Posted on 02/16/2016 8:35:51 AM PST by SatinDoll
I'm liking this...
Donald Trump dramatically escalated his feud with rival Ted Cruz on Monday, threatening to sue the Texas senator over his eligibility for office if he does not retract alleged **lies** about Trumps positions – and calling on the Republican National Committee to intervene on two fronts.
The billionaire businessman wants the RNC to pressure Cruz, and also stop allowing so many donors at the debates. If the RNC does not **get its act together,** Trump warned, they would be violating the **pledge** he signed to support the eventual GOP nominee.
I think he should sue.
Cruz either has a CRBA from the State Department or he does not. For a citizen born outside the United States that document is the proof that you were born as a citizen of the United States, just as a US birth certificate is the proof that you were born here as a citizen if you are born in the United States, as I have written on before.
But there is more here that Trump has every right to be angry over. First, the GOP misappropriated his name and likeness to solicit donations for the GOP. They recently solicited donations allegedly for **Trump supporters** but the funds they were soliciting will go to the GOP generally, not to Trumps campaign, and they did it without his permission.
Absent some sort of formal agreement by Trump to allow his name and likeness to be used in this fashion that is an outrageous abuse and breaks a number of laws, including the fact that the GOP needs a photo release for the picture they used since it was used for commercial, not editorial, purpose.
The law on such is quite-clear, incidentally. I can take a photo of you (provided I have or acquire the copyright) and use it for editorial purpose, or for that matter I can sell the image as a work of art. But if I use that image to sell something (e.g. a brand of soda, a brand of shirt, etc) then I have to have a release from every person in the picture or I have violated your rights and the person who does the advertising (not the photographer) can be sued and will probably lose.
Well, GOP? Where is your photo release? You do not have one, do you?
That is what I thought.
Then there is the stacking of debate audiences, **strategic** placement of microphones in the stacked portions of the audience and worse, blatant electronic **enhancement** of both boos and cheers, all of which has happened in the last two **contests.**
Remember that Trump signed his pledge to the Republican Party under the specific condition that his candidacy be treated fairly.
Any one of the above would be a clear violation of that constraint and thus free him from his pledge. But he does not have one violation, he has at least three, never mind the phony GOP solicitation made under his name but for the GOPs benefit, not his.
There is a basic reality that the GOP has to face here: The establishment GOP is not in charge when it comes to Trump, nor for that matter, are they in charge when it comes to voters.
They may think they are but we have a candidate in the race this time around who is more than willing to stick up the middle finger when it is called for -- and in my opinion that line was crossed quite some time ago with all the phony promises of **reducing spending**, **erasing the deficit**, **enforcing the rule of law** and similar flat-out lies.
As for people like Starnes who wish to blame Republican voters for "screwing this up" by refusing to vote for Romney, **** you with a rusty chainsaw. Neither I or anyone else are under any obligation to vote for anyone. The party that wishes me to vote for their candidate instead of either staying home or voting for Cthulu has the affirmative obligation to run a candidate worth voting for, and if they cannot be bothered to do that they deserve to be destroyed as a political force in this or any other nation.
Could you please provide proof that the “vast majority” of the $6 million raised for veterans’ groups did not go to them?
It’s the Elephant in the Constitution....
Really? One might think that, under our present circumstances, being hated by the Democrats and the GOP alike would be a badge of honor. Instead, you support a guy who thinks Hillary “...would make a great president or vice president”, Obama’s a “superstar” and one who has always had a “great relationship” with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. Trump’s only endorsement by a senator - in this case a former senator - is from Scott Brown.
He is better than Republican who says Planned Parenthood is evil and then does nothing but take bribes for doing nothing. I’d rather have Trump looking out for me on seven out of 10 issues than ZERO out of 10.
You say you admire ask, you say you like ask, but everything you do ensures that X never gets done because you been played.
BUT from the RedState website:
Three groups confirmed they had received checks; most others reached said they hadn’t heard back from the Trump organization about the donations. A few groups said their phone calls and messages to the Trump campaign have gone unanswered.
I get you don’t like Trump based on your last 27 posts, but do tell the truth!
There is so much we don’t know. What we do know seems to hinge mostly on Cruz having all the facts and accurately conveying them. But this is a person who didn’t even know he held Canadian citizenship. What other facts is he in error about?
Do we know exactly what years Cruz’ mother spent in England? I’m no expert, but isn’t there a rule on the mother needing to reside in the US a certain number of years before the child is born? Between her time in England and Canada, does the mother meet this requirement?
If the parents headed to Canada sooner than we’ve been told, they could have acquired citizenship sooner. What is the proof of their departure date from the US? Are we just taking someone’s word for it, or is there corroborating evidence?
Doesn’t the word ‘native’ mean born in a particular place? For example, I am a native of FL; I was born there. Hard to believe we’ve come to the place of believing a native-born Canadian is a NBC of the US.
see #45 and #59 this thread
I’ll check on the England thing. Maybe something will turn up.
Since your reading comprehension does you no good, here are pics! This was all over the news.
GEORGE W. BUSH screwed plenty of vets! I’m glad it wasn’t you.
2008...SHAME
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2008/04/shame.html
+1
The 1790 law was replaced by the 1795 law.
The 1795 law has the same provisions about the father
Cruz is an insider pretending to be an outsider. He gets contributions from Goldman Sachs, the Club for Growth, and a billionaire hedge fund guy. Cruz has spent most of his working life in government.
Trump's only endorsement by a senator - in this case a former senator - is from Scott Brown
LOL At least he has one along with ex-governor and VP candidate Sarah Palin. Trump is a private citizen. Why would one expect him to receive any endorsement from a sitting senator? Cruz is a sitting Senator who cannot get even one other senator to endorse him. I find that very telling.
The GOP Establishment will do or say anything to not lose their place at the DC Trough.
The posts you cited are very interesting. What both underscore, however, is how heavily the dates rely on the word and accuracy of one man: Cruz Sr. Finding hard and fast independent corroboration is probably a futile effort. I hope I’m wrong.
I recall the early years of the Obama myth. People believed his mother and father lived as husband and wife for two years. Turns out they didn’t live together for one day.
Also, take the ‘home address’ on Obama’s supposed BC. People believed at first that both Obama’s patents lived at this address. Then, when the marriage myth unraveled, they believed that at least baby Obama and his mother lived there.
Later research proved that Stanley Ann Dunham NEVER lived at that address with her baby. Never. But it took literally years to confirm this vital piece of info.
How long will it take to confirm the many loose ends of the Cruz Family Saga? What unforeseeable info will turn up over the intervening years? We’ve just been through this excruciating process with one POTUS. Do we really want to go through it all over again?
Hahahaha. So your guy is an Honest baby killer?
Good one.
The Republican 1%-ers got there off of taxpayers’ money and Washington Political Class corrupt perks, bribes, etc. Trump’s policies, if followed through, will guarantee that not one of the Republican 1%-ers will be in the 1% after January. It is Armageddon for the Republican Political Class.
patents = parents
Thank you, auto-correct.
Challenges to Cruz will be at the state level, so that means 50 of them, at the very least. However, if multiple Democrats sue over Cruz's eligibility in each state, we are now looking at hundreds of suits to be adjudicated. Then AFTER that (which I would think is a multi-year process with stalling and delays by Dems) it could be elevated up the chain of appeals courts.
Any free white person could recieve citizenship providing they had renounced their allegiance to their previous state/sovereignty by name, lived in the United States for five years at least, behave as a man of good moral character, and renounced any title they possessed in the previous states. Once the applicant had been approved and recorded by the court clerk, all related children would receive citizenship whether they had been born in or outside the U.S. providing their father had at some point, resided in the U.S., and never been legally convicted of joining the army of Great Britain.
Yes, it is so! A couple of nights ago an anti-Trump PAC popped up on the radar and I looked at its FEC filings on expenditures. That lead to looking a about a half dozen firms in the DC area that do campaign related stuff. There are literally HUNDREDS of people who make a full-time living off of the political process! It is truly disgusting!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.