Trump began the big day of voting with a win in the U.S. commonwealth's GOP caucuses. He took 73 percent of the vote (343 votes out of just 471 cast), which will give Trump all nine available delegates. Cruz was second with 113 votes, while Kasich got 10 votes and Rubio took just 5.What's up in the Northern Mariana Islands? Why are they for Trump? I don't know but the polls in Ohio (and North Carolina) close in less than 15 minutes.
UPDATE 1: Trump and Hillary win Florida — CNN has called it.
UPDATE 2: Poor Rubio! He loses no time coming out, and dropping out. His speech is awful, pretending that he chose the high road, and there was an easier way that would have worked. Not believable.
UPDATE 3: Looks like Clinton will win all 5. Trump will win 4 of 5. Kasich gets his state.
UPDATE 4: From Rush Limbaugh's show today:
So this probably suffices as an opinion or thought shared by many in the establishment, and that is, "Whatever we do, we cannot allow Trump, and we've gotta use everything at our disposal. Hell, it's our party! We run the party....."... So that's why all of these people are focusing on Ohio today and John Kasich. John Kasich winning Ohio, they all believe, gives them the power/the right/the necessary energy and indication of support that they can go in and take control of this entire nominating process and do whatever they have to do to deny it to Trump. So that's why they're all claiming the future of the GOP today hangs on Ohio and what Kasich represents for them....And they got it. So we will see what they can do with that foothold. Deny Trump the nomination?
UPDATE 5: Then there's the theory that losing Ohio benefits Trump...
পোস্টগুলি
২৬৭টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 267 এর 201 – থেকে 267Amanda said...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
Various Head to Head polls between Trump and Clinton Doesn't look good for Trump. Kasich does the best against Clinton.
BS. Trump kicks the old criminal coughing lady's ass. They are scared to death of that matchup.
" What really funny is that she would probably vote for another ineligible in this Primary."
Probably. Not.
Fabi, I've said several times that I would vote for Kasich over Hillary. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I would NEVER vote for Trump.
Today was the day to stop Trump. Cruz got close in several states, but the Rubio vote took too many votes from Cruz.
So you can thank Rubio for the Trump presidency, or at least the Trump nomination.
As far as offering Cruz the VP slot, I don't think Trump will do it.
I think Trump will offer Cruz a Supreme Court nomination, maybe. Although he's hated in the senate, so maybe they'll push him out just to get him out. Who knows?
I think he's going to offer VP slot to Ben Carson.
Blogger rcocean said...
Prediction: Trump will win Illinois and Florida, lose everywhere else.
This would have been a fine prediction if Rubio would have dropped out sooner.
Mick,
Read US v Wong Kim Ark. It explains natural born citizen and refers to its basis in English common law. I know that case pisses you off because it actually details the British common law that the US founders incorporated as the understanding of natural born citizen and not the bullshit Law of Nations you and your crackpot, ignorant cult keep insisting the founders incorporated. They didn't. They were fucking British subjects at birth just like you and Keith and Brian Jones and thought soil citizenship (or citizenship if born abroad to a diplomat or counsel or other official subject to the law of the crown and not the law of the foreign land) was the way to go.
While natural born includes born on US soil to two US citizen parents, it also includes born on US soil to one citizen parent and one alien parent, and also includes born on US soil to alien parents, as well as born abroad to a citizen parent serving as a consul or diplomat or other official. There is no super-duper both mom and dad see US citizens and you were born on US soil requirement.
But at least we agree Cruz is not a natural born citizen. But Obama is, so is McCain (his parents were US citizens and his father had diplomatic immunity as a member of the armed forces and he was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone and military bases are US soil), and so is Rubio.
Quit the cult Mick.
You've convinced me now, Amanda! Lulz
1) Reagan was polling twenty points behind Carter at this point in the race and defeated him by ten -- a thirty point swing.
2) Given the record turnout so far in Republican primaries / cauci and diminished turnout for the Democrats, you'd have to look at the respondent party identification balance to gain any insight into those polls. A 50/50 representation would be discrediting as a predictor.
3) Even more discrediting, head-to-head polls are less than meaningful in an electoral race.
Derbyshire writes a post (with hyperlinked news stories) explaining why he thinks it is rational to fear criminality from unknown black men. NR promptly announces they will no longer employ him and denounces him and his ideas. Derbyshire is a nonperson to NR.
William!son shits all over poor whites and NR hails him as a truth telling hero.
Sounds about right.
In keeping with some of the comments discussing turnout relative to the two parties, take a gander at this graphic from CNN on the turnout in Florida.
The total Republican turnout is 38% higher than the total Democratic turnout. Holy Shit!
What? You think that of those 653179 excess Republican voters a bunch of those guys will go vote for Hillary? in the general? Maybe some will stay home, but how many of Sanders' 565,497 will decide to go out & get wasted rather than vote for the Old Harpie? That, too, remains to be seen.
Right now, it looks like Trump stands a good chance of winning Florida in the general. That is a big deal.
Moderate Meade: do you think a Pres Hildozer will appoint a more conservative (or otherwise better) S Court Justice than a Pres Trump?
(I know,I know, very conservative liberals aren't moderates, sure.)
The guilded herd guilding.
Sure Mick,
Since you are so in sync with reality regarding natural born citizenry, I'll just have to believe you know what you're talking about.
LOLing.
Most general election voters don't vote in primaries. So you can't draw any conclusions to the general election from them. There are more GOP primary voters than Dem primary voters suggests that there is an enthusiasm gap in favor of GOP since 25% of the general electorate identifies as GOP, 29% as Dem, and almost all the rest as independent
"I think he's going to offer VP slot to Ben Carson."
It could happen but I think Trump is more strategic than that. Naming Carson would put it all on Trump.
Naming Cruz locks the nomination early and entices the Cruz voters who will think, like the Democrats did of Cheney, that he will be the puppet master.
Total votes, primaries
Clinton —— 4.8 million
Trump —— 4.2 mill
Cruz —— 3.4 mill
Bernie - 3.0 mill
Rubio - 2.3 mill
This was before tonight's Primary. It will be interesting to see if Clinto continues to have the highest number of popular votes going forward.
As deeply feared and distrusted as Trump and Clinton are, this could actually be Gary Earl Johnson's breakthrough year.
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens"
There is not a permanent answer to that. Blackstone, in fact, indicated that who is natural born could change.
What is natural born can change but natural born itself means nothing more than that a person does not require naturalization to become a citizen.
If Ted Cruz had been born in Canada, under the same situation, between 1907 and 1934he would not have been a natural born citizen. At least not until 1994, when Congress granted citizenship to all such people retroactively. That aises another question - what if Congress changes the definition of who is acitizen after someone is born?
I'm sensing a Gary Johnson landslide.
Oh I will pull the lever for Johnson happily, Moderate Meade, but people who support him upset your wife so I am not certain you yourself will want to be associated with 'em.
cubanbob said...3/15/16, 10:14 PM
If only the DNC had that much sense and rid itself of their front runner grifter and felonious traitor.
There is no independent DNC.
Congress can't change the meaning of the Constitution by statute. But the Supreme Court can make shit up whenever it wants.
Ted Cruz says he is an originalist. So he's stuck with the original understanding of natural born citizens. And under the original understanding, he ain't a natural born citizen.
Now that recreational pot is legal in Colorado, the libertarian party has disbanded and all 237 of its members have moved to Colorado.
From Amanda's totals: 7.8M Democrat votes; 9.3M Republican votes. Lulz
Her totals don't even include Kasich and Carson votes. Lulz again! Keep up the good work!
Oops -- 9.9M Republican votes! Even worse!
Fabi,
And you don't take into consideration that it's possible that one in four Republican voters WILL NOT vote for Trump under any circumstances.
No, it's not my party.
Honor and integrity come before votes or "winning".
I will NOT vote for Trump.
Fabi said...3/15/16, 8:40 PM
Ohio has been voting for a month -- there's a good chance that many voters there never heard of Kasich's amnesty reveal before they voted.
According to CNS radio, in an exit poll (which necessarily only includes those who votes today) most Republicans were for amnesty (called "path to citisenship") The catch, by the way, is that they are for amnesty, but only under conditions that can't and won't be met, but they are not adamantly opposed to it.
Kasich got almost all those who were open to amnesty. Trump got the people who were opposed.
This is a great dividing issue, although only about 8% or so think it's the most important issue.
One in four is 25% Fabi, since you like numbers so much. So how many millions of Republicans won't be voting for Trump? How many will stay home? Actually the Rock the Vote survey, it indicated as much as 25% of Republican voters say they would vote for Hillary instead of Trump, so actually the numbers of Republicans that won't vote for Trump could even be higher than 25% if one considers those who will stay home or vote third party.
In his speech in Florida, Trump gave a history of how, in his mind, his campaign gained support.
Key things were his announcement, Paris, and what happened in California (he first said L.A. then remembered that was wrong, but probably couldn't didn't remember San Bernardino .)
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.
"Nearly one in four Republicans would defect to the Democrats if the GOP nominated Trump against Clinton. Just 7% of Democrats would defect to the GOP."
From the USA Today/ Rock the Vote poll, link upstream.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-and-the-immigration-divide/
From last July:
Recent CBS News polling shows the kind of breakdown on immigration policy we've routinely found for years, with just under half of Republicans saying undocumented immigrants should be required to leave. Another half are okay with some form of legalization, including just over a third of Republicans who would back a path to citizenship.
There's a pie chart:
Required to Leave: 46%
Stay, no Citizenship: 12%
Stay + citizenship: 38%
Now a caveat should be conditions - conditions for changing the law, and conditions for citizenship. The conditions for changing the law are probably unmeetable, and undefinable, but the people answering the questions don't know that, but the people lobbying against amnesty definitely do know that.
Observing Trump these last several months, the feelings will only strengthen against him. He cannot be "Presidential" for more than five minutes at a time. Trump's negatives will only rise.
mccullough said...
Ted Cruz says he is an originalist. So he's stuck with the original understanding of natural born citizens. And under the original understanding, he ain't a natural born citizen.
N, the original meaning is anyone who is a citizen at birth. And what that is, can vary over time. Blackstone indcated that. Natural born itself means born a citizen, and it has no more detailed meaning than that.
"I'm sensing a Gary Johnson landslide."
Is he rock climbing ?
@Amanda,
Trump's negatives will only rise.
As will Clinton's. This is a woman who doesn't even take questions from her press corps. There is so much dirt on her, and unlike the faux gentlemen who ran as Repub. candidates in 2008 & 2012, Trump & Co will not hesitate to throw it back in her face in public. And she will freak.
There are a bunch of Repubs who are going to get explained to them very carefully just what's riding on the SCOTUS picks. They're also going to get reminded over & over again why HRC rides so high in the Republican loathing parade. When the time comes, they will vote for Trump if he's nominee. If it was a Cuomo or a Biden, maybe. But not Hillary.
It will be an election between two loathsome candidates, and everyone will have to live with their conscience afterwards. A lot of the #NeverTrump-ers will soon wake up to that brutal fact.
If you add the 2.0M Republican votes from candidates you conveniently omitted, that brings the total to 11.9M. Deduct 25% from that and you're still at 8.9M versus the 7.8M you've shown for the Democrats, Amanda. And that doesn't even account for the 7% defection from Hillary. Lulz
Natural born means you don't need an act of congress to make you a citizen. Cruz needed a statute, just as those born abroad to a US citizen parent under the Immigration Act of 1790. Marco Rubio wasn't made a citizen of the US at birth by statute. Neither was Obama or Trump. They are citizens under the Constituion, which is why they are natural born. Black stone was right about England changing natural born by common law. But the US had no common law. We had British common law and codified parts of it in the Constitution. But if British common law changed, and it did, our Constituion didn't change with it. It is fixed. That's what originalism is all about. The snake handler knows this.
mccullough said...
Mick,
"Read US v Wong Kim Ark. It explains natural born citizen and refers to its basis in English common law. I know that case pisses you off because it actually details the British common law that the US founders incorporated as the understanding of natural born citizen and not the bullshit Law of Nations you and your crackpot, ignorant cult keep insisting the founders incorporated. They didn't. They were fucking British subjects at birth just like you and Keith and Brian Jones and thought soil citizenship (or citizenship if born abroad to a diplomat or counsel or other official subject to the law of the crown and not the law of the foreign land) was the way to go.
While natural born includes born on US soil to two US citizen parents, it also includes born on US soil to one citizen parent and one alien parent, and also includes born on US soil to alien parents, as well as born abroad to a citizen parent serving as a consul or diplomat or other official. There is no super-duper both mom and dad see US citizens and you were born on US soil requirement.
But at least we agree Cruz is not a natural born citizen. But Obama is, so is McCain (his parents were US citizens and his father had diplomatic immunity as a member of the armed forces and he was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone and military bases are US soil), and so is Rubio.
Quit the cult Mick".
What BS.
First Wong Kim Ark referred to the Minor v. Happersett definition 3 TIMES. Here is what it says on page 655:
"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167."
If the "Common law" was British Common Law then the parents wouldn't matter, so Justice Gray was obviously referring to law of nations-- international common law, one of the laws of the United States which is embedded in the Constitution in foreign relations and the separation of powers, and also in A2S1C5 and A1S8C10.
Of course Washington and many of the others were not natural born Citizens, they were grandfathered into eligibility by "or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution." (which was the first naturalization act, and part of the Constitution itself, just like the 14 Amendment is a vehicle of NATURALIZATION). The first natural born Citizen POTUS was Martin Van Buren, born in NY in 1881 (the first nbCs were only 13 in 1789 when the Const. was adopted , so the founders had to grandfather in those that adhered to the Revolution.).
Duh, get a clue silly.
You are dreaming if you think the framers would have adopted perpetual allegiance as the law of citizenship, and in fact they adopted the natural law right of election, which was certainly the opposite of British Common Law.
McCain was probably eligible by Ch. 217 of the Law of Nations, that those born abroad of armies of the state are PURPORTED born in the country.
Marco Rubio would not have been even a citizen of the US at birth before 1898, therefore he is not a natural born Citizen today. Cruz would not have been even a US Citizen at the time he was born until 1834, therefore he is not a natural born Citizen today.
You are really not that smart.
Mick,
Strong the cult is, I know. But resist, you must.
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.
If you want to get rid of birthright citizenship, you and the rest of the Stones will have to get a constitutional amendment.
Say high to Keith for me.
Fabi,
You're very optimistic about Trump not imploding before November. By the time November rolls around, who knows what will happen, it's anyone's guess. Karl Rove was so certain Romney would win, I'll never forget his meltdown on Fox News that night. Lulz.
"Marco Rubio wasn't made a citizen of the US at birth by statute. Neither was Obama."
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.
Trump is a citizen by the facts of his birth= natural born.
Cruz need congressional statute= not natural born
Rubio and Obama need the 14th Amendment= not natural born.
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.
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.
mccullough said...
Mick,
Strong the cult is, I know. But resist, you must.
"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.
If you want to get rid of birthright citizenship, you and the rest of the Stones will have to get a constitutional amendment.
Say high to Keith for me".
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.
You are a liar plain and simple.
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".
mccullough said...
"Mick,
Strong the cult is, I know. But resist, you must".
So why did Gray say that Waite referred to "the Common Law" in defining nbC on pg. 655 of WKA?
The only "Common Law" where the parents mattered was law of nations.
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.
@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.
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.
The convention will be brokered.
I don't know enough about how that works other than to make this prediction:
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.
Lyin' Amanda.
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.
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.
Buy stock in hard liquor--there will be a lot of drinking in the coming months.
Morepm317 said...
Is Cook County in IL cooking up votes for Sanders?
More than likely.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
Various Head to Head polls between Trump and Clinton Doesn't look good for Trump. Kasich does the best against Clinton.
"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.
I remain amazed by Keven Williamson's screed and the level of support it received over at NRO.
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.
People discuss how badly Breitbart.com has shafted Andrew's memory. Which it has. NRO has raped Buckley's corpse.
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.
Then they are clowns and their usual requests for unity when THEIR guy is nominated will never be listened to again.
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.
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.
Missouri still not called? Crazy!
Mick said...
"Trump was born of US citizen parents in the US."
And you know this how? Have you held and examined his long-form birth certificate?
damikesc said...
"NRO going all in on 'Screw the poor' seems absolutely asinine."
Did you read the entire article? "Screw the poor" is a quote from, who — Williamson? Your own imagination?
@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.
7% of "We the People." Arithmetic correction noted. Thanks.
@ 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!
Fabi said...
I agree that some Republicans will not vote for Trump, but I'd guess it's a very small value -- maybe 5%
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.
Now, in 1960, the election was about 50-50. And in 1964, Johnson got about 62% or something like that (without looking it up)
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%)
But let's use 62.5% for ease of calculation.
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.
By the way 60% would mean 20% 10/50 would switch from 50-50)
This election may well be decided on how people answer the question: Who is more like Richard Nixon: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?
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.
cubanbob said...3/16/16, 12:36 AM
No one is claiming Hillary is getting any crossover votes.
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.
Never fear, Trump being who he is will make Clinton's criminality front and center of his campaign
That might very well drive voters to third party candidates, rather than to Trump.
And besides, I am not so sure he would do that, or would know how to do it right.
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.
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.
To attend his wedding, he claims.
Mick:
"If you need the 14th Amendment or a Congressional statute to make you a citizen then you are not natural born."
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.
"Natural born citizen" does NOT mean citizen by virtue of "natural law."
"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!"
Good point.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন