US Presidential election 2016

Discussion in 'The Signs of the Times' started by Infant Jesus of Prague, Dec 4, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    Once again, you are confusing an American Citizen with Natural Born American Citizen. American citizens can be Senators and Congressman. Only an American citizen who is ALSO a Natural Born Citizen can be President of the United States. This is civics 101.
     
    Marygar likes this.
  2. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    If you are not born in America, you can never be a Natural Born Citizen. But you could go through a process to become a naturalized citizen. Big difference. It's the difference between being eligible for President and not being eligible for President.

    2756018d78.jpg
     
    Marygar likes this.
  3. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    I clearly stated eminent domain is in the constitution. The question was, and stands unanswered, how someone can say he is a strict constructionist but find no problem with Trump's interpretation of eminent domain? It is not possible based on facts. Saying it is a "non-issue" does not make it one. How do you reconcile logically strict construction and Trump's use of eminent domain? If you had your house stolen from you using this interpretation of eminent domain, would it be a non-issue?
     
  4. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    Again, no. Yes, someone who obtains citizenship through a legal process is allowed to be a senator but not president. That is not Cruz's case and that is very clear. Stick to that case. It is clear from what I have written I am not confusing one who is born a citizen naturally with one who obtains citizenship after birth. I wrote that many times now. Please don't repeat I am confusing any citizen with a natural born citizen, it has been clearly established I am not. So, back to the question, under your reasoning, how is it possible there are American citizens who hold dual citizenship if there is no case in which one who obtains US citizenship through legal means is allowed to retain first citizenship? Please don't respond that I don't understand the constitution or that I am confusing the 2 kinds of citizenship, please just answer the question.
     
  5. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    I'm not even sure what your question on dual citizenship is to be honest. It's obvious you are engaging in verbal gymnastics to turn Rafael into a Natural Born Citizen when we all know he was not born in the United States. Rafael is a naturalized citizen. He is not a Natural Born Citizen. Why is that so hard to accept?
     
    Marygar likes this.
  6. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

  7. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

  8. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    You continue to refuse to engage. The question is clear. Rafael is not at issue. You can't keep repeating something that does not answer a question.

    I will rephrase for a 3rd time. If a person obtains citizenship in the US through legal process, that person may not also keep first citizenship. If a person is born naturally a US citizen while abroad, that person may also have citizenship in the foreign country. This person is not asked to give up US citizenship because it was not obtained legally, it was the natural condition at birth. How could this case exist, Richard, if no one is ever naturally born a US citizen while abroad?

    I am sure you will say you don't understand, or that I am confusing citizenship, or that I don't understand the words natural born, but it is clear I do.

    Also, what happened to the pictures of Cruz and the Prince of Jordan? You already took it down?
     
  9. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    Most American Businesses use Eminent Domain for direct public benefit. This is a fact of life and a non-issue:

    EXCLUSIVE: Donald Trump Pushes Back Against Critics of His Eminent Domain Position

    “It would have been easy to say I’m totally against eminent domain but that is not a fair thing to say because without it, states couldn’t function,” GOP Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump tells Breitbart News in an exclusive interview.

    But Trump offers a somewhat more nuanced understanding of eminent domain to Breitbart News, one that seems to acknowledge that using it for exclusively private gain is the wrong thing to do.

    “If you were going [to use eminent domain] to rip down a house and build another house, no way,” Trump says.

    On that point, Trump and Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, seem to be in agreement.

    “Having the government take one person’s property for another’s gain is not a conservative principle,” Phillips tells Breitbart News.

    “But if you’re going to build a factory that’s going to have 5,000 jobs, that’s entirely different,” Trump says.

    And here is where Trump and his critics differ.

    In 1946, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Carmack that:

    The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power.

    Trump and his critics have different views on what constitutes “public use.”

    Unfortunately for critics of a more expanded view of eminent domain, the Supreme Court’s very unpopular 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London supports Trump’s more expanded view.

    Pundits are almost unanimous in their criticisms of Trump for his eminent domain position, but Tea Party activists are more varied in their assessments.

    It remains to be seen, however, how significant the eminent domain issue will be and whether it will derail the Trump for President juggernaut.

    The Club for Growth, for instance, one of Trump’s staunchest critics, launched a $1 million anti-Trump television ad buy in Iowa on September 15 that hit him for his support for eminent domain. While a poll paid for by the Club now claims Trump trails Dr. Ben Carson in Iowa, other recent polls show that Trump remains the GOP frontrunner by a nationally as well as in the key states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. In Iowa, the recent NBC News/WSJ/Marist poll shows Trump still in the lead, ahead of the second place Carson by 5 points.

    Early returns suggest that eminent domain may not be a big enough issue to move the needle either up or down for Trump.

    Trump’s comments Tuesday night on Fox News Channel’s Special Report with Bret Baier doubling down on his support for eminent domain and the unpopular Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision have not been well received by many in the conservative grassroots community.

    Trump appears to be correct–from a limited government perspective–on 4 big issues–illegal immigration, defending gun rights, opposing ObamaCare, and opposing ObamaTrade.

    Most who subscribe to the limited government world view believe Trump is wrong on eminent domain, at least as it relates to taking private property for private development with tangential public benefit, as opposed to direct public benefit.

    For his part, Trump is confident that he can persuade voters that eminent domain, properly used, can be a significant benefit.

    “I was just talking with some very conservative people today, and they just don’t understand eminent domain,” Trump tells Breitbart News.

    “These people, they’re not just being thrown out. Everyone said ‘you’re taking their property,’ but they’re getting paid at least fair market value,” Trump says.

    “What people don’t know is, usually you go through a condemnation, and [the property owner] will get 2, 3, 4 times the value of their house. People don’t know that,” Trump tells Breitbart News.

    Trump acknowledged that the condemnation process is difficult.

    “It’s always unpleasant,” he says. “They always say you pay them fair market value, but politically, they will pay you much more.”

    Trump is enthusiastic in describing the benefits of eminent domain in helping communities economically.

    “You can’t build a road without eminent domain,” he says. “In order to survive as a country, how you can not have roads?” Trump asks rhetorically.

    “There are things like this… you have a community that’s doing poorly…. if people can’t make it there, they’re going to move to a different state or different city,” Trump tells Breitbart News.

    Despite his energetic defense of eminent domain, critics remain unconvinced.

    “Donald Trump thinks the issue of eminent domains has not been properly ‘explained to most conservatives.’ Perhaps Trump might explain why the Constitution should be read to permit the government to kick elderly widows out their homes for the direct benefit of people like him,” says Reason Magazine’s Damon Root in response to Trump’s comments to Bret Baier.

    While Fox News, the Club for Growth, National Review, and conservative pundits are hammering Trump on the issue, Tea Party activists who spoke with Breitbart News say his eminent domain position won’t sway them one way or the other.

    And some Tea Party activists, especially those with small business experience, seemed to express some sympathy for Trump’s view.

    “As an independent oilman since 1984, I fully understand eminent domain and its true process,” Eric Olsen, founder of the Montana Tea Party, tells Breitbart News.

    “Trump spent much time explaining it to Bret Baier. Bret seemed confused on the issue which does not surprise me,” Olsen adds.

    “I support the majority of Trump’s comments on eminent domain. Singling out a case like Kelo vs New London does make a point that eminent domain is abused at times but we have to remember that majority of business does use eminent domain for direct public benefit. But keep in mind that the taxes received through the Kelo type case do benefit public directly through public spending of those tax dollars. Of course, as Teaparty conservatives we believe that governments do not spend money wisely,” Olsen continues.

    “America needs pipelines, roads, sewers, powerlines, etc to move on with a growing infrastructure,” Olsen concludes.

    “Trump’s views are not out of step with the history of the application of eminent domain,” Tennessee Tea Party activist Mark Skoda, a Trump supporter, tells Breitbart News.

    “In my opinion, he is simply taking a position that can be seen as good business, so long as it is applied fairly and with just compensation. At least he is clear about his views on this matter and one can take a decision about his campaign in this context,” Skoda adds. http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-pushes-back-critics-eminent-domain-position/

     
  10. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    no, the Prince's mom, Queen Noor, was required to renounce her American citizenship before she had the prince, Cruz's mom was not and did not.
    https://citizenpath.com/americans-renounce-us-citizenship/
     
  11. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    please, first you refuse to answer, then this. What else can he say? The problem is, it has been established he is not trustworthy. This would make it the case that every single issue he says he stands for now, moral, economic, abortion, trade, everything, is the polar opposite of what he believed he whole, long life. Please, Richard, be honest. You have not been honest.
     
  12. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    once again, Richard, please answer the question. For the 3rd time, it is well established I understand the purpose of eminent domain according to the constitution. The strict constructionist view is that it is for the public good and I gave the examples of hospitals and highways. You are intentionally avoiding the question, how can you reconcile Trump's use of eminent domain to build a casino, for example, and strict constructionism. The answer is the two can't be reconciled. You are not engaging in honest discussion.
     
  13. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    My dear, you are very confused. A person cannot be "naturally born while abroad." One born abroad can be later naturalized, but a person born abroad (even from American citizens) will never be a Natural Born Citizen. You have to be born "on the soil" to be a NBC.
     
  14. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    I have answered you. I have answered. You just don't like the answers.

    I have not been honest? Back to the petty, personal attacks now are we? Shame on you! Typical Cruz supporter: can't engage in rational debate so you resort to cheap personal attacks. How predictable.
     
  15. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    Matters not.

    Cruz was not born on American soil. His mother's citizenship is irrelevant at that point.

    image.jpeg
     
  16. Beth B

    Beth B Beth Marie

    Richard,

    Polls shows that Trump is the least likely candidate to beat Hillary. Trump asserts that he will trounce Hillary and when he "starts" on her, he will be able to take her out, hence beating her.

    But I see a problem with that logic...here's why....

    Trump keeps threatening that he "hasn't even started" on Hillary yet....suggesting that bringing up Bill clintons extramarital affairs as he did earlier, caused Hillary to have a "really, really bad week".

    So, tell me...how will Trump explain his extramarital affairs , three marriages and one child born out of wedlock.

    After all...if trump views Clinton's lack of morals fair game, how can he object to Hillary bringing up trumps infidelities?
     
  17. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    Well, Richard, it does. It has been explained now 3 different times and it is well established. Unfortunately, you don't like the answer. But we need a president. One who has core values he can stick to under pressure you and I can't imagine. Trump could not possibly, under and circumstance, be described in that way. Cruz can. You have other reasons you like Trump than what you say, or you would answer my questions and explain the inconsistencies happily. But it has to be pried out of you. Why? Do you like his loud and simple slogans that seem to make you feel like with this guy all the "bad guys" in the world will get their come upance? Well, say what you will, when Hitler's party got the majority in Germany, he had not revealed everything he would ultimately do. Up to the point of that election, Trump and Hitler seem very similar. Yes, you will say, how dare you? You don't know the history of Nazis and you don't know the suffering of his millions of victims. Yes, I do.

    If you can't provide clear answers to simple questions because the answers are ones you don't like, then you have to rethink your position. This is too important. How does Trump align with your Catholic values? Let's be serious, not at all.
     
    Beth B likes this.
  18. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    Once again Richard, your response here is to repeat a previously questioned premise and you have refused to answer the question. How many times can it be asked? Your premise is what is in question and you refuse to answer the question, but repeat the premise. Anyone can see that is not honest discussion by someone who really wants to get to the truth.
     
  19. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    If it matters not, why did you post it? The picture is a lie.
     
  20. Dawn2

    Dawn2 Archangels

    Where? Where do you reconcile Trump's interpretation of eminent domain with strict constructionism? You simply say, well, what can we do, eminent domain is legal and we need it for business. You seem to like loose construction and free trade for business when it suits Trump but not for anything else. That is not consistant. You did not answer the question because you do not like the answer. You are being dishonest, so there is no point in continuing the discussion. Please pray on it, this is too important.
     
    Beth B likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page