Were I not straight, I would allow you to take me in a manly fashion.

 

Same here.

Unlike some I have no problem voting for the lesser of two evils especially if that greater evil is Hillary Clinton. I do not like Trump but I dislike her immensely and forever more.

When put in this manner, you and I can agree. I do have a problem voting for the lesser of two evils, but..... Hillary Clinton is 5' 7" of pure nastiness. Hell, I'm disgusted we share the same zodiac symbol  . I don't want her to run a homeless shelter, let alone a country.

Unlike some I have no problem voting for the lesser of two evils especially if that greater evil is Hillary Clinton. I do not like Trump but I dislike her immensely and forever more.

This was me to a T.  Then I started actually listening to him, and now I am very much sold.  But like him or not, I dislike Sec. Clinton enough to vote Bernie in the primaries - which I did.

I don't want her to run a homeless shelter, let alone a country.

She can community-organize her Fed Pen cell block.  I'd be okay with that. 

The Clintrump dilemma...

A choice for either is basically telling my personal ethics to bend over and expect to be raped like an Australian nurse in a Japanese POW camp.

Then don't vote.  Go sit in a corner and pout about 'your' favorite candidate not winning. (if you ever even had one)  But do try to leave the crude, graphic descriptions out of this. They are not in good taste.

Then don't vote.  Go sit in a corner and pout about 'your' favorite candidate not winning. (if you ever even had one)  But do try to leave the crude, graphic descriptions out of this. They are not in good taste.

While shocking, I don't mind the freedom of expression, it actually prompted me to look for historical incidence (because any mistreatment of nurses causes my blood to boil and that is troll bait I cannot resist). I couldn't find any specific event (unless Doug chooses to send a pm of a specific event).

In short, that's our Doug  .

Besides, my candidate is Ted Cruz and sadly I don't think he'll get to run for presidency ever now  . I'm already hearing family say that "he's worse than Hillary, because he didn't support his party"  .

I listened to Trump's speech during the re-broadcast, on C-SPAN.  I have been a Trump supporter since he announced.  The speech only served to reinforce what I already believed.  He is the only candidate that has signed a paycheck.  Has he had failures?  Yeah.  Every successful businessman has.  No one is right 100% of the time.  Which brings me to my next point: Clinton has NEVER BEEN RIGHT.  Ever.  Not on anything she's ever laid her grubby claws on.  Sanders isn't any better.  Not that he was ever really an issue.
Now, on the subject of Cruz:  fluff HIM.   First, he is not Constitutionally eligible to run for the office of President. PERIOD.  He is not a "natural born" citizen.  Yes, he is an American citizen, by virtue of being whelped by an American citizen.  But the point folks seem to be missing, is that he was not hatched ON AMERICAN SOIL.  That's what the term "natural born citizen" means, when it comes to presidential eligibility.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I'm not certain the issue has ever been brought before SCOTUS.  To my knowledge, limited as that may be, no one has ever taken it that high.  And the lower courts are full of the same kind of liberal fluffs that gave us the "anchor baby" interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Yes, our Doug.  Crude for the sake of being crude. 

For the sake of being crude.

My days of taking the hidebound seriously were left behind in a pair of pants I ripped the seat of on a trip to Montana when I was fourteen.

Enjoy this train wreck of a nation.

 

Just ask Bobby Jindal. 

I need to address this: First you claim that Cruz is a US citizen because he was "whelped by an American citizen," and that he is not natural born because "...the point folks seem to be missing, is that he was not hatched ON AMERICAN SOIL."  So by that you claim that birth on American soil is the most important factor to being a natural born citizen, and then you turn around and fuss that 'anchor babies' are given citizenship because they are born here, but their parents were not...  Do you see the problem with that?  What is good for one, has to be good for the other, and you can't have it both ways.

No, I don't.  The parents of the so called "anchor babies" are here illegally.  End of discussion. Period, bye bye.
Those kids are no more citizens, than their parents.  So no, there is no incongruity in my position on either subject. 
The phrase "natural born" is in the main body of the Constitution, and nothing anywhere else contravenes it.  Cruz is a citizen by extension, he was born on Canadian soil. And for most of his formative years lived under Canadian law.
The whole purpose of the "natural born citizen" clause was to prevent someone raised in another culture, under other laws from doing what Barry Soetoro has been trying to do.  He isn't eligible to hold the office either, let alone qualified.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Natural in this context means "not made or caused by man".  A naturalized citizen is one that that was made or caused to be a citizen by an act of man, not of birth.

A natural born citizen is a citizen that meets the requirements of citizenship by birth, either by having been born on US soil (jus soil), or by having at least one parent that is a US citizen (jus sanguinis).  This definition goes back to the British 1708 "Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act", reinforced by the British Nationality Act of 1730 and the Plantation Act of 1740.  Noted Jurist William Blackstone also wrote on the subject and had the same definition in 1765 (Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Law of England, Vol. 1, p. 354)

Further, lexicographer Samuel Johnson wrote in 1756 that natural means "native" whether by geography or offspring.

On the basis of these citations I have little doubt that the framers meant a person whose citizenship was a product of either place or parentage of birth.  And while the supreme court has not heard the case, I would be shocked if they ruled differently considering the preponderance of common law that supports this interpretation.

While shocking, I don't mind the freedom of expression, it actually prompted me to look for historical incidence (because any mistreatment of nurses causes my blood to boil and that is troll bait I cannot resist). I couldn't find any specific event (unless Doug chooses to send a pm of a specific event).

actually the the vicious sexual assault of women prisoners by the Japanese during World War II is well documented. From the rape and mass murders in Nanking to the rape camps in Korea, the Phillipines, Guam and French Indochina (Vietnam)

Seriously?  Where do you think the founders got the phrase "natural born citizen"?  From common law of the period.

And, Blackstone's writings provided the groundwork for US jurisprudence. Even today they are widely cited.  Blackstone was cited twenty-two times in Heller, eleven times in the majority and eleven times in the dissent(s).

OK, so?  Basis for, doesn't necessarily mean mirror of.  I could point out the fact that, those self same British "common laws" were the very reason we just celebrated this country's 240th anniversary of independence from the crown.
Because those self same laws were King George's basis for what he was doing here in the colonies.
So, again, "OK, so?"

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk