Posted on 12/29/2014 6:26:57 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Romney said he would issue an executive order on 1st day in office to stop Obamacare. My healthcare premiums jumped 33% because of compliance with Obamacare.
Romney would not have allowed mass invasion of illegals.
Romney would not have sent aid to Muslim Brotherhood.
There would be no Arab spring without Obama.
Other than, I did’ntcare for Romney. My first preference in 2012 was Cain. His 999 plan would have kick started the economy. I do not need a job, but all the college garduates coming out do, and 50% of kids under 25 have moved in with parents.
GQ magazine has placed Ted Cruz on their list of wacko politicians. Here is an excerpt:
“JUST HOW CRAZY IS TED CRUZ?
Leans so far right that even fellow Republican John McCain classified him as a “wacko bird”
Was Buraq Hussein Obama also a natural born citizen because his mother was a US citizen?
Exactly. They can’t make “stupid” stick so they’re running with “crazy.” We have about a year to turn that around. We need to turn that perception of “crazy” into “crazy brilliant” or “crazy like a fox!”
Crazy Brilliant Ted Cruz works for me!
You attribute actions to Romney that his record belies.
In my opinion, yes. However, I believe that he came here as a foreign exchange student, so that choice could be said to disqualify him from his present dictatorship. Bob
I am not implying Romney was a good choice in 2012. However based on what Obama has done for 6 years, even a dog catcher would have been far better for the future of this country.
Only thing I can state in defense of Romney is that Obama is far far worse based on his record so far. I am petrified thinking what Obama will do for next 2 years with no elections to worry about. My choices in 2012 (in order) were Cain, Newt, Perry with Romney at the bottom of my list.
entropy, It is better to fight tyranny you rejected than tyranny you elected.
I generally agree. Both finalists in 2012 were bad. Obama was just the worse of the two.
The problem in 2012 was lack of unity among conservatives.
If either Newt or Santorum had dropped out after SC primary,
Romney’s chances at nomination would be severely diminished.
In 2016 we will face the same problem. Jeb will be the lone Rino after SC primary, and 2 or more conservatives will duke it out to the bitter end, just like 2012, clearing the path for Jeb.
if your ‘close watch’ consisted of the progressive left cabal of propaganda sources, then i’d understand. otherwise, the information has been out there for a VERY long time.
ie:
“Supreme Court precedent: The courts have applied the partus sequitur patrem principle (citizenship by descent from one’s father) to determine who is, or who is not, a federal (U.S.) citizen at birth; but the meaning of natural born citizen appears to be a separate issue [21]. To this day, the Supreme Court, in its majority opinions, has consistently used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to persons born on U.S. soil, to parents who are both U.S. citizens. “
“To this day, whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens. “
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
Obama was just the worse of the two.
Yes, that is where you and I differ, I think. I perceive Romney as the worse of the two because if I'd have voted for him and he'd won, I'd have been responsible and accountable for endorsing the tyranny he'd promote under a Republican administration. Voting for leftism in the Republican party makes leftists stronger in both parties. I have finally figured that out.
So from my point of view, the liberal "Republican" will always be the "worse" evil than the Democrat, worse because it manipulates good people to endorse what they rightly abhor. That is very bad. No Democrat could ever get conservative Republicans to intentionally vote for the things they'll vote for in a Card Carrying Republican order to vote "against" the "worse" Democrat.
I did my due diligence on Romney. Voting for him was, quite simply, voting for the Republican party to subscribe to the entire Democrat agenda. SNUB THAT!
Do you see conservatives presenting a united front in 2016 behind ONE candidate, or will it be divide the voters and clear the path for Jeb?
I think Americans, who are mostly apolitical, are clamoring and ripe for a charismatic third-party limited government candidate. I pray for such a figure to rise, and I hope it's Cruz or Palin. I distinguish the difference between what the MSM thinks of politicians, and what Americans on the ground think of politicians.
I think the Republican party brand is so trashed and tattered and such a joke that avoiding it via an "independent" moniker is probably a good opportunity, a blessing. People who would never vote for a Republican any more than I would ever vote for a Democrat, would be willing to vote for a limited government (that is, a conservative) trailblazer of another name. In the Republican party in Congress, left-leaning Republicans would be DENIED the powerful ally of left-leaning Republican White House administration. Everybody wins when left-leaning politicians are starved of votes.
I don't know whether it will be Jeb, Romney, Christie, or someone else not yet on the radar. I DO expect that protocol will nominate a functional-Democrat Republican. And my vote will go third party if that happens. If Republicans miraculously nominate Cruz or other limited government Christian conservative, I will happily vote Republican.
I will lay odds, that GOPe will support only ONE of Jeb, Christy or Mitt. They do not split their resources.
On the other hand conservatives have too much ego to drop out and unite behind just ONE candidate.
If it is Cruz versus Jeb only after SC primary, my money is on Cruz winning.
If it is Jeb, Cruz, Perry, Pence, Rand, Jindal in the race, Jeb will win by dividing conservative votes.
Even the article you used to buttress your position states the ambiguity of your position when it comes to constitutionality.But what about other categories of persons? What about children born overseas to American parents? And what about children born in the United States, of an alien parent? Today, such children are U.S. citizens. But are they natural born citizens? So far, Federal law, the Constitution and the courts have not settled these questions.
... the definition of what it means to be a natural-born citizen has never been decided in the courts and the Constitution doesn't explain exactly what it means by "natural born," according to Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor and citizenship-law expert. (National Journal, Is Canadian-Born Ted Cruz Eligible to Run for President?, May 1, 2013)In 2004, Senator Don Nickles predicted that, if the meaning of natural born citizenship remains unresolved, it will someday become "a real issue":
The definition of this term ["natural born citizen"] is an issue that has been debated in legal circles for years and has never been ruled on by the courts. Clarification is needed before this becomes a real issue. (Nickles)
you’re set on this ‘smoke & mirrors’ concept
simply put, the USSC *never even suggested* a ‘natural born citizen’ is anything other then someone from 2 US citizen parents born on the soil.
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.