For NeverTrumpers: An appeal to not vote Hillary over Trump

[yjacket]

On 4/16/2016 at 2:09 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

No, Anatess; this pseudo-conciliatory schtick has but one purpose:  to create an aura of inevitability about a singularly unpopular candidate whom nearly two thirds of the Republican electorate has already rejected.

The above is definitely not the case. By the above definition one could say 3/4ths of the Republican electorate has rejected Cruz (he has gotten only 30% of the vote), 80% have rejected Kasich, etc. etc. etc.

Trump has gathered 40% of the popular vote.  40% of the vote is not unpopular. If Trump was the establishment candidate, we wouldn't even be talking about this-the news media, pundits, etc. were be whipping the people into getting behind him.

I get it, Christians and LDS hate Trump b/c they think he is an immoral jerk.  I got news for you . . .so is Cruz! Cruz plays the guy who takes the moral high ground but in his soul he is just as Machiavellian and immoral as the rest.  I've evaluated the links between Amanda Carpenter and Cruz and while I can't say for sure; there is smoke, whether it was simply an unprofessional relationship or more I don't know-all I do know is that there is something there.

It is really quite sad, because I agree with 95% of what Cruz says and I agree with about 65% of what Trump says, yet I'd rather have Trump over Cruz.  There is just something very creepy and off about Cruz. Whether it is the way he cracks a sly smile after almost every applause line, whether it is the way he delivers every sentence like he is giving a speech, whether it's the video of him @ 18 saying his goal in life was world domination. I just don't know. I'm extremely leery of having a freshman senator (who claims he is a hard-core tea party/liberty conservative) elected.  Yes his 4-year voting record is really good . . .but man there is just something about the guy that really concerns me.

Cruz has a really good ground game; he will take a lot of the delegates the 2nd round (if there is one). The problem that Cruz people have that they don't seem to realize is that if Trump gets over 1000 delegates, wins NY & Cali and if the National polls continue like this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.htmlhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html 

and Cruz gets the nomination over Trump there are going to be a lot of really ticked off people. The national polls have Trump @ 40, Cruz @30, and Kasich @ 20. Kasich isn't dropping out because he is playing the spoiling.  All of Kasichs support wouldn't go to Cruz. A good portion of it could go to Trump and put him over 50%.

Trump is a force to be reckoned with-40% is a lot of support (the last poll had him @ 45%). If Cruz (given the current state) wins today over Trump it will simply prove what Trump is saying, the system is rigged it's rigged for the establishment benefit.

If that happens and the Cruz and Trump people can't come together, goodbye Nov. election, hello Bernie Sanders.

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, yjacket said:

The above is definitely not the case. By the above definition one could say 3/4ths of the Republican electorate has rejected Cruz (he has gotten only 30% of the vote), 80% have rejected Kasich, etc. etc. etc.

Except that Cruz isn't the one preening about how he's so clearly the pick of the people, or consistently botching the difference between "majority" and "plurality", .

Look, this isn't brain surgery.  The Republican party governs itself according to republican (small "r") principles, which means that the nominee is selected at a convention where a number of duly elected deligates meet to discuss the issues at hand and try to reach a consensus position.  The rules do provide one exception:  If the Republican voters can muster such unity that at least fifty percent of them (or, more properly, their delegates) have committed to a single candidate prior to the convention, then the nomination process becomes a formality.  It has always been thus, ever since Lincoln took the nomination by planning to be everyone's second choice rather than a majority's first choice.

Quote

Trump has gathered 40% of the popular vote.  40% of the vote is not unpopular. If Trump was the establishment candidate, we wouldn't even be talking about this-the news media, pundits, etc. were be whipping the people into getting behind him.

In point of fact, Trump doesn't have 40% of the votes cast to date; he has 37%.  His unfavorables are uniquely high, and those are no more due to the media than his favorables are due to his ad buys.  In an almost unparalleled way, Trump has managed to convey himself--his real self--to the American electorate in spite of the spin from either the media or his own campaign; and that is what's causing the reaction to him--both positive and negative.

And, you're going to have a hard time playing the "anti-establishment" card against a Cruz supporter.  Cruz was defending gun rights and ten commandments monuments before the Supreme Court back when Trump was still writing checks to Hillary. 

Quote

I get it, Christians and LDS hate Trump b/c they think he is an immoral jerk.  I got news for you . . .so is Cruz! Cruz plays the guy who takes the moral high ground but in his soul he is just as Machiavellian and immoral as the rest.  I've evaluated the links between Amanda Carpenter and Cruz and while I can't say for sure; there is smoke, whether it was simply an unprofessional relationship or more I don't know-all I do know is that there is something there.

It's not just about sex (though that is part of it, and Trump's issues are known whereas Cruz's remain a matter of innuendo accepted primarily by those disposed to dislike him).  It's about hurting people who entrusted him with their investments, and then gloating about it.  It's about unabashed crony capitalism.  It's about his own brand of creepiness, which I've written about elsewhere in these forums.  And above all, it's about an allegiance to conservatism that seems tenuous at best.

Quote

It is really quite sad, because I agree with 95% of what Cruz says and I agree with about 65% of what Trump says, yet I'd rather have Trump over Cruz.  There is just something very creepy and off about Cruz. Whether it is the way he cracks a sly smile after almost every applause line, whether it is the way he delivers every sentence like he is giving a speech, whether it's the video of him @ 18 saying his goal in life was world domination. I just don't know. I'm extremely leery of having a freshman senator (who claims he is a hard-core tea party/liberty conservative) elected.  Yes his 4-year voting record is really good . . .but man there is just something about the guy that really concerns me.

I find Cruz's smirks and mannerisms to be off-putting as well, but his conservative credentials--unlike Trump's--are beyond question.  If you feel the Spirit saying there's something wrong with Cruz, obviously I can't argue with that; but otherwise--I think substance has to (pardon the pun) trump style.

Quote

Cruz has a really good ground game; he will take a lot of the delegates the 2nd round (if there is one). The problem that Cruz people have that they don't seem to realize is that if Trump gets over 1000 delegates, wins NY & Cali and if the National polls continue like this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.htmlhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html 

and Cruz gets the nomination over Trump there are going to be a lot of really ticked off people. The national polls have Trump @ 40, Cruz @30, and Kasich @ 20. Kasich isn't dropping out because he is playing the spoiling.  All of Kasichs support wouldn't go to Cruz. A good portion of it could go to Trump and put him over 50%.

Trump is a force to be reckoned with-40% is a lot of support (the last poll had him @ 45%). If Cruz (given the current state) wins today over Trump it will simply prove what Trump is saying, the system is rigged it's rigged for the establishment benefit.

If that happens and the Cruz and Trump people can't come together, goodbye Nov. election, hello Bernie Sanders.

Can I just take a moment to point out that, in a thread that was intended to rebuke those who say they will never vote for Trump (even at risk of losing the general):  here you are, saying we should bow and scrape to the folks who take precisely the same position about Cruz.

And this talk about the system being rigged is frankly silly, just as it was silly to suggest that the system was rigged against Gore in 2000 when he won the popular vote but lost the election.  The Republican nomination process follows republican (small "r") principles of delegation and representation, and Trump's just embarrassed that he didn't bother to read the rules before the game started.  So he responds with the historically liberal strategies of "Blaming Someone Else™" and "If I Can't Have It, Burn It Down™".  

Cripes, YJacket.  With Trump as president, who needs Democrats?  It'll be an egomaniacal, uninformed, petulant child in the White House who spends most of his time trying to figure out how to hurt those who have crossed him--or in other words, the third term of Barack Obama; except that (you hope) he will be our dirtbag instead of their dirtbag.  

But, here's the thing about that:  in the ways that matter most, I don't think he'll be ours.

If all we're looking for is a third-world-type strongman who's a successful businessman with absolute apathy about who gets hurt by his business activities, isn't much for learning and following the rules, is reputedly a straight talker whose opinion can't be bought, has a trophy wife, and will undeniably make the Democrats squirm, then I say we skip the niceties and vote for El Chapo.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If all we're looking for is a third-world-type strongman who's a successful businessman with absolute apathy about who gets hurt by his business activities

JAG, I don't have time to respond to all, but quite frankly if this is your attitude of Trump-you quite frankly do not understand business. My dad recently bought out a small business owner.  The previous owner was a massive strong-arm jerk-egotistical, etc. In doing business, I can't tell you how many times my dad's phone calls to customers have gone like this "does xyz still work there? B/c if he does, I'll never do business with you again?" After some serious talk about new ownership, etc. the guy then says, well I might give it a shot.

To be a successful businessman you can not be a jerk to customers-if you are you will quickly find yourself out of business. You can't be a jerk to employees b/c if you are you will quickly find yourself without employees. 

I used to think Trump would be that "strong-arm" guy, I'm not quite so sure anymore.  Look all your strong-arm types, were not successful businessmen-they were successful politicians.

What Trump is, is a master at selling himself. He found a very good attack line that rocketed him to 30%, it enabled him to knock out most of the competition.  

http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/15856-megyn-kelly-reveals-what-happened-when-she-went-to-trump-tower-to-clear-the-air

You cannot in business create a multi-billion dollar company by being a strong-arm guy-you can use leverage, but even if you use leverage you have to know that at some point if you go to far you burn a bridge and that is a bridge you might need in the future.

And this is what I'm saying, if the Cruz people don't recognize that they need Trump and Trump doesn't recognize he needs the rest, they will both go down in flames come November. And as of right now, if Cruz wins over Trump there will be a lot of ticked off people who won't vote in November.

It is pretty simply, people don't like to lose, but if they lose and feel they are treated fairly they can become your friend, but if they lose and feel like they got screwed over, well now they are your enemy.

The Romney people screwed over the Ron Paul people in 2012 and Romney instead of using the opportunity to build a bridge, burned one. Kudos to Cruz for people organized, but I'm telling you if Trump comes out and has a plurality of votes and a plurality of delegates (according to rules) by say at least 10% above everyone else and he is shut out, the Republican Party will screw themselves over

I didn't vote for Romney in 2012, I felt the same that Romney vs. Obama wasn't much of a choice as Romney was/is pretty liberal (RomneyCare??), but had Romney thrown a bone to Paul, Sec. Treasurer, speech, etc. I could say sure, I'd vote for him b/c he is at least willing to try and bring me in.

And as far as reading the rules. . . this hasn't happened in 40 years and possible more like 100 years. None of the other campaigns recognized it either. Cruz is very well organized, but to win the delegate came that takes planning months ahead of any particular vote, people have to go to local precinct meetings, county meetings, district/state meetings, etc. What Cruz did is he learned from the Ron Paul crowd.  

Take Romney for example, I went to the local conventions, etc and there were no Romney people.  Romney didn't have a clue about the delegate process, b/c if he did we would have seen Ron Paul and Romney people fight it out; which didn't happen it was Ron Paul people vs. establishment people.  The fact is that for the last 40+ years, the establishment party bosses have picked the nominee.  I can't tell you the number of times I heard, we have to unify behind the Romney (even when he was only getting 30-40% of the vote) . . why b/c he was the establishment pick. Neither Cruz nor Trump is the establishment pick, so they are perfectly content to let them burn each other down and lose to Hillary/Sanders in Nov.

Edited April 18, 2016 by yjacket

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, yjacket said:

JAG, I don't have time to respond to all, but quite frankly if this is your attitude of Trump-you quite frankly do not understand business.

What, no genuine bad guys--or just plain jerks--ever rise to positions of power in business?  Trump's money means that his gloating bankruptcies, his treatment of women, his relishing the opportunity to humiliate people on national TV ("You're fired!!!"), never happened?

Quote

I used to think Trump would be that "strong-arm" guy, I'm not quite so sure anymore.  Look all your strong-arm types, were not successful businessmen-they were successful politicians.

His whole schtick is that he will get things done by making his subordinates comply and compelling adversaries to accept his deals.  That's not Fox spin; that's the image he's cultivated for himself.  

Quote

. . .  but even if you use leverage you have to know that at some point if you go to far you burn a bridge and that is a bridge you might need in the future.

Sez the guy who's openly talking about a third-party run if he doesn't get his way . . . 

Quote

And this is what I'm saying, if the Cruz people don't recognize that they need Trump and Trump doesn't recognize he needs the rest, they will both go down in flames come November. And as of right now, if Cruz wins over Trump there will be a lot of ticked off people who won't vote in November.

It is pretty simply, people don't like to lose, but if they lose and feel they are treated fairly they can become your friend, but if they lose and feel like they got screwed over, well now they are your enemy.

The Romney people screwed over the Ron Paul people in 2012 and Romney instead of using the opportunity to build a bridge, burned one. Kudos to Cruz for people organized, but I'm telling you if Trump comes out and has a plurality of votes and a plurality of delegates (according to rules) by say at least 10% above everyone else and he is shut out, the Republican Party will screw themselves over

I didn't vote for Romney in 2012, I felt the same that Romney vs. Obama wasn't much of a choice as Romney was/is pretty liberal (RomneyCare??), but had Romney thrown a bone to Paul, Sec. Treasurer, speech, etc. I could say sure, I'd vote for him b/c he is at least willing to try and bring me in.

If Trump supporters are more interested in sticking it to the "establishment" wing of the party than keeping Democrats out of the White House, then maybe it's time for us to re-think our coalition.  I mean--you were willing to keep Obama in the White House for an extra four years rather than see Romney win the election; but here you are now making a classical "do as I say, not as I did" argument.

Quote

And as far as reading the rules. . . this hasn't happened in 40 years and possible more like 100 years. None of the other campaigns recognized it either. Cruz is very well organized, but to win the delegate came that takes planning months ahead of any particular vote, people have to go to local precinct meetings, county meetings, district/state meetings, etc. What Cruz did is he learned from the Ron Paul crowd.  

Take Romney for example, I went to the local conventions, etc and there were no Romney people.  Romney didn't have a clue about the delegate process, b/c if he did we would have seen Ron Paul and Romney people fight it out; which didn't happen it was Ron Paul people vs. establishment people.  The fact is that for the last 40+ years, the establishment party bosses have picked the nominee.  I can't tell you the number of times I heard, we have to unify behind the Romney (even when he was only getting 30-40% of the vote) . . why b/c he was the establishment pick. Neither Cruz nor Trump is the establishment pick, so they are perfectly content to let them burn each other down and lose to Hillary/Sanders in Nov.

But you didn't unify behind Romney, and your desire to rip on him even now really undermines the crux of your argument.  Because Cruz, by your own admission, did learn from Paul's example and did understand, very early on, that a contested convention may well be in the offing--hence, the Cruz team's superior ground game.  

Trump had all the tools he needed to learn the same lesson and anticipate the same contingencies--but he didn't.  I know the standard reply to that is "well, Trump's not a politician, so how can he be expected to know this stuff?".  Is Donny Boy gonna use that same excuse when Putin completely outwits him, or when Trump discovers that checks-and-balances prevent him from pursuing his preferred strategy with ISIS without congressional approval, or when Trump wants the CIA to do something that is in fact illegal, or when Trump wants to deploy carrier groups and fighter wings that don't exist?

Edited April 18, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

On 4/16/2016 at 4:14 PM, prisonchaplain said:

At this point I remain #NeverTrump. I disagree with HRC on most issues. However, she strikes me as competent. She will choose her battles, and she will deal with foreign enemies intelligently. Trump strikes me as vindictive and short-tempered. Such is dangerous for the leader of the US. I'm still praying that the brokered convention will give us a better option. One columnist suggested a longshot (though with great certainty, as pundits are prone to do): Kasich/Rubio. The theory is that most Republicans in office hate both Trump and Cruz. Also, Kasich nearly always bests HRC in national polls. Rubio would shore up conservative support. I might grimace at that scenario, but I could vote for Kasich. He's a liberal Republican. He has the advantage of being sane, though.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/john-kasich-will-be-the-r_b_9638598.html

Note that there is a National Review article with a similar theme, so this isn't just liberal "advice" for their opponents.

 

On 4/16/2016 at 4:19 PM, Eowyn said:

I've been really torn on this issue, and this gives it some clarity for me. Thanks. 

That's the point of this thread.

The "vindictive, short-tempered, incompetent, racist, bigot, sexist etc. etc." labels are thrown around by the media in the same manner that the same accusations are made by Democrats of any Republican through the media.  Was Romney a Sexist because he has binders of women?  Or that he's cruel because he put his dog on the top of his car?  Of course not... but that's how that image gets ingrained into people's psyche...

I'm putting out the video for you to see what other people see in Trump.  Take the time to watch it from beginning to end.  There are several more videos out there that show this side of him.  I'll put them out here later.

Hillary is competent.  That is true.  She will competently take the country down the wrong road.  And that's a guarantee.  National Review's gripe is that Trump is not Conservative.  Their enemy in 2012 was Newt Gingrich - because Gingrich worked with Bill Clinton - which makes him not Conservative enough for them.  The Trumpsters like Jeff Sessions, Jam Brewer, Allan West, Rick Scott, and Sarah Palin - poster children of Tea Party conservatism - know he's not Conservative.  They also know he's not liberal.  They know he can champion Conservatism because even as he can't define what Conservative means, his instinctive ideals is more Conservative than Liberal - so much so that he's more Conservative than Kasich without even knowing it nor trying.  But then, the stupidity of National Review is they have the conservative golden boy in Ted Cruz... but they didn't endorse Cruz... rather, they only warmed up to Cruz when it became evident that Cruz is the only one who can stop Trump... so they're backing Cruz as an anti-Trump endorsement rather than a pro-Cruz endorsement.... Cruz - golden boy of conservatism... rejected by National Review.  Yep.  We could have had Cruz as the presumptive nominee today if conservatives like National Review and Mitt Romney would have ran a pro-Cruz campaign instead of an anti-Trump campaign.  Idiots.

Edited April 18, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

50 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

<snip... everything you said to me and yjacket>

Everything you say is valid for a Cruz versus Trump.  Don't vote Trump in the Primaries... vote Cruz.  Or Kasich... or whoever.

Everything you say needs to be re-evaluated for a Hillary versus Trump in the General Elections.  That's the point of this thread. 

Trump's unfavorables is largely due to the Never Trump campaign.  If the Republicans worked even just half as hard as they have in trying to beat Trump against Obama in 2008 and 2012, they would have succeeded in a landslide.  Have you ever heard of a Never Obama campaign?

The problem with the Never Trump campaign is they have successfully shot themselves in the foot and convinced even die-hard Republicans such as PC and yourself to accept Republican party defeat if Trump becomes the nominee.  They've successfully made Trump a caricature that is a baton that is easily handed over to the Democrats in a general if it fails in the primaries.  This is completely unprecedented in modern party history.  What's more - not only have they successfully painted Trump as this caricature, they have also successfully painted Trump voters as this caricature so much so that it would be nigh impossible to bring these people back to the party that hates them - when somebody else other than Trump comes out on top in the convention.

I am pretty sure you are not fine with Hillary.  I am not fine with Hillary and I'm not even American.  Hence, the purpose of this thread.

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But you didn't unify behind Romney, and your desire to rip on him even now really undermines the crux of your argument.  Because Cruz, by your own admission, did learn from Paul's example and did understand, very early on, that a contested convention may well be in the offing--hence, the Cruz team's superior ground game.  

No, I didn't and I don't care what anyone else thinks; I vote my conscience. You see, I will most likely vote Libertarian in the fall. Because regardless about what people say "this is the most important election . . . blah,blah, blah" it isn't and things will keep going the same way. The only way for things to change is to dismantle the power structure and that ain't happening anytime soon.

My desire to rip on Romney??? I tell you some people see blood when it comes to politics and they just quite simply can't seem to have a rational logical discussion. I have no desire to rip on Romney-I simply explained the way things were and tried to use it as an illustrative example of why when one side is out for blood and is unwilling to compromise with the other side that bad things happen.  I've seen it at the local level, the State level and now at the National level. That is what will happen this political cycle if Trump is shut out at the RNC.

You simply want to deny that Trump has significant support.  If your goal is to win the White House with Cruz in the fall, you are quite simply cutting off your nose to spite your face in denying it. 

I'm not a shill for either of them a pox on both their houses. I think Cruz is a sleazy, lying, narcissist individual who has had thoughts on world domination and being President since he was 18 (go look up his video-he says it). I think Trump is a egotistical jerk.  No I do not believe that Cruz is actually principled; I think he is a politician who's main aspiration is power and being President (he's had that as his life goal since he was a Senior in High School). The best men in the race have already dropped out.

I think Romney was a moral guy, I just didn't care for his policies (and to a very large degree, Obama has been neutered by a R congress).

Edited April 18, 2016 by yjacket

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Everything you say needs to be re-evaluated for a Hillary versus Trump in the General Elections.  That's the point of this thread.

Perhaps so; but your insistence on having this discussion before Trump is even nominated . . . frankly, I suspect an ulterior motive here.  I know you've claimed to not really be in Trump's camp, and I'm sure such statements are sincere.  But your posts on a variety of threads lead me to believe that you do prefer him to the other Republican candidates, even if it's not something you're consciously aware of.  You have certainly given the impression of openly advocating for him and his interests.

Quote

Trump's unfavorables is largely due to the Never Trump campaign.  If the Republicans worked even just half as hard as they have in trying to beat Trump against Obama in 2008 and 2012, they would have succeeded in a landslide.  Have you ever heard of a Never Obama campaign?

I think you've got your causality backwards.  Trump had a 60% negative rating all the way back in January.  #NeverTrump is a result of grass-roots dislike of the guy; not the other way around.  Moreover, if a March 22 CNN story is correct, #NeverTrump is actually backfiring; because Trump's disapproval as of March is now "down to" 57%.

Quote

The problem with the Never Trump campaign is they have successfully shot themselves in the foot and convinced even die-hard Republicans such as PC and yourself to accept Republican party defeat if Trump becomes the nominee. They've successfully made Trump a caricature that is a baton that is easily handed over to the Democrats in a general if it fails in the primaries. This is completely unprecedented in modern party history.  What's more - not only have they successfully painted Trump as this caricature, they have also successfully painted Trump voters as this caricature so much so that it would be nigh impossible to bring these people back to the party that hates them - when somebody else other than Trump comes out on top in the convention.

This is typical Trumpist turnabout.  You accuse me of having had my opinion formed for me by third parties, and accuse #NeverTrumpers of having made Trump into a caricature; when the truth is that it's Trump supporters who are demonizing the Republicans who refuse to board the Trump Train (you yourself just impugned my independence and decision-making processes due to my reluctance to support Trump), and it's Trump's own marketing that has made him a caricature (one that a number of Republicans find attractive, for whatever reason).  Moreover, it is Trump supporters who are saying they won't re-join the party--to the extent of openly talking of a third party run--if anyone but their boy gets the nomination.

Quote

I am pretty sure you are not fine with Hillary.  I am not fine with Hillary and I'm not even American.  Hence, the purpose of this thread.

I'm not fine with Hillary, but Trump is.  Else, he would never have given her money.

If Trump gets the nomination, I'll be more than happy to hear you explain (if you can) why a vote for Trump is not, fundamentally, a vote for Hillary at worst, and a Clintonesque center-leftist at best.  But right now, I think we can get ourselves a better nominee.  And yeah, your insistence on talking about Trump as the presumptive nominee raises a lot of questions to me.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think you've got your causality backwards.

There you go obscuring things with facts. 

[Just_A_Guy]

45 minutes ago, yjacket said:

No, I didn't and I don't care what anyone else thinks; I vote my conscience. You see, I will most likely vote Libertarian in the fall. Because regardless about what people say "this is the most important election . . . blah,blah, blah" it isn't and things will keep going the same way. The only way for things to change is to dismantle the power structure and that ain't happening anytime soon.

You insist on the right to vote your conscience, but the rest of us should hold our noses and vote for Trump?  If you really want the power structure dismantled, you should welcome a Cruz nomination and a Trumpist revolt. 

Quote

My desire to rip on Romney??? I tell you some people see blood when it comes to politics and they just quite simply can't seem to have a rational logical discussion. I have no desire to rip on Romney-I simply explained the way things were and tried to use it as an illustrative example of why when one side is out for blood and is unwilling to compromise with the other side that bad things happen.  I've seen it at the local level, the State level and now at the National level. That is what will happen this political cycle if Trump is shut out at the RNC.

"Nice little party ya got there.  Shame if anything were to . . . happen . . . to it.  Say, you'll be voting for my guy at convention--won't you????"

You can, perhaps, see why this line of argument disturbs me.

Quote

You simply want to deny that Trump has significant support.  If your goal is to win the White House with Cruz in the fall, you are quite simply cutting off your nose to spite your face in denying it.

Oh, I'm not denying Trump has significant support.  What I am denying is that that non-majoritarian support entitles him to the nomination of a party that, to a near-unprecedented degree, despises the man.  If Trump loses the nomination, then the Trumpists can make peace with the fact that the party-at-large didn't want their candidate; or they can go ahead and break the party.  If the Trumpists do prefer to let the party disintegrate and reconstruct itself now, rather than continue on another couple of decades with their party under the domination of folks they can't stand--well, they aren't the only Republicans who feel that way.  So vive la revolution, I guess.

Quote

No I do not believe that Cruz is actually principled; I think he is a politician who's main aspiration is power and being President (he's had that as his life goal since he was a Senior in High School). The best men in the race have already dropped out.

I'm inclined to agree that we had some excellent candidates drop out (I wonder whether the relative dearth of endorsements by ex-candidates means that a lot of them are hoping to play a white-knight role at the convention).  Cruz is certainly very canny with his messaging; but I don't see a lot of fundamental flip-flopping over core values and those who've known him since college agree that he's pretty die-hard in his conservatism.  And I, for one, am not particularly fazed by a teenager cutting up on camera about ruling the world someday--if that's the worst thing Cruz has done, that's pretty weak-sauce.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Perhaps so; but your insistence on having this discussion before Trump is even nominated . . . frankly, I suspect an ulterior motive here.  I know you've claimed to not really be in Trump's camp, and I'm sure such statements are sincere.  But your posts on a variety of threads lead me to believe that you do prefer him to the other Republican candidates, even if it's not something you're consciously aware of.  You have certainly given the impression of openly advocating for him and his interests.

I think you've got your causality backwards.  Trump had a 60% negative rating all the way back in January.  #NeverTrump is a result of grass-roots dislike of the guy; not the other way around.  Moreover, if a March 22 CNN story is correct, #NeverTrump is actually backfiring; because Trump's disapproval as of March is now "down to" 57%.

This is typical Trumpist turnabout.  You accuse me of having had my opinion formed for me by third parties, and accuse #NeverTrumpers of having made Trump into a caricature; when the truth is that it's Trump supporters who are demonizing the Republicans who refuse to board the Trump Train (you yourself just impugned my independence and decision-making processes due to my reluctance to support Trump), and it's Trump's own marketing that has made him a caricature (one that a number of Republicans find attractive, for whatever reason).  Moreover, it is Trump supporters who are saying they won't re-join the party--to the extent of openly talking of a third party run--if anyone but their boy gets the nomination.

I'm not fine with Hillary, but Trump is.  Else, he would never have given her money.

If Trump gets the nomination, I'll be more than happy to hear you explain (if you can) why a vote for Trump is not, fundamentally, a vote for Hillary at worst, and a Clintonesque center-leftist at best.  But right now, I think we can get ourselves a better nominee.  And yeah, your insistence on talking about Trump as the presumptive nominee raises a lot of questions to me.

Yes, I prefer Carson over everybody else.  Yes, I preferred Gingrich over Romney.  It didn't stop me from housing Romney volunteers in my house to win Florida in the general.  After Carson, I wanted Scott Walker - but he ran out of money fast.

Cruz versus Trump - I prefer Trump.  I don't believe Cruz qualifies for POTUS because of his birth.  Look, I am Filipino married to an American birthing kids in Florida.  They have dual citizenship - they are Natural Born Americans but they are NOT Natural Born Filipinos - it required an act of Philippine Congress to make them so.  That's the same for Cruz - he is born in Canada to a Cuban dad (turned Canadian 2 years after Cruz' brith) and an American mom.  He is born an American Citizen through an act of Congress.  Think about this - if the San Bernardino couple would have birthed a child in the Middle East raised as a jihadist... under Cruz's interpretation of the law, that kid qualifies to be the President of the USA... you might think, oh, he's never going to get elected!  Think again... Utah just voted an avowed Socialist in big numbers...  My 2nd reason - his resume has no executive experience - just like Obama's.  My 3rd reason - I want him to be appointed in the SCOTUS to take over Scalia's robes, if not, then I want him debating all day long in Congress - that's what he's really good at - the law, the Constitution, and debating.  He is the perfect guy to make laws in the Legislative branch - I need him to kick butt there.  But yes, if he's the nominee, I'll be working in his campaign office in Florida.

Trump versus Kasich - not much preference either way... Trump has an edge because of his foreign policy... but I'm not yet sure if I really want that foreign policy... I'm still mulling over it.  I know I don't like Bush's which is Kasich's.  That's about it.

I will answer the 3rd paragraph in several posts after this.  The answer to this question is the reason for this thread.  If the NeverTrump movement never happened in the primaries, I wouldn't be talking about this in the primaries.  Remember this:  The NeverTrump movement are not pro-Cruz.  If you're a Cruz voter, you need to pay close attention to what the NeverTrumpers are trying to pull off.

 

Edited April 18, 2016 by anatess2

[yjacket]

53 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You insist on the right to vote your conscience, but the rest of us should hold our noses and vote for Trump?  If you really want the power structure dismantled, you should welcome a Cruz nomination and a Trumpist revolt. 

"Nice little party ya got there.  Shame if anything were to . . . happen . . . to it.  Say, you'll be voting for my guy at convention--won't you????"

Where did I say that you personally have to vote for Trump, boy you sure are typing a lot of vitriol into the screen. Either I'm not explaining it properly or you are simply being obtuse in your hatred for Trump.

I think everyone should vote their conscience, I've never said not too.  What I have said is that if either Trump or Cruz want to win in November and get the most people to vote for them in the Fall they will need each other.  In my primary I voted for Rand (even after he dropped out-he was on the ballot). In 2012, I could have voted for Romney-had Romney been willing to work with the significant Liberty wing, sure. A small victory is better than no victory. I simply did not see his policies as much different than Obama, and I'm not voting for the lesser of 2 evils for President.

But, how many times did I get lamblasted for not voting for Romney . . . hmm-what is good for the goose is good for the gander :-).

The delegates at the convention have significant power to bend the candidates to come together on a compromise.

You are the one who is being obstinate in not recognizing this fact.

Yes I do want the power structure dismantled, but having been apart of a few bloodless power take-overs; without the ability to actually try to work with the other side and come together on common ground it is pointless.

Unwillingness to work together, despite ideological differences is what causes wars.  It is what caused the Civil War, it is what causes divorces.  The problem with bad-blood feuds, is that it takes a long time to heal from it.

Trump has some very good points, he isn't socialist, he is a Nationalist and if you don't think the US of A hasn't trended towards massive globalism and a dependence on World Organizations over the last 30 years then I don't know what to tell you.

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 And I, for one, am not particularly fazed by a teenager cutting up on camera about ruling the world someday--if that's the worst thing Cruz has done, that's pretty weak-sauce.

And it's not just one incident of cutting up.  He wrote in his Senior yearbook his ultimate goal was to be President of the US. Take a look at what people who worked with him in George W. Bush's administration (that should give you pause right there -GWB was hardly a constitutional conservative) have said. Look at what people in his college have said about him.  True it could all be a smear campaign, but my gut tells me the guy is a narcissistic snake in the grass. He wants power, and he wants it bad.  His policies sound really good, but those who want power will compromise their principles (and there is a difference between compromise on principles and working together) in a heartbeat to stay in power.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If Trump gets the nomination, I'll be more than happy to hear you explain (if you can) why a vote for Trump is not, fundamentally, a vote for Hillary at worst, and a Clintonesque center-leftist at best.  But right now, I think we can get ourselves a better nominee.  And yeah, your insistence on talking about Trump as the presumptive nominee raises a lot of questions to me.

I'm not gonna wait until after Cleveland.  I'll start putting this up there.  There is a very strong likelihood he's going to get 1,237 before the first ballot.  He needs 495 to get to majority - he's going to get over 100 by end of April.  He'll get over 100 in May, He'll get over 100 in June.  Then the practitioner of the Art of the Deal will make a play for the rest of the needed votes on the unbound delegates before the 1st ballot.  He has all the toys to make this so - ride to the convention on the Trump Plane, spend the week before the convention at the Trump Towers, zipping to the golf courses before going to Cleveland... he'll have all day everyday to talk to them about his position on the issues with full-on Donald charm.  Remember Romney's effusive praise of the Mar-a-lago?  Yeah... that one.  Yes, Cruz's flawless victory on the ground game can make a play for these delegates as well... but, he needs too many to win the 1st ballot.  His only chance is the 2nd ballot.  But yes, if Trump has to go to 2nd ballot, the favor is going to swing to Cruz... and this is when Cruz will feel how it feels to be Donald Trump... because this is when the establishment will screw him over.  So this post is not just to get you guys to see through the demagoguery of Trump - this is also to get you to see through the NeverTrumpers to their real objectives.

 

So... from what you're saying... Trump has no fundamental backbone.  I beg to differ.  Watch these videos in succession and you will see consistency in whatever political climate he happens to be in.

Trump on Free Trade in 1988... this is on the tail end of the Reagan presidency:

 

 

Trump stating the same thing on Free Trade with a little detail on what he would do if he was in charge of things back in 2010 in an Obama presidency:

 

 

Romney stating Trump's expertise on the same Free Trade issue in 2012 on Romney's campaign:

 

 

Even more details now on this same exact issue on his 2016 Presidential run (first 3 minutes or so):

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2016 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, yjacket said:

Where did I say that you personally have to vote for Trump, boy you sure are typing a lot of vitriol into the screen. Either I'm not explaining it properly or you are simply being obtuse in your hatred for Trump.

. . . .

The delegates at the convention have significant power to bend the candidates to come together on a compromise.

You are the one who is being obstinate in not recognizing this fact.

Yes I do want the power structure dismantled, but having been apart of a few bloodless power take-overs; without the ability to actually try to work with the other side and come together on common ground it is pointless.

Unwillingness to work together, despite ideological differences is what causes wars.  It is what caused the Civil War, it is what causes divorces.  The problem with bad-blood feuds, is that it takes a long time to heal from it.

There is a certain amount of double-talk involved with advocating for a particular advocate while similarly denying that one wants anyone to actually support said candidate. And it's interesting to me how compromise and come together, in your lingo, essentially boil down to "give my guy what he wants".  That tactic, too, is right out of the progressive playbook.

5 hours ago, yjacket said:

And it's not just one incident of cutting up.  He wrote in his Senior yearbook his ultimate goal was to be President of the US. Take a look at what people who worked with him in George W. Bush's administration (that should give you pause right there -GWB was hardly a constitutional conservative) have said. Look at what people in his college have said about him.  True it could all be a smear campaign, but my gut tells me the guy is a narcissistic snake in the grass. He wants power, and he wants it bad.  His policies sound really good, but those who want power will compromise their principles (and there is a difference between compromise on principles and working together) in a heartbeat to stay in power.

Most of what I've seen his classmates say is that he was bright, hard-line conservative, and remarkably driven.  He does have a worrisome number of former personal associates who don't like him much any more--so does Trump, by the way--but I think you read a heck of a lot into the mere fact that he wanted to be president (when was the last time we had a president who didn't want the job?) 

What conservative principles has Cruz compromised during his time in public service, other than accepting a job where he would--and did--have countless opportunities to nudge a center-right president further into the conservative fold?

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not gonna wait until after Cleveland.  I'll start putting this up there.  There is a very strong likelihood he's going to get 1,237 before the first ballot.  He needs 495 to get to majority - he's going to get over 100 by end of April.  He'll get over 100 in May, He'll get over 100 in June.  Then the practitioner of the Art of the Deal will make a play for the rest of the needed votes on the unbound delegates before the 1st ballot.  He has all the toys to make this so - ride to the convention on the Trump Plane, spend the week before the convention at the Trump Towers, zipping to the golf courses before going to Cleveland... he'll have all day everyday to talk to them about his position on the issues with full-on Donald charm.

Allow me to rephrase this:

My boy is going to buy the Republican nomination, so nanny nanny boo boo!!!

Even more amazingly--not only are you OK with this; but you seemingly can't fathom why some American citizens wouldn't be.

Quote

Yes, Cruz's flawless victory on the ground game can make a play for these delegates as well... but, he needs too many to win the 1st ballot.  His only chance is the 2nd ballot.  But yes, if Trump has to go to 2nd ballot, the favor is going to swing to Cruz... and this is when Cruz will feel how it feels to be Donald Trump... because this is when the establishment will screw him over.  So this post is not just to get you guys to see through the demagoguery of Trump - this is also to get you to see through the NeverTrumpers to their real objectives.

The point of the NeverTrumpers is to keep Trump out of the White House, pure and simple.  That may entail the nomination's going to Cruz (I hope it does), but I'm quite cognizant that it may not--as Glenn Reynolds is fond of saying, "They hate Trump, but they fear Cruz".  But frankly, no one whose name has come up would be worse than Trump, who--you just said yourself--is planning to bribe his way into the nomination.

Quote

So... from what you're saying... Trump has no fundamental backbone.  I beg to differ.  Watch these videos in succession and you will see consistency in whatever political climate he happens to be in.

Trump on Free Trade in 1988... this is on the tail end of the Reagan presidency:

I'm in a courthouse with poor WiFi right now, so I can't get your videos to play (transcripts certainly welcome).  Do they show Trump agreeing with Bernie Sanders and kvetching about the outsourcing of American jobs?  If so, do they also show him explaining why he outsourced so much work to foreign companies himself?

[prisonchaplain]

I could be wrong on this, but it is my sense that most of us who are conservative #NeverTrumpers were not swayed by media. We watched him debate, heard him speak, and yes, know of his record and reputation (prior to his political ascent). We don't like him, don't trust him, don't believe him to be steady, or moral. We were not talked into this perspective. We came to it. We mentally processed, but also had gut reactions. It's amazing how easy it is for me to talk to liberals these days. They start to editorialize on Trump, and I sigh, and say, "I happen to be conservative (or Republican), but I hear you loud and clear." They pat me on the shoulder and say, "There...there."  Of course, as they leave, I can hear a mild snicker.

Anybody else remember when BC was Before Christ, instead of the fleeting hope of a Brokered Convention???

[Guest MormonGator]

22 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I could be wrong on this, but it is my sense that most of us who are conservative #NeverTrumpers were not swayed by media. We watched him debate, heard him speak, and yes, know of his record and reputation (prior to his political ascent). We don't like him, don't trust him, don't believe him to be steady, or moral. We were not talked into this perspective. We came to it. We mentally processed, but also had gut reactions. It's amazing how easy it is for me to talk to liberals these days. They start to editorialize on Trump, and I sigh, and say, "I happen to be conservative (or Republican), but I hear you loud and clear." They pat me on the shoulder and say, "There...there."  Of course, as they leave, I can hear a mild snicker.

Anybody else remember when BC was Before Christ, instead of the fleeting hope of a Brokered Convention???

It is not easy. Between NeverTrumprers and Trumpers reasonable conservatives (I'm libertarian but I usually vote republican as well) are just more exhausted and beaten up then we have been in years. 

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There is a certain amount of double-talk involved with advocating for a particular advocate while similarly denying that one wants anyone to actually support said candidate. And it's interesting to me how compromise and come together, in your lingo, essentially boil down to "give my guy what he wants".  That tactic, too, is right out of the progressive playbook.

I'm in a courthouse with poor WiFi right now, so I can't get your videos to play (transcripts certainly welcome).  Do they show Trump agreeing with Bernie Sanders and kvetching about the outsourcing of American jobs?  If so, do they also show him explaining why he outsourced so much work to foreign companies himself?

Point blankly, have you ever owned your own business? Been involved at any high level in the owning of a business?  I have spoken no double-talk. I have never said that compromise is "give my give what he wants". I have said multiple times, Trump and Cruz will have to figure out how to come together and work with each other. What does that actually look like? I have no clue, maybe it involves cabinet positions, maybe it involves platform changes. That is not "give my guy what he wants".  You have continually been obtuse during this conversation.

Me: They both have sizable contingents and need to compromise together if they want the other's support (which they need) to win in Nov.

You: Trump doesn't have any support (it is insignificant). You're version of compromise is "give me what I want"

Me: No, compromise means finding common ground. I don't like either of them-I'm not a fan-boy of either of them.

You: Trump is a bully, you are double-talking by not supporting one.

Me: No, I like some positions of one and some positions of the other. I like Cruz's conservative and I like Trump's anti-globalization.

You: Trump isn't anti-globalization look at xyz. etc., etc. etc.

Look, I get it you hate Trump so much you can't even carry on a conversation about him.  I dislike both of them, but I can carry on a logical conversation about both. You simply see blood.

So what if Trump agrees with Sanders on outsourcing of American jobs? Just because 90% of the other sides ideas are wrong, doesn't mean you can't agree on the 10% that might you know actually be right.

In business, there is something called economics (I know try and keep up with this here). Economic law dictates that if there is a cheap way to manufacture/produce/sell something and you as a business owner don't do it-and it is legal-your competition will.  And when your competition does it, they will eat your lunch. I don't blame Trump for oursourcing jobs, anymore than I blame Romney for hiring illegals-it is simple economics. If you change the laws like get rid of things like NAFTA, reduce coporate taxes, etc, then much of the economic incentive to outsource jobs goes away and businesses will not outsource as much.

In fact, I probably trust Trump on this issue more because he actually understands the why. Politicians will blather about outsourcing, but either don't want to or won't admit the reasons why businesses do it.

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I could be wrong on this, but it is my sense that most of us who are conservative #NeverTrumpers were not swayed by media.

The best political masterminds, plant the seed so that others will really think it was their idea all along.  How many times did I hear in 2008 with McCain and 2012 with Romney . . .you've got to support them otherwise you are a "bad republican", etc. etc. etc.

Yet now, because the establishment didn't get their candidate all that talk is gone and it is replaced by #NeverTrump. It is simply fascinating to watch the hypocrisy (not saying you individually are, pc-b/c that's not the case, just the hypocrisy in general).

If Trump were the establishment pick, #NeverTrump would have died on the vine.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

Point blankly, have you ever owned your own business? Been involved at any high level in the owning of a business?  

Yes, I have owned a business.  I also currently serve on the board of directors of a nonprofit with close government ties.  And my positions have never led me to do anything that I sincerely believed should be illegal.  

Somehow, I think it would be tacky to ask you what admittedly immoral things you have done for the benefit of one of your money-making endeavors; so I'll forbear.

Quote

I have spoken no double-talk.

I stand by my earlier comment.  Either you want Cruz to forego a contested convention and concede to Trump after the first ballot regardless of the delegate count--or you don't.  But let's have done with all this concern-trolling about "division" within the party ranks, when we're really just trying to get the candidate(s) we don't like to go away.

Quote

I have never said that compromise is "give my give what he wants".

I have said multiple times, Trump and Cruz will have to figure out how to come together and work with each other. What does that actually look like? I have no clue, maybe it involves cabinet positions, maybe it involves platform changes. That is not "give my guy what he wants".  You have continually been obtuse during this conversation.

Somehow I doubt that when you said the sides would have to "come together", you actually meant that in the event of a Cruz victory at convention Trump should endorse the nominee and do everything in his power to rally all those "ticked off" Trump supporters into supporting the Cruz ticket.

Quote

Me: They both have sizable contingents and need to compromise together if they want the other's support (which they need) to win in Nov.

You: Trump doesn't have any support (it is insignificant). You're version of compromise is "give me what I want"

Me: No, compromise means finding common ground. I don't like either of them-I'm not a fan-boy of either of them.

You: Trump is a bully, you are double-talking by not supporting one.

Me: No, I like some positions of one and some positions of the other. I like Cruz's conservative and I like Trump's anti-globalization.

You: Trump isn't anti-globalization look at xyz. etc., etc. etc.

Look, I get it you hate Trump so much you can't even carry on a conversation about him.  I dislike both of them, but I can carry on a logical conversation about both. You simply see blood.

This mischaracterization of our exchange and your clear animus towards me is, frankly, well short of the logic and thoughtfulness that typically characterize your posts. I think the record is quite clear as to who's offering coherent replies to whom.

Quote

So what if Trump agrees with Sanders on outsourcing of American jobs? Just because 90% of the other sides ideas are wrong, doesn't mean you can't agree on the 10% that might you know actually be right.

In business, there is something called economics (I know try and keep up with this here). Economic law dictates that if there is a cheap way to manufacture/produce/sell something and you as a business owner don't do it-and it is legal-your competition will.  And when your competition does it, they will eat your lunch. I don't blame Trump for oursourcing jobs, anymore than I blame Romney for hiring illegals-it is simple economics. If you change the laws like get rid of things like NAFTA, reduce coporate taxes, etc, then much of the economic incentive to outsource jobs goes away and businesses will not outsource as much.

In fact, I probably trust Trump on this issue more because he actually understands the why. Politicians will blather about outsourcing, but either don't want to or won't admit the reasons why businesses do it.

Just to be clear, I don't think Trump and Sanders are both right on free trade; I think they're both wrong.  I have no problem with free trade generally or with Trump the businessman outsourcing labor to cheaper markets.  What I have a major problem with, is Candidate Trump demanding that the avenues Businessman Trump took to build his wealth, ought now to be closed to the hoi polloi.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[mirkwood]

13 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 I don't believe Cruz qualifies for POTUS because of his birth. 

 

Then you don't understand the rules on what constitutes a natural born citizen of the US.

 

Let me help you out:

 

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”^1×1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

 

You can read more about it here:   http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

 

In short, it doesn't matter what YOU think, it matters what the law states.  The law trumps (oh dear bad pun) your opinion.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by mirkwood

[anatess2]

7 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Then you don't understand the rules on what constitutes a natural born citizen of the US.

 

Let me help you out:

 

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”^1×1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

 

You can read more about it here:   http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

 

In short, it doesn't matter what YOU think, it matters what the law states.  The law trumps (oh dear bad pun) your opinion.

 

 

That is not settled law.  If it was, there wouldn't be a debate about it on the Lawyers Forums.  This includes the fierce insistence of Obama - a lawyer - that he wasn't born in Kenya.  If this was settled law, Obama would have just said, "So what if I was born in Kenya?".

That definition is not correct by the way... A natural born citizen and a citizen at birth are not the same.  Natural born has a heavier requirement than citizen at birth.  Citizen at birth does not require naturalization.  Natural born citizen means they didn't require an act of Congress to make them citizens.  Extending citizenship to predicted non-natural born citizens so they wouldn't have to go through naturalization is an act of Congress.

As it stands, the SCOTUS has not defined/interpreted the meaning of Natural Born.  That's why it's not settled law.  There are 2 ways to make this settled - the SCOTUS interprets it or Congress enters a definition for it in the books.

This is the same as '"anchor baby" being a citizen at birth (obviously not Natural born - so you see how the 2 are different).  That's not settled law... no matter what YOU think about it.

Edited April 19, 2016 by anatess2

[LeSellers]

7 hours ago, mirkwood said:

it doesn't matter what YOU think, it matters what the law states.  The law trumps (oh dear bad pun) your opinion.

The problem is, the law is frequently unconstitutional.

Either one believes the Framers were inspired and wise, and that the contract they wrote between the government and "[us] the people" should be honored as they meant it or one accepts the fluidity of malleability of the Ddocument.

The Founders understood "natural born citizen" to mean one born to two citizen parents, born on USmerican soil (unless the parent was abroad on official government business). This is why they had to write into the Document an inclusion for themselves (and many of their children and grandchildren: "… or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this constitution." If all it required was being a citizen, even a citizen at birth, this would not have been necessary. None of the Framers was a natural born citizen, they were all born as subjects of the British Crown, and became citizens by law.

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

A natural born citizen and a citizen at birth are not the same.  Natural born has a heavier requirement than citizen at birth.  Citizen at birth does not require naturalization.  Natural born citizen means they didn't require an act of Congress to make them citizens.

This is critical.

The Framers expressly thanks Thomas Jefferson for his gift of a French book, La loi des gens, saying they used it to guide them as they wrote the Constitution. We know that both Franklin and Washington read French, so Vattel's book was read and understood in French, not in translation. He explicitly says that a naturel, a natural born citizen, is as described above.

A couple of decades later, we have a contemporary's account of and explanation of natural born citizen, and he echos the same idea.

I cna give references, but it will take a while.

Cruz, Rubio, Jindahl, none is eligible for the office of the presidency.

Unless the "law" and law schools trump (no pun intended) the Constitution.

Lehi

Edited April 19, 2016 by LeSellers

[anatess2]

26 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The problem is, the law is frequently unconstitutional.

Either one believes the Framers were inspired and wise, and that the contract they wrote between the government and "[us] the people" should be honored as they meant it or one accepts the fluidity of malleability of the Ddocument.

The Founders understood "natural born citizen" to mean one born to two citizen parents, born on USmerican soil (unless the parent was abroad on official government business). This is why they had to write into the Document an inclusion for themselves (and many of their children and grandchildren: "… or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this constitution." If all it required was being a citizen, even a citizen at birth, this would not have been necessary. None of the Framers was a natural born citizen, they were all born as subjects of the British Crown, and became citizens by law.

This is critical.

The Framers expressly thanks Thomas Jefferson for his gift of a French book, La loi des gens, saying they used it to guide them as they wrote the Constitution. We know that both Franklin and Washington read French, so Vattel's book was read and understood in French, not in translation. He explicitly says that a naturel, a natural born citizen, is as described above.

A couple of decades later, we have a contemporary's account of and explanation of natural born citizen, and he echos the same idea.

I cna give references, but it will take a while.

Cruz, Rubio, Jindahl, none is eligible for the office of the presidency.

Unless the "law" and law schools trump (no pun intended) the Constitution.

Lehi

Not to be too picky... but...

During the founding, women were not expressly granted citizenship.  So, a one-parent citizenship is the minimum requirement in addition to being born within US soil.  Hence, my kids are natural born having their father an American citizen and the kids born on American soil.

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

That is not settled law.  If it was, there wouldn't be a debate about it on the Lawyers Forums. 

It actually is, or else he wouldn't have gotten that far in the first place. Lawyers forums don't have much weight in the real world.