2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V

[Axver]

As I've probably said often before, this particular requirement for the presidency - whatever "natural born citizen" may prove to mean after a legal challenge - is ridiculous, an example of eighteenth century paranoia being allowed undue influence over twenty-first century politics.

[Kieran McConville]

Well it's par for the course. The Founders and the Constitution are now an immovable, unchangeable monument, trapped in aspic, the Hadiths of American civic life. And the Supreme Court are the high priests.

[BVS]

It would be interesting to see how a literalist like Scalia would have ruled, would he have risked pissing off his base?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Axver

How on earth is it hypocritical? Obama being born outside the US is a bullshit conspiracy theory. Cruz being born outside the US is a basic fact.

If Obama had actually been born outside the US there could've been a legitimate legal challenge to establish what exactly "natural born citizen" means once and for all. But he wasn't, so there wasn't. If Cruz is nominated or elected, however, there will be the opportunity to test the definition.

Not a shred of hypocrisy.

Of course a challenge would play badly, but that will be the fault of "asshats" (and not the DNC).

Conspiracy or not, the argument is founded on the same premise. He can't be president because -insert entirely arbitrary reason that doesn't factually change a thing-.

Obama was still born to an American. Even if he WAS born in Kenya, which he obviously wasn't, he'd still have been an American citizen. Would such a technicality have made a damn difference? Think critically.

There's zero reason to believe Ted Cruz's birthplace illegitimizes his ability to be commander and chief. There's also zero concrete language on the grounds of technicality -- just basically a damn bible verse that you get to choose how you want to interpret, written by some fat sweaty old guy in a wig who hasn't showered in dats, two hundred and fifty years ago. Nobody thought it was an issue months ago when he launched his campaign. Why care now? Because it's convenient. Entirely hypocritical, because if this were their candidate...

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by bono_212

There is a definite legit argument that Cruz is entirely ineligible to run for president, and it bugs me that it's not being talked about more after the bullshit, racist Kenyan business.

No, under Ted Cruz's own wildly xenophobic beliefs, Ted Cruz is an illegitimate candidate for presidency. Secure the border! No to Hispanics! We don't like "your kind."

I expect more from a liberal, progressive mind. He's got the citizenship and he's had it from the minute he was born. He didn't apply for it. He didn't elect to take it. This has not been an issue until late in the game, because Donald Trump said it.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Conspiracy or not, the argument is founded on the same premise. He can't be president because -insert entirely arbitrary reason that doesn't factually change a thing-.

Obama was still born to an American. Even if he WAS born in Kenya, which he obviously wasn't, he'd still have been an American citizen. Would such a technicality have made a damn difference? Think critically.

There's zero reason to believe Ted Cruz's birthplace illegitimizes his ability to be commander and chief. There's also zero concrete language on the grounds of technicality -- just basically a damn bible verse that you get to choose how you want to interpret, written by some fat sweaty old guy in a wig who hasn't showered in dats, two hundred and fifty years ago. Nobody thought it was an issue months ago when he launched his campaign. Why care now? Because it's convenient. Entirely hypocritical, because if this were their candidate...

I think you're being a little too dismissive. From a critical and logical standpoint, absolutely you are correct and no one in here is saying otherwise, but from a side that is often literal and treat the document as God himself wrote it, the argument is a legitimate questioning of consistency.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BVS

I think you're being a little too dismissive. From a critical and logical standpoint, absolutely you are correct and no one in here is saying otherwise, but from a side that is often literal and treat the document as God himself wrote it, the argument is a legitimate questioning of consistency.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

But then that's hypocrisy right there, isn't it? If you're acting one way normally, but acting another way simply because this is what the other side normally acts like... that's hypocrisy in a nutshell.

[anitram]

I don't care if he is or isn't a natural citizen, I am loving that this birtherism is coming back to bite them in the ass. It's wonderful.

Cruz is definitely a lying sack of shit. His mother is on Canadian voter rolls and he says that's some sort of a "clerical error" she was unaware of. Yarite. And it doesn't even matter if she is, who cares, she can be a citizen of wherever, but he feels like he needs to lie about something that's totally inconsequential.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

But then that's hypocrisy right there, isn't it? If you're acting one way normally, but acting another way simply because this is what the other side normally acts like... that's hypocrisy in a nutshell.

I agree, and it wouldn't be a smart move by the Dems, and frankly I haven't heard any legitimate source say they would.

But it would be a brilliant implosion if Trump would.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

I'm all about Donald Trump suing Ted Cruz because I want to grab a bucket of popcorn and watch them burn together.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I'm all about Donald Trump suing Ted Cruz because I want to grab a bucket of popcorn and watch them burn together.

It would probably be one of the greatest political shows of our generation.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

the political calculus i'm seeing is that Obama will choose someone hugely sympathetic to the Democratic base. so when the GOP lights itself on fire to oppose the nominee, that will spark the needed outrage to drive critical demographics to the polls and increase electoral turnout which should then all but guarantee a D victory in November and cement O's forever reputation.

It's really interesting. It's actually almost like the best thing for the GOP to do would be to allow Obama's nominee to get through. It would continue to fuel the GOP base's "Obama gets everything he wants and we just lay down for it" paranoia, it would leave Dems satisfied and possibly even less interested in the election than before.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

It's really interesting. It's actually almost like the best thing for the GOP to do would be to allow Obama's nominee to get through. It would continue to fuel the GOP base's "Obama gets everything he wants and we just lay down for it" paranoia, it would leave Dems satisfied and possibly even less interested in the election than before.

I think it all comes down to the parties chancing if they'll win the presidency. If Democrats think they'll lose, best try to get Srinivasan through and pull the court slightly to the left. If they think they'll win, best appoint a liberal fantasy, let her be rejected by the Senate, and re-appoint her in a year. If Republicans think they'll win, best block the nominee and appoint Scalia v2.0 in a year. If they think they'll lose and Obama is kind enough to appoint Srinivasan (which relies on him also thinking that the Democrats will likely lose), then better approve Srinivasan to avoid Scalia from being replaced by RBG v2.0. It's a bit of game theory.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by digitize

If they think they'll win, best appoint a liberal fantasy, let her be rejected by the Senate, and re-appoint her in a year.

Obama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia

WASHINGTON—Moving quickly to begin the process of filling the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia, White House sources confirmed Monday. “These are all exemplary candidates with strong homosexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?” Obama reportedly asked himself while reviewing his list of queer, gender-nonconforming, feminist Planned Parenthood employees, all of whom were also said to be black immigrants. “I definitely have enough post-op transsexuals on the list, but it is a little light on pre-op candidates. And I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options.” Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.

.

[LuckyNumber7]

A black Muslim lesbian Hispanic abortionist paralegal.

Who is actually a libertarian.

[Oregoropa]

A Feather - Dot Indian mix, gender unknown, Muslim, African American Studies professor, quadruple amputee


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

A Feather - Dot Indian mix


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Why so PC?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I'm all about Donald Trump suing Ted Cruz because I want to grab a bucket of popcorn and watch them burn together.

Oh, please, can somebody make this happen?

As for the whole birth thing regarding Cruz, ultimately, I personally couldn't care less about that in regards to him. Lord knows there's more than enough stuff to criticize him for as it is, I really don't need a retread of the "birther" debate. It was obnoxious enough when it was targeted at Obama.

That said, however, if Cruz is indeed trying to explain his citizenship issues in really absurd ways, that's pretty hilarious, and like stated elsewhere, it is funny that the birther BS is coming back to haunt the Republicans (ahhhhhhhh, karma...). If the Democrats do plan to exploit that, personally, I'd recommend they just back off and let the GOP flail and show their hypocrisy all on their own. And considering how that party doesn't even like Cruz, if he doesn't last much longer in the race, then it'd ultimately wind up a non-issue in the end anyway.

I do agree, though, that this could lead to a good discussion about the whole "natural-born citizen" law and how exactly it's defined.

[trojanchick99]

Check out JebBush.com

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

Check out JebBush.com

which brings us back to the Trump-is-trolling theory.

no actual candidate who wants to be president acts this way.