2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]

57Brave said:
Here we go:


Ann Coulter Now Suggests Ted Cruz Isn't A ‘Natural Born Citizen’

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter, who once dismissed birthers as "cranks," suggested Wednesday that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) may be ineligible for the presidency because he is not a “natural born citizen."

In a series of tweets, Coulter, an ardent anti-immigration advocate, suggested that Cruz was not a "natural born citizen," a requirement to run for President outlined in the Constitution:
ADVERTISING

NYT: Cruz was born outside the U.S. to 1 American parent: "Under the Constitution this makes him a 'natural born citizen.'” Absolutely false

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 6, 2016

Same lawyers who said anchor babies are in the Constitution now tell us being born outside U.S to 1 American parent = natural born citizen.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 6, 2016

Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada to an American mother and Cuban father. His mother's citizenship status qualifies him as a "natural-born" U.S. citizen at birth according to legal interpretations of the Constitution.

Coulter herself seemed to recognize this reality as recently as a few years ago. In a tweet from 2013, she explained that Cruz “was born a citizen” by virtue of his mother and “CAN RUN FOR PRESIDENT.”

TED CRUZ CAN RUN FOR PRESIDENT! I worried on @seanhannity @ his Calgary birth, But his mother was a US citizen, so he was born a citizen.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) February 14, 2013

In 2009, she also dismissed those who questioned whether President Barack Obama actually was born in the United States as “a few cranks” who were an embarrassment to the Republican Party.

Coulter’s dramatic reversal on Cruz’s eligibility to be President closely mirrored that of his GOP presidential rival Donald Trump, who was once an outspoken Obama birther.

Though Trump told ABC in September that Cruz’s presidential eligibility was valid and had been “checked out by every attorney,” he suggested in a Tuesday Washington Post interview that Cruz could be “tied up in court for two years” over his citizenship status.

As for Cruz, he dismissed these accusations as "political noise" on Wednesday, insisting that the matter was "settled law."

Next Question
Click to expand...

Liberals were so mad when anyone questioned in which country Obama was born. I never could figure out why it made them so upset. I just can't even pretend to care if people bring up Cruz's citizenship.

Coulter is definitely all in on Trump. Putting all of her eggs in one basket. Bold move.
 
weso1 said:
Liberals were so mad when anyone questioned in which country Obama was born. I never could figure out why it made them so upset. I just can't even pretend to care if people bring up Cruz's citizenship.

Coulter is definitely all in on Trump. Putting all of her eggs in one basket. Bold move.
Click to expand...

Because it was already 4 years into his Presidency and the birthers were still going nuts.
 
Gary Johnson is a Trojan Horse. To be kind
.....

I’m not a Libertarian, but I’m familiar with the schtick: its purpose in American politics is to decouple the Republican goal of ending taxation on the wealthy and eliminating pro-labor regulation from the party’s sex policing, religious outrage and marginal-group “othering” that makes Republicans actually electable.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...johnson-is-no-libertarian-hes-a-pro-pot-trump

.....

For instance
A component of his agenda is raising the retirement age to 70-72.

There are a few magic numbers our society has unearthed. The 40 hur work week == the 8 hour work day --- and 65 retirement age.
If anything, in today's world it should be 60-62

.....

Curious to know his stance on the Saudi-Iranian issue or how he would have handled the Somali Pirates in '09
 
I disagree with Johnson's burka ban (apparently he has already done a 180 on the idea), but he could insist the entire country be forced to wear them and he'd still be a superior candidate to HRC/Trump.
 
there is very little distance between he and Trump.Perhaps pot and even the burka thing is eerily familiar. His stances are more pro business friendly than every (D) and in line with every (R).
 
Except for getting approval of (R) establishment I'm not sure why he isn't just a plain old Republican. David Koch was once the candidate of the Libertarian Party

It really isn't the outside the bubble party people seem to think. Save for pot - which in 2016 it is not the cutting edge issue it might have been in 1984
 
Foreign policy? Drug policy? Criminal justice policy? Gay marriage policy? Immigration policy? And that's before getting to economy/taxes/spending, where I think most Reps are frauds.

There are a host of significant differences between Johnson/Republican establishment/Trump.....
 
a) foreign policy -- his stance on a debate stage makes him as electable as Mary Poppins. Supposing he does get elected he is/ would be beholden to the powers that get him elected. Another for instance, where is he on the Iranian Nuclear deal or the Saudi-Iranian dispute? We are right now as much isolationist as we have been in my lifetime. What makes anyone think any other pol can unilaterally pull us out of the world stage? Possible before WWII but in todays world, we are too interconnected

b) drug policy -- like I said, his take is pretty much mainstream and would have been cutting edge in 1984.

c) Gay Marriage -- well, it is pretty much law of the land and his stance is pretty much irrelevant. His view would have been meaningful pre Obama

d) Immigration -- how does he differ from any other (R)

e) Econ/taxes/s[ending -- again, how does he differ ?

f) criminal justice --- , have you seen what he proposes - Outsourcing prisons to the for pay business community?

The differences are pretty much around the edges and as much differences as between HRC and Sen Sanders
Same goals different means of getting there
 
Here is a meme for 57

12509469_10154466994873082_496273985818538556_n.jpg
 
That has not been my favorite aspect of Obama's Presidency.

On the other hand, he has been dealing with an especially intractable Congress that largely refuses to budge or compromise on anything, so to achieve some of the goals he campaigned on (and was thus elected to achieve) he's frequently been forced to resort to Executive Orders.
 
Thanks for the reply. First of all, that number is wrong... as I find the most up to date number, Obama has signed 226 EOs and has a year to go.

But why does he have any? They are unconstitutional. He's just a hypocrite like all those republicans you despise.

Also, an inconvenient little fact for you 57... Obama has slyly used unilateral power in a different way. As Gregory Korte points out in a thoughtful and informative article in USA Today, Dec. 17, 2014:

President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives [executive orders and executive memos] are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman ….

Obama has issued executive orders to give federal employees the day after Christmas off, to impose economic sanctions and to determine how national secrets are classified. He’s used presidential memoranda to make policy on gun control, immigration and labor regulations. Tuesday, he used a memorandum to declare Bristol Bay, Alaska, off-limits to oil and gas exploration.

Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don’t require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.

Obama has made prolific use of memoranda despite his own claims that he’s used his executive power less than other presidents…. Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders….

Obama is not the first president to use memoranda to accomplish policy aims. But at this point in his presidency, he’s the first to use them more often than executive orders…even as he’s quietly used memoranda to signal policy changes to federal agencies….

While executive orders have become a kind of Washington shorthand for unilateral presidential action, presidential memoranda have gone largely unexamined. And yet memoranda are often as significant to everyday Americans than executive orders.
Click to expand...

Link to that article
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top