Posted on 01/30/2016 1:49:49 PM PST by JediJones
Why don’t you go ahead and explain why the letter mentions the neighbors for us and why the letter claims there will be a follow up letter? Why don’t you explain in clear detail the purpose of that since you claim there is no threat or intimidation intended. What was the exact purpose?? Go ahead, we’ll wait for your BS answer.
I’m not a diehard Cruz supporter, I’m more in the Trump camp. In my opinion, you’re reaching and trying too hard to make this even more damaging than it is, because you oppose Cruz. I don’t oppose him, I’ll vote for him if it comes down to that. Not my first choice but such is life at times.
“me I get hand horse pig donkey truck”
Those are just words. Explain to us what the words of the letter mean. I know you won’t. All mouth and dismissive of threats and intimidation by their candidate.
I know the direct marketing industry and know their practices. They would not send out an expensive mailing that violated the law, their profit and their very existence rides on avoiding such legal snafus on behalf of their clients, the political campaigns. They’re relying on information in the public domain that is made readily available by the states for exactly such use as this. So, they may send out another one? The first one broke no laws, a “reminder” won’t either. Do conservatives find it intrusive, perhaps to the point of anger? That seems to be the case, in this instance at least. Was it ill-advised of the Cruz campaign to authorize this? Looks like it was. That’s my answer, and you’re certainly free to call it BS if you want, but it’s clear that you’re running on emotion rather than facts.
Rant away, I’m done here.
Printing and mailing public information is not “intimidation.” You lose, sir.
“They would not send out an expensive mailing that violated the law”
They do all the time. That isn’t much of an argument.
Still does not make it right what they are doing, regardless if it is public record or not
“Printing and mailing public information is not “intimidation.†You lose, sir.”
That is not the definition of intimidation. You failed English, didn’t you?
Point to an example. If it was at all a frequent occurrence, there would be a whole lot of political direct marketers putting themselves out of business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.