On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:16:21 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

OMG, another birther conspiracy. And not a shred of evidence. I haven't
seen anything that suggests Trump was born anywhere other than NYC.

Right. If "mm", Micky had evidence he could post it. More evidence why
I would never live in Baltimore. People are weird, there.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:18:13 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| here is a hint, the subject line is VERY clear what it is.
| Don't CLICK on it.
| See how easy that is
|

Yes, but you're missing the point. The topic
doesn't belong in this group, and we've got
almost another year of this nonsense to go.
I also like to appeal to peoples' sense of decency
and courtesy first. There's always a chance
people will do the right thing if asked politely.


You still here? I thought you left already.

Per Mayayana:
There's always a chance
people will do the right thing if asked politely.

What newsreader are you using?

There is one by Forte Software called "Free Agent".... I use the paid
version.

Agent gives the option of clicking "Ignore" for a thread and my guess is
that other news readers to also.... so if you are reading this thread
via a web interface, try switching to a local news reader for the
convenience.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:13:50 PM UTC-6, Don Y wrote:
On 1/11/2016 2:04 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
"(PeteCresswell)" writes:
Per Micky:

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.

The media is not about news.

The media is about titillation and entertainment.

No, the media is about the almighty race for higher
ratings. Truth be damned.

As such, the media gives its CUSTOMERS what they want -- whether
they KNOW they want it (yet), or not!

I think the nightly news, here is 2 or 3 hours! And, most of the
"stories" are little more than "press releases" read by some
talking head that doesn't even do his/her own writing!

We, long ago, gave up on the "local news" as most of it was
devoted to local sports (college/high school ball -- "Tomorrow's
used car salesmen!"), trivialized weather forecasts (yeah, its
going to be hot tomorrow... so?), repeats of NATIONAL (or,
international) news stories (that the national media will probably
cover much better than some local yokel reading something off the
newswire) or "unpaid commercials" (Apple has unveiled...; Microsoft
has released...; The opening of the new movie...; etc.)

But, this is the sort of drivel that folks will talk about around
the watercooler. *Not* the state of the roadways, pension plans,
public libraries, government corruption, etc. that *should* be
of concern (for the citizenry AND the media).

Do they really think we somehow wouldn't KNOW that a new movie
has been released? Or, that idiots^H^H^H fanboy's are lined up
waiting for the latest iPhone to go on sale? Or...

Local news/talk radio around here discusses not only the national political circus but the state and local political entertainment along with local news. I'm listening to Dr. Michael Savage on his talk radio show as I write this post. I've found that I can listen to news/talk Internet streaming radio stations from all over the country and hear the opinions of Americans in different cities and regions of The U.S. I've heard opinions from people on both sides of the political debate and I gather that the people are angry at all politicians. I know that I am. ”Œ( à²*_à²*)”˜

[8~{} Uncle Exasperated Monster

On 01/11/2016 10:20 AM, Micky wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:05:36 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 1/10/2016 9:51 PM, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1


You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

FOX is fair and give him time but people get lost in the weeds and the
sound bites. That is Trumps big deficit as too many voters just pay
attention to the sound bites and fact that he is a republican makes it
worse because liberal media thrives on feeding them to us.

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.


Easy! American Pravda get ratings when Trump is on. He is
popular both to like and dislike.

But that is not the only reason. American Pravda gets
hammered by Fox because American Pravda is nothing more
that political journal. If American Pravda wanted just
ratings, they would go back to reporting the news
instead of selling their souls: Who, What, Where,
When, Why.

But they don't. So, why would they then put Trump on
if it is not rating they are after?

Well now, it is because whoever manages to bump off
Trump will have made their career. AH HA! Now we
have the reason. Why do you think Megan Kelly tried
to call Trump a sexist in the first debate: to make
her career.

So, to summarize, the reason why American Pravda puts
Trump on so much is not money, but fame. They want
to be the one who knocks him off. So far he has
played them like a fiddle. Cracks me up.

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 12:24:46 AM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 01/11/2016 10:20 AM, Micky wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:05:36 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 1/10/2016 9:51 PM, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1


You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

FOX is fair and give him time but people get lost in the weeds and the
sound bites. That is Trumps big deficit as too many voters just pay
attention to the sound bites and fact that he is a republican makes it
worse because liberal media thrives on feeding them to us.

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.


Easy! American Pravda get ratings when Trump is on. He is
popular both to like and dislike.

But that is not the only reason. American Pravda gets
hammered by Fox because American Pravda is nothing more
that political journal. If American Pravda wanted just
ratings, they would go back to reporting the news
instead of selling their souls: Who, What, Where,
When, Why.

But they don't. So, why would they then put Trump on
if it is not rating they are after?

Well now, it is because whoever manages to bump off
Trump will have made their career. AH HA! Now we
have the reason. Why do you think Megan Kelly tried
to call Trump a sexist in the first debate: to make
her career.


Megan Kelly didn't need Trump to make her career. She was
already very successful with her own show on Fox. She hit
Trump with his own words because she knew someone was going
to bring it up sooner or later. And it was probative,
most particularly Trumps responses, his tweets, his
"blood coming out of her wherever". Trump proved Kelly was
right.




So, to summarize, the reason why American Pravda puts
Trump on so much is not money, but fame. They want
to be the one who knocks him off. So far he has
played them like a fiddle. Cracks me up.

The media isn't all that Trump is playing like a fiddle.
He's a virtuoso when it comes to playing you Trumpies.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:36:35 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:23:59 -0500, Micky
wrote:

Trump has been lying for a long time and he's good at it.

You've had an epiphany.

Well, I've noticed it from the start of his public life.

Explain it the Todd.

I'm not shocked about it, at all.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:10:32 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:16:21 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

OMG, another birther conspiracy. And not a shred of evidence. I haven't
seen anything that suggests Trump was born anywhere other than NYC.

By now you probably saw my last post and you know I"m just showing how
Trump makes up lies without a shred of evidence. If he can do it, I
can do it, you can do it, everyone can do it.

Right. If "mm", Micky had evidence he could post it. More evidence why
I would never live in Baltimore. People are weird, there.

I hope you get it now.

Frank "frank writes:
On 1/11/2016 7:11 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:03:10 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

Exactly. The media is not liberal. That's just another
complaint/excuse by conservatives.


How bout you look up what percentage of the media are registered
Democrats and get back to us.

+1 I'll standby for the answer. Liberals own the media, except in a
few cases. Think giant corporations.

Cable news, like Fox ****es them off.


The last number I heard was 85%.

"heard". That's not evidence of anything except the
potentially biased source you 'listened to'.

How about hard numbers backed up by real evidence?

Per Uncle Monster:
I gather that the people are angry at all politicians. I know that I am. ?( ?_?)?

I don't think it's the politicians - after all, they're *politicians*...
and they will pander to whoever will get them elected.

I think it's the populace.

Compare Germany and the USA. To me, the significant diff is
educational level of the population.

You have a room-temperature national IQ and you get Sarah Palin as a
nominee and Donald Trump as a contender.

You have something higher and you get Angela Merkel as an elected
leader.


OK, "National IQ" is a misnomer... People haven't gotten significantly
dumber in the past 80 years....... but "IQ" seems to work better than
the more accurate "Educational Level" or "Critical Thinking Skills"....
--
Pete Cresswell

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 6:36:03 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:12:14 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:17:48 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Well you'll have to provide me with a credible source. You are
suggesting the Queens acting Hospital Administrator and the Attending
Physician conspired in 1946 that Trump was born in the U.S..

Trump is wealthy and time travel is available at a very high price. He sent a time agent back to change the records because it was all on paper then.(*?*)

That's it. They looked at an infant child and declared we can forge
documents and he will become president. Funny how that works.
--

There is so much propaganda going on from both sides that it's hard to believe anyone. I do see Trump using the Democrat's own tactics against them. Turnabout is fair play and I think it's hysterical that he's getting free air time and media coverage that Democrats have to pay for. To me, the more people he upsets, the better.

How is upsetting the maximum amount of people going to win the general
election and keep control of the Congress? It may make you feel good,
but boosting his negatives aren't going to win the election and if
Trump goes down in flames, he could take the Congress with him.

I guess you didn't read far enough? Scroll down and you may see my point.
I'm amused by Trump's antics because he's got the sleeping ant hill of RINO's stirred up and he causing seizures in the ranks of the Commiecrats. He has them understanding that Americans are ****ed off and the politicians better listen to the people who they work for.


Trump is getting people talking about the issues that are troubling the country instead of slumbering as they have in the past. He's made enough noise to wake up "The Silent Majority" who've had enough. My fellow Americans are slow to anger but when we finally lose our temper, LOOK OUT! In order for the country to survive, we must get the Democrats out of The Executive Branch of The United States.

[8~{} Uncle Noisy Monster

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:33:44 AM UTC-6, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Uncle Monster:
I gather that the people are angry at all politicians. I know that I am.. ?( ?_?)?

I don't think it's the politicians - after all, they're *politicians*...
and they will pander to whoever will get them elected.

I think it's the populace.

Compare Germany and the USA. To me, the significant diff is
educational level of the population.

You have a room-temperature national IQ and you get Sarah Palin as a
nominee and Donald Trump as a contender.

So the former "Governor" of The State Of Alaska who scares the frak out of Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Freaks has a low IQ? But the P.L.L.C..F. are so much smarter than everyone else, why are they running so scared that they viciously attack someone who isn't that intelligent? Won't their superior intelligence assure them of a win? O_o

You have something higher and you get Angela Merkel as an elected
leader.

Yea, I really believe the PM of Germany who's allowed her country to be invaded by Muslims terrorists has a high level of intelligence? o_O

OK, "National IQ" is a misnomer... People haven't gotten significantly
dumber in the past 80 years....... but "IQ" seems to work better than
the more accurate "Educational Level" or "Critical Thinking Skills"....

The P.L.L.C.F. infested to educational system many years ago to promote their agenda which is to cause The Dumbassification Of America because low IQ and low information voters are more easily fooled and manipulated into voting for Democrats. O_o
--
Pete Cresswell

[8~{} Uncle Genius Monster

On 1/12/2016 9:35 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

OK, "National IQ" is a misnomer... People haven't gotten significantly
dumber in the past 80 years....... but "IQ" seems to work better than the
more accurate "Educational Level" or "Critical Thinking Skills"....

The P.L.L.C.F. infested to educational system many years ago to promote
their agenda which is to cause The Dumbassification Of America because low
IQ and low information voters are more easily fooled and manipulated into
voting for Democrats. O_o

Then why do the democratic candidates speak at a higher level of
complexity (sentence structure) than the grunts and three-sylable
sloganism of the republican candidates?

The right thinks their base are idiots and dumb down their rhetoric to
simplistic ideas that they *hope* their base can swallow, without thinking.
"Build a wall"? Shows a complete lack of understanding for the reality
of the situation. Could just as easily say "Shoot 'em All" (note how it
fits the three-syllable test?) and how impractical *that* would be.

I'm tired of not having "another choice". Voting is no fun if only one
party fields a candidate with above room-temperature IQ...

On 1/12/2016 8:33 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Uncle Monster:
I gather that the people are angry at all politicians. I know that I am. ?( ?_?)?

I don't think it's the politicians - after all, they're *politicians*...
and they will pander to whoever will get them elected.

Someone commented that our system is flawed because it rewards people who
are good at winning contests/races -- not at GOVERNING. The criteria you
use to win a race are significantly different than actually governing.

The Trumps and Perots of the world have a confused idea of how government
works. It's not the top-down system that they are accustomed to. I wonder
how Trump would fare if the customers in one of his Hotels *hired* him
but there were 535 middle managers who could *choose* whether or not to
follow his "orders".
"I want 2 mints on every pillow!"
"Yeah, well... we're thinking about that. Some of us think it should
be caramels and not mints. Others are in favor of peanuts (but I
suspect they have friends who own peanut plantations!). We've
appointed a COMMITTEE to come up with a recommendation -- keeping
your *preference* in mind. We'll get back to you when we get a
chance..."
"But, we're losing our competitive advantage!"
"OK, how about we compromise and put caramel covered, mint flavored
peanuts on the pillows? But, only *one* in each room!"
"Ick! No one would like those! And, even if they did, how would
the COUPLE staying in each room decide who would get it?"
"shrug Not our problem. We're tickled to have come to a
BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT on this so we're moving on to other issues.
Currently, we're debating whether lunch breaks should be at
11:30, 11:45, 12:00 or 12:15. Of course, we've got one group that
thinks each employee should be able to pick his own lunch time.
And, another group who doesn't think they should get a break at all..."
"Crap! George, is there a back door out of here? I don't want to run
into any CUSTOMERS on my way out..."

I think it's the populace.

Compare Germany and the USA. To me, the significant diff is
educational level of the population.

That's a vague term. More people than ever have "college degrees"
*suggesting* a higher education "level". But, I'm not sure there's
any substance behind those degrees -- or, if they were just items
"sold" to consumers eager to think they would be better off WITH one...

You have a room-temperature national IQ and you get Sarah Palin as a
nominee and Donald Trump as a contender.

You betcha!

You have something higher and you get Angela Merkel as an elected
leader.

OK, "National IQ" is a misnomer... People haven't gotten significantly
dumber in the past 80 years....... but "IQ" seems to work better than
the more accurate "Educational Level" or "Critical Thinking Skills"....

I haven't decided if the skills are missing/deficient -- or, if folks are
just too "lazy" about applying them.

When I encounter folks like this, I try to imagine them in a life/death
situation: where *their* life is on the line. Would they be able to navigate
their way out of it? Would they be able to marshall the necessary skills
*before* shooting themselves in the feet? Or, are they so accustomed
to not HAVING to think that they would continue making foolish "choices"
(not "decisions") and pay the price?

And, politicians exploit this: Hire me! I'm a great leader/"decider"
As if all of your bothersome "choices" can now be rolled up into one,
*simple* choice: on a ballot.

On 1/12/2016 10:19 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Frank "frank writes:
On 1/11/2016 7:11 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:03:10 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

Exactly. The media is not liberal. That's just another
complaint/excuse by conservatives.


How bout you look up what percentage of the media are registered
Democrats and get back to us.

+1 I'll standby for the answer. Liberals own the media, except in a
few cases. Think giant corporations.

Cable news, like Fox ****es them off.


The last number I heard was 85%.

"heard". That's not evidence of anything except the
potentially biased source you 'listened to'.

How about hard numbers backed up by real evidence?


I'll assume you are smart enough to find them yourself.
Report what you find.

Per Uncle Monster:
You have a room-temperature national IQ and you get Sarah Palin as a
nominee and Donald Trump as a contender.

So the former "Governor" of The State Of Alaska who scares the frak out of Progressive Liberal
Leftist Commiecrat Freaks has a low IQ? But the P.L.L.C.F. are so much smarter than everyone
else, why are they running so scared that they viciously attack someone who isn't that
intelligent? Won't their superior intelligence assure them of a win? O_o

I was referring to the populace's "IQ" (actually education
level/critical thinking skills)... not Sarah Palin's.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 1/11/2016 5:03 PM, Frank wrote:

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

FOX is fair and give him time but people get lost in the weeds and the
sound bites. That is Trumps big deficit as too many voters just pay
attention to the sound bites and fact that he is a republican makes it
worse because liberal media thrives on feeding them to us.

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.

The media is OWNED by big money. Bernie is a threat to big money.
Connect the dots.

Exactly. The media is not liberal. That's just another
complaint/excuse by conservatives.

How bout you look up what percentage of the media are registered Democrats and
get back to us.

It has nothing to do with political bias, etc. Media is all about selling
the Medium. Murdoch will gladly air shows that poke fun of Conservative
values/mindsets -- *if* it lets him sell more advertising dollars because
he's pandered to what the viewers *want*!

Easy/quick read:
_The People's News_ by Uscinski

If you'd like a more in depth discussion:
_The Interplay of Influence: News, Advertising, Politics, and the Internet_
by Jamieson, et al.

It's sad that folks tend to go *looking* for folks who are saying what
they want to *hear*! Then, wonder why folks dismiss *their* opinions as
"uninformed".

With all the media available to you -- sitting at your keyboard -- ask
yourself which site(s) you visit. Then, judge for yourself whether *you*
have an "informed opinion".

[N.B. I'm not speaking about you, Frank, or any other "individual", here.
Just "you" in the general sense.]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:42:07 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:53:34 -0700, "Ashton Crusher"
wrote:

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth

That's nice but it still leaves the open question, "was Cruz a citizen
at birth". According to the CFR on the subject it's an open question
until the residency for his mother for a year prior to his birth can
be pinned down. I posted the link a day or two ago. In another forum
it was also said that his mother needed to file some form at the time
of his birth to document this and so far no one has provided any
evidence the form was filed.


Are you talking about and application for dual citizenship?

No, there is actually a form (certificate of citizenship) that should
be filled out with appropriate attached evidence if you are born
outside the US and want to claim US citizenship. If your parents are
smart they will fill out the form when you are born and make sure all
is in order. If you don't do the form and wait till years later it
may be much harder to provide the necessary documents to prove your
claim.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:42:54 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:55:08 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 05:19:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

Illustrative that you think this interview was "somewhat hostile".
It was about as benign as an interview can get. For example,
when asking Trump about his birther position with Cruz, he could
have played Trump back in Sept being asked about that issue.
Trumps said then that he understands that all the experts, lawyers,
etc have looked into it, there is no problem, Cruz is fine there.

Then Trump lies here and says no one knows what "natural born"
means. It's not hard to find. Here for example is an
article from the Harvard Law Review, written by two former
solicitor generals, from two different administrations, outlining
the well defined history of where the term came from and how it was
clarified by the first Congress, two hundred years ago.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth

That's nice but it still leaves the open question, "was Cruz a citizen
at birth". According to the CFR on the subject it's an open question
until the residency for his mother for a year prior to his birth can
be pinned down.

Nonsense. The requirement is that his mother had to have lived in the
USA for at least 10 years, at least 5 of those after attaining the age
of 14. His mother's history is known, she was born in Delaware, lived
here, attended school here, graduated from Rice University, etc.



I posted the link a day or two ago. In another forum
it was also said that his mother needed to file some form at the time
of his birth to document this and so far no one has provided any
evidence the form was filed.


Lots of things are said in lots of forums that aren't true.



So Yes, much is know about what the requirements are. What is not
known is whether ALL those requirements have been complied with and
fulfilled. So it's still an open question for THIS specific case.


Not a single person who has looked at this has raised an issue
of Cruz not being a US citizen at birth by virtue of anything
that you've brought up related to his mother meeting requirements.
The argument, with not much merit, is focused on the meaning of
"natural born". And I'd say those two solicitor generals outline
a very compelling case. BTW, where is Trump's case that shows
otherwise? It's like his claim that he can eliminate citizenship
for anchor babies, without a constitutional amendment, or issue an
exec order making killing a cop a death penalty offense. In other
words, there is no case.


Lots of people have raised the issue going back into 2012. That you
remain ignorant of it doesn't change it.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:49:19 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:02:44 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 05:19:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

Illustrative that you think this interview was "somewhat hostile".
It was about as benign as an interview can get. For example,
when asking Trump about his birther position with Cruz, he could
have played Trump back in Sept being asked about that issue.
Trumps said then that he understands that all the experts, lawyers,
etc have looked into it, there is no problem, Cruz is fine there.

Then Trump lies here and says no one knows what "natural born"
means. It's not hard to find. Here for example is an
article from the Harvard Law Review, written by two former
solicitor generals, from two different administrations, outlining
the well defined history of where the term came from and how it was
clarified by the first Congress, two hundred years ago.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a "natural born Citizen" means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings."



Here it is again...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

look at d and g of that and tell us you have unequivocal proof that
Cruz's parents meet whichever of them is applicable.

His mother was born in Delaware, lived her whole life here, went to
school here, graduated from Rice University. She more than meets
the requirements of d and g. Do you even see anyone other than
you arguing those points? What unequivocal proof do you want?
Do we have unequivocal proof that Trump was really born in NYC?
Was unequivocal proof required when Barry Goldwater, who was born
in the territory of AZ, ran? When George Romney, born in Mexico
ran? John McCain? Or does this extraordinary standard only
apply to Ted Cruz?

Please give me a link to Cruz's required certificate of citizenship
that should have been filed with the US when he was born in Canada.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:49:19 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:02:44 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 05:19:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

Illustrative that you think this interview was "somewhat hostile".
It was about as benign as an interview can get. For example,
when asking Trump about his birther position with Cruz, he could
have played Trump back in Sept being asked about that issue.
Trumps said then that he understands that all the experts, lawyers,
etc have looked into it, there is no problem, Cruz is fine there.

Then Trump lies here and says no one knows what "natural born"
means. It's not hard to find. Here for example is an
article from the Harvard Law Review, written by two former
solicitor generals, from two different administrations, outlining
the well defined history of where the term came from and how it was
clarified by the first Congress, two hundred years ago.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a "natural born Citizen" means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings."



Here it is again...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

look at d and g of that and tell us you have unequivocal proof that
Cruz's parents meet whichever of them is applicable.

His mother was born in Delaware, lived her whole life here, went to
school here, graduated from Rice University. She more than meets
the requirements of d and g. Do you even see anyone other than
you arguing those points? What unequivocal proof do you want?
Do we have unequivocal proof that Trump was really born in NYC?
Was unequivocal proof required when Barry Goldwater, who was born
in the territory of AZ, ran? When George Romney, born in Mexico
ran? John McCain? Or does this extraordinary standard only
apply to Ted Cruz?


Came across some more info by a constitutional scholar...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...html?tid=sm_fb

He concludes Cruz is ineligible.

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:23:44 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:42:54 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:55:08 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 05:19:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

Illustrative that you think this interview was "somewhat hostile".
It was about as benign as an interview can get. For example,
when asking Trump about his birther position with Cruz, he could
have played Trump back in Sept being asked about that issue.
Trumps said then that he understands that all the experts, lawyers,
etc have looked into it, there is no problem, Cruz is fine there.

Then Trump lies here and says no one knows what "natural born"
means. It's not hard to find. Here for example is an
article from the Harvard Law Review, written by two former
solicitor generals, from two different administrations, outlining
the well defined history of where the term came from and how it was
clarified by the first Congress, two hundred years ago.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth

That's nice but it still leaves the open question, "was Cruz a citizen
at birth". According to the CFR on the subject it's an open question
until the residency for his mother for a year prior to his birth can
be pinned down.

Nonsense. The requirement is that his mother had to have lived in the
USA for at least 10 years, at least 5 of those after attaining the age
of 14. His mother's history is known, she was born in Delaware, lived
here, attended school here, graduated from Rice University, etc.



I posted the link a day or two ago. In another forum
it was also said that his mother needed to file some form at the time
of his birth to document this and so far no one has provided any
evidence the form was filed.


Lots of things are said in lots of forums that aren't true.



So Yes, much is know about what the requirements are. What is not
known is whether ALL those requirements have been complied with and
fulfilled. So it's still an open question for THIS specific case.


Not a single person who has looked at this has raised an issue
of Cruz not being a US citizen at birth by virtue of anything
that you've brought up related to his mother meeting requirements.
The argument, with not much merit, is focused on the meaning of
"natural born". And I'd say those two solicitor generals outline
a very compelling case. BTW, where is Trump's case that shows
otherwise? It's like his claim that he can eliminate citizenship
for anchor babies, without a constitutional amendment, or issue an
exec order making killing a cop a death penalty offense. In other
words, there is no case.


Lots of people have raised the issue going back into 2012. That you
remain ignorant of it doesn't change it.

Show us some examples of stories in the media then. I've seen plenty
of stories, all of them focused on the meaning of "natural born" and
not a one bringing up the issue of Cruz's mother meeting the requirements
of having lived in the US for 10 years, 5 after the age of 14 for
Cruz to be a US citizen. If that were the issue, then they would not
be only questioning the natural born part, they would be questioning
if he's a citizen at all.

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-6, Don Y wrote:
On 1/12/2016 2:08 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 11:15:27 AM UTC-6, Don Y wrote:
On 1/12/2016 9:35 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

OK, "National IQ" is a misnomer... People haven't gotten
significantly dumber in the past 80 years....... but "IQ" seems to
work better than the more accurate "Educational Level" or "Critical
Thinking Skills"....

The P.L.L.C.F. infested to educational system many years ago to promote
their agenda which is to cause The Dumbassification Of America because
low IQ and low information voters are more easily fooled and manipulated
into voting for Democrats. O_o

Then why do the democratic candidates speak at a higher level of
complexity (sentence structure) than the grunts and three-sylable
sloganism of the republican candidates?

The right thinks their base are idiots and dumb down their rhetoric to
simplistic ideas that they *hope* their base can swallow, without
thinking. "Build a wall"? Shows a complete lack of understanding for the
reality of the situation. Could just as easily say "Shoot 'em All" (note
how it fits the three-syllable test?) and how impractical *that* would
be.

I'm tired of not having "another choice". Voting is no fun if only one
party fields a candidate with above room-temperature IQ...

Yes, Democrats are so much more intelligent than any Republican. Perhaps

(sigh) You're proving YOUR point -- by not reading carefully and reading
*my* point!

Go back and tell me where *I* said "democrats are smarter than republicans".
When you *can't* find a claim to that affect, you can reread:
The [candidates of the] right thinks their base are idiots and dumb
down their rhetoric to simplistic ideas that they *hope* their base
can swallow, without thinking.


I'm so sorry. I must have mixed up your post with another one and thought the superior intelligence was implied by what I read. My mistake. o_O

" the democratic candidates speak at a higher level of complexity (sentence structure) than the grunts and three-sylable sloganism of the republican candidates?"

"...one party fields a candidate with above room-temperature IQ..."

[8~{} Uncle Confused Monster

On 1/12/2016 8:29 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-6, Don Y wrote:
On 1/12/2016 2:08 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 11:15:27 AM UTC-6, Don Y wrote:
On 1/12/2016 9:35 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

OK, "National IQ" is a misnomer... People haven't gotten
significantly dumber in the past 80 years....... but "IQ" seems to
work better than the more accurate "Educational Level" or "Critical
Thinking Skills"....

The P.L.L.C.F. infested to educational system many years ago to promote
their agenda which is to cause The Dumbassification Of America because
low IQ and low information voters are more easily fooled and manipulated
into voting for Democrats. O_o

Then why do the democratic candidates speak at a higher level of
complexity (sentence structure) than the grunts and three-sylable
sloganism of the republican candidates?

The right thinks their base are idiots and dumb down their rhetoric to
simplistic ideas that they *hope* their base can swallow, without
thinking. "Build a wall"? Shows a complete lack of understanding for the
reality of the situation. Could just as easily say "Shoot 'em All" (note
how it fits the three-syllable test?) and how impractical *that* would
be.

I'm tired of not having "another choice". Voting is no fun if only one
party fields a candidate with above room-temperature IQ...

Yes, Democrats are so much more intelligent than any Republican. Perhaps

(sigh) You're proving YOUR point -- by not reading carefully and reading
*my* point!

Go back and tell me where *I* said "democrats are smarter than republicans".
When you *can't* find a claim to that affect, you can reread:
The [candidates of the] right thinks their base are idiots and dumb
down their rhetoric to simplistic ideas that they *hope* their base
can swallow, without thinking.


I'm so sorry. I must have mixed up your post with another one and thought the superior intelligence was implied by what I read. My mistake. o_O

" the democratic candidates speak at a higher level of complexity (sentence structure) than the grunts and three-sylable sloganism of the republican candidates?"

"...one party fields a candidate with above room-temperature IQ..."

Exactly. Does that say anything about "republicans" and/or "democrats"?
It speaks entirely to the candidates *fielded* by the parties and their
(presumed) opinion of the folks (constituents) that they are talking to
(trying to "win over")

Per Don Y:
When you *can't* find a claim to that affect, you can reread:
The [candidates of the] right thinks their base are idiots and dumb
down their rhetoric to simplistic ideas that they *hope* their base
can swallow, without thinking.

In the documentary movie "Nixon's The One" - where actors re-create oval
office scenes using the exact, precise dialog from the Nixon tapes -
there was an encounter between Nixon and an financially-successful
religious entertainer named Oral Roberts.

Both agreed that, when they were talking to the public, they were
addressing the 12-year old ("Reading comprehension of the
seventh-grade") mind. This is at about 12:40 of Episode 4.

Scroll to 12:30 and you'll ease right into it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlHZGoVx0vg
--
Pete Cresswell

On 01/12/2016 07:41 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
eople scamming the government for money regardless of which political party is in control. I trust no one


1+

That is why we need Limited Government, not a better managed pig

On 01/12/2016 03:25 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Came across some more info by a constitutional scholar...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...html?tid=sm_fb

He concludes Cruz is ineligible.


Which was the point Trump was getting at and the article that Trump
was referring to. If it is not resolved and Cruz gets nominated,
there will be a lawsuit.

I hope Cruz does get this squared away before any nomination as
I think he would make Trump an excellent VP. Or a P, if
Trump doesn't get in.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:10:54 -0800, T wrote:

Are you S-U-R-E you don't want to run for senate?

Can I **** in the Rose Garden in broad daylight in front of God and
everybody?

If that is all it takes to get you to run, well, then yes, by
all means!

Maybe you could charge a fee for the general public to do it too.
Could help bring down the deficit! :-)

I'm not convinced it's worthy of my effort.

On 01/13/2016 05:19 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:10:54 -0800, T wrote:

Are you S-U-R-E you don't want to run for senate?

Can I **** in the Rose Garden in broad daylight in front of God and
everybody?

If that is all it takes to get you to run, well, then yes, by
all means!

Maybe you could charge a fee for the general public to do it too.
Could help bring down the deficit! :-)

I'm not convinced it's worthy of my effort.


You will be doing it for your State, your Country,
and all that is good and decent. Senator
Oren (R-NV) has a nice ring to it.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:38:22 -0800, T wrote:

On 01/13/2016 05:19 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:10:54 -0800, T wrote:

Are you S-U-R-E you don't want to run for senate?

Can I **** in the Rose Garden in broad daylight in front of God and
everybody?

If that is all it takes to get you to run, well, then yes, by
all means!

Maybe you could charge a fee for the general public to do it too.
Could help bring down the deficit! :-)

I'm not convinced it's worthy of my effort.


You will be doing it for your State, your Country,
and all that is good and decent. Senator
Oren (R-NV) has a nice ring to it.

If Rory Reid, spawn of Harry runs, send me money. I like dollars.

Don't worry, Rory is not in the game.

On 1/13/2016 2:43 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Don Y:
When you *can't* find a claim to that affect, you can reread:
The [candidates of the] right thinks their base are idiots and dumb
down their rhetoric to simplistic ideas that they *hope* their base
can swallow, without thinking.

In the documentary movie "Nixon's The One" - where actors re-create oval
office scenes using the exact, precise dialog from the Nixon tapes -
there was an encounter between Nixon and an financially-successful
religious entertainer named Oral Roberts.

Both agreed that, when they were talking to the public, they were
addressing the 12-year old ("Reading comprehension of the
seventh-grade") mind. This is at about 12:40 of Episode 4.

A general guideline when *writing* is to target 6th grade comprehension.
OTOH, is 6th grade *today* what it was years ago?? :

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2015/10/21/speech-analysis-shows-donald-trump-speaks-voters-fourth-grade-level/dDo1Lr66kzKcRtTG7HFCmO/story.html

“Make America Great Again.” Those four simple words represent the
easy-to-grasp message of Donald Trump’s campaign.

That simplicity isn’t out of the ordinary for Trump. According to
an analysis by The Boston Globe , Trump’s presidential announcement
speech was written on a fourth-grade level, the simplest to understand
of any opening presidential speech this year.

The Globe tested each announcement speech using the Flesch-Kincaid
readability test, which looks at word choice and sentence length. It
then spits out a grade-level analysis of each speech.

Like Trump, Ben Carson’s speech came in just below a sixth-grade level,
the third-easiest to understand. The emphatic sound bites from Trump and
Carson — for example, “We are going to build a wall” and “I would not
just stand there and let him shoot me,” respectively — have them atop
most polls in the Republican primary.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton spoke at near an
eighth-grade level, while Bernie Sanders spoke at just above
10th grade.

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-hello-you-people-know-lot-about-trucks-363077

Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump talks like a 4th grader,
according to a linguistic analysis performed by Politico's Jack Shafer.
Shafer ran the text of Trumps' responses in the recent Republican debate
through the Flesch-Kincaid test, designed to determine how difficult a
given passage is to understand for English readers:

Run through the Flesch-Kincaid grade-level test, his text of responses
score at the 4th-grade reading level. For Trump, that’s actually pretty
advanced. All the other candidates rated higher, with Ted Cruz earning
9th-grade status. Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker scored at
the 8th-grade level. John Kasich, the next-lowest after Trump, got a
5th-grade score.

According to Shafer, Trump's remarks at an August 11 news conference in
Birch Run, Michigan, put him at an even-lower 3rd grade level (in the
United States, 3rd graders are typically eight or nine years old). Trump
is 69 years old.

As I said, elsewhere, the republican candidates seem to think their
base are idiots. Or, maybe the candidates THEMSELVES are idiots??

Scroll to 12:30 and you'll ease right into it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlHZGoVx0vg

Per Don Y:
According to Shafer, Trump's remarks at an August 11 news conference in
Birch Run, Michigan, put him at an even-lower 3rd grade level (in the
United States, 3rd graders are typically eight or nine years old). Trump
is 69 years old.

As I said, elsewhere, the republican candidates seem to think their
base are idiots. Or, maybe the candidates THEMSELVES are idiots??

I usually err on the pessimistic side... but in this case it seems
things are even worse that I thought.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 1/14/2016 7:13 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Don Y:
According to Shafer, Trump's remarks at an August 11 news conference in
Birch Run, Michigan, put him at an even-lower 3rd grade level (in the
United States, 3rd graders are typically eight or nine years old). Trump
is 69 years old.

As I said, elsewhere, the republican candidates seem to think their
base are idiots. Or, maybe the candidates THEMSELVES are idiots??

I usually err on the pessimistic side... but in this case it seems
things are even worse that I thought.

frown Will next election cycle see rhetoric geared for *7* year olds??
Do candidates (and the electorate) really think problems are this
SIMPLE? Black and white?? If so, they must be completely BAFFLED
by the fact that we haven't "cured" the common cold, ended hunger
and poverty, etc.

You hear folks claiming "carpet bomb them" or "build a wall". Why
not an equally trivial "feed them" or "raise their standard of living"?
Pay a livable wage? End drug addiction? Get rid of bad cops?
Ineffective teachers?

Aren't these JUST AS TRIVIAL for solutions to problems? So, are
the candidates that impotent that they can't do these "simple" things??

("Well, it's more complicated than that..." -- D'uh!)

grin

On 01/13/2016 11:57 PM, Don Y wrote:
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton spoke at near an
eighth-grade level, while Bernie Sanders spoke at just above
10th grade.

Sanders is screwed. There is a bit of apocrypha about Adlai Stevenson.
After one of his speeches a supporter gushed "Mr. Stevenson, all
intelligent people will vote for you!" to which he replied "That's not
enough, madam, we need a majority!"

A more reliable quote is "The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear
in which we live, and fear breeds repression. Too often sinister threats
to the bill of rights, to freedom of the mind, are concealed under the
patriotic cloak, of anti-communism."

On 1/14/2016 7:59 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/13/2016 11:57 PM, Don Y wrote:
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton spoke at near an
eighth-grade level, while Bernie Sanders spoke at just above
10th grade.

Sanders is screwed. There is a bit of apocrypha about Adlai Stevenson. After
one of his speeches a supporter gushed "Mr. Stevenson, all intelligent people
will vote for you!" to which he replied "That's not enough, madam, we need a
majority!"

A more reliable quote is "The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in
which we live, and fear breeds repression. Too often sinister threats to the
bill of rights, to freedom of the mind, are concealed under the patriotic
cloak, of anti-communism."

And you see politicians *exploiting* that fear -- even MANUFACTURING it
when it may not truly exist! Again, makes you wonder what they think of their
constituents...

"Oooo! Terrorism! Here, take my liberties -- just keep me SAFE, Mr Stalin!!"

Per rbowman:
Sanders is screwed. There is a bit of apocrypha about Adlai Stevenson.
After one of his speeches a supporter gushed "Mr. Stevenson, all
intelligent people will vote for you!" to which he replied "That's not
enough, madam, we need a majority!"

That's great !

Besides seeming too old, I think Sanders has another problem: he comes
right out and says that he, by himself, is not going to be able to make
the changes he is talking about. Instead, he needs a whole movement
behind him.... and I do not think that is going to happen anytime in the
forseeable future.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Don Y:
And you see politicians *exploiting* that fear -- even MANUFACTURING it
when it may not truly exist! Again, makes you wonder what they think of their
constituents...

"Oooo! Terrorism! Here, take my liberties -- just keep me SAFE, Mr Stalin!!"

I saw a pretty good quote from Louis Brandeis the other day:

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty
when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are
naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers." ....but.... "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in
insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without
understanding."
--
Pete Cresswell

On 1/14/2016 9:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
Sanders is screwed. There is a bit of apocrypha about Adlai Stevenson.
After one of his speeches a supporter gushed "Mr. Stevenson, all
intelligent people will vote for you!" to which he replied "That's not
enough, madam, we need a majority!"

That's great !

Besides seeming too old, I think Sanders has another problem: he comes
right out and says that he, by himself, is not going to be able to make
the changes he is talking about. Instead, he needs a whole movement
behind him.... and I do not think that is going to happen anytime in the
forseeable future.

Exactly.

On 1/14/2016 9:13 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Don Y:
And you see politicians *exploiting* that fear -- even MANUFACTURING it
when it may not truly exist! Again, makes you wonder what they think of their
constituents...

"Oooo! Terrorism! Here, take my liberties -- just keep me SAFE, Mr Stalin!!"

I saw a pretty good quote from Louis Brandeis the other day:

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty
when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are
naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers." ....but.... "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in
insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without
understanding."

People often think that if a little of something is GOOD, then MORE
of that same thing will be BETTER. Do a *little* for people
is good so doing a LOT should be so much BETTER!

But, note that this works BOTH WAYS! E.g., you can claim that a
little deregulation, reduction in size of government is GOOD so
even *more* would be better! It's always amusing to see what the
"less government" folks want to KEEP as government functions
and what that says about them, their fears, etc.

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:42:34 AM UTC-6, Don Y wrote:
On 1/12/2016 8:29 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-6, Don Y wrote:
On 1/12/2016 2:08 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 11:15:27 AM UTC-6, Don Y wrote:
On 1/12/2016 9:35 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

OK, "National IQ" is a misnomer... People haven't gotten
significantly dumber in the past 80 years....... but "IQ" seems to
work better than the more accurate "Educational Level" or "Critical
Thinking Skills"....

The P.L.L.C.F. infested to educational system many years ago to promote
their agenda which is to cause The Dumbassification Of America because
low IQ and low information voters are more easily fooled and manipulated
into voting for Democrats. O_o

Then why do the democratic candidates speak at a higher level of
complexity (sentence structure) than the grunts and three-sylable
sloganism of the republican candidates?

The right thinks their base are idiots and dumb down their rhetoric to
simplistic ideas that they *hope* their base can swallow, without
thinking. "Build a wall"? Shows a complete lack of understanding for the
reality of the situation. Could just as easily say "Shoot 'em All" (note
how it fits the three-syllable test?) and how impractical *that* would
be.

I'm tired of not having "another choice". Voting is no fun if only one
party fields a candidate with above room-temperature IQ...

Yes, Democrats are so much more intelligent than any Republican. Perhaps

(sigh) You're proving YOUR point -- by not reading carefully and reading
*my* point!

Go back and tell me where *I* said "democrats are smarter than republicans".
When you *can't* find a claim to that affect, you can reread:
The [candidates of the] right thinks their base are idiots and dumb
down their rhetoric to simplistic ideas that they *hope* their base
can swallow, without thinking.


I'm so sorry. I must have mixed up your post with another one and thought the superior intelligence was implied by what I read. My mistake. o_O

" the democratic candidates speak at a higher level of complexity (sentence structure) than the grunts and three-sylable sloganism of the republican candidates?"

"...one party fields a candidate with above room-temperature IQ..."

Exactly. Does that say anything about "republicans" and/or "democrats"?
It speaks entirely to the candidates *fielded* by the parties and their
(presumed) opinion of the folks (constituents) that they are talking to
(trying to "win over")

It's so funny what propaganda does for public perception. You will also find different opinions on the intelligence of Democrats vs Republicans. I look at the studies and see different methods of measurement get different results. I see a lot of difference when theoretical or practical means of measuring intelligence are used. ^_^

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ts-in-congress

http://tinyurl.com/h8nbnjx

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03/...emocrats-54686

http://tinyurl.com/o7cbzdt

[8~{} Uncle Genius Monster