Posted on 10/30/2015 3:29:28 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I have a weird proposition for you today. Consider this Halloween-related.
If you had to choose between Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz as the next president, which one would you pick and why?
If you're a very conservative Republican, this may not be such a daunting prospect. If you're a moderate of either party or someone on the farther left, you're more likely to be appalled.
But in the wake of a debate in which Cruz emerged as an increasingly popular candidate in the crowded GOP field, and in which Trump and Carson remain the front-runners, I think it's a reasonable question. None of the Above is not an option in this case.....
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
Nobody cares about that baloney because of any principle. They cared about it before because they thought it would be useful in an election. It wasn't.
The purpose of the provision is to ensure that a president has an important patriotic connection to the United States in the sense that he considers it his country, his home. Nobody is going to see Cruz as some sort of stranger to the United States whose primary loyalties are to some other country.
And, of course, there are some people who made some money by selling books and videos about the issue to the handful of people who felt that it was the only way to beat Obama.
You just indicated your belief the US Constitution is just a tool to use to get your way as the need may arise. All I have left is principle.
The best example is McCain. He was born on a US Military base in the Canal Zone which was effectively US territory, making him a Natural Born Citizen. Ted Cruz was born in a hospital on the local economy in Canada and was not even registered as a US Citizen Born Abroad as my daughter was. My daughter's only birth certificate was signed by a US Air Force Doctor and the US Consul to Portugal. The Consul also provided her an Infant Passport to prove her American Citizenship. Cruz does not have that and therefore cannot be our President. The Rule-of-Law is still important to a great may of US.
No, I just explained to you that our Founding Fathers delegated to electors the job of selecting presidents and weighing their qualifications. They could have prescribed a precise definition of natural born citizen had they wanted to, but they chose to leave such matters to the electors. That is the rule of law.
Those who don't like our Constitution should try to amend it.
smh
Shake your head all you wish. You can’t magically shake away the inconvenient fact that Trump’s “financial support” went mostly to Democratic candidates until very recently. About the time he would have decided to run himself.
But go ahead, tell me all about how funding Harry Ried’s campaign is the moral equivalent of decades of building the conservative movement.
Y’all’s ‘arguments’ are so weak. It’s sad, really.
You sound just like a gun grabber saying the Founding Fathers could have prescribed a precise definition of "A well regulated Militia". Unlike you, I know that the US Constitution has no ambiguity. Natural Born could not be any more clear that the term natural fool.
Well, I'm happy that you've got it figured out. Now, you can judge the qualifications of each candidate.
I'm sure you won't mind if the rest of us do what you did and judge the matter for ourselves.
What about sovereignty, which depends on having controlled borders? Isn’t Cruz in favor of a path to legal status for those illegally in this country?
I should remind you that was also the case in Georgia. The Republican Party didn't exist in Georgia so all the bribes and support went to Democrats. In 2003, Sonny Perdue became the first Republican Governor in 130 years since the end of the Civil War Reconstruction.
In New York City Trump supported the Powers-that-be, which happened to be Democrats. Rudy Giuliani was the first Republican Mayor in fifty years.
The whole thing is not really so strange when you put it in the proper context, is it?
Not Trump (unless he convinces me he is a conservative, and not just a blow hard). But I’m fine with Cruz and/or Carson (at this time).
If you really mean what you say, you should be for Rand Paul.
“In New York City Trump supported the Powers-that-be, which happened to be Democrats.”
Funny, he managed to donate to Democrats all over the country. But he didn’t actually mean any of that, did he?
The man’s a snake-oil salesman. Don’t be fooled by the empty words he’s mouthing now - as soon as it’s convenient he’ll be back on the (D) side.
“If you really mean what you say, you should be for Rand Paul.”
If Paul was a principled conservative, then I probably would be. But he’s yet another huckster we seem to be infested with. A hypocrite who claims to oppose government spending but fights to keep the money flowing to his purse. Even setting aside the small matter of his family’s really scummy (and criminal) political machine.
I’m for the only actual conservative in the race. I’m a Cruz supporter and donor.
Someone who votes to turn the Constitution on its head is no conservative.
Too many bad votes.
You’ll be glad to hear I won’t be able to vote in the Republican primary. I’m hoping Trump will be the choice of the Conservative Party.
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.