What makes a "natural born" person patriotic?

[Cecilie1200]

You have no idea how much I'm going to enjoy quoting this post to you for four whole years if he wins.

let's make it eight, shall we ??

You just get through four years of Trump, in OR out of office, without being too humiliated to show your face . . . assuming you even have a sense of shame left after shilling for him through the election.

i has just enough sense of shame to vote for him in vermont this morning, then leave to go to Cpac. is this a great country or what ??

Well, thank you for clarifying that you own Donald Trump and everything he does for the next four years. Again, we'll see if you stop showing up halfway through.

nobody owns him, that's why he gets my one vote. i'm at Cpac now, so i think i'm in for the haul long.

Bullshit, "nobody owns him". There's a big difference between "no one donated to my campaign" (which, as I've said, is utter bullshit in and of itself) and "no one owns me". Do you really think this asshole has been doing business, in real estate, in freaking New York and New Jersey, without ties and deals and favors out the wazoo? Why is it that Donald Trump is the only wealthy, successful person in North America that you are willing to assume is, because he's rich, utterly free of ties and beholdings? Would you be touting George Soros, or one of the Koch brothers, or any other billionaire in the country that way? Or would you assume that their wealth is prima facie evidence that they MUST be in someone's pocket to some extent?

And have you even considered that his "it's all about me, I'm doing it single-handedly, don't need anyone" schtick ALSO means he's not owned by or beholden to the American people themselves?

 

[Cecilie1200]

One of the murderers was a natural born citizen- the other was not a citizen at all.

We have a whole host of murderers- mass murderers in the United States who were natural born citizens- from Jeffrey Dahmer to Tim McVeigh to the San Bernadino killer- all natural born.

All killers.

None of which changes the eligibility requirements of the Constitution.

That is exactly my point. According to present law they are all eligible to be president, while a hard working hones t and patriotic naturalized citizen immigrant is not.

The point of the law is not to exclude people who would be bad, unpatriotic Presidents or include people are are good, patriotic citizens. The point of the law is to provide a standard which will eliminate potential conflicts of interest. The Constitutional eligibility requirements are hardly the one and only bar one must clear to become President, and they shouldn't be anywhere close to being the highest and toughest bar to clear.

Of course, given the thinking capacity of many voters in this country today . . .

everyone's vote counts the same, every opinion is relevant, as justice is blind.

Just remember that an opinion being relevant is not the same as it be intelligent, serious, or respectable.

Your opinion impacts the world around you, but that doesn't make it any less idiotic.

you still can't have my vote, i don't think anyone's opinion or vote are pinned to your approval, which is fine.

I don't want your fucking vote. Frankly, the more you talk, the more I consider your support to be an excellent reason to be dubious about whichever candidate has it. If Donald Trump wasn't such an abso-fucking-lutely excellent argument against himself, you'd be nearly as good.

 

[Mac1958]

There are many natural born Americans who - by their birth place - qualify to be President.

You know, home loving patriots like Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, Jane Fonda, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Aldrich Aimes, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Robert Hanssen, John Walker Jr. and Benedict Arnold. Just to name a few.

Contrast the short list above (and you know that there are many many more) to the thousands (perhaps MILLIONS) of naturalized citizens who are happy to be in the land that gave them the opportunity their country of birth never could give them, and would NEVER try to "fundamentally transform" their new home to something similar to the hell hole they left behind.

A normal person would bet on the loyal naturalized citizens over the pieces of dirt who had the good luck of lottery to be born in America, but would be ready and willing to subjugate her to third world status.

The present law that requires the contender to be American born is - to be gentle and charitable - is archaic, obsolete, racist, xenophobic and totally 19th century, not that there is anything wrong with that.

And just to make it clear: I am a Canadian who is hooked on American politics and and I have no desire to run for President. And to be even more clear, I don't have the ability even if I were American.

Seems that the current field of presidential contenders should take my concession of lack of ability as a well meaning advice.

Fair points, good topic.

There are many who were born here who hate our history and traditions, and many who weren't born here who appreciate how unique this country was.
.

 

[Unkotare]

There are many natural born Americans who - by their birth place - qualify to be President.

You know, home loving patriots like Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, Jane Fonda, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Aldrich Aimes, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Robert Hanssen, John Walker Jr. and Benedict Arnold. Just to name a few.

Contrast the short list above (and you know that there are many many more) to the thousands (perhaps MILLIONS) of naturalized citizens who are happy to be in the land that gave them the opportunity their country of birth never could give them, and would NEVER try to "fundamentally transform" their new home to something similar to the hell hole they left behind.

A normal person would bet on the loyal naturalized citizens over the pieces of dirt who had the good luck of lottery to be born in America, but would be ready and willing to subjugate her to third world status.

The present law that requires the contender to be American born is - to be gentle and charitable - is archaic, obsolete, racist, xenophobic and totally 19th century, not that there is anything wrong with that.

And just to make it clear: I am a Canadian who is hooked on American politics and and I have no desire to run for President. And to be even more clear, I don't have the ability even if I were American.

Seems that the current field of presidential contenders should take my concession of lack of ability as a well meaning advice.

Fair points, good topic.

There are many who were born here who hate our history and traditions, and many who weren't born here who appreciate how unique this country was.
.

Is

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The short answer is that it guarnatees that the president is loyal to the United States. A person not born here to parents who are citizens my not be as loyal to this country as a person who has strong roots implanted into this country.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The short answer is that it guarnatees that the president is loyal to the United States. A person not born here to parents who are citizens my not be as loyal to this country as a person who has strong roots implanted into this country.

RM3 John Walker Jr. had strong ties to this country, was natural born, and even had a family military tradition.

And he and his father still sold us out to the Russians.

 

[washamericom]

That is exactly my point. According to present law they are all eligible to be president, while a hard working hones t and patriotic naturalized citizen immigrant is not.

The point of the law is not to exclude people who would be bad, unpatriotic Presidents or include people are are good, patriotic citizens. The point of the law is to provide a standard which will eliminate potential conflicts of interest. The Constitutional eligibility requirements are hardly the one and only bar one must clear to become President, and they shouldn't be anywhere close to being the highest and toughest bar to clear.

Of course, given the thinking capacity of many voters in this country today . . .

everyone's vote counts the same, every opinion is relevant, as justice is blind.

Just remember that an opinion being relevant is not the same as it be intelligent, serious, or respectable.

Your opinion impacts the world around you, but that doesn't make it any less idiotic.

you still can't have my vote, i don't think anyone's opinion or vote are pinned to your approval, which is fine.

I don't want your fucking vote. Frankly, the more you talk, the more I consider your support to be an excellent reason to be dubious about whichever candidate has it. If Donald Trump wasn't such an abso-fucking-lutely excellent argument against himself, you'd be nearly as good.

 

[washamericom]

The short answer is that it guarnatees that the president is loyal to the United States. A person not born here to parents who are citizens my not be as loyal to this country as a person who has strong roots implanted into this country.

i just don't see how cruz can be construed as natural born, even under the loosest standard. if he was born in canada, to a canadian father, who's wife would be canadian by marraige... i just don't see it. if we no longer care about natural born that's fine, but we should amend the constitution and take it out. Naturalization for Spouses of U.S. Citizens

dual citizenship ok ? then why the grandfather clause, because they were born subjects, not citizens.


FYI
Who's is a contraction of “who is” or, less commonly, “who has.” Whoseis the possessive of “who” or, somewhat controversially, “which.” I know a woman whose kids study there. The trouble here is due to the apostrophe, which on 99% of English words indicates possession, but on this one simply indicates a contraction.

 

[sealybobo]

There are many natural born Americans who - by their birth place - qualify to be President.

You know, home loving patriots like Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, Jane Fonda, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Aldrich Aimes, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Robert Hanssen, John Walker Jr. and Benedict Arnold. Just to name a few.

Contrast the short list above (and you know that there are many many more) to the thousands (perhaps MILLIONS) of naturalized citizens who are happy to be in the land that gave them the opportunity their country of birth never could give them, and would NEVER try to "fundamentally transform" their new home to something similar to the hell hole they left behind.

A normal person would bet on the loyal naturalized citizens over the pieces of dirt who had the good luck of lottery to be born in America, but would be ready and willing to subjugate her to third world status.

The present law that requires the contender to be American born is - to be gentle and charitable - is archaic, obsolete, racist, xenophobic and totally 19th century, not that there is anything wrong with that.

And just to make it clear: I am a Canadian who is hooked on American politics and and I have no desire to run for President. And to be even more clear, I don't have the ability even if I were American.

Seems that the current field of presidential contenders should take my concession of lack of ability as a well meaning advice.

Sorry but unless you were born here I guess you'd have to be born here to get it. We have such a awesome history and we are taught it growing up. So we are taught American exceptionalism. And even if the reasons seem paranoid and superstitious, we believe the founders were years ahead of their time. Some conspiracy theories say they were aliens or God visited Washington during the revolution.

Part of what we learn growing up is to be president you have to be born in America. Maybe just for the reason it makes us feel like part of a club. You can never get into the club. You were either born into it or you are not

 

[washamericom]

There are many natural born Americans who - by their birth place - qualify to be President.

You know, home loving patriots like Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, Jane Fonda, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Aldrich Aimes, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Robert Hanssen, John Walker Jr. and Benedict Arnold. Just to name a few.

Contrast the short list above (and you know that there are many many more) to the thousands (perhaps MILLIONS) of naturalized citizens who are happy to be in the land that gave them the opportunity their country of birth never could give them, and would NEVER try to "fundamentally transform" their new home to something similar to the hell hole they left behind.

A normal person would bet on the loyal naturalized citizens over the pieces of dirt who had the good luck of lottery to be born in America, but would be ready and willing to subjugate her to third world status.

The present law that requires the contender to be American born is - to be gentle and charitable - is archaic, obsolete, racist, xenophobic and totally 19th century, not that there is anything wrong with that.

And just to make it clear: I am a Canadian who is hooked on American politics and and I have no desire to run for President. And to be even more clear, I don't have the ability even if I were American.

Seems that the current field of presidential contenders should take my concession of lack of ability as a well meaning advice.

Sorry but unless you were born here I guess you'd have to be born here to get it. We have such a awesome history and we are taught it growing up. So we are taught American exceptionalism. And even if the reasons seem paranoid and superstitious, we believe the founders were years ahead of their time. Some conspiracy theories say they were aliens or God visited Washington during the revolution.

Part of what we learn growing up is to be president you have to be born in America. Maybe just for the reason it makes us feel like part of a club. You can never get into the club. You were either born into it or you are not

well said.

 

[Freewill]

There are many natural born Americans who - by their birth place - qualify to be President.

You know, home loving patriots like Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, Jane Fonda, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Aldrich Aimes, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Robert Hanssen, John Walker Jr. and Benedict Arnold. Just to name a few.

Contrast the short list above (and you know that there are many many more) to the thousands (perhaps MILLIONS) of naturalized citizens who are happy to be in the land that gave them the opportunity their country of birth never could give them, and would NEVER try to "fundamentally transform" their new home to something similar to the hell hole they left behind.

A normal person would bet on the loyal naturalized citizens over the pieces of dirt who had the good luck of lottery to be born in America, but would be ready and willing to subjugate her to third world status.

The present law that requires the contender to be American born is - to be gentle and charitable - is archaic, obsolete, racist, xenophobic and totally 19th century, not that there is anything wrong with that.

And just to make it clear: I am a Canadian who is hooked on American politics and and I have no desire to run for President. And to be even more clear, I don't have the ability even if I were American.

Seems that the current field of presidential contenders should take my concession of lack of ability as a well meaning advice.

You flip it around once again. It isn't that natural born citizens can be trusted. As you say there were natural born that were traitors. The founding fathers didn't want British subject running for President. So they limited the presidency to natural born, or more correctly, prohibiting non natural born citizens.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are many natural born Americans who - by their birth place - qualify to be President.

You know, home loving patriots like Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, Jane Fonda, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Aldrich Aimes, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Robert Hanssen, John Walker Jr. and Benedict Arnold. Just to name a few.

Contrast the short list above (and you know that there are many many more) to the thousands (perhaps MILLIONS) of naturalized citizens who are happy to be in the land that gave them the opportunity their country of birth never could give them, and would NEVER try to "fundamentally transform" their new home to something similar to the hell hole they left behind.

A normal person would bet on the loyal naturalized citizens over the pieces of dirt who had the good luck of lottery to be born in America, but would be ready and willing to subjugate her to third world status.

The present law that requires the contender to be American born is - to be gentle and charitable - is archaic, obsolete, racist, xenophobic and totally 19th century, not that there is anything wrong with that.

And just to make it clear: I am a Canadian who is hooked on American politics and and I have no desire to run for President. And to be even more clear, I don't have the ability even if I were American.

Seems that the current field of presidential contenders should take my concession of lack of ability as a well meaning advice.

You flip it around once again. It isn't that natural born citizens can be trusted. As you say there were natural born that were traitors. The founding fathers didn't want British subject running for President. So they limited the presidency to natural born, or more correctly, prohibiting non natural born citizens.

The main reason in the modern era, and the clause was designed for all time, not just for the era of the Found Fathers, is that a person with interests other than those of the US at heart, might not make the best president.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The short answer is that it guarnatees that the president is loyal to the United States. A person not born here to parents who are citizens my not be as loyal to this country as a person who has strong roots implanted into this country.

i just don't see how cruz can be construed as natural born, even under the loosest standard. if he was born in canada, to a canadian father, who's wife would be canadian by marraige... i just don't see it. if we no longer care about natural born that's fine, but we should amend the constitution and take it out. Naturalization for Spouses of U.S. Citizens

dual citizenship ok ? then why the grandfather clause, because they were born subjects, not citizens.


FYI
Who's is a contraction of “who is” or, less commonly, “who has.” Whoseis the possessive of “who” or, somewhat controversially, “which.” I know a woman whose kids study there. The trouble here is due to the apostrophe, which on 99% of English words indicates possession, but on this one simply indicates a contraction.

I just heard "I don't see how it could be true, because I don't want it to be true. This is what I, in my infinite wisdom, have decided the law is, and there is no way it could be true under my interpretation, and I win!"

It's been explained to you about a hundred times, at least. And your response is always to pretend nothing was ever said, reassert your personal worldview as fact, and then look bewildered and ask how anything but your perception could possibly be true.

Investigate the phrase "pearls before swine", Porky. Ta ta.

 

[Syriusly]

The short answer is that it guarnatees that the president is loyal to the United States. A person not born here to parents who are citizens my not be as loyal to this country as a person who has strong roots implanted into this country.

It doesn't guarantee anything. But it does help establish that a person has roots here in the United States.

 

[washamericom]

The short answer is that it guarnatees that the president is loyal to the United States. A person not born here to parents who are citizens my not be as loyal to this country as a person who has strong roots implanted into this country.

i just don't see how cruz can be construed as natural born, even under the loosest standard. if he was born in canada, to a canadian father, who's wife would be canadian by marraige... i just don't see it. if we no longer care about natural born that's fine, but we should amend the constitution and take it out. Naturalization for Spouses of U.S. Citizens

dual citizenship ok ? then why the grandfather clause, because they were born subjects, not citizens.


FYI
Who's is a contraction of “who is” or, less commonly, “who has.” Whoseis the possessive of “who” or, somewhat controversially, “which.” I know a woman whose kids study there. The trouble here is due to the apostrophe, which on 99% of English words indicates possession, but on this one simply indicates a contraction.

I just heard "I don't see how it could be true, because I don't want it to be true. This is what I, in my infinite wisdom, have decided the law is, and there is no way it could be true under my interpretation, and I win!"

It's been explained to you about a hundred times, at least. And your response is always to pretend nothing was ever said, reassert your personal worldview as fact, and then look bewildered and ask how anything but your perception could possibly be true.

Investigate the phrase "pearls before swine", Porky. Ta ta.

i'll reserve judgement until i meet the first 1199 cecilies...

 

[Cecilie1200]

The short answer is that it guarnatees that the president is loyal to the United States. A person not born here to parents who are citizens my not be as loyal to this country as a person who has strong roots implanted into this country.

i just don't see how cruz can be construed as natural born, even under the loosest standard. if he was born in canada, to a canadian father, who's wife would be canadian by marraige... i just don't see it. if we no longer care about natural born that's fine, but we should amend the constitution and take it out. Naturalization for Spouses of U.S. Citizens

dual citizenship ok ? then why the grandfather clause, because they were born subjects, not citizens.


FYI
Who's is a contraction of “who is” or, less commonly, “who has.” Whoseis the possessive of “who” or, somewhat controversially, “which.” I know a woman whose kids study there. The trouble here is due to the apostrophe, which on 99% of English words indicates possession, but on this one simply indicates a contraction.

I just heard "I don't see how it could be true, because I don't want it to be true. This is what I, in my infinite wisdom, have decided the law is, and there is no way it could be true under my interpretation, and I win!"

It's been explained to you about a hundred times, at least. And your response is always to pretend nothing was ever said, reassert your personal worldview as fact, and then look bewildered and ask how anything but your perception could possibly be true.

Investigate the phrase "pearls before swine", Porky. Ta ta.

i'll reserve judgement until i meet the first 1199 cecilies...

If you really want to be funny, you should be aware that your attempts at humor are not nearly as hilarious as your attempts to be serious and sound intelligent are.

 

[Contumacious]

There are many natural born Americans who - by their birth place - qualify to be President.

You know, home loving patriots like Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, Jane Fonda, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Aldrich Aimes, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Robert Hanssen, John Walker Jr. and Benedict Arnold. Just to name a few.

Contrast the short list above (and you know that there are many many more) to the thousands (perhaps MILLIONS) of naturalized citizens who are happy to be in the land that gave them the opportunity their country of birth never could give them, and would NEVER try to "fundamentally transform" their new home to something similar to the hell hole they left behind.

A normal person would bet on the loyal naturalized citizens over the pieces of dirt who had the good luck of lottery to be born in America, but would be ready and willing to subjugate her to third world status.

The present law that requires the contender to be American born is - to be gentle and charitable - is archaic, obsolete, racist, xenophobic and totally 19th century, not that there is anything wrong with that.

And just to make it clear: I am a Canadian who is hooked on American politics and and I have no desire to run for President. And to be even more clear, I don't have the ability even if I were American.

Seems that the current field of presidential contenders should take my concession of lack of ability as a well meaning advice.

That's a good point

Considering the harm that "natural born" Americans have brought to this country

1-Ape Lincoln ; centralized power in DC, the states are no longer sovereign, brought about the first "income" tax
2- Woodrow Wilson - created the warfare state, signed legislation enacting the federal reserve act and the heavy graduated "income" tax
3- FDR , abolished the Constitution (1787) , abolished SCOTUS, declared bankruptcy, declared fascism to be our new socioeconomic system
4- Harry S Truman sold his soul to Ben Gurion for 2 million dollars , created the Jewish State and permanently forced the nation to be subservient to the zionuts defensive needs
5- LBJ - created the welfare state , destroyed healthcare with the creation of medicaid and medicare in 1967
6- Bush II - a war criminal who drove the country to two Unecessary wars ; caused one of the worse depressions in the nation's history

 

[washamericom]

The short answer is that it guarnatees that the president is loyal to the United States. A person not born here to parents who are citizens my not be as loyal to this country as a person who has strong roots implanted into this country.

i just don't see how cruz can be construed as natural born, even under the loosest standard. if he was born in canada, to a canadian father, who's wife would be canadian by marraige... i just don't see it. if we no longer care about natural born that's fine, but we should amend the constitution and take it out. Naturalization for Spouses of U.S. Citizens

dual citizenship ok ? then why the grandfather clause, because they were born subjects, not citizens.


FYI
Who's is a contraction of “who is” or, less commonly, “who has.” Whoseis the possessive of “who” or, somewhat controversially, “which.” I know a woman whose kids study there. The trouble here is due to the apostrophe, which on 99% of English words indicates possession, but on this one simply indicates a contraction.

I just heard "I don't see how it could be true, because I don't want it to be true. This is what I, in my infinite wisdom, have decided the law is, and there is no way it could be true under my interpretation, and I win!"

It's been explained to you about a hundred times, at least. And your response is always to pretend nothing was ever said, reassert your personal worldview as fact, and then look bewildered and ask how anything but your perception could possibly be true.

Investigate the phrase "pearls before swine", Porky. Ta ta.

i'll reserve judgement until i meet the first 1199 cecilies...

If you really want to be funny, you should be aware that your attempts at humor are not nearly as hilarious as your attempts to be serious and sound intelligent are.

don't take it personally, it's just a friendly political forum.