“You’re actually talking about two separate things here. One is qualifications per the Constitution, and then there are policies that he’s going to carry out according to his political stance. I wouldn’t confuse the one with the other. They are separate issues, so when you say that Obama is set on purposely decimating our beloved country — that would be true if he were to give you proof of his qualifications. That would remain unchanged in regards to his political stance. It’s not like “he’s not qualified and he’s going to decimate our country” versus “he’s qualified and he’s going to protect and build up our country with sound policies”. That’s what it sounds like you’re saying.”
I think you are trying to separate two things that the Founding Fathers saw as interrelated. Citizenship was required to assure that the President had no conflict of interest and had the best interest of the USA in mind; that he was not a Manchurian Candidate, for example.
What foresight the Founding Fathers had! Given the little that we do know about 0’s background and his reluctance to produce proof that he is a natural born American citizen who has never renounced his citizenship, we have reason to suspect his citizenship and his motives. As Saul Alinsky’s son David said in the Boston Globe last year, 0 appears to be following the Rules for Radicals script to the letter and moving us rapidly towards Marxism.
See #199
Oh..., don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there are not *good reasons* for having that qualification in the Constitution. I agree with it.
What I’m saying is that the issue (technically speaking) is an issue that is true or not — whether someone is a strong supporter of conservative values — or — is a liberal and pushing socialism.
It’s a *technical issue* to be answered, in terms of qualifications. In other words, you could have a Chester A. Arthur (21st President of the United States) who was not qualified to be President, and he didn’t push Marxist/Socialist policies. It can be an issue for the entire political spectrum.
That’s why I said it was two different issues...
—
To say it another way (for an example), conservatives, liberals, Marxists, socialists, thieves, crooks, upstanding citizens — have all run red lights (at an intersection) at various times. The issue of running red lights is a technical issue — of breaking the law, and not a political matter (although, maybe more Marxists run red lights than conservatives... LOL...).