Ted Cruz to Announce on Monday He Plans to Run for President

I am not even sure why Cruz is bothering he is in 8th place at RCP and way upside down on his favorable/unfavorable ratings. Taking into consideration his name recognition that tells me that he has a icecubes chance in hell of getting the nomination and even less chance of getting a VP invitation

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/ted-cruz-favorable-rating

anyway libs have fun parroting the progressive sites and pretend his announcement really means something, it will give you some busy work to keep your minds occupied

 

I don't know anyone who actually likes Ted Cruz. They may agree with some or most of his positions but everyone seems to be gravitating towards other people like Paul, Carson, Walker and so on. He is dead in the water before he even gets started.

 

agree. one of my morning chat buddies lives in Texas and is Independent with conservative leanings and cannot stand Cruz

 

On the surface it does seem like nothing. However, like in 2008 and 2012, the best part of the GOP primaries is watching them shred one another to figure how who is the "real social conservative" and then having that used against them in the general election because the majority of the country does not want a "real social conservative".

Cruz's real value will be shredding other Republican candidates in the GOP primaries.

 

it won't matter, a centrist Republican will win and seems all the Dems have to offer is Hillary with Liawatha Warren as her sidekick. Hillary can always be counted on to get lower and lower poll numbers the more the public knows about her. For example just as the much publicized CNN poll favorability poll shows she has dropped 6 points in 5 months http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/03/17/poll.2016.pdf and she has not even declared yet. back in 08 her polling steadily dropped as the campaign wore on. All she has going for her is name recognition and Warren as a VP pick to get the left leaning base out

 

He can't run for the White House - he wasn't born in the USA unlike Mr Obama --- the REAL patriotic American.

 

Has no chance. None. No.

 

The reason he is appealing is he is one of the only voices railing against the extreme left wing of the Democratic party that has semi taken hold of the democratic party. I would love to see the more moderate branches of the republican party stand up and be counted but right now that is just not happening.

 

This morning I heard a lawyer comment that U.S. citizenship has been so dumbed down during the past six years, it doesn't matter where you are born in the world, if just one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, you are now a natural born citizen. That's the way Obama and his supporters want it.

An illegal alien who's also a convicted felon and is awarded an Obama executive amnesty and becomes a naturalized citizen will soon be able to become POTUS. As Obama said there will be a President someday who's name will be Pancho Lopez.

There's a newly elected California state assembly woman who can't read, write or speak English. As California goes, America soon follows.

Thanks Obama, American citizenship is about worth as much as dog crap today.

 

If he remains the only Republican in the primary ballots he might win 11 primaries.
That was a joke. Here's my real thoughts.
If he remains the only Republican on the ballot he'll win 15 primaries, losing the rest to none of the above.
He'll win all the caucuses however because none of the above is not an option.
That could be a good thing. He would reach the convention withourt enough delegates to win and they'll pick the nominee the old-fashioned way. Cruz will lose but know exactly how much support he has for 2020, 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036 and 2040. (He's young.)
In a 2-way race against Jeb he loses all 50 states.
In a 3-way race, (adding Rand Paul) he never drops out but wins only Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. Paul takes Iowa, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Alaska, Idaho, Montana and South Dakota. Jeb wins, since no one even mentions he lost a few states.
In a 4-way race (adding Christie) Cruz drops out early. Christie wins only New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Michigan. Paul gets Nevada, New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont. Bush adds Arizona and New Mexico. Bush still wins.
However it's possible that Christie will drop out after finishing 4th in Iowa, 3rd in New Hampshire and 3rd in South Carolina. That reverts to the above scenario.
Since that could happen, let's add Marco Rubio for a 5-way start. That puts Cruz last in both Iowa and New Hampshire and forces him out. Rubio gets most of what Cruz would have gotten, plus Louisiana and Hawaii.
Bush still wins.

 

Seriously, as much a whack job as Carnival clearly is, and as inconceivable as his nomination may be, I look forward to his annoying the elite that run the GOP.

Whomever they anoint to further their acquisitive agendas will be the 2016 Romney, but bring on the clowns.

After all, the conflation of rightist politics with media entertainment has conjured up Trumps and Palins - fellows of infinite jest!


Meanwhile, painfully-humourless centrist Hillary Clinton could at least use challenges from the likes of Warren and Webb - or a sleeper like Senator Jack Reed - but only because George Carlin or Robin Williams might not qualify to be on some ballots.


Coronations foreordained should occasion fun and games.



There ought to be clowns.




.

 

so your pissed at Obama because Bush let a lot of Mexicans in. good job.

 

Could that be because he looks and sounds just like Mr. Haney of "Green Acres", and Mr. Haney was a con man?

 

You think Cruz is going to be any different ? How so ?

The desire to trample on the constitution and rights of a women by forcing religious beliefs on others through law by trying to ban abortion is the Achilles heel of the GOP.

Most folks can get past the general desire of the religious right to force their beliefs into law in relation to the past efforts such as prohibition, porn and so on.

Clinging on to the abortion issue is almost political suicide as far as national election is concerned. This election IMO has more people on the fence than have been in a long time.

For many of those on the fence, including myself, abortion is a deal breaker.

During the Biden/Ryan debate abortion came up. Biden's response was " I am a Catholic and against abortion personally but I do not believe the state should force religious beliefs on others"

There is a difference between having a belief and forcing that belief on others. To take away constitutionally protected freedoms the State should at minimum be able to come up with a very compelling rational.

Compelling = 80% or more of the populace are going to agree. This is what differentiates the difference between legalization of Pot and Heroin for example.

Clearly "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" includes doing what you wish with your own body. The State then needs a very compelling reason to override such freedoms.

80% if not more are easily going to agree that Heroin should be illegal as it is so dangerous. Pot ? Not even close and in fact more are for at least some kind of decriminalization than are for keeping it illegal.

What kind of compelling rational can be given for banning all abortion, especially in the early term.

I am not a big fan of abortion but that is not the point. The fact of the matter is that "experts disagree". There is nothing that proves that a single human cell at conception is a "living human". In fact from a scientific perspective it is almost ridiculous to make such a claim.

Let us however give the anti abortion crowd the benefit of the doubt and stake out a middle ground that all can agree on which is "experts disagree"

This is the same as saying " We don't know".

The question is then is " We don't know" a sufficiently compelling reason to make a law. Any law.

For folks that wish to force a woman to pass a large object though a small orifice on the basis of "we don't know" I recommend we make a similar law stating:

"Big Bob the Sodomizer shall visit you once per week as - we don't know that it wont do you some good"

Is "we don't know" really a justification we want to adopt as legitimate for making law in this country.

Obviously this is absurd.

 

You should cite some constitutional evidence for your point. The quote you gave is from the Declaration of Independence, and is not legally binding. But even if it was, many would use that to say that abortion restricts the freedom of "life" to the fetus.

You say we are forcing pregnant women to give birth because "we don't know" whether a fetus is a life or not. A fine point, I will grant, but can't it go the other way? Are we saying that fetuses can be killed because "we don't know" whether a fetus is a life or not?

This isn't an issue of pushing religious beliefs down people's throats. Abortion is an action that many people define as murder. If they believe that millions of human lives are ended in abortion, don't they have an obligation to fight against it?

In any case, I would say that being anti-SSM is more political suicide in this election than anything else, and Cruz has already come out strongly against it.

In any ca

 

One of the sharpest students I had . . . I’ve had 10,000 students over my 50 years at Harvard . . . he has to qualify among the brightest of the students. ~ liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz

Off the charts brilliant ~ liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz

 

Cruz doesn't go on to reference Minor v Happersett.

What was pointed out is that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark ( 1898 ) references Minor v Happersett, more than once, and then Rogers V Bellei (1971) also references WKA and Minor. All in all, the thread showed why Cruz was not a "natural-born" citizen through SCOTUS opinion, while you and Rhal claimed he was from a Wiki link. NOTE: 90% of the commenters in this thread state he is not eligible to hold the office.

 

Cruz knows he has about as much chance as a snowball in hell to become the nominee. He's doing this for the attention, just as he has done all of his idiotic stunts. Many of these characters, such as Trump, Huckabee and Gingrich, have done this phony running for POTUS stunt just to sell books and garner free publicity.

 

A Wiki link? That got its info from a 2011 CRS report. Why is it that nobody ever finishes the quote or follows the information? The very next paragraph states

So that CRS report ASSUMES many things, thus its conclusion is abruptly clear, they have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idea if what they say is actually true or not.

But then we have people whom are supposedly educated and choose to call some "birthers" simply because they can't comprehend what is assumption and what is actual SCOTUS opinion. SCOTUS opinion completely shows that CRS report to be inane.

Ted Cruz can run for the Presidency, the issue is he can not hold office as he does not qualify due to his citizenship being conferred by Congress making him a naturalized citizen.

 

He can run for office, any citizen can, he simply can't hold office due to being a naturalized citizen.

 

From that very wiki link in leading up to that CRS quote you use

C'mon people, this is third grade comprehension.

 

Cruz is not naturalized, his mother was a US citizen so by definition, is a natural born citizen.

The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born Citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born 'in' the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements.

 

how many cases have you argued before the Supreme court ? I am guessing none

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...uz-allowed-to-run-since-he-was-born-in-canada


Neal Katyal, who served as acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, and Paul Clement, who was solicitor general under George W. Bush, wrote earlier this month in the Harvard Law Review that "there is no question" Cruz is eligible.

They cite that because Cruz's mother was a U.S. citizen and his father was a U.S. resident, "Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a 'natural born Citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution" and the "Naturalization Act of 1790."

 

That means he fawned over Dershowiz.. Now the more important question is : does this Harvard lawyer know whether he is a natural born US citizen or not?

 

Cruz holds a Canadian Birth Certificate, he was born in Canadian Jurisdiction, his citizenship was conferred by Congress (1940 and 1952 INA's), thus he falls under naturalized citizen. Read Rogers Vs Bellei (1972) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/

You do understand that it is nothing more then mere OPINION from a CRS report that holds NO legal validity, right? Even Wiki explains it is nothing more then some opinion and that The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.