Cruz 2016?

[PatriotOne]

Yeah I have brought that up in the past, yet many seem to overlook it.

Can't be brought up enough. There's enough connections between him and his wife to many globalists that it should concern everybody about Cruz's true intentions here. I had truly hoped I was just being paranoid and Cruz wouldn't compete with Rand but with this news, I know if he runs for Pres he's being put there as an obstructionist to Rand.

She worked for Robert Zoellick. President of the World Bank FFS. I've studied how these people work for a decade now. I know how they position people as "pretenders" to get them in office.

 

[PatriotOne]

If ya all can't understand what this means then you have not been paying close enough attention.


Goldman Sachs & Co.

 

[LatinsforPaul]

Can someone please explain to me how a Canadian born citizen with an American mother and a Cuban father at the time of his birth is considered to be a "natural born citizen" and is eligible to be President of the United States?

 

[TheGrinch]

But look at the list of presidents he'd be competing with. He'd have a hard time NOT being better than any of them.

There is a huge difference between incrementalism (which I think can work) and voting for the lesser of evils. That's how they shove crappy candidates down our throats.

Plus I have no idea how you can claim at this early stage that he'd be better and not just more of the same. Does that Goldman Sachs connection make you feel all warm and fuzzy about him?

 

[supermario21]

I like Cruz A LOT, he's right behind Lee, but when looking at the types that would vote for Rand, people who might be warm to Rand but maybe slightly skeptical of his FB would go to Cruz. Cruz would spoil Rand's "soft" support.

 

[Brown Sapper]

Looks like people are still watching the conversation here.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl.../articles+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles)

 

[KingNothing]

Plus I have no idea how you can claim at this early stage that he'd be better and not just more of the same. Does that Goldman Sachs connection make you feel all warm and fuzzy about him?

It gives me no feeling whatsoever.

He couldn't be worse than Obama, LBJ, Hoover, FDR, Nixon, Truman or Bush. He'd have a hard time being worse than Clinton, Elder Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Ford. JFK and Ike were just "bad" and not "OH MY GOD, WHAT ARE THESE GUYS DOING TO US ALL" awful, so there's a chance he'd be worse than them. Did I miss anyone?

 

[PatriotOne]

It gives me no feeling whatsoever.

He couldn't be worse than Obama, LBJ, Hoover, FDR, Nixon, Truman or Bush. He'd have a hard time being worse than Clinton, Elder Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Ford. JFK and Ike were just "bad" and not "OH MY GOD, WHAT ARE THESE GUYS DOING TO US ALL" awful, so there's a chance he'd be worse than them. Did I miss anyone?

Yes he could because he would be being run by the same people, with the same agenda, who ran most of the ones you listed. You do know about the One World Government agenda right?

 

[RDM]

Yeah I have brought that up in the past, yet many seem to overlook it.

...just like the "Natural Born Citizen" clause.

 

[TaftFan]

Not in 2016. I still want Rand to run and he will.

I would support Ted as VP if we could get someone like Steve Stockman to replace him in the Senate, or Debra Medina for that matter.

He is only 42. He has time.

But if he did run, my honest opinion is that he would wipe the floor with everybody. He brings in the Gingrich aspect of debating and the Romney aspect of being presidential, and the Paul aspect of the grassroots.

 

[Antischism]

Just adding to the sentiment that Cruz would not get my vote.

 

[Valli6]

Ask any old fart. Hell, ask all of em! You'll only get 1 answer.

When did it stop being common knowledge that persons born in another country cannot be president of the U.S. even though they may have been born American citizens? Is there anyone over 25 that didn't learn this as a child?

This isn't remotely true.

You must be a "youth".
This was absolutely common knowledge until very recently. You'll occasionally hear it referred to in old movies and TV shows. Comedians liked to bring it up. I suppose there's some chance it's more a notion made popular by the WWs or the "Red Scare", but everyone - our parents, our grandparents, everyone grew up learning that in order to be president of US, you had to be born on American soil. Nothing less is acceptable until the Supreme Court finally rules on it once and for all - (though I have little confidence that the Supreme Court is concerned with what's good for American citizens).

 

[The Gold Standard]

I don't care who the choices are, I will never in my life vote for Ted Cruz for anything.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Can someone please explain to me how a Canadian born citizen with an American mother and a Cuban father at the time of his birth is considered to be a "natural born citizen" and is eligible to be President of the United States?

I think it kicks in when he turns 19. Up until 19, he was a naturalized citizen. After 19, he became a natural born citizen due to the way the law is written.

 

[trey4sports]

meh, He will end up sounding like George W Bush by the time the primary is over...

 

[cajuncocoa]

Can someone please explain to me how a Canadian born citizen with an American mother and a Cuban father at the time of his birth is considered to be a "natural born citizen" and is eligible to be President of the United States?

The law on what constitutes "natural born citizen" is not very clear....but it would almost be fun to watch the Left turn into "birthers"

 

[Christian Liberty]

@Cajuncocoa- LOL! +1.

They had a case with Mccain, yet they didn't use it. The right had absolutely no case with Obama, yet they made one up anyway (Which, BTW, they got from Hillary.) This is strange...

 

[Christian Liberty]

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Cajuncocoa again."

Sorry...

 

[TheGrinch]

It gives me no feeling whatsoever.

If that doesn't at least cause you to take a closer look at the guy in the future, and give pause to your undying confidence of him being the best man next to Rand for the job, then I don't know what will.

He couldn't be worse than Obama, LBJ, Hoover, FDR, Nixon, Truman or Bush. He'd have a hard time being worse than Clinton, Elder Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Ford. JFK and Ike were just "bad" and not "OH MY GOD, WHAT ARE THESE GUYS DOING TO US ALL" awful, so there's a chance he'd be worse than them. Did I miss anyone?

Again, this is not a matter of purism, this is a matter of trust. Hell, I might have even considered voting for Obama (after Dr. Paul was out of course) if I thought he was being honest about taking the trash out of Washington, closing gitmo, decriminalizing medical marijuana, etc., because hey, like you said he'd sure be much better than all the presidents before him if he did those things. But as the democrats found out what most of us knew all along, "hope and change" just meant more of the same.

Trust is not given, it's earned. I am not just going to go with the flow of whoever is the "best" of the silver-tongued hacks they shove down our throats. It's the problem, not the solution, that we only demand the best of the crappiest options that's not as crappy as the crappiest guy the other party could shove down our throats.

Cruz may get that respect if he continues to give us reason to believe in him, but not when he's given us enough reasons to wait and see what his true motivations and allegiances are. I don't know how any reasonable human being can have such trust in any politician to go ahead and act like you know their intentions.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Obama is STILL better than trash like Mccain and Graham. Obama at least hasn't OPENLY used NDAA2012 yet. Mccain and Graham have already asked for it.

I'm no friend of Obama of course, but if the best argument the Republicans can muster against voting for Libertarians is "But that's a vote for Obama" and they keep giving us Mccain type candidates, all they're doing me is enocouraging me to keep backing the LP...

Elder Bush was THE NWO guy. Truman was bad but I don't know that he's THAT bad, granted there's Hiroshima and Nagasaki but other than Ron Paul himself who WOULDN'T have done that, and he did have enough self-control to avoid full out war with China. Granted, that doesn't make him "Good" but I don't know if he's truly among the worst. I'd swap Elder Bush and Truman.

As for finding a "Good" President, you aren't going back far enough. The New Deal totally destroyed America and everyone since then has been some degree of "Trash." I'm not saying he was perfect, but Calvin Coolidge was our last "Good" President. I don't quite expect Rand Paul to live up to that ideal, but I expect him to be better than anyone since Calvin. Considering how bad the trash from Hoover-Obama were, if Rand Paul doesn't handily do better than all of those guys, he won't get my support again in the second election. Even with my doubts, I think that's a standard Rand Paul can definitely meet. I wouldn't even consider voting for someone that "Might" beat out those guys.