ForumGarden

ELEVEN (11) REASONS NOT TO SUPPORT OR VOTE FOR TRUMP (AND CONVERSELY THE REASONS TO VOTE and SUPPORT TED CRUZ)

When Trump is confronted with tough questions or bad poll numbers he knows just what to do:

Cynically create another outrage taking focus away from Trump’s lack of knowledge and substance on the challenges facing America; he instead shocks with comments attacking minorities, criticizing a candidate’s face, a reporter’s disability, and even talking about bathroom breaks.

THESE are the TALKING POINTS we should use against Trump in UNISON on a UNITED FRONT:

(NOTE: IT IS TIME TO GO ON THE DEFENSIVE AGAINST TRUMP AS HE IS ATTACKING CRUZ'S ELIGIBILITY WHEN HE KNOWS IT IS A NON-ISSUE DUE TO OUR FOUNDER'S DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IN THE 1790 IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION ACT)

1) Trump provenly does NOT have answers to policy questions & issues of the day but shocks & entertains all of us INSTEAD;

2) Trump WAS a supporter & donor of Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and Reid: Trump has been a LIFELONG DEMOCRAT and is "progressive" (regressive) -- not a Conservative;

3) Trump is calling for a SINGLE PAYER universal healthcare which will destroy our healthcare system altogether -- just like Obamacare;

4) Trump has repeatedly flip flopped on the issues surrounding ABORTIONS and is therefore NOT A CONSERVATIVE: TRUMP DOES NOT REPRESENT THE PARTY'S PLATFORM: NOMINATING Trump would cause existential danger for the Party;

5) Trump's rhetoric draws comparison to extremist candidates in foreign countries, including Marine Le Pen in France; Trump has received criticism from our staunchest allies while receiving praise from worldwide menace & dictator: Vladimir Putin;

6) Trump cannot name military advisers other than those he watches on television;

7) Trump is dangerous to the United States and the world at a time when the world is at extreme risk and is burning down; Trump would cause greater instability throughout the world at a time when the world looks to America for leadership that is serious and sober;

8) Trump says that "Obama has led the way" on Executive Orders and said "I would do better!". Trump would be another dictator JUST LIKE OBAMA based on his own CLEAR STATEMENTS!;

9) Trump has engaged in crony-capitalism & vote buying his entire adult life: EXACTLY what we are trying to get away from! BIG government & BIG corporations have joined together and GANGED UP against The People which is why we have the Elites & Establishment at the helm of this ship-wrecked nation: Trump is EXACTLY what we DON'T NEED & is MORE of THE SAME!;

AND...THE BIGGEST REASONS OF ALL NOT TO SUPPORT OR VOTE FOR TRUMP:

10) Trump is NOT reliable, knowledgeable, educated OR experienced when it comes to picking the US Supreme Court nominees and even stated that his liberal sister would make a phenomenal US Supreme Court justice;

11) IF Trump is the nominee many Conservatives will NOT VOTE FOR HIM (stay home or write in Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, etc.) and thus Trump would be catastrophic for Conservative Republican hopes to WIN THIS WAR and the result will be: A Clinton White House, a Democratically controlled US Senate, and a US Supreme Court that will fully destroy the last vestiges of our Constitution & Bill of Rights!

Cruz is a Canadian, and is not qualified to be Pres of US.

I don't need to be told not to vote for Trump.

The only way I'd vote for Cruz is if it was head to head, Cruz vs. Trump, and there were not other option. Even then, I think I would write in "None of the Above."

I hate the thought, but since you forced it on me, Lars (:-D), I would go for Trump over Cruz. Then I would bang my head against the nearest wall.

AnneBoleyn;1491780 wrote: I hate the thought, but since you forced it on me, Lars (:-D), I would go for Trump over Cruz. Then I would bang my head against the nearest wall.


With Sarah as his VP, too ?

How is this possible, a country with over 300 million people and this is all we have to pick from?

LarsMac;1491782 wrote: With Sarah as his VP, too ?
Hmmmmmmmmmm. OK, instead of the wall, I'll hang myself. Besides, maybe Cruz might pick her. Detente.

PS-Bernie's policies fit mine. I don't think he has any chance of winning the general. He has about the same chance I do, & I don't!

As a practical matter, I choose Cruz as he is most likely to win the nomination. If Rubio somehow wins the I would be more than happy to vote for him.

A disappointment of mine is that Bobby Jindal did not make much progress in this process.

It floors me that Trumb garners so much support.

AnneBoleyn;1491780 wrote: I hate the thought, but since you forced it on me, Lars (:-D), I would go for Trump over Cruz. Then I would bang my head against the nearest wall.


Come March I will make that decision for you.

No need to thank me:-6

tude dog;1491789 wrote: Come March I will make that decision for you.

No need to thank me:-6


I'm sure you have my best interests at heart, as you do in mine. :-6

Is it possible or anyone to stand for president or does it have to be someone selected by one of the two parties? Come to that why are there only two parties?

There are several political parties in the US, and each can nominate a person to represent them.

Unfortunately, the Democrats, and the Republicans have all but tied up the mainstream attention span, and very seldom do any of the other party nominees get enough funding and national attention to be taken seriously.

We have had a few exceptions; George Wallace in 1968 managed to make a pretty good showing. Ross Perot picked up almost 20 million votes in 1992; Ralph Nader in the 90's and 2000-2004-2008 made some waves, but never actually was taken very seriously by voters.

So, we are probably stuck with whoever the two parties put up, this year.

We still have ten months for someone to come along.

I think we are all anxious to see how the early caucuses and primaries turn out.

As for Ted Cruz, I suspect he could be disqualified because the birthers will prove that he is not a "Natural Born Citizen" before he gets much further.

And, because I know that the question will be coming, below are all the pertinent sections of the US Code related to people who are designated a Citizen at Birth (Hence Natural Born Citizen" as opposed to a citizen through naturalization of other means.

§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, §301, 66 Stat. 235 ; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322 ; Pub. L. 92–584, §§1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289 ; Pub. L. 95–432, §§1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046 ; Pub. L. 99–653, §12, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657 ; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, §101(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306 .)


I've bolded the paragraph which is closest to Cruz' situation, but must point out that his mother, at the time of his birth, a legal resident of Calgary, Alberta Canada, and had been working there for 3 years.

LarsMac;1491798 wrote: And, because I know that the question will be coming, below are all the pertinent sections of the US Code related to people who are designated a Citizen at Birth (Hence Natural Born Citizen" as opposed to a citizen through naturalization of other means.



I've bolded the paragraph which is closest to Cruz' situation, but must point out that his mother, at the time of his birth, a legal resident of Calgary, Alberta Canada, and had been working there for 3 years.


That pretty much settles it, doesn't it?

Trump is bad enough, but Cruz is far worse. Neither is even remotely fir or qualified to be President .

Cruz would be totally unfit to be President even if he HAD been born in the US of American parents . He is an evangelical Christian fanatic with close ties to the shadowy but

extremely dangerous Dominionist movement, whites determined to turn America into a totalitarian Christian theocracy and police state which would not be much better than the Islamic theocracies of the middle east .

Cruz is a vicious homophobic bigot who is utterly opposed to gay rights and dead wrong on all the issues . He wants to repeal Obamacare, but like the other Republicans, has nothing better to replace it with, nothing at all in fact.

Cruz would be absolutely catastrophic for America and the world and must NOT be elected . He should never even have been elected a senator from Texas , a powerful enough position .

If you think things are bad now in America, a Ted Cruz presidency would make its current problems look like a picnic !

None of the other GOP candidates is fit to be president, either . The Republican party does not have a single candidate who wouldn't be a disaster, and this is frightening !

ZAP;1491820 wrote: That pretty much settles it, doesn't it?


Would hope so, but maybe not.

Well, the first thing I'd vote for is better grammar than appears in the title question. God help the beleaguered English language.

Otherwise, I'm with Annie - as a lifelong socialist, I'd prefer Bernie but will vote for Hillary.

This SNL skit just tickled my funny bone.

Mark Aspam;1491902 wrote: Well, the first thing I'd vote for is better grammar than appears in the title question. God help the beleaguered English language.

Otherwise, I'm with Annie - as a lifelong socialist, I'd prefer Bernie but will vote for Hillary.


Typical of lofty better than thou socialists.

tude dog;1491904 wrote: Typical of lofty better than thou socialists.


Well, dear, when you got it, flaunt it! :yh_rotfl

AnneBoleyn;1491908 wrote: Well, dear, when you got it, flaunt it! :yh_rotfl


Keeping it to yourselves?

Looks to me like a good teaching moment for Ya all.

Never mind. Too much for the proletariat to absorb.

Hope you recognize an 'LOL' when you see it. Just playing along.