gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Jan 14, 2016 15:28:19 GMT -5
Going to double down- Trump is at the same time some kind of a hero to people that work for a living and the worst possible president for them- hence why his support is based on uneducated, low earning, older white people. If I am wrong on this I am sure I will be corrected- but this asshat had a privileged life, ducked Vietnam, started his 'empire' thanks to 100 million handed to him from his dad, ran 4 companies into bankruptcy (which means he was not out a dime while people he 'paid' to to do jobs got fucked (middle class folks- construction, electricians, etc.). Even relatively rich people know better than to deal with him- he's screwed over so many people he is toxic to anyone wanting to invest money- yet the poor idiots think he is some kind of hero What a sad world- David Bowie died and this POS is still stealing oxygen. I think you summed it up pretty well.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 16, 2016 12:13:34 GMT -5
not much to report on the national polls
Trump +15 Cruz +7 Rubio +3 Carson +4
everyone seems to be going sideways. if there is any real movement, here, it is slightly lower for Cruz in the last week. we will see if there are any changes due to the debate. no polling from that, yet.
here is how 2008 looked:
Giuliani +3 Huckabee +4 Romney +3 McCain +2 Thompson +6
it was basically a FIVE WAY RACE in January 2008. but it was pretty clear that Rudy was headed for trouble. what was not clear is that McCain would win. at this point in the race, he was in FOURTH. Huck was red hot. he was at the peak of his campaign, and running very close to the front. Thompson had basically fallen off the map. his trajectory kind of reminds me of Carson this year. Cruz reminds me of Huck. Trump reminds me of Rudy. and that would mean that the only one left to remind me of McCain is Rubio. now, this is just based on polling and trends. they are not similar in other ways.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 16, 2016 12:17:54 GMT -5
Iowa is way more interesting
Trump +0 Cruz +15 Rubio +3 Carson +5
Trump and Cruz are in a tie, here. and it is a tie that is not moving either way right now. Trump and Cruz have been within polling error of each other in three of the last seven polls. in the other four, Cruz was ahead in two, and Trump was ahead in two. so, really, this is a dead heat on paper.
i think this contest favors Cruz, because his ground game is way better. 15 days to go, and it is anyone's guess how it will actually turn out.
in 2012, Gingrich lead by 4% and lost in 2008, Huckabee lead by 11% and won
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 16, 2016 12:32:00 GMT -5
... ... it is anyone's guess how it will actually turn out. ... Heck, we might still be guessing how it turned out after it is over. Iowa GOP Officially Declares Santorum The Iowa Caucus Winner
Rick Santorum is officially the winner of the Jan. 3 Iowa Republican presidential caucus. The state Republican Party reversed itself from a previous assertion that it would not declare one, given problems at eight precincts, as The Des Moines Register reported.
In a news release late Friday, the party said it called the race "in order to clarify conflicting reports and to affirm the results released Jan. 18 by the Republican Party of Iowa."
The preliminary count on the Jan. 3 caucus put former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney ahead by eight votes, as NPR reported that night. Later, the party said there was no official winner, though a recanvassing of the votes showed Santorum won by 34 votes.
info.nhpr.org/iowa-gop-officially-declares-santorum-iowa-caucus-winner
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 16, 2016 12:32:08 GMT -5
New Hampshire is also slightly more interesting:
Trump +18 Rubio +2 Kasich +0 Cruz +2 Christie +1
again, it is still Trump and a 5 way tie for 2nd, basically. but Trump has a fatter lead now. in the last two cycles, Romney lead NH by 12%. he won one and he lost one. but since Trump has a bigger lead, and we are less than 30 days out, i would say Trump will probably win this one.
the only candidate that seems to have any momentum right now is Kasich, who just moved into 3rd. Bush was doing well until this last week, but he fell again from 3rd to 5th, so i took him off the board again. sorry, Virgil.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 16, 2016 12:33:02 GMT -5
... ... it is anyone's guess how it will actually turn out. ... Heck, we might still be guessing how it turned out after it is over. Iowa GOP Officially Declares Santorum The Iowa Caucus Winner
Rick Santorum is officially the winner of the Jan. 3 Iowa Republican presidential caucus. The state Republican Party reversed itself from a previous assertion that it would not declare one, given problems at eight precincts, as The Des Moines Register reported.
In a news release late Friday, the party said it called the race "in order to clarify conflicting reports and to affirm the results released Jan. 18 by the Republican Party of Iowa."
The preliminary count on the Jan. 3 caucus put former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney ahead by eight votes, as NPR reported that night. Later, the party said there was no official winner, though a recanvassing of the votes showed Santorum won by 34 votes.
info.nhpr.org/iowa-gop-officially-declares-santorum-iowa-caucus-winner yeah, i remember this. and then there was the Paul scandal. it is a wonder that the GOP still sees fit to have Iowa caucus.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 16, 2016 12:36:16 GMT -5
NOTE: the consistent result from this polling is that it has NOT been good for Cruz the last few weeks. he has not shown any consistent improvement anywhere. i am going to check South Carolina right now and see if he has made any movement there. if i don't report back, that would be a no.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 16, 2016 12:41:23 GMT -5
ok, so HERE Cruz is improving dramatically:
Trump +11 Cruz +10 Rubio +2 Carson +1
Cruz has gone +15% in the last (2) months in SC, and is now just 11% down on Trump. Trump is precisely where he was (2) months ago, so the gain didn't come at Trump's expense- it came at Carson's and Fiorina's.
again, we see the problem of these 2nd place candidates NOT TAKING FROM TRUMP. they are going to have to start doing that, or they are going to lose.
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Jan 17, 2016 6:35:08 GMT -5
Today's Sun am political talk show w/George S (This Week) should be interesting. He has Trump. Hillary & Bernie on. per the blurb I heard last eve.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 17, 2016 11:30:28 GMT -5
Today's Sun am political talk show w/George S (This Week) should be interesting. He has Trump. Hillary & Bernie on. per the blurb I heard last eve. It was pretty boring. Nothing new.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2016 0:06:55 GMT -5
in 2008, things were starting to get interesting in Iowa.
McCain, who had been tied for last, moved into 3rd in Iowa. Huckabee's numbers plummeted, but he was still +6%. Romney was stable in 3rd. edit: Huck won, by about this same margin. McCain ended up in 4th, behind Romney and Thompson.
in NH, McCain moved into 2nd, ahead of Rudy, who was steadily falling to pieces. Romney still lead by a seemingly insurmountable 16%. edit:McCain beat Romney by 5% that year in NH, in an epic comeback.
this year, it is a dead heat in Iowa with Trump and Cruz. in NH, Trump is leading by about the same margin that Romney lead by in 2008.
i still think that NH is the real contest here. the caucus in Iowa are arcane and corrupt.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2016 0:43:35 GMT -5
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 18, 2016 16:39:20 GMT -5
I thought this was a dead issue, but read someone commenting that the difference between Cruz and Obama was that Obama had an American mother and was born in America. Cruz has an American mother but was actually born in Canada, which would make him ineligible to be President. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know which is right.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Jan 18, 2016 16:53:35 GMT -5
I thought this was a dead issue, but read someone commenting that the difference between Cruz and Obama was that Obama had an American mother and was born in America. Cruz has an American mother but was actually born in Canada, which would make him ineligible to be President. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know which is right. If that's the case, was McCain eligible?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2016 17:03:38 GMT -5
I thought this was a dead issue, but read someone commenting that the difference between Cruz and Obama was that Obama had an American mother and was born in America. Cruz has an American mother but was actually born in Canada, which would make him ineligible to be President. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know which is right. If that's the case, was McCain eligible? it depends on whether you believe in the 14th Amendment or not. if you believe in it, then Obama is eligible, and Cruz is eligible, and McCain is eligible. McCain made the case that Panama is a US territory. he also had a measure passed through congress declaring him natural born. crafty fellow that he is.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Jan 18, 2016 17:08:32 GMT -5
If that's the case, was McCain eligible? it depends on whether you believe in the 14th Amendment or not. if you believe in it, then Obama is eligible, and Cruz is eligible, and McCain is eligible. McCain made the case that Panama is a US territory. he also had a measure passed through congress declaring him natural born. crafty fellow that he is. That's sort of like "if you believe in the sky". It's there ain't it? Then what's all the hoopla about?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 18, 2016 17:25:44 GMT -5
DJ,
Where the H is gofor when we need him? You know he would be a Cruz backer amongst all these Repo candidates but would consider him 'not native born". Remember, he considered Obama not eligible even though he was born in Hawaii.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 18, 2016 17:48:38 GMT -5
If that's the case, was McCain eligible? it depends on whether you believe in the 14th Amendment or not. if you believe in it, then Obama is eligible, and Cruz is eligible, and McCain is eligible. McCain made the case that Panama is a US territory. he also had a measure passed through congress declaring him natural born. crafty fellow that he is. A strict constructionist view may very well end up that Cruz is not eligible. Just sayin'
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2016 18:05:36 GMT -5
it depends on whether you believe in the 14th Amendment or not. if you believe in it, then Obama is eligible, and Cruz is eligible, and McCain is eligible. McCain made the case that Panama is a US territory. he also had a measure passed through congress declaring him natural born. crafty fellow that he is. That's sort of like "if you believe in the sky". It's there ain't it? Then what's all the hoopla about? crack babies? killer bees? seriously, i think it is a complete distraction. i am glad that most sensible people are ignoring it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2016 18:07:19 GMT -5
it depends on whether you believe in the 14th Amendment or not. if you believe in it, then Obama is eligible, and Cruz is eligible, and McCain is eligible. McCain made the case that Panama is a US territory. he also had a measure passed through congress declaring him natural born. crafty fellow that he is. A strict constructionist view may very well end up that Cruz is not eligible. Just sayin' if you mean that we throw out everything since the 10th amendment, including all of the case law, i agree. of course, that means that blacks are 2/3 of a person and women can't vote, as well- so one must be careful about that argument.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 18, 2016 18:27:43 GMT -5
Fourteenth Amendment does not refer in any way to those born outside the country, as I recall. And what is there refers specifically to, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." which is arguably synonymous with, "not subject to or owing allegiance to any foreign power." Cruz was a Canadian citizen at birth, which argues against the latter point.
The argument also goes that he may have been an American citizen by virtue of having a citizen mother, but that such citizenship is the result of statute, not of birth. He is thus a naturalized citizen, though his circumstances freed him of the naturalization process which immigrants without American parentage must undergo.
That's the simple version.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2016 18:42:30 GMT -5
Fourteenth Amendment does not refer in any way to those born outside the country, as I recall. And what is there refers specifically to, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." which is arguably synonymous with, "not subject to or owing allegiance to any foreign power." Cruz was a Canadian citizen at birth, which argues against the latter point.
The argument also goes that he may have been an American citizen by virtue of having a citizen mother, but that such citizenship is the result of statute, not of birth. He is thus a naturalized citizen, though his circumstances freed him of the naturalization process which immigrants without American parentage must undergo.
That's the simple version. no, but USC 8.1401 does. quite elaborately. (edit: USC 8.1401 is meant to expound upon the 14th amendment, just to be clear. that is why it exists. it is the codification of case history for the 14th amendment, and defines PRECISELY what that statute actually means, in practical terms) there are two ways of establishing BIRTHRIGHT citizenship in most places: jus sanguinas and jus soli. the US has both. one is conferred in the constitution, and the other in the 14th amendment. anyone that meets EITHER standard is a US citizen by birthright. the only OTHER distinction that can be made is between "natural born" (or native born) and naturalIZED- which is the PROCESS of becoming a citizen. obviously, nobody who is naturalIZED is eligible. that's fine. no disagreement there. so this debate really centers around a somewhat fatuous and arcane argument about some mythical third category of citizen which really doesn't exist, imo. i know that there are those that feel really strongly about it, but i just don't think that the case law is there to defend them.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 18, 2016 18:42:59 GMT -5
There is also the apparent truth that Ted's mother had become a Canadian citizen prior to his birth in Canada and was eligible to vote in Canada. At that time, Canada did not allow dual citizenship, so it would have been difficult to confer exclusive U.S. citizenship on her son. It should also have entailed renouncing his Canadian citizenship at the time, rather than 44 years later. Anything other than that should not be considered "natural-born" as I understand the argument. He is a citizen by statute or legal proceeding. Naturalized, not natural-born.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 18, 2016 18:45:11 GMT -5
Exactly.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2016 18:47:22 GMT -5
There is also the apparent truth that Ted's mother had become a Canadian citizen prior to his birth in Canada and was eligible to vote in Canada. At that time, Canada did not allow dual citizenship, so it would have been difficult to confer exclusive U.S. citizenship on her son. It should also have entailed renouncing his Canadian citizenship at the time, rather than 44 years later. Anything other than that should not be considered "natural-born" as I understand the argument. He is a citizen by statute or legal proceeding. Naturalized, not natural-born. my understanding is that you are only naturalized when you are not "native born". that would mean that Cruz should have to show us his birth certificate, and show that his mother OR father was a US citizen, thus granting him "jus sanguinas" citizenship. i didn't know that Cruz's mom voted. that adds a very interesting wrinkle to the argument. but even without it, the case against Cruz being eligible is MUCH stronger than it is with Obama, who had "jus soli" to stand on.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 18, 2016 19:01:53 GMT -5
There is also the apparent truth that Ted's mother had become a Canadian citizen prior to his birth in Canada and was eligible to vote in Canada. At that time, Canada did not allow dual citizenship, so it would have been difficult to confer exclusive U.S. citizenship on her son. It should also have entailed renouncing his Canadian citizenship at the time, rather than 44 years later. Anything other than that should not be considered "natural-born" as I understand the argument. He is a citizen by statute or legal proceeding. Naturalized, not natural-born. my understanding is that you are only naturalized when you are not "native born". that would mean that Cruz should have to show us his birth certificate, and show that his mother OR father was a US citizen, thus granting him "jus sanguinas" citizenship. i didn't know that Cruz's mom voted. that adds a very interesting wrinkle to the argument. but even without it, the case against Cruz being eligible is MUCH stronger than it is with Obama, who had "jus soli" to stand on. The case against him is indeed much stronger than with Obama.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 18, 2016 19:04:23 GMT -5
link
Don't know if all of this is true, but....
I do think the case should be decided, once and for all. And if the Court manages to rewrite a couple of bad decisions from the past, such as Ark, so much the better.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2016 19:21:13 GMT -5
link
Don't know if all of this is true, but....
I do think the case should be decided, once and for all. And if the Court manages to rewrite a couple of bad decisions from the past, such as Ark, so much the better.
i always believed that Cruz's mom was a US citizen, and that there was no issue for him. however, if his mom was NOT a US Citizen, he is f'd.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 18, 2016 19:26:42 GMT -5
More from that article:
Couple of lines in there could be VERY problematic for him.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 18, 2016 19:34:37 GMT -5
I agree. He is definitely f'd up.
Oh, that's not quite what you said. Never mind.
|
|