Posted on 02/05/2016 9:06:30 PM PST by TBP
I had Trump, Carson & Rubio voters tell me at our Iowa Caucus that I couldn't vote 4 Cruz because he was not a citizen! That's a caucus 4 u
Look back at the tricks used by the Democrats and the press to take out conservative candidates in 2008 and 2012. They would pick one candidate at a time and then blanket the media with negative reports about him or her until their support was weakened to the point that they were no longer considered viable. Remember the Sarah Palin attacks? The attacks went on until people on OUR SIDE said "She'll never be acceptable".
Today it's Cruz. Tomorrow it will be Rubio. Then it will be Trump. Then no one will be left standing except the milk toast anointed one of the GOPe. Don't fall for it.!
“This is a little thing called politics.”
It’s a contact sport without helmets. Folks need to get over their whining and get on with things if they are going to have a campaign. If the R’s nominate someone acceptable, I hope he plays tackle football, not flag football and doesn’t spend time wringing his hands that a tackle was a little rough. If he doesn’t, like Romney, he will lose.
D’s know what game they are playing. Most R’s in Washington are comfortable being on the losing side. They just don’t want to get hit too hard and to make a little money hanging out with the big boys. The consultant class has internalized this. That’s why Rev Wright and terrorist Bill Ayers were never discussed in 2008 against Obama. Those would be hard tackles with an eye gouge in the pile. Can’t do that ‘cause the big boys might hit back and their “partners” might not invite your wife to the party.
What if CNN reported [as breaking news] Cruz sought the opinion of legal experts who are of the opinion he does meet eligibility requirements. Yet, there are other legal scholars who have looked at this issue and have 'determined' he is not a Natural Born Citizen, followed by speculation to the meaning of this "breaking" story.
Dirty Politics would be a member of another candidate's campaign organization tweeted
Cruz has been determined to be ineligible because he is not a Natural Born Citizen. He will be making an announcement soon. Looks like he is out. Encouage voters to vote for Candidate X "
immediately before and during the caucus vote followed by the dessimination of the false information as fact in memos on official letterheads & voicemails to all precinct captains.
When it is time for the voters to address their caucus, they can discuss any concern. I do not take issue with someone encouraging others not to vote for Cruz because his status as a NBC has not been settled. I would not have an issue with someone saying do not vote for Carson because the numbers are just not there. He will have to drop out at some point.
A campaign organization attempting to manipulate voters a false conclusion (i.e. lie) while voting is in progress goes beyond Dirty Politics. It is not only politics at its worse, it is unacceptable.
There are many things I disagree with Trump on, but I think he can be persuaded to drop that position in particular, when he finds it to be the pipe dream that it is. The same holds true of Cruz for me as well, there are things about him that I disagree with.
Believe me it saddens me that Cruz does not rise to the qualifications set forth in our Constitution, but I will never overlook that just to get someone whom I think may do what I think he would do, unless I am forced to by virtue of having to thwart Hillary or Sanders being elected. I would justify it as trying to save the Constitution that would be shredded even more if one of those two were elected. But I hope I am not faced with that dilemma. Also causing me sadness is the realization that Cruz is a politician, and we all know how politicians can change as the garner more power. Cruz has proven himself to be very adroit at playing the political game. Donald couldn't even hold a candle to Ted in that respect.
Beyond that I honestly do not think Cruz could win a general election. He is not a Reagan who will see support coming from any of the Democrat base that usually, but not always, pull the lever for the Democrat based upon that criteria alone. Many of the moderates who vote most of the time, but like their counterparts in the Democratic Party, not all of the time for the Republican, will probably not cast their vote for him either. In fact it may inspire people out to vote to ensure Ted Cruz does not become President.
So the question you ask is not the question that I am asking myself, nor is it the question you need to be asking yourself. Instead that question should be: Who can win this very critical election? Trump has demonstrated he can pull from all demographics, and convincingly so. Trump has demonstrated his views are not ideologically driven, but rather derived from something less evil oriented, such as compassion. I can easily disagree with someone like that, but find it hard to hate them.
Follow up questions should be: What is the candidate's driving reason for seeking the job as President. Does Trump want the power only to enrich himself even more? My answer to that question is I don't know but I don't believe that to be the reason. I believe he is sincere when he claims to want to make this nation great again. Is Ted running because he wants to make the country great again? I haven't heard him say that, though he has said he wants to make the Constitution once again become the law of the land. Is he sincere in that, again I don't know, but I support him on that. Cruz was my choice before anyone had announced, though I must admit I was unaware at that time of his "natural born" status, because I only looked at what he was doing and saying. In fact I laughed when Donald Trump declared his candidacy for I thought it was just Donald seeking the limelight. But he made a lot of sense, and I applauded him but was still a Cruz supporter. As time went on I realized that Donald was for real, and most importantly, I became convinced that he was sincere. There were still a lot of troubling aspects with regards to Trump. However, I understand some of the things you question, as being the price you have to pay to be a successful business person in America today. This is where Ted couldn't hold a candle to Donald. Donald knows what has to be done to accomplish your goals, while Ted cannot garner much support even within his own ranks. That is troubling because it shows me that he cannot get his tasks accomplished because he doesn't know how to build support for them. A trait I think is an extremely important one that the President possess if he wants to succeed. Obama is not good at this either but he is given a pass by the press for the obvious reasons we all know. He is a Democrat, and he is the nation's first black President.
I will tell you this Bulwyf, I will support the Republican candidate regardless of who it is over Hillary or Sanders. Just as I supported McCain & Romney even though they were far from my choice, because the alternative was far worse. I feel vindicated that I held that position, because I don't think either would have been as disastrous.
I feel confident about my choice thus far, which is why I proudly support Donald Trump for President!!!!!
But I would love to see Ted go to court and prove me wrong, because I think Ted would provide the knockout punch and we could both proudly support:
Trump/Cruz as our leaders for the next 18 years, and hopefully, 24 years if Trump can endure 2 terms.
The constitution can’t be ignored. It has to be fully restored as in the original.
I find it hard to believe that in a country of 390+ million, that these are the only two choices as well.
I think the trick is to find someone who doesn’t even want the job, but loves his country.
I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I do know I need a place to go probably really soon.
I don’t see Albertans rising up against the tyranny from the east yet. There are not enough patriots, or those that will leave their comfort zone to ensure freedom.
The country of Canada doesn’t deserve me even though I served her for 10 years. I am willing to risk it for freedom, and that isn’t valued here.
I just hope a situation is created in America where it is valued.
Donald Trump has never possessed dual citizenship, because the British never recognized him as a British citizen. Most likely because Trump's mother had become a U.S. citizen before his birth.
But keep trying.
Absolutely, I agree. Ted Cruz is without doubt a U.S. citizen, but he does not qualify as "natural born" due to the fact he was born on foreign soil. The laws were changed to make children born of citizens who were on foreign soil, in service to their country, be eligible to claim "natural born" status. Clearly this does not apply in Ted Cruz's case.
My assertion was not that foreign countries get to decide our citizenship as U.S. citizens, but rather they can bestow citizenship to their country when the child meets their requirements for citizenship. Ted met those requirements in Canada. In Canada's case they do have jus soli as the law of the land. I see no evidence that America, or her Founding Fathers, ever adopted the jus soli as the law of the land. Instead that has evolved from those who wish to make the Constitution a living document and have applied jus soli as if it has always been the case and in turn have deemed them as "natural born" citizens. They are not though because our Constitution does not even come close to making that assertion that they are even citizens by virtue of being born here.
Just an observation, the theme is beginning to stand out. Is nasty what they respect in Trump? Check it out, Cruz people attack Trump, while Trump people attack the messengers, and tend to concentrate on being as hurtful as possible.
It is interesting,I don’t quite know what to think about it.
It’s not really about Cruz or Trump, but about Freeperville.
I agree, however, like I said I would abandoned the Constitution only if and when I thought the Constitution was being misconstrued to be used against us which in of itself was a dire threat to the Constitution. In other words, in an attempt to protect and preserve the Constitution.
I think the trick is to find someone who doesn't even want the job, but loves his country.
That would indeed be an impossible trick. Finding such a person would be easy perhaps, but getting them to run when they don't want the job would be onerous in itself. Getting them actually elected would be even more difficult then finally convincing them to run in the first place.
I don't know what's going to happen, but I do know I need a place to go probably really soon.
That also is a big problem, where would you go? Once America falls places like Australia or New Zealand probably wouldn't survive for very long and places to run to would quickly evaporate. The only option left would most likely be some harsh region where it is very cold most of the time, and cutting out a life in that region would not be for the majority of Americans, myself included, that do not posses the skills necessary to survive for long in those harsh conditions.
While Trump has his warts for sure, I do believe he is sincere as to his motivations for seeking the Presidency. At this point all options are a gamble. Just saying don't look at Trump with negative eyes, not with rose-colored glasses. If you honestly and fairly assess the man you will see he has redeeming qualities along with his warts. He has already shaken the establishment to its core, and may have even more in store for them. In my eyes he is this countries best hope at this point in time.
One thing is for certain, if conservatives keep fighting among themselves, this country will end up on the ash heap of history. If we keep allowing ourselves to become fractured we will all pay the price and your fears will be realized and your hopes will be dashed.
Values are a very big problem in this country. Life is not valued so why would anything like freedom be valued? Too many of our children believe that freedom will be ongoing because it has always been the case for them. Sadly some adults think that as well. They do not realize that freedom is a God given right, not something granted to them by the government, and when they move away from God and rely more on government, they are relinquishing their right to freedom. While our Founders may have written freedom into the Constitution they also acknowledged that right came from a higher order than the government itself. Which is why they added in rights such as freedom of religion and free speech, along with the right to self-defense as a measure to limit the government's power. Even the government they were constructing.
You touched on a subject I’ve been harping on for a while.
Without a major revival and turning hearts back to God, it won’t matter who wins and who does what.
One has to wait I suppose.
I sure hate waiting.
Just keep reminding yourself that patience is a virtue, and take down that old poster that says: Patience my arse, I’m going to ....... It only makes it harder to realize patience, LOL.
Was Ted Cruz “at the time of the Adoption of” the Constitution a “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States?
If you're asking if Ted were born back then would he have been considered a citizen in either form? The answer to that question would be no because he was not born in the U.S. Furthermore, at that time it would have been the citizenship status of the father that would have determined his citizenship, not the mother. Since his father was not a citizen, who on top of it was not present in the country, Ted most definitely would not been considered to be an American citizen, "natural born" or otherwise by virtue of his father.
Had Ted been born in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted he would have been recognized as a "natural born" citizen when and if his father actually became a citizen.
Only those first wave of children who were born in this country to non-citizens, at the time of their birth, and became of age to satisfy the age requirement for Presidency, would have enjoyed this consideration and been recognized as "natural born" citizens. After that period, only children born to fathers who were citizens were considered "natural born" citizens. Children of immigrants who had not obtained their citizenship at the time their child was born, became naturalized citizens when their father became a naturalized citizen. If the father had become a citizen before the birth of his child, then the child would have been considered to be a "natural born" citizen, and his father would still have been considered a naturalized citizen.
If CNN reported that, they would be incorrect. But it would not be unfair to pass the report along.
In fact, Rubio, Trump, and Carson operatives were saying pretty much that exact thing, trying to depress the Cruz vote. They’re just angry because people didn’t buy it.
By the way when you read below you will see that I do not believe any of the current crop presidential candidates are "natural born Citizens". Thank you for tolerating me. Keep searching and don't spend much time answering those who do not even look at our great Constitution.
Article 2, Section 1 clause 4 has nothing to do with making citizens. It simply states what available citizens can be president of the new country. The phrase "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." gives the time frame when the specifics apply. These do not apply before or after Adoption of this Constitution.
It has to do with specific listing of the qualities recognized for a US President “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”
1) “natural born Citizen” - Born in England or possibly born in the Colonies to English Parents
2) “Citizen” - One naturalized through any one of the 13 Colonies by there particular sets of laws.
3) “35 years of age” - 1787 - 35 = 1752 or earlier birth.
4) “resident of the colonies 14 years” or longer.
1787 - 14 - 1773 The person would have been in the colonies during the formative years of the new country.
35 - 14 = 21 years old in 1773, old enough to understood what had went on during those 14 years.
Feel free to post to me again, but unless you bring up something new we have not covered, I will not reply unless you ask me to, feel free to contact me any time, even privately if you care to. Walt
No. A dirty trick is something formulated by the candidate’s campaign.
You say that Cruz people attack Trump, while Trump people attack the messenger?
Well, that’s a blanket indictment on your part, and a total generalization. There’s fire of all kinds coming from both sides.
Let me ask you this - how many derogatory names have you seen applied to Cruz supporters? Bet you can’t name more than a couple.
On the other hand, I’ll bet you can reel off half a dozen epithets routinely hurled at Trump supporters on this site. Let us count the labels...
Trumpanzee
Trumpets
Trumpsters
Trumpophiles
Trumpkins
Trumpbots
...to name a few.
It would not be incorrect. I have heard legal opinions both for and against the NBC status of Cruz. It is a topic worthy of discussion by CNN or any other network. It is a hot topic here. It is why I used it as a hypothetical.
The problem would be if a member of any campaign organization used it to spin a lie & used that lie on a mass scale during the actual voting process in an attempt to change votes.
As someone who wants to cast an informed vote, I find such tactics beyond the pale.
Just take a look for yourself, see who is nasty and choose words to hurt. Not a big deal, just interesting.
I read Free Republic over four hours each day. I clearly see the trends and patterns of vitriol spewing between the Cruz and Trump camps.
It's my observation that there's a lot more spewing from the Cruz camp than the Trump camp. It's not even a contest.
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.