tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post673560484207301233..comments2024-03-28T04:08:06.986-05:00Comments on Althouse: "Mega Tuesday: Possibly The Most Consequential Day Of Voting Yet."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger267125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53943151891023576562016-03-16T12:58:48.550-05:002016-03-16T12:58:48.550-05:00"the voting margin in the Constitutional conv..."the voting margin in the Constitutional conventions ( seeing that we have always been a contentious people). In NY, VA, and MA the margin of victory was 10% of "We the people". 7% doesn't look so bad!"<br /><br />Good point.Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00117933390338651739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2573049641738856952016-03-16T12:53:59.789-05:002016-03-16T12:53:59.789-05:00Mick:
"If you need the 14th Amendment or a ...Mick: <br /><br />"If you need the 14th Amendment or a Congressional statute to make you a citizen then you are not natural born." <br /><br />Wrong. Matural born only means a citizen at birth. Now if had bene nothing in the constitution or the laws about citizenship, perhaps you could resort to some sort of "natural law" definition of who is a citizen. But this can be changed by law. Blackstone said that.<br /><br />"Natural born citizen" does NOT mean citizen by virtue of "natural law."Sammy Finkelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05105012664741556033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-38535284738067611622016-03-16T12:49:09.834-05:002016-03-16T12:49:09.834-05:00cubanbob said...3/16/16, 12:36 AM
No one is clai...cubanbob said...3/16/16, 12:36 AM<br /><br /><i> No one is claiming Hillary is getting any crossover votes. </i><br /><br />Not now, because there is aRepublican primary. But there are people who are claiming and saying - people who wrote for National review and other places are saying - they hear people saying that they would vote for Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump is the nominee.<br /><br /><i> Never fear, Trump being who he is will make Clinton's criminality front and center of his campaign </i><br /><br />That might very well drive voters to third party candidates, rather than to Trump.<br /><br />And besides, I am not so sure he would do that, or would know how to do it right. <br /><br />He'd probably do whatever his campaign staff would tell him to do, and they might not want to burn all bridges, or get on the Clintons' enemies list. And the Clintons could help them too, if they were nice, and they trusted the Clintons, which of course, is problematical, but maybe they could infiltrate the campaign with people who were loyal to them from the start. They did that with Romney, you know, sabotaging his Get Out the Vote plan in Ohio. Natural incompetence will only get you so far. That had to be on purpose.<br /><br /><i> and in the end of the day no matter how much dirt is thrown at Trump he can and will say that he bought and paid her in the past. </i><br /><br />To attend his wedding, he claims.<br /><br /><br />Sammy Finkelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05105012664741556033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66813664226988501322016-03-16T12:37:36.920-05:002016-03-16T12:37:36.920-05:00Fabi said...
I agree that some Republicans will ...Fabi said...<br /><br /><i> I agree that some Republicans will not vote for Trump, but I'd guess it's a very small value -- maybe 5% </i><br /><br />What you have to figure out also, actually, is people who would otherwise, or usually, vote for the Republican candidate for president, and the poll probably wasn't capturing anything more Republican than that.<br /><br />Now, in 1960, the election was about 50-50. And in 1964, Johnson got about 62% or something like that (without looking it up)<br /><br />Say 5/8 of the vote 62.5% (It was actually 61.1%. In 1972, Nixon got 60.7%. In 1936, FDR got 60.8%)<br /><br />But let's use 62.5% for ease of calculation.<br /><br />If 12.5% of the voters switched, that's one quarter of 50%. What they are saying is it would be another Goldwater (or McGovern) debacle. But the difference in this case is that the candidate might be Hillary Clinton. so maybe some might be won back.<br /><br />By the way 60% would mean 20% 10/50 would switch from 50-50)<br /><br />This election may well be decided on how people answer the question: Who is more like Richard Nixon: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? <br /><br />The comparison is not perfect. Nixon was never corrupt about money (in spite of these claims about his income tax returns' compliance with the law) and you could argue BOTh are worse than Nixon.Sammy Finkelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05105012664741556033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66496847158598685932016-03-16T11:06:04.535-05:002016-03-16T11:06:04.535-05:00@ Meade Your "We the people" quote got m...@ Meade Your "We the people" quote got me curious about the voting margin in the Constitutional conventions ( seeing that we have always been a contentious people). In NY, VA, and MA the margin of victory was 10% of "We the people". 7% doesn't look so bad! khesanh0802https://www.blogger.com/profile/11792377924992548208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-11069213095004537322016-03-16T09:59:09.400-05:002016-03-16T09:59:09.400-05:007% of "We the People." Arithmetic corre...7% of "We the People." Arithmetic correction noted. Thanks. Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00117933390338651739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62124019021043059932016-03-16T09:29:31.134-05:002016-03-16T09:29:31.134-05:00@meade You have been hanging out on blogs too long...@meade You have been hanging out on blogs too long. You have become accustomed to "winning " through snark and snide rather than doing the homework necessary to back up your prejudices. Pew research says that in the first 12 primaries 17% of eligible voters voted Republican. Of that group Trump never got below about 35% of the vote. Simple math (math is hard!) says that about 7% of eligible voters voted for Trump. Your 1% estimate is, therefore, off considerably. Sure it's not the whole US population, but Trump is channeling a significant number of those eligible to vote and showing up at the polls. Pew article here.khesanh0802https://www.blogger.com/profile/11792377924992548208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58305121095470035062016-03-16T09:20:03.729-05:002016-03-16T09:20:03.729-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.khesanh0802https://www.blogger.com/profile/11792377924992548208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69778778047955926162016-03-16T07:36:46.561-05:002016-03-16T07:36:46.561-05:00damikesc said...
"NRO going all in on 'Sc...damikesc said...<br />"NRO going all in on 'Screw the poor' seems absolutely asinine."<br /><br />Did you read the entire article? "Screw the poor" is a quote from, who — Williamson? Your own imagination?Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00117933390338651739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-32641377920342701732016-03-16T07:27:13.699-05:002016-03-16T07:27:13.699-05:00Mick said...
"Trump was born of US citizen pa...Mick said...<br />"Trump was born of US citizen parents in the US."<br /><br />And you know this how? Have you held and examined his long-form birth certificate?Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00117933390338651739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39641914725924301322016-03-16T06:54:42.813-05:002016-03-16T06:54:42.813-05:00Missouri still not called? Crazy!Missouri still not called? Crazy!Limited bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672990516665976384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13796062705530961862016-03-16T06:48:30.818-05:002016-03-16T06:48:30.818-05:00Various Head to Head polls between Trump and Clint...<b>Various Head to Head polls between Trump and Clinton Doesn't look good for Trump. Kasich does the best against Clinton.</b><br /><br />"Candidate nobody thinks has the tiniest chance of actually being a candidate doesn't do badly against candidate" is not a new story. You've heard virtually nothing of Kasich's voluminous faults.<br /><br /><b>I remain amazed by Keven Williamson's screed and the level of support it received over at NRO.</b><br /><br />NRO going all in on "Screw the poor" seems absolutely asinine. Did "Country Club Republicans" ever do terribly well historically? The Republicans need a fighter and NRO will never support that.<br /><br />People discuss how badly Breitbart.com has shafted Andrew's memory. Which it has. NRO has raped Buckley's corpse.<br /><br /><b>And I would guess 50% of that 20-30% will silently secretly mark their ballot Clinton. To save their party and their country from Trump. </b><br /><br />Then they are clowns and their usual requests for unity when THEIR guy is nominated will never be listened to again.<br /><br /><b>Trump will expand the federal government, increase the national debt, and misuse the military. And one more thing my real conservative republican friends (I have 3 or 4) don't care for -- being condescended to. </b><br /><br />But Paul Ryan is ALREADY increasing spending. The "real" Republicans have a God awful track record on that. And Trump, to his credit, seems disinterested in sending troops overseas for no reason.damikeschttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133230009952160269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-4396635086299377732016-03-16T06:26:17.882-05:002016-03-16T06:26:17.882-05:00The amount of projection in Amanda's comments ...The amount of projection in Amanda's comments is amazing: "the feelings will only strengthen against him . . . Trump's negatives will only rise"? Just substitute "her" for "him" and "Amanda" for "Trump" and you have a clear description of Amanda's effect on the Althouse comment sections. She's obviously paid to come here and damage the site, and her repeated assertion that she would vote for Kasich over Hillary is an obvious lie.Dr Weevilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10059306888033890029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36867437867868514462016-03-16T05:59:20.701-05:002016-03-16T05:59:20.701-05:00"I agree that some Republicans will not vote ..."I agree that some Republicans will not vote for Trump, but I'd guess it's a very small value -- maybe 5%. The 25% figure is fabulist and, even if the poll is to be believed, likely represents raw feelings in the heat of the primary. Those will soften in next eight months."<br /><br />Keep in mind Hillary has been relatively out of the news in the past several months. People not seeing her, hearing her, or thinking about her helps her numbers because they forget what she's all about. If Trump were capable of keeping a low profile (spoiler--he can't) and the election became about Hillary, she would go down to defeat.<br /><br />At this point both candidates are so well known (and both have underwater approval ratings) that it's hard to imagine much of a swing for either of them. But in the heat of the general election, most voters are going to stick with their respective sides, hold their noses, and vote their party. It'll be a close, but ugly race.Brandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219319435229314554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67314966280239462772016-03-16T05:56:52.583-05:002016-03-16T05:56:52.583-05:00Morepm317 said...
Is Cook County in IL cooking up ...Morepm317 said...<br />Is Cook County in IL cooking up votes for Sanders?<br />More than likely.Rustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938263272237104128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-79028936224978064422016-03-16T05:52:28.233-05:002016-03-16T05:52:28.233-05:00The Trump news I expected, though I figured the ev...The Trump news I expected, though I figured the events of the weekend would have put him over in Ohio too. In any event, I think post-Super Tuesday has been a mop-up operation and delaying the inevitable. He'll be the nominee, with all the chaos that brings. And barring a significant event, he'll lose to Hillary and the slide continues.<br /><br />I'm depressed about Hillary's wins for what they represent--an absolute grafter can strongarm her party, pull out the establishment stops and pander shamelessly to racialists to head off a socialist who represents the heart of the Left. They goaded Trump into running so they could roil and split the Republicans, and it seems to be working, and this country is setting itself up to coronate (crown) a president who we can say for sure will be an absolute disaster.<br /><br />Buy stock in hard liquor--there will be a lot of drinking in the coming months.Brandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219319435229314554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82311639325143171912016-03-16T03:42:01.610-05:002016-03-16T03:42:01.610-05:00Lyin' Amanda.Lyin' Amanda.jghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05254850370113601762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15872207761413346572016-03-16T01:41:05.791-05:002016-03-16T01:41:05.791-05:00The convention will be brokered.
I don't know ...The convention will be brokered.<br />I don't know enough about how that works other than to make this prediction:<br />If a brokered convention produces an establishment nominee like Romney or Ryan, the GOP will lose badly in November. If they can't bring the voters to polls, they will lose not only the presidency, but the Senate and maybe the House as well.Lewis Wetzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01200232293505119133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-20653902648562055402016-03-16T01:12:31.098-05:002016-03-16T01:12:31.098-05:00Amanda, isn't the poll you continue to referen...Amanda, isn't the poll you continue to reference an on-line one? If so, it's worthless. Participants in an on-line survey are self selected. That's not the way polling works.Barbarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07514637305392553889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9202449312960907632016-03-16T00:49:41.214-05:002016-03-16T00:49:41.214-05:00@Amanda: Once again, if you believe in Trump's...@Amanda: Once again, if you believe in Trump's voter defection or his certain implosion then you should be overjoyed, but you're not -- you're running scared. Sorry you didn't get to feel the Bern tonight, but you'll certainly be feeling the burn in November.Fabihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17991749875348408368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-14456495411031090282016-03-16T00:36:40.164-05:002016-03-16T00:36:40.164-05:00Amanda Trump the boorish buffoon will beat Hillary...Amanda Trump the boorish buffoon will beat Hillary the grifter and felonious traitor. Trump's turnout includes a lot of crossover votes. No one is claiming Hillary is getting any crossover votes. Trump is getting support from the working class that the Democrats have shat on. Never fear, Trump being who he is will make Clinton's criminality front and center of his campaign and in the end of the day no matter how much dirt is thrown at Trump he can and will say that he bought and paid her in the past. And by the way, its still early and the FBI hasn't cast its primary vote. And if even if by some act of the Devil and she were to win, Hillary's criminality will be part of every Republican running for Congress and they will really have no choice but to impeach her and probably remove her. She is way past Nixon already and nowhere near as trusted as Nixon in 72. Your right Sanders would have been the better choice. Better to have an 'honest' Communist lose and have the party flush out the corrupt Clinton trash in the process and reorganize in 2020 with an electable and clean centrist but no they had to eff it up. The Democrats are making it hard for the Republicans to lose in spite of themselves so it looks likely we are going to have a half-assed comedian as president. Well that's still better than a criminal in the White House. I suppose this is the penance for electing Obama twice.cubanbobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03746305669005611456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13466216165411009202016-03-16T00:35:03.527-05:002016-03-16T00:35:03.527-05:00mccullough said...
"Mick,
Strong the cult is... mccullough said...<br />"Mick,<br /><br />Strong the cult is, I know. But resist, you must". <br /><br /><br />So why did Gray say that Waite referred to "the Common Law" in defining nbC on pg. 655 of WKA?<br />The only "Common Law" where the parents mattered was law of nations.Mickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864660386925998491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8294896867567962872016-03-16T00:34:01.569-05:002016-03-16T00:34:01.569-05:00an amusing and telling moment when kasich, deliver...an amusing and telling moment when kasich, delivering his victory speech from the cleveland suburb, berea, promised his followers that he would take his campaign "all the way to cleveland".el polackohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13265451503377552500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-19561266498458293452016-03-16T00:32:35.921-05:002016-03-16T00:32:35.921-05:00mccullough said...
Mick,
Strong the cult is, I kn...mccullough said...<br />Mick,<br /><br />Strong the cult is, I know. But resist, you must. <br /><br />"The US Constitution followed British common law, it never followed the law of nations in any of its provisions. Not the natural born citizen clause, not the due process clause, etc. This is so well understood by legal scholars that it's beyond debate. <br /><br />If you want to get rid of birthright citizenship, you and the rest of the Stones will have to get a constitutional amendment.<br /><br />Say high to Keith for me".<br /><br /><br />Citizen and natural born Citizen are 2 different words, so they must mean different things--- one of the laws of statutory Construction. Law of Nations is part of the laws of the United States--- See Sosa v. Alvarez, The Paquette Habana, the Nereid. See also Federalist 3-- John Jay. See also A1S8C10.<br /><br />You are a liar plain and simple.Mickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864660386925998491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-14632396000656822452016-03-16T00:28:21.112-05:002016-03-16T00:28:21.112-05:00"Marco Rubio wasn't made a citizen of the..."Marco Rubio wasn't made a citizen of the US at birth by statute. Neither was Obama."<br /><br /><br />Trump is natural born. Rubio Cruz and Obama are not. If you need the 14th Amendment or a Congressional statute to make you a citizen then you are not natural born. The 15 Amendment did not amend A2S1C5.<br /><br />Trump is a citizen by the facts of his birth= natural born.<br /><br />Cruz need congressional statute= not natural born <br /><br />Rubio and Obama need the 14th Amendment= not natural born.<br /><br />The 14th Amendment is a vehicle of naturalization, where Congress decides who is a citizen by whether they are born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Congressional Acts cannot amend A2S1C5. The 14A made the former slaves CITIZENS when they weren't considered such before, it did not make them natural born Citizens.<br /><br />Obama and Rubio would not have been considered US citizens, if born before 1898, at the time they were born (See Naturalization Act 1802 (Rev. Stat. 1993) S. 4). A2S1C5 has never been amended-- therefore they are not natural born Citizens today.<br /><br /> Mickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864660386925998491noreply@blogger.com