Skip to comments.
Trump has 'knockout' strategy to beat GOP establishment
WND ^
| 1/11/2016
Posted on 01/12/2016 6:18:05 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
In his latest interview with talk-host Michael Savage, Republican presidential primary front-runner Donald Trump was asked what he will do if the GOP establishment tries to "cut him out" of the nomination. Trump drew on his experience hosting prizefights, including 17 bouts featuring Mike Tyson.
"When the fighter goes into the other fighter's home territory, his home territory, they'll always say, the only way I'm going to win is, 'I gotta knock him out,'" he explained.
"The way you knock him out is to just win the primaries. If I win the primaries, if I can win in Iowa and win in New Hampshire and win in South Carolina, where I have very big leads, you know, there's nothing anybody can do, frankly."
A new Fox News poll has him beating Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton in the general election, 47-44 percent.
Asked about his popularity with African-Americans, Trump pointed out some polls show him getting 25 percent of the vote in that demograhic.
He recalled an "announcer" remarking, "Well, wait a minute, if this is true, that means the election is over. Trump wins automatically."
Savage said he believes Trump will also do well among Hispanics, because of a "macho culture" that prefers male leadership.
While it's assumed that a tough stance on illegal immigration will erode support from Hispanics, Trump argued Hispanics don't want people coming into the country illegally and taking their jobs. He pointed to a Quinnipiac poll released Monday has him ahead in Iowa, which means he has the lead in every state, according to some polls.
"We're doing well, and people want to see something happen," he said.
He said he hates to use the term "change," because it was Obama's campaign theme in 2008.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bfac; elections; gop; immigration; strategy; trump; trumpwasright
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 last
To: Jane Long
41
posted on
01/12/2016 9:44:22 AM PST
by
stephenjohnbanker
(My Batting Average( 1,000) since Nov 2014 (GOPe is that easy to read))
To: AuntB; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; BlackFemaleArmyCaptain; Liz
THANK you AuntB for that detailed information that debunks all
of this garbage from the institutional Trump-haters (both inside
and outside of FR) who regularly run that deceptive stuff up the
flagpole. I did note this:
Romney spoke to CGI in the middle of his 2012 presidential
campaign and praised President Clinton for having "devoted
himself to lifting the downtrodden around the world. One of the
best things that can happen to any cause, to any people,
is to have Bill Clinton as its advocate."
Especially women:
42
posted on
01/12/2016 9:45:49 AM PST
by
mkjessup
(JimRob: "It's Trump or Cruz, all the others are amnesty pimps" And the man is RIGHT!)
To: BlackFemaleArmyCaptain
I agree that if Trump heads into the GOP convention without enough delegates outright from primary wins, the GOP is going to do everything they can to undercut him even it it costs them the White House.. .they won’t care.
The GOPe are more worried about protecting the system and the big money players that own it, than they are about winning the White House.
To: stephenjohnbanker
Frankly, the Trump supporter have held off attacking Ted for anything he has done. There are no long lists. There actually could be. Ted has his problems. He isn’t nearly the pristine Conservative he is portrayed to be. So the truth is, Ted has been given a professional courtesy Trump has never gotten.
44
posted on
01/12/2016 9:50:33 AM PST
by
DoughtyOne
((It's beginning to look like "Morning in America" again. Comment on YouTube under Trump Free Ride.))
To: HamiltonJay
Correct. It will get ugly, and don’t rule out bloody.
45
posted on
01/12/2016 9:51:40 AM PST
by
stephenjohnbanker
(My Batting Average( 1,000) since Nov 2014 (GOPe is that easy to read))
To: DoughtyOne
“He isnât nearly the pristine Conservative he is portrayed to be. “
No he isn’t. I do my own research on politicians. Anyone can do this, but most can’t be bothered.
46
posted on
01/12/2016 9:54:38 AM PST
by
stephenjohnbanker
(My Batting Average( 1,000) since Nov 2014 (GOPe is that easy to read))
To: HamiltonJay
You are right! This will be very interesting.
47
posted on
01/12/2016 10:01:20 AM PST
by
BlackFemaleArmyColonel
(I love JESUS CHRIST because He first loved me! Thank You, JESUS! (1 John 4:19))
To: BlackFemaleArmyCaptain
From the posted article:
"Asked about "anchor babies,"the policy granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens who give birth on American soil,
Trump maintained his fervent opposition.
He said that despite the conventional wisdom, he doesn't think an amendment is necessary to change the policy.
"I believe that it will be a vote of Congress,
and a lot of the best lawyers, the top lawyers, the real lawyers in the country agree with me," he said. "
So YOU BELIEVE that
SOCIALIST Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN for PRIVATE USE" Trump will get the United States Supreme Court to reverse their LONG STANDING and many RULINGS that are exactly OPPOSITE of this proposal ?
I THINK NOT !
Take it up with the Supreme Court of the United States and our Founding Fathers.
In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a lawthat required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.
After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.
The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.
Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.
Did you know ...
Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenshipif she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.
Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:
1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives
Also notice that the Supreme Court has backed up that definition!
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV)
Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen
Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.
But the fact is, they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.
And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” — he was ALSO “natural born.”
If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.
The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact foundthat Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.
Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.
But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.
There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.
But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.
Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”
Note that again:Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”
The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:
“Plaintiff claims thatPresident Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supportsthat President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“
Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.
So the statement that
"natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !
48
posted on
01/12/2016 10:05:04 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson