Cruz draws first blood in USA Republican race; Clinton claims narrowest of victories for Democrats

[lannarebirth]

 

Lots of people backed it.

Because they were lied to about WMD's.

I'm sure the resident Clinton mouthpiece will be along shortly to spin this his way but this is a kick in the teeth for the Clinton Dynasty. On to NH where she probably doesn't even come close to a dead heat.

ABC...Anyone But Clinton.

 

Any Republican against Clinton in November loses.

That equals ARAgCINL.

And it's the sound the Republican party is making coming out of I-o-way and going into the Granite State up further north and over there on the big ocean. A stone's throw from Boston it is.

Not anywhere near enough "courageous conservatives" in NH of the kind Cruz likes. The bulk of Republicans up there are nutcase enough to swarm for Trump.

Mainstream Republicans in NH who are also mainstream in their religion are scattered among the candidates of their own kind, namely Kasich, Bush, Christie ---Rubio somewhat so far.

Rubio has truly bizarro religious views and affiliations, which is what brought him forward in Iowa which itself has a huge number of Republican rightwing religious nutcases. Rubio certainly didn't do any campaigning of consequence in Iowa. He instead promoted very quietly his tin foil church history of religious belief and worship.

Rotsa ruck with this crew.

Publicus, you don't like the Republicans, BUT you're cheering on Hillary Clinton ?

I'm trying to say that if you reckon George Bush was a war monger, then, you've got to accept that Hillary Clinton is just as much a war monger as George Bush.

See, you hate Bush, but you go on and cheer Hillary Clinton ?? How about we all get behind Bernie Sanders instead of supporting Hillary ? Surely, peace is better than war ? Bernie IS a man of peace, Bernie was NOT one of those who backed and supported the invasion of Iraq.

(If John McCain was younger, there's no way you would support McCain being POTUS wold you ?? )

Don't waste your breath. Amoral political hacks of both flavors have no particular convictions. It's all about the party winning. No abuse of power is too great that it can't be ignored if it means securing or holding on to power. Presumably Publicus believes HRC provides the best opportunity for his party to win. Ourselves and many others disagree. I assume he'll be just as disingenuously verbose in favor of Sanders should Hillary fall by the wayside.

[tonbridgebrit]

"Don't waste your breath. Amoral political hacks of both flavors have no particular convictions. It's all about the party winning. No abuse of power is too great that it can't be ignored if it means securing or holding on to power. Presumably Publicus believes HRC provides the best opportunity for his party to win. Ourselves and many others disagree. I assume he'll be just as disingenuously verbose in favor of Sanders should Hillary fall by the wayside."


I think Bernie has got the BIG M on his side, and that's Momentum. Lot's of Democrats will now see and know that Bernie can actually beat Hillary. It was only a few months ago when everybody reckoned that the only question needed to be answered was how far Trump will go in the race for the Republicans. Right now, we know that Bernie can do it, saying that Bernie has a chance is putting it lightly.

I was going to say, don't people reckon that Hillary is a diluted version of the Republicans when it comes to what her ideas and policies are ? I mean, why cheer on diluted Republicanism when you're a Democrat ? How about cheer on a real Democrat ? And that's Bernie Sanders.

[tonbridgebrit]

"Amoral political hacks of both flavors have no particular convictions".

Yes, I've been suspicious about that myself.

[lannarebirth]

"Don't waste your breath. Amoral political hacks of both flavors have no particular convictions. It's all about the party winning. No abuse of power is too great that it can't be ignored if it means securing or holding on to power. Presumably Publicus believes HRC provides the best opportunity for his party to win. Ourselves and many others disagree. I assume he'll be just as disingenuously verbose in favor of Sanders should Hillary fall by the wayside."

I think Bernie has got the BIG M on his side, and that's Momentum. Lot's of Democrats will now see and know that Bernie can actually beat Hillary. It was only a few months ago when everybody reckoned that the only question needed to be answered was how far Trump will go in the race for the Republicans. Right now, we know that Bernie can do it, saying that Bernie has a chance is putting it lightly.

I was going to say, don't people reckon that Hillary is a diluted version of the Republicans when it comes to what her ideas and policies are ? I mean, why cheer on diluted Republicanism when you're a Democrat ? How about cheer on a real Democrat ? And that's Bernie Sanders.

Hillary is just a really poor candidate. All her flaws and failures are too well known. Waay too much baggage. Old political saying: "When the race is between a Republican and a Republican, vote for the Republican".

[Publicus]

 

 

I'm not sure what conclusions we can draw at this early juncture, but for Clinton it seems to be a wake-up call that she is not a shoe-in, and probably deservedly widely disdained as well. For Trump, it should be a wake-up call that voters may not long be dazzled by policy-weak, self-aggrandizing, media-manipulating, blowhard megalomaniacs.

Clinton has never said or claimed to be a shoe-in. She'd been declared to be prohibitive frontrunner by MSM, political pundits across the political spectrum and their lieges, oddsmakers etc.

One fails when one tries to say HR Clinton expected a cake walk to the presidency in the election of November 8th or to the nomination at the D party's quadrennial national convention in August.

Republicans and other rightwhingers hate her guts, as do about a third of Independent voters who anyway lean Republican. That's about 44% of voters which is nowhere near enough. (McCain in 2008 got 46% and he got blown away; wiped out.)

Clinton is raising big bucks and working hard because she is well aware this will be a catfight to the end. One could say a knife fight. Reality is another word.

The Citizens United decision by scotus is a major factor.

How is Citizens United a factor if her opponent refuses to avail himself of the corrupting, influence purchasing money Citizens United allows for? If its a factor its because she's grabbing it with both hands to defeat a rival that is breathing down her neck with over 3 Million individual contributions averaging $27 each. She's not only America's worst enemy but her own worst enemy as well.

The claim in the post that Hillary Clinton is "America's worst enemy" is the usual rightwhinger OTT stuff.

It goes into the circular file in the right corner of the room where it's always dark and cold and where only the mushrooms grow.

Nobody has to buy Trump cause he's already one of 'em. Cruz, Rubio, Bush et al are fully purchased. Those too poor are out, some as of today. Bernie's candidacy and campaign are good for America; different people have divergent reasons to agree on how and why.

[helpisgood]

 

Maybe someone knows more of the details, but I believe that there is still not a very clear legal definition of this. John McCain was born on a US naval air station in Panama. I think many would think that's close enough to fall within the definition despite not being within the fifty states. So, it may not be that easy to define. I think there is also some who have argued that merely having one parent as a US citizen is enough even if the child was born on foreign soil.

I am not sure, but my point is that I do not think there is a clear definition of that requirement.

As I tried to explain earlier, they based the law on British law, which was equally vague.

The Brits went on to qualify their law. The US never has.

So ultimately I believe it could be appealed all the way to SCOTUS.

All it would take is one state to reject Cruz on its state ballot. If Cruz were the Republican nominee then one, any or all of the 50 states could challenge this. Whether Cruz were on the ballot for potus or vice president.

But all it would take is one state to determine that, based on its state constitution and the US Constitution, Cruz does not meet eligibility qualifications of the office. A state could thus decline to place his name on its ballot. A state does have this authority. Any state.

Cruz would have to respond in a filing with the federal judiciary at the appropriate federal district court. Or courts if there were more than one state, somewhere else. Thus would begin the dance of litigation.

The (each) state runs its own elections. Washington runs nothing on polling day, before it or after it.

Most likely state(s) to make such a determination is one or more of: California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Illinois, Washington state and perhaps a few others.

That it would be momentous is beyond doubt.

Thanks! I appreciate your input.

I have heard and read that Rep. Grayson of Florida will file a suit challenging Cruz's eligibility if he does get the nomination. The following article goes into some details: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-06/congressman-readies-ted-cruz-eligibility-lawsuit-with-eye-on-mom

Grayson asserts the following:

“if his mother, who clearly worked in Canada for years and years, did so while becoming a Canadian citizen and taking an oath, which is how you do it in Canada, she lost her citizenship by U.S. law, specifically Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act [provides that taking a loyalty oath to a foreign country results in the loss of citizenship].”

If Cruz does win the nomination, this will get interesting.

By the way, I am pretty sure that I heard Grayson say on Maher's show that he would file in a federal court.

Edited February 4, 2016 by helpisgood

[Publicus]

 

 

Go on, BERNIE, do it, go and beat Hillary Clinton for the leadership of your party. Go and become the leader of your nation.

Hillary Clinton, America must not forget that you backed the Bush invasion of Iraq back in 2003. See, Americans go on and on about how they don't like Bush, and how the Iraq war was not a good thing. Hillary does have support, and yet, Hillary backed the Iraq invasion. Hillary Clinton, if George Bush was a war monger, well, in that case, so are YOU, Hillary Clinton.

Lots of people backed it.

Because they were lied to about WMD's.

I'm sure the resident Clinton mouthpiece will be along shortly to spin this his way but this is a kick in the teeth for the Clinton Dynasty. On to NH where she probably doesn't even come close to a dead heat.

ABC...Anyone But Clinton.

 

Any Republican against Clinton in November loses.

That equals ARAgCINL.

And it's the sound the Republican party is making coming out of I-o-way and going into the Granite State up further north and over there on the big ocean. A stone's throw from Boston it is.

Not anywhere near enough "courageous conservatives" in NH of the kind Cruz likes. The bulk of Republicans up there are nutcase enough to swarm for Trump.

Mainstream Republicans in NH who are also mainstream in their religion are scattered among the candidates of their own kind, namely Kasich, Bush, Christie ---Rubio somewhat so far.

Rubio has truly bizarro religious views and affiliations, which is what brought him forward in Iowa which itself has a huge number of Republican rightwing religious nutcases. Rubio certainly didn't do any campaigning of consequence in Iowa. He instead promoted very quietly his tin foil church history of religious belief and worship.

Rotsa ruck with this crew.

Publicus, you don't like the Republicans, BUT you're cheering on Hillary Clinton ?

I'm trying to say that if you reckon George Bush was a war monger, then, you've got to accept that Hillary Clinton is just as much a war monger as George Bush.

See, you hate Bush, but you go on and cheer Hillary Clinton ?? How about we all get behind Bernie Sanders instead of supporting Hillary ? Surely, peace is better than war ? Bernie IS a man of peace, Bernie was NOT one of those who backed and supported the invasion of Iraq.

(If John McCain was younger, there's no way you would support McCain being POTUS wold you ?? )

Wrong again.

To say my posts are "cheering on Hillary Clinton" is to miss everything about them.

For one thing, 40% of the voters either hate her guts or won't ever vote for a Clinton so why should I waste my time on them. Then there are the expats who in freely voicing their views have no impact in respect of a vote.

I'm doing what to me anyway needs to be done and that which I willingly pursue, i.e., to reign in the far out radical extreme right. The bonus involves dealing with the wingnuts that reject democracy completely.

What the global right misses completely is that a President Al Gore never would have invaded Iraq. That was a Bush Family Enterprise. Which is a big reason why Jeb is the small presence he is today.

Bernie is weak on foreign policy and national security. Clinton is strong across the board at home and abroad. And we know who Trump's people are because their scary stuff is posted daily.

[Pinot]

I think many Democrats are like me. They really like Bernie, some flaws there but he's a good man, he'll figure it out. I like HRC too. A little too cozy with Wall Street but there is no perfect candidate. I hope Bernie pulls HRC left. I really don't care at this point who wins. Either will be fine.

The alternative are all these far right, xenophobic jerks . Make no mistake they're all unelectable. They'll be little support beyond the wingnut base. 81% of the electorate is young, female or a minority. A group that has little in common with the wingnut Republican base.

Bernie or HRC will easily beat the Republican candidate and they'll do it with the support of all the Democrats and a majority of independents. Anyone writing these Democratic candidates won't get elected are getting their news from Fox News and the right wing media echo chamber. The hate for Hillary is palpable. Republicans have embraced miserablism. Hate and fear rule the Republican party. If you think a majority of Americans will be joining the Republicans behind one of their terrible candidates, you're delusional.

The most important thing in this election is the packing of the Supreme Court. During the next President's tenure, there will be 2-3 new Supreme Court Justices chosen. One more wingnut Supreme and America is toast. That can't happen and have the United States survive. It's "Katy bar the door" for any justice. Corporations and the 1% of elite rich Americans who own the Republican party will rule the land, even worse than it is now. The stakes are very high in this election.

Fortunately, the Republicans have assembled a terrible field of unlikeable candidates that have gone far right with their politics which makes it highly unlikely any of them will even be competitive. They'll have sold their soul to the wingnut base to get the nomination which will eliminate them in the general election.

Republicans learned nothing from 2012. They're far worse off than they were back then. The Republican party is self destructing. The Democratic party will pull together to beat them and beat em badly.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Pinot

[chuckd]

The state of Illinois declared Cruz eligible as a natural born citizen to be placed on their ballot. News out yesterday.

[Pinot]

The state of Illinois declared Cruz eligible as a natural born citizen to be placed on their ballot. News out yesterday.

I always like hearing good news.

Isn't it just perfect that the Republicans now have a birther issue.

I wish Ted clear sailing onto all 50 state ballots.

Fantastic news!

Edited February 4, 2016 by Pinot

[Chicog]

"Don't waste your breath. Amoral political hacks of both flavors have no particular convictions. It's all about the party winning. No abuse of power is too great that it can't be ignored if it means securing or holding on to power. Presumably Publicus believes HRC provides the best opportunity for his party to win. Ourselves and many others disagree. I assume he'll be just as disingenuously verbose in favor of Sanders should Hillary fall by the wayside."

I think Bernie has got the BIG M on his side, and that's Momentum. Lot's of Democrats will now see and know that Bernie can actually beat Hillary. It was only a few months ago when everybody reckoned that the only question needed to be answered was how far Trump will go in the race for the Republicans. Right now, we know that Bernie can do it, saying that Bernie has a chance is putting it lightly.

I was going to say, don't people reckon that Hillary is a diluted version of the Republicans when it comes to what her ideas and policies are ? I mean, why cheer on diluted Republicanism when you're a Democrat ? How about cheer on a real Democrat ? And that's Bernie Sanders.

Bless Bernie for putting up such a fight, but he is not going to beat Clinton to the nomination.

I just hope the Democratic campaign doesn't get as poisonous as the Republican one.

[lannarebirth]

"Don't waste your breath. Amoral political hacks of both flavors have no particular convictions. It's all about the party winning. No abuse of power is too great that it can't be ignored if it means securing or holding on to power. Presumably Publicus believes HRC provides the best opportunity for his party to win. Ourselves and many others disagree. I assume he'll be just as disingenuously verbose in favor of Sanders should Hillary fall by the wayside."

I think Bernie has got the BIG M on his side, and that's Momentum. Lot's of Democrats will now see and know that Bernie can actually beat Hillary. It was only a few months ago when everybody reckoned that the only question needed to be answered was how far Trump will go in the race for the Republicans. Right now, we know that Bernie can do it, saying that Bernie has a chance is putting it lightly.

I was going to say, don't people reckon that Hillary is a diluted version of the Republicans when it comes to what her ideas and policies are ? I mean, why cheer on diluted Republicanism when you're a Democrat ? How about cheer on a real Democrat ? And that's Bernie Sanders.

Bless Bernie for putting up such a fight, but he is not going to beat Clinton to the nomination.

I just hope the Democratic campaign doesn't get as poisonous as the Republican one.

I hope it does, because you can't hurt someone who has no skeletons in their closet, but you can hurt yourself.

[tonbridgebrit]

 

Publicus, you don't like the Republicans, BUT you're cheering on Hillary Clinton ?

I'm trying to say that if you reckon George Bush was a war monger, then, you've got to accept that Hillary Clinton is just as much a war monger as George Bush.

See, you hate Bush, but you go on and cheer Hillary Clinton ?? How about we all get behind Bernie Sanders instead of supporting Hillary ? Surely, peace is better than war ? Bernie IS a man of peace, Bernie was NOT one of those who backed and supported the invasion of Iraq.

(If John McCain was younger, there's no way you would support McCain being POTUS wold you ?? )

Wrong again.

To say my posts are "cheering on Hillary Clinton" is to miss everything about them.

For one thing, 40% of the voters either hate her guts or won't ever vote for a Clinton so why should I waste my time on them. Then there are the expats who in freely voicing their views have no impact in respect of a vote.

I'm doing what to me anyway needs to be done and that which I willingly pursue, i.e., to reign in the far out radical extreme right. The bonus involves dealing with the wingnuts that reject democracy completely.

What the global right misses completely is that a President Al Gore never would have invaded Iraq. That was a Bush Family Enterprise. Which is a big reason why Jeb is the small presence he is today.

Bernie is weak on foreign policy and national security. Clinton is strong across the board at home and abroad. And we know who Trump's people are because their scary stuff is posted daily.

Publicus, here you go AGAIN.

Okay, you've got something against the Republicans, we can see that. Al Gore would never have invaded Iraq, well, you're probably right. The Iraq invasion was a Bush Family Enterprise ? Well, I'm not saying you're correct, but let's just say you might be right.

Now, you're saying that Hillary Clinton is "strong across the board at home and abroad" !! Publcus, stop, stop being a cheerleader for Hillary Clinton. Hillary DID BACK the Bush invasion of Iraq. So Jeb is not talking so loudly ? Well, yes, it was Jeb's brother who did the invasion, Jeb is in the family, a family enterprise. Jeb backed is brother's invasion of Iraq. That's why Jeb can't be the next POTUS, President of the USA. We know that. And what do you do ? You come along here, making a comment that means that you are a cheerleader for Hillary Clinton ?

Oh, so if you're George Bush's brother, you're wrong because you backed your brother's invasion of Iraq. But if you're Hillary Clinton, you're a woman, a bit of a feminist, you're wearing the Democrat Party t-shirt, oh, you also backed George's invasion of Iraq, but you're okay, we're going to be your cheerleader ??

How about this ? If we are to criticise Jeb Bush because he backed his brother's invasion of Iraq, we must also criticise everybody else who backed the Iraq invasion. That's CONSISTENCY. It don't matter if you are a man or a woman, a feminist or a submissive wife, an African-American or an American with European ancestry, born in the USA or born outside of the USA (but you got your American citizenship at birth, because of your parents, or one parent), it doesn't matter who you are, you've got to be condemned and criticised IF others who did the same thing have also been criticised.

Surely, that should be the case ?

[tonbridgebrit]

"Don't waste your breath. Amoral political hacks of both flavors have no particular convictions. It's all about the party winning. No abuse of power is too great that it can't be ignored if it means securing or holding on to power. Presumably Publicus believes HRC provides the best opportunity for his party to win. Ourselves and many others disagree. I assume he'll be just as disingenuously verbose in favor of Sanders should Hillary fall by the wayside."

I think Bernie has got the BIG M on his side, and that's Momentum. Lot's of Democrats will now see and know that Bernie can actually beat Hillary. It was only a few months ago when everybody reckoned that the only question needed to be answered was how far Trump will go in the race for the Republicans. Right now, we know that Bernie can do it, saying that Bernie has a chance is putting it lightly.

I was going to say, don't people reckon that Hillary is a diluted version of the Republicans when it comes to what her ideas and policies are ? I mean, why cheer on diluted Republicanism when you're a Democrat ? How about cheer on a real Democrat ? And that's Bernie Sanders.

Bless Bernie for putting up such a fight, but he is not going to beat Clinton to the nomination.

I just hope the Democratic campaign doesn't get as poisonous as the Republican one.

The REAL Democrats can still hope.

I reckon Bernie is going to do it.