Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump Suffers Two Primary Losses Over the Weekend After Increasingly Chaotic Rallies Make Headlines
People Magazine ^ | March 13, 2016 | Maria Mercedes Lara

Posted on 03/13/2016 1:41:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

After canceling a Friday rally in Chicago due to potential violence, Donald Trump lost out on two major primary contests on Saturday, giving a much-needed boost to his competitors Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

On Saturday, Rubio - who is currently in third place in the GOP race - was declared the winner of the Washington D.C. caucus, nabbing the district's 10 delegates all for himself. Meanwhile, Cruz won nine on Wyoming's 11 delegates, with Trump and Rubio each earning one delegate each. The state's 14 other delegates will be elected at the April 16 state convention.

While Trump is still clearly the frontrunner with 460 delegates, Cruz is quickly catching up with a total of 369 delegates. Rubio, meanwhile, follows with 163 while John Kasich has nabbed 63. The Republican candidates need 1,237 total delegates to win the nomination....

(Excerpt) Read more at people.com ...


TOPICS: Campaign News; State and Local
KEYWORDS: barf; cruz; dc2016; rubio; tedcruz; trump; wy2016
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-144 next last
To: sargon

I guess you did.


101 posted on 03/13/2016 3:19:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (TED CRUZ 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Elyse

ROFL...using a chart, now that is a new one, ROFL. Yep, you take that into a court of law & see how far you get, ROFL!!!


102 posted on 03/13/2016 3:23:32 PM PDT by patlin ("Knowledgee chosen to participate inthat is - 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I’ve worked on three presidential campaigns.

So engaging in such clumsy propaganda is something you're used to, I guess?

Well, that explains things, because the article you posted is the most pathetic and transparent spin I've seen all week.

Is one of the Presidential campaigns you've worked on the Cruz campaign? Because it looks like Ted might need your help...

103 posted on 03/13/2016 3:26:01 PM PDT by sargon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I guess you did.

So maybe you could point me to where you expressed your opinion on that, or even, dare I say, express it again?

I was just curious, since Ted Cruz, overnight, lost 300,000 (three hundred thousand, or about 25%) of his friends on Facebook, as well as many, many of his own supporters on this forum and a plethora of others.

Some who had already voted for Ted Cruz even expressed their wish that they could take their votes back.

But nevermind all that circumstantial information: I'm anxiously awaiting Tuesday night so that I can breathlessly see Cruz's "surge" in support for myself...

104 posted on 03/13/2016 3:33:32 PM PDT by sargon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Well its obvious Donald now has no path to victory. LOL!


105 posted on 03/13/2016 3:34:47 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
"People Magazine?"

Isn't that the one seen on checkout stands and hair salons? Next to national Enquirer?

Where I go for political insight, fo' sho', right after I check out who is divorcing who and how much weight they lost, etc.

106 posted on 03/13/2016 3:41:27 PM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlin

It’s from the US Citizens and Immigration government website. I think it would hold up well in court. Ted Cruz was a US citizen at birth. Go study up https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents


107 posted on 03/13/2016 3:49:39 PM PDT by Elyse (I refuse to feed the crocodile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Elyse

I think you better go study what “positive” law is and why it is critical to determining ones citizen at birth. Ted Cruz possessed the possibility of being a US citizen at birth, however, without his mother acting upon the naturalization laws of the US, his US citizenship would have remained dormant until he acted upon it himself at the age of 18. A pamphlet pdf chart is but evidence that there are laws one must obey before citizenship is granted/perfected. AND FYI, natural born citizen do not need the government to confer anything upon them, therefore, the only way for a natural born to loose their citizenship is by expatriation. However, one who was a citizen of another nation, the government CAN take away their citizenship...THIS IS TED CRUZ, a natural born Canadian citizen at birth.

http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml


108 posted on 03/13/2016 4:10:13 PM PDT by patlin ("Knowledgee chosen to participate inthat is - 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Must be why Cruz did so well in DC.

Except that Trump beat cruz in DC.

LOL.

109 posted on 03/13/2016 4:33:12 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: patlin

I assume you are talking about a CRBA. It doesn’t matter if his mother got on or not, it doesn’t change the fact that he was a citizen at birth. Ted was 4 yrs old when he returned to the US. A passport wasn’t needed at that time for a US citizen to enter or leave Canada. Your citizenship doesn’t lay dormant. You acquire it at birth. Cruz didn’t have to be naturalized or declared a US citizen at any time because he fulfilled all requirements to be a citizen at birth.


110 posted on 03/13/2016 4:35:35 PM PDT by Elyse (I refuse to feed the crocodile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Elyse
I assume you are talking about a CRBA

...and he statute that governs 1401 US citizenship defines a “CRBA” as a ‘naturalization” certificate.

A passport wasn’t needed at that time for a US citizen to enter or leave Canada

...a visa is not a passport ...a visa is a document specifically used by immigrants entering the country

Do you really want to continue displaying your ignorance of the Constitution and the statutes that enforce it?

111 posted on 03/13/2016 4:44:42 PM PDT by patlin ("Knowledgee chosen to participate inthat is - 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Your eminence, I have searched the code and in my ignorance I have failed to find any reference to that definition of a CRBA.

You need a visa to enter a foreign country. You don’t need a visa to enter into your own country.


112 posted on 03/13/2016 5:16:12 PM PDT by Elyse (I refuse to feed the crocodile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: All
THE OFTEN WISHED FOR REVOLUTION AGAINST THE CORRUPTION IN WASHINGTON AND THE INFILTRATION OF COMMIES AND MUZZIES INTO OUR GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM IS HERE- AND DONALD TRUMP INITIATED IT AND LEADS IT.

WE THE PEOPLE HAVE A VOICE.

THE SILENT MAJORITY IS SILENT NO MORE.

WE ARE MAD AS H*LL AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE.

DONALD IS OUR VOICE.

DON'T LET HIM DOWN!


113 posted on 03/13/2016 5:28:12 PM PDT by patriot08 (5th generation Texan ...(girl type))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elyse
The “US Code” is only evidence of the “Statutes At Large” that govern. You have to go to the “Statutes At Large” and read and study them with an understanding that the terms in those statutes, if they are given a specific meaning within the statute, the common meaning no longer applies. These are called “terms of art” and unless one is learned in these terms & understands how to apply them, one will misinterpret the Statutes, therefore, they will also misinterpret the UC Code that is but a condensed outline of the actual “Statutes At Large” that make up the law.

The 2 major citizenship statutes that governed when Cruz was born in Canada are the 1952 & the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Acts of Congress.
1) Public Law 414. CHAPTER 477. AN ACT. June 27, 1952. To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality;. [H.R. 5678] and for other purposes... https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf

2) PUBLIC LAW 89-236-OCT. 3, 1965. 911. Public Law 89-236. AN ACT. October 3, 1965. To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes... http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg911.pdf

114 posted on 03/13/2016 5:34:13 PM PDT by patlin ("Knowledgee chosen to participate inthat is - 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Cruz was born a citizen.


115 posted on 03/13/2016 5:42:29 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Elyse
You don’t need a visa to enter into your own country

Ted Cruz was a natural born citizen of Canada at birth. At that time, Canada did not recognize dual citizenship at anytime, birth or naturalization, therefore, yes, Ted Cruz did need a visa to enter the US at the age of 4 because at birth, the US was not the country that governed Cruz's citizenship at birth. And that is why in 2014, Ted had to renounce his Canadian citizenship, so actually, Ted's US citizenship was NOT perfected until 2014.

116 posted on 03/13/2016 5:47:19 PM PDT by patlin ("Knowledgee chosen to participate inthat is - 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Look, you are so very smart, so freaking worldly and wise and my ignorance is on full display before you. I just told you that I went all through that and I didn’t see that definition. I’m not going all through it again. Just give me the exact place where it says what you have stated. I don’t see it. Tell me the in which line it’s located.


117 posted on 03/13/2016 5:47:55 PM PDT by Elyse (I refuse to feed the crocodile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Cruz was born a citizen

No he was not. He was born with the ability to possess it per US statute, however, he did not acquire it until his parents moved back to the US.

118 posted on 03/13/2016 5:49:34 PM PDT by patlin ("Knowledgee chosen to participate inthat is - 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Elyse

I gave you the links, I posted the language of the law that I copied and pasted from the pdf, if you can not find it, might I suggest you get better reading glasses?


119 posted on 03/13/2016 5:52:06 PM PDT by patlin ("Knowledgee chosen to participate inthat is - 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Ted Cruz was an infant and he was a citizen of the US at birth. It makes no difference that he was granted automatic citizenship in Canada at birth. Canada could not take away his US citizenship. He was a US citizen and did not need a visa to enter his own country.


120 posted on 03/13/2016 5:53:14 PM PDT by Elyse (I refuse to feed the crocodile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-144 next 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson