And on what you say, I don’t agree and I’m not persuaded.
But at this point, I’m not going to argue about it anymore with you. There’s only so much time to be spent on things, and I’m convinced the anti-Cruz candidacy position is straining out an imaginary gnat to swallow a camel.
I discuss and argue the little details of things all the time, because they actually are significant, but I believe this matter isn’t, and have seen no persuasive evidence for it.
Something that’s an example of being worthwhile to look at is how the first leaders of America formally got together for prayer, and called for days and occasions of prayer. That’s in contradiction to much of what we’ve been told today.
This is just aimless, though. No real legal foundation for it, no remedy but the one its proponents say isn’t the proper one (the court of public opinion), and no possibility for success in that because public opinion, rightfully in this case, won’t disqualify someone who was born an American citizen in a foreign country. On the face of it, it insults all the people who have spent time in other countries now, either for school, work, or perhaps to follow a spouse, that if they did or might have had children in those countries, their influence on their children wouldn’t have been enough to make them a reasonably-committed American, even if the child was for the most part raised in America. The public, which the politicians consider the ultimate judge in the matter, isn’t going to buy that.
I knew it was a pointless discussion, going in. I've read lots of your posts.
> it insults all the people who have spent time in other countries now, either for school, work, or perhaps to follow a spouse, that if they did or might have had children in those countries, their influence on their children wouldn’t have been enough to make them a reasonably-committed American,
My you look marvelous in that Flag, the way it drapes about your shoulders. Magnificent!
C'MON!
He's just barely a US citizen, never mind an NBC.