421
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Republican senator, who flew to Mexico as Texas faced deadly cold snap, complains of ‘serious security threats’ to lawmakers

The Texas Republican senator Ted Cruz, who achieved viral infamy in 2021 when he was seen at Houston airport for a flight to Cancún even as his state faced a historic and deadly spell of cold weather, this week moved a step closer to securing police escorts for lawmakers at airports.

Under an amendment to the Federal Aviation Authority Reauthorization bill introduced by Cruz, members of Congress and other prominent officials, and some family and staff members, will be offered security escorts if they are deemed “currently … or previously … the subject of a threat, as determined by such applicable federal protective agency”.

If passed by the House and Senate, the bill will fund the FAA for four years.

But given Cruz’s scrape with viral fame over his flight to Mexico in February 2021 – a trip to join a family vacation he abandoned after one day, admitting his “obvious mistake” as tweets and memes proliferated – the senator faces criticism and mockery over his attempt to secure security guards for future airport trips.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] oDDmON@lemmy.world 67 points 1 year ago

Way to telegraph your pussydom, Ted.

[-] iamericandre@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

He’s been doing that ever since the orange turd insulted his wife and then Rafael rimmed his ass

[-] psvrh@lemmy.ca 61 points 1 year ago

You know who threatens lawmakers the most? Who sends the most death and rape threats? Who it is that's out for blood if an official deviates from orthodoxy?

Trump supporters.

Ted should just come out and say it. He's afraid of his boss' rabid proto-fascist fan base.

[-] ef9357@lemmy.sdf.org 38 points 1 year ago

Ted, you stupid prick, hire your own damn security. We, the American people, owe you nothing.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

A man of the people.

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Shouldn't a big, tough Texas man just be able to whip out his gun and defend himself?

[-] Whiskey_iicarus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 year ago

No offense to Canadians, but a Texas man, cruz is not.

[-] Perhapsjustsniffit@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

He is now. You even elected him. No sending that asshat here. He is Texan now.

[-] mPony@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

locations of birth canals notwithstanding, I know transgender people who are more of a man than he.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I am guessing you just mean transgender women. All transgender men are more of a man than he is.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Hey, now. He adopted pussydom when he left Canada, sure as hell is none here. It's too cold to be a pussy.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

One of the reasons he doesn't need a security detail in an airport is that (at least in theory) they stop people from bringing guns into them.

The chances of him being assassinated in an airport are very close to zero. The chances someone might come up to him with criticism, however...

[-] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

Exactly, surely if he wants to feel safe at the airport he should try and get guns allowed in there.

[-] mhague@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

When legislating for your constituents: Regulations shall be written in blood (and lots of it!).

When legislating for yourself: Best err on the side of caution.

I mean did Cruz even try thoughts and prayers first? Shouldn't he hire a private security detail from the free market instead of embiggening the government and using people's taxes to pay for his protection?

[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

We're out there trying to cut government spending and remove laws! Except this one. We need this one.

Speaking of hypocrisy, always remember that Republicans spent Obama's entire presidency arguing that he was born in Kenya so he can't be president. But didn't say fuck all when Canadian Ted ran. Want to know more about why I think you're racist?

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

He was also the main push for increasing Congress' salary a few years ago because it was too expensive to maintain a house in Texas and one in DC. Despite how expensive it is, he is still able to afford frequent trips to Cancun.

[-] SarcasticMan@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Oh, Ted maybe if you weren't such a cowardly cunt people wouldn't hate you...

[-] malloc@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I don’t know how Republicans can continue supporting this spineless fool.

[-] frunch@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Birds of a feather

[-] BillDaCatt@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

While I doubt that things are actually more dangerous nowadays than before, Cruz has been very vocal about selling the narrative that things are getting worse. If he feels like his life is in danger, he needs to work to make it safer for everyone instead of just himself!

[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago

Awww, poor widdle Teddy-Boy! Those evil leftists are so mean! How heartless of them to hold poor Teddy accountable for his despicable shitfuckery!

[-] vodkasolution@feddit.it 7 points 1 year ago
[-] RedWeasel@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Honestly this seems reasonable. Still funny that he is one of the sponsors though.

[-] ShortBoweledClown@lemmy.one 38 points 1 year ago

Fuck that. They should pay out of pocket if they want bodyguards. They get enough shit on the publics dime. He could also try not being a piece of shit and people wouldn't fuck with him.

[-] RedWeasel@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

This doesn't just apply to him. Plenty of legislators are expose to threats from both sides of the isle. And it isn't like they are going to get 24h coverage from this. This is walking around an airport for a couple hours.

[-] sndmn@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

You're talking out of both sides of your ass.

[-] ShortBoweledClown@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

I don't care which party they belong to. They waste enough tax money with their bullshit. They can pay out of pocket.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

No it isn't. He's an elected public official. That means he shouldn't hide from the public.

[-] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

We don't say the same thing about the president, right? At a certain point it would be harmful for the country if politicians were subject to physical intimidation. And while we might have feelings about assholes from other parties, what about people with the same views as us?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Weird how he didn't need this security detail last year. Seems like it only happened when he got publicly criticized.

Most senators do not have a security detail. Ted is afraid of talking to the public unless it's on TV.

[-] ShortBoweledClown@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

"Let me wheel out a ridiculous comparison to make my point."

One is a head of state, the other isn't. And this isn't a party issue which you've implied in several comment. Nobody in congress should receive protection unless they are paying out of pocket.

[-] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How is it a ridiculous comparison?

I wasn't saying that a senator or congressman is of the same importance as a president. After all, you won't see the president at an airport.

What I'm saying is it's in the public interest for our elected representatives not to be subject to physical threat.

If a senator is eating at a restaurant, and a person or group comes in who they view as a threat, they always have the option to leave. Often there are multiple points of ingress/egress. And they have the option to bring in as much security as they want.

At an airport you can't just leave unless you want to miss your flight. There are by design limited points to come in/out at an airport, and the terminals are usually dead ends so even if you wanted to leave it might not be possible if confronted by a group. And even if a person wanted to bring private security they don't let people in unless you also buy tickets.

[-] ShortBoweledClown@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

If you weren't implying some sort of similarity, why bother making the comparison?

If a senator or representative feels threatened, they can call the police or find security, just like the rest of us. Especially in an airport, they are everywhere.

[-] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I do imply they are similar, I didn't say they were the same.

Do you think that an elected official might have a higher risk of being threatened than a private citizen?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Whiskey_iicarus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago

It's not. I actually commented on this before in a different thread. I saw him in a Texas airport last year and he already had a state trooper with him and not a single person was trying to talk to him as he walked. That man is in no danger because his persona is repellent enough to keep people away from him.

[-] RedWeasel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

This doesn’t just apply to him. Plenty of legislators are expose to threats from both sides of the isle. And it isn’t like they are going to get 24h coverage from this. This is walking around an airport for a couple hours.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

And, as I pointed out elsewhere, the TSA, something he decides the funding for, is supposed to stop anyone bringing weapons into an airport.

At worst he's risking getting punched in the face.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 5 points 1 year ago

It doesn't seem reasonable to need a security duty in a place that's already considered high security. People are screened for anything dangerous by the TSA.

[-] RedWeasel@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

In an ideal world that would be true, but if we were in an ideal world we wouldn't need the security there in the first place. You can do a lot of damage to someone with just your body and there are a lot of people that are violent out in society.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago

Maybe in the interest of safety, it would be best for everyone if we just kept Ted Cruz locked away from the public permanently, like in a bottomless pit or something.

[-] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Agree.

Many politicians suck, and it's not good that they're insulated from public feedback. I think some people feel like harassing Ted Cruz at the airport is the only way he's ever going to hear what they have to say, so they don't want to have taxpayer money going to protect him.

But for those people imagine the flip side: some Jan 6er assholes harassing AOC or Bernie at the airport. There are enough people from any walk of life or viewpoint to mob a politician at an airport.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

But for those people imagine the flip side: some Jan 6er assholes harassing AOC or Bernie at the airport.

I am absolutely fine with that. They are citizens. They should have the right to approach elected officials in public. Just because they say things I don't like doesn't mean those officials should be immune from the public.

If you don't want people to talk to you, maybe politician isn't the right job for you.

And I would not be at all surprised if that has happened to both AOC and Sanders more than once and they handled it with grace and aplomb. Do you really think they have security details? Does that sound like Bernie Sanders?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
421 points (100.0% liked)

News

31103 readers
2952 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS