Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
though I still do not think or what to think there are that many people, young or old that would vote based on one issue, at least you are able to give information to back up your thoughts. The problem with all this is: Pres Obama, originally said, in 2007 and 08 he didn't believe in gay marriage, then he changed his mind. Yes, we all change out minds about issues and that is a good thing, but why do I think he did it to get votes?
Ah yes, those millions of erstwhile Romney voters swayed by Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage. Totally flipped the race.
Romney wasn't going to win regardless. He was a lousy choice. I am still trying to figure out how he became Gov of Mass? He has done one very good thing for the country: he handled the Olympics wonderfully well. I am not supporting his views, I just mentioned Obama's flip. So many things played into the 2012 election victory, not any one thing.
conservativebyte.com mocks the potential for there to be liberal birthers with cruz........ and in the comments their conservative readers go full blown "2 US parent" birther!
conservativebyte.com mocks the potential for there to be liberal birthers with cruz........ and in the comments their conservative readers go full blown "2 US parent" birther!
and re-read what I said, I didn't say there were none; there will always be the birthers, on both sides and yes, there are a few that are questioning his citizenship, but I simply said and it was a comment only: there are not several. We all need to be careful when we use generalizations. This sounds like there are hundreds out there, not a handful...Wouldn't you agree or maybe you just can't understand what I am saying? or maybe you need to watch the video; it is an MSNBC piece and nowhere is anyone saying he isn't eligible, the question is: will this be an issue? Even Hannity didn't say he wasn't, he simply asked Cruz, are you a naturalized citizen. You are reading into this what you want to read in. The question more than anything is: what constitutes a natural born citizen?
and re-read what I said, I didn't say there were none; there will always be the birthers, on both sides and yes, there are a few that are questioning his citizenship, but I simply said and it was a comment only: there are not several.
there are beyond "several" and i'd be happy to start listing conservative sources and comments that believe in the "2 US citizen parent " definition of "natural born citizen". just ask and i'll start providing links ( i just want to make sure my work isn't in vane ).
the theory has it's origins in the belief that emmerich de vattel defined NBC and/or the SCOTUS case minor v happersett set an exclusive definition of NBC needing both parents to be citizens. this belief was embraced by many conservatives during the peak of birtherism and carries over to cruz, rubio and jindal.
Quote:
We all need to be careful when we use generalizations.
i haven't used any generalizations.
Quote:
This sounds like there are hundreds out there, not a handful...
actually i'd guestimate the number in the 10's of thousands ( or higher ) who have this belief ( i'm sure if you asked the birthers they'd estimate that number in the millions ). the facts do not support that this is a belief only shared by a "handful" of conservatives.
Quote:
or maybe you need to watch the video; it is an MSNBC piece and nowhere is anyone saying he isn't eligible, the question is: will this be an issue?
i did watch the video and already commented on it's contents in this thread. what my last comment was addressing was conservativebyte's take on the video and the comments on that article from their conservative readers.
Quote:
The question more than anything is: what constitutes a natural born citizen?
i believe a great answer to that has already been supplied from the congressional research service:
once again nmnita, if you'd like me to link to sources and comments that support my contention that this belief goes well beyond just a "handful" of conservatives then just ask and i will.
there are beyond "several" and i'd be happy to start listing conservative sources and comments that believe in the "2 US citizen parent " definition of "natural born citizen". just ask and i'll start providing links ( i just want to make sure my work isn't in vane ).
the theory has it's origins in the belief that emmerich de vattel defined NBC and/or the SCOTUS case minor v happersett set an exclusive definition of NBC needing both parents to be citizens. this belief was embraced by many conservatives during the peak of birtherism and carries over to cruz, rubio and jindal.
i haven't used any generalizations.
actually i'd guestimate the number in the 10's of thousands ( or higher ) who have this belief ( i'm sure if you asked the birthers they'd estimate that number in the millions ). the facts do not support that this is a belief only shared by a "handful" of conservatives.
i did watch the video and already commented on it's contents in this thread. what my last comment was addressing was conservativebyte's take on the video and the comments on that article from their conservative readers.
i believe a great answer to that has already been supplied from the congressional research service:
once again nmnita, if you'd like me to link to sources and comments that support my contention that this belief goes well beyond just a "handful" of conservatives then just ask and i will.
Good Lord, what are you not getting? I didn't say there were not a lot of birthers, I said there were not a lot that are questioning Cruz at this time and you refer back to something 2 years ago.. Obviously you are going to continue to spin this to try and prove you are right, so, with that I am going to exit this debate. The point here isn't birthers, of course we all know there are several out there, especially many questioning Obama's birthplace and I personally think this is not worth arguing over at the late stage, but his entire thread is or was started about Cruz, not anyone else. You just can't seem to understand that or you don't want to understand it.
Romney wasn't going to win regardless. He was a lousy choice. I am still trying to figure out how he became Gov of Mass? He has done one very good thing for the country: he handled the Olympics wonderfully well. I am not supporting his views, I just mentioned Obama's flip. So many things played into the 2012 election victory, not any one thing.
Romney got to be Governor of MA - largely because he had a weak opponent and had a lot of money to spend. However, once he got there, instead of really governing, he saw it more as a ticket to a higher office, and spent about half his term campaigning for the Pres as opposed to governing according to my relatives in MA, which did not win any favors from the MA public. He didn't help himself by being relatively aloof and not building relationships with the legislators. Despite his claims of bipartisanship, he vetoed a lot of bills by the legislature, and had a lot of them overridden.
Romney got to be Governor of MA - largely because he had a weak opponent and had a lot of money to spend. However, once he got there, instead of really governing, he saw it more as a ticket to a higher office, and spent about half his term campaigning for the Pres as opposed to governing according to my relatives in MA, which did not win any favors from the MA public. He didn't help himself by being relatively aloof and not building relationships with the legislators. Despite his claims of bipartisanship, he vetoed a lot of bills by the legislature, and had a lot of them overridden.
Oh, I agree with you on Romney. I know you and I rarely agree on anything, this one we do. He got elected because he didn't have stiff competition and this is pretty much how Obama won in 2012. Yes, it is hard to beat a sitting President, but it was done in 80 and 92. Obama is a great campaigner and Romney just couldn't get any momentum going. I don't know what kind of a person he is, none of us do, but he just couldn't reach the middle class. Not all people with money have this problem, he did. Of course, we are now totally off the topic that was started here and that is about birthers.
Oh, I agree with you on Romney. I know you and I rarely agree on anything, this one we do. He got elected because he didn't have stiff competition and this is pretty much how Obama won in 2012. Yes, it is hard to beat a sitting President, but it was done in 80 and 92. Obama is a great campaigner and Romney just couldn't get any momentum going. I don't know what kind of a person he is, none of us do, but he just couldn't reach the middle class. Not all people with money have this problem, he did. Of course, we are now totally off the topic that was started here and that is about birthers.
Yes, thank you for acknowledging our respective positions. I think Obama was vulnerable given the economy, but he started off knowing that he could win based on having a stronger/larger electoral college base, and pretty much just needed to keep the states he won in 2008. Romney had to pretty much run the table on the battleground or swing states which was going to be a real challenge. Nate Silver is probably the best well-known analyst on electoral college projections.
Yeah, back to the birthers - I think the argument is old and played out.
Senator Cruz is a clever guy but his extreme positions isn't going to help him on the national level if he chooses to pursue that.
Yes, thank you for acknowledging our respective positions. I think Obama was vulnerable given the economy, but he started off knowing that he could win based on having a stronger/larger electoral college base, and pretty much just needed to keep the states he won in 2008. Romney had to pretty much run the table on the battleground or swing states which was going to be a real challenge. Nate Silver is probably the best well-known analyst on electoral college projections.
Yeah, back to the birthers - I think the argument is old and played out.
Senator Cruz is a clever guy but his extreme positions isn't going to help him on the national level if he chooses to pursue that.
I agree, the birther thing needs to be dropped, let's move on. As for Cruz, I haven't paid enough attention to him so I can't judge, but more than anything, let's wait for awhile. He is too new at the federal level. Maybe 4 or 8 years after 2016, but not before.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
