When Iowa Republicans are asked who they would support in their local caucus, Ben Carson (23%) and Donald Trump (23%) tie for the top spot. The next tier of candidates includes Carly Fiorina (10%) and Ted Cruz (9%), followed by Scott Walker (7%), Jeb Bush (5%), John Kasich (4%), Marco Rubio (4%), and Rand Paul (3%)....
August 31, 2015
Carson ties it up with Trump in Iowa.
A new Monmouth poll.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
90 comments:
You need a new tag: no politics as usual
Ceilings are reached it seems for some
Nate Silver: Donald Trump Is Winning The Polls — And Losing The Nomination
Silver also wrote a good article recently about how difficult it is to get polling data these days; but this morning I can't seem to find it.
Carson is a great man, but probably not ready to be President. On-the-Job training at the highest levels only works for leftists trying to dismantle stuff.
Typically the GOP flirts with the novelty candidates (e.g., first time candidates with no political experience, or single issue candidates, or fringe candidates) but reverts back to the "safe" pick (e.g., whoever came in second last time, an experienced pol with broad appeal, someone named Bush) by the middle of the primaries. It may happen again this time, but if it doesn't it'll be due to the following:
1) The ease of raising money and using a few big donors may keep long-shot candidates (e.g., Santorum, Pataki) in the race, siphoning votes from the "safe" pick.
2) Due to 1), the sheer number of candidates prevents any of the "safe" picks from getting attention. Likewise, there are a number of "safe" picks you could see uniting the whole party, so they may not be able to settle on one.
3) Hatred of Obama and 8 years to let that stew has more GOP voters angrier than ever, and they blame their party's moderates as much as the Dems. They may never abandon Trump, and if he pulls in the 30s in the early primaries, that may be enough to win most of them while the other 16 candidates split the remainder.
Carly will continue to add points as she continues to campaign.
Carson makes Trump look like a great candidate.
Medical doctors haven't typically run anything. They often struggle to manage their own practice. Then again, community organizer isn't all that impressive either.
The problem with Trump is that his business experience was self-contained. He runs his business like a tyrant. There is no need to compromise internally. Perot was the same way. He was a tyrant dictator of his own company. It requires quite a change to be president.
We're still in the silly season, and things are very fluid. Expect more movement in the next two weeks leading up to the next GOP debate, then a great deal more immediately after.
In fact, Trump is tied with Carson, Fiorina, Cruz, Walker, Bush, Kasich, Rubio, Paul, Jindal, Christie, Perry, Huckabee, Santorum, Graham, and even Gilmore: They all have received zero votes in any primary contest, they've all won zero state primaries, and they've all had zero votes cast in their favor by any delegate to the GOP convention.
Trump is having good success in dominating the news. This is certainly one of his goals, but it's also risky for him: Even though his supporters are inclined to dismiss a great many of his gaffes and mistakes as "just Trump being Trump" and "Trump fighting political correctness" and "Trump telling it like it is," the spotlight can be harsh, hot, and revealing. I don't think his candidacy is going to turn out to be any more durable than his hairdo, but they're certainly both entertaining.
Oh -- gosh, how did I leave out Pataki? Trump is also tied with him.
NB. This is not a GOP moderate 's turn to be a candidate form election to return us to normal.
Normal is long gone. We cannot fight the easy 1980s and 1990s all over again. It is a desperate world now, and thanks to Obama we are close to being destroyed from within. We must elect a reality based strong leadership or we will most likely disappear into a EU type European socialist charade under an elite appointed autocract.
@ igv (8/31/15, 11:15 AM), re your observation that Trump's "business experience was self-contained. He runs his business like a tyrant. There is no need to compromise internally."
Trump's fans will respond that they're not looking for someone who's skilled in compromising. Given the widespread public belief that the GOP congressional leadership is insufficiently willing to fight, and all too eager either to compromise or simply roll over, I don't think you're likely to persuade many folks with this argument. (Although I agree with it.)
I'd rather put the focus on the spectacular chasm between Trump's claims of his own business prowess and its reality. Trump's reputation in the business community is spectacularly different than his self-portrayal. By those who actually pay attention to his business, and who aren't so easily persuaded by reality TV shows, Trump's been known over the last four decades not for success, but rather for the four waves of bankruptcies through which he's dragged his empire (the first of which almost brought him into personal bankruptcy as well, even though he was born rich).
Trump's success has been as a con-man, promoting himself. That, actually, is something which he has very much in common with the current occupant of the White House.
7%?
aw shucks...
@ Brando (8/31/15, 11:05 AM), re your point #3 that angry GOP primary voters may "never abandon Trump, and if he pulls in the 30s in the early primaries, that may be enough to win most of them while the other 16 candidates split the remainder."
I don't think there's any possibility that there will still be 17 candidates by the time of the Iowa caucuses, much less the New Hampshire or South Carolina primaries. Indeed, I will be very surprised if there are still as many as ten at year-end.
By South Carolina, I will be surprised if there are more than four.
In head-to-head preference polls (e.g., this one) in which respondents are limited to choosing between Trump and another GOP candidate, he's not doing nearly as well as he is now in the 17-person field. Whatever weight one gives to these polls, it's a mistake to ignore the head-to-head polling, and it's also a mistake to ignore the candidates' negatives.
Trump and Carson are now splitting the "Hate All Politicians" vote, with Fiorina sitting on the sidelines wondering why she can't crack into that. (Hint: It's because the MSM has defined her as "failed CEO" and she hasn't effectively countered that narrative. It's not because she's a woman.)
Usually, governors manage at some point to focus the "Hate All Politicians" vote into a "Hate Washington Politicians" vote, but we'll see how that goes this year (and next).
The Iowa Republican caucuses are heavily Evangelical and will probably go for Carson. The Iowa Democrat caucuses are very left wing.
I still think Carly is in good shape to take over if Trump stumbles. Walker has a chance.
I think we've had enough of first term Senators.
"she hasn't effectively countered that narrative."
Tom Perkins did that for her but it hasn't trickled out to the MSM yet,
It will.
"I don't think there's any possibility that there will still be 17 candidates by the time of the Iowa caucuses, much less the New Hampshire or South Carolina primaries. Indeed, I will be very surprised if there are still as many as ten at year-end."
Normally I'd agree that this is the case, but we saw something in the 2012 cycle that may be repeated on a larger scale here--no-hope candidates staying in the primaries way after it's clear the fat lady has sung. (Last time it was Santorum, Gingrich and Paul). It's because they love the exposure, and will even profit from it (following Huckabee's lead and getting a high paid media job)--and while in the old days, they'd drop out when money ran out, now a Sheldon Adelson type can keep a no-hope candidate going indefinitely. It's possible that enough of them staying in long enough could keep that split going.
Has anyone considered that maybe the Republican base has a "let's drive the pollsters & pundits bat-shit crazy" secret journo-list going? The base gets up in the morning, checks their email, and has their "drive 'em crazy" marching orders for the day.
It's an idea so bazoo it just might be the case.
So, the Iowans are idiots. If they didn't have this "first" nonsense they'd be less than nothing.
As I was walking around the parking lot, and inside the retirement complex where my 90 year old mother in law lives I was amazed at the amount of Carson bumper stickers, and other campaign material I saw.
I know this sounds crazy, but it might be old white republicans aren't racist after all.
It will however be a lot of fun watching the democrats, and left wing media carve up a black man whose reputation is beyond reproach.
Because they're not - you know... racist
Wow. Go Ben!
Again, people keep seeming to be stunned that the base so thoroughly loathes the establishment...yet the evidence keeps popping up and we keep providing reasons WHY they are loathed.
Anybody the establishment hates is going to do pretty well. And you'll see the big money donors attack Trump soon --- and I doubt that will work either. Because those donors are thoroughly on the wrong end of the main issue.
Most of the people are probably thinking of Johnny Carson when they respond to the pollster.
Yep, all the old people I know LOVE Ben Carson. Like... in a missionary way--they keep trying to foist his biography off on everyone they meet.
Actually, he inspires the same kind of intense love in them that Palin did. Except, perhaps the left won't be able to attack him so easily?
Walker should be leading comfortably, but he apparently decided not to make a serious issue about illegal immigration.
For many years, I favored Walker 110%. Now I've left Walker for Trump.
Trump says, for example, that the USA actually can fix its absurd birth-right citizenship for tourists and wetbacks.
Walker now says that any fix is wrong and impossible. Therefore, he essentially has chosen to continue serving as a state governor.
@Mike Sylwester,
Has it occurred to you that maybe Walker is better off without the support of people who use the term "wetbacks"?
No idea who he is. I guess I'll be finding out.
Walker now says that any fix is wrong and impossible.
And he thinks a fence between the US and Canada is an idea worth considering seriously.
(smh)
Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
Carson is a great man, but probably not ready to be President. On-the-Job training at the highest levels only works for leftists trying to dismantle stuff.
I agree that Dr. Carson is a genuinely good man. From what I've read, his executive experience is probably limited to running a surgery department at Johns Hopkins. That said, it seems that anyone elected president has a good deal of on-the-job training ahead. What other job comes close to the responsibilities of a president, being both the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and the Chief Executive of a multi-million employee bureaucracy, while also having to deal with foreign policy and Congress? Some jobs, such as a governor, have aspects of the presidency but no job I can think of (with the possible exception of vice president) fully prepares someone to be a US president.
"And he thinks a fence between the US and Canada is an idea worth considering seriously."
No, he didn't and thanks for exposing your instincts.
Fuck New Hampshire & Iowa and all their straw polls, caucuses, state fairs, and other bullshit. They are both sound & fury signifuing nothing. Iowa reubs are dominated by kook-ball evangelicals and corn/bio fuel rent seekers; NH repubs are libertarian sorts (i.e. defacto progressives on all issues but guns). The repubs carried NH & IA once each in the last FIVE elections. Given all that, why the hell do they give those two stinkholes such a commanding place in their presidential candidate selection? The stupid party: learning nothing, forgeting nothing since 1980.
"no job I can think of (with the possible exception of vice president) fully prepares someone to be a US president."
I agree but this is a very unusual year. I don't think we know how this will end up.
If I had to bet, I would take Carly who is a woman with executive experience and an outsider, which seems very important.
"Walker now says that any fix is wrong and impossible.
'And he thinks a fence between the US and Canada is an idea worth considering seriously.'"
If someone proposes a fence along I-5 and I-95 to keep the coastal loons out of the rest of the U.S. I think I would vote for him/her.
Has it occurred to you that maybe Walker is better off without the support of people who use the term "wetbacks"?
Wetbacks are women who swim across the Rio Grande to give birth in the USA.
What other word do you prefer for that concept?
Michael K, here's a link for you.
"I agree that Dr. Carson is a genuinely good man. From what I've read, his executive experience is probably limited to running a surgery department at Johns Hopkins. That said, it seems that anyone elected president has a good deal of on-the-job training ahead. What other job comes close to the responsibilities of a president, being both the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and the Chief Executive of a multi-million employee bureaucracy, while also having to deal with foreign policy and Congress? Some jobs, such as a governor, have aspects of the presidency but no job I can think of (with the possible exception of vice president) fully prepares someone to be a US president."
I agree there's a learning curve for anyone elected POTUS, and even people who served one term as POTUS seem to still have growing pains (notice that second terms are almost always worse for presidents than their first terms, when one would assume they'd have gotten the hang of it by then). But unless you have something exceptional (like commanding the Allied Armies in Europe, or leading the Union Army) it gives me a lot of pause to vote for someone who has zero experience in elected office. Not because we don't have a lot of lunkhead elected officials (we do) but because I like some indication as to how this person handles a job in both politics and government. It's easy for an outsider to say "all we need is to bring some honesty and common sense to Washington!" and get cheers, but someone who actually knows how to actually navigate the government has a better bet.
I'd like to see Carson run for the open Senate seat here in Maryland next year. It'd be a good test for his ability to reach the black community which the GOP simply has gotten nowhere with.
"If someone proposes a fence along I-5 and I-95 to keep the coastal loons out of the rest of the U.S. I think I would vote for him/her."
So you'd get to keep Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis...
Beldar:
"I'd rather put the focus on the spectacular chasm between Trump's claims of his own business prowess and its reality. "
The press is waiting and hoping for a Trump primary victory before they focus on his actual record. Having said that, his business, and his personal style, lends itself to both great failures and triumphs. This is much easier to do when it is only your show. While Perot may have been able to fix a broken GM, he and Trump would suffer in a three-branch government.
I don't expect to persuade anyone. Executive leadership skills are worth 1% in the public weighting. That's why we have the President we have now.
Good for Carson, I hope he survives up here.
Carson as Commander in Chief ordering men to die sounds like a test he has never passed. Will he be a surgeon when needed and cut the flesh?
"Blogger MadisonMan said...
Michael K, here's a link for you."
Have you sen the video ? He didn't say that although I agree left wing MSM sources like that one will lie about it.
What is interesting is that I have just spent almost ten minutes looking at video clips of people SAYING he said that but there are no such clips. I watched the whole Meet The Press interview. Not one word.
Your link is one more video of someone saying he said that. There is no video I can find of him saying that.
Although neither Trump nor Carson will win the nomination, the fact that they may soon be vying for the lead in the polls could be good for the longer-term prospects of the GOP. Right now, the MSM loves to keep reminding us that Trump is the leading Republican candidate, in the hope that this will damage the Republican brand come November 2016. But suppose Carson knocks Trump out of the lead, not just in Iowa, but in the early primary states and perhaps nationally. Will the MSM tout Carson as the face of the Republican party? A Black physician, with a quiet demeanor and a really nice smile? How does that fit with the image of the Republicans as hateful bigots?
Here. Start around 9:30ish and watch through 11 minutes. It's in there.
A Medical Doctor is always God in the medical team he leads. His word is final how politically compromising that makes Carson is open to question. He has never done anything else. But sure do love his bedside manner.
I'm never watched MTP by the way. That host looks ridiculous. No one looks good in a Van Dyke.
"Some jobs, such as a governor, have aspects of the presidency but no job I can think of (with the possible exception of vice president) fully prepares someone to be a US president."
No, but a successful track record of running something is better than say, surgeon, community organizer, professional wrestler, comedian.
Imagine it a job posted on Monster.com. As the HR manager, who are you going to interview for the job?
"Will the MSM tout Carson as the face of the Republican party? A Black physician, with a quiet demeanor and a really nice smile? How does that fit with the image of the Republicans as hateful bigots?"
While I detest tokenism, and in Carson's case think he needs to run for a lower office before going for POTUS, I have to admit it would be terrific to see him as the GOP standard bearer and watch the Left squirm over it.
Granted, they'll do what they did to Clarence Thomas (claim he's an Uncle Tom, which is an ignorant and awful term to use in any case), and remember in some Clintonite circles on the Left they even tried to claim Obama wasn't "authentically black" because his father was directly from Africa and he didn't have slave ancestors--but the lameness of trying to attack a guy who rose from urban poverty and has credentials that cannot be explained away would be worth watching.
Plus, if he's a good messenger and can peel off even another 10% of the black vote for the GOP, it's hard to see Clinton beating him.
"Imagine it a job posted on Monster.com. As the HR manager, who are you going to interview for the job?"
How about someone who ran a major cabinet department, was governor of a mid-sized state, and served in Congress? Sadly I almost inadvertently described Hillary Clinton! Which doesn't really run against my point, because taking a look at Hillary's "accomplishments" rather than positions held, you can see it is quite underwhelming.
POTUS shouldn't be an entry level political job, with few exceptions.
"
"Here. Start around 9:30ish and watch through 11 minutes. It's in there."
Nope. What's in there is an offhand comment that someone in New Hampshire brought up concerns about the Canadian border and he thought that merited looking into. There have been quite a few incidents in that area.
The left wing press is all over this but they DON'T show the clip. MTP doesn't even have a transcript of that part of the interview.
I'm assuming you mean this in good faith and I am taking it that way. He didn't say anything about a wall. This is another version of GHW Bush talking about a supermarket scanner. It's a lie.
10:36
Chuck Todd: Do you want to build a wall north of the border, too?
Scottie Walker: Some people have asked us about that in New Hampshire. They raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcements folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. That is a legitimate issue for us to look at.
All Walker had to say was "Well, this Gotcha Question seems kind of impractical to me"
Carson draws admiration because he's an admirable guy.
Trump doesn't because he isn't.
Would be fun to have Carson out in front, at least for a while, if only to cause confusion in the MSM.
Sure, they'd try to give him the Clarence Thomas go-back-to-the-plantation treatment or bitch at him for having uttered a question or two about evolution or criticize him for not personally fabricating all the tools he used in surgery. Still, without even an Anita Hill, they'd have to get creative.
Hey MadisonMan: Thanks for the link to the Walker interview on Meet the Press. I never watch those shows, but this was a good reminder of why I like Walker for Pres. He sounds reasonable, but he doesn't back down.
I didn't hear him say he supported a northern border wall, but he did clearly say that the northern border needs to be secured.
I agree with you about the interviewer's beard.
"As the HR manager, who are you going to interview for the job?"
HR Managers are generally awful at finding people for executive or creative positions.
Frankly, it it weren't for the need for paper trails, liability issues, etc., HR in most businesses would get very little input in hiring.
I think the "wall" part of the interview was a bit muddled but there was no point at which he said a wall was something he would do. I repeat my comment about the GHW Bush supermarket scanner comment.
The MSM/DNC axis is too obvious here.
I think these are the two most interesting findings in that poll:
Iowa GOP caucus goers say that, regardless of who they support in the primary, the country needs a president from outside of government who can bring a new approach to Washington (66%) rather than someone with government experience who knows how to get things done (23%).
and
Iowa Republicans now hold an almost universally positive opinion of Ben Carson at 81% favorable to just 6% unfavorable, compared to 63% favorable and 11% unfavorable in July. Carly Fiorina has also seen her numbers improve to 67% favorable and 8% unfavorable, up from 44% and 10% in July. Donald Trump’s rating has ticked up slightly – now standing at 52% favorable and 33% unfavorable, compared to 47% and 35% in July.
Fiorina really seems to have the wind at her back -- that going from 44% to 67% favorable rating is darn impressive.
This is called obfuscation. Establishment republicans confusing the Trump supporters and others by generating a poll for another equally nonsensical candidate. But Trump is better equipped than Carson to run the country.
BTW, true Iowans didn't vote for Obama in 2008. All the bussed in 20 year olds did in those damn caucuses.
BTW, everybody has seen Obama's pic on Drudge? It must be from Alaska today. What did Palin do to him, OMG?
HR Managers are generally awful at finding people for executive or creative positions.
Frankly, it it weren't for the need for paper trails, liability issues, etc., HR in most businesses would get very little input in hiring.
And given that most HR managers are female and they hire these "terrible" males, they seem to be a source of a business's problems, no?
"This is called obfuscation. Establishment republicans confusing the Trump supporters and others by generating a poll for another equally nonsensical candidate. But Trump is better equipped than Carson to run the country."
There is nobody less qualified to be president than Dil-Don. Trump is a birther -- that tells you everything you need to know about Trump right there.
This news that Carson has moved up in the polls to be about even with Trump is great news, absolutely huge. Maybe there is a limit, a comb-over ceiling, to the influence of the lunatic fringe of the stupid wing of the Republican party.
lgv said:
Medical doctors haven't typically run anything. They often struggle to manage their own practice.
First, struggling to manage one's practice teaches a lot more about the world than does making phone calls to borrow money to spend on keeping your government job. Second, Carson was the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins for 25 years. Ever managed surgeons successfully for two and a half decades - while making surgical history? Surgeons are lot more ornery than the congressman from French Lick who just might be reelected if he can negotiate the funds for that four-way stop the town wants. I don't expect Carson to have much of a learning curve; and what he does have will be a lot flatter than those faced by every contender except the comparably intelligent Cruz, Fiorina, Rubio, Paul, Jindal and Webb
"they seem to be a source of a business's problems, no?"
Yes indeed. Not because they are female, but because they are HR.
Surgeons are lot more ornery than the congressman from French Lick who just might be reelected if he can negotiate the funds for that four-way stop the town wants.
Running a neurosurgery department at a place like Hopkins is a pretty fair sized job. Certainly more than Obama or Hillary or Bernie have ever done.
Most young doctors today work on salary and do not have experience running a small business like I did. I expect that Carson probably had a business manager but, even so, that is a big department.
And so Carson is being hailed in the media as the one who slew Trump.
Does the rest of the country know this?
I mean, Carson is never going to get crossover voters like Althouse because of litmus issues.
Purely serendipitously, today while I was going through some old VHS tapes once belonging to my father, I found one with a recording of a Nightly Business Report from about 1987 or 88. One segment mentioned that Donald Trump had received clearance to make an offer for "Alexanders", and then suggested that Trump might have a bigger target in mind, namely the US presidency. Then followed some footage of Trump arriving at a political meetup-up in NY (aboard the helicopter "Ivana", one of 5 (copters, not wives) he then owned). There were sign-wielding folk outside the meeting place; signs showing various pleas for him to run in the '88 election.
After I finished boggling at the coincidence, I noticed how good his hairstyle was back then, even though the color was a bit suspect.
Trump is a birther -- that tells you everything you need to know about Trump right there.
Even if Obama were forever and always just a loyal citizen of the US (and not a jus sanguinis British subject), he certainly behaves at times like a citizen of the world instead of a citizen of the US. Vast swathes of people believe that and it will never be undone. I also believe that there is a growing cohort of urban intellectuals who favor candidates having dual citizenship, seeing it as a plus rather than a minus. A countervailing cohort believes just the opposite.
"Trump is a birther "
This is bullshit but it started with Hillary's campaign and even before that with a likely Obama claim for status as a foreign student. Maybe it was just his book publicist but the origin of this story was not the GOP or Trump.
"Plus, if he's a good messenger and can peel off even another 10% of the black vote for the GOP, it's hard to see Clinton beating him."
I'm sure there will be talk about his "indiscretions" and some sexism/sexual harassment during his time at Johns Hopkins if he proves to be in front for awhile.
I have to admit there is something to it by having the brain dead Democrat president replaced by a brain surgeon.
For all of the Trump bashing or other GOP candidate bashing at least the GOP has a number of credible and qualified candidates which is more than what can be said about Hillary!, Sanders and Slow Joe.
"This is bullshit but it started with Hillary's campaign and even before that with a likely Obama claim for status as a foreign student. Maybe it was just his book publicist but the origin of this story was not the GOP or Trump."
I don't know where the birther bullshit started, but it was bullshit from the very start and not hard to see as bullshit.
What is not bullshit is that Trump is a birther, no matter who started it. He went on television bragging about how he had sent detectives to Hawaii and how what they had found was "unbelievable." He was quite literally correct. It's hard to figure how someone who is "really, really smart" and who was such a great student at the "best" university (who knew Fordham was the "best") could get sucked into the bullshit, but there's Trump, no ordinary genius.
You'd think that someone with Trump's resources would surround himself with really, really smart people who he could just ask, "What's up with this birther shit? Is there any truth to it?" But, when you're top lawyer thinks you can't rape your wife in New York, what can you expect?
Either Trump gets bad advice from people close to him or he doesn't allow advice or he just doesn't listen.
"Even if Obama were forever and always just a loyal citizen of the US (and not a jus sanguinis British subject), he certainly behaves at times like a citizen of the world instead of a citizen of the US. Vast swathes of people believe that and it will never be undone. I also believe that there is a growing cohort of urban intellectuals who favor candidates having dual citizenship, seeing it as a plus rather than a minus. A countervailing cohort believes just the opposite."
Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born American citizen. There's never been any serious doubt about that and the question should have been settled when he made his birth certificate (the first one) public. He's not a dual citizen, and never has been. British law at the time of Obama's birth did not recognize bigamous marriages and Obama, Sr was already married to a Kenyan when he married Obama, Jr's mother. Only a child of a recognized, legitimate marriage was entitled to British citizenship under those circumstances and Obama, Jr was not.
Blogger Sebastian said...
Carson draws admiration because he's an admirable guy.
Trump doesn't because he isn't.
Would be fun to have Carson out in front, at least for a while, if only to cause confusion in the MSM.
Sure, they'd try to give him the Clarence Thomas go-back-to-the-plantation treatment or bitch at him for having uttered a question or two about evolution or criticize him for not personally fabricating all the tools he used in surgery. Still, without even an Anita Hill, they'd have to get creative.
Nothing would make me happier to see Carson get on top and stay on top.
But, I don't think it's going to happen, sadly. I think, unlike Trump, he is one of many who will rise and fall during this campaign.
CachorroQuente-
Nobody cares if Obama is or was a citizen. The only reasonable motivation for his policies is that he hates the United States and the citizens in it. Particularly the ones that disagree with him. He forced gun dealers to sell guns to known cartel straw purchasers to buttress his 90% of Mexico's murders are committed by guns bought in the US lie. He pulled out of Iraq and left the women and minorities there to be wiped out and sold into sex slavery. Over 90% of black people voted for him and have been rewarded with record unemployment and poverty through a variety of policies but primarily having to do with immigration policies aimed at flooding the country with new poor voters. Race relations are worse now than they have been for decades and he is the cause. He sicked the IRS on his opponents after joking about it. And he promised the most transparent administration ever. That is an absolute joke. I was in the Army when Obama won office. He is destroying the readiness of our armed forces.
He is destroying this country and so are the parasites that support him.
"What is not bullshit is that Trump is a birther, no matter who started it. He went on television bragging about how he had sent detectives to Hawaii and how what they had found was "unbelievable." He was quite literally correct. It's hard to figure how someone who is "really, really smart" and who was such a great student at the "best" university (who knew Fordham was the "best") could get sucked into the bullshit, but there's Trump, no ordinary genius."
Don't worry, Trump's fans will brush that off just as they brush off any other troubling fact about their hero.
"Even if Obama were forever and always just a loyal citizen of the US (and not a jus sanguinis British subject), he certainly behaves at times like a citizen of the world instead of a citizen of the US. Vast swathes of people believe that and it will never be undone. I also believe that there is a growing cohort of urban intellectuals who favor candidates having dual citizenship, seeing it as a plus rather than a minus. A countervailing cohort believes just the opposite."
I hate to even discuss this birther nonsense, but here's what I never understood (and maybe there's a simple explanation)--even assuming Obama was born in Kenya (he wasn't, but assuming), his mother was a natural born citizen. Ted Cruz was indisputably born in Canada, and is eligible to run for president because his mother was an American citizen. So even if Obama had been born overseas, why are the birthers saying Ted Cruz is eligible to be president but Obama is not? Is there some distinction I'm missing?
why are the birthers saying Ted Cruz is eligible to be president but Obama is not?
hmmmm...
Quente said,
"Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born American citizen. There's never been any serious doubt about that and the question should have been settled when he made his birth certificate (the first one) public. He's not a dual citizen, and never has been. British law at the time of Obama's birth did not recognize bigamous marriages and Obama, Sr was already married to a Kenyan when he married Obama, Jr's mother. Only a child of a recognized, legitimate marriage was entitled to British citizenship under those circumstances and Obama, Jr was not".
machine said...
"why are the birthers saying Ted Cruz is eligible to be president but Obama is not?"
"Birthers" are absolutely NOT saying Ted Cruz is eligible. He was born with Canadian citizenship in Canada, and had that Canadian citizenship until recently. Even the State Dept. doubts that he is eligible:
"7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
And also:
d. ...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
The State Department is saying here that eligibility for the Presidency is a JUDICIAL determination, not POLITICAL, and that those citizens naturalized by 8 US Code 1401, who some consider "natural born Citizens", are not natural born Citizens eligible by the Constitution to be POTUS, as eligibility for the Presidency is the only "Constitutional purpose" of the distinction.
The State Department also claims that those naturalized at birth by 8 US Code 1401 (Cruz, Rubio and Jindal), are "not considered naturalized", even though the regulations are clearly written under the power to "write uniform naturalization law" of Congress.
What a wicked web they weave.
Wow, some talk about Obama's eligibility and look who shows up, Quente---of the Obama bridge-tender brigade, polishing the new defense of the Usurper. There is NO PROOF that Obama was born in Hi. A pic on a website is proof of nothing Quente, the "BC" is merely a picture and proof of nothing in a court of law. So your saying that British law NOW recognizes bigamy? Show me the British regulation you speak of and show me the proof that the Usurper was married in Kenya (other than the words of the Usurer himself).
I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that if Carson appears headed towards the nomination, his 'Anita Hill' will come forward. It worked with Cain, and almost worked with Thomas.
As usual, Mick, you get everything wrong.
Wow, some talk about Obama's eligibility and look who shows up, Quente---of the Obama bridge-tender brigade, polishing the new defense of the Usurper. There is NO PROOF that Obama was born in Hi. A pic on a website is proof of nothing Quente, the "BC" is merely a picture and proof of nothing in a court of law. So your saying that British law NOW recognizes bigamy? Show me the British regulation you speak of and show me the proof that the Usurper was married in Kenya (other than the words of the Usurer himself).
No proof that Obama was born in Hawaii? The State of Hawaii says that he was and they have contemporaneous records that show that. That is, as they say, proof. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.
All the BS about the British citizenship is just that, BS. Obama never was a British citizen and was never eligible for British citizenship. Then there is the fact that it doesn't matter in any case. Even if he were a British subject (and he never was) he'd still be eligible for the presidency. If you disagree, support your contention with actual court decisions rather than crap about what you consider the Constitution of the US to mean.
I never have understood crackpots. If you don't like Obama's policies or his world view or whatever, why don't you build the contrary case and argue the merits rather than get a bunch of signs and go out in the streets and engage in acts of public onanism? Deal with reality -- recognize that the universe operates in the manner that we observe it to operate rather than getting yourself all frothed up insisting that the universe works in some way that we can't understand and can't observe -- indeed, in ways that directly contradict the way that we observe the universe to work.
Obama's characterization of a great deal of his opposition as being comprised of "bitter" clingers was wrong. Wrong both as a matter of truth and as a matter of politics. But, that doesn't mean that a good deal of the lunatic fringe is not inhabited by those who bitterly cling to patently stupid ideas about how things are and how they ought to be. As Cheryl Wheeler might put it, "frequently wrong, but never in doubt."
Cling away, Mick, cling away.
"In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC".
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyan-citizenship/
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners". Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1875)
As repeated in many SCOTUS cases, incl. Wong Kim Ark, and The Venus. Dual citizenship at birth voids eligibility for the presidency. Obama was NATURALIZED by 8 US Code 1401 (if he was actually born in Hi.), just like Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal.
You are a fake conservative spouting the usual "hate his policies, the eligibility stuff is BS meme", like many others.
why are the birthers saying Ted Cruz is eligible to be president but Obama is not?
I don't know. Why don't you ask Hillary who was the original "birther".
Look at the British Nationality Act, 1948 where you will find:
"(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions "father", "ancestor" and "descended" shall be construed accordingly."
Obama,Sr was already married and the UK did not recognize bigamous marriages. Also, there appears to be no extant record of Obama, Sr's marriage to the President's mother.
Minor v Happersett says only that children born in America of citizen parents are natural born citizens, it says nothing about children of non-citizen parents. Indeed, on the question of whether children born in the US of non-citizen parents are natural born citizens, the court deliberately refused to make a decision: "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." Your interpretation of the case, that by refusing to decide a question the court is in fact deciding it as you desire is an interesting interpretation, some would call it demented.
As for dual citizenship making someone ineligible for the presidency, I think you're just lying. Your lies, though, are not important as Obama never was a dual citizen.
" Obama was NATURALIZED by 8 US Code 1401 " That's nonsense on stilts. A US citizen is either a citizen by birth or by naturalization. Actually read the State Department reference which you cited earlier and you might learn something. Doubtful, as you are maliciously and willfully ignorant.
"You are a fake conservative spouting the usual "hate his policies, the eligibility stuff is BS meme", like many others."
I will survive the opinion of a known wanker standing in the middle of the street with his pants around his ankles and his pecker in his hand ranting and raving as the moron he is.
I don't know. Why don't you ask Hillary who was the original "birther".
Is that true? If so, she should be asked.
Quente said,
"Minor v Happersett says only that children born in America of citizen parents are natural born citizens, it says nothing about children of non-citizen parents".
BS. It says they are "aliens or foreigners".
The definition of naturalized is "the conference of nationality after birth by any means".
8 US Code 1401 is a naturalization act that naturalizes children AFTER they are born, not in the womb or in the birth canal. Children born to an alien father pre 1898 were considered aliens until the father naturalized. Those children are naturalized by the Act itself after birth, since they are born subject to the jurisdiction of the US. (Cruz, Rubio, Obama, and Jindal)
Where is the proof of Obama Sr. marriage in Kenya?
There is a Divorce decree in Hi. proving that Obama Sr. and Dunham were married.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/12234409/Divorce-Decree-1964-13-Pages-Merged
Once again, you get everything wrong.
BS. It says they are "aliens or foreigners".
No, it does not. Read the damn decision. By what theory of constitutional interpretation is it that you think courts decide questions which are not before them even when they explicitly decline to reach such questions?
8 US Code 1401 says:
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"
That's not a statement about naturalization -- it's a statement which echoes the language of the 14th Amendment and which applies to everyone born in the US regardless of the citizenship of the parents. It is codification of the intent of the 14th Amendment and is not an exercise of congressional power, granted by the constitution, to establish rules of naturalization. It applies to me (my parents were both US citizens) and every other person born in the US of citizen parents (perhaps including you); it applies to Jindal, Rubio, and Obama and everyone else born in the United States of non-citizen parents. All born in the US are of equal citizenship. Don't like it? Change the law, amend the constitution. Or, if you're one of those who doubts that the 14th Amendment means what it says, change the law and take it through the courts. Good luck with that.
Where is the proof of Obama Sr. marriage in Kenya?
The assertion has been made, and to the best of my knowledge, it has not been refuted. Do you doubt the assertion? If so, on what basis?
There is a Divorce decree in Hi. proving that Obama Sr. and Dunham were married.
In the documents you refer to, Obama's mother makes the claim that there was a marriage and the claim is not, as far as I can tell, either documented or disputed. Is it your assertion that the claim made by Obama's mother in the divorce suit is sufficient to establish as a fact, under UK law at the time, that they were in fact married? I'm willing to accept that they were married in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth, but I really don't care as it doesn't matter as it's quite clear that Obama is a natural born American citizen regardless of any of this bullshit including your feable, unfounded and ignorant protestations to the contrary.
"The assertion has been made, and to the best of my knowledge, it has not been refuted. Do you doubt the assertion? If so, on what basis?"
So where is the proof, just as where is the proof of birth in Hi.? NO ONE has touched the supposed raised seal on a pic on a website.
"as distinguished from aliens or foreigners". The court separated those born to 2 US Citizen parents from those born to foreigners-- who were the aliens or foreigners. All in between, however the configuration, are naturalized by acts of Congress, in pursuit of the "born subject to the jurisdiction" certification by Congress--- i.e 8 US Code 1401.
Only those born of 2 US Citizen parents (or an unmarried US Citizen mother) are natural born Citizens. All others made citizens, either at birth by statute, or by oath, or by collective naturalization, are NATURALIZED. Cruz would have been considered an alien before 1934 but for the Cable Act, and 8 US Code 1401 which naturalized him. Rubio and Cruz would have been considered aliens before 1898 precisely because their parents had not naturalized, just like Wong Kim Ark, whose case established that the children of RESIDENT ALIENS are naturalized as subject to the jurisdiction of the US because of their parents legal habitation, and thus temporal allegiance. Obama, if born to a foreign father in America before 1898, would have been considered an alien, since his mother would have taken the nationality of the foreign father, and he would have only become a US Citizen if the father naturalized. All 3 were naturalized by an ACT OF CONGRESS--- 8 US Code 1401, pursuant to it's power to write uniform naturalization law.
As for the 14th Amendment, it is a vehicle of naturalization, just like "or a citizen at the time of the ratification of this constitution" (A2S1C5), which was the only naturalization law at the time of the founding. The CONSTITUTION NATURALIZES (as held by Wong Kim Ark).
There is no other definition of nbC other than that already repeated multiple times by SCOTUS, reflective of US Original Common Law (National Law, or natural law)--- Law of Nations, i.e born in the US of US Citizen parents. That is the only definition which conforms with the well known purpose of the requirement--- prevention of foreign influence. It would be silly to allow foreign parentage if the purpose was prevention of foreign influence--- DUH.
You better go get some of your Usurper bootlicker troll friends, because the truth is getting exposed, your boss wouldn't like it.
That should be:
"Rubio and Jindal would have been considered aliens before 1898 precisely because their parents had not naturalized, just like Wong Kim Ark, whose case established that the children of RESIDENT ALIENS are naturalized as subject to the jurisdiction of the US because of their parents legal habitation, and thus temporal allegiance".
Not "Rubio and Cruz"
Post a Comment