i would assume i suppose that has happened above in the gif to other candidates. but that girl was too old and the whole thing is... wow i don't even know. maybe someone else can put that into words a little better.
i take it back. that's his daughter. i would say that post (gif) should be removed. his daughter should not be used for that kind of crap politics.
I didn't think it was possible but the video is even more cringe worthy. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/feALLLFdj7Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Tell Cruz not to be using his daughters as political props for commercials and campaign stops.
i see where you are going with that. but it's still not really her choice to be in that in what i consider a cold and jaded christmas ad. it's just my opinion about this, but i don't think you should make fun of cruz because his daughter was acting like that towards him.
The point is that to compare the two tactics and view them as equal is, with all due respect, ridiculous. I wasn't posting that I approved fraudulently portraying Democratic political mailings as being missives from the state government threatening voters, because they were not. Cruz's were and the two instances are vastly different. What the Democrats mailed out to voters in Wisconsin was legal, using information that you or I or anyone else could legally obtain from public records. In fact, those kinds of public records are used by campaigns of both parties all the time. They were certainly used by the GOP in Texas for their redistricting outside of the normal post-census cycle in order the "better" gerrymander Texas congressional districts. Cruz committed fraud in Iowa, legal or not, that was condemned by the Republican Secretary of State. Have you been getting enough sleep lately, justtxyank? I am at a loss to understand why you are defending Cruz by attempting to portray the two instances as equal. They are not. I'll add that I wasn't wild about what the Democrats did in Wisconsin, which was why I described it as being "perfectly (or imperfectly) legal." I was simply pointing out that the tactic was legal, regardless of what one thought about it. The actions of the Cruz campaign in Iowa, blatantly defended by Cruz, were lies wrapped in the fraudulent trappings of Iowa's state government, and the Republican Secretary of State, again, is condemning the actions of Cruz's campaign, while Cruz, again, defends those actions. Do you understand the difference now?
Two thoughts. 1. I agree with the description of fraud (legal or otherwise). Seeing the picture of the mailing, you can see why the Sec of State is upset because the mailing looks officialish. I went to the other thread, though didn't see a picture of what the Wisconsin mailers looked like. While using public voting data to get out the vote makes me a bit unfomfotable, making it look like it came from the state is outrageous. If that's what the Walker recall people did in Wisconsin, Republicans should have done a better job objecting to the fraudulent presentation of the information. But, a quick google search turns up only letters that, while creepy, are obviously from political campaigns and not the state. 2. The Sec of State might be Republican, but I'm sure the whole state apparatus has it out for Cruz because of his position on ethanol. I wouldn't make too much of their political kinship.
They both are low ethics and disgusting. But Cruz did take it a step further with the "violation" in you face message. I think you would agree to that...? This practice should really be outlawed. Individual voting participation shouldn't be public records. Scare and shame tactic should be outlawed.
I'm not sure it's further, no. What he did seems like those warranty letters I get in the mail all the time. That you turn it over and it gives you grades like F and stuff makes it obvious that it's a political advert. It also says "Paid for by Cruz for President" so that should be another giveaway. In the Walker election they listed your neighbors and whether they voted and then told you to go harass them. They are both equally scummy in my opinion, but even if one is worse than the other I don't think it's by much.
With the warranty letters, there isn't any possible violation involved. At worst, you feel you would lose your warranty if you trust and fall for the scam. Voter violation is serious business and whether most probably know or not, when you are telling people that they are violating something as serious as voting, it's purposefully crossing an emotional weak point. At worst, you feel you are breaking some law if you trust and fall for the scam. The Walker tactics ask you to harass, but isn't hinting that you are violating anything. The difference is one is a shame tactic while the other is both a shame and scare tactic.
I just don't think the Cruz one is a legit scare tactic. Who would read that and think they were actually in trouble? There is no actual offense listed, no punishment listed, etc. It lays out the "violation" as having a low score lol. The quotes I can find in articles from people mad about it (actual people, not the Republicans who are against him) aren't even mentioning scare tactics, only the shame tactics. But this is the last I'll comment on it because I don't want to add to my potential arthritis by defending something Ted Cruz does. I hope this controversy burns him and he loses Iowa.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The field guide to Ted Cruz: 10 tips for figuring out the "wacko bird" <a href="https://t.co/rFb9E06WAB">https://t.co/rFb9E06WAB</a> <a href="https://t.co/WIOXARi527">pic.twitter.com/WIOXARi527</a></p>— Texas Monthly (@TexasMonthly) <a href="https://twitter.com/TexasMonthly/status/693471439907885056">January 30, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
endorsed <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Kids cheer as Cruz says "when Heidi is First Lady, French Fries are coming back to the cafeteria." <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CruzinToCaucus?src=hash">#CruzinToCaucus</a></p>— Rick Shaftan (@Shaftan) <a href="https://twitter.com/Shaftan/status/694240095818366976">February 1, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Rowing dude don't care about the Iowa caucuses <a href="https://t.co/dlCLalpTcr">pic.twitter.com/dlCLalpTcr</a></p>— Jon Ward (@jonward11) <a href="https://twitter.com/jonward11/status/694248559604953088">February 1, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
