Discussion for article #245080
Yet, if Alberta Rafael won both, the word Alberta would use is “momentum.”
2 Likes
Dear Iowa Pastors,
Please endanger your church’s tax-exempt status for my personal benefit.
Love,
Ted
7 Likes
I was playing Monopoly with some friends once. One guy was doing a lot of wheeling and dealing, letting the competition get the better of him and being kind of a pill. Late in the game, he’s solidly in second place and has gone from a pill to a downright asshole, bitterly, condescendingly explaining to people that unless they traded him St Charles Place, the guy in first place would be unstoppable.
It never seemed to occur to him that he had occasioned such dislike that making the guy in first place unstoppable had become the actual goal.
14 Likes
Would that were the case, Patrick. The IRS seems to be taking a hands-off approach to these sorts of shenanigans. In my opinion they’ve been much too hands-off in that respect.
7 Likes
“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’s a very good chance he could be unstoppable and be our nominee.”
“…And my quest for world domination would be over,” Cruz continued.
12 Likes
“If Donald wins Iowa he right now has a substantial lead in New Hampshire. …”
Drumpf wouldn’t have a substantial lead in New Hampshire if he didn’t win Iowa ‘right now?’ The Palin’s English seems to be rubbing off.
So this is all he’s got left: “If you don’t help me win in Iowa and NH, the nation is screwed. You may hate me, but I’m you’re only Trump alternative.”
What a sociopathic asshole.
1 Like
You realize, that when you say, “Don’t listen to our words…” – that THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS, and if we don’t listen to you telling us not to listen, well…I think that means we should listen. #Cruzified
1 Like
It’s been remarked upon thousands of times, but how damned weird and pathetic is it Iowa and New Hampshire largely determine our eventual candidates for President? Is either state a microcosm of the nation? Is that important?
According to the US Census Bureau, Iowa is 91.3 percent white. The US as a whole is 72.4 percent white. Iowa’s population is 3.2 percent black, as opposed to 13.2 percent for the US as a whole. New Hampshire is 1.5 percent black.
0.5 percent of New Hampshire businesses are black owned, as opposed to 7.1 percent nationally. Iowa weighs in at 0.8 percent.
Iowa foreign born are 4.5 percent, compared to 12.9 percent nationally. New Hampshire is 5.4 percent.
Iowa Hispanic population is 5.6 percent, compared to 17.4 nationally. New Hampshire is 3.3 percent.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html
Iowa is 0.2 percent Jewish, New Hampshire is 0.8. The nation is 2.1 percent Jewish
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop.html
These two states have drastically lower rates of Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Black business owners and foreign born citizens than the rest of the nation. Yet we grant them these powers to sway the President we choose. Fricking pathetic.
6 Likes
Well, Iowa has been singularly bad at predicting the future GOP nominee. Winning in Iowa has lately been a kiss of death. Ask Mike Huckabee.
New Hampshire has a better record – they seem to have fewer crazy voters per capita.
4 Likes
And your Senate pals would say, “So what? At least he is not you.”
True, but if memory serves a win in Iowa paired with a win in New Hampshire goes a helluva long way in deciding the eventual nominee. As the saying goes, “It can’t hurt.” And despite any isolated predictive quality an Iowa win can serve as validation and a momentum builder should a candidate be positioned to take proper advantage of it.
1 Like
He asked the pastors to rally their congregations to caucus for him in Iowa, according to the Post
I’m just curious. Does this even work? Are people so dependent on their pastors that they can’t even decide who to vote for without their pastor holding their hand? Cruz, in a way, is insulting the average American’s ability to decide who to vote for.
1 Like
He asked the pastors to rally their congregations to caucus for him in Iowa, according to the Post.
Churches and other nonprofits are strictly prohibited from engaging in political campaigning. This prohibition stems from the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”).
An organization that qualifies as “tax-exempt” under Section 501(c)(3) is one that devotes its resources to educational, religious, scientific or other charitable activities, and that complies with a number of other rules, including the prohibition on political activity. In exchange for agreeing to fulfill certain public purposes and following the rules for 501(c)(3)s, these organizations do not pay taxes on their income and contributions received by them are tax-deductible by their donors. Churches are recognized as 501(c)(3) organizations, although under the law, they do not have to get specific approval from the IRS to be tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), unlike other charities.
In order to remain tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), churches must abide by strict guidelines that prohibit election activity. The Code states in relevant part that 501(c)(3) organizations cannot “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” I.R.C. Sec. 501(c)(3). Thus, as a 501(c)(3) organization, churches are strictly forbidden from supporting or opposing a candidate for public office. To do so jeopardizes their tax-exempt status. ***Churches cannot engage in any of the following activities under the federal tax law:***
***Cannot endorse or oppose candidates for public office***
***Cannot make any communication—either from the pulpit, in a newsletter, or church bulletin—which expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office***
Cannot make expenditures on behalf of a candidate for public office or allow any of their resources to be used indirectly for political purposes (e.g., use their phones for a phone bank)
Cannot ask a candidate for public office to sign a pledge or other promise to support a particular issue
Cannot distribute partisan campaign literature
Cannot display political campaign signs on church property
http://ffrf.org/outreach/item/14005-churches-and-political-lobbying-activities
2 Likes
Iowa and New Hampshire have delegate processes that begin to thin the herd. Insiders and media actually know that’s their purpose. These small media-market (thus affordable) events offer the two ways delegates are selected: caucus and election. Candidates test slogans, advertising, fund raising and ground game. They provide a risk-free, non-meaningful chance for the professional commentator community to try their chops and stir responses. It’s all just warm-up, like pre-season professional sports. It barely counts. It means next to nothing. Play along if you’re addicted, otherwise…relax. Cruz is playing some self-important rubes here, just trying to win a pre-season game he can spin as meaningful. It’s not. He’s trailing badly in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois.
1 Like
Possibly. I haven’t the time or motivation to research it. I wonder, how many past Presidents gained office despite winning neither state’s caucus/primary contest? Especially interesting would be those eventual Presidents that were not incumbents in those state’s contests.
So … The monster comes out of the closet … And tries to scare you by saying that there is a monster under the bed ----
1 Like
I think he’s right. Last I saw,Trump was leading in NV and SC too. If he sweeps the early 4,what are Cruz,Rubio andJEB gonna tell their donors when they ask for more money?
2 Likes
Being an atheist, I haven’t been to a church service in almost 40 years. People I know have been, and have told me that it’s not uncommon to see voting pressure put on the congregation. To all my religious friends, how common is this?