Holman wrote:Rubio/Bush/Christie/Kasich are attacking each other rather than Trump. They know the purge is coming.
None of them get much attention, but one of them must become the anointed one. Rubio probably lives with his parents and doesn't have a drivers license (too young). Bush is innocuous, but his family name is poison. Christie's a lesser bully than Trump. Kasich counts as a moderate in today's GOP so he has the best shot facing a liberal electorate, but the worst shot at passing the primaries.
Conservative critics of Ted Cruz are going after his tithing practices. According to recently released tax records, the Texas senator contributed less than 1 percent of his income to charity between 2006 and 2010. But many Christians believe that the Bible commands a charitable offering, or tithe, equal to 10 percent of one’s annual earnings.
...
While a candidate’s charitable giving might seem petty or irrelevant to nonreligious Americans, it likely matters to the conservative Christians who Cruz has worked diligently to court. A 2011 study by Pew Research Center found that 61 percent of American evangelical leaders deemed tithing essential to being a “good evangelical.” And an additional 34 percent said it is “important” though not “essential.” If religious voters see Cruz’s meager tithing as an indication that he isn’t as faithful as he presents himself to be, he could lose their support. And since Cruz and Trump are in a dead heat in Iowa, even a small shift could be devastating.
...
The entire architecture of his campaign is based on constant appeals to believers, invoking strong references to his faith at campaign stops and promising to protect “Christians who have been persecuted for their beliefs.” He even calls himself a “Christian first, American second.” And in New Hampshire, where religion plays a smaller role in politics, Cruz recently declared that America should return to its Judeo-Christian roots: “For too long there has been a spirit of fear and timidity in Washington. We should not be ashamed of Christ.”
“I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third and Republican fourth,” said Cruz, who is currently a distant second place, behind Trump, for the GOP nomination in several national polls. “I’ll tell ya, there are a whole lot of people in this country that feel exactly the same way.”
And people were worried about the Pope telling JFK what to do.
The Texas senator, eyeing 2016, understood the imperative of establishing his Evangelical bona fides. He envisioned marrying the GOP’s anti-establishment and religious wings as part of a broader movement, one that could position Cruz not only to win Iowa — a state where 2012 entrance polls showed a majority of GOP caucus-goers identifying both as tea-partiers and as Evangelicals — but to claim the conservative mantle and ultimately defeat a more moderate Republican opponent.
Cruz couldn’t launch his campaign in Iowa, however — that would make his intentions too obvious, campaign manager Jeff Roe warned. So they discussed other options: Cruz’s hometown of Houston; historical sites around Texas; even the Reagan Library in California. As the call dragged on, Aaron Baker, Roe’s employee at Axiom Strategies in Missouri, had an idea. An Evangelical Christian himself, Baker was on the line only to take notes for a colleague on maternity leave. But he felt compelled to send his boss an e-mail: “You should do it at Liberty.”
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
That ad as much greater problems than just having a porn star in it (when the day comes that Ron Jeremy appears in a political ad, that candidate will probably get my vote).
Ted Cruz may approve the message, but I'll be hornswaggled if I can figure out exactly what the message is supposed to be.
I spent 90% of the money I made on women, booze, and drugs. The other 10% I just pissed away.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
She claims she only did soft-core, because she's a conservative Christian. Pity. It would have been so much better if she's been an actress with a porn name like Annie Anal.
I spent 90% of the money I made on women, booze, and drugs. The other 10% I just pissed away.
I reckon the sanctimonious might be scandalized because they're always eager to find offense. Everybody else, not so much. I'll give it a snicker since Cruz counts himself among the sanctimonious.
Kraken wrote:I reckon the sanctimonious might be scandalized because they're always eager to find offense. Everybody else, not so much. I'll give it a snicker since Cruz counts himself among the sanctimonious.
tgb wrote:She claims she only did soft-core, because she's a conservative Christian. Pity. It would have been so much better if she's been an actress with a porn name like Annie Anal.
Come to think of it, "Ted Cruz" is a pretty awesome porn name.
tgb wrote:She claims she only did soft-core, because she's a conservative Christian. Pity. It would have been so much better if she's been an actress with a porn name like Annie Anal.
Come to think of it, "Ted Cruz" is a pretty awesome gay porn name.
Fixed it.
I spent 90% of the money I made on women, booze, and drugs. The other 10% I just pissed away.
The cluster of well-funded super PACs boosting Cruz’s candidacy is trying out a new tactic in the Palmetto State, indicating the extent to which super PACs are encroaching on traditional campaign turf.
And it has Cruz’s rivals scared.
Said super PAC, called Keep the Promise—which is actually sub-divided into several different PACs, each funded by a different billionaire family—has blithely tossed the traditional super PAC playbook to the winds. In fact, they’ve taken on typical campaign operations: gathering voter data, targeting likely Cruz supporters, and knocking on thousands of doors to get out the vote.
Oh yes, elections bought and paid for by Billionaires. Great. Thanks Citizen's United!
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The cluster of well-funded super PACs boosting Cruz’s candidacy is trying out a new tactic in the Palmetto State, indicating the extent to which super PACs are encroaching on traditional campaign turf.
And it has Cruz’s rivals scared.
Said super PAC, called Keep the Promise—which is actually sub-divided into several different PACs, each funded by a different billionaire family—has blithely tossed the traditional super PAC playbook to the winds. In fact, they’ve taken on typical campaign operations: gathering voter data, targeting likely Cruz supporters, and knocking on thousands of doors to get out the vote.
Oh yes, elections bought and paid for by Billionaires. Great. Thanks Citizen's United!
Indeed, he is almost up to 25% of what Hillary's SuperPACs have gotten from large donors.
When you go to this section, you see that Cruz is primarily backed by just a few HUGE donors (who appear much larger than any of Clinton/Bush's donors.
And of course, all data is only through 6/30/2015 (on the connector graph), so a bit out of date, but...
However, if you drill down on the SuperPACs supporting the candidates, Hillary's largest single donor is in for $7m. Cruz has 3 SuperPACs that are pretty much funded by a single donation larger than Hillary's largest (by over 50%). Most of Hillary's campaign money is her non-superPac campaign fund.
That drill down data is as of 1/30/2016, I believe.
Curiously enough, it appears as though Bush's Right to Rise SuperPAC's largest donation (from CV Starr & Co), is from a company which no longer appears to be in business (but could donate $10m for the 2016 election - huh?).
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
When you go to this section, you see that Cruz is primarily backed by just a few HUGE donors (who appear much larger than any of Clinton/Bush's donors.
And of course, all data is only through 6/30/2015 (on the connector graph), so a bit out of date, but...
However, if you drill down on the SuperPACs supporting the candidates, Hillary's largest single donor is in for $7m. Cruz has 3 SuperPACs that are pretty much funded by a single donation larger than Hillary's largest (by over 50%). Most of Hillary's campaign money is her non-superPac campaign fund.
That drill down data is as of 1/30/2016, I believe.
Curiously enough, it appears as though Bush's Right to Rise SuperPAC's largest donation (from CV Starr & Co), is from a company which no longer appears to be in business (but could donate $10m for the 2016 election - huh?).
Of course Hillary's Campaign Committee money is 80% large contributions. The only one with more large contributions is Bush. Either way the point stands. If anyone is buying the election it isn't Cruz. He doesn't have nearly as much money to spend as Bush/Clinton.
When you go to this section, you see that Cruz is primarily backed by just a few HUGE donors (who appear much larger than any of Clinton/Bush's donors.
And of course, all data is only through 6/30/2015 (on the connector graph), so a bit out of date, but...
However, if you drill down on the SuperPACs supporting the candidates, Hillary's largest single donor is in for $7m. Cruz has 3 SuperPACs that are pretty much funded by a single donation larger than Hillary's largest (by over 50%). Most of Hillary's campaign money is her non-superPac campaign fund.
That drill down data is as of 1/30/2016, I believe.
Curiously enough, it appears as though Bush's Right to Rise SuperPAC's largest donation (from CV Starr & Co), is from a company which no longer appears to be in business (but could donate $10m for the 2016 election - huh?).
Of course Hillary's Campaign Committee money is 80% large contributions. The only one with more large contributions is Bush. Either way the point stands. If anyone is buying the election it isn't Cruz. He doesn't have nearly as much money to spend as Bush/Clinton.
So it doesn't matter that they all have had large contributions to their Super PACs. The fact that there can only be one with the largest amount is proof that Super PACs don't influence elections. That's like saying that because there can only be one winner of the World Series that steroids aren't a problem in baseball.
Rip wrote:Of course Hillary's Campaign Committee money is 80% large contributions. The only one with more large contributions is Bush. Either way the point stands. If anyone is buying the election it isn't Cruz. He doesn't have nearly as much money to spend as Bush/Clinton.
How many people here are arguing that Hillary and DNC aren't bought and paid for? Didn't we just point out that the DNC is dropping their moratorium on SuperPAC moneys?
The idea that Cruz isn't bought and paid for because he doesn't have the machine the Bush or Clinton families is... strange to say the least. The 50 million dollar gift sucker in his mouth doesn't count because it's not 100 million gift sucker?
Rip wrote:Of course Hillary's Campaign Committee money is 80% large contributions. The only one with more large contributions is Bush. Either way the point stands. If anyone is buying the election it isn't Cruz. He doesn't have nearly as much money to spend as Bush/Clinton.
How many people here are arguing that Hillary and DNC aren't bought and paid for? Didn't we just point out that the DNC is dropping their moratorium on SuperPAC moneys?
The idea that Cruz isn't bought and paid for because he doesn't have the machine the Bush or Clinton families is... strange to say the least. The 50 million dollar gift sucker in his mouth doesn't count because it's not 100 million gift sucker?
They are all bought and paid for except for Trump.......
Rip wrote:Of course Hillary's Campaign Committee money is 80% large contributions. The only one with more large contributions is Bush. Either way the point stands. If anyone is buying the election it isn't Cruz. He doesn't have nearly as much money to spend as Bush/Clinton.
How many people here are arguing that Hillary and DNC aren't bought and paid for? Didn't we just point out that the DNC is dropping their moratorium on SuperPAC moneys?
The idea that Cruz isn't bought and paid for because he doesn't have the machine the Bush or Clinton families is... strange to say the least. The 50 million dollar gift sucker in his mouth doesn't count because it's not 100 million gift sucker?
They are all bought and paid for except for Sanders.......
FTFY!
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
