Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cruncher9123

  1. .... if right leaning people ever want to see The White House again, they better start evolving and moving to the center/left.

    Building onto what you're saying: maybe that's not such a bad thing in the current generation, whereby Righties (my word) dominate state and local politics (as they heavily do in the US) and the Lefties set up shop at the Federal level. As much as "winning" feels good, judging by the constant ideological tests that Righties put their politicians through and constantly hold their noses when voting for so-called front-runners, one would think that they aren't that concerned by winning at the Federal level. By ideological persuasion, Righties are opposed to an omnipresent Federal Government and prefer that everyday life issues be left to local principalities. We can very well have a situation whereby Lefties introduce stuff at the Federal level and it gets tested out at the local level.

  2. What do you mean?


    He is considered the "establishment" candidate, which is why Fox News has been pushing him. He is an empty suit that does whatever he is told. He is not challenging the GOP's status quo the way Cruz/Trump, etc are. So, I mean to say that the GOP will not have to do adjust itself to Rubio the way they would have to adjust themselves to Cruz/Trump. They would not have to change any of their talking points, policies, outlooks, etc. Rubio just fits right in. Cruz/Trump would mean a major overhaul of everything. Like I said elsewhere: In the GOP, the Religious Right kicked out the neoconservatives, then the NeoCons kicked out the Religious Right, and now we see the Populists of Cruz/Trump trying to kick out the whatever is left of the NeoCons. Instead of allowing this change to occur, the GOP is going by their 2012 report (for which they paid $10 million) to go after "the Latino vote" and Rubio fits in here, too.

  3. Just out of curiousity, but does Madonna historically only start endorsing after the Democratic nominee has been chosen or does she also endorse a candidate during primaries as well?

    Update: I saw that she endorsed Hillary during the 2008 Primaries so I guess it's probably the same this time around.

    She endorsed Gen. Wesley Clark in 2004. Had an open letter on her Madonna.com and even granted him an audience at her home.

  4. No, actually I haven't witnessed any alarming rates of unassimiliated immigrants. Why because a few commit terrorist acts? The majority of people I know from other countries who have come here love America, because it gave them an opportunity for a better life, better job opportunities and freedom from religious fundamentalism and wars. Actually, a lot of immigrants I know are more American than me and would make a much better President than I would!

    Trump bringing this up to me seems like it's part of his general theme that immigrants are bad, the enemy and are going to America when in reality they love America as much as if not more than the people that were born here for most part.

    I'm not saying any immigrant should be able to run for President, just those who choose to become citizens and have lived in the US for a certain period of time.

    I don't mean it in that way at all. The clause exists simply because people feel more comfortable when they know that their leader is "just like themselves." By that I mean what I wrote above, "The leader of a people has to embody the full experience and possession of life and cultural reference points that he/she shares with fellow citizens." Nothing that even goes as far as to consider "unassimilated immigrants," "terrorism," or "Trump." It's simply a preference/comfort people have. Imagine, I become president and a war breaks out between my new country and my old country. Which side do you think my heart will be at the end? Not even I know. That's why these laws exist.

  5. Yes, but the clause seems to imply that you can only be President if you were actually physically born in the US. I understand what you're saying but if someone born in another country becomes a citizen and is a citizen for a certain amount of time than that should show they want to be an American. You have no choice in where you are actually born or where your parents are from.

    You can be a member of Congress if you were born in another country and neither of your parents were citizens, if you are a US citizen. Why not President?

    You are correct in the theory that an immigrant, by theoretical definition, chose to take on the identity of the host nation by the simple act of choosing to move here. However, our immigration policies may not live up to such strict measures. You may have witnessed the alarming rates of unassimilated immigrants. And we are back to determining the difference between wanting to live here versus wanting to be; therefore we err, constitutionally, on the safe side by never posing the question at all. The leader of a people has to embody the full experience and possession of life and cultural reference points that he/she shares with fellow citizens. Naturally, you can change the law; but, you will have to ask yourself how comfortable you will feel with a President Cruncher9123. :laugh:

    PS Ted Cruz and John McCain are different issues. Even though neither was technically born on US soil; Cruz had at least one American parent, and McCain was born on a US-controlled base (if not US-controlled land).

  6. .............Why can't someone born in another country be President if they are a naturalized citizen. It was written in the old days when the US was rebelling against the UK. Today it's a global society, where people from all over the world have become US citizens.........

    The clause exists because there is a big difference between wanting to "live" in America and wanting to actually "be" an American. This is a seriously big difference. As a holder of 3 passports, I completely support such a clause.

  • Create New...