Sarah Palin and Donald Trump

[shebird]

What a pair. Her endorsement speech yesterday was just bonkers - words just fail me when it comes to Donald Trump.

Is this the best America has to offer?

Yes, but are they "natural born citizens" which means that they are eligible to run for President.

OK, let me clarify: it is settled law that people born in the US are citizens from birth, which is what natural born citizen means. It's called birthright citizenship. If it were otherwise, people born in the US with parents who are not citizens would have to go through some sort of naturalization procedure, which clearly they do not. The assertion that Rubio's citizenship is in doubt because his parents were not citizens is laughable.

'Eh, the Iowa figures confirm the high floor/low ceiling theory for Trump.'

What do you mean by high floor/low ceiling?

'I'm unconvinced by the Trump numbers.'

I think Trump will win New Hampshire. The real unknown is how well the other Establishment candidates will do in New Hampshie. Kasich and Bush have been spending a lot of time and money there and if they don't do well, one of them may need to exit the race.

The only thing that can stop Trump is if Establishment voters switch to Rubio in an attempt to stop Trump. I don't think it will happen in big enough numbers because Trump's fans are huge in number in most states outside of Iowa.

New Hampshire will be interesting. For one thing, there are a lot of independents, and they can choose which party primary to vote in (unlike in Florida, for example, where you have to be registered with a specific party to vote in that party's primary.) So, in some cases, for example, Trump and Sanders may be wooing the same voters.

'It's called birthright citizenship'

That is the 14th Amendemnt I think in about 1868. The rule about the Presidency was in about 1790 and then 1795 or something like that.

Here is Joseph Farah on why he thinks Rubio is not a "natural born citizen".

Before I briefly lay out the facts about Rubio's eligibility, let me make one thing clear: I really like Marco Rubio. I would vote for him for U.S. senator or for governor. I think he is an inspirational speaker. I agree with him on the big issues of the day. His life story is impressive. But his life story is also relevant to his eligibility status — and that cannot be ignored.

Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975, four years after Marco Rubio was born. That's really all you have to know. That simple fact — one not in dispute — disqualifies him legally, barring an amendment to the Constitution or a complete and deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution, from being president or vice president. Those are the only two offices in the U.S. that have such a requirement.

The definition of natural-born citizen approved by the first U.S. Congress can be seen in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which regarded it as a child born of two American parents. The law, specifying that a natural-born citizen need not be born on U.S. soil, stated: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

While the act was repealed five years later, it, nevertheless, represented the will of the Congress that someone with dual loyalties not lead the U.S.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the 14th Amendment, affirmed in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866, that a natural-born citizen is "born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."

"The Law of Nations," a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American founders and informed their understanding of law later established in the Constitution.

Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two citizens and made it clear that the father's citizenship was a loyalty issue: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. ... In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

www.creators.com/conservative/joseph-farah/vice-president-rubio-not-so-fast.html

What is amazing is where is the media Establishment in all of this? What is going on? The more you follow the fascinating US elections, the more you get a glimpse of how things really work, which establishments are on whose sides and why etc. It is fascinating to watch and learn how things are really done, who remains quiet and why and where the power really lies.

The American system is open so you can see a glimpse of it. In Europe, the Establishment has everything locked up behind closed doors and the media is complicit so the voters see very little of how things really operate. Jimmy Savile is just a small example of all that.

"Ted Cruz not the only one with a birther challenge
...
A federal lawsuit challenging Cruz's eligibility to run for president was filed Thursday, based on the theory espoused by Trump that he may not be a natural-born citizen.

But Cruz is not alone -- his fellow Cuban-American presidential candidate and freshman senator is facing similar litigation.
...
But though Trump isn't attacking him, Rubio is facing similar challenges, which Cruz obliquely referenced during the debate on Thursday, as well.
...
The challenges will likely be decided by February, the spokesman said, but there's no historical precedent that makes clear how it will be decided. Unlike President Barack Obama's challenge, which was about his place of birth, "this is a question of interpretation of the law, and as far as we know, it hasn't been decided yet."

A similar lawsuit was filed in Broward County, Florida, in December, challenging Cruz and Rubio on the same grounds."

edition.cnn.com/2016/01/15/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-birther-movement-marco-rubio/

The US election is the most important election on the planet and the stakes are enormous. This time we don't have the usual all in it together charade of two parties shadow boxing to put an agreed candidate in, we have a total outsider, non-politician, challenging the political class. They are desperate to stop him. The stakes could not be higher and if he wins, nothing will remain the same.

The Naturalization Act has long been interpreted (including by the Supreme Court) as operating alongside birthright of being born on US soil as laid down in Article 2 - creating the two categories of citizenship at birth.

Citing de Vattel is a sign of extreme desperation given the body of British common law in the subject which is much more likely to have influenced the founding fathers.

Rubio birthers are clutching at racist straws. Of course Trump's not joining in - the extreme birthers are dangerous territory for him.

High floor, low ceiling - Trump's brand name recognition and populism give him a relatively high starting base of supporters. But the rhetoric and policies that attract that base alienate others in large numbers, meaning that it's hard for Trump to go much beyond that base. He can't go beyond a relatively low ceiling without alienating the starting base; he can't bring others into the tent without changing tack which would turn off current Trump voters.

As Seneca says, how the independents fall in NH will be really interesting and probably important.

"Coin toss broke 6 Clinton-Sanders deadlocks in Iowa — and Hillary won each time

While it was hard to call a winner between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night, it’s easy to say who was luckier.

The race between the Democrat presidential hopefuls was so tight in the Iowa caucus Monday that in at least six precincts, the decision on awarding a county delegate came down to a coin toss. And Clinton won all six, media reports said. "

www.marketwatch.com/story/coin-toss-broke-6-clinton-sanders-deadlocks-in-iowa-and-hillary-won-each-time-2016-02-02

What are the odds of that happening? The stakes are enormous for the Establishment.

'The Naturalization Act has long been interpreted (including by the Supreme Court)'

OK, well let's wait and see. From what I have been seeing of this election, I think this may become an issue later on. It is not about race, it is about law.

'Of course Trump's not joining in'

He didn't mention Cruz until a month ago. My guess is he may bring the Rubio issue up later. It has nothing to do with race or birthers being toxic.

'But the rhetoric and policies that attract that base alienate others in large numbers, meaning that it's hard for Trump to go much beyond that base.'

This is what the media are saying. Remember that they are often liars, Establishment. Don't believe them. Trump has huge cross-party appeal, they say what you quoted in order to try and convince people not to back trump, but it will fail.

' he can't bring others into the tent without changing tack which would turn off current Trump voters.'

You're wrong. trump voters are not ideological conservatives wedded to arcane theory, they are pragmatists, they now Trump doesn't mean half of what he says and they don't care. As the young woman interviewed on Channel 4 News who supported Trump said last night, Trump is saying things to win and get edia attention. We all know he doesn't mean them and we don't care. It's trump 2016!

He didn't mention Cruz until a month ago. My guess is he may bring the Rubio issue up later. It has nothing to do with race or birthers being toxic.

My point is that the more extreme birthers can use the same arguments about Trump.

You're wrong. trump voters are not ideological conservatives wedded to arcane theory, they are pragmatists, they now Trump doesn't mean half of what he says and they don't care.

That's his base. There's a large group who do care - the sort who find Sanderson an atractive option. That's why to me, Trump's potential seems quite limited. He'd be a gift to the Democrats by giving either candidate a stronger base with an anti-Trump vote baked in. The biggest threat to the Democrats is a relatively moderate Hispanic candidate.

Trump is saying things to win and get edia attention. We all know he doesn't mean them and we don't care. It's trump 2016!

I think unfortunately for Trump that sort of attitude will turn off a lot of voters - those who are more focused on policies, who want candidates who aren't all about spin designed to win.

Time will tell, though - neither of us knows.

'My point is that the more extreme birthers can use the same arguments about Trump.'

Cruz tried it on Trump during a debate. He said that Trump's mother was born in Scotland. But Trump was born in America and his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth, and so was his father.

' the sort who find Sanderson an atractive option'

Yes but there is a crossover between Sanders and Trump, they are both anti-elitist, anti-establishment and anti Wall Street. The outright socialists would never vote for Trump but the others might. Sanders is not expected to beat Establishment Clinton and some Sanders supporters were chanting "she's a liar" etc so they may switch to Trump if Hillary is the candidate and don't forget that Trump hasn't even started on Hillary and Bill and when he does it won't be pretty.

'Trump's potential seems quite limited. He'd be a gift to the Democrats by giving either candidate a stronger base with an anti-Trump vote baked in.'

I don't think so. Trump will win lots of blue collar Democrats who want jobs. He says he will be the "biggest job creator in US history" and will bring jobs back to America.

"Look out, Hillary! About one in five Democrats would vote for TRUMP, poll finds"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3392320/Look-Hillary-one-five-Democrats-vote-TRUMP-poll-finds.html

' The biggest threat to the Democrats is a relatively moderate Hispanic candidate.'
No, this is all the left wing have got left, as usual - identity politics, divide and rule. We have already seen that young millenial Democrat women far prefer 74 year old male Bernie Sanders to Hillary. The days of people being fooled to vote for a woman or a Hispanic based on gender or race are over. What matters is the economy and Trump will bring jobs back and everybody wants that. Trump has 25% of African American voters saying they will vote for him in a poll. He only needs a 4% increase in African American voters over what Romney had and he has already surpassed that in order to become President. The only thing that can stop Trump is the Establishment and their dirty tricks.

'those who are more focused on policies, who want candidates who aren't all about spin designed to win.'

Yes, those who believe what Establishment politicians say. But most voters don't trust any of them anymore which is why we have 60% of Republicans voting for Trump, Cruz and Carson - all anti-establishment, and why Bush is on about 3%, and also why Bernie is so high in the polls. It is over for the Establishment unless they can use their tricks.

I still get huge joy and amusement from the idea of trump as an anti-elitist.

No, this is all the left wing have got left, as usual - identity politics, divide and rule

No, it's simple maths. If you have a campaign that is as toxic to a large section of the population as Trump's is to registered Hispanic voters, you are unlikely to win the votes of those people who are increasingly critical in battleground states. Which makes it hard for you to win full stop. If you've so alienated a critics group of people it's likely that they won't just not vote for you, they'll be motivated to vote for the other candidate.

That's the nature of divisive politics of the nature Trump is peddling. You set up an enemy that makes you popular with your core vote, but that enemy is unlikely to vote for you. Trump had also completely alienated the previously GOP-leaning Muslim vote, which is small but growing, highly motivated and could be a clincher in one or two battleground states.

It's the opposite of big tent, inclusive politics. It's identity politics at its utter worst.

Correction - Muslims have been melting away from the GOP since they were decisive in Florida in 2000. But they are not baked-on Democrats, is my point.

However a Trump candidacy is unlikely to win many Muslim votes.

'It's the opposite of big tent, inclusive politics'

Absolutely, inclusive is the buzzword of Hillary and the politically correct politicians. Trump is the opposite of all that.

But Trump's polling among Hispanics is higher than Romney's. Wait till Trump starts on the economy and bringing back jobs. He is the opposite of the globalisation/Wall Street crowd of politicians that we know who say they can't save our jobs because of the market. He believes in tariffs and tough trade deals that benefit America. Trump is the alternative to the Establishment.

"Poll: Trump Getting More Hispanic Support Than Romney in 2012

A new poll of 2,000 citizens shows that Donald Trump’s immigration stance has more support among Hispanic Americans than Gov. Mitt Romney won in 2012, even after the pollsters reminded respondents of Trump’s most controversial statements on immigration.
...
Among African-Americans, 24 percent agreed with Trump’s statement— that’s four times the 6 percent won by Romney in 2012 — while 28 percent of African-Americans disagreed strongly. Many respondents declined to comment — 22 percent of African-Americans, 19 percent of moderates and 17 percent of independents.

The new poll was performed by YouGov for The Economist in the first week of November.

Trump’s support among Hispanics shouldn’t be surprising.

Many middle-class, non-immigrant Hispanics worry that large-scale migration will undermine their hard-earned status as core Americans, impoverish their neighborhoods, drive up crime, worsen local schools and compete for jobs. Polls show the growing support for conservatives policies as Hispanics families root themselves in America"

www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/11/poll-trump-gets-hispanic-support-romney-2012/

Trump is a uniter but he is not politically correct and will tell the truth about crime, the Middle East, Bill and illegal immigration.

Trump doesn't need to win every state, but he will win states that have been Democrat and make them Republican. Trump has cross-party appeal because he is not a political insider, he is outside the system and calls the insiders "puppets" and that will appeal across all ordinary people.

Trump is the opposite of all that.

Yes, precisely. The opposite of inclusive politics is divisive politics. Time will tell which is more effective in this election.

The majority of the polls I've seen put Trump's unfavourables among Hispanics as very high - as high as 80%. That's tough to convert. It's not just all about single-issue support.

Trump is a uniter

Unless you're Muslim or Hispanic.

but he is not politically correct and will tell the truth about crime, the Middle East, Bill and illegal immigration.

Make up your mind! you've just said he'll say whatever he needs to to get media coverage and get elected, regardless of truth, and now he's the only one telling the truth? Sounds like spin to me.

JassyRadlett
Good luck in trying to find consistency in claig's posts. Apart from Go Trump.

Trump is a uniter

Unless you're Muslim or Hispanic.

Or a woman

'The opposite of inclusive politics is divisive politics'

No, "inclusive" is a buzzword used by the likes of Tony Blair and his Oxbridge spin doctors. It is just spin and it doesn't wash anymore.

'Unless you're Muslim or Hispanic.'

Trump has nothing against Muslims, he just wants to temporarily stop immigraton until proper background checks can be done and he has nothing against Hispanics who enter America legally.

'you've just said he'll say whatever he needs to to get media coverage and get elected, regardless of truth, and now he's the only one telling the truth? Sounds like spin to me.'

No, he does both. He tells the truth and he also exaggerates.

No, "inclusive" is a buzzword used by the likes of Tony Blair and his Oxbridge spin doctors. It is just spin and it doesn't wash anymore.

That's not how I was using it, dear.

He may have nothing against Muslims, but he's alienated them pretty effectively.

He tells the truth and he also exaggerates.

How does he let people know which bits are true, and which are lies spin exaggerations?

Among Republican Muslims, Tump is the most popular Republican candidate due to his anti-establishment stance and his business and jobs message.

"that hasn’t stopped the most flagrant offender of anti-Muslim rhetoric from being the preferred Republican candidate among Muslim-Americans.

Donald Trump came in third among candidates of both parties, with just over seven percent support in CAIR’s poll. Sen. Cruz (R-TX) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush came in behind Trump with just 2 percent. Republican candidates’ figures were dwarfed by the leading Democrat candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders who polled at 52 percent and 22 percent, respectively.

But Trump’s support is still somewhat of a surprise after repeated incidents of anti-Muslim rhetoric, including Trump’s infamous call for a ban on Muslims entering the United States.

“I think because of his anti-establishment [views] and his business background gives hope for economic policies Republicans traditionally aligned with,” Sabah Ahmed, founder of the Republican Muslim Coalition, told ThinkProgress. “He has worked with Muslims all his life, and he has properties all over the Middle East, despite [his] anti-Muslim rhetoric, and many business dealings with our constituency and knows we’re good people.”

thinkprogress.org/world/2016/02/01/3744845/muslim-americans-islamophobia-voting/

'How does he let people know which bits are true, and which are lies spin exaggerations?'

People who like Trump know the difference. Those who can't tell probably wouldn't vote for Trump anyway. He won't win everyone's vote but among the Republican base he is the most popular candidate and he is the Reoublican with the most cross-party appeal.

People who like Trump know the difference. Those who can't tell probably wouldn't vote for Trump anyway.

High floor, low ceiling.

He won't win everyone's vote but among the Republican base he is the most popular candidate and he is the Reoublican with the most cross-party appeal.

Except in Iowa.

Good luck in trying to find consistency in claig's posts

Got to have a hobby.

'Except in Iowa.'

Yes but Iowa is atypical because of the huge evangelical Christian voter contingent who prefer Cruz or Rubio over liberal Trump who has supported Hillary and Obama in the past on lots of policies.

Despite the media crowing about how Trump's bubble has burst, Trump was never expected to win Iowa as the Governor of Iowa, who supports Trump, said before the vote.