The democrats will not file suit over the Cruz citizenship issue. That issue has absolutely no traction on the left and they know better than to drag themselves into that circus sideshow.
2016 Presidential Race
- Thread starter Theirb123
- Start date
- Status
Really? and having a person that is accused, being investigated and likely to be brought up on felony charges as their leading candidate isn't a sideshow?
The DNC (and the RNC) is about power. It always has been and it is now. They are within spitting distance of turning the US into a socialist paradise There are going to be 3-4 Supreme Court nominations in the next 8 years. The only hope of getting back to our roots is a Republican in office with enough of a Congress to get things done and start undoing the damage. You don't think they'll do whatever it takes to keep control and put the nail in the coffin?
If Cruz were to get the nomination and either was polling as a runaway winner or actually wins the election you don't think they would file that lawsuit? How much do you want to bet?
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,199
@compforce, what would your ideal America be like? Serious question.
That's a big question with a lot of pieces. Let me get some coffee made and I'll try to answer it.
I have about a million people I would rather see in office than Trump, but out of the existing candidates his platform is the closest to mine with the best chance of actually winning.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,738
Regarding Trump - has there ever been a sitting president similar to him in personality? Ross Perot may have been a close 2nd, but he did not win. (although I think he might have had a chance today). Trump appears to be Teflon, and the more in your face he gets, the more people seem to gravitate to him. My wife, sister, mom, and nearly every other woman I know HATE him because of some of his comments, but he does not back down and instead continues to attack.
Example, here is HIS Twitter post this morning regarding Megan Kelly:
Here we are less than a year before the election and he is the topic. Last night the only conversations I heard were "will he do the debate?" Tonight there will be more coverage about him not doing the debate, than about was actually said during the debate. On the radio this morning I was listening to two guys and a woman discuss, "Is he right for blowing off Fox? Is Kelly a lightweight reporter who has no business asking these types of questions?"
Personally I struggle with Trump, there is much that I like. (see most of what I mentioned above), but it does concern me that he is SO frontal and appears to show no tact. While this plays well with a large percentage of the American public, I seriously question whether this style will work globally; but then am I not giving him enough credit? Is he controllable enough to respect certain protocols? Answering my own question, I would say 'yes', the man does business throughout the world, he knows how to play the game.
Forgive me if the above sounded like rambling, but I am trying to wrap my mind around the idea that he could very will be the GOP candidate this year -
Example, here is HIS Twitter post this morning regarding Megan Kelly:
Here we are less than a year before the election and he is the topic. Last night the only conversations I heard were "will he do the debate?" Tonight there will be more coverage about him not doing the debate, than about was actually said during the debate. On the radio this morning I was listening to two guys and a woman discuss, "Is he right for blowing off Fox? Is Kelly a lightweight reporter who has no business asking these types of questions?"
Personally I struggle with Trump, there is much that I like. (see most of what I mentioned above), but it does concern me that he is SO frontal and appears to show no tact. While this plays well with a large percentage of the American public, I seriously question whether this style will work globally; but then am I not giving him enough credit? Is he controllable enough to respect certain protocols? Answering my own question, I would say 'yes', the man does business throughout the world, he knows how to play the game.
Forgive me if the above sounded like rambling, but I am trying to wrap my mind around the idea that he could very will be the GOP candidate this year -
Last edited:
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,199
Donald Trump is basically a democrat.
Devildoc
Verified Military
Too many semi-legal and congressional precedents for any lawsuit to stick. IF the DNC was smart they won't push the issue. BUT, I could see them raising hell about it as a distraction to pull attention away from emails.
And this was the best choice after the GOP was absolutely fried for Palin as VP pick who had a great resume (regardless of how you feel about her personally, on paper she was more qualified than Obama).
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,738
...and she came across as a complete uninformed moron. That said, Tina Fey and Saturday Night Live should have been paid by the Dems (and maybe there were somehow) for their bits on Palin. No question in my mind that those on the fence about a McCain/Palin presidency were swayed by those bits. Very similar to the power, yes power, Jon Stewart had on his show.
Devildoc
Verified Military
Totally agree; my point being about the hypocrisy of her not being "qualified" when they put a first-term senator in the running.
Palin did/does herself no favors when she opens her mouth. That plus a look alike/sound alike comedian on SNL equaled certain disaster.
but a capitalist democrat, not a socialist one. Big difference. I actually fall somewhere in the middle. I'm far right on things like the 2A and far left on things like abortion (it's a woman's body, let her choose). You might say I'm a libertarian, but that wouldn't be accurate either. I'm about common sense for most things with a big focus on the economy and personal rights/personal accountability.
I'm working on answering your question fully, but it may be the weekend before I get it completed. I've got about three pages so far... It'll be an attachment, not an inline post.
I haven't seen any legal precedent that would make him natural born. Congress doesn't have the power to declare someone natural born so there are no precedents there. They can naturalize someone, but they cannot create a class or definition for natural born. On the other hand, there are SCOTUS opinions that define it pretty well. Read that article I posted from Ann Coulter. Yes, she's far right, but she also cites everything she says in it.
When the debate was on, I watched about the first 10 minutes. I totally agree with Trump. It was a hatchet job that backfired. The first round of questions started with what I thought was an incredible attack on him followed by questions to the other candidates that were designed to let them unload on him and focus attention on the negative message. I didn't think they were fair or balanced and from the very first question kept asking myself WTF. Moderators shouldn't be asking specific questions to candidates, they should be asking a question, letting the candidates duke it out over the question and enforcing the rules of the debate. The way they are doing it, it's a mass interview, not a debate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Devildoc
Verified Military
The fact there are so many historians and ConLaw attorneys arguing tells me it is not so black and white. Since I am neither I found this interesting:
Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FWIW I couldn't care less on this issue...I have no dog in the fight.
Actually, sounds quite a bit like the old Blue Dog Dems of old. Very pro-capitalism, generally anti-socialism, skeptical of big government.
Last edited by a moderator:
They actually had the opportunity in 2008 to make an issue of John McCain's citizenship. What they did instead was introduce a senate resolution affirming their faith in his citizenship, which sidestepped the issue altogether. There is a precedent for this.
The Obama birther controversy has been a huge national embarrassment and liberals still collectively facepalm when talking about it. That dog absolutely won't hunt.
If we're betting, I'll donate 50$ to the site if a congressional democrat files suit over Ted Cruz's citizenship.
John McCain was in no danger of winning the election. And that Senate resolution does not have any legal standing. Pure trickery.
And if the following conditions are met and there isn't a suit I'll donate $50
Cruz is the Republican candidate in the general election
Cruz has a definitive lead (55% or higher) in the majority of major polls
OR
Cruz wins the general election popular vote
You're right - the senate resolution had no legal standing and could've easily been challenged. However, it was a symbolic gesture which clearly demonstrated that the resolution's authors (among whom were both Clinton and Obama) did not want to get dragged into an ugly controversy. Democrat party unity is running high right now, and so I'm wagering that any democrat entertaining the idea of raising the issue will probably get shot down very quickly. Clinton might deploy that tactic in order to divert attention away from the email controversy, but I don't think it's very likely.
How much if it's a non-congressional democrat?
Hmmm....let's go with 25$ for an elected Democrat outside of Congress (e.g. a governor, state legislator, etc), 15$ for a liberal non-profit or PAC, and a variable amount for suit brought on by liberal private persons based on the visibility of the person. In that case, a George Soros suit will fetch a higher donation than, say, the liberal equivalent of Orly Taitz or Crazy Liberal Joe from down the street.
My father is a retired union electrician and Blue Dog Democrat. I'm a Republican, but genuinely lament the loss of the Blue Dog's.(Not to be confused with Blue's Clues). I thought these articles address the problem rather well, but the short version is their loss has polarized the Democratic party.
Why the Blue Dogs’ decline was inevitable
The Blue Dogs’ pitiful last whimper
Blue Dog Democrats on the decline - No Labels
One item overlooked by many Republicans is the pro-2A stance taken by BDD. Gabby Giffords is considered a moderate, but prior to her shooting wasn't an anti-2A voice. Republicans may decry the concept of any Democrats in office, but for years their swing votes were a help, not a hindrance which is why controlled the House and Senate weren't sure locks for a party's platform. Our polarized political system almost guarantees a majority rule based upon political affiliation, not your beliefs.
The reality is both parties have moved to their extreme sides which leaves the bulk of Americans disenchanted with the process. Maybe I'm projecting my thoughts on the country, but I think a candidate with a slightly stronger Dem. than Repub. focus domestically but a much stronger Repub. focus internationally would win an election. It would be good for our country while also forcing both parties to reassess their positions.
One lawsuit has been filed.
Three sources for you.
A New Challenge to Cruz's Eligibility
Ted Cruz not the only one with a birther challenge - CNNPolitics.com
Ted Cruz's Citizenship Status Challenged In Birther Lawsuit
Word. Is he a liberal?
Devildoc
Verified Military
Spot on, and great post. People forget that it wasn't really that long ago when both parties gravitated to the middle; you know, a real bell curve. Republicans and Democrats routinely worked across the aisle, and most were close friends after business hours. Hell, Tip O'Neill and Reagan were best of buddies, and even Bush Jr and Teddy Kennedy shared some similar interests.
The south used to be the epicenter of Blue Dog Democrats and the articles in which you linked are, unfortunately and sadly, correct about the extinction of the BDDs and the loss ripping the foundation out of the DNC.
Now a moderate Republican or a BDD couldn't get the backing of the local party for being seen as waffling or riding the fence on the issues.
- Status
Similar threads
