Ted Cruz a Canadian
- Thread starter THE KOD
- Start date
For a moment during Thursday's GOP debate, it looked like a leading Republican presidential candidate might actually explain how he intends to replace Obamacare.
And then -- poof -- the moment passed.
It happened when Fox News host and moderator Bret Baier asked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) about the Affordable Care Act -- and decided to press Cruz on what he intended to do about people now getting health insurance because of the law.
?If you repeal Obamacare, as you say you will, will you be fine if millions of people don't have health insurance? And what is your specific plan for covering the uninsured?? Baier asked.
It?s a fine question. The House, under Republican control, has voted more than 50 times to repeal the health care law. Just a few weeks ago, the Senate, also under GOP control, finally passed a repeal bill, as well. But neither chamber has had so much as a committee hearing to design a replacement. And with the notable exception of Jeb Bush, who actually put together a health care proposal with details, the Republican presidential candidates have been nearly as silent.
So how did Cruz answer the question? He began by offering a familiar, one-sided account of the the law?s impact -- saying it had raised premiums, taken insurance away from millions and caused millions more to lose their part-time jobs. Then he promised to ?repeal every word of Obamacare,? prompting strong applause.
At this point Cruz had made two misleading statements -- about premiums and people losing policies -- and one statement -- about part-time jobs -- that was just plain false. But he still hadn?t answered Baier?s question.
And it turned out he had no intention of doing so. Cruz proceeded to explain that, with the health care law gone, he?d do three things: allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, decouple employment and insurance, and allow more people to use health savings accounts.
By themselves, these would do very little to help the uninsured get coverage. (Worse still, allowing cross-state purchasing would undermine state regulations on benefits, making it harder for people with serious medical problems to find comprehensive coverage.)
Truth is, Republicans don?t have a better alternative to the health care law. All of their plans result in far fewer people having insurance, or the people with insurance having much weaker coverage -- because making coverage available to all, at affordable prices, requires a combination of spending, taxes and regulation that Republicans can?t abide.
.................................................
what a bunch of fucksticks
And then -- poof -- the moment passed.
It happened when Fox News host and moderator Bret Baier asked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) about the Affordable Care Act -- and decided to press Cruz on what he intended to do about people now getting health insurance because of the law.
?If you repeal Obamacare, as you say you will, will you be fine if millions of people don't have health insurance? And what is your specific plan for covering the uninsured?? Baier asked.
It?s a fine question. The House, under Republican control, has voted more than 50 times to repeal the health care law. Just a few weeks ago, the Senate, also under GOP control, finally passed a repeal bill, as well. But neither chamber has had so much as a committee hearing to design a replacement. And with the notable exception of Jeb Bush, who actually put together a health care proposal with details, the Republican presidential candidates have been nearly as silent.
So how did Cruz answer the question? He began by offering a familiar, one-sided account of the the law?s impact -- saying it had raised premiums, taken insurance away from millions and caused millions more to lose their part-time jobs. Then he promised to ?repeal every word of Obamacare,? prompting strong applause.
At this point Cruz had made two misleading statements -- about premiums and people losing policies -- and one statement -- about part-time jobs -- that was just plain false. But he still hadn?t answered Baier?s question.
And it turned out he had no intention of doing so. Cruz proceeded to explain that, with the health care law gone, he?d do three things: allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, decouple employment and insurance, and allow more people to use health savings accounts.
By themselves, these would do very little to help the uninsured get coverage. (Worse still, allowing cross-state purchasing would undermine state regulations on benefits, making it harder for people with serious medical problems to find comprehensive coverage.)
Truth is, Republicans don?t have a better alternative to the health care law. All of their plans result in far fewer people having insurance, or the people with insurance having much weaker coverage -- because making coverage available to all, at affordable prices, requires a combination of spending, taxes and regulation that Republicans can?t abide.
.................................................
what a bunch of fucksticks
TED CRUZ: "We have seen now in six years of Obamacare that it has been a disaster. It is the biggest job-killer in this country. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, have been forced into part-time work, have lost their health insurance, have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket. "
THE FACTS: Lost jobs? Since the time Obama signed the health care law in March 2010, the nation's jobless rate has fallen from 9.9 percent to 5 percent. The economy has added more than 13 million jobs over that period.
Lost insurance? The share of Americans without coverage reached a historic low of 9 percent last year, according to the government's National Health Interview Survey. More than 16 million people gained coverage since 2013, just before the law's big coverage expansion got underway.
___
THE FACTS: Lost jobs? Since the time Obama signed the health care law in March 2010, the nation's jobless rate has fallen from 9.9 percent to 5 percent. The economy has added more than 13 million jobs over that period.
Lost insurance? The share of Americans without coverage reached a historic low of 9 percent last year, according to the government's National Health Interview Survey. More than 16 million people gained coverage since 2013, just before the law's big coverage expansion got underway.
___
Republicans have spent nearly six years promising to repeal Obamacare and, for most of that time, they have refused to acknowledge what that would mean for the millions who would lose their health insurance.
On Saturday afternoon in Iowa, for at least a few minutes, one Republican couldn't get away with it.
It happened at a Ted Cruz campaign event in Hubbard, a small town smack in the middle of the state. According to reports in The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico, Cruz fielded a question from Mike Valde, a Democratic voter who had come to the event with a story to tell and a simple question to ask.
The story was about his brother-in-law, a barber named Mark. As Valde told it, Mark was a small business owner who worked so hard that he didn?t even take paid days off. But Mark was unable to afford health insurance until the Affordable Care Act became law. When it did, Mark bought insurance and then, when he started feeling ill, saw a physician -- who promptly diagnosed him with cancer with no hope for recovery. He died last year.
?He had never been to a doctor for years,? Valde said, reportedly on the verge of tears. ?Multiple tumors behind his heart, his liver, his pancreas. And they said, ?We?re sorry, sir, there?s nothing we can do for you.?"
The room fell silent, according to the Times' account, and then Valde, who later told reporters that he was a Hillary Clinton supporter, posed his question: ?Mark never had health care until Obamacare. What are you going to replace it with??
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make. ?Under Obamacare,? Cruz said, ?millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Millions of Americans have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket.? He pointed out that Obama had promised families would see average savings of $2500 from health care reform, and joked that he?d gladly encourage anybody who'd actually reaped such savings to vote for Clinton -- a quip that drew laughter from the audience.
Valde, apparently less amused, kept at it. ?My question is, what are you going to replace it with?? he said. Cruz responded that he?d get there, but first he wanted to talk some more about the ?millions of stories on the other side? -- people who'd had to give up their old plans and, as a result, ended up with higher premiums or co-pays, narrow networks of providers or some combination thereof.
Eventually Cruz suggested that if Valde?s brother-in-law couldn?t afford health insurance premiums previously, it was probably because government regulation had driven up the price -- and that the best solution, at this point, was to wipe the slate clean and build a new health care system, one in which people could purchase coverage across state lines.
It mirrored the answer Cruz had given just two days before, when Fox News host Bret Baier posed a similar question during Thursday's presidential debate in Des Moines. And Cruz's description of Obamacare?s effects hadn?t gotten any less misleading in the interim.
It?s true that President Barack Obama's signature health care law rewrote the rules for how insurance companies sell policies directly to individuals -- requiring that all policies include comprehensive benefits, for example, and prohibiting carriers from charging higher premiums or denying coverage outright to people who pose greater medical risks. And it?s true that, because of those changes, insurers cancelled some existing policies.
But early reports suggesting as many 5 million people lost their old policies appear to have been exaggerated. Subsequent studies estimated that the actual number was less than half of that.
Meanwhile, those people were able to get new coverage through the law?s marketplaces. And the best available research suggests that the majority ended up paying less money, not more, for their policies, while enjoying guarantees of coverage nobody had previously.
Overall, fewer and fewer Americans are reporting difficulty with medical bills and the proportion of Americans without coverage has fallen to historic lows. In Iowa specifically, the proportion of residents without health insurance fell by nearly half from 2013 to 2015, according to Gallup.
As for the claim that the Affordable Care Act has either destroyed jobs or turned millions of full-time positions into part-time ones, it appears to be just plain wrong. Anecdotal stories of employers capping hours got a lot of attention in 2014 and 2015, but experts have now had time to examine the data and they see no signs of a significant trend towards part-time work. (Also of note: the private sector has created jobs in every month since the Affordable Care Act became law.) Based on conversations with several well-respected economists, the website Politifact recently rated this favorite Republican argument ?Pants on Fire.?
Allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, as Cruz proposed, is something conservatives have long favored. It would allow insurers to start acting like credit card companies, relocating to whatever states have the least onerous regulations and selling all policies from them.
Like other efforts to gut existing rules on how insurers operate, it?d allow the industry to sell cheap, skimpy policies that might appeal to some healthy people, but would offer nothing to people need comprehensive coverage. In short, it?s a way of allowing insurers to act like they did before health care reform -- not a way to make sure millions get insurance.
There?s a reason Cruz didn?t have a better answer for Valde, and it?s the same reason Republicans never have a satisfying response to this question.:scared
The Affordable Care Act has its pluses and minuses, with plenty of people legitimately aggrieved about what it?s done or how it?s worked out for them -- and plenty more opposed for philosophical reasons. But any alternative that provides similar (or better) access to health care protection from medical bills is bound to require a similar combination of regulation and government spending. Republicans oppose such measures on principle -- which is why, when they talk about Obamacare, they exaggerate the downsides, ignore the upsides, and pretend they have better alternatives.
While Cruz never responded to Valde, another candidate did. On Saturday evening, at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Clinton referenced the conversation that had taken place at the Cruz event. She noted that millions would lose their insurance if Cruz and the other Republicans have their way. "That?s fine with them," she said. "That?s not fine with me."
On Saturday afternoon in Iowa, for at least a few minutes, one Republican couldn't get away with it.
It happened at a Ted Cruz campaign event in Hubbard, a small town smack in the middle of the state. According to reports in The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico, Cruz fielded a question from Mike Valde, a Democratic voter who had come to the event with a story to tell and a simple question to ask.
The story was about his brother-in-law, a barber named Mark. As Valde told it, Mark was a small business owner who worked so hard that he didn?t even take paid days off. But Mark was unable to afford health insurance until the Affordable Care Act became law. When it did, Mark bought insurance and then, when he started feeling ill, saw a physician -- who promptly diagnosed him with cancer with no hope for recovery. He died last year.
?He had never been to a doctor for years,? Valde said, reportedly on the verge of tears. ?Multiple tumors behind his heart, his liver, his pancreas. And they said, ?We?re sorry, sir, there?s nothing we can do for you.?"
The room fell silent, according to the Times' account, and then Valde, who later told reporters that he was a Hillary Clinton supporter, posed his question: ?Mark never had health care until Obamacare. What are you going to replace it with??
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make. ?Under Obamacare,? Cruz said, ?millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Millions of Americans have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket.? He pointed out that Obama had promised families would see average savings of $2500 from health care reform, and joked that he?d gladly encourage anybody who'd actually reaped such savings to vote for Clinton -- a quip that drew laughter from the audience.
Valde, apparently less amused, kept at it. ?My question is, what are you going to replace it with?? he said. Cruz responded that he?d get there, but first he wanted to talk some more about the ?millions of stories on the other side? -- people who'd had to give up their old plans and, as a result, ended up with higher premiums or co-pays, narrow networks of providers or some combination thereof.
Eventually Cruz suggested that if Valde?s brother-in-law couldn?t afford health insurance premiums previously, it was probably because government regulation had driven up the price -- and that the best solution, at this point, was to wipe the slate clean and build a new health care system, one in which people could purchase coverage across state lines.
It mirrored the answer Cruz had given just two days before, when Fox News host Bret Baier posed a similar question during Thursday's presidential debate in Des Moines. And Cruz's description of Obamacare?s effects hadn?t gotten any less misleading in the interim.
It?s true that President Barack Obama's signature health care law rewrote the rules for how insurance companies sell policies directly to individuals -- requiring that all policies include comprehensive benefits, for example, and prohibiting carriers from charging higher premiums or denying coverage outright to people who pose greater medical risks. And it?s true that, because of those changes, insurers cancelled some existing policies.
But early reports suggesting as many 5 million people lost their old policies appear to have been exaggerated. Subsequent studies estimated that the actual number was less than half of that.
Meanwhile, those people were able to get new coverage through the law?s marketplaces. And the best available research suggests that the majority ended up paying less money, not more, for their policies, while enjoying guarantees of coverage nobody had previously.
Overall, fewer and fewer Americans are reporting difficulty with medical bills and the proportion of Americans without coverage has fallen to historic lows. In Iowa specifically, the proportion of residents without health insurance fell by nearly half from 2013 to 2015, according to Gallup.
As for the claim that the Affordable Care Act has either destroyed jobs or turned millions of full-time positions into part-time ones, it appears to be just plain wrong. Anecdotal stories of employers capping hours got a lot of attention in 2014 and 2015, but experts have now had time to examine the data and they see no signs of a significant trend towards part-time work. (Also of note: the private sector has created jobs in every month since the Affordable Care Act became law.) Based on conversations with several well-respected economists, the website Politifact recently rated this favorite Republican argument ?Pants on Fire.?
Allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, as Cruz proposed, is something conservatives have long favored. It would allow insurers to start acting like credit card companies, relocating to whatever states have the least onerous regulations and selling all policies from them.
Like other efforts to gut existing rules on how insurers operate, it?d allow the industry to sell cheap, skimpy policies that might appeal to some healthy people, but would offer nothing to people need comprehensive coverage. In short, it?s a way of allowing insurers to act like they did before health care reform -- not a way to make sure millions get insurance.
There?s a reason Cruz didn?t have a better answer for Valde, and it?s the same reason Republicans never have a satisfying response to this question.:scared
The Affordable Care Act has its pluses and minuses, with plenty of people legitimately aggrieved about what it?s done or how it?s worked out for them -- and plenty more opposed for philosophical reasons. But any alternative that provides similar (or better) access to health care protection from medical bills is bound to require a similar combination of regulation and government spending. Republicans oppose such measures on principle -- which is why, when they talk about Obamacare, they exaggerate the downsides, ignore the upsides, and pretend they have better alternatives.
While Cruz never responded to Valde, another candidate did. On Saturday evening, at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Clinton referenced the conversation that had taken place at the Cruz event. She noted that millions would lose their insurance if Cruz and the other Republicans have their way. "That?s fine with them," she said. "That?s not fine with me."
As Trump accurately pointed out, Cruz is a Canadian "anchor baby."
LOLOLOLOLOL :mj07::mj07::mj07:
LOLOLOLOLOL :mj07::mj07::mj07:
Cruz lies about Carson going home and quitting right before the election is to start.
Cruz fishing for Carson votes.
he seriously is a piece of shit.
he cant win fair.
and this would be the neo con choice.
:scared
Cruz fishing for Carson votes.
he seriously is a piece of shit.
he cant win fair.
and this would be the neo con choice.
:scared
he cheated and he is a canadian
so many hate him
he would get nothing done.............nothing
Literally Every Sentence In This Ted Cruz Quote Is Misleading Or False
A reality check on his claims about health care.
Health care got some attention in Saturday night?s GOP presidential debate. And when it was Texas Sen. Ted Cruz?s turn to speak, he started by cataloging the alleged evils of ?socialized medicine.? Here?s the full quote:
Socialized medicine is a disaster. It does not work. If you look at the countries that have imposed socialized medicine, that have put the government in charge of providing medicine, what inevitably happens is rationing. You have a scarcity of doctors. ... And that means the elderly are told: We're going to ration a hip replacement; we're going to ration a knee replacement. We're going to ration end-of-life care.
Every single sentence in that quote is misleading or flat-out false:
1. "Socialized medicine is a disaster."
Presumably Cruz is using ?socialized medicine? as a euphemism for any kind of universal health insurance -- in other words, any system in which the government guarantees health insurance to all people, either by providing that coverage directly or through some kind of private intermediaries.
The Affordable Care Act, which Republicans have pledged to repeal, is an attempt to build the foundation of such a program here in the U.S. But every other developed country already has such a system in place. And it?s hardly been a disaster.
In those countries, people are far less likely to struggle with medical bills. And contrary to conservatives' claims that the quality of medical care suffers in those countries, the U.S. consistently lags behind other developed countries in ?mortality amenable to health care,? which is one way researchers measure the quality of health care systems.
It?s not a perfect statistic and there are some things the U.S. health care system happens to do really well. But overall the countries with ?socialized medicine? seem to be getting results that are as good if not better than what the U.S. gets from its health care system -- and they do so while spending far less money.
2. "It does not work."
3. "If you look at the countries that have imposed socialized medicine, that have put the government in charge of providing medicine, what inevitably happens is rationing."
This is opponents' favorite scare tactic: Establishing universal health care will lead to rationing. But of course rationing takes place in every country, and that includes the U.S. The difference is that, in the U.S., rationing tends to be a function of income and insurance status. People who can?t pay for their medical bills have limited access to physicians and to services.
4. "You have a scarcity of doctors."
Physician supply isn?t such a great way to measure a nation?s health care system. But, for the record, in a 2014 comparison of physician supply in 34 developed countries, the U.S. ranked 28th. (It had 2.5 physicians per 1,000 people; the average was 3.5.)
5. "And that means the elderly are told: We're going to ration a hip replacement; we're going to ration a knee replacement."
Hip replacements are more common in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and eight other countries, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The rate of knee replacement really is highest in the U.S., as Cruz?s answer suggested, but other countries, including Austria and Finland, have rates that are nearly as high.
Cruz?s broader point here is that, in countries with universal coverage, government agencies or some other kind of democratically accountable organizations make decisions about what treatments to cover, and under what circumstances. He?s right about that.
But all insurance systems, public and private, make such decisions. It is true abroad and it is true in the U.S., and always has been. If you?re on Medicare, then the federal government is making that decision; if you have private insurance, then a private insurer is making that decision, subject to whatever regulations are in place.
6. "We're going to ration end-of-life care."
This should sound familiar, because it was conservatives' big lie in 2009 and 2010, while President Barack Obama and the Democrats were trying to get health care reform through Congress. But Obamacare never had any "death panels." And while some other countries make tough rationing decisions based on a variety of criteria, largely because they've decided to keep spending at very low levels, in other countries -- like France, for example -- insurance systems cover the elderly in pretty much the same way Medicare does in the U.S. If there are differences in treatment patterns, they have more to do with cultural differences -- the attitudes of doctors and patients -- than insurance coverage per se.
...................................
what a lieing sack of goat shit
A reality check on his claims about health care.
Health care got some attention in Saturday night?s GOP presidential debate. And when it was Texas Sen. Ted Cruz?s turn to speak, he started by cataloging the alleged evils of ?socialized medicine.? Here?s the full quote:
Socialized medicine is a disaster. It does not work. If you look at the countries that have imposed socialized medicine, that have put the government in charge of providing medicine, what inevitably happens is rationing. You have a scarcity of doctors. ... And that means the elderly are told: We're going to ration a hip replacement; we're going to ration a knee replacement. We're going to ration end-of-life care.
Every single sentence in that quote is misleading or flat-out false:
1. "Socialized medicine is a disaster."
Presumably Cruz is using ?socialized medicine? as a euphemism for any kind of universal health insurance -- in other words, any system in which the government guarantees health insurance to all people, either by providing that coverage directly or through some kind of private intermediaries.
The Affordable Care Act, which Republicans have pledged to repeal, is an attempt to build the foundation of such a program here in the U.S. But every other developed country already has such a system in place. And it?s hardly been a disaster.
In those countries, people are far less likely to struggle with medical bills. And contrary to conservatives' claims that the quality of medical care suffers in those countries, the U.S. consistently lags behind other developed countries in ?mortality amenable to health care,? which is one way researchers measure the quality of health care systems.
It?s not a perfect statistic and there are some things the U.S. health care system happens to do really well. But overall the countries with ?socialized medicine? seem to be getting results that are as good if not better than what the U.S. gets from its health care system -- and they do so while spending far less money.
2. "It does not work."
3. "If you look at the countries that have imposed socialized medicine, that have put the government in charge of providing medicine, what inevitably happens is rationing."
This is opponents' favorite scare tactic: Establishing universal health care will lead to rationing. But of course rationing takes place in every country, and that includes the U.S. The difference is that, in the U.S., rationing tends to be a function of income and insurance status. People who can?t pay for their medical bills have limited access to physicians and to services.
4. "You have a scarcity of doctors."
Physician supply isn?t such a great way to measure a nation?s health care system. But, for the record, in a 2014 comparison of physician supply in 34 developed countries, the U.S. ranked 28th. (It had 2.5 physicians per 1,000 people; the average was 3.5.)
5. "And that means the elderly are told: We're going to ration a hip replacement; we're going to ration a knee replacement."
Hip replacements are more common in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and eight other countries, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The rate of knee replacement really is highest in the U.S., as Cruz?s answer suggested, but other countries, including Austria and Finland, have rates that are nearly as high.
Cruz?s broader point here is that, in countries with universal coverage, government agencies or some other kind of democratically accountable organizations make decisions about what treatments to cover, and under what circumstances. He?s right about that.
But all insurance systems, public and private, make such decisions. It is true abroad and it is true in the U.S., and always has been. If you?re on Medicare, then the federal government is making that decision; if you have private insurance, then a private insurer is making that decision, subject to whatever regulations are in place.
6. "We're going to ration end-of-life care."
This should sound familiar, because it was conservatives' big lie in 2009 and 2010, while President Barack Obama and the Democrats were trying to get health care reform through Congress. But Obamacare never had any "death panels." And while some other countries make tough rationing decisions based on a variety of criteria, largely because they've decided to keep spending at very low levels, in other countries -- like France, for example -- insurance systems cover the elderly in pretty much the same way Medicare does in the U.S. If there are differences in treatment patterns, they have more to do with cultural differences -- the attitudes of doctors and patients -- than insurance coverage per se.
...................................
what a lieing sack of goat shit
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3XriXDtfqCg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
..
..
Judge Scalia's passing has probably ended any chance that Ted Cruz might have had, because of his "natural born-citizen" problems.
People seem to be aghast when the candidates use the word "liar" or a variation. The sideshow of the love of the Constitution, how Scalia adhered to it, to the letter, and how Obama is trashing it??? That document states that being a "natural born-citizen" is a requirement for being eligible to be President, or Vice President. Obama faced torturous scrutiny over that, from the "BIRTHERS," with a vociferous Donald Trump, for most of his presidency even after the long form birth certificate proved that he is a "natural born-citizen." It seems that since Ted Cruz hasn't been a likely candidate for the Republican nomination, that HIS "natural born-citizen" problems have been put on the back burner, FOR NOW.
Ted Cruz born was born in Calgary Canada, to his Cuban emmigrant father Rafael Cruz, who became a naturalized Canadian citizen in 1973 (Rafael Cruz did not become an American citizen until 2005), and even though his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time, and Ted Cruz didn't have to be naturalized to be a citizen in modern times, the Constitution itself does not allow any type of exemption for children born to a U.S. citizen on foreign soil to make them a "NATURAL BORN-CITIZEN," eligible to be President. The framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that someone born on foreign soil could never be elected President. That interpretation is obvious. But, there is more: Ted Cruise had been a Canadian citizen from birth, until he renounced his Canadian citizenship and it became final in May of last year. He claimed no knowledge of his Canadian citizenship at the time he renounced it. Think back to the framers of the Constitution, and their intent. Would they have wanted a person born on foreign soil, AND who was a documented citizen of that foreign country to be eligible to run for president?
Now, think closer to the present. Cruz wrote papers about the Constitution and Bill of Rights while at Princeton, and studied Law at Harvard. After campaigning for Bush, Cruz was given the job of Associate Deputy Attorney General in the U.S. Justice Department 1999, After that he went on be Solicitor General for the state of Texas, and authored 70 U.S. Supreme Court briefs. In all of that time, Cruz would want it to be believed that with all of the security clearances he must have had to go through, that if he didn't already know, that no one informed him that he was a Canadian citizen? It wasn't until he decided to mount a campaign for the presidency that he quietly renounced his Canadian citizenship. It probably will not matter that he isn't a "natural born-citizen," because if Trump ever perceives him as a threat, Trump's Obama "birther" attacks would probably seem like childsplay. Judge Scalia's death makes a quick SCOTUS hearing and resolving of Cruz's "natural born-citizen" issues, in a timely manner, impossible for this election cycle.
People seem to be aghast when the candidates use the word "liar" or a variation. The sideshow of the love of the Constitution, how Scalia adhered to it, to the letter, and how Obama is trashing it??? That document states that being a "natural born-citizen" is a requirement for being eligible to be President, or Vice President. Obama faced torturous scrutiny over that, from the "BIRTHERS," with a vociferous Donald Trump, for most of his presidency even after the long form birth certificate proved that he is a "natural born-citizen." It seems that since Ted Cruz hasn't been a likely candidate for the Republican nomination, that HIS "natural born-citizen" problems have been put on the back burner, FOR NOW.
Ted Cruz born was born in Calgary Canada, to his Cuban emmigrant father Rafael Cruz, who became a naturalized Canadian citizen in 1973 (Rafael Cruz did not become an American citizen until 2005), and even though his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time, and Ted Cruz didn't have to be naturalized to be a citizen in modern times, the Constitution itself does not allow any type of exemption for children born to a U.S. citizen on foreign soil to make them a "NATURAL BORN-CITIZEN," eligible to be President. The framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that someone born on foreign soil could never be elected President. That interpretation is obvious. But, there is more: Ted Cruise had been a Canadian citizen from birth, until he renounced his Canadian citizenship and it became final in May of last year. He claimed no knowledge of his Canadian citizenship at the time he renounced it. Think back to the framers of the Constitution, and their intent. Would they have wanted a person born on foreign soil, AND who was a documented citizen of that foreign country to be eligible to run for president?
Now, think closer to the present. Cruz wrote papers about the Constitution and Bill of Rights while at Princeton, and studied Law at Harvard. After campaigning for Bush, Cruz was given the job of Associate Deputy Attorney General in the U.S. Justice Department 1999, After that he went on be Solicitor General for the state of Texas, and authored 70 U.S. Supreme Court briefs. In all of that time, Cruz would want it to be believed that with all of the security clearances he must have had to go through, that if he didn't already know, that no one informed him that he was a Canadian citizen? It wasn't until he decided to mount a campaign for the presidency that he quietly renounced his Canadian citizenship. It probably will not matter that he isn't a "natural born-citizen," because if Trump ever perceives him as a threat, Trump's Obama "birther" attacks would probably seem like childsplay. Judge Scalia's death makes a quick SCOTUS hearing and resolving of Cruz's "natural born-citizen" issues, in a timely manner, impossible for this election cycle.
why people like Bush can afford $500 car payments
Bush says many many Americans cant afford a 500 dollar a month car payment.
how out of whack is that thinking.
what a premadonna nutcase.
Jeb - My mother is the one I am proudest of.
Trump - your mother should be running instead of you.:mj07:
...................................................................
Cruz - talking about Rubio's immigration plan
Rubio - Ted you don't even speak Spanish .................:lol:
Oh and Jeb - your mother wears army boots.:scared
Bush says many many Americans cant afford a 500 dollar a month car payment.
how out of whack is that thinking.
what a premadonna nutcase.
Jeb - My mother is the one I am proudest of.
Trump - your mother should be running instead of you.:mj07:
...................................................................
Cruz - talking about Rubio's immigration plan
Rubio - Ted you don't even speak Spanish .................:lol:
Oh and Jeb - your mother wears army boots.:scared
It wasn't a political debate.
It was a "Who's the biggest asshole" contest.
And it was a four way tie for first.
Carson and Kasich were back-benchers while the professional assholes went at it.:0corn
It was a "Who's the biggest asshole" contest.
And it was a four way tie for first.
Carson and Kasich were back-benchers while the professional assholes went at it.:0corn
Overall I agree with alot Kasich says.
but tell me this. What is Carson doing ?
its beyond pitiful he is still up there.
I know he will be able to make millions from speechs after this is over
but again thats just another neo con in it for the money and himself
Insiders who were at a recent meeting between the Koch Bros. and Marco Rubio leaked intel on how exactly they?re going to try and steal the election from Donald Trump, GOP strategist Roger Stone revealed.
The Koch Bros. met with GOP millionaires and billionaires Thursday night to pool together over $75 million to stop Trump and are going to use Mitt Romney as ?Plan B? if Rubio fails to gain traction on Super Tuesday, according to moles who were inside the meeting.
?$75 million to stop Trump and $25 million to Marco Rubio, but they gave Rubio a condition: he?s got to win the Florida primary or he?s out and Mitt Romney?s in,? Stone revealed. ?That?s the plan.?
?First they?ll ramp up an enormous, negative campaign on TV against Trump and they?re going to hit this phony Trump University issue,? he continued. ?They claim to have personal dirt on Trump ? I doubt that ? and they are also going to try and delve into his business affairs, but if Rubio fails to grab the Florida primary, then Rubio?s out and Mitt Romney?s in.?
?The plan is for Romney to file for the New Jersey, New York and California primaries in an all-out ditch effort to stop Donald Trump and you heard it here on Infowars.com.?
Additionally, Marco Rubio?s wife called Ted Cruz?s wife, Heidi, to desperately beg Cruz to exit the race and aid Rubio, but Heidi said no, Stone said.:mj07::mj07:
?The power structure?s desperate, the Rubio and Cruz teams are going back and forth but they can?t agree as to who will be the candidate,? he added. ?I still believe Mitt Romney is totally dressed up, already made up, waiting in the wings? to step in as the last, best hope of the ?stop Trump? movement, and frankly I think Trump will bulldoze him as well.?
:mj07::mj07:
............................................................
Mitt Romney
they are going to bring back the Mittster
holy chit what losers
no wonder Mitt was asking the Don to give up tax info . If Don wont then he wont have to.
neocons.................= Stupid
The Koch Bros. met with GOP millionaires and billionaires Thursday night to pool together over $75 million to stop Trump and are going to use Mitt Romney as ?Plan B? if Rubio fails to gain traction on Super Tuesday, according to moles who were inside the meeting.
?$75 million to stop Trump and $25 million to Marco Rubio, but they gave Rubio a condition: he?s got to win the Florida primary or he?s out and Mitt Romney?s in,? Stone revealed. ?That?s the plan.?
?First they?ll ramp up an enormous, negative campaign on TV against Trump and they?re going to hit this phony Trump University issue,? he continued. ?They claim to have personal dirt on Trump ? I doubt that ? and they are also going to try and delve into his business affairs, but if Rubio fails to grab the Florida primary, then Rubio?s out and Mitt Romney?s in.?
?The plan is for Romney to file for the New Jersey, New York and California primaries in an all-out ditch effort to stop Donald Trump and you heard it here on Infowars.com.?
Additionally, Marco Rubio?s wife called Ted Cruz?s wife, Heidi, to desperately beg Cruz to exit the race and aid Rubio, but Heidi said no, Stone said.:mj07::mj07:
?The power structure?s desperate, the Rubio and Cruz teams are going back and forth but they can?t agree as to who will be the candidate,? he added. ?I still believe Mitt Romney is totally dressed up, already made up, waiting in the wings? to step in as the last, best hope of the ?stop Trump? movement, and frankly I think Trump will bulldoze him as well.?
:mj07::mj07:
............................................................
Mitt Romney
they are going to bring back the Mittster
holy chit what losers
no wonder Mitt was asking the Don to give up tax info . If Don wont then he wont have to.
neocons.................= Stupid
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/v75wCTMZoSY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
...
...
