Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 8      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #1 
For some reason, I was required to start a new thread in order to ask questions about our two new Senators who have become extremely popular on the Right.  So here it is.

I happen to think individuals who rise to the level of Senator, members of Congress, or Governor have obtained the necessary qualifications to run for the President of the United States.  It appears others disagree with me and have concluded Hillary Clinton does not have the qualifications to run for the highest office in our land.

I start this new thread to ask why.  This woman has been intimately involved as first lady of a State and as first lady of our Country.  She is a highly educated lawyer and went on to become Senator of New York.  She served on numerous committees during her time as Senator and eventually went on to be appointed Secretary of State.  One might say she is the most qualified individual to ever consider running for POTUS.  In any event, my question is what distinguishes Sen. Cruz and Sen. Paul from Sen. Clinton when it comes to qualifications needed to run for President.  What makes these two gentleman qualified while Hillary Clinton is not.  Let's see if a new thread helps encourage some responses.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #2 
I guess if Ted or Rand were married to Bill they would be as qualified as Hilary. Hahahaha.

Frankly, it is way too early to debate the vetting of Rep candidates, since as far as I know, there are no Rep candidates yet declared. Even then, until a reader here declares support for a particular candidate, there's no obligation to explain that support. In fact, even then no one is under obligation to explain anything.

That you allowed yourself to get railroaded into listing Hilary's experience certainly doesn't mean others are so obligated.

pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #3 
Rand Paul is a doctor which makes him orders of magnitude more qualified to address health care than Hillary.
He founded Kentucky Taxpayers United, a tax watchdog group which makes him far more qualified to understand the intricacies of taxation policies on the economy.
He won election to Congress in 2010 - in that short time he staged a filibuster against the CIA nominee and to protest the administration's use of unmanned drones.
He has been a constant supported of the economy by introducing legislation to overturn ridiculously stringent pollution standards and through efforts to cut the deficit due to out of control spending.
Most importantly, he is a consistent supporter of the Constitution, of upholding individual liberties, and of empowering the free market to reduce the gap between rich and poor.
Also, he did not fail as Secretary of State as Hillary did.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,056
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
One might say she is the most qualified individual to ever consider running for POTUS.


Yeah, just one.
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,181
Reply with quote  #5 
Here's one reason why Paul's not qualified.  How deluded can he be?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/14/2468501/rand-paul-i-dont-think-there-is-any-particular-evidence-of-black-voters-being-prevented-from-voting/

__________________
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," - John F. Kennedy
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
That you allowed yourself to get railroaded into listing Hilary's experience certainly doesn't mean others are so obligated.


C'mon, ForeverInBlue, I figured that out a long time ago.  I just like to emphasize it to strengthen my opinions.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,056
Reply with quote  #7 
DC - Even you have to admit that the article you linked is an opinion piece.  I realize it supports your opinion, but attributing comments to "republican operatives"?  Now find me some stats that show "particular evidence of black voters prevented from voting", please.  I hear people making the claim that these laws are meant to suppress black voters, but I have yet to see credible evidence proving it. 

I guess I'm not qualified to run either.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:


Seems Paul may be more in line with the Supreme Court than he is with the vomit spewed at think progress. That's a positive in my book.

Hmm, now I wonder if I could find any stories about Democrat vote rigging in the Conservative press? Ya think? Lol.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue
DC - Even you have to admit that the article you linked is an opinion piece.  I realize it supports your opinion, but attributing comments to "republican operatives"?  Now find me some stats that show "particular evidence of black voters prevented from voting", please.  I hear people making the claim that these laws are meant to suppress black voters, but I have yet to see credible evidence proving it. 

I guess I'm not qualified to run either.


The best the bilious TP article does is cite an MIT study, and if you'd like to know more about that study here is Forbes Magazine. As much as libs hate it, most Americans favor Voter ID.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/02/06/the-myth-about-democrat-voter-suppression-in-the-2012-elections/
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #10 
Hillary is the most qualified ever?  Really??? 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #11 
I'll give you the best answer I can on this:

Right now, neither one turns me on.  I think their ascendancy is a counter-reaction to the big-government policies of the current regime.

However, as we have not yet had a primary, and no candidate has as of yet laid out their vision, it's impossible to know of any of them are a candidate woth supporting.

On this side, we vet the candidates, hear what they are about, then make a decision.  That would be as opposed to the other side, where the press and the establishment make the decision years ahead of time, and then do things like run "documentaries", "news stories", interviews on Oprah, and the all of the other propaganda machine stuff, to help assure that this press-anointed front runner pulls it off.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
On this side, we vet the candidates, hear what they are about, then make a decision.  That would be as opposed to the other side, where the press and the establishment make the decision years ahead of time, and then do things like run "documentaries", "news stories", interviews on Oprah, and the all of the other propaganda machine stuff, to help assure that this press-anointed front runner pulls it off.


mikec - It's a shame you give me and others so little credit.  I think you said you're supporting the Republican candidate whomever it turns out to be.  This probably doesn't make you the ideal person to question the thinking process of others.  I can tell you I'm supporting Democrat principles and ideology and I need no TV show to help me.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #13 
Well, I did say that, but clearly, I don't know who that will be.

The press decided Obama would be President 2 years before he began his run, and it appears that they are doing the same thing with Hillary.

On the GOP side, I will support the ultimate candidate, but at this point, I don't know enough about of the alleged candidates to offer any insight into what would make any of them any better than another.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #14 
mikec - Thanks.  I do understand you will give thorough thought to your eventual vote because I know you care about the process.  I hope you understand most on my side will too.  The idea that the media picks our candidate is a myth that comes from talk radio.  I can tell you it isn't true but I doubt I can convince you to believe me.  Just consider the possibility.

The purpose of this thread was to make a point about qualifications.  Not sure I ever got there but the point related to those who feel if a person agrees with their political perspective, they're qualified to run for President.  If not, then they're not qualified.  Kind of a shallow approach, in my opinion, when others form this conclusion.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
The purpose of this thread was to make a point about qualifications.  Not sure I ever got there but the point related to those who feel if a person agrees with their political perspective, they're qualified to run for President.  If not, then they're not qualified.  Kind of a shallow approach, in my opinion, when others form this conclusion.


I can't speak for others, but agreement with my personal philosophy determines who I will vote for, but that isn't a qualifier or disqualifier.

Maybe someday when I rule the world, but until then, not really.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec

I can't speak for others, but agreement with my personal philosophy determines who I will vote for, but that isn't a qualifier or disqualifier.



I'm with you...up until you rule the world.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #17 
I'll give you some exemptions from some of the stuff you don't like - you'll come out OK.

Until then, I can't barely rule myself or my family, so you're probably safe.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #18 
By executive order please. No need to mess with those pesky Constitutional restrictions on the executive branch. You simply proclaim a dictatorial edict on laws passed by the legislative branch. What Constitution? I am King, hear me roar, while wearing Mom jeans on my vacation. Don't forget to fly the family dog in on a separate jet, along with your personal collection of basketballs, guaranteed to be good enough for a 2 for 22 performance with obliging "players".. So let it be written, so let it be done. It's good to be the King.
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #19 
Since it's in the news and we're talking about qualifications, does anyone think the fact Sen. Cruz was born in Canada should disqualify him from being POTUS?  I say no.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #20 
Dewey - "The law say the gardeners is the sun.  The law say the judges, well it's the law".  Sometimes there is a huge gap among morality, reality, and legality.         Frank
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
TheHammer

Registered:
Posts: 11,135
Reply with quote  #21 
Agree with you Dewey.
after all was not Obama born in Indonesia of a Kenyan father, but an american mother.
of course officially he was born in Havaii.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #22 
woody - It's good to live in a nation where citizens can berate the king without fear of hearing "Off with their heads".    Frank
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #23 
Hammer - "of course officially (that is legally) he was born in Hawaii".  End of story.   Frank
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
TheHammer

Registered:
Posts: 11,135
Reply with quote  #24 
question:
if illegal parents have a child born in the USA, that child can become our president ???????
if so then in the near future we will have a mexican president.
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 5,038
Reply with quote  #25 
I knew this (being born a US citizen but not born in the united states)....but I will post the official text instead of posting from memory.

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

     (1)
honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

     (2) 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.

__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #26 

fhoenix - I'll put you down as another yes, Senator Cruz does qualify to be POTUS.  Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,056
Reply with quote  #27 
fhoenix - Do any of those criteria apply to Ted Cruz?  I know his mother was a US citizen while his father was not.  Had his mother "been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth" or "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"?

fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 5,038
Reply with quote  #28 
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: "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."


We here on UCS can debate the intent of this amendment from 1868 or the intent of the first amendments to the constitution by the founding fathers. But those debates are based on saying the amendment needs to be reworded for modern times and situations. Several amendments are addressed as being worded for that period of time. This is one of those cases too since back then foreign citizens were not subject to US jurisdiction. The USA of 1868 was 34 states (37 total but texas, Virginia and Mississippi were unreconstructed and did not vote in president election nor represent in congress). Arizona and new mexico were not part of USA and New Mexico has the largest percent of Hispanic population in USA and Arizona is just behind texas and California who both absorbed parts of mexico into them... and ever since their southern parts were mexico they have had illegals flowing into the USa from their southern border. Containing illegals is like trying to hold water in a pasta strainer. And now an outdated line in an amendment has been allowing anchor babies in usa. An illegal mom with an American citizen born baby cannot gain citizenship from the baby. As I remember it your child has to be 21 years or older to petition for you as a sponsor. An illegal has to leave the country and come back legally in order to be awarded citizenship. With current laws (which some are trying to twist and ignore) You cannot gain citizenship in USA while you are here illegally. You must leave and enter USA legally thru a sponsor.

__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,056
Reply with quote  #29 
I'm sorry, fhoenix, is there an answer in there somewhere?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #30 
Really.  I agree with bhblue.  This is the UCS misc forum, not the Supreme Court.  I know we can't know for certain how the law would ultimately play out but I was just interested in the opinions of others.  Do you think Sen. Cruz qualifies to be President regardless of where he was born?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.