Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Cruz won't even worry about truth this early 77

Journal by damn_registrars
Did Ted Cruz gin up Iowa voter histories?
That is actually one of the kinder reviews of the campaign mailers that the Cruz campaign sent out. One of my favorite bits so far on this is that apparently the campaign arbitrarily picked either "55%", "65%", or "75%" as a voting "score" for the people they mailed these out to (some say this may have been in part because the state voting records don't have enough information to calculate this number).

The reply from Cruz himself is interesting:

Cruz himself said in Iowa: "I will apologize to no one for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cruz won't even worry about truth this early More

Cruz won't even worry about truth this early

Comments Filter:
  • The worst thing about Cruz's targeted mailing is the overtly Democratic Party approach taken, as far as I can tell.
    • How does it resembled something "overtly Democratic Party"?

      To be fair, at this point I don't think that there is anything he did that was strictly illegal, I do however think it was of very questionable morality. His campaign made up numbers for these mailings and formatted them to look like they were coming from a government office - while implying that the recipient would be subject to some sort of punishment if they did not vote.

      Cruz's bigger problem in terms of what is or is not legal would lik

      • Cruz lied, Carson cried...

      • This is a litmus test of how Democrat-style brass-knuckles the GOP wants to get. It is certainly in Her Majesty's best interest if the GOP nominee plays a Romney hand--and I certainly think Cruz's campaign tactics are in wretched taste--but it's hard to argue against all legal means necessary to keep that sociopathic priestess of Cthulhu out of the White House.

        • all legal means necessary

          When did the GOP see that as a restriction? You guys have been willing to shit all over the constitution and then some in the name of preventing the "wrong" people from ascending to hold the reigns of power.

          • LOL
            • Well, I guess it isn't a surprise that you would find voter suppression and other such tactics funny when they always benefit your favorite guys. If the democrats could find a way to raise enough money to slow down your voting bloc you would certainly be crying foul.
              • Keep going. Don't stop until you've toured the entire Lefty mythological trope-osphere.
                • The courts have already ruled [washingtonpost.com] that a couple of districts [theguardian.com] were illegally gerrymandered to rig the vote in favor fo Republicans. A previous ruling has allowed states to act against gerrymandering [usatoday.com] . Republicans opposed this too ...

                  pre and more, they're the usual culprits. Same as the "Carson has returned to Florida" crap.

                  • That is arguably not even the most egregious offenses they have committed in recent memory. A more blatant execution of voter suppression happened back in 2004 in Ohio. Compare the wait times and voting machine distribution (voters per machine) between the wealthy republican-dominated districts and the economically depressed democrat-dominated districts. Few voters with minimum wage jobs can afford to wait 3+ hours to vote.
                    • Their base (fundie crazies) are a dying breed. This is just more proof that they have to resort to extreme tactics, rather than do the sensible thing, which is tell their base to stop screwing around with the fundamental principles of democracy. Their policies have done so much to wreck the economies of the states where they hold power - it's a question of how long the fools who vote for them before they realize they've been voting against their own self interest.
                    • Who are these straw-people?
                  • Sorry; no defense of the Incumbent Lock-in Program here.
                    Anything that can diminish the power of political parties as such is worth doing.

                • What more proof do we need that you are drowning in that *River in Egypt*? Ah, but the dems are worse, right? You are the funny....

                  • As though I were defending gerrymandering or the GOP elite. Y'all love you some strawmen.

                    • The "elite" is all there is in the GOP (and the dems). That's all that ever was. You, as part of your narrative, consider this a recent phenomenon, but it is not. And your "strawman" nonsense is a meaningless cop out, the exact equivalent of Hillary's "artful smear" charade she tries to pull on people who bring up her obligations to her donors. But still funniest of all is when you try to tell me the republicans are less prone to this stuff, your entire ruse (troll) falls flat..

                    • I guess if you completely ignore the Tea Party efforts since 2008, what you say is true.
                    • What exactly do you think makes the Tea Party different from the GOP that they are subservient to? They most certainly are not less a tool of the party elite - indeed they are actually even more of a tool of the party elite than the rest of the GOP (and that is really a feat, there).

                    • "since 2008"

                      Well, there ya go. No coincidence there, right? Yeah, that's quite a little dance they do around that magic word... Oh, what a sight it's been!

                    • What exactly do you think makes the Tea Party different from the GOP that they are subservient to?

                      Interest in Constitutional fidelity.

                    • Did you have some point?

                    • What exactly do you think makes the Tea Party different from the GOP that they are subservient to?

                      Interest in some very specific bits of Constitutional fidelity.

                      FTFYA. That was a pretty big error you made there.

                    • You fixed precisely shag-all. Thanks for nothing, bruh.
                    • I know you're not generally a big fan of reality, but the ruse that was the Tea Party ended some time ago. Now it's time to face the fact that it has been exposed for what it is. If you want to keep wearing your triangle hat and declaring your fondness for a whole new level of extreme regressive taxation that's fine, but telling yourself that others believe you actually give a shit about the rights that we used to have through the constitution is a lie that nobody but you still believes.
                    • I sincerely cannot fathom what you're talking about.
                    • It is will understood that the Tea Party is an extreme astroturfing movement that scores - at least - a solid 11 on a 1-to-10 bogosity scale. Even the name itself is bogus as there is no meaningful correlation between the Tea Party and the Boston Tea Party, there is no virtually no philosophical overlap. The Boston Tea Party wanted to end taxation without representation, the Tea Party wants to reduce representation. The Boston Tea Party was aware of what they were getting in to and fostered their own ide

                    • When you're willing to see it, it will knock you over with a feather. Until then, from you comes nothing but denial. You have built a good wall with it.

                    • When you're willing to see it, it will knock you over with a feather.

                      Do you mean like, or unlike, the way the Holy Spirit did when I understood that Jesus Christ is the meaning of life?

                    • the Tea Party wants to reduce representation.

                      I seriously doubt you have even the slightest clue what you're on about. This has never been an impediment to you.

                    • Where do you go in the search for "smaller government" once you've already slashed all the "entitlements" that you hate and you're left looking at your sacred cows of the military / industrial complex and the prison industry? At that point obviously you declare victory and start eliminating "unnecessary" representation from Washington as you hate everyone who works there.

                    • Ahhh, your deity provides such wonderful diversions... You're the winner once again..

                    • How is your non-answer to be interpreted?
                    • As a direction in which to move, how about Federalism? That is, confining the federal government to its enumerated, Constitutional powers, and admitting that the last century of "Progress" was mostly bollocks, and respecting the 9th and 10th Amendments again?
                    • Once again, you are carefully cherry-picking your way through the constitution, claiming that your reading of it is correct and all others are definitively wrong.

                    • "Non-answer" to what?

                    • The like/unlike question above.
                    • Yep. Another cost-free accusation from you. *golf clap*.

                    • Irrelevant to the subject at hand. It wasn't a question, it was a distraction.

                    • You very plainly show disdain for constitutional amendments that are not easily molded to support your world view. I'm not saying you don't have a right to pick favorites, I'm merely saying that you cannot call yourself a "constitutionalist" (or whatever other term you like this week) if you do so. Loving part of the document and hating other parts does not make you an honest steward of it.

                    • It wasn't a question, it was a distraction.

                      Instant classic. Bravo. Made my weekend.

                    • Given the small number of Constitutional Amendments, perhaps you could be, you know, specific? Oh, wait: you're not interested in a discussion.

                    • :-) As you do mine... And as always you are the winner.

                    • You know that I'll never be more than your sad little understudy, sir.

                    • Whatever you say, d_r...

                    • Now, really: is that sort of talk needful?
          • One shall refrain from commenting on the fact that you produced that URL.

            • I didn't produce it, I found it. And it is very topical when talking politics of the nature you engage in, since sociopathy is such a highly rewarded trait, enough to become dominant.

        • Democrat-style brass-knuckles

          Why do you hate Karl Rove?

          Kids these days, no respect...

  • Bush and Christie hitting one-time Senator Rubio out on lack of experience when Bush's Texas governor brother took the white house in peacetime with a balanced budget and in a boom and left with two wars, the worst economy since the Great Depression, and history's largest deficit. Then a one term Illinois Senator took that and is leaving office with low unemployment, a lower deficit, and a good economy. They're nuts.

    Not that Rubio is any more sane.

    • Bush and Christie hitting one-time Senator Rubio out on lack of experience

      It is funny how they keep trying to compare him to President Lawnchair without directly comparing him to President Lawnchair. That is of course their aim with the "first term senator" comparison, but they don't want to accidentally mention that they are taking most of the "new" campaign ideas from the Obama campaign. They also don't want to mention that the same health care bill that has his name on it - that they demanded as the only thing they would vote for - is the bill that they want to repeal and t

    • in a boom

      Yeah, let's just ignore that little crash in '99 and 2000. Are we really going to blame that on a guy that hadn't taken office yet? And the crash of '08 has deep roots in the Clinton administration also. The day is young. We can still get our regular election year crash this time too. The wars? No significant resistance from the democrats there, so fuck them, and Obama has done/is doing just as much damage to the middle east as Bush did. However, Russia is much weaker for it. If that was the end ga

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

        Yeah, let's just ignore that little crash in '99 and 2000

        What crash would that be? Unemployment was under 5% in 1999 and kept falling until 2001 (graph) [bls.gov]. Yes, it was bad if you were in the tech sector. [wikipedia.org] More of a market correction than a crash. [yimg.com] <Cue Crocodile Dundee> Now, 2008, THAT was a crash!

        So, who benefited from that "boom"? The very same people that are benefiting from this one, and it ain't us.

        Indeed, which is why I'm voting Sanders.

        • Are simple unemployment figures your only metric? They only reflect the people asking the government for money. Everybody else is invisible.

          And remember, Sanders won't do shit without a super majority in congress, otherwise he will do like Obama and make excuses over why he can't keep any of his promises. This is the standard procedure. These people are democrats after all. This is how they operate to keep the lie running.

          • But your strategy of not voting is superior to voting for Sanders how? Can you tell me how you bring about a super majority without casting a ballot?

            • Yeah yeah bla bla bla. Keep on spanking it monkey boy. You represent exactly the kind of democrat I'm talking about, a damn lawn chair yourself projecting onto Obama.

              • I hope you are the drunk one your signature refers to, as you just argued two sides of the same argument in as many comments, all while trying to defend a strategy of somehow magically changing things by not participating in the voting process.

                • You go ahead and live your little lies. Whatever makes you happy....

                  • If democracy is a lie, then why are you telling us about a super majority? You have fallen off your own bandwagon.

                    • Yep, you're just making shit up...

                    • I'm not familiar with this strange new meaning of "making shit up" that you are using here. This is a worse bludgeoning of the English language than the people who have twisted "literal" into "figurative".

                    • I'm not familiar with this strange new meaning of "making shit up"...

                      Yeah, you are kinda dumb, too.

                    • I'm not familiar with this strange new meaning of "making shit up"...

                      Yeah, you are kinda dumb, too.

                      Your mother's ugly.

                      If you'd ever like to have a discussion, please let me know. It would be quite a surprise, although I'll hold on to there being perhaps a nonzero chance of it happening.

                    • If you'd ever like to have a discussion, please let me know.

                      Likewise... You're just trolling and lying... Nothing to discuss yet.

Slashdot Top Deals

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Close