Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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." |
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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." +1 Shucks, you gave Todd the link I was holding back on. He could have already checked into the facts; but instead, he keeps defending Trump. Trump is not qualified to give Cruz legal advice. There is no need for a "declaratory judgment". The law is already in place by congress. |
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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." And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia. I forget how his father got there. He was either in the US army occupying Germany and he visited there, or he was there on business, but Trump's mother was a Romanian and he was born in Romania. One American parent, the same alleged problem that Cruz has. In the same way he paid a doctor 10 or 20K extra to say he would be the healthiest president ever**, as if the doctor knows how healthy all the others were, he paid someone in the county clerk's office in NYC to insert a false birth record. **BTW, what ever happend to the bone problem serious enough for him to avoid the draft? He or his father was rich then too. He probably used forged X-rays from someone with a real problem. |
#5
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:17:46 -0500, Micky
wrote: And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia. I forget how his father got there. He was either in the US army occupying Germany and he visited there, or he was there on business, but Trump's mother was a Romanian and he was born in Romania. One American Oops. I meant Yugoslavian and Yugoslavia. See how false rumors get started, from typos like I made. I don't want that. parent, the same alleged problem that Cruz has. In the same way he paid a doctor 10 or 20K extra to say he would be the healthiest president ever**, as if the doctor knows how healthy all the others were, he paid someone in the county clerk's office in NYC to insert a false birth record. **BTW, what ever happend to the bone problem serious enough for him to avoid the draft? He or his father was rich then too. He probably used forged X-rays from someone with a real problem. |
#6
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-6, Micky wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:17:46 -0500, Micky wrote: And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia. I forget how his father got there. He was either in the US army occupying Germany and he visited there, or he was there on business, but Trump's mother was a Romanian and he was born in Romania. One American Oops. I meant Yugoslavian and Yugoslavia. See how false rumors get started, from typos like I made. I don't want that. parent, the same alleged problem that Cruz has. In the same way he paid a doctor 10 or 20K extra to say he would be the healthiest president ever**, as if the doctor knows how healthy all the others were, he paid someone in the county clerk's office in NYC to insert a false birth record. **BTW, what ever happend to the bone problem serious enough for him to avoid the draft? He or his father was rich then too. He probably used forged X-rays from someone with a real problem. Micky, did you send an Email to me today? My reply to the return address was rejected as nondeliverable. I wanted to find out if it was really you or someone trying to spoof your name. Please let me know because I'd hate to reproduce the Email here in the newsgroup if it wasn't you. O_o [8~{} Uncle Male Monster |
#7
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:17:46 -0500, Micky
wrote: And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia. Where did you get that nugget? Trump was born in Queens. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/20110328125536753.pdf |
#8
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:27:57 -0800, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:17:46 -0500, Micky wrote: And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia. Where did you get that nugget? Trump was born in Queens. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/20110328125536753.pdf Do you expect Fox News to work very hard to find out where he was born, when if anyone succeeds in getting out the news, he'll buy the station and fire him? Not just fire him, but ruin him. Believe me, it was Yugoslavia. |
#9
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:39:43 -0500, Micky
wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:27:57 -0800, Oren wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:17:46 -0500, Micky wrote: And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia. Where did you get that nugget? Trump was born in Queens. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/20110328125536753.pdf Do you expect Fox News to work very hard to find out where he was born, when if anyone succeeds in getting out the news, he'll buy the station and fire him? Not just fire him, but ruin him. Believe me, it was Yugoslavia. 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.. |
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. 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. 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. 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." |
#11
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:53:34 -0700, "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. 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. 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. Exactly. And Trump has the same problem Cruz does. I didn't go into all the details because I'm not exactly sure, but his father never filed any form either, and there was also uncertainty about whether he was the father or not. 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." |
#12
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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? 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. His mother was born in Wilmington Delaware. Later got her undergraduate degree from Rice University. Must have taken a year :-\ |
#13
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
#14
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
#15
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
#16
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
#17
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
#18
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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? |
#19
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
#20
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
#21
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
#22
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
#23
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
#24
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. Trump supplies more of each. -- Pete Cresswell |
#25
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On 1/11/2016 12:41 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
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. +1 Many years ago, I came out of the house to find neighbor reading a copy of _The (National) Enquirer_. As I knew him to be reasonably intelligent (not the sort I would imagine would read that sort of "trash"), I commented on this, to him. He smiled and said, "You misunderstand. This isn't claiming to be *news* or even *factual*! It's *entertainment*! Just like most of the shock jocks on talk radio -- their goal is to get people talking about *them*, not the issues!" The media needs "news" in order to serve a role (i.e., "have a job!"). So, it is in THEIR best interests to MAKE things "newsworthy" (even if they really *aren't*!) It's worth rethinking this sort of thing when you look at any "societal role". Look at any role, the responsibilities that are associated with it and guess the likelihood that the behavior of folks in that role will be "objective". Trump supplies more of each. Trump is an entertainer. What's amusing is the sorts of folks who think that he is a man of "substance"... |
#26
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
"(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. |
#27
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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... |
#28
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:41:38 PM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
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. Trump supplies more of each. -- Pete Cresswell +1 With the exception of Fox, the mainstream media is lib. But like you say, Trump keeps himself controversial and they cover it because it's about ratings. |
#29
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:20:20 -0500, 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. The media is OWNED by big money. Bernie is a threat to big money. Connect the dots. |
#30
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:55:11 -0700, "Ashton Crusher"
wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:20:20 -0500, 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. 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. |
#31
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On 1/11/2016 3:05 PM, Micky wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:55:11 -0700, "Ashton Crusher" wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:20:20 -0500, 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. 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. |
#32
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:20:20 -0500, 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. The media is OWNED by big money. Bernie is a threat to big money. Connect the dots. bernie isn't a threat to anyone but himself and this country |
#33
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
#34
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
#35
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
| Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.
| Could we maybe get a little break from this? It has zero connection to home repair. There must be political groups you can talk about Trump in if that's how you want to spend your time. |
#36
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
Mayayana wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump. Could we maybe get a little break from this? It has zero connection to home repair. There must be political groups you can talk about Trump in if that's how you want to spend your time. here is a hint, the subject line is VERY clear what it is. Don't CLICK on it. See how easy that is |
#37
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:23:56 -0600, "ChairMan"
wrote: Mayayana wrote: Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump. Could we maybe get a little break from this? It has zero connection to home repair. There must be political groups you can talk about Trump in if that's how you want to spend your time. here is a hint, the subject line is VERY clear what it is. Don't CLICK on it. See how easy that is Even easier, put the subject in your "looney bin" and you won't see it again. Doing that now. |
#38
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:23:56 -0600, "ChairMan"
wrote: Mayayana wrote: Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump. Could we maybe get a little break from this? Why? Who is "we"? It has zero connection to home repair. There Sure it does. Trump believes in imminent domain to take your property and give it to a corporation. must be political groups you can talk about Trump in if that's how you want to spend your time. Your point? here is a hint, the subject line is VERY clear what it is. Don't CLICK on it. See how easy that is Her arm is broke? Can't do home repair or can't click ignore a thread in the news reader. |
#39
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
| 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. |
#40
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
14 minute somewhat hostile interview with Trump
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. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|