Fogbow

Suranis wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:48 pm It's Bullshit anyway. Standard Practice here in Ireland is that if a Parliament member has to be away for some reason they arrange with a member of the other side to be away too, so votes are not affected. I imagine the same kind of arrangements can be in place in American parliaments.

Rafael is just trying to grandstand and play the victim, as usual.

Before Sen. Ted Cruz argued against vaccine mandates, saying you shouldn’t have to show “papers” for “basic activities of life” he was for showing papers for basic activities of life, all kinds of basic activities, in fact. #RollTheTape

08/12/2021 12:26 pm ET
Ted Cruz Suggests Biden Administration ‘Persecuting’ Some Capitol Rioters
Some people who stormed the building were “simply expressing their peaceful support for a political party different from that in power,” the senator said.

By Arthur Delaney and Ryan J. Reilly

Not everybody who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 deserves criminal punishment, according to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

“If an individual assaulted a police officer, they should spend a long, long time in jail,” Cruz told HuffPost.

“If, on the other hand, the Biden administration is targeting and persecuting people for exercising political speech that is nonviolent and simply expressing their peaceful support for a political party different from that in power, that is not the purpose of our criminal justice system,” he added.

The Justice Department has arrested more than 570 people in connection with the attack. Many of the defendants have been charged with low-level misdemeanors, like unlawful picketing.

But even if they didn’t punch a cop on Jan. 6, those who stormed the Capitol weren’t simply expressing their “peaceful support for a political party.” They believed lies about a stolen election and were convinced they had to “stop the steal” as heirs to the American Revolution.



https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ted-cruz ... 4ed70b0648

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:01 pm

Suranis wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:48 pm It's Bullshit anyway. Standard Practice here in Ireland is that if a Parliament member has to be away for some reason they arrange with a member of the other side to be away too, so votes are not affected. I imagine the same kind of arrangements can be in place in American parliaments.

Rafael is just trying to grandstand and play the victim, as usual.

That is not something I see happening in Congress and Cruz would never reciprocate unless it could find a way to grandstand about it. In addition, the current method of the Republican caucus is to demand absolute voting loyalty (which often involves voting no on things you used to support). A gentleman's agreement with the other caucus would be verboten.

Low class tweet about a colleague who has put her life on the line throughout the conflict to bring people news. And takes her out of context to boot and maliciously accuses her of cheerleading for the Taliban.
Quote Tweet

Ted Cruz hired family members to Senate staff, raising eyebrows in Washington
The hires weren't technically illegal. But ethics experts say they clearly give the appearance of nepotism

A spokesperson for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, lashed out at accusations of nepotism Friday after reports surfaced that he had hired several of his direct relatives, calling any suggestion that Sen. Cruz had acted unethically a "political slime job" and "classic fake news."

Insider reported that the longtime conservative provocateur — whose mission in recent weeks has been to stonewall dozens of President Joe Biden's nominees to key State Department posts, despite their qualifications — recently hired two of his first cousins' children, one as a press assistant and another as an intern.

Both are incredibly sought-after positions in the world of politics, with Cruz' family members winning out over what were likely hundreds, if not thousands, of other applicants.

Hiring the pair likely did not violate federal law, which only bars officials from hiring close relatives — like cousins — but not the children of those close relatives.

Still, ethics experts said Cruz' actions clearly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest during the hiring process.

"Hiring of the first cousin's child would just miss the law by a nose," Craig Holman, a lobbyist with the good-government watchdog group Public Citizen, told Insider.

"We expect our elected officials to act with integrity and to be mindful of how the taxpayer's money is being spent," said Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel at another watchdog group, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "It looks like basically the taxpayer is subsidizing the training of his relatives."

Ted Cruz thinks NBA players should be able to be disease vectors, but women shouldn't be able to make reproductive health care decisions affecting their bodies

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:14 pm https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1443279597676732421

Ted Cruz thinks NBA players should be able to be disease vectors, but women shouldn't be able to make reproductive health care decisions affecting their bodies

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:21 pm

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:14 pm https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1443279597676732421

Ted Cruz thinks NBA players should be able to be disease vectors, but women shouldn't be able to make reproductive health care decisions affecting their bodies

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate stems from the Texas Republican’s challenge to a federal election law that imposes restrictions on when and how candidates can repay personal loans that they makes to their campaigns. Cruz loaned his 2018 Senate campaign – which at the time was part of the most expensive Senate race in history — $260,000 and then waited to repay the loan in what both sides agree was a move intended to allow a challenge to the law. Cruz went to federal court in Washington, D.C., where he argued that the repayment restrictions violate the First Amendment.

A three-judge district court (which Congress has designated to hear disputes to the law’s constitutionality) agreed. It reasoned that the restrictions place a burden on political speech, and that the federal government had not provided an adequate justification for that burden. The FEC, the court observed, had “not identified a single case of actual quid pro quo corruption” involving loan repayments.

The Biden administration appealed to the court in July, telling the justices that the law imposes only “a narrow timing restriction” but is important to avoid “a heightened risk of actual and apparent quid pro quo corruption.”

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 8:34 pm Ticket to Cancun?