Who's this Cruz twat then?

[Gob]

Los Angeles: US presidential hopeful Ted Cruz's claim sexual assaults on women in Australia went up significantly after strict gun laws were introduced has been challenged by a Washington Post analysis.

Senator Cruz said on high-profile American radio host Hugh Hewitt's show on January 12 Australia's post-Port Arthur massacre gun legislation meant women were unable to defend themselves from being raped.

The Washington Post's Fact Checker column examined Senator Cruz's comment and on Monday rated it a "whopper" of a factual error, the highest rating on its "Pinocchio Test".

"And as you know, Hugh, after Australia did that [gun buyback program], the rate of sexual assaults, the rate of rapes, went up significantly, because women were unable to defend themselves," Mr Cruz told the radio host.

"There's nothing that criminals or terrorists like more than unarmed victims.

Conservative candidate Senator Cruz is Donald Trump's biggest rival for the Republican presidential nomination.

The gun debate has become a hot button issue in the presidential race, with Republican candidates like Senator Cruz and the National Rifle Association attacking President Barack Obama and Democrat hopeful Hillary Clinton's references to Australia's firearm laws.

The Washington Post analysis found no significant spike or drop but a gradual increase in sexual assault rates over the decade after the 1996 changes in Australia.

The increase was likely affected by a rise in the reporting of sexual assaults and there wasn't prevalent use of handguns for self-defence before 1996, as Senator Cruz suggested, the newspaper concluded.

"The rates didn't go up 'significantly' after the buyback and there's no evidence changes to gun laws in Australia affected sexual assault rates or jeopardised the ability of women to protect themselves," the Washington Post told readers.

The newspaper spoke to Samara McPhedran, senior research fellow at Australia's Griffith University and chair of the International Coalition of Women in Shooting and Hunting.

The Post also examined research by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Law Library of Congress, Christine Neill, economics professor at Canada's Wilfrid Laurier University and Andrew Leigh, an Australian MP and former Australian National University economics professor.

The newspaper also concluded given gun culture in Australia and the US is not comparable, including carrying concealed guns and the ability to carry firearms for self-defence, "politicians should refrain from attributing good or bad changes in Australian crime rates to the buyback program or to the legislative package".

"We also warn politicians on both sides of the gun debate about making broad assertions about Australia to justify policy arguments for the United States," the Post concluded.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/republican- ... z3yK9USdW8

[Guinevere]

He isn't someone who gives a crap about women, or the truth.

[BoSoxGal]

On a political piece this weekend on NPR, I heard that a bigwig in the Republican party compared a choice between Trump and Cruz to a choice between Hitler and Stalin - the suggestion being they'd rather have Cruz/Stalin, because he's slightly more predictable than Trump/Hitler.


If that's how their own party thinks of them, how can they possibly be any good for the country?!?!?!

[Lord Jim]

I hate to say it, but Cruz made a valid point yesterday:

"If Donald wins Iowa, he right now has a substantial lead in New Hampshire, if he went on to win New Hampshire as well, there is a very good chance he could be unstoppable and be our nominee," Cruz said in the recording.

"So even if you're thinking about another candidate, the simple reality is there's only one campaign that can beat Trump in this state, and if conservatives simply stand up and unite, that's everything," Cruz said.

As one looks at the current polls state-by-state and the primary and caucus schedule, I've been thinking for a while that if I lived in Iowa, as much as I detest him, I would probably turn out to vote for Cruz...He's right when he says that he looks like the only candidate who can beat Trump in Iowa at this point.

Priority One is stop Trump, and if he doesn't have his "winner" shtick tarnished in Iowa, the situation starts to look very bleak...

The four establishment candidates at the moment are dividing up the vote in New Hampshire almost evenly, pretty much guaranteeing Trump a win there...And things don't get any better as the race moves south...

On the other hand, Cruz isn't going to do well In New Hampshire, so an Iowa win produces less momentum for him...

So, better to have Cruz win in Iowa than Trump...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Except for the poor quality of the candidates, this is looking a bit like 1860 all over again. Then, it was the Democrat party that splintered itself and (aided by a former Whig, Bell) managed to hand the election over to the Republican party. Fortunately for the USA, Lincoln was a worthy president.

In 2016, it is the Republicans who are hopelessly split and with two front runners of zero worth. Unfortunately, in Sanders and Clintone the Democrat party has nothing like a Lincoln to pull the U.S. out of the malaise that so many perceive to be a reality.

One wonders if the nationalist, populist anger that propels the Tramp and Burn-baby campaigns might not just prevail come November.

I'd rather have a drink in a bar with either of those two than Cruz or Clintone - both of 'em slimy pols of dubious ethics

[Lord Jim]

To borrow from Lindsey Graham's analogy, as far as the Iowa Caucus is concerned, I'm basically choosing being shot (Cruz) over being poisoned (Trump) on the theory that I might be able to recover from the gun shot wounds, but there's no antidote available for the poison...

On the Democratic side, if this was a normal election, I'd be all in for Bernie...

Even though I consider her to be very beatable, a hardcore leftist like Sanders would be even more beatable...

Just about any qualified mainstream Republican candidate would pick up the entire political center and mop the floor with him...

But of course this election cycle is far from "normal"...

This year, I'm so concerned that Trump might get the GOP nomination that I'm more interested in seeing the Trump Vs. Sanders nightmare scenario eliminated, then I am about winning the election...

So on the Demo side, I'm rooting for Hillary in Iowa...(this of course would change immediately in later primaries if one of the acceptable GOP candidates manages to emerge as the likely nominee...)

So my choices for Iowa are Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton...

If anyone had told me a year ago that this would be the case, I certainly would not have gotten into a car with them at the wheel...

[rubato]

Cruz is an odd little puzzle of evil. He is highly intelligent; Harvard Law and clerked for William Rehnquist. But wholly amoral. He will lie about anything at all to get elected and has often irked the GOP establishment with his individualistic mindless grandstanding ( http://theweek.com/articles/459658/6-hi ... filibuster ).

His opinions about immigrants and Muslims are identical to Trumps but he couches them in the GOP-approved terms.

He is more evil and more amoral than Trump is, in fact. He has no moral compass at all. Trump has one, but its broken.


yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

I'm going to register republican and vote for trump; he's basically a democrat at heart so if he gets the R nomination we'll have a D president either way the election goes.

[Long Run]

he's basically a democrat at heart

In reference to inveterate BSer or panderer-supremus?

[Gob]

Australian women unexpectedly found themselves a focal point of an American debate on guns this month, when Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz lamented how we had become "unarmed victims" due to the Howard government gun buyback program and more frequently susceptible to sexual assault.

"After Australia did that [gun buyback program], the rate of sexual assaults, the rate of rapes, went up significantly, because women were unable to defend themselves," the Texan senator, who once famously released a video of himself cooking bacon on the barrel of a machine gun, told a radio host.

The claim was thoroughly debunked by The Washington Post this week, which reported that not only was there no evidence of a spike in sexual assault attributed to the buyback, but there was no evidence of firearms being significantly used by Australian women for self-defence against rape before this program either.

Cruz's claim was not simply wrong though, it was a cynical and contemptible attempt to use a false concern for women's safety to justify the stonewalling of sensible gun reform in the US and continuation of polices that actually make American women, and the entire community, more vulnerable to harm. Cruz prides himself on his pro-gun record, one PAC that backs him even bragged that "after Sandy Hook [elementary school massacre], Ted Cruz stopped Obama's push for new gun control laws" in an ad.

Australia's relatively low rate of gun deaths (1.4 homicides per million compared to 29.7 per million in the US) and virtual absence of mass shootings are increasingly cited by American politicians pleading for sensible gun reform, including President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, and media commentators like John Oliver

This compelling argument clearly has the US gun lobby and Republicans nervous, given the regularity with which pro-gun voices are spreading distortions about the effects of gun control in Australia, from Fox News host Tucker Carlson last year telling viewers Australia had "no freedom", or the recent National Rifle Association manifesto warning repeatedly of the "extreme" nature of Australian laws.

Cruz's comments are just the latest attempt to try to scare Americans into believing that Australians are all cowering under the bed, defenceless and in fear, or living in some kind of dictatorship.
His claim also fits in with an attempt by the gun lobby to exploit growing awareness about sexual assault and position itself as a pro-woman solution.

In 2015, as the country grappled with reports of widespread sexual assault on university campuses, some Republicans took the opportunity to push for more guns on campus, or campus carry laws, with one politician telling The New York Times "If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them."

While the idea of women shooting their would-be rapists may be an emotionally powerful one, as popularised by films such as Thelma and Louise, the reality is far more complex.

As opponents of these laws point out, sexual assaults on campus (and elsewhere in life) are most likely to be perpetrated by someone known to the victim rather than a lurking stranger, and may start in a situation that switches from consensual to non-consensual, making locating and using a gun impractical and unlikely.

Instead, having guns more freely available in a society makes women less safe, not more so.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/ted-cruz- ... z3yQXAxujb

[Crackpot]

Rick Perry has endorsed Cruz.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Who dat?

[Crackpot]

One of the former clown car inhabitants former Gov of Texas

[MajGenl.Meade]

No. I meant the other one...

[Crackpot]

The walking embodiment of all of Christianities worst aspects?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ah. Quite so, if you don't count me