Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The reason these "lazy, moronic couch potatoes" are agitated is because their preference for the Republican nominee was never considered, or at least that is what they are screaming about here. The Republican GOP has confirmed that they have no system in place to poll or survey registered republicans who attend the precinct caucus.exactly
No, they reason that they're agitated is that they didn't bother to get themselves informed, so they're now being ginned up by a bunch of misinformation and outright lies.
"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."
In other words, get informed or get taken for a sucker.
Since your non-answer most likely means you didn't even ATTEND your precinct caucus, let alone cast the vote you're making such a ruckus about now, I'll ask you another question: At what point, exactly, did you become aware that your state was not going to be holding a standard GOP primary or caucus? How long ago was it?
I thought I had made it clear, but I will clarify now- I am an unaffiliated conservative. I am not a member of the GOP, I dropped my affiliation after 2008. You will find no post of mine to the contrary. Trust me, or look if you like.
I have no interest in participating in politics unless you consider voting when called upon to do so, participating in politics. I watch sports on tv and I follow politics. That is all I am willing to do. I went to the caucus in 2008. I have no desire to be any more involved in the process than that, other than voting. It's not what I want in my life. I will spare you all the reasons why.
I do enjoy being called names though. Reminds me of debating my sisters when I was 12. Good times.
I haven't called YOU any names. I made a general statement about people who make no effort toward getting what they want, including clearly identifying HOW that's accomplished or even paying attention, and then get flail around in a rage because they mysteriously didn't get it. If you want to identify yourself with that statement, that's YOUR lookout, not mine.
I don't actually give a rat's rear what political party you are or are not affiliated with. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is people blaming their own lack of investment and the lousy returns they get from it on others not making the effort for them. It's hypocritical, and it generates no sympathy. For the record, though, given your lack of political affiliation, I can tell you that you would have been just as "disenfranchised" if you lived in Arizona where I am, because despite having a standard primary, it's closed and only allows party members to vote. Is that ALSO "cheating" and "rigging the system" and "unfair"?
Well, it appears to me that you weren't following much in the way of politics for the last nine months, at least not on a local level, or none of this would be a shock now. I don't get more involved in politics than to be informed and vote myself, but I AM informed. I work at it. And if I don't care about something enough to put in that effort, then I admit it and do everyone a favor and stay out of it. And I own that decision.
Ok, you are better informed than I am on what has occurred in Colorado, what the Rep voters are saying, what the mood is here, and what it all means. I am sorry I have not been a political junky for the last nine months, but I feel fortunate to have you tell me what my eyes get wrong.
Thank you for your research. You have qualified yourself to tutor people on the Colorado caucus system. I know you are aware you will
have to re-educator yourself as the system will change for 2020. But you have proven you can learn everything from google search.
So I will just tell you what happened here and you tell me what it means-
What does it mean that the Colorado Republican chairman Steve House is getting death threats? I mean other than what you already explained regarding lazy, fat, and dumb voters.
Is there any significance to this audio of Steve House talking at a Republican meeting,
and the Colorado republican executive committee changing the rules days later to make it more difficult for a canidate like trump to win delegates?
What does it mean that the state GOP tweeted "we did it. #never Trump" shortly after Ted Cruz Was awarded all Colorado delegates?
What does it mean they did not Send the tweet, and claim it was a hack. Is it possible the hacker is the same one who hacked Anthony wiener's Twitter account?
Thanks for helping those of us who are too lazy to be as informed as you.
The reason these "lazy, moronic couch potatoes" are agitated is because their preference for the Republican nominee was never considered, or at least that is what they are screaming about here. The Republican GOP has confirmed that they have no system in place to poll or survey registered republicans who attend the precinct caucus.exactly
No, they reason that they're agitated is that they didn't bother to get themselves informed, so they're now being ginned up by a bunch of misinformation and outright lies.
"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."
In other words, get informed or get taken for a sucker.
Since your non-answer most likely means you didn't even ATTEND your precinct caucus, let alone cast the vote you're making such a ruckus about now, I'll ask you another question: At what point, exactly, did you become aware that your state was not going to be holding a standard GOP primary or caucus? How long ago was it?
I thought I had made it clear, but I will clarify now- I am an unaffiliated conservative. I am not a member of the GOP, I dropped my affiliation after 2008. You will find no post of mine to the contrary. Trust me, or look if you like.
I have no interest in participating in politics unless you consider voting when called upon to do so, participating in politics. I watch sports on tv and I follow politics. That is all I am willing to do. I went to the caucus in 2008. I have no desire to be any more involved in the process than that, other than voting. It's not what I want in my life. I will spare you all the reasons why.
I do enjoy being called names though. Reminds me of debating my sisters when I was 12. Good times.
I haven't called YOU any names. I made a general statement about people who make no effort toward getting what they want, including clearly identifying HOW that's accomplished or even paying attention, and then get flail around in a rage because they mysteriously didn't get it. If you want to identify yourself with that statement, that's YOUR lookout, not mine.
I don't actually give a rat's rear what political party you are or are not affiliated with. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is people blaming their own lack of investment and the lousy returns they get from it on others not making the effort for them. It's hypocritical, and it generates no sympathy. For the record, though, given your lack of political affiliation, I can tell you that you would have been just as "disenfranchised" if you lived in Arizona where I am, because despite having a standard primary, it's closed and only allows party members to vote. Is that ALSO "cheating" and "rigging the system" and "unfair"?
Well, it appears to me that you weren't following much in the way of politics for the last nine months, at least not on a local level, or none of this would be a shock now. I don't get more involved in politics than to be informed and vote myself, but I AM informed. I work at it. And if I don't care about something enough to put in that effort, then I admit it and do everyone a favor and stay out of it. And I own that decision.
Ok, you are better informed than I am on what has occurred in Colorado, what the Rep voters are saying, what the mood is here, and what it all means. I am sorry I have not been a political junky for the last nine months, but I feel fortunate to have you tell me what my eyes get wrong.
Thank you for your research. You have qualified yourself to tutor people on the Colorado caucus system. I know you are aware you will
have to re-educator yourself as the system will change for 2020. But you have proven you can learn everything from google search.
So I will just tell you what happened here and you tell me what it means-
What does it mean that the Colorado Republican chairman Steve House is getting death threats? I mean other than what you already explained regarding lazy, fat, and dumb voters.
Is there any significance to this audio of Steve House talking at a Republican meeting,
and the Colorado republican executive committee changing the rules days later to make it more difficult for a canidate like trump to win delegates?
What does it mean that the state GOP tweeted "we did it. #never Trump" shortly after Ted Cruz Was awarded all Colorado delegates?
What does it mean they did not Send the tweet, and claim it was a hack. Is it possible the hacker is the same one who hacked Anthony wiener's Twitter account?
Thanks for helping those of us who are too lazy to be as informed as you.
The reason these "lazy, moronic couch potatoes" are agitated is because their preference for the Republican nominee was never considered, or at least that is what they are screaming about here. The Republican GOP has confirmed that they have no system in place to poll or survey registered republicans who attend the precinct caucus.
No, they reason that they're agitated is that they didn't bother to get themselves informed, so they're now being ginned up by a bunch of misinformation and outright lies.
"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."
In other words, get informed or get taken for a sucker.
Since your non-answer most likely means you didn't even ATTEND your precinct caucus, let alone cast the vote you're making such a ruckus about now, I'll ask you another question: At what point, exactly, did you become aware that your state was not going to be holding a standard GOP primary or caucus? How long ago was it?
I thought I had made it clear, but I will clarify now- I am an unaffiliated conservative. I am not a member of the GOP, I dropped my affiliation after 2008. You will find no post of mine to the contrary. Trust me, or look if you like.
I have no interest in participating in politics unless you consider voting when called upon to do so, participating in politics. I watch sports on tv and I follow politics. That is all I am willing to do. I went to the caucus in 2008. I have no desire to be any more involved in the process than that, other than voting. It's not what I want in my life. I will spare you all the reasons why.
I do enjoy being called names though. Reminds me of debating my sisters when I was 12. Good times.
I haven't called YOU any names. I made a general statement about people who make no effort toward getting what they want, including clearly identifying HOW that's accomplished or even paying attention, and then get flail around in a rage because they mysteriously didn't get it. If you want to identify yourself with that statement, that's YOUR lookout, not mine.
I don't actually give a rat's rear what political party you are or are not affiliated with. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is people blaming their own lack of investment and the lousy returns they get from it on others not making the effort for them. It's hypocritical, and it generates no sympathy. For the record, though, given your lack of political affiliation, I can tell you that you would have been just as "disenfranchised" if you lived in Arizona where I am, because despite having a standard primary, it's closed and only allows party members to vote. Is that ALSO "cheating" and "rigging the system" and "unfair"?
Well, it appears to me that you weren't following much in the way of politics for the last nine months, at least not on a local level, or none of this would be a shock now. I don't get more involved in politics than to be informed and vote myself, but I AM informed. I work at it. And if I don't care about something enough to put in that effort, then I admit it and do everyone a favor and stay out of it. And I own that decision.
Ok, you are better informed than I am on what has occurred in Colorado, what the Rep voters are saying, what the mood is here, and what it all means. I am sorry I have not been a political junky for the last nine months, but I feel fortunate to have you tell me what my eyes get wrong.
Thank you for your research. You have qualified yourself to tutor people on the Colorado caucus system. I know you are aware you will
have to re-educator yourself as the system will change for 2020. But you have proven you can learn everything from google search.
So I will just tell you what happened here and you tell me what it means-
What does it mean that the Colorado Republican chairman Steve House is getting death threats? I mean other than what you already explained regarding lazy, fat, and dumb voters.
Is there any significance to this audio of Steve House talking at a Republican meeting,
and the Colorado republican executive committee changing the rules days later to make it more difficult for a canidate like trump to win delegates?
What does it mean that the state GOP tweeted "we did it. #never Trump" shortly after Ted Cruz Was awarded all Colorado delegates?
What does it mean they did not Send the tweet, and claim it was a hack. Is it possible the hacker is the same one who hacked Anthony wiener's Twitter account?
Thanks for helping those of us who are too lazy to be as informed as you.
There isn't any "other" to it. It's just another manifestation of the same degeneration of our society and our standards.
In future, you might want to consider not asking questions if you're going to get butthurt at the answers. It's a waste of everyone's time.
Probably for cases such as Hillary if she is arrested and elected
Ironically, that's not the case either. There is nothing in the Constitution which says a president is disqualified if they are under indictment or arrest. Congress can invoke articles of impeachment...wouldn't that be something... getting impeached before you get inaugurated? She'd be one up on Bill!
The reason these "lazy, moronic couch potatoes" are agitated is because their preference for the Republican nominee was never considered, or at least that is what they are screaming about here. The Republican GOP has confirmed that they have no system in place to poll or survey registered republicans who attend the precinct caucus.
No, they reason that they're agitated is that they didn't bother to get themselves informed, so they're now being ginned up by a bunch of misinformation and outright lies.
"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."
In other words, get informed or get taken for a sucker.
Since your non-answer most likely means you didn't even ATTEND your precinct caucus, let alone cast the vote you're making such a ruckus about now, I'll ask you another question: At what point, exactly, did you become aware that your state was not going to be holding a standard GOP primary or caucus? How long ago was it?
I thought I had made it clear, but I will clarify now- I am an unaffiliated conservative. I am not a member of the GOP, I dropped my affiliation after 2008. You will find no post of mine to the contrary. Trust me, or look if you like.
I have no interest in participating in politics unless you consider voting when called upon to do so, participating in politics. I watch sports on tv and I follow politics. That is all I am willing to do. I went to the caucus in 2008. I have no desire to be any more involved in the process than that, other than voting. It's not what I want in my life. I will spare you all the reasons why.
I do enjoy being called names though. Reminds me of debating my sisters when I was 12. Good times.
I haven't called YOU any names. I made a general statement about people who make no effort toward getting what they want, including clearly identifying HOW that's accomplished or even paying attention, and then get flail around in a rage because they mysteriously didn't get it. If you want to identify yourself with that statement, that's YOUR lookout, not mine.
I don't actually give a rat's rear what political party you are or are not affiliated with. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is people blaming their own lack of investment and the lousy returns they get from it on others not making the effort for them. It's hypocritical, and it generates no sympathy. For the record, though, given your lack of political affiliation, I can tell you that you would have been just as "disenfranchised" if you lived in Arizona where I am, because despite having a standard primary, it's closed and only allows party members to vote. Is that ALSO "cheating" and "rigging the system" and "unfair"?
Well, it appears to me that you weren't following much in the way of politics for the last nine months, at least not on a local level, or none of this would be a shock now. I don't get more involved in politics than to be informed and vote myself, but I AM informed. I work at it. And if I don't care about something enough to put in that effort, then I admit it and do everyone a favor and stay out of it. And I own that decision.
Ok, you are better informed than I am on what has occurred in Colorado, what the Rep voters are saying, what the mood is here, and what it all means. I am sorry I have not been a political junky for the last nine months, but I feel fortunate to have you tell me what my eyes get wrong.
Thank you for your research. You have qualified yourself to tutor people on the Colorado caucus system. I know you are aware you will
have to re-educator yourself as the system will change for 2020. But you have proven you can learn everything from google search.
So I will just tell you what happened here and you tell me what it means-
What does it mean that the Colorado Republican chairman Steve House is getting death threats? I mean other than what you already explained regarding lazy, fat, and dumb voters.
Is there any significance to this audio of Steve House talking at a Republican meeting,
and the Colorado republican executive committee changing the rules days later to make it more difficult for a canidate like trump to win delegates?
What does it mean that the state GOP tweeted "we did it. #never Trump" shortly after Ted Cruz Was awarded all Colorado delegates?
What does it mean they did not Send the tweet, and claim it was a hack. Is it possible the hacker is the same one who hacked Anthony wiener's Twitter account?
Thanks for helping those of us who are too lazy to be as informed as you.
I need more help from those most informed, namely Cecilie-
How did the "uninformed, lazy couch potato" John Gibson ever get a job as a political commentator with Fox, and please tell me the fallacies in his conclusion "But it definitely is the fault of the GOP in Colorado. Cutting out voters makes the party look corrupt." in this article?
COLORADO GOP DECIDES VOTERS DON'T NEED TO VOTE. WAIT! WHAT?
How much lower is the average IQ of people participating in the GOP protest rally at the state capital today than yours? And why are they spending their time rallying instead of becoming more informed about the state election process?
Will you post after the rally and tell me what I saw, I plan to attend?
Or should I attend the protest to the protest rally at the GOP headquarters? They are at the same time, I am so confused. No wonder I don't understand the caucus system.
And remind me again, how is Donald Trump leading in delegates considering his supporters can't understand the election process?
As always, your crack research is appreciated.
The reason these "lazy, moronic couch potatoes" are agitated is because their preference for the Republican nominee was never considered, or at least that is what they are screaming about here. The Republican GOP has confirmed that they have no system in place to poll or survey registered republicans who attend the precinct caucus.
No, they reason that they're agitated is that they didn't bother to get themselves informed, so they're now being ginned up by a bunch of misinformation and outright lies.
"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."
In other words, get informed or get taken for a sucker.
Since your non-answer most likely means you didn't even ATTEND your precinct caucus, let alone cast the vote you're making such a ruckus about now, I'll ask you another question: At what point, exactly, did you become aware that your state was not going to be holding a standard GOP primary or caucus? How long ago was it?
I thought I had made it clear, but I will clarify now- I am an unaffiliated conservative. I am not a member of the GOP, I dropped my affiliation after 2008. You will find no post of mine to the contrary. Trust me, or look if you like.
I have no interest in participating in politics unless you consider voting when called upon to do so, participating in politics. I watch sports on tv and I follow politics. That is all I am willing to do. I went to the caucus in 2008. I have no desire to be any more involved in the process than that, other than voting. It's not what I want in my life. I will spare you all the reasons why.
I do enjoy being called names though. Reminds me of debating my sisters when I was 12. Good times.
I haven't called YOU any names. I made a general statement about people who make no effort toward getting what they want, including clearly identifying HOW that's accomplished or even paying attention, and then get flail around in a rage because they mysteriously didn't get it. If you want to identify yourself with that statement, that's YOUR lookout, not mine.
I don't actually give a rat's rear what political party you are or are not affiliated with. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is people blaming their own lack of investment and the lousy returns they get from it on others not making the effort for them. It's hypocritical, and it generates no sympathy. For the record, though, given your lack of political affiliation, I can tell you that you would have been just as "disenfranchised" if you lived in Arizona where I am, because despite having a standard primary, it's closed and only allows party members to vote. Is that ALSO "cheating" and "rigging the system" and "unfair"?
Well, it appears to me that you weren't following much in the way of politics for the last nine months, at least not on a local level, or none of this would be a shock now. I don't get more involved in politics than to be informed and vote myself, but I AM informed. I work at it. And if I don't care about something enough to put in that effort, then I admit it and do everyone a favor and stay out of it. And I own that decision.
Ok, you are better informed than I am on what has occurred in Colorado, what the Rep voters are saying, what the mood is here, and what it all means. I am sorry I have not been a political junky for the last nine months, but I feel fortunate to have you tell me what my eyes get wrong.
Thank you for your research. You have qualified yourself to tutor people on the Colorado caucus system. I know you are aware you will
have to re-educator yourself as the system will change for 2020. But you have proven you can learn everything from google search.
So I will just tell you what happened here and you tell me what it means-
What does it mean that the Colorado Republican chairman Steve House is getting death threats? I mean other than what you already explained regarding lazy, fat, and dumb voters.
Is there any significance to this audio of Steve House talking at a Republican meeting,
and the Colorado republican executive committee changing the rules days later to make it more difficult for a canidate like trump to win delegates?
What does it mean that the state GOP tweeted "we did it. #never Trump" shortly after Ted Cruz Was awarded all Colorado delegates?
What does it mean they did not Send the tweet, and claim it was a hack. Is it possible the hacker is the same one who hacked Anthony wiener's Twitter account?
Thanks for helping those of us who are too lazy to be as informed as you.
I need more help from those most informed, namely Cecilie-
How did the "uninformed, lazy couch potato" John Gibson ever get a job as a political commentator with Fox, and please tell me the fallacies in his conclusion "But it definitely is the fault of the GOP in Colorado. Cutting out voters makes the party look corrupt." in this article?
COLORADO GOP DECIDES VOTERS DON'T NEED TO VOTE. WAIT! WHAT?
How much lower is the average IQ of people participating in the GOP protest rally at the state capital today than yours? And why are they spending their time rallying instead of becoming more informed about the state election process?
Will you post after the rally and tell me what I saw, I plan to attend?
Or should I attend the protest to the protest rally at the GOP headquarters? They are at the same time, I am so confused. No wonder I don't understand the caucus system.
And remind me again, how is Donald Trump leading in delegates considering his supporters can't understand the election process?
As always, your crack research is appreciated.
But Boss, from a practical standpoint, do you think she could win while under indictment? It seems to me she would be too damaged.
No, Congress does not have the power. .Boards of election hold no legal authority in regards to Cruz's citizenship, only that he has qualified for that states ability to get on that states ballot. The Penn Judge was pretty much rebuked by the NJ Judge. A Federal Court won't hear any of it, as the issue must go through the DC Circuit as stated by the 9th Circuit.As did the Pennsylvania judge, the Illinois Board of Election amd the Connecticut Board of Election. It seems highly unlikely that a federal court would even hear the case.All the administrative law judge did was state that Cruz was allowed to be on the state ballot, his opinion that Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" is just his opinion. He goes on to state:Cruz hasn't won any challenges against him. The cases have been denied for various reasons, late filing, no standing. failure to serve, etc. Only a candidate will be able to pursue based on standing, or Congress can flat out deny him if he is elected.Cruz has already won countless challenges to that. If that's what you're strategy is relying on, you better have a plan B
Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
TRENTON - Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution and therefore can run in the June 7 New Jersey primary, a state administrative law judge said Tuesday. "The more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a 'natural born citizen' within the contemplation of the Constitution," Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin wrote.
Seems like a win to me.
Cruz is eligible- just not qualified.
Masin wrote in a 26-page decision that the issue of whether a child born outside the U.S. to an American citizen is eligible to be president "can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling" of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Again, all it did was qualify Cruz on the States ballot.
You should follow the links and read the full story instead of misleading snippets.
Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
Congress can choose to deny Cruz if he were to win the general election and even then SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case either, as Congress would have sole authority over the issue.
20th Amendment Section 3, The 9th Circuit says they do, so does Cruz's own team, sorry.No, Congress does not have the power.Boards of election hold no legal authority in regards to Cruz's citizenship, only that he has qualified for that states ability to get on that states ballot. The Penn Judge was pretty much rebuked by the NJ Judge. A Federal Court won't hear any of it, as the issue must go through the DC Circuit as stated by the 9th Circuit.As did the Pennsylvania judge, the Illinois Board of Election amd the Connecticut Board of Election. It seems highly unlikely that a federal court would even hear the case.All the administrative law judge did was state that Cruz was allowed to be on the state ballot, his opinion that Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" is just his opinion. He goes on to state:Cruz hasn't won any challenges against him. The cases have been denied for various reasons, late filing, no standing. failure to serve, etc. Only a candidate will be able to pursue based on standing, or Congress can flat out deny him if he is elected.
Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
TRENTON - Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution and therefore can run in the June 7 New Jersey primary, a state administrative law judge said Tuesday. "The more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a 'natural born citizen' within the contemplation of the Constitution," Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin wrote.
Seems like a win to me.
Cruz is eligible- just not qualified.
Masin wrote in a 26-page decision that the issue of whether a child born outside the U.S. to an American citizen is eligible to be president "can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling" of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Again, all it did was qualify Cruz on the States ballot.
You should follow the links and read the full story instead of misleading snippets.
Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
Congress can choose to deny Cruz if he were to win the general election and even then SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case either, as Congress would have sole authority over the issue.
No they do not, you are misinterpreting a case regarding what is possible BEFORE he is on the ballot and officially running.20th Amendment Section 3, The 9th Circuit says they do, so does Cruz's own team, sorry.No, Congress does not have the power.Boards of election hold no legal authority in regards to Cruz's citizenship, only that he has qualified for that states ability to get on that states ballot. The Penn Judge was pretty much rebuked by the NJ Judge. A Federal Court won't hear any of it, as the issue must go through the DC Circuit as stated by the 9th Circuit.As did the Pennsylvania judge, the Illinois Board of Election amd the Connecticut Board of Election. It seems highly unlikely that a federal court would even hear the case.All the administrative law judge did was state that Cruz was allowed to be on the state ballot, his opinion that Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" is just his opinion. He goes on to state:Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
TRENTON - Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution and therefore can run in the June 7 New Jersey primary, a state administrative law judge said Tuesday. "The more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a 'natural born citizen' within the contemplation of the Constitution," Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin wrote.
Seems like a win to me.
Cruz is eligible- just not qualified.
Masin wrote in a 26-page decision that the issue of whether a child born outside the U.S. to an American citizen is eligible to be president "can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling" of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Again, all it did was qualify Cruz on the States ballot.
You should follow the links and read the full story instead of misleading snippets.
Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
Congress can choose to deny Cruz if he were to win the general election and even then SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case either, as Congress would have sole authority over the issue.
The President has 3 requirements to meet, 35 or older, 14 years resident in the US, and be a "natural-born citizen". Congress could disqualify based on not meeting any one of the 3 requirements. If they deem Cruz to not be a "natural-born citizen" he could be disqualified if he is the President elect.
Is it likely he is elected? Probably not
Is it likely he would be disqualified? Probably not
Would Congress issue a Resolution like they did for McCain? Quite possible
Misinterpreting a case? LMFAONo they do not, you are misinterpreting a case regarding what is possible BEFORE he is on the ballot and officially running.20th Amendment Section 3, The 9th Circuit says they do, so does Cruz's own team, sorry.No, Congress does not have the power.Boards of election hold no legal authority in regards to Cruz's citizenship, only that he has qualified for that states ability to get on that states ballot. The Penn Judge was pretty much rebuked by the NJ Judge. A Federal Court won't hear any of it, as the issue must go through the DC Circuit as stated by the 9th Circuit.As did the Pennsylvania judge, the Illinois Board of Election amd the Connecticut Board of Election. It seems highly unlikely that a federal court would even hear the case.All the administrative law judge did was state that Cruz was allowed to be on the state ballot, his opinion that Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" is just his opinion. He goes on to state:
Masin wrote in a 26-page decision that the issue of whether a child born outside the U.S. to an American citizen is eligible to be president "can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling" of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Again, all it did was qualify Cruz on the States ballot.
You should follow the links and read the full story instead of misleading snippets.
Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
Congress can choose to deny Cruz if he were to win the general election and even then SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case either, as Congress would have sole authority over the issue.
The President has 3 requirements to meet, 35 or older, 14 years resident in the US, and be a "natural-born citizen". Congress could disqualify based on not meeting any one of the 3 requirements. If they deem Cruz to not be a "natural-born citizen" he could be disqualified if he is the President elect.
Is it likely he is elected? Probably not
Is it likely he would be disqualified? Probably not
Would Congress issue a Resolution like they did for McCain? Quite possible
No, congress is not the ultimate authority on the meaning of the constitution. Congress can certainly pass legislation that would deny Cruz the presidency, but you can bet that the Supreme Court would review their action to determine constitutionality and would most assuredly block congress and probably rule the term means a person born to a U.S. citizen without regard to where they were born. .Boards of election hold no legal authority in regards to Cruz's citizenship, only that he has qualified for that states ability to get on that states ballot. The Penn Judge was pretty much rebuked by the NJ Judge. A Federal Court won't hear any of it, as the issue must go through the DC Circuit as stated by the 9th Circuit.As did the Pennsylvania judge, the Illinois Board of Election amd the Connecticut Board of Election. It seems highly unlikely that a federal court would even hear the case.All the administrative law judge did was state that Cruz was allowed to be on the state ballot, his opinion that Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" is just his opinion. He goes on to state:Cruz hasn't won any challenges against him. The cases have been denied for various reasons, late filing, no standing. failure to serve, etc. Only a candidate will be able to pursue based on standing, or Congress can flat out deny him if he is elected.
Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
TRENTON - Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution and therefore can run in the June 7 New Jersey primary, a state administrative law judge said Tuesday. "The more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a 'natural born citizen' within the contemplation of the Constitution," Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin wrote.
Seems like a win to me.
Cruz is eligible- just not qualified.
Masin wrote in a 26-page decision that the issue of whether a child born outside the U.S. to an American citizen is eligible to be president "can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling" of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Again, all it did was qualify Cruz on the States ballot.
You should follow the links and read the full story instead of misleading snippets.
Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
Congress can choose to deny Cruz if he were to win the general election and even then SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case either, as Congress would have sole authority over the issue.
Here we find agreement- Congress is the ultimate authority over who is eligible. If this were to reach the Supreme Court, I think it would consider it a political issue and within the authority of Congress- not the courts.
And despite the general dislike for Cruz in Congress, I would expect that Congress would approve Cruz just as they signaled that they would have approved McCain.
Not that Cruz is likely to be on the ballot- or elected.
20th Amendment Section 3, The 9th Circuit says they do, so does Cruz's own team, sorry.No, Congress does not have the power.Boards of election hold no legal authority in regards to Cruz's citizenship, only that he has qualified for that states ability to get on that states ballot. The Penn Judge was pretty much rebuked by the NJ Judge. A Federal Court won't hear any of it, as the issue must go through the DC Circuit as stated by the 9th Circuit.As did the Pennsylvania judge, the Illinois Board of Election amd the Connecticut Board of Election. It seems highly unlikely that a federal court would even hear the case.All the administrative law judge did was state that Cruz was allowed to be on the state ballot, his opinion that Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" is just his opinion. He goes on to state:Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
TRENTON - Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution and therefore can run in the June 7 New Jersey primary, a state administrative law judge said Tuesday. "The more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a 'natural born citizen' within the contemplation of the Constitution," Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin wrote.
Seems like a win to me.
Cruz is eligible- just not qualified.
Masin wrote in a 26-page decision that the issue of whether a child born outside the U.S. to an American citizen is eligible to be president "can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling" of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Again, all it did was qualify Cruz on the States ballot.
You should follow the links and read the full story instead of misleading snippets.
Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
Congress can choose to deny Cruz if he were to win the general election and even then SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case either, as Congress would have sole authority over the issue.
The President has 3 requirements to meet, 35 or older, 14 years resident in the US, and be a "natural-born citizen". Congress could disqualify based on not meeting any one of the 3 requirements. If they deem Cruz to not be a "natural-born citizen" he could be disqualified if he is the President elect.
Is it likely he is elected? Probably not
Is it likely he would be disqualified? Probably not
Would Congress issue a Resolution like they did for McCain? Quite possible
SCOTUS wouldn't touch the case, Political Question Doctrine. Nobody has stated Congress is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the constitution. SMFH What was stated was: Congress is the ultimate authority over who is eligible.No, congress is not the ultimate authority on the meaning of the constitution. Congress can certainly pass legislation that would deny Cruz the presidency, but you can bet that the Supreme Court would review their action to determine constitutionality and would most assuredly block congress and probably rule the term means a person born to a U.S. citizen without regard to where they were born. .Boards of election hold no legal authority in regards to Cruz's citizenship, only that he has qualified for that states ability to get on that states ballot. The Penn Judge was pretty much rebuked by the NJ Judge. A Federal Court won't hear any of it, as the issue must go through the DC Circuit as stated by the 9th Circuit.As did the Pennsylvania judge, the Illinois Board of Election amd the Connecticut Board of Election. It seems highly unlikely that a federal court would even hear the case.All the administrative law judge did was state that Cruz was allowed to be on the state ballot, his opinion that Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" is just his opinion. He goes on to state:Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
TRENTON - Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution and therefore can run in the June 7 New Jersey primary, a state administrative law judge said Tuesday. "The more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a 'natural born citizen' within the contemplation of the Constitution," Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin wrote.
Seems like a win to me.
Cruz is eligible- just not qualified.
Masin wrote in a 26-page decision that the issue of whether a child born outside the U.S. to an American citizen is eligible to be president "can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling" of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Again, all it did was qualify Cruz on the States ballot.
You should follow the links and read the full story instead of misleading snippets.
Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
Congress can choose to deny Cruz if he were to win the general election and even then SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case either, as Congress would have sole authority over the issue.
Here we find agreement- Congress is the ultimate authority over who is eligible. If this were to reach the Supreme Court, I think it would consider it a political issue and within the authority of Congress- not the courts.
And despite the general dislike for Cruz in Congress, I would expect that Congress would approve Cruz just as they signaled that they would have approved McCain.
Not that Cruz is likely to be on the ballot- or elected.
The problem of course is the Constitution did not define "natural born" nor did it supply an enforcement clause. but , there is abundant evidence as to the meaning of the phrase..
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States
Every time there is a presidential candidate born abroad, or whose parent(s) were, there will be political opposition calming ineligibility. They have no attention of actually getting a court ruling on the issue but rather to leave doubt in the minds of voters in hopes of winning their vote. IMHO, the Supreme Court should make a clear ruling as the requirements of president, that will once and for all end this issue. It's a distraction in the election process that is used to divert the attention of voters from the real issues.
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
You do understand that quote backs up exactly what I have stated, right?20th Amendment Section 3, The 9th Circuit says they do, so does Cruz's own team, sorry.No, Congress does not have the power.Boards of election hold no legal authority in regards to Cruz's citizenship, only that he has qualified for that states ability to get on that states ballot. The Penn Judge was pretty much rebuked by the NJ Judge. A Federal Court won't hear any of it, as the issue must go through the DC Circuit as stated by the 9th Circuit.As did the Pennsylvania judge, the Illinois Board of Election amd the Connecticut Board of Election. It seems highly unlikely that a federal court would even hear the case.All the administrative law judge did was state that Cruz was allowed to be on the state ballot, his opinion that Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" is just his opinion. He goes on to state:
Masin wrote in a 26-page decision that the issue of whether a child born outside the U.S. to an American citizen is eligible to be president "can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling" of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Again, all it did was qualify Cruz on the States ballot.
You should follow the links and read the full story instead of misleading snippets.
Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
Congress can choose to deny Cruz if he were to win the general election and even then SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case either, as Congress would have sole authority over the issue.
The President has 3 requirements to meet, 35 or older, 14 years resident in the US, and be a "natural-born citizen". Congress could disqualify based on not meeting any one of the 3 requirements. If they deem Cruz to not be a "natural-born citizen" he could be disqualified if he is the President elect.
Is it likely he is elected? Probably not
Is it likely he would be disqualified? Probably not
Would Congress issue a Resolution like they did for McCain? Quite possible
What ruling are speaking of?
...nothing in the Twentieth Amendment states or implies that Congress has the exclusive authority to pass on the eligibility of candidates for president. The amendment merely grants Congress the authority to determine how to proceed if neither the president elect nor the vice president elect is qualified to hold office … Lindsay v. Bowen, 9th Cir. 2014.
The political question doctrine - Obama Conspiracy Theories
Your link is completely rebutted here:No, congress is not the ultimate authority on the meaning of the constitution. Congress can certainly pass legislation that would deny Cruz the presidency, but you can bet that the Supreme Court would review their action to determine constitutionality and would most assuredly block congress and probably rule the term means a person born to a U.S. citizen without regard to where they were born. .
The problem of course is the Constitution did not define "natural born" nor did it supply an enforcement clause. but , there is abundant evidence as to the meaning of the phrase..
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States
Every time there is a presidential candidate born abroad, or whose parent(s) were, there will be political opposition calming ineligibility. They have no intention of actually getting a court ruling on the issue but rather to leave doubt in the minds of voters in hopes of winning their vote. IMHO, the Supreme Court should make a clear ruling as to the requirements of president, that will once and for all end this issue. It's a distraction in the election process that is used to divert the attention of voters from the real issues.
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
So what's your plan b to stopping Cruz?
So what's your plan b to stopping Cruz?
Which one was Plan A: the foot-stomping, tiny-hand-waving tantrum, or the wishing him away?
So what's your plan b to stopping Cruz?
Which one was Plan A: the foot-stomping, tiny-hand-waving tantrum, or the wishing him away?
The he's Canadian meme
