It was inevitable: Trump suggests we need to look into whether Ted Cruz’s father had something to do with Lee Harvey Oswald
I have a theory here. The idea is that Trump has been pushing the envelope, testing his supporters to see how far he can go. Whether he believes the lies he tells, or whether he just thinks they will and considers it useful for his purposes if they do, he is gauging the depth of their own susceptibility to any preposterous thing he says and how little anyone else can do to stop it, as well as what excuses his supporters who don’t believe what he says this time will make in order to excuse his behavior.
For years I have duly noted how many Americans still believe in Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories after they have been thoroughly and irrefutably debunked. Even making a statement like the one I just made almost guarantees that people will comment on their own belief in said theories, and a nearly-endless series of arguments will ensue. Been there, done that, and if you want to take a look go to some of these threads. What’s more, I’ve been perturbed by the popularity of shows like this, the anti-vaccine movement (of which Trump is a member, by the way), and any number of pieces of evidence of the re-ascendance of the demon-haunted worldview.
Some people are concerned at the popularity of reality TV, but I save much more of my angst for the popularity of lies, particularly defamatory lies.
Which brings us to Donald Trump. I thought I was done writing about Trump today until tonight’s returns came in, but he keeps coming up with things that pull me back in. The latest is this:
Trump repeated unsubstantiated claims that [Ted Cruz’s father] Rafael Cruz had ties to Lee Harvey Oswald, President John F. Kennedy’s assassin, while attacking Cruz’s campaign Tuesday morning.
“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being ”” you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said during a Fox News phone interview. “What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don’t even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”
“I mean, what was he doing? What was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death, before the shooting?” Trump continued. “It’s horrible.”…
Trump’s latest off-the-wall accusation parrots a recent National Inquirer [sic: it’s “Enquirer”] claim that it had “photo evidence” showing the elder Cruz alongside Oswald.
The “evidence” apparently relates to this incident (that’s from a comment at The Federalist; I haven’t researched it and therefore can’t vouch for it, but take a look). There is no reason to believe that Cruz’s father was anywhere near Oswald, but of course you already knew that.
One of my favorite responses from a Trump supporter at LI is this one:
Besides the picture of the two together, Rafael fled to Canada in 1964 shortly after the Kennedy assassination. Why? If that wasn’t him in picture with Lee Harvey Oswald?
That’s the sort of “argument” Trump is counting on from many of his loyal fans.
It is unconscionable that a man like Donald Trump is poised to win the GOP nomination. But that’s where we stand.
As for the charge itself, note what Trump is actually saying. Is he suggesting Rafael Cruz was a confederate of Oswald’s, trying to help him assassinate Kennedy? Maybe, but he doesn’t say that, and interestingly enough he talks about the killing of Oswald rather than the killing of Kennedy. It’s particularly odd since the photo of Oswald in question was not taken right before Oswald’s murder. I think that Trump is purposely keeping his exact accusation a bit vague in order to try to imply whatever conspiracy theory the listener prefers to think is true: that Rafael helped kill Kennedy or (and I think this is the one Trump is pushing a bit harder) that Rafael helped kill Oswald (perhaps working for the CIA or LBJ in the government-run assassination coverup of their own complicity in Kennedy’s murder, according to assassination conspiracists?).
Trump is giving them whatever they want. Whether he believes it or not (fool) or is cynically using it (knave) or both (fool and knave) isn’t really the issue, although I find it an interesting question. The issue is that Trump is a man who will stoop just as low as he can in order to destroy people. Who will attack and smear family members of opponents in the most vile ways. Who will pander to the worst, the very worst, in human nature. He’ll act as a “leader” all right—leading people straight into the festering cesspool of the Big Lie.
NO.
The reason that Donald dredged this up out of the swamp was to infuriate Ted Cruz.
Trump already knew that Mrs Cruz was a hot button.
So it was a sure thing that Ted’s father would be a flamingly hot button.
The MORE preposterous the allegation — the better !
A counter-factual, counter-logical allegation is EXACTLY what would get a burr under Ted’s saddle.
Donald caused Rubio to blow up — and it killed Rubio’s campaign.
This is a ditto.
Look for Donald to use such allegations — without limit — against Hillary and Bill.
Will Trump use this technique to “win” against foreign governments. It seems like sleaze is part of his DNA. I’m scared of what he wouldc do as president.
Neo…
Trump has a LOT of Andrew Jackson — and FDR — in him.
I can see the next four years retreading themes from both of these politicians.
Financial crisis.
Banking crisis.
Central banking errors.
Wholesale and retail corruption of information and truth.
Look for a new alphabet agency to administer “Truth.”
Trump: “So what was it like growing up with a father who was an alien who helped Hitler into power and killed Elvis?”
Trump and his followers are showing themselves to be such lowest-common-denominator, IQ-of-50 gutterscum that it would be best to pretend they don’t even exist, outside of forums in which Trump can be forced to stick to relevant topics – about which he knows almost nothing and will show himself poorly to everyone else.
expat Says:
May 3rd, 2016 at 3:56 pm
Will Trump use this technique to “win” against foreign governments. It seems like sleaze is part of his DNA. I’m scared of what he wouldc do as president.
%%%%%%
Personality wise, Trump is oft but the mirror image of alien autocrats.
!
Yes, most of the world is under the sway of Trump-clones.
This situation is known as kakistocracy.
The man-boy has no class. Do I understand Blert to admire that?
Cliches have basis, and “you reap what you sow” certainly applies to recent Presidential politics.
I think you all are giving Trump too much credit. I don’t think he’s intelligent enough to strategize or to analyze anything. Like most of his followers.
Frankly, at this point, I’m starting to see that Trump supporters to fall into one of three classes: useful idiots, complete idiots or evil minions.
‘I don’t think he’s intelligent enough to strategize or to analyze anything.’
Not consciously no, but second handers like Trump do a lot of this mostly by instinct…or just by rinsing and repeating what seems to work. He doesn’t have to be smart but he needs his followers to lack any sense of self respect or independence.
Like a spoiled child he continues to push his boundaries, and for the same reason.
The more you read about Donald’s real world negotiating techniques they involve getting him self out of tight spots he got into due to his supposed top notch negotiating techniques. He would go public suing his banks and partners so that they would give in to avoid bad publicity. They had done nothing wrong but Donald didn’t care about any impact on his reputation. Assume that he wins he will face the worst economy in decades, a host of international crises and many festering social disputes. Negotiations (if any) will take months not days and the other side is often tougher and better than Trump. What would his first 100 days be? Any lack of urgency would sour his supporters fast and other injured politicians would sharpen their knives. But could he withdraw from NAFTA without Senate approval? Would he be able to face down the heads of big companies that he so want’s to be considered a part of? Naah, he’d rush off on a world tour just like Obama. Details of policy bore him and require tradeoffs. Just like Jesse Ventura and Silvio Berliscone his supporters would boo him when he leaves office.
Ted shot back that Trump told Howard Stern that his own personal Vietnam was avoiding VD in NYC in the 70’s. I posted about that months ago here.
“Some people are concerned at the popularity of reality TV, but I save much more of my angst for the popularity of lies, particularly defamatory lies.”
A distinction without a difference. It’s all “just-pretend” games, little ceremonies in which all the participants are aware that there’s no meaning to them. Understand that, and you’ll understand a lot of the thinking about this election.
Cornhead,
He says he avoided VD, but with all those affairs, how can we know? We should demand his medical records, after,of course, he provides his tax returns.
It’s probably not a good thing for Trump to speak of any assassinations, ever: might give some enthusiast ideas.
After Trump gets the nomination watch the NYT leak the transcript where Trump tells the editorial board that there will be no wall.
Every time I think Trump can’t go lower — John McCain was a loser, Cruz is not qualified to be President, Carly is ugly, little Marco, lying Ted, etc., etc., etc., he proves me wrong.
That being said, I’m still practicing holding my nose while filling out a ballot. Here in California it probably wouldn’t matter if I vote for a third-party (anyone interested in starting the “Not Crazy, Not Stupid” Party?) — but in contested states, it matters infinitely.
If the Evil Empress is elected, we will never get our country back. (SCOTUS, among other things.) If the Donald is, I think eventually we will. That’s what matters to me, and I have to put my personal revulsion aside to do my little part to see that it does happen.
Trump knows full well that he cannot verify the facts, thus by speaking of it, he makes himself party to the slander. And even if true, the son is not guilty of the sins of the father. It is the basest form of character assassination, guilt not just by association but by relation.
“Slander is the coward’s sword”. Henry F. Cope
This type of thing is beginning to force me to entertain an astonishing thought… that Hillary might in the long run be better for the nation. Not because she won’t be an even worse President than Trump but because at least responsibility for the coming debacle will rest firmly at her and the democrat’s feet.
This is the man that most likely will be the GOP nominee? Voters, you have picked a sure “winner.” He’ll get the nom and then he’ll lose to Clinton.
1 out of 2.
50%.
Interesting piece at National Review by David French — Three Realities that Made Donald Trump’s Rise Possible. One of the three realities discussed is the growing use in politics of hyperbole and outrage:
The bolding is mine.
I suggest a new slogan for Hillary to run with: “At least I’m not bat sh!t crazy”.
Who will attack and smear family members of opponents in the most vile ways.
Which is why holding dictators to account is useless or just unfeasible. Holding their supporters to account, that’s a whole different matter. Insurgency or counter insurgency that starts at the feet, not at the head.
Stalin was once noted to say, allegedly, that he slept great at night, because he enjoyed the thought that all the families of those he executed were frustrated and powerless.
Stalin, of course, might have just been paranoid and afraid.
They’ve already called it for Trump, so let me congratulate America’s first women president.
There’s little to add to this thread. You all said it perfectly. In sum, we’re screwed.
Exactly KLSmith, exactly.
It will be funny if she is indicted after accepting the nomination, even funnier once she is elected while under indictment.
I wonder how the media will spin Clinton’s criminal charges into a civil rights breakthrough? Maybe “Tea Party Republican FBI agents outsmarted in attempt to stage anti-Clinton coup” or perhaps “Radical right-wing Grand Jury stymied by Insightful electorate”.
Another sad thing, only 6% of the voters, according to Rasmussen, plan to sit out a Trump vs Clinton election. I was hoping for 80-90%.
I wouldn’t count the S-O-B out. So far he’s defied every prediction.
I was 16 at the time, a farm boy in Iowa, but the night before Ruby shot Oswald, I had a dream in which Rafael Cruz gave Ruby the 38 snub nose that he used to kill Oswald. So it must be true, the donald never lies.
Ted out. Hello President Hillary.
So, now what do we do?
If Trump loses the election horribly, we get to work rebuilding the Party. If Trump wins the election horribly, we get to work rebuilding the Party. It’s back to basics: freedom, morality, equality under the law. It’s not even “back” to basics, because this is the same message we’ve always had.
Did Sisyphus smile as he pushed the rock back up the hill? No, of course not. Pushing a rock up a hill is lousy work. The Dems have been calling us small-minded racists for years, in an effort to distract the public from their small-minded racism. And it looks like 1237 delegates worth of voters fell into their trap. So now we’re back to the basics. This rock isn’t gonna push itself.
Trump doesn’t represent the thinking of the dark underbelly of the Republican Party. He represents the thinking of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, except with the “non-” in “non-white” scratched off. Everyone here knows that. The press isn’t going to do us any favors, and the internet doesn’t typically encourage deep thought. One, two, three, everyone push.
Article 5 Convention of the States. It is going to be long and hard especially so under President Hillary.
Trump isn’t a clown. He’s pure evil.
Nick,
the donald can not win, I am YUGELY confident that is utterly impossible. So rebuild and do the ground game to elect real, track record proven, conservatives at local, state, and federal levels. As I, GB, blert, and others have noted, there is a YUGE bubble ready to pop. Let the totalitarians own it. I would prefer Cruz manage the bubble pop, but hrc holding the bag of feces is fine by me.
There’s not going to be any article V convention, OM. The voters just proven they are irresponsible and I don’t trust them in that process.
BTW, on such a momentous night…anyone else notice a lack of Trump supporters here? Other than the disgusting Richard Saunders, of course.
Richard Saunders:
“I wouldn’t count the S-O-B out. So far he’s defied every prediction.”
The results have only defied predictions from the folks whose perspective is limited to a traditional electoral frame.
For observers who’ve understood the activist character of the situation – participatory politics subsume electoral politics – it was obvious the alt-Right activists that are the creative engine of the Trump phenomenon conferred a critical advantage over the GOP campaigns that lacked essential activist support.
Republicans should have learned the essential need for activism from the 2012 presidential election. Romney was the superior presidential candidate by traditional electoral standards, but President Obama won re-election due to superior activism.
Instead, Republican campaign strategists studied the Obama campaign, which was secondary, and deluded themselves that electoral campaign aspects like “data driven ground game” were the key to Obama’s victory.
Had the alt-Right insurgency not usurped the GOP nomination with the Trump phenomenon, the superior, the emergent activism-deficient GOP candidate most likely would have been defeated again by the inferior, but activist-sufficient Democratic candidate.
The Trump campaign has been a joke by traditional electoral standards. But critically, unlike the GOP, Trump was shrewd enough to learn the real lesson from the 2012 election and allied with alt-Right activists, crude, unsophisticated, ‘jayvee’, but sufficient to exploit the same activism deficiency on the Right that is regularly exploited by the Left.
It’s disappointing that Republican campaign strategists utterly failed to pick up the need for activism from the 2012 election. But it’s downright amazing that even as the activist character of events grew glaringly obvious during the 2016 GOP nomination race, most conservatives and Republicans continued to misinterpret the situation with a clearly outmoded traditional electoral frame of reference.
Nick:
“So, now what do we do?”
Recognize the activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is. Participatory politics subsume electoral politics.
To avert political obsolescence and begin to compete for real, conservatives must collectively adopt a competitive activist mindset, adapt an activist skillset, and organize collectively as a zealously vigorous, permanent, full-spectrum social activist movement – distinct from the GOP.
Once you make that switch, it’ll be a new game because there’s no such thing as permanent defeat for activists. There is only social dominance or insurgency.
Matt_SE: Where the hell did you get the idea that I’m a Trump supporter?
He’s a venomous, narcissistic, thin-skinned, infantile, crude, ill-informed, lying, bullsh*tting assh*le. Is that clear enough for you?
I knew that and said so, one of the first of anyone on this list, because he’s a real estate guy, and I’ve dealt with many of them over a nearly forty-year career.
He has only one virtue: he’s slightly better than Hillary Clinton.
Richard, I understand and respect your decision to vote for the SOB even though I can’t stomach the thought personally. We both know what he is basically. I just believe he is worse than you think and that a disaster of unknown but epic proportions is possible, and likely probable.
Sad night for America, but then again it’s been a sad night since Nov 4, 2008.
The non-(D) voters had their choice of what was probably the most qualified and intelligent group of (R) candidates to choose from. And they picked The Donald.
It’s like getting the ball underneath your opponents net, being wide open, and missing the tying basket. Gotta love the Everyday Joe & Jane. Hard working people, but my God they can’t recognize the opportunity when it’s in front of them.
At least they’ll help make history by getting Hillary into office; so the DNC can now claim to be the party to have the first (half) black president and the first female president, all under a decade’s time. The GOP? Nothing. Three elections straight with a possible re-election of Clinton in 2020. Let’s not mention Scalia’s “moderate” replacement. Now that’s a double punch in the private.
“Cause Donald wants to make America great again!”
The Other Chuck — I can’t stomach the thought either –I’m thinking of large doses of Pepto Bismo. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if he was the last person on Earth — but if he’s the second-to-last person on Earth, and the last is Hillary, I’ll vote for him.
I’m seriously thinking of throwing my vote away on Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. Trump is toast anyway, and for the first time in my long voting career, I will NOT choose the lesser of two evils (an extremely difficult choice, btw). So might as well vote and feel good about it.
I agree with your theory, and apparently he CAN say any crazy thing and his fans will applaud it… and vote for him.
The world is doomed.