What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What a Ted Cruz victory would mean (1 Viewer)

What a Ted Cruz victory would mean? http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/04/ted-cruzs-campaign-fueled-dominionist-vision-america-commentary/

According to his father and Huch, Ted Cruz is anointed by God to help Christians in their effort to “go to the marketplace and occupy the land … and take dominion” over it. This “end-time transfer of wealth” will relieve Christians of all financial woes, allowing true believers to ascend to a position of political and cultural power in which they can build a Christian civilization. When this Christian nation is in place (or back in place), Jesus will return.

^ Sounds "a little" like ISIS and the Caliphate. :shrug:
Sounds a little like the Branch Davidians or Heaven's Gate cults.
 
They believe Christians must take dominion over seven aspects of culture: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government
None of those seem remotely possible to achieve in today's U.S.A. So the author is asking us to believe that Ted Cruz is insane. As silly as I find his political beliefs, I don't think I'm ready to go that far yet.

 
They believe Christians must take dominion over seven aspects of culture: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government
None of those seem remotely possible to achieve in today's U.S.A. So the author is asking us to believe that Ted Cruz is insane. As silly as I find his political beliefs, I don't think I'm ready to go that far yet.
Do you think that people who believe that the Bible is 100% literal and infallible are insane?
 
They believe Christians must take dominion over seven aspects of culture: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government
None of those seem remotely possible to achieve in today's U.S.A. So the author is asking us to believe that Ted Cruz is insane. As silly as I find his political beliefs, I don't think I'm ready to go that far yet.
Do you think that people who believe that the Bible is 100% literal and infallible are insane?
Well, that's not the point I was trying to make, which was that someone would have to be insane who thought that taking dominion over the seven aspects of culture that I quoted was achievable. The country is increasingly diverse and secular and I see no signs of this evolution reversing or even abating, so the dominionists are even crazier than I am politically. I'm out there but things are generally moving in my direction. Not so with the tiny band of folks who want Christian thought to permeate religion, entertainment and government.

Yes, I ducked your question. Apologies, but I don't really want to sidetrack this thread.

 
Thought this was interesting about the bid to be the Republican nominee for US Senator in the state of Texas.

What a Ted Cruz victory would mean

Posted by Sean Sullivan

Eighteen months ago, Ted Cruz was a starry-eyed Texas Republican with long-shot hopes of becoming a United States senator. On Tuesday, the former state solicitor general looks headed to an unlikely runoff victory over Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, win that would defy the power of the state’s GOP establishment.

A Cruz win would not only be a major rebuke of the well-known (and VERY well financed) Dewhurst, but it would also arguably be the most significant statewide upset of the 2012 cycle to date. (Yes, we’re talking about the same cycle in which a sitting senator was dislodged in Indiana and a little-known state legislator won the GOP Senate nomination in Nebraska.)

There are three key reasons for this.

For starters, Dewhurst didn’t implode. He raised heaps of money and added millions from his own checkbook. He began with a huge name identification advantage, was backed by Gov. Rick Perry, and enlisted the help of David Carney, one of the sharpest political minds in Texas. And he was the beneficiary of a super PAC headed by Rob Johnson, another top Texas GOP hand.

By contrast, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) ran a lackluster operation which was slow to respond to a lingering story about his out-of-state residency and plagued by a record that enraged conservatives. In Nebraska, frontrunning GOP Attorney General Jon Bruning was beleaguered by ethics questions and gaffe-prone behavior. The errors both men made opened them up to upstart challengers. Dewhurst didn’t make those same sort of mistakes.

Both Bruning and Lugar were also dogged by charges of being insufficiently conservative. Dewhurst was too, but those assaults were less fair. Bruning supported confirming Eric Holder as Attorney General while Lugar’s work across the aisle won him (toxic) praise from Democrats. But Dewhurst showed no signs he’d be anything but a reliable Republican vote in the Senate.

So how did Cruz stay competitive and even climb into what looks like the driver’s seat? He leveraged national acclaim from conservatives like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and George Will into strong local tea party support, winning an impressive 34 percent of the primary vote and forcing a runoff against Dewhurst, who took 45 percent in the late May election.

And he’s proving to be a great closer. He outraised Dewhurst more than 3-1 during the first third of the month, spurred Sarah Palin and DeMint to stump in the state for him last Friday and never lost the confidence of the anti-tax Club For Growth, which has spent $5.5 million on independent expenditures to help him win.

But don’t write Dewhurst off just yet in a race strategists on both sides expect to be close. An internal poll showed him holding a slight lead last week. A review of ad spending during the final week reveals that Dewhurst and his allies outspent Cruz and his supporters by nearly $1.3 million on TV. And early voting – which was good to Dewhurst in the primary – was robust in the runoff.

“I think the turnout is going to be higher than what most people are projecting,” said Dewhurst spokesman Matt Hirsch.

Still, it’s difficult to overlook the signs Dewhurst is in trouble. The super PAC supporting him released a harsh TV ad last week smacking of desperation that tried to tie Cruz to the suicide of a young man. Meanwhile, like Dewhurst, Cruz has also released polling showing him ahead; both sides agree that Dewhurst’s double-digit lead is long gone.

“The momentum and enthusiasm really seems to be with Ted Cruz,” said Rice University political scientist Mark Jones.

A Cruz victory would suggest that Republican voters aren’t just rejecting inadequately conservative candidates and longtime incumbents. The sufficiently conservative who are tied the establishment — a word becoming more and more toxic in politics — are also at risk.

A Tuesday win by Cruz would mean just about every candidate left in a GOP primary who is challenging a frontrunner tied in ANY way to the establishment will do everything they can to compare their candidacy to Cruz’s.
Link to articleETA: the runoff election ends today.
First time seeing this thread...but the line I bolded Joe T's first post pretty much sums it up. Pretty astute analysis by the author as he picked up on the anti-establishment tremors several years ago.

 
What a Ted Cruz victory would mean? http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/04/ted-cruzs-campaign-fueled-dominionist-vision-america-commentary/

According to his father and Huch, Ted Cruz is anointed by God to help Christians in their effort to go to the marketplace and occupy the land and take dominion over it. This end-time transfer of wealth will relieve Christians of all financial woes, allowing true believers to ascend to a position of political and cultural power in which they can build a Christian civilization. When this Christian nation is in place (or back in place), Jesus will return.

^ Sounds "a little" like ISIS and the Caliphate. :shrug:
What is this bat####tery?

 
What a Ted Cruz victory would mean? http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/04/ted-cruzs-campaign-fueled-dominionist-vision-america-commentary/

According to his father and Huch, Ted Cruz is anointed by God to help Christians in their effort to go to the marketplace and occupy the land and take dominion over it. This end-time transfer of wealth will relieve Christians of all financial woes, allowing true believers to ascend to a position of political and cultural power in which they can build a Christian civilization. When this Christian nation is in place (or back in place), Jesus will return.

^ Sounds "a little" like ISIS and the Caliphate. :shrug:
What is this bat####tery?
not surprising at all when you listen to his father.

 
bolzano said:
It was striking that three different people on that [debate] stage (i.e., Rubio, Christie, Bush) came out in support of drafting women into combat in the military. And I have to admit as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was “Are you guys nuts?” Listen, we have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military. Political correctness is dangerous. And the idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think is wrong. It is immoral and if I’m president, we ain’t doing it.

I’m the father of two little girls, I love those girls with all of my heart, they are capable of doing anything in their heart’s desire, but the idea that their government would forcibly put them in a foxhole with a 220 pound psychopath trying to kill them doesn’t make any sense at all. It is yet one more sign of this politically correct world, where we forget common sense. We got to get back to common sense, we’ve got to get back to a president that says, “No, that doesn’t make any sense.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/02/07/ted-cruz-calls-selective-service-signup-for-women-immoral/MH7H6HRoNm2NFBJ7aepysL/story.html
His sons on the other hand...

 
bolzano said:
15% is good I guess.
NH is not built for Cruz (lots of independents/ moderates, small # of evangelicals, etc.). If he finishes 2nd, then it's an unexpected, excellent result. Moreover, Rubio is his top competition for movement conservatives, and he's underperforming by ~7%.
"Coming in 2nd place" is trying to put lipstick on a pig.

 
bolzano said:
bolzano said:
NH Combined campaign/SuperPAC spending

$36M Bush

$18.5M Christie

$15.2M Rubio

$12.1M Kasich

$3.7M Trump

$1.8M Fiorina

$580K Cruz
https://twitter.com/stephenfhayes/status/697238281126281216
More context: Cruz has almost as much cash on hand as Bush, Christie, Rubio, and Kasich combined.
https://twitter.com/RealBPhil/status/697254255724343297
Campaign financing

Cruz = $89 million

Jeb = $150 million

Christie/Rubio/Kasich combined = $97 million

Super Pac money

Cruz = $44 million

Jeb = $118 million

Christie/Rubio/Kasich combined = $50 million

 
bolzano said:
SacramentoBob said:
15% is good I guess.
NH is not built for Cruz (lots of independents/ moderates, small # of evangelicals, etc.). If he finishes 2nd, then it's an unexpected, excellent result.
Currently at 11.5% and tied for 4th. Can't spin that into an excellent result. He was polling at 14% yesterday.

 
bolzano said:
bolzano said:
bolzano said:
NH Combined campaign/SuperPAC spending

$36M Bush

$18.5M Christie

$15.2M Rubio

$12.1M Kasich

$3.7M Trump

$1.8M Fiorina

$580K Cruz
https://twitter.com/stephenfhayes/status/697238281126281216
More context: Cruz has almost as much cash on hand as Bush, Christie, Rubio, and Kasich combined.
https://twitter.com/RealBPhil/status/697254255724343297
Campaign financing

Cruz = $89 million

Jeb = $150 million

Christie/Rubio/Kasich combined = $97 million

Super Pac money

Cruz = $44 million

Jeb = $118 million

Christie/Rubio/Kasich combined = $50 million
If the tweet was incorrect, I apologize. It came from a Cruz campaign staffer, so I assumed it was accurate.
"Cash on hand" is an important number but it's only a small percentage of a candidate's available funds.

Here is a summary of all the candidates as of January 31st. Cruz has more personal "cash on hand" than any other Republican candidate, but when you include PAC money then he trails Jeb by $16 million.

But he does have quite a bit more than Christie/Rubio/Kasich.

 
bolzano said:
Let's dispel once and for all this fiction that Rubio is the most electable conservative.
He's easily the most electable compared to Trump and Cruz. Kasich and Bush are both more electable, but, well, you know.

 
bolzano said:
bolzano said:
Let's dispel once and for all this fiction that Rubio is the most electable conservative.
He's easily the most electable compared to Trump and Cruz. Kasich and Bush are both more electable, but, well, you know.
I remain unconvinced. As I noted in previous threads, Rubio's pro-amnesty past/ present is a liability with the base. Moreover, his favorability with moderates/ independents is high in large part because the public doesn't know him very well. After he endures the inevitable attacks from the media/ Clinton, his favorability will drop and he won't have much to fall back on. While he has CAP (i.e., charisma, attractive, personable), he's otherwise an empty suit. He has no accomplishments. Hispanics won't vote for him just because he's Cuban. He recites the same speech ad nauseam. I submit to you his precipitous post-NH debate fall as evidence.

Cruz lacks Rubio's CAP, to be sure, and he has favorability problems with independents/ moderates. But I would argue that the damage has already been done and hence his favorability can only improve. Even so, I think he can make up for any loss by turning out the base. Moreover, he provides a big, bold contrast on key policy issues vs. Clinton (e.g., immigration, foreign policy/ national defense, taxes), whereas Rubio does not. And he's also much more anti-establishment than Rubio in what's setting up to be anti-status quo election
:lmao:

 
bolzano said:
bolzano said:
Let's dispel once and for all this fiction that Rubio is the most electable conservative.
He's easily the most electable compared to Trump and Cruz. Kasich and Bush are both more electable, but, well, you know.
I remain unconvinced. As I noted in previous threads, Rubio's pro-amnesty past/ present is a liability with the base. Moreover, his favorability with moderates/ independents is high in large part because the public doesn't know him very well. After he endures the inevitable attacks from the media/ Clinton, his favorability will drop and he won't have much to fall back on. While he has CAP (i.e., charisma, attractive, personable), he's otherwise an empty suit. He has no accomplishments. Hispanics won't vote for him just because he's Cuban. He recites the same speech ad nauseam. I submit to you his precipitous post-NH debate fall as evidence.

Cruz lacks Rubio's CAP, to be sure, and he has favorability problems with independents/ moderates. But I would argue that the damage has already been done and hence his favorability can only improve. Even so, I think he can make up for any loss by turning out the base. Moreover, he provides a big, bold contrast on key policy issues vs. Clinton (e.g., immigration, foreign policy/ national defense, taxes), whereas Rubio does not. And he's also much more anti-establishment than Rubio in what's setting up to be anti-status quo election
Cruz makes up for his lack of CAP with his abundance of CREEP.

 
I wonder how much his Canadian birth is working against him.  Not as much as him being unlikable I'm sure, but Trump planted a seed of doubt there perhaps?  I imagine the vast majority of the Obama birther crowd is fine with Cruz being born in Canada, but it only has to swing a few votes to drop him to 3rd place instead of 2nd.     

 
I wonder how much his Canadian birth is working against him.  Not as much as him being unlikable I'm sure, but Trump planted a seed of doubt there perhaps?  I imagine the vast majority of the Obama birther crowd is fine with Cruz being born in Canada, but it only has to swing a few votes to drop him to 3rd place instead of 2nd.     
Cruz's candidacy was doomed the moment Republicans latched on to Birtherism in 2008, as it opened the door for Trump's attacks in 2016. The irony is that it was Hillary Clinton's supporters who first brought up Birtherism back in 2007. Now, there's no way that Clinton is so Machiavellian that she started the Birther movement because she knew it would eventually help her to defeat Ted Cruz, but it would be kind of cool if it were true.

 
Ted Cruz's embarrassment:

....................................................................................

 
What would a Ted Cruz victory mean?

Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave!  Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top