2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V

[trojanchick99]

If this is all performance art to make the Republicans look idiotic, it's doing its job.

[Mack_Again]

you guys probably needed exclamation mark after Jeb's name. beginner mistake

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Poor poor Jeb

[BEAL]

Please clap


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Axver]

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...

You're the one who needs to think critically. The Constitution does not clarify what "natural born citizen" means, and although many would argue that it means anybody who possesses citizenship at birth (which I think we both agree is the sensible explanation), that is not a universal interpretation and some take it to mean born within American territory. Hell, you don't need to look much further than the Wikipedia article on this topic for the range of debate.

My view, broken down:
1. "Natural born citizen" fairly obviously means somebody who possesses US citizenship at birth.
2. But it is sufficiently ambiguous that a legal challenge could be launched to clarify its definition once and for all.
3. Such a challenge to Cruz (or Obama, had he actually been born in Kenya) would, rightly, fail to disqualify either.
4. The clause itself is ridiculous and should be replaced with a requirement that somebody be a citizen and resident for a certain lengthy period of time, regardless of country of birth.

[trojanchick99]

Originally Posted by Axver

You're the one who needs to think critically. The Constitution does not clarify what "natural born citizen" means, and although many would argue that it means anybody who possesses citizenship at birth (which I think we both agree is the sensible explanation), that is not a universal interpretation and some take it to mean born within American territory. Hell, you don't need to look much further than the Wikipedia article on this topic for the range of debate.

My view, broken down:
1. "Natural born citizen" fairly obviously means somebody who possesses US citizenship at birth.
2. But it is sufficiently ambiguous that a legal challenge could be launched to clarify its definition once and for all.
3. Such a challenge to Cruz (or Obama, had he actually been born in Kenya) would, rightly, fail to disqualify either.
4. The clause itself is ridiculous and should be replaced with a requirement that somebody be a citizen and resident for a certain lengthy period of time, regardless of country of birth.

Exactly. It's way beyond time that we a) finally clarify what it means and b) look at changing the criteria. It's ridiculous that someone who is a citizen can't be president just because they weren't born here.

[Oregoropa]

Back in the 1700s they didn't want a European born of American parents to spend 35 years living in France then come over, become President and then have a pro-French agenda in the realm of foreign policy. That should still hold today. Unfortunately for Cruz the founders never set a time threshold for when it would acceptable to dismiss foreign allegiances. He should have gotten a declarative statement 2 years ago. But that could be challenged or appealed all the way to SCOTUS. I'm no legal scholar but that's my interpretation of Natural Born. Trump is correct in what he said in the pre-Iowa debate that Cruz should have cleaned it up and not have held onto that dual-citizenship so long.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Axver

You're the one who needs to think critically. The Constitution does not clarify what "natural born citizen" means, and although many would argue that it means anybody who possesses citizenship at birth (which I think we both agree is the sensible explanation), that is not a universal interpretation and some take it to mean born within American territory. Hell, you don't need to look much further than the Wikipedia article on this topic for the range of debate.



My view, broken down:

1. "Natural born citizen" fairly obviously means somebody who possesses US citizenship at birth.

2. But it is sufficiently ambiguous that a legal challenge could be launched to clarify its definition once and for all.

3. Such a challenge to Cruz (or Obama, had he actually been born in Kenya) would, rightly, fail to disqualify either.

4. The clause itself is ridiculous and should be replaced with a requirement that somebody be a citizen and resident for a certain lengthy period of time, regardless of country of birth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not even from this country? Also, you don't seem to acknowledge what "think critically" means. If you're thinking critically, you'd see that there's nothing technical against someone like Cruz (you said it yourself; unclear or ambiguous definition of what it means to be a natural born citizen). You'd see that the only question into Cruz's legitimacy stems from intention to sabotage his campaign (nobody actually cares).

If Ted Cruz were to be elected president, his Canadianness would not be why he'd be a terrible president. That would be due to his policies.

A court case is just asking someone's opinion of a one line phrase and taking it as rule of law because they have a gavel. It's totally arbitrary, and suing Cruz is agenda based only. It has no purpose. Nobody is fearful of Ted Cruz being Canadian. The fact that you deny this as being a hypocrisy just shows your bias towards disdain of Ted Cruz and/or US Republicans.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not even from this country?

Take it down a notch. Non-Americans can be well-informed, too.

[deep]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

Check out JebBush.com

as a loyal republican I will be marking my absentee ballot for jebbush.com

[trojanchick99]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Back in the 1700s they didn't want a European born of American parents to spend 35 years living in France then come over, become President and then have a pro-French agenda in the realm of foreign policy. That should still hold today. Unfortunately for Cruz the founders never set a time threshold for when it would acceptable to dismiss foreign allegiances. He should have gotten a declarative statement 2 years ago. But that could be challenged or appealed all the way to SCOTUS. I'm no legal scholar but that's my interpretation of Natural Born. Trump is correct in what he said in the pre-Iowa debate that Cruz should have cleaned it up and not have held onto that dual-citizenship so long.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

But that can happen today. A kid born on US soil is raised outside the US is a "Natural born citizen". It's an archaic rule.

[Mack_Again]

this whole argument is kinda like when people argued the definition of line (mathematically) as it was never discussed in Euclid's Elements.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not even from this country? Also, you don't seem to acknowledge what "think critically" means. If you're thinking critically, you'd see that there's nothing technical against someone like Cruz (you said it yourself; unclear or ambiguous definition of what it means to be a natural born citizen). You'd see that the only question into Cruz's legitimacy stems from intention to sabotage his campaign (nobody actually cares).

If Ted Cruz were to be elected president, his Canadianness would not be why he'd be a terrible president. That would be due to his policies.

A court case is just asking someone's opinion of a one line phrase and taking it as rule of law because they have a gavel. It's totally arbitrary, and suing Cruz is agenda based only. It has no purpose. Nobody is fearful of Ted Cruz being Canadian. The fact that you deny this as being a hypocrisy just shows your bias towards disdain of Ted Cruz and/or US Republicans.

I am from this country and you're absolutely wrong on this. There's NO clear answer to this question and it needs to be answered.

The idea that a guy who spent YEARS in another country before stepping foot here, doesn't exactly scream "natural" born citizen. "Naturalized" yes.

But see, this is the beauty of a living breathing constitution. An event like this is how you get clarification on vague or out of date portions.



Sent from my XT1575 using U2 Interference mobile app

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by DaveC

Take it down a notch. Non-Americans can be well-informed, too.

That wasn't even my suggestion? My suggestion was that I don't care about someone's opinion if the issue doesn't directly pertain to them.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by bono_212

I am from this country and you're absolutely wrong on this. There's NO clear answer to this question and it needs to be answered.

The idea that a guy who spent YEARS in another country before stepping foot here, doesn't exactly scream "natural" born citizen. "Naturalized" yes.

But see, this is the beauty of a living breathing constitution. An event like this is how you get clarification on vague or out of date portions.



Sent from my XT1575 using U2 Interference mobile app

It needs to be answered, does it? On what grounds? You're missing the point. It's arbitrary. It doesn't need to be answered, because it's purely inconsequential. It's a technicality. You're answering the question because of Ted Cruz. Not because you're concerned with Canadians becoming US presidents.

So what if he spent years in Canada? If people don't want him to be president because of that, they WONT VOTE FOR HIM! Simple as that.

But really the technical point is: ambiguous does not necessarily mean "has a recoverable meaning/definition." By taking this for a "ruling" you're better off taking it to a national referendum. It's purely undefined, and the default understanding is that he's eligible.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

That wasn't even my suggestion? My suggestion was that I don't care about someone's opinion if the issue doesn't directly pertain to them.

Hahahahaah. Wow.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

But that can happen today. A kid born on US soil is raised outside the US is a "Natural born citizen". It's an archaic rule.

That is a good point. Archaic yes, but still not fully resolved in the courts.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

It needs to be answered, does it? On what grounds? You're missing the point. It's arbitrary. It doesn't need to be answered, because it's purely inconsequential. It's a technicality. You're answering the question because of Ted Cruz. Not because you're concerned with Canadians becoming US presidents.

So what if he spent years in Canada? If people don't want him to be president because of that, they WONT VOTE FOR HIM! Simple as that.

But really the technical point is: ambiguous does not necessarily mean "has a recoverable meaning/definition." By taking this for a "ruling" you're better off taking it to a national referendum. It's purely undefined, and the default understanding is that he's eligible.

Well, because you know me so well, I guess I'd be lying to myself to continue believing that I've been fascinated by this topic since I was a little kid and first learned about it.

But I don't really feel like the result of this conversation has any direct impact on you, so I don't care to hear your input on it any longer.

[trojanchick99]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

It needs to be answered, does it? On what grounds? You're missing the point. It's arbitrary. It doesn't need to be answered, because it's purely inconsequential. It's a technicality. You're answering the question because of Ted Cruz. Not because you're concerned with Canadians becoming US presidents.

So what if he spent years in Canada? If people don't want him to be president because of that, they WONT VOTE FOR HIM! Simple as that.

But really the technical point is: ambiguous does not necessarily mean "has a recoverable meaning/definition." By taking this for a "ruling" you're better off taking it to a national referendum. It's purely undefined, and the default understanding is that he's eligible.

It does need to be clarified so we can stop having these pointless debates about our Presidential candidates. Do I think Cruz is a "natural born citizen", yes, under MY interpretation. However my interpretation isn't the only one. There needs to be an official decision, likely from the judiciary.

[Axver]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not even from this country?

I've spent a grand total of six weeks of my life in the US. Who cares? American politics is of global significance and relevance.

(I also have a professional interest in the history of North America - mainly Canada, but I have been employed on US topics before.)

Also, you don't seem to acknowledge what "think critically" means. If you're thinking critically, you'd see that there's nothing technical against someone like Cruz (you said it yourself; unclear or ambiguous definition of what it means to be a natural born citizen). You'd see that the only question into Cruz's legitimacy stems from intention to sabotage his campaign (nobody actually cares).

No, critical thinking would recognise that there are a range of opinions on the interpretation of this clause, some of which diverge from your own. It has been interpreted differently across American history by political figures, legal scholars, and others. Your failure to acknowledge this is not critical thinking, it is simplistic.

I don't even know why you're pursuing this so vehemently because we agree about how it should be interpreted. You just seem unwilling to entertain that other perspectives exist or that there could be a need to clarify the definition in a court of law.

If Ted Cruz were to be elected president, his Canadianness would not be why he'd be a terrible president. That would be due to his policies.

I agree.

A court case is just asking someone's opinion of a one line phrase and taking it as rule of law because they have a gavel.

Stop being silly. Are you even familiar with the sort of legal minutiae that goes before courts? Are you suggesting all court rulings are just "someone's opinion ... because they have a gavel"? This question is of significant import and a court should clarify the interpretation because, as has been noted repeatedly, there are divergent interpretations of the phrase. Should a person born outside the US with American citizenship be elected president, a decision will need to be taken on which interpretation has force of law. I do not see why this is objectionable.

Your final comment accusing me of bias against Cruz or Republicans in general is barely even worth acknowledging given that I stated the same case would have been valid had Obama actually been born in Kenya. You're seeing bias where there is none.

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

That wasn't even my suggestion? My suggestion was that I don't care about someone's opinion if the issue doesn't directly pertain to them.

So the only things on which I am allowed an opinion are those that directly affect straight white male New Zealand-Australian dual citizens?

Guess I must now stop caring about marriage equality, feminism, Aboriginal and Maori rights, etc.

What a narrow way of seeing and understanding the world that would be.