Posted on 06/09/2018 11:48:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As evidenced by all the GOP candidates (including Trump), as well as Hillary and all of her surrogates (such as President Obama and Michelle), politicians will spew any lie in an effort to get their candidate elected.
The notion that their is—or ever has been—any standard of decorum for political conflict is patently ludicrous. All anyone has to do is go back through American history and review the record. This is one arena where nothing has changed as far as scurrilous attacks, lies, libel, and slander are concerned...
I realize a lot of folks try to talk that down, but I’ve seen some pretty good arguments against him being a natural born citizen. In my heart, I don’t think he is.
This may be the second or third time I’ve mentioned this to you, it’s not something I focus on.
I believe he fails just on the merits of his actions, if folks are honest with themselves.
It has been my take that the citizenship issue misdirects people away from who and what he truly is, but...
The citizenship test may in fact be the biggest problem for Ted. It wouldn’t go unaddressed if Ted were the Republican nominee.
Folks are mistaken to dismiss the likelihood that he is not qualified to be president.
RE: So we have a Republican Convention with tens of millions of people watching, and Ted’s best effort was to tell folks to vote their conscience without mentioning Trump by name.
Then he says he will vote for Trump and sits on the phones for about an hour.
Then four days before the election he appeared at three campaign sites, refusing to mention Trump by name at one of them.
____________________________________
I don’t blame him for that.
Trump was an unknown quantity. What we have is a man who speaks on both sides of his mouth, in the past supporting unconservative things like using eminent domain to seize the property of private citizens in favor of big businesses ( see Connecticut’s Kelo vs City of New London ).
Here was Trump who used his name for a a Trump University that did not produce what was promised and when sued, finally had to settle for $25 Million.
Here was the Trump who without citing any good evidence, uses his underlings ( and he parrots them ) to accuse Ted Cruz’s father of being part of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK ( how would you feel if I did it to your father ?).
That Ted Cruz was kind enough to tell people to vote their conscience because Trump was an unknown quantity, and then AFTER Trump proves his conservative bonafide by really enacting conservative things, he then supports him, just shows that Ted Cruz is not a man who simply gives his support to anyone who talks a good game.
Show me your character by your deeds and I will support you. And when Trump did, Ted Cruz supported him.
What’s wrong with that?
On Immigration, you can read Ted Cruz’s stance here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ted_Cruz_Immigration.htm
He was and still is for building a border wall. Ted Cruz proposed using assets seized from El Chapo to fund the border wall.
And when push came to shove, Ted Cruz actually took Trump to task for suggesting giving young undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, a day after President Donald Trump said he was open to the idea as part of immigration legislation being negotiated in Congress.
See here:
Regarding his providing a poison pill so a bill wouldn’t pass, hey what about Trump? He proposed a path to citizenship for 1.8 Million illegals. FReepers calls this a bluff ( AKA a poison pill by another name ). Well, where’s the consistency? Is Trump serious about it or is he not?
Firstly, whether Cruz’s amendment to the gang of 8’s immigration proposal was indeed a “poison pill” meant to kill the immigration bill, which the Texas senator’s campaign now contends. That is unequivocally true, so point goes to Cruz.
The bipartisan group of eight senators — including battle-tested veterans and relative newcomers like Rubio — painstakingly negotiated a delicate compromise in early 2013 that would overhaul every corner of the U.S. immigration system, including a 13-year pathway to citizenship for millions here illegally.
Cruz’s amendment — which called for stripping out a pathway to citizenship, but keeping a path for legalization — would have done precisely that.
The night before each Senate Judiciary Committee markup, senior Gang of Eight aides would huddle to scour through each of the amendments that were teed up for the following day, determining which proposals would be palatable and which would be unacceptable. This strategy was meant to ensure the core elements of the Gang of Eight deal would stay intact (the four members of the Gang who sat on the Judiciary Committee would vote in a bloc, usually with the rest of the committee Democrats, to vote down potential deal-killers).
“This one was one that clearly we all had to oppose because it went to the core of the deal,” recalled an aide to a Senate Democrat during the 2013 negotiations. “It could’ve unraveled the whole deal.”
Sure, Cruz himself never called it a “poison pill” at the time. But no senator refers to his own proposal as a poison pill, even if it plainly is. The Gang of Eight never considered Cruz as “gettable,” and it was well-known at the time that Cruz was never going to vote for the bill and was in fact, trying to kill it.
And need I remind you of Cruz’s practically lone crusade to stop Obamacare from becoming law ( causing a government shutdown in the process and earning him the ire of both Democrats and members of his own party, yes, John McCain included ).
So, your point on Ted Cruz not being tough on immigration and not being conservative and his only talking conservative because it is election season does not convince.
To compare him to John McCain who has shown his true colors in his last years in the Senate is totally inaccurate.
RE: Can you believe the guy didn’t renounce that Canadian citizenship a long long time ago. 2015, and he had either declared or was close to it.
Because there was no pressing need to do it. One could be very busy doing other things that this would simply not be a priority at all.
Did Ted Cruz ever use his Canadian Citizenship to garner personal gain?
RE: He is an opportunist and his fealty to the Constitution lasts right up to where it says he can’t be President.
You have not shown that to be true to say the least.
And of course you seem to ignore the flaws of Donald Trump himself.
I could say that I dislike the antics of Trump and his hypocrisy on so many things. But I’ll be damned if :
1) I don’t support him over the Democrat alternative.
2) I don’t support him when he does what is right.
3) I don’t stay vigilant and personally invest my defense on him when I believe he is in the wrong.
We ought to do the same for ANY politician ( and yes, that includes Ted Cruz ).
Why do you bother responding to folks regarding Ted.
They tell you the truth, and you say it doesn’t matter.
Ted does whatever the sam hell he pleases, and you defend him for it.
Ted is not a Conservative like most other Conservatives. If you think this man is a Conservative, you’re willing to lower your standards to the point where he looks pretty danged good.
I am not.
Go pester someone else who will swallow what your peddling. I won’t stoop to that level.
It is self evident that someone born with multiple nationalities is not naturally an American.
That is precisely who the founders were excluding.
Anwar Al-Awlaki’s kids born in Yemen to one citizen parent are as eligible to be President as Ted Cruz.
RE: Why do you bother responding to folks regarding Ted.
My question to you is this -— WHY DO YOU BASH TED CRUZ IN A THREAD THAT SHOWS HIM SUPPORTING TRUMP’s CONSERVATIVE POLICIES?
I believe Ted Cruz is a conservative BASED ON HIS SENATE RECORD.
He is not perfect but, hey, I’ll take him over any run of the mill Republican. And if it boils down to him vs. any Democrat, NO HESITATION AT ALL — I’ll vote for him hands down.
If you think he isn’t conservative, why not recommend someone to primary him in 2018?
AS for pestering someone, why not follow your own advise?
And the Cruz camp put out a picture of Melania designed to paint her as a tramp. We can play this game all day or we can let the past be the past.
RE: It is self evident that someone born with multiple nationalities is not naturally an American.
Nope. Accident of birth does not make someone whose mother is American and who never had to go through naturalization a non-natural born citizen.
A “natural born citizen” is a person who has citizenship status at birth rather than as a result of a legal naturalization process after birth.
In a 2015 Harvard Law Review article, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen,” Neal Katyal and Paul Clement (former Solicitors-General in, respectively, the Obama and George W. Bush admininistrations), explain that British law explicitly used the term “natural born” to describe children born outside the British empire to parents who were subjects of the Crown. Such children were deemed British by birth, “Subjects … to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.”
Congress later changed the law, making it easier for one American-citizen parent to pass birthright citizenship to his or her child, regardless of whether the non-American parent ever resided in the United States. But even if the more demanding 1790 law had remained in effect, Cruz would still be a natural born citizen. His mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson, is an American citizen born in Delaware; his native-Cuban father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was a legal resident of the U.S. for many years before Ted was born.
As Katyal and Clement observe, changes in the law after 1790 clarified that children born of a single American-citizen parent outside the United States are natural born American citizens “subject to certain residency requirements.” Those residency requirements have changed over time.
You may want to re-litigate this all you want, but it has been litigated in the Supreme Courts of several states and in each state the decision was UNANIMOUS — Ted Cruz QUALIFIES
You have no evidence that Ted Cruz was responsible for naked Melania ad.
Cruz did not send out the picture. It was an anti-Trump super PAC.
Super PACs have one major restriction: They can’t coordinate their efforts with a candidate’s official campaign, which is restricted in its spending.
If Cruz did arrange for the ad under the auspices of the super PAC, it would be a serious violation of federal law.
Why did Trump not sue for violation?
In a 2015 Harvard Law Review article, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen,” Neal Katyal and Paul Clement (former Solicitors-General in, respectively, the Obama and George W. Bush admininistrations),
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Written by people with a vested interest in altering the meaning of natural born citizen.
RE: Written by people with a vested interest in altering the meaning of natural born citizen.
Yep, when you can’t go to the logic of the argument, you attack the person(s). Good ad hominem right there.
You might as well attack the courts of every single state that ruled Cruz eligible.
I’ll be jumping in with both feet on Ted Cruz threads, because he is a charlatan.
Just because you won’t admit to what he is, that doesn’t make him not what he is.
You can believe anything you like.
I’m encouraging folks to vote for Ted against the Democrat, but that’s not going to stop me for outing him here so folks know it’s on the record.
I’m not sure why you compare him favorably to other Republicans, when I reveal six or so things that he had waffled on. None of that matters to you. The truth doesn’t matter to you because you became politically infatuated with Ted. You have stars in your eyes and blinders on.
I’m sure the good people of Texas have many others who actually are Conservative down there. Why do I have to help you folks out?
I warned Arizona of McCain to crickets.
I am warning you of Ted to raspberries.
RE: I’ll be jumping in with both feet on Ted Cruz threads, because he is a charlatan.
Just because you won’t admit to what he is, that doesn’t make him not what he is.
________________________
I can’t admit it because you have not shown this to be true.
What in his record shows he is a charlatan? After Trump was elected, he has been nothing but supportive of ALL his conservative policies ( see all the 7 things he presented in this thread ). How is that being a charlatan?
If he were a charlatan, he would be like John McCain, talking about repealing Obamacare and then when push came to shove VOTED TO maintain it.
You can warn me about John McCain and I’ll listen because I have eyes to see and read. You can warn me about Ted Cruz all you like but unless you can show me where in his record he has substantially deviated from being a conservative from immigration to healthcare to defense to taxes to abortion to state rights to LGBT issues, you can’t prove that he is a McCain.
One more word about being infatuated with Ted Cruz (your words, not mine) .... I am infatuated with NO ONE. I am not personally invested in anyone because I do not personally know any one of them. People can disappoint.
I only look at their performance and policies.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and no one, not Cruz, not Trump deserves our letting our guard down.
I did show it to be true, so I’ll cut you have at that lie.
RE: I did show it to be true, so I’ll cut you have at that lie.
Where did you show this to be true? Every single item you presented has an alternative and more reasonable explanation.
Wrong. Again you are lying.
Tell me what the great spin on Ted’s sage advise about illegal immigrants prior to GW being sworn into office.
U. S. Citizens did want action then, when some 20 million fewer illegal immigrants were on U. S. soil.
Ted also coached Bush to discuss the issue in terms of separating families, to capitalize on the “AWWWWWW” factor. That is a Leftist ploy.
There old Ted was coaching Bush to go against our wishes, when we had waited eight long years to get relief from Leftist views.
Let me see you spin that.
RE: Tell me what the great spin on Ted’s sage advise about illegal immigrants prior to GW being sworn into office.
You are harping on what happened long before Ted Cruz was Senator. Should we harp on Donald Trump’s affairs and bawdy sexual remarks long before he ran for President?
Should we harp on Trump’s hypocrisy when he attacks companies for not hiring available American workers when he himself hired over 70 overseas workers for Mar A lago?
Or are you going to concede that PEOPLE CAN CHANGE after they reconsider their previous stance?
Is that a spin or is that a fact?
Selective outrage is what I call your remarks. You turn a blind eye to what Trump did in the past while nit picking on Ted Cruz’s statement long before he was elected Senator.
I am not interested in what Ted Cruz believed decades ago. I am interested in what he is doing NOW. Just as I am not interested in what Trump said in 2003, 2004 or 2005. I am interested in what Trump is DOING NOW.
So Ted going to the border and handing out Teddy Bears to illegal alien children a few years back makes you believe he has changed?
The point is, Ted has been.declared a solid Conservitive at all times.
He wasn’t and still isn’t
As late as 2016 he didn’t give a rat’s ass if Hillary Clinton became president or not.
None of Trump’s supporters have made the claim Trump has always been a Conservative.
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.