure whether to believe Trump and his allies or Trump’s opponents.
On some level it’s *our* job to persuade the people on the fence to come down off the fence and see it our way – and yelling at them about how they are blind won’t work and might even drive them into Trump’s arms.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:41 am78.77. “No fears as God will always be there to save the baby.”
I believe that too, but the toll to the living may be eternal and Judgement will fall on the enormity of the offense.
…………………………………………………………………………………….
This is why we must see that our relationship with God is not dependent on others. People tend to look to others for answers when God speaks to each of us individually. He speaks to us through guidance and experiences and the places and predicaments that we find ourselves in.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:41 amWe finally have candidates who aren’t afraid to take hard questions, and in Cruz we have someone who can actually answer hard questions and use them to educate voters snd point out hypocrisy in our opponents. That is what will protect our religious rights in the long run.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:43 amjrt for Cruz – oddly, I’d somewhat *like* to go to a Trump rally, so I can see it with my own eyes and understand it through my own experience rather than through the intermediation of media reports.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:44 amMD Not in Philly,
> you have the freedom to believe that and to live according to that belief as long as there is no harm done to anyone.
I think the moderate left agrees with that, and the argument is over whether or not “there is no harm done to anyone” when, for example, a photographer refuses to photograph someone’s wedding *because* it’s a same-sex wedding.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:46 amI finally figured out why Happyfeet supports Trump: Trump wants to ban blenders and food processors and make America grate again, and feets is all for that. No more boringly smooth latkes and kugels, or watever their goyishe equivalents may be called; there needs to be some elbow grease in the mix, not to mention some knuckle skin. Trump undoubtedly had this revelation while visiting Ivanka and Jared for Chanukah, and I’m sure feets has known it all along. And really, if restoring hand grating to its proper culinary position is not enough to justify putting a thug in the White House, then what is?
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:55 amI agree entirely with the pastor that A) Leviticus 20:13 calls for the execution of homosexuals and Romans 1:26-32 says that homosexuals are worthy of death and B) he has the freedom and indeed the responsibility to preach them just as with any other chapter and verse in the Bible. I also agreed with the pastor when he said he was not calling for the execution of gays.
As you can see from my foreshortened prematurely submitted comment @81 I was trying to get around to the fact he spoke for somewhat longer than one minute and two seconds.
But you see, you’d never know that from that video.
Steve57 (79ea4f) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:57 amAphrael – there was a giant GLBT insert whatever new initials go here in Indy recently. There is zero shortage of people wanting that business. I still believe that those that push the photographer/cake/venue disputes are intentionally trying to politicize their wedding, rather than celebrating their wedding.
JD (f1ca56) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:58 amAgain it automatically submitted.
What would you have Ted Cruz take responsibility for, DRJ? What the pastor actually said, or what the video editors at MSNBC want to make you think he said?
I believe Rachel Maddow called it a “full blown battle cry for the execution of gays.”
It wasn’t of course. But if you edit out enough of what he said you can make it look like that.
Steve57 (79ea4f) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:01 pmOh, really? Where did you read that?
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:08 pm92. “God speaks to each of us individually. He speaks to us through guidance and experiences and the places and predicaments that we find ourselves in.”
We certainly agree on this much.
DNF (755a85) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:25 pmBut, you telling me that your 10 years posting hx., and then coming to the defense of another poster only shows that you like to stir up drama.
Just agree or disagree with my opinion is all that is needed on an opining board.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 3/14/2016 @ 10:09 am
I wasn’t coming to the defense of another poster, I was trying to bring understanding, as nk himself later said.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (441480) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:33 pmI actually do not come here just to post and see opinions, I come here to discuss opinions, to see where reason lies, so I prefer clarity to agreement (to roughly paraphrase Prager, lest anyone think I’m taking credit)
How about we actually look at Ted Cruz’ own words and actions in determining his position on same-sex marriage?
He’s repeatedly made clear his own religious views and his own personal policy preference: He’s against same-sex marriage.
However, he’s also repeatedly made clear his view of how the Rule of Law applies to this question, which is to say that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t speak to the question either way, and that it is, instead, a matter for state governments to decide.
Even the New York Times, of all the most biased media sources in the country, has correctly described Cruz’ positions and actions on this issue:
Afterwards, Cruz noted the only real newsworthiness of this story was the NYT’s apparent astonishment that Cruz could meet and speak civilly with someone who disagrees with his own religious and policy views:
As a constitutional conservative, I agree 100% with Cruz that the Constitution is silent upon — and therefore, leaves to the states — the decision whether to permit same-sex marriage. I know he’ll appoint SCOTUS justices who also share that view. Given that he’s not running for a state legislative or executive position, his policy objection to same-sex marriage isn’t very relevant to me (and indeed, it’s one of the very few issues on which I disagree with him).
It concerns me not a single bit that pastors or other religious people have “laid hands” — of blessing and prayer — on Ted Cruz from time to time without him flinching or pushing them away. It concerns me not at all that there are people who support Ted Cruz, like I do, but who also want to actively persecute gays, which neither Ted Cruz nor I want to do.
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:38 pmHrmpf. I was guilty of imprecision in that last paragraph (#104): It ought to have begun with “For purposes of deciding whether to support Ted Cruz, it concerns me ….”
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:42 pmaphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/14/2016 @ 11:46 am
Agreed, which is why I added:
Of course, that is part of the debate, some claim that needing to call a different baker for a wedding cake is a crime.
Not sure what counts as “moderate” left. If the “moderate” left thinks a small businessman is not allowed to live according to their faith because of a minor inconvenience, then I don’t think that is moderate, and I don’t think that is what freedom of religious expression was meant in the founding of the country. If someone wants to claim it is not a minor inconvenience to say, “Please get another baker for the wedding cake”, but a vicious personal insult, well, then one is talking virtually about thought crime.
BTW, I am not so much opposed as banning Christians from the marketplace* as to the dishonesty about it. All of the “But how can my gay marriage hurt you?” nonsense.
I imagine there were many people, both gay and straight, who I guess really thought that, from lack of critical thinking skills,
but I have no doubt attempting to marginalize Christian belief was the goal for many, and they knew it all the time will being dishonest to win support.
*Meaning I expect living a Christian life automatically brings hardship, the Book says so, but I would like the masses to know what they are asking for.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (441480) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:44 pmhe’s too much like santorum
he makes me uncomfortable
happyfeet (a037ad) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:46 pmi have a really really good (heavy) cuisinart and i really don’t use it as much as I should
it’s so great for grating cheese for egg casserole
but my feeling is I’m a season my cast iron pot a little more yet then give it a go in that
my cast iron pot is the best new thing I got in many moons
happyfeet (a037ad) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:49 pmIt’s difficult not to look like such when something on the laundry lists of sins that will prevent you from entering the Kingdom of Heaven the SCOTUS turns around and makes a right. And popular opinion sez 5 justices can overrule anything and we just have to accept it.
Now you’re the Salafist for sticking with the Lord’s word on the matter rather than one of Justice Kennedy’s (writing for the 5 justice majority) silly opinions.
Steve57 (79ea4f) — 3/14/2016 @ 12:52 pmBut did he say that? I have seen nothing to indicate that. Every report I’ve seen says he did nothing but quote the Bible. So what do you expect Cruz to do? Disavow the Bible?! That is not going to happen, and it is not reasonable or really acceptable to expect that.
And it’s downright offensive to pretend not to see the difference between the Bible and the Ku Klux Klan. Yes, Trump was under an absolute obligation to disavow the KKK, and no, Cruz is under no obligation to disavow the Bible, and if you don’t understand the difference there’s nothing I can say. For that matter, both 0bama and Clinton claim to be Christians, and to believe in the Bible. Clinton in particular is emphatic about it; would anyone ask her to disavow it?! As a non-Christian let me say that it will be a sad day if this ever becomes a country in which it’s not acceptable to be a Christian, or in which Christians feel a need to apologize for their faith.
Nor do I see any reason to worry about Cruz’s father’s remarks. What exactly did he say that was wrong, or that any religious person would have a problem with? He believes that his son’s ambition to be president is a mission from God? Doesn’t every religious candidate believe that? Doesn’t Clinton believe it? Doesn’t every religious person who sets out on any sort of endeavor to make the world a better place believe it to be his Divine mission and calling? Does the whole concept of a vocation not mean anything any more? What am I missing?
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/14/2016 @ 1:24 pmMaybe, but do you use it for potatoes?
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/14/2016 @ 1:25 pmGoing beyond the specific issue at hand, isn’t that exactly the same attitude as that of every religious president since 1789 (which is to say nearly all of them)? Isn’t it the default attitude we expect from all presidents? Why is it necessary to state it, as if a religious president were some sort of exotic creature from which we don’t know what to expect?
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/14/2016 @ 1:28 pmSteve57:
I don’t think Cruz is responsible for anything other than what he or his campaign staff says. However, I think it is fair to ask him to comment on statements made by his high-profile supporters say or the statements made by people who introduce him at campaign events.
I know the media intend these as gotcha moments and I would worry about other candidates’ ability to respond. I don’t worry about Cruz. I see this as an opportunity for him to educate the voters regarding the issues and his position on the issues, and to put the media in its place if it uses these gotcha questions in an abusive manner (as Cruz did in the CNBC debate).
DRJ (15874d) — 3/14/2016 @ 2:23 pmBecause too many people don’t understand the interplay between religion and the Rule of Law, especially given what schools/college teach these days.
DRJ (15874d) — 3/14/2016 @ 2:25 pmHow has every religious president till now (which is to say almost every president till now) handled it? Even 0bama claims to be religious, and yet nobody has demanded that he explain that he’s not the vanguard of a theocracy. Did anyone expect such an explanation of Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, or Carter?
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/14/2016 @ 2:55 pmIf those statements are objectionable, yes. Now tell me what this pastor actually said that is objectionable. And no, quoting the Bible verbatim can never be objectionable, and Cruz not only shouldn’t be expected to distance himself from it, but he shouldn’t do so. I don’t believe in the New Testament, but he does, and if he were to disavow it I’d lose respect for him.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/14/2016 @ 2:57 pmDRJ @114, can you please point to a statement that is actually on that truncated MSNBC video that Cruz needs to respond to? The video is no longer there. I suppose Gateway Pundit was using it without permission; not that I’m surprised.
I can’t remember exactly word for word what Swanson said and I won’t try to paraphrases. Fortunately it was a very short excerpt of what I know were longer remarks. Swanson opened by referring to the book of Leviticus and then said words to the effect that it says to execute homosexuals.
Here’s what it actually says.
Leviticus 20:13 (NIV)
Then Gateway Pundit picks up and completes the transcript.
Again, which one of those comments should Cruz be asked to respond to? Because those are the ones the guy who introduced him actually said.
I can guarantee you that had Swanson said gays should therefore be executed because they are gay MSNBC wouldn’t have edited it out. It would have been more effective to have him say it in his own voice if he had. Rather than Rachel Maddow claiming he had said something like that.
Steve57 (79ea4f) — 3/14/2016 @ 6:34 pmI don’t blame Trump for the punch, but I blame him for his reaction.
He could have said, “Sure, in a certain sense, that guy had it coming. But we need to be bigger than that. They are HOPING we will lose our tempers, so that the media can point and blame. Be the bigger man or woman. Get ’em out when they disrupt, but let’s stop with the punching people whose arms are already pinned.”
But no.
SMH
Mitch (bfd5cd) — 3/14/2016 @ 6:37 pmMilhouse,
I think the society has rapidly moved away from acknowledging even the validity of religious faith.
For example, once upon a time, not that many years ago, “everyone” would have assumed that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Now, not so much.
As a society people don’t even believe in objective truth, and if it did exist, it matters little if you can get away ignoring it.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (ebc723) — 3/14/2016 @ 6:40 pmFor a 78 year old guy, it was a nicely thrown elbow.
Of course it was a sucker punch, but one of the all time “sucker punches” I’ve seen was a guy who stood up in the front row of a bikini contest, blocking the view of about 200 drunk guys on the beach.
So dumbo is waving the finger, mugging to the crowd, shoving people trying to get him to sit down when a 75mph can of beer comes flying from 9 o’clock and levels him. Crowd goes nuts.
Now we have no drinking allowed on the beach, and no bikini contests. Very sad. All because one jack a$$ could dish it out, but couldn’t take it from the other jack a$$ with the great arm.
Be careful out there. Consequences can cascade. Guy falls and hits his head on a step and dies?
But idiot on idiot violence is impossible to ever stop
My prediction?
steveg (fed1c9) — 3/14/2016 @ 7:37 pm78 year old sucker puncher gets credit for time served, 3 years probation and some community service hours picking up trash.