• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is obama an illegitimate president?

Is obama an illegitimate president

  • yes he was elected based on a lie

    Votes: 9 14.3%

  • no he was fairly elected

    Votes: 54 85.7%
  • Total voters
    63
Somerville said:
One of the more bizarre potential Republican candidates for 2016 is some clown from Texas, by the name of Ted Cruz, who as one article labeled him "His Own Worst Birther". The New Republic posted an article pointing out Senator Cruz's hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

All of the definitions outside of the accepted ones will suddenly disappear when the guy's a Republican.
 
Gawain said:
:lamo

He will be lucky to finish his term.
Click to expand...

He will rise above this because of his love of country, his love of the American people. Hope and change will spread like wild fire again and gay love drones will be glitter bombing our cities as we just love as one village of peace and fairness. Our illegal wars and corporate greed will be no more as hope and change ushers in a new dawn of wage norms, jobs for all, education for all and obama money piling up in the streets for everyone.
 
Somerville said:
Let's change the above quote just a wee bit

Now that it is well known that the IRS was tying up liberal groups, including churches, for several years between 2002 and 2007, I double down on the statement: GEORGE WALKER BUSH WAS AN ILLEGIMATE PRESIDENT!!

Strange isn't it, the way our Republican brethren are so outraged over actions carried out during a time when a Republican-appointed official was in charge of the IRS. The IRS commissioner during the probe was Donald Shulman, a holdover from the Bush administration. Somehow though, they never found it worthy of comment, much less investigation when it was liberal groups targeted by the IRS during the Bush years.
Hmmmm, do you think Rep. Schiff might be using sarcasm to make a point?
Click to expand...

Typical lib response. Try and change the subject because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
 
Gawain said:
So only blacks live there? And even if they did chances of everyone of them voting for Obama is slim to say the least.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. The precinct data on those is predominately, if not entirely poor blacks in projects. Frankly, if we saw significant Romney votes, I'd call that fraud. Poor blacks voting for Obama? SHOCKING!

And the black turn out for Obama is way higher than the black turn out for Clinton, Kerry or Gore ever was. The fact that these districts are dirty ass poor blacks kills the red flag for me. If, they were mixed middle class neighborhoods, that would be a HUGE red flag. And I would agree with you that there was ballot tampering.
 
molten_dragon said:
No it isn't.



Then which country precisely does Obama owe allegiance to if not the US?



This is clearly untrue, since there were further laws passed as early as 1790 to better define what exactly a natural born citizen was.
Click to expand...

Yes it is

Britain

There was never a law passed to define what an NBC was. You have no clue as to what the constitution is based on it seems.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Typical lib response. Try and change the subject because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
So not one person that isnt black lives there and not 1 Romney supporter. Most blacks voted for him but not 100%
 
rocket88 said:
All of the definitions outside of the accepted ones will suddenly disappear when the guy's a Republican.
Click to expand...

This is the problem. Neither party respects the constitution.
 
Gawain said:
There was never a law passed to define what an NBC was. You have no clue as to what the constitution is based on it seems.
Click to expand...

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

This law was passed in 1790, and does indeed legally define what a natural born citizen is. Within 3 years of the constitution being passed, people were already trying to better define that poorly designed wording.
 
Gawain said:
This is the problem. Neither party respects the constitution.
Click to expand...


You should be embarrassed. Nice job if editing. Lets see what that was really about,

FIRST CONGRESS . Sess.II. Chap. 3. 1790
Chap. III. -- An act to establish an uniform Rule Of Naturalization.(a)

Section I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall
have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of
two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law
court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one
year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good
character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of
the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such
court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person
shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so
naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the
time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And 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: Provided Also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a
citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was
proscribed.(a)
Approved, March 26, 1790.
No Supreme Court ruling has been made to rescind this Congressional statement defining "Natural Born Citizen,"
nor has any legislation or Constitutional amendment addressed changing this Congressional statement of definition.
The "Naturalization Act of 1795" removed the words "natural born", but did not change the statement that both
parents must be citizens. And this act alone is unconstitutional..."natural born Citizen" is a statement within our
Constitution, and therefore requires a Constitutional Amendment to change.
Click to expand...
 
Gawain said:
You should be embarrassed. Nice job if editing. Lets see what that was really about,
Click to expand...

Are you arguing with yourself now?

Just as well I suppose, I'm done trying to argue rationally with an irrational person.

Conspiracy theorem forum is down thataway ↓. Enjoy your time there, you'll fit right in.
 
molten_dragon said:
Are you arguing with yourself now?

Just as well I suppose, I'm done trying to argue rationally with an irrational person.

Conspiracy theorem forum is down thataway ↓. Enjoy your time there, you'll fit right in.
Click to expand...

How am I arguing with myself by showing that you are wrong?
 
Gawain said:
How am I arguing with myself by showing that you are wrong?
Click to expand...

Was this

Gawain said:
You should be embarrassed. Nice job if editing. Lets see what that was really about,
Click to expand...

Meant to be aimed at me? Because you quoted yourself when you replied, so it was kind of confusing.

And it's adorable that you think you've proven me wrong about anything.

Gawain said:
No Supreme Court ruling has been made to rescind this Congressional statement defining "Natural Born Citizen,"
nor has any legislation or Constitutional amendment addressed changing this Congressional statement of definition.
The "Naturalization Act of 1795" removed the words "natural born", but did not change the statement that both
parents must be citizens. And this act alone is unconstitutional..."natural born Citizen" is a statement within our
Constitution, and therefore requires a Constitutional Amendment to change.
Click to expand...

Okay, where to start.

First off, the naturalization act of 1790 is no longer in affect. There have been numerous laws dealing with citizenship which have superseded it.

Even if it were still in affect, it would not apply to president Obama because it only applies to children born outside the US, as shown here:

And 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
Click to expand...

And even if somehow that DID apply to president Obama, it still wouldn't invalidate him from being president, since the law specifies that the person's father must have been resident in the United States at some point (which Obama's father was from 1959-1964), not that his father must be a citizen.

Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States
Click to expand...

Just give it up man. There is absolutely no viable evidence, despite numerous state and federal lawsuits, that Obama is not eligible to be the president.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom