Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

*****Official Ted Cruz Thread*****


Recommended Posts

I was sure the esteemed Senator from Texas had his own thread, but couldn't find it in a search.

In any event, Cruz tweeted yesterday about the Paris Climate Agreement:

https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1352040800646029312

By rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, President Biden indicates he’s more interested in the views of the citizens of Paris than in the jobs of the citizens of Pittsburgh. This agreement will do little to affect the climate and will harm the livelihoods of Americans.

 

:mellow:

I hope this doesn't mean that Cruz thinks that the Paris Climate Agreement was written by or a reflection of the views of the citizens of Paris.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 330
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Cruz: Are they booing me? Oh, they're not booing you sir, they're shouting "Cruuuuuzze!"

There's a long list of things I'd criticize Ted Cruz for. Wanting to get out of Texas right now isn't on that list. If I were in Texas, I'd want to leave too. Beto O'Rourke is doing great stuff t

This is a direct criticism of Cruz, though I’d aim it at many in both the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle, but...

...man, it is beyond me how some people get elected to office.  I’m not even talking political leanings, just the person in general.  Like, you want that person to speak for you?  Interesting 

Edited by That one guy
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Roy L Fewks said:

He's just looking to provoke reactions from woke libs. Looks like he accomplished his goal quite nicely.

I don't know about woke libs, but it did get the attention of Greta Thunberg:

Greta Thunberg @GretaThunberg 8h

So happy that USA has finally rejoined the Pittsburgh Agreement. Welcome back!

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1352212061552586756

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Glad to see the Twitter-to-PSF pipeline is up and running.  

Yes, indeed, many people are posting Tweets in this forum, including someone with the initials IK about 40 minutes ago in another thread.

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/783982-government-response-to-the-coronavirus/page/505/?tab=comments#comment-23208121

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, squistion said:

Yes, indeed, many people are posting Tweets in this forum, including someone with the initials IK about 40 minutes ago in another thread.

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/783982-government-response-to-the-coronavirus/page/505/?tab=comments#comment-23208121

Good.  Now take a look at how often I copy and paste stuff from Twitter without commentary and compare it to your own posting history.  I know you get this point, because you've been warned about it over and over again.  I assume that's why you were on vacation for a while, but who knows.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Good.  Now take a look at how often I copy and paste stuff from Twitter without commentary and compare it to your own posting history.  I know you get this point, because you've been warned about it over and over again.  I assume that's why you were on vacation for a while, but who knows.

The only tweets I post without commentary are links to news items or about news items, which is done every day in this forum and in the Shark Pool (see almost all the posts from Faust). And the tweet from Cruz in the OP did contain my commentary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Good.  Now take a look at how often I copy and paste stuff from Twitter without commentary and compare it to your own posting history.  I know you get this point, because you've been warned about it over and over again.  I assume that's why you were on vacation for a while, but who knows.

I feel like good old Bob Seger is relevant for your "takedown":

https://youtu.be/F3MTFJz50qc?t=69

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this yesterday. AOC responded...

@AOC: Nice tweet Sen. Cruz! Quick question: do you also believe the Geneva Convention was about the views of the citizens of Geneva?

Asking for everyone who believes US Senators should be competent and not undermine our elections to incite insurrection against the United States.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Ted Cruz is not dumb. Why would he tweet something that makes him look super dumb?

I don’t want to defend Cruz, but I think it may have been an awkwardly worded way to imply Biden is more concerned about international opinion than the welfare of Americans. Citizens of Paris being a substitute for foreigners in general. 
 

The bigger question to me is why did the people of Versailles get to decide how WWI ended?

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tom Hagen said:

I don’t want to defend Cruz, but I think it may have been an awkwardly worded way to imply Biden is more concerned about international opinion than the welfare of Americans. Citizens of Paris being a substitute for foreigners in general. 
 

The bigger question to me is why did the people of Versailles get to decide how WWI ended?

I’m chalking it up to tweeting while drunk. 

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reported on MSNBC:

Sens. Whitehouse, Wyden, Smith, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, and Brown have filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee against Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley over their role in the Capitol insurrection.

The senators want a "thorough and fair investigation."

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Encyclopedia Brown said:

Ted Cruz did not believe there was any election fraud, he only said so to outflank Josh Hawley whom he sees as a future threat. 

Nice integrity. 

Not sure it is at all going to be effective. One of the crazies in my facebook feed has taken to responding to every post Cruz makes. They were quite confusing to me at first but they are in essence: "If you didn’t sell out our country by allowing an illegitimate President we'd care what you have to say!!!^$@!@#!!!"

Now my first thought was, she was talking about 4 years ago but I couldn't figure out why she just starting ranting about it lately. But after reading more responses, turns out she's mad at Cruz for not doing enough to keep Trump in office and she's making "primary Cruz" posts :crazy:

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bigbottom said:

Ted Cruz is not dumb. Why would he tweet something that makes him look super dumb?

My guess is that it was probably intended as a very poorly-conceived joke.  It's hard to make sense of that tweet otherwise.

Regardless, Cruz should be expelled from senate and barred from holding any public office.  Let's focus on the important stuff.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, squistion said:

The only tweets I post without commentary are links to news items or about news items, which is done every day in this forum and in the Shark Pool (see almost all the posts from Faust). And the tweet from Cruz in the OP did contain my commentary. 

Faust is highly-regarded contributor to the Shark Pool.

This isn't the Shark Pool.  And you're not Faust.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is an attempt to clarify his previous tweet, but it assumes that supporting blue-collar union workers and the Paris Climate Agreement are somehow mutually exclusive:

Ted Cruz@tedcruz· 20h

Who do you stand with? Paris or Pittsburgh? If you support blue-collar union workers, if you stand for jobs, get your free bumper sticker here: https://action.tedcruz.org/dsp-pittsburghparis/

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1352321556643516424

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, squistion said:

I guess this is an attempt to clarify his previous tweet, but it assumes that supporting blue-collar union workers and the Paris Climate Agreement are somehow mutually exclusive:

Ted Cruz@tedcruz· 20h

Who do you stand with? Paris or Pittsburgh? If you support blue-collar union workers, if you stand for jobs, get your free bumper sticker here: https://action.tedcruz.org/dsp-pittsburghparis/

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1352321556643516424

That's an odd bumper sticker - Pittsburgh > Paris with no context and a Texas logo.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Ted Cruz would post video of him getting mauled  by a rabid muskrat if he thought it would make it 0.00001% more likely that he could be President. 

 

Exhibit A?

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

That's an odd bumper sticker - Pittsburgh > Paris with no context and a Texas logo.

Particularly when he supported efforts to disenfranchise Pittsburgh voters just a couple of weeks ago.

  • Like 3
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tom Hagen said:

I don’t want to defend Cruz, but I think it may have been an awkwardly worded way to imply Biden is more concerned about international opinion than the welfare of Americans. Citizens of Paris being a substitute for foreigners in general. 
 

The bigger question to me is why did the people of Versailles get to decide how WWI ended?

Yeah.

Cruz is about as smooth as sandpaper toilet paper.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if I agreed with Ted Cruz’s policies 100% (it’s actually close to the opposite), even if I was able to overlook his near treasonous behavior on January 6 (which I do not), I could still never vote for him for anything  because of his 4 year servility to Trump who made disgusting and disgraceful comments about his wife and father. To me there is something deeply flawed about a man who allows those kinds of insults and then bows and scrapes to the one who offered them. I would think that even Trump supporters would find this sort of behavior contemptible at best. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Even if I agreed with Ted Cruz’s policies 100% (it’s actually close to the opposite), even if I was able to overlook his near treasonous behavior on January 6 (which I do not), I could still never vote for him for anything  because of his 4 year servility to Trump who made disgusting and disgraceful comments about his wife and father. To me there is something deeply flawed about a man who allows those kinds of insults and then bows and scrapes to the one who offered them. I would think that even Trump supporters would find this sort of behavior contemptible at best. 

I would include Marco Rubio in that category with Trump repeatedly referring to him as "Little Marco" and his subsequent fawning support after that. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:

I would include Marco Rubio in that category with Trump repeatedly referring to him as "Little Marco" and his subsequent fawning support after that. 

Not the same. Attacking your wife and father is a whole different level. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Not the same. Attacking your wife and father is a whole different level. 

Making fun of a person's appearance or physical attributes is about as bad in my book (and implying that Cruz's wife is ugly is not much of a step down from ridiculing Rubio's height IMO). And of course, there was the shameless mocking of the disabled reporter. 

Edited by squistion
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2021 at 11:54 AM, That one guy said:

This is a direct criticism of Cruz, though I’d aim it at many in both the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle, but...

...man, it is beyond me how some people get elected to office.  I’m not even talking political leanings, just the person in general.  Like, you want that person to speak for you?  Interesting 

 

Ted Cruz has an accomplished legal career. Unlike a lot of those in Congress, Cruz can lay claim to success in a career outside of politics.

If you watch him in Senate hearings, he knows exactly what he's doing at all times. He's an incredibly competent debater. He's not a very charismatic person and that hurts him but the level of legal lethality he can wield is impressive. Cruz has done more, as of today, to impact actual public policy than some Presidents have. No one in the GOP can claim this kind of rapport with SCOTUS like Cruz.

Notice the DNC didn't send any of it's actual contenders/heavy hitters after him. Because trying to put Cruz in the legal jackpot is a long shot at best. Good luck trying to win against him in court.

He has built an extensive network with SCOTUS, the judicial system, within the military, with a metric ton of delegates and all throughout Congress.

He's the World Wide Wes of GOP politics.

... Ted Cruz is a legit legal heavy hitter.....

Call Cruz corrupt if you wish. But implying/calling him incompetent/unqualified/poorly suited is nothing but political tribalism.

AOC can tweet what she wants. You think she'd actually walk into a public debate one on one with Ted Cruz? He'd flay her root to stem. It would look like a deleted scene from the movie Gladiator.

The DNC wants his scalp and pelt badly. Let them try for it. They better send lots of reinforcements first.

Edited by GordonGekko
  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my mother lifted this from somewhere, but she described Cruz as a rattlesnake covered in Vaseline.

I’m looking forward to Beto taking another run at it. He was very close last time. He just might be able to defeat him next time. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

I've been on this site for 15 years and I've seen the gaggle of woke lefty lawyers on here brag about their law school credentials for years. Their condescending "legalese" like they were pouring their chamber pots from their Ivory Legal Halls Of Justice upon the masses of plebs and Morlocks below them. I've also seen a shocking lack of understanding of even routine legal basics from many, that even many undergrads, much less someone who is licensed, understand. Ted Cruz is a legit legal heavy hitter. He wouldn't use the resumes of most of the soft serve woked out lefty lawyers from here as anything more than toilet paper. And they know it.

:mellow:

I've been on this site since 2003 but haven't seen anything like that posted, but whatever...

Edited by squistion
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

That's an entertaining video and might be cool if it were like Sam Elliot or a real tough looking guy doing it.  

He didn't even look like he enjoyed eating the bacon.  His face said, "This is gross.  Can't believe I'm doing this, but I gotta get the votes."

  • Laughing 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

 

Regardless, Cruz should be expelled from senate and barred from holding any public office.  Let's focus on the important stuff.

 

Based on what legal principle?

I'm going to be fair here. If someone wanted to say Ted Cruz walked right up to the line because he wanted to secure Trump's core base for a 2024 POTUS run and bolster his already sizeable stranglehold on delegate votes, I'd agree. If someone wanted to say Ted Cruz is a straight up grifter like every other politician on the face of the planet ( there is a reason the profession draws sociopaths, narcissists, psychopaths, etc, etc and this is well documented and heavily studied and researched throughout time) and there are major elements of personal gain in his actions, I'd agree. If someone said Ted Cruz ethically as an American citizen can no longer call himself a morally neutral actor in the Capitol riots, I'd agree.

However to expel Cruz from the Senate would require him to be presented before the Senate Ethics Committee and get 16 Republicans to flip sides and want him gone. Good luck with that. The reason?

1) Did Ted Cruz commit sedition? First, it would be impossible to prove, at this point, that he actually conspired with anyone else. ( The major clue that the DNC has nothing is it sent it's Texas delegation to the press to demand Cruz resign, if they had anything concrete, they'd go after him right now)  Second, it's not like Ted Cruz stood there at the doors of the Capitol with an AK47 in his hands. Legally speaking, there is a very narrow pathway to go after Cruz. The closest thing ( and it's not close at all), for anyone foolish enough to want to get into a legal war with Ted Cruz, would be delaying the execution of American laws. Good luck showing that in court. What happened in the Capitol was unacceptable for those who stormed into the building and those who committed violence. But under the current standards of the actual law, you aren't getting Cruz for sedition. I'll even go so far as to say AG Ken Paxton using the word "seditious" in his lawsuit about the election, that 17 other AG's supported, was over the line. Even Biden, and those words on his teleprompter are CAREFULLY CURATED could only go so far as to say "...borderline...on ( the act of)... sedition..."

2) Did Ted Cruz take part in any insurrection? Was he inside storming the building himself? Was he handing out weapons? Key cards to locked doors? But under the current standards of the actual law, you aren't getting Cruz for insurrection.

3) Did Ted Cruz commit treason?  Was he waging war against America? Did he offer aid and support America's current enemies abroad in context of the Capitol riots?  He did not. But under the current standards of the actual law, you aren't getting Cruz for treason.

What exactly will the Senate vote on here? Without a conviction on any of these, what kind of rope could they manufacture to hang Cruz? They could put a vote to censure Cruz and Hawley but it would require an actual majority ( won't happen, would never happen, no one in politics who would expect to hold onto their job would assert that was even remotely possible).

What were the previous precedents of Senatorial expulsion in the US? Most happened during the Civil War. If you line up what Ted Cruz is accused of doing to the handful of those outside of the Civil War purge, people would start to see how far fetched this all becomes.

Do you think the DNC wants Cruz to bring up Wilmington? Because he would. Because the last thing the DNC and Biden/Harris wants is a reference to riots based on racial divide that asks ugly questions about the burning and looting and destruction all year long in major Big Blue cities. The media optics on Cruz laying into Wilmington against the backdrop of BLM protests and related riots would be politically lethal. Even the left leaning MSM could not drive that out of the daily media cycles for months.

Do you think the DNC wants Cruz to bring up Kamala Harris, on video and on social media, calling for protesters/rioters/looters to be bailed out and her "rhetoric" that could be seen as supporting the year of violence, riots, looting, destruction and racial divide?

Direct Headline: Changes to absentee/mail-in voting procedures in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020

https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_to_absentee/mail-in_voting_procedures_in_response_to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020

This election had more voters than any in US history, had more absentee ballots issued and submitted than any election in US history, had the pandemic and had a voting system in place that ranking DNC bigshots like Warren and Klobuchar denounced as a threat to democracy in 2019 and in the primaries. FORTY FOUR states in the union had legal fights over absentee ballots.

If the DNC wants to pursue a hunt of Ted Cruz, he points out Obama appointee Amy Totenberg ruled to drive in Dominion systems against her own Georgia legislature. That Stacey Abrams is under investigation for barnstorming 850K new voter registrations and that SOS Raffensperger did not follow Georgia election law regarding risk limiting audits. And this is just ONE STATE.

Ted Cruz could spend all day long, weeks even, legally wrangling as to why he objected to the results of this election. ( Was he the first in Congressional history to object or to say he would object, I think not)  How many in Congress have Cruz's legal pedigree? They would be fighting on his battleground. Good luck with all that. You don't have to agree, the DNC doesn't have to agree, but just because people don't like Cruz doesn't mean he fails to have an actual point here.

Going after Ted Cruz goes nowhere legally. What it would do is open up a Pandora's Box of media narratives that the DNC could no longer control and would cost them badly in 2022, where they are already projected to lose the HOR and risk the 2024 POTUS cycle.  The DNC would lose in the court of law and in the court of public opinion. And for what overall gain?

If the DNC could wipe out GOP contenders for 2024 today, you don't think they'd jump on that if they could? That they aren't doing anything more than media posturing should tell everyone something about the actual legal reality of the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...