By: Diane Benjamin
Enough people have voted in the first poll of GOP Presidential candidates to show you the results. These were people from an email list of conservative voters.
Click on the picture to make it bigger.
If you are planning to vote in the GOP primary in March, you can now vote. If you voted in the previous poll, you will not be able to vote again.
If you are voting in the Democrat primary, just leave a comment. Are you voting for:
- the criminal
- the socialist
- the guy nobody knows
As a Democrat I am voting for the winner.
Sent from my iPhone
>
Voting after the polls close?
Ted Cruz, lol, the guy isn’t a natural born citizen. Just because Obama did it doesn’t mean we have to let everyone who wasn’t born in the USA become or even run for potus. Let this guy run and might as well open up the floodgates, next you’ll have yesterdays illegal alien. Bad idea. Four supreme court cases are on record defining natural born citizen and Cruz doesn’t fit. Cruz is a citizen but NOT natural born. Wise up Cruz supporters!
I’m not doing the birther debate here. Cruz and Obama didn’t have to take classes to become Americans. Therefore the whole issue is immaterial. End of story!
End of story? Does that mean that any more comments I might post regarding this will be deleted? Yes or no please.
Lucky for you I have been doing some research. I wish I could scan the page from my Heritage Guide to the Constitution, but the book is too fat. I will list some highlights:
Our Laws are based on English Common Law. Clear back in 1350 the British Parliament declared children born to citizens abroad received citizenship. In 1790 our Congress declared children born outside the limits of the United States shall be considered natural-born citizens. See United States vs Wong Kim Ark-1898. The Supreme Court relied on English Common Law to determine the meaning of “citizen” in the amendment and the natural born citizenship requirement in Article 2.
Now add George Romney, born in Mexico to American parents, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.
Natural born is in the Constitution to prevent a citizen who has spent a lifetime overseas from running. Therefore, commonly 14 years of residency within the US is also required.
End of conversation. This issue, just like it was with Obama, is meant to deflect from actual issues.
The criminal, the crony-capitalist (social capitalism) and the guy nobody knows. Might as well be any primary. The guy I would vote for is not even running (Sen. Flake from Arizona). I am going to wait for the dust to settle and see which candidate is the least reprehensible or off-putting.
How about a vote for Cliven Bundy and the rest of the welfare ranchers/ domestic terrorists that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz support?
Got any proof? It isn’t fair to make comments without posting any.
I’ve got proof you are WRONG! http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/ted-cruz-calls-oregon-protesters-stand/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Ted Cruz supported the welfare rancher/ domestic terrorist in 2014 before Bundy revealed himself to be the full-blown racist/ human scum that he is.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/cliven-bundy-nevada-rancher-106006
“Republicans like Rand Paul, Dean Heller and Ted Cruz are sprinting away from the Nevada rancher after embracing his fight against the Bureau of Land Management. And media figures like Sean Hannity, who built Bundy into a star for his battle against yet another heavy-handed government agency.”
Sprinting away means nothing? Do you still support conservative woman hating Renner, or did you sprint away?
TRUMP! Man didn’t get to be a BILLIONAIRE by sucking up to the likes of Putin, and guess what, we’re going to NEED a PREZ with “backbone” since the Arabs went and executed a bunch of “prisoners” Good ole GWB left a power vacuum in the middle east that is NOT going to go away until they burn their damn koran OR they kill every man, woman and child they can find!! Just WATCH that part of the world turn into a DONNYBROOK! Where’s NIxon when ya need him??
Bush left a vacuum? Re-writing history?
Townie is correct on the power vaccum part. Bush and his advisors greatly underestimated and miscalculated how the post-war Iraq would function. Terrorist groups used the war to rally people to their cause. We installed a government friendly to Iran, which worried Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia financed Sunni fighters who were not always fighting terrorists. Former regime elements joined with Sunni tribes and other secretarian aligned groups. Many Baathists were barred from serving in the military. No job and not many other choices was replaced by a paycheck if you promised to kill Shiites and foreign troops. Some of Saddam’s former soldiers are helping ISIS. Everyone wants a piece and there is very little trust or the will to work together.
I will say I supported the war and Bush, but I can admit when I make a mistake. I can’t defend the decision anymore due to the realities on the ground. Iraq is carved into three states. We didn’t find any WMD (I tried for years to prove that we did). Don’t know what history is being rewritten when the realities don’t support that the war was successful. We have a lot of wounded soldiers that paid the price. Dick Cheney and the security firms are the only ones benefiting.
No president we elect will tame the Middle East. Our allies are fighting other allies that we support. We don’t need another costly war that sets more people against each other and results in our service men and women being maimed and killed with no real progress except defensive companies getting richer.
Did you miss it was Obama that totally withdrew from Iraq?
No, I NEVER supported the Iraq war. Afghanistan is where the 9/11 attacks originated. Bush dropped the ball there. Obama turned a stable Iraq into the killing fields.
Don’t forget Bill Clinton’s involvement in providing military supplies to the Afghan rebels back in the 1990s. For a long time American foreign policy in the Middle East has not had the most favorable results.
Iraq was stable before Obama? You seriously just said that. It was never stable to begin with! I guess if you take out all sectarian murders, suicide bombers, military deaths, and insurgent attacks, then yeah that is pretty stable. Do you still think
Iraq had something to do with 9/11?
Did you forget the surge worked? They had elections. As long as we had troops there, it was stable. They just needed more time. Obama fled! Think “status of forces agreement”.
The surge did not work. It’s stated aim was reconciliation of Sunnis and Shiites and as late as 2014, violence was still an issue. Maliki was persecuting the Sunnis which led some to embrace ISIS. The ISIS ball was rolling down that hill long before Obama had to chase it. By the time he got a hold of it, he had to climb back up the hill. As long as we cut deals with less than savory people, we were able to slow the waterfall of violence, but then it comes back with a vengeance.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/world/meast/iraq-elections/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-surge-fallacy/399344/
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/08/16/reviving-the-successful-surge-myth-2/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-stuck-with-maliki–and-lost-iraq/2014/07/03/0dd6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html
If a goal is made of several small goals in order to achieve it, you don’t complete one and say you were successful.
Iraq was a foreign policy failure no matter which President you blame it on. But don’t forget who though we could steamroll Iraq into a democratic state, friendly to the United States? Wasn’t Obama. Obama was more than happy to capitulate to the narrative that it was a success. Don’t know why. Iraq is like a case of psoriasis. It doesnt show at certain times, but then it flares up again. I guess if your definition of success is holding elections than go ahead and claim it, but the notion that Iraq was stable before Obama is embellishing.