Ted Cruz goes "birther" on Donald Trump's citizenship status

First topic message reminder :

Sorry, I hate Ted Cruz, I think he looks like a penis, but I love this:

Ted Cruz counter-attacked Donald Trump on the "birther" issue Thursday, arguing that under some theories, Trump would be ineligible to serve in the White House because his mother was born in Scotland.

In a long back-and-forth between the GOP’s top two contenders for the GOP presidential nomination, Cruz accused Trump of focusing on his birth in Canada because of his strong poll numbers.

“The Constitution hasn't changed, Donald's poll numbers have,” he said early on in Thursday night’s debate from North Charleston, S.C.
The Texas senator noted that Trump had previously said there was “nothing to this birther issue” until Cruz started beating him at the polls in Iowa.

“The legal issue is quite straightforward, but I would note that the birther theories that Donald has been relying on, some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil,” Cruz continued.

“Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified, and interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified because Donald's mother was born in Scotland,” Cruz said, referring to two other GOP presidential contenders.

Cruz added that he wouldn't use Trump's mother's birth against him and called for candidates to focus on bigger issues.

Trump interjected that Cruz wasn’t doing so because it wouldn’t work.

Trump has argued that Democrats could bring a lawsuit against Cruz serving in the White House because of his birth in Canada to an American mother.

When asked by Fox Business Network moderator Neil Cavuto why he wanted to bring the issue up now, Trump was open about the fact that it was because of Cruz's rising poll numbers.

"Because now he's doing a little bit better. No, I didn't care before, it's true," Trump said to boos from the audience.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/265995-cruz-raises-trumps-scottish-mother-in-rowdy-birther-fight

The whole Cruz-penis comparison as an aside -- tell me I'm wrong:

Eilzel wrote:They were still a Tory/Democrat didge. Nothing whatsoever indicates this election going to someone other than a Dem or Rep. Of course it is theoretically 'possible', but really, really unlikely.

OMG, one was a woman, the other african american, both firsts, so to say off history is absurd Eilzel and you know it

I posted an article the other day on how Independents are gaining in support



One of the standard assumptions of political punditry is that the 2016 presidential election is the Democratic Party’s race to lose. There is some truth to this thesis since any objective reading of the Electoral College math shows that the Democrats have a near built-in majority with a large number of deep blue states like New York and California (the biggest prize of them all) that Republicans have virtually no chance to win. Since the deep red states that are equally uncompetitive don’t pack the same clout, the GOP has to sweep the swing states in order to win the White House. This has bred some triumphalism in Democrats as well as a faith in some of the liberal media that conservatives are doomed.

Yet another just as important piece of the electoral puzzle needs to be taken into account before we start making assumptions about what will happen in November. Though we speak of deep blue and deep red states, the hold of either political party on the loyalties of the voters is as tenuous as our political discourse is stridently partisan. As the latest Gallup survey shows, the number of voters who think of themselves as independents rather than hardcore Democrats and Republicans remains high with 42 percent of Americans claiming that status. Just as important, the number of those identifying with either party is declining. But while there is plenty of bad news in that result for both parties, it is important to note that the losses for Democrats are greater than those for the GOP. In fact, the number of those calling themselves Democrats is at an all-time low in the 64-year-old history of polling by the venerable Gallup organization.

That number tells us something that confirms the party’s decline in just about every metric since Barack Obama became president. Democrats have lost ground across the board since 2008 and not just in terms of the number of Americans telling Gallup they support the party. The GOP has made huge gains in terms of state legislatures and governors, and they control of both chambers of Congress. Indeed, in terms of every measure of political strength other than control of the White House, Republicans are at their highest point since before Franklin Delano Roosevelt became president.


https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/gallup-incredibly-shrinking-democrats/

you can forget cruz he is done .
he just doesn`t know it yet

I'm not saying its impossible didge, just improbable. If I'm wrong your welcome to rub my nay saying in my face at the end of the year. I doubt you will be though.

Btw. Just because people claim to support neither party doesn't mean they won't choose between them when push comes to shove.

Eilzel wrote:I'm not saying its impossible didge, just improbable. If I'm wrong your welcome to rub my nay saying in my face at the end of the year. I doubt you will be though.

Btw. Just because people claim to support neither party doesn't mean they won't choose between them when push comes to shove.

Really, I do not have to choose either, as I am not American, and even if I was I would rather not vote, as my vote would be someone i did not support

I was talking about US voters, obviously.

Eilzel wrote:I was talking about US voters, obviously.

Like I said, even if I was Ameican, I would not vote Republican or democrat

Trump was born in Queens, NYC.  There is no birther issue.  His mother was Scot, as was my grandmother.  Lots, if not all of the citizens of the US have predecessors who came from the old countries.  Trump may be an idiot in many ways, but he is a natural-born citizen under the Constitution of the US.

With Cruz, there is a real birther issue.  Cruz was born in Canada, of a Cuban father.  He's about as un-American as they get, and his run for the Presidency is sheer audacity.  While he would love to hush-hush the discussion, in fact many constitutional scholars say it is an unsettled question whether, if only one parent is American, and you are born on foreign soil, you are eligible for the presidency.  (My own wife was born of two American parents who were stationed in the military in Germany, and she was told she could never be president).  The Supreme Court has never passed on the issue.

Cruz is just throwing up flak, to counter the Trump accusation.  But Trump has a point (which he admittedly created himself).  What happens if Cruz is nominated and the Democratic Party files a lawsuit?  What happens if the Supreme Court declares that the US Constitution means what it says it means: that you have to have been born, naturally (and not hypothetically), within boundaries of the US?  It's a Right-Wing Court right now, and the Right in the US tends overwhelmingly to favor 'strict construction' of the reading of the Constitution.  They like plain meaning.

It's not a settled question by any means.

Original Quill wrote:Trump was born in Queens, NYC.  There is no birther issue.  His mother was Scot, as was my grandmother.  Lots, if not all of the citizens of the US have predecessors who came from the old countries.  Trump may be an idiot in many ways, but he is a natural-born citizen under the Constitution of the US.

With Cruz, there is a real birther issue.  Cruz was born in Canada, of a Cuban father.  He's about as un-American as they get, and his run for the Presidency is sheer audacity.  While he would love to hush-hush the discussion, in fact many constitutional scholars say it is an unsettled question whether, if only one parent is American, and you are born on foreign soil, you are eligible for the presidency.  (My own wife was born of two American parents who were stationed in the military in Germany, and she was told she could never be president).  The Supreme Court has never passed on the issue.

Cruz is just throwing up flak, to counter the Trump accusation.  But Trump has a point (which he admittedly created himself).  What happens if Cruz is nominated and the Democratic Party files a lawsuit?  What happens if the Supreme Court declares that the US Constitution means what it says it means: that you you have to have been born, naturally (and not hypothetically), within boundaries of the US?  It's a Right-Wing Court right now, and the Right in the US tend to favor 'strict construction' of the reading of the Constitution.  They like plain meaning.

It's not a settled question by any means.

and why he will not get the rep nomination ....the irony is Delicious