Some of the candidates “not sure” whether Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen
Fancy that; nice of them to be so concerned.
Here’s Trump—only for Ted’s own good, of course:
Donald Trump wants Ted Cruz to go before a judge to “immediately, like tomorrow” to determine whether or not he is a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to run for president.
Trump made the request for Cruz to seek a declaratory judgment from federal court on the issue during an interview with CNN on Wednesday.
Trump cast such a move as “for the good of Ted.”
And I have little doubt that this snarky comment of Rand Paul has endeared him further to the 100 or so people who still support him:
Rand Paul said on Wednesday that he’s not sure if his Canadian-born rival for the Republican presidential nomination Ted Cruz is eligible to be president of the United States.
“You know, I think without question he is qualified and would make the cut to be prime minister of Canada, absolutely without question, he is qualified and he meets the qualifications,” the Kentucky senator said of Cruz on the radio show Kilmeade and Friends.
Curiously enough, back in 2013 Paul thought differently:
“You won’t find me questioning his eligibility. I decided a long time ago I wouldn’t be a birther. I’m not a birther for Democrats. I’m not a birther for Republicans. I’m staying out of that.”
And maybe John McCain wants to get into the act and run for president again now that Lindsay Graham is out, because McCain’s wondering about Cruz, too.
If you want the legal scoop, go to Andrew C. McCarthy.
See also:http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
Not surprised at all by Rand Paul. Bad character guy.
Trump is trying to turn Ted into “The Mad Canadian” for his WWE campaign.
When I was a kid, the local rassling circuit had Mad Dog Vachon, a French Canadian “heel.”
WWE is the best way to understand Trump.
Whereas many clear headed Americans are perfectly sure Hillary Clinton is a criminal, albeit one not yet indicted.
Can you actually quote trump and put it in context with what he actually said and meant other than the public interpretation of the left?
Thanks…
because its a false narrative if you actually read him and not the huge amount of other stuff.
its akin to making a big issue of someone saying that maybe john kennedy cant win cause he is catholic, but not the same as saying he should not run because he is catholic.
what trump said is that the left can play games with that, and that should be negated before they do…
here is the actual quotes
he did not say that he would tie them up in court / he did not say republicans would
he said that if the left did, and it wasnt adressed, there would be an issue that could derail things for cruz if he was the nominee
the left has decided that means (by assumption) that he is saying, cruz is not a citizen, vote for me. but if thats what he meant, he would say that, as he does not speak in pseudo hints and such, he speaks in bald face comments without regard to pc and obfuscation.
but they are so use to obfuscation, and twisting things, and it works, that you cant get any press that actually covers what he said AND INCLUDES HIS ACTUAL WORDS
ie. why read his actual words, we will tell you waht to think and what he MEANT, regardless of what he said
havent you gotten tired of the, if your against obama policies your a racist kind of thinking? doesnt seem so since that is what everyone is getting suckered into.
here is trumps second quote on it:
notice that the preamble to the quote, puts the left story forward not the actual prior quote.
where did he say that cruz is not eligible?
the left will never stop this bs if we play that game and do not ignore that output and keep trusting that they are arguing from truth, without manipulation.
why shoudl they stop doing this if even the conservatives cant get it right?
America no longer has rules it just the Rule of Law. Since we’re already a banana republic under Trump, HRC, and or Hussein Obola, it doesn’t really matter.
If you’re going to use tyrannical powers to get rid of the tyranny of the Left, as Pinochet did in Chile, that’s fine.
It’s not like the various factions in the US for the elections have much in common.
I guess a better way to put it was that trump was trying to be proactive in terms of removing potential future problems for the republican party, and not reactionary where they would then be on the wire and caught with their pants down
you go early to the court, clear it up way before, and there is not a damn thing the dems can do
you dont go, you assume the position, assume they wont do a thing cause they didnt with obama, then once things have gotten along so far, wham, they do the unconscionable that puts you in a horrid bind.
which would you pick if you could?
which would the left be upset about?
if he clears the points before he or cruz wins, then the left is disarmed – which should scare the bejeesus out of the leftists!!!!!!!
why do you think the left goes to the judge and says seal my college records (bill clinton, bush, hillary who is not even president, and obama have had them all sealed)?
because they are being proactive in blocking their opposition from starting a fight… in this case you have to first get a judge to unseal them, while they get to bake you for trying and never show them!!!
You have to answer a court case even if its wrong, and the left is full of lawyers, and so is the right, and they all know this. [and trump is legally savvy and knows how to block the same game played in real estate. after all, what does the left do to block things? go to court, get an injunction, etc. what can you do to prevent that? go to court, settle it, negate the potential of a expensive fight over an injunction!]
[edited for length by n-n]
What a bunch of jerks. Actually not surprised by Juan McCain, but it sure is disappointing to see what has happened to Rand Paul.
Bill Quick and others have said that Cruz’s parents obtained Canadian citizenship and were residing in Canada before Ted Cruz was born. I don’t know if that is true and if it disqualifies Cruz. Ann Coulter has tweeted that Cruz is not a natural born citizen and is usually good at researching and backing up her arguments. I can’t wait to see what she’s dug up on the issue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/07/why-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/07/yes-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/
Boxty:
Very, very unlikely that Ted’s mother renounced her American citizenship. Too smart for that.
KLSmith:
I got a very bad impression of Paul when I met him. His dad was a crank but Rand is a nasty and devious crank.
Maybe what we should do is define natural born citizen by statute. After Cruz is elected.
Given that some Democrats were not so long ago touting Jennifer Granholm as presidential timber, and half of them would vote Robert Mugabe into office today as “U. S. President and Supreme Law Giver for Life”, I cannot imagine them actually bringing this up, as the hypocrisy would be altogether too precious and blatant …
Doesn’t mean that they could not imagine it or do it, of course.
After all, and speaking of Ann Coulter’s observations, these Democrats are the same people whose favorite strategy is to strike women from behind and then fall to the ground themselves, shrieking in feigned pain and terror in order to preempt any anticipated retaliation.
Again, if there were an actual constitutionalist and legal scholar other than Cruz running, it would not be so damned ironic.
“The Constitution as a living, breathing, plan of government means precisely what I feel it does on any given day; no more, no less. What could be simpler?” Run-of-the-Mill Organism of the Left.
DNW
Statute already written and Ted is eligible.
Paul Clement’s Harvard L. Rev. article explains everything.
He needs to be on TV.
And know this, his former law firm essentially kicked him out despite big revenue capacity and star status because he was on the wrong political side of a 5-4 case. The case, however, was the SSM one. CNN and MSNBC surely won’t have him on.
Artfldgr:
My opinion about what Trump is doing is that he is bringing this up in order to subtly discredit Cruz while never taking a stand that he thinks it does discredit Cruz. So he has plausible deniability, that it’s all in the guise of “helping.”
He’s like a concern troll on a blog. It’s both at the same time.
Trump is using standard WWE storylines.
Ted “The Mad Canadian” Cruz v. Donald “The Rich Businessman” Trump.
Moonbattery is the only place so far that put this in the honest way…
Then links to the same article as neo!!!
Cruz clearly qualifies even under the relatively stringent 1790 rules
but thats irrelevant given the game and that its played by anything you can get away with, and not Marquess of Queensberry Rules
even worse, the left plays even dirtier… and they expect their opposition to follow those rules… so Trump assumes they wont, and pretty much settled this deal way before the selection of candidate and took one potential game piece off the table.
If NONE of this happened, what could then be gamed later on?
its playing to win, not playing by some set of arbitrary rules your opposition doesnt follow and the people refuse to acknowlege
the sad truth is that the people who want republians to win want a special one to win, not any one. and the dems will take anyone… thats a disadvantage to the republicans that divide them.
you may not like trump, but he just insured that Cruz cant be knocked out by ancillary bs in which the left says, what we wont let you do, we do.
“When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle” Louis Veuillot
When we compete i ask you follow rules i wont follow and then i get your more moral people to get upset when i show your not saintly clean and willing to lose the nation rather than win at any cost which is the game i am playing
its about which SIDE wins, not about WHO wins
Trump and Cruz get along well, and you can see it when they are on stage and passing each other and such. like two people from the same team who would be happy either wins, but very unhappy if the other team wins.
it doesnt mean that trump doesnt want to win ove cruz, or cruz doesnt want to win over trump, it means that they are not going to take each other out and then favor hillary.
take a look at what you guys are saying
please take a step back and look what your saying
and who or rather which side it serves
then realize why they have won so much
i cant post an image, but PLEASE study this and see who has won most of the time in the lives of everyone here… take a look who has really been in control of the house and senate since 1933!!!!!!!!!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Combined–Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png/850px-Combined–Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png
who was in control of what and who had overlapping majorities to make whatever they want and change what they want, and blame who?
Cornhead:
Trump is using standard WWE storylines.
Ted “The Mad Canadian” Cruz v. Donald “The Rich Businessman” Trump.
Trump is? When did he say any of that, and you realize that this is marxist? the rich guy is always a target for being a rich guy, or they ignore he is rich at all, like the impovrished 100 million hillary… and cruz is not rich, so what are you going to slander him with?
the left does not need to slander trump or cruz, they only have to let their trained pavlovian dogs do it for them… its irresistable!!!
but for fun, this is what I remember
lets go back to 1975
Ken Carter (stuntman)
Carter was born in Montreal and grew up in a working-class neighborhood. With little education, he dropped out of school to perform car stunts with a team of traveling daredevils. Soon he was a solo act, jumping at racetracks all over North America. He became a notorious showman, earning the nickname “The Mad Canadian” for his death-defying antics
this has no bearing on anything…
repeating it just refreshes the meme (idea) in the minds of people who you really dont want to think that way about the only people you have on your side (like em or not).
this is one reason why the left gets their news lies in first, because to refute something you have to bring it up, and each time you bring something up, you refresh and make it more solid and true in the minds of the person hearing it!!!
maybe neo can tell me what the official term for that is, but its straight out of psych and social investigations.
We know one crazy Democrat – Grayson – has homed in on this issue. While Trump is obviously helping Trump, rather than Cruz, it is a legitimate issue.
More analysis here:
http://www.dailypundit.com/?p=113908
The issue appears to hinge on Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Wilson. From an Salon article quoted by Daily Pundit,
Cruz was born on Dec 22nd, 1970. The only time scale I can find for the Cruz family move to Canada is 1964-66. So, it looks like she was “physically present” in the U.S. for the necessary amount of time. Ted Cruz just has to prove it to put the matter to rest.
Art
I made up the WWE nicknames based upon my experience with Omaha’s All Star wrestling in the ’60’s.
my apologies cornhead… 🙂
but its not helping…
though you may find this interesting
Donald Trump just threw the kitchen sink at the Clintons
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/07/attacking-the-clintons-is-the-smartest-thing-donald-trump-has-done-in-a-while/
PatD
The “paper trail” on Mrs. Cruz red herring is a crazy notion interjected by nuts and birthers.
The documents don’t exist!
oh, who was the crazy canadian in the 60s? i only remembered ken from the 70s…
We had Mad Dog Vachon in Omaha. French Canadian.
Ghost…
One must wonder if Trump is reading neo neocon.
….
&&&
The fact that the anti-Cruz crusade has immediately gone to his birthright status is a ‘tell’ … indicating that they don’t have any other substantive sins in his closet.
THAT’S the key take away.
&&&&
You might note that for all practical purposes Paul is an agent for the Democrat party.
He’s the ultimate loose policy canon, swivelling around to wound all and every, then with no ammo for the Hill.
Blert:
Ted’s public record is arguing appellate cases.
Trump: four BKS, real estate deals, ex-wives, lawsuits, WWE video etc.
Watch Trump on WWE.
The Right Scoop: Mark Levin RESPONDS to challenge on Cruz eligibility
trump ia many things, one thing he is not is stupid, and I doubt that he suffers dumbies in his employment. Artfldger may believe trump is trying to protect Cruz from ‘birther attacks’ from the left. I believe trump does not do anything that does not benefit trump. As far as McCain is concerned his comment is flashing the bird in the face of the “whacko bird” who has repeatedly ruffled the feathers of the gope gentlemens club.
Swish!
Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, an attorney and Democratic Senate candidate, tells U.S. News he will file a lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility should he overtake Trump and win the nomination — a scenario that’s at least plausible with the senator besting Trump in some Iowa polls.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-06/congressman-readies-ted-cruz-eligibility-lawsuit-with-eye-on-mom
[do notice that the article refers to him as Rep and not (D)]
“If he’s not qualified to be president according to our Constitution, then he certainly should not serve,” Grayson says, poring over his notes for the possible lawsuit. “There’s quite a lot of stuff here.”
parker Says: I believe trump does not do anything that does not benefit trump.
oh i agree… but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t look at what is better if he loses as well… and ultimately given his run, it is better (for him) that Cruz wins if he does not than Hillary or others.
ultimately everyone is like that but few admit it. very few people are selfless and even fewer of the politicians that profess it are. Most people look out for themselves and the rest is a matter of degree, belief, and circumstance. Degree ranging from hard selfishness to giving up ones life for another, belief could range from not thinking one is up to it to believing one is, and circumstance is generally the crucible that tests them together.
Its easy to deal with someone who is looking out for themselves and honest about it, its the bloke who claims to be doing it for you that will slit your throat if you don’t make sure he walks in front of you 🙂
Disqualification of Cruz would be such a ‘convenient opportunity’ for the democrats.
Hillary’s email criminality, such a ‘trivial inconvenience’.
I still think Trump/Cruz is the best possible ticket we can get this time around, that has a decent chance of winning.
And it does appear to me that Trump and Cruz have some affinity for each other, so I think such a ticket is plausible.
Artfldgr: When did Heinlein say that? It is very close to Ayn Rand’s opinion of altruism.
rickl…
Trump has ALREADY run the idea up the flagpole.
Which is most unusual so early in.
“Beware of altrusim. It is based on self-deception”
I’m a life long fan of Heinlein, have read most everything he ever wrote and cannot recall him ever say that. Were “often” added to, “based on self-deception”, I could readily agree.
But to posit that kindness to strangers is always self-deception is for me a bridge too far. The good Samaritan did not help out of self-interest, simple humanity was his motivation. Sometimes when the need is great enough, doing the right thing is not an ‘option’ but just who we are…
The dirt on Donald
http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/07/to-take-down-trump-you-must-attack-him-personally/
No one has, yet, taken trump to the woodshed for a good thrashing. Like the mannish boy, his skin is a micron thick. And you trumpsters thought McCain was a weak candidate.
Here’s a link to Trump and WWE. I had forgotten about the WWE fans. Not my cuppa, but many of them probably vote.
http://tinyurl.com/hcnhzqk
@boxty
Ann Coulter has tweeted that Cruz is a US citizen:
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2016/01/07/the-bookworm-beat-1716-the-illustrated-edition-and-open-thread/
When you’re on the same side as John McCain, you need to re-examine your priorities.
Matt_SE:
Coulter tweeted that in 2013; now she’s saying this:
Jan. 6 — @AnnCoulter: Same lawyers who said anchor babies are in the Constitution now tell us being born outside U.S to 1 American parent = natural born citizen.
Jan. 7 — @AnnCoulter: NYT [says] Cruz was born outside the U.S. to 1 American parent: “Under the Constitution this makes him a ‘natural born citizen.’” Absolutely false.
rickl, Geoffrey Britain: The Heinlein quote is from “Intermission: Excerpts from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long” in Time Enough for Love. It’s on p. 248 in my copy, which is the 1973 Berkley Medallion paperback edition.
But to posit that kindness to strangers is always self-deception is for me a bridge too far.
The Japanese pov might be that apologizing and obeying social rituals in order to appear good, is merely a form of self satisfaction, not about aiding other people or society itself.
So people who are kind to strangers, are doing so because of their or conscience, not because they are adhering to social ritual and laws. Those who are only kind because an outside force makes them so, are not altruistic in the ideal sense, but merely selfish, afraid of Disobeying the Power.
People who do things for other people, while recognizing that they do so because they want to or because they benefit from it, are seeing things with a bit more clarity.
The good Samaritan did not help out of self-interest, simple humanity was his motivation.
The Samaritan that helps people who hurt his self interest, will soon be a skeleton, a corpse, or a slave.
Good people helping out good people is in the self interest of the Good. Good people helping out evil people so that evil people can get rid of good people, is also “helping” but it does not serve the self interest of the Just.
I’m fairly sure that Jesus would say that “apologizing and obeying social rituals in order to appear good” is not a genuine expression of the good Samaritan impulse. Nor is helping evil people. Self interest while important is not the sole criteria on which to behave because to do so is to ultimately harm oneself. As it results in a dog eat dog world.
“apologizing and obeying social rituals in order to appear good” is not a genuine expression of the good Samaritan impulse. Nor is helping evil people. Self interest while important is not the sole criteria on which to behave because to do so is to ultimately harm oneself.
Which is in essence a contradiction. Unless one is forwarding the proposal that ‘harm to oneself’ is in one’s self interest for not merely individuals but for everyone as a rule.
There is no such thing as a good Samaritan “impulse”. There is only a person, called the Samaritan. An evil Samaritan will help people, not to benefit himself, but to merely make sure people fall down and are destroyed, so long as it benefits more or better people.
It’s about the same, in terms of altruism. For there to be good Samaritans, they have to be good, meaning, they cannot act against the interests of the Good, which they belong to or are allies of.
Evil Samaritans, defined as people who help evil not because of self interest, do not need a self interest either.
It all comes out as which you want more of. If you want Samaritans that are good, their self interest must be accounted for in the actions. Self Sacrifice for the goal of Altruism, merely kills off good people and leaves the world to the evil. It’s inevitable.
Actually, The Donald is trying to do him a favor. Get it out of the way now, rather than have to fight it in June.
Or September.
I know how the Cruz people love to cry about how insane the Trump people are, but you guys need to listen to yourselves. Anything Trump says is a plot against Dear Old Ted. Trump could have been a lot nastier if that was really the case.
The Demos have already started making noises about this stuff and the more you let it go, the harder it’s going to be to fight it.
http://10news.dk/?p=2165
Here’s a realistic example of the Good Samaritan vs the self deceiving Altruist.
“A seven year old girl was stabbed to death in an apartment in Upplands-Bro in northern Stockholm on 25 July this year by a 36 year old man, Daniel Gebru. Ten months earlier Gebru arrived as a welfare of migrant from Eritrea to Sweden. …
Gebru has not been able to give any concrete reasons for why he cut the throat of the seven-year girl in the bathroom of her home. He had previously been living in the apartment. What he did there on that day is unclear because according to some data he was not living there anymore. As the Court notes, however, he did live in the apartment when the murder was committed but Gebru had failed to pay rent.
Gebru has stated that he had intended to take his own life but for unknown reasons instead stabbed the girl to death.”
A self deceiving Altruist might say “we need to help him, bring him here, that is the right thing to do”.
A non self deceiving person might say “we’re going to have to trade for something in my benefit first or I refuse to help”.
Gebru’s children is not going to become Samaritans, good or otherwise. That 7 year old might have produced more good Samaritans, if altruism hadn’t somehow killed her.
That’s the reality people like to forget, when they talk about Biblical stories. They were real people, with real problems, not legends and stories people can make use depending on how they feel like it.
formwiz:
Oh, that kind and thoughtful Mr. Trump, doing Cruz a favor!
No, that’s not his motive. His motive is to taint Cruz if he can, right in the here and now, when Cruz is threatening him.
This is not a new topic—Cruz’s birth—that Trump has just suddenly come up with out of nowhere. Do you think Cruz is unaware of it? Many have brought it up before, and many will again.
Harry Frankfurt’s paper On Bullshit is particularly apt to our times — we’ve hardly a candidate who isn’t expert in the dissemination of vast timewasting swathes of the stuff, with Ted Cruz the remarkable exception, and on this question joined so far as I can see only by Jeb Bush, of all people.
rickl Says: Artfldgr: When did Heinlein say that? It is very close to Ayn Rand’s opinion of altruism.
sorry.. if i write to answer peoples questions that puts my day total up and neo deletes the answers, so i just ignore it till the next day and pray
the quote can be found in the notbooks of lazarus long, which is derived from various books where the character appears like time enough for love…
Geoffrey Britain
but see
Unmasking the Motives of the Good Samaritan
among others.
basically the motive of the good samaritan is to be good, and his value system is that if he does that he is good.. if he walked past he would see himself as bad, and did not want to be that
duh.
his self interest was that his actions defined him and he did not want to be defined by the inaction.
however, thats not the point of the story, as the point of a christian is to be a good person.. to try to desire that and to do what is right, even if you dont directly benefit.
but the point is not lost on me, its just that you cant act conciously and avoid self interest, even if your idea is to pick to try to avoid self interest.
its kind of like trying not to think of polar bears after you say polar bear, the more you try not to, the more you actually do. the reason is easy, you need to think of polar bear to compare that to the thoughts to see if you think of a polar bear.
🙂
Cornhead Says: The dirt on Donald
parker Says: his skin is a micron thick
no… he has never had good press..
but not letting people deride you without a response is an old real man thing, not a sign of a thin skin
the idea of a thick skin is what abusers say so they can abuse without a response. ie. let me hurt you cause you have a thick skin, and if your skin is thin, shut up and let me abuse you and be quiet.
thats all that bs means…
it goes back to shakespear and reputation
its why ppl in the hood will kill you for dissing them
Iago:
Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
Othello Act 3, scene 3, 155—161
of course a person who is trying to harm someones reputation doesnt want them to fight back, so telling them they have a thin skin is a way to shame them from putting the insulting person in their place!!!!!!
its a version of pissing on someones leg and telling them its raining
now i hope with three posts neo doesnt kill them
i would love to answer more, but cant.
neo-neocon Says: formwiz: No, that’s not his motive. His motive is to taint Cruz if he can, right in the here and now, when Cruz is threatening him. This is not a new topic–Cruz’s birth–that Trump has just suddenly come up with out of nowhere. Do you think Cruz is unaware of it? Many have brought it up before, and many will again.
-=-=-=-=-=-
face it neo. you dont like trump so you cant concieve of him doing anything but bad… he is tainted to you no matter what he does.
if your thing was true, then doing it LATER would have been more valuable than now…
your point is not valid… how can you taint someone with something they already know about themselves? by your own point, cruz already knew he was tainted!!!!!!!!! all donald did was get him to address the taint in plenty of time rather than sit there and hope i would pass. trump knew it would not pass, and that the closer to the election the more inconvenient it would be.
“seeing evil where there is none”
no matter what he does your going to find the bad angle for it
but then again, thats pessimism… isnt it? its how dislike colors your view.
and what if trump said nothing and then it blew up in cruzs face?
would you say then that trump could have warned him but didnt?
welcome to the pivot of the cassandra syndrome
where no good deed goes unpunished
if this is the mode of thought, there is nothing the other person can do to not be seen poorly.. and trump has NEVER been seen publicly by the press in your lifetime as good… its a fait accompli..
after 50 years of men cant be men, rich are bad, and on and on like marinating, some people who ahve those qualities, and have done nothing wrong compared to others, can never get a break
this is the point of marinating the public on such things..
even if a person shows up that would or could help and has the strength to, we fear them, hate them, and will negate our only exit..
in order to insure the public cant be saved you have to make the public afraid of those who could save them… imagine drowning and being super fearful of a life guard… its the same thing…
Cruz is not going to roll back anything much which is why the left would rather go up against Cruz… he is easy to beat… very easy… just think what would have happened if trump shut up and he left did do something about the taint we tried to ignore and make go away rather than take action to address it beforehand
game set match… hillary wins..
or havent you noticed that she should be in jail and wont
so what do you think they woudl do to cruz? heck, how long has that video maker been in jail for hillaries benefit?
Arfldgr:
You are incorrect. I actually do not dislike Trump, and I’ve written a number of good things about him, including this, for example, and this post from before he was a 2016 candidate.
Trump is also familiar to me. As an ex-New Yorker who was raised in that milieu I am comfortable with his style, even. I think—for reasons I’ve gone into many many times, and feel no need to repeat ad nauseam here—he would make a bad president compared to quite a few others running for the position on the GOP side, and I find him untrustworthy and it is my opinion that he’s a narcissist, and that the support for him is similar (although different in many aspects) to the cult of personality Obama engendered.
Artfldgr:
Oh, and by the way—of course Trump wasn’t tainting Cruz in Cruz’s eyes. He was bringing the citizenship thing up again at this particular point for people who might not have been aware of it yet. Cruz was certainly not one of those people. My point is that Cruz already knew the issue could be and would be a problem, so “helping” Cruz by bringing it up to Cruz now was not Trump’s goal. His goal was to remind Iowa voters about it before the caucus, and that’s why he brought it up now.
The problem is that sheep are afraid of sheep dogs as they appear to them as wolves and are too similar!!! [the wolves like the fabians are wearing sheeps clothing and they cant tell they need a sheep dog to get them]
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs – Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of “On Killing.”
http://www.mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
My family is a family of sheep dogs… we know wolves when we see them, we know other sheep dogs when we see them. the sheep fear us both.. 🙂
You let me know how you will defeat the wolves, as Cruz is not going to do that, he is not a sheep dog..
The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day.
and thats probably why you dont like trump out of many other reasons… he looks for a fight… pacifist sheep hate violence even if its the violence that protects them, and we been marinated in feminist anti male pacifism…
how did that do when the wolves attacked the women in germany, or in the US for that matter and there were no sheep dogs to help?
and combining posts…
[im going to be so deleted 🙁 ]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
if i remember you were on Savage, yes?
Savage: Trump is ‘Winston Churchill of our time’
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/savage-trump-is-winston-churchill-of-our-time
So it was no surprise that Savage told Trump during an interview yesterday that he is “the lion that we have been waiting for, you’re the Winston Churchill of our time.”
churchill was a hated sheepdog too…
Artfldgr:
You are very far off in your characterization, both of me and of Trump re Churchill. Although I suppose I could say that if Trump is a Churchill for our times, it might just reflect on how awful the standards of our times have gotten.
By the way, see this for my discussion of Grossman’s work. See also this for my discussion of Grossman and the sheep/sheepdog distinction.
Neo, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Fiorina joined in the dump on Cruz action by wondering why he waited until 2014 to renounce his Canadian citizenship, just before his intended run for the presidency. Unfortunately it fits perfectly with his reputation for taking positions out of calculation.
I believe Cruz had a great opportunity to expose Trump at the last debate. With his intellect and debating skills he was the only one who could have done it. That he chose to remain silent indicates to me that he has been promised something, like VP, Attorney General, or Supreme Court nomination. In other words, he sold out.
The whole thing leaves me totally disgusted. I doubt if I”ll vote in the general, especially if it’s Trump vs. Hillary.
Altruism in the dogmatic sense looks like but is not the same as duty, selflessness – even self-sacrificial selflessness – and service in the social context of community as exemplified by the military.
The Other Chuck:
“I doubt if I”ll vote in the general, especially if it’s Trump vs. Hillary.”
Participatory politics are bigger than and subsume electoral politics.
Which is to say, there are ways, and often more effective and impactful ways, for concerned citizens to make a difference beyond your vote – ways where the Right has been cripplingly deficient, causing festering vulnerabilities resulting in the current wounded state of affairs.
The ways are not especially complicated, but they must be collective, tenacious, always, and non-stop to compete sufficiently in the forever social cultural/political contest.
The Other Chuck : I could be wrong of course, but I think Cruz is just trying to honor Reagan’s 11th amendment. And not get into a poo slinging fight with Tump.
one last point to address what you just said to me.. so please give me the ability to answer, i am trying to stop wriging on this thread, i am past my limit.
He was bringing the citizenship thing up again at this particular point for people who might not have been aware of it yet………
your point is that there are enough ignorant iowans who would listen to trump tell them this common knowlege that is all over the place and that number of them would change the outcome of the caucus to trump from cruz when they find out..
how many in iowa are that ignorant of that point?
how many in iowa once hearing it if ignorant would care?
you think that there are enough of those to actually move the dial enough to make it an issue in the caucus?
from two days ago, post trump reminder, cruz and trumps numbers have not changed…
32% Cruz
28% Trump
you ever read ted cruz wiki?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz
sorry, but if the birth thing didnt unseat a half black man who had no experience, no businesses he ran, was put forth by a admitted bomber, and so on and so forth… then similar is not going to do a thing of any note in Iowa… but it DID draw out the left idiots and the rinos and expose them… didnt it?
Obama got nearly 40% when hillary got 30% and edwards got 30%… if your thesis was right in the prior iteration, edwards or clinton should have taken iowa..
my point is that the public dont care any more than they did with obama and that the only thing that that would derail is if a judge acted on it, as the people arent going to. and if you want to negate a judge in the pocket of the left, you have to initiate and take care of it… not ignore it. because it would be very hard to get a judge to go against another judge in short order close to the actual election…
iowa dont care about that.. they didnt with Obama they arent going to with Cruz… why would they?
but as the rep from florida points out, they are going to wait for cruz to win the caucus or the nomination and then hit him with a lawsuit, and he had all that paper work and information to hand over in an article in under 24 hours from trumps mention..
basically i dont agree because i dont think the public cares
only the left thinks they will, and is throwing lots of dirty underwear all over to see what sticks.. this to see whether you hate trump for saying it, cruz for living it, etc…
they are so desperate as their two oppositions are clean…
but they want to go against Cruz more than Trump
Cruz will be nice and not bring up things to win
and Trump will play hardball to win
Trump knows that the left will play hardball and you score no points with the public trying to be nice to that, as all that happens is you lose.. we may not like hardball, but hardball wins even if we dont like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cruz is nice enough not to treat hillary as an equal – and play hardball like she will… he also wants to be liked enough that he wont say things that the left will make out that he should be hated.
Iowa caucus will not turn on what didnt turn them before…
and before was worse than now…
Artfldgr:
No, my point is NOT that it was common knowledge before this.
Here’s what I wrote:
Absolutely the case.
But I doubt that lots and lots of people already know about it; maybe half? (That’s just a guess.) LIVs most certainly haven’t heard much about it till now. We on blogs have known plenty about it for a long time, and it HAS been brought up time and again, and I had no doubt whatsoever that it would be brought up by the Democrats if Cruz wins. And there is no doubt whatsoever that Cruz knows about it, and has dealt with the topic and knows he will deal with it again.
That was my point.
So, why did Trump bring it up now? Everything he says gets more publicity, and his timing is to affect the Iowa caucus results (where Cruz is that person who threatens him, and the Iowa caucus is relatively soon) by reaching those Iowans—I would imagine it’s a significant number, although I have no idea how many—who were unfamiliar with the subject before.
Other Chuck:
I’ve followed Cruz closely since he was a guest on Mark Levin’s show at the beginning of his primary race for US Senator. He was a huge underdog against Lt Gov David Dewhurst, a RINO backed with major Establishment dollars. Dewhurst spent millions in attack ads against Cruz, but Cruz remained relentlessly positive and didn’t return the slime. He ended up pummeling Dewhurst.
I’ve read or listened to lots of interviews of Cruz and he has yet to change his approach: relentlessly positive. I can’t recall him personally attacking anybody, including Obama. He will forcefully (and brilliantly) disagree with the political views, policies and actions of any opponent but will not get into the gutter with them. He appears to me to be the most honorable and civil candidate in my lifetime, right up there with Reagan and Romney, but unlike Romney, will clobber anyone in a debate.
I get it that you don’t like Cruz, but he is a brilliant lawyer and an expert on the Constitution. Perhaps his opinion, echoed by nearly every other Constitutional lawyer including some on the left, was that his citizenship status would not be an issue. Maybe he had no idea in 2013 that he would run for POTUS, at least not at the very next opportunity. Did any of us understand in 2012 that the Republican Party would turn on the Tea Party and its own base with the such a fury, even after we delivered control of Congress to them?
If Trump were to get the nomination and pick Cruz for his VP, or not, but win the general election, and instead choose him for Attorney General or a Supreme Court appointment, is there any doubt from the viewpoint of conservatives that he would be totally qualified and should be the logical first choice for any of those positions? Trump wouldn’t need to buy off Cruz with promises, he’d be a fool not to put him at the top of his list.
You are very far off in your characterization, both of me and of Trump re Churchill.
how does remembering you were on savage make that point? im curious… as i never made that point in that, all i did was say i was combining posts to keep from being deleted or cut down, and afraid i was passing the line
like being under a camera, it changes behavior and clarity and so on.
but i never made a characterization..
all i wrote in that part was:
if i remember you were on Savage, yes?
churchill was a hated sheepdog too…
but if i dont combine them wich some read as putting them together, you delete me for too many posts… no? so i guess my fear is making adaptations that dont help clarity, but thats the problem with censorship for ANY reason.. even if good…
it forces maladaptions where there wouldnt be any in its absence… second guessing is not a good place to be all the time, is it?
now i am way over my limit…
please dont write to me any more i will feel compelled to answer then get cut… save it for another day, if the thread lasts that long…
[by the way, even a limit changes things. the content of twitter is very different than other things precisely because of the out of hand censorship for space… same with articles that have to fit, or even when billy joel complained it was a beautiful song but it ran to long so we cut it down to 3:05!! its an ingredient that changes the whole that only its absecne can avoid]
Unlike what is asserted with regard to crude oil (which assertion ain’t necessarily soap), apparently there is no such thing as peak timewaster.
neo-neocon Says: Artfldgr: No, my point is NOT that it was common knowledge before this.
so basiocally i have to agree with an assumptive feeling you have about how much iowans know to accept your point..
i credit them with more knowing, and the idea that they dont care even if they do know…
you credit them with less knowing and that they will care and change their minds willy nilly once they discover it
meanwhie, several newspapers in iowa had a big yelling match over this stuff from months ago.. before the latest.. with a big neg to the de moines register. you have read those articles yes? i have…
The Des Moines Register is the main paper and this has been there over and over, and farm folk talk alot..
so i think they know a lot by reading what they know and discuss… here is the register article from July 20, 2015
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/07/20/presidential-candidates-what–know-facts/30422297/
32. Cruz was born in Calgary to an American-born mother, Eleanor, and a Cuban-born father, Rafael. He automatically became a citizen of the U.S. and Canada when he was born. He officially renounced his Canadian citizenship last year. Two former top Justice Department lawyers wrote in the Harvard Law Review that “there is no question” Cruz meets the Constitution’s requirement of being eligible to run for president.
why not read their paper than make assumptions..
and
Six things to know about Ted Cruz as he launches 2016 bid March 23, 2015 third paragraph
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/03/22/six-things-ted-cruz-launch-presidential-bid/25181635/
BORN IN CANADA
Cruz was born Dec. 22, 1970, in Calgary to an American-born mother, Eleanor, and a Cuban-born father, Rafael. His parents were working in the oil industry at the time. Cruz automatically became a citizen of the United States and Canada when he was born. He officially renounced his Canadian citizenship last year. Two former top Justice Department lawyers wrote in the Harvard Law Review that “there is no question” Cruz meets the Constitution’s requirement of being a “natural born citizen” and is thus eligible to run for president.
i do research before i make a guess..
im very empirical in my debating
havent you noticed 🙂
Artfldgr:
I have certainly noticed that you think you are very empirical when you argue. But no, I haven’t noticed that you are; you very often, for example, misunderstand what other people are saying, and you very often ignore the arguments against what you are saying.
Such as this, for example, from the brilliant lawyer Andrew C. McCarthy, and this from another smart lawyer (and in this case, Trump supporter) Mark Levin.
By the way, I have not said what I think Iowans will do or not do. I am analyzing why I believe that Trump brought this up now, and what effect I think that he thinks it could have on Iowa caucus voters, not what effect I think it will have on Iowa caucus voters.
Also, you write “so basically i have to agree with an assumptive feeling you have about how much iowans know to accept your point.. ”
As I said, it’s not my feeing about how much Iowans know, or what effect this knowledge or lack thereof will have on them. It’s my reading of Trump’s motives. At this point, you or I may be correct about his motives. I think I’m correct, you think you’re correct. That’s how opinions work. We each have our evidence and our reasons, but since we’re guessing about motivations, in the end it’s a gut feeling based on observations of previous behavior by Trump, as well as observations about human nature. But you certainly don’t HAVE to agree with any feeling or hunch that I have, nor I with you.
Artfldgr:
You are misunderstanding what I was referring to when I said you were mischaracterizing me. I was not talking about my appearance on Savage at all; I was in fact interviewed by him in about a 10-minute spot about a guy who had written about jettisoning the parts of the Constitution he didn’t care for (a liberal law professor).
The mischaracterization that I was talking about was when you wrote “The problem is that sheep are afraid of sheep dogs as they appear to them as wolves and are too similar!!!” Then I linked to some posts of mine that showed my opinions about sheep and sheepdogs and also on Grossman’s work, with which I am familiar.
Eric, yes I know there are other ways to affect political change beside voting. The cultural changes taking place are so overwhelming it leaves me feeling isolated and without hope sometimes.
KLSmith, Reagan’s 11th Commandment is all fine and good in normal times. Unfortunately, Trump is in another category.
geokstr, thank you for the insight into Cruz, the man. I genuinely hope you are right. However, it doesn’t jive with his willingness to take on the entire Republican Senate, and calling McConnell a liar. Why the trepidation with Trump? I can come up with only one answer.
Cruz’s mother delivered the goods: her own birth certificate.
http://www.joemygod.com/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-releases-mothers-delaware-birth-certificate/
Note that Trump did not say Cruz was ineligible. He said, in response to a WPO question, that Cruz should settle the issue before Democrats raised it.
The answer I would come up with is that McConnell held an elected position of responsibility at the time; one in which he was expected to exercise his responsibilities to the party and its members and agenda. All of which was enabled, most would agree, by the surge of grassroots Republican activism that handed these guys virtual control.
This makes McConnell liable for a category of ethical and moral criticism [“faithlessness” to put it mildly] which a free agent, not yet under obligation, isn’t.
This does not mean that Trump hasn’t faults which can be addressed. It means that Cruz is not obligated by his own internalized moral principles to call “Quisling” when a quisling Trump is not. At least not yet. McConnell was, under this interpretation, guilty of a kind of dereliction of duty, or an exhibition of cowardice under fire (trying to avoid the “T” word here).
The problem with most Republican politicians has not been that they were blowhards, but that they yammered on about principle while exhibiting that in practice they had round heels.