Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 When you want to get into a fist fight, you better know how to take a punch if you want to keep fighting. Cruz campaign asks stations to stop airing anti-Cruz ad By Nick Gass 02/16/16 Politico Teddy thinks you should only spread lies and run disinformation campaigns if he is the one doing it. When others do it, that's not fair. That's not Godly. Why? Because he'll apologize for his lies and deception to his target after the election. The others won't. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Nice delicate piece of Statutory Extortion: Quote In its statement, the Cruz campaign urged the stations to consider their respective statuses as FCC-licensed entities in deciding whether to can the advertisement. "Because this advertisement makes a flatly false factual claim for which your station is ultimately liable, we strongly urge you to exercise your discretion as a licensee to refuse to continue to broadcast this advertisement, and, because it is already airing, immediately pull the advertisement from your rotation," Brown wrote. http://www.politico.com/blogs/south-carolina-primary-2016-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/cruz-campaign-asks-stations-to-stop-airing-anti-cruz-ad-219326#ixzz40NXlfeQn ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Adam, I saw that. Don't think Cruz won't attack people he perceives as enemies by abusing the power of the state. He will. All in the name of God and The Constitution. There's a mean sneaky predator under that benign demeanor. I like him on the surface and certainly don't think he's Satan incarnate, but underneath, to me, he's a right-wing Obama. For those who think Trump's brawling is distasteful, but think Cruz is the solution, I hope they like stealth oppression and backstabbing. Because if Cruz gets in, that's what we will all get. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 56 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 10Adam, I saw that. Don't think Cruz won't attack people he perceives as enemies by abusing the power of the state. He will. All in the name of God and The Constitution. There's a mean sneaky predator under that benign demeanor. I like him on the surface and certainly don't think he's Satan incarnate, but underneath, to me, he's a right-wing Obama. For those who think Trump's brawling is distasteful, but think Cruz is the solution, I hope they like stealth oppression and backstabbing. Because if Cruz gets in, that's what we will all get. Michael The only part of Cruz that is keeping me as objective as possible is Levin's 100% backing, such is the respect that I have for Mark. He is really dug in with Cruz. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Mr Cruz's campaign mishap in Iowa looks like it is harming his campaign in South Carolina. His unconvincing reaction to critical attention to the mishap apparently does not play with everyone in South Carolina. Here is an excerpt from the Politico story Ted Cruz pinched in race for South Carolina’s evangelicals “If everyone that was an evangelical in South Carolina, say, were members of the Family Research Council, if everyone was aware of some of the legal groups that work for Christian values, if they were all oriented that way, I think it would be a slam dunk for Cruz here,” said Oran Smith, head of the Palmetto Family Council, an evangelical group that hosted most of the GOP candidates at a gathering last week. “There just would not be any question, if everyone were a movement evangelical. But among more nominal or casual evangelicals, the Cruz message doesn’t resonate quite as strongly.” Certainly, Cruz can already point to success in courting evangelicals: He is expected to roll out the names of at least 300 supportive pastors this week. He is campaigning hard, in person and on the airwaves, on social issues; and he has for months been building relationships with key Christian leaders, sometimes dispatching his father, Pastor Rafael Cruz, as well. He has zeroed in on religious conservative activists — who are also likely to vote. But tactics Cruz has been accused of using in Iowa against rival Ben Carson have sullied his candidacy in the eyes of some evangelical voters. His campaign falsely but strongly implied that Carson was exiting the race in the final hours before the Iowa caucuses. Carson, a onetime evangelical favorite, has seen his numbers slide over the past several months, largely to Cruz’s benefit. But he is still well-liked by conservative voters — and he has not been particularly forgiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Then there's this. Literal Holy Crap: Glenn Beck Says Scalia’s Death Part of God’s Plan to Elect Ted Cruz by Tommy Christopher February 17th, 2016 Mediate From the article: Quote Just when you thought the loony tornado of garbage surrounding the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had reached peak weirdness, along comes Glenn Beck to take it to eleven. Calling in to his own radio program Tuesday, Beck began by casually riffing about how God sent Hurricane Sandy mainly to screw Mitt Romney, but then moved on to his theory that Our Lord and Savior has taken Scalia off the board so Ted Cruz can get elected... . . . Cruz has Beck introducing him at rallies these days, at which Beck explains to the crowd how Ted Cruz is the one to lead this country to The End Times... . . . Liberals often make too much of candidates’ religious beliefs, but in this case, they ought to pay attention. Talk about buyer beware! I've developed some serious Cruz and Beck doubts recently, but... Dayaamm! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Sarah declares war on Glenn Beck and, by extension, Ted Cruz. She is wicked smart to discredit Cruz's biggest celebrity cheer leader. Now that Sarah has no handlers muffling what she can say, and has no one on her staff sabotaging her efforts, she's turning out to be one hell of a scrapper. She always was a good scrapper, but this has calculation and the long game behind it. If Cruz loses and Trump wins (which I believe will happen), Cruz is going to have to grovel real hard to get anything he wants done as a Senator. Ted Cruz's star spokesman and campaign partner, Glenn Beck, promises he will support a socialist vs. the pro-life,...Posted by Sarah Palin on Thursday, February 18, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 I want to leave a thought online about Glenn Beck to come back to later. I went through his kerfuffle with Sarah Palin once again. They had a rift back in 2011 when Rep. Gabby Giffords got shot in Arizona and the press was going apeshit blaming Sarah for it. She wanted to keep her silence until all the facts were in and the press was hounding her directly for a statement. Then Beck read a private email from her on his show to make the scoop about what she thought. She did not authorize him to do that. In other words, he made her statement for her. Poof. There went her control for how to defend herself against the attacks, which continued viciously for weeks after that. And that was the start of the riff. There have been other things along the way, but Glenn doesn't see what he did with her email as a major betrayal of trust. He plays the victim. I have done a lot of thinking about how a core story alters the way we perceive reality. And what if a person is a narcissist? How does a core story change his perception? Let me just say it, since I used to sing Beck's praises so much. What if Glenn Beck is a narcissist in the clinical sense? His attitude toward Sarah shows one of the strong symptoms of narcissism in the same manner narcissists behave. But then, what if he believes he has a direct channel to God to save the world to boot? I know he believes God tells him what to do. He always says he has learned not to question God when God tells him where to stand. The mixture of narcissist and world-saving prophet is fascinating the ponder. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 "VIDEO: THIS is why Cruz and Rubio didn’t attempt to have a court decide their eligibility in the past. They would have been ruled ineligible!" http://powderedwigsociety.com/eligibility-of-cruz-and-rubio/# The crux of the argument hinges on determinism around the 6m mark, not very Oist, posted here as it came from the Trump camp as a retweet on Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said: "VIDEO: THIS is why Cruz and Rubio didn’t attempt to have a court decide their eligibility in the past. They would have been ruled ineligible!" [...] The crux of the argument hinges on determinism around the 6m mark, not very Oist, posted here as it came from the Trump camp as a retweet on Twitter. Yeah, the unnamed-in-the-video woman says just after the six-minute mark that "(Ramsay sets forth the understanding of the time) A natural -born citizen is one who is born of citizens" ... and then says "So a natural-born citizen inherits his citizenship from his parents -- just as he inherits his eye colour." She had earlier also noted that to her understanding the natural-born inherits citizenship from American parents. I will look to see who this woman is and why her remarks are cogent. On the face of it, her speechifying verges on hilariously irrelevant. in that Obama has ruled while not in her estimation eligible. Anyone can emit feelings and conclusions on Youtube, but what court is going to hear her arguments? When is Mr Trump going to shit or get off the pot on suing Cruz over his non-eligibility for the office they both seek? -- she says Marco is a "naturalized citizen,' because he did not inherit his citizenship. That he was born in America does not matter to this woman. It is irrelevant. I think she may be a crackpot in legal matters. If Rubio was born to an American citizen (mom) but not of an American dad (who was not yet naturalized), then he had to undergo some process of naturalization himself? Well, to be exact, no. Rubio had to do zero beyond being born to achieve his citizenship. He may have had to go through a process to access a possible Cuban status -- he could not simply have got on a plane and got off in Havana as a citizen of that republic. If there was a simple, automatic bestowal of citizenship at birth, it wasn't Cuba who bestowed it. It was America. Oh, her name is Publius Huldah. Or perhaps "Publius Huldah" AKA Jane McCracken. She advertises herself this way: Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following: There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus. I don't think this peekaboo pseudonym lady will be filing any suits against Rubio/Cruz. Which makes her arguments just a tittle above those of Orly Taitz, who had all her actual legal efforts rebuffed. There are some five suits filed already. We shall see how that pans out. I expect Trump's lawyers are telling him, "You are a gambler, sir, not just a bold genius. It will cost several million and up to a year for your Cruz suit to bear fruit or shit. We would like a piece of fee pie, sure, but you might as well crush Cruz in electoral contest, rather than court. But it's your money, and we are on retainer. Threats and bluster will probably do the trick to sleaze-bomb the Cruz machine. We know you hate long memos, so -- bottom line: you will fuck up Cruz by threatening to sue, not by suing. If you lost a Cruz suit during the campaign, it would fuck you up. Let whack-jobs file suits, you benefit both ways." Edited February 20, 2016 by william.scherk Spelking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 14 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: "VIDEO: THIS is why Cruz and Rubio didn’t attempt to have a court decide their eligibility in the past. They would have been ruled ineligible!" http://powderedwigsociety.com/eligibility-of-cruz-and-rubio/# The crux of the argument hinges on determinism around the 6m mark, not very Oist, posted here as it came from the Trump camp as a retweet on Twitter. Very nice piece of argumentation. Thanks. Gulch, the Doctor from Massachusetts is a big Vadel advocate... Quote No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 8. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795). provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .” 9. Id. at 104 (emphasis omitted). The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents. Looks plural to me. Also looks like the father had to be one of them. Now, this Harvard Law Review article points out that: Quote birth. 11. See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21. The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.” And the authors continue, raising a respected jurist and: Quote As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.” 13. 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1473, at 333 (1833). The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility. http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) Here is a question Rubio should put to Rafael. Why do you not use your Latino name? Maybe you do not want to be confused with a popular cartoon icon? A... Edited February 21, 2016 by Selene corrected spelling and grammar error(s) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Glenn Beck Responds to South Carolina Primary Results: ‘Join Me’ in a ‘Fast for Ted Cruz’ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/21/glenn-beck-responds-to-sc-primary-results-join-me-in-a-fast-for-ted-cruz/ Quote “I would like to ask you to join me and my family Monday in a fast for Ted Cruz, our country and the Nevada caucus,” Beck wrote on his Facebook page after the South Carolina election results showed a decisive double-digit victory for Trump, whose candidacy Beck has been staunchly opposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Video predicts Cruz is finished, as the evangelical vote isn't there for him in NV, and polling indicates Trump will dominate Super Tuesday. 1m 30s in Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 One thing at a time, Glenn... Maybe you should fast for enlightenment for Ted and his people (including you). Sleaze is not a divine missionary tactic for Evangelical Christians. Learn that lesson and the next step will be easier... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Cruz's campaign is really beginning to piss me off. However, we shall see. These next two (2) should be very interesting. No one seems to be talking about North Carolina. Apparently, a Federal Judge/Magistrate ruled against the State of North Carolina's re-drawn Congressional Districts and it looks like there will not be a primary on the scheduled date this year. Finally, keep your eye on Kasich...Ohio is waiting and The Donald seems to be polling very well there. I think Kasich benefits from the Bush "spill." Kasich would be a key compromise candidate, or, certainly a V.P. pick. A.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backlighting Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 5 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: Glenn Beck Responds to South Carolina Primary Results: ‘Join Me’ in a ‘Fast for Ted Cruz’ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/21/glenn-beck-responds-to-sc-primary-results-join-me-in-a-fast-for-ted-cruz/ Glenn has really lost it. He's resorted to this nonsense...this from a man who on his first t.v. show with Fox a few (?) yrs ago spent considerable time advocating "Atlas Shrugged". Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio...? -J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 To me, via Beck, the choice between Cruz and Trump couldn't be more Randian. (paraphrasing) Glenn Beck: Fast with me so we can elect Ted Cruz. The fasting won't bring you any personal value. It is self-sacrifice, not gain and not trade. If you fast with us, maybe the Lord will be moved by your sacrifice and allow us to elect Ted Cruz. Donald Trump: If you want to work for yourselves and live well on this earth, vote for me so I can get the morons out of our way and structure markets and freedom back to the way they grew in America. And punish America's terrorist attackers. Let's make America great again. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Not even some religious Christians are thrilled with Beck doing this: Note to Glenn Beck: God Has Not Endorsed Ted Cruz by Walter Hudson February 18, 2016 PJ Media From the article: Hudson said: As a Christian, I retain unshakable faith in the sovereignty of God. In a sense, you could truthfully say that He brought about Scalia's death, but only in the same way that He has brought about anything that has ever happened. Assigning special theological significance to a particular death or a particular candidacy for president requires a certain level of presumption that I, for one, would not dare. Romans 13 tells us that "there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." In this sense, if Ted Cruz ends up becoming president of the United States, it will be by God's hand. But then, so will have the election of all 44 presidents before him, including Obama. A cursory reading of scripture demonstrates that God does not always appoint leaders who love or obey him. In fact, as history attests, he often appoints the opposite. There is therefore little sense in singling out Ted Cruz as uniquely "raised for this hour." The implication of such a statement is that God favors Cruz over anyone else who may win the Republican nomination or the presidency, and that He needs you and I to manifest his divine will in the ballot box. Unless Beck has somehow reopened the closed office of prophet, I'm not sure how he could know that. Glenn Beck may have endorsed Ted Cruz, but God has not. God's plan does not hinge upon this or any election. He has remained on the throne throughout Obama's two terms and will endure the president who comes next. There's nothing wrong with calling people to faith, offering personal testimonies, or encouraging believers to participate in the political process. But conveying the sense that God has a horse in the race crosses a line of propriety. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Then there's this from TheBlaze: Glenn Beck Doubles Down After His Call to Fast for Cruz, Country Is Mocked: ‘I Am Not Running From This’ I'm not going to quote it (please go there and read it if you are interested), but I do want to comment on something I think is a good sign for pro-Trump people. Beck is not going to have much more influence. Here's my reason. In doubling down on fasting for Cruz, Beck said on Facebook (and quoted in the article): "... what I think makes Christians look like ‘whack jobs’ is voting without applying the principles they claim to uphold. I fear Lincoln was right. Our destruction will not come from an outside force but we will indeed destroy ourselves. I pray I play no role in that event. Will you do the same?" In other words, for Beck, the problem with Trump is that the people who support him are morally corrupt. He already called Trump supporters racist once before and backed off. This time, I think it's a sign that he is resigned to defeat. Why? This argument--that the problem with Trump is his supporters are dumb, bigots, bitter old white guys, uncultured, morally corrupt, yada yada yada--has been around since the beginning of Trump's run. What it means is that people making that claim don't know how to talk to folks who support Trump, and they probably never did. They have an elitist mentality where they are among the Superior Ones and they don't believe they should be bothered to learn how to talk to their inferiors. It is enough to proclaim the lowlives as inferiors. This line of thinking is OK if you are an elitist snot or religious prophet or whatever and just want to feel good. The practical problem is that, since these Superior Ones are not interested in communicating anything but their own disdain for the very existence of their "inferiors," how can they persuade anyone they disagree with? The answer is, they don't. Trump does. Trump learned who his eventual followers are since nobody else was interested. And Trump fell in love with them. They fell in love right back. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 18 hours ago, Selene said: Federal Judge/Magistrate ruled against the State of North Carolina's re-drawn Congressional Districts From the the Charlotte Observer, with some weird details -- it looks like re-districting to eradicate two bizarre gerrymanders is to be completed February 19. I have't yet found what it means for the primary election. Their challenge came after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June of 2013 opened a new legal front for challenging the maps. The 1st Congressional District according to the lawsuit, is “akin to a Rorschach inkblot” that weaves through 24 counties, containing only five whole counties. The district is mostly in the northeastern part of the state and includes Durham, Elizabeth City, Roanoke Rapids, Rocky Mount, Goldsboro and New Bern. The length of the district’s perimeter, according to the lawsuit, is 1,319 miles - “almost precisely the distance from Chapel Hill to Austin, Texas.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 The argument is that these two (2) were created to warehouse minority voters into two (2) ghetoized districts in order to reduce their impact. Thanks for the info William... A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Ted Cruz has an evangelical problem https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/21/ted-cruzs-looming-evangelical-problem/ ---------------- This Washington Post compiled some exit polling numbers and created the article linked above. This is a continuation of the thought that Cruz is finished, from the Foxnews video I posted previously. The article doesn't mention its polling method to acquire these figures, also I'm unsure whether it does, or doesn't paint an accurate picture. Might seem more accurate to compile evangelical numbers from Iowa, NH, and SC--but then again Cruz's message has changed, and his opponent's attacks about how much voters can "Trust Ted" increased as well. Still, these are exit poll numbers, it's not like counting votes in Florida here (sarcasm), so with all that said I found it a bit shocking how lopsided Cruz's demo appears to be. The article has more graphs and goes more in depth. With only an estimate of 30% of NV saying they attend church regularly (2009 numbers, likely still about the same ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/125999/mississippians-go-church-most-vermonters-least.aspx )), Cruz looks to be in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 John: Exit polls are, invariably, useless. People do not tell exit pollster the truth because it is face to face. However, I like your idea to compare all three (3) primaries. Le me see what I can find out. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 It begins ...Here is the cover story... Quote Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Ted Cruz said on Monday that he had asked for the resignation of national spokesman Rick Tyler on Monday, citing a “grave error of judgment.” Cruz said his decision stemmed from a social media posting from Tyler on Sunday publicizing a blog that misstated Marco Rubio’s remarks to a Cruz staffer in South Carolina. The posting, from the Daily Pennsylvanian, which also posted a video, recounts how Rubio ran into Cruz’s father, Rafael Cruz, and a staffer in South Carolina on Saturday at a Hampton Inn. The news outlet reported that Rubio decided to “have some fun” with the staffer, who was reading the Bible, and suggested that the Bible did “[n]ot have many answers in it.” Tyler posted the story on Facebook but later deleted it and apologized after a Cruz staffer said Rubio didn’t make any such comment. But Cruz decided greater action was needed. "Our campaign should not have sent it. That’s why I’ve asked for Rick Tyler’s resignation,” Cruz said about the social media posting about the Daily Pennsylvanian article. He said he spent the morning investigating before coming to his conclusion. He added, “I have made clear in this campaign that we will conduct this campaign with the very highest standards of integrity.” Tyler’s exit comes as the Cruz campaign has been under increased fire from his rivals, who have accused him of running a dirty campaign. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson accused Cruz of spreading rumors that he had dropped out of the race as the Iowa caucuses were going on, and Rubio’s campaign has cried foul over a Photoshopped image of Rubio shaking hands with President Barack Obama. Tyler posted an apology early Monday morning for his prior distribution of the blog post. “I want to apologize to Senator Marco Rubio for posting an inaccurate story about him here earlier today,” Tyler said. “The story showed a video of the Senator walking past a Ted Cruz staffer seated in the lobby of a hotel reading his Bible. The story misquoted a remark the Senator made to the staffer. I assumed wrongly that the story was correct. According to the Cruz staffer, the Senator made a friendly and appropriate remark.” Rubio, talking to reporters on Monday, said he has come to expect dirty tactics from Cruz’s campaign. Anyone who has read my recent posts on this thread knows that I have become more and more moving towards open opposition to Rafael "I don't use my given Latino name - ssh" Cruz and his campaign. All the data of all the campaigns I have been in have been kicking up red flag after red flag. Here is a big rocket of a red flag. htttp://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/breaking-news-cruz-asks-for-national-spokesman-rick-tylers-resignation-219632 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now