Author Topic: List of potential GOP nominees category .....Establishment, Anti-, or both? (Read 25695 times)

IronDioPriest · « **Reply #80 on:** February 28, 2015, 05:28:26 PM »

CPAC has been overrun by Paulian Paulite Paulbots. They were denied the Father, and have settled on the Son as the next best Paul.

Pandora · « **Reply #81 on:** February 28, 2015, 11:06:58 PM »

Quote from: ChrstnHsbndFthr on February 28, 2015, 10:50:17 AM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/26/cruz_at_cpac_2015_hillary_clinton_embodies_the_corruption_of_washington.html

This speech was pretty good, in my opinion. I know some here oppose this man, but he spoke truth and I appreciated it.

ChrstnHsbndFthr · « **Reply #82 on:** February 28, 2015, 11:25:14 PM »

Quote from: Pandora on February 28, 2015, 11:06:58 PM

Quote from: ChrstnHsbndFthr on February 28, 2015, 10:50:17 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/26/cruz_at_cpac_2015_hillary_clinton_embodies_the_corruption_of_washington.html

This speech was pretty good, in my opinion. I know some here oppose this man, but he spoke truth and I appreciated it.

I am not sur eI understood the facepalm. Are you saying he did not speak truth? That I should not appreciate his words? That some do not oppose his nomination? or that the speech was not good? What am I missing?

Alphabet Soup · « **Reply #83 on:** March 01, 2015, 10:00:03 AM »

If you had been referring to, say Rand Paul or Jeb Bush, I would have instantly nodded my head in accent. I haven't seen anyone here express opposition to Ted in any way except eligibility.

Pandora · « **Reply #84 on:** March 01, 2015, 11:26:37 AM »

Quote from: Alphabet Soup on March 01, 2015, 10:00:03 AM

If you had been referring to, say Rand Paul or Jeb Bush, I would have instantly nodded my head in accent. I haven't seen anyone here express opposition to Ted in any way except eligibility.

Yahtzee!

AmericanPatriot · « **Reply #85 on:** March 01, 2015, 04:30:23 PM »

I happen to like Cruz.
He says a lot of nice things

Rhetoric is easy

But there is the thing with his wife as a big shot at Goldman

ChrstnHsbndFthr · « **Reply #86 on:** March 01, 2015, 06:34:45 PM »

Alright, but opposition is opposition, right? I was saying, that despite others' issues with him, I think the words he spoke here are true and powerful and noteworthy. Face palm for noting that despire the truth of his words there were friends her whose opposed him, did not make sense to me. So, the face palm is about me not clarifying what specific opposition there was? Well, Ok. I thought that was clear enough from context but it is true the opposition is due to thinking he is constitutionally ineligible...and I also think it is clear that after having spent two days studying, i do not agree with the ineligibility argument. No one has answered any of my questions on the issue either. I acknowledge the feelings of my friends, and still disagree, but I am interested in any facts that can be provided. So far none have convinced me to redefine natural born or that there are more than two definitions of citizenship. I also recognize their freedom to see it differently even if they are unable or unwilling to convince me. It Is, after all, About Liberty

Pandora · « **Reply #87 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:14:39 PM »

Quote from: ChrstnHsbndFthr on March 01, 2015, 06:34:45 PM

Alright, but opposition is opposition, right?

No.

Quote

I was saying, that despite others' issues with him, I think the words he spoke here are true and powerful and noteworthy. Face palm for noting that despire the truth of his words there were friends her whose opposed him, did not make sense to me.

That is plain.

Quote

So, the face palm is about me not clarifying what specific opposition there was? Well, Ok. I thought that was clear enough from context but it is true the opposition is due to thinking he is constitutionally ineligible...and I also think it is clear that after having spent two days studying, i do not agree with the ineligibility argument.

Don't care. Others disagree with you.

Quote

No one has answered any of my questions on the issue either. I acknowledge the feelings of my friends, and still disagree, but I am interested in any facts that can be provided. So far none have convinced me to redefine natural born or that there are more than two definitions of citizenship. I also recognize their freedom to see it differently even if they are unable or unwilling to convince me. It Is, after all, About Liberty

I have three last points to make and then I'll leave you with your intransigence:

1) If natural-born citizen, i.e. born of two citizen parents on American soil, was not a commonly accepted definition, why did Chester A. Arthur go to such lengths as to have his papers burned after his death in order to conceal his fraud?

2) If natural-born citizen, i.e. born of two citizen parents on American soil, is not a commonly accepted definition, why has Congress tried at least six times to have it redefined since 1975?

3) If natural-born citizen, i.e. born of two citizens parents on American soil, is not a commonly accepted definition, why did Congress go to the lengths of passing a resolution affirming McCain as such?

I am now done with this. You believe what you will, but I will not vote for Ted Cruz. And if he's smart, and believes in not only the Constitution, but also with our tradition in this regard, he will not run. And that would be too bad, but it is what it is.

ChrstnHsbndFthr · « **Reply #88 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:29:19 PM »

Quote from: Pandora on March 01, 2015, 07:14:39 PM

Quote from: ChrstnHsbndFthr on March 01, 2015, 06:34:45 PM
Alright, but opposition is opposition, right?

No.

I do not understand. Are you saying you do NOT oppose Ted Cruz receiving the GOP nomination or not?

ChrstnHsbndFthr · « **Reply #89 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:31:30 PM »

Quote from: Pandora on March 01, 2015, 07:14:39 PM

So, the face palm is about me not clarifying what specific opposition there was? Well, Ok. I thought that was clear enough from context but it is true the opposition is due to thinking he is constitutionally ineligible...and I also think it is clear that after having spent two days studying, i do not agree with the ineligibility argument.

Don't care. Others disagree with you.

[/quote]
I neither deny that, nor deny their right to disagree. I simply maintain my own right to look at the facts and come to my own conclusions, which of course, i too happen to think are right.

ChrstnHsbndFthr · « **Reply #90 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:40:06 PM »

Quote from: Pandora on March 01, 2015, 07:14:39 PM

Quote
No one has answered any of my questions on the issue either. I acknowledge the feelings of my friends, and still disagree, but I am interested in any facts that can be provided. So far none have convinced me to redefine natural born or that there are more than two definitions of citizenship. I also recognize their freedom to see it differently even if they are unable or unwilling to convince me. It Is, after all, About Liberty

I have three last points to make and then I'll leave you with your intransigence:

1) If natural-born citizen, i.e. born of two citizen parents on American soil, was not a commonly accepted definition, why did Chester A. Arthur go to such lengths as to have his papers burned after his death in order to conceal his fraud?

It is neither my job to defend Chester A. Arthurs, views, your views of his views, or your characterizations of why he did he things he has done, or even whether he did that or not. I neither know, nor care this long afterwards and will not take the time to study it, knowing it does not apply. The salient point is what does the US Constitution say, and that is plain enough for us to discuss. Then we can discuss US law and court rulings upon it. The courts have ruled enough, and wisely enough, (in other words they made the case for what they were saying) that this is not an issue.

The courts have clearly ruled that no one has the right to over rule the Constitution short of passing new amendments. I should think that any conservative would applaud that.

ChrstnHsbndFthr · « **Reply #91 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:50:59 PM »

Quote from: Pandora on March 01, 2015, 07:14:39 PM

2) If natural-born citizen, i.e. born of two citizen parents on American soil, is not a commonly accepted definition, why has Congress tried at least six times to have it redefined since 1975?

Would you seriously like to predicate any discussion upon why the congress, which is basically a committee of elected representatives, has attempted ANYTHING? We could waste our lives on THAT conversation. Any single member of congress can initiate any bill he desires and I cannot waste time justifying his right to do so, it is simply the way things work. And obviously some of it is idiocy. And much of it is redundant. If some idiot congressman initiated a bill to say, give us the right to defend ourselves against terrorism, does that mean we do not inherently have the right of self defense? Obviously not. And to be clear, I do not accept your I.E without proof that I have not yet been given from the Constitution. I know that many have tried to define it outside of the Constitution, but the commonly accepted view that I see would be in the 90% range. Your definition would be in the less than one percent range, I am confident. Do not forget that at that time ONLY men had the vote and could be considered actual citizens. Women did not. Now that they are, does the phrase "father" become modified by later amendments? An amendment inherently and by definition DOES modify what preceded it. And any proposed bill is just as meaningless as an approved resolution.

ChrstnHsbndFthr · « **Reply #92 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:53:32 PM »

Quote from: Pandora on March 01, 2015, 07:14:39 PM

3) If natural-born citizen, i.e. born of two citizens parents on American soil, is not a commonly accepted definition, why did Congress go to the lengths of passing a resolution affirming McCain as such?

i would refer you to the previous answer.

ChrstnHsbndFthr · « **Reply #93 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:55:54 PM »

Quote from: Pandora on March 01, 2015, 07:14:39 PM

You believe what you will, but I will not vote for Ted Cruz.

I have never at all denied your right or the right of others to vote your views. I even believe you think i have the right to vote my views and hope this is an unnecessary post, but I am NOT neglecting your point.

ChrstnHsbndFthr · « **Reply #94 on:** March 01, 2015, 08:01:47 PM »

Quote from: Pandora on March 01, 2015, 07:14:39 PM

And if he's smart, and believes in not only the Constitution, but also with our tradition in this regard, he will not run. And that would be too bad, but it is what it is.

I think it is possible that he has researched this and come to the exact same conclusions I have and would not be a bad or wicked man for running, any more than I am for supporting him as my third choice on my short-list. I think his voice is valuable and my hope is that he remains a powerful voice in the Senate. However, if YOU are right, he must either resign or be removed TODAY. Think it through. There are only two ways to be a citizen. He is either natural born as he claims, or because he has not gone through the naturalization process and you should be calling for his removal from the Senate because you believe he is not even a citizen of the United States at all, since there are NOT three statuses of citizenship.

I say he is a natural born citizen.

Alphabet Soup · « **Reply #95 on:** March 01, 2015, 08:38:24 PM »

Quote from: ChrstnHsbndFthr on March 01, 2015, 08:01:47 PM

Quote from: Pandora on March 01, 2015, 07:14:39 PM
And if he's smart, and believes in not only the Constitution, but also with our tradition in this regard, he will not run. And that would be too bad, but it is what it is.

I think it is possible that he has researched this and come to the exact same conclusions I have and would not be a bad or wicked man for running, any more than I am for supporting him as my third choice on my short-list. I think his voice is valuable and my hope is that he remains a powerful voice in the Senate. However, if YOU are right, he must either resign or be removed TODAY. Think it through. There are only two ways to be a citizen. He is either natural born as he claims, or because he has not gone through the naturalization process and you should be calling for his removal from the Senate because you believe he is not even a citizen of the United States at all, since there are NOT three statuses of citizenship.

I say he is a natural born citizen.

President of the United States is the only elected office that I know of that requires "natural born citizen". The United States Senate does not.

OFFICE CITIZENSHIP AGE RESIDENCY STATUTE
United States Senator Citizen 9 years 30 years Resident of state when elected United States Constitution Art. I §3

For what it's worth there is a huge part of me that would love to see the duct-up that would come with him declaring. The left would go absolutely nutz and I would be right there pointing out that the last guy never proved he was a natural born citizen either. But then that's the part of me that is ready to burn it all to the ground.

ChrstnHsbndFthr · « **Reply #96 on:** March 01, 2015, 08:50:43 PM »

Quote from: Alphabet Soup on March 01, 2015, 08:38:24 PM

Quote from: ChrstnHsbndFthr on March 01, 2015, 08:01:47 PM
Quote from: Pandora on March 01, 2015, 07:14:39 PM
And if he's smart, and believes in not only the Constitution, but also with our tradition in this regard, he will not run. And that would be too bad, but it is what it is.

I think it is possible that he has researched this and come to the exact same conclusions I have and would not be a bad or wicked man for running, any more than I am for supporting him as my third choice on my short-list. I think his voice is valuable and my hope is that he remains a powerful voice in the Senate. However, if YOU are right, he must either resign or be removed TODAY. Think it through. There are only two ways to be a citizen. He is either natural born as he claims, or because he has not gone through the naturalization process and you should be calling for his removal from the Senate because you believe he is not even a citizen of the United States at all, since there are NOT three statuses of citizenship.

I say he is a natural born citizen.

President of the United States is the only elected office that I know of that requires "natural born citizen". The United States Senate does not.

OFFICE CITIZENSHIP AGE RESIDENCY STATUTE
United States Senator Citizen 9 years 30 years Resident of state when elected United States Constitution Art. I §3

For what it's worth there is a huge part of me that would love to see the duct-up that would come with him declaring. The left would go absolutely nutz and I would be right there pointing out that the last guy never proved he was a natural born citizen either. But then that's the part of me that is ready to burn it all to the ground.

You miss the point. He is EITHER a NATURAL BORN citizen, or no citizen at all, since he has been through NO NATURALIZATION PROCESS. So, I ask all my friends, which is it? Either you must demand his removal from the Senate as a non-citizen, or acknowledge him as a natural born citizen. These are the ONLY two states of citizen-ship and he can only be one, for he is certainly not the other. There has been NO naturalization process for him. Arnold Schwarzenegger went through a naturalization process and could serve as Governor or Senator, but Ted Cruz has not. Which way do you claim he can serve in the Senate? I say it is because he is a natural born citizen, but if you say no, you must demand his removal from the Senate. How can a foreign national be allowed to represent a state of the Union?

Alphabet Soup · « **Reply #97 on:** March 01, 2015, 09:21:07 PM »

Ted Cruz is a native-born citizen of the United States by virtue of Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. His mother was a United States citizen at the time of his birth.

Pandora · « **Reply #98 on:** March 01, 2015, 09:51:55 PM »

Quote from: Alphabet Soup on March 01, 2015, 09:21:07 PM

Ted Cruz is a native-born citizen of the United States by virtue of Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. His mother was a United States citizen at the time of his birth.

Just so.

Libertas · « **Reply #99 on:** March 02, 2015, 07:32:22 AM »

Quote from: ChrstnHsbndFthr on March 01, 2015, 07:29:19 PM

Quote from: Pandora on March 01, 2015, 07:14:39 PM
Quote from: ChrstnHsbndFthr on March 01, 2015, 06:34:45 PM
Alright, but opposition is opposition, right?

No.
I do not understand. Are you saying you do NOT oppose Ted Cruz receiving the GOP nomination or not?

We should be more like Spock, and not take things so personally...I read your post the same way others did...opposing Ted's eligibility is not opposing the man or what he says or what he stands for...it means as strict constructionists we do not believe he is eligible, period. Don't care who said what, don't care about legislation passed by flawed mortals, I just don't care for nuance.

And I know that people like us are a minority, that those willing to compromise principles for what they see as the greater good are more numerous and are likely to overwhelm those like me...but even those people if they are honest with themselves have to admit that by yielding on any principle they make it easier for other principles to fall.

But, in the end it probably doesn't matter...the trajectory of the nation is not toward liberty it is toward tyranny, it is not toward people of good character it is toward people of no character, it is not toward peace and security it is toward servitude and violence.

People will do as their conscience dictates. We should be mindful of that.

Time to move on.