NBC News Projects: Ted Cruz Wins The Iowa Republican Caucus

Fenton said:

Lol...Oh yea, the Democrats really cleaned up in the midterms ....

What planet are you posting from ??

And Sanders ? " Hey everyone, I'm a avowed Socialist and I'm going to raise your taxes !! "

That's going to win the GE ??? Nope.

Click to expand...

Anything can win the GE against "ban all muslums, mexican rapists, and stop gay marriage. HELL YEAH!"

That's the point you're missing.

RetiredUSN said:

Ignorant.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it is ignorant to suggest that Rubio would have a greater chance of winning simply because of his Latino heritage, which is what the conservative posters here were suggesting.

Anthony60 said:

Except for the hundreds and hundreds of seats they've lost across the country in the past couple of elections.

Click to expand...

it's amazing how conservatives repeatedly fail to grasp this simple fact...there is no question that GOPers can win in Congressional elections--we know that.

The relevant issue is that they cannot ever win a nationwide election, i. e. the Presidency.

Erod said:

Wow, you have so little knowledge of the FBI.

The FBI Investigative Unit doesn't just look around to see if something is there. No, the FBI doesn't even get involved unless they KNOW something is there. Otherwise, they leave it to other authorities.

If the FBI is on you, you're cooked.

Click to expand...

Nope, mot if one decent lawyers, which HC does. In that case, the FBI can't cook anything unless it has solid evidence of a crime.

Anthony60 said:

Except for the hundreds and hundreds of seats they've lost across the country in the past couple of elections.

Click to expand...

Yes, and as I've pointed out over 2.1 x 10^8 times, it's expected that the GOP will continue to retain Congressional seats; they've just permanently lost the Presidency.

The results of regional elections of no bearing on a nationwide one.

upsideguy said:

Every thing he wanted? Really? What alternative universe are you living in?

It seems to me that Obama has been unable to pass legislation relating to the regulation of firearm registration

Click to expand...

O doesn't need Congress for that. He can simply issue Executive Orders to increase enforcement of existing laws (i. e. closing the gun show loophole), which is all he wanted.

upsideguy said:

nor has anyone put a bill on his desk relating to immigration reform.

Click to expand...

O doesn't need legislation for that, either. He can simply halt enforcement of immigration laws to make his deportation shield a reality.

upsideguy said:

His roll back of the Bush tax cuts was far more modest than he had in mind.

Click to expand...

O nailed the GOP there, too, by signing the FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) into law--a bill that compensated for whatever loss in tax revenue the Bush tax cuts caused.

upsideguy said:

Also never making it to his desk are bills on student loan reform,

Click to expand...

O signed student loan reform into law--he eliminated the wasteful practice of private banks making federally subsidized student loans out to students and instituted direct lending.

upsideguy said:

a farm bill, and infrastructure bill and the Water Resources and Reform Bill. Republicans also did everything they could to stop the PPACA; they did not "roll" on that one.....

Click to expand...

Yes they did. PPACA is now law, and the GOP who held majority seats in the House and Senate (thanks to the gullible voters who put them there) failed to stop its passage or enforcement.

That's rolling over .

upsideguy said:

I'm sorry, what exactly did the Republicans "roll" on,

Click to expand...

See above.

danarhea said:

Cruz not being an American is just as true as Obama not being an American. It just isn't.

Click to expand...

Actually there is a huge difference.

What if an American woman moved to Iran and married an Iranian man. They have a child and raise that child in Iran. The child moves to the United States for Grad School in their 20s. Is that child a natural born citizen? Is that child somehow more American than one born abroad but raised from a baby onward by two naturalized citizens? That would be ridiculous. Natural Born citizenship isn't an accident of birth like a British Monarchy, it's purposeful.

Look at what the founders thought. Ted Cruz's father was a Cuban citizen. The naturalization act of 1790 specifically states "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 .

Sexist? Obviously, but it also shows the founders intent. Natural born means more than just being a citizen at birth, it means having a strong connection with the US. The founders were concerned about excess outside influence. They didn't want the President to the kind of loyalties outside of the US that one would get if one was raised in another country.

There's also another problem with Ted Cruz's mother. She had become a Canadian citizen by the time of Ted Cruz's birth. At the time, becoming a Canadian citizen required taking an oath of loyalty to Canada. Under US code, taking an oath of loyalty to another Government is grounds for revocation of US citizenship.

This hasn't been decided, but I don't think the law is on Cruz's side here. IMO The most reasonable interpretation of natural born US citizen:

1. born in the United States
2. born on on US territory,
3. born on a US military base to one or more US Citizens,
4. born abroad to one or more US Citizens acting on behalf of the United States.

In other words, a natural born US citizen is someone who is a citizen at birth AND who is raised from birth as an American.

solletica said:

The relevant issue is that they cannot ever win a nationwide election, i. e. the Presidency.

Click to expand...

I can certainly see why you would think that, Obama got reelected after proving to be one of the worst presidents ever to hold office.

I find it kind of funny that it's always the left complaining about the Electoral College system, when it's arranged very much in their favor right now.

The Republicans have to get a very good candidate up there to win, and they have a few. The Democrats can throw any piece of garbage up there (and they are) and need only to get a few more States to win.

Obviously, to say they can't win is ridiculous and silly. Republicans have won 5 of the last 10 elections. Also, things change, and that can happen rapidly. And the Democrats are doing their best to make that happen too, even if they don't want to.

solletica said:

Nope, mot if one decent lawyers, which HC does. In that case, the FBI can't cook anything unless it has solid evidence of a crime.

Click to expand...

The FBI only investigates when they have clear evidence of a crime. Then, they meticulously dive into every nook and cranny to get ALL of the evidence and ALL of the people involved.

A guy in the Dallas city council was under FBI investigation, and by the time they were done months later, they got him on even more than initially thought, and took down about 20 other people at city hall in the process.

They are very, very, very thorough before they announce anything.

EnigmaO01 said:

Extremely doubtful as far as debating. They're both good debaters but she's got a lot more experience to kick his smug ass.

Click to expand...

Experience in what exactly ? Settings up private servers for the explicit purpose of circumventing FOIA and Congressional Commitee subpoenas ?

Being under a FBI Criminal investigation ?

EnigmaO01 said:

You too! LMAO.

Btw Clinton is not as far left as you portray her. Everybody knows that.

Click to expand...

The graph and results would say otherwise.Of course leftists are going to say Clinton is conservative despite sharing 94% of Sander's views. To them Sander is probably not far enough left.

danarhea said:

He had a huge lead in the polls in Iowa too. How did that work out?

Click to expand...

Trump wasn't leading the polls in Iowa, Cruz was.

solletica said:

Anything can win the GE against "ban all muslums, mexican rapists, and stop gay marriage. HELL YEAH!"

That's the point you're missing.

Click to expand...

You said the Democrats have been " cleaning up "

You as usual were wrong.

Fenton said:

You said the Democrats have been " cleaning up "

Click to expand...

No, I never said that. Cite.

I implied that the Dems have cleaned up the Presidency, i. e. there will be no more GOP Presidents for the remainder of the country's history.

The GOP will continue to win Congressional seats in the dumpy red states.

solletica said:

I implied that the Dems have cleaned up the Presidency, i. e. there will be no more GOP Presidents for the remainder of the country's history.

Click to expand...

That's not a long time, it'll only take one or two more Democrats to finish us off.

solletica said:

O doesn't need Congress for that. He can simply issue Executive Orders to increase enforcement of existing laws (i. e. closing the gun show loophole), which is all he wanted.



O doesn't need legislation for that, either. He can simply halt enforcement of immigration laws to make his deportation shield a reality.



O nailed the GOP there, too, by signing the FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) into law--a bill that compensated for whatever loss in tax revenue the Bush tax cuts caused.



O signed student loan reform into law--he eliminated the wasteful practice of private banks making federally subsidized student loans out to students and instituted direct lending.



Yes they did. PPACA is now law, and the GOP who held majority seats in the House and Senate (thanks to the gullible voters who put them there) failed to stop its passage or enforcement.

That's rolling over .



See above.

Click to expand...

NO... what Obama can do with EO's and EA's is far, far short of what was on the table legislatively. He had a legislative agenda, which the Republicans stone-walled (hint: quite different than rolling over)

To suggest that the Republican's have rolled over, when the legislative record shows us an all-timer record number of fillibusters and a near record for fewest bills passed (stonewalling and "do nothingness") is nothing short of ludicrous.

A Do-Nothing Congress? | The Weekly Standard
A 'do-nothing Congress'? | TheHill