2016 Election
Now we've got some here who can't even differentiate between a "push poll" and a simple quiz to show which candidates you agree with.
*facepalm*
Am I saying they will find more? I think the chances of that are about 10% based on what I have read and heard so far.
So...how much will the hurt Hillary? Is it a push for Hillary by the party? Are there any vast conspiracies (not right wing ones in this case, Hillary...) or is this going to be over like every Friday new dump?
She's going to be the nominee. Bernie has his supporters, but Hillary has more.
I do think the DNC is certainly biased towards Hillary. Probably because they want to actually win the general.
Apparently hardly anyone commenting here has even looked at, say, the choices in the questionnaire for the immigration questions, which are probably the most slanted of all the different fields.Quote: ams288righties fear polls and don't understand them
Quote: SanchoPanzaApparently hardly anyone commenting here has even looked at, say, the choices in the questionnaire for the immigration questions, which are probably the most slanted of all the different fields.Quote: ams288righties fear polls and don't understand them
???????????
A conservative would answer below NO Yes Yes
These answers are not conservative answers???????????????
I figured you would pick No Yes Yes, what did you pick?
How strong do you feel about this? You as a conservative, I would guess strongly
Should illegal immigrants be given access to government-subsidized healthcare?
Yes
No
No, but their children should have access
No, deport illegal immigrants seeking healthcare
No, but they should be allowed to purchase private healthcare
Yes, but they should be deported after treatment
Yes, but only for life threatening emergencies or infectious diseases
Yes, if they pay taxes
Yes, and grant them citizenship
No, the government should not subsidize healthcare
Do you support stronger measures to increase our border security?
Yes
No
No, and adopt an open border policy
No, just enforce the current border policy
No, make it easier for immigrants to access temporary work visas
Yes, and allow bordering states to manage their own border security
Should Muslim immigrants be banned from entering the country until the government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists? Learn more
Yes
No
No, but we should ban immigrants from “high risk” countries
No, banning immigrants based on their religion is unconstitutional
Yes, and ban all immigration until the government improves its screening process
Yes, until the frequency of international terrorist attacks decreases
Rubio 88%
Carson 85%
Cruz 78%
Quote: Sabretom2I found the insidewith poll interesting. It confirmed my thoughts very closely.
Rubio 88%
Carson 85%
Cruz 78%
Did you think the questions were slanted toward a liberal bias as SanchoPanza claims
or
The questions tried to honestly gage your view on the issues regardless if lib or conservative?
Quote: terapinedDid you think the questions were slanted toward a liberal bias as SanchoPanza claims
or
The questions tried to honestly gage your view on the issues regardless if lib or conservative?
Seemed pretty fair to me. I often had to expand to more detailed answers. Yes/No doesn't always cut it.
Quote: Sabretom2Seemed pretty fair to me. I often had to expand to more detailed answers. Yes/No doesn't always cut it.
I thought it was pretty fair. I wrote my own answers to several questions. I don't know if they get incorporated into people's choices when they take it after me or not, but it appeared several of the "other options" came from survey takers before me.
"Should the federal government allow the death penalty?
Yes
No
No, life in prison is a harsher sentence
No, too many people are innocently convicted
Yes, but only in certain circumstances in which a heinous crime has been committed and there is irrefutable evidence
Yes, but allow the victim's family to decide the punishment"
The answers in the first two expanded choices give two of the many strong reasons given by opponents of execution. The two expanded "Yes" responses are patently ridiculous. At any rate, the entire premise for the question is more than a stretch. Most cases involving the death penalty are not in federal jurisdiction.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIt is unsurprising that liberals and leftists fail to detect bias in the way certain questions are posed. Here is just one loaded example from the site:
"Should the federal government allow the death penalty?
Yes
No
No, life in prison is a harsher sentence
No, too many people are innocently convicted
Yes, but only in certain circumstances in which a heinous crime has been committed and there is irrefutable evidence
Yes, but allow the victim's family to decide the punishment"
The answers in the first two expanded choices give two of the many strong reasons given by opponents of execution. The two expanded "Yes" responses are patently ridiculous. At any rate, the entire premise for the question is more than a stretch. Most cases involving the death penalty are not in federal jurisdiction.
The questions may be matched to things different candidates have said. Because it's not a pure political poll, since it is aimed to match you up in some sort of order to the candidates. And since all the candidates are a collection of certain biases, probably somewhat unique to each one, it makes sense.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIt is unsurprising that liberals and leftists fail to detect bias in the way certain questions are posed. Here is just one loaded example from the site:
"Should the federal government allow the death penalty?
Yes
No
No, life in prison is a harsher sentence
No, too many people are innocently convicted
Yes, but only in certain circumstances in which a heinous crime has been committed and there is irrefutable evidence
Yes, but allow the victim's family to decide the punishment"
The answers in the first two expanded choices give two of the many strong reasons given by opponents of execution. The two expanded "Yes" responses are patently ridiculous. At any rate, the entire premise for the question is more than a stretch. Most cases involving the death penalty are not in federal jurisdiction.
Sabretom2, a conservative, clearly thought the questions and answers were fair
Unless you believe that only true conservatives agrees with only Trump, and all others are frauds :-)
What were your results?
What different answers for yes would you include to help determine which conservative candidate you would most agree with?
Clinton 85%
O'Malley 70%
Bush 62%
Carson 59%
Paul 55%
Cruz 55%
Trump 54%
The Republicans it seems I side with on Environmental and Electoral issues, but I also agree with Bush on Foreign Policy and Healthcare.
Christie 54%-Environmental & Healthcare
Education-Sanders
Healthcare-Sanders
Economy-Clinton
Domestic-Sanders
Social-Clinton
Environment-Cruz
Immigration-O'Malley
Foreign Policy-Clinton
Elections-Name A Republican
Voting for Clinton, I imagine. Raising MW is idiotic. I don't necessarily agree with Republicans on Environmental Issues, I can only imagine it scored that way because of how low I ranked them as a concern. Also, some of the answers were based on things I don't think we can do NOW, but would do later on.
Oh, it says Im a Centrist, but I consider myself a Socialist.
It is kind of hard to argue with the sentiment that these debates were scheduled in a way to get as few people as possible to pay attention in order to favor the frontrunner (Clinton).
Does anyone really want to watch a debate on the last Saturday before Christmas?
I sure don't.
I'll be watching Star Wars (for the third time).
http://www.barstoolsports.com/philadelphia/hillary-clinton-left-to-take-a-shit-in-the-middle-of-the-democratic-debate/
In the last 7 days, 5 different national polls by fairly reliable sources.
CNN Trump +21
PPP Trump +16
Qinnipiac Trump +4
Fox News Trump +21
ABC Trump +23
Quote: kewljDefinition of an outlier poll:
In the last 7 days, 5 different national polls by fairly reliable sources.
CNN Trump +21
PPP Trump +16
Qinnipiac Trump +4
Fox News Trump +21
ABC Trump +23
I've been saying for a while now, it's hard for me to see how Trump won't be the nominee... We've got just over a month left till voting starts and his lead is so huge. Maybe Ted Cruz wil win Iowa. Who cares? Iowa is hardly predictive of the eventual nominee...
Considering I answered "all illegal immigrants should be deported immediately" on the immigration section......I'm not surprised.
In any case, I don't think there is much of a chance of a Republican win no matter who the Democrats nominate. I just hope it isn't Hillary.
JALEN ROSE: “Did you know every 28 hours, a black man, woman, or child is murdered by police and/or vigilante law officials? This is a real epidemic.”
BILL O’REILLY: “Where did that stat come from?”
ROSE: “It’s an absolute fact.”
O’REILLY: “The stats that we have are African Americans killed by police are infinitesimal, based upon the interactions police and African Americans have. So it’s less than one percent [that] results in any violence. So your stat and my stat are like the parting of the Red Sea here.”
http://ij.com/2015/12/498973-oreilly-guest-repeats-absolute-fact-about-white-on-black-murder-that-is-absolutely-false/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM7&utm_campaign=
The whole BLM movement is a joke because it really has nothing to do with really making those lives matter. It is more of an organization that exists to foment rage against something that is pretty uncommon (but even happening once is bad and should be fully prosecuted) instead of focusing rage on actually fix things that take many more black lives.
You can bet the people out there calling for the killing of police are not Republicans or Conservatives...but the nuts follow Trump, as the logic goes...
When you just pretend the effects were only limited to a few people, you're likely missing the big picture.
Quote: RonCPeople talk about Trump's demented followers...realistically, there are demented followers on both sides of the aisle:
JALEN ROSE: “Did you know every 28 hours, a black man, woman, or child is murdered by police and/or vigilante law officials? This is a real epidemic.”
BILL O’REILLY: “Where did that stat come from?”
ROSE: “It’s an absolute fact.”
O’REILLY: “The stats that we have are African Americans killed by police are infinitesimal, based upon the interactions police and African Americans have. So it’s less than one percent [that] results in any violence. So your stat and my stat are like the parting of the Red Sea here.”
http://ij.com/2015/12/498973-oreilly-guest-repeats-absolute-fact-about-white-on-black-murder-that-is-absolutely-false/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM7&utm_campaign=
The whole BLM movement is a joke because it really has nothing to do with really making those lives matter. It is more of an organization that exists to foment rage against something that is pretty uncommon (but even happening once is bad and should be fully prosecuted) instead of focusing rage on actually fix things that take many more black lives.
You can bet the people out there calling for the killing of police are not Republicans or Conservatives...but the nuts follow Trump, as the logic goes...
(Commenting on the bolded area only)
Instead of meaningless protests, why doesn't BLM actually do something to show that black lives do in fact matter? How about going into these hard-core, gang-infested cities and giving black youth something to do? How about teaching black children the importance of getting an education? How about revitalizing inner cities where there is nothing but decay and despair? How about putting out Public Service Announcements that there is hope and alternatives to violence? If black lives matter, then do something for the black community.
Yes, there is police brutality, but that is far from the main problem plaguing black communities. Obama and the powers that be e.g. the Congressional Black Caucus will never address this issue - because they can't fix it. So many black communities thru-out America are plagued with this serious problem. the link below really describes what the Hiphop culture has done to the black youth of these poor and troubled communities
edit/add
https://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVHicksHipHop90706.html
Quote: rxwineUsually, when a segment of the public erupts, the precipitating event is the result of a series of many bad interactions. It's just that's there is finally a last straw. In places where abuse is going on, let's say in a nursing home, a couple patients dying brings attention to a poorly run place affecting most of the community there, not just the few who died. If you just think poor management only affected the ones that died, you're the one who is likely naïve and ignorant.
When you just pretend the effects were only limited to a few people, you're likely missing the big picture.
Do you honestly think that there is enough brutality committed by the police as compared to the brutality committed within the community that is being policed in any one area to warrant all the attention being on what the police are doing and none on the major ills of the community? I don't. I despise police brutality and, even more, brutality based on race. Thing is that a white cop shooting a black suspect is not automatically a racial incident. The forces behind BLM seem to think all of them are bad shoots and that does them no good in gaining credibility.
Just like idiots that are okay with looting the businesses that are willing to do business in their community, they find a way to rage against the smaller (but still there) problem and they have no rage that their kids can't safely walk around town do to the culture on the streets.
The effects of racism of any kind do impact the whole community that the racism is against--but that goes for more than just one community. The "big picture" is so much bigger than these relatively few incidents of bad shootings (again, which should be properly investigated and prosecuted)...there is a whole group of communities that we think we are helping but the "help" has failed and no one will acknowledge it...or they are called "racist" if they do.
Quote: RonCDo you honestly think that there is enough brutality committed by the police as compared to the brutality committed within the community that is being policed in any one area to warrant all the attention being on what the police are doing and none on the major ills of the community?
Most communities have outreach programs, both community, religious organizations, anti-gang programs, things like midnight basketball, family services, sometime vocation job training, etc.,
Doesn't mean a police organization in the community hasn't become ineffective or corrupt. Doesn't mean every community needs reform either.
You're arguing they simply haven't been doing anything else before this. Doubt that is true. I'm not going to pretend to take anyone's word on either side, just saying this is what I believe is going on.
My point is in a community that erupts from some event, usually means there is a systematic problem. Not just looking strictly at the numbers. When someone is arrested in my neighborhood, I never have any sense from my neighbors that the police are barely better than the criminals or we are at odds. But if I did, I could see relating to something happening where the police treat everyone as suspicious first, and why I might lose my trust.
Quote: rxwineYou're arguing they simply haven't been doing anything else before this. Doubt that is true. I'm not going to pretend to take anyone's word on either side, just saying this is what I believe is going on.
I understand the "eruption" but the BLM group is a calculated effort to further diminish police-community relations, not one meant to make things better. Their refusal to let white liberals join their protests at times shows that they only want to cause further divide, not to really "fix" anything. They want to keep the community and police divided and the police always suspect.
I doubt that the kind of folks, by and large, that would do that are doing "good" things in the community when they aren't working on the BLM movement.
Quote: rxwineMy point is in a community that erupts from some event, usually means there is a systematic problem. Not just looking strictly at the numbers. When someone is arrested in my neighborhood, I never have any sense from my neighbors that the police are barely better than the criminals or we are at odds. But if I did, I could see relating to something happening where the police treat everyone as suspicious first, and why I might lose my trust.
Being a police officer is tough enough in a "good" area--it is even tougher in a rough neighborhood. There may be a systemic problem, but promoting violence against cops is not the way to fix it.
Quote: RonCPeople talk about Trump's demented followers...realistically, there are demented followers on both sides of the aisle:
JALEN ROSE: “Did you know every 28 hours, a black man, woman, or child is murdered by police and/or vigilante law officials? This is a real epidemic.”
BILL O’REILLY: “Where did that stat come from?”
ROSE: “It’s an absolute fact.”
O’REILLY: “The stats that we have are African Americans killed by police are infinitesimal, based upon the interactions police and African Americans have. So it’s less than one percent [that] results in any violence. So your stat and my stat are like the parting of the Red Sea here.”
http://ij.com/2015/12/498973-oreilly-guest-repeats-absolute-fact-about-white-on-black-murder-that-is-absolutely-false/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM7&utm_campaign=
The whole BLM movement is a joke because it really has nothing to do with really making those lives matter. It is more of an organization that exists to foment rage against something that is pretty uncommon (but even happening once is bad and should be fully prosecuted) instead of focusing rage on actually fix things that take many more black lives.
You can bet the people out there calling for the killing of police are not Republicans or Conservatives...but the nuts follow Trump, as the logic goes...
A "both sides are bad" post from RonC. How original.
And who is calling for the killing of police officers? Certainly not anyone officially involved in BLM. That's a rightie fantasy. (And don't link to a comment thread or something on some random website where some wacko in the comments section advocates for that. That doesn't count).
But what "side" is BLM on? Haven't they interrupted rallies and been a general pain in the butt for the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton campaigns?
Quote: ams288Quote: RonCPeople talk about Trump's demented followers...realistically, there are demented followers on both sides of the aisle:
JALEN ROSE: “Did you know every 28 hours, a black man, woman, or child is murdered by police and/or vigilante law officials? This is a real epidemic.”
BILL O’REILLY: “Where did that stat come from?”
ROSE: “It’s an absolute fact.”
O’REILLY: “The stats that we have are African Americans killed by police are infinitesimal, based upon the interactions police and African Americans have. So it’s less than one percent [that] results in any violence. So your stat and my stat are like the parting of the Red Sea here.”
http://ij.com/2015/12/498973-oreilly-guest-repeats-absolute-fact-about-white-on-black-murder-that-is-absolutely-false/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM7&utm_campaign=
The whole BLM movement is a joke because it really has nothing to do with really making those lives matter. It is more of an organization that exists to foment rage against something that is pretty uncommon (but even happening once is bad and should be fully prosecuted) instead of focusing rage on actually fix things that take many more black lives.
You can bet the people out there calling for the killing of police are not Republicans or Conservatives...but the nuts follow Trump, as the logic goes...
A "both sides are bad" post from RonC. How original.
And who is calling for the killing of police officers? Certainly not anyone officially involved in BLM. That's a rightie fantasy. (And don't link to a comment thread or something on some random website where some wacko in the comments section advocates for that. That doesn't count).
But what "side" is BLM on? Haven't they interrupted rallies and been a general pain in the butt for the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton campaigns?
Your posts are just so cute--you go out of your way to talk about "demented" Trump followers without every acknowledging that there are a lot of "demented" people out there; many of them supporting candidates other than Trump. BLM, if it comes down to it, will vote Liberal and Democrat even if the protest all of them. You know that yet pretend it is otherwise.
They don't all come to political rallies, but they are demented just the same...like the people acting in a threatening manner towards voters in elections a few years ago. Ah, but they supported Obama...so all is good!!
Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Quote: RonCPeople talk about Trump's demented followers...realistically, there are demented followers on both sides of the aisle:
JALEN ROSE: “Did you know every 28 hours, a black man, woman, or child is murdered by police and/or vigilante law officials? This is a real epidemic.”
BILL O’REILLY: “Where did that stat come from?”
ROSE: “It’s an absolute fact.”
O’REILLY: “The stats that we have are African Americans killed by police are infinitesimal, based upon the interactions police and African Americans have. So it’s less than one percent [that] results in any violence. So your stat and my stat are like the parting of the Red Sea here.”
http://ij.com/2015/12/498973-oreilly-guest-repeats-absolute-fact-about-white-on-black-murder-that-is-absolutely-false/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM7&utm_campaign=
The whole BLM movement is a joke because it really has nothing to do with really making those lives matter. It is more of an organization that exists to foment rage against something that is pretty uncommon (but even happening once is bad and should be fully prosecuted) instead of focusing rage on actually fix things that take many more black lives.
You can bet the people out there calling for the killing of police are not Republicans or Conservatives...but the nuts follow Trump, as the logic goes...
A "both sides are bad" post from RonC. How original.
And who is calling for the killing of police officers? Certainly not anyone officially involved in BLM. That's a rightie fantasy. (And don't link to a comment thread or something on some random website where some wacko in the comments section advocates for that. That doesn't count).
But what "side" is BLM on? Haven't they interrupted rallies and been a general pain in the butt for the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton campaigns?
Your posts are just so cute--you go out of your way to talk about "demented" Trump followers without every acknowledging that there are a lot of "demented" people out there; many of them supporting candidates other than Trump. BLM, if it comes down to it, will vote Liberal and Democrat even if the protest all of them. You know that yet pretend it is otherwise.
They don't all come to political rallies, but they are demented just the same...like the people acting in a threatening manner towards voters in elections a few years ago. Ah, but they supported Obama...so all is good!!
Does BLM support violence against police?
Your original post said so. But anyone who does even a smidge of research on the topic knows that that is total BS.
So I am wondering if you are standing by that statement?
Just send Kentry over to the local Bureau of Land Mgt office and have him inquire as to the agency's exact policy on 'violence against police officers'.
He'll probably find his way back long before the primaries....
By not publicly condemning vigilante violence or the chants of wanting police dead, the general public perception is that BLM is condoning this behavior.
Quote: RonCThis is the standard some apply to Trump and the "demented"; why would it not apply to BLM?
I believe it's called the proverbial double standard.
Quote:I hope @TGowdySC does better for Rubio than he did at the #Benghazi hearings, which were a total disaster for Republicans & America!
This is why I have a love/hate relationship with Trump. While I find him to be misogynistic, facist, and racist. He does admit certain truths that most Republicans like to ignore.
The Benghazi hearings were an absolute disaster for Republicans. They took Hillary's biggest weakness and gave her a platform to look Presidential for 11 hours. But you won't find many Republicans anywhere who will admit this. Except Trump.
product ? Just wondering.
Quote: ams288Trump just tweeted:
This is why I have a love/hate relationship with Trump. While I find him to be misogynistic, facist, and racist. He does admit certain truths that most Republicans like to ignore.
The Benghazi hearings were an absolute disaster for Republicans. They took Hillary's biggest weakness and gave her a platform to look Presidential for 11 hours. But you won't find many Republicans anywhere who will admit this. Except Trump.
Except that you actually believe in what you are saying, which I understand...I don't know if Trump really believes in anything except how to say things to gain more publicity.
You and I disagree on how she looked, I've never seen her look very "Presidential" any more than I have seen Donald Trump as "Presidential"--but at least I know you are committed to your view of the issue. Trump? No, he just wants publicity at the expense of whoever is available.
You know I think lots of things are wrong on "my side" but Donald Trump has no interest in fixing them, just in trying to exploit them without ever saying how he will fix the issues. Gowdy said something about Trump; Trump does not know enough to know every statement need not be answered...
Trump could be Hillary's biggest campaign weapon--he "carpet bombs" his own party; she will only have to worry about him should he bash everyone's head in and become the nominee. If he gets the most votes and delegates (no the super delegate stuff) he should be the nominee, of course...I just don't see that ending well...
Quote: thereheisnotSpeaking of Donald, if Trump loses to Clinton, will the Republican party blame the salesman ( McCain, Romney, Trump ) and not the
product ? Just wondering.
Isn't that the way it works? The parties are fine; they just picked Gore-Kerry-McCain-Romney-____________.
Or some dang hanging chads chained the world...
Never the party...either way!
Quote: thereheisnotSpeaking of Donald, if Trump loses to Clinton, will the Republican party blame the salesman ( McCain, Romney, Trump ) and not the
product ? Just wondering.
There would be plenty of blame to go around. Trump would obviously be blamed by the establishment, who already hate/fear him.
But the party would also be to blame. Remember that post-2012 "autopsy" they drafted? It has been almost completely ignored, and the party has already made many of the same mistakes to a more extreme degree this cycle.
Of course you do have the soccer moms who Rush always said wanted to sleep with Bill, but that is another topic for another time.
Quote: BozHave to love Trump bringing up Bill's issues. It can only help as it is a good counter to the "War on Women" liberals keep wanting to push. And those who don't like it probably would not be voting for Trump anyways.
We shall see.
I don't see it working well for the Republicans with anyone other than the base.
And Trump certainly isn't the guy to deliver that message. His record with women isn't so great. How many wifes has he had?
And there is plenty of video of Trump singing Bill Clinton's praises throughout the years. Just makes him look like an even bigger flip flopper.
Quote: ams288We shall see.
I don't see it working well for the Republicans with anyone other than the base.
And Trump certainly isn't the guy to deliver that message. His record with women isn't so great. How many wifes has he had?
And there is plenty of video of Trump singing Bill Clinton's praises throughout the years. Just makes him look like an even bigger flip flopper.
There are betting lines on another thread here at this group of forums.
Did you want to make a bet? There would probably be someone willing to take you up on it, well depending on how you bet the bet you bet. Did you want some odds? Did you not want to make a bet? Did you just want to go on talking? All fair questions, I hope. There is no requirement for a response that I am aware of.
It could be a little bet, say table minimum from yesteryear, just $1, or $10, or $100, or something larger that would require an intermediary ?
And before we get into the betting part, Happy New Year to you and yours.
Your 2F
I think he is working for her and Jeb knows it.Quote: RonCTrump could be Hillary's biggest campaign weapon--he "carpet bombs" his own party; she will only have to worry about him should he bash everyone's head in and become the nominee. If he gets the most votes and delegates (no the super delegate stuff) he should be the nominee, of course...I just don't see that ending well...
One of the "George's" snaps his fingers and Trump will either take a dive or have a heart attack. He is a diversion. If he is half as important as he thinks he is, where would he find time to be POTUS? Which would he delegate, his empire or the presidency?
Quote: TwoFeathersATLThere are betting lines on another thread here at this group of forums.
Did you want to make a bet? There would probably be someone willing to take you up on it, well depending on how you bet the bet you bet. Did you want some odds? Did you not want to make a bet? Did you just want to go on talking? All fair questions, I hope. There is no requirement for a response that I am aware of.
It could be a little bet, say table minimum from yesteryear, just $1, or $10, or $100, or something larger that would require an intermediary ?
And before we get into the betting part, Happy New Year to you and yours.
Your 2F
How long did it take you to type this post?
AKA how much time did you throw down the toilet this evening?
Cruz is hard right, I lean left yet I think Cruz is qualified to be President if elected
I think all this birther stuff is BS as it was for Obama.
There were some rumblings of a birther movement originating from the left concerning Cruz, those are clowns on the left.
All the birther talk is from the right. The right. Amazing, What a cycle, I got the popcorn out :-)
Birther clowns on the right against the right. You cant make this stuff up.
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.html
Quote: terapinedThis is fascinating regarding the Cruz birther movement
Cruz is hard right, I lean left yet I think Cruz is qualified to be President if elected
I think all this birther stuff is BS as it was for Obama.
There were some rumblings of a birther movement originating from the left concerning Cruz, those are clowns on the left.
All the birther talk is from the right. The right. Amazing, What a cycle, I got the popcorn out :-)
Birther clowns on the right against the right. You cant make this stuff up.
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.html
I find it an interesting double standard. The birthers on the right claimed that Obama was not qualified to be president because he was born in Kenya.
With Cruz, there is no question where he was born he was born in Canada. His mother is American, but I am not aware that matters if you are born in another country. Cruz's mother was not in the military or working on a military base. His parents worked or owned an oil company and were working in Canada for a year or too.
So if the criteria is that your mother is a US citizen, and it doesn't matter where you were born, than what was the issue with Obama? If he had in fact been born in Kenya to an American Mother, HE STILL would have been eligible by the Cruz scenario.
Personally I don't think Cruz is eligible. He is a citizen, but he was not born in the US and I believe that is the qualification for being president.
I suppose there won't be a determination made until there has to be, like if he won the republican nomination. But personally, I think there should be a determination made now. It effects the outcome. I mean with Cruz in the race it is possible (and some think likely) that Cruz and Trump slip the anti-establishment vote, enabling Rubio to win the nomination. But if Cruz was declared ineligible now, Trump would likely get all or most of the anti-establishment vote and probably win the nomination. So it does make a difference right now, not just should Cruz become the nominee.
I do think it would be funny if Trump starts playing up the "Cruz isn't eligible" card.
Quote: ams288I do think it would be funny if Trump starts playing up the "Cruz isn't eligible" card.
He started doing that earlier today.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/05/donald-trump-ted-cruz-canada-citizenship/78325076/
Ann Coulter has chimed in stating Cruz is not qualified to be President
Wow. The right was worried about leftist birthers regarding Cruz, but the attacks are from the right
What an election cycle, got out the popcorn
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264930-coulter-cruz-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen
Quote: terapinedMore birthers coming out and they are from the right. The Right. Not the left
Ann Coulter has chimed in stating Cruz is not qualified to be President
Wow.
At least they are consistent, which goes a long ways with me. Anybody who would have questioned Obama's eligibility to be present should have no doubts about Cruz, since it isn't even in dispute he was born in Canada.
My own interpretation is that "natural born Citizen" means the person in question was eligible for US citizenship upon birth. Whatever it means, the same standard should be applied to Cruz as Obama.
The issue is your parent has to register you in the consulate. Obama's clearly did not. Cruz's clearly did.Quote: kewljwhat was the issue with Obama? If he had in fact been born in Kenya to an American Mother, HE STILL would have been eligible by the Cruz scenario. . . . what was the issue with Obama? If he had in fact been born in Kenya to an American Mother, HE STILL would have been eligible by the Cruz scenario.
