Patterico's Pontifications

2/3/2016

Rand Paul Out, Trump Whining

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:40 am



Rand Paul has announced that he’s out. It seems a little odd for the libertarian to bow out right before the primary held in the state targeted for the Free State Project, where libertarians have moved in droves to create their libertarian utopia. But Paul reportedly thinks this move will help defeat Donald Trump, and God love him for it.

Meanwhile Trump, who shocked the media by not engaging in a bitter Twitter outburst after Iowa, has engaged in a bitter Twitter outburst this morning. Trump, who was praised for his gracious speech after losing Iowa, is now tweeting things like this:

Screen Shot 2016-01-26 at 6.19.40 PM
Above: Donald Trump

Somehow I have a feeling this is not going to go over well with Americans. They don’t really like whiners.

Meanwhile Trump sycophant and Dilbert creator Scott Adams, who had told everyone that Trump is a Master Persuader who is going to run over everyone, is absolutely not engaging in wild conspiracy theories over Iowa. He’s NOT doing that, you hear me?

I’m not saying the Republican caucus in Iowa was rigged. All I’m saying is that the result looks exactly like it was rigged, and the people who had the opportunity had the best motive in the history of all motives. You might say they had the mother of all motives and a few aunts of motives as well.

As I was having these thoughts last night, some folks on Twitter mentioned that Republicans were using a new Microsoft app to tally results. Apparently that system was a bit buggy. Microsoft provided the system for free.

Oh, and Microsoft is Rubio’s biggest donor.

Oh, and Donald Trump is a loser.

A loser who I thought was a lock to win New Hampshire, but seems to be collapsing quickly. Bad internal polls? Anyway, the next few days will be interesting.

287 Responses to “Rand Paul Out, Trump Whining”

  1. Trump is hopefully well on his way to becoming the national joke that many of us have thought him to be all along.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  2. For somebody to suggest the caucus was rigged without explanation nor proof is very low class. For Trump to say Cruz “stole” anything shows how bad a President he would be. What an a$$.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  3. This is what “Setting-up to Run as an Independent Despite what I Promised” looks like.

    MJN1957 (6f981a)

  4. Meanwhile, there appears to have been actual funny business in Iowa by Clinton Incorporated, yet Donnie isn’t taking a hammer to them. You’d think that’s what he’d do if he believes he’s the presumptive nominee.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  5. I’m telling you, Trump is in the early stages of dementia. He may not even remember the things he said yesterday and the day before.

    nk (dbc370)

  6. ropelight, I have supported your right to rally for Trump all along even though I think Trump a buffoon. Now it’s time for you to put away childish things and come join the adults. Trump didn’t go to Iowa thereby dissing them. When he does not win he then whines. He’s a child, ropelight. You, we, deserve better. We’ve hadan skinned narcissistic child in the White House for 7 years. America needs an adult to lead us into the future not another spoiled brat.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  7. trump brings out more people to vote – against him.

    mg (31009b)

  8. Rand was never going anywhere. He was always the protest vote for decent people.

    nk (dbc370)

  9. Rand could be the dental czar.

    mg (31009b)

  10. I mentioned these stories yesterday, and we all know about the mailer, but the Cruzzers seem guilty of what they accuse the Trump people of – unwillingness to hear anything bad about their boy.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/breaking-carson-accuses-cruz-camp-of-foul-play-at-iowa-caucuses/

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/disgusting-cruz-camp-smearing-donald-trump-at-iowa-caucus-sites/

    If nothing else, Pat’s little exercise proves that, if the Demos try to pull what they pulled in ’60, and ’00, and ’12, Trump will not take it lying down.

    Thank you, another reason to support him.

    formwiz (6b3a5a)

  11. Whether whiner or buffoon, you know he’s bound to be a yuuuuuuuuuuge one.

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  12. Jesse Jackson, 1988Donald Trump, 2016: I came in first or second in 46 out of 54 primaries.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. The Chicago Cubs, 2015: We came in first or second in 172 out of 172 games.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. formwiz, Trump was for all those things six months ago. At least by the way political speech works, he said he was open to it under certain conditions. For example, would not be comfortable taking away abortion rights but personally doesn’t like abortion (identical to Hillary’s position). Or that he’ll make a deal on amnesty after he builds the wall. There’s nothing wrong with the Cruz precinct guy holding Trump to his word. It is Trump’s fault he contradicts himself quite a lot, opening himself up to a lot of this sort of politicking.

    As for the Carson thing, it was a good faith reading of a news story that came out. Carson going home and not moving on to several important states was interpreted by the media as a suspension of the campaign. Carson should take responsibility for a confusing statement. I suspect he did mean to suspend his campaign, but had second thoughts.

    we all know about the mailer

    Funny you mention it, as Cruz’s supporters criticized him sharply for that, so it shows you are mistaken to say Cruz’s supporters do not do that very thing. Still, of course people have bias. It’s just that Trump’s flaws are very disturbing.

    nk has a real point in his snark about Trump forgetting what he said the day before. He is too emotional or he really does have a serious problem having consistent thoughts. He would be a vindictive and unpredictable president, and a lot of people would wind up being silent about his mistakes in order to avoid Lois Lerner style retribution. Trump must not be our president for this reason alone. Compare to Cruz and how he handles criticism.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  15. did you forget, the treatment got at the 88 convention, you’d have thought he was the nominee,

    narciso (732bc0)

  16. new hampshire is an annex of massachusetts, they would rather die then live free now,

    narciso (732bc0)

  17. California is gone, you were outplayed, or did the midterm not punctuate the conclusion,

    narciso (732bc0)

  18. The thing I’ve long found curious about Trump’s running, he just doesn’t seem like the sort of person who would do well putting his normal life on hold to the degree required by the office he claims to be seeking. Not to mention the need for putting the business empire that is branded with his very name into a trust managed by someone else (that part would actually likely be good for him but that’s a different issue).

    I get that being POTUS comes with enough attention to feed any narcissist’s wildest fantasies but it also comes with so many requirements (“meet this person at 10am and this other person at 10:20″). I get the feeling that Trump is used to people jumping to his tune rather than the other way round which is the definite sense I had gained about the presidency, that a lot of it is a trained monkey act no matter who it is.

    Soronel Haetir (86a46e)

  19. The Washington Examiner reports that Trump initially tweeted Cruz illegally stole the caucus, but he quickly deleted the tweet. Perhaps his lawyers are reading his Twitter feed.

    DRJ (15874d)

  20. have Ted n Heidi denied doing the frauds?

    I would certainly hope there’s nothing to these assertions from Mr. The Donald

    but you have to keep an open mine in these matters

    happyfeet (831175)

  21. I realize my comment is insider knowledge but I must note that the links to Gateway Pundit has me remembering the time when Jim Hoft vehemently supported Charles ‘The Lizard’ Johnson of Little Green Footballs over Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugged. It was the year (mid 2000’s) when Charles Johnson jumped his green football and turned from being against Islamic Supremacy to accusing Pamela Geller(and her European allies who were standing up to Europe’s Leftist and Islamist) as being ‘right-wing Nazis’

    After that happened- Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit siding with Charles Johnson in accusing Pamela Geller of being a right-wing Nazi because she had the temerity to stand against Islamic Supremists and Progressive Leftist-I never again considered Jim Hoft to be a reliable source of ethical anything.

    It is perfectly reasonable to me that Jim Hoft loves a bombastic, back-stabbing, unhinged whiner

    Susan (b75f73)

  22. I am going to simply say that if indeed the truth is stranger than fiction,
    Only God knows all of the ins and outs of who is doing what and why,
    And who is playing dirty at what level and in what form…
    As it is also said,
    Just because you are paranoid, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t out to get you.

    Look, it is now the norm for the left to use illegal means of communication in performing their job responsibilities in order to hide the illegitimate political manipulations behind the scenes.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if presidential races are now the equivalent of cold-war espionage and counter espionage, complete with moles planted in opposition campaigns to sabotage them.

    That includes some within the repubs.

    Seriously, thank God that He is ultimately in charge and pray that the proud would be humbled and the humble would be raised to levels of responsibility.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84)

  23. #21 Susan,

    For a number of years now, Charles Johnson @ LGF has been trashing both Jim Hoft and Pam Geller.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  24. This is what “Setting-up to Run as an Independent Despite what I Promised” looks like.

    My initial thoughts, too, but not yet. The GOP nomination is worth a bushel of independent runs. If anything, he’s regretting not running as a Democrat. Sure, he’d have to have different politics, but that’s never been a real barrier for Trump. All he’d have to do is be just to the right of Hillary. Lots of room there. And the Democrat-run press would love him for calling a “Faux News” anchor a ***t.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  25. Rand Paul has announced that he’s out. It seems a little odd for the libertarian to bow out right before the primary held in the state targeted for the Free State Project, where libertarians have moved in droves to create their libertarian utopia. But Paul reportedly thinks this move will help defeat Donald Trump, and God love him for it.

    narciso has it right when he replies that NH has become an annex of Massachusetts. Expatriates from states like California and Massachusetts have this weird intellectual disconnect. They leave their home state because purchasing property is too expensive, there are too many business regulations, and the political culture is dominated by public employees, then they go to their new state and tell themselves, “Well, we should raise taxes a little bit in order to build better schools,” and “Hey, we need to do something about greenhouse gasses here,” and “Yeah, I know this Democrat is in the pocket of the government unions, but she has vowed to protect abortion rights and support gay marriage, and that’s super important to me!” Then one day they wake up and find that their new state has unaffordable homes, too many business regulations, and a political culture dominated by public employees.

    JVW (d60453)

  26. Carson’s statements can be so elliptical that I cannot fault anyone from taking them at their plain English meaning in the heat of Iowa-caucus crazy. His clarification said he was going home to get clean clothes.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  27. yes yes Mr. Dr. is right on the money

    open mines people

    stay frosty

    happyfeet (831175)

  28. BREAKING=> Carson Accuses Cruz Camp of FOUL PLAY – Told Voters Carson Was Dropping Out — WITH PROOF!

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/breaking-carson-accuses-cruz-camp-of-foul-play-at-iowa-caucuses/

    and we all know that when carsons youre guy and all of a sudden he drops out theres no possible way you would ever give your vote to cruz or rubio…

    real clear politics average in the new hampshire poll: trump 33.4 cruz 12.2 rubio 10.8

    boston herald has trump by 25 over cruz

    sound awake (04e750)

  29. #23 So what, Charles trashes anyone who is against Obama. It still does not alter Hoft’s actions; ironically,he is now doing what Johnson does which makes him even more discreditable.

    Susan (b75f73)

  30. Expatriates from states like California and Massachusetts have this weird intellectual disconnect

    No, what happens is that there are several kinds of expatriates. There are people who are fed up and leave, seeking a better situation. There are people who leave because they are forced out by the policies they thought (and still think) would help them. There are people who are simply cashing out (e.g. retirees).

    Those groups export the old state’s majority views differently (basically 1-1-1).

    While they seek somewhat different regimes in the new place, no one likes to move all that far or change things all that much. You live in a city by the ocean all your life and rural Nebraska isn’t inviting. Leaving MA for NH or ME or another New England state is a reasonable choice. Leaving California is much harder as the state is far too big and the climate is unique.

    If the rest of the country were really worried about CA expatriates, they’d let us break the state into about 4 pieces so that we could move internally like one can do in New England or the South.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  31. Here’s the really interesting hypothetical if anyone (Trump, Bloomberg, or whomever) decided to run as an Independent for Prez…someone still has to attain 270 electoral votes in order to become elected. If there’s a three person race which splinters the electoral college thereby leaving everyone short of 270, then it gets thrown to the House of Representatives where they vote as 50 House Delegations, as opposed to merely 435 members voters.
    In that case, a simple majority (26) of House Delegations is needed to win. Currently, I believe the GOP holds a majority of Congressional Districts in 33 of the 50 states.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  32. #28

    Gotta love the drive-bys

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  33. I would be so relieved to have Trump flame out and disappear that I would not at all mind being so wrong in my predictions of his sustainable success. But that hasn’t happened yet. So I really hope you folks predicting his imminent political demise are correct, but I will not rest easy until he is officially out of the presidential race in every way.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  34. “Cruz stole Iowa!” Spoken like the paranoid Democrat that Trump truly is.

    MAD-TV had a line from a guy impersonating Al Gore: “A woman who was going to vote for me was stopped when she was shot in the face by a Republican with a crossbow.”

    CrustyB (69f730)

  35. #29 Susan, I’m not defending Jim Hoft. I’ve not too familiar with his blog or his views, although I am familiar with his name. I’m merely pointing out that Charles Johnson trashes him all the time, and often the accusations involve alleged “racism.”

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  36. The high heels and foam party is out of the bag in South Beach. Rubio-a manly man or GOPe Obama 2.0 hiding his true background? Not there’s anything wrong with that.

    Bugg (db3a97)

  37. You can re-count the Republican reslts in Iowa, and as a matter of fact that was done in 2012 – and before that Nate Silver I think suspected there was something inaccurate about the results.

    On the Democratic side, they are reporting “delegate equivalents” The Iowa Democratic parrty has the raw results but is refusing to release them (that may be a matter of policy.)

    It was reported both that the Clinton campaign won 6 out 6 coin tosses and that the Sanders campaign won 6 out of 7.

    Some of these coin tosses resulted from miscounts – numbers that didn’t add up right.

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

  38. cbs/yougov has trump up by 19 in south carolina…

    sound awake (04e750)

  39. that is because he is magnificent Mr. awake

    that is why he is so much more ahead than ted n heidi even in spite of their LIES and DECEPTIONS

    happyfeet (831175)

  40. #30 Kevin M,

    California’s singularly unique climate and diverse geography is why a lot of people fed up with the burdensome state taxes and regulation still find it too heartbreaking to pick up and relocate to a low-tax state. God Bless Nebraska, but if Nebraska all of a sudden went nuts and raised its taxes and regulation really high, I imagine John Q. Public of Omaha would turn to his wife Mary and say, “Honey, if we’re going to pay through the nose in taxes and regulation, we might as well do it in a state where we can go watch the sun set over the ocean. And where I don’t have to spend a half an hour shoveling snow on a Wednesday morning in February before I go to work.”

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  41. The coming general election could be a replay of the 1860 election. If this happens our ballots/parties will vary from state to state according to eligibility for late entries, or perhaps the late comers will use the write-in route. My guess as to the party names selected:

    Republican: Yet-to-be-determined
    Independent National Progressives: Trump
    Progressives: Bloomberg
    Democrat: Clinton
    Social Democrats: Sanders

    1860 Results:

    Lincoln, Republican: 1,865,908 popular, 39.8%, 180 electoral
    Douglas, Democrat: 1,380,202 popular, 29.5%, 12 electoral
    Breckinridge, Southern Democrat: 848,019 popular, 18.1%, 72 electoral
    Bell, Constitutional Union: 590,901 popular, 12.6%, 39 electoral

    Skipping the Iowa debate was the first miscalculation Trump has made. I think his plan failed when the veterans organizations chose not to get involved in the politics. It was remarkable that Huckabee and Santorum appeared with him on the stage. But it wasn’t enough. It also demonstrated that if Trump wanted to debate someone else head-to-head that he could. And this realization may not work in his favor if Cruz issues such a challenge (if he hasn’t already.) It would look like Trump was ducking a fight which would disappoint his supporters.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  42. The start of the rumor was a tweet by a CNN reporter at 5:45 pm – before the caucuses started – saying that Carson would not go to New Hampshire or Florida but instead home and then to the National Prayer breakfast. (most of the candidates fly off to another state, because the eklections are so close together)

    The CNN reporter , of course, could have been influenced by people he talked to between the time he first got the message about Dr. Carson’s travel plans and teh tweet.

    Cruz explains the tweet by saying his campaign was updating their grass roots people on the alatest news but he apologizes, he says, for not tweeting the correction. Carson says he accepts the apology – that is that Cruz personally did not authorize this – but wants some consequences. Not clear of that means firing some people. Rush Limbaugh suggesteds giving Carson some delegates.

    Marco Rubio is also reported to have circulated the “news” that Carson was quitting.

    Most people probably discounted that since it wasn’t coming from Carsoin and it wasn’t coming from a regular news source – and also, if they are more experienced, these announcements usually come after the results are in. Still, there would have bene apossibility it was a leak and taht thatwas actually Carson’s decision. But not announcing it before the results could only mean a strong showing would reverse it. That’s what people woudl think.

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

  43. if nebraska raised taxes Warren Buffett and his strumpet secretary would for sure move to California i think

    probably leave the wife behind though

    happyfeet (831175)

  44. Carson: ‘Will There Be Any Consequences’ for Cruz Camp’s ‘Dirty Tricks’?

    Ben Carson told CNN today that he accepts the apology from Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) campaign for “dirty tricks” at the Iowa caucuses, “but it doesn’t correct the problem.”

    The Cruz campaign seized on this tweet last night from CNN reporter Chris Moody: “Carson won’t go to NH/SC, but instead will head home to Florida for some R&R. He’ll be in DC Thursday for the National Prayer Breakfast.”

    Cruz’s national campaign co-chairman, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), tweeted the report and added, “Carson looks like he is out. Iowans need to know before they vote. Most will go to Cruz, I hope.”

    Additionally, messages were sent about the report to Cruz precinct captains, adding that Carson was making a big announcement next week — something CNN did not report. The message advised staffers to let voters know Carson would be out and to switch their votes to Cruz.

    https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/02/02/carson-will-there-be-any-consequences-for-cruz-camps-dirty-tricks/

    yeah thats way way better than trump skipping the iowa debate to raise $6,000,000 for veterans

    cruz may be done now…hes down by as much as 25 in new hampshire…get ready to stick a fork in him

    sound awake (04e750)

  45. yes, and we saw how fake the IVAW protest was, didn’t we?

    narciso (732bc0)

  46. Donald Trump’s original tweet said that what Cruz (allegedly) did was illegal. He deleted it, and resubmitted it without the word illegal, and also corrected one typo.

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

  47. Campaigning in New Hampshire, Donald Trump said Cruz did it because he was Canadian. (!??)

    It alsmost sounded like he was going to attempt to create and engage in some sort of anti-Canadian prejudice, but he got out of that logic trap by saying that Cruz knew the Democrats would sue him because he is a Canadian (so he has to get his rivals out of the way very, very quickly? It doesn’t make any sense. But is it supposed to?)

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

  48. “Marco Rubio’s November Electability Problem”

    The conventional wisdom is that Rubio is the more electable Republican in November as compared to Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.

    The conventional wisdom is wrong, just as it was in 2012 and 2008.

    Marco Rubio has two significant problems that render him a problematic November candidate. The first is his record on the most important issue of the year. The second is being the newly anointed preferred candidate of the Washington establishment.

    https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2016/02/02/marco-rubios-november-electability-problem/

    sound awake (04e750)

  49. Even the CNN reporter might have talked to some people in the Carson campaign before that tweet. After all, political reporters do talk to people in all campaigns. It might be he tweeted that only because the Cruz people planted the iea in his mind that carson was going to quit. Otwerwise why it is really so important? Now, even if Chris oody thought Carson was going to quit, he wouldn’t tweet taht, because it was only speculation – but he might tweet the basis for the speculation, because that’s factual.

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

  50. And what about the idea that somebody in the Carson campaign – people in his campaign have qut and gone to work for otehr candidates – was trying to get hiom to lose, and worked woth people in otehr campaigns to get this rumor started, by making an unclear announcement?

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

  51. “The message…advised staffers…to let voters know…Carson would be out…and to SWITCH…their VOTES..to…CRUZ.”

    im sure it was just a handful of voters though…

    nothing to see here…move along…move along…

    sound awake (04e750)

  52. sound awake,

    The various final Iowa Caucus polls had Carson anywhere from 7%-10%.
    He ended up with 9.3%. Therefore, it doesn’t appear he “lost” a bunch of panicked voters to your Cruz conspiracy theory.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  53. should it be a dinner fork or a salad fork…or maybe one of those fancy shrimp appetizer forks with the three tines on it…

    sound awake (04e750)

  54. All is fair in love and politics.

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  55. “…the treatment got at the ’88 convention, you’d have thought he was the nominee,”

    narciso (732bc0) — 2/3/2016 @ 8:32 am

    Whether Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, the Democrats sure know how to pick ’em…

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  56. Stick a fork in him, his work here are dun.

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  57. He’s unce, tice… fee tines a mady…

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  58. I’ll repeat what I said on another site. Donald Trump is a buffoon who believes in nothing but his own importance. His only apparent qualifications are (1) he is rich and (2) he has a big mouth.

    It’s liking going to the circus and seeing a big swirl of pink cotton candy. It looks big and impressive, but when you actually buy one and eat it, you realize it is mostly hot air and empty calories. And then later you have a stomach ache.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  59. Trump’s whining reminds me of the Democratic display during the Florida mess in 2000. If he can hunt down Gore’s running mate it would make for some nice bumper stickers:

    “Chump/Loserman 2016″

    M. Scott Eiland (1edade)

  60. Was “sound awake” ever heard from before now here on this blog?

    MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84)

  61. yeah…its just a coincidence…thats it…

    thats why the cruz campaign is apologizing…because what they did probably didnt matter…

    and were all supposed to just vote for the straight shootin-goldman sachs loan forgettin-tellin folks the other guys droppin out-when he really aint guy ted cruz

    yeah theres probably boatloads of independents and disaffected democrat voters that will break big for cruz now if he gets the nomination over trump

    sound awake (04e750)

  62. Carson needed to learn that he shouldn’t rely on his opponents’ supporters to get his message out. Perhaps this time in NH he’ll have some supporters on hand at each of the bigger gatherings to make sure his message isn’t distorted.

    I talk to neighbors all the time who still think the world has been warming for the last 17 years. And they broadcast this scat freely and with confidence. That’s their privilege. Ditto their views on the wisdom of political policy issues like the assured benefits we’ve harvested from Quantitative Easing. Everyone has the right to deceive themselves and to attempt to relay their conclusions to others. As incorrect as the Cruz staffers were, they probably believed what they were saying. Mainly because they wanted to believe it. Carson’s staffers should have been up to the task to make sure all aspects of his campaign were portrayed accurately, and they should understand that this is a never ending struggle.

    So grow up. Gossiping over the back fence might be a pleasant way to spend some time, but it won’t make for good decisions. And relying that the neighborhood gossip to be fair and balanced is absurd. Every time the tale is told it will be transformed to fit the needs of the teller, with no guarantees how it will turn out in the end.

    Hopefully the truth will emerge, but it takes a lot of work. It seems as though we are all becoming little flowers who need the PC police to protect us. If Trump runs with the idea that someone needs to police our speech, it will defy the very premise of his candidacy.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  63. You owe all here an apology, sound mady. For being a tool.

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  64. Nice ring to it, M. Scott!

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  65. Lying trolls peddling discredited accusations while touring a LOSER are just precious.

    JD (f2dffb)

  66. no…i usually dont stoop to this level but you know it is election season and i like to get out and mingle with the little people…

    sound awake (04e750)

  67. For a number of years now, Charles Johnson @ LGF has been trashing both Jim Hoft and Pam Geller.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/3/2016 @ 9:31 am

    Someone reads LGF in detail? Why?
    I can’t remember the last time I read anyone linking LGF, good, bad, or indifferent, where I might accidentally click over.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  68. ‘TRUMP: TED CRUZ STOLE THE ELECTION IN IOWA SO WE SHOULD HAVE A DO-OVER.

    As Allahpundit writes, “This is the single dumbest thing he’s done since he got into the race…I don’t know what he’s doing here, apart from pure ego preservation.” ‘

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/225751/

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  69. yeah…im the the mad one…patterico is all over this thing losing his mind and his cool and his dignity in a such a manner that he will never be able to get it back…over trump…who according to patterico is a nobody…that makes no sense

    only on this blog is trump the crazy one and patterico is the calm cool collected level headed one…

    hes more unhinged than bernie sanders…and thats sayin something

    patterico is ten times more over the top about trump than trump is over the top about everything combined

    and you guys love him…youre obviously regulars around here

    sound awake (04e750)

  70. Well it’s a habit. If I could only control even one of my habits.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  71. If you piled all of the fans of the Iowa caucus on one side, and all the LGF fans on the other, which side would dip?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  72. Is there an actual ISSUE sound awake is interested in?

    Why isn’t sound awake going on and on about Goldman Sachs like he did on the other thread?

    Gerald A (7c7ffb)

  73. A very flattering pix of The Donald, but lacking the pink hair-ribbon that this petulant little girl should display.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  74. Sound awake appears to be sleep walking. But that’s to be expected from a Trump supporter.

    You know who is first and foremost to blame over the Carson mess? Carson. I know, I know, I like the guy too, but stick with me here for a moment… Who in their right mind, minutes before the first vote is cast in the primaries tells anyone that they’re going to go home regardless of the outcome of the impending election? Who does that? Answer: a political novice. Now, like I said, I like Carson, but you have to be a political idiot to think that news of you going home after the first election and before the big NH primary, and then skipping the third stop of South Carolina would be interpreted by your competitors as anything other than news of your disinterest in continuing the campaign.

    Furthermore, Iowa isn’t like most states where we all line up like lemmings and pull a lever, or punch a chad, it’s a freaking room with people debating, and therefore news will be brought up and discussed. In that environment you control your message very carefully, and Carson didn’t do that, and so, like Trump, he’s whining about the result. Politics isn’t for those who can’t fight in the trenches, it’s about pistols at 10 paces and going to war over principles. If you want to make friends, then stick to prayer breakfasts and the OR.

    I’ll end with this, if you’re still mad over the “dirty trick” Cruz played in Iowa then tell me how you, as a Trump or Carson supporter would react to the following CNN report:

    “Rand Paul will be heading home to Kentucky tonight regardless of the results here in Iowa, and won’t be traveling to South Carolina or New Hampshire, instead he’ll be going to DC where the National Day of Prayer Breakfast will be held on Thursday.”

    This that screams “committed to the campaign?”

    Sean (1d5074)

  75. Trump’s over the top, bombastic, populist rant of BS accusations won’t hurt his chances for the nomination. He understands his constituency and their LIV narrow minded desires. He’s betting he can win with those that have already made up their minds to support him. He might be right. Pretty scary.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  76. and im not a lying troll either…that seems to be the favorite attack around here when somebody chimes in without kissing the ring first or just has a differing opinion

    im a bona fide since 1988 straight republican ticket voter

    but because im not going to just hand my vote over AGAIN to another republican politician after they PROMISE to do SOMETHING after having done NOTHING in your guys world im the idiot

    i understand your guys committment to cruz and rubio i used to be like you guys last election cycle…lets get the most conservative guy we can…william f buckley and the whole thing…believe me…i get it…but buckley also said the most likely to win the general too…remember

    this election cycle is different…we got two democrats trying to out progressive and out socialism each other while at the same time we got republican senators THAT WONT VOTE TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD

    we cant lose this election…theres nobody out there talking about all the independent and disaffected democrat votes cruz or rubio is going to get…because they wont…you guys are obviously still ok with that…im not anymore

    im just not doing it anymore…im not going to continue to enable the very power structure that takes my vote and and my donations and my taxes and does nothing i want it to do

    thats why im voting trump…not because im crazy or a nut or a rube…if carson was at the top id vote for him…if carly was at the top id vote for her

    insanity: doing the same thing over and over and over again and hoping for a different result

    sound awake (04e750)

  77. If you piled all of the fans of the Iowa caucus on one side, and all the LGF fans on the other, which side would dip?

    Guam.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  78. Poor Guam, so far from God, so close to Hank Johnson.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  79. i went on and on about gs because there were people there like you trying to pretend that its not a big deal

    sound awake (04e750)

  80. It’s stupid to call for a recount or a do over of an Iowa caucus. It’s a dice roll with loaded dice by design.
    A national embarrassment. An oddity from the era of party bosses preordaining who the people will be allowed to vote for. Like on of those depression era gambling devices with a secret switch.

    How many flips did it take to get the Hillary coin flip miracle?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  81. One man’s laughingstock is another’s fuhrer. I’m laughing now with rest of you…might not be so much when he gets sworn in. His followers will be looking for blood, hope those who previously openly ridiculed enjoy the rebirth of 30s Germany.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  82. If you piled all of the fans of the Iowa caucus on one side, and all the LGF fans on the other, which side would dip?

    Guam.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/3/2016 @ 11:30 am

    #winning

    Sean (1d5074)

  83. “this election cycle is different…we got two democrats trying to out progressive and out socialism each other while at the same time we got republican senators THAT WONT VOTE TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD”

    Cruz will. Will Trump?

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  84. #6, Hoagie, it goes without saying that you’re free, of course, to support the candidate of your choice. Our long Internet friendship doesn’t obligate you to treat me any differently than any other commenter you disagree with. I’m a big boy and so are you. But we’re also both adults and expect sharp differences over today’s burning issues will not prevent our joining in mutual support for tomorrow’s issues.

    I’m still supporting Trump and I still don’t believe Ted Cruz (or Rubio) meets the natural born citizen requirement to run for the presidency. That’s my position and I’m stickin’ to it.

    I trust you’ll grant me the right to hold my position openly. After all, we both stood up for the right of all Americans to think for themselves, did we not?

    ropelight (0477f1)

  85. “this election cycle is different…we got two democrats trying to out progressive and out socialism each other while at the same time we got republican senators THAT WONT VOTE TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD”

    Cruz will. Will Trump?

    Colonel Haiku (029078) — 2/3/2016 @ 11:42 am

    Now he’s back to blaming Cruz for positions other Republicans take – like he did on another thread. Citing Planned Parenthood as a reason to vote for Trump is especially absurd. He’s either very stupid or a phony. I’m guessing it’s the latter because phonies have a way of continually jumping from one topic to another – just like he does.

    Gerald A (7c7ffb)

  86. Trump sure is hard on his followers.

    He mouths off when he should move on.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  87. “Trump: Shut down government over Planned Parenthood”

    Donald Trump says that he supports shutting down the government to defund Planned Parenthood in the wake of a series of controversial undercover videos of organization officials.

    The Republican presidential contender was asked on “The Hugh Hewitt” show Monday night if he supported the move. “Well I can tell you this: I would,” Trump replied.

    http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/250159-trump-shut-down-government-over-planned-parenthood

    sound awake (04e750)

  88. that’s a stupid reason to shut down the government i think happyfeet said dismissively

    happyfeet (831175)

  89. my point was…o ye of little mind…was that we cannot lose the white house…because we cant count on a republican senate majority to stop even the most deplorable dispicable and reprehensible thing thats going on right now in our country

    defunding planned parenthood at all costs is the biggest no brainer in the last 10 years and theres republicans in the senate that wont do it

    if the us army invaded another country and did things to the women there that planned parenthood does to women here there would be tribunal because it would be called a war crime

    and there are republican senators who wont do anything

    i dont trust a republican majority senate to stop anything a sanders or clinton whitehouse would do

    sound awake (04e750)

  90. so somebody says cruz will…will trump and you give the evidence that not only will he defund planned parenthood but he will go so far as shut down the government to do it and then somebody says oh thats going too far

    its ok to shut down washington dc for snow for 4 days without any adverse effect on the nation but we cant do that to do something…ANYTHING about the THREE THOUSAND babies that are killed every day in america

    sound awake (04e750)

  91. i think we need the planned parenthood more than ever now we’ve zika out there making babies get the simples

    zika babbies do not add value

    happyfeet (831175)

  92. I trust you’ll grant me the right to hold my position openly. After all, we both stood up for the right of all Americans to think for themselves, did we not?

    Of course I do ropelight, that goes without saying. I was just trying to give you a friendly push in my direction because the sooner we have more stout conservatives on our teem the better.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  93. *team*, sorry.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  94. ill probably get blamed for going on and on about abortion now too…

    …by the same feeble minded weak kneed ill really take a stand and dig my heels in about trump being an idiot but not about doing something 3000 babies being killed every day in america types…

    sound awake (04e750)

  95. Carson is whining too about canada crud stealing his voters by having his scum lying to them that cnn had reported carson leaving the race when cnn said no such thing. does crud plan a another threatening mailer for new hampshire republicans? what next from this scum bag?

    trumpet (888f14)

  96. ropelight,

    Marco Rubio was born in Miami. That’s in America. Which happens to be in the United States. See, you know Trump can’t make the case for Trump on the issues, so you seek to have his opponents disqualified on bizarro technicalities. That’s what Obama famously did in Illinois.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  97. In the case of Rick Santorum, CNN is probably accurate – but of course it is taking place on some day other than the day of an election, and it was also predictable anyway, unlike the idea of Ben Carson quitting at this stage.

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

  98. its ok to shut down washington dc for snow for 4 days without any adverse effect on the nation but we cant do that to do something…ANYTHING about the THREE THOUSAND babies that are killed every day in america

    sound awake (04e750) — 2/3/2016 @ 12:04 pm

    I’m liking that comment. How is that “like button” coming tech support?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  99. Just more frantic noise. I can imagine him in Mom’s basement, his stubby, li’l sausage fingers flying as he frantically types looking with difficulty through teary “Manson -lamp” eyes…

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  100. Shut up about Canada. The Canada Cruz meme is as stupid and dishonest as the Trump is a democrat meme.

    It screams bad faith.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  101. Sound Awake has a ring of a moby to me. Just stirring up a little chaos. The funny thing is that it’s a monumental waste of time. It’s not like political blog discussion threads are anything more than entertainment for politics geeks (like myself). This isn’t where the fight to elect Bernie or whomever is going to happen. 95% of the folks here are quite confident in wherever they stand on this stuff.

    I heard a guy on the radio make a point. He said he loved Trump because he was so angry at the GOP, and Trump’s anger was a vessel for his anger, as they were both angry about immigration issues in particular. But as time went on, this man said Trump seems to just always be that angry about everything, like he’s just an emotional weirdo or even just a car salesman with a well worn trick up his sleeve. Over time, he realized that what he thought was a vessel for his anger at the GOP establishment (that has enabled the democrats and betrayed us for giving them the legislature) was not. I think Cruz stands to gain these folks and Trump is unable to resist helping that happen by freaking out about how he was robbed by everybody.

    Cruz has positioned himself so that the more people blast him from every direction, the more he appears to be the stalwart foe of the entire political mess we’re in. It’s one of those traps that gets tighter the more you fight it.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  102. sound awake,

    You admit you go “on and on” about things while also complaining that it’s insanity to go over and over the same things.

    You are upset about this election. A lot of people are, and maybe getting upset is a catharsis for you. But I don’t think this is helping you to convince others, do you?

    DRJ (15874d)

  103. ropelight,

    Of course you should support the candidate of your choice, but I’m curious about the limits of you citizenship concerns. Do you think Rubio and Cruz are Americans or do they need to be naturalized?

    DRJ (15874d)

  104. I’m as worried about Senator Cruz being born in Canada, as I am about Senator McCain being from Panama.

    Maybe a little less, because Senator McCain might try and charge our guys more to use the canal.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  105. im not upset about this election im upset with politicians in general and republicans in particular who are republicans in name only who run as a conservative like ron johnson did in wisconsin and then voted to confirm loretta lynch and then voted for that piece of crap budget bill

    he voted just like a democrat

    im not just handing over my vote to them anymore

    cruz has legitimate issues winning the general election…oh yeah so does rubio

    because theyre politicians and because theyre republicans im not going to just hand over my vote to them if i have a choice

    if there was no trump or carson or fiorina cruz would probably be my guy but not without hesitation

    sound awake (04e750)

  106. im not upset about this election im upset with politicians in general and republicans in particular who are republicans in name only who run as a conservative like ron johnson did in wisconsin and then voted to confirm loretta lynch and then voted for that piece of crap budget bill

    he voted just like a democrat

    im not just handing over my vote to them anymore

    cruz has legitimate issues winning the general election…oh yeah so does rubio

    because theyre politicians and because theyre republicans im not going to just hand over my vote to them if i have a choice

    if there was no trump or carson or fiorina cruz would probably be my guy but not without hesitation

    sound awake (04e750) — 2/3/2016 @ 12:29 pm

    This is virtually the identical comment he made in another thread. He’s against Cruz because of how Ron Johnson voted. I’ll repeat myself (since he keeps repeating himself): He’s either very stupid or a phony. I’m guessing it’s the latter because phonies have a way of continually jumping from one topic to another – just like he does.

    Gerald A (7c7ffb)

  107. sound awake, your sentence structure and lack of punctuation reminds people of happyfeet. He’s a Trump guy, too.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  108. “Sound Awake has a ring of a moby to me.”

    More like the stink, but I’m not as polite as you, Dustin.

    Colonel Haiku (029078)

  109. Cruz Supporter (102c9a) you see that number next to your name? That’s a reliable indicator of the author’s identity.

    Patterico Pontifications insists on participants showing their identity papers.

    That’s a feature. Not a bug.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  110. Even if you believe Carson was victimized by the twitter and media reports he was suspending campaign activities what did his precinct captains do when the others were poaching votes?

    It appears Carson either didn’t have enough people to stand up for him in the caucuses where the alleged vote poaching was going on or they didn’t put up much of a fight for him. So maybe the real problem lies within the Carson campaign.

    As for Trump, if he wasn’t whining his people wouldn’t have anybody to hate today.

    crazy (cde091)

  111. papertiger, thanks for the informative lecture, but all that means is someone has more than one device.
    Most people have a smart phone and a computer.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  112. trump said at the launch of his campaign that no politician is going to fix the problems we have

    i believe hes right

    politicians want campaign donations and to get reelected

    that precludes them from taking tough stances on hard issues

    politicians got us here

    i dont trust them inherently to get us out of it

    trump talks tough on abortion the 2nd amendment fixing the va improving the military building the wall keeping the bad muslims out and better foreign trade deals for america and getting a tax system thats not a gigantic rube goldberg machine

    thats good enough for me

    i dont care that hes bombastic at times or people say hes prone to temper tantrums or hes divorced 2 or 3 times or hes a reality show star mogul or any of that

    i used to care about stuff like that

    it got me mark kirk in illinois and ron johnson and paul ryan in wisconsin

    if trump gets elected potus and doesnt do what he said he was going to do then he will then have earned my disdain in an equal measure to that i have for everybody else that i have enumerated here

    hell i may even castigate him as much then as you guys do now

    except then i will have valid reasons to do so

    sound awake (04e750)

  113. sound awake,

    Therapy might help. Then again, it might not.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  114. you guys are incredible…if i stay on one topic too long…im going on and on and on…if i change the subject im changing the subject because im a phony

    patterico should change the name of this blog to “pattericos lackeys ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments which is frequented by people who value sentence structure and punctuation but recoil at the thought of having to make an actual argument based on a retort to something that somebody actually said without being petty and infantile because theyre lacking the wits to do so”

    the sub heading could be “dont come here if you have a brain and havent sold your soul lock stock and barrel to republican politicians because we believe they can do no wrong here”

    sound awake (04e750)

  115. Just a brief integrity moment here:

    I looked up Rubio’s voting record so that I could blast what a RINO he is and he’s actually got a really good voting record.

    It’s truly unfortunate he was the scion of the Tea Party, breaking into the Senate over Q-Tip and then stabbed that movement in the back with the gang of 8 bill. That and the lack of executive experience are bona fide points against him, but he’s not that bad politically.

    I will say that if I still see all primaries as a fight between folks like me and the establishment, and no matter what you think of Rubio, this fight is basically Cruz vs Rubio. But I’m amused the establishment is settling so far from, say Christie.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  116. patterico should change the name of this blog to “pattericos lackeys ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments which is frequented by people who value sentence structure and punctuation but recoil at the thought of having to make an actual argument based on a retort to something that somebody actually said without being petty and infantile because theyre lacking the wits to do so”

    K2 or bath salts?

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  117. sound awake (04e750) — 2/3/2016 @ 12:50 pm

    Did you cut and paste that comment? Just kidding.

    That’s a good point about Trump. It’s not a career move for him. He going to take office, get stuff done that needs doing, then exit, leaving it for the next guy.

    James Knox Polk style.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  118. can nobody have an actual argument with me

    ha ha ha ha maybe you should get therapy ha ha ha

    ha ha ha sound maddy ha ha ha ha he makes it stink in here ha ha ha

    nobody has yet to give a relevant intelligent reply to anything ive said yet

    oh yeah thats because im a phony or a troll because im not a republican party drone like you guys are even though i admitted i was one for almost 30 years

    i guess if i had more cognitive dissonance and normalcy bias and the ability to make silly ignorant and petulant remarks i would fit in more around here

    sound awake (04e750)

  119. your sentence structure and lack of punctuation reminds people of happyfeet. He’s a Trump guy, too.

    i am not a trump guy i have no intention of voting whatsoever not even if winona ryder runs

    happyfeet (831175)

  120. thank you papertiger…thank you…

    sound awake (04e750)

  121. Cruz Supporter (102c9a) you see that number next to your name? That’s a reliable indicator of the author’s identity.

    It’s a hash of the IP address the poster is using. If a poster uses more than one computer, the number will be different for each one.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  122. ha ha ha k2 or bath salts ha ha ha so funny

    ha ha ha dont quit your day job ha ha ha

    sorry i dont have a 1,000,000 i q to keep up with you

    daaaa…i…am…trump…supporter…daaaa…i…cant…think…for…myself…daaaaaa….i…only…vote…for…him…because…im…stupid…for…not…believing…every…republican…politician…that…runs…for…office…

    sound awake (04e750)

  123. Rope, did you see that the Illinois election authorities ruled that Cruz is a natural born citizen?

    Steven Malynn (4bc33a)

  124. How is it that you got to vote for Kirk, Johnson, and Ryan?

    JD (f2dffb)

  125. sound awake,

    You certainly have that Trump anger with people who disagree with you. Do you disagree?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  126. How is it that you are holding the actions of Kirk, Johnson, and Ryan over the head of Cruz? Do you get tired of savaging strawmen, ever?

    JD (f2dffb)

  127. Sound Asleep – how do you reconcile Trump’s prior support of single payer, and a host of leftist policies, as well as donations to leftist politicians, causes, and foundations, in comparison to his content free broadsides and speeches in front of his sycophantic reality TV fans?

    JD (f2dffb)

  128. A loser who I thought was a lock to win New Hampshire, but seems to be collapsing quickly. Bad internal polls? Anyway, the next few days will be interesting.

    I thought Trump did not believe in spending his own money to do internal polling.

    Steven Malynn (4bc33a)

  129. gotta go…

    and no i wont be sleepwalking…or bailing because i cant hang…im going to get my kids from school…

    and no im not getting my kids from school on a weekday instead of my wife because im unemployed because i need therapy or i take bath salts because i support trump

    im employed quite enough thank you…employed enough to pay enough taxes to be sick of whats going on in america

    today just happens to be my day off

    sound awake (04e750)

  130. sound awake,

    JD raises a good question…how did you vote for each Kirk and Johnson when it happens they each won FIRST election in 2010?

    You’re totally full of crap, sound awake.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  131. Come on, sound awake is happyfeet. It’s the same grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation. Oh, and they both make the same exact arguments for Trump.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  132. its not a strawman if both guys are republican and politicians

    by your reasoning a circus bear or a circus elephant or a circus lion arent still dangerous just because theyre in a circus

    i reconcile my support for trump because hes not hes not a politician or a republican with a party history of lying to his constituents

    like i said before when he shows a history of not doing in the future what he said what he was going to do then he will be on my shit list too

    gotta go…

    sound awake (04e750)

  133. You fit in around here just fine, sound awake. You believe deeply in your candidate, feel the establishment Republicans are boot licking dogs and you want to better the Republic. Hand, meet glove. Beside that you bring a certain loony humor mixed with sincere dedication.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  134. “…evry-body’s a boooottt lickin’ dawwwg!”

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  135. i lived in illinois then moved to wisconsin

    kirk was in the illinois house not the senate when i voted for him it doesnt matter to my argument its still valid i voted for him instead of the democrat and he turned into a rino

    i voted for johnson in wisconsin and he turned into a rino

    nice try

    really gotta go…for real this time…

    sound awake (04e750)

  136. Come on, sound awake, you live in Chicagoland…just like happyfeet.
    Wowww.
    The coincidences. They’re…coincidental!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  137. im so late…thanks hoagie…bye…

    sound awake (04e750)

  138. I always assumed happyfeet types that way because of the flippers.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  139. Come on, sound awake is happyfeet. It’s the same grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation. Oh, and they both make the same exact arguments for Trump.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

    Not to be argumentative, but I have a pretty good feel for feet’s humor from many years of reading him, and he’s got some kind of wit to his comments. He also doesn’t take things that seriously and is very hesitant to personally criticize commenters (which is interesting, as he obviously is trying to troll people into criticizing him).

    sound awake is simply not the same guy. However, sound awake, unlike other trump fans like formwiz, is not interested in defending Trump. He is posing as a Trump supporter while trolling the thread, apparently picking whatever issue will tick people off (and comments that troll well are then brought to new threads). I think we are playing into his hands by giving him the time of day, but I have never, ever seen an argument to ignore a troll work. This blog attracts some of the most dedicated trolls on the internet.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  140. Dustin,

    happyfeet and sound awake are each a half dozen of this, and six of the other. It’s pretty obvious, bro.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  141. Dustin – DSCSA aka International man of Asshattery and Perry were both in this thread. Dedicated, they are.

    Sound awake and Happyfeet are subjectively and objectively different. Not even close to being sock puppets.

    Sound asleep has commented here very intermittently over the years. And ignored about 9 clear and direct points to quibble about one.

    JD (f2dffb)

  142. Cruz supporter – you are wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

    JD (f2dffb)

  143. Gentlemen, I’m sorry to have a difference of opinion with you. But I’ll continue to contend that happyfeet = pdbuttons = sound awake.
    Ultimately, it makes no difference though, right?

    The ultimate prize is the White House.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  144. Dustin – DSCSA aka International man of Asshattery and Perry were both in this thread. Dedicated, they are.

    for some reason this really pleases me. The blog just wouldn’t feel the same without the crazies.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  145. Mr. buttons he’s a special kind of brilliant Mr. Supporter

    he’s really neat

    happyfeet (831175)

  146. back…

    i USED to live in chicagoland…i now reside in wisconsin but i still work in illinois

    i lived close enough to the border when i downsized i just moved over the border no sense moving to illinois from illinois if youre close enough to another state

    glad i got out of wisconsin illinois is going in at a 45 degree angle

    plus the conceal carry permit is only 4 hours and they offer the class for free its only $40 for 5 years and you get it back in the mail in a week…plus its open carry too in wisconsin without a ccl…you can be 18 years old in wisconsin and open carry a handgun…its like america up here…

    its 16 hour class in illinois and $150 bucks for the ccl plus like 200 for the class

    bruce rouner is hanging tough…hes kinda illinois trump…never ran for office before…was a rahm emmanuel advisor…now hes republican governor…no budget for like 8 months…hes not rollin over like the r behind his name would imply…none of this we cant shut down the government better a bad deal than no deal

    sound awake (04e750)

  147. back…

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  148. 116. Rope, did you see that the Illinois election authorities ruled that Cruz is a natural born citizen?

    Steven Malynn (4bc33a) — 2/3/2016 @ 1:23 pm

    Oh, they didn’t just rule that Cruz is a natural born citizen.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ruling-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/article/2582259

    …A ballot commission in New Hampshire also ruled in favor of Cruz in January, but the language in Monday’s decision by the Illinois board took a stronger tone than the previous ruling, warning other skeptics, “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.”…

    They told the Cruz birthers to shut up, go away, stop bothering us, and quit being stupid.

    If you want to demonstrate you’re an idiot, argue that there’s some way to be born a citizen without being a natural born citizen. There isn’t.

    You are either a citizen by jus soli, “right of the soil,” or jus sanguinis, “right of blood,” or you must be naturalized. If you are a citizen by jus soli or jus sanguinis then you are a natural born citizen.

    Anybody who can’t face these facts is unhinged from reality. Which would make Trump the perfect candidate for you.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  149. Actually most citizens are natural born citizens by both jus soli and jus sanguinis. Most Americans are born on US soil to US parents.

    It doesn’t have to be an either or thing. Embrace the power of AND.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  150. And embrace the jus soli natural born citizen status of the people derided as “anchor babies,” while you’re at it.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  151. (Not directed at Steve, just adding to his comment).

    Leviticus (efada1)

  152. Cruz supporter – it is not a difference of opinion. It is objectively not. I looked at the IP addy and history. Objectively not.

    JD (f2dffb)

  153. #96, DRJ, I consider both Rubio and Cruz to be Americans.

    #116, Steven asked, did you see that the Illinois election authorities ruled that Cruz is a natural born citizen?

    Yes, I did. However considering the source I dismissed it as typical of the sick self-serving political garbage that comes from the annoying State.

    ropelight (0477f1)

  154. #140, Steve57, are you calling John Jay and George Washington idiots? They’re the ones who made a distinction between citizens at birth and natural born citizens.

    Do you want to tell the Founding Fathers to shut up and stop being stupid?

    ropelight (0477f1)

  155. ropelight, hate to keep telling you, bro. But you’re the one dealing in garbage. This is as settled as settled can be. Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

    The fact that you’ve embraced somebody else’s complete nonsense doesn’t change reality.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  156. ropelight @146, the founding fathers didn’t make any such distinction. That’s part of the nonsense you’ve embraced.

    The founding fathers included many lawyers as well, such as Hamilton and Burr. They were lawyers before the revolution, and the were lawyers after the revolution, because it was the same damned legal system.

    Which is why you must look at the English legal tradition to determine the founding fathers’s understanding of the term natural born citizen.

    But part of the complete nonsense you’ve embraced is that the English legal tradition has nothing to do with the American system. Again, that’s nonsense, but you believe it.

    But the founders didn’t.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  157. For as many times as you have posted quotes that you claim state what you say they state,
    I have yet to see a conclusive flow of logic that shows there are 3 classes of citizens, not 2.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84)

  158. Steve, this issue is every bit as settled as AGW is settled science. The fact that International Organizations and most of our own government departments as well as almost all print and broadcast media are singing from the same hymnal doesn’t prove a damn thing except that it’s easier to peddle tall tales than to face up to inconvenient realities.

    Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother. He’s not a natural born citizen of the US and is therefore ineligible for the presidency. QED.

    ropelight (0477f1)

  159. sound awake,

    I’m a Cruz supporter and there are others, including the host, who also support Cruz — but not everyone does. I think you should stick around and get to know the people here. There is a lot of sympathy, including from me, with the notion that the GOP establishment (GOPe) has let us down.

    DRJ (15874d)

  160. I’m also concerned that Texas did not fulfill all its requirements for re-admission to the Union in 1875. Do you think that defect could be cured if Cruz established residency in a state whose status is not in question before the election?

    nk (dbc370)

  161. i support Mr. Ted Cruz when it becomes clear he’s the only option other than the Hillary

    otherwise i think he’s a pooper

    who also is a pooper is Marco Sleazio

    is too many poopers!

    happyfeet (831175)

  162. ropelight:

    Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother. He’s not a natural born citizen of the US and is therefore ineligible for the presidency. QED.

    But you said above that Cruz is an American citizen. We know he has not been naturalized so the only way he could be a citizen is through his Mother. Are you saying that you have to be born in America to be a natural born citizen?

    In other words, citizenship established through one’s parents can never result in a natural born citizen? If so, then how are you also saying that McCain and George Romney could not have been President?

    DRJ (15874d)

  163. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

    Congressional
    Research
    Service

    Qualifications for President and the “Natural
    Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement

    Jack Maskell
    Legislative Attorney

    November 14, 2011

    …Summary

    The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen.” There is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements (although several cases have addressed the term “natural born” citizen), and this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.

    The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

    In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign
    diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

    Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizen s has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).

    The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

    The founding fathers didn’t make a distinction between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen because a citizen at birth IS a natural born citizen.

    You really need to stop embarrassing yourself over this, ropelight. I thought you had better sense than this.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  164. Uh Oh, Was Marco Rubio Guilty in the Ben Carson Dropout Rumor?

    https://politistick.com/uh-oh-was-marco-rubio-guilty-in-the-ben-carson-dropout-rumor/

    sound awake (04e750)

  165. 139… most excellent, Dustin. Truly hilarious.

    Colonel Haiku (209597)

  166. papertiger, thanks for the informative lecture, but all that means is someone has more than one device.
    Most people have a smart phone and a computer.
    Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/3/2016 @ 12:49 pm

    Also, if you’re an OTR trucker, that alphanumeric id system does next to no good. I comment from all over the country, so my aphanumeric is constantly changing. I also have VPN (which is not currently activated), so my alphanumeric could point to anywhere in the world.

    John Hitchcock (b09b88)

  167. One thing about the Iowa system, it shows indelibly which candidates are willing to cheat to win.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  168. John you are one of a kind. That’s for sure.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  169. Sound awake – Ben Carson was responsible for the Ben Carson confusion. You never did answer any of the other questions posed of you.

    JD (f2dffb)

  170. Did the combover even set foot in Iowa? Did he have campaign offices there? Or did he just pay some people to file his ballot petitions and rely on the media and Twitter to be his “campaign”?

    nk (dbc370)

  171. Papertiger, scroll through the various comments I’ve made. Look at the alphanumerics. They’re constantly changing.

    John Hitchcock (b09b88)

  172. Wasn’t Carson either #1 or #2 until Trump said he was a child molester and refused to walk it back…

    What the Truck? (acddd7)

  173. On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington who was then presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention:

    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 Committee of Detail originally had adopted the provision that a US President must be a citizen, and resident in the US for 21 years. Upon consideration of Jay’s proposal the Committee of Eleven changed citizen to natural born citizen, and cut the residency requirement to 14 years. They failed to record an explanation for their decision or to further define the term: natural born citizen.

    I contend the Founders created a special category of individuals eligible for the presidency (Commander-in-Chief) beyond those allowed to hold high office such as members of the House and Senate. Does this limitation prevent many first generation Americans from legitimately seeking our highest office – absolutely it does.

    Our Constitution, as flawed as it has proved to be, is still better than what we have now.

    ropelight (0477f1)

  174. Does the President have to be born in America?

    DRJ (15874d)

  175. Interesting link, sound awake.

    DRJ (15874d)

  176. 149. For as many times as you have posted quotes that you claim state what you say they state,
    I have yet to see a conclusive flow of logic that shows there are 3 classes of citizens, not 2.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84) — 2/3/2016 @ 4:01 pm

    Nor will you see such a flow of logic, because the people who are contending Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen are engaged in a display of stupidity or ignorance. A citizen at birth is part of the very the definition of the term natural born citizen. ropelight is somehow contending that the definition and the term being defined have nothing to do with each other but instead comprise two different categories of citizen.

    As George Washington would say if he were here, WTFO?!?!?!

    It’s comical to watch the Sanders supporters’ deer in the headlights look when reporters ask them to explain socialism. They have no clue what it is.

    Unfortunately, we have people like that voting in our party’s primaries who are similarly clueless, and proudly and stubbornly declare their intention to remain so.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  177. #154, DRJ, I’m saying that to be eligible for the presidency an individual must be born of 2 citizen parents (both citizens at the time of birth) and within the jurisdiction of the USA. That leaves both Cruz and Rubio out.

    ropelight (0477f1)

  178. That “white line fever” explains a lot, John Hitchcock!

    Colonel Haiku (209597)

  179. I’m a Cruz supporter and there are others, including the host, who also support Cruz — but not everyone does. I think you should stick around and get to know the people here. There is a lot of sympathy, including from me, with the notion that the GOP establishment (GOPe) has let us down.

    DRJ (15874d) — 2/3/2016 @ 4:09 pm

    thats the the only point im trying to make here but nobody wants to or is capable of hearing that they dont want hear anything negative about cruz or rubio but especially cruz

    theyre very easily triggered by anything negative about their guy

    im not supporting trump because i love him or even like him personally

    hes got my support because hes not a politician

    same reason i like rouner in illinois hes not a politician and hes playing hardball with the democrats there hes fighting the good fight and not rolling over and making excuses like well we did the best we could its a blue state you know

    i dont have a problem with people supporting cruz or rubio my one kid voted for rubio in the iowa caucus he goes to iowa state

    i have a problem with people that have a problem with me just because i support trump because im tired of rinos and the gop establishment

    i can defend my guy with logic and rationale and im quite aware of his drawbacks

    most people here defend their guy with oh that guys a troll or hes fake or he needs therapy or hes sock puppeting or hes on something its very cheap and low brow

    sound awake (04e750)

  180. He’s smuggled some smokes and folks from Mexico
    Baked by the Sun, every time he goes to Mexico

    Colonel Haiku (209597)

  181. 165. …I contend the Founders created a special category of individuals eligible for the presidency (Commander-in-Chief) beyond those allowed to hold high office such as members of the House and Senate. Does this limitation prevent many first generation Americans from legitimately seeking our highest office – absolutely it does…

    ropelight (0477f1) — 2/3/2016 @ 4:26 pm

    Congratulations ropelight. You’ve just demonstrated the founders knew the difference between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen. You just demonstrated that there are two kinds of citizenship.

    The rest of us are saying, “Well, duhh!!”

    And since Ted Cruz is a citizen but didn’t acquire his citizenship through the legal process of naturalization, he belongs to that “special category of individuals” who are qualified to be President. He is a natural born citizen because he acquired his citizenship by birth, or if you prefer he was a citizen at birth. Which, again, is the definition of the term natural born citizen.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  182. After putting a long-expected bond sale on hold last week, Chicago Public Schools managed to borrow $725 million Wednesday by promising investors extraordinarily high interest rates.

    this is what counts as a “win” in my new city

    happyfeet (831175)

  183. And that is not what the definition of natural born citizen is. Plain and simple, you’re putting a more stringent requirement on it than the definition allows.

    John Hitchcock (b09b88)

  184. Rope: The founders expressly limited the office of President to those who were first generation, it did not create a differing criteria distinguishing some first generation citizens from other first generation citizens.

    Steven Malynn (4bc33a)

  185. We appreciate logic and consistency around these parts… most of the time. Reading a hyperactive guy who bemoans a lack of civility while fervently praising a candidate who is short on details and long on insults, posturing, primping and pimping is hard to stomach.

    Colonel Haiku (209597)

  186. RE:177 – let me clarify, First generation citizens or their progeny (presuming the progeny retain citizenship) was the only restriction (beyond the current veteran rebels with 14 year existing residence in the nation as of 1787).

    Steven Malynn (4bc33a)

  187. 170. #154, DRJ, I’m saying that to be eligible for the presidency an individual must be born of 2 citizen parents (both citizens at the time of birth) and within the jurisdiction of the USA. That leaves both Cruz and Rubio out.

    ropelight (0477f1) — 2/3/2016 @ 4:33 pm

    Why don’t you insist that to qualify to be a natural born citizen the mother has to deliver the baby while hanging from a trapeze and drop the tyke into the waiting arms midwife reclining in a hot tub replica of an upturned Liberty Bell, as long as we’re talking nonsense requirements.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  188. ropelight:

    170.#154, DRJ, I’m saying that to be eligible for the presidency an individual must be born of 2 citizen parents (both citizens at the time of birth) and within the jurisdiction of the USA. That leaves both Cruz and Rubio out.

    Mitt Romney wouldn’t qualify under this standard. His father was born in Mexico.

    DRJ (15874d)

  189. And swaddled in the Betsy Ross flag.

    nk (dbc370)

  190. happyfeet can’t get a job! terrible political instincts. puppet!

    The Donald (24d2a7)

  191. Steve, stop it. John Jay wanted a strong check on foreign influence. A CinC born of 2 citizen parents provides exactly that, to the extent it can be guaranteed by birth. I’m just following the Constitution as the Good Lord gives me the grace to see my duty as an American.

    That’s how I see it.

    ropelight (0477f1)

  192. they dont want to hear that rubio is mccains boy and is pro amnesty until proven otherwise

    they dont want to hear about cruzs goldman sachs campaign loan

    they dont want to hear that democrats that voted twice for obama and arent voting for bernie or hillary are not likely to vote for cruz or rubio

    these are all legitimate concerns but they wont take it head on they obfuscate and misdirect

    sound awake (04e750)

  193. I’ve heard rumors that Donald Trump doesn’t qualify under that standard, either. But it’s irrelevant, because that standard has no basis in law.

    John Hitchcock (b09b88)

  194. sound awake:

    i can defend my guy with logic and rationale and im quite aware of his drawbacks

    Let’s focus on that, okay? You may get some kickback because of your punctuation/no caps/formatting. Another commenter does that, too, so it may confuse us now and then. This is a contentious time for people interested in politics. A little patience, from all of us, would go a long way.

    DRJ (15874d)

  195. Is Trump really just another extremely wealthy Democrat? http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/is_trump_a_democrat.html

    Colonel Haiku (209597)

  196. I’m just following the Constitution as the Good Lord gives me the grace to see my duty as an American.

    Would you care to cite the section of the Constitution where it defines “natural born citizen”?

    Chuck Bartowski (57c71d)

  197. i only bemoan the lack of civility here to the extent that it reeks of hypocrisy inasmuch as the hallmark of trump bashing around here is…his lack of civility

    sound awake (04e750)

  198. #189, Chuck, see my comment at #165 (ropelight (0477f1) — 2/3/2016 @ 4:26 pm)

    ropelight (0477f1)

  199. 170. #154, DRJ, I’m saying that to be eligible for the presidency an individual must be born of 2 citizen parents (both citizens at the time of birth) and within the jurisdiction of the USA. That leaves both Cruz and Rubio out.

    ropelight (0477f1) — 2/3/2016 @ 4:33 pm

    To illustrate how inane this has become, by the sooper sekrit ropelight definition of natural born citizen, our early Presidents such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were disqualified. They were born on what was indisputably British soil to parents who were not only British subjects when their children were born, but the parents were British subjects when they died.

    By the sooper sekrit ropelight definition of natural born citizen, the first President to meet the eligibility standard was John Tyler who was born in 1790.

    Other Presidents who potentially failed to meet the sooper sekrit ropelight standard include James Buchanon, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover, all of whom had at least one immigrant parent. And it’s not at all clear that the immigrant parent was a citizen at their birth.

    Mostly because everyone throughout our history couldn’t be bothered with this petty BS stupidity. But I digress.

    I mean, talk about the dreaded Canadian menace to our sovereignty by birthin’ them thar furrin’ presidents, Chester Arthur’s parents were married in Quebec across the border from his sole US citizen parent’s (momz) native Vermont. Even worse, dad wasn’t even a Canuck but an Irish immigrant. Holy crap, they lived in Canada and his older sister was born there. Then they moved across the border to Vermont and pickled out lil’ Chester. Did dad become a citizen so Chester would meet the sooper sekrit ropelight definition of natural born citizen?

    Do inquiring minds want to know?

    Actually no one gives a rat’s @$$ because the sooper sekrit ropelight standard being born of 2 US citizen parents on US soil is complete fabricated crap.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  200. The world is on fire, the economy stinks, there are aged people on the Supreme Court, yet the fans of Donnie Trump are talking about suing the Secretary of State of Iowa.
    This is why we haven’t won the White House in recent years.

    If this is how Donnie runs his primary campaign, can we trust he’s the guy to defeat a Democrat in November? The general electorate wants to hear about our plans for defeating ISIS and for getting the economy back on track.

    I just have a feeling that Team Trump would be discussing Hillary Clinton’s birth certificate, or how her third cousin twice removed has a Chevy Suburban that didn’t pass proper smog inspection.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  201. 184. …That’s how I see it.

    ropelight (0477f1) — 2/3/2016 @ 4:53 pm

    I understand how you see it.

    The way you see it has no basis in law, history, or for that matter any aspect of reality.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  202. sound awake, you may have something useful to offer, but your failure to communicate in Standard English reduces your points to gibberish. Faced with a monotonous string of unpunctuated, lower case stream of consciousness prattle few commenters will take the time to decipher your thoughts.

    If you want to be taken seriously, clean up your act and get in the game.

    ropelight (0477f1)

  203. #195 ropelight,

    You and I have had some harsh challenges to one another, but your admonition to sound awake suggests to me that you’re a serious person. Hat tip to you, Sir.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  204. Yeah, it’s November, Trump has run a Twitter campaign and whatever free coverage he got from Fox and Univision, and he complains that Hillary won because she cheated. Then he announces that he’s in love with Kaitlyn Jenner and is trying to reach an “understanding” with Melania.

    nk (dbc370)

  205. Confirmed! Chester Arthur’s dad did eventually become a US citizen. But not until after Chester Arthur was born.

    So Chester Arthur was not a natural born US citizen per the sooper sekrit ropelight standard as he was born on US soil but to only one, ONE, citizen parent.

    How many other ineligible Presidents similarly raped the Constitution?

    Where were the vigilant ropelights, that this could happen?

    Seriously, ropelight, how long are you going to wallow in this baseless insanity?

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  206. With Trump you draw crossover.
    With Cruz you lose. Original Intent.
    With Mario? Mario???

    Mario! Table 12 needs cleared!

    DCSCA (a343d5)

  207. http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/02/03/rick-santorum-ends-campaign-endorses-rubio-record

    Endorses Rubio. Well we finally found that guy. It was Rick Santorum flying under the radar.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  208. Steve57, you make a really good point.
    Even Herbert Hoover had a parent born in a foreign country.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  209. With Trump you draw crossoverdressers.
    With Trump you draw crosscombover.

    nk (dbc370)

  210. thats the the only point im trying to make here but nobody wants to or is capable of hearing that

    sound awake (04e750) — 2/3/2016 @ 4:36 pm

    No, I’m pretty sure you’ve been trying to paint Cruz as somehow beholden to large investment banks, specifically Goldman Sachs. I’ve asked several times if you could explain if a large company is accused of(or even found to have committed) fraud, how every one of the 37,000 employees are guilty and tainted, and all the spouses (and perhaps children) of those employees are also tainted. Can you please explain how that works, please.

    And before you accuse me of being a cruz or rubio supporter, perhaps you should read what caused me to be called a “brown shirt” and racist in the previous thread.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  211. changed citizen to natural born citizen,

    To my non-lawyer thinking, the most obvious understanding of this in expanded form is:
    changed citizen [which could be any citizen, citizen by birth or citizen by naturalization after birth] to a natural born citizen [that is, not a citizen by post-birth naturalization]

    I see no need to create some third classification that is not expressly defined, no matter how many times you repeat it. This is why I have said I have yet to see a logical argument that explains why I should accept a third category.
    I put it that way (BTW, Steve57) to point out to you, ropelight, that I am willing to consider your view if you can make a logical train of thought, not just repeating the claim that it means what you say it means. Yes, I do not think I will see one, because I don’t think there is one.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  212. Steve, down boy! you’re a good man, an honorable man, but we differ on this point. My strict reading of the limitations on eligibility may not be currently fashionable, but I’d be making the same case if it was Trump who was born in Canada to a Cuban father.

    For me it’s critical point, we are now experiencing the damage a president can do when he doesn’t have our nation’s best interests foremost in his priorities. Our Founders sought ways to prevent just such calamities from befalling our system of elected leaders.

    I firmly believe we should remain vigilant and resolute in the face of attempts to ferret out chinks in the armor defending our highest office. Dieu et mon droit brachium.

    ropelight (0477f1)

  213. (I have a comment in moderation. The only legitimate reason I can imagine is a Latin phrase I concluded with which I believe translates as: God and my right arm. If that’s not it then I like to know what caused the moderation.)

    Steve, down boy! you’re a good man, an honorable man, but we differ on this point. My strict reading of the limitations on eligibility may not be currently fashionable, but I’d be making the same case if it was Trump who was born in Canada to a Cuban father.

    For me it’s critical point, we are now experiencing the damage a president can do when he doesn’t have our nation’s best interests foremost in his priorities. Our Founders sought ways to prevent just such calamities from befalling our system of elected leaders.

    I firmly believe we should remain vigilant and resolute in the face of attempts to ferret out chinks in the armor defending our highest office. (insert Latin phrase here)

    ropelight (0477f1)

  214. I’m being moderated – I don’t know exactly why. And I’d appreciate an explanation.

    ropelight (0477f1)

  215. The spam filter is a Silicon Valley ultra-liberal.

    nk (dbc370)

  216. meanwhile, back at the ranch,

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/analyst-iranian-negotiator-a-contender-for-nobel-peace-prize/

    to serve man, it is indeed a cookbook,

    narciso (732bc0)

  217. Is there any way to gather Beldar’s takedowns of Trump here in the comments sections of the various Patterico threads?

    Steven Malynn (4bc33a)

  218. narciso,
    a whole lot of restating the obvious needs to be done (was that Orwell?)

    Steve M., you might want to start just trying to Google patterico + Beldar + Trump

    I have found some specific things doing that before

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  219. did you see that the Illinois election authorities ruled that Cruz is a natural born citizen?

    It won’t help. It never does. There is always some outstanding question, some further authority that must be consulted. If the question is answered the same way 99 times, it is not only not satisfactory, but it is now evidence of a conspiracy. Only if the 100th answer is what they were looking for is the book finally closed.

    I remember talking to a young-earth creationist once. His big thing was “all these gaps in the fossil record.” And he would list them all. And the thing was, if someone went out and dug up a new fossil that fit in the middle of one of those gaps, not only would it not satisfy him, but there would now be an additional gap.

    Same thing.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  220. Doc, I am no longer willing to entertain the claim because it has been beaten to death and has proven to have no basis in fact.

    Are we to continue to entertain the claim each time it’s brought up, only to be beaten to death and thrown out?

    The way things are shaping up, we will be treated to the spectacle of Trump supporters and/or Democrats (I am close to the point where I am sorely tempted to say, “But I repeat myself”) challenging Cruz’s eligibility in each of the 50 states and the entities in all 50 states categorically rejecting the challenges as complete nonsense, with increasing levels of exasperation and irritation seeping through their rulings similar to the Illinois Board of Elections, and these people will still be convinced Cruz isn’t eligible.

    And that the Democrats will somehow have something other than an entirely frivolous lawsuit to bring against Cruz.

    Again, if the Democrats had a case against Cruz on the basis that he’s not a natural born citizen they’d have already brought it. Because if Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen then he’s no citizen at all. And they would love to kick him out of the Senate.

    Maybe living in Texas and seeing this nonsense play out before has worn out my patience. This is like living in the movie Groundhog Day. Do we keep having to go over this again and again and again and again? There’s just nothing there, but the Trump fans keep clinging to this figment of their imaginations. Or rather, this falsehood that some charlatans have planted in their imaginations.

    Trump and the Democrats (and I’m more and more convinced they’re in cahoots) are playing on people’s ignorance.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  221. I understand, Steve57,
    I’ll just say in defense that I don’t respond to it most of the time,
    in fact my eyes have glazed over with much of the discussion

    I don’t know any more what is “real” out there and what is manipulation of one type or another,
    I stand by my prediction that something will happen, then something else will happen,
    and I’m not changing.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  222. Trump and his supporters spend an awful lot of time trashing Republicans. But they don’t appear to feel compelled to hit hard against Clinton Incorporated.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  223. By the way, what any Englishman, or George Washington or John Jay, or Roger Taney for that matter, thought about citizenship was tossed into a cocked hat the day the 14th Amendment was passed. So let’s not fumble around for some exact meaning of some 18th century words in a document that has been treated FAR worse that saying “natural born” means “citizen at birth”.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  224. Trump and his supporters spend an awful lot of time trashing Republicans. But they don’t appear to feel compelled to hit hard against Clinton Incorporated.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/3/2016 @ 6:15 pm

    You could say the same about our host.

    Has he put up a post about the miracle always coming up Clinton coin flip?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  225. Sound awake, are you simultaneously supporting Trump and restrictions on abortion? The same Trump who has repeatedly called himself pro-choice? Seems a little schizophrenic to me.

    Russ from Winterset (f7f216)

  226. Trump can’t resolve his problems with the caucus by suing the Secretary of State of Iowa. The State doesn’t run the caucus, it’s administered by the parties. It would be like suing the commissioner of the NHL because you didn’t like a pass interference call at the Super Bowl.

    Russ from Winterset (f7f216)

  227. Carter would choose Trump over Cruz:

    “The reason is, Trump has proven already he’s completly malleable,” Carter explained. “I don’t think he has any fixed (positions) he’d go the White House and fight for. On the other hand, Ted Cruz is not malleable. He has far right wing policies he’d pursue if he became president.”

    http://m.ajc.com/news/news/jimmy-carter-id-choose-trump/nqJKc/

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  228. Another Nosferatu pops out of his crypt. Trump/Carter 2016.

    nk (dbc370)

  229. He has far right wing policies he’d pursue if he became president.

    Have you ever noticed how to a leftist if one agrees with aborting babies at will, confiscatory taxation, gun confiscation, forced health insurance etcetera they’re never “far left” but if a guy believes in limited government he’s a “far right” guy?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  230. The State doesn’t run the caucus, it’s administered by the parties.

    So the caucus is designed to facilitate cheating with the added bonus of hiding the perp from accounability.

    What’s not to like?

    You know who is a fan of the caucus? Harry Reid.

    The prosecution rests.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  231. Carter – ten years in the grave, and he’s still trying to screw the country.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  232. Do Bernie supporters and Trump supporters differ in any way except on which things the world owes them? Whine, whine, snivel, snivel. Bernie’s: It’s not fair, you have more money. Trump’s: It’s not fair, you took my job. It’s not fair, you took my votes.

    Bite it.

    nk (dbc370)

  233. im not supporting trump because i love him or even like him personally

    hes got my support because hes not a politician

    i can defend my guy with logic and rationale and im quite aware of his drawbacks

    most people here defend their guy with oh that guys a troll or hes fake or he needs therapy or hes sock puppeting or hes on something its very cheap and low brow

    sound awake (04e750) — 2/3/2016 @ 4:36 pm

    No it’s because you don’t make any sense. Cruz’s loan from Goldman Sachs somehow connects him with everything GS is alleged to have done. There’s no logic there at all. It’s one of the most ridiculous kinds of arguments out there. It reminds me of Democrats trying to connect the Bush administration with Enron because they had some former Enron executive in a DOD position. Meanwhile Trump’s loans from GS are fine apparently.

    Then you keep pointing out how Republicans who aren’t Cruz have done this or that and since they’re politicians and Cruz is a politician therefore he’s like them. Again there’s no logic at all. The specific ones you name have not to this point expressed any support for Cruz and almost certainly prefer someone else. In fact Cruz doesn’t have much big name endorsements. Rick Perry is the only one who comes to mind and he’s been a very solid conservative who fights. Moderate Republican Scott Brown just endorsed Trump.

    Further Trump IS a politician. He’s seeking office which by definition makes him a politician. Nothing else makes someone a politician that I know of.

    Gerald A (7c7ffb)

  234. #140, Steve57, are you calling John Jay and George Washington idiots? They’re the ones who made a distinction between citizens at birth and natural born citizens.

    Really? Where and when did they make that distinction? When did they ever use the term “citizen at birth”, or any other term to denote that concept, and distinguish it from “natural born citizen”? How do you know that when they wrote “natural born citizen” they didn’t mean a citizen at birth?

    I happen to agree with you that that isn’t what they meant, but my reason for thinking so doesn’t come from the text of the constitution or from anything else they wrote. You imply that your reason does, so what is it?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  235. DRJ (15874d) — 2/3/2016 @ 4:13 pm :
    Are you saying that you have to be born in America to be a natural born citizen?

    I can’t speak for ropelight, but I believe that as a matter of law that is the case. I just no longer care. Since no court is ever going to rule on it, it’s up to the electors to decide for themselves what the eligibility clause means, and they’re not consulting my opinion. As a voter and citizen the eligibility clause is not my concern. I will vote for a slate of loyal Republicans to be electors for my state, and in the unlikely even that they win I trust them to do as they think best.

    In other words, citizenship established through one’s parents can never result in a natural born citizen? If so, then how are you also saying that McCain and George Romney could not have been President?

    Again I can’t speak for ropelight, but I would say that Romney was not eligible, but McCain was, because he was born under the protection of US law, and had the same status as the foreign-born child of a US ambassador (and the reverse status of the US-born child of a foreign ambassador, who everybody agrees is not a US citizen).

    Milhouse (87c499)

  236. The Committee of Detail originally had adopted the provision that a US President must be a citizen, and resident in the US for 21 years. Upon consideration of Jay’s proposal the Committee of Eleven changed citizen to natural born citizen, and cut the residency requirement to 14 years. They failed to record an explanation for their decision or to further define the term: natural born citizen.

    That’s two categories, not three. We all agree what “citizen” means: anyone who is currently a citizen, no matter how they got it. So they changed that…to what? How do you know whether they changed it to “citizen at birth” (as most people now believe), or “citizen by being born under US law” (as I believe), or “citizen born in the US to citizen parents” (as IIRC you believe)? My proof is from Blackstone; but you seem to claim proof from Jay’s and Washington’s own writings, so what is it?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  237. ropelight:

    170.#154, DRJ, I’m saying that to be eligible for the presidency an individual must be born of 2 citizen parents (both citizens at the time of birth) and within the jurisdiction of the USA. That leaves both Cruz and Rubio out.

    Mitt Romney wouldn’t qualify under this standard. His father was born in Mexico.

    Yes, he would, even under ropelight’s rule. At the time of his birth his father was a US citizen. Seriously, I disagree with ropelight as strongly as you do (if on slightly different grounds), but if you’re going to engage him please do so honestly. He has never suggested that the parents must themselves have been born in the USA.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  238. Steve, stop it. John Jay wanted a strong check on foreign influence. A CinC born of 2 citizen parents provides exactly that, to the extent it can be guaranteed by birth.

    So does a CinC born in the USA. So does a CinC born elsewhere but a US citizen. For that matter, so would a CinC who was not born a citizen, but has been one for 50 years. The fact that they wanted a strong check doesn’t demonstrate what that check was.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  239. they dont want to hear about cruzs goldman sachs campaign loan

    What about it? There was nothing even slightly wrong or embarrassing about it. Nobody has ever tried to hide it. The form declaring it was filed on the same day as the form from which it was omitted. It simply never occurred to the person doing the filing that it had to be on that form too. If I’d been given the job of doing the filing I’d probably have made the same mistake, because it still doesn’t make sense to me why it has to be on that form.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  240. To illustrate how inane this has become, by the sooper sekrit ropelight definition of natural born citizen, our early Presidents such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were disqualified. They were born on what was indisputably British soil to parents who were not only British subjects when their children were born, but the parents were British subjects when they died.

    Steve, once again if you’re going to engage ropelight please do so honestly. You know very well that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and every other president until van Buren were not natural born citizens, by anyone’s definition. And you know that they were eligible only because NBC is not the only way to be eligible. So please don’t pretend not to know this just because it gives you a rhetorical advantage. Whether ropelight is right or wrong, and whether I am right or wrong, pre-van-Buren presidents are simply not relevant to the topic.

    By the sooper sekrit ropelight definition of natural born citizen, the first President to meet the eligibility standard was John Tyler who was born in 1790.

    Why Tyler and not van Buren?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  241. Then they moved across the border to Vermont and pickled out lil’ Chester. Did dad become a citizen so Chester would meet the sooper sekrit ropelight definition of natural born citizen? Do inquiring minds want to know?

    Not about that, but inquiring minds at the time certainly did want to know where Chester was born. There was an attempt to spread a rumor first that he was born in Ireland, and then that he was born in Canada, because it was generally thought at the time that a foreign birth would have made him ineligible. There was no such attempt to make such an issue of the undisputed fact that his father didn’t become a citizen until 1843, when Chester was 14 years old. This shows that it was generally accepted at the time that a foreign parent would not have made him ineligible.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  242. papertiger–

    Again, what cheating? Is there a list of arguments one cannot make? Did they hack files or kidnap voters?

    No. They took a CNN REPORT by CNN’s first-line reporters as, well, truth. And acted on it. Trump did not (because A. Trump was waiting for confirmation? or B. Trump’s people were drunk at the bar?).

    It turned out that the CNN report was wrong (or Carson changed his mind). BUt acting on a bona fide new report is not cheating. CALLING it cheating is other-than-honest.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  243. By the way, what any Englishman, or George Washington or John Jay, or Roger Taney for that matter, thought about citizenship was tossed into a cocked hat the day the 14th Amendment was passed.

    No, it wasn’t. The 14th amendment doesn’t mention “natural born citizen” and doesn’t affect the eligibility clause.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  244. Carter – ten years in the grave, and he’s still trying to screw the country.

    Well, he’s just lost his title as “worst president since at least 1860″, so he’s understandably peeved.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  245. No it’s because you don’t make any sense. Cruz’s loan from Goldman Sachs somehow connects him with everything GS is alleged to have done. There’s no logic there at all.

    May as well accuse everyone of whatever accusations have been flung at whichever bank lent them the money to buy their home.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  246. Milhouse, van Buren was born in 1782, and we didn’t have this Constitution with it’s natural born citizen requirement until 1787.

    Tyler was the first natural born citizen, under this Constitution, to later become President.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  247. #232, Milhouse, in the past (about the time NBC became an issue in Obama’s candidacy) I did advocate for a definition restricting eligibility for the presidency to individuals born of citizen parents both of which acquired their citizenship by birthright.

    Which, of course, would have disqualified Obama and later on, Romney too.

    ropelight (0477f1)

  248. 234. …There was an attempt to spread a rumor first that he was born in Ireland, and then that he was born in Canada, because it was generally thought at the time that a foreign birth would have made him ineligible

    Milhouse (87c499) — 2/3/2016 @ 8:50 pm

    It might have, given his father’s circumstances.

    http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

    Had Chester Arthur been born in Canada, he may well not have been a natural born citizen. Not because he was born in Canada. And not because his father was a non-citizen. But because his father had never resided in the United States. So there is a good argument to be made that Chester Arthur’s older sister Regina was not a natural born citizen. She was born in Canada, and up until that time her father William Arthur had never resided in the US.

    Rafael Cruz, on the other hand, had resided in the US for about a decade before moving to Canada, where his son Ted was born. So according to the founder’s understanding of the term natural born citizen, Ted is a natural born citizen. His mother is a citizen, and his father had resided in the US.

    BOOM!

    And, yes, the SCOTUS has long ruled that the acts of the First Congress are authoritative when it comes to defining Constitutional terms and understanding Constitutional concepts. Most recently in the Town of Greece v. Galloway decision in 2014.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-696

    … Legislative prayer, while religious in nature, has long been understood as compatible with the Establishment Clause. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783. In Marsh, the Court concluded that it was not necessary to define the Establishment Clause’s precise boundary in order to uphold Nebraska’s practice of employing a legislative chaplain because history supported the conclusion that the specific practice was permitted. The First Congress voted to appoint and pay official chaplains shortly after approving language for the First Amendment, and both Houses have maintained the office virtually uninterrupted since then. See id., at 787–789, and n. 10. A majority of the States have also had a consistent practice of legislative prayer. Id., at 788–790, and n. 11. There is historical precedent for the practice of opening local legislative meetings with prayer as well. Marsh teaches that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted “by reference to historical practices and understandings.” County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). Thus, any test must acknowledge a practice that was accepted by the Framers and has withstood the critical scrutiny of time and political change.

    …Yet Marsh must not be understood as permitting a practice that would amount to a constitutional violation if not for its historical foundation. The case teaches instead that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted “by reference to historical practices and understandings.” County of Allegheny, 492 U. S., at 670 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). That the First Congress provided for the appointment of chaplains only days after approving language for the First Amendment demonstrates that the Framers considered legislative prayer a benign acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.

    If the members of the First Congress understood a term to mean a certain thing, that meant the founders understood the term the same way because the framers of the Constitution and the First Congress are for all practical purposes one and the the same thing.

    Hence Cruz is a natural born citizen as the term was originally defined and understood by the founders of this country.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  249. What about that squirrel that sits on top of Donnie Trump’s head—has anyone seen its birth certificate—huh?!

    Buehler?

    That looks like a Canadian-born squirrel to me!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  250. Milhouse, van Buren was born in 1782, and we didn’t have this Constitution with it’s natural born citizen requirement until 1787.

    Tyler was the first natural born citizen, under this Constitution, to later become President.

    Why on earth would being born before the eligibility clause for the presidency was adopted affect whether one was a natural born citizen? You are absolutely wrong here, regardless of what “natural born citizen” means. There is no possible dispute that van Buren was a natural born citizen of the United States of America. He was born in the USA, and his parents were both citizens at the time, so even Ropelight would accept him as one.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  251. 240. #232, Milhouse, in the past (about the time NBC became an issue in Obama’s candidacy) I did advocate for a definition restricting eligibility for the presidency to individuals born of citizen parents both of which acquired their citizenship by birthright.

    Which, of course, would have disqualified Obama and later on, Romney too.

    ropelight (0477f1) — 2/3/2016 @ 10:30 pm

    Progress, of a sort. You can advocate for a definition of the term natural born citizen, “restricting eligibility for the presidency to individuals born of citizen parents both of which acquired their citizenship by birthright.”

    And of course you’ll have to advocate for that particular definition, because that is not now nor has if ever been the definition of the term natural born citizen. Not only would that have disqualified Obama, but also Buchanon, Arthur, Wilson, and Hoover, and perhaps several other Presidents.

    But there is a branch of government that has the power to define the term. That branch is the legislative branch, Congress. And they originally defined the term, and the Framers understood the term to mean, as meaning nothing at all remotely similar to what you wish the term meant.

    So at this point, ropelight, you are simply refusing to accept reality. And you are acknowledging your refusal to recognize the fact that Cruz is a natural born citizen is just obstinate denial of your reality on your part.

    “…And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens…”

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  252. 243. There is no possible dispute that van Buren was a natural born citizen of the United States of America. He was born in the USA, and his parents were both citizens at the time, so even Ropelight would accept him as one.

    Milhouse (87c499) — 2/3/2016 @ 11:10 pm

    Not necessarily. Were his parents citizens by birth? ropelight insists that unless his parents had birthright citizenship then van Buren couldn’t be a natural born citizen.

    In any case he was eligible because he was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  253. “…And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens…”

    As I understand it, “considered as” means they were to be treated exactly as if they had been natural-born citizens, not that they were thought to actually be such.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  254. (I have a comment in moderation. The only legitimate reason I can imagine is a Latin phrase I concluded with which I believe translates as: God and my right arm. If that’s not it then I like to know what caused the moderation.)

    ropelight,

    It’s a secret. Check your email. Nothing to do with you at all.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  255. Not necessarily. Were his parents citizens by birth? ropelight insists that unless his parents had birthright citizenship then van Buren couldn’t be a natural born citizen.

    Yes, I hadn’t seen that yet. I wonder where ropelight got it. Even Vattel doesn’t say that. That view is self-refuting, because if NBC requires the person’s parents to have been born citizens, then by the time there were any NBCs who were 35 years old there might not be anyone left who was a citizen in 1788. Surely the framers would have foreseen and provided for that possibility.

    In any case he was eligible because he was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    That is true, but he was also eligible because he was born a USA citizen, in the USA, to two parents who were both USA citizens, so he fit every definition I’d ever heard of until just now.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  256. Rand Paul has announced that he’s out. It seems a little odd for the libertarian to bow out right before the primary held in the state targeted for the Free State Project, where libertarians have moved in droves to create their libertarian utopia. But Paul reportedly thinks this move will help defeat Donald Trump, and God love him for it.

    It’s not about that, it’s about his having a challenger in Kentucky. This is the key point, and it’s missing from a lot of the reportage. Until now he had no serious challenger, so he didn’t have to worry about reelection to the senate, and could afford to spend time and resources on a quixotic bid for the presidency, educating the public as he went along. But now the mayor of Lexington has decided to run for the senate, so he needs to concentrate on that fight.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  257. No, it wasn’t. The 14th amendment doesn’t mention “natural born citizen” and doesn’t affect the eligibility clause.

    No, it just mentions “citizen” which is a larger category, and given Chief Justice Taney’s opinion with respect to blacks being citizens, without the 14th (or some other alteration of Dredd Scott) Barack Obama could never have been president no matter where he was born, so it does affect the eligibility clause.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  258. But, once again, ropelight has managed to hijack another thread with his G*DDAM BIRTHER NONSENSE. I have to stop feeding this troll.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  259. 256. …As I understand it, “considered as” means they were to be treated exactly as if they had been natural-born citizens, not that they were thought to actually be such.

    Milhouse (87c499) — 2/3/2016 @ 11:18 pm

    You are making a distinction without a difference. By the eighteenth century and well before the revolution a natural born subject of the British crown was whomever parliament defined by statute as subjects at birth. Consequently the Framers had the same understanding. A natural born citizen of the United States was whomever Congress decided by statute had acquired their citizenship by birth or at birth.

    So if Congress said that certain children shall be “considered as” natural born citizens it meant they were in fact natural born citizens. I simply read that as Congress addressing the misguided idea held by certain of our countrymen then and up until today (cough, cough, ropelight, cough, cough) that natural born citizens had to be born on US soil. These people did not consider people born abroad to be natural born citizens. So in 1790 Congress passed a statute directing that they shall be considered natural born citizens because they are natural born citizens.

    For all purposes, including eligibility to become President.

    The language is directive in nature. It’s as if the framers are speaking to the next state secretary of state, who has to field a challenge from some birther r.e. Cruz’s eligibility to be on the ballot.

    What’s the answer? Is he eligible to be on the ballot or not. The founders provided it. He “shall be considered as a natural born citizen.”

    There’s also an additional factor that may not be obvious now, but would have been very obvious to the Framers/member of the First Congress whose experiences of the revolution were still fresh in their memories. And that would have been the huge distinction between subject and citizen. Earlier in the evolution of the concept of a natural born subject, only certain children born abroad were natural born subjects of the king. At first, only the children of the king’s ambassador, because they owed the sovereign a special allegiance. One class of subject that was always included in the category of natural born subject was the king’s own children. As the sovereign’s own children, they owed the sovereign obedience and allegiance as a matter of natural law (and we derive the term natural born citizen from the principles of natural law).

    In the new American republic sovereignty no longer lied with a king. Who was sovereign? The citizenry. So by the same token that a king’s own children were natural born subjects, so it must be that the children of the sovereign in the United States were also natural born citizens. In 1790 the framers made this popular concept the law of the land.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  260. I did advocate for a definition restricting eligibility for the presidency to individuals born of citizen parents both of which acquired their citizenship by birthright.

    This of course would make Trump ineligible, too, as his mother was naturalized.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  261. Milhouse 241,

    You’re right and my apologies to ropelight. However, I disagree with your assessment that I was not being honest. I was inaccurate in making my point, but that doesn’t make me dishonest unless my goal was to manipulate or mislead. Did you intend to hurt or offend me, or do you simply assume everyone you think is wrong is being dishonest? I’d really like to know, Milhouse.

    DRJ (15874d)

  262. Welcome to the club, DRJ. Milhouse has the propensity to attack like a mad dog if he believes you’re wrong. He also gives the impression that if you’re wrong you are either stupid, ignorant or a liar. I’ve been all three. For some reason an honest mistake is out of the question.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  263. DRJ, thank you for your honesty and forthrightness. You remain a worthy model for Internet courtesy and civil discourse. I’m a big fan. Thanks again.

    ropelight (b3812c)

  264. That does seem to be the case, Hoagie, but I don’t understand immediately thinking the worst of other people. That’s why I’d like to hear from Milhouse.

    DRJ (15874d)

  265. That’s very kind but it was my mistake, ropelight.

    DRJ (15874d)

  266. DRJ, compared to the many slings and arrows directed at me over the NBC issue, your error falls under the Ain’t no big thing category. It’s why they put erasers on pencils.

    ropelight (b3812c)

  267. New York Values.

    Colonel Haiku (209597)

  268. FWIW I agree we should have a President who is loyal to America, and being born in the US to citizen parents is a way to make that more likely. I am also fine with having one or more citizen parents and being born abroad, because that’s probably because I believe the parents’ influence is more important than the place of birth. In fairness,it could be because I live in an area where anchor babies are common and I’ve seen people who have more loyalty to their parents’ country than to where they were born.

    DRJ (15874d)

  269. Ultimately, though, this isn’t about how we would write the citizenship rules if we were writing them today. It’s about what the existing laws mean, and I think the early Naturalization Acts show that the Founders intended for people to be considered natural born citizens if they were born abroad with a citizen father — which suggests to me that they also viewed the parents’ influence (especially the father’s) as vital. In today’s world, we recognize the influence of both parents and not just the father, but the irony with Cruz is that his father’s experiences in Cuba may have been the biggest factor in his strong belief in America.

    DRJ (15874d)

  270. #271, DRJ, so, you’re willing to stick your toe in the water. Now, give yourself a little time to see if the temperature suits you and consider wadding in – say about up to the knees. But watch out for rogue waves they come without warning.

    ropelight (b3812c)

  271. Trump, Hillary, and Bernie get together in Central Park to discuss, among other things, the makeup of Hillary’s transition team after the election. Hillary sighs, “It’s been so long since I’ve been for a walk in the park like this. What would make it perfect would be a banana split like my Bill used to buy me.” Trump says, ” A banana split sounds good to me, too”. Bernie says, “I’d like one, too. I’ll go get them.” Hillary says, “With sprinkles. I like mine with sprinkles”. Bernie says, “Ok”. Hillary says, “Bernie, why don’t you write it down, so you don’t forget it. Three banana splits, one with sprinkles”. Bernie is a little bit offended: “I won’t forget Hillary.” Trump winks at Hillary and says, “I’ll go with you, Bernie.” About ten minutes later, Trump and Bernie come back with a paper bag. They open it and pull out three cheeseburgers. Hillary sighs, “I told you guys to write it down. You forgot the french fries.”

    nk (dbc370)

  272. Did you intend to hurt or offend me, or do you simply assume everyone you think is wrong is being dishonest? I’d really like to know, Milhouse.

    I took your argument against ropelight’s theory at face value. It was not an honest argument, because it failed to take the challenged position seriously, and pose itself in that position’s terms. I accept your explanation that you did this out of carelessness rather than malice, but I didn’t mean to accuse you of malice. I didn’t accuse you of anything at all; I wrote only of your argument. I don’t generally attack people here; I write about people’s words, not their persons. I actually thought the most likely explanation for your use of this argument was that you had not taken the trouble to understand the position before challenging it.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  273. That does seem to be the case, Hoagie, but I don’t understand immediately thinking the worst of other people. That’s why I’d like to hear from Milhouse.

    I write only of arguments, not of people. A person can make a dishonest argument out of carelessness, but the argument is no more honest for that.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  274. I wish so many people didn’t think that an attack on a position they’ve taken is automatically an attack on them.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  275. FWIW I agree we should have a President who is loyal to America, and being born in the US to citizen parents is a way to make that more likely.

    0bama is a counterexample. His foreign parent had no hand in raising him, so should be excluded from consideration. His disloyalty to America comes entirely from his citizen mother and grandparents, and would have been exactly the same had his mother been knocked up by a US citizen with a line going back to the Mayflower.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  276. Milhouse (87c499) — 2/3/2016 @ 11:10 pm

    There is no possible dispute that van Buren was a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

    He was the first president not born a British subject, although the British didn’t actually leave New York until later. But I think British rule did not extend too far north of New York City in the 1776-1783 period.

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

  277. An American pedigree is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition, but it improves the odds. Who said, “Home is where you can always go and they can’t turn you away”? If America is all a person has, then he is more likely to value her.

    Which is why I don’t like the “no path to citizenship” positions, which may or not be held by Cruz and/Rubio. We should not have permanent residents who do not have a total commitment to America. You don’t want new citizens, that’s fine, but let them in only for a term of years then, until they no longer serve America’s needs. If you want them here until they die, make them assimilate and swear loyalty to America renouncing all foreign loyalties.

    nk (dbc370)

  278. nk, your quote is Robert Frost:

    “Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in.”

    Simon Jester (2708f4)

  279. From the New Yorker: (emphasis mine)

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/ted-cruz-and-the-art-of-the-dirty-trick

    Then, on Monday evening, as the caucuses were assembling, Chris Moody, a CNN reporter, sent out three tweets in the space of two minutes. The first referred to a flight that Carson would be catching that night; the second said that “Carson won’t go to NH/SC, but instead will head home to Florida for some R&R. He’ll be in DC Thursday for the National Prayer Breakfast.” The third, seconds later, noted that “Ben Carson’s campaign tells me he plans to stay in the race beyond Iowa no matter what the results are tonight.” CNN’s on-air report also made it clear that the Florida trip was just a detour. Nevertheless, the Cruz campaign sprung into action and retailed the second tweet, out of context, as news of the suspension of Carson’s campaign. The Cruz camp’s emphasis on quick, sophisticated communications meant that it could send a directive to spread the story to campaign workers in every Iowa precinct, but it also left behind a digital trail of tweets and e-mail alerts. One of the tweets, from Representative Steve King, the campaign’s national co-chair, said, “Carson looks like he is out. Iowans need to know before they vote. Most will go to Cruz, I hope”—and it was sent after the Carson campaign had issued clarifications.

    But Carson’s precinct captains, in turn, texted in reports of what they were hearing: dirty tricks are easier to disseminate and to document when everyone has a smartphone. At first, Cruz’s campaign said that Carson’s complaints were “absurd.” Then Cruz apologized to Carson for “a mistake” on the part of some of his staff members, but added that the campaign’s real error was to trust CNN’s report that Carson was “not carrying on” without following up on it. He loved Carson, Cruz said, at a news conference on Wednesday—“I will praise his character”—and everything else was just the media stirring up trouble. “Is it a dirty trick to pass on your news stories? You’re in the business!” Cruz said. With a glint, as if struck by the aptness of his own retort, he added, “Would you think it was a dirty trick if I was forwarding an ABC story? Or is it just a dirty trick to pass on a CNN story?”

    CNN, which was covering the press conference, cut back to the anchor Brooke Baldwin. “O.K.,” she said. She paused and collected herself. “Just so we’re all crystal clear here, when Senator Cruz, with all due respect, tries to throw my network and CNN under the bus, let me stand up for my colleagues and journalists here.” Her face bore an expression that, if Cruz stays in the campaign much longer—and he will, maybe to the end—will need its own name. After explaining, again, what CNN had reported, Baldwin turned back to her guest, Representative Mark Meadows, of North Carolina, who has endorsed Cruz, and apologized for getting “fired up.” Meadows smiled and said that he knew how hard the job was—“it’s one thing to report, it’s another to verify it”—as if, again, Cruz’s only error had been to trust the media. Baldwin squinted, tilted her head, and stopped him.

    “Congressman, forgive me, but I’m going to call out B.S. when I hear B.S. And that was B.S.,” Baldwin said. If only someone would do that during the debates. Later on Wednesday night, Cruz acknowledged that “CNN got it correct.” He added, “Miracles happen.” He had moved on to attacking Trump.

    I don’t think, though this affected things very much, as anyone hearing this would check with Drudge or Google News, or somebody they talked to would, and they’d find out there was no report like this that Carson was quitting.

    I do think, though, it might have taken the wind out of the Carson speeches some people were going to deliver at the caucuses.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  280. 276. …A person can make a dishonest argument out of carelessness, but the argument is no more honest for that.
    Milhouse (87c499) — 2/4/2016 @ 6:45 am

    277. I wish so many people didn’t think that an attack on a position they’ve taken is automatically an attack on them.

    Milhouse (87c499) — 2/4/2016 @ 6:46 am

    Because you are attacking people when you attack the “honesty” of an argument.

    Arguments are either right or wrong; correct or incorrect. When you call an argument dishonest you are assigning a motive to the person making the flawed argument.

    Only people can be honest or dishonest. And a person cannot make a “dishonest” argument out of carelessness. The only way a person can make a dishonest argument is if they are concealing some fact that they are well aware of.

    Stop pretending you’re not attacking people. Your pretense that you’re not attacking people, but only speaking of arguments, is in itself a dishonest argument. And I say that because you know this. You’re just pretending not to.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  281. An argument that fails to take its target’s premises seriously, that misrepresents its target in order to refute it, IOW a “straw man” argument, is dishonest. A person may make a straw man argument out of malice, or he may do so out of carelessness, because he has not troubled to serithink about and understand the proposition he’s challenging.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  282. s/serithink/think

    Milhouse (87c499)

  283. Re our exchange on Moslems in the Continental Army, note the difference between “that’s pathetic” and “you’re pathetic”.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  284. Give it up, Milhouse. People who make flawed arguments because they didn’t understand the proposition they’re opposing are not making dishonest arguments.

    Nor is it up to you to make suppositions about how much or how little thought they gave to the proposition. You simply don’t know.

    When you speculate about that, or about the person’s honesty, you’re attacking the person and not the argument.

    If you want people to believe your are just speaking about the argument, then just speak about the argument. Point out the flaws in the argument. Don’t attack the person, which is precisely what you are doing when you speculate about why those flaws are there. I.E. the person is dishonest. The person is reckless. The person can’t think straight or speaks/types without engaging brain.

    Again, you know this. You’re just trying to weasel out of your responsibility to take ownership of your attacks on people. So I can confidently say your attempts to do so are dishonest. They are also entirely unpersuasive.

    Steve57 (f61b03)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8545 secs.