Ted Cruz MERGED

[Sundaymorning]

Why on earth did his wife marry him in the first place? It's not like she was in a desperate situation where she needed someone to provide for her, she has a good education, she had a job, and she certainly could have found a better husband.

[AmazonGrace]

Quote

In 2007, Cruz's legal team, working on behalf of then-Attorney General Greg Abbott (who now is the governor), filed a 76-page brief calling on the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to uphold the lower court's decision and permit the law to stand. The filing noted, "The Texas Penal Code prohibits the advertisement and sale of dildos, artificial vaginas, and other obscene devices" but does not "forbid the private use of such devices." The plaintiffs had argued that this case was similar to Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas' law against sodomy. But Cruz's office countered that Lawrence "focused on interpersonal relationships and the privacy of the home" and that the law being challenged did not block the "private use of obscene devices." Cruz's legal team asserted that "obscene devices do not implicate any liberty interest." And its brief added that "any alleged right associated with obscene devices" is not "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." In other words, Texans were free to use sex toys at home, but they did not have the right to buy them.

Quote

The brief insisted that Texas, in order to protect "public morals," had  "police-power interests" in "discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors." There was a  "government" interest, it maintained, in "discouraging…autonomous sex." The brief compared the use of sex toys to "hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy," and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution. In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz's office declared, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship." That is, the pursuit of such happiness had no constitutional standing. And the brief argued there was no "right to promote dildos, vibrators, and other obscene devices." The plaintiffs, it noted, were "free to engage in unfettered noncommercial speech touting the uses of obscene devices," but not speech designed to generate the sale of these items.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/ted-cruz-dildo-ban-sex-devices-texas

 

Dafuq did I just read?

I did not need the mental image of Ted Cruz jerking off (so of course I'm sharing lol).

[AmazonGrace]

I wasn't familiar with Craig Mazin but he seems to share my dislike of Ted Cruz...

Old links but new to me.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/fuckin-craig-mazin-an-appreciation-of-ted-cruzs-colleg-1746278435

http://theslot.jezebel.com/a-brief-and-joyful-update-on-fuckin-craig-mazin-ted-cr-1770723090

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/19/ted-cruz-at-princeton-creepy-sometimes-well-liked-and-exactly-the-same.html

Four independently offered the word “creepy,” with some pointing to Cruz’s habit of donning a paisley bathrobe and walking to the opposite end of their dorm’s hallway where the female students lived.

“I would end up fielding the [girls’] complaints: 'Could you please keep your roommate out of our hallway?'" Mazin says.

 

[EyeQueue]

21 hours ago, Lillybee said:

according to Ted Cruz' college roommate this is how he pleasures himself.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/ted-cruzs-former-roommate-just-revealed-his-self-pleasuring-technique-only-click-if-youve-already-had-lunch/

I don't get this. Is this suggesting he just humped his pillow?

At any rate he seems to not have any room to talk about stimulating one's genitals for non-procreative purposes.

 

[Sundaymorning]

@EyeQueue I don't get it either, but I was too scared to ask what exactly is meant by that.

[47of74]

Oh gee look who's being considered for VP on the Cruz ticket;

cnn.com/2016/04/25/politics/ted-cruz-vice-president-carly-fiorina/

Quote

Ted Cruz's campaign is vetting a list of potential vice-presidential choices including Carly Fiorina, an indication that the campaign could choose a running mate while he continues to battle for the GOP nomination.

The Texas senator is considering naming Fiorina, a prominent Cruz surrogate and a former GOP White House rival, as his running mate, a Cruz campaign adviser confirmed Monday. Presumptive nominees typically vet many possible vice presidents, asking them for extensive financial documents and thoroughly investigating their backgrounds.

"He is vetting a number of solid candidates, and certainly Ms. Fiorina is absolutely one of them," Chad Sweet, Cruz's campaign chairperson, told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead." "She's one of the most talented business leaders of modern times."

Fiorina aide Sarah Isgur Flores also confirmed that the former Hewlett-Packard CEO was being vetted for a possible pick on a Cruz ticket.

Gah, by themselves each one is intolerable.  Together would be absolutely ugh-facepalm-tastic.

[bashfulpixie]

The whole GOP shit-show is absolutely terrifying.  None of those clowns are fit to lead a lemonade stand, let alone be the leader of the US.

[EyeQueue]

Ted Cruz has now basically announced that trans people should just use the bathroom at home, and have no right to use a bathroom in public. And listen to the loud "AMEN!" shouted by a bystander after he dispenses his pearls of wisdom.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/04/26/3772708/ted-cruz-transgender-bathrooms-at-home/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds

[47of74]

2 hours ago, EyeQueue said:

Ted Cruz has now basically announced that trans people should just use the bathroom at home, and have no right to use a bathroom in public. And listen to the loud "AMEN!" shouted by a bystander after he dispenses his pearls of wisdom.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/04/26/3772708/ted-cruz-transgender-bathrooms-at-home/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds

Well Dear Ted, what should those Republican Senators who like to wide-stance it in bathroom stalls do then?  I'd much rather share a restroom with a trans person than some wide-stancing hypocrite.

[Witherwings]

16 hours ago, EyeQueue said:

Ted Cruz has now basically announced that trans people should just use the bathroom at home, and have no right to use a bathroom in public. And listen to the loud "AMEN!" shouted by a bystander after he dispenses his pearls of wisdom.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/04/26/3772708/ted-cruz-transgender-bathrooms-at-home/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds

Ted Cruz is a lunatic. He frightens me. This entire election season frightens me. Given our options, I am hoping for a Bernie/Trump ticket, which makes me really sad. 

This may be an unpopular opinion here, but if there is a Trump/Clinton ticket, I am going to be incredibly saddened over what I feel is my civic duty to vote.

[Maggie Mae]

2 hours ago, Witherwings said:

Ted Cruz is a lunatic. He frightens me. This entire election season frightens me. Given our options, I am hoping for a Bernie/Trump ticket, which makes me really sad. 

This may be an unpopular opinion here, but if there is a Trump/Clinton ticket, I am going to be incredibly saddened over what I feel is my civic duty to vote.

I don't know if it's unpopular around here, or if there are Hillary shills, or if her supporters are just more vocal. There are a few Bernie supporters, but they've been drowned out by people with boring arguments about electability and working with the existing system. Honestly, I'm at the point where I probably will vote third-party if it goes Hillary/Trump. I've also considered voting Trump, because I can't see myself voting for her. (Not going to happen.) The more I learn about her and the more I listen to her speeches, the less I like her at all. Which really disappoints me, because I would LOVE to have a progressive, female leader for this country. I want someone progressive, not a moderate conservative republican who is running on the Democratic ticket. 

I'm probably going to go change my voter registration to independent after this election as well. Although, I don't really want the amount of campaign mail that my SO (registered no party) gets. He gets it all. I get a couple of reminders to vote. He gets mailboxes full of stuff from both sides, mostly the Rs. 

I don't know anything about Cruz, other than he's religious and wants everyone to be a conservative Christian, and that's not cool. Public leaders need to be able to separate their personal beliefs from what is best for everyone in their country, even those that didn't vote for him/her. 

 

[Witherwings]

58 minutes ago, Maggie Mae said:

I don't know if it's unpopular around here, or if there are Hillary shills, or if her supporters are just more vocal. There are a few Bernie supporters, but they've been drowned out by people with boring arguments about electability and working with the existing system. Honestly, I'm at the point where I probably will vote third-party if it goes Hillary/Trump. I've also considered voting Trump, because I can't see myself voting for her. (Not going to happen.) The more I learn about her and the more I listen to her speeches, the less I like her at all. Which really disappoints me, because I would LOVE to have a progressive, female leader for this country. I want someone progressive, not a moderate conservative republican who is running on the Democratic ticket. 

I'm probably going to go change my voter registration to independent after this election as well. Although, I don't really want the amount of campaign mail that my SO (registered no party) gets. He gets it all. I get a couple of reminders to vote. He gets mailboxes full of stuff from both sides, mostly the Rs. 

I don't know anything about Cruz, other than he's religious and wants everyone to be a conservative Christian, and that's not cool. Public leaders need to be able to separate their personal beliefs from what is best for everyone in their country, even those that didn't vote for him/her. 

 

This is what I want to do, but I am afraid that voting third-party is essentially handing Clinton a vote. In the past I have had no problem voting 3rd party. Now, I really don't know that I can do it. I absolutely refuse to vote for her. I won't do it. I cannot even fathom it. It blows my mind that she is still running at this point.  The idea of a female leader excites me, but not her. No way. I don't feel much better about Trump, but the Hillary Investigation is something I can't get past. 

[doggie]

Ted Cruz to name Carly Fiorina as VP

desperation makes strange bedfellows. well hopefully it does not involve a bed.

[Maggie Mae]

12 minutes ago, Witherwings said:

This is what I want to do, but I am afraid that voting third-party is essentially handing Clinton a vote. In the past I have had no problem voting 3rd party. Now, I really don't know that I can do it. I absolutely refuse to vote for her. I won't do it. I cannot even fathom it. It blows my mind that she is still running at this point.  The idea of a female leader excites me, but not her. No way. I don't feel much better about Trump, but the Hillary Investigation is something I can't get past. 

Well, it depends on your state; my state is heavily a red state. Our democratic caucus went 85% to Sanders. The ONLY people caucusing for  Clinton were white haired old ladies. Despite CNNs instance that we are a "white" state, we actually have a lot of diversity. (according to CNN and my own observations).  Also, despite our former governor endorsing Trump, our Republican Primary went to Cruz. I don't know what would happen on a Sanders v Trump battle, but I know Clinton is not liked around here by either side. 

So my point is that since we are usually red, I might as well vote for a 3rd party and let people know that there is some support. I wish everyone would do that instead of voting based on fear. The Republican Party isn't following its principles any more than the Democrat party is. If all the people who complain about the two party system actually worked to educate other voters, we could possibly change up the system. Even with the absurd amount of money that is wasted on political campaigning. 

[clueliss]

WTF Ted?  WHY are you announcing a VP choice?  Hail Mary Pass much?

[Witherwings]

3 minutes ago, Maggie Mae said:

Well, it depends on your state; my state is heavily a red state. Our democratic caucus went 85% to Sanders. The ONLY people caucusing for  Clinton were white haired old ladies. Despite CNNs instance that we are a "white" state, we actually have a lot of diversity. (according to CNN and my own observations).  Also, despite our former governor endorsing Trump, our Republican Primary went to Cruz. I don't know what would happen on a Sanders v Trump battle, but I know Clinton is not liked around here by either side. 

So my point is that since we are usually red, I might as well vote for a 3rd party and let people know that there is some support. I wish everyone would do that instead of voting based on fear. The Republican Party isn't following its principles any more than the Democrat party is. If all the people who complain about the two party system actually worked to educate other voters, we could possibly change up the system. Even with the absurd amount of money that is wasted on political campaigning. 

This has been my thought process. Historically. However, when you look at the numbers by state, There are many states are that don't lean super heavily to the right or left. At least not so much that it would always be "safe" to say you are not handing over a vote to a particular party. Texas for example voted red with 57% going to Romney and 41% Obama in 2014. When there wasn't an incumbent in 2008 the gap was even smaller (55/44). That is obviously leaning to the right, but not as clear cut as a state like Utah that has a larger point difference.  Unfortunately, the States with more electoral votes are typically more evenly split and if they are not (California) they are pretty safe blue states. 

Your state has historically voted against Clinton (In 2008 Obama easily won). That isn't the case in all states. 

I do agree with you and have agreed with your sentiments about a two-party system being a problem for years. I have never had a problem voting 3rd party. I am not sure I feel comfortable doing so in this election. 

 

2 hours ago, clueliss said:

WTF Ted?  WHY are you announcing a VP choice?  Hail Mary Pass much?

Hail Mary Pass is the only thing I can give you. This election season has been fascinating to say the least. 

[clueliss]

Clustermuck (to borrow a phrase from Stephen King's novel The Dome) is might thought on this cycle.  

[bashfulpixie]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  I'd love the luxury of being able to vote third party.  But I live in a swing state, so unfortunately for me that's not an option.  So it turns into the lesser of two evils vote, which in this election is going to probably end up being Clinton.  Because Trump and Cruz both terrify me for different reasons.

[Maggie Mae]

It's always going to be the lesser of two evils. Even in 2012 (I had really high hopes for Obama in 2008). Until people in states with high populations start taking an actual interest in politics and voting for what they actually want, we are going to be dominated by the two party system. If it means taking a risk, so be it. We need to get the absurd amount of money out of politics. Public policy should not be determined by who can raise the most funds. 

I read this article and it started to sway me a bit. Until I got to this part. 

Quote

Clinton doesn’t get to pass a $15 minimum wage. Congress does. You want strong climate change legislation? We don’t have a dictatorship. Congress has to pass it. 

I honestly and truly don't think it matters. Yes, these things come through Congress, but she won't be pushing for them. The corporation-people who give her money don't want strong climate change legislation. I doubt many people actually want strong climate change legislation. It would mean changing the way we live. 

I can't say that Sanders would make much progress in getting it done either, but at least I have faith he would try. 

Clinton doesn't want to break up Wall Street, she just wants to regulate it. There's a difference. It needs to go down. I don't want to wait for her to do everything slowly, especially when she and other rich people benefit from it. I want someone like Sanders, who, while still wealthy, has at least some concept of what most people do every day. 

[Sundaymorning]

57 minutes ago, bashfulpixie said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  I'd love the luxury of being able to vote third party.  But I live in a swing state, so unfortunately for me that's not an option.  So it turns into the lesser of two evils vote, which in this election is going to probably end up being Clinton.  Because Trump and Cruz both terrify me for different reasons.

I'm not from the US, but I agree. Not many of my Libertarian friends do, but I personally do think that if there is a considerable gap between the level of badness of two evils, you should still vote for the smaller one. And let's face it, Clinton is nowhere near as bad as Trump or Cruz would be. There is a huge difference between them. Do I agree with Clinton on everything? No, honestly probably not even 50%. But when you look at the alternative, and since 3rd party candidates have not a snowball's chance in hell to actually win the election it will be either Clinton or Trump/Cruz, it's very clear to see that Clinton is a whole lot better than these two lunatics. So, your choice is basically Clinton, who may be subpar, or Trump and Cruz, who may just wreck havoc in the whole country and the world.

This election is not a joking matter. Although I'm not even a US-citizen, I do care deeply about the outcome, just like whole Europe does. We all do remember the mess Bush has caused. A mess which not the US, but the Middle East and also Europe are suffering from the most. I truly fear that if either Trump or Cruz will win, it will get much worse, and the very last thing the world needs right now is a Republican maniac as president.

[Witherwings]

1 hour ago, Sundaymorning said:

I'm not from the US, but I agree. Not many of my Libertarian friends do, but I personally do think that if there is a considerable gap between the level of badness of two evils, you should still vote for the smaller one. And let's face it, Clinton is nowhere near as bad as Trump or Cruz would be. There is a huge difference between them. Do I agree with Clinton on everything? No, honestly probably not even 50%. But when you look at the alternative, and since 3rd party candidates have not a snowball's chance in hell to actually win the election it will be either Clinton or Trump/Cruz, it's very clear to see that Clinton is a whole lot better than these two lunatics. So, your choice is basically Clinton, who may be subpar, or Trump and Cruz, who may just wreck havoc in the whole country and the world.

This election is not a joking matter. Although I'm not even a US-citizen, I do care deeply about the outcome, just like whole Europe does. We all do remember the mess Bush has caused. A mess which not the US, but the Middle East and also Europe are suffering from the most. I truly fear that if either Trump or Cruz will win, it will get much worse, and the very last thing the world needs right now is a Republican maniac as president.

By no means am I a fan of either Trump or Cruz. I am not going to get into why I think we have gotten to this point with the GOP. Still, I have a hard time with your bolded. Saying she is nowhere near as bad is a stretch. 

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer

Quote

The specter of David Petraeus, the former CIA director who it was once speculated might run against Clinton, looms over the case. The Post reports that Petraeus’s wrongdoing is seen as worse, and since he got off with a light sentence of two years’ probation and a $100,000 fine, officials felt it would be hard to go after Clinton. But Petraeus’s escape angered some in the Justice Department and FBI who alleged political interference, adding to the scrutiny in this case and the pressure for an independent process. The final decision rests with Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Be it a smear campaign against Clinton or not, she is still being investigated. She jokes about this and acts as if it is NBD.  People have differing opinions on her guilt. Yet, even if Clinton is completely innocent, do you feel comfortable with Clinton as president? I find it hard to believe she is obtuse enough to not understand what she was doing was wrong. 

My personal feelings are that the emails, her response to Benghazi, etc make her unsuitable for Presidency.  Not that I feel Trump is going to "Make America Great" (Does he not think it is? Shouldn't our President think it is?). I just cannot see myself voting for Clinton. 

[Sundaymorning]

17 minutes ago, Witherwings said:

By no means am I a fan of either Trump or Cruz. I am not going to get into why I think we have gotten to this point with the GOP. Still, I have a hard time with your bolded. Saying she is nowhere near as bad is a stretch. 

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer

Be it a smear campaign against Clinton or not, she is still being investigated. She jokes about this and acts as if it is NBD.  People have differing opinions on her guilt. Yet, even if Clinton is completely innocent, do you feel comfortable with Clinton as president? I find it hard to believe she is obtuse enough to not understand what she was doing was wrong. 

My personal feelings are that the emails, her response to Benghazi, etc make her unsuitable for Presidency.  Not that I feel Trump is going to "Make America Great" (Does he not think it is? Shouldn't our President think it is?). I just cannot see myself voting for Clinton. 

I'm curious, why do you think that Clinton is anywhere near as bad as Cruz or Trump?

[EyeQueue]

10 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

I don't know if it's unpopular around here, or if there are Hillary shills, or if her supporters are just more vocal. There are a few Bernie supporters, but they've been drowned out by people with boring arguments about electability and working with the existing system. Honestly, I'm at the point where I probably will vote third-party if it goes Hillary/Trump. I've also considered voting Trump, because I can't see myself voting for her. (Not going to happen.) The more I learn about her and the more I listen to her speeches, the less I like her at all. Which really disappoints me, because I would LOVE to have a progressive, female leader for this country. I want someone progressive, not a moderate conservative republican who is running on the Democratic ticket. 

I'm probably going to go change my voter registration to independent after this election as well. Although, I don't really want the amount of campaign mail that my SO (registered no party) gets. He gets it all. I get a couple of reminders to vote. He gets mailboxes full of stuff from both sides, mostly the Rs. 

I don't know anything about Cruz, other than he's religious and wants everyone to be a conservative Christian, and that's not cool. Public leaders need to be able to separate their personal beliefs from what is best for everyone in their country, even those that didn't vote for him/her. 

 

I think he's also specifically said God has called him to run for President. IMHO, as soon as a candidate says some shit like that, they need to be out of the running. Because that's basically an admission that they *cannot* separate their religious beliefs from their political life and be able to be President of *all* Americans.

[Sundaymorning]

14 minutes ago, EyeQueue said:

I think he's also specifically said God has called him to run for President. IMHO, as soon as a candidate says some shit like that, they need to be out of the running. Because that's basically an admission that they *cannot* separate their religious beliefs from their political life and be able to be President of *all* Americans.

He is a religious fanatic which is really dangerous. It's no surprise that many fundies back him. Personal freedom doesn't count for him, he basically wants everyone to live according to his own personal religious rules.

Also, next to wanting to take away women's and LGBT people's rights, he has quite dangerous foreign policies, which, judging by how similar plans played out in the past, would only lead to more wars and a worse situations than before. And that is about the last thing the world needs right now.

Another thing which doesn't has anything to do with his harmful policies, but more with his character: a lot of people really seem to hate him. Of course, if you're in a position as he is, you'll always have people who talk trash about you, but with him, many people who know or have known him personally seem to harbor a genuine aversion against him. That is a major red flag for me.

[Lillybee]

Ted Cruz, if I had a tween or teen boy, I would rather he shared a bathroom with a trans man instead of someone like Dennis Halstead.

On 4/26/2016 at 3:49 PM, EyeQueue said:

Ted Cruz has now basically announced that trans people should just use the bathroom at home, and have no right to use a bathroom in public. And listen to the loud "AMEN!" shouted by a bystander after he dispenses his pearls of wisdom.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/04/26/3772708/ted-cruz-transgender-bathrooms-at-home/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds