Posted on 02/08/2016 7:15:40 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Rand Paul is out, so what does this mean for the realistic future of 2016? It means what I've been saying for a while, Senator Ted Cruz will take his campaign all the way. There is now pretending that Ted Cruz is a libertarian, he is as conservative as they come, in the traditional sense.
The difference between Cruz and Paul though is this; Cruz never pretended to be something he wasn't, he has much adoration for libertarians, and has stated time and time again that when certain challenges come about, there is a need for a coalition. Senator Rand Paul on the other had was different, Paul over and over again denounced being a libertarian when it was unpopular to appear as when, and then whenever he needed a boost in support, he would toss around the word “libertarian†out of style. To simplify it, Ted Cruz is the friend that accepts you for who you are, while Rand Paul was the friend that would ignore you except when you were needed to advance his agenda.
As the race for the White House continues, Ted Cruz is now the only Republican left who can maintain the Reagan Coalition he has been fighting to piece together. While there are enough reasons libertarians would consider Cruz as a viable option, a honest assessment of Cruz from a libertarian lens has almost always been dismissed. Now is the time however to reconsider. I've stated in the past why I think Cruz will be the most libertarian-leaning president since Coolidge, but what are others saying?
Nick Gillespie over in an op-ed for the Daily Beast stated: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at libertyconservatives.com ...
No, I am believer.
Testify!
We all know Obama effed up the oath and then it was redone in private
No honor no allegience
No, the maple syrup sucking pig is Bernie Sanders. Who’s from Vermont.
Ted’s from Canada, not Vermont. Don’t confuse sucking maple syrup with liking the Maple Leafs. Who just suck.
;-)
“Long-haired, dope-smoking, free-love hippies” were actually a very small part of the voter group that you reference.
Most of those voters were not, at any time, radicals... they just wanted to go to class, graduate and get a job. They wanted what most Americans (regardless of generation) want: an opportunity for security, liberty, prosperity and peace.
They grew older and logically voted for Reagan. Hipster millennial Paulite libertarians (and their old and crusty compatriots) are not similar to the Reagan baby boomer voters.
They are fringe heavy-baggage types who may account for a marginal at-the-polls advantage and a multitude of future political headaches.
Subversives do lie and it aint always so smart to wear yer heart on yer sleeve but here I am
Subversives do lie and it aint always so smart to wear yer heart on yer sleeve but here I am
Uh, it isn’t being “held against him,” he simply can’t be president of the United States.
Hyperbole much?
Gonna go listen to Rush.
AWW should be a hoot this week!
http://swling.com/blog/tag/allan-weiner-worldwide/
sorry for the blog link gunner LOL
Jesus I give up. Cruzbots cannot learn.
So you think a person can be born in any country in the world, to any mother with citizenship, a citizenship they could have obtained a day before the birth, mother dies the next day, foreign father raises an “American” son, comes back to the U.S. under some arbitrary statute deadline... AND IS STILL A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. . ? The Framers think you are a few nibbles short of a mouthful Bunky.
-----
Same thing as saying "GUN NUTS ARE INSANE". Someone is insisting on their Constitutional rights and you are hurling liberal insults.
Jesus I give up. Cruzbots cannot learn.
_____________________________________________
Good. Give up. Post your opus, newbie. And GTFO.
In the trucking industry we call people like you radio Rambos... Because you talk like Rambo on the radio, but never show up to settle accounts. Enjoy your sorry life you PASSOS.
Maybe not, but he’s the closest thing still in the race. Who else would they stand behind?
Making up some extreme scenario doesn't help your case. All of these distinctions are arbitrary, including "natural born citizen" itself. Is it any less arbitrary to think that a child born to American parents who just happened to be out of the country at the moment of birth, a child that is born a US citizen and that subsequently spends it's entire life in the US and has no ties to the country its parents were visiting, that that child shouldn't be able to be President? That's completely arbitrary.
"The Framers think you are a few nibbles short of a mouthful Bunky."
You don't speak for the framers. It is far more likely they agreed with me. The "natural born citizen" clause is there to prevent people from immigrating to the US (particularly foreign princes) and becoming President. It is not there to prevent US citizens from birth from serving just because their parents travelled out of the country.
Except that birthers aren't insisting on their constitutional rights. They are making up things about the constitution.
Simple question- Do people have a natural affinity for the land they are born on? Answer- Yes
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.