When I say Cruz is insidious this is what I mean. Cruz will quote other sources to paint the picture he wants in the minds of his supporters without examining the veracity of the source, so that, what he says is technically true ("it's been reported that...), someone did report or say it, but he is disengaged from the truth of the original statement. It's lawyering 101, it's politics 404, but it's the low road of demagoguery. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/11/29/3726311/ted-cruz-planned-parenthood-shooting-transgendered/
he was pointing out that the reporter was doing the exact same thing, confronting Cruz with speculation based on unsubstantiated reports
Heh. Well. You know, maybe that's why Shakespeare had one of his characters in his play (Henry VI, Part 2) , quip "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." One of the reasons for a lot of the "dysfunction" currently plaguing our national political discourse, in my opinion, stems a great deal from the overwhelming number of lawyers in Congress (somewhere above 40%, I've read)... Shakespeare's point in this line (offered by a rebel who was looking to unseat the King through civil unrest) was to portray lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law. They're the ones who stand in the way of a fanatical mob in a democracy...or even a monarchy, in this instance. Or at least, that's Shakespeare's interpretation. It seems almost counter-intuitive, on the face of it: you would think learned, highly educated men (and women) at the highest levels of our government would be much more inclined to civil discourse and conflict resolution then they currently are, given that the basic dynamic of democratic governance is mutual compromise causing incremental and beneficial change for the good of all. "Smart" people, in essence, should be able to see both sides of an issue and understand the need to come to a mutually beneficial solution, in the interests of forward governance. There's hardly anything to be gained (in principal or otherwise, to me) in the context of governance at any level by constant visceral conflict and abject contrarianism. But's it like that line Tom Cruise gave in A Few Good Men "...he's making an argument..."... Lawyers, almost by default, it seems now, are about making arguments...and while differing points of view are necessary (and personally, welcomed) as a function of discovering the best ways to solve complex social problems where rigid ideologies offer no soluble answers... Statesmen, I've understood, are not simply what they "know"...or even in a lawyer's parlance, what they can "prove"... ...as they are what goals they hope to achieve. And for whom and what they hope to achieve those goals for. I don't know a lot about or follow Senator Ted Cruz. I don't have any inclination to, just on general principle (because he has seemed always more concerned with making an argument than he has with governing in any real sense).... ...but as someone who (by educational pedigree, at least) would seem to know better than most what the law is, and what the law represents in a "free" country... ...should certainly understand that the "truth" is never served (nor does it need to be served) by promoting outright falsehoods or misleading facts...simply to make an argument.
The politifact article does a good job describing why the claim isn't supportable with the data offered. Putting data aside, Cruz is probably right on the simple logic that the populations known to lean left also tend to be over-represented in the criminal justice system (minorities, urban dwellers, youths). I'm not sure that means they are more criminal, but they at least get punished by the state more. My objection would be on relevance though. First, Cruz's idea that the media is hoping every mass murderer is a Republican is stupid. Usually, everyone is holding their breath waiting to hear it was a Muslim fanatic. When it turns out to be a white guy, minds turn to mental illness, with a side of needing better gun control (but with no assumption or need to have the killer to be pro-gun-freedom). So he's starting out with a false persecution complex. When something happens at a Planned Parenthood, though, we know what's up every bit as well as we knew that the Paris attacks were done by Muslims before any information was available. Of course we think of pro-lifers when a PP is attacked, and of course we think of Republicans when we think of pro-lifers. Is it jumping the gun to draw these conclusions without the facts? Yeah. But, we'll still be right 90% of the time. Will there also be mental illness? Yeah probably -- not many people in charge of their faculties go on murder sprees even if they are staunchly pro-life. But then his second mistake or misdirection is quoting something about the criminality of Democrats as if it were at all relevant. In the PP attack, Republicans catch some flak because a wing of their party calls PP murderers, and in fact the politicians are trying again to put economic and regulatory pressure of the organization now because what they do is implicitly murder. The rhetoric drives lone wolf types to choose to do this sort of crime on ideological grounds. That same relevance isn't seen on the Democrat side -- or if it is, Cruz needs to be much more specific. The array of murders, rapes, robberies, and other violent crimes that have put whatever violent criminal Democrats in prison cannot be specifically linked to some ideological motivation bred by Democrat rhetoric. Since there's no link, there's no point in Cruz bringing it up. I think he could have tried with some recent cop murders and saying they were inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement in the same way as Dear was likely motivated by the pro-life movement. It's actually this vulnerability that makes both of these movements try so hard to be peaceful. One bad apple can really hurt their credibility. So, Cruz is totally wrong, but I don't blame the pro-life movement, or the environmentalists, or BLM, or the tea party, or Christians, or Muslims for the crimes committed by individuals who are excessively passionate and a little off-kilter. They all address very important and highly-charged subjects that are very important to talk about and evangelize for. Some people may speak irresponsibly to incite rebellion (like ISIS propagandists, for example, who are trying to command lone wolf attacks) and I do blame them. But responsible pro-lifers who insist on the sanctity of human life or responsible BLM protesters demanding humane treatment for blacks from law enforcement -- they should keep doing what they do.
Ted Cruz cited this research when he said most violent criminals are Democrats. Now the researchers say he’s wrong.
Lawyering is about staying within technical legality in a vigorous advocacy of the client's position no matter what their personal opinion is. That allows for leading others to form conclusions that might be knowingly false. It can be done without outright lying, but by inference, playing to the audience's bias and preconceptions. That's what Cruz does to his tea party rubes. There is no denying that Mr. Cruz is good at lawyering and framing a point of view as truth. But it's still scummy; standard operating procedure in politics, but scummy.
Oh, hey, no arguments from me on the scummy part. "Legal" and "moral" aren't always passengers on the same boat...no matter where it's sailing. But I suppose this all begs the question: what are our laws, if not a reflection of our collective morality?
Cruz would be scary and terrible because he’s not willing to go along with business as usual in Washington. Oh, wait; that’s what some of us want.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Ted Cruz To Convene Congressional Hearing To Examine Claims Of Global Warming Activists <a href="https://t.co/CMM9eikFGC">https://t.co/CMM9eikFGC</a></p>— Alex Pappas (@AlexPappas) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlexPappas/status/672140748330930177">December 2, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
That is what a lot of us want. Unlike Cruz, though, most of want it to make sense and be based on fact. Instead we have Cruz with his bizarre fantasies about Iran shooting missiles into the sky as a form of attack, and all the climate change denying and all the other crap Cruz does in the guise of going against business as usual. If only someone who made actual sense and didn't base their going against business as usual on BS.
Oh good. Another great use of taxpayer dollars. Label legions of scientists and reams of data as activists and activism. Very clever, Sexy Teddy. Keep ****ing those same dumb chickens and you might get enough dumb voters.
Sou you guys are all going to vote early and often for Hillary Clinton, who is the purest certainty in the race of increased corruption and more business as usual in Washington. Anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton, either in the primary or the general election (if she makes it that far), does not want this. And that includes you.
No, I don't think I'd vote for Hillary Clinton. If she's the Democratic nominee, I'll vote for a third party candidate, more than likely. I already said in this thread, that I'd vote for Bernie. If I was placing a ranking on candidates, Hillary would rank higher than Cruz, Trump, or Dr. Ben
Lol!! The socialist???? Very telling about you FB but it is nothing I did not realize about you already. I still respect you though. Peace my friend!!!!
Way to go Ted. He already had my support, this only endears me to him more. Common sense in Washington is what we need!!!!! Finally some common sense on the subject as opposed to our idiot president speaking for 14 minutes on the subject when he was allowed 3 while ignoring the over limit warnings tones. A US President has never embarrassed me more. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/obama-ignores-wrap-it-beeps-talks-talks-climate-summit-n471256 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/01/obama-exceeds-3-minute-speaking-limit-at-climate-change-gathering-watch-what-happens-when-he-gets-signal-to-wrap-it-up/
