2016 US Presidential Election Pt. IV

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
If Cruz is not Canadian, than he's Cuban, either way he is not a real American. Not in the true sense the founders' intended when they wrote THE Constitution.
 
deep said:
If Cruz is not Canadian, than he's Cuban, either way he is not a real American. Not in the true sense the founders' intended when they wrote THE Constitution.
Click to expand...



Cubans are even better than Americans. They are the only good refugees.
 
Scalia Defends Originalism as Best Methodology for Judging Law




Originalism is not a new concept, it is something Conservatives consider very legit.

Canadians were with the enemy, the British according to the founders, they would never be considered eligible for the presidency. And Cruz was a Canadian citizen. There are some legitimate constitutional questions here. Especially for conservatives that say Scalia is the standard for Supreme Court.
 
"Were" the enemy.

And this is where constitutionalism is stupid. Why does what someone said 300 years ago apply to today? Do you think, that if any of those "founding fathers" were alive today, they would still call the Canadians enemies?

Strict constitutionalism, as though it be something cultish or spiritual, is replacing logic with hearsay.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
"Were" the enemy.

And this is where constitutionalism is stupid. Why does what someone said 300 years ago apply to today? Do you think, that if any of those "founding fathers" were alive today, they would still call the Canadians enemies?

Strict constitutionalism, as though it be something cultish or spiritual, is replacing logic with hearsay.
Click to expand...


I think that's Deep's point; the hypocrisy of picking and choosing to fit their agenda.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
The 'Tea Party' rose to power because they claimed Barack Hussein Obama was not born in THE United States. Rafael Cruz and Marco Rubio (credit for using birth name) are in the Senate because of their support.




Ted Cruz is a fraud.

CRUZ_0819NAT_32638724.JPG
 
deep said:
The 'Tea Party' rose to power because they claimed Barack Hussein Obama was not born in THE United States. Rafael Cruz and Marco Rubio (credit for using birth name) are in the Senate because of their support.




Ted Cruz is a fraud.
Click to expand...

Papers please, Rafael !

:giggle:
 
His mom is a US citizen, so the place of his birth is irrelevant.

Which is why the Obummer Was Born in Kenya thing always bugged me - he still would have been a US citizen.
 
here's where i think i'm at:

Bernie Sanders doesn’t get how politics works

By Michael A. Cohen JANUARY 18, 2016

Sunday night, I watched the fourth Democratic presidential debate so you didn’t have to.

Initial impression: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and democracy won. This was a substantive debate, devoid of the histrionics, name-calling, and fact-free pronouncements that are pro forma in the Republican presidential confabs. Both of the leading candidates did a good job of playing to their respective bases of support. Clinton came across as the pragmatic, level-headed, won’t-rock-the-boat candidate; Sanders as the passionate reformer who wants to start a revolution. As for Martin O’Malley, he seems like a nice man who has no chance of being elected president.

Now for my deeper impression of the debate: even with his rising poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire, I find it increasingly difficult to take Sanders seriously as a presidential candidate.

Maybe it’s the fact that he’s 74, would be the oldest man to ever become president, and yet couldn’t be bothered to release his medical records until a Clinton surrogate attacked him for it.

Maybe it’s that Sanders finds a way to answer virtually every question by turning it back to another predictable and one-dimensional attack on Wall Street and big money.

Maybe it’s that he gets away with proposing unrealistic policy ideas that have little chance of being passed even by Democrats in Congress, let alone Republicans, and then gets praised for being authentic. Sunday night Sanders finally released his single-payer health care plan, which is all of eight pages and provides little detail on how he’ll implement a complete restructuring of the US health care system. That’s at least an improvement over his plan for breaking up the banks, which is four pages and just as short on detail.

Maybe it’s that every time he answers a question on foreign policy and national security, it’s blindingly apparent that not only does he not understand foreign policy and national security, he simply doesn’t care to know more. I mean, only Bernie Sanders could answer a question about instability Middle East by pivoting to an attack on wealthy nations like Saudi Arabia, which he repeatedly says has to play a greater role in the civil war in Syria, as if no one on his staff could bother to tell him that Saudi Arabia is already playing an important role in the civil war in Syria.

Maybe it’s that his political pronouncements and calls for revolution increasingly remind me of the most annoying classmates in my political science classes in college.

It’s all that and something else — Sanders really does have a singularly naive and simple-minded understanding of American politics. He genuinely seems to believe — and I know this because he repeatedly yelled it at me during the debate — that money is the root of all evil in politics and that if you get the big money out, great things will happen. Sanders said that “a handful of billionaires . . . control economic and political life of this country.” He argued that Republicans and Democrats don’t “hate each other.” He called that a “mythology.” Instead, he said, the “real issue is that Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do.”

I’m sorry, but that is a maddeningly simplistic — and wrong — explanation of how American politics works.

Take single-payer health care, which Sanders claims has been difficult to enact because of a corrupt campaign finance system that allows the “pharmaceutical industry” and private insurance companies to spend millions in “campaign contributions and lobbying.”

On the one hand, Sanders is right — those are powerful interests. But so are doctors and hospitals, who’d pay a huge price if single payer became law; so are Republicans, who fought tooth and nail to defeat Obamacare and would do the same for a single-payer plan; so are Democrats, who couldn’t even support a public option for Obamacare and are unlikely to support single payer; so are Americans, who may not be inclined to support another restructuring of the health care system — a few years after the last one. It’s not just about money; it’s also about a political system constructed and reinforced to block the kind of massive reform Sanders is advocating. Money is important, but it’s not even close to the whole story.

How someone who’s been in Washington as long as Sanders can believe that all that stands between doing “what the American people want [Congress] to do” is something as simple as reforming campaign finance is stunning. Sanders, who brags the NRA gives him a D- rating, is the same politician who supported legislation giving gun manufacturers immunity from civil lawsuits and voted against the Brady Bill. Why? Perhaps it is because Sanders comes from a state that has few gun control laws and lots of gun owners. Yes red-state senators who oppose gun control receive contributions from the NRA. They also have constituents who oppose gun control measures and vote on the issue — like Bernie Sanders. It’s as if in Sanders’ mind, parochialism, ideology, or politics plays no role . . . in politics.

This is frankly what’s become so frustrating about Sanders campaign. I give the man credit for raising issues all too rarely heard in presidential debates, and as a protest candidate, Sanders is playing a vital role in the political process. But now that Sanders’ campaign has gathered steam — and he is ludicrously claiming that he’s more electable than Hillary Clinton — Sanders needs to do more than just sound the same tiresome platitudes and one-dimensional arguments about the evils of Wall Street. He needs to take the job of running for president seriously. If Sunday night was any indication, that’s still not happening.

The simple fact is that there were three candidates on the debate stage Sunday night — and only one of them is qualified to be president. It’s not Martin O’Malley, and it’s not Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...
 
corianderstem said:
His mom is a US citizen, so the place of his birth is irrelevant.

Which is why the Obummer Was Born in Kenya thing always bugged me - he still would have been a US citizen.
Click to expand...

...I swear that's not how it works. I could've sworn unless you were born on a base, if you were born in another country, you could NOT be a natural born citizen.
 
Forgive me for Wikipedia:

Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795

The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."[27] This act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as "natural born," stating that "the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States" while retaining the same residency restrictions as the 1790 act.[27]
Current State Department regulation concerning this reads: "This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."[28]
Proposed constitutional amendments

More than two dozen proposed constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress to relax the restriction.[29] Two of the more well known were introduced by Representative Jonathan Bingham in 1974, with the intent to allow German-born Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (otherwise fourth in the line of succession) to become eligible,[30] and the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment by Senator Orrin Hatch in 2003, intending to allow eligibility for Arnold Schwarzenegger.[29] The Bingham amendment would have also made clear the eligibility of those born abroad to U.S. parents,[30] while the Hatch one would have allowed those who have been naturalized citizens for twenty years to be eligible.[29]
Click to expand...

So, basically, it's unclear if Cruz is eligible. :shrug:
 
deep;Aug 19 said:
The more I watch this whole thing I am starting to think Trump may be the GOP's best hope and not even a disaster if he got the nomination and some how got elected. He might end up doing like how Arnold did in CA.

He would certainly do better than W. As for immigration. Both parties might get off their asses and address it and get something done.

I am losing confidence in Hillary, her ability to make correct choices and manage herself in tough situations. Trump seems to be better at it than her..
Click to expand...
.
 
Last edited:
deep said:
will anyone in here say that Trump does not get the nomination??
Click to expand...

I really don't think so. I mean, I'm not saying that we should totally trust polls but its' apparent that Trump has good number of supporters, whether we like it or not (sorry if I'm not impartial, as I am heavily endorsing Sanders personally)
 
deep said:
Who do you think gets the GOP nomination?

What do you think Sanders chances of getting the Dem nomination are?
Click to expand...

for GOP, Donald or Ted Cruz....?

I think Sanders can get Dem nomination if he can get his momentum in tact; he's got grassroots movements, authenticities (which is liked by hipsters or younger generations). but it's true that Hilary may appear more "professional", whatever that means. plus, media coverage of Democratic race itself is kinda shoddy so I'm not too sure
 
...all the political pundits agree that Democratic presidential nominees start out winning New York, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Those are 18 states, plus the District of Columbia, that for the last six consecutive presidential elections have handed the Democratic nominee 242 electoral votes.

They're automatic, we're told.

And only 28 more electoral votes have to be found to win.

To put this in perspective, a win in Florida is all a Democrat nominee needs to ensure getting to the White House.
Click to expand...

^ that is what every GOP primary voted should be considering, which candidate can flip any of those states.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
873
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
womanfish
**Political Junkies** 2020 US Election Predictions
Replies
1
Views
611
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
T
  • Locked
The End is Nigh: US Presidential Election Thread Part XVI
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
43K
LuckyNumber7
LuckyNumber7
Axver
  • Locked
2016 US Presidential Election Thread XIII
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
38K
BEAL
BEAL
Oregoropa
  • Poll
US Presidential Election Poll
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
LuckyNumber7
LuckyNumber7

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom