You have a point. Until you look at the competition.
Does this seem normal to you?
Posted on 01/20/2016 2:21:12 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Donald Trump says Ted Cruz is a "nasty guy." The Texan's Senate colleagues agree. Yet here's the surprise from watching Cruz on the campaign trail: Ideology aside, he comes off as ... rather likable....
I knew before seeing Cruz on the stump that he is smart - dangerously so from my ideological perspective. I knew from watching him operate in Washington that he is ruthlessly ambitious. Seeing him in action, it's clear he's adept at retail politics as well.
Cruz knows how to connect with an audience; to soften people up with laugh lines and a smattering of scripture; to deliver his message with digestible details and a warning that aims at Trump without, for the most part, explicitly naming him: Judge candidates based on what they've actually done, not what they promise.
In one telling moment in Washington, N.H., a young mother of four challenged Cruz about whether he would provide paid family leave. His eventual answer boiled down to nothing: "Politicians love to campaign on giving away free stuff," but, as with the minimum wage, market forces mean such intervention would hurt workers, not help them.
But he leavened this response with personal questions (How old? Boys or girls?) and, believe it or not, empathy: He knows about being the "baby brother with two older sisters"; he understands the "hard challenge" of juggling work and family. The woman may have left unconvinced, but Cruz's deft response revealed a politician both skillful and relatable. The crowd applauded.
Because Trump and Cruz seem to be competing for the angry-outsider lane, I expected voters at Cruz events here to be torn between the two. Instead, I was struck by the still-undecided voters I met who had rejected Trump, using words like "antics" and "volatile" to describe him...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This is a "telling moment," because it reminds us that many voters view the President as National Daddy, rather than as one figure in a system designed to allow individuals, families, and communities to help themselves. I first noticed this when Bill Clinton was elected: a front-page newpaper comment from an older, minority woman said, "I'm so happy! I know he'll take care of me!"
I wonder if the young mother has a husband, if her four children have a father in the home.
I was going to say because he’s a natural born Canadian citizen, not a natural born American citizen.
Ted Cruz would have nailed it.
Trump said: "I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now."
"The government's going to pay for it.
I actually do remember that! I watched that debate in a hotel lobby in Dallas with my aunt and uncle: I was in Dallas for some professional training, they came to have dinner with me, and we all got stuck all evening because of severe thunderstorms.
Did he ever travel using a Canadian passport?
: )
No. He's always been an American.
Canada is welcome (by their standards) to claim as citizens, people born in their country but that doesn't change American law and citizenship.
***************
"...Birthers have been asserting that, since Rafael Cruz did not become an American citizen until 2005, and while he was in Canada with his wife, during which time Ted was born, he became an Canadian citizen. This, in the Birthers' view, disqualifies Ted from this Presidency, as "the Founders" never would have intended someone like him becoming President.
But look closer at the bolder portion. It never says that the father has to be a citizen of the United States at the time the child is born. All it says is that citizenship "shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." It is indisputable that Rafael Cruz was in the United States for a period of time prior to both Ted's birth and his marriage to native born American citizen Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson in 1969. He fled Cuba in 1957 at the age of 18, arriving in Texas. There, he attended the University of Texas, graduating with a degree in mathematics in 1961. He even married his first wife there, Julia Ann Garza, in 1959. They later divorced, but not before he had two daughters with her. He was also granted political asylum in 1961 upon his graduation from UT.
In other words, Ted Cruz's birth meets everything required in this 1790 act. His mother, Eleanor Wilson, was a citizen by birth in the United States, fulfilling the requirement of a child being born to at least one citizen, and his father had lived in the United States for years and been granted political asylum here prior to his move to Canada."... FR Thread
That sounds like something Bernie Sanders might have said.
That makes Trump “Daddy” Warbucks.
: )
Objectively viewing Ted’s public speaking, there are some things viscerally disconcerting about his persona and delivery:
1. He constantly looks facially pained, as if he just ate a lemon. While it is his ‘earnest and concerned’ look, it is practiced and very distracting.
2. His voice is annoyingly tight, in the manner of Bush 41, speaking from the back of his throat. It is not at all sonorous or pleasing to the ear.
3. His arm movements are stiff and robotic, which is off-putting and odd.
This will not appeal to the general public; no normal person speaks or acts like that.
He has low EQ. Time for a makeover.
He has not, however, always been a Natural Born American.
Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Canadian Citizen by the laws of Canada in effect on the day of his birth.
It's hard to have always been an American when you were naturally born a Canadian and even had to renounce that citizenship at one point.
It is quite pathetic that alleged conservatives wipe their a55es with the constitution under the auspice of returning this country to constitutional governance.
You have a point. Until you look at the competition.
Does this seem normal to you?
Not only that, you will ntoice that candidates campaign on issues that can be resolved only with an Act of Congress. The president should say what he will sign, and what he will veto, but that it is up to Congress to pass the laws.
Recently another thread you posted this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3385503/posts?page=22#22
***********
“Now Teddy’s bears are re-posting unsourced fiction form August.
Desperation.”
************
You are not an objective critic.
That’s a very good point.
LOL!
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.
This would seem to be an act which 'naturalize someone who meets these specific requirements into the status of NBC- not just into `naturalized citizenship' such as an illegal alien would be naturalized' --
You may notice that the words "shall be considered as" have been emphasized. Anybody who tells you that the Act is a definition is misleading you. Congress did so deliberately (misled you). In the ordinary use of the English language, the phrase "shall be considered as" is as assignment of pretend.
There is a social security regulation that says, essentially, a person up to the age of 22 shall be considered as a child. That doesn't mean a person is in fact a child until they reach the age of 22, it means that the law will play make believe. This is called "legal fiction," and it is so common in statutory law, so as to be unremarkable.
If we look at only the 1790 law, and admit the fact (and it is a fact) that "shall be considered as" is legal fiction, then what the founders said about the subject, in the 1790 act, was this:
the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States are not natural born citizens, but for purposes of law, we will pretend they are
The Act, on its face, disproves the contention that Cruz is an NBC. It doesn't help his case, it demolishes it!
-- And the counter argument, the one trump is making, was that both parents would need to be citizens ... --
The statute is ambiguous as to one or both parents, but it doesn't matter. When you grok what the 1790 Act says, actually in plain English, when you grok that is expressly excludes what is described (children born abroad) from the conclusion (NBC), then it doesn't matter if the child had one parent, two parents, three parents (donor sperm), four parents (donor sperm and donor egg), or even zero parents (test tube baby).
-- I'm not sure how the justices argued away this act In the Bellei case in order to strip him of his citizenship --
The legal fiction created by this act was repealed in 1795. The justices didn't have argue it away, and plus, Bellei is, say the justices, naturalized.
At this point, many people deploy "magic thinking" and relapse into believing that a person can be "natural" (which is better thought of as "under the constitution") and naturalized (which is better thought of as "NOT under the constitution, but under Act of Congress") at the same time. They want to believe, so badly, that a person born abroad of a citizen parent is an NBC, that they become, on this point, literally kooks.
It's not an issue in real life. Just these people want to preserve the dream that their child can grow up to be president. The kids are citizens, but they are not 100% American at birth. A person born in Canada of a Cuban father and US Mother is not 100% American at birth. It's not their fault. They may turn into the best advocate for America, but they were born mixed. We the people can abandon the constitution via stupidity. Hell, I think we have.
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.