The Beans Get Spilled

[PN-G bamatex]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I told y'all to be skeptical.

[Hagar]

3 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I told y'all to be skeptical.

Point taken lol.  But The Enquirer is only a step above MSNBC

[PN-G bamatex]

48 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Point taken lol.  But The Enquirer is only a step above MSNBC

Perfectly fair point. But, it's worth noting that the Enquirer is rarely wrong when it breaks the news on political figures' affairs.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Englebert]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be skeptical about. The story itself stated there is no evidence of anything. I might have missed something, but can someone point out anything in the article except accusations with no proof or even probable cause for me to believe it's accuracy?

I am also curious as to what the reaction might be if these same allegations would have been directed at Hillary, or even Obama. I'm guessing outrage against the publisher for printing unsubstantiated gossip. The editor would have probably already been fired. 

[westend1]

45 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be skeptical about. The story itself stated there is no evidence of anything. I might have missed something, but can someone point out anything in the article except accusations with no proof or even probable cause for me to believe it's accuracy?

I am also curious as to what the reaction might be if these same allegations would have been directed at Hillary, or even Obama. I'm guessing outrage against the publisher for printing unsubstantiated gossip. The editor would have probably already been fired. 

Is this satire?  There have been enough baseless allegations against those two to choke a horse.  I can show you Enquirer examples if you like.

[Englebert]

No need, I believe you. I don't think I've ever seen anything in the National Enquirer except the covers while I'm checking out of the grocery store.

I was jokingly responding like someone would if this was posted by Smitty.

[PN-G bamatex]

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be skeptical about. The story itself stated there is no evidence of anything. I might have missed something, but can someone point out anything in the article except accusations with no proof or even probable cause for me to believe it's accuracy?

I'd advise you to be skeptical about the same thing I've been advising everyone on this site to be skeptical about for three or four months now. Ted Cruz's portrayal of himself isn't as authentic as one would hope.

The article does admit there are no facts to substantiate the accusation. I would dismiss the article on those grounds were it not for three things. The first is how typical it is for this type of thing to happen in politics, which, as I pointed out earlier, the Enquirer has an uncanny history of discovering. The second, and more pertinently, is that Katrina Pierson didn't flatly, directly deny the accusations. She dismisses them without ever explicitly saying they aren't true. Knowing Katrina and how she operates, that raises my eyebrows. The third is the donation to Carly Fiorina's PAC back in the day. I remember when that happened, and how odd it was. It was a fairly common theory that it was hush money for something, but nobody knew what. This would be the first plausible explanation I've seen.

I don't actually think the Trump threat really bears on this; the title of the thread is more jest than anything else. Trump said he would spill the beans about Heidi, not Ted. I actually think I know what Trump might be referring to in that, although I have no idea how he ever obtained any proof.

25 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I was jokingly responding like someone would if this was posted by Smitty.

Now, I never stated anything as fact. I merely made a suggestion. That's a distinction I thought you were intimately familiar with.

[Englebert]

The only reason I put in that last part was because I don't recall Smitty ever even suggesting the links he posts are facts. He just puts a link, sometimes with a one sentence comment...eerily similar.

I'm totally just joking around (which I'm sure you know), but I'm a little surprised you did post a link that has no factual basis and giving some semblance of credibility to it. I just couldn't let that go uncommented.

 

[Hagar]

After thinking about it, I've come to the realization that this is probably a game changer.  What concerns me is Trump is rich enough, and probably ambitious enough, "to buy Cruz an affair".  If so, by the time the truth comes out, the election will be over.  

Like most, I've seen politicians I thot ought to run for president, but don't.  I finally decided they had a skeleton in the closet they didn't won't found.  So if my premise is correct, why would Cruz run with multiple affairs in his life?

IMO something about this smells a lot worse than the Evadale paper mill!

[TxHoops]

I think we have a Tiger'esque situation here.  Cruz doesn't have the skeletons that say a Rick Perry has but I've heard this type of story might surface at some point.  It always seems worse to me when you wear a certain cloak which turns out to be a fraud.  

Personally, I would never have voted for Ted to begin with but if I was a supporter, it wouldn't change my support one iota.  QB, Coach, CEO of a company I invest in, or a politician, their personal life is not something I care about.  God knows I would be a hypocrite to cast stones at the Senator after one guy in particular I am quite fond of. 

But for his sake, I do hope it's all a bunch of made up lies.  I don't wish the pain it will inflict on his family on anyone.  But my guess is there's a fire behind this smoke. 

Interestingly, the Donald has a libido that would rival Slick Willy's.  And if the same story came out about him, I doubt the majority of his supporters would be surprised or care that much.  Again, be careful what you do when you like preaching. 

[Hagar]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

I think we have a Tiger'esque situation here.  Cruz doesn't have the skeletons that say a Rick Perry has but I've heard this type of story might surface at some point.  It always seems worse to me when you wear a certain cloak which turns out to be a fraud.  

Personally, I would never have voted for Ted to begin with but if I was a supporter, it wouldn't change my support one iota.  QB, Coach, CEO of a company I invest in, or a politician, their personal life is not something I care about.  God knows I would be a hypocrite to cast stones at the Senator after one guy in particular I am quite fond of. 

But for his sake, I do hope it's all a bunch of made up lies.  I don't wish the pain it will inflict on his family on anyone.  But my guess is there's a fire behind this smoke. 

Interestingly, the Donald has a libido that would rival Slick Willy's.  And if the same story came out about him, I doubt the majority of his supporters would be surprised or care that much.  Again, be careful what you do when you like preaching. 

You make a valid point.  If you're preaching it, you better live it.  And the point about Trump being accused is funny truth - Oh well, that's our Donald lol.  And the point is, I doubt few of us are up for Sainthood, but you add pressure when you repeatedly profess your faith.  As you, I hope there's no truth to it.  For his families sake, and his salvation.  I actually hope Trump is not involved.  With these big PAC's they have now, any wealthy, overzealous backer could create this I guess.  Unfortunately, each media wants to be the first to break a story, and will do so with just a hint of truth, valid or not.  

And my bad for accusing Trump.  I should have implied "someone".  I'm as bad as the media.  

[TxHoops]

11 minutes ago, REBgp said:

You make a valid point.  If you're preaching it, you better live it.  And the point about Trump being accused is funny truth - Oh well, that's our Donald lol.  And the point is, I doubt few of us are up for Sainthood, but you add pressure when you repeatedly profess your faith.  As you, I hope there's no truth to it.  For his families sake, and his salvation.  I actually hope Trump is not involved.  With these big PAC's they have now, any wealthy, overzealous backer could create this I guess.  Unfortunately, each media wants to be the first to break a story, and will do so with just a hint of truth, valid or not.  

And my bad for accusing Trump.  I should have implied "someone".  I'm as bad as the media.  

My teenager was the first to make me aware.  Although he knows I'm no Cruz fan, I did remind him we are innocent until proven otherwise in this country.  (i realize this isn't criminal but it's the same principle to me.) 

However, like in so many cases (Bill Cosby and Kevin Johnson recently - their alleged conduct IS criminal though), it just seems when their are multiple different sources and allegations, you are bound to find some credibility in there.  Again, like you, for his family's sake, I hope it's all false.  

As for Trump, I guess I'm as bad as you and the media.  I can't help but think he or his people are somehow involved.  The timing is just too convenient.  Again, I guess I can give him the benefit of the doubt but I can't help but be suspicious.  

But man if it is him, and even if it's true, you talk about glass houses.  Would be just another shining example of his hypocrisy.  But as you and I both know, my friend, hypocrite and politician seem to be synonyms these days...

[baddog]

I can't wait to hear what Trump has in store for Hillary. Hers is criminal but will be overlooked just like Bill's infidelity.

I'm not taking up for Cruz. What he did is wrong.....simply comparing notes. Like I always say.....the lesser of two evils.

[Hagar]

Trump, although perhaps innocent in this case, has impressed me as a guy who will do anything to win. Example, you're playing chess & you have a sleight advantage.  You go to restroom & come back, wow, the board looks different.  

Of course, in war that would be what you want.  If you want to fight at all, fight to win.  Only done that twice since WW-II, that I can remember.  

[nappyroots]

I don't believe that any women other than ted's wife would have an affair with ted.

[Hagar]

2 hours ago, nappyroots said:

I don't believe that any women other than ted's wife would have an affair with ted.

Good point.  Unless money is involved lol

[baddog]

You'd be surprised at the women that will throw themselves at politicians. Clinton got a bj from a college aged girl and when asked why she was attracted to him, she said because of his position of power. Good thing he didn't have sex with her......but all is forgiven. Same people who forgive Clinton will crucify Cruz.

[nappyroots]

1 hour ago, REBgp said:

Good point.  Unless money is involved lol

forgot  about the money factor

[smitty]

3 hours ago, REBgp said:

Good point.  Unless money is involved lol

EVERYBODY has their price!

[TxHoops]

31 minutes ago, smitty said:

EVERYBODY has their price!

One of the few universal truths...

[Hagar]

30 minutes ago, smitty said:

EVERYBODY has their price!

Lol, especially if you're old and depending on Social Security.  My money I put in, but I'm a slave to the Govt.  My votes for sale for $250,000 Donald  

[TxHoops]

1 minute ago, REBgp said:

Lol, especially if you're old and depending on Social Security.  My money I put in, but I'm a slave to the Govt.  My votes for sale for $250,000 Donald  

You're pretty expensive my friend!  I would probably go $50k and a year's worth of Arby's coupons...

[Hagar]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

You're pretty expensive my friend!  I would probably go $50k and a year's worth of Arby's coupons...

Ok, my bottom price.  $50k and free J-B's bar-b-q  twice a week. 

[TxHoops]

5 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Ok, my bottom price.  $50k and free J-B's bar-b-q  twice a week. 

NOW you're down in the muck with us bottom feeders!

[Englebert]

I completely forgot to follow up on this topic.

I'm conflicted. Geraldo Rivera stated on national TV that the National Enquirer has a reputation for being correct on political stories. Bamatex stated "it's worth noting that the Enquirer is rarely wrong when it breaks the news on political figures' affairs". Westend1 stated "there have been enough baseless allegations against those two [Hillary and Obama] to choke a horse" when referring to the Enquirer. So based on these statements, am I to believe that since the Enquirer is rarely wrong on political matters, that all of the baseless allegations are actually true about Hillary and Obama? Or is the truth really that the Enquirer engages in yellow journalism and gets lucky every once in a while? Someone please enlighten me because I know zero about the National Enquirer.