Is Ted Cruz a Charlatan?

[AA&E]

Before we all need a cigarette and a nap after "embracing" the Ted Cruz gone wild news, we might want to wait for the facts to come out and consider the source.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/trumps-alliance-with-the-national-enquirer.html#

The source? The one that correctly exposed the extra marital affairs of John Edwards (ruining his vice presidential run), Jessie Jackson, and Tiger Woods. The source has been on the spot about things of this type. They usually don't wade into lawsuit territory without something to backup the accusations.

 

[AA&E]

It sure is funny watching the Trumpists and leftists, both camps of which would treat their chosen candidate's marital infidelity as a resume enhancement, all too willing to simultaneously swallow a highly dubious story about a candidate they strongly dislike and seek to crucify said candidate.

When someone is pandering for the religious rights vote, and invoking religion and righteousness as missing elements from the executive branch... they might want to make sure they actually walk the walk. Agree?

 

[AA&E]

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.

Claim a superior knowledge on a subject, refuse to provide any information unless compensated for said information.

Generally these kinds of posts are made by 35 year old men that live in their mother's basements. Not suggesting that is the case here, but someone of your profound wisdom had to understand how ridiculous that was going to sound.

 

[jamil]

The source? The one that correctly exposed the extra marital affairs of John Edwards (ruining his presidential run), Jessie Jackson, and Tiger Woods. The source has been on the spot about things of this type. They usually don't wade into lawsuit territory without something to backup the accusations.

Care to list the ones they got wrong? I suspect if it were a story about The Donald you'd be a little more forthcoming with those.

 

[AA&E]

Care to list the ones they got wrong? I suspect if it were a story about The Donald you'd be a little more forthcoming with those.

When it comes to matters where they could face libel charges? I'd suggest the burden is on those suggesting they aren't reliable. I've provided several cases where they were the leading publication breaking the story. They won a Pulitzer prize for the Edwards story. Show us where they were found to have made claims and were successfully sued for the false accusations....

 

[jamil]

When it comes to matters where they could face libel charges? I'd suggest the burden is on those suggesting they aren't reliable. I've provided several cases where they were the leading publication breaking the story. They won a Pulitzer prize for the Edwards story. Show us where they were found to have made claims and were successfully sued for the false accusations....

They get sued all the time. Yet they still print fabrications. Saying its true because they'd be sued if it wasn't is kinda silly when we're talking about the national enquirer. I'm still waiting for major news outlets to pick up this story. So far the only thing the majors are reporting on is that the NE broke the story, and they've reported on the reactions to the scandal.

I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying I don't take NE's stories seriously until the bigs confirm it. And with the NE, John Edwards & Company notwithstanding, that rarely happens.

As I said, I strongly suspect you'd be less willing to believe NE if it were a damaging story about Trump.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The source? The one that correctly exposed the extra marital affairs of John Edwards (ruining his vice presidential run), Jessie Jackson, and Tiger Woods. The source has been on the spot about things of this type. They usually don't wade into lawsuit territory without something to backup the accusations.

When it comes to matters where they could face libel charges? I'd suggest the burden is on those suggesting they aren't reliable. I've provided several cases where they were the leading publication breaking the story. They won a Pulitzer prize for the Edwards story. Show us where they were found to have made claims and were successfully sued for the false accusations....

On Cruz ?Affairs,? Trump Forgot All The Times National Enquirer Got Sued For Getting it WRONG | LawNewz

 

[AA&E]

Care to list the ones they got wrong? I suspect if it were a story about The Donald you'd be a little more forthcoming with those.

I don't know of any they got wrong. Do you?

 

[AA&E]

They get sued all the time. Yet they still print fabrications. Saying its true because they'd be sued if it wasn't is kinda silly when we're talking about the national enquirer. I'm still waiting for major news outlets to pick up this story. So far the only thing the majors are reporting on is that the NE broke the story, and they've reported on the reactions to the scandal.

I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying I don't take NE's stories seriously until the bigs confirm it. And with the NE, John Edwards & Company notwithstanding, that rarely happens.

As I said, I strongly suspect you'd be less willing to believe NE if it were a damaging story about Trump.

At fear of sounding like Trump, where did the lawsuits end? Anyone can sue anybody for anything. It's how the lawsuits end that matter.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

LOL. Nice dodge.

 

[AA&E]

On Cruz ?Affairs,? Trump Forgot All The Times National Enquirer Got Sued For Getting it WRONG | LawNewz

Quote from the article - "A quick search of the federal database reveals that The National Enquirer was named as a defendant in about 75 cases since 1986. Not all of those cases are for false statements/invasion of privacy, but some of them are. (That number also doesn’t count the cases filed in state courts). Of course, the Enquirer employs a strong legal team, and many of these cases ultimately get dismissed."


Your article provided four examples where a settlement was reached, and NE was at fault. Care to hold any other news source to the same standards? I think you might be surprised. Ebay, Amazon, Nancy Grace, have all been subject to libel court cases. The New York Times vs Sullivan is the landmark case which defines where the line has been crossed. The Enquirer runs 3600 stories a year on average, going back 30 years (time frame dictated in your link) that is 108,000 articles... of which they have been found at fault or settled four times. That is .000037 of the articles published. Not the glaring example you had hoped? That's ok, you'll see what you want to see. And when/if this story proves to have legs Cruz supporters can come up with a new reason none of this matters.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

On Cruz ?Affairs,? Trump Forgot All The Times National Enquirer Got Sued For Getting it WRONG | LawNewz

I don't know of any they got wrong. Do you?

See above. Also let's see Cameron Diaz cheating on Timeberlake? Gary Condit's wife attacking Levy? Kidnapping victim Elizabeth Smart's male family members were part of a gay sex ring?

http://gawker.com/5528907/national-enquirer-retracts-claims-of-obama-affair-video-already

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I don't know of any they got wrong. Do you?

INGO is still talking about tabloids? Must be a boring week.

I get a lot of people don't like Cruz... but can we at least get some integrity and go after him on policy rather than gossip?

I don't like Trump... but his anti-gun stances are more important to me than whatever divorces he's had.

 

[T.Lex]

Personally, it has been documented elsewhere that Michelle and Barack don't really vacation together, so I wouldn't be surprised if things fall apart after he leaves office. IOW, those particular NE articles IMHO contain a kernel of truth.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Quote from the article - "A quick search of the federal database reveals that The National Enquirer was named as a defendant in about 75 cases since 1986. Not all of those cases are for false statements/invasion of privacy, but some of them are. (That number also doesn’t count the cases filed in state courts). Of course, the Enquirer employs a strong legal team, and many of these cases ultimately get dismissed."


Your article provided four examples where a settlement was reached, and NE was at fault. Care to hold any other news source to the same standards? I think you might be surprised. Ebay, Amazon, Nancy Grace, have all been subject to libel court cases. The New York Times vs Sullivan is the landmark case which defines where the line has been crossed. The Enquirer runs 3600 stories a year on average, going back 30 years (time frame dictated in your link) that is 108,000 articles... of which they have been found at fault or settled four times. That is .000037 of the articles published. Not the glaring example you had hoped? That's ok, you'll see what you want to see. And when/if this story proves to have legs Cruz supporters can come up with a new reason none of this matters.

How many other papers have been sued at that rate? How many retractions have they printed? How many people haven't bothered to sue and just ignore it or state that it's false?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Personally, it has been documented elsewhere that Michelle and Barack don't really vacation together, so I wouldn't be surprised if things fall apart after he leaves office. IOW, those particular NE articles IMHO contain a kernel of truth.

The types of "Hmm... this could be true!" here translate to "Hmm... this could help my boy Trump!"

These same people wouldn't give such gossip the light of day if it didn't have the slightest relevance to taking down someone they want to lose. I'm less disappointed with the story than I am in seeing what I thought were respectable INGO members actually giving it serious thought.

And I'm saying this as a person that probably isn't voting GOP this time around... so I'm all out of people to back. I've no bias for or against Cruz.

 

[HoughMade]

Trump lovers will believe it. Cruz believers won't.

Congrats on making the GOP even more​ unappealing to all.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump lovers will believe it. Cruz believers won't.

Congrats on making the GOP even more​ unappealing to all.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Trump lovers will believe it. Cruz believers won't.

Congrats on making the GOP even more​ unappealing to all.

I'm a Cruz supporter. And I don't believe or disbelieve it. Just anything in the NE I take with a couple pounds of salt. That and at least 2 of the women "identified" have denied it, including Trump's spokesman.

 

[OutdoorDad]

Claim a superior knowledge on a subject, refuse to provide any information unless compensated for said information.

Generally these kinds of posts are made by 35 year old men that live in their mother's basements. Not suggesting that is the case here, but someone of your profound wisdom had to understand how ridiculous that was going to sound.

You assume much.
Research the many different types of "joint" accounts they could have. And the implications in a community property state like Texas.

It's not difficult to construct several scenarios where the funding of the campaign would be absolutely above board. I'm not a fan of Ted's. But I don't think he's stupid. I'm certain that if his campaign financing is investigated, a plausible scenario will be published that is consistent with all legal requirements. Which one? I don't know. But he will have several to choose from. None of them will need to involve a loan from his wife.

My mother passed away in 2005 at the age of 87.