GLOATFEST #1: Thank you Iowa For Saving the Republic for Now

[packyderms_wife]

With Cruz, there is a question of fundamental honesty (or stupidity). He didn't know until 2014 that he held dual citizenship and that would be a problem? Sorry, but for a guy as smart as he is (and I genuinely think he's very book smart), I don't buy it.

This is rather odd that he would not know he had dual citizenship, if had a passport before 2014 he would had to declare the other countries he was a citizen of.

 

[packyderms_wife]

I'll ask again because I am still waiting for the citation / legal reference where the above quoted requirements are stated.

ETA: Currently, citizenship in the U.S. is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf (page 74 of the PDF - section 301 paragraph 7)

The most recent changes to statutory law were done by Congress in 2001. So since this most recent debate has circulated around Cruz, I am going to focus on one particular section… birth abroad to one U.S. citizen.

There are a certain set of rules for those born after November 14, 1986, but I’m focusing on the rules at the time of Cruz’s birth, which are the rules that were in effect from December 24, 1952 – November 14, 1986. A person born abroad between those dates is a U.S. citizen upon birth if all of the following are true:

1. The person’s parents were married at the time of birth; (Yes they were)

2. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born; (Yes, Cruz's mother was a US citizen)

3. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth; (Yes, she did)

4. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday. (Yes, they were)

By these very definitions of the law, it would appear that Cruz is a natural-born citizen (did not have to go through "naturalization") and thus meets the qualifications to run for president.

I wasn't aware of the 2001 update, I was basing my opinion upon this part of the code from Article 1 of the 14th amendment

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

The Constitutional Topics pages at the US Constitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments.

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

U.S. Nationals

A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

Becoming a citizen

A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way). The process to become a citizen involves several steps, including applying to become and becoming a permanent resident (previously known as a resident alien), applying to become and becoming naturalized, and finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born. There is a time constraint before a permanent resident can apply for naturalization, generally either 3 or 5 years. The other requirements are that there be a minimum length of time in a specific state or district, successful completion of a citizenship exam, ability to read, write, and speak English, and good moral character.

The Oath of Allegiance to the United States

The following is the text of the Oath of Allegiance:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.


Losing your citizenship
For a natural-born citizen, losing your citizenship is actually quite difficult. The law prohibits the taking of your citizenship against your will, but there are certain actions a citizen can take which are assumed to be a free-will decision that constitutes a voluntary renunciation of the citizenship.

Moving to another country for an extended period of time does not constitute an act that presumes renunciation. Neither does taking a routine-level job with a foreign government. This stand is quite different from U.S. policy of the past, where even being naturalized in another nation could be seen as renunciation. The sections of the law that pertained to losing ones nationality for many of these cases was found at 8 USC 1482 and related sections.

The U.S. Code does, however, see some acts as creating the possibility of a loss of nationality. When you lose your U.S. nationality, you are no longer under the protection or jurisdiction of the United States. When the United States considers you to no longer be of U.S. nationality, it in effect considers you to no longer be a citizen. Note that these are things you can do that may force you to lose your citizenship. The law also says that these acts must be voluntary and with the intent of losing U.S. citizenship. The ways to lose citizenship are detailed in 8 USC 1481:
•Becoming naturalized in another country
•Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
•Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force
•Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
•Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
•Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General
•By being convicted of committing treason

 

[packyderms_wife]

I'll ask again because I am still waiting for the citation / legal reference where the above quoted requirements are stated.

ETA: Currently, citizenship in the U.S. is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf (page 74 of the PDF - section 301 paragraph 7)

The most recent changes to statutory law were done by Congress in 2001. So since this most recent debate has circulated around Cruz, I am going to focus on one particular section… birth abroad to one U.S. citizen.

There are a certain set of rules for those born after November 14, 1986, but I’m focusing on the rules at the time of Cruz’s birth, which are the rules that were in effect from December 24, 1952 – November 14, 1986. A person born abroad between those dates is a U.S. citizen upon birth if all of the following are true:

1. The person’s parents were married at the time of birth; (Yes they were)

2. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born; (Yes, Cruz's mother was a US citizen)

3. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth; (Yes, she did)

4. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday. (Yes, they were)

By these very definitions of the law, it would appear that Cruz is a natural-born citizen (did not have to go through "naturalization") and thus meets the qualifications to run for president.

I copied this from your PDF Pages 73/74 it would appear that the section of the code you mentioned requires that his mother had been an employee of the US gov't in some manner be it military, as a diplomat, or as a spook

SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the
United States at birth:

(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof;

(2) a person born in the United States to a member of an
Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Pro^ided^
That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not
in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person
to tribal or other property;

(3) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United
States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States
or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such
person;

(4) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United
States who has been physically present in the United States or
one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year
prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a
national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(5) a person born in an outlying possession of the United
States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who
has been physically present in the United States or one of its
236 PUBLIC LAW 414-JUNE 27, 1952 [66 STAT.
outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any
time prior to the birth of such person;

(6) a person of unknown parentage found in the United
States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his
attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in
the United States;

(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents one of w'hom is an
alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the
birth of such person, was physically present in the United States
' or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less
' than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age
" of fourteen years: Provided^ That any periods of honorable service
in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent
may be included in computing the physical presence requirements
" of this paragraph.

(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States
at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality
and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to
attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following
any such coming be continuously physically present in the United
State for at least five years: Provided^ That such physical presence
follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the
age of twenty-eight years.

(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent
to May 24, 1934: Provided^ however^ That nothing contained in this
subsection shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any
person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, who, prior to the
effective date of this Act, has taken up a residence in the United States
before attaining the age of sixteen years, and thereafter, whether
before or after the effective date of this Act, complies or shall comply
with the residence requirements for retention of citizenship specified
in subsections (g) and (h) of section 201 of the Nationality Act of
54 Stat. 1138. 1940, as amended

 

[NoDandy]

Can someone tell me Cruz position on TPP - ObamaTrade?

Thanks in advance

 

[Garryowen]

A'yup I do, but unfortunately something evil happened here tonight... and nobody gives a damn because it's just ****ing Iowa and who the hell cares... just remember this.

Something evil happens in every election cycle. How do you propose to change it?

 

[Mixin]

Can someone tell me Cruz position on TPP - ObamaTrade?

Thanks in advance

It's complicated. We talked about it here:
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ose-carefully-America-2016-is-THE-LAST-CHANCE

 

[pinkelsteinsmom]

Can someone tell me Cruz position on TPP - ObamaTrade?

Thanks in advance

He' voted for it then said he regretted it, he was lied to by McConnell.

 

[fairbanksb]

Can someone tell me Cruz position on TPP - ObamaTrade?

Thanks in advance

http://personalliberty.com/ted-cruz-calls-mitch-mcconnell-liar/

Video at the link of Ted Cruz on the Senate floor

Ted Cruz calls Mitch McConnell a liar

Forget about the fireworks on the campaign trail. This past week, things were more incendiary — and more interesting — in Washington, D.C.

The fireworks began when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced plans to call for a vote on resurrecting the Export-Import Bank. Previous efforts to extend this New Deal-era subsidy program for big business had failed, and the agency’s authorization expired on June 30.

But as Ronald Reagan pointed out, the closest thing to eternal life is a government program. Rather than let the Ex-Im Bank stay dead, McConnell said he would call an unusual Sunday session to vote on resurrecting it.

That was all it took for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to go ballistic. He didn’t mince words. He took to the Senate floor on Friday and blasted McConnell:

What we just saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what he told every Republican senator, but what he told the press over and over and over again, was a simple lie. … Well, we now know that when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit commitment that he is willing to say things that he knows are false.

That was too much for the powers that be in Washington. When the Senate session began on Sunday, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the president pro tempore, issued the following warning:

“The chair reminds all senators of the following paragraph from Rule 19 of the Standing Rules of the Senate … ‘No senator in debate shall directly or indirectly by any form of words impute to another senator or to other senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a senator.’”

Hatch went on to condemn any member who would use the Senate “as a tool to advance personal ambitions, a venue to promote political campaigns, and even a vehicle to enhance fund-raising efforts, all at the expense of proper functioning of this body.” Although Hatch didn’t mention Cruz by name, everyone knew who he was talking about. And just to make sure, the liberal media pounded it home repeatedly.

Yeah, I guess calling your Senate leader a liar could be considered “unbecoming.” Cruz, however, was unrepentant. He rose on Sunday and told the assembled senators, “I would note that it is entirely consistent with decorum and with the nature of this body traditionally as the world’s greatest deliberative body to speak the truth.”

In that Sunday session, we got a classic example of what McConnell and his allies consider the “proper functioning” of the Senate. First, they voted by 67-26 to resurrect the Export-Import Bank. Some 24 Republican senators joined their Democrat colleagues in voting “aye.”

By the way, the approval wasn’t of a standalone bill, but of an amendment to a highway bill that both sides agree must be approved by the end of July. This procedure meant that conservatives in the Senate couldn’t filibuster to prevent its passage.

In other words, the skids were greased to make sure the Ex-Im Bank would be resurrected. But conservatives weren’t allowed to use the same technique to further their goals.

At the same time it approved the Export-Import Bank, the Senate rejected an amendment by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that would have ended federal funding of Planned Parenthood. It defeated one by Cruz that would have blocked the lifting of sanctions on Iran until the country recognized the state of Israel and released American prisoners from its jails. And it also rejected an amendment that would have led to a procedural vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

So once again, conservatives got nothing. Or as Cruz put it, “Unfortunately, the way the current Senate leadership operates, there is one party, the Washington party.”

He’s absolutely right. Merely electing a majority of Republicans in the Senate (and keeping one in the House) isn’t enough if the leaders won’t fight for conservative principles.

We will never begin to turn things around so long as McConnell serves as Senate majority leader. Let’s make replacing him a key goal for 2016.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

 

[Be Well]

He' voted for it then said he regretted it, he was lied to by McConnell.

And that was AFTER he read it.

 

[NoDandy]

And that was AFTER he read it.

Interesting. The reason I asked, is that to me, the two biggest issues affecting the survival of our nation are: IMMIGRATION, and TRADE ( JOBS ). Many other issues I care about, such as abortion, but if we do not get control of those two, we will not have a nation.

 

[petedtom]

Can someone tell me Cruz position on TPP - ObamaTrade?

Thanks in advance

He voted for it, said he was fooled into it by McConnle. He also voted For the Patriot act , twice , said he was wrong both times. He voted for the NDAA, said he was wrong to do so. Voted for raising the debt ceiling twice, said he was wrong to not have fought harder.

Other than that he is a great conservative

 

[NoDandy]

He voted for it, said he was fooled into it by McConnle. He also voted For the Patriot act , twice , said he was wrong both times. He voted for the NDAA, said he was wrong to do so. Voted for raising the debt ceiling twice, said he was wrong to not have fought harder.

Other than that he is a great conservative

He seems to be admitting to voting wrong an awful lot.

 

[JohnGaltfla]

I understand. But JG is not looking at Cruz with the same level of scrutiny.

How do you know? I've emailed the campaign and held the regional manager's feet to the fire warning them that if they drift of the Constitutional Conservative line, the $$$$ stops. Immediately. I refuse to hold Cruz to woowooness however and that has upset quite a few folks. C'est la vie.

 

[JohnGaltfla]

That's strange - everybody I know supports him.

Cruz lost a lot of support with us when he would not stand with Trump on his anti muslim comment.

The fact that anybody would still support Cruz after that is scary.

Actually if you look at the time line, Trump was "one uppping" Cruz.

Ted had already introduced a bill into the U.S. Senate demanding a halt to all immigration from any nation which hosts any terrorist organization affiliated with Islamic radicalism. That pretty much blanketed most of the Middle East and even Rubio and Paul supported that act which Mitch McCONnell promptly tabled (killed it). After that, Trump introduced the "ban all Muslims" idea. But God forbid the media actually report facts.

 

[JohnGaltfla]

Didn't Ronald Reagan skip the last debate before Iowa, and lose Iowa too in 1980?

Yes and it almost cost him the election. His people have readily admitted that over and over again.

 

[workerbee]

Workerbee's name calling is completely in violation of the board rules of conduct.

As trump would say... Sad.

Mn

You are in fact correct.

I was out of line and humbly apologize to Pakyderms Wife.

 

[JohnGaltfla]

One thing about JGF, he is so gracious, such a gentleman.

I just try to emulate my idol:

 

[JohnGaltfla]

Can someone tell me Cruz position on TPP - ObamaTrade?

Thanks in advance

Cruz is now 100% against it because McConnell blocked any and all amendments to protect US workers. Same for Rand Paul. Rubio has no position as of yesterday, FYI (aka, he's for it).

 

[raven]

165,000 people cast ballots for candidates on the republican ticket while only 1,400 cast ballots for candidates on the democrat ticket.
And Hillary got 701 votes while Sanders got 697.
Seven hundred votes.
I could get 702 people to vote for me in Des Moines alone - Chicken fried steak with gravy and mashed potatoes and sweet tea - $14.99.
Including tip, it would only cost me about $13,000.
How much have they spent to get 1500 votes?

My point? this is all bull shit. The Democrat turnout appear to have been voting in the Republican Primary
Tell me again . . . which Republican candidate "can't win" in a general election?

 

[Zoner]

The Cruz campaign vehemently denied that rumor. It was CNN who broke the story based on a Tweet after the Caucus had already begun. Cruz people were simply repeating what CNN was reporting in the evening. I can't see Ted launching anything against Carson as he needs his voters.

I'm glad to hear that and it's being reported on MSM.

 

[JohnGaltfla]

165,000 people cast ballots for candidates on the republican ticket while only 1,400 cast ballots for candidates on the democrat ticket.
And Hillary got 701 votes while Sanders got 697.
Seven hundred votes.
I could get 702 people to vote for me in Des Moines alone - Chicken fried steak with gravy and mashed potatoes and sweet tea - $14.99.
Including tip, it would only cost me about $13,000.
How much have they spent to get 1500 votes?

My point? this is all bull shit. The Democrat turnout appear to have been voting in the Republican Primary
Tell me again . . . which Republican candidate "can't win" in a general election?

Democrat turnout was down 25%. The Dems could re-register as Republicans at the polls (GOPe/DNCe idea like motor voter, aka, stack the deck for Obama) and apparently that vote was split between Trump and Rubio.

The funniest thing? Name the last Democrat Latino to win any primary for President.

 

[NoDandy]

I just try to emulate my idol:

John, that is funny as hell, I am sharing that with all my family. LOL

 

[JohnGaltfla]

I'm glad to hear that and it's being reported on MSM.

And Ted just apologized for his staff's action to Carson directly just a little while ago.

FWIW, it was Jake Tapper that broke the story on air JUST before the Iowa Caucus began.

And for all the angry Trumpsters, it isn't personal, it's business. Go to www.loser.com if you need a laugh today.

Remember, when Trump wins NH, you can gloat also, nobody will get their panties in a wad on my end.

 

[Be Well]

165,000 people cast ballots for candidates on the republican ticket while only 1,400 cast ballots for candidates on the democrat ticket.
And Hillary got 701 votes while Sanders got 697.
Seven hundred votes.
I could get 702 people to vote for me in Des Moines alone - Chicken fried steak with gravy and mashed potatoes and sweet tea - $14.99.
Including tip, it would only cost me about $13,000.
How much have they spent to get 1500 votes?

My point? this is all bull shit. The Democrat turnout appear to have been voting in the Republican Primary
Tell me again . . . which Republican candidate "can't win" in a general election?

Also says that plenty of Dems voted in the R caucuses to harm Trump, as they said they would.

 

[Zoner]

And Ted just apologized for his staff's action to Carson directly just a little while ago.

FWIW, it was Jake Tapper that broke the story on air JUST before the Iowa Caucus began.

And for all the angry Trumpsters, it isn't personal, it's business. Go to www.loser.com if you need a laugh today.

Remember, when Trump wins NH, you can gloat also, nobody will get their panties in a wad on my end.

I don't have a dog in this hunt yet. And when I do, I won't gloat. Cruz HAD TO win Iowa, not Trump. And he deserves credit for doing the groundwork. He outworked everyone else.

Trump didn't do the ground work to win and deserved what he got. I heard there were many caucuses that had no one stand up and speak for Trump. Signs of a bad ground structure. If he's going to win, he will have to move out of the twitter world and start pressing the flesh. NH is not a given for anyone, just sayin...

 

[packyderms_wife]

He voted for it, said he was fooled into it by McConnle. He also voted For the Patriot act , twice , said he was wrong both times. He voted for the NDAA, said he was wrong to do so. Voted for raising the debt ceiling twice, said he was wrong to not have fought harder.

Other than that he is a great conservative

He seems to be admitting to voting wrong an awful lot.

Cruz is now 100% against it because McConnell blocked any and all amendments to protect US workers. Same for Rand Paul. Rubio has no position as of yesterday, FYI (aka, he's for it).

So either Cruz is either easily deceived or he's dumber than snail slime. Either way he comes out looking like the only thing he's qualified to be in charge of is an outhouse in a national park.

 

[Mixin]

 

[DannyBoy]

Also, Huckabee won in 2008 and we all know how that ended up for him...

Interestingly, it might have been worth something... when he was campaigning in St. Louis he was the last guy hanging on in the competition. He came through a reception line I happened to be standing in and I shook his hand. Led us to believe he was on the hairy edge of being asked to be the VP candidate. Such that I was really surprised he was not asked... might have been more going on behind the scenes, but based on what he said at that stop, I was convinced. By the way the guy had a heck of a "presence" about him. Surprising how poorly it turned out for him this time. Might be the "Trump Effect".

 

[Be Well]

Interesting. The reason I asked, is that to me, the two biggest issues affecting the survival of our nation are: IMMIGRATION, and TRADE ( JOBS ). Many other issues I care about, such as abortion, but if we do not get control of those two, we will not have a nation.

I agree with immigration and jobs which by definition includes manufacturing, but I'd add MOSLEMS!!! and cutting corruption, fraud and waste, and Trump has mentioned those beaucoup times.

 

[imaginative]

Has it been noted that In 2012 Rick Santorum won Iowa?

 

[pinkelsteinsmom]

How do you know? I've emailed the campaign and held the regional manager's feet to the fire warning them that if they drift of the Constitutional Conservative line, the $$$$ stops. Immediately. I refuse to hold Cruz to woowooness however and that has upset quite a few folks. C'est la vie.

So you did see his Canadian birth certificate?

And you email their campaign and warn them to hold with the Constitution?

Folks who can read and comprehend NBC clause are the ones you have upset, permanently.

 

[pinkelsteinsmom]

Democrat turnout was down 25%. The Dems could re-register as Republicans at the polls (GOPe/DNCe idea like motor voter, aka, stack the deck for Obama) and apparently that vote was split between Trump and Rubio.

The funniest thing? Name the last Democrat Latino to win any primary for President.

I can name a queer, moslem, ****** drug addict that won the presidency, why not a pro big bank, Cuban, Canadian snake handler?

 

[Sub-Zero]

Cruz is now 100% against it because McConnell blocked any and all amendments to protect US workers. Same for Rand Paul. Rubio has no position as of yesterday, FYI (aka, he's for it).

At least Horse-face Kerry said he voted for it before he voted against it. Cruz voted for the TPP twice and did a mea culpa. It's easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.

And, even if Trump had won I would not be touting it; it's Iowa... big deal. Whoopee.

So, Hillary won what, close to 700 delegates and Cruz won 8? Once again, whoopee.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Oh, I forgot to add that New Hampshire is an equally big bore.

 

[Sub-Zero]

And, I forgot to add this this will most likely be the final post on this thread as I am the ultimate thread killer.

 

[Be Well]

I refuse to hold Cruz to woowooness however and that has upset quite a few folks. C'est la vie.

So you did see his Canadian birth certificate?

And you email their campaign and warn them to hold with the Constitution?

Folks who can read and comprehend NBC clause are the ones you have upset, permanently.

The Natural Born Citizen clause, being a specific qualification that ONLY the President and VP must have, is not woo.

 

[Buick Electra]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnGaltfla
The Cruz campaign vehemently denied that rumor. It was CNN who broke the story based on a Tweet after the Caucus had already begun. Cruz people were simply repeating what CNN was reporting in the evening. I can't see Ted launching anything against Carson as he needs his voters.

Really? First on CNN: Ted Cruz apologizes to Ben Carson

 

[imaginative]

The worst thing to happen for Cruz was for him to win Iowa. Trump will start to really work this election thing; he isn't going to lose

 

[Buick Electra]

Y'all, haven't we given JGF's thread enough run-time? Let's not make his 'gloatfest' op any bigger. Besides, when they can't even acknowledge or comment on Cruz's new lie http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...he-Guy-With-The-Bible-In-Hand-Just-Lied-Again why would we give this thread any more exposure than it's already had?

 

[NoDandy]

I agree with immigration and jobs which by definition includes manufacturing, but I'd add MOSLEMS!!! and cutting corruption, fraud and waste, and Trump has mentioned those beaucoup times.

I agree 100%. Our once great nation is facing many huge problems. Most of the clowns running do not have clue as to what the problems are, much less of how to address them. Plus, most are beholden to interests that do not want them corrected.

Trump may not be perfect ( no one is ), but he is the only one that I believe will make a serious effort at correcting those issues.

Also, after his loss in Iowa, I think he will become a much stronger candidate.