<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/TeaPartier_Al">@TeaPartier_Al</a> <a href="https://t.co/7ttfUgiQ3K">pic.twitter.com/7ttfUgiQ3K</a></p>— Braddock Massey (@Braddock_Massey) <a href="https://twitter.com/Braddock_Massey/status/693512787281096704">January 30, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/RBPundit">@RBPundit</a> <a href="https://t.co/FBjxaipH9p">pic.twitter.com/FBjxaipH9p</a></p>— Braddock Massey (@Braddock_Massey) <a href="https://twitter.com/Braddock_Massey/status/693289869351612417">January 30, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I think this ramps up the Walker fiasco to eleven. Maybe twelve. As bad as the Walker shaming was (and, boy, was it ever)this presents their voting record as some sort of official violation. Kind of insulting to the intelligence of his own supporters, assuming that's even possible.
In the walker runoff the democrats used it to get neighbors to shame each other. They would send your neighbor your voting record with an encouragement to get your neighbors to vote against walker or at least keep you from voting for him. I'm sorry, they are both sleezy. It's seems like for many here the dividing line between sleezy and acceptable is merely a question of whether it was their party that did it.
I find it weird that you read my comments and conclude that as being "fine with that". Just because I think it happens a lot doesn't mean I think it's good or reasonable. My comments would more accurately be interpreted as not being fine with that or with this, and wishing all of it was overhauled. As it stands, both are legal and repugnant but that's unfortunately the system we have in place, so I'm not going to get particularly worked up when one or or the other does it, because I know both sides abuse the rules.
No worries! I was concerned if I had supported that crap, because my I'm a big supporter of trying to find reasonable ways to clean up campaigns. No one benefits when voters get bad information.
must be nice to be able to just set $500k on fire to no end <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Now in: Mike Huckabee's super PAC, which reports another $500,000 donation from Houston Texans owner Bob McNair but not much else cash.</p>— Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) <a href="https://twitter.com/teddyschleifer/status/693906905484234752" data-datetime="2016-01-31T21:21:13+00:00">January 31, 2016</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Now, who would donate that kind of dough to Huckabee? There was never even a possibility that he would be a contender. What a waste of cash.
I was relieved to see I came out strongly against the Walker shaming campaign too. I was going to post that the Walker thing was even worse than this because the Walker campaign called out your neighbors rather than just you....but per the tweet pics this campaign seems to have done that too and added the fake 'official ordinance' stuff. So yes...slightly worse. And both very sleazy. Neither acceptable. In the Walker thread I called for it to be illegal.
Add our alum Will to those who don't speak too highly of ol' Ted: He may be the most spectacular liar ever to run for president.
I didn't follow the Wisconsin thing much but sounds pretty sleazy. I still think it's one thing to use public records, even in a sleazy way, and another to scare people into thinking they've done something illegal.
I had no idea -- I don't remember seeing any notice of it. Of course, if I posted in that thread, I just totally forgot. Misleading, alarmist, publisher's-clearing-house-style leaflets for candidates are turrible, no matter who uses them.
That you could conflate the two and somehow take my post from that thread, which I have posted above, to mean I endorse Cruz's dishonest tactics in the Iowa primary is absurd, with all due respect.
