2016 Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
#226
#226
lawgator1 said:
Riddle me this: If Obama, the son of a US citizen mother, was ineligible whereas Cruz, whose SOLE claim to being a US citizen is the EXACT SAME DAMN THING, is eligible?
Click to expand...

Your candidate is going down quicker than one of your call girl dates off OBT, you'd probably be best served worrying about her lying ass and who's gonna run in her place instead of your Cruz obsession..
 
#227
#227
McDad said:
This is a very popular sentiment on VN. I wonder about the accuracy or your statement, though.
Click to expand...

I feel it holds on a national level, but state and local elections often work contrary to the statement.
 
#228
#228
lawgator1 said:
It's interesting that the TPers, which stomped their feet like 3 year olds throwing a tantrum, insisted that Obama was ineligible because they think he was not born on U.S. soil, are now changing that exact same test for eligibility.
Click to expand...

I'm not changing anything. Obama was eligible, and so is Cruz. Period. ***** and moan all you want, but this will not be an issue. Complete waste of time.

Article 1, Section 1: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President,”

So how can he be president? The Constitution never clarified what it meant to be a 'natural born citizen'. Thus, being born to natural born American parents actually counts, and this is according to a Congressional Research Committee in 2011. Cruz IS a citizen from birth because of his mother. period.

Now, that's the end of discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#230
#230
lawgator1 said:
Riddle me this: If Obama, the son of a US citizen mother, was ineligible whereas Cruz, whose SOLE claim to being a US citizen is the EXACT SAME DAMN THING, is eligible?
Click to expand...

he isn't the nominee, yet. And there are some on this forum who have already started birther-type nonsense regarding Cruz.

As much as I like Cruz on fiscal policy matters, I won't vote for him because he is a theocrat like Huckabee, Santorum, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#231
#231
gcbvol said:
I feel it holds on a national level, but state and local elections often work contrary to the statement.
Click to expand...

It very well may hold true. Admittedly, i don't follow polling data. Im dubious about this notion bc:
1. All politicians want to win the election.
2. They spend fortunes polling and positioning on isuues.
3. They all lie.
4. I cant imagine they would campaign counter to their own self interests of winning.
 
#233
#233
lawgator1 said:
Riddle me this: If Obama, the son of a US citizen mother, was ineligible whereas Cruz, whose SOLE claim to being a US citizen is the EXACT SAME DAMN THING, is eligible?
Click to expand...

The question, which people were asking, was whether or not he had been born inside the US. Specifically for the intent of US Citizenship since anyone born on US Soil is a citizen.

Since there was a potential discrepancy as to whether or not he was born on US Soil, the question was whether or not his mother declared him a US Citizen upon birth. Which is allowed for citizenship since sometimes one just can't make it to a US hospital.

Anyway, if the hard requirement was for the birth to have to be on US Soil, no military brat born overseas would ever be eligible for the Presidency. So, I mean, the clarification from Congress in 2011 should have made this clear. I'm sure you overlooked it in your false assumptions.

Riddle. Solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#235
#235
Grand Vol said:
The question, which people were asking, was whether or not he had been born inside the US. Specifically for the intent of US Citizenship since anyone born on US Soil is a citizen.

Since there was a potential discrepancy as to whether or not he was born on US Soil, the question was whether or not his mother declared him a US Citizen upon birth. Which is allowed for citizenship since sometimes one just can't make it to a US hospital.

Anyway, if the hard requirement was for the birth to have to be on US Soil, no military brat born overseas would ever be eligible for the Presidency. So, I mean, the clarification from Congress in 2011 should have made this clear. I'm sure you overlooked it in your false assumptions.

Riddle. Solved.
Click to expand...


The Constitution was amended in 2011 ? I must have missed that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#237
#237
lawgator1 said:
I'm just trying to understand what appears to be a blatant contradiction in the complaints about Obama and his eligibility by the same camp now behind Cruz.
Click to expand...

Huge difference between Kenya and Canada. Maybe if Barry had been a little more forthcoming with his transcripts and bc it wouldn't have escalated to the point it did. Thank the old Hildabeast for starting those rumors counselor..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#242
#242
McDad said:
It very well may hold true. Admittedly, i don't follow polling data. Im dubious about this notion bc:
1. All politicians want to win the election.
2. They spend fortunes polling and positioning on isuues.
3. They all lie.
4. I cant imagine they would campaign counter to their own self interests of winning.
Click to expand...

It's fascinating in a way. I see it as a precarious balancing act for conservative candidates. Catering to the RR is important within the party and can be a significant help in progressing toward the party nomination. However, the closer one gets to the nomination and beyond, the religious/social conservatism begins to work against the candidate. I simply do not think Americans will vote in a candidate they perceive to be a theocrat. It doesn't even matter if Cruz or whoever is an actual theocrat, all it takes is that perception among the public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#243
#243
gcbvol said:
It's fascinating in a way. I see it as a precarious balancing act for conservative candidates. Catering to the RR is important within the party and can be a significant help in progressing toward the party nomination. However, the closer one gets to the nomination and beyond, the religious/social conservatism begins to work against the candidate. I simply do not think Americans will vote in a candidate they perceive to be a theocrat. It doesn't even matter if Cruz or whoever is an actual theocrat, all it takes is that perception among the public.
Click to expand...



That's true.

And Cruz is a theocrat. A dangerous one at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#246
#246
gcbvol said:
It's fascinating in a way. I see it as a precarious balancing act for conservative candidates. Catering to the RR is important within the party and can be a significant help in progressing toward the party nomination. However, the closer one gets to the nomination and beyond, the religious/social conservatism begins to work against the candidate. I simply do not think Americans will vote in a candidate they perceive to be a theocrat. It doesn't even matter if Cruz or whoever is an actual theocrat, all it takes is that perception among the public.
Click to expand...

Agree with you on the nomination process. Candidates throw as much red meat to their base as possible in the primaries. Then, they typically moderate for the general.

i still would like to see evidence that religious / social conservatism works against them in the general.

Hey, hows your online collegiate studies going?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#247
#247
McDad said:
i still would like to see evidence that religious / social conservatism works against them in the general.
Click to expand...

I think if we look at the last two Republican presidents along with McCain and Romney I'm not sure any of the four would be considered strong social conservatives. Perhaps in comparison to their D counterparts they're more conservative but none come close to being mistaken for a theocrat.

Hey, hows your online collegiate studies going?
Click to expand...

Going well, thanks! I like that I have the ability to work ahead; it's helpful since work can be cyclical in eating up capacity.
 
#248
#248
gcbvol said:
I think if we look at the last two Republican presidents along with McCain and Romney I'm not sure any of the four would be considered strong social conservatives. Perhaps in comparison to their D counterparts they're more conservative but none come close to being mistaken for a theocrat.
Click to expand...

I agree with you again especially where daddy Bush and McCain are concerned. For Romney and W, i seem to recall some rumblings about Romney`s Mormon-ism and W's Evangelical-ism. When I think of "theocrat", I think of Pat Robertson. I fully expect there is no way the country elects him (or someone like him) for president. At this point, Im not sure Cruz is a theocrat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top