Is Ted Cruz a Charlatan?

[jamil]

Not sure if you've heard of Milo Yiannopoulos... he works for Breitbart, does stuff in their Tech area... and a couple others.

He did a drunk livestream with a guy in the GamerGate/anti-SJW community. During it, he spoke candidly about why he's all-in on Trump (he calls him Daddy.)

He says it's because he'd be great for his well-being, financially. A Trump presidency would give him endless reporting material, and make him very rich.

I haven't heard him say that since, but since he was drunk at the time... maybe the truth slipped out. We've already heard it from the head at CBS and other outlets... that Trump is great for business... and not much else.

Oh yes. Milo Yiannopoulos is infamous.

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

Not sure if you've heard of Milo Yiannopoulos... he works for Breitbart, does stuff in their Tech area... and a couple others.

He did a drunk livestream with a guy in the GamerGate/anti-SJW community. During it, he spoke candidly about why he's all-in on Trump (he calls him Daddy.)

He says it's because he'd be great for his well-being, financially. A Trump presidency would give him endless reporting material, and make him very rich.

I haven't heard him say that since, but since he was drunk at the time... maybe the truth slipped out. We've already heard it from the head at CBS and other outlets... that Trump is great for business... and not much else.

Why do you think the media hammered on George H.W. Bush and gave "Bubba" Clinton a pass? The media knew Clinton would sell a lot more ad space and drive up the ratings. Who wants boring competency when you can have a media train wreck selling air time and print space in record amounts.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

https://youtu.be/kNa5w9js48s

Here's the full version:

https://youtu.be/Qy074QLV2D8

Cruz being annointed as a "king" by dominionist pastors:

https://youtu.be/y26xO2_t-kM

None of those show Cruz's father saying he is anointed, or show him being anointed. Well the one clip does seem to show him being anointed along with a whole crap load of others. It's at a convention of pastors where they all get anointed. Heck a serious Trump supporter agrees, see below. I'm currently listening/watching the 2 and a half hour video. I will say so far the music is good.

ETA finished the long video. Nope Cruz's dad never anointed him "king", the entire congregation was anointed though.

Oh, Cruz's dad is ****ing crazy. He's said some version of Ted being some kind of chosen one.

Cite?

You would be correct as far as I can tell, sir. I did further checking and all the embedded video in various articles is heavily edited and I could not find anything else. The editing makes it appear that Ted's father is claiming his son is one of the annointed kings, but without the source material one cannot say for sure and the amount of editing makes me suspicious. As for The White Horse prophecy I cannot find either Cruz saying it but only others saying it about Ted.

Thank you much.

Glenn Beck, who has been out on the road stumping for and opening for Cruz, certainly thinks he's been anointed and raised for the coming theocracy. He has also said he was the White Horse prophecy person, as recently as last week in Utah.

http://youtu.be/YYb-S_KNelM

One problem with that. The White Horse prophecy doesn't refer to a person, it refers to the the church as a whole.

Spoiler: here's what Ted's hiding: it is illegal for candidates to take out unsecured signature loans for their campaigns.

https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/690142486388432896

FEC Complaint Against Ted and Heidi Cruz

So, the "paperwork error" isn't the real issue. The real issue is this: if Cruz properly corrects the "paperwork error", he will be tacitly admitting to a violation of federal campaign finance laws.

Those two are in contradiction, the first states it is illegal to have an unsecured loan, the second states it was a secured loan but since it was joint property that secured the loan his wife is in violation due to contribution limits.

 

[BugI02]

...Thank you much.

You did edit me a bit in citation, specifically my last thought relative to swirl of controversy around whether Ted is annointed by god or the point man for the White Horse prophecy, to whit:

"One should note I cannot find any instance of them denying it, either"

 

[chipbennett]

Those two are in contradiction, the first states it is illegal to have an unsecured loan, the second states it was a secured loan but since it was joint property that secured the loan his wife is in violation due to contribution limits.

It could not have been a secured loan using Ted Cruz's assets alone. He didn't have enough assets. Only through joint assets could he possibly have had enough - and using joint assets would have resulted in Heidi Cruz violating individual campaign contribution limits.

They aren't a contradiction; they are a catch-22.

 

[GREEN607]

It could not have been a secured loan using Ted Cruz's assets alone. He didn't have enough assets. Only through joint assets could he possibly have had enough - and using joint assets would have resulted in Heidi Cruz violating individual campaign contribution limits.

They aren't a contradiction; they are a catch-22.

Oh, for crying out loud!

Can you show us PROOF that Heidi's funds aren't "a loan" to Ted Cruz.... rather than a contribution? You sure do fish a lot.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It could not have been a secured loan using Ted Cruz's assets alone. He didn't have enough assets. Only through joint assets could he possibly have had enough - and using joint assets would have resulted in Heidi Cruz violating individual campaign contribution limits.

They aren't a contradiction; they are a catch-22.

I'd also say it would depend on state law. What are the laws in TX on marital assets? For example in IN it is generally presumed that each spouse owns half of all property, and that includes property that was owned before marriage. Prenups are a different story. So would it have taken more than half the total assets to secure the loan?

 

[Fergusons Weeds]

There are no good candidates this time, as the process has become such a farce that only those who are a bit seedy want anything to do with it. The media, and the GOP Establishment, destroy the lives of anyone they don't want in the contest.

Of all the undesirables running in 2016, Cruz is the best who is still active.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh yes. Milo Yiannopoulos is infamous.

That means he's more than famous... like El Guapo

 

[chipbennett]

Oh, for crying out loud!

Can you show us PROOF that Heidi's funds aren't "a loan" to Ted Cruz.... rather than a contribution? You sure do fish a lot.

Loans are contributions, in the context of federal election finance law.

 

[GREEN607]

Loans are contributions, in the context of federal election finance law.

Not personal loans!

 

[chipbennett]

Not personal loans!

You have no clue what you're talking about.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/candgui.pdf

Do a keyword search on that publication, for the term "personal". Loans are contributions. Personal loans are subject to individual contribution limits.

 

[GREEN607]

You have no clue what you're talking about.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/candgui.pdf

Do a keyword search on that publication, for the term "personal". Loans are contributions. Personal loans are subject to individual contribution limits.

If you are referring to the 2012 Goldman-Sachs loan, the article in the Huffington Post (who researches EVERYTHING diligently before they publish a word), states (and i quote) "...but it was not clear whether the money was used for his campaign."

 

[OutdoorDad]

It could not have been a secured loan using Ted Cruz's assets alone. He didn't have enough assets. Only through joint assets could he possibly have had enough - and using joint assets would have resulted in Heidi Cruz violating individual campaign contribution limits.

They aren't a contradiction; they are a catch-22.

Clearly, you don't understand the nuances of account title and ownership.

Do a couple of months of reading. Then come back and join he discussion.

 

[chipbennett]

If you are referring to the 2012 Goldman-Sachs loan, the article in the Huffington Post (who researches EVERYTHING diligently before they publish a word), states (and i quote) "...but it was not clear whether the money was used for his campaign."

He disclosed (to the FEC) both the Goldman Sachs loan and the Citibank loan. The institution loaned Cruz the money, which Cruz loaned to the campaign.

Sorry NYT, Cruz?s Goldman Sachs Loan Was Disclosed - Matt Vespa

Ted Cruz Financed 2012 Campaign With Loans from Goldman Sachs, Citibank - US News

The Cruzes didn't liquidate anything to the tune of the million-plus in loans they received from Goldman Sachs and Citibank. Ted loaned his campaign the amount of money he received in loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank.

Two plus two do not equal three.

 

[chipbennett]

Clearly, you don't understand the nuances of account title and ownership.

Do a couple of months of reading. Then come back and join he discussion.

No, I think I'll stick around, thanks.

I'll let you try to explain how the numbers work out for the Cruz loans. Good luck. Even Cruz himself is stalling on that one.

 

[jamil]

That means he's more than famous... like El Guapo

Worse. Milo is the scourge of the Internet. Just ask Brianna Wu.

 

[BugI02]

... the Huffington Post (who researches EVERYTHING diligently before they publish a word)...

To quote phylodog, I can't believe you typed that with a straight face

 

[jamil]

To quote phylodog, I can't believe you typed that with a straight face

To be fair they probably do diligently research every article they write...to make sure they haven't any spare straw left unused.

 

[OutdoorDad]

No, I think I'll stick around, thanks.

I'll let you try to explain how the numbers work out for the Cruz loans. Good luck. Even Cruz himself is stalling on that one.

I know how the numbers work. Happy to explain it.
For my usual fee.
Not surprised you want to stay and chat. Lacking mastery of the subject matter doesn't seem to dissuade you.