Cruz Thread

[Cathoholic]

Senator Ted Cruz was falsely accused by many in the media of NOT REPORTING his loans.

As it turns out, it was the accusations themselves against Senator Cruz which is what were “dishonest”.

From the Texas Tribune . . .

Cruz added there was nothing that came up that wasn’t already public knowledge.

“Those loans had been disclosed over and over and over again on multiple filings,” he said. “If it was the case that they were not filed exactly as the [Federal Election Commission] requires, then we’ll amend the filings, but all of the information has been public and transparent for many years, and that’s the end of that."

Government forms include enormous amounts of paperwork.

View attachment 23079

And there was no “secret sauce” poured upon Cruz’s loans either.

Cruz had to leverage his retirement funds to get the loan at NORMAL LOAN RATES. A loan he has since paid back.

More from the Texas Trib. with bold mine . . .

There were no special terms on the loan, Frazier said, and it has been paid off since.

queenofheartscv. You said:

Oh, and I forgot cruz conveniently forgetting to disclose million dollar loans from major banks on his federal forms.

You DO understand Cruz DID report that don’t you? (If I recall correctly one loan was about $850,000, and another pushed the total amount slightly over a million dollars - all cosigned by his own retirement money.)

Cruz REPORTED it. Cruz just REPORTED it on the wrong forms. That’s all. There is no “fast one” going on here. No conspiracies.

Just too much GOVERNMENT (which is another reason to support Cruz).

• If people want to criticize candidates because they took out honest loans, they have that right.
• If people want to criticize candidates for not getting mountains of Government forms correct, fair enough.
• If people want to criticize candidates for using their OWN ASSETS, to secure a loan, so be it.
• If people want to criticize candidates for where his wife happened to be employed in the past (even if she worked for the bank that wrote the “no special terms” loan), that is their call.

But it is NOT a valid criticism to say Senator Cruz “Didn’t Disclose Goldman Sachs Loan” . . . . when . . . . Senator Cruz “DID Disclose (his) Goldman Sachs Loan” . . . but disclosed it on the wrong form.

If the media wants to call out “dishonesty” . . . then call out “dishonesty” . . . . . “honestly”.

This complaint against Senator Cruz is what is dishonest.

And I am suggesting you don’t fall for it.

Just like I would suggest to Cruz supporters that they likewise don’t fall for the implicit media suggestion that Trump or one of his operatives is pilfering MONEY from disabled soldiers in the Veterans Fund (here).

Veterans’ charities reportedly receive fraction of money raised by Trump event

Published April 08, 2016 FoxNews.com

More than two months after Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump claimed to have raised $6 million for veterans’ charities at a fundraiser held on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, most of the organizations targeted to receive the money have gotten less than half of that amount. . . .

. . . The Journal, citing the Trump Foundation’s tax returns, reported that the nonprofit had given just $180,000 to veterans’ charities over the past decade. Hicks said that amount did not include personal donations by the candidate. . . .

I think this media line implicitly suggesting Trump is somehow personally responsible for missing veterans money without more evidence is irresponsible, at least with this level of evidence.

Likewise I think the media suggesting Cruz took illicit loans then attempted to hide this from the Government is not a credible conclusion either.

 

[Peter_J]

Senator Ted Cruz was falsely accused by many in the media of NOT REPORTING his loans.

As it turns out, it was the accusations themselves against Senator Cruz which is what were “dishonest”.

I am, of course, glad that it has been proved false. However, I make it a practice not to automatically assume such things are true in any case, regardless of whether I read them on CAF or wherever.

As someone (well, I guess many people) said, the media has provided Donald Trump with an enormous amount of free advertising. I wonder if there will eventually be a backlash.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I don’t believe things just because Trump says them. I definitely don’t believe

I didn’t say you did. Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[anon67074017]

A victory for Ted Cruz would lead to a religious revival in America. Christian values will be a real factor in American life again. It will be hard for Ted Cruz to win though. 23% of the population is irreligious. They will likely not vote for Ted Cruz or any Republican.

 

[Peter_J]

I didn’t say you did.

Not sure where that came from, but okay.

 

[carpenter383]

A victory for Ted Cruz would lead to a religious revival in America. Christian values will be a real factor in American life again. It will be hard for Ted Cruz to win though. 23% of the population is irreligious. They will likely not vote for Ted Cruz or any Republican.

Cruz is competitive with Hillary, much more so than trump

 

[queenofheartscv]

Senator Ted Cruz was falsely accused by many in the media of NOT REPORTING his loans.

bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-02-03/cruz-must-provide-information-on-2012-senate-loans-fec-says

“FEC says in Feb. 2 letter that Cruz must disclose source of each separate loan used for that election.
Letter says that some of the campaign funds Cruz initially listed as “personal funds” must be reported as bank loans”

---

I thought Cruz was brilliant and a lawyer. How can a brilliant lawyer mistakenly miss filling out required forms?

Sorry, not going to buy it.

 

[queenofheartscv]

A victory for Ted Cruz would lead to a religious revival in America. Christian values will be a real factor in American life again. It will be hard for Ted Cruz to win though. 23% of the population is irreligious. They will likely not vote for Ted Cruz or any Republican.

Did you know that the holiest man in the campaign Ted Cruz doesn’t even given 1% of his income to charity and church?

For protestants it’s considered less than normal if a christian doesn’t tithe–give 10% of income to charity. Ted Cruz gives less than 1%.

Not going to judge him on that, but to say he’ll lead to a religious revival is too far a stretch.

christianpost.com/news/ted-cruz-phony-christian-tithing-huckabee-iowa-caucus-156169/

 

[Cathoholic]

queenofheartscv. You said:

It is Fiorina who first said that Cruz is just another politician who will say and do anything to get elected.

That’s irrelevant. Why? Because I didn’t appeal to Fiorina’s support of Cruz.

I appealed to the fact that you don’t tell corn growers you are against Government subsidies RIGHT before an election, and then try to pretend “he’ll just do or say ANYTHING to get elected.”

That is a self-contradictory assertion.

Also . . .

He has ridden on the coattail of trump for the most part of the campaign, eyeing how the public receives trump’s positions

These are NOT “Trump’s positions” that the voters are latching on to.

These are the VOTERS positions. This is not “Trump-landia”.

I admit, Trump got many issues correct. But to imply that they emanate from Trump is not correct. You are not implying THAT are you?

These were the “voters positions” for a long time now and this dissatisfaction with Globalism is growing (not just in America incidentally, but opposition to Globalism is occurring in Europe too).

Just ask Republican Globalism supporter Eric Cantor who lost his powerful seat over this type of thing back in 2014. (here)

Cantor was “majority whip”.

---

You also wrongly said:

(Cruz) pushed for amnesty.

If you call a “poison pill” to an amnesty bill that eventually single handedly DEFEATED that amnesty bill, I’ll take “pushed” all day.

Cruz managed this . . . while Trump was on TV shows.

You also re-stated a partial truth from the media

he (Cruz) supported the TPP bill.

This is just plain false. You DO know that there is NO TPP bill yet don’t you?

There is no TPP bill . . . YET.

Admittedly there was a TPA bill that fast tracked TPP, but Cruz OPPOSED it (here)!

On June 23, 2015, Cruz voted against Trade Promotion Authority, also known as TPA or fast-track authority, which has been debated in Congress amid efforts by the Obama administration to secure the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal with 11 other nations.

Trump urged the same thing RE: TPA (good that he did this).

I hate to bring out this “dirty laundry” (below concerning McConnell) against our own party here (because it is divisive), but it is necessary to correct your wrong information.

Cruz supported what he was told was a free trade agreement. (You DO understand Trump likewise says he is for “free trade” right?).

Wikileaks then leaked out the Globalist TPP proposal and as it turns out, it was NOT what it was sold to be.

Immediately Cruz denounced it.

Here is the painful part. Painful for the United States if this passes.

Mitch McConnell and the “Establishment Republicans” are the ones who want MORE Globalist policies and it appears they are in cahoots with Obama!

McConnell allegedly plans on waiting until AFTER THIS ELECTION but BEFORE this Congress is adjourned . . . THEN ram TPP through!

Paul Ryan would have to be in on this “back room deal” if it is to pass.

From the Mpls. Star Trib (with emphasis mine) . . .

White House economic adviser says Pacific trade deal must get done by year’s end

White House adviser Furman says a ratification vote should occur while leaders are aligned.

By Adam Belz Star Tribune

March 30, 2016

With all four leading presidential candidates expressing opposition to a Pacific trade deal that is one of President Obama’s last economic priorities, the chief White House economic adviser said Wednesday in Minneapolis that the window for finalizing the deal is already closing. . . .

. . . . Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he will revisit the sweeping 12-nation trade agreement, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, in the lame-duck session after the November election. It must be ratified by Congress for it to take effect in the United States.

You also said:

What he (Cruz) did to Carson in Iowa was inexcusable. The Iowa voter violation mailer was inexcusable.

Since this is a Cruz thread, I’ll start a thread on the “back fence” about Carson’s campaign implosion.

Cruz did NOTHING to Carson.

Carson betrayed his own friend Senator Cruz, trying to get media attention when his campaign flopped because of his own internal problems which were MANY.

The now famous CNN news report was “leaked” by a Carson staffer which further suggests “internal combustion”.

I think Cruz’s personal apology for some of his supporters actions forwarding a CNN news story was ill-advised. But that is Cruz. He accepts personal responsibility for what SOME of his supporters did (and Paul’s supporters, and Rubio’s supporters). Which is pretty refreshing.

 

[queenofheartscv]

queenofheartscv. You said:

That’s irrelevant. Why? Because I didn’t appeal to Fiorina’s support of Cruz.

I appealed to the fact that you don’t tell corn growers you are against Government subsidies RIGHT before an election, and then try to pretend “he’ll just do or say ANYTHING to get elected.”

That is a self-contradictory assertion.

Also . . .

These are NOT “Trump’s positions” that the voters are latching on to.

These are the VOTERS positions. This is not “Trump-landia”.

I admit, Trump got many issues correct. But to imply that they emanate from Trump is not correct. You are not implying THAT are you?

These were the “voters positions” for a long time now and this dissatisfaction with Globalism is growing (not just in America incidentally, but opposition to Globalism is occurring in Europe too).

Just ask Republican Globalism supporter Eric Cantor who lost his powerful seat over this type of thing back in 2014. (here)

Cantor was “majority whip”.

---

You also wrongly said:

If you call a “poison pill” to an amnesty bill that eventually single handedly DEFEATED that amnesty bill, I’ll take “pushed” all day.

Cruz managed this . . . while Trump was on TV shows.

You also re-stated a partial truth from the media

This is just plain false. You DO know that there is NO TPP bill yet don’t you?

There is no TPP bill . . . YET.

Admittedly there was a TPA bills that fast tracked TPP, but Cruz OPPOSED it (here)!

Trump urged the same thing RE: TPA (good that he did this).

I hate to bring out this “dirty laundry” (below concerning McConnell) against our own party here (because it is divisive), but it is necessary to correct your wrong information.

Cruz supported what he was told was a free trade agreement. (You DO understand Trump likewise says he is for “free trade” right?).

Wikileaks then leaked out the Globalist TPP proposal and as it turns out, it was NOT what it was sold to be.

Immediately Cruz denounced it.

Here is the painful part. Painful for the United States if this passes.

Mitch McConnell and the “Establishment Republicans” are the ones who want MORE Globalist policies and it appears they are in cahoots with Obama!

McConnell allegedly plans on waiting until AFTER THIS ELECTION but BEFORE this Congress is adjourned . . . THEN ram TPP through!

Paul Ryan would have to be in on this “back room deal” if it is to pass.

From the Mpls. Star Trib (with emphasis mine) . . .

You also said:

Since this is a Cruz thread, I’ll start a thread on the “back fence” about Carson’s campaign implosion.

Cruz did NOTHING to Carson.

Carson betrayed his own friend Senator Cruz, trying to get media attention when his campaign flopped because of his own internal problems which were MANY.

The now famous CNN news report was “leaked” by a Carson staffer which further suggests “internal combustion”.

I think Cruz’s personal apology for some of his supporters actions forwarding a CNN news story was ill-advised. But that is Cruz. He accepts personal responsibility for what SOME of his supporters did (and Paul’s supporters, and Rubio’s supporters). Which is pretty refreshing.

You are clear in your position. We won’t agree.

 

[carpenter383]

Cruz Crushin’ it in Colorado. 21-for-21 so far:thumbsup:

redstate.com/diary/apkyletexas/2016/04/08/boom-cruz-crushin-colorado.-21-21-far/

.

 

[Cathoholic]

queenofheartscv. You also repeated media talking points about how Christian Senator Cruz is or is not based upon tithing.

Did you know that the holiest man in the campaign Ted Cruz doesn’t even given 1% of his income to charity and church?

That’s a partial-truth too.

It is a Huckabee talking-point that only takes into account SOME things but ignores others.

It ONLY takes money donated to Churches into account.

It IGNORES Cruz’s gratis legal work (“pro bono” legal work) that he has done for poor legal clients. Some of which was quite substantial but he never brags about it. He is too busy trying to re-focus America back on the issues.

Cruz’s pro bono legal work that he did on behalf of the war veterans and their Christian memorial, amounts to a significant amount of money. Perhaps MORE money than Huckabee himself brags about tithing.

High powered legal work is not cheap.

Cruz has also legally helped others for FREE like John Thompson.

So the “tithing” issue just is not persuasive to me.

The more I see of Cruz, the more I like him

 

[carpenter383]

queenofheartscv. You also repeated media talking points about how Christian Senator Cruz is or is not based upon tithing.

That’s a partial-truth too.

It is a Huckabee talking-point that only takes into account SOME things but ignores others.

It ONLY takes money donated to Churches into account.

It IGNORES Cruz’s gratis legal work (“pro bono” legal work) that he has done for poor legal clients. Some of which was quite substantial but he never brags about it. He is too busy trying to re-focus America back on the issues.

Cruz’s pro bono legal work that he did on behalf of the war veterans and their Christian memorial, amounts to a significant amount of money. Perhaps MORE money than Huckabee himself brags about tithing.

High powered legal work is not cheap.

Cruz has also legally helped others for FREE like John Thompson.

So the “tithing” issue just is not persuasive to me.

The more I see of Cruz, the more I like him

Good and legitimate points:thumbsup: trump won’t even release his tax info…or the “off the record” interview with the NY times about his true stance on immigration…or the phone conversation with bill Clinton prior to trumps presidential campaign

 

[queenofheartscv]

queenofheartscv. You also repeated media talking points about how Christian Senator Cruz is or is not based upon tithing.

That’s a partial-truth too.

It is a Huckabee talking-point that only takes into account SOME things but ignores others.

It ONLY takes money donated to Churches into account.

It IGNORES Cruz’s gratis legal work (“pro bono” legal work) that he has done for poor legal clients. Some of which was quite substantial but he never brags about it. He is too busy trying to re-focus America back on the issues.

Cruz’s pro bono legal work that he did on behalf of the war veterans and their Christian memorial, amounts to a significant amount of money. Perhaps MORE money than Huckabee himself brags about tithing.

High powered legal work is not cheap.

Cruz has also legally helped others for FREE like John Thompson.

So the “tithing” issue just is not persuasive to me.

The more I see of Cruz, the more I like him

I’m not one to judge how much money a person gives to charity, but only responding to another poster saying cruz is leading to a religious revival. If in my very humble state, I volunteer teaching hours at church or at some school, I’d never in my right mind think about counting those hours as my donation to charity.

Cruz doesn’t have to tithe, but a true religious revival type, unless it’s a tele-evangelist, gives a lot more. I’d venture to say they’d give more than 10%.

 

[anon67074017]

Did you know that the holiest man in the campaign Ted Cruz doesn’t even given 1% of his income to charity and church?

For protestants it’s considered less than normal if a christian doesn’t tithe–give 10% of income to charity. Ted Cruz gives less than 1%.

Not going to judge him on that, but to say he’ll lead to a religious revival is too far a stretch.

christianpost.com/news/ted-cruz-phony-christian-tithing-huckabee-iowa-caucus-156169/

I did not know that. I just know that Ted Cruz’s views are in line with Christian values.

 

[queenofheartscv]

Cruz Crushin’ it in Colorado. 21-for-21 so far:thumbsup:

redstate.com/diary/apkyletexas/2016/04/08/boom-cruz-crushin-colorado.-21-21-far/

.

Here is a good article about how these unbound delegates work for first ballot at the convention. They can freely change their mind even for the first ballot. It’s also crazy existing laws don’t really prohibit much in what candidates can do to woo these delegates. The only thing they can’t do is to give them money as bribery, but pretty much everything goes, luxury trips, fantasy wishes, etc…

washingtonpost.com/politics/these-200-people-could-decide-whether-donald-trump-gets-the-gop-nomination/2016/04/07/5c5999e0-fc41-11e5-9140-e61d062438bb_story.html

Very corrupt system.

 

[Peter_J]

I did not know that. I just know that Ted Cruz’s views are in line with Christian values.

Well, it would have been nice if he hadn’t called Mitch McConnell a liar …

 

[SuperLuigi]

I think it is mainly the GOP establishment that is in trouble. I haven’t seen much to suggest that the Democratic establishment really needs to worry.

Well, the GOPe will be taken care of by the Democrats, even if they are in the back seat, as Obama would say.

The fact is those folks are need in the Clinton’s more pragmatic worldview.

And Rush would say “the unemployment rate for the DC elite is 0%”.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, the GOPe will be taken care of by the Democrats,

That’s surprisingly optimistic of you.

I think the Republican Party will continue to exist, but it could be a while till it is again robust enough to have a chance of putting someone in the WH, or having any majorities in Congress.

 

[Cathoholic]

queenofheartscv

I’m not one to judge how much money a person gives to charity, but only responding to another poster

Fair enough.

I volunteer teaching hours at church or at some school, I’d never in my right mind think about counting those hours as my donation to charity. . . .

queenofheartscv. Thank you for doing that.

I’ve seen your posts here and I think overall they are great. Your students must get much benefit from your help to them.

Keep up the good work.

My Dad too, used to put in the basket at Church in cash. Never claimed it on his taxes. He didn’t even count THAT as “charity”.

Sometimes if people don’t think they are getting a “full Gospel” at their Catholic parish, they send their tithing money to other Catholic sources instead.

There is more to tithing than “tax forms”.

Cruz helped win that man $14 million in restitution. Thompson was a poor jailed minority man who had no means to pay Cruz (other than Cruz’s court settlement he had won for him).

Attorneys frequently get a third of their settlements.

Since Cruz was with other attorneys he probably wouldn’t have had almost the whole five million dollars coming to him but it would have been substantial. Cruz took nothing.

**Cruz probably had well over a million dollars coming to him. Cruz took nothing. **

MATTHEW 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

If you don’t want to chalk that up as “charity” that’s your call. I’m OK with that.

And maybe we as voters should have been asking MORE strictly about “Church donations” and “tax-exemption evidence” of candidates. All the candidates.

Candidates like Barack Obama and how much he gave over the years to Jeremiah Wright.

I don’t know. Maybe we should be asking that question . . . maybe not.

But if we should, it would be worth applying that standard across the board.

Trump has done good things too (I’m not trying to say EVERYTHING he does is bad. No way). I heard an interview with a motorist he aided once where if I recall correctly, he paid for their car repairs and a month’s rent from their place (or some such thing). I am sure he didn’t “claim” that as a “tax-exemption” either. But it was still charity.

Look. I want the same thing for our country as you do. I want the proverbial neighborhood where I grew up in back.

I agree with you on this point. I get it. (“Make America Great Again” is a great campaign slogan)

Now the issue is, HOW do we get the country back up and running the way it is supposed to be?

I may not know what the answer is, but I know what the answer isn’t—division.

And if the Establishment Republicans try to commandeer a “fresh face” (as Karl Rove suggested) at the 2016 Republican Convention, I don’t want to be in a “sea of acrimony” with Trump people.

We will have to win over many Establishment Republicans too!

Division will only dampen the chances of some sort of an insurgent coalition (by "insurgents I mean Cruz and Trump).

An uneasy coalition perhaps, but SOMETHING that will need to be maneuvered by the insurgents in the Republican camp to defeat the foisting of a “fresh face” upon the voters (which will probably in all reality be an “old face”).

It is important not to burn our bridges. It is wise to weigh our words carefully.

The answer for us to help our Country is not through dividing us.

Yes we must weigh differences and nuances among the candidates. And sometimes we all cross the line.

But if we “self-immolate” as a Party, the Country loses.

Again. Many thanks for your catechizing (“teaching hours at church”).