1st U.S. Presidential Republican Candidate for 2016 ...

a reply to: sirlancelot

I doubt I'll be revisiting my statement there, no. Taxes on the internet service is the least of my concerns. Do you have to agree with me? Not hardly. But, I am just not worried about it like some people are. I'm also not really worried about Obamacare, frankly. Do I like it? No. But, there are larger problems in my opinion. And, I highly doubt Cruz is going to get Obamacare repealed. I'm not willing to blow smoke up my own rear about it.

Cruz has other unbecoming attributes that make him a less than stellar choice for POTUS. Like the fact he's a religious bigot. Etc.

a reply to: AboveBoard

I'm glad the links helped. Personally, I wasn't immune to the original fracas regarding Obama's citizenship, but that wasn't my issue with him as a candidate; his ideology was. The question of his origins came about (for me, at least) after he was already President.

All of that aside, I feel that since Obama had to go through the birther rigmarole, and provide a birth certificate, then Cruz should have to as well, considering the questions regarding his eligibility, and his father's birtherism regarding President Obama. If he passes muster, then so be it.

Passing muster or not, he hasn't won me over, and most likely won't.

I have a question. When did Presidential Candidates stop telling us what their plans are?

I mean, I remember Obama wanted to reform healthcare, but that had been cooking for decades.

Once upon a time, politicians gave us an agenda, a list of things they believe in and want to accomplish.

Reading and understanding that allowed us to make some sort of pseudo-rational judgement on who to support, even though we've always known that well, things change and politicians lie.

Doesn't that make some sense to those of you on all sides of the aisle, in the balconies, concession stands, wherever you find yourself politically.

Shouldn't they tell us what they want to do, BEFORE we vote for them?

a reply to: Gryphon66

It does seem that the traditional Presidential Campaign Platform has been replaced solely by vagueries, platitudes, and mud-slinging.

***EDIT TO ADD***

Not that I feel we've seen a traditional campaign platform in a very, very long time.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
a reply to: Gryphon66

It does seem that the traditional Presidential Campaign Platform has been replaced solely by vagueries, platitudes, and mud-slinging.

***EDIT TO ADD***

Not that I feel we've seen a traditional campaign platform in a very, very long time.

I know right? We get caught up in all this manufactured partisan "sound and fury" and ... I hadn't even thought about it for years and years.

What do you believe, Mr/Mrs Candidate? What are your goals? What is your plan to accomplish your goals?

Huh. Imagine that. I guess they'd have to actually have some content aside from getting re-elected?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Consider the line of candidates we've had presented to us for the last who knows how long. It's kind of difficult to present a true platform, when all you have to work with, is an empty suit, and a political party's desire for more clout.

a reply to: teamcommander

I don't think President Obama was born in Kenya if that's what you are getting at.

Does it even matter anymore?

Would he have been a worse President if he had been born on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial?

Would he have been a better President if he was born in Djibouti?

I doubt it.

Learn from the past, don't live in it.

WTH is a mandatory audience?
Is that the Republican version of Two and a Half Men Canned Laughter.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I have a question. When did Presidential Candidates stop telling us what their plans are?

I mean, I remember Obama wanted to reform healthcare, but that had been cooking for decades.

Once upon a time, politicians gave us an agenda, a list of things they believe in and want to accomplish.

Reading and understanding that allowed us to make some sort of pseudo-rational judgement on who to support, even though we've always known that well, things change and politicians lie.

Doesn't that make some sense to those of you on all sides of the aisle, in the balconies, concession stands, wherever you find yourself politically.

Shouldn't they tell us what they want to do, BEFORE we vote for them?

They still do in a sense. The problem with politicians today is that they can state a goal but they hide the details of how to get to that goal. For example, President Obama will say he wants to get a balanced budget through a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. The talking heads go over that, and ultimately people have to decide if they agree with those very broad ideas or not. Back in the day we would actually get more details over these types of things like:
The gas tax will be increased by 25 cents/gallon to fund road repairs and public transportation.
Treasury bonds will be issued to fund new schools with the goal of reducing class sizes from 40 to 25.
The death tax will be reinstated above 5 million dollars while simultaneously lowering the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 30%.
The military will begin a plan of joint bases with a multinational coalition rather than each nation running their own. This will allow all participants to reduce military budgets by 35%.

We don't get that anymore, because we live in a world of mass media. In mass media it's all about the sound byte. You can't be complex and you can't be detail oriented because that's not the focus of the discussions technology. Wild generalizations and buzz words are how you "communicate" these days. Just look at Ted Cruz, the man is a master of Twitter. That's the style that sells voters these days.

There's another political consideration too: Everyone is going to hate one detail or another, by giving details you give people reason to oppose a plan, and ample avenues to attack it. Fewer details means your ideas are more defensible.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

Hey Professor,

I think your post is fair-minded and I learned something interesting from reading the politifact article:

Defining "natural born"

So what is a "natural born" citizen? The Constitution doesn’t specifically say.

So this means that even if Obama had been born in Kenya, it would have been okey dokey for him to be President.
I'm floored. I thought the whole argument was that if he had been born in another country, he would NOT be eligible for the Presidency, even though his mother was a US citizen. That was the entire crux of the matter behind asking for his birth certificate.

So really, no one needed to see his birth certificate all along - it didn't matter.

Wow.

- AB

Correct. It has been said here a few times, even in this thread. The whole concept of a Natural Born citizen is a legal unknown. We've had a few court cases that have said people are natural born citizens, and a couple where I think we've denied it. Ultimately I wouldn't look to this particular aspect to be solved any time soon. The courts are leaving it as wide open as they possibly can, likely so that if we ever get someone who represents a foreign power in the position to run, we can deny them.

I think the courts are fine with anyone no matter where you were born as long as you're an American in spirit.

If anything, there's one very big positive to all the attention on this stuff over the past few years. The prevailing opinion is that Arnold can't run. I think he could successfully make a case despite the Austrian birth, provided Ted Cruz can do the same. I would like to see Arnold run.

So let me get this straight (to my conservative/ teaparty friends) Obama, born in Hawaii to an American mom...somehow illegitimate.. Ted Cruz, born in Canada, dual citizen.... Running for president? But racism has nothing to do with Obama still being challenged about his citizenship? GTFOH..

This is rich