This is what so many on the forum have been saying.
Why does Cruz look like a frontrunner now when he didn't two months ago? Mainly, I think, because the "electable" candidates have all looked weaker than expected, and not just vis-a-vis Trump. It's been fully eight months since Jeb Bush announced his exploratory committee and still no one's excited. He comes off like a less charismatic, more centrist Mitt Romney. Scott Walker can't seem to give a straight answer to tough immigration questions and he disappeared at the first debate, taking a beating for it in the polls. Increasingly it seems like Tom Coburn's assessment, that he's not ready for national primetime, might be right. Marco Rubio's in a different position from Bush and Walker in that he hasn't really disappointed — he excelled at the debate and his favorable ratings remain off the charts — but he seems to be everyone's second choice. Maybe he starts to move as Jeb fans accept that the dream of Bush 3.0 isn't happening and Walker's fans accept that the man who laid waste to the left in Wisconsin won't be the same wrecking ball as president, but it seems like voters might be stuck seeing Rubio as a guy who'll be perfect four or eight years from now. He looks like he's 30 years old. Why not make him wait?
So the three "electable" guys in the race seem unelectable while Trump's candidacy, which started off looking like a stunt, turns increasingly serious. The expected "Bush vs. Not Bush" campaign appears, for the moment, to be a "Trump vs. Not Trump" contest instead. If you're in the "Not Trump" camp, who's left realistically except Ted Cruz? His right-wing competition, i.e. Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal, seems to be going nowhere. He's raised far more money than anyone expected he would, so he's likely to be competitive deep into next spring at least. He's well positioned in Iowa, South Carolina, and the "SEC primary" thanks to his evangelical cred. And as the staunchest conservative in the top tier, he's a natural draw for righties who dislike Trump because they believe (correctly) that he's a phony conservative.
More....
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/24/is-ted-cruz-the-new-frontrunner-for-the-nomination/
That's a good point. Ted's national poll numbers are low,
but what are his numbers in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina?
Wins in the early contests usually drive big shifts in the national polls.
Quote from: je_freedom on August 28, 2015, 08:35:07 PM
That's a good point. Ted's national poll numbers are low,
but what are his numbers in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina?
Wins in the early contests usually drive big shifts in the national polls.
The early Primaries do seem to knock off people on a long list of candidates. If they cannot get in the top three or four, their prospects do diminish considerably.
I do believe that Ted will continue to gain ground as the debates wear on. He will never lose a debate. It is a matter of getting enough exposure time. That irked him in the last debate!
Trump's arrogant abrasiveness will begin to irritate many after a period of time.
Quote from: je_freedom on August 28, 2015, 08:35:07 PM
That's a good point. Ted's national poll numbers are low,
but what are his numbers in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina?
Wins in the early contests usually drive big shifts in the national polls.
After aligning with Trump, there's no telling with all the notoriety he'll be getting as more and more people become interested in what he has to say.
Both factions have purposely ignored him, LSM and Establishment know, the more people hear him speak, the more they want to hear from him.
Cruz is bad news for this nations enemies.
I like Cruz a lot, but the fact that he was born in Canada troubles me. McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone to two US citizen parents, and they tried to eliminate him on that fact, even though he was born there because of his father's military posting. Cruz would make a great president, IMO, but I fear that if he is the nominee, the Dems will pull something out of the hat after the conventions to try to disqualify him. I think they are probably working on it now. He did hold dual citizenship--US and Canadian, and renounced the Canadian one, but they will find a way to hold all of this against him, no matter what the case is. So even if he is qualified by citizenship, it won't make a difference to lIVs or the Dems who tell them what to do and what to think.
Quote from: Charliemyboy on August 29, 2015, 07:23:32 AM
I like Cruz a lot, but the fact that he was born in Canada troubles me. McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone to two US citizen parents, and they tried to eliminate him on that fact, even though he was born there because of his father's military posting. Cruz would make a great president, IMO, but I fear that if he is the nominee, the Dems will pull something out of the hat after the conventions to try to disqualify him. I think they are probably working on it now. He did hold dual citizenship--US and Canadian, and renounced the Canadian one, but they will find a way to hold all of this against him, no matter what the case is. So even if he is qualified by citizenship, it won't make a difference to lIVs or the Dems who tell them what to do and what to think.
Nope, the law is very clear on his legality being born to an American off American shores. He is still an American.
Quote from: Charliemyboy on August 29, 2015, 07:23:32 AM
I like Cruz a lot, but the fact that he was born in Canada troubles me. McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone to two US citizen parents, and they tried to eliminate him on that fact, even though he was born there because of his father's military posting. Cruz would make a great president, IMO, but I fear that if he is the nominee, the Dems will pull something out of the hat after the conventions to try to disqualify him. I think they are probably working on it now. He did hold dual citizenship--US and Canadian, and renounced the Canadian one, but they will find a way to hold all of this against him, no matter what the case is. So even if he is qualified by citizenship, it won't make a difference to lIVs or the Dems who tell them what to do and what to think.
So? What is with this defeatist attitude?
Quote from: Solar on August 28, 2015, 06:47:36 PM
This is what so many on the forum have been saying.
Why does Cruz look like a frontrunner now when he didn't two months ago? Mainly, I think, because the "electable" candidates have all looked weaker than expected, and not just vis-a-vis Trump. It's been fully eight months since Jeb Bush announced his exploratory committee and still no one's excited. He comes off like a less charismatic, more centrist Mitt Romney.
Jeb looks more or less shell-shocked, like the first stages of Hillary when her poll numbers started going south. Maybe they thought the top slot was theirs, they'd already been "selected", just announce you're running for President as a formality. I think Jeb and his backers thought it was a slam-dunk - same for Hillary, just announce and it'll come down to either Jeb or Hillary. The question is, 'what is it gonna take to make it happen?" I expect more HEAT from both candidates... sort of prove they've got the fire-in-the-belly. :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: Just for the hell-of-it, wouldn't you want to watch a debate between these two? Both of them arguing for more government, bigger programs... :popcorn: What a hoot! :tounge: It's apt to get down-right personal between them! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Solar on August 28, 2015, 06:47:36 PM
Scott Walker can't seem to give a straight answer to tough immigration questions and he disappeared at the first debate, taking a beating for it in the polls. Increasingly it seems like Tom Coburn's assessment, that he's not ready for national primetime, might be right.
As much as I like Walker, he's basically walked away from his base and aligned himself with the establishment, he's toast unless he returns to his roots... :blushing: :sad: Brew up a big pot of TEA. ...I think he could turn things around, but the landscape would needs changing. (Trump drops out)
Quote from: Solar on August 28, 2015, 06:47:36 PM
Marco Rubio's in a different position from Bush and Walker in that he hasn't really disappointed — he excelled at the debate and his favorable ratings remain off the charts — but he seems to be everyone's second choice. Maybe he starts to move as Jeb fans accept that the dream of Bush 3.0 isn't happening and Walker's fans accept that the man who laid waste to the left in Wisconsin won't be the same wrecking ball as president, but it seems like voters might be stuck seeing Rubio as a guy who'll be perfect four or eight years from now. He looks like he's 30 years old. Why not make him wait?
Am I the only guy that associates Rubio with amnesty? :confused: He was doing contortions to allow the illegals to stay here, has he really back-tracked from that unpopular idea? :thumbdown:
Amnesty also brought national attention to Rubio, as long as the illegal aliens issue tops the pols, Rubio has nowhere to hide :blush: (unless he wants to be tagged with a flip-flopper). How does one recuperate from getting caught with his hand in the Democratic issue-cookie-jar? :ohmy: Deny-deny-deny? "I was set-up?" "That's not what I meant!!!" "It was a vast left-wing Democratic conspiracy!" ... where have I heard that "tone", recently...?
Compromiser. :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
Quote from: Solar on August 28, 2015, 06:47:36 PM
So the three "electable" guys in the race seem unelectable while Trump's candidacy, which started off looking like a stunt, turns increasingly serious. The expected "Bush vs. Not Bush" campaign appears, for the moment, to be a "Trump vs. Not Trump" contest instead. If you're in the "Not Trump" camp, who's left realistically except Ted Cruz? His right-wing competition, i.e. Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal, seems to be going nowhere. He's raised far more money than anyone expected he would, so he's likely to be competitive deep into next spring at least. He's well positioned in Iowa, South Carolina, and the "SEC primary" thanks to his evangelical cred. And as the staunchest conservative in the top tier, he's a natural draw for righties who dislike Trump because they believe (correctly) that he's a phony conservative.
More....
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/24/is-ted-cruz-the-new-frontrunner-for-the-nomination/
Right NOW... if the election were held today, I think Trump would be the next President. His support crosses party lines. If there was a party named, "Fed up with Washington Party", Trump would be the candidate. (so what else is new...? Duh!) I see this as a "It's Trump's to lose" .... and his mistakes are quickly forgiven/overlooked by his supporters (sound like the current Prez...).
Speaking of which, did we forget Obama ALSO positioned himself as an outsider???Which Cruz has not (he's pissed off the Senate). Walker pissed off the Unions, Rubio pissed off the non-amnesty folks, come to think of it, there's a whole lotta pissed off voters. The big exception,
Ben Carson keeps on gaining in the pols. Carson is a pretty likable guy, and he's more than an egg-head, he easily connects with people. Carson seems very safe and trustworthy. Carson doesn't need to distance himself from the establishment, some bad/failed policy (we know of), and raise his voice in a defiant tone to get attention. Can he manage a Presidency though...? I think he's got a lot of common sense, and would hold accountable his people responsible to him.
Carson resonates pleasantly with people, without going negative, a contrary-to-Trump-candidate.Does it seem like the mood-at-the-moment favors Trump, more than an educated electorate would? :confused:
I donno. :confused: I do remember thinking to myself, "How could anyone vote for this convictionless, empty headed wind-bag? Are Americans THAT stupid???" (insert Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama) and two of them got elected!
kj4adn, I agree with you on Rubio. He lost all credibility with the Gang of Eight.
But I am not with you on Dr. Carson. During the Baltimore riots he praised the Mayor of Baltimore. :ohmy: I couldn't believe my ears! She is a real loser in my book!!
That definitely lowered my opinion of Dr. Carson!
Quote from: kroz on August 29, 2015, 07:58:08 AM
kj4adn, I agree with you on Rubio. He lost all credibility with the Gang of Eight.
But I am not with you on Dr. Carson. During the Baltimore riots he praised the Mayor of Baltimore. :ohmy: I couldn't believe my ears! She is a real loser in my book!!
That definitely lowered my opinion of Dr. Carson!
I'm not sure Carson is a conservative. I really like him, and he is strong on some issues, but he's said stuff that gives me pause.
Quote from: taxed on August 29, 2015, 07:59:25 AM
I'm not sure Carson is a conservative. I really like him, and he is strong on some issues, but he's said stuff that gives me pause.
Yep, it's that core values thing that's lacking.
Quote from: taxed on August 29, 2015, 07:59:25 AM
I'm not sure Carson is a conservative. I really like him, and he is strong on some issues, but he's said stuff that gives me pause.
Agreed on that. His demeanor is universally appealing, and like Trump, I think he's learning the game as he goes - lacks luster.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Quote from: kj4adn on August 29, 2015, 08:17:57 AM
Agreed on that. His demeanor is universally appealing, and like Trump, I think he's learning the game as he goes - lacks luster.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Nailed it!
Quote from: kroz on August 29, 2015, 07:58:08 AM
kj4adn, I agree with you on Rubio. He lost all credibility with the Gang of Eight.
But I am not with you on Dr. Carson. During the Baltimore riots he praised the Mayor of Baltimore. :ohmy: I couldn't believe my ears! She is a real loser in my book!!
That definitely lowered my opinion of Dr. Carson!
They all have negatives withvthexexception of Cruz. I like Rubio a lot. I was really disappointed that he was so easily manipulated by the DEMOCRATS on amnesty. Maybe in the future, but not this election cycle.
Carson isn't ready either. He's also too mild mannered for the job. We need a FIGHTER.
Quote from: carlb on August 30, 2015, 06:15:54 PM
They all have negatives withvthexexception of Cruz. I like Rubio a lot. I was really disappointed that he was so easily manipulated by the DEMOCRATS on amnesty. Maybe in the future, but not this election cycle.
Actually Rubio went in with the intention of joining the Gang of eight.
He outright lied to Florida TEA for their support.
QuoteCarson isn't ready either. He's also too mild mannered for the job. We need a FIGHTER.
Absolutely agree. He needs to run for local office first, at least get some kind of political experience before taking on the WH.
The fact that he was even considered for the position in the first place screams of RINO conspiracy involvement in splitting the vote.
Quote from: taxed on August 29, 2015, 07:27:48 AM
So? What is with this defeatist attitude?
He has a valid point. The Naturalization Acts stipulate that citizenship cannot be inherited by one whose father is not a citizen. So technically, neither Obama or Cruz should be citizens, so the upside is that any leftist trying to pursue the matter opens a can of worms that could result in the legal voidance of Obamas presidency.
Quote from: Ulsterking on August 30, 2015, 06:50:29 PM
He has a valid point. The Naturalization Acts stipulate that citizenship cannot be inherited by one whose father is not a citizen. Both parents must be naturalized. So technically, neither Obama or Cruz should be citizens, so the upside is that any leftist trying to pursue the matter opens a can of worms that could result in the legal voidance of Obamas presidency.
Congress added to the act in 1940 that the mother, an American citizen be included as equal to the father, where she gives birth abroad, automatically makes her child a citizen of the US.
Quote from: kroz on August 29, 2015, 07:58:08 AM
kj4adn, I agree with you on Rubio. He lost all credibility with the Gang of Eight.
But I am not with you on Dr. Carson. During the Baltimore riots he praised the Mayor of Baltimore. :ohmy: I couldn't believe my ears! She is a real loser in my book!!
That definitely lowered my opinion of Dr. Carson!
Dr. Carson is a very smart man and has made alot of strides in his profession. However, that profession is hardly politics and I just think he'd be overwhelmed with the differences he'd face. It would be a whole new ballgame and he'd either get on with the program or be continually deadlocked, my guess being deadlocked on some of the major issues. We've heard enough talk and heard about too many meetings and summits, even meeting to decide when the next big meeting would be where nothing would get decided. We need a candidate(Cruz) who knows what is at stake and is not afraid he is going to pizz in someone's cornflakes to get the job done.
Quote from: Solar on August 30, 2015, 06:57:59 PM
Congress added to the act in 1940 that the mother, an American citizen be included as equal to the father, where she gives birth abroad, automatically makes her child a citizen of the US.
Ah, it always bothered me to think that in the wake of womans suffrage, then civil rights legislation, that patriarchal primacy in naturalization would still stand. Ive been digging through the pile of immigration and naturalization acts between 1790 and 1990 trying to find something I missed. Never spotted that one.
Thanks.
Quote from: Ulsterking on August 30, 2015, 07:25:40 PM
Ah, it always bothered me to think that in the wake of womans suffrage, then civil rights legislation, that patriarchal primacy in naturalization would still stand. Ive been digging through the pile of immigration and naturalization acts between 1790 and 1990 trying to find something I missed. Never spotted that one.
Thanks.
I'll post the link if I can find it. We did an indepth on the law about 6 months back maybe 10.
But if you do a search for "Ted Cruz eligible under immigration law", or something along those lines, you might find it quicker than me, I'm about to eat.
Yes, it was quite the heated debate considering it was a lib that started the thread, if I remember correctly. :laugh:
https://americansabroad.org/files/3013/3478/0295/18-04-2012_1318_971.pdf
This may help!
Quote from: Ulsterking on August 30, 2015, 07:25:40 PM
Ah, it always bothered me to think that in the wake of womans suffrage, then civil rights legislation, that patriarchal primacy in naturalization would still stand. Ive been digging through the pile of immigration and naturalization acts between 1790 and 1990 trying to find something I missed. Never spotted that one.
Thanks.
LPL! Taxed just bumped it alive again.
Here's the link Taxed posted.
https://americansabroad.org/files/3013/3478/0295/18-04-2012_1318_971.pdf
Quote from: Solar on August 30, 2015, 07:41:38 PM
LPL! Taxed just bumped it alive again.
Here's the link Taxed posted.
https://americansabroad.org/files/3013/3478/0295/18-04-2012_1318_971.pdf
Beat you to it! :lol: :lol: :lol:
I have the link saved to favorites!
Quote from: Solar on August 29, 2015, 07:26:41 AM
Nope, the law is very clear on his legality being born to an American off American shores. He is still an American.
I certainly hope you are correct.
Quote from: Charliemyboy on August 31, 2015, 11:03:24 AM
I certainly hope you are correct.
There is no hope involved.
Quote from: Charliemyboy on August 31, 2015, 11:03:24 AM
I certainly hope you are correct.
I've been arguing Cruz's eligibility on another forum. But it falls on deaf ears.
If they don't want to hear it; they will not listen. Their minds are closed.
They will only look at the Constitution and their own interpretation of it!!! :scared:
Quote from: Charliemyboy on August 31, 2015, 11:03:24 AM
I certainly hope you are correct.
They are, and have happily posted links to the relavent acts that support Cruz's legal citizenship just a few posts ago. As a result of my own ignorance I must shamefully add.
Quote from: kroz on August 31, 2015, 11:06:58 AM
I've been arguing Cruz's eligibility on another forum. But it falls on deaf ears.
If they don't want to hear it; they will not listen. Their minds are closed.
They will only look at the Constitution and their own interpretation of it!!! :scared:
Just tell them, all they have to do is look at b o. His mother was a white U. S. citizens and he can not yet produce a legitimate birth certificate. Yet he is a poor excuse for a president.
Quote from: Solar on August 29, 2015, 06:16:26 AM
After aligning with Trump, there's no telling with all the notoriety he'll be getting as more and more people become interested in what he has to say.
Both factions have purposely ignored him, LSM and Establishment know, the more people hear him speak, the more they want to hear from him.
Cruz is bad news for this nations enemies.
Cruz has the right-wing credentials and integrity Trump lacks but is working now to establish. But I really like that Trump is moving so hard to the right. But that also means he can move just as fast back to the left once elected, and that's something I fear because I love everything Trump is saying. Basically he says straight out "Yes I play quid-pro quo and give democrats Money so they will give me advantage in business deals and regulations etc" which is true and got to respect honesty like that from a wouldbepolitician, this is a corporatist economy so why not be corporatist and make a lot of Money like a business man. He called it cunning in his Lincoln Speech, and he is right about the trade deals With other countries, you have to be cunning and hard negotiator something America hasn't been for a long time and that's why everyone is laughing of the US. Free trade does not work if the other country is using slave labor, I know it is beneficial to get cheap shit in the long run but the short run it creates too much unemployment that is socially unacceptable and will cause backlash against capitalism which is why Milton Friedman had that part wrong. Free trade with slave socialist economies works economically but not politically/culturally.
And I also hope that the illegal immigrant murders of US citizens he have been exposed really has changed him to a real right-wing conservative as the truth will set you free. The change in stance from left to right may be sincere because he is now attacked by leftism as a whole and been exposed to the truth of everyday citizens suffering from illegal immigration and strangling regulation/taxes.
Cruz lacks the charisma and money of Trump but he has the integrity. I just think it sad Allan West sits this one out, I think he would crush everyone. Democrats would say he is a token black since they are racist but at least Black America would get a representation of the best of them and all America would get the president it deserves.
Quote from: Ulsterking on August 31, 2015, 11:16:48 AM
They are, and have happily posted links to the relavent acts that support Cruz's legal citizenship just a few posts ago. As a result of my own ignorance I must shamefully add.
Nah, fugid da boudit... no big. :biggrin:
If you hadn't, someone else would have questioned it as instead. And that's what makes this forum special, we're all about posting only facts.
It drives libs nuts. :cool:
Quote from: Solar on August 31, 2015, 01:13:51 PM
Nah, fugid da boudit... no big. :biggrin:
If you hadn't, someone else would have questioned it as instead. And that's what makes this forum special, we're all about posting only facts.
It drives libs nuts. :cool:
Yeah, almost as nuts as I go trying to make up for my public education.
Quote from: kroz on August 31, 2015, 11:06:58 AM
I've been arguing Cruz's eligibility on another forum. But it falls on deaf ears.
If they don't want to hear it; they will not listen. Their minds are closed.
They will only look at the Constitution and their own interpretation of it!!! :scared:
Those you are speaking probably poo pooed the charges of the "birthers" about Obama. He is eligible. Don't frustrate yourself and waste your time dealing with idiots. It is why Key and I are gone from our previous board.
Quote from: walkstall on August 31, 2015, 11:25:54 AM
Just tell them, all they have to do is look at b o. His mother was a white U. S. citizens and he can not yet produce a legitimate birth certificate. Yet he is a poor excuse for a president.
They quickly say, "Two wrongs don't make a right."
They think Obama was ineligible but that doesn't justify electing Cruz. I have not been successful in convincing them of anything. Their minds are made up; they aren't interested in facts!!!
Quote from: kroz on August 31, 2015, 02:06:41 PM
They quickly say, "Two wrongs don't make a right."
They think Obama was ineligible but that doesn't justify electing Cruz. I have not been successful in convincing them of anything. Their minds are made up; they aren't interested in facts!!!
Don't get in the way of their ignorance.
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 31, 2015, 02:09:01 PM
Don't get in the way of their ignorance.
They continue to go back to the Constitution and say nothing in the links I provided has shown where Cruz meets the eligibility requirement.
Quote from: kroz on August 31, 2015, 02:17:30 PM
They continue to go back to the Constitution and say nothing in the links I provided has shown where Cruz meets the eligibility requirement.
Tell them it's the same one that allowed McCain to be eligible.
Quote from: taxed on August 31, 2015, 02:18:29 PM
Tell them it's the same one that allowed McCain to be eligible.
Both of McCain's parents were citizens at the time of John's birth in Central America. That is the argument they make. The Constitution requires both parents be citizens..... :ohmy:
Quote from: kroz on August 31, 2015, 02:33:54 PM
Both of McCain's parents were citizens at the time of John's birth in Central America. That is the argument they make. The Constitution requires both parents be citizens..... :ohmy:
Post the verbage.
Quote from: taxed on August 31, 2015, 02:50:28 PM
Post the verbage.
You're right. It doesn't. It's left open to interpretation by Congress. Mark Levin is the one man I trust most in these matters. That video you linked to explains it perfectly.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tKvT6DDR-4A
I finally have one of the two men most resistant to Cruz's eligibility that has admitted that "maybe" he is wrong. :ohmy:
I will keep you posted....
Quote from: kroz on August 31, 2015, 04:24:53 PM
I finally have one of the two men most resistant to Cruz's eligibility that has admitted that "maybe" he is wrong. :ohmy:
I will keep you posted....
It's rare that anybody ever admits they were wrong. Planting the seed is good enough. Plus, you're posting to a forum where lurkers far outnumber participants. You never really know where a seed takes root.
Quote from: carlb on August 31, 2015, 04:33:31 PM
It's rare that anybody ever admits they were wrong. Planting the seed is good enough. Plus, you're posting to a forum where lurkers far outnumber participants. You never really know where a seed takes root.
I gave him tremendous kudos for his "open mindedness"!
I work with what I can. The other man is someone whom I have known for years on other forums. He is a military man that NEVER admits he is wrong!
Quote from: kroz on August 31, 2015, 04:58:07 PM
I gave him tremendous kudos for his "open mindedness"!
You shouldn't have. Not being stupid doesn't make someone open-minded. He was wrong and then adopted the correct position. That's just normal. I wish they'd come here so we can smack them around... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: taxed on September 01, 2015, 10:41:43 AM
You shouldn't have. Not being stupid doesn't make someone open-minded. He was wrong and then adopted the correct position. That's just normal. I wish they'd come here so we can smack them around... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Here I thought you were talking about Walker till I read what Kroz wrote. :lol:
Scott Walker, formerly a legitimate candidate for President, told the Daily Herald Media Editorial Board that not only does he support amnesty and endorse a pathway to citizenship for illegals– he's not sure that any additional security measures are necessary to secure the borders...
You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that– to me, I don't know that we need any of that.
Spoiler alert: All the fiscally-conservative, anti-union measures that Gov. Walker fought for and won will be undone within 5 years of the legalization of Marco Rubio's 30 million new Democrats.
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2013/07/03/scott-walker-endorses-rubiocare-i-dont-know-if-we-need-any-border-security/
Quote from: Solar on September 01, 2015, 10:47:33 AM
Here I thought you were talking about Walker till I read what Kroz wrote. :lol:
Scott Walker, formerly a legitimate candidate for President, told the Daily Herald Media Editorial Board that not only does he support amnesty and endorse a pathway to citizenship for illegals– he's not sure that any additional security measures are necessary to secure the borders...
You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that– to me, I don't know that we need any of that.
Spoiler alert: All the fiscally-conservative, anti-union measures that Gov. Walker fought for and won will be undone within 5 years of the legalization of Marco Rubio's 30 million new Democrats.
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2013/07/03/scott-walker-endorses-rubiocare-i-dont-know-if-we-need-any-border-security/
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That site has some really funny quips. No conservative is safe from them too, which I like.
Quote from: taxed on September 01, 2015, 11:01:25 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That site has some really funny quips. No conservative is safe from them too, which I like.
I love the way they gently open up the patient during autopsy and eviscerate the carcass. :lol:
Quote from: Solar on September 01, 2015, 11:04:55 AM
I love the way they gently open up the patient during autopsy and eviscerate the carcass. :lol:
They've been destroying Rand and Walker for a few years now... But they reward them when they do something conservative. They've been calling Walker a La Raza operative for a long time...
Quote from: taxed on September 01, 2015, 11:08:49 AM
They've been destroying Rand and Walker for a few years now... But they reward them when they do something conservative. They've been calling Walker a La Raza operative for a long time...
I love the vote tally to the RIGHT. :lol:
For those wondering what we're talking about, here's the link.
http://www.mofopolitics.com/
RAND PAUL 24.24% (6,625 VOTES)
TED CRUZ 23.91% (6,536 VOTES)
SARAH PALIN 19.33% (5,283 VOTES)
BEN CARSON 5.74% (1,568 VOTES)
LA RAZA OPERATIVE MARCO RUBIO 4.87% (1,330 VOTES) FAT SLOB CHRIS CHRISTIE 4.51% (1,234 VOTES) RINO WIMP JOHN KASICH 3.19% (872 VOTES)
CARLY FEMINAZI 1.84% (502 VOTES)
RINO WIMP MIKE HUCKABEE 1.8% (491 VOTES)
RINO WIMP BOBBY JINDAL 1.25% (342 VOTES)
LA RAZA OPERATIVE SCOTT WALKER 1.24% (340 VOTES)
RINO WIMP JEB BUSH 1.24% (338 VOTES)
LINDSEY GRAHAMNESTY 0.64% (176 VOTES)
JUSTIN AMASH 0.16% (43 VOTES)
DUMB RETARD RICK PERRY 0.12% (32 VOTES)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2015/08/08/chamber-of-commerce-puppet-rand-paul-accuses-donald-trump-of-being-an-insider/
Quote from: taxed on September 01, 2015, 11:15:16 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2015/08/08/chamber-of-commerce-puppet-rand-paul-accuses-donald-trump-of-being-an-insider/
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Freakin classic!
Cruz no longer has any competition left, aside from aligning with Trump, it's a trot to the finish line.
Quote from: Solar on September 01, 2015, 11:25:07 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Freakin classic!
Cruz no longer has any competition left, aside from aligning with Trump, it's a trot to the finish line.
He's really the only conservative at this point.
Quote from: taxed on September 01, 2015, 11:26:53 AM
He's really the only conservative at this point.
Exactly! The base knows who Cruz is and they are supporting him solidly, as the polls start to reflect his wins, others will start to take note, especially after the next debates.
In the end, the rest will follow the winner, it's just an inevitability.
Quote from: taxed on September 01, 2015, 10:41:43 AM
You shouldn't have. Not being stupid doesn't make someone open-minded. He was wrong and then adopted the correct position. That's just normal. I wish they'd come here so we can smack them around... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Unfortunately he did NOT adopt the correct position. He merely admitted that he "could be" wrong. But he continued to cling to his stupid assessment of Cruz's eligibility.
I keep coming at them from different angles, but they are not budging.... and they have a lot of sway on that forum. There is also a woman that is just as adamantly against Ted.
Fortunately they are not hateful to me. They admit that Cruz would be their first choice IF he were eligible. :rolleyes:
You just can't fix "stupid"!
Quote from: kroz on September 01, 2015, 11:31:02 AM
Unfortunately he did NOT adopt the correct position. He merely admitted that he "could be" wrong. But he continued to cling to his stupid assessment of Cruz's eligibility.
I keep coming at them from different angles, but they are not budging.... and they have a lot of sway on that forum. There is also a woman that is just as adamantly against Ted.
Fortunately they are not hateful to me. They admit that Cruz would be their first choice IF he were eligible. :rolleyes:
You just can't fix "stupid"!
Well, keep slapping them around........
Quote from: taxed on September 01, 2015, 11:37:18 AM
Well, keep slapping them around........
I will! :biggrin:
I'm reluctant to invite them here...... now that I have called them "stupid"! :scared:
Quote from: kroz on August 31, 2015, 11:06:58 AM
I've been arguing Cruz's eligibility on another forum. But it falls on deaf ears.
If they don't want to hear it; they will not listen. Their minds are closed.
They will only look at the Constitution and their own interpretation of it!!! :scared:
Have you shared this link with them?
https://americansabroad.org/files/3013/3478/0295/18-04-2012_1318_971.pdf
Quote from: redbeard on September 01, 2015, 11:46:15 AM
Have you shared this link with them?
https://americansabroad.org/files/3013/3478/0295/18-04-2012_1318_971.pdf
Yes I have. They say there is nothing in this link that makes Cruz qualified!
I also shared the Mark Levin link. (Thanks for that, taxed)!
Quote from: kroz on September 01, 2015, 01:10:43 PM
Yes I have. They say there is nothing in this link that makes Cruz qualified!
I also shared the Mark Levin link. (Thanks for that, taxed)!
Point out the 1940 ruling. Spells it out quite clearly.
Quote from: Solar on September 01, 2015, 01:27:50 PM
Point out the 1940 ruling. Spells it out quite clearly.
They say the 1940 Ruling cannot trump the Constitution. It would take a Constitutional Amendment.
Quote from: kroz on September 01, 2015, 01:32:30 PM
They say the 1940 Ruling cannot trump the Constitution. It would take a Constitutional Amendment.
It doesn't require one considering the Founders never defined "Natural Born".
In other words, they left it open for future leaders to define.
Quote from: Solar on September 01, 2015, 01:40:18 PM
It doesn't require one considering the Founders never defined "Natural Born".
In other words, they left it open for future leaders to define.
They stated that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. That is what these guys keep coming back to. They cannot get past that hurdle.
Quote from: kroz on September 01, 2015, 02:11:39 PM
They stated that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. That is what these guys keep coming back to. They cannot get past that hurdle.
[/quote
Quote
1934 THE "CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1934": On 24 May, Congress makes a major change to the
]"citizenship law" to now enable U.S. citizen mothers to also transmit U.S. citizenship at birth
abroad. But for the first time the law now also creates a new burden by imposing a
mandatory "subsequent five year residence requirement" in the United States, prior to
reaching age eighteen, and an "oath of allegiance requirement" within six months of the
child's twenty-first birthday, for any child born abroad to parents, one of whom is an alien.
The new law states:
· "Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,
whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the
United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of
citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen
mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth
of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship
shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein
for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday,
and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall
take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America
https://americansabroad.org/files/3013/3478/0295/18-04-2012_1318_971.pdf
Does this help?
Quote from: redbeard on September 01, 2015, 02:59:21 PM
Does this help?
Thanks redbeard. I will try again using your "quote". :biggrin:
Quote from: kroz on September 01, 2015, 02:11:39 PM
They stated that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. That is what these guys keep coming back to. They cannot get past that hurdle.
Yeah, Red posted it, there is no mention of two parents, simply because people die, and that in no way would be fair to the child, especially if the family were in some type of accident while traveling abroad, where the father is killed.
The people you're arguing with, are, to put it simply, Idiots!
Quote from: kroz on September 01, 2015, 02:11:39 PM
They stated that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. That is what these guys keep coming back to. They cannot get past that hurdle.
The Constitution doesn't provided a definition. I used to believe that too. I was wrong. They are too.
Quote from: carlb on September 01, 2015, 05:11:35 PM
The Constitution doesn't provided a definition. I used to believe that too. I was wrong. They are too.
The problem I am having is that the "Fix" gives a definition of a "citizen". The Constitution uses the term "natural born citizen".
They agree that he is a citizen but that does reach to the level the Constitution requires..... "natural born citizen".
I know, it is splilting hairs, but that is the dilemma. :mad:
Quote from: kroz on September 02, 2015, 04:17:35 AM
The problem I am having is that the "Fix" gives a definition of a "citizen". The Constitution uses the term "natural born citizen".
They agree that he is a citizen but that does reach to the level the Constitution requires..... "natural born citizen".
I know, it is splilting hairs, but that is the dilemma. :mad:
Nope, it's not splitting hairs. Now ask them to provide the definition the Founders gave for "Natural Born".
That's the problem, there is none, so there argument at best, is invalid.
If you do a search for the term, you'll see they simply avoided defining it, they thought it best future generations define the term, and whether out of wisdom or fear, they never touched it again.
You've won by default, they have no recourse but to concede.
Quote from: kroz on September 02, 2015, 04:17:35 AM
The problem I am having is that the "Fix" gives a definition of a "citizen". The Constitution uses the term "natural born citizen".
They agree that he is a citizen but that does reach to the level the Constitution requires..... "natural born citizen".
I know, it is splilting hairs, but that is the dilemma. :mad:
It's not a dilemma. You said it yourself: natural born citizen. He is.
Quote from: taxed on September 02, 2015, 02:53:51 PM
It's not a dilemma. You said it yourself: natural born citizen. He is.
hhmmm... I keep working it.. there is a deafening silence over there now... :ohmy:
They can bitch and moan about it until the end of time but in the end, no court would take this up. THEY are fighting a battle they can never win
Quote from: kroz on September 02, 2015, 03:34:09 PM
hhmmm... I keep working it.. there is a deafening silence over there now... :ohmy:
Keep slapping them around.
The fact is, if the mother is a citizen, and she has a kid, then that kid is naturalized, even if born overseas. They may try to argue that the mother would be forced to live in that country in order to stay with the child until she gets it naturalized, but that is just silly and shows how stupid they are. An American-born citizen mother can only have naturalized babies.
Quote from: kroz on September 02, 2015, 03:34:09 PM
hhmmm... I keep working it.. there is a deafening silence over there now... :ohmy:
Sounds like tey finally figured it out. :lol:
Quote from: Solar on September 02, 2015, 04:20:51 PM
Sounds like tey finally figured it out. :lol:
I think you are right. There was no response to my last post..... :biggrin: