Subscribe to Israpundit Daily
Digest
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
Learn from the 1976 Reagan-Ford contest and the 2014 McDaniel-Cochran disgrace: if the competition is close, the establishment GOP vermin will steal it. Cruz must win decisively.
Which he will.
I hope.
They got the leftist media demonizing Trump. Even people I thought , well I used to like, going bat-excrement crazy with illogical and hattteful statements showing unflattering images of Trump – the most unflattering they could find.
Seeing this my opinion on many people on TV , in fact the whole TV programming has changed forever very significantly.
I wonder if Trump would do Cruz-Trump if it had to be or if he would take any place in a Cruz admin? I worry that the leftist media is just too powerful in demonizing him. Even Obama is lying by saying Trump speech is hate speech. this is the number one lie of leftist media , next to the ROP (Religion of Peace) lie.
They have to lie – if they admit Islamic terrorism is Islamic or that criticism of Islam is legitimate , then the whole house of cards collapses.
rsklaroff Said:
yes, if it is not a direct election where the results reflect the GOP voters then the likelihood of establishment bigwigs manipulating the results to their desires is more likely.
https://ase.tufts.edu/polsci/studentresearch/trusteeOrDelegate.pdf
This is the classic discussion of represenative/trustee vs. delegate; the latter follows orders while the former functions independent thereof.
delegate selection varies from state-to-state; also, some states [such as PA] would preclude the ability to run in the general election if an individual competed in a primary, although this probably relates only to state/county/local elections [at least, in PA].
Over-analysis breeds paralysis.
rsklaroff Said:
I still dont understand WHO determines who they vote for and it what way it reflect GOP primary voters:
Is there a primary of GOP voters separate from the appointed delegates, do the delegates vote for anyone they want, can they vote for someone who is not the choice of GOP voters? My questions are related to whether the GOP caucus vote which establishes their candidate in that state is reflective of actual polls of GOP voters or can it be manipulated to reflect the wishes of the GOP establishment?
If the results are not necessarily reflective of the true poll winner then Donald would be wise to reconsider his choice to run as an independent as February is the deadline for that choice and as the GOP establishment appears bent on sabotaging the non party non team player stealing their thunder.
sometimes the candidate to which they are pledged is on the ballot, sometimes just the name of the potential delegate/alternate.
[if the shoe fits….]
rsklaroff Said:
what does that mean… how is the “particular candidate” selected……are they pledged to follow GOP primary voters choices or can they vote differently on instructions of the establishment?
rsklaroff Said:
I wonder if you are addressing this to me as you dont address it to anyone. Do you know that the reply button at the top of a posters comment will help you address your post.. also that you can specifically address a statement in a posters comment with the “highlight and quote” button?
If you address to me then my answer is that waiting until something definitive arises will be too late, something definitive can only be a court case. The dems want him in and they will wait until afterwards to turn all their bought MSM on their target. They did the same is squashing the Obama narrative. Although I am not against Cruz and he seems to be the strongest of the rest om immigration, I believe he, and possibly Rubio, can end up being the savior of the dem party… giving them an unnecessary issue to create a red herring that distracts voters. Trump realizes that the issue is not the fact of their “natural born citizenship” but what the issue can do to the campaign… unnecessarily. I am sorry if raising potential negative issues based on facts rains on your hopes and dreams parade… but I have found that being an Ostrich tends to have devastating results when lions and wolves are around.
Except for certain states such as PA, most elected delegates are pledged to a particular candidate for the first ballot.
I am still wondering how the establishment GOP can sabotage Trump in elections, can the delegates vote against the wishes of the GOP primary voters?
You’ve made your point over-and-over; until/unless something definitive arises [and/or you recognize that Cruz befits official government policy, vide supra], why not give it a rest?
HMMM, usually when name calling occurs its becuase of a bankruptcy if arguments.
If Levin is furious now I wonder how he will be when the dems and all the MSM make Cruz birther issue the main campaign point. If Levin wants the dems out he should be happy that this issue is brought up before the candidate selection as opposed to after when it is too late. Is Rubio also a question? Allowing this issue to cloud the GOP campaign would be a huge strategic error that will only become truly apparent on making the error. I foresee a possible dropping of Cruz and Rubio in the polls due to this issue making GOP voters wonder if it hinders a GOP win. Who can Trump choose who is strongly against immigration like him and will not be a liability on the birther issue.
I still think they’ll draft Bloomberg; BTW, Rush is aggressively dissing the SOTU-Address response as a thinly-veiled attack on Trump.
ArnoldHarris Said:
I wonder if the dems will beg him to return. for me that is funny as Biden was probably the only VP in history that no one was considering for a presidential run…. but now next to hillary… biden is starting to look better to the dems. they expected Bernie to tank and now that hillary might go down the Dem establishment do not want a “socialist” non dem, non party loyalist, representing their machine.
multiple commentators, including the pro-rubio chatters @ FNC, noted that this means he’s got growth-room…as opposed to trump [portrayed as having peaked]
I am for Cruz. but you are playing fast and loose with the numbers. On Caucus Night, the positive/negative calculation becomes moot and all that will matter is turnout of committed voters. Given the uniqueness of the Trump campaign, there is no precedent from which to extrapolate. Will his non-Republican supporters actually attend the GOP caucuses? No one knows.
Inside the iowa polling is a tremendously wide gap in favor of cruz over trump when positive/negative subtraction is performed; let’s see what happens after tomorrow’s debate….
@ Max:
I agree with your sentiments Max, even though I know the mice will not scatter to South America, and the ladies on the View will not decease from heart attacks or aploplexy. But my sense of schadenfruede happily tells me they will all but piss tears on national television.
Arnold Harris, Outspeaker
The Iowa caucuses are only a few weeks from now. The polls show Trump not only holding his vast lead, but expanding it. They also show Trump is more or less tied with Cruz in Iowa, and miles ahead of him in New Hampshire, which is the first statewide primary election. None of the other would-be contenders — Rubio, Carson, Bush, Christie, whomever — are even close to the winner’s circle. I think that if Trump either wins or ties in Iowa and smashes them all in New Hampshire, then the Republican nomination race will be more or less settled.
But the truly interesting aspect of this presidential election year is the slow but increasing crash landing of Hillary Rodham Clinton, now targeted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for multiple and far-reaching felonies. Which is what happens to people who ignore the United States Code. It is increasingly possible that she will be replaced by another Democratic Party candidate. For this, Joe Biden seems to be springing back to life, and Bernie has been alive throughout this campaign.
Stay tuned for yet more drama.
Arnold Harris, Outspeaker
Trump. I want to see the Hollywood leftists flee to South America and the ladies on The View drop dead from heart attacks and apoplexy.
rsklaroff Said:
you still dont get it… Cruz is not a canadian… he is a US citizen by derivation BUT he is not a “natural born citizen”. You are still unable to see the difference and appear to think that if he is a citizen thats all he needs to be president.
rsklaroff Said:
you were done a long time ago because your interest is in pretending that you are correct and that the one you want can run. For me, I am able to separate having a dog in the race from ascertaining facts. I have found that facts dont always agree with what I want. The most important and relevant fact is not what any court will decide but what will happen in a campaign that includes Cruz. Its a gift to the democrats that will ruin the deposing of the dems.
rsklaroff Said:
I haven’t followed cruz much, I tend to not favor ideologues from either side. I am a pragmatist and favor what proves to work plus I favor agenda on both sides of left and right.
rsklaroff Said:
yo quoted a policy manual which interprets statute. Policy manuals do not determine constitutional validity. If you actually read some cases relating to the issues in history you would see there is a great deal more to it than the opinion of those who write polic y manuals for the gov. Also you keep avoiding that your manual makes NO MENTION of the “natural born citizenship” becuase the only time that comes into play is in the taking of office of the president and vice president.
rsklaroff Said:
Sorry, again that is where you go wrong becuase you assume without a basis that if no naturalization is required to be a regular citizen then one must be a natural born citizen. If you read more you will discover that their are varying arguments on that issue with the birthers taking the view that derivative citizenship is obtained through 14th amendment, by statute as opposed to birth,and that citizenship through the 14th is not natural born citizenship.
the rule of statutory construction maintains that a clear distintion is made between a citizen and a natural born citizen in the requirements for presidency and VP as opposed to senators and congressman it does not say native born, in use at the time, which allows for citizens ship by birth in the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the US, it clearly states “natural born citizen” which at the time was understood to mean by birth AND parentage. You would like to win arguments through superficial analysis taking no guidance from history and lawful precedence. You are also unaware of the change of interpretation when Justice Gray veered from the current law favoring parentage to birth under soveriegnty.
Frankly it is my view, after reading the various LEGAL points of view,that what is required is 2 parents and birth under US jurisdiction and soveriegnty. The law appears clear on that but is muddied by folks confusing natural born citizen with citizen by birth location, citizen by descendancy and by naturalization.
what is interesting is that the reasoning of the founding fathers proved correct in that the fake president hussein has indeed proved a great danger to the US a a result of that which they sought to avoid.. divided loyalty by parentage and/or place of birth. For the office of the president they sought the highest test which was a natural born citizen consisting of 2 parents and birth in US territory. If the law had been followed and the GOP were not simply interested in making deals for their interests, the US would have been protected by the clear law in place. As it is we have a muslim raised president who spent most of his formative years in the muslim nation of indonesia… born of a muslim father under UK jurisdiction and raised with a muslim stepfather in Indonesia. We have been hoodwinked and Cruz more than anyone should be following the constitution as he always basis his platform on literal interpretations.
rsklaroff Said:
perhaps that is because he does not satisfy the requirement of natural born citizen if his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth? Again its that distinction between birth alone and birth with citizen parents also. Hence, native born is not natural born because natural born had a distinct meaning at the time(it was intuitive then) based on English and international common law.
“are we done yet?”
minus indents and hyperlinks, this is what was composed:
To Hell with Ted Cruz Birtherism
Ann Coulter, who is now insisting that Ted Cruz is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and cannot be president, was confronted with the fact that back in 2013, she wrote that Cruz was completely eligible to be president. Her response? “I changed my mind.”
Manu Raju of Politico reported, “Jeff Sessions, immigration hardliner, believes the ‘consensus’ is that Cruz is a natural-born citizen. But cautioned that he doesn’t know.”
Oh, good heavens. Follow this step by step.
Back in 2008, I did the exact same thing — looked at the law in place when the candidate was born:
Rumor one: Obama was born in Kenya. Rather unlikely, as it would require everyone in his family to lie about this in every interview and discussion with those outside the family since young Obama appeared on the scene. However, if it were true, it would probably raise a major question of “does he qualify as a natural-born citizen”? If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen under because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for “ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Ann Dunham was 18 when Obama was born – so she wouldn’t have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16.
For that I still get called “birther” by people who can’t read, of course.
Remember this, Cruz fans. Remember who jumped on this Looney Tunes birther bandwagon and who didn’t.
The one guy who isn’t beating the drum on Cruz being a Canadian is the guy who might benefit the most, Marco Rubio.
The Florida senator told reporters after a town hall at a community college automotive building that he didn’t agree with Trump: “I don’t think that’s an issue.”
I have been parrying it for two years; where ya been?
I already quoted statute, which Jim Geraghty also cited in his “Morning Jolt”; you inappropriately rejected it–despite the fact that it is derivative of prior litigation–and, therefore, perhaps you may wish to write further e-mails to yourself rather than bothering to distribute them via this website.
bernard ross Said:
I would be interested if anyone knows who elects or chooses the delegates, who will decide who the GOP candidates will be. It appears that they are not chosen by the primary election voters directly and therefore trump can win the GOP primary votes but lose the candidacy election by delegates.
rsklaroff Said:
I wrote that to Ted who is a lawyer… I already know that you are bored by legal details.
@ Ted Belman:
the problem is not whether a supreme court would rule in favor of Cruz but what the dems will do with Cruz running as either VP or prez. There is no question he was not born on “US soil” under US sovereignty. His case is more suspect than Obama”s in that Obama claimed he was born in Hawaii.
The important thing is that it would be foolish to run Ted Cruz and I am surprised that his non birth in the US did not come up sooner. Whatever scandals there are to be raised in the campaign against Hillary and the Dems will be completely obliterated by the MSM taking up the football of Cruz ineligibility. Right now they are quiet because the Dems want Cruz to run as VP or pres. Look how the MSM protected Obama and imagine them all down on cruz. The key to winning is in the scandals of Hillary and Obama, indictment is preferable.
In any case, if Trump wins, I doubt he will be foolish enough to take the risk of Cruz eligibility completely overshadowing his campaign for pres. Running Cruz will be a problem for anyone. Sorry, but thats the way the cookie crumbles, right or wrong.
correct!
@ Ted Belman:
I post the following links which proved interesting to me although likely boring to others. the depth and intricacy of the relevant law are demonstrated by the issues raised by those knowledgeable in law. also, of interest was the effect of cases such as Wong Kim Ark where Justice Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur a president shown later to have deceived the public wrt his not being a “natural born citizen”. He withheld that his father was not naturalized until he was 14. Justice Gray was alleged to have intentionally used false precedent in his citation of Binney.
Of interest also is the “clause of statutory construction”
thanx