Patterico's Pontifications

Fraud.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 1/19/2016 @ 8:48 pm

Lightweight.

AZ Bob (34bb80) — 1/19/2016 @ 9:16 pm

Hilarious.

Dejectedhead (6bc3b0) — 1/19/2016 @ 9:17 pm

I am defriending her!

Colonel Haiku (aacf41) — 1/19/2016 @ 9:24 pm

Haiku! You broke the one word comment streak!

Argh!

Dejectedhead (32153d) — 1/19/2016 @ 9:25 pm

R.I.P. David G. Hartwell, a giant in the SF/F world as editor of The New York Review of Science Fiction, anthologist (including many “Year’s Best SF” collections) and Chairman of the Board of the World Fantasy Convention.

Icy (8c543e) — 1/19/2016 @ 9:50 pm

?

NJRob (a07d2e) — 1/19/2016 @ 10:42 pm

She couldn’t even answer, “What do you read?”.

She was rightly beaten with the stick she carved, sanded, neatly polished and then handed over.

Matador (57a586) — 1/19/2016 @ 10:46 pm

Haters

mg (31009b) — 1/19/2016 @ 10:46 pm

Team republican will soon be exposed again as they will have reignited the war on a women. Popcorn, popcorn, popcorn.
Can’t wait for trump to back Palin when the barbie doll from fox opens her pie hole. Team republican is a farce.
Berate all of the media and the dolts from team r, please, trump. Cruz/West

mg (31009b) — 1/19/2016 @ 11:05 pm

Maybe she thinks the GOPe is a corrupt cesspit and supporting any of the turds floating in it is a betrayal of the people? Perhaps her loyalty is to voters and not the party. What an odd thing that would be for a politician.

Mr Black (3efb66) — 1/20/2016 @ 12:56 am

facebook is gayer than twitter is gayer than facebook is gayer than twitter

happyfeet (831175) — 1/20/2016 @ 3:49 am

Karma in one chart:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/01-overflow/20160119_dump4_1.jpg

Wave goodbye.

DNF (ffe548) — 1/20/2016 @ 3:59 am

In a like manner there’s been a lot of talk in Britain about potentially banning Donald Trump for his comments on importing Muslim ~~terrorists~~ refugees from Syria.

Sending the Queen an ipod full of hip hop, or tossing a sheet over Winston Churchill’s statue, that’s all good. But don’t you dare cross our Muslims! Rape gangs gotta rape.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:04 am

Who was it that said we can’t drill our way to lower gas prices?

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:08 am

More importantly, who said “Drill. Baby drill!”

BTW the glut in crude is caused by progressive politicians sticking to the global warming farce like a crust of barnicles.
Won’t let the country refine our oil.

Maybe that’s why Trump is sticking with ethanol. At least the Malthusians and DC scum will still allow us to decant fuel.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:14 am

SO was there a vigorous on going conversation between Patterico and Sarah Palin before this unfortunate difference of opinion?

Or are you just being a reactionary?

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:19 am

Juan Peron for president. It’s the latest trend! We don’t need no steenken principles.

Evita has officially endorsed.

Luke Stywalker (bec54f) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:43 am

Luke! Whose your daddy?

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:46 am

Whoooose your daddy?

heh

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:56 am

Matador: “She couldn’t even answer, ‘What do you read?’”.

I thought Ms. Palin answered the silly question quite well, but of course she failed to see how the media would spin it, as they spun another thoughtful answer into “I can see Russia from my house.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

David Pittelli (b77425) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:55 am

You can’t flush Sarah Palin. She’s a floater.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:03 am

I share your distaste for her allying with Mister Yay Ethanol Subsidies (because no one owns him, see?), but why block her on FB?

Mitch (bfd5cd) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:16 am

“BTW the glut in crude is caused by progressive politicians sticking to the global warming farce like a crust of barnacles.”

– paper tiger

I thought the glut in crude was caused by the OPEC cartel flooding the market with cheap crude to undercut the burgeoning US extraction industries.

Leviticus (efada1) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:25 am

I share your distaste for her allying with Mister Yay Ethanol Subsidies (because no one owns him, see?), but why block her on FB?

I block Trump supporters on social media. I like to say “YOU’RE FIRED!” when I do it.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:30 am

Sad note. Dr. Robert Carter, scientist, climate skeptic, champion of the climate realist movement, passed away yesterday.

RIP – Bob. You will be sorely missed.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:35 am

The bottleneck is in the refineries. More accurately in the lack there of.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:37 am

And to undercut the Iranians
Which is most
IDK
And because natural gas is down
Climatistas?
IDK that either

MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:38 am

well it’s not any one factor, yes the sauds are going after their enemies, yes fracking plays a part, but China is the 800 pound dragon in the room,

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:41 am

I thought the glut in crude was caused by the OPEC cartel flooding the market with cheap crude to undercut the burgeoning US extraction industries.

That’s what the New York Times would have us believe but they also touted communism as the wave of the future. To me they aren’t too reliable. But for sure any glut in crude is not caused by progressive politicians. That would kind of be an oxy for those morons.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:45 am

true, as Buckley once riffed, Fidel, saying ‘I got my job through the New York Times’ re Herbert Matthews’s part as press agent,

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:50 am

Like it’s so hard for a knowledgeable free-market conservative to believe that cartel dumping can undermine competitors. How does something that plausible get attributed to NYT propaganda? Or maybe I’m begging a crucial question in my first sentence.

Leviticus (efada1) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:51 am

A bottleneck in the refineries would make gasoline prices go up, not down. And they’re down. Way down. Lower than Bill Clinton’s pants.

It is the Saudis undercutting oil prices, and at the same time Putin who is taking it worse than American shale.

nk (dbc370) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:54 am

it’s a factor, but not the controlling one, like say government generating subprime demand, through enforcement and extortion,

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:54 am

For those of you who don’t know who Bob Carter was, here is an obit from The Heartland Institute

Dr. Carter was a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than 30 years professional experience. He earned degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.

Dr. Carter served as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181(Southwest Pacific Gateways).
Dr. Carter was one of the world’s leading authorities on the science of climate change. He was the author of two books on the subject, Climate: The Counter Consensus (2010) and Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies about Climate Change (2013) and coauthor of several more, including three volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and published by The Heartland Institute. Shortly before his death he coauthored Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2015).

Dr. Carter’s public commentaries drew on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal publication list of more than 100 papers in international science journals. His research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy was based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand.

Dr. Carter has acted as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and N.Z. parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading and in a meeting in parliament house, Stockholm. He was also a primary science witness in the Hayes Windfarm Environment Court case in New Zealand, and in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.’s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgment which identified nine major scientific errors in Mr. Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth.”

https://www.heartland.org/robert-m-carter

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:56 am

BIG

Colonel Haiku (aacf41) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:00 am

CORN

Colonel Haiku (aacf41) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:01 am

CORN!

Colonel Haiku (aacf41) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:02 am

Imagine Al Gore sending a hit man out to silence Lord Monckton, Anthony Watts, and Roy Spenser.

That’s what we lost with the passing of Bob Carter.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:02 am

SOCIALISM!

Colonel Haiku (aacf41) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:02 am

BTW the glut in crude is caused by progressive politicians sticking to the global warming farce like a crust of barnicles.
Won’t let the country refine our oil.

Maybe that’s why Trump is sticking with ethanol. At least the Malthusians and DC scum will still allow us to decant fuel.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:14 am

First of all, I thought the whole idea behind Trump is that he would end that kind of nonsense. Why do we need Trump to stick with what we’re already doing?

Second, I can’t figure out why forcing refineries to add ethanol to gasoline would be due to a lack of refining capacity.

You’re rationalizing business as usual, in order to rationalize your Trump loyalty. Think about the absurdity of that, since he’s SUPPOSED TO BE the anti-business as usual guy. Which he isn’t. Cruz is that guy. Period.

Gerald A (949d7d) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:06 am

A more diplomatic way to put it, and OPEC did here in its last meeting http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/press_room/3193.htm, is that Saudi Arabia refused to cut down on production to keep supply and demand at the old levels in response to increased production by American drillers.

Saudi Arabia is looking at both the short term and the long term. If it cuts production, its cash flow will still suffer even though it’s getting the most buck for its barrel. If it maintains production at a lower price, its cash flow will still suffer the same as if it had cut production but it will have the benefit of possibly bankrupting the American drillers. The damage is to its reserves but it has plenty of those. The ones who are suffering badly are its OPEC partners, like Venezuela and Russia, who need every oil penny now.

nk (dbc370) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:12 am

like ice9, from that vonnegut tale, we don’t know how far that escalator goes, the Sauds in their late Romanov phase, are just as dependent on crude, to support their populace,

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:16 am

Lack of refineries are the block keeping gasoline prices artificially high. It’s always been that way. The progressives would like to have total control of energy production. What was the name of the black congresswoman from California who threatened to nationalize oil refining? Can’t remember. A vicious pig well worth forgetting.

For the record, I think Donald Trump needs to explain himself a whole lot more than he has on ethanol, but it’s not a deal breaker. There’s a hair’s breath of difference between Donald and Ted on ethanol, but they are both in the camp of not wanting to tear down fresh infrastructure when we already as a country run on a margin.
For example they change formula between summer and winter here in California, it directly affects the price of gas because they take one or two refineries off line for a minute.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:24 am

“BTW the glut in crude is caused by progressive politicians sticking to the global warming farce like a crust of barnacles.”

– paper tiger

I thought the glut in crude was caused by the OPEC cartel flooding the market with cheap crude to undercut the burgeoning US extraction industries.

Leviticus (efada1) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:25 am

That and too much money flooded into US fracking projects.

BTW, the collapsing stock market is apparently due in large part to the collapse in crude prices. Those who follow the stock market know that on days when crude prices rally the stock market generally rallies, and vice versa. It’s feared that the flood of money going into oil drilling was largely supporting the US economy and with drilling projects shutting down it will drive the economy into recession. It may result in a lot of debt defaults as well.

Gerald A (949d7d) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:32 am

ultimately we are talking of the demand cycle, do you know of a substitute of that kind of drop off,

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:37 am

BIG CORN beholden
BIG CORN SOCIALISM in
Iowa-waaahhhh-waaahhhh

Colonel Haiku (aacf41) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:39 am

Gas is $1.85 up here. Factoring inflation, that’s below 1991 prices.

The ethanol lobby would love to take advantage of this. To mandate 15% ethanol, masking the much higher cost of ethanol, to the consumer at the pump, with the lower price of gasoline. What’s stopping them is that 1) they don’t have enough ethanol and 2) there are not enough cars that can run well on 15%.

nk (dbc370) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:41 am

Did it seem hot to you last year?

Last year’s global average temperature was the hottest ever by the widest margin on record, according to two U.S. government agencies…

link

It’s just this sort of horse manure that Bob Carter would have popped up and demolished with facts and figures, showing the exact source of the propaganda.

Not even in the grave yet, and these commie ahols are trying to piss on him with their false flags and phony adjustments.

What they won’t say is that the discrepancy between NOAA AND NASA GISS and the actual temperature of the planet is precisely their politicized adjustments to the historical temperature record.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:41 am

Some of the people at Hot Air think Donald Trump will be a bulldozer, taking a wrecking ball to business as usual shibboleths like the ethanol subsidy.

I am less sanguine. But show me the candidate who will blast ethanol to hell, and I’ll argue in favor of that guy.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:49 am

and mark steyn, did a wonderful rendition, he might have been among tumbleweeds, for all the good it did. mike ‘hockeystick’ mann, now says the satellites are conspiring against him.

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:52 am

There’s a hair’s breath of difference between Donald and Ted on ethanol, but they are both in the camp of not wanting to tear down fresh infrastructure when we already as a country run on a margin.

Baloney. There is not a hairs breadth of difference between Cruz and Trump on ethanol.

And Cruz is the ONLY one directly challenging the AGW myth. Trump sure has nothing to say about it. I imagine Trump will be business as usual on that too. He’ll say “We need green energy subsidies blah blah blah”. Trump is the business as usual candidate – other than the border if we can take him at his word (which is definitely NOT reliable) – wrapped up in non-politically correct language.

Gerald A (949d7d) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:52 am

Donald Trump quotes on global warming.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:58 am

Google – Gerald, is your friend.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:59 am

Trump knows ethanol

is an out-and-out ripoff
panders anyway

(with apologies to Col. Haiku)

Mitch (341ca0) — 1/20/2016 @ 9:00 am

Governor Terry Branstad declared himself a member of the ‘anybody but Cruz’ camp, saying he hoped the fiery Texan would lose on Feb. 1. A Cruz victory “would be very damaging for our state,” the governor told reporters at the Renewable Fuel Summit. Branstad, the longest serving governor in U.S. history, has never lost an election. He speaks to another population of Republicans — anyone “whose livelihood is dramatically affected by agriculture,” Johnson says.

Cruz wasn’t in the state to defend himself. Instead, he was in New Hampshire, where he is doing a bus tour through the state.

He dismissed Branstad’s remarks to reporters there as part of establishment panic in the face of his rise. “We will see: Like The Empire Strikes Back, the establishment will strike back because they don’t want an end to the cronyism,” Cruz told reporters in New Hampshire, per CNN. “Iowa corn farmers are wonderful Americans, but American corn farmers are not career politicians.”

Gerald A (949d7d) — 1/20/2016 @ 9:10 am

If only she put as much effort into parenting.

Bugg (db3a97) — 1/20/2016 @ 9:47 am

so what exactly was wrong with her statement here,

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160120/riverdale/donald-trump-endorsement-sarah-palin-mocks-obamas-chicago-history

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 9:51 am

Ohmigosh, not DNAinfo. They’re Chicago’s answer to Amanda Marcotte, and I mean trying to out-do her.

nk (dbc370) — 1/20/2016 @ 10:12 am

There’s a hair’s breath of difference between Donald and Ted on ethanol,

Um, I haven’t been following the presidential race closely this year, as politics and politicians are almost as bad as watching MTV these days. Forgive me if I’m totally wrong. But didn’t Trump want the federal government to mandate more ethanol fuel, and Cruz wanted the federal government to stop mandating ethanol with a rollback over some period of years?

Isn’t that why the Iowa governor is saying Cruz is a threat to Iowa’s economy, which has become dependent on the federal government’s interference?

If so, then that’s more than a small difference. It’s exact opposite positions, where one is a big government lefty paying for votes with your money, and the other is a legitimate conservative.

Dustin (2a8be7) — 1/20/2016 @ 10:16 am

narciso, I read the statement and there’s nothing wrong with it, but it’s not very persuasive. Trump is not running against Obama and never will. He’s running against Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich

I saw nothing from that article that explains why Palin prefers Trump to his actual competitors. That’s the important decision we’re trying to make. Palin notes that there’s a large building with Trump’s name on it, and this shows Obama that Trump built something on his own, yet I find that one very strained, as Trump famously justifies his support of De Blasio and other New York politicians like Hillary as necessary for business. In other words, did he built it himself, or did he build it with political connections? Palin complains about the Iranian ordeal recently, but without explaining what she would have done differently, or what Trump would do better, or especially, what the other GOP candidates would do wrong.

I’ve liked Palin for years and she deserves some latitude due to how nasty our political system has been to her, so I have an open mind to hear her argument. She missed her chance though. I’m not persuaded after looking to be persuaded. I come away disappointed that she doesn’t take our problems seriously enough to speak about clearly.

Can someone here make the case for Trump? I’m concerned primarily with balancing the budget and eliminating wasteful government programs and interference. I see Trump’s gleaming opulent everything and imagine a personality that wants to insert himself into our problems and say “i’m from the government and I’m here to help with programs with my name on them”

Dustin (2a8be7) — 1/20/2016 @ 10:26 am

I used to be a big supporter of Sarah Palin. Donated money to her defense fund, defended her when she was attacked by dumbasses who don’t know when the Boston Tea Party was held, that didn’t know Paul Reverse also warned the Brits that he had already alerted the colonists, etc. But after this endorsement and her breeder-sow daughter’s anti-Cruz attack, I’m washing my hands at her. Done.

CrustyB (69f730) — 1/20/2016 @ 10:35 am

Can someone here make the case for Trump? I’m concerned primarily with balancing the budget and eliminating wasteful government programs and interference.

Dustin (2a8be7) — 1/20/2016 @ 10:26 am

If you do enough Googling you could probably find some Trump statements about government waste, then you cherry pick those statements and say “SEE? He’s for smaller government!”.

Gerald A (949d7d) — 1/20/2016 @ 11:08 am

But didn’t Trump want the federal government to mandate more ethanol fuel, and Cruz wanted the federal government to stop mandating ethanol with a rollback over some period of years?

Congress passed the ethanol mandate with a percentage of ethanol way too high for business to ever cover, even with the subsidies. Trump wants business to cover the difference between what we have now and the unrealistic congressional mandate; ie follow the letter of the law without wiggle room.

Cruz wants to maintain the ethanol subsidies until the expiration date, and block any follow up subsides after. Congress built in an expiration date.

The problem with Trump’s position (well, besides it being entirely based on at idiotic belief in AGW) is it’s not possible. Cars can’t run with that much whiskey in the tank.

Ted Cruz’s problem is chances are better that average he will not be in a position to block follow up ethanol subsidies, regardless if he is elected President. It won’t expire until 2022.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 11:36 am

Yeah, I’d have to trade in my pickup if I had to buy ethanol gas, as Papertiger says. That’s a bit of a hidden cash-for-clunkers effort by forcing obsolescence.

f you do enough Googling you could probably find some Trump statements about government waste, then you cherry pick those statements and say “SEE? He’s for smaller government!”.

Gerald A

I can’t get too mad at Trump’s followers. If the GOP hadn’t let folks down so many times, compromising its promises or dismissing as unelectable anyone they can’t control, then these folks wouldn’t be so mad. Trump seems to get a lot of slack for his flaws because a lot of voters figure if they can’t believe in anything anyway, at least they can believe in revenge to shake things up.

But Gerald’s comment reminds me of something. There’s a lot of ground to cover with Trump. The media’s biggest trick is selectivity in what they talk about. It seems as though they always change their tune about the GOP frontrunner after he’s nominated. Trump seems especially vulnerable.

Dustin (2a8be7) — 1/20/2016 @ 11:48 am

The biggest problem with Trump is that he thinks being President is about making deals. Hasn’t there been enough of that the last 15 yrs? I don’t blame Palin for thinking he’s a better Prom date but I don’t really see how Trumpism is going to further any of the things she claims to stand for.

crazy (cde091) — 1/20/2016 @ 12:01 pm

i did a jabra on the widger

happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/20/2016 @ 12:07 pm

I thought the glut in crude was caused by the OPEC cartel flooding the market with cheap crude to undercut the burgeoning US extraction industries.

That makes no sense. They’d be cutting their own revenues, with no guarantee of ever making it back. That simply does not happen. “Predatory pricing” is a silly myth.

Saudi Arabia refused to cut down on production to keep supply and demand at the old levels in response to increased production by American drillers.

This is more like it. Cutting production to prop up prices is almost never a sensible idea. You suffer the loss, and someone else gets most of the benefit.

If it cuts production, its cash flow will still suffer even though it’s getting the most buck for its barrel. If it maintains production at a lower price, its cash flow will still suffer the same as if it had cut production

Not nearly as much. Getting more buck per barrel doesn’t nearly make up for having fewer barrels. The damage to other producers isn’t a significant factor in the calculus. It’s just lagniappe.

Milhouse (87c499) — 1/20/2016 @ 12:08 pm

Dustin,

So good to see you commenting. With that, making the case for Trump appears to boil down to, he’s a tough guy and he is the counter to Obama – an alpha male who’ll take on anyone and bow to none (unless it makes for a good deal, of course…). I don’t see much other than that. And if you’re looking for him to make government smaller or decrease entitlement spending, or any other spending, don’t be silly. He proudly does everything BIG, so why on earth would he do governments any differently??

Dana (112556) — 1/20/2016 @ 12:28 pm

Getting more buck per barrel doesn’t nearly make up for having fewer barrels.

if you sell 1 million barrels at $40 per you have $40M

if you sell 900,000 barrels at $28 per you have $25.2M

which to choose which to choose

happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/20/2016 @ 12:30 pm

I’m unclear what your thoughts are, Milhouse, but I think this is the Saudi strategy:

There is little chance that Riyadh would retreat now just as the worst pain is really beginning to set in for rival producers. Sure, Saudi Arabia is suffering from low prices, but its competitors are hurting worse. U.S. oil production, after years of blistering growth, has not only ground to a halt, but has started to decline. Output peaked in March at 9.69 million barrels per day (mb/d), dropping to 9.51 mb/d in May (the latest month for which accurate data is available). In all likelihood, the decline has picked up pace in the intervening months.

And more to the point, U.S. oil production will continue to decline the longer Saudi Arabia holds out. Several companies have already gone bankrupt, and more are no doubt coming down the pike. That will allow Saudi Arabia to achieve its goal of holding onto market share, and letting prices adjust on the back of rival producers.

DRJ (15874d) — 1/20/2016 @ 12:32 pm

Will trump speak with gold columns at his side?

mg (31009b) — 1/20/2016 @ 12:32 pm

It’s working. US oil production:

US crude oil production peaked at 9.6 MMbpd (million barrels per day) in April 2015. It fell to 9.2 MMbpd by December 2015. Genscape forecasted that the crude oil production will fall more in 2016. The production is expected to fall to just 8.1 MMbpd by the end of 2016.

DRJ (15874d) — 1/20/2016 @ 12:33 pm

Thanks, Dana. Very kind of you.

he’s a tough guy and he is the counter to Obama – an alpha male who’ll take on anyone and bow to none

Hmm. That makes me rethink Narciso’s link a bit, as Palin is complaining in part about our sailors being humiliated in Iran, which is one of a series of embarrassments that frustrated a lot of us. I’d like to know how Trump would handle it, but as you note, this is more of a generalized ‘we need a tougher leader’ thought. I agree with the sentiment, but strength for me is standing tall when it’s not self serving to do so. Very few politicians show that trait anymore. It’s easy to pound the podium when you’re saying something that is popular.

Dustin (2a8be7) — 1/20/2016 @ 12:40 pm

He proudly does everything BIG, so why on earth would he do governments any differently??

Oh yeah… and that right there is why, on a gut level, I think support of him from the right is short-sighted. Even if I understand the emotional appeal of sticking to the GOP. A bigger bridge to nowhere is not an improvement.

Dustin (2a8be7) — 1/20/2016 @ 12:43 pm

Can someone here make the case for Trump? I’m concerned primarily with balancing the budget and eliminating wasteful government programs and interference.

Dustin (2a8be7) — 1/20/2016 @ 10:26 am

Yes, I believe it was along the lines of: I’ll balance the budget and eliminate wasteful government programs and interference…and it will be fantastic.

Something like that 😉

Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 1/20/2016 @ 12:54 pm

Dustin, nice to see you’re still alive. You too DRG. I’m a lousy excuse for a human being but I am so glad you’re still with us.

Steve57 (f61b03) — 1/20/2016 @ 1:04 pm

But Dustin, it won’t be just a big bridge, it will be a FABULOUS big bridge!

What’s sad to me is how outraged Americans have become – so much so that Big Promises, no matter how outlandish, are being believed. Shrewd, once discerning voters are now so angry at the betrayal by the GOP elites and the destruction of the nation by the Democrats, are now voting based on an emotional responses, not principles or policy. So much so that the person with the biggest mouth saying the very least has become their champion and willing receptacle for their anger. He doesn’t want the voters to think. He wants them to dump on him as he absorbs their anger and soothes them with his rhetoric and Big Promises.

Dana (112556) — 1/20/2016 @ 1:04 pm

but strength for me is standing tall when it’s not self serving to do so. Very few politicians show that trait anymore. It’s easy to pound the podium when you’re saying something that is popular.

I agree. I don’t think it’s in Trumps nature to be not self-serving. He may help others, but somehow I suspect he’s getting something return other than the pure and genuine pleasure of being able to help.

It makes me weary because we’ve seen what a president drunk on narcissism is like and I can’t help but wonder, why do voters think Trump would be any different?

Dana (112556) — 1/20/2016 @ 1:11 pm

Eh… Not be self-serving.

Dana (112556) — 1/20/2016 @ 1:12 pm

Trump will try very hard to do good things I think

and there’s so much easy stuff to do that can make a big difference

i’m excited we’ll have a president who wants to actually help america instead of just rape rape rape

this is change i can believe in

happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/20/2016 @ 1:13 pm

Iowa and Cow Hampshire will not make a president.

mg (31009b) — 1/20/2016 @ 1:14 pm

“I’m going to make America great again. It will be great. Wonderful. Fantastic. Unlike what these nasty jerks Cruz and Rubio want to do. They’re nasty…and jerks. And by the way, have you seen that Carly woman’s face? And how about that Dr. Carson guy—was he really all that good a doctor? I know some doctors, and they’re supporting me. Dr. Carson hasn’t even solved the common cold—or pancreatic cancer. So how can he be expected to make deals in Washington? I’ve spent my whole career buying and paying for politicians, so I know how to work with them, unlike these career politicians, who don’t have experience buying and paying for politicians. I tell you, I’m gonna make America great again. It’ll be great.”

(LOL)

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 1:17 pm

case for donald trump
whether good or bad you know
it’s gonna be yuuuuuuuge

Colonel Haiku (aacf41) — 1/20/2016 @ 1:20 pm

welcome back Dustin!

Colonel Haiku (aacf41) — 1/20/2016 @ 1:21 pm

Remember the little old lady’s house sitting in Donald Trump’s limousine parking lot. Before he resorted to eminent domain he offered $5 mil for her property.
That’s well known. What’s not so well known is there were two other property owners in the parking lot. He paid them the quoted price. $5 mil.

I’d settle for some great for a change.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 2:02 pm

Florida poll Trump 48, Cruz 16, Rubio 11, Bush 10.

Is that a big deal? I mean it’s not Cow Hampshire, but

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 2:07 pm

Here is a thought:
People were fed up hearing nothing but bickering and backbiting and getting nowhere in 2008,
So they were quick to hope in someone new and believe the hype and rhetoric
Now it is 2016, and people feel the same way and are looking for the same “outsider” who will promise the moon,
And like an abused spouse people will hope it will be different this time,
And repeat the mistake if given the chance.

The typical person either has not heard of Cruz,
Or only has some subliminal negative view because of how his efforts have been described in the media.

Because as a whole the public is not mature and insightful,
But immature and pathologic,
They will keep making the same mistakes until there is a successful intervention.

I don’t know what or when that will be.

MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84) — 1/20/2016 @ 2:09 pm

It is true that over 50% in every poll do not want Trump.

MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84) — 1/20/2016 @ 2:10 pm

As Churchill famously said, ‘Democracy is the worst form of government—except for all the others.’

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 2:11 pm

DRJ, it’s the old old canard of “predatory pricing”, which never made sense and still doesn’t. Cuttin production to raise the price means you’re making less money. So why would you do that?

Milhouse (87c499) — 1/20/2016 @ 2:16 pm

Ethanol has only 66% of the energy content as gasoline, and we buy it by volume. So the ethanol is just another tax. If we buy gasoline with 10% ethanol, we are only getting 97% of the energy we would from gasoline alone That’s a 3% tax.

Robert of Ottowa

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 2:21 pm

Al Capone is alive in spirit, and living in Iowa.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 2:24 pm

Florida is a big deal. Hard to believe the home staters are hated. Love it.

mg (31009b) — 1/20/2016 @ 2:33 pm

What is the point of #86? Also I don’t remember the story.

Gerald A (949d7d) — 1/20/2016 @ 2:44 pm

The Saudis are looking to undermine Iran’s oil production.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 2:51 pm

the saudis screwed the pooch

and several underaged children

happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/20/2016 @ 2:52 pm

and thousands of camels.

mg (31009b) — 1/20/2016 @ 3:00 pm

If only you knew, Mr. feets.

Maybe it wouldn’t be a joke.

Steve57 (f61b03) — 1/20/2016 @ 3:01 pm

They didn’t screw the pooch.

They nuked the koala.

I mean one is ugly. But still, there’s a difference.

Steve57 (f61b03) — 1/20/2016 @ 3:04 pm

But both are ugly.

Still, there’s a difference.

Steve57 (f61b03) — 1/20/2016 @ 3:09 pm

If Cruz fails to petition the courts for a declaratory judgment on his status as a natural born citizen prior to the election he will have put his supporters in an impossible position: vote for a candidate who may be ineligible to serve, vote for a second choice.

The question won’t go away, Cruz and his supporters ignore it at his peril. Right now there’s time to address it calmly and fairly. If Cruz runs out the clock and tries to whistle past the graveyard his support will evaporate on the eve of the election. Americans want their nominees for the presidency to be clearly eligible for the office they seek. Current experience proves the proposition.

It’s time we had a leader we can trust.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 3:35 pm

What difference would it make anyway? Clinton and Cruz are basically the same, right? Conservatives should be voting against Cruz based on his long history of liberal policy positions, right?

Leviticus (efada1) — 1/20/2016 @ 3:57 pm

ropelight, Hillary Clinton is “clearly eligible” to become President, but that doesn’t mean she would be a good President, right?

If you can make the case for why a lifelong Democrat such as Donald Trump should be entrusted with the Republican nomination, then please try to make that case. But just remember that Trump was praising Obama as recently as 2009. Then again, that may not be important to you.

Calling us jerks, liars, and a-holes does not move the needle in your favor—no matter what your Democrat friends tell you otherwise.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:00 pm

Both of you, try addressing the point of my comment. Why won’t Cruz take the proper steps to verify his eligibility? This early in the primary season is the time to step up and do the right thing.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:10 pm

hmmm donald trump or
anorectal disorder
which choice do you make?

Colonel Haiku (aacf41) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:12 pm

Mr. Ted Cruz is trying to tricker everyone into thinking he’s Canadian then at the last minute he’s gonna jump out and go HAHAHA FOOLED YA!

and then he’ll proceed to explain how he’s actually a for reals american

it’s strategic

happyfeet (831175) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:20 pm

Both of you, try addressing the point of my comment. Why won’t Cruz take the proper steps to verify his eligibility?

Because you don’t know what you’re talking about? The Supreme Court has already ruled that the question is not justiciable. It is not something that can be decided by the courts. It is something that is decided by the Electoral College, and by the House of Representatives when it confirms the vote count. (Also because Cruz has not won yet and the federal courts do not give advisory opinions, but that’s secondary.) And because everything that comes from the Trump camp is as phony as Trump’s combover.

nk (dbc370) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:23 pm

ropelight,
You clearly stated last week that if we want the same policies that we’ve had the past 7 years, then we should vote for Hillary, Cruz, or Rubio, because it makes little difference.

Therefore, the notion that your alleged “conservative” opposition to Cruz emanates from some nuanced legal interpretation of his birth certificate is simply a bunch of baloney.

The reason that you oppose Cruz is due to his policies—not his birth certificate. You harbor some of that Donald Trump anger inside of you. That’s why you insult people just as he does.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:25 pm

Florida poll Trump 48, Cruz 16, Rubio 11, Bush 10.

No surprise. 48% sounds about right for old Floridians with dye jobs and combovers.

nk (dbc370) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:29 pm

The Constitution specifies only a natural born citizen is eligible for the presidency. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American citizen mother. The question of his eligibility is valid on it’s face. Pretend otherwise and take the chance of putting the nation through a constitutional crisis at a time we desperately need a clearly legitimate moral and ethical leader in the White House.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:36 pm

Save the recycled lies and the dime store psychology Chicken Sh*t. Face facts, Cruz has the opportunity to prove he deserves a shot at the presidency, yet he hasn’t done the one thing that would remove the cloud over his head.

Yet, brain dead knee jerk apologists would rather put the nation through hell than acknowledge Ted Cruz just might have feet of clay.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:43 pm

ropelight, you said it best….”he was born to an American citizen mother.”
Yep, he was.

Right. And there’s only two types of citizens—natural born, and naturalized. And even an angry Trump supporter such as yourself will admit that Cruz was not a naturalized citizen.

But let’s be honest about the angles you were playing last week. You were asserting that Cruz has “divided loyalties” as a result of being born in Canada of a Cuban born father. You were suggesting that Cruz’ sympathies may lay with Canada or Cuba, rather than the United States.
Of course, there are plenty of “natural born citizens” such as Obama and Hillary and John Kerry whose sympathies are not with America—-you would agree with that statement, right?
You’ve heard of Alger Hiss, right?

Certainly, there are certain citizenship hurdles that a person must jump in order to be eligible to become President, but Ted Cruz meets those requirements.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 4:52 pm

Yes those are some silly objections.

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:00 pm

Chicken Sh*t, you’re a liar. I never asserted that Cruz has divided loyalties only that the Founders wanted to prevent foreign influence in the chief executive’s office and included the natural born citizen requirement to prevent it. Cruz’s foreign birth or the foreign birth of any candidate for president opens the door for the potential for divided loyalties.

I thought you’d disgraced your self with that obvious lie enough time already, but that’s not the case. Your beclowning is unfinished apparently.

How do you know Ted Cruz meets Constitutional muster for the presidency? Did a little bird tell you?

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:02 pm

he’s definitely way more canadian than actual for reals texans like me, but that’s not his fault

happyfeet (831175) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:03 pm

Once chose a guy, but he gave me gas
Soon turned out, he had a jaw of glass
Seemed like the real thing, only to find
Too blabbermouthed, he’ll fall behind

Once he had a lead, and it was divine
Soon found out, he was losing his mind
He seemed like the real thing but I was so blind
He wouldn’t shut up, a pain in my behind

In between
I found Cruz appealing and he’s doing fine
Trump is so confused, it’s like he’s lost his mind
If you feel he’s losing you it’s just no good
You feeling like you do

Colonel Haiku (aacf41) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:04 pm

You had a pretty good one going there Colonel, up till the final few lines. Take my advice and re-work the ending, you’ll be glad you did.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:11 pm

ropelight, you called Leviticus an “a-hole” yesterday, you called me a bunch of expletives a few days ago, and now you’re saying that each of us is “chickensh*t” today.

Aside from whether or not Leviticus is a conservative, this is all part of the apprehension that we conservatives have about Trump Nation. We want someone who can stand on the stage with dignity and civility, and at the same time who can deliver the conservative message which results in 270 electoral votes. And civility and order and dignity is a big part of that message.

If you stub your toe, then sure, we understand if you drop the F-bomb—we all do that. But if you’re running for President, you shouldn’t be publicly trashing Carly Fiorina for her face, or Megyn Kelly for her menstrual cycle, or suggesting that Dr. Ben Carson is a psycho. That’s all just so tacky and low-class.

There are some really psycho people out there who deserve to be defeated—and they belong to ISIS.
Society already has enough issues with incivility and coarseness. Let’s try to elevate society, rather than denigrate it.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:18 pm

I dunno, ropelight, Trump has the ability to irritate and entertain. But I have to question a guy who’s making a big goddam deal about Cruz’s place of birth while Hillary Clinton is under what – I think – amounts to criminal investigation by the FBI. He distracts people from the serious meltdown that is currently underway.

Colonel Haiku (aacf41) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:27 pm

ropelight, Ted Cruz doesn’t have “divided loyalties.”
But Donald Trump may have divided loyalties, considering that he’s been a Democrat most of his adult life, yet now he’s running as a Republican. (LOL)

That certainly sounds like someone with “divided loyalties.”

Also, ropelight, you’ve stated in the past that Ted Cruz might be your “second choice” for the nomination, and that he might make a good Attorney General for Trump.

Let’s be honest, if you actually had reservations that Cruz is a potential subversive to America’s national security, then he wouldn’t be your “second choice,” nor would he be on your shortlist for Attorney General, right?

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:30 pm

CS, I call you Chicken Sh*t rather frequently, I don’t call Liviticus Chicken Sh*t, and he is an asshole. So what?

You go to lengths to count yourself in conservative ranks – I don’t believe a word of it. You’re a troll who is desperate to cloak himself (notice the use of us, we, We) in the language of inclusion.

Now after starting this days long ugly back and forth by calling me a liar you cry crocodile tears and plead for civility. What a cheap low-brow no class jackass you are. Go suck eggs.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:36 pm

In so far, as Cruz isn’t apparently the spearhead of the western Canadian front, I think the concern is unwarranted.

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:39 pm

#120, Colonel, think of it as adherence to the constitution rather than as some insignificant quibble about geography and it doesn’t seem like a trivial issue at all.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:48 pm

If Cruz fails to petition the courts for a declaratory judgment on his status as a natural born citizen prior to the election

The term is “advisory opinion”, and the courts are barred from giving those.

he will have put his supporters in an impossible position: vote for a candidate who may be ineligible to serve, vote for a second choice.

There is no such thing as “ineligible to serve”. If the electoral college should choose a 34-year-old, and congress should count the votes, he would be president. In the worst case, though, the worst that could happen is that the vice presidential candidate would take over. So what would the voters have to lose?

his support will evaporate on the eve of the election. Americans want their nominees for the presidency to be clearly eligible for the office they seek

Really? When have they ever given any sign of such a concern?

Milhouse (87c499) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:52 pm

Why won’t Cruz take the proper steps to verify his eligibility?

Because there are no such steps.

Milhouse (87c499) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:52 pm

Good Lord, Chicken Sh*t, you’re thick between the ears.

I did say that Ted Cruz is my second choice. I admire his stands in the Senate against both Democrat excesses and against GOP capitulation. I believe he’s an honorable man and would make a first rate president.

Not long ago I recommended a course in logic for you. I repeat that advice. You ability to think straight is atrocious. Are you educated beyond the high school level. If not, you’ve got your account in the wrong bank.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:53 pm

CS, I call you Chicken Sh*t rather frequently, I don’t call Liviticus Chicken Sh*t, and he is an asshole. So what?

I don’t want this kind of stuff in my comments section.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:53 pm

Milhouse, have a nice glass of warm milk and turn in early.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:54 pm

OK, Patterico, you’re the boss. I apologize and I won’t do it again.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:55 pm

ropelight,
Unless you just stubbed your toe, screaming expletives is generally not the vehicle of someone who believes he has facts on his side. The guy you support (Trump) has only recently become a Republican, whereas the guy I support (Cruz) has been a Republican since he was playing with Matchbox Cars.

The bigger prize, of course, is to defeat Hillary.

Ironically, your guy invited Hillary to his wedding a number of years ago. Oh yeah, and more importantly—she attended. And your guy donated money to Harry Reid’s re-election campaign as recently as 2010.

I realize that simply providing you with these facts is inconvenient truths which inevitably qualifies me as a “jerk” and a closet liberal. But I think I can handle it.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 5:58 pm

The expanse is methodically rolling out, they haven’t mentioned protogen yet.

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:03 pm

OK, Patterico, you’re the boss. I apologize and I won’t do it again.

Thanks.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:05 pm

CS, with supporters as dishonest and as acerbic as you Ted Cruz won’t attract enough votes to make it through the primary season. You’ve already cost him 100s of votes. Which is your raison d’etre.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:09 pm

No thanks necessary Patterico. You allow me to comment here and I’m grateful.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:10 pm

ropelight, we’re all angry at the left wing machinations.
I just think it’s preferable that we sort out the GOP primary via leadership and potential policy solutions, rather than via middle-school insults and mud.

If Trump is the better candidate, then make the case. But trying to get his opponents disqualified by technicalities or just simply by trashing their physical appearance,…well, that’s just not kosher.

You have to understand that there are a lot of GOP primary voters who have eagerly awaited the heir to the Reagan-Kemp platform. And when supporters of a guy (Trump) who donated to Harry Reid as recently as 2010 are giving lectures about who’s an authentic conservative, well, then they’re going to be met with legitimate questions.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:25 pm

Pretend otherwise and take the chance of putting the nation through a constitutional crisis

What is it that we’ve been having for the last 7 years?

Milhouse (87c499) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:25 pm

A president with divided loyalties.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:35 pm

Well the dems still blocked the Syrian refugee screening bill, the party are a bunch of kamikazi scotsmen.

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:35 pm

The problem, ropelight, is that you are being dishonest about Cruz’s eligibility. There is NO EVIDENCE that you will accept, yet you keep demanding same. You say “Why doesn’t he prove he’s a natural-born citizen?” and we say “he already has!!1!” And you just go on and demand more proof. It’s a troll’s argument, actually.

There are only two kinds of citizens: those citizens at birth, and those who become citizens after birth. Those in the first group are “natural born citizens” no matter what other conditions pertain. If they were born on Mars to a non-citizen surrogate mother while their biological parents were in Uruguay, if the prevailing law says that they are for ANY reason citizens at birth, then they are natural-born citizens.

I swear, though, if I brought stone tablets down from the mountaintop, infused with a Holy glow and saying all of this, you would still find a way to ask for some further proof.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:43 pm

BTW. One more year.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:45 pm

I swear, though, if I brought stone tablets down from the mountaintop, infused with a Holy glow and saying all of this, you would still find a way to ask for some further proof.

I learned long ago: you can’t convince someone who has made up their mind not to be convinced.

Or, as the unknown wise man said: “You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.”

Patterico (86c8ed) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:46 pm

Actually,
I don’t think President Obama’s loyalties were divided at all,
They were 100% for his ideological view that the country was fatally flawed from inception and needed fundamental transformation.
Too many people just refused to read what was inside the cookbook,
“To Serve Americans”…

MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:50 pm

Kevin M.: I meant to post about that. Now that you brought it up, I just did.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:50 pm

And one public figure early on, acknowledged this, not maverick don’t get me started, or rove or frum, not trump either in fact. And this figure has intuited certain wisdom since then.

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:53 pm

Storm clouds are gathering on the horizon — from an economy (nationally and globally) that’s showing signs of taking a dive to a US government corrupted to the 10th degree, from Sharia-ism cropping up all over the Western World to a field of US presidential candidates that have major feet of clay (made far worse due to an American electorate judged as so foolish, at least quite recently, that conventional wisdom [per opinion polls] has long assumed the White House in November will be turned over to horrific Hillary) — so it’s hardly surprising that more and more people are feeling increasingly uneasy, thin-skinned and ticked off.

Buckle up, we’re in for a very bumpy ride.

Mark (f713e4) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:55 pm

And in the next year, the top men will so everything in it’s power, to topple the top vote getters if need be puuting Paul Ryan as their proxy nominees.

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:57 pm

ropelight,

By the way, below is your money-shot quote about Cruz having divided loyalties. You wrote this on January 15, so please don’t claim it was something from months past, or that I’m crippling you with something said during your college years, okay?

“You’ve got a problem there CS, for days I told you repeatedly, maybe as many at 10 to 15 times that I thought Hillary, Cruz, and Rubio all suffered from divided loyalties or the potential for them.”

Please, mister ropelight, don’t ever ever sit here and pontificate about how you “never” said that Ted Cruz had “divided loyalties”—okay?

We all say or write things we would like to take back at times. And that’s reasonable. But please, don’t drop expletives on people when all they do is put quotations around the words you write, okay?

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 6:59 pm

Due to a vaguery of the rules, Obama being born abroad would have disqualified him from eligibility to the Presidency.

But I never understood that rule. His mother was born in Kansas to an American couple. Does she suddenly become a non citizen because she married a Kenyan? Are we to discount mother’s heritage in favor of the fathers?

How do you know who your father was? Because momma told you so. Dad could be counterfeit, but mom is tough to fake.

Ted is qualified for the same reason.
But maybe the vaguery of the rules applies in his case more so than in Obamas, because there is no dispute that Ted Cruz was born out of country.

I think Ropelight wants to see Ted Cruz’s hastily assembled photoshop of an Hawaiian birth certificate.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:02 pm

The problem with me is that I can read:

John Jay wrote to George Washington. presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, 7/25/1787:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

The Convention’s Committee of Detail had originally proposed that the new nation’s President must be an American citizen as well as resident in the US for 21 years.

After receiving Jay’s letter the Committee of Eleven abandoned reference to simple citizen and instead inserted the more restrictive natural born citizen without recording an explanation.

Clearly, the Founders envisioned 3 classifications of citizenship, 1) natural born citizen; 2) citizen at birth; and 3) naturalized citizen. Them’s the facts and neither Cruz nor Rubio is eligible for the presidency.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:03 pm

I do not see how the above quote indicates 3 types of citizens, unless there is something else you are tying it to.

MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:09 pm

CS, you know damn well I’ve repeatedly stated that Hillary has divided loyalties and that both Cruz and Rubio have the potential for divided loyalties. Yet, you continually bring it up just to annoy me, you admitted it.

You’re a disgraceful weasel, and a lying belly crawlin’ yellow dog. No class, no brains, and no integrity.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:12 pm

It would appear that they abandoned the language simple “citizen” to differentiate between citizens who were so since birth,
And those who became citizens after being born not citizens of the US who needed to become naturalized after birth.
We’ve been over this before.

MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:13 pm

I should point out that I was on record way back when, on the “Obama was born in Kenya” thing, as saying “and your point?”

Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:16 pm

Robert E Lee was born in Virginia, to parents born in Virginia, and CLEARLY had divided loyalties, yet no one said he was not a natural-born US citizen.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:18 pm

You’re a disgraceful weasel, and a lying belly crawlin’ yellow dog. No class, no brains, and no integrity.
ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:12 pm

The same could be said of you.

John Hitchcock (b495dc) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:19 pm

For the record, I never thought Obama was born in Kenya. However, I always thought his birth certificate was fraudlent to conceal the true name of his father – and it sure as hell wasn’t Obama Sr.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:20 pm

Are you saying that to me, John?

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:21 pm

But, back before ropelight hijacked YET another thread with his tiresome birther nonsense, we were talking about Palin’s endorsement.

And I note that Dole endorsed Trump and dissed Cruz today. How does the e-ist of eGOP (a man who was a drag on Reagan) endorsing Trump play into the narrative? I see little bragging today over that.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:21 pm

ropelight, your issue isn’t that you said Hillary has divided loyalties, rather, it’s that you explicitly stated that Cruz and Rubio do.

I realize you want to push your inconvenient quotes down the rabbit hole, but here’s what you said, big man:
“You’ve got a problem there CS, for days I told you repeatedly, maybe as many at 10 to 15 times that I thought Hillary, Cruz, and Rubio all suffered from divided loyalties or the potential for them.”

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:22 pm

…or the potential for them.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:24 pm

I’m waiting John.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:24 pm

Were we, it seemed like a two minute hate to me, like that pikachu Hilton might cue up.

narciso (732bc0) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:26 pm

ropelight, you recently claimed to have told it to me “10 to 15 times,” yet, now you claim you never said it even once.

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:27 pm

CS, you’re about as low down a dirty little coward as I’ve come across in over 10 years commenting. I thought Perry, Phoney, and the 2 Iowa pigs were the worst, but you’re in a class by yourself. It must be hell being you, and you deserve every moment of torment your sick psyche inflicts on you.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:32 pm

I’m still waiting, John.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:33 pm

I must be missing something….
Good night.

MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:39 pm

ropelight,

I know that you’re angry at me, but I’ll I’ve done is simply provide the quotation marks around the words you’ve written.

Here it is again, where you claim you told me ’10 or 15 times’ that Cruz suffers from ‘divided loyalties,’ yet you will deny that you wrote it;
“You’ve got a problem there CS, for days I told you repeatedly, maybe as many at 10 to 15 times that I thought Hillary, Cruz, and Rubio all suffered from divided loyalties or the potential for them.”

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:40 pm

There’s no excuse for the likes of you, CS. None whatsoever.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:44 pm

ropelight,

You’ve engaged in foul name-calling. That’s part of the impetus for why you cheer on Trump when he tells Carly she’s got an ugly face. You actually likkkkke that sort of thing.

But your quotes are archived here. If you want to backtrack on something, then say, “Yeah, my bad—I’m sorry, bro, let’s take that one back.”
But otherwise, stand up proud and tall behind what you write.

You said that Cruz suffers from ‘divided loyalties.’
Okay, so that’s what you believe. But let’s debate it, rather than pretend you didn’t say it, eh?

Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:54 pm

I would like the personal attacks to stop, from all sides, now.

Patterico (cbadfd) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:57 pm

Roger that, Wilco.

ropelight (dc558b) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:01 pm

CS, what you’re ignoring every time you cite that sentence is “or the potential for them”. Ropelight’s theory is insane, but your characterisation of it is dishonest. He hasn’t accused Cruz or Rubio of divided loyalties but of the potential for them, but of course everyone has that.

I think Ropelight is actually correct that the framers of that clause intended to exclude Cruz, George Romney, and Jarrett (but not Rubio or McCain, or John Jay’s London-born children), because of an 18th century superstition that the accident of their birthplace would influence their loyalties. But I don’t care, for two reasons: (1) the eligibility clause is not a practical problem because it’s not justiciable; and (2) his actual loyalties are not in doubt because that old superstition was silly. If he’s elected he will serve with distinction and protect the constitution. And then his successor can nominate him to the Supreme Court.

Milhouse (87c499) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:02 pm

I neither know nor care how many men Stanley Dunham slept with, nor which one was our president’s sperm donor, but the theory that the father she named to the hospital was different from the one she named to the rest of the world is insane. And that’s even if the newspaper got its information from the family rather than the hospital or the birth registrar, which has not been established.

Milhouse (87c499) — 1/20/2016 @ 8:06 pm

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/20/2016 @ 7:02 pm

His mother was born in Kansas to an American couple. Does she suddenly become a non citizen because she married a Kenyan?

That was the law from 1907 (with the passage of the Expatriation Act of 1907) till 1922 (with the assage of the “Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act)

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2014/spring/citizenship.pdf

I think a woman might recover citizenship by divorce or the death of her husband.

Her children, if born outside the United States, were not citizens until 1934. And it wasn’t until 1994 that that was made retroactive for the years before 1934.

Are we to discount mother’s heritage in favor of the fathers?

The Supreme Court upheld that in (Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 311, 60 L. Ed. 297, 36 S. Ct. 106 (1915). stating that “the identity of husband and wife is an ancient principle of our jurisprudence.”

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/104346.pdf

Sammy Finkelman (dbec95) — 1/20/2016 @ 9:09 pm

I’m still waiting John.

ropelight (c69524) — 1/21/2016 @ 7:51 am

Sammy Finkelman. Good to see you again buddy.

But that wouldn’t apply to Obama’s mother in 1963.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/21/2016 @ 9:39 am

1/19/2016

Ka-Blocka!

177 Responses to “Ka-Blocka!”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out