Advertisement

Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • The case for Ted Cruz

    Posted by Unknown Member on December 10, 2015 at 11:53 am

    Ted Cruz’s campaign is quietly gaining steam:
    [link=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/12/10/ted-cruz-positioned-win-iowa-insiders-say/77086972/]http://www.usatoday.com/s…insiders-say/77086972/[/link]
     
    When you get outside the cacophony of the New York press, the “Establishment” Washington cartel and the Donald Trump hysteria, serious Republicans are looking at Cruz as a serious and electable conservative.  He has a lot of momentum behind him at this point. As the establishment candidates, Bush, Kasich and Rubio fade, The GOP is starting to look at who can beat Hillary. Cruz went from the “unelectable” candidate to the outside chance to a real possibility. In fact, Cruz has the best path to an Iowa victory. His campaign is on-message, well-funded and has significant grassroots support. He is consistently on the right side of issues and is viewed by conservatives as a steady hand. 
     
    Cruz has nailed down to huge GOP donors in the last few weeks.
     
    [link=http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/12/10/why-bob-vander-plaats-chose-ted-cruz-over-donald-trump-marco-rubio-ben-carson/77087998/]http://www.desmoinesregis…o-ben-carson/77087998/[/link]
     
    If he wins Iowa, he goes into the SEC primaries with a lot of wind on his back.  When Bush, Rubio, Huckabee, Paul and Carson drop out, most of those delegates are going to go to Cruz.  
     
    You heard it here first: Cruzing to victory!

    satyanar replied 1 year, 2 months ago 16 Members · 333 Replies
  • 333 Replies
  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    December 10, 2015 at 12:03 pm

    Hilary and every democrat in the country is hoping you are right

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      December 10, 2015 at 12:04 pm

      Cruz is by far would be the easiest candidate for any democrat to beat in the general

      I even think Bernie sanders would beat Cruz in a head to head national race

      • suyanebenevides_151

        Member
        December 10, 2015 at 1:42 pm

        Quote from kpack123

        Cruz is by far would be the easiest candidate for any democrat to beat in the general

        I even think Bernie sanders would beat Cruz in a head to head national race

         
        I agree with kpack [:D]

    • btomba_77

      Member
      December 10, 2015 at 12:05 pm

      I give Cruz an outside shot at the nomination (but better than the the 1:50 I gave him back in 2012).
       
      I think he is unlikely to fair well in a general election… probably the worst GOP performer of the remaining top 6 in the general outside of Trump.

      • julie.young_645

        Member
        December 10, 2015 at 12:12 pm

        Whom do you think has the best chance of beating the Hildabeast?

        • kayla.meyer_144

          Member
          December 10, 2015 at 12:26 pm

          Quote from DoctorDalai

          Whom do you think has the best chance of beating the Hildabeast?

          1st question, on what platform of ideas?

          • 100574

            Member
            December 10, 2015 at 12:41 pm

            the 50 cent rubber guy won’t win the all important electoral vote and won’t win the general vote.. the GOP is F#### this year…
            heh Ted a true evangelical believes all mating should be for procreation so your 2 child family with rubbers sorta makes him illegitimate…just go with trump with the 5 kids from 3 women.

        • btomba_77

          Member
          December 10, 2015 at 12:54 pm

          Quote from DoctorDalai

          Whom do you think has the best chance of beating …

          Rubio/Kasich
          Kasich/Rubio
          Then in the next I’d say Christie …. he could probably mimic enough of Trump’s bluster to bring along that crowd to the polls, but would be liked by the establishment.
           
          Christie/Rubio
           
           
           

          • 100574

            Member
            December 10, 2015 at 1:14 pm

            Christie is toast especially after Trump’s folks he knew

            • btomba_77

              Member
              December 10, 2015 at 1:33 pm

              Well now, that’s the rub isn’t it.
              The candidates most fit for the general have great challenges in the GOP primary.

              Same ol’ story.

        • Unknown Member

          Deleted User
          December 10, 2015 at 2:13 pm

          Dalai
           
          Personally I think Christie or Rubio

        • Unknown Member

          Deleted User
          December 10, 2015 at 3:25 pm

          Quote from DoctorDalai

          Whom do you think has the best chance of beating the Hildabeast?

           
           
          Mitt Romney.
           
           

          • Unknown Member

            Deleted User
            December 10, 2015 at 11:32 pm

            The more that the Democrats push Rubio and Christie, the more Cruz will rise. The establishment has no path to victory this election cycle.

            Trump’s lead quickly disappears when Cruz picks up the flagging Carson, Paul, Fiorina and Huckabee supporters. Eventually, the establishment types will throw in the towel and it will set up the Trump versus Cruz dynamic. Either one of those two will beat Hildabeast.

            • 100574

              Member
              December 10, 2015 at 11:56 pm

              aldi why did Cruz call Rubio a liar on Megan Kelly tonight but not admit what he said about Donald’s chances..he said something like sources but MSNBC has his words on tape
              Kelly’s new hairdo is a mess…she chopped off her hair and the shade is not flattering

            • btomba_77

              Member
              December 11, 2015 at 5:54 am

              Quote from aldadoc

              The more that the Democrats push Rubio and Christie, the more Cruz will rise. The establishment has no path to victory this election cycle.

               
              That might be true.
               
               
              But if that is the case then odds are good we’re welcoming President Clinton to the WHite House in January 2017.

              • Unknown Member

                Deleted User
                December 11, 2015 at 6:10 am

                I hope Alda gets his wish and Cruz wins the Republican nomination.
                 
                Unfortunately Alda is right like once a decade
                 
                 

  • suyanebenevides_151

    Member
    December 10, 2015 at 1:43 pm

    Trump will thrash Clinton, if she isn’t in jail by then.

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      December 10, 2015 at 2:00 pm

      Cruz will make minced meat out of Hillary in a debate. He has a lot on her that will destroy her in a head-to-head, beginning with the e-mails, Benghazi and immigration.
       
      Cruz is disciplined and focused.  I liken Trump’s approach as shooting a shotgun; big blast and hope something falls out of the sky. In contrast, Cruz is like a disciplined sniper. He picks his targets carefully and then destroys them. If you watch carefully, he totally took down the global warming alarmists yesterday and destroyed their arguments. Today, he took on Loretta Lynch’s threat to “weaponize” of the AG office in support of Muslims. Before that, he took on Obama’s ISIS policy and on the opportunist attacks on the Second Amendment.  
       
      Effective, disciplined, focused, smart and relentless. This guy is really talented, underestimate him at your own risk. I can see him taking this all the way, while the press is focused on Trump’s circus act.  
       

      • Unknown Member

        Deleted User
        December 10, 2015 at 2:17 pm

        [b]Cruz will make minced meat out of Hillary in a debate. He has a lot on her that will destroy her in a head-to-head, beginning with the e-mails, Benghazi and immigration. [/b]
         
        You obviously did not watch the 14 hours of Bengazi Hearings
         
        But honestly Alda, I hope you are right and Cruz wins the Republican nomination………………….It will be nice to see another President Clinton
         
        Cruz is Creepy beyond creepy and Looks Senator McCarthy from the 50’s.  He talks weird, he looks weird and is very very very unlikable
         
         

        • btomba_77

          Member
          December 10, 2015 at 2:29 pm

          Just remember, it is going to be very difficult for any Republican to win the US  Presidency without 40% of the Latino vote.  That’s why I put Trump and Cruz at the bottom of the GOP pack for competitiveness in the general election. 

  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    December 11, 2015 at 6:34 am

    So who is going to be right this time? Alda? cigar?
     
    Neither again?

    • eyoab2011_711

      Member
      December 11, 2015 at 9:16 am

      Shouldn’t they actually have a record of being right on something before we discuss?
       

       
      The more that the Democrats push Rubio and Christie, the more Cruz will rise.

       
      Yeah and so why do you think the Democrats do that…I guess you will simply throw them into the brier patch
       

      • suyanebenevides_151

        Member
        December 11, 2015 at 12:34 pm

        Quote from Thor

        Shouldn’t they actually have a record of being right on something before we discuss?

        The more that the Democrats push Rubio and Christie, the more Cruz will rise.

        Yeah and so why do you think the Democrats do that…I guess you will simply throw them into the brier patch

         
        When I’m right all you guys do is distract and talk about something else, never giving credit where it’s due. I expect that’ll happen again, but at least I’ll be hammering the boards not letting you forget it when Donald takes it home.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    December 11, 2015 at 11:26 am

    RCP: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/11/for_gop_cruz_may_not_be_best_alternative_to_trump_128999.html] For GOP, Ted Cruz not the best alternative to Trump[/url]
     
     

    The leading alternative to Trump is what many in the party see as Trump lite. And this sets up an interesting pickle for the GOP: some Republicans believe a Cruz nomination would be equal to a Trump nomination, if not worse. So with less than two months to go until voting begins, Republicans are staring at the real possibility of Cruz–the senator many in the party not only openly disdain but also believe would cost them the general election–as possibly being their only hope against likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
     
    It would be the worst possible outcome for the Republican Party, says longtime Republican political consultant Alex Castellanos. Castellanos and others fear the Texas senators strategy of appealing directly to the base, with the belief that galvanizing and mobilizing conservatives is the key to winning the election, will alienate the broader electorate.  If Cruz is the nominee, there isn’t a single young person, woman, or Hispanic anywhere who will want to put on our jersey, Castellanos says.
     

    I think Cruz and Trump are basically the same and will have the same impact on our viability as a party, says John Feehery, a Republican strategist and veteran of Capitol Hill.  

  • btomba_77

    Member
    December 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm

    [link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/10/fundraiser_recording_cruz_explains_his_trump_carson_strategy.html]http://www.slate.com/blog…p_carson_strategy.html[/link]

    Cruz gives out his campaign strategy re: Trump on a campaign finance call:

    “I like and respect both Donald and Ben. I do not believe either one is going to be our nominee. I dont believe either one is going to be our president. I think both of them, their campaigns have a natural arc. And with both of them I think gravity is pulling them down Carson is further in that descent. You look at Paris, you look at San Bernardino, its given a seriousness to this race, that people are looking for: Who is prepared to be a commander in chief? Who understands the threats we face? Who am I comfortable having their finger on the button? Now thats a question of strength, but its also a question of judgment. And I think that is a question that is a challenging question for both of them. So my approach, much to the frustration of the media has been to bear hug both of them, and smother them with love. People run as who they are. I believe gravity will bring both of those campaigns down, I think the lions share of their supporters come to us.”

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      December 13, 2015 at 1:12 am

      Cruz is crushing it in Iowa:
       
      [link=http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/12/12/big-shakeup-iowa-poll-cruz-soars-lead/77199800/]http://www.desmoinesregis…z-soars-lead/77199800/[/link]
       
      Up by 10% over Trump. Uh oh! Cruz control takes hold. I wonder if Trump is going to have a tizzy fit and say something stupid again.

      • Unknown Member

        Deleted User
        December 13, 2015 at 1:16 am

        Cruz/Fiorina or Cruz/Palin has a nice ring to it. It would drive progressives bat$h!t crazy.

        • Unknown Member

          Deleted User
          December 13, 2015 at 2:57 am

          Cruz is a climate change denier.

          Anyone who denies climate change is unfit to hold any public office.

          • btomba_77

            Member
            December 13, 2015 at 6:13 am

            Quote from SadRad

            Cruz is a climate change denier.

            Anyone who denies climate change is unfit to hold any public office.

            While that might feel good to say, in the US climate is just another polarized political issue… and one of pretty low voter intensity at that.
             
            Depending upon how the debate and coverage around the issue is framed he might get away with it (particularly in the “We’re gonna [b]win[/b] energy with hydrocarbons because America!”)   and because of the low priority it has with the American voter. 
             
             
            But it is just one more link in a chain of issues in which Ted Cruz is not just right of the American public, but even right of the mainstream of the GOP who have most part grudgingly acknowledged the existence of climate change but don’t want to do anything about it.
             

            • suyanebenevides_151

              Member
              December 14, 2015 at 9:16 am

              Ben Stein is another “denier” idiot, too, right? Another name calling trick by people who actually don’t have science behind them. That’s what is so ironic. Political consensus is more important than explaining fudged data and political bends all over the western world. How convenient.
               
              You guys are so into predictions, why don’t you ever roast Al Gore’s totally alarmist, mind-numbingly stupid predictions, most of which are beyond laughable already.
               
              Cruz has no chance in the general election. And he’s not a natural born citizen. But neither was Obama, so I guess that doesn’t matter anymore. Another reason why the Republican party is finished.

              • eyoab2011_711

                Member
                December 14, 2015 at 10:02 am

                Ben Stein has a science degree?  Buehler…Buehler…who to trust actual scientists or a right wing political operative..

                • suyanebenevides_151

                  Member
                  December 14, 2015 at 1:58 pm

                  I trust science. Right wing political operative? Ha!
                   
                  If you know science, you’d know AGW is a fraud.
                   
                  You trust politics.

  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    December 14, 2015 at 8:00 pm

    Trump stepped in it big time … again.  This time he pi$$ed off Limbaugh and Levin. He just lost all of the conservatives by going after Cruz and Antonin Scalia. Dumb move by Dump, taking on two icons of conservatism.  Hubris, the inevitable road to disaster.     
     
    What was it that Obi Wan Kenobi said to Darth Vader?
     
    “You can’t win Darth… If you stike me down, I shall come back more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”
    .

    • 100574

      Member
      December 14, 2015 at 8:56 pm

      Limbaugh is desperate to keep his angry white male audience and that’s why he sided with Trump versus FOX at the first debate
      like I said Mr. Trump may bring down Fox, Rush and the gop
      Rush not siding  with a -white male billionaire  won’t work with his audience because if think Obama is not a citizen then they sure won’t think Cruz is

      • suyanebenevides_151

        Member
        December 15, 2015 at 8:55 am

        Not too long ago neither of them was considered even a citizen and definitely Cruz, as I’ve demonstrated (Montana Supreme Court case 1961) so how could either be NBC? Of course they aren’t. Obama is showing why we have the clause in the first place, because he’s a confused individual bent on fundamentally changing America. He gambles with his own citizens life to make him feel worldly but he is dangerous and stupid. He is absolutely pro-muslim and anti-christian, no matter which way you look at it.  He should be immediately impeached, not only for directing people to subvert the Constitution (he swore to uphold it) but for endangering the citizens life he also swore to protect.

    • suyanebenevides_151

      Member
      December 15, 2015 at 8:56 am

      Quote from aldadoc

      Trump stepped in it big time … again.  This time he pi$$ed off Limbaugh and Levin. He just lost all of the conservatives by going after Cruz and Antonin Scalia. Dumb move by Dump, taking on two icons of conservatism.  Hubris, the inevitable road to disaster.     

      What was it that Obi Wan Kenobi said to Darth Vader?

      “You can’t win Darth… If you stike me down, I shall come back more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”
      .

       
      Your ineligible favorite will never win the general election, sadly. He’s another Texas throwback, snake oil salesman cartoon. Trump is the only hope. Or are you with the establishment that desires Hillary over Trump?
       
      I presume you aren’t because although ineligible, at least Cruz is respectable.

      • julie.young_645

        Member
        December 15, 2015 at 9:49 am

        Please outline why you think Cruz is ineligible…

        • kaldridgewv2211

          Member
          December 15, 2015 at 9:59 am

          For Pete’s sake he’s a Canuck, don’t you know.  When he orders a coffee he asks for a double-double.

        • suyanebenevides_151

          Member
          December 15, 2015 at 10:01 am

          I have in other threads with significant supporting history as well as case law. If you desire that I repeat it, I will, because I feel it is important. It’s just that to be comprehensive it will take a bit of effort, beyond the fact that he wasn’t born here, which has always been known as immediate disqualification particularly with alien parentage. Otherwise why was Obama’s BC such a big deal? Because they knew that minimally you have to be born here, especially when you have a father that was never a citizen, not even a permanent resident (and Cruz’s dad wasn’t even close to that!)

          • julie.young_645

            Member
            December 15, 2015 at 11:35 am

            The case was different for Obama. Because Stanley, his American citizen mother, was under 18 when lil’ Barack was born, AND his father was NOT a US citizen, during that particular time, HAD he been born outside the US, he would NOT be a citizen. See the rules below. Stanley had lived in the US for less than 4 years past age 14 when the blessed event occurred. 
             
            Cruz’s mother was a U.S citizen who had lived in the US for over 5 years past age 14, which makes lil’ Ted a US citizen. 
             
            Here’s the pertinent information:
            [blockquote]  
            [h3]Child Born Between December 24, 1952, and November 13, 1986[/h3] If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the U.S., you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship, with no other conditions for keeping it. If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the U.S. for at least ten years, and at least five of those years must have been after your parent reached the age of 14.
            [/blockquote]  
            So if you have some information about Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, that contradicts this, please share. 
             

            • Unknown Member

              Deleted User
              December 15, 2015 at 11:50 am

              Birthers turning on each other

              Time t get the popcorn

              • julie.young_645

                Member
                December 15, 2015 at 12:01 pm

                Hey, I ain’t no birther!  It is pretty clear that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. But….HAD he NOT been, then he wouldn’t be a citizen. His situation differs from that of Ted Cruz. 

                • suyanebenevides_151

                  Member
                  December 16, 2015 at 10:47 am

                  Quote from DoctorDalai

                  Hey, I ain’t no birther!  It is pretty clear that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. But….HAD he NOT been, then he wouldn’t be a citizen. His situation differs from that of Ted Cruz. 

                   
                  You guys are still missing the point. Article 2 calls for a natural born citizen, president and vice president. Congressmen [i][b]do not have to be[/b][/i] natural born citizens. They just have to be citizens. That certain laws made certain men at certain times “citizens” is the case. That proves my point, though, if you just think about it: If you need a law to make you a citizen, you can never be a natural born citizen.
                   
                  Most of us on this board didn’t need one. I don’t know everyone’s particulars, but I’m willing to bet that most of us were born to citizen parents at our births in the USA. This is the most likely case, with us there is NO doubt whatsoever regarding the class we are in.
                   
                  We are Natural Born Citizens. Those that need laws to make them “citizens” (read: not mutable with NBC, totally different), as I have shown even in just a short time here, are not [i]Natural Born Citizens[/i].
                   
                  It really is that simple. logical and intuitive.

                  • eyoab2011_711

                    Member
                    December 16, 2015 at 12:04 pm

                    What is your definition of natural born citizen?  Doesn’t every set of parents in the past need to be “natural born”? How much “unnatural blood is to be tolerated? Can someone be natural born if the parents are “unnatural” citizen’s?  Is it like a negative-two unnaturals= natural but if mixed then remains unnatural?

                    • suyanebenevides_151

                      Member
                      December 16, 2015 at 12:59 pm

                      No, quite simply. You are creating that out of thin air.
                       
                      My definition is two citizen parents at the time of birth, without a geographical claim (monarchical, which doesn’t exist really anymore) on the child. Very simple.

                    • julie.young_645

                      Member
                      December 16, 2015 at 1:10 pm

                      I’m sorry, Cigar, but you are the one creating definitions this time. Drop it. 
                       
                      [link=http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/]http://harvardlawreview.o…-natural-born-citizen/[/link]
                      [blockquote] 
                      The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to a natural born Citizen. (U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.) All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase [b]natural born Citizen[/b] has a specific meaning: namely, [b]someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.[/b] And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.
                      While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a[b] natural born Citizen means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings[/b]. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law. [i]See[/i] Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). and enactments of the First Congress.4×4. [i]See[/i] Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888). Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase natural born Citizen includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
                       
                      [/blockquote]

                    • kaldridgewv2211

                      Member
                      December 16, 2015 at 2:25 pm

                      there in lies the problem.  It’s about how someone interprets the constitution and not actual what it says in the constitution.  It doesn’t define natural born.  Time for some amendments.

                    • julie.young_645

                      Member
                      December 17, 2015 at 8:38 am

                      I think we can probably trust Harvard Law on this one. Maybe not on some other things… Like whom they allow to be head of the Law Review…

                    • suyanebenevides_151

                      Member
                      December 17, 2015 at 9:41 am

                      Yes, DICOM.
                       
                      Dalai, you keep going back to this random (non-authoritative) Harvard Law review garbage. Why? It supports your position.
                       
                      I’m not creating anything. It is standard Constitutional interpretation that terms in the Constitution mean something, even beyond clear context; you can’t just substitute them at your will and expect other people to buy it.
                       
                      The greatest example of this is the 14th Amendment, which is not about natural born citizenship, in fact it’s about citizenship of slaves.[b]Still[/b], it explicitly [i][b]does not[/b][/i] talk about “Natural Born Citizens” but rather just citizens, a class of people as I already described are constitutionally separate from Natural Born citizens in article 2 re: Congressional qualification and Presidential qualification.
                       
                      When Wong Kim Ark was considered a citizen, they had to use the 14th amendment even in its own interpretation to declare him so. When Virginia Minor in 1875 desired the right to vote (don’t go off on a tangent, we are talking just citizenship here), the 14th had been passed but the invocation of the 14th was UNNECESSARY for Minor.
                       
                      Why? She was known to be a citizen “born in the United States of citizen [b]parents[/b]” which makes her a different class of citizen from that described in the 14th, on so many levels — the most important of which is that she is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
                       
                      This cinches my argument, supports every detail I have described, and makes it clear once and for all what the defintion of a natural born citizen is:
                       
                      One born of citizen parents (plural) owing no contradictory allegiance to any foreign power.
                       
                      When you are born in Canada to an alien father, there is no doubt, you have contradictory allegiances, by definition. That person (Cruz in this example) is so disqualified, it’s a joke that people even bring it up. Just 10-20 years ago, and as recentlly as Obama birth certificate BS, the common understanding was a foreign born person, and definitely one without a citizen father, was clearly ineligible.
                       
                      I’ve thought long and hard on this and my supports, as described above, are sound.
                       

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      December 17, 2015 at 9:49 am

                      The Harvard Review article is currently the definitive analytical interpretation of who qualifies as a “natural born” citizen. If there was ever a challenge, it would carry the day. The definition was left purposefully vague as written in order to make contingencies for Americans serving abroad.  Cigar is fighting windmills on this one. 
                       
                      What’s the matter Cigar, hearing Cruz footsteps behind Trump?

  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    December 16, 2015 at 7:37 am

    Alternate history discussion, “had he not been…”
     
    Had the GOP platform not been so full of fantasy like Birtherism, et al, there might be some small nuggets of actual reality there.
     
    Alternate present history. The problem is that you can’t winnow out the nonsense chaff from the reality because the chaff are the issues being discussed & what motivates the GOP base.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    December 31, 2015 at 2:53 pm

    National Review: [link=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429110/huckabee-santorum-cruz-rubio-iowa]Huckabee and Santorum supporters considering an anti-Cruz (and Pro-Rubio) alliance using evangelical voters[/link] 

    To a concerned and angry bunch of Iowa Republicans, their mission heading into next months caucuses is as simple as ABC: [b]Anybody But Cruz[/b].  As the Texas senator solidifies his front-runner status with just over a month to go before the February 1 caucuses, a loose network of social-conservative activists has undertaken a quiet effort to defeat him by any means necessary even if that means rallying together behind a more electable rival to their own preferred candidates. 

    Many supporters of Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, the last two winners of Iowas Republican presidential contests, are grappling with a pair of grim realities as the 2016 caucuses approach. Not only have their candidates been stuck in the low single digits for months in Iowa, but they also view Cruz, the new front-runner, as a phony opportunist who has pandered to Evangelicals for political gain, particularly in Iowa. And they fear that if Cruz notches a win in the Hawkeye State especially if he does so by a wide margin, which many Republicans now view as a distinct possibility he will emerge as the overwhelming favorite to capture the nomination.  

    These assumptions have led to a pair of common conclusions: First, that preventing Cruz from winning Iowa is more important than promoting their own preferred candidates. And second, that if the only way to accomplish that is by throwing their support to another candidate, it should be Marco Rubio. 

     

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      December 31, 2015 at 3:05 pm

      Yuck and Santorum are yesterday’s news. They need to get out of the way.

      Ted Cruz is going to win the GOP nomination. The conservative wing of the party is the most energized. Cruz has broken through the “unelectable” meme. He has the best organization and the most grassroots support. He’s finally getting the respect he deserves.

      I can see Cruz winning Iowa, making a good showing in New Hampshire and South Carolona and then runnimg the table on the SEC primaries. After Trump’s invincibility shield gets pierced.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    January 5, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    Took a while …
    Trump plays birther card on Ted Cruz

    [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-cruzs-canadian-birth-could-be-very-precarious-for-gop/2016/01/05/5ce69764-b3f8-11e5-9388-466021d971de_story.htm]Trump says Cruzs Canadian birth could be very precarious for GOP[/url]

    Donald Trump said in an interview that rival Ted Cruzs Canadian birthplace was a very precarious issue that could make the senator from Texas vulnerable if he became the Republican presidential nominee.

    Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years? Thatd be a big problem, Trump said when asked about the topic. Itd be a very precarious one for Republicans because hed be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You dont want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.

    Trump added: Id hate to see something like that get in his way. But a lot of people are talking about it and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly, the fact that he was born in Canada and he has had a double passport.

  • 100574

    Member
    January 5, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    Trump has astutely noted that Cruz hides his hand/does a Napoleon Bonaparte thing during the national anthem and Cruz was born in Canada(  as Trump would say he is other and the GOP will snicker like they did with President Obama

    Quote from dergon

    Took a while …
    Trump plays birther card on Ted Cruz

    [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-cruzs-canadian-birth-could-be-very-precarious-for-gop/2016/01/05/5ce69764-b3f8-11e5-9388-466021d971de_story.htm]Trump says Cruzs Canadian birth could be very precarious for GOP[/link]

    Donald Trump said in an interview that rival Ted Cruzs Canadian birthplace was a very precarious issue that could make the senator from Texas vulnerable if he became the Republican presidential nominee.

    Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years? Thatd be a big problem, Trump said when asked about the topic. Itd be a very precarious one for Republicans because hed be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You dont want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.

    Trump added: Id hate to see something like that get in his way. But a lot of people are talking about it and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly, the fact that he was born in Canada and he has had a double passport.

    • 100574

      Member
      January 5, 2016 at 9:24 pm

      President Obama has his hand  exposed

      • 100574

        Member
        January 5, 2016 at 9:26 pm

        all the dems have their hand exposed during the national anthem

        • 100574

          Member
          January 5, 2016 at 9:28 pm

          but Cruz hides his hand so that he is not really respecting the national anthem and gives us Napoleon
          GOP u reap what you sow

          • Unknown Member

            Deleted User
            January 5, 2016 at 10:44 pm

            What a bunch of crap! Is that all you got. You could make the case that his hand is closer to his heart…a good thing.

            • 100574

              Member
              January 5, 2016 at 11:21 pm

              you know it looks bad…at each debate he does it..it’s his finger to America as the Obama birthers would say( or they would say he ain’t American..he is not one of us..he is other.. a double agent)

              Quote from aldadoc

              What a bunch of crap! Is that all you got. You could make the case that his hand is closer to his heart…a good thing.

              • Unknown Member

                Deleted User
                January 6, 2016 at 5:24 am

                I did notice that when its originally happened

                I thought it was just Cruz being his creepy self

                Never tied it to the Napoleon thing

                Good call

                • kaldridgewv2211

                  Member
                  January 6, 2016 at 6:47 am

                  could it be because of Napoleon wearing some weird coat from that era that is buttoned together over the chest?

                • 100574

                  Member
                  January 6, 2016 at 8:02 am

                  Trump is on target..Cruz is other and he has been given a pass while sticking it to us during our national anthem…to play devil’s advocate some may say he is a Canadian spy

                  Quote from kpack123

                  I did notice that when its originally happened

                  I thought it was just Cruz being his creepy self

                  Never tied it to the Napoleon thing

                  Good call

                  • suyanebenevides_151

                    Member
                    January 6, 2016 at 10:22 am

                    Trump is a genius
                     
                    He’s gonna win, Cigar will have his day.
                     
                    It’s obvious. Fess up now and I’ll be less brutal when that day comes.

  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    January 6, 2016 at 11:12 am

    Trump is a thin skinned trust fund baby
     
    He is going to lose by 6-8 pts nationally if he it makes it out of the republican primaries

    • 100574

      Member
      January 6, 2016 at 2:36 pm

      Cruz is being slippery with this …he left Canada at 4 so why did he wait until 2014 to renounce his Canadian citizenship(to play devil’s advocate one may say that he was receiving double agent training up until that time)
      it will be interesting if the other candidates demand in the next debate that he expose his hand during the National Anthem

      • btomba_77

        Member
        January 6, 2016 at 3:59 pm

        Ted Cruz’ responds to Trump’s attack… by meekly blaming “the media”
         
        Listen, with all respect, our good friends here in the media are playing into the Democrats play book. How about we talk about the real challenges facing this country?
         
        I tweeted out a response to Donald Trumps raising questions about my natural-born citizenship. It was a link to Fonzie jumping the shark and I think Im going to let my response stick with that tweet. One of the things that media loves to do is gaze at their navels for hours on end by a tweet from Donald Trump or me or anyone else, lets focus on the issues that matter.
         

        • kaldridgewv2211

          Member
          January 7, 2016 at 7:22 am

          He also wants the Canadian KeyStone pipeline.  So is he furthering the Canadian agenda?

          • 100574

            Member
            January 7, 2016 at 7:29 am

            Mccain:-Cruz eligibility is worth looking into

          • 100574

            Member
            January 7, 2016 at 7:30 am

            amen..a spy some would say and Canada has just filed a law suit for the pipeline
             

            Quote from DICOM_Dan

            He also wants the Canadian KeyStone pipeline.  So is he furthering the Canadian agenda?

            • Unknown Member

              Deleted User
              January 7, 2016 at 8:51 am

              This is a non-issue.  You are either a natural born citizen at birth or you have to be naturalized to become a citizen. The mere fact of your mother being an American citizen endows you  a “natural born citizen” status at birth. That means that you do not have to apply for American citizenship, because you are born a citizen. 
               
              I’m glad the issue is coming up now, because it will be gone in about two weeks. Trump must be feeling the pressure.

              • eyoab2011_711

                Member
                January 7, 2016 at 9:36 am

                I don’t think it as clear as Alda thinks it is from the legal perspective…from a common sense perspective I think the child of a US citizen ought to be able to run for the Presidency as long as they are a resident of the US and Cruz falls in this category.  In reality Rubio has the fuzzier case, since neither of his parents were US citizens when he was born

                • julie.young_645

                  Member
                  January 7, 2016 at 9:55 am

                  See my comments to Cigar. The very same statutes that would have made Mr. Obama ineligible had he NOT been born in the US DO make Mr. Cruz eligible. ‘Nuff said.

                  • Unknown Member

                    Deleted User
                    January 7, 2016 at 10:03 am

                    Republicans flip flopping on the birther issue
                     
                    Too funny

                    • suyanebenevides_151

                      Member
                      January 7, 2016 at 2:18 pm

                      Quote from kpack123

                      Republicans flip flopping on the birther issue

                      Too funny

                       
                      Most are doing the Dem thing of different standards for themselves vs. others on this issue, no doubt. I never have. The republicans are supposed to have principles … but isn’t that what the ousting of them is all about?
                       
                      My point of view, like Trump’s, has traction and continues to get more momentum because it is the truth.

                    • 100574

                      Member
                      January 7, 2016 at 2:38 pm

                      and Trump is tapping GOP on the shoulder of potential lawsuit he could bring if not treated well because as a candidate he would have legal standing to bring suit…is Rubio an anchor baby

                      Quote from Cigar

                      Quote from kpack123

                      Republicans flip flopping on the birther issue

                      Too funny

                      Most are doing the Dem thing of different standards for themselves vs. others on this issue, no doubt. I never have. The republicans are supposed to have principles … but isn’t that what the ousting of them is all about?

                      My point of view, like Trump’s, has traction and continues to get more momentum because it is the truth.

                    • julie.young_645

                      Member
                      January 7, 2016 at 4:32 pm

                      Cigar, you are dead wrong about this. Let it go.

                    • 100574

                      Member
                      January 7, 2016 at 8:10 pm

                      this is not a settled matter Mr. Cruz who has denounced the supreme court. Need a Supreme court ruling because what if a person born in the district of Columbia with parents who were born in DC wanted to run for President.

                    • suyanebenevides_151

                      Member
                      January 8, 2016 at 7:41 am

                      Quote from sentinel lymph node

                      this is not a settled matter Mr. Cruz who has denounced the supreme court. Need a Supreme court ruling because what if a person born in the district of Columbia with parents who were born in DC wanted to run for President.

                       
                      A great example I give is the minimalist retard position of the new age “I don’t care about the US Constitution” version 14th amendment. It goes like this:
                       
                      Two mexican nationals, natural born citizens of Mexico with no allegiance to the United States, jump the border. Better yet, just the mom does. She bears a child in the US. He returns to Mexico and lives his adolescence entirely there, until let’s say, age 21.
                       
                      Senor NBC then returns to the USA, lives 14 years, and is now 35 (the other two presidential requirements).
                       
                      If people think that this situation has produced a natural born citizen eligible for the presidency, it proves that that person has no knowledge of the Constitution or any sort of historical law.
                       
                      I can’t fathom anyone saying that such a person is eligible. It exposes the idiocy of so-called “birthright citizenship” (only NBC have it) and corrupted interpretations of the 14th amendment, which is clearly [b]not[/b] about that (misconstrued) idea.

                    • julie.young_645

                      Member
                      January 8, 2016 at 1:19 pm

                      Here’s what I wrote before, and I am satisfied that it is accurate and Cruz is eligible. And that Obama was also eligible assuming he WAS born in the US. Remember, it was Obama [i]himself[/i] who blabbed that he was born in Kenya in that press release for his book years ago. 
                       
                      [image]http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/AE2113BE67D84D089015B1590922AA96.png[/image]
                       
                      [blockquote] The case was different for Obama. Because Stanley, his American citizen mother, was under 18 when lil’ Barack was born, AND his father was NOT a US citizen, during that particular time, HAD he been born outside the US, he would NOT be a citizen. See the rules below. Stanley had lived in the US for less than 4 years past age 14 when the blessed event occurred.  
                        
                      Cruz’s mother was a U.S citizen who had lived in the US for over 5 years past age 14, which makes lil’ Ted a US citizen.  
                        
                      Here’s the pertinent information: 
                        
                      [h3]Child Born Between December 24, 1952, and November 13, 1986[/h3] If at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the U.S., you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship, with no other conditions for keeping it. If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the U.S. for at least ten years, and at least five of those years must have been after your parent reached the age of 14. 
                        
                      So if you have some information about Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, that contradicts this, please share. 
                       
                      [/blockquote]

                    • kaldridgewv2211

                      Member
                      January 8, 2016 at 1:42 pm

                      Ted Cruz didn’t renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014.  He also wants to further the Canadian Big Oil agenda.  He never talks about building a wall on the Canadian border.  Conspiracy? 🙂  

                    • suyanebenevides_151

                      Member
                      January 8, 2016 at 2:19 pm

                      You are using US Code to determine what a citizen is, Dalai. Neither Cruz nor Obama are natural born citizens for the reasons I have described, regardless of generational (US Code, random law) details.
                       
                      For this reason, you won’t answer my clear example of the “birthright citzenship” because it makes no sense to call that person an NBC, nor does it make any sense to call Cruz one, or Obama one, both based on some IF-IF-IF by this date.
                       
                      Neither you nor I have to do any of that IF and conditional mental masturbation. Why?
                       
                      We are natural born citizens, born to citizen parents at the time of our birth, in the United States.
                       
                      For us, there is no doubt what our natural citizenship is, and to whom our allegiance is. For us, there never has been doubt. But as quoted above in Minor v. Happersett, there always has been to those that you want so desperately to include, and in the process, you make a mockery of our constitution.

                    • suyanebenevides_151

                      Member
                      January 8, 2016 at 2:20 pm

                      Obama himself is a confused individual, he likely doesn’t know the true history of his birth. He does know that his birth certificates were both fabrications, though, created out of circumstantial evidence at best, not real evidence. He also knows that his social security number is not his own, originally, being that it originated in CT. And no, at no time until the latter Obama presidency years in which we found out through a freak, idiotic redacting error what his SSN was, did anyone ever have the first 3 digits from a place that was not their home. They changed the public service announcement about this precisely when his SSN was found to be totally inexplicable. 

                    • jessicasmoon90_0604

                      Member
                      January 8, 2016 at 3:19 pm

                      “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
                      – Bertrand Russell

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      January 9, 2016 at 6:18 am

                      [b]He also knows that his social security number is not his own, originally, being that it originated in CT. And no, at no time until the latter Obama presidency years in which we found out through a freak, idiotic redacting error what his SSN was, did anyone ever have the first 3 digits from a place that was not their home. They changed the public service announcement about this precisely when his SSN was found to be totally inexplicable.[/b]
                       
                       
                      Today we get our social security numbers at birth, but before 1986 this was not mandatory.  Frequently people waited until they started working or higher education until they got their SS numbers and could apply for one anywhere.  Many times people were given Duplicate numbers.
                       
                      It actually happened to my Brother in the Mid 1970’s
                       
                      Maybe he was not born in this country either?  although Im pretty darn sure he was

                    • eyoab2011_711

                      Member
                      January 9, 2016 at 2:29 pm

                      The beauty of Cigar is he simply makes up his own definitions and assumes that to be the end of discussion

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      January 10, 2016 at 5:24 am

                      RE Obama’s SS#:
                       
                      [link=http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp]http://www.snopes.com/pol…obama/birthers/ssn.asp[/link]
                       
                      Here’s the opposite view from one of your favorite sites, Dalai:
                       
                      [link=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/09/a_possible_explanation_for_obamas_connecticut_social_security_number.html]http://www.americanthinke…l_security_number.html[/link]
                       
                      In the end I agree with steppenwolf’s post & add my own paraphrasing from Macbeth:
                       

                       “[i]A Birther i[/i]s” a poor player
                      That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
                      And then is heard no more. It is a tale
                      Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
                      Signifying nothing.

                      It has never been for Obama to prove his bona fides, it is for those raising the question to prove their lies.

                      As for Cruz, so far it looks like established law is in his favor. Except for his Birthers. 
                       
                      But:
                       
                      [link=http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/ted-cruzs-presidential-eligibility/]http://www.factcheck.org/…sidential-eligibility/[/link]
                       

                      Indeed, the [link=http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/1%20stat%20103.pdf]Naturalization Act of 1790[/link], passed three years after the [link=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf]U.S. Constitution was written[/link], said that the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.
                       
                      But as the [link=http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf]CRS pointed out in its report[/link], the 1790 law was superseded by the [link=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=538]Naturalization Act of 1795[/link], which changed the language from natural born citizens to just citizens.
                       
                      So there is still some lingering uncertainty about Cruzs eligibility. Thats because the Supreme Court hasnt ruled on the meaning of natural born citizen, which the Constitution doesnt define.
                       
                      This is not the first time that a Republican presidential candidate faced such questions. [link=http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/john-mccains-presidential-eligibility/]As we have written before[/link], John McCain, who was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born to U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone, and Barry Goldwater, who was the partys nominee in 1964, was born to U.S. citizens in Arizona before it was a state. George Romney, who was born to U.S. citizens in Mexico, ran for president in 1968, but did not win the nomination.
                       
                      Even Duggin, who [link=http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/10/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen-eligible-to-serve-as-president/]wrote in her 2013 article[/link] that a scholarly consensus is emerging that anyone who acquires citizenship at birth is natural born for purposes of Article II, acknowledges that the issue may not be settled.

                      In the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling or a constitutional amendment the parameters of the clause remain uncertain, she wrote.

                       
                       
                      This is getting to be real fun with Cruz as the target now. One more example of the crazies in the GOP with their crazy issues. Unless the Conservative Supremes somehow rule against Cruz. Not likely since he’s not a Democrat.
                       
                       

                    • suyanebenevides_151

                      Member
                      January 11, 2016 at 9:07 am

                      Quote from sentinel lymph node

                      this is not a settled matter Mr. Cruz who has denounced the supreme court. Need a Supreme court ruling because what if a person born in the district of Columbia with parents who were born in DC wanted to run for President.

                       
                      Yes, the problem is also that SCOTUS doesn’t have to take cases. Clarence Thomas said straight up on CSPAN that they were “evading” the issue.
                       
                      Such a bad precedent has been set (Obama and now potentially Cruz) I don’t know if they can even be objective about the law.
                       
                      There is one thing that is certain, at least I’ll say and no one can disagree (SCOTUS has said this before):  A person born to two citizen parents at the time of birth, born in the country, is a “natural born citizen.”
                       
                      To other situations, there is clearly doubt.

                  • suyanebenevides_151

                    Member
                    January 7, 2016 at 2:15 pm

                    Quote from DoctorDalai

                    See my comments to Cigar. The very same statutes that would have made Mr. Obama ineligible had he NOT been born in the US DO make Mr. Cruz eligible. ‘Nuff said.

                     
                    See my response to alda and Dalai who are and have been wrong on this issue entirely. Notice how I’m the only consistent one, too, as another poster above complains.
                     
                    Alda is wrong and never has explained why the SCOTUS ruled in 1961 that someone like Cruz (foreign father, US citizen mother) born in another country, [b][i]was not even a citizen at birth[/i][/b]. 
                     
                    Just to prove the most obvious and weird double standard going, the Obama birthplace issue was a big deal precisely because everyone “knew” that you had to be born here to be “natural born citizen”. Now all of a sudden they are forgetting why the birther issue was even big, at all? It’s the definition of weirdness and madness all at the same time.
                     
                    A citizen at birth is one made one by LAW. It is not a “natural born citizen.” Never has been.
                     
                    The quickest explanation is that if you need a law to make you a citizen (US Code or the 14th amendment, which just says “citizen” anyway), you are NOT a “natural born citizen.”
                     
                    People like me, like most of you and like most of us in this country, were born to citizen parents IN the United State of America. As Minor vs. Happersett said, for us “there has never been any doubt whatsoever to our citizenship.”
                     
                    To all the others, there always has. That’s why they are not natural born citizens. Any way you look at it, our citizenship is natural, not made by law after the fact (which all the other types are).
                     
                    I cannot be more clear than the above. Open your minds.

                • 100574

                  Member
                  January 7, 2016 at 11:36 am

                  agree with Christy, the little boy Rubio is trying to slime his way to POTUS–neither of his parents were citizens.  Mccain had both parents who were us citizens and he was born on a US territory.  The little boy had new pumps on the other day to give him extra height
                  and u guys should thank me for exposing Teddy’s hiding his hand while he is secretly singing OH Canada during the national anthem

                  Quote from Thor

                  I don’t think it as clear as Alda thinks it is from the legal perspective…from a common sense perspective I think the child of a US citizen ought to be able to run for the Presidency as long as they are a resident of the US and Cruz falls in this category.  In reality Rubio has the fuzzier case, since neither of his parents were US citizens when he was born

                  • Unknown Member

                    Deleted User
                    January 7, 2016 at 12:11 pm

                    Hahahahaha  Rubio 5ft4in in high heels
                     
                    take those boots off and Lil Marco is topping the charts at about 5ft even

                    • kaldridgewv2211

                      Member
                      January 7, 2016 at 12:23 pm

                      like the man wrote.  If you want to immigrate to the US, do the decent thing and be Cuban in the 1950s.

                    • 100574

                      Member
                      January 7, 2016 at 12:49 pm

                      and Rubio has already flip flopped thru several religions…remember at one time he was a mormon

              • Unknown Member

                Deleted User
                January 24, 2016 at 2:37 am

                Aladoc, there is no way Cruz is gonna win. He is despised by people in his own party. Republicans such as Bob Dole, George W Bush and Governor Branstad of Iowa have all gone on record and called Cruz an ****. Can’t get any more direct than that. If you really are a conservative, I don’t even know why you would want Cruz. He won’t be able to get anything done, the libs will rev up the attack machine and then some libitard will sweep to victory in 2020. 
                 
                Second, Cruz is just butt ugly. With that hawk nose and those huge jowls, I cannot stand to even look at the guy. Add to that his nasal voice and I just have to hit mute when he comes on the tele or radio. Human nature tells us that the president needs to be someone we can look at day in and day out without barfing. Cruz does not pass the barf test. 
                 
                 
                [link=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/jeb-bush-george-bush-donors-ted-cruz-214933]http://www.politico.com/s…donors-ted-cruz-214933[/link]
                [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/08/bob-dole-really-really-doesnt-like-ted-cruz/]https://www.washingtonpos…-doesnt-like-ted-cruz/[/link]

                • ruszja

                  Member
                  January 24, 2016 at 6:11 am

                  As we have now gotten to arguing his looks, I am increasingly certain that he will win.

                  • btomba_77

                    Member
                    January 24, 2016 at 6:58 am

                    Cruz gets the coveted Glenn Beck endorsement.

                    The world is ending! Buy gold!

                  • Unknown Member

                    Deleted User
                    January 24, 2016 at 3:41 pm

                    Quote from fw

                    As we have now gotten to arguing his looks, I am increasingly certain that he will win.

                     
                    fw, if you think physical appearance has no bearing on presidential elections, you are totally wrong. 
                     
                    [link=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-look-of-a-winner/]http://www.scientificamer…/the-look-of-a-winner/[/link]

  • xavivillagran_893

    Member
    January 7, 2016 at 10:55 am

    Quote from sentinel lymph node

    Trump is on target..Cruz is other and he has been given a pass while sticking it to us during our national anthem…to play devil’s advocate some may say he is a Canadian spy

    Quote from kpack123

    I did notice that when its originally happened

    I thought it was just Cruz being his creepy self

    Never tied it to the Napoleon thing

    Good call

    Dammit. SNL, you figured out our nefarious plot. We Canadians are bent on taking over the US….Um, well, just the southern states…Ummm, well, just in the winter. Just wait, pretty soon our tank will be rolling across the Windsor-Detroit bridge. That is, if it will hold the weight of the WWII vintage Cruiser. Would you like me to post the words to “Oh Canada” so you can blend in?? Heil Trudeau.

  • suyanebenevides_151

    Member
    January 8, 2016 at 7:36 am

    Quote from DoctorDalai

    Cigar, you are dead wrong about this. Let it go.

     
    Yet you can’t explain why the Obama issue was a “big deal” (still is, imo) which crucifies cruz here (no pun intended). Also, you can’t explain why the SCOTUS in Montana v Kennedy 1961 declared the exact same situation of Cruz [b][i]as not even being a citizen.[/i][/b]
     
    While there may be some nuances to NBC, it is unfathomable that the SCOTUS in 1961 wouldn’t call Cruz a citizen and you think he should be a natural born citizen. That’s akin to calling them retards, just off the base so much they had no training whatsoever.
     
    You and I are clearly different citizens than Cruz is. Will you at least admit that much? The circumstances of our citizenship are totally different. That’s for Obama, too, which is also why the bad precedent of “I don’t care as long as it’s my guy” has been set.

  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    January 10, 2016 at 6:37 am

    I’m still wondering where the hello cigars dumbarse social security argument came from

    Everyone knows the fed system of SS numbers was very flawed before it became computerized in the 80’s

    To make that type of argument is just for stupid conspiracy types……aka cigar

    • julie.young_645

      Member
      January 10, 2016 at 7:39 am

      Please go back and see post 88 above.
       
      The “birther” debate was started by Mr. Obama’s own publicity that he was foreign-born. So you can berate the “birthers” all you wish (I’m not one, by the way) but they made the mistake of believing what Mr. Obama himself said. Which the rest of you continue to do daily. 

      • kayla.meyer_144

        Member
        January 10, 2016 at 8:26 am

        That entry is dated 1991, but the NYTimes posted in an article from 1990 that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is much ado about nothing. You claim Obama made the statement to his publicity but the NYTimes already “outed” Obama as a US citizen born in Hawaii.
         
        [link=http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html]http://www.nytimes.com/19…vard-s-law-review.html[/link]
        [/h6]

        By FOX BUTTERFIELD, Special to The New York Times[/h6] Published: February 6, 1990[/h6] [b]BOSTON, Feb. 5 [/b]The Harvard Law Review, generally considered the most prestigious in the country, elected the first black president in its 104-year history today. The job is considered the highest student position at Harvard Law School. 
        The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago’s South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. [b]Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.[/b]

         
         

        • julie.young_645

          Member
          January 10, 2016 at 10:09 am

          I don’t care if the NYT declared Mr. Obama the Grand PooBah, born on the Moon to aliens. It doesn’t change what [i]Mr. Obama and his own literary agents [/i]said the next year. Stop trying to distract everyone from that.
           
          Let me say it more clearly:
           
          [size=”5″]MR. OBAMA HIMSELF DECLARED THAT HE WAS BORN IN KENYA IN THE PRESS RELEASE ABOVE.[/size]
           
          Maybe that was a ploy to make him seem more exotic and help sell books. Only he knows the answer to that one. 

          • btomba_77

            Member
            January 10, 2016 at 10:25 am

            All I know is that I am loving the GOP circular firing squad that is escalating over the last few weeks.
             
            I’ve been flipping through the morning shows today … it’s all GOP candidates and their surrogates defending themselves from other GOP attacks and/or bashing at other Republicans.
             
            I especially like seeing McCain pile on Cruz for no obvious reason.  He must hate that guy big time.
             
            Good times. Good for the democrats. 🙂

        • 100574

          Member
          January 10, 2016 at 4:32 pm

          you can’t believe everything in writing…google Rubio’s height and u get 5 10  which is clearly false…I am taller than he

          Quote from Frumious

          That entry is dated 1991, but the NYTimes posted in an article from 1990 that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is much ado about nothing. You claim Obama made the statement to his publicity but the NYTimes already “outed” Obama as a US citizen born in Hawaii.

          [link=http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html]http://www.nytimes.com/19…vard-s-law-review.html[/link]

          By FOX BUTTERFIELD, Special to The New York Times Published: February 6, 1990 [b]BOSTON, Feb. 5 [/b]The Harvard Law Review, generally considered the most prestigious in the country, elected the first black president in its 104-year history today. The job is considered the highest student position at Harvard Law School. 
          The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago’s South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. [b]Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.[/b]

          • 100574

            Member
            January 10, 2016 at 5:00 pm

            yes the front page of Huffington post highlights Teddy’s hidden hand move during the national anthem

            • suyanebenevides_151

              Member
              January 11, 2016 at 9:02 am

              Trump will be the nominee, it doesn’t matter anyway, but Cruz is clearly not a natural born citizen. You guys talk about “certainty” and try to get fancy with quotes from interesting people, [b]but you never deal with the argument at hand[/b]. That’s how I know objectively you’ve been exposed and have no counter to a real argument.
               
              These are facts:
              1. As Dalai says, Obama has himself claimed to be born in Kenya – that presser went unchanged, btw, for 17 years. How is that other people’s fault or their “conspiracy”?
              2. He has claimed to be born at Queens Medical Center and Kapiolani Hospital before the birther thing started = more confusion.
              3. The first certification of live birth was a forgery, submitted and created online by the Daily Kos, then changed and sent around the internet more.
              4. The second Certificate of Live Birth (the supposed real birth certificate) is a composite form which is layered and clearly a forgery. I can prove again by Obama’s own words that it’s a forgery, too.
              5. The SSN he has is for people from Connecticut, a place nowhere near any place he ever was, or even that close to Boston where his supposed father was (Bill O’Reilly had a segment on his show trying to explain this and straight up lied that it was connected to the Harvard address of Barack Sr., just weird sh*t entirely).
               
              He won’t release his college transcripts, which show he claimed to be a foreign student (that’s been obvious for some time), which is clear given the fact that he claimed to be born in Kenya – then he releases 2 fake birth certificates, has a CT SSN … and we’re not supposed to be somewhat suspicious?
               
              What are the odds that a person who has a totally weird upbringing has like 10 anomalies (the selective service card is a total forgery too!) and we’re supposed to think it’s all a coincidence, with all of them being “solved and explained” when brought to light as he runs for President and then becomes president?
               
              If it weren’t a guy you guys were a shill for, this board would be exploding. Another fact.

      • Unknown Member

        Deleted User
        January 10, 2016 at 10:27 am

        [b]Please go back and see post 88 above. [/b]
         
        Dalai,
         
        If there was any legitimacy to the birthers claim we wold know it.  Personally I always thought it was a stupid right wing fantasy but that is beside the Point
         
        My Point…………… Cigar made a claim that Obama’s citizenship was in question by equating Todays Social Security  Standard to those standards that Existed 30-50 years ago.
         
        Before the SS was computerized many people not only had duplicate numbers but the method of obtaining a number was nearly random. Again My brother actually was given a number shared by several other people and he didnt find this out until a tax Audit in the 1990’s
         
        So my Point is Cigars Unequivocal unrivaled endo of story argument is……………………………… poop

  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    January 11, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    Cigar nwo can prove Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery
     
    Then go ahead………………… youd be a talk show hero and be able to retire early from speaking endorsements
     
     
    By all means do it
     
    WOW

    • suyanebenevides_151

      Member
      January 11, 2016 at 2:43 pm

      Have you read his book? The fact that I can prove it and no one listens just shows you that we do have a quasi state run media. I challenge anyone to dispute the point, if you promise to actually try to answer it or admit that you can’t defend Obama or counter its validity. Either way, I only post if you agree.

      • Unknown Member

        Deleted User
        January 11, 2016 at 3:00 pm

        There are 2 types of citizens:

        Natural born, who are citizens at the time of birth and who do not apply or go through the naturalization process; and

        Naturalized, people who are not born citizens and must later apply and be naturalized.

        Was Cruz a citizen from birth based on US law?

        If so he is a natural born citizen.

        • 100574

          Member
          January 11, 2016 at 8:49 pm

          Trump says the GOP would face legal challenges over Ted by the Dems but the same applies to anchor baby Rubio
          Lawrence Sellin:
          Marco Rubio was born in the US which makes him a US citizen.  His parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.  Therefore, Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen and not eligible for office of the President or Vice President

        • suyanebenevides_151

          Member
          January 12, 2016 at 9:11 am

          Can I show you why this is not true? There are several reasons, and all are constitutional.

          • eyoab2011_711

            Member
            January 12, 2016 at 10:35 am

            [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html]https://www.washingtonpos…84bc379b12d_story.html[/link]
             
            Here is a link supporting Cigar…the basic premise is you have to accept British 18th century common law…this is exactly why SCOTUS needs to clarify eligibility.  I suspect most believe as I do that someone who is a citizen at birth is eligible to run

            • suyanebenevides_151

              Member
              January 12, 2016 at 10:47 am

              Thank you for at least understanding the argument.
               
              Yes, SLN, Rubio (under what I consider to be NBC) is not a natural born citizen because I believe NBC is one born to two citizen parents in the USA (or on a military base that is a US possession, etc)

            • suyanebenevides_151

              Member
              January 12, 2016 at 10:50 am

              Quote from Thor

              [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html]https://www.washingtonpos…84bc379b12d_story.html[/link]

              Here is a link supporting Cigar…the basic premise is you have to accept British 18th century common law…this is exactly why SCOTUS needs to clarify eligibility.  I suspect most believe as I do that someone who is a citizen at birth is eligible to run

               
              This is also exactly what 14th Amendment “citizens” are, if you even want to ignore that fact that the 14th isn’t about anyone but black slaves who are NBC, and also that it says “citizen” not natural born citizen. Obama, if even born in the United States (which I think is debatable), is also a “naturalized” citizen at birth, IF his story is true.
               
              Neither was ever, nor is, a “Natural Born Citizen.”

              • suyanebenevides_151

                Member
                January 12, 2016 at 10:57 am

                Thor, it sounds as if you are open minded and not partisan, so consider 1 final thing, which absolutely proves my point:
                 
                The idea or term “Natural born citizen” existed BEFORE the 14th amendment was created/passed, right? That means that a LAW is making someone a citizen of the United States. So clearly, and especially since the 14th says ONLY “citizen” that person is TOO a naturalized citizen of the United States! He is NOT a natural born citizen, since this definition existed before and doesn’t require a law to make anyone a citizen!
                 
                Again, you and I don’t NEED a law to make us citizens, like all these US Codes or even a 14th amendment interpretation of which there are many. For us, there has never been a doubt that having been born to two citizen parents IN the USA, we are NBC.
                 
                It’s as sound and clear an argument as any you’ll read.
                 
                 

                • ruszja

                  Member
                  January 12, 2016 at 11:06 am

                  Let me get this right. To decide what is an NBC we have to apply 18th century common law, not US code. Yet when we decide what is considered ‘arms’ under the second amendment we argue that anything ‘in common use’ today is covered.

Page 1 of 4