Merged The Ted Cruz Birther Thread

sylvan8798 said:
Sorry if this has a thread already, but I don't get how Ted Cruz thinks he can be president, if Obama is considered "invalid" by many in the GOP since we can't be sure he wasn't born in Kenya. Somehow. Did we annex Canada?:boggled:
Click to expand...

Recent precedent, see B. Hussein Obama v. The American Public
 
There was a previous thread, and I commented that there was an NPR segment on the situation....Apparently, the courts have never ruled on a definition of "Natural born".... There had been a couple of attempts, but the cases were dismissed as the plaintiff had "no standing".
I don't think anyone (other than snarky democrats poking fun at the Obama detractors) is seriously taking any legal action.....Cruz has about as much chance of winning the general election as I do.
 
Tony Stark said:
I think because his mother was an American citizen, he had it at birth even though he was born in Canada.
Click to expand...

Mudcat said:
That's as stupid as saying someone is Jewish just because their mother is, and no more true.

I thought humanity has moved on past this sort of nonsense already, but I guess not.
Click to expand...

How is that stupid? That's how it works in most of the world. If a Norwegian woman gives birth to a baby in Uganda, that child will still be a Norwegian citizen. The alternative is actually quite unthinkable.
 
Well, if the theoretical reason is to prevent plants by foreign nations to control key aspects of the American government, especially the military during a war, then a baby born abroad and raised here is of much less concern than one who waited until his 40s to renounce his Canadian citizenship.
 
16.5 said:
Recent precedent, see B. Hussein Obama v. The American Public
Click to expand...

Why is that an apt comparison? Obama was born in the US, Cruz was not.

Unless it's different, for another, darker, reason.

/must resist feeding trolls.
 
Mudcat said:
I think the whole concept of natural born citizen is stupid, not what you said.
Click to expand...

I disagree because Nothing is more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
 
sylvan8798 said:
Sorry if this has a thread already, but I don't get how Ted Cruz thinks he can be president, if Obama is considered "invalid" by many in the GOP since we can't be sure he wasn't born in Kenya. Somehow. Did we annex Canada?: boggled :
Click to expand...
That is the heart of it, right there.

I mean, in Obama's case, we can be sure of it, of course, since the appropriate documentation has been provided.

But meeting the qualifications for the presidency is not a "benefit of the doubt" situation. We're not supposed to just assume that the candidate qualifies. The appropriate documentation should be produced as soon as possible in the campaign. If Cruz hasn't produced the documentation yet, that's a problem for him, and it's reasonable to expect a conspiracy theory and a Buttmad Hypocrisy Police Brigade as fallout--and rightly so. If he now dithers or delays on producing the appropriate documentation, then it stops being a conspiracy theory and starts being a legitimate question about whether he really qualifies. And the Hypocrisy Police start having a serious point that candidate and his supporters alike need to properly address.

If, on the other hand, Cruz has already produced the appropriate documentation, then the matter is effectively closed, and anybody still harping on it becomes no better than the birther nutjobs on the fringe right.

HTH. HAND!
 
theprestige said:
But meeting the qualifications for the presidency is not a "benefit of the doubt" situation. We're not supposed to just assume that the candidate qualifies. The appropriate documentation should be produced as soon as possible in the campaign.
Click to expand...

Exactly, as it was done in every modern campaign prior to Obama.
 
Look, we need the 'natural born citizen' clause. Haven't you guys seen The Manchurian Candidate? We have to have some way of combatting the pernicious influence of Canadian apparatchiks on our precious bodily fluids. I can't actually think of a better way of doing that than creating a formal distinction between first- and second-class citizens. It's not like we could just rely on voters to properly sort out these identity issues--my understanding is that the voters carelessly elected a black guy.
 
16.5 said:
I disagree because Nothing is more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
Click to expand...

Is there any other country that has this requirement for being head of state? I know mine doesn't.

And yet I can't think of a single instance where a 'Manchurian Candidate', with a history of foreign citizenship, has gained democratic political power with a hidden foreign agenda. Can you mention one?

The strict need for a natural born citizen seems like paranoia to me, and I don't understand why not more Americans are questioning the why of this requirement, instead of just discussing the technicalities around it.

And why are you talking like you're making a speech in the 18th century?
 
Dr. Keith said:
Exactly, as it was done in every modern campaign prior to Obama.
Click to expand...

If you say so.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it is a "benefit of the doubt" thing. I don't think it should be, and I'm disappointed if it is. I'd consider it a serious problem if lax enforcement means unqualified candidates make it to the ballot.

And regardless of the level of enforcement, I think candidates should be prompt and complete when filing their campaign intentions. I also think that candidates should always be prepared to produce their qualifications in the appropriate venue, if they have not done so already, when asked. I think this should be a fundamental principle of campaign regulation, regardless of how often it's been asked of other candidates, and regardless of who is asking or the motive imputed to them.

If a birther of any stripe wants to see that the candidate they most hate has a valid US birth certificate or equivalent document on file with the election commission, then the candidate's immediate and unqualified answer should be "of course, and here's the commission's confirmation of the same".

"Nobody else ever got asked this question" is not a valid response from any candidate regarding their fundamental eligibility to hold the office they're campaigning for. And now that it's been most certainly asked of Obama, there's no excuse if Cruz is unable or unwilling to answer it.
 
Ryokan said:
And why are you talking like you're making a speech in the 18th century?
Click to expand...
When Americans are forced to defend some especially stupid aspect of our sacred constitution (for example, if it is criticized for any reason), we turn to political theater to gather up an air of pompous importance around ourseslves. This includes ye olde times ſpeech, the wearing of tricornes, and offensive displays of whiteface.
 
Last edited:
I think the point has been made. Birth certificates only matter to Republicans, and only if the candidate is black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom