Image 01 Image 03

Does NY Times have damaging recording of Trump on immigration?

Does NY Times have damaging recording of Trump on immigration?

What if Trump is more Marco Rubio on immigration than Marco Rubio?

Donald Trump launched his campaign popularity with a hard line on immigration, not limited to The Wall.

It struck a chord with the electorate, as I noted in a guest column at National Review on July 13, 2015, Trump’s Lesson: Voters Are Furious about Illegal Immigration:

…. something happened on the way to the denunciations and purges [of Trump]. Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco, a sanctuary city. Steinle was killed in broad daylight on a popular pedestrian pier in a business and tourist district, by an illegal immigrant with a long criminal record who had been deported five times and recently was released from custody….

In the wake of the murder of Kate Steinle, many Republican candidates have denounced the sanctuary-cities agenda. There is talk of withholding funding from cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. But who among the Republican candidates has stood side by side with the families who have lost loved ones to illegal-immigrant criminals?

Trump did….”

Since then, immigration has continued to be the rocket fuel in Trump’s campaign.

Senator Jeff Session’s recent endorsement likely helped solidify that public perception of Trump as the hardest liner on the subject, even if substantively Trump has taken many different positions in just the last few years.

But what if Trump is not a hard liner on immigration. What if his stance is just the opening demand/offer in a negotiation, a la The Art of the Deal, in which he ends up more Marco Rubio than Marco Rubio?

Buzzfeed’s Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith dropped a potential bombshell this morning, Donald Trump Secretly Told The New York Times What He Really Thinks About Immigration:

The New York Times is sitting on an audio recording that some of its staff believes could deal a serious blow to Donald Trump, who, in an off-the-record meeting with the newspaper, called into question whether he would stand by his own immigration views.

Trump visited the paper’s Manhattan headquarters on Tuesday, Jan. 5, as part of a round of editorial board meetings that — as is traditional — the Democratic candidates for president and some of the Republicans attended. The meetings, conducted partly on the record and partly off the record in a 13th-floor conference room, give candidates a chance to make their pitch for the paper’s endorsement….

On Saturday, columnist Gail Collins, one of the attendees at the meeting (which also included editor-in-chief Dean Baquet), floated a bit of speculation in her column:

The most optimistic analysis of Trump as a presidential candidate is that he just doesn’t believe in positions, except the ones you adopt for strategic purposes when you’re making a deal. So you obviously can’t explain how you’re going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, because it’s going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session.

Sources familiar with the recording and transcript — which have reached near-mythical status at the Times — tell me that the second sentence is a bit more than speculation. It reflects, instead, something Trump said about the flexibility of his hardline anti-immigration stance.

The NY Times refuses to discuss what was said unless Trump agrees to release the transcript, since it was off the record.

A bombshell? Or a stink bomb?

Regardless, it has opened up demands that Trump tell the NY Times to release the transcript.

On the stump today, Marco Rubio demanded Trump release the transcript:

What’s his famous issue? He is going to build a wall and be tough on Mexico, but he doesn’t tell you that he hires illegal immigrants to work on Trump Towers. He doesn’t tell you about he gave an interview to The New York Times. He met with their editorial board and apparently told them what he really believes about immigration, what sounds like what he told them was different than what he is telling you but it was off the record. So now The New York Times can’t release the audio of that interview. Donald Trump can fix that today. Donald Trump should ask The New York Times to release the audio of his interview with him so we can see exactly what it is he truly believes about this issue that he has made the cornerstone of his campaign.

Ted Cruz did the same:

Speaking to reporters in San Antonio, Texas, Ted Cruz called for the tape to be made public.

“Apparently there is a secret tape that the New York Times editorial board has of Donald Trump saying that he doesn’t believe what he’s saying on immigration, saying that all of his promises to secure the border are not real and if he’s president he doesn’t intend to do what he said,” Cruz said.

“I call on Donald: ask the New York Times to release the tape and do so today before the Super Tuesday primary,” Cruz said.

The Texas senator, who is trailing Trump in the polls despite an early win in Iowa, said releasing the tapes would clear up whether, in fact, Trump made the comments.

“If Donald didn’t say that to the New York Times then he deserves to have that cleared up and releasing the tape can clear it up,” Cruz said.

“The alternative is that it is true.”

The timing is curious:

I don’t know that the other candidates have the media power to put real pressure on Trump on this issue.

Lou Dobbs already is suggesting that The Times violated its ethics, presumably by leaking the existence of the recording.

It might be too little, too late, even if there is a bombshell hidden at Times headquarters.

BONUS QUESTION: If Trump turned out to be a lot softer on immigration than he has portrayed, would his supporters care?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


What if it’s a strategic leak by the Trump campaign to signal his turn to the left?

This should be very easy to clear up. Don’t be a pussy, Donald Ducks. Step on up! Release the Kracken…er…transcript…

On a related topic…

If Der Donald is, in fact, being audited, there’s absolutely no harm in releasing the “audit letters” from the IRS.

Right….??? I mean, since YOU are the ONLY source for that story.

Oh, oh. I foresee a major collision ahead for the runaway Trump train. Passengers jump off now!

What some people call negotiation others call being played for a fool.

#NeverTrump and you won’t have to deal with the daily incongruities and lies of the Nero ‘Negotiator’.

Full on, left wing tactics practiced by people that call themselves conservatives.

I see you for exactly what you are.

    Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | February 29, 2016 at 7:38 pm

    Head. Firmly. In. Sand.

    Get you head out. Be brave.

      Common Sense in reply to Ragspierre. | February 29, 2016 at 7:45 pm

      Yawn…………. Just a little bit more BS!
      The republican establishment is so desperate their trolls
      will say or do anything to try to slow down Trump.
      It’s way past that time fools!
      Trump 2016

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 29, 2016 at 7:50 pm

      Common NONsense.

      You afraid of the facts? Another T-rumpian pussy.

      Talking about heads in the sand. The GOPe is going for the scorched earth policy, will make up anything it can, create any rumor, all to destroy Trump.

      And you buy into it like a good little republican. Maybe you’ll get a little pat on the head when it’s all done.

      And it will not work. We know what you will do. We’ve been watching you do it for 30 years. You are no different than the most vile left wingers out there. But hey, it’s the NY slimes, and we all know they are honest purveyors of the news.

        The NYT is nothing to do with the GOP. What a strange assertion to make.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | February 29, 2016 at 8:10 pm

        Buy in to WHAT, T=rump sucker? Nobody has ‘bought into’ a thing.

        Call us “Trump curious”. We want “the rest of the story”.


        We’ll call you “Trump sucker”. Close-minded and running on blind faith.

          I know you are good at calling people names. You are not the conservative you claim. You’re no different than any of the rabid left wing. You’ll buy into anything that makes you feel better about yourself, any half truth, any lie.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 29, 2016 at 8:37 pm

          No. You are an obvious vicious liar.

          I have not “bought into” anything. I’d like to know the truth of the story.

          This distinguishes me from a T-rump cultist like you, who would rather suppress the story out-of-hand than get to the truth.

          I AM the conservative you have pretended to be.

          Ooh, the vicious liar label.

          I haven’t called to suppress anything, have I? Does that make you a liar or just a poor reader?

          You assume this recording exists. I do not. It is a tactic used over and over by the left, and you not only fall for it, you fall in line behind it.

          Be a good little repubklican and spread the story far and wide…

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 29, 2016 at 9:43 pm

          Yep. Everything you said is a lie. It’s just what you do.

          I’ve come to the conclusion you are complete maniac. A left wing fruitcake pretending conservative. Anyone that supports the smear merchants is exactly that.

          Couldn’t point out any call I made to “suppress” information could you, liar?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 29, 2016 at 11:08 pm

          You mean besides throwing a wall-eyed cat fit, calling people names and lying about them in a paroxysm of shutupery?

          I just let you demonstrate your suppression, totalitarian POS.

          I didn’t have to left a finger. You just lost your shit all on your own.

What a joke this is an how hard you try to put a Globalist in office.

Do you think they have a picture of him eating at a Mexican restaurant?

Trump 2016

    Milhouse in reply to gonzotx. | February 29, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    “Globalist” is not a dirty word. It means “Republican”.

      Curle in reply to Milhouse. | February 29, 2016 at 8:08 pm

      ‘Globalist’ is a dirty word and after this election it won’t mean Republican any more it will go back to the meaning given it by the Old Right (Taft, Kirk, etc.) before they were purged by the New Right (WF Buckley) which is anti-conservative. In other words, a globalist is not just an anti-nationalist such a person is also an anti-conservative. Even David Frum has seen the writing on this wall. That’s what this election is all about.

        Milhouse in reply to Curle. | February 29, 2016 at 8:41 pm

        No election can change what the liberal (now known as conservative) political movement stands for. Protectionism in all its forms has no place in the Republican tent, and you can take your damned paleo rear end right out of here. And you can take Taft with you.

Buzzfeed/Ben Smith? LOLOLOL. ‘Nuf said.

Trump’s whole point is that he will get us a good deal and that Gang of Eight was anything but. To anticipate that the deal will be worse than Go8 and that he’ll accept it misses the point.

He’s not Rubio. He’s already said he doesn’t think the Gang of Eight bill was a good deal and he’s correct. To suggest he will therefore accept a worse deal is simply falling into the looking glass and, as others have noted, indicative of a tone of distracted flailing that has dominated posts on this site of late as they relate to Trump.

Rubio, apparently, got what he wanted, establishment support, for something he erroneously thought he could pass off as a good deal. Unfortunately, for him, Jeff Sessions was standing in his way.

    It’s not his point. It’s his sales pitch.

      Look, someone’s learned to engage in hostile speculation!

        Finding Trump untrustworthy is “hostile speculation”?

          Yes, it is. Trump has offered no credible reason to imagine he will back off of his efforts to achieve what he claims he seeks to achieve. Especially, since he’s been consistently critical of the impact of our overseas activities, flying under the banner of globalism, since at least ’88 (there’s an old Oprah video where he makes some of the same points he’s making now).

          Further, the man has been doing business successfully with many of the same people for decades, important business people who vouch for his reliability.

          And even further, there’s nothing in it for him to do so unless you think he’s some Illuminati Manchurian candidate. Problem is we already have one candidate in the race whose previously established he’s the Manchurian candidate, at least on amnesty, and that’s Marco Rubio. So, we already know who the establishment is paying off to trash effective immigration control, do you suppose they are paying off both Rubio and Trump? Seems a little too much even for the GOPe, but hey, you’re the one who came up with this particular conspiracy theory, why not fill in the details? Whose he working for? What’s he going to get out of betraying his base? How long has he been working on this fiendish plan?

          So sure, if you want to continue engaging in pure flailing manic no connection to reality speculation, have at it. Jeff Sessions, who has invested more of his soul into this fight than anyone, I’d venture even more than you, has full faith in Trump. That’s an endorsement that means something.

          The credible reason to believe he will back of is Trump’s persona. I look at him, at his demeanor, and think I wouldn’t buy a used car from that person. He has a lifetime history of shadiness.
          Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it’s all in the eye of the beholder, but I’m just telling you what I think.
          Going beyond that, you are asking me why I don’t believe Trump. The question should be why should I believe him.

          Watch and learn, Curle, if you have the balls.

          “Further, the man has been doing business successfully with many of the same people for decades, important business people who vouch for his reliability.”

          Really? Name them. He hasn’t kept the same WIFE for “decades”.

          He DID have a long-standing relationship with Roy Cohn, mobbed up lawyer. So, there’s that…

…as I noted in a guest column at National review on July 13, 2016,…

My dear Professor, WE need an edit button, 😉

It seems pretty sleazy of the Times to (a) record an off-the-record conversation, and (b) leak about it.

I’m not getting any schadenfreude out of this. Much as I dislike and distrust The Donald, I dislike this sort of dirty trick — and distrust the New York Times — even more.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | February 29, 2016 at 8:00 pm

So, the New York Times has a recording of an “off the record” conversation? One wonders just how that happened. What ethics is there in recording something off the record? What ethics is there in revealing such? Who owns the New York Times? A Mexican. Huh!

Are we really to the point in this election where we (and the Republican candidates) are believing and trusting in Buzzfeed?

The stink of hate for Trump is so strong you can now see it.

    You think Buzzfeed lied about the NYT having the tapes?

      Would you be surprised to find they or the NY slimes has lied?

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | February 29, 2016 at 9:48 pm

        No. Contrary to your lies above, that is quite in prospect for those of us who retain the power of thought.

        It seems to be a “New York City value”.

        Nor would it surprise any of us here who are not T-rump cultists to learn that T-rump lied. Again. Today. Several times.

          “It seems to be a “New York City value”.”

          Last I heard NY slimes was located in NYC.

          If it were your guy Cruz getting this you would sing a different tune. And he would be getting the treatment except he’s done.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 29, 2016 at 9:59 pm

          Just more spit-flecked lies. IF this were about Mr. Cruz, I’d have researched it by now.

          You damn liar. As though you have an inside source at the NY slimes that would provide you with “research”.

          You’re a damn hypocrite.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 29, 2016 at 11:11 pm

          Just more spit-flecked lies. IF this were about Mr. Cruz, I’d have researched it by now.

          And I’d have joined in calling for the release of the whole story.

          Just like I’d have called for the release of any “audit letter” if Cruz said he was holding tax info because of an audit.

          But I’m not a cultist. You ARE.

        Why would they lie about that as soon as it seems like he has the nomination locked in?

The public, especily the non left wing nut jobs, have grown immune to these kinds of attacks.

For over 30 years the left wing press has always followed a standard playbook of lies, and they are c running it against Trump now.

1. Call the republican front runner or nominee a racist.

2. Remember to do as many stories as possible claiming candidate is connected to KKK and white supremicist groups.

3. Fake up some “bombshell” story just before voters go to the polls.

They did it to Reagan. Still do it to Reagan. They did it to Perry. They did the he’s a cocaine using druggie to Bush 43 for 10 years. And now with the GOPe cooperation and desperate drowning sub candidates they are trying to do it to Trump.

Been there done that. Will NEVER work.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 29, 2016 at 8:54 pm

    Ah, the blind faith of the true believer, the T=rumpian acolyte.

    No need for inquiry. No desire for answers. None of the turmoil of healthy skepticism! No, no. Those things are banished in favor of careful ThoughPolicing.

    Just the constant, soothing hum of GoodThink.

    Arminius in reply to Gary Britt. | March 1, 2016 at 7:43 am

    That playbook will never work? Trump is doing everything he can to help it work.

    He’s made it easy to call him a racist and make it stick by quibbling he doesn’t know anything about David Duke, the KKK or white supremacists.

    Now he’s gratuitously attacking the San Diego judge in the fraud/RICO cases against him r.e his bogus Trump “Univeristy” for being Hispanic. And yes, it’s gratuitous. Trump is claiming that Curiel is hostile to him because he’s strong on the border. If not for that hostility these lawsuits, Trump alleges, would have been thrown out years ago.

    There’s just one problem with that. Actually, there’s a number of problems with that. When Trump’s lawyers were moving to the get these lawsuits tossed out of court years ago, Trump wasn’t strong on the border. He was still the same open borders, pro-illegal immigrant advocate he has been right up until he decided to run for President on the GOP ticket this election season.

    While his lawyers were trying to get these suits dismissed, Trump was publicly saying Romney lost his 2012 election bid because the GOP’s immigration policies were “mean spirited,” Romney’s idea that illegal immigrants without job prospects would self deport was “maniacal,” and that therefore the GOP “lost the Hispanics, lost Asians, they lost everybody.” Meanwhile, even though he said he didn’t know exactly what the Democrat plan was, he praised it as “kind.” And he described illegal immigrants as good people who just wanted to become “wonderful productive citizens.”

    Yeah, I’m sure judge Gonzalo Curiel (if he’s the one dimensional single-issue caricature of Hispanic voters that Trump and the rest of the left currently stereotype them as) would have really hated Trump for his stance on the border and illegal immigration when he was trying to get these lawsuits dismissed.

    Curiel would have had to be psychic to know that in 2015 Trump would do a complete about face and become a border hawk, call illegal aliens from Mexico rapists, and say he’s going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.

    Actually if you read his decisions he didn’t throw these cases out because Trump’s lawyers just don’t have much of a defense against the charges.

    But that doesn’t stop Trump from disparaging the judge for being Hispanic. And I’m sure the fact that Trump thinks his fans are gullible enough to buy the obvious lie won’t hurt their enthusiasm for the Donald.

    But while every election cycle for decades the MSM tries to brand the GOP front-runner, with this front-runner’s help they just might be able to make the charge stick.

    tigercpa in reply to Gary Britt. | March 1, 2016 at 10:02 am

    Agreed. The Dem playbook is soooo tired. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

    Makes you wonder if David Duke is on the DNC payroll.

I believe all is fair in love and politics. If the NYT recorded it, Trump should release it. His support is based upon deporting illegal aliens, and building the wall. If he’s just taking a negotiating position, that’s a bridge not far enough.

Clinton deported millions. Eisenhower deported hundreds of thousands when our population was smaller. Deport, deport, deport.

If Cruz says he will do something, he will do it. So absolutely, Trump should tell the NYT to release any tape, so voters can vote for what they want: a president that will ENFORCE the law, and DEPORT THEM ALL.

If Trump is playing voters, that will be beyond betrayal.

Why did they wait from January until the day before super Tuesday to drop this speculative bombshell? Must be a coincidence.

    Barry in reply to amwick. | February 29, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    Cause there is no tape with trump going back on his immigration position. They hope it will effect the vote tomorrow and if not, there is no price to pay.

    Rags and his left wing cohorts will make sure no price is paid for their left wing smear and slander.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | February 29, 2016 at 9:54 pm

      You mentioned “smear and slander”….???

      You are a lying POS (practioner of sophistry, for the Prof.)

      But you know that. I’m delighted you have to live with it.

      amwick in reply to Barry. | February 29, 2016 at 10:22 pm

      It was kind of a rhetorical question. Anyway, right now I am waiting for Hannity to ask Donald about the whole issue. Maybe he will bring up Chris Christie’s walk of shame in a black dress. Who knows@!

“Does NY Times have damaging recording of Trump on immigration?”

That’s the Professor’s question.

Does anyone think that is an unfair, biased, stilted question?

Is that “smearing and slander”?

Or is it a mere question about a topic important to every voter here?

Free minds want to know.

    No, it is a legitimate question. I do think it is biased because the Professor is biased, but then I am biased, you are biased. Human nature. Hannity continues, and so far there has been no NYT question.

    “Does NY Times have damaging recording of Cruz on forcing religion through the state?”

    That’s the my question.

    Does anyone think that is an unfair, biased, stilted question?

    Is that “smearing and slander”?

    Or is it a mere question about a topic important to every voter here?

    Free minds want to know.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | February 29, 2016 at 10:56 pm

      I’d press for Cruz to release the information and address it.

      I like information. Conservatives LIKE reality, and we DEAL with it.

What was yesterday’s meme of the day? Anyone remember?

A bit of advice Mr. Jacobson.
If you sell your soul, sell it to Beelzebub, not some pill popping Peewee Herman. you get better value.

Rumors the day before an election? Especially on a day when it seems like the GOPe is going all out to destroy a person.

You know what, I’ll ignore them for now and take a close look at whatever doesn’t just turn out to be “Oops, that was just a rumor. Nothing real to it.” The day after the election.

Oh yeah, Session’s endorsement.

Mark Levin isn’t self-censoring on this issue. He’d like Donald Ducks to step up, too.

Right, the NYT has a little something, but it has ethical qualms about releasing it … so it will hint at it, with a bit of nudging from sources who say it’s really, really juicy, but they can’t talk about it for real, just give a few hints just in time for voters to hear about it … though of course there won’t be enough time to actually, you know, investigate it or anything useful like that.

And Lucy pulls the football out just before Charlie Brown kicks it … AGAIN.

Seriously, anyone stupid enough to fall for such blatant tripe should have the decency to acknowledge he’s just not qualified to vote.

BONUS QUESTION: If Trump turned out to be a lot softer on immigration than he has portrayed, would his supporters care?

Don’t be puerile. Present some evidence (not wishful thinking from the NYT), and see the answer for yourself.

I have strong reasons to believe the primary issue a particular section of the GOP base has with both Trump & Cruz is an objection to offending the Democrat Political Machine by deporting illegal aliens.

I see a scenaro as a result of the left pushing on the Overton Window to make deportation unacceptable.

What I see happening in this primary is a clash between that section and the overwhelming reality they are not in the majority.

Things are changing day by day and I see a new future ahead that is better than the past but it will not come without pain for some, whomever they are.

The New York Times has nothing.

You know, I don’t really care about Trump’s position on immigration. What I really care about is whether Trump University had a world-class basketball team and world-class cheerleaders.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to DouglasJBender. | March 1, 2016 at 12:52 am

    The lone cheerleader was Trump himself and the basketball team was comprised of a bunch of loser financial crimes semi-felons sporting Trump’s favorite orange spray tan so the chumps and the marks would think it was a real basketball team of black dudes just like they were supposed to believe they were hooked up with a real university.

Does it really matter what he may or may not have said to the NYT? After he said he’d deport all the illegal aliens, he turned around and said he’d bring them back. (I think he specified that it was the “good ones” he’d bring back, so I guess everything depends on his definition of “good.”)

I’m not feeling very charitable about the weight of those chains.

    janitor in reply to AZ_Langer. | March 1, 2016 at 12:19 am

    He HAS to say that. The reason he has to say that is that there are a small percentage of hard cases that would make him look like a heartless asshole if he insisted that (in accordance with current law) once deported as illegal, then forever completely unable even to apply to come back on a legal basis.

    There already is a long line of applicants wanting to come in legally. The chances of any quick success for a deportee who has to get into the back of the line are tenuous enough. Listen to what he’s saying more carefully.

      Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | March 1, 2016 at 12:34 am

      This is one of my favorite variations on the, “Yes, he’s a stinking liar, BUT…” rationalization for T-rump perfidy.

      “Yes, he’s a stinking liar, BUT he HAS to lie, dunchasee…???”

      My answer is always, no. I don’t see that. What I do see is the predicate; “Yes, he’s a stinking liar”.

        janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2016 at 12:46 am

        There is no “lying”. Listen carefully to what he is saying. At NO time has Trump said that he would just bring them all back. He says that they will get in line and come back legally. Under current law, that is impossible. We would have to change the law just to carve out some exceptions for hard cases.

          CloseTheFed in reply to janitor. | March 1, 2016 at 8:17 am

          I hope to God that you are right. That “let the good ones back in,” is bull excrement.

          If Cruz and Trump had debated that, THAT would have been useful information. Cruz claims he won’t let them back in; that is GOLD.

      gmac124 in reply to janitor. | March 1, 2016 at 12:26 pm

      “He HAS to say that. The reason he has to say that is that there are a small percentage of hard cases that would make him look like a heartless asshole if he insisted that (in accordance with current law) once deported as illegal, then forever completely unable even to apply to come back on a legal basis.”

      So let me see if I have this straight, Trump is Obamacare and you are Nancy Pelosi? It sure sounds like you are saying we need to vote for him to find out what he is.

But what if Trump is not a hard liner on immigration. What if his stance is just the opening demand/offer in a negotiation, a la The Art of the Deal…

Competent negotiators don’t negotiate like that! (This is not a la Art of the Deal.) Among many other problems with this “technique”, when you have multiple issues to address and other negotiations that lay ahead, then you do what you say you are going to do. You do not bluff on subject matter positions, because your credibility is at stake.

In addition, you don’t do the naive linear positioning thing, which some people think is “negotiating”. It goes like this: “I demand 100”. “Counter you at 20”. “Not acceptable. 90!” “Okay, 30 is my final offer…”)

In addition, a competent negotiator does not lay out his strategy in advance, especially to someones such as a hateful media source looking for gotchas, and who also should have the brains to know that they have no business asking because how stupid would that negotiator be. Being cryptic or letting them mislead themselves when “off the record” (e.g. a “who knows” shrug in response to a direct question about strategy) is a valid deflection.

I see that we have some incompetent or non- negotiators in the crowd.

Not being strategic, and being more used to straightforward confrontational argument rather than negotiation, is why Cruz isn’t prevailing. Very many great litigators are crappy negotiators and actually have no clue how to get the same or better result than they would get in a trial by negotiating for it.

NO worries the NY Times will put it front page after Trump secures the nomination #MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain

BONUS QUESTION: If Trump turned out to be a lot softer on immigration than he has portrayed, would his supporters care?

Hahahahaha! No. They’re pretty much beyond reason at this point.

Lady Penguin | March 1, 2016 at 7:23 am

Consider the source, “Buzzfeed.” In fact, I was surprised the Professor used it. Regardless, it’s clear that the GOP is struggling what to do with the Donald. If they try too many shenanigans, ie. Trump gets the nod and they try to take him out, they’ll be burned badly in downticket races.

We were exhorted, cajoled, pleaded with to vote for McCain in 08, and frankly, I only went to vote because Sarah Palin had the right attitude and message, but we’re not following blindly anymore, and the GOP doesn’t have the same flock of sheep…

Today is Virginia’s primary. I’m voting Cruz.

After reading all of the comments I came to a conclusion. Trump could clear this whole thing up in about 10 seconds. If he never said what the story claims call for the release of the tape. If they couldn’t produce the tape or if the tape doesn’t say what they claimed Trump wins. However if Trump won’t address the issue it leads me to believe that he is guilty as charged.

    Ragspierre in reply to gmac124. | March 1, 2016 at 11:09 am

    See, that is simply logical and without any bias as to “buying into” any damned thing.

    How it garners a “down-thumb” is only explained by cultist ThoughtPolicing. No heresy can be tolerated.

    Barry in reply to gmac124. | March 2, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    Just to be clear, when the “press” or the left demand tapes of off the record conversations, you two think they should just immediately give in?

I believe there are many Trump University students with us today.

They each bought a time share in a Trump Towers Foundation box seat overlooking NY values and a $3k box of stuff devoted to protecting their ASSets from fraud lawsuits.

“One presenter who galvanized the crowd was Texas attorney Robert “Bob” Bluhm, who spoke on protecting assets in the event of a lawsuit.”