Posted on 10/11/2022 6:31:44 AM PDT by RandFan
@TulsiGabbard
I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, are…
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
—> Everything we’ve seen of her
You’ve seen what she chose to position herself as - and no more.
Maybe you’re right, but there’s evidence for my theory. Do you have any evidence for yours?
>>If Trump would only have spoken like she does, he would have won in a landslide.<<
If Trump would have displayed a more metered demeanor rather than the sophomoric rhetoric.
All the little Marco, slow Jeb, lyin Ted stuff was counter productive.
I already held my nose once and voted for a Moron. I mean Mormon. But I repeat myself. I think I’ll pass on the cow worshipper.
Hard to say, his demeanor attracted tons of younger voters and blue collar workers who were not put off by it, in fact they were attracted to it. But he lost eh educated female middle of the road votes. So net net it's hard to say, I think it also got him massive press, so not sure how that hurt or helped. But here's the key, he now has those supporters he attracted and they are loyal, so if he now meters his rhetoric a bit he could regain the gals he lost.
She may be honest about it or is a wolf in a sheep skin it’s who do you trust time actions speak the loudest. ???
If honest more power to her.
He probably did
IMO this is said in a way that still leaves her politically viable in Hawaiian politics. She didn’t cross over to be GOP, which would be a deal killer there. She made no indication she is going to give up politics, so this is the best you’ll get from her for now.
May she continue to evolve!
Hawaii would never re-elect her now.
She is hot. And, yes I would. I've slept with crazier.
Naw she's gunning for a show on cable. It pays a lot better than politics, unless your name is Biden or Pelosi.
She’s a YGL of the WEF!
That may ultimately be the case but you never know.
Let’s let her try and see.
No she won’t. Never-Trumpers at their core are deep-staters. They would hate Tulsi.
If you want an Independent who will attract Never-Trump voters, you need someone like Lizard Cheney or John Kaysuck or Cryin’ Adam Kinzinger.
Whether she still stands by those policies on that list, most of them I’d be willing to hear her make her case and I may agree to disagree on others. But abortion on demand is a show stopper.
Wow, you don’t regulate very well, do you? Have a nice day dickhead.
One of my main objections to Gabbard’s executive branch candidacy, notwithstanding her (former) mostly doctrinaire progressive liberalism; is that she is not an Article II, Section one, clause 5 natural born citizen who is constitutionally qualified to assume the office of POTUS.
Even though SCOTUS has never directly issued a ruling on what type of citizen makes one an Article II eligible president, in every case wherein they have given a definition of what a natural born citizen is, (Venus Merchantman 1814, Minor vs Happersett, Wong Kim Ark vs US) those descriptions bear no relationship to Gabbard’s birth circumstance.
Because of the SCOTUS’s acquiescence for Obama’s 8 “presidential” years, followed by the equally ineligible Harris, we cannot get the SCOTUS to adjudicate this Article III matter for the first time in US history.
Tulsi Gabbard was born on April 12, 1981, in Leloaloa, Maoputasi County, on American Samoa’s main island of Tutuila.
Tuaua v. United States, US DC District Court, 2012
According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the people born in American Samoa – including those born on Swains Island – are “nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth”. If a child is born on any of these islands to any U.S. citizen, then that child is considered a national and a citizen of the United States at birth. In an amicus curiae brief filed in federal court, Samoan Congressman Faleomavaega supported the legal interpretation that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not extend birthright citizenship to United States nationals born in unincorporated territories.
All U.S. nationals have statutory rights to reside in the United States (i.e., the 50 states and Puerto Rico), and may apply for citizenship by naturalization after three months of residency by passing a test in English and civics, and by taking an oath of allegiance to the United States. However, the INA makes clear that any “national but not a citizen of the United States” who at any time has been convicted of any aggravated felony, whether the aggravated felony was committed inside or outside the United States, is “debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States”
Gabbard is a US citizen at birth (not a US Natural Born Citizen) due to her US citizen mother. A statute, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, passed in the 20th century, holds that anyone born to a US citizen parent anywhere in the world is a US citizen. This statute did not modify the intent of Article II, section one, clause 5 of the constitution, ratified in 1787. A statute cannot amend the meaning or intent of a constitutional provision. That requires an Article V amendment process.
Being a “Citizen at Birth” is not analogous to being a “Natural Born Citizen.” They are not the same thing. Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico are citizens at birth also. None of them are Article II Natural born citizens either.
I anticipate that those of us who raise this objection will be derided as being obsessed with mere constitutional “technicalities.” If Gabbard is sincere, then I think that she might be better for the job then a whole plethora of radical natural born citizens who are actually Article II eligible. But we did not get to where we are with so many deliberate misinterpretations of the constitution by adherence to originalism. (I refer you to Kentaji Brown Jackson’s recent masturbatory musings on the 14th amendment)
It would be good to have a rigorous examination of this issue by SCOTUS at long last.
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.