Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Five reasons why this CNN politics man has bet on Marco Rub
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Five reasons why this CNN politics man has bet on Marco Rubio for the Republican nomination
I like the case has been made in this clip particularly the debate extract when Rubio is dealing with the language issue. The way he handled it is reminiscent of the conference speech Obama made in 2004 which brought him to prominence for the first time.
0
Comments
Not a charisma vacuum like Jeb Bush. Not as polarising or as hated by the party establishment as Trump. Not as batshit insane as Ted Cruz.
Most Tories expect Douglas Carswell to defect back to them before the election, minister tells me.
But it also had some heroic ones towards the end. And that didn't stem the Turkish tide.
America was on a long-term rise back then. It's not going to collapse (unlike the EU, sooner or later...), but in relative terms it's in decline.
Edited extra bit: and for those of you sick of my modernist 10th century blogs recently, I'm working on something about the 4th century BC.
Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...
My money's still on Fiorina because she's the best candidate in my view, but not-Trump, not-Bush, not-Clinton, and not-mad is the theme.
As I said, they don't exist beyond the intangible projections of men and women.
Now if your argument is that you cannot win an argument over beliefs using solely reason and rationality, I'd agree one hundred percent. But you don't need to introduce gods into the equation in order to make that argument.
The only serious challenger to the Establishment man, whoever that ends up being, is Cruz, but I think he ultimately will prove to be the Pat Robinson candidate.
Unfortunately, that was five years ago and for the previous election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43Vk
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The Twelfth Amendment states, "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does provide, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Under Article One of the United States Constitution, representatives and senators are only required to be U.S. citizens.[5][6]
Eight of the first nine presidents – Martin Van Buren being the exception – as well as early potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution but were eligible for the office by virtue of having been citizens at the time that the Constitution was adopted.[7]
But how can one rationalise and persuade fictional characters? Surely you can only attempt to persuade believers, who actually exist, rather than try and persuade figments of the imagination that don't. Trying to persuade a god is like trying to persuade a poltergeist or ghost for a sceptic. Either way I don't see how arrogance enters into it. Absurdity is obviously in the equation since we're talking about myths.
The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.
Immigration
He loves it, the republican voters hate it so much they are willing to vote for Trump.
...oh, that's my coat!
Edited extra bit: they*
http://www.politico.eu/article/poll-marion-le-pen-headed-for-victory-france-national-front-elections/
Holland. Switzerland. And France.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34573602
And some blathering about tax credits.
Maggie was a similar force in the UK, although I think not as great. We're still to some extent defining our politics relative to her now. As Merkel seems a greater force, and as there's a bigger vacuum for admirable politicians in the recent German history she seems to be destined for quite a historical mark.
The US, and France need to undergo a similar 'right of passage'.
Merkel's legacy will depend on how the migration crisis plays out. My fear is it'll go terribly, attract millions from the Middle East and Africa, and also badly affect other European countries (most obviously those south of Germany) and Germany's relationship with those countries.
Rome tried to replenish its strength by using barbarian muscle. Within a century or so of Valentinian's death Rome fell and an Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy emerged. There are stronger national sentiments and institutions now, but a massive impact will still be felt, I suspect.
"...children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights" (The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814))
If the plaintiff was born on U.S. soil, of British parents, "his infancy incapacitated him from making an election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father ..." (Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830))
"If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country." (Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830))
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)" described as 'unexceptionable' (beyond criticism or objection) in Scott v Sandford (1857) 60 U.S. 393
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' ... The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." Slaughter-House Cases, (1873) 83 U.S. 36, 38
To this date, the USSC has never referred to anyone as an nbc, except those born in a country of parents who were citizens...
Tax credit cuts???? Nah....this is the real time bomb under the tories. And its ticking
Blimey they are in a mess... Seems the coalition has absolutely ruined them.
I wonder how they can relaunch?
The Second Punic War is a fascinating conflict, Dr. Prasannan, from the family rivalries, the internal political battles, the intriguing Numidian warfare, Hannibal's brilliant marches, the skills of Marcellus, Nero, Scipio and Quintus Fabius Maximus, all the way to the ultimate result.
It's got the biggest ambush in military history, the most audacious march in military history, and the most impressive battlefield victory in military history.
Miss Plato, it's very topical, the timing's as good as when the Sepp Blatter hagiography of a film was released to flop gloriously.
Farron should still benefit, but he may come across as a hectoring lecturing self-righteous zealot.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
Unless they can think of a reason for their own existence that convinces anyone else, they're royally buggered.
1) Grand plan
2) Incite commentators into with "lazy", "lacklustre" tirades.
3) Win
- An opt-out from ever closer union. No practical effect at all.
- A more competitive EU. This sounds like the same gradualist fiddling that we've always had, unless there is something major here, like liberalisation of agriculture.
- Single market protections. This could mean anything. I suppose this one could be code for the red card system or a double QMV system. That would be big if we get it done properly.
- An end to abuses of free movement. Again, this is so vague it could mean anything. Previously it has been leaked as a four year ban on benefits, so he probably means that. But the abuse we really need to end is liberal giving out of passports, which is what could really put us in trouble from the current migrant crisis.
Cameron must surely have something big up his sleeve, because only the total uninformed or the incredibly biased could describe that as a successful negotiation.
I read today that Tim Farron called on the PM to call on the Hungarian PM to re-open borders.
Empty gesture politics against the tide of public opinion.
That is why the lib dems are on 5%.
Cameron's negotiation depends on 27 other leaders, including a socialist Frenchman and a German Chancellor who seems determined to make the whole EU obey her will.
He won't get anything substantial, but will present it as a great deal.
My concern is that he'll still win the referendum, which will be taking by the foreigners and EU-philes here to mean we want increasing integration.
The modern world and Rome are quite different things. I don't think though that they're so far different that your historical lessons are without worth. Rather the opposite.
"It will go terribly in Germany" - you didn't quite say that, but that's the theme. She has unleashed a storm. I'm both in admiration and fear.
My concern is Mr Morris is that this issue will shatter the tory party, as it has in the past.
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Oh come on. Europe could give us nothing and Cameron would still back remain. He will never ever back out. Ever.
And if the polls across Europe are correct, we could be looking at a continent on fire next year. The European establishment's idea of 'listening' to the rise of sceptical parties is to let in two million migrants.
Maybe if they could get a couple of Labour defectors that'd help
This is Money Calculator puts it at £27,775.65
This is because they use RPI rather than CPI and so tracks the cost of housing as well.
Re: Antoninus Pius
It's all very well and good bringing up historical figures, but when they're as dull as he seems to have been then one has to ask why!?
I'm happy though that should you outlive me you may mention my doings with completely undeserved respect. "Procedum Omnium".
So.. Mr Pius - give me his merits!
A gallant defence of Cam Mr TGOHF, but the problem is we haven't had a referendum since 1975. We are in uncharted territory. The supposed weakness of labour is emboldening Cameron's back bench enemies. I have big concerns on this one.
And we already know the 14th doesn't define an nbc, in any case.
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that..."
Minor v Happersett (1875)
But as you know
The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."[2]
The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Many eligibility lawsuits from the 2008 and 2012 election cycles were dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers' difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
Mr. Omnium, Antoninus Pius basically kept everything running smoothly during Rome's peak. Like Trajan, there's not much written about him, so, despite his prolonged reign and excellence, it's fair enough to not know much.
I concur that a maelstrom will engulf Merkel. She hasn't so much struck an iceberg as turned the ship and pointed it directly at the North Pole.
Mr. Taffys, a credible possibility. The new leader offers them opportunity to unite, or deepen the division.
Mr. Isam, no need to apologise
Unless you're secretly Craig Joubert, of course.
Mr. Omnium (2), considering what came after, a very peaceful reign is not something to scoff at. What would Syria give for that today?
norman smith @BBCNormanS 5m5 minutes ago
Downing Street rule out any further review or consultation on tax credits
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3278391/British-woman-50-hanged-toilets-Istanbul-airport-missing-connecting-flight-Iraq.html
Although, I grant you, it's not a big offer.