‘I’m ashamed to have known you’: Conservatives rip Ann Coulter for ugly smear of hero soldier’s dad

[GilesB]

The R convention was all Trump. The GOP rank and file is not at issue. "Conservatives" are not at issue. Trump is at issue.

Trump fits the stereotype that liberals have created of "conservatives" to a capital T.

Trump has no problem denigrating former POW's, the handicapped, the poor (losers) or the wives and families of those who oppose him. (see: Ted Cruz).

There was absolutely no reason for Trump to say anything about this family, not one bit. The problem is that Trump cannot help himself. This is a guy who tweets insults to 13 year old girls! The man has no self-control at all.

"Thank you for your heroic sons service, Mr. Khan." was about all he should have said. Attacking the mans wife was so far beyond the bounds of decency that every conservative should have no problem telling Trump so. It was completely uncalled for. Calling them "puppets" is also uncalled for.

Mr. Khan is not the Democrat nominee, Mr. Khan is not on the ballot. Neither is the Colorado Springs Fire Department. Trump needs to get some self-control. Maybe he should drop of the race and take a community college course on the subject.

To continue....Ted Cruz (my first choice) is not on the ballot.  If one wants to continually denigrate Trump (you included) - the clear conclusion is that they prefer Hillary to Trump - because one of the two will be president, and she is who they are helping.    Calling the Khans "puppets" is completely called for (I will not cheer for someone assisting tyranny,just because their son died fighting tyranny of a different sort).They allowed themselves to be used by Hillary.  Their son was killed while killing radical Islamists - and Hillary likes the killers of radical Islamists to be killed.  Khan trashed Trump for essentially saying we need to keep radical Islamists out of the US - he lied by calling it unconstitutional, directly out of the Hillary propaganda handbook; and his waving the constitution while putting his own ignorance of the document on display.  They are puppets of Hillary. 

Just so you know, I don't sit here waiting for you to "call for" specific comments; neither you, nor anyone else, is the arbiter of my thoughts.

Regarding the comments about Cruz's wife - Ted's campaign started that war.  You can't have that one both ways.

[GilesB]

Nobody on this website likes Hillary. That kind of statement is undignified. There is nothing uglier and more vitriolic than what you have just posted.

Hillary is, and a Hillary presidency is even more so - and the moribund GOP is most of all. 

You have every right to trash Trump and thereby help Hillary - just don't pretend that you're not helping her.  (BTW - I trash McCain - being a POW he should know better, but he is nothing more than a liberal shill now - not much better than Kerry in that regard.  I have zero respect for the "man" he is today.)

IF you are trying to help Hillary in order to destroy the corrupt GOP, I can accept that.  Had Jeb been the nominee, I would have voted "Hillary" for that purpose.  The relic of cronyism and privilege known as the Republican Party needs to die, the more sooner the more better.

[geronl]

Trump is just as liberal and just as bad as Hillary.

I don't support and will not vote for either of them.

[Smokin Joe]

To continue....Ted Cruz (my first choice) is not on the ballot.  If one wants to continually denigrate Trump (you included) - the clear conclusion is that they prefer Hillary to Trump - because one of the two will be president, and she is who they are helping.    Calling the Khans "puppets" is completely called for (I will not cheer for someone assisting tyranny,just because their son died fighting tyranny of a different sort).They allowed themselves to be used by Hillary.  Their son was killed while killing radical Islamists - and Hillary likes the killers of radical Islamists to be killed.  Khan trashed Trump for essentially saying we need to keep radical Islamists out of the US - he lied by calling it unconstitutional, directly out of the Hillary propaganda handbook; and his waving the constitution while putting his own ignorance of the document on display.  They are puppets of Hillary. 

Just so you know, I don't sit here waiting for you to "call for" specific comments; neither you, nor anyone else, is the arbiter of my thoughts.

Regarding the comments about Cruz's wife - Ted's campaign started that war.  You can't have that one both ways.

I'm not voting for Hillary, either. I'm voting for Darrell Castle (Constitution Party).
As far as the ad with the GQ cover image of Melania,first off, there would have been no ad without the image, consensually obtained, model release signed, licensed for use. You can't blame anyone else for that.
Cruz replied when he heard about the ad "That's not one of ours."
In FReeperland the cartwheeling sh*t fit was that he did not "disavow" the ad, whatever that means, because "That's not one of ours." sure sounds like disavowing to me. Repeating Cruz' comment about the ad, and later the facts did not deter the tempest of crap that flew around the web and twitter over the ad, all (incorrectly) blaming Cruz because he didn't rent out every interstate billboard for ads decrying the ad or have skywriters put smoke trails over every major population center saying it wasn't a Cruz campaign ad. He just said "That's not one of ours." and dismissed it.

That was run by a PAC run by Liz Mair, who actually was a Rubio supporter but who was also quite anti-Trump.

Trump's response was to attack someone who had nothing to do with the ad, viciously, and when it came out that the Cruz camp had nothing to do with it, Trump doubled down and lied and redoubled his attack on Heidi.

His response was rash, vicious, and directed at the wrong person. When shown to be wrong, he not only did not apologize, but lied to justify continued attacks on the wrong people.
Now, if Donald Trump gets elected, and if some rogue Moldovan sets off a nuke in Key West, who is he going to nuke back in retaliation?

Will he get the facts? Or will he plunge into WWIII and lie about who started what?
I don't want him in my White House, thankyouverymuch.

[GilesB]

What I wanted from Cruz was something on the order of: "That ad is despicable.  We had nothing to do with it"  By merely saying he wasn't to blame, he tacitly approved of the message (a particularly weaselly political move, and one that disappointed my greatly,because it was a move attempting to reap the benefit and avoid responsibility at the same time).

"As far as the ad with the GQ cover image of Melania,first off, there would have been no ad without the image, consensually obtained, model release signed, licensed for use. You can't blame anyone else for that."  Yeah....that's exactly the position Cruz took. But - what's good for the goose...

[txradioguy]

What I wanted from Cruz was something on the order of: "That ad is despicable.  We had nothing to do with it"  By merely saying he wasn't to blame, he tacitly approved of the message (a particularly weaselly political move, and one that disappointed my greatly,because it was a move attempting to reap the benefit and avoid responsibility at the same time).

"As far as the ad with the GQ cover image of Melania,first off, there would have been no ad without the image, consensually obtained, model release signed, licensed for use. You can't blame anyone else for that."  Yeah....that's exactly the position Cruz took. But - what's good for the goose...

What part of "it's not one of ours" confuses you?

You realize that the people that ran that ad were IIRC pro Rubio at the time right?

[Smokin Joe]

What I wanted from Cruz was something on the order of: "That ad is despicable.  We had nothing to do with it"  By merely saying he wasn't to blame, he tacitly approved of the message (a particularly weaselly political move, and one that disappointed my greatly,because it was a move attempting to reap the benefit and avoid responsibility at the same time).

"As far as the ad with the GQ cover image of Melania,first off, there would have been no ad without the image, consensually obtained, model release signed, licensed for use. You can't blame anyone else for that."  Yeah....that's exactly the position Cruz took. But - what's good for the goose...

"That's not one of ours" is sufficient to say he had nothing to do with it, and he did not comment.
Why would he, he already said it wasn't his (which most any intelligent person would interpret to mean he had nothing to do with it).

Other fish to fry, not his job, etc. It isn't approval, and definitely not a reason for Trump to go all hell bent for leather attacking Heidi.

Given that Trump acted before he had the facts, attacked the WRONG PEOPLE, and when he found out the facts CONTINUED ATTACKING THE WRONG PEOPLE, and LIED to cover for ATTACKING THE WRONG PEOPLE, don't you have any qualms about this guy having someone following him around 24/7 carrying the nuclear football?

Any concerns for our Armed forces personnel who might find themselves ass deep in a war started by someone who managed deferment after deferment?

Cruz could have cartwheeled across Times Square in the nude with sparklers hanging out of every orifice screaming at the top of his lungs "I didn't do it" and it would have made no difference--and shouldn't have--BECAUSE THE CRUZ PEOPLE IN GENERAL AND HEIDI IN PARTICULAR WERE WRONGFULLY ATTACKED FOR AN AD THEY DID NOT RUN.

And if she hadn't posed for the picture, kindly tell me where the ad would have been then? Nonexistent.

Don't make excuses for the inexcusable. Trump screwed up, doubled down and lied about an innocent man to justify his continuing screwup. He didn't even back down. That's a scumbag in my book.

[GilesB]

So you choose to blame Melania for the ad?  That seems a wee bit hypocritical to me.  Cruz should have blasted the ad, he didn't and in not doing it, he lost the moral high ground, me, and possibly his campaign.  If I recall, Trump's response was pictures of Heidi and Melania - so that must have been Heidi's fault?

[Crazieman]

So you choose to blame Melania for the ad?  That seems a wee bit hypocritical to me.  Cruz should have blasted the ad, he didn't and in not doing it, he lost the moral high ground, me, and possibly his campaign.  If I recall, Trump's response was pictures of Heidi and Melania - so that must have been Heidi's fault?

Leave it to a Trumpist to confuse a private shoot with a public photograph.

[txradioguy]

So you choose to blame Melania for the ad?  That seems a wee bit hypocritical to me.  Cruz should have blasted the ad, he didn't and in not doing it, he lost the moral high ground, me, and possibly his campaign.  If I recall, Trump's response was pictures of Heidi and Melania - so that must have been Heidi's fault?

That's NOT what @Smokin Joe said.

How does continuing to rehash this dead issue help beat Hillary?  What does it have to do with the OP regarding the disgusting comments by Ann Coulter?

[GilesB]

I invite you to read the previous posts to see how it developed.

If Joe wants to blame Melania for the one ad (and he clearly did), then by implication, he must blame Heidi for the next one.

[Crazieman]

I invite you to read the previous posts to see how it developed.

If Joe wants to blame Melania for the one ad (and he clearly did), then by implication, he must blame Heidi for the next one.

Again, to a Trumpist.  A voluntary, private shoot is equivalent to an unflattering public photograph.

Logic fail.

[Neverdul]

"As far as the ad with the GQ cover image of Melania,first off, there would have been no ad without the image, consensually obtained, model release signed, licensed for use. You can't blame anyone else for that."  Yeah....that's exactly the position Cruz took. But - what's good for the goose...

BS. Those photos from her GQ shoot have been on the internet and in the public domain for many years. You can Google them.

The anti-Trump PAC, which BTW had no ties to Cruz, were not the first to use those photos to create internet memes from those publically available photos:





[img 500]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXWvwhIWQAA8ELk.jpg:large[/img]



 

[Henry Noel]

That's NOT what @Smokin Joe said.

How does continuing to rehash this dead issue help beat Hillary?  What does it have to do with the OP regarding the disgusting comments by Ann Coulter?

What did impeaching Bill Clinton have to do with feeding the poor?

[GilesB]

Again, to a Trumpist.  A voluntary, private shoot is equivalent to an unflattering public photograph.

Logic fail.

Ohhhh- I get it.  Melania was OK with her "voluntary private shoot" being used in an ad against her husband, but Heidi was not OK with her "unflattering public photograph" being so used.  Is that it?  Talk about logic fails.

The fact is, Ted could have defused the whole thing early on by making a strongly worded statement against the ad, instead of saying "I didn't do it" and leaving it at that.  I was disappointed in the actions of both men, and lost my fervor for Ted, at that time.

The fact is Trump has overcome his missteps, so far - and Hillary is the only viable alternative.  I would rather vote for Carson or Cruz, but neither of them will be on the ballot, an such a vote would be the same as staying home.

[Crazieman]

Ohhhh- I get it.  Melania was OK with her "voluntary private shoot" being used in an ad against her husband, but Heidi was not OK with her "unflattering public photograph" being so used.  Is that it?  Talk about logic fails.

The fact is, Ted could have defused the whole thing early on by making a strongly worded statement against the ad, instead of saying "I didn't do it" and leaving it at that.  I was disappointed in the actions of both men, and lost my fervor for Ted, at that time.

The fact is Trump has overcome his missteps, so far - and Hillary is the only viable alternative.  I would rather vote for Carson or Cruz, but neither of them will be on the ballot, an such a vote would be the same as staying home.

Continued logic fail.

And laughably, "Was for Cruz", but slighted in a manner not only trivial, but factually incorrect.  Yes, Constitutionalists are a fickle bunch, able to be turned on a media driven dime and utterly uncapable of their own research.

[GilesB]

Continued logic fail.

And laughably, "Was for Cruz", but slighted in a manner not only trivial, but factually incorrect.  Yes, Constitutionalists are a fickle bunch, able to be turned on a media driven dime and utterly uncapable of their own research.

Hey Sweetie Pie - if you laughed less and researched more, you would discover who I was "for".  Quick question - what do you thing got me bounced from FR in the first place?

OHhhhhhhhhh - "factually incorrect"?  Did I miss the time Cruz said the ad that he had nothing to do with was despicable???  Nope, I didn't think so.

Tearing down Trump will not put Cruz on the ballot, much as you or I might want it to, the most it can do is put Hillary in the White House (wild applause for your misguided efforts)

[Smokin Joe]

So you choose to blame Melania for the ad?  That seems a wee bit hypocritical to me.  Cruz should have blasted the ad, he didn't and in not doing it, he lost the moral high ground, me, and possibly his campaign.  If I recall, Trump's response was pictures of Heidi and Melania - so that must have been Heidi's fault?

No, It was Liz Mair's PAC which ran the ad. Melania just provided the material.

So, why attack Heidi Cruz at all?
Why should have Cruz "blasted the ad"?  It wasn't one of his ads. How much of his campaign time should he spend giving Trump and the people who did the ad publicity when he has his own message to get out despite Trump using up most of the airtime on the news already. Why not spend that time talking about his message instead of Trump and an ad he had no connection to?

Which other candidates "blasted the ad" (links please!) ? Were their wives the focus of vicious attacks from Trump?

HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY DONALD TRUMP ATTACKING THE WIFE OF A MAN WHO HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE AD? When the information came out, Trump continued attacking the wife of a man who had no connection with the ad.

Like I said, Trump attacked the wrong people--either with or without knowing where the ad came from. If he knew, then attacked Cruz anyway, well, it makes as much sense as nuking Moscow because Thailand invaded Australia.

Then he doubled down. Trump lied about the ad, when that didn't work, the next angle was the one you just pulled: that some how Cruz didn't 'disavow' the ad HARD ENOUGH.  WTF?

I'll ask you the same question I asked on the last site I saw this "logic".

Just so we know, for future reference, how much 'disavowal' of a dirty trick is enough?


Would you be satisfied with the person who pulled the dirty trick not getting an endorsement?

[Smokin Joe]

I invite you to read the previous posts to see how it developed.

If Joe wants to blame Melania for the one ad (and he clearly did), then by implication, he must blame Heidi for the next one.

I didn't blame Melania for the ad, I just said without the photo shoot there would not have been any material; the ad would not have been possible.

Construing that to mean I blamed her for the ad is the sort of logic which would blame the iron miner in northern Minnesota for the shot fired from a rifle made from the ore. Nope. Granted, there would have been no ad without the image. It just would not have been the same ad on a blank white page.

I'm sure you will screw this up, too little troll, but here goes:

The responsibility for the ad belongs with the people who made and ran the ad.

Let's see if you have a streets of Chicago flashback over that statement.

[Smokin Joe]

Ohhhh- I get it.  Melania was OK with her "voluntary private shoot" being used in an ad against her husband, but Heidi was not OK with her "unflattering public photograph" being so used.  Is that it?  Talk about logic fails.

The fact is, Ted could have defused the whole thing early on by making a strongly worded statement against the ad, instead of saying "I didn't do it" and leaving it at that.  I was disappointed in the actions of both men, and lost my fervor for Ted, at that time.

The fact is Trump has overcome his missteps, so far - and Hillary is the only viable alternative.  I would rather vote for Carson or Cruz, but neither of them will be on the ballot, an such a vote would be the same as staying home.

The fact is, it wasn't a "misstep". It was a brutal, vicious, and ongoing attack, despite knowing it wasn't Cruz' people who ran the ad. It required lying to 'justify' the attack, even though two wrongs don't make a right, and required getting people like you to set some ridiculous non-standard for conspicuously decrying someone else's material to not become a target of the invective of a third party.

Trump: Acted rashly at best (without information), under false premises at worst (knew better, but did it anyway) to attack an innocent party. When it was exposed that that party was innocent, Trump blamed the people attacked, doubled down, and continued to attack the wrong people, at first lying to justify the attack, then blaming the innocent party for not condemning the ad loud enough to suit him, whatever that would take (unspecified).

That's a disturbing pattern of behaviour for someone you'd have in command of the world's most powerful military.

Oh well, if he wins, at least I have a ringside seat for WWIII...

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I had the audacity of exercising Free Thought and Free Speech criticizing Trump on FreeRepublic and got banned today from posting and responding because I said

"So sad that Trump is not capable of mourning for the family of a fallen service man and honor his sacrifice instead of responding in the typical manner he has this time and many other times as well. 'Laugh about it, shout about it, When you've got to choose, Every way you look at it, you lose'"

With all the issues in the world and this country, this election is Trump's to lose, and with such behavior, he may achieve that unintended goal.

Thanks to those who pointed me to this site!

If I haven't said it yet. Welcome! 

[Smokin Joe]

OHhhhhhhhhh - "factually incorrect"?  Did I miss the time Cruz said the ad that he had nothing to do with was despicable???  Nope, I didn't think so.

Tearing down Trump will not put Cruz on the ballot, much as you or I might want it to, the most it can do is put Hillary in the White House (wild applause for your misguided efforts)

Cruz said "That's not one of ours." Simply enough, he wouldn't have an ad like that.
Now, as low as Trumpsters put Cruz on the evolutionary scale, I'd say that is a sufficient decrying of the ad.
Was there something about the public that required they be told the ad was despicable? Maybe a really bad public school education? Zika virus? Endemic neurological deficit involving cognitive faculties? Do I need to tell you the sky is blue? Water is wet? How much jumping up and down needs to accompany the obvious to get the idea across? Should I hire the cast of Sesame Street?

Some things are obvious enough.

That was just another excuse to try to justify attacking people who had nothing to do with the ad.

[LonestarDream]

She's probably bitter because no man would marry her.

Always wondered about that.  As attractive and talented as she was probably could not share her time with another.

[LonestarDream]

That's a really good read.  You're going to enjoy it.

Only problem is, it will remind you again in a big way of the opportunity that was lost (as if we needed reminding).

Ted will run in 18 for the Senate.  Or Gov of Texas or Presidency in 2020.

Wish we could get rid of McConnell and put Ted in the Senate leadership.

Lots to admire in Cruz.

[Smokin Joe]

You are right about the ultimate responsibility.  But I also blame Melania.  They were not secret pictures.  She posed for them, was paid for them, and knew they would be published.  She just didn't know she would eventually be married to a candidate for U.S. President.  The info is true.  It actually was a lighter version of the truth than has been recently revealed.  It is not like a tabloid made up a preposterous story about her.  That's in Trump's bag of dirty tricks.

Team Trump was mad because they wanted the truth withheld from voters in Utah.  He won't say he is ashamed of the pictures, only that he is owed the right to withhold the truth from voters if he feels it serves his needs.  So what did he do?  He distracted from the story by calling Heidi ugly.

Think about that.

He wants to control what 'truth' you get.
(This is the guy who wanted to change the First Amendment to squelch some speech with lawsuits)
His supporters have repeatedly driven those who don't like/are unimpressed with/discuss the foibles of/bring up 'uncomfortable' facts about Donald Trump from internet forums, campaign venues, etc.
(Again, that squelch the First Amendment thingy)
In order to build a smokescreen, he attacked the wife of a person who had nothing to do with the ad, either rashly and without the facts, or knowingly.
(either way, not a good trait for someone who would have the go/no go for strategic weapons)
When the facts were made known, he redoubled his attacks, saying they were justified because that innocent party hadn't 'disavowed' the actions of someone else loudly enough (whatever loudly enough might be).
At no time did he admit the 'mistake': therefore it was a calculated and opportunistic attack.
At no time did he apologize to either Ted or Heidi Cruz for publicly crapping all over both of them.
(Another indication, via absence of remorse for wrongdoing, that it was intentional.)

And people wonder why Cruz wouldn't endorse Donald Trump.
(Was that loud enough for you, Mr. Trump?)