Friday, January 15, 2016

"Trump, Carson, or Cruz" (Now "Cruz, Trump or Rubio")

UPDATE VII:  Pastor Truthiness (aka Huckster and Con Man Gullible-Gallups) endorses the Franken-Trump/Trumpenstein (© 

Read Rick's Blog, Who endorsed Trump yesterday.

Of course, The Donald is quite the Godly man, so who else would Satan's Pastor pick ;-).

UPDATE VI: "Many legal scholars say Cruz supports an approach to constitutional law in which modern readers try to understand what the words in the Constitution would have meant to the people who wrote them and voted to ratify them more than two centuries ago. It's a concept known as originalism, and it's especially popular with conservatives. . .

On this straightforward, intuitive, and deeply conservative reasoning, several prominent legal scholars have argued Cruz is arguably not a natural-born citizen. As the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries probably would have understood that phrase, the argument goes, Cruz is ineligible for the presidency — not because he was born in Canada, but because he was born in Canada to a Cuban father. . .

'He should disqualify himself,' said Thomas Lee, a legal scholar at Fordham University, adding that Cruz should 'just be consistent.'

Lee explains that in medieval English law, the term "natural born" originally referred to subjects of the crown who were born in English territory.

Under King Edward III, who reigned from 1327 to 1377, England expanded this definition to include the children of ambassadors and soldiers who were serving the monarch overseas. In the centuries to come, Parliament modified the definition further to include the children of private English subjects who happened to be abroad.

In the late 18th century, though, that definition did not include English mothers who were traveling. If they conceived children with foreign men, it was assumed those children would not be loyal English subjects and were not considered 'natural born.' . .

[A]t the time [the Constitution] was ratified in 1788, Lee has argued that the phrase 'natural born' would have carried a specific legal meaning. Natural-born citizens would have been those born in the United States, or born abroad to fathers who were U.S. citizens. On that interpretation, Cruz would not have qualified because his mother was a citizen and his father was not. If Cruz takes an originalist approach to constitutional law, then by this logic, he should come to the conclusion that he is not natural born."

Read the Washington Post, Why the subtle sexism of the Founding Fathers might disqualify Ted Cruz for president.

UPDATE V:  Of course, there is always Jeb! Who.

Read the Washington Post, Lowered expectations are a blessing in disguise for Jeb Bush.  

UPDATE IV:  The problem with the Franken-Trump/Trumpenstein (© is that he's "a xenophobic showman who has been spreading fear and anger across the land toward immigrants, minorities, women, the disabled and, particularly, Muslims."

Read the Washington Post, Obama answers Trump’s dangerous demagoguery.
UPDATE III:  Of course, Birthers would say that Rubio is not a natural-born citizen because he was born (albeit in the United States) to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

And as noted before, Ted Cruz is undoubtedly not a natural-born citizenTed Cruz "was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to a 'U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father', giving him dual Canadian-American citizenship." Cruz only recently "renounce his Canadian citizenship and ceased being a citizen of Canada, on May 14, 2014."

Read also the Washington Post, Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president, which notes: "President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference."

So for a truly sincere non-racist Birther, the only choice is the Franken-Trump/Trumpenstein (©

UPDATE II:  The question now is "Cruz, Trump or Rubio".

And before you answer, read the Washington Post, 3 very real warning signs for Donald Trump in Iowa:, which notes:

"One of the things that becomes important as the election approaches is the confidence voters have that their chosen candidate can defeat the opposing party in the general election. Most signs point to that opponent being Hillary Clinton, and Iowa voters are less convinced than they were last month that Trump is the right guy to pit against her. (Which is probably true.)

In fact, Iowans think Cruz and Rubio would both be about as successful against Clinton as Trump — suggesting that Cruz or Rubio might gain more support as voters make up their minds.

Trump's support is also higher among voters that have never participated in a caucus before. He sees this as a good thing — that he's energizing people to come to the polls. Maybe he is. But people who've never voted before have a 0 percent track record of getting to the polls, making relying on them to turn out awfully risky. (Notice below that Rubio gets a lot more support from would-be first-timers, too.)

Third, more than a quarter of Iowans say they'd never back Trump. That's the same as wouldn't back Jeb Bush, for what it's worth. But it's far higher than any of the other leading candidates."

UPDATE: "One simple mental exercise when considering electability is: Would you feel at least barely safe with this person running the affairs of state for even a day? A week? Though a couple of Cruz’s legislative policy proposals are far to the right of Trump’s, you could at least see Cruz sitting in the Oval Office for 24 hours without destroying the world. You can’t be as sure with someone as spontaneous as Trump. . .

Debating whether Trump or Cruz is more electable in the general election is like debating whether Trump or Cruz is more likely to be the MVP in the next Super Bowl. Each is a very poor prospect for separate reasons: One has extremely conservative politics, while the other is a visibly insane person. This is why party leaders are still desperately hoping that Christie, Rubio, Bush, or Kasich can make something happen."

Read Slate, Why the GOP Establishment Would Prefer Ted Cruz to Donald Trump.

"Pretend they were your only choices for president."

Who would you pick?

Read Slate, Let’s Play “Trump, Carson, or Cruz”.