Posted on 02/05/2016 8:45:30 AM PST by conservativejoy
Donald Trump, his aura of invincibility shattered by Iowa caucus voters he once called "stupid," is throwing a tantrum these days, convinced that Ted Cruz “cheated†and continues to maintain the untenable proposition that in any event he is a not eligible to be President of the United States.
Cruz did not cheat in Iowa. Cruz supporters may have indeed cited to supporters of Dr. Ben Carson CNN news reports and tweets that Carson was skipping New Hampshire and South Carolina, so draw your own conclusions, but where were the Carson president captains to shepherd their flock? If you're a serious presidential candidate, you don't leave Iowa to head to Florida to "change clothes"?
Ironically, the Carson Trump cites as a victim of Cruz dirty tricks, was once the main target of Trump's slash-and-burn rhetoric. Back when Carson was threatening Trump in the Iowa polls, Trump brutally attacked Carson. As the Boston Globe reported:
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, brushing aside any recent claims of civility, has equated Ben Carson's childhood 'pathological temper' to the illness of a child molester, questioned his religious awakening and berated voters who support him.
'How stupid are the people of Iowa?' declared Trump during a rally at Iowa Central Community College. 'How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?' For more than an hour and a half Thursday night, the billionaire real estate mogul harshly criticized not only Carson, but many of his other competitors in the race for the GOP presidential nomination...
Trump previewed his attack line in an interview with CNN Thursday in which the businessman pointed to Carson's own descriptions of his 'pathological temper' as a young man.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The “For cash, I fear” statement that I made upthread, takes a look at Cruz’ Cheap Labor Express donors, and the Cruz donations that run through the hands of the crony capitalists who pulling the strings in the US Senate, among its leadership.
Am I going to do your home work for you? No. I can not even post links on this PC of mine.
Sorry if you have been out of the loop, but I don’t post
$&!T, I post donor contributions and their special interests. Buy your own clue.
The laws, which Cruz says will be enforced, require any agency upon contact with a person here illegally is to report it to ICE. That means illegals will not be able to apply for welfare, get health care, enroll in school, apply for a job, get a drivers license, or any other kind of service without that agency or employer being required to notify ICE. Once that happens they are deported and under a President Cruz, they will not be allowed back into the country.
One of us isn’t paying attention Rita and since you are above providing proof to go with your statements i guess i’ll just have to look at your post as hollow opinions.
EXACTLY.
Cruz repeats ground that TRUMP has already covered.
TRUMP only “EXPEDITES” one thing— the restoration of US Law and Order.
It is CRuse who says they can all turn around and come back in. Not TRUMP.
TRUMP has said the invaders are deported. Period. They are welcome to apply through the *legal* entry process, which he will see that process legally ENFORCED.
TRUMP says if invaders wish, they can go re-apply legally and stand in line just like everybody else and with everybody else, from other countries, who apply.
TRUMP says the US provides for no exceptions and is authorized to take a look at some special case, or emergency circumstance. If they are alright, they can come back in.
TRUMP does NOT say “when” or how soon. TRUMP has never said, “when”.
It’s really common sense and application of current law.
Methinks you are spending too much time parroting what the Cruz interpretation is, of what TRUMP has said, and not any time on what TRUMP actually said.
It may not matter where a child was born, if we’re merely talking about basic U.S. citizenship, but not in the case of Natural Born U.S. citizenship, which the Framers clearly understood to mean: born in the country to two citizen parents.
Cruz has said that the difference between him and Trump is that Trump will let them come back and he won’t.
Trump has repeatedly said that the “good ones” can come back and that he would provide an expedited process for them to return.
“Me thinks” you are selling B.S.
I waited to see if you had a modicum of interest in where the “proof” is laid out. You have no interest.
Interest is key to a conversation.
Methinks butt hurt, much.
How then do you explain John McCain’s eligibility? Or Barry Goldwater? Or George Romney?
Your first sentence tells me that Cruz is hiring the wrong people, just like Obama does.
I want somebody like Trump for president who says ”You are fired !”
So far in this campaign, I would still rather be a Trump apologist than a Cruz apologist.
So are facts Rita and you don’t supply them to back up your “opinions”.
“....and that he would provide an expedited process for them to return.” .................
That word, *expedited* has never been used by TRUMP. Not that US authority does not or can not provide for expedited exceptions, but for CRuse to even imply a *whole sale turn around*, or for you to buy into it, is laughable on its face.
When Ted interprets for TRUMP, the BS meter is safely deposited in the CRuse column, as a campaign asset.
McCain was born to two U.S. citizen parents in a U.S. territory. Same with Goldwater. George Romney fails the jus soli test.
You didn’t ask to be supplied. You didn’t ask to go to the source yourself. It is a click away, ya’ know.
Of course it is my opinion. It is my opinion that you want no substance. You can source that, easy enough, by looking at your snarky little posts.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said, "we have a lot of really good people. They're illegal. Now, you either have a country or not. We go out, and we're going to try and bring them back rapidly, the good ones," and "the good people are going to be able to come back, but they’re going to come back legally" in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," new portions of which were broadcast on Monday's broadcast of MSNBC's "The Rundown with Jose Diaz-Balart."
Trump stated that Mexico has to pay for a border fence, illegal immigrants in the US "have to go," and called for an end to birthright citizenship. He added, "when we have some good people, we have some very good people here, we have a lot of really good people. They're illegal. Now, you either have a country or not. We go out, and we're going to try and bring them back rapidly, the good ones. Rapidly. You know the word 'expedited'?"
Trump also said he would rescind the president's executive actions on immigration. When asked about the cost of his plans, he responded, "Look at the cost of what we have right now." And pointed to the "tremendous" cost of and crimes committed by illegal immigrants right now before adding, "we will do it, and we will expedite it so people can come back in. The good people can come back in."
Rita i’m sure you and i can do this all day to no avail for either of us
We both have access to the same info so it all comes down to how we evaluate said info, good luck with Trump but i’ll be sticking with Cruz......may the best man win!
So in the scenario I describe above, are you saying that my child would not be a U.S. citizen at birth and would need to be naturalized later?
When Ted interprets for TRUMP, the BS meter is safely deposited in the CRuse column, as a campaign asset.
I guess you missed the part where that seems to emminate from both camps, i’m sure your familiar with the old saying “My shit don’t stink” i’m sure most of us would consider that an opinion.
I said “it’s politics,” not good, bad, or otherwise. And I said it in defense of Cruz. And yes, it was deliberate, and no it didn’t cost Trump IA.
In the scenario you described, your child would be a citizen of the U.S., provided you or your wife are U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
Your child would also be a U.S. citizen if both you and your wife are U.S. citizens upon birth of the child.
Even if the baby were to be born on foreign soil, they’d still be a U.S. citizen at birth.
None of that is in question. What’s in question, is whether the baby meets the NBC test.
Since the Framers never defined a single word or phrase contained in the Constitution, we must look to writings and reference works contemporary to their time, to properly define the term.
Now, this is where knees go wobbly, and voices begin rising, because it’s clear what the Framers meant by the phrase, ‘natural born citizen’, when reference books and letters of the time are consulted as to its meaning.
As you might suspect, the phrase is defined by references of the late 18th century as, ‘born on the soil to two citizen parents.’
You know, Free Republic had this debate back in 2008. There must be hundreds of threads in the archives devoted to this one topic. I really don’t want to fight that battle all over again. My position on the matter has remained consistent since day one, and will remain aligned with Original Intent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.